What is the knock against Gil Perreault?

[MXD]

The Perreault, Sittler, Hawerchuk et al discussion overlooks one very important feature that often defines a player's career - coaching.

Prime example would be Steve Yzerman and the impact Scotty Bowman had.

Look at the coaches Perreault had beyond Imlach/before Bowman, contrast with Sittler - Kelly, Neilson, contrast with Hawerchuk ???????? or Dionne????????? and adjust the view of career achievements accordingly.

That might look uneducated, but I wonder why you consider Bob Pulford a bad coach...

 

[VMBM]

Here something pretty cool; it's a showdown from 1978! (Perreault vs. McDonald):



Perreault may not be at his sharpest, but still enough to kick McDonald's butt.

BTW, during the 1976 Canada Cup, they had a 'goalie(s) vs. skater(s) showdown'; I believe Tretiak was the best goalie and Hlinka the best skater* in that one. Tretiak brags, er, tells about it in his biography...

* skater = non-goalie

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bob Pulford

That might look uneducated, but I wonder why you consider Bob Pulford a bad coach...

Good question.

Bob Pulford would be average, not a difference maker as a coach. Marcel Dionne's game did not mature during Pulford's tenure.

Perreault under Bowman saw his game mature, adding defensive attributes - better forechecking and defensive positioning,more efficient offense - less wasted movement, lower risk.

 

[Big Phil]

Not that it matters as much now but THN had him rated #48 all time in 1997. Now he's slipped a lot since then, guys like Yzerman, Lidstrom, Sakic, maybe even Hull and Forsberg among others would be voted ahead of him perhaps.

But I loved Perreault. And no the Sabres weren't supposed to win anything. Look at who they played and check out the dynasties back then. Philly, Montreal and then the Islanders just when 1980 looked good for Buffalo.

But anyone suggesting he wasn't a rare talent didn't see him play. I would find room for him in my top 100 I believe. And his play in the 1976 Canada Cup WAS an indication of how he could play. That was him in a nutshell at that time. 1976 was his absolute peak, he had 113 points that year. He was marvelous to watch but while he overlapped with some great dynasties he also did so with great centers. Which is why Dionne, Clarke are always ahead of him and I guess they should be as well

 

[God Bless Canada]

Well, no kidding. But compared to the players he is being compared to, it is certainly not a golden ticket into the top-40 centers club.



The above is an example of not fully understanding what you're arguing.

No, he didn't help Buffalo's goal differential get any better. Buffalo was an above average team, his +/- is supposed to be positive or he's doing something wrong! The problem is, his career rating is only just as good as it should be considering the circumstances, hence the career adjusted -6. If you remove his first two seasons as an expansion player (both adjusted -12) then he's still just a +18 on his career, in the same class of players I described above. Buffalo, on average, did just as well when he was on the ice as they did when he was off, from a GF/GA standpoint. But I bet they weren't as dazzling!



...And this separates him from those 40 names (save Dionne) how?



.... just because?

It's all fine and dandy to know how a player plays the game, but results matter. Period.



If I sat there fpr a week and watched each of them play 10 games in their prime, I might say the exact same thing. But in the end, the results they produced and the contribution they made to winning games, was really just as good as that of Perreault. Or better. It doesn't matter how you look doing it.



Don't be so quick to fall in love with that list. Perreault wasn't the only modern player they badly overrated. Look at Sittler and Gartner. How about Fuhr? Messier had not goine into decline yet, but that is no reason for him to be ranked that high.

The best list that has ever been put together is the hfboards list. And it's even better this year. It is superior to the THN list in many ways. The THN list was put together through a number of 1-100 ranked lists put together with a 100-1 point system used for the rankings. (Think about that, a guy who one rogue voter placed 20th, would get 81 points, more than a guy who 20 voters placed 98th for three points each). Secondly, the list was not justified or reconciled at all. No one had to explain why they rated someone so highly, or over someone else. They simply added up the points and that was it. Nobody worked together; it was all done individually. Here, we started with a master list compiled as above, and then tweaked it, player by player, over the course of five months, through intensive subjective and objective discussion and a variety of viewpoints. Third, the players were judged based on their own merits, without any cup-counting or agendas. The THN list highly overrated cup hogs like henri Richard and boosted the status of guys like Johnny Bucyk (a great player who belongs on the list, just nowhere near #45), hinting of an old boys club at work. In addition, this part is not the THN list's fault but we gave it a much-needed update, properly elevating the status of guys like Sakic, Yzerman, Jagr, Brodeur, Hasek, Fedorov, Stevens, and Lidstrom, and including the greats whose resumes weren't based on NHL play, like Fetisov, Tretiak, Kharlamov, Taylor, Mikhailov, Makarov, and Firsov.

Can we at hfboards claim to be as knowledgeable as that star-studded cast? Not a chance. But don't sell us short, either. But we also have access to a lot of things they didn't - things like detailed all-star and award voting, raw +/- data that wasn't released for decades, a variety of statstical analyses done from many different angles. We read a ton and we research a ton and we all learn from eachothers' research. I doubt that any of those experts put Henri Richard and Syl Apps side by side and noted "Hmm, Richard was 4th in hart voting twice, Apps was a 3-time runner up, plus third twice, how could Richard be more significant in his era than Apps was in his?" In all likelihood, some lists were done off the tops of their heads. Not to belittle the process at all. But how do you think someone like Don Cherry made his list? He grabbed a pencil and started listing players.

Basically, what I'm saying is the methodology at hfboards trumps the experts the THN consulted because the methodology there was just that bad. We aren't even sure that they were all on the same page - some may have been biased towards the past because that's what they grew up with, some the present because hockey has evolved very much for the better, and some (like most of us in the top-100 project) might have even tried to consider all eras equal and objectively determine dominance within era.

You want to see the ultimate list? Put all the great work the hfboards crew has done in front of these experts, lock the THN panel in a room for a week and get them to hammer out a list, while seriously considering eachother's viewpoints and being willing to flexible, like we were. Then we'd have an ultimate list. But, sadly, something like this would never happen. For precedent, I refer you to the case of Old Dog vs. New Tricks. These experts saw what they saw and they think what they think. It's the mentality of most of the older hockey types, unfortunately.

Perreault's career plus-minus rating was plus-42. Not impressive. But that's what it was. And that did happen even though he was a combined -79 in his first two seasons, as the guy who logged a lot of ice time on an expansion team at age 20 and 21. No formula, no adjustments, change the fact that he was plus 42 for his career, and he was plus-121 after his second season in the league. I don't think that plus 121 is anything to write about. It doesn't change the reality that he wasn't a very good defensive player. But a plus 121 after the first two seasons is the reality.

As for THN's list: you can bet that everyone on that panel put hours of effort into that list. They didn't just open up the process to anyone who wanted to be a part of it. It was an invitational, a real honour to be a part of. THN could have had anyone they wanted working on the project. They chose those people.

I think those guys put a big emphasis on Cups because they understand how incredibly tough it is to win a Cup, and they realize what it says about a player to be a cog on a championship. So what does it say about Henri Richard that he was a cog on 11 championships? I make a good chunk of my living because of The Game. (Apologies to Ken Dryden for using caps on the last two words). I know how hard it is to win championships at the midget and junior level. I don't know how tough it is to win a Stanley Cup. I know people who have, and have told me how tough it is. (Scotty Stevens once said that you feel relief more than anything else). But I think those who played the game at the highest level, or coached the game at the highest level, or who have made their living working in the game at the highest level, put a much greater emphasis on winning Cups than the rest of us, and they put a greater emphasis on Cups - especially being a key contributor to Cups - when it comes to players' legacies.

You play to win the game. You don't play to win Art Ross Trophies, Hart Trophies, Norris Trophies. You play to win the game. Not finish top 10 or top 20 in scoring, or top five in save percentage.

It's not canonical. It's not authoritative. But the THN list is easily the finest top 100 ever assembled. If you locked the THN panel in a room for a week in 1996, and asked them to compile a list, you would come out with the same list. And I think that's terrific. Why should they change their minds? Do you honestly think that an adjusted for era point total will change anyone's mind? Hell no, because they know that adjusted total don't mean diddly.

Were there mistakes? Yes. Richard shouldn't be ahead of Trottier or Apps, but any top 50 without Richard is incomplete. A guy like Richard was such an incredible player, one of the smartest and best all-round players to ever play the game. Should Bucyk be No. 45? No. But if we're talking the best players in NHL history up to 1995-96, he's probably, at worst, No. 60-65. And certainly he had one of the most remarkable careers in NHL history, a guy who was absolutely terrific on dreadful Boston teams in the final years of the Original 6, then finally got the recognition he deserved as one of the game's truly magnificent players once he got some help, even though he was at an age when most players start to think of a career in the broadcast booth, selling cars, or selling insurance.

I think the one thing that deserves applause here is that we decided to look beyond the NHL. It makes things a lot more difficult, because we have to look at what happened prior to 1917, and we have to look at what happened across the Atlantic Ocean. (Although that really only becomes a factor in the 1960s). The flip side is it makes it a lot easier for us. We don't have to strictly look at the NHL accomplishments for a Hasek or a Stastny or a Fetisov.

 

[God Bless Canada]

To address one more point: I don't know how much, if at all, the dimensions of the Aud hurt Perreault. Yes, I'm sure that Perreault's dazzling skill would have been on display more often if he played in a rink with what is now a standard ice surface. But it goes both ways.

Take it from someone who makes money watching hockey in a small rink: in a small rink, you shoot from EVERYWHERE in the offensive zone. It changes the angles for everything. It changes the time in which the puck gets from the point to the net. Guys like Martin and Robert, who were such smart goal scorers with powerful shots, playing in a small rink actually does help. So while Perreault may have been more impressive to watch on standard ice, it certainly didn't hurt his assist totals to play in a bigger arena.

I think if Buffalo would have had a really strong offensive playmaker to anchor the second line during Perreault's peak, I think that would have helped his totals out more than a standard ice surface. Luce, Ramsay and Gare were all fine offensive players (especially Gare with his goal-scoring ability), but Perreault didn't have that guy who could take the pressure off of him. As I said earlier, you stop Perreault, you stop the Sabres. I think that hurt his top 10 finishes in the 70s. And while he probably wasn't going to finish in the top 10 in the run-and-gun 80s, if he would have had some talent to work with, would have had considerably better output. Outside of Dave Andreychuk, he didn't have much to work with after Gare was dealt. Want to know how Buffalo was the exact same in 1985 as it was in 1970? You stopped Perreault, you stopped the Sabres.

 

[JThorne]

If you didn't see each person you're evaluating LIVE IN PERSON, then its all subjective to your own personal agenda and taste. Therefore, no one will be more right or more wrong than the next guy.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Rink Size

To address one more point: I don't know how much, if at all, the dimensions of the Aud hurt Perreault. Yes, I'm sure that Perreault's dazzling skill would have been on display more often if he played in a rink with what is now a standard ice surface. But it goes both ways.

Take it from someone who makes money watching hockey in a small rink: in a small rink, you shoot from EVERYWHERE in the offensive zone. It changes the angles for everything. It changes the time in which the puck gets from the point to the net. Guys like Martin and Robert, who were such smart goal scorers with powerful shots, playing in a small rink actually does help. So while Perreault may have been more impressive to watch on standard ice, it certainly didn't hurt his assist totals to play in a bigger arena.

I think if Buffalo would have had a really strong offensive playmaker to anchor the second line during Perreault's peak, I think that would have helped his totals out more than a standard ice surface. Luce, Ramsay and Gare were all fine offensive players (especially Gare with his goal-scoring ability), but Perreault didn't have that guy who could take the pressure off of him. As I said earlier, you stop Perreault, you stop the Sabres. I think that hurt his top 10 finishes in the 70s. And while he probably wasn't going to finish in the top 10 in the run-and-gun 80s, if he would have had some talent to work with, would have had considerably better output. Outside of Dave Andreychuk, he didn't have much to work with after Gare was dealt. Want to know how Buffalo was the exact same in 1985 as it was in 1970? You stopped Perreault, you stopped the Sabres.

The shorter neutral zone reduces the outlet pass threat, transition game speed and the speed / movement going across the blueline.

This was the biggest difference watching Gilbert Perreault make the transition from the regulation sized Forum where he played as a junior to the NHL.

Also in Buffalo he did not have a defenseman who could quarterback an offense like Sittler in Toronto with Salming / Turnbull or Hawerchuk in Winnipeg with Babych / Carlyle. Another factor that those making comparables or adjustments do not consider.

 

[ContrarianGoaltender]

I think if Buffalo would have had a really strong offensive playmaker to anchor the second line during Perreault's peak, I think that would have helped his totals out more than a standard ice surface. Luce, Ramsay and Gare were all fine offensive players (especially Gare with his goal-scoring ability), but Perreault didn't have that guy who could take the pressure off of him. As I said earlier, you stop Perreault, you stop the Sabres. I think that hurt his top 10 finishes in the 70s.

To me that's really underrating Buffalo's second line. Early in his career Perreault was definitely Buffalo's only scoring threat, but that wasn't true at his peak. From 1975-1980, here is a comparison of how many goals some of the teams scored without their top scorer on the ice:

Philadelphia w/o Clarke: 1,107 goals
NY Islanders w/o Trottier: 1,106 goals
Buffalo w/o Perreault: 1,088 goals
Montreal w/o Lafleur: 1,047 goals
Toronto w/o Sittler: 964 goals
Detroit/L.A. w/o Dionne: 724 goals

The Islanders only finish ahead of the Sabres because Trottier didn't play in the 1974-75 season. Looks to me like secondary scoring was a strength of the Sabres, not the weakness that you are making it out to be.

 

[seventieslord]

Perreault's career plus-minus rating was plus-42. Not impressive. But that's what it was. And that did happen even though he was a combined -79 in his first two seasons, as the guy who logged a lot of ice time on an expansion team at age 20 and 21. No formula, no adjustments, change the fact that he was plus 42 for his career, and he was plus-121 after his second season in the league. I don't think that plus 121 is anything to write about. It doesn't change the reality that he wasn't a very good defensive player. But a plus 121 after the first two seasons is the reality.

Honestly, this doesn't tell me that you don't understand. It tells me that you don't want to understand. With all due respect.

Think about this:

- Would you agree that it is normal for a player on a successful team to have a high +/-?
- Would you agree that it is normal for a player on a very unsuccessful team to have a low +/-?
- Have you ever said "wow, that guy was only -10 on such a brutal team; most of his teammates were -30"
- Have you ever said "how was this guy -2 on such a good team? Everyone else on the team is at least +20"

+/- is a brutal statistic on its own. You're quoting a brutal statistic to me. It doesn't mean a lot. Overpass' adjusted +/- takes it past the obvious "play on a good team have a good +/-, play on a bad team, have a bad +/-" result that the raw stat gives.

I don't care if you like it or not. It is a fact that Perreault, on average, throughout his career, did not make a positive impact on his team's goal differential. 100 minutes of Perreault on the ice at even strength? 100 minutes of the rest of his teammates on the ice at even strength? Same result.

As for THN's list: you can bet that everyone on that panel put hours of effort into that list. They didn't just open up the process to anyone who wanted to be a part of it. It was an invitational, a real honour to be a part of. THN could have had anyone they wanted working on the project. They chose those people.

there's no question that they chose a lot of good names. But you're making assumptions about the process now. We know we put a ton of work into our list. We can speculate that most of that panel put a lot of work into that list but we don't truly know. Did they even have a vetting process? Did one of them think Glenn Hall was not a top-100 goalie because he had little playoff success and leave him right off? Did someone accidentally forget Andy Bathgate? Were their lists returned and questioned? Or did they say to themselves "who are we to question Marcel Pronovost?"

I think those guys put a big emphasis on Cups because they understand how incredibly tough it is to win a Cup, and they realize what it says about a player to be a cog on a championship. So what does it say about Henri Richard that he was a cog on 11 championships? I make a good chunk of my living because of The Game. (Apologies to Ken Dryden for using caps on the last two words). I know how hard it is to win championships at the midget and junior level. I don't know how tough it is to win a Stanley Cup. I know people who have, and have told me how tough it is. (Scotty Stevens once said that you feel relief more than anything else). But I think those who played the game at the highest level, or coached the game at the highest level, or who have made their living working in the game at the highest level, put a much greater emphasis on winning Cups than the rest of us, and they put a greater emphasis on Cups - especially being a key contributor to Cups - when it comes to players' legacies. You play to win the game. You don't play to win Art Ross Trophies, Hart Trophies, Norris Trophies. You play to win the game. Not finish top 10 or top 20 in scoring, or top five in save percentage.

Too much emphasis, however, was put on just winning the cup and not enough on the player's contributions towards winning in general.

It's not canonical. It's not authoritative. But the THN list is easily the finest top 100 ever assembled. If you locked the THN panel in a room for a week in 1996, and asked them to compile a list, you would come out with the same list. And I think that's terrific. Why should they change their minds? Do you honestly think that an adjusted for era point total will change anyone's mind? Hell no, because they know that adjusted total don't mean diddly.

Absolutely the list would change. Not because of adjusted point totals or whatever you're referring to. But because they would have a chance to discuss together, determine who is overrating and underrating whom, break some close ties, change some opinions. Of course this is just a fantasy but absolutely there would be some flexibility if everyone actually got together. They didn't. that was the biggest problem with that process.

Were there mistakes? Yes. Richard shouldn't be ahead of Trottier or Apps, but any top 50 without Richard is incomplete. A guy like Richard was such an incredible player, one of the smartest and best all-round players to ever play the game. Should Bucyk be No. 45? No. But if we're talking the best players in NHL history up to 1995-96, he's probably, at worst, No. 60-65. And certainly he had one of the most remarkable careers in NHL history, a guy who was absolutely terrific on dreadful Boston teams in the final years of the Original 6, then finally got the recognition he deserved as one of the game's truly magnificent players once he got some help, even though he was at an age when most players start to think of a career in the broadcast booth, selling cars, or selling insurance.

Getting together and discussing/debating would have smoothed out inconsistencies like that. We did get together and debate and discuss, and therefore we don't have those inconsistencies.

You're selling this great panel short. We did an outstanding job. Give me any two players, retired by 1996, who THN had more than 4 spots apart, who we ended up flipping to opposite positions or more (i.e. 4+ spots apart the other way) and it shouldn't be too hard to explain why that adjustment was made.

I think the one thing that deserves applause here is that we decided to look beyond the NHL. It makes things a lot more difficult, because we have to look at what happened prior to 1917, and we have to look at what happened across the Atlantic Ocean. (Although that really only becomes a factor in the 1960s). The flip side is it makes it a lot easier for us. We don't have to strictly look at the NHL accomplishments for a Hasek or a Stastny or a Fetisov.

Absolutely. I wish they did it right the first time. Then comparing these two lists wouldn't be like comparing mandarin and navel oranges.

 

[MS]

As I said, pappy, It doesn't matter how pretty he looked doing it.

If other players dominated the league statistically better than he did, they're better than him. It doesn't matter if he can skate better, shoot better, and stickhandle in a phone booth if the results aren't there. the results are there, but 35-45 other centers just have better results.

You can dismiss the word "stats" all you like. But it is a FACT that Perreault's Sabres, over the course of his career, had the same goal differential with him on the ice, as they did without him. Every other 1000+ point player made a very positive impact on his team's goal differential except Perreault and the six others. How do you explain this if he is so dominant?

How do you explain Hawerchuk and Sittler having basically the same offensive record (similar career totals, similar top-10, top-20 finishes, how they were regarded in award voting, etc) if he's way, way better? What did they do to achieve the same results as him? What didn't Perreault do?

Mikhail Grabovski looks pretty special when I watch him play, too. But when the season was all said and done, he was just a 48-point player, and many other players who didn't "look" as good achieved far more this season than he did.

Long, bitter thread, and I'll go back to the first page and this post which is 100% on the money.

If we didn't keep track of 'useless stats', everyone would be convinced that Maxim Afinogenov is a better player/had a better career than Andrew Brunette, because he looked so damn much better doing what he did. But of course we know that Brunette was the better player because his results were so much better. It's damn easy to say, 'I saw Perreault play, he was more talented than Sittler' but the results simply don't show that he was a better player, or that his talents translated into what they were perceived to bring.

Same with Perreault. Yeah, he looked great. And put up really nice numbers. But man, was that line a defensive sieve, and the fact that the Luce-Ramsay line was *exponentially* better 5-on-5 is something that should weigh really heavily on Perreault's legacy. Perreault was great on the PP, but through his prime years that line was so poor defensively that it nearly cancelled out the positive things they did offensively 5-on-5. Thankfully they had one of the best 2nd lines in NHL history to pick up the slack.

In the end, I rank him very similarly to Denis Savard - breathtaking talents who achieved substantial individual success (multiple top-5 scoring seasons) but lacked the all-around ability to be the go-to guy on a Cup-winning team or be a guy who challenged seriously for the Hart.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Well........................

Long, bitter thread, and I'll go back to the first page and this post which is 100% on the money.

If we didn't keep track of 'useless stats', everyone would be convinced that Maxim Afinogenov is a better player/had a better career than Andrew Brunette, because he looked so damn much better doing what he did. But of course we know that Brunette was the better player because his results were so much better. It's damn easy to say, 'I saw Perreault play, he was more talented than Sittler' but the results simply don't show that he was a better player, or that his talents translated into what they were perceived to bring.

Same with Perreault. Yeah, he looked great. And put up really nice numbers. But man, was that line a defensive sieve, and the fact that the Luce-Ramsay line was *exponentially* better 5-on-5 is something that should weigh really heavily on Perreault's legacy. Perreault was great on the PP, but through his prime years that line was so poor defensively that it nearly cancelled out the positive things they did offensively 5-on-5. Thankfully they had one of the best 2nd lines in NHL history to pick up the slack.

In the end, I rank him very similarly to Denis Savard - breathtaking talents who achieved substantial individual success (multiple top-5 scoring seasons) but lacked the all-around ability to be the go-to guy on a Cup-winning team or be a guy who challenged seriously for the Hart.

Interesting analogies but they fall apart when put in a historic context.

After their first 2-3 seasons Perreault and Bathgate played comparable roles on comparable teams of their respective eras, best offensive player on a 5-6th place NHL team with the odd upward spike. Both had defensive frailties but +/- stats were not kept during most of Bathgate's time in the NHL, so he gets a pass and posters rank him on his offensive numbers alone. Conversely contemporaries of Bathgate, with much better results who would pass the Afinogenov / Brunette measure you made - Moore, H.Richard, Bucyk, Keon, Delvecchio,Ullman, Provost, Pulford, Litzenberger, do not get anywhere close to the same consideration.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Jacques Lemaire

To me that's really underrating Buffalo's second line. Early in his career Perreault was definitely Buffalo's only scoring threat, but that wasn't true at his peak. From 1975-1980, here is a comparison of how many goals some of the teams scored without their top scorer on the ice:

Philadelphia w/o Clarke: 1,107 goals
NY Islanders w/o Trottier: 1,106 goals
Buffalo w/o Perreault: 1,088 goals
Montreal w/o Lafleur: 1,047 goals
Toronto w/o Sittler: 964 goals
Detroit/L.A. w/o Dionne: 724 goals

The Islanders only finish ahead of the Sabres because Trottier didn't play in the 1974-75 season. Looks to me like secondary scoring was a strength of the Sabres, not the weakness that you are making it out to be.

If we tweak the comparison to include only centers and substitute Jacques Lemaire for Guy Lafleur then we have a positional comparison as opposed to a "goal counting" comparison.

This little tweak creates a very compelling argument for Jacques Lemaire, when his other stats and attributes are considered, as a top 100 player while boosting Henri Richard's value significantly as well given the role he played during most of Jean Beliveau's career.

After all Henri Richard and Jacques Lemaire produced great results, individually and team.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Interesting analogies but they fall apart when put in a historic context.

After their first 2-3 seasons Perreault and Bathgate played comparable roles on comparable teams of their respective eras, best offensive player on a 5-6th place NHL team with the odd upward spike. Both had defensive frailties but +/- stats were not kept during most of Bathgate's time in the NHL, so he gets a pass and posters rank him on his offensive numbers alone. Conversely contemporaries of Bathgate, with much better results who would pass the Afinogenov / Brunette measure you made - Moore, H.Richard, Bucyk, Keon, Delvecchio,Ullman, Provost, Pulford, Litzenberger, do not get anywhere close to the same consideration.

I think you are misinterpreting the analogy. Bathgate put up better numbers than most of the guys you listed. While Brunette put up better numbers than Afinogenov. It isn't an analogy of players with intangibles vs players without intangibles. It's about players who have skills and players who have production. Brunette is undersized and slow. Watching him, you don'[t expect much to happen. Afinogenov is a lights out skater with great stickhandling moves. Everytime you see him play, it looks something is going to happen, that some great goal is about to come together. But it never does. Then when Brunette is on the ice, a goal comes out of nowhere because he is a much more effective use of skills.

Perrault had the speed and the moves to appear to be a greater offensive threat than Sittler. But, it was just appearances because flashy skills are not results.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

If we tweak the comparison to include only centers and substitute Jacques Lemaire for Guy Lafleur then we have a positional comparison as opposed to a "goal counting" comparison.

This little tweak creates a very compelling argument for Jacques Lemaire, when his other stats and attributes are considered, as a top 100 player while boosting Henri Richard's value significantly as well given the role he played during most of Jean Beliveau's career.

After all Henri Richard and Jacques Lemaire produced great results, individually and team.

But that would be an off comparison, because it isn't based on the player who is generating most of the offence.

Jacques Lemaire was great and very deserving of the Hall of Fame. But. He is not a franchise player. He's more in the Igor Larianov mold where in he is an elite support center. To be a top liner he needs a winger of superior offensive skill. But he can also be a very strong secondary option.

He does deserve credit for bringing out the best in his linemates.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Winning the Cup

Honestly, this doesn't tell me that you don't understand. It tells me that you don't want to understand. With all due respect.


Too much emphasis, however, was put on just winning the cup and not enough on the player's contributions towards winning in general.

Too much emphasis on just winning the cup. So I guess this erudite conclusion was reached after a detailed analysis or a metric that shows how much emphasis should be given to winning the cup as opposed to winning in general whatever that may mean.

Your criticism of the THN list and panel definitely reflects the flaws in your own positions.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Too much emphasis on just winning the cup. So I guess this erudite conclusion was reached after a detailed analysis or a metric that shows how much emphasis should be given to winning the cup as opposed to winning in general whatever that may mean.

Your criticism of the THN list and panel definitely reflects the flaws in your own positions.

The key is not winning in general vs winning the cup. The key is, contributions to winning. Maurice Richard didn't stop being a great clutch player because Detroit had a better team. Just as Teemu Selanne didn't become a great clutch player because Anaheim won a cup. It is what and how much a player offers their team in their drive to win the cup that determines greatness. Not whether or not or how many cups they won. Dollard St. Laurent was not a better defenceman than Bill Gadsby...

 

[Canadiens1958]

Valid Comparison

But that would be an off comparison, because it isn't based on the player who is generating most of the offence.

Jacques Lemaire was great and very deserving of the Hall of Fame. But. He is not a franchise player. He's more in the Igor Larianov mold where in he is an elite support center. To be a top liner he needs a winger of superior offensive skill. But he can also be a very strong secondary option.

He does deserve credit for bringing out the best in his linemates.

Sorry it is a very valid comparison since board members regularly use skill comparisons and positional comparisons. Comparisons are not either / or in nature. Of the proported top 30 - 40 centers the majority were elite support centers and not franchise players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

False Analogies

The key is not winning in general vs winning the cup. The key is, contributions to winning. Maurice Richard didn't stop being a great clutch player because Detroit had a better team. Just as Teemu Selanne didn't become a great clutch player because Anaheim won a cup. It is what and how much a player offers their team in their drive to win the cup that determines greatness. Not whether or not or how many cups they won. Dollard St. Laurent was not a better defenceman than Bill Gadsby...

Again using false analogies by bring up straw men type positions. Has anyone ever claimed that Dollard St. Laurent was a better defenseman than Bill Gadsby? Not to my knowledge, so until someone does you are just creating a straw man that you can knock down in an effort to support a position that is not supportable.

You conveniently avoid suggesting a metric or a ratio that would bring into focus the distinction between contributing to a Stanley Cup win as opposed to winning in general.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

You conveniently avoid suggesting a metric or a ratio that would bring into focus the distinction between contributing to a Stanley Cup win as opposed to winning in general.

Because that is a fabricated distinction that you have made. There is no distinction. There never was. The point is, it is how you contribute to winning that matters. Whether the team is good enough to win a cup is largely irrelevant when judging an individuals value. What is relevant is their contribution to winning. Period.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Sorry it is a very valid comparison since board members regularly use skill comparisons and positional comparisons. Comparisons are not either / or in nature. Of the proported top 30 - 40 centers the majority were elite support centers and not franchise players.

Majority? Name the 20 centers on the list that were not franchise players.

I don't fully agree with the list, Nels Stewart is questionable, Syd Howe played more LW, Cyclone Taylor is missing. Marty Barry is unquestionably better. (Vastly underrated player.) Etc...

But outside of a select few, that is not a list of players that require a better player to carry the offensive load.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Franchise Players

Majority? Name the 20 centers on the list that were not franchise players.

I don't fully agree with the list, Nels Stewart is questionable, Syd Howe played more LW, Cyclone Taylor is missing. Marty Barry is unquestionably better. (Vastly underrated player.) Etc...

But outside of a select few, that is not a list of players that require a better player to carry the offensive load.

Not interested in debating or trying to prove a negative so I will post a list of those that are Franchise Player Centers in my opinion(13 total):

Wayne Gretzky
Mario Lemieux
Jean Beliveau
Howie Morenz
Stan Mikita
Mark Messier
Bobby Clarke
Bryan Trottier
Newsy Lalonde
Joe Sakic
Steve Yzerman
Milt Schmidt
Syl Apps Sr.

Esposito is close. Reservations about his Chicago and NY Ranger days. Mark Messier would be the weakest. Players like Nels Stewart who have a noticeable weakness in their game or lacked an attribute would be in the elite level.Also if I have doubts that a franchise could be built around a player then he does not make the list. Example Jean Ratelle who was supported by Brad Park but failed to establish himself in NY until Park bloomed.

BTW Cyclone Taylor - rover = hybrid center / defenseman.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Seriously...................

Because that is a fabricated distinction that you have made. There is no distinction. There never was. The point is, it is how you contribute to winning that matters. Whether the team is good enough to win a cup is largely irrelevant when judging an individuals value. What is relevant is their contribution to winning. Period.

So in one thread you have managed praise clutch - remember your Maurice Richard / Selanne analogy while diluting winning. Quaint.

Winning without the ultimate team win is simply degrees of losing.

 

[seventieslord]

The key is not winning in general vs winning the cup. The key is, contributions to winning. Maurice Richard didn't stop being a great clutch player because Detroit had a better team. Just as Teemu Selanne didn't become a great clutch player because Anaheim won a cup. It is what and how much a player offers their team in their drive to win the cup that determines greatness. Not whether or not or how many cups they won. Dollard St. Laurent was not a better defenceman than Bill Gadsby...

Because that is a fabricated distinction that you have made. There is no distinction. There never was. The point is, it is how you contribute to winning that matters. Whether the team is good enough to win a cup is largely irrelevant when judging an individuals value. What is relevant is their contribution to winning. Period.

Thank you for saving me the time.

Majority? Name the 20 centers on the list that were not franchise players.

I don't fully agree with the list, Nels Stewart is questionable, Syd Howe played more LW, Cyclone Taylor is missing. Marty Barry is unquestionably better. (Vastly underrated player.) Etc...

But outside of a select few, that is not a list of players that require a better player to carry the offensive load.

Taylor went from D to rover, so I never counted him. I suppose I still could have...

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

So in one thread you have managed praise clutch - remember your Maurice Richard / Selanne analogy while diluting winning. Quaint.

Winning without the ultimate team win is simply degrees of losing.

And you went from saying comparing St. Laurent to Gadsby was stupid to saying St. Laurent was a winner and Gadsby was a loser.