Which player would you take for a Game 7 winner take all?

[wetcoast]

There are some really good players on that list. If I'm being asked to pick someone for a pivotal game 7, I'm much more inclined to take a great player that's on the list vs a great player that doesn't even make it.

The difference here is that if we are looking at the small sample of 7 games versus where they actually are rated all time (based primarily on peak/prime) it's vastly different than the actual list of those players overall.

Quite a bit different.

Again, utilizing available data rather than ignoring it as it's inconvenient...

It's okay to utilize but not over emphasizes as it's a very small sample of games for each player and takes up less than 20% than almost all of the top players being considered.

There are definite trends going on.

Because Hasek is the single best goalie of all time. And also amazing in the playoffs / olympics etc. No disrespect to St. Patrick but imo the Dominator is in a league of his own

Both goalies are good picks but in very different ways and I don't like comparing goalies with position players in these types of polls or question as the cross positional evaluation is just a good a guess as with position players being better to evaluate and separate.

 

[norrisnick]

The difference here is that if we are looking at the small sample of 7 games versus where they actually are rated all time (based primarily on peak/prime) it's vastly different than the actual list of those players overall.

Quite a bit different.

It's okay to utilize but not over emphasizes as it's a very small sample of games for each player and takes up less than 20% than almost all of the top players being considered.

There are definite trends going on..

I get there are trends going on. But data is being ignored because it doesn't align with narratives.

You've got an all time great solidly over a PPG in the playoffs in his prime
Youve got another all time great solidly over a PPG in the playoffs in his prime

One has a 3-5 record in games 7s with 5 points in 8 games
One has a 6-2 record in game 7s with 11 points in 8 games

If you take the overall picture as a wash, why ignore the game 7 data? Especially when the situation in question here is specifically asking about a hypothetical game 7. It's not a general "who is better in the playoffs?" question. It's specifically asking about a game 7. It's bizarre to be that resistant against utilizing available information.

Be no different than if there were a question about best 2nd period scorer. I'm not even sure how you'd get that information (probably pnep). So you hypothesize that player X who is a great scorer would naturally be a good bet to score in the 2nd period. But if that player in fact doesn't do well in 2nd periods... it doesn't make sense to cling to that player on the basis of the 1st and 3rd period scoring.

It's an unwillingness to acknowledge that scenarios exist, where great players, simply didn't do as well as they did the rest of their careers relative to other great, or even not so great players.

 

[PainForShane]

Both goalies are good picks but in very different ways and I don't like comparing goalies with position players in these types of polls or question as the cross positional evaluation is just a good a guess as with position players being better to evaluate and separate.

Well, in the post you responded to I wasn't comparing a goalie with a position player. I was clearly comparing Hasek with Roy. Both of them are goalies

 

[Conspiracy Theorist]

How are people taking Hasek over Roy in the playoffs? Roy is the best playoff goalie of all time. He singlehandedly dragged that 1993 Habs team to a cup.

Much better team than 99 Sabres.

 

[wetcoast]

Well, in the post you responded to I wasn't comparing a goalie with a position player. I was clearly comparing Hasek with Roy. Both of them are goalies

I realize that and was expanding on how I rank players off your quote as either goalie should be considered.

I just don't know enough about goalies to place with any confidence and I'm more confident ranking position players.

At the end of the day a lot of people disagree with my conclusions and that's fine we are here to exchange ideas and thoughts about hockey.

 

[wetcoast]

I get there are trends going on. But data is being ignored because it doesn't align with narratives.

No they aren't being ignored and as I stated the larger sample size carries more weight than the smaller one and the smaller sample size is hardly as predictive as all the sample size IMO.

If you want to weigh the smaller sample size more heavily that's fine but don't project a false narrative onto other conclusions especially when you know that the smaller sample size isn't being ignored just not weighed as heavily.

You've got an all time great solidly over a PPG in the playoffs in his prime
Youve got another all time great solidly over a PPG in the playoffs in his prime

One has a 3-5 record in games 7s with 5 points in 8 games
One has a 6-2 record in game 7s with 11 points in 8 games

Well if it was as easy as just scoring points we could rank them by their actual scoring in game 7 so why isn't Justin Williams winning this?

If you take the overall picture as a wash, why ignore the game 7 data?

What's a wash and once again game 7 data isn't being ignored.

Especially when the situation in question here is specifically asking about a hypothetical game 7. It's not a general "who is better in the playoffs?" question. It's specifically asking about a game 7. It's bizarre to be that resistant against utilizing available information.

Exactly it's asking about a hypothetical game 7 with most likely different team mates a different opposition ect....so why rely so heavily what happened in the past does that mean Kuch is less reliable than the scores of role players who have a better PPG in games 7 than he does?

Once again that list I sent has an order to it and because it's such a small sample size the rankings are completely out of wack.

Be no different than if there were a question about best 2nd period scorer. I'm not even sure how you'd get that information (probably pnep).

Except that's a completely different question it's asking about a set of data not who would you take in the future to be the best second period scorer in any hypothetical game right?

So you hypothesize that player X who is a great scorer would naturally be a good bet to score in the 2nd period.

Yes I sure would as the second period thing is trivial and is going to have some distortion, it's about as relevant as asking who scores the most on Tuesdays historically although all players in the group would have a larger sample as you are asking one period out of 3 while the 7th game for some players is like 6,7,8 games out of 60-100.

I'm not a statistician but it's easy to see that one question will wield better results than the other one with the smaller sample size.

But if that player in fact doesn't do well in 2nd periods... it doesn't make sense to cling to that player on the basis of the 1st and 3rd period scoring.

Actually it does unless you can prove that it's more than statistical chance that he has lower scoring in the second period and the sample size is large enough.

But give me the numbers, in abstract does this even exist and does the exception prove the rule?

In the game 7 sample Jacques Lemaire had a great stat line of 3-2-5-7 does that mean that you would take him over Guy Lafleur in any hypothetical game 7?

The answer is probably no for most people even though Lemaire brought more than just scoring to his game.

It's an unwillingness to acknowledge that scenarios exist, where great players, simply didn't do as well as they did the rest of their careers relative to other great, or even not so great players.

There is no unwillingness to acknowledge the facts, what is folly is to draw conclusions based on a very small number of games compared to a much larger number of games and for most players here that ratio of the game 7s to overall number of playoff games in peak prime is like 10:1 for the larger sample size.

this sort of thing happens every season and in every sequence of games where in a very small sample size you find players who rank really high heck some weeks even gretzky was surpassed in scoring but that doesn't make it predictive in any sense and is less reliable than the overall sample.

Look I love trevor Linden and he ahs a great game 7 stat line but at any time when he and Bure were both healthy for the Canucks even the most diehard Canuck fan would have taken Bure over Linden in a game 7 and I have zero idea what Bure's game 7 record is.

 

[JPT]

I don't think it's even fair to have prime Hasek in this poll lol

 

[norrisnick]

No they aren't being ignored and as I stated the larger sample size carries more weight than the smaller one and the smaller sample size is hardly as predictive as all the sample size IMO.

If you want to weigh the smaller sample size more heavily that's fine but don't project a false narrative onto other conclusions especially when you know that the smaller sample size isn't being ignored just not weighed as heavily.



Well if it was as easy as just scoring points we could rank them by their actual scoring in game 7 so why isn't Justin Williams winning this?



What's a wash and once again game 7 data isn't being ignored.


Exactly it's asking about a hypothetical game 7 with most likely different team mates a different opposition ect....so why rely so heavily what happened in the past does that mean Kuch is less reliable than the scores of role players who have a better PPG in games 7 than he does?

Once again that list I sent has an order to it and because it's such a small sample size the rankings are completely out of wack.



Except that's a completely different question it's asking about a set of data not who would you take in the future to be the best second period scorer in any hypothetical game right?



Yes I sure would as the second period thing is trivial and is going to have some distortion, it's about as relevant as asking who scores the most on Tuesdays historically although all players in the group would have a larger sample as you are asking one period out of 3 while the 7th game for some players is like 6,7,8 games out of 60-100.

I'm not a statistician but it's easy to see that one question will wield better results than the other one with the smaller sample size.



Actually it does unless you can prove that it's more than statistical chance that he has lower scoring in the second period and the sample size is large enough.

But give me the numbers, in abstract does this even exist and does the exception prove the rule?

In the game 7 sample Jacques Lemaire had a great stat line of 3-2-5-7 does that mean that you would take him over Guy Lafleur in any hypothetical game 7?

The answer is probably no for most people even though Lemaire brought more than just scoring to his game.


There is no unwillingness to acknowledge the facts, what is folly is to draw conclusions based on a very small number of games compared to a much larger number of games and for most players here that ratio of the game 7s to overall number of playoff games in peak prime is like 10:1 for the larger sample size.

this sort of thing happens every season and in every sequence of games where in a very small sample size you find players who rank really high heck some weeks even gretzky was surpassed in scoring but that doesn't make it predictive in any sense and is less reliable than the overall sample.

Look I love trevor Linden and he ahs a great game 7 stat line but at any time when he and Bure were both healthy for the Canucks even the most diehard Canuck fan would have taken Bure over Linden in a game 7 and I have zero idea what Bure's game 7 record is.

Based on constantly running to the examples of 2nd/3rd liners with great 7s as opposed to the examples of similar overall all time great players with differing game 7 performances, the only conclusion I can take that it's an unwillingness to address inconvenient data. I'm not solely using game 7 information.

The wash above is Jagr and Forsberg. Both have 8 game 7s. One has twice the wins and more than twice the points. And he isn't even an option for the poll...

 

[wetcoast]

Based on constantly running to the examples of 2nd/3rd liners with great 7s as opposed to the examples of similar overall all time great players with differing game 7 performances, the only conclusion I can take that it's an unwillingness to address inconvenient data. I'm not solely using game 7 information.

You don't seem to understand the point in any small sample like this one you are going to find more outliers at the top of the rankings due to the small sample size, the bigger the sample the stronger the conclusion would be right?

I mean the stats and ranking sort of speak for themselves and the sample size is the problem.

The wash above is Jagr and Forsberg. Both have 8 game 7s. One has twice the wins and more than twice the points. And he isn't even an option for the poll...

I don't even need to look at the points here Foppa was a 200 foot player in the playoffs and I'd take him 8 days a week in a game 7.

Limiting the data to focus on points in such a small sample size literally doesn't mean very much when it's less than 10 games and in a specific limited setting.

 

[norrisnick]

You don't seem to understand the point in any small sample like this one you are going to find more outliers at the top of the rankings due to the small sample size, the bigger the sample the stronger the conclusion would be right?

I mean the stats and ranking sort of speak for themselves and the sample size is the problem.



I don't even need to look at the points here Foppa was a 200 foot player in the playoffs and I'd take him 8 days a week in a game 7.

Limiting the data to focus on points in such a small sample size literally doesn't mean very much when it's less than 10 games and in a specific limited setting.

We're not asking for 100 game 7s, though right? Just the one. You wanna take your chances on a guy that doesn't perform as well as another all time great, that's cool.

Forsberg wasn't nearly as strong a defensive player as his reputation. It was 90% controlling the puck in the offensive end that led to his wondrous defense. Same thing Jagr was doing, but without the reputation.

 

[wetcoast]

We're not asking for 100 game 7s, though right? Just the one. You wanna take your chances on a guy that doesn't perform as well as another all time great, that's cool.

Forsberg wasn't nearly as strong a defensive player as his reputation. It was 90% controlling the puck in the offensive end that led to his wondrous defense. Same thing Jagr was doing, but without the reputation.

I disagree on both counts and i also never said defensive but 200 foot player Foppa titled the ice when he was out here in the playoffs here is the overlapping playoff resumes of Foppa and Sakic in Quebec/Colorado.

Sakic 147-75-88-163 (+9)
Foppa 133-57-97-154 (+47)

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

The stats back up the eye test foppa came to play in the playoffs.

 

[norrisnick]

I disagree on both counts and i also never said defensive but 200 foot player Foppa titled the ice when he was out here in the playoffs here is the overlapping playoff resumes of Foppa and Sakic in Quebec/Colorado.

Sakic 147-75-88-163 (+9)
Foppa 133-57-97-154 (+47)

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

The stats back up the eye test foppa came to play in the playoffs.

Ok... here is Pitt Jagr

140 - 65 - 82 - 147 (+27)

and he didn't get to play on the 2nd line...

 

[wetcoast]

Ok... here is Pitt Jagr

140 - 65 - 82 - 147 (+27)

Um okay and here are the rest of the Pens during that time period and I have no idea what you mean by second line here, Jagr doesn't stand out like Foppa in terms of tilting the ice does he?

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

and he didn't get to play on the 2nd line...

Here is Jagr's game 7 line

8-1-10-11 and I have no idea on how his 8 games break down compared to any others players small 7th game record.

But here is a quick look at Jagr and I'm describing not attaching any judgment on the nature of the points we would ahve to go back and actually watch the games.,

Game 7 versus NJ first round 91 in a 4-0 win a second assist on the 3rd goal at 229 second period.

92 first round 3-1 win over Washington PP goal (GW) in a 3-1 win and was on for the Capitals goal against.

93 in that stunning Pens loss to NYI 3 SOG and nothing.

95 in a 3-1 win over the Capitals 2 first period secondary assist and 1 on the PP and was a plus 2 so he was on the ice for ENG at 1956 of the 3rd period.

96 had a secondary PP assist to tie the game 1-1 early in the second period in a 3-1 loss to florida and was -2 on the night.

99 first round had 2 primary assists and was +3 in a 4-2 win over NJ

01 second round against the Hasek led Sabers had a 3 assists 2 secondary including on the GWG in 12-13 had a secondary assist that sent the game into OT in which Boston won in the first round against Toronto.

Hard to tell what that actually means compared to other players though right?

 

[tabness]

How are people taking Hasek over Roy in the playoffs? Roy is the best playoff goalie of all time. He singlehandedly dragged that 1993 Habs team to a cup.

if only there was a game 7 that both were involved in lol

 

[boompuffboom]

prime Fedorov
prime Pronger
prime Pricer

 

[norrisnick]

Um okay and here are the rest of the Pens during that time period and I have no idea what you mean by second line here, Jagr doesn't stand out like Foppa in terms of tilting the ice does he?

NHL Stats

The official source for NHL Stats including skaters, goalies, teams stats and more.

www.nhl.com

Here is Jagr's game 7 line

8-1-10-11 and I have no idea on how his 8 games break down compared to any others players small 7th game record.

But here is a quick look at Jagr and I'm describing not attaching any judgment on the nature of the points we would ahve to go back and actually watch the games.,

Game 7 versus NJ first round 91 in a 4-0 win a second assist on the 3rd goal at 229 second period.

92 first round 3-1 win over Washington PP goal (GW) in a 3-1 win and was on for the Capitals goal against.

93 in that stunning Pens loss to NYI 3 SOG and nothing.

95 in a 3-1 win over the Capitals 2 first period secondary assist and 1 on the PP and was a plus 2 so he was on the ice for ENG at 1956 of the 3rd period.

96 had a secondary PP assist to tie the game 1-1 early in the second period in a 3-1 loss to florida and was -2 on the night.

99 first round had 2 primary assists and was +3 in a 4-2 win over NJ

01 second round against the Hasek led Sabers had a 3 assists 2 secondary including on the GWG in 12-13 had a secondary assist that sent the game into OT in which Boston won in the first round against Toronto.

Hard to tell what that actually means compared to other players though right?

Now do some digging into Pete's 8 games/5 points.

 

[PainForShane]

We're not asking for 100 game 7s, though right? Just the one. You wanna take your chances on a guy that doesn't perform as well as another all time great, that's cool.

Forsberg wasn't nearly as strong a defensive player as his reputation. It was 90% controlling the puck in the offensive end that led to his wondrous defense. Same thing Jagr was doing, but without the reputation.

FWIW I agree with most of you're saying in your back and forth, but I don't really think this is a fair critique of Forsberg or his reputation. Positionally he was great in the D-zone, and he was a strong 200-foot player in a time when that type of play wasn't as noticed by mainstream hockey fans or media. Implying his defensive reputation mostly was due to outsized puck control in the offensive end isn't even close to true.

As for the main argument, the thread talking is about who we'd like to pick for a game 7, and you're saying 'maybe we should consider data from their actual game 7s,' to me it's a bit strange that anyone would have an issue with that -- to me that should be the first place you start. Then when you find weird outliers (ie Justin Williams) you can apply common sense to say, 'actually wait, Messier's pretty high on this list too with a decent PPG, maybe I'd rather take him.'

This is common sense, and I literally don't know why anyone would repeatedly argue against this idea. Also when the same person starts a post with "You don't seem to understand..." and then says some random unrelated point that has little if anything to do with your argument... idk. Up to you who to spend your time talking to I guess.

But anyway, Forsberg was good defensively. That's what I came online to post

 

[PainForShane]

Um okay and here are the rest of the Pens during that time period and I have no idea what you mean by second line here, Jagr doesn't stand out like Foppa in terms of tilting the ice does he?

He meant Sakic was considered the Avs' top center most of the time, so Foppa being on the 2nd line means he would generally have easier matchups to play against (because the opponents' top defensive forwards / defensemen were often used against Sakic and his linemates or at the very least split between the Avs' top two forward lines).

In general, against weaker competition it's easier to score / put up points and also strong possession numbers -- also btw the term 'tilting the ice' is generally used to talk about possession numbers which you didn't include anywhere in your post

 

[D1az]

Patrick Kane was so insanely clutch in his prime that I'd have to go with him.
A close second for me would be Crosby.

 

[wetcoast]

He meant Sakic was considered the Avs' top center most of the time, so Foppa being on the 2nd line means he would generally have easier matchups to play against (because the opponents' top defensive forwards / defensemen were often used against Sakic and his linemates or at the very least split between the Avs' top two forward lines).

I'm not entirely sure that is even true for most of the time period in question and either way it would be a wash as Jagr wasn't always first line either and I'll add that in small game samples to here were alot of first round game 7s for Jagr and it was against different teams usually in the same time zone as well.

In general, against weaker competition it's easier to score / put up points and also strong possession numbers -- also btw the term 'tilting the ice' is generally used to talk about possession numbers which you didn't include anywhere in your post

We don't have possession numbers as they didn't exist but the +/- listed for Forsberg and all his team mates over that time period along with the eye test gives us a pretty good indication.

My main point is that taking a small subset of any data and using it to usurp the larger data point probably isn't a good idea IMO.

Put another way if we take all the data we are using for game 7s and compare it to top 10 or any apples to apples comparison tip 5, 20 ect Id put more trust in the larger data set.

 

[Regal]

He meant Sakic was considered the Avs' top center most of the time, so Foppa being on the 2nd line means he would generally have easier matchups to play against (because the opponents' top defensive forwards / defensemen were often used against Sakic and his linemates or at the very least split between the Avs' top two forward lines).

In general, against weaker competition it's easier to score / put up points and also strong possession numbers -- also btw the term 'tilting the ice' is generally used to talk about possession numbers which you didn't include anywhere in your post

That’s not really true though. For the first half of Forsberg’s Avs time he played harder minutes against the opponents best and heavy PK minutes, which is just as difficult as playing against players trying to shut you down. Then it switched and Sakic played the harder minutes and Forsberg had the defenses trying to stop him. I don’t think either ever had cushier minutes.

 

[PainForShane]

We don't have possession numbers as they didn't exist but the +/- listed for Forsberg and all his team mates over that time period along with the eye test gives us a pretty good indication.

EDIT: poster included the +/- data in parts of his post. I didn't see it the first time I read the post (it was buried after the offensive stats), but either way my bad on that.

Regardless, you didn't compare Jagr's games to Forsberg's. So I'm not entirely sure why you thought your post showed "Jagr doesn't stand out like Foppa in terms of tilting the ice" because it clearly doesn't show that at all.

Anyway, comparing two players need to list data from both players, which is what Norris Nick (correctly) responded with.

Best of luck to you

 

[PainForShane]

That’s not really true though. For the first half of Forsberg’s Avs time he played harder minutes against the opponents best and heavy PK minutes, which is just as difficult as playing against players trying to shut you down. Then it switched and Sakic played the harder minutes and Forsberg had the defenses trying to stop him. I don’t think either ever had cushier minutes.

Good take / response. FWIW in the specific case of Sakic / Forsberg I agree with the general idea of what you said (most would), and definitely they were 1A and 1B at different times. If you want to say that instead of than "Sakic was considered the Avs top center most of the time" (which is what I said) then sure.

That said, you can definitely make the argument that because Sakic was also amazing (and they played on different lines), neither Sakic nor Forsberg were ever singularly targeted by the opposition the same way that Jagr was. Avs had so many weapons that during any given game one of them was getting some time away from the opposition's top shutdown guys. After all, even elite teams generally only have one Ray Bourque, Nick Lidstrom etc.

***

Anyway if you look back at my answer, I was explaining what a 2nd line player was (the poster clearly said he didn't know) and also why it might matter to the discussion. That was the main reason I wrote, also why I said "in general" while not mentioning the Forsberg / Sakic situation specifically, it's too nuanced of a conversation, definitely not one I'm not particularly interested in having with a person who went out of his way to ask what a 2nd line was.

Either way, agree with the main thrust of your post above. Thanks for that

 

[dukeofjive]

Patrick Roy

 

[wetcoast]

EDIT: poster included the +/- data in parts of his post. I didn't see it the first time I read the post (it was buried after the offensive stats), but either way my bad on that.

Regardless, you didn't compare Jagr's games to Forsberg's. So I'm not entirely sure why you thought your post showed "Jagr doesn't stand out like Foppa in terms of tilting the ice" because it clearly doesn't show that at all.

Anyway, comparing two players need to list data from both players, which is what Norris Nick (correctly) responded with.

Best of luck to you

Fair enough but 8 game and 5 game samples just aren't my thing.

Take any small data point, scoring in game 7s, games on odd numbered days in April and one will find more variance from the normal bigger data set of in season scoring or overall playoff scoring and just because player A scored more in the past in the small data set sample doesn't mean that it's predictive in a vacuum comparing all these players in a hypothetical game 7 is it?

Every year players go on hot and cold streaks does that mean anything in the overall picture?