HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 12 Bob Cole Division Semi-Final: 1 Medicine Hat Tigers vs. 4 Cairo Desert Dogs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-01-2009, 11:11 AM
  #76
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
And I'll contest that, again, Selanne did have a decent run in that precious
best of seven playoff format. And again that he showed he could up his game, which is the point.

And I notice you never asked the question of: If we don't value international accomplishments, why do we draft the russian league stars?




Carlyle a fringe no.2 with only 2 particularly good seasons? Really?





But it's relativity; every defenceman back then is recieving the the same benefits and disadvantages. They all "look over their own zone" more-so, as you put it. Mortson, despite this, is still describes as a fine rusher and D-man. I can find you quotes on plenty of defenceman describes like that from that time period- describes still ctonributing lots to offence.

A top-25 as impressive as a top-5? Really? That's a reach if I ever saw one. If you placed top-5 in that time, you are one of the best defenceman offensively in the world that year. If you place top-25 in the time period you talk about, it's not an ATD calibre season- aren't you a guy that doesn't like reaching that far down for scoring seasons?

And how does the offensive defenceman factor make such a huge thing? Yes, defenceman on a whole played more offensively, but every D-man will be playing more offensively- perhaps Desjardins wouldn't have been so offensive and not score as well in a diffferent time.

It's not a good arguement to me.




Really? Yet you want to show this by..philisophical arguements. Ok, my philosphy is that evalute relatively (wait..isn't that the ATD philosphy?) and dominating a ton more offensively in your own era than another guy does in another era (which is the case here) to the point where competition can't make up the differences make you better offensively.

I don't see it as particularly close. I've showed plenty; you haven't showed a ton but, again, philosphy and personal perceptions of your players. At this time, somewhat bias perceptions. My bias perception is that Mortson is a fair gap ahead of both of them. I guess that cancels things out so we should actually look at the facts, right?





You know what I notice in this post? You don't give me what I want- you don't give anything that lets people who never watched him know how supposedly well-rounded he was- you post an interesting side story that distracts people and then pass your perceptions of the guy upon watching as particularly valuable. Ok, if he was going up agaisnt the high scoring guys and it was just the teams he played on, surely something would be written about it right? Surely someone would have said something about is defensive play irght?

This is a story about how tough a division he played in. It doesn't prove he was good defensively or tough, which is what we all want to see. Proof. I notice you try to get by not using proof, not using anything but your own bias perceptions, philosophies and circumstantial evidence to get by to make your players look better than they are, but that doesn't cut it for me and, I hope, the voters. It's an interesting story, but it's value is minimal at best.

That last bit shows good leadership; Pulford captained 4 stanley cup teams- he brought leadership as well. I want to know defensive play and toughness, please. And don't give me "I saw, therefore he is" show me what other people saw too. People argue about how guys played all the time; people disagree about how good or bad a guy played in a game all the time. Perhaps there are people out there who'd argue against what you saw. And, you are bias because he is your player too. Yes, I can believe he was a good player- so is everyone in the ATD.

Let's see the real evidence.
I don't look at World Championships or Olympics when talking about a player's ability to deliver in the clutch. I'll rave about how great of a player Valeri Kharlamov was, but his performances in World Championships and Olympics don't change my perceptions of him being a clutch guy.

We draft international players because they deserve to be drafted. But you can't look at a guy's performance in the Worlds and say he'll be a clutch player in a best-of-seven. In Selanne's case, he proved that the two are very different things.

If we were playing a one-off series on big ice, then I might put credence into Selanne's performances in the World Championships and the Olympics. But we're not. We're playing a best-of-seven. Comparing World Championship and Olympic performances to Stanley Cup playoff performances is damn close to comparing apples and oranges, because there's a very big difference.

And you put way too much emphasis on relativity. It only goes so far. In those eighth, ninth and 10th place finishes, how many points did he have? An eighth place finish in 54 for defenceman scoring is a completely different story from an eighth place finish for defenceman scoring in 1984. I see two seasons above 20 points for Mortson. Like I said before, I really like Mortson, especially because of the protection element he brings to a No. 3 role. But you're letting relativity jerk you around. You say you've shown plenty? I say you've shown nothing that I didn't know before because you're overly reliant on stats-based relativity.

I gave you plenty on Carlyle. I told you that Winnipeg wanted him out there against the opposition's best players. He was the best player on a team that, in a couple years, was one of the best in the game, and probably would have been to the Stanley Cup final on a couple times if not for the overwhelming strength of the other teams in the division. In an all-out, ultra-aggressive division that for six years was head and shoulders above every other division in the league, the Jets used Carlyle to play against the opposition's best players. If Carlyle wasn't playing at a high level, if he wasn't strong defensively, he wouldn't be used in that situation, he wouldn't be counted on to have the responsibility that he had.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 11:18 AM
  #77
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
I don't look at World Championships or Olympics when talking about a player's ability to deliver in the clutch. I'll rave about how great of a player Valeri Kharlamov was, but his performances in World Championships and Olympics don't change my perceptions of him being a clutch guy.

We draft international players because they deserve to be drafted. But you can't look at a guy's performance in the Worlds and say he'll be a clutch player in a best-of-seven. In Selanne's case, he proved that the two are very different things.

If we were playing a one-off series on big ice, then I might put credence into Selanne's performances in the World Championships and the Olympics. But we're not. We're playing a best-of-seven. Comparing World Championship and Olympic performances to Stanley Cup playoff performances is damn close to comparing apples and oranges, because there's a very big difference.

And you put way too much emphasis on relativity. It only goes so far. In those eighth, ninth and 10th place finishes, how many points did he have? An eighth place finish in 54 for defenceman scoring is a completely different story from an eighth place finish for defenceman scoring in 1984. I see two seasons above 20 points for Mortson. Like I said before, I really like Mortson, especially because of the protection element he brings to a No. 3 role. But you're letting relativity jerk you around. You say you've shown plenty? I say you've shown nothing that I didn't know before because you're overly reliant on stats-based relativity.

I gave you plenty on Carlyle. I told you that Winnipeg wanted him out there against the opposition's best players. He was the best player on a team that, in a couple years, was one of the best in the game, and probably would have been to the Stanley Cup final on a couple times if not for the overwhelming strength of the other teams in the division. In an all-out, ultra-aggressive division that for six years was head and shoulders above every other division in the league, the Jets used Carlyle to play against the opposition's best players. If Carlyle wasn't playing at a high level, if he wasn't strong defensively, he wouldn't be used in that situation, he wouldn't be counted on to have the responsibility that he had.
If all this is true, then surely there is some actual evidence of it in the form of quotes? I'm not going to sit here and just accept what you say as fact. I, like LF, don't see much beyond his Norris season. Surely you have some quotes you can dig up that say things along the lines of "Carlyle was a solid defensive player, always counted on to play against the oppositions' best", or something like that.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 03:52 PM
  #78
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Equating a top-5 then to a top-25 now is probably taking it a little far, but you are right in principle.

LF, consider how many jobs were available in the original six era. Not many. The defensemen to make the NHL were the best all-around defensemen in the world, and the rankings that you pull from those, are the top offensive defensemen among those, but not in the world. There were almost surely a number of defensemen in the minors who were better offensively than those guys placing 7th, 8th, 9th among defensemen in the NHL, but couldn't make the show because the rest of their game wasn't there. Later on (1970 and onward) the league got bigger and perceptions changed. Now there is room for those players. Now the list of top-scoring defensemen in the NHL does read like a list of the top offensive defensemen on earth.

I use top-10s for defensemen from merger to expansion, but I realize they are highly suspect as you get to those guys in 8th-10th. Post-expansion they aren't. And post-1980, I'm inclined to even start recognizing a top-15 as something worthy of appreciation.

Relatively speaking, you might still convince me Mortson is a better offensive blueliner than Carlyle, but whatever is the case, it's closer than you made it out to be at first.
I would say taking top-5 to top-25 is more than a little far.

Fair enough; and I always supported the higher competition and thus if it's closer in those base scoring finishes but the older guy is still ahead a guy in the expansion and beyond may make go ahead. But I was trying to just argue the value of those Mortson finishes- and they do have value. And in an arguement where we are talking a guy who made top-10 6 times vs two guys who made it twice each, I don't think the adjustment makes up the difference (carlyle's two top-10's were both better than anything Mortson came with, but still). How many guys were there outside the league that were really better offensively than Mortson?

To extend to top-15's;

Desjardins-15th, 12th, 12th

Carlyle- 14th, 15th, 11th

Of course, I think it's only fair to do the same for Mortson, which although aren't the same value show that Mortson did more outside his top 10's and that even the addition of the top 15's for Desjardins and Carlyle don't make them better than Mortson:

Mortson- 13th, 15th

Summarize:

Morton- 5, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 13, 15

Desjardins- 4, 8, 12, 12, 15

Carlyle- 1, 4, 11, 14, 15

I get that Desjardins and Carlyle get good era adjustments- but are those really enough to make htem better offensively than Mortson's longevity? I don't really think so.


Quote:
I don't look at World Championships or Olympics when talking about a player's ability to deliver in the clutch. I'll rave about how great of a player Valeri Kharlamov was, but his performances in World Championships and Olympics don't change my perceptions of him being a clutch guy.

We draft international players because they deserve to be drafted. But you can't look at a guy's performance in the Worlds and say he'll be a clutch player in a best-of-seven. In Selanne's case, he proved that the two are very different things.

If we were playing a one-off series on big ice, then I might put credence into Selanne's performances in the World Championships and the Olympics. But we're not. We're playing a best-of-seven. Comparing World Championship and Olympic performances to Stanley Cup playoff performances is damn close to comparing apples and oranges, because there's a very big difference.
But why do they deserve to be drafted? What makes them any good in the playoffs then? I don't think the russian leagues ever had playoffs, and if there more pressured accomplishments in the international tournaments in best on best won't translate to the best of seven format, how do we know if we'll perform?

My point isn't necessary clutchness; it's that Selanne can perform with increased pressure, and with two excellent playoff performers in Taylor and Blake as his linemates, he will perform well in this series.

Quote:
And you put way too much emphasis on relativity. It only goes so far. In those eighth, ninth and 10th place finishes, how many points did he have? An eighth place finish in 54 for defenceman scoring is a completely different story from an eighth place finish for defenceman scoring in 1984. I see two seasons above 20 points for Mortson. Like I said before, I really like Mortson, especially because of the protection element he brings to a No. 3 role. But you're letting relativity jerk you around. You say you've shown plenty? I say you've shown nothing that I didn't know before because you're overly reliant on stats-based relativity.
It's one thing to say the finishes are worse due to era's (which is true); but the league leaders in those years defense years weren't even scoring 54 points. And again, is the era advantage (which I never though Desjardins and Carlyle didn't get- I was just more-so really angered at your comparing of top-5 to top-25) really make up the gap?

And you're too anti-stats "I won't show any quotes or real proof, but my guys are better and can do this".

Quote:
I gave you plenty on Carlyle. I told you that Winnipeg wanted him out there against the opposition's best players. He was the best player on a team that, in a couple years, was one of the best in the game, and probably would have been to the Stanley Cup final on a couple times if not for the overwhelming strength of the other teams in the division. In an all-out, ultra-aggressive division that for six years was head and shoulders above every other division in the league, the Jets used Carlyle to play against the opposition's best players. If Carlyle wasn't playing at a high level, if he wasn't strong defensively, he wouldn't be used in that situation, he wouldn't be counted on to have the responsibility that he had.
You've given me plenty of "I saw, therefore he is". I could say I am really 80 years old and saw Mortson play and saw all the players from the time and Mortson was by far the best defensively. How would you know I was lieing? Because there isn't any evidence to really back up Mortson played at that defensive level (although he was good defensively).

As jarek said, if he was really good, let's see evidence.

You also forget he didn't spend all his years in Winnipeg. He spent nearly half his career playing for the Penguins and Leafs too.

As for the notion that Winnipeg could have been to the cup final a couple times, it is speculation, a big "what-if", and is speculation and assumption. Don't tend to give value to that.

As for the notion he was the best player on those Winnipeg teams? Dale Hawerchuk says "hi".

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 04:04 PM
  #79
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
As for the notion he was the best player on those Winnipeg teams? Dale Hawerchuk says "hi".
Thomas Steen, Dave Babych, Dave Ellett, and Paul McLean say "hi" too.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 04:19 PM
  #80
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,621
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Thomas Steen, Dave Babych, Dave Ellett, and Paul McLean say "hi" too.
Are you suggesting that those four guys were better than Carlyle? Because I don't think they were.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 04:59 PM
  #81
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Are you suggesting that those four guys were better than Carlyle? Because I don't think they were.
Not overall careers, but in Winnipeg, they were all pretty close.

Howerchuk was easily #1. Steen was probably #2.

Carlyle, Ellett, and Babych were all about equal on the blueline.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 05:23 PM
  #82
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,787
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
I would say taking top-5 to top-25 is more than a little far.

Fair enough; and I always supported the higher competition and thus if it's closer in those base scoring finishes but the older guy is still ahead a guy in the expansion and beyond may make go ahead. But I was trying to just argue the value of those Mortson finishes- and they do have value. And in an arguement where we are talking a guy who made top-10 6 times vs two guys who made it twice each, I don't think the adjustment makes up the difference (carlyle's two top-10's were both better than anything Mortson came with, but still). How many guys were there outside the league that were really better offensively than Mortson?

To extend to top-15's;

Desjardins-15th, 12th, 12th

Carlyle- 14th, 15th, 11th

Of course, I think it's only fair to do the same for Mortson, which although aren't the same value show that Mortson did more outside his top 10's and that even the addition of the top 15's for Desjardins and Carlyle don't make them better than Mortson:

Mortson- 13th, 15th

Summarize:

Morton- 5, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 13, 15

Desjardins- 4, 8, 12, 12, 15

Carlyle- 1, 4, 11, 14, 15

I get that Desjardins and Carlyle get good era adjustments- but are those really enough to make htem better offensively than Mortson's longevity? I don't really think so.




But why do they deserve to be drafted? What makes them any good in the playoffs then? I don't think the russian leagues ever had playoffs, and if there more pressured accomplishments in the international tournaments in best on best won't translate to the best of seven format, how do we know if we'll perform?

My point isn't necessary clutchness; it's that Selanne can perform with increased pressure, and with two excellent playoff performers in Taylor and Blake as his linemates, he will perform well in this series.



It's one thing to say the finishes are worse due to era's (which is true); but the league leaders in those years defense years weren't even scoring 54 points. And again, is the era advantage (which I never though Desjardins and Carlyle didn't get- I was just more-so really angered at your comparing of top-5 to top-25) really make up the gap?

And you're too anti-stats "I won't show any quotes or real proof, but my guys are better and can do this".



You've given me plenty of "I saw, therefore he is". I could say I am really 80 years old and saw Mortson play and saw all the players from the time and Mortson was by far the best defensively. How would you know I was lieing? Because there isn't any evidence to really back up Mortson played at that defensive level (although he was good defensively).

As jarek said, if he was really good, let's see evidence.

You also forget he didn't spend all his years in Winnipeg. He spent nearly half his career playing for the Penguins and Leafs too.

As for the notion that Winnipeg could have been to the cup final a couple times, it is speculation, a big "what-if", and is speculation and assumption. Don't tend to give value to that.

As for the notion he was the best player on those Winnipeg teams? Dale Hawerchuk says "hi".
When did I say Randy Carlyle was the Jets best player? I said he was the guy (the defenceman) they used against the opposition's best. Even in the 1992 playoffs, when he was really slowed by the back injury, he was the guy they wanted out there against Bure. That doesn't mean he's their best player. Just their best defenceman. Their best all-round defenceman.

This tendancy of guys deliberately misquoting others really has to stop. It's disrespectful. Is that the best you've got? That tells me you know you shouldn't beat us, and the only way you will is if guys buy into your statistical smoke. Mortson had 13th and 15th place finishes? How many points did he get that year? 15? And how many defencemen played more than two-thirds of the games? 30? 35?

I'm a big Mortson fan. Tremendous player. But you're not helping his cause for those who aren't as familiar with him.

As I said before, top five in scoring for defencemen in the Original 6 is fine. But when you get into the top 10, it's a completely different story. I know some of you guys really like your relativity, but it only goes so far (in many cases, not very far), and in some cases, like the one you're arguing here, it's an abysmal failure.

Of course Hawerchuk was the Jets best player. (I did need another player evaluation blunder from dreakmur, though). Hawerchuk was one of the best players in the league from the moment he arrived in Winnipeg to the moment he left Winnipeg. An incredible player who did great things even though he didn't have a winger at his level.

And you're right, Carlyle did play much of his career outside of Winnipeg. He played in Pittsburgh. Where he won a Norris Trophy. Pittsburgh was dreadful while Carlyle was there. Never has there been a worse team to have a Norris winner. (LA in 1997-98 might be close, though).

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 07:04 PM
  #83
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,787
vCash: 500
Both teams have excellent, well-built defences, but I see one very substantial edge: at the No. 1 defenceman spot. And that's huge.

Potvin's a superstar. He can carry a team while playing 30 minutes a night. He's the one guy, on either team, who can truly dominate every aspect of the game. Every skill area, every facet, every zone, every area of the ice. A rare breed in that he was, at once, a guy who was an elite offensive and defensive defenceman. And he did it all while playing a strong, physical brand of hockey, and bringing great leadership.

That's huge. Against the skill that the Dogs have, Potvin's the counterpunch. He's the biggest difference-maker in the series, the unquestionable best player. When we were looking at the No. 11 pick, it was Potvin or Mikita. Mikita was hard to pass up. But Potvin and Bentley, or Mikita and Gadsby to start a team? I'd go with Potvin and Bentley.

(I thought of moving Carlyle up to the first pairing in place of Ragulin, but at the end of the day, chemistry won out. Potvin and Rags know what to expect from each other. We're going to go with the guys who got us to this point).

Cairo doesn't have a true No. 1, or even an elite No. 2, someone like a Boucher or a Pronovost. I really like Goodfellow, but he's a very good No. 2. Not a great No. 2. He's not Butch Bouchard, or Carl Brewer, or Marcel Pronovost.

One of the reasons why I've felt that Blake and Fleury will have troubles in the battles along the boards and in front of the net is the size of our defence. Carlyle's the smallest defenceman we have at 5'10, but he's got the naturally stocky, Ray Bourque-like build at 200 pounds. Our defencemen really specialize in the trenches - it's a trait I want in my blue-liners. Guys with good skill and mobility (Ragulin's the only one lacking in speed, but he did survive playing the international game thanks to his size and outstanding anticipation) who can take care of the front of the net and win the battles. I've always viewed winning battles along the boards and in the corners as an art form - maybe the most underrated aspect of the game. (Thank God the league hasn't bastardized it by trying to create a stat for it).

I don't think the Cairo second line will work. It's not a personnel thing; Fleury's good enough to be a first line winger in a 32-team ATD, I have no qualms with Weiland as a second liner. (And I don't have time on national junior A trade deadline No. 1 night to debate Harris's place). But Fleury's going to have a really hard time winning battles. As I said in previous posts, when we had Fleury in ATD 11, we made sure we drafted a big power winger to play puck-winner on that line, because I didn't think Fleury could be the primary puck-winner on a line. And there isn't a guy who can play in front of the net. I don't think they'll generate the chances that their skill level indicates they should, and the chances they do generate, Smith will see.

There have been questions about Sutter's place on the second line. I, for one, haven't questioned Sutter's standing as a second line winger since ATD 7. He's just so friggin' good as a complimentary two-way winger. Such a great player along the boards, and great as an in-tight scorer. I think he's the best of the six Sutter's. And he set the mould for the Sutter's. Lach can win the battles, but that's not what we want him to do. We want to let him focus on being a brilliant two-way player. Let Sutter worry about the corner battles, with Lach there to offer support when necessary.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 08:06 PM
  #84
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,812
vCash: 500
Here's my view on the series:

1st Line:
Cairo gets a very big edge here. They have one of the most dangerous lines of the draft, and Medicine Hat has a pretty weak one.

2nd Line:
Medicine Hat gets the edge here. They have one of the best 2nd line centers with solid 2-way wingers, and Cairo has a pretty mediocre line.

3rd Line:
Despite the fact I don't really like Wharram on a checking line, the Laprade and Walker combination is gold. Walker is one of the best defensive players ever, and he belongs in the Gainey/Ramsey debate. Medicine Hat just has a few decent 2-way players, but nobody who's going to shut people down.

1st Defense:
Based only on Potvin, Medicine Hat has the better unit. I'm not a big Rugalin fan - he's so slow, and he's got Cyclone Taylor and Teemu Selanne coming at him. I'd be heading up his side every single time!

2nd Defense:
Cairo has a much stronger pair. Pulford was a dominant defenseman in his time, and Mortson, Desjardins, and Carlyle were good, but not close to dominant.

Goalie:
Billy Smith is better in the play-offs than regular season, and Glenn Hall is probably a little worse. Doesn't matter. Hall is so much better than Smith that this remains a mismatch.

Coaching:
I think Toe Blake is over-rated a little bit, so I'd call the coaching a wash.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 09:17 PM
  #85
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
When did I say Randy Carlyle was the Jets best player?
Quote:
gave you plenty on Carlyle. I told you that Winnipeg wanted him out there against the opposition's best players. He was the best player on a team that, in a couple years, was one of the best in the game, and probably would have been to the Stanley Cup final on a couple times if not for the overwhelming strength of the other teams in the division.
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...5&postcount=76

Quote:
I said he was the guy (the defenceman) they used against the opposition's best. Even in the 1992 playoffs, when he was really slowed by the back injury, he was the guy they wanted out there against Bure. That doesn't mean he's their best player. Just their best defenceman. Their best all-round defenceman.
Again, I want evidence. Which I notice you have yet to show. Surely someone else would have noticed this suppose all-around ability and written about, right?

Quote:
This tendancy of guys deliberately misquoting others really has to stop. It's disrespectful. Is that the best you've got? That tells me you know you shouldn't beat us, and the only way you will is if guys buy into your statistical smoke. Mortson had 13th and 15th place finishes? How many points did he get that year? 15? And how many defencemen played more than two-thirds of the games? 30? 35?
I didn't deliberately misquote or disrespect you.

I reached down there because you are spewing stuff about somehow being the 25th best defenceman offensively in a season, which isn't really an ATD calibre, somehow equates to being a top-5 offensive offenceman back then. And then you guys want me to reach down lower and lower. Why don't you tell me how to evaluate these guys offensively then? How should I show a guy is better offensively? I've shown the quotes, I've shown the stats, what have you shown outside of you perceptions?

As you've noted, only the best would be allowed to play a regular shift in the original six. And again, how many guys are there really that would push Mortson down if playing?

Quote:
I'm a big Mortson fan. Tremendous player. But you're not helping his cause for those who aren't as familiar with him.

As I said before, top five in scoring for defencemen in the Original 6 is fine. But when you get into the top 10, it's a completely different story. I know some of you guys really like your relativity, but it only goes so far (in many cases, not very far), and in some cases, like the one you're arguing here, it's an abysmal failure.
See above. Again, how many guys do you think were there outside the league that would displace Mortson offensively? Why don't you go out and find the many that woud. You know, show some more proof. Like I've been asking for a lot of things and you try to sidestep. And then ignore.

Quote:
Of course Hawerchuk was the Jets best player. (I did need another player evaluation blunder from dreakmur, though). Hawerchuk was one of the best players in the league from the moment he arrived in Winnipeg to the moment he left Winnipeg. An incredible player who did great things even though he didn't have a winger at his level.
Good to hear you admit that at least.

Quote:
And you're right, Carlyle did play much of his career outside of Winnipeg. He played in Pittsburgh. Where he won a Norris Trophy. Pittsburgh was dreadful while Carlyle was there. Never has there been a worse team to have a Norris winner. (LA in 1997-98 might be close, though).
And there's never been a worse norris winner. He led the league in defenceman scoring that year; it's evident he likely one on the strength of that. Unless you can provide more than "I saw, therefore he is" to prove his all-around ability.

Quote:
Both teams have excellent, well-built defences, but I see one very substantial edge: at the No. 1 defenceman spot. And that's huge.

Potvin's a superstar. He can carry a team while playing 30 minutes a night. He's the one guy, on either team, who can truly dominate every aspect of the game. Every skill area, every facet, every zone, every area of the ice. A rare breed in that he was, at once, a guy who was an elite offensive and defensive defenceman. And he did it all while playing a strong, physical brand of hockey, and bringing great leadership.

That's huge. Against the skill that the Dogs have, Potvin's the counterpunch. He's the biggest difference-maker in the series, the unquestionable best player. When we were looking at the No. 11 pick, it was Potvin or Mikita. Mikita was hard to pass up. But Potvin and Bentley, or Mikita and Gadsby to start a team? I'd go with Potvin and Bentley.
Potvin is one player. He was great, but he isn't that Gretzky, Orr, Howe (who I beat!), or a gamechanging goalie that could definetly win a game for you. Potvin is the only elite defensive guy you really have to go against my top line; and his partner has the questionable speed issues.

Quote:
Cairo doesn't have a true No. 1, or even an elite No. 2, someone like a Boucher or a Pronovost. I really like Goodfellow, but he's a very good No. 2. Not a great No. 2. He's not Butch Bouchard, or Carl Brewer, or Marcel Pronovost.
Woh, woh, woh, woh there. You're telling me Goodfellow is worse than Bouchard, Brewer, AND Pronovost? Goodfellow is aboslutely an elite no.2. It's occasionally crossed my mind he might be in that top.32 range

Why don't you tell me this; how many hart trophies did those guys win? Oh wait, they didn't. How much time did they spend as a disadvantage to building a defenceman record to be an aboslutely star centre? Oh wait, they didn't. And yet Goodfellow managed to accomplish a similar amount, perhaps more, than they did in a shorter time span.

It's not a debate I feel like getting into (and due to the lack of stuff you provided in this one, not one you feel like getting into either)- because it's a side one, and it's besides the point. But make no mistake about where Goodfellow ranks. Read the bio folks.

And either way, Potvin is an advantage, yes. One of the only two you have; #1 D and #2 C.

Quote:
One of the reasons why I've felt that Blake and Fleury will have troubles in the battles along the boards and in front of the net is the size of our defence. Carlyle's the smallest defenceman we have at 5'10, but he's got the naturally stocky, Ray Bourque-like build at 200 pounds. Our defencemen really specialize in the trenches - it's a trait I want in my blue-liners. Guys with good skill and mobility (Ragulin's the only one lacking in speed, but he did survive playing the international game thanks to his size and outstanding anticipation) who can take care of the front of the net and win the battles. I've always viewed winning battles along the boards and in the corners as an art form - maybe the most underrated aspect of the game. (Thank God the league hasn't bastardized it by trying to create a stat for it).
And we've plenty of good mobilty, tough, all-around guys on our blueline as well with great skill. They can win those battles in front of the net. My blueline features four guys who were the one of the toughest guys in their respective times, Goodfellow who is also a hard-nosed guy and Wilson who can also win the net battles and along the boards. We are not lacking at all in this area. I think my blueline is actually tougher than yours on a whole. I've explained Desjardins who didn't really play that tough game, you have yet to show any proof of Carlyle's type of game in that regard, and I'll get to bottom pairings soon.


Quote:
I don't think the Cairo second line will work. It's not a personnel thing; Fleury's good enough to be a first line winger in a 32-team ATD, I have no qualms with Weiland as a second liner. (And I don't have time on national junior A trade deadline No. 1 night to debate Harris's place). But Fleury's going to have a really hard time winning battles. As I said in previous posts, when we had Fleury in ATD 11, we made sure we drafted a big power winger to play puck-winner on that line, because I didn't think Fleury could be the primary puck-winner on a line. And there isn't a guy who can play in front of the net. I don't think they'll generate the chances that their skill level indicates they should, and the chances they do generate, Smith will see.
You shouldn't have to debate Harris's place. His speed and skill aboslutely belong there- his offensive record compares well to guys people don't question on scoring line. He's less out of place than Sutter is.

And you had Blake in another draft and took someone to win pucks there, but really that wasn't necsssary either. Fleury can play puckwinner kind of role. You don't necessarily need a guy to play in front of the net to score; speed and skill can take care of that.

Quote:
There have been questions about Sutter's place on the second line. I, for one, haven't questioned Sutter's standing as a second line winger since ATD 7. He's just so friggin' good as a complimentary two-way winger. Such a great player along the boards, and great as an in-tight scorer. I think he's the best of the six Sutter's. And he set the mould for the Sutter's. Lach can win the battles, but that's not what we want him to do. We want to let him focus on being a brilliant two-way player. Let Sutter worry about the corner battles, with Lach there to offer support when necessary.
Except he provides next to nothing offensively. Where do you think he ranks amongst LW's in that regard?

You had Lach; he can win the battles and play well- you didn't need Sutter for that. And, as noted previously, it gives Lach a rather lack of offensive support on the wings- something which he had tons of in his hey-day. If I were to play Walker who can easily take St.Louis, you really want Sutter to be the guy Lach passes too? Glenn Hall isn't ging to be worried about shooters like Sutter.


Quote:
Here's my view on the series:

1st Line:
Cairo gets a very big edge here. They have one of the most dangerous lines of the draft, and Medicine Hat has a pretty weak one.
Agreed.

Quote:
2nd Line:
Medicine Hat gets the edge here. They have one of the best 2nd line centers with solid 2-way wingers, and Cairo has a pretty mediocre line.
My wingers are better, I think I showed. By a fair margin. Lach does push his line better- the question is how he can fair being a one-man show sometimes.

Quote:
3rd Line
Despite the fact I don't really like Wharram on a checking line, the Laprade and Walker combination is gold. Walker is one of the best defensive players ever, and he belongs in the Gainey/Ramsey debate. Medicine Hat just has a few decent 2-way players, but nobody who's going to shut people down.
I'd take Wharram on the line over Prystai at least; who we still know very little about defensively. Again, Roberts and Sutter aren't big threats to worry about.

Otherwise, agreed.

Quote:
1st Defense:
Based only on Potvin, Medicine Hat has the better unit. I'm not a big Rugalin fan - he's so slow, and he's got Cyclone Taylor and Teemu Selanne coming at him. I'd be heading up his side every single time!
Agreed, and it is something my top line will exploit. As good as Potvin is, he is one man. MEdicine Hat doesn't really have anyone else elite defensively (and with the tools necessary) to go up against my top line. And that's a weakness.

Quote:
2nd Defense:
Cairo has a much stronger pair. Pulford was a dominant defenseman in his time, and Mortson, Desjardins, and Carlyle were good, but not close to dominant.
Mortson's first AST says different, and I think he is better than Desjardins and Carlyle (and that I showed. Much tougher than either, better defensively than Carlyle, and I believe better offensively- but at this point, I'll let voters decide. At least I made an effort to show my guys better- and I think, made a fair arguement.)

Quote:
Goalie:
Billy Smith is better in the play-offs than regular season, and Glenn Hall is probably a little worse. Doesn't matter. Hall is so much better than Smith that this remains a mismatch.
Agreed. Despite Billy Smith's upping of game, even if Hall downgrades slightly in the playoffs (and, as evident by cup, conn smythe, and apparent good play in Detroit- which did show that the possibility for it happening in Chicago as well), the gap between an 11 team AST and 1 team AST is so massive in the regular season Hall's edge is still signifigant.

Quote:
Coaching:
I think Toe Blake is over-rated a little bit, so I'd call the coaching a wash.
A wash? You don't think Blake is the 2nd best all-time? I'd suggest taking a glance through the bio. The guy was an amazing coach; and he definetly had a big role in that dynasty.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-01-2009 at 10:03 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 09:37 PM
  #86
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Agreed, and it is something my top line will exploit. As good as Potvin is, he is one man. MEdicine Hat doesn't really have anyone else elite defensively (and with the tools necessary) to go up against my top line. And that's a weakness.
Down low, Rugalin can handle pretty much anybody. In open ice, he's in big trouble against Cyclone and Teemu.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Mortson's first AST says different, and I think he is better than Desjardins and Carlyle (and that I showed. Much tougher than either, better defensively than Carlyle, and I believe better offensively- but at this point, I'll let voters decide. At least I made an effort to show my guys better- and I think, made a fair arguement.)
Carlyle has a 1st AST too, and Desjardins has two 2nd ASTs.

Overall, I'd take Mortson first, but the other two are close behind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
A wash? You don't think Blake is the 2nd best all-time? I'd suggest taking a glance through the bio. The guy was an amazing coach; and he definetly had a big role in that dynasty.
I'd read the bio.

I think, like Bowman, he benefited greatly from having the best talent. He's a top-3 coach, but Hap Day is damn close to that as well.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 09:48 PM
  #87
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
The thing about Blake isn't ONLY the fact that he won 8 cups in 13 years or so. It's the fact that he won them as a coach with so many superstar egos to tame, and he managed to keep them all happy. He was a complete psychological mastermind genius. He could have a profound impact on any man that talks to him, and that is his asbolute number one biggest strength - the size of the ego didn't matter, he still squeezed every ounce of effort out of every single one of his players. The stats will never show that.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 09:53 PM
  #88
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Ken Randall-Albert Leduc vs Charlie Huddy-Brad Maxwell

I guess I'll start off with no.5's.

Albert Leduc vs Charlie Huddy

Well since stats are apparently nothing, I'll show using using quotes, game account of Leduc, and then stats (for those of us who appreciate them) to show why Leduc is better.

Here's the quote from Joe Pelletier that pretty much describes how Huddy played:

Quote:
Huddy was one of those players who was solid at every aspect of the game, but not great at any of them. His hockey sense was his most outstanding skill. Defensively he was able to read the oncoming rush very well, often forcing the puck carrier to stay on the perimeter of the ice. His anticipation helped him offensively too. He was very smart about pinching in from the point, as well as joining rushes as a trailer.

Although he had good size, Charlie was not a physical player really. He held his own in the corners or in front of his own goalie, but often was paired with a more physical partner, such as Jeff Beukeboom. A willing shot block, Charlie relied on his strong skating game and brainy approach more than brawn.
So, good offensively (despite not finishing top-10 in defenceman scoring once if I am not mistaken, on the greatest offensive dynasty ever getting top-unit PP time on it..he was a bit more of a defensive consience on that unit, but still), good defensively, not the toughest or most physical guy.

Leduc?

Quote:
When he took his first strides on Forum ice, he did so with big skates to fill. Replacing Sprague Cleghorn on the Habs’ blue-line was no easy task, but the Valleyfield, QC native quickly cemented his role as a pillar of the team’s defense corps.

As physically punishing and imposing as his predecessor, this hard-hitting defenceman was equally renowned for his ability to lead the rush, propelling him to a career high 10 goals in his rookie campaign in 1925-26-canadiens.com.
Quote:
He was a clever goal scorer who often played rough when protecting his own end-LOH.
Quote:
As adept with the puck as he was at retrieving it..-canadiens.com
Quote:
He spent eight years with Montreal delivering solid hits and making life difficult for opposing forwards-LOH
Quote:
Always moving at top speed, his devastating body checks made him a fan favorite at the Forum. Cracking the NHL’s top 10 most penalized players list on three occasions, the robust rearguard fittingly earned himself the nickname “Battleship”.
The game accounts...

Quote:
A penalty to S.Mantha early in the third period found Leduc in the hero role keeping out four-man Detroit rushes-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Morenz, Leduc, Sylvio Mantha, Smith, Gorsvenor and Lamb took turns thrilling the onlookers with masterful all-around work.- Globe and Mail
Quote:
Joseph Albert Leduc, otherwise known as "Battleship" Leduc, is one of the most colorful figures in hockey. Besides being sturdy and effective defenseman, "Albair" is a scoring threat of considerate ability, and his stenming rush down the ice is sometimes the "piece de resistance" of an otherwise dull game. His legs working like pistons, Albert dashes down uweveres at no defrense. The outer guard combination that Albert has backed up before has not yet been developed, and he dives headlong into opposition when he reaches it. Most of the the time he barges through, and when he does he is deft with a shot or pass.- Globe and Mail
Quote:
One day overdue, but apparently in good shape, Albert "Battleship" Leduc, former defense ace of the Montreal Canadiens, turned out for the first time last night with the Ottawa Senators. Leduc teamed up on defence in the practice session with Harvey Rockburn, Scotty Bowman and Harry Radley, in turn, and was going in fine style. He blocked well, and his attacking plays were good.
Quote:
In the last period, "Hooley" Smith of the Maroons lost his temper, and took a swing with his stick at the silvering hari of "Pit" Lepine. He missed, and Leduc, husky Canadiens defenceman, sailed into "Hooley". A major penalty was awarded to Smith, and Leduc drew a minor. After the game was over, both jumped out of the penalty box and staged a hectic one-round fist fight at centre ice while 11,00 fans looked on and cheered.-Globe and Mail
So, what I can gather that; Leduc was great offensively, pretty good defensively an all-aroud, and great toughness. Seems to beat Huddy. But here's those stats for those that do care about them;

Defencemen Goals- 2nd(1926), 6th(1928), 3rd(1929), 3rd(1931), 9th(1932), 9th(1933)
Defencemen Assists- 9th(1926), 9th(1928), 9th(1930), 10th(1931)
Defencemen Points- 2nd (1926), 9th(1928), 5th(1929), 9th(1930), 4th(1931)

Playoff Defencemen Goals- 2nd(1928)*, 1st(1929)*, 3rd(1930)*, 6th(1932)*
Playoff Defencemen Assists- 1st(1930), 3rd(1931), 4th(1932)*
Playoff Defencemen Points- 4th(1928)*, 3rd(1929)*, 1st(1930), 6th(1931), 6th(1932)

Platoff Assists- 3rd(1930)
Playoff Points- 6th(1930)

*All placings marked with asterisk are standings that occured due to Leduc scoring 1 goal, assist, or point. Most of his placements were accomplished with lower scoring numbers. This is mainly a result of the era he played in, and due to many defencemen not scoring any points at all in the playoffs. between 1928-1933, Leduc tied for 2nd in defencemen playoff goals, 2nd in defencemen playoff assists, and 1st for defencemen playoff points, so he was indeed one of the best offensive playoff defencemen of his day, whether or not you care for scoring placements accomplished with small numbers.

Yes yes, I get that Huddy gets the era advantage. Don't think is translates to him being better than Leduc, perhaps the best playoff defenceman offensively in his day, who also has the quotes to back it up. Edge to Leduc.

Ken Randall vs Brad Maxwell

Another one of those interesting tidbits:

Quote:
He possessed and extremely hard and accurate shot from the point and was an excellent puck carrier - though he lacked the speed to dominate at the NHL level-Joe Pelletier
A speed problem, perhaps- not good. Although he likely doesn't have to face my deadly top line, I've got plenty speed on my other lines; Harris, Fleury, Wharram, Stewart, Martin can take advantage of slow skaters. Particularly Wharram and Stewart, who were also two of the best skaters of their day.

But anyway- onto the full comparison.

For those of you who care about stats, Maxwell finished top-15 in points amongst defenceman twice in his career- once in his first season (13th), described here by LOH:

Quote:
During the 1977-78 season, Maxwell notched 47 points but struggled defensively along with the rest of his team
and once 5th, but as Joe Pelletier notes:

Quote:
Only one season, 1983-84, did he put up great numbers when he scored 19 goals and 73 points
It was a one-hit wonder offensively for him in the regular season.

Now he has a number of good playoffs, I will concede. Described as tough as nails and good two-way ability (although if he has any speed problems, he'll still get burned), but as good in those regards to Randall, one of the toughest of his day?

I present to you, the complete package that is Ken Randall.

Quote:
He was known in that era as being one of the toughest players on the ice, and in fact many writers took to calling him a "hooligan" or "thug" for what was often perceived as dirty play by fans and opposing players.-HHOF
Quote:
Ken Randall was one of the original tough guys. Coined a "Hooligan" and a "Thug", Ken was not afraid of throwing his weight around with opponents or the NHL brass.

Among the more rugged and aggressive players who liked to combine a fair amount of jousting with their play with resultant penalties, Ken Randall stands forth as a good example.

He was an even more chunky player than Pitre and it was remarkable the way he could hustle as a forward.

A good slam bang player who gave his best at hockey and as a fighter, Ken Randall was on four championship teams and two Cup winners. -SIHR
Quote:
Among the most rough and uncut characters to grace the page of hockey history was Ken Randall.

Randall was a chunky barrell-chester pug, prone to weight fluctuation. But for a big man, he could hustle. He handled the puck well and had a good shot.

Randall was a colorful slam-bang hockeyist, the kind of bulldog every coach wants in the dressing room. Although he was not enrishned in the Hockey Hall of Fame, he was nonetheless one of the top hockey players in the new NHL.-Ultimate Hockey
Well, there is his great toughness which likely outmatches that of Maxwell by quite a margin. Also suggests some offensive game as well, and that he was one of the best of his time in the NHL. Onto those game accounts I worked tirelessly to aquire. These will focus more-so on the other parts of his game since toughness is well covered:

Quote:
"Ken" Randall played the beat game he has ever shown on local ice and his rushes were of sensational variety.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Mummery and Randall gave a grand display, and their blocking and rushing was well nigh perfect. The latter had settle down to buisness in earnest, and if anybody stood out last night it was Randall. He completely bewildered the visitors by his sensational rushing and seemed to be able to outguess the defence with ridiculous ease.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Nighbor and Darragh had chances but were stopped up by Mummery and Randall-Globe and mail
Quote:
Randall and Noble again bore the brunt of the work for the blueshirts. The former notched three goals after clever end-to-end dashes.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Prodgers, Matte, and Randall played a defence game, and the locals (Ottawa) could not get through-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Two players stood out for the wearers of green and white, these being Randall and Noble. The former checked well and was very effective on the attack. His rushes generally led to a shot on goal.-Gloe and Mail
Quote:
Ottawa did their checking on their own side of centre ice, and against the five-man defence only Randall could make any headway.-Globe and mail
Quote:
The Senators frequently got by the local defence, but came to grief when they encountered the Matte-Randall defense-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Randall made good with a vengance at the rover position. He used his sturdy body to good effect in stopping McKay, Adams, and Skinner, and none of the visitors wasted any time in trying to intimidate him. As a puck carrier, Randall was as good as any other player on the ice and in the first thirty minutes he was the only local player who could make any headway. - Globe and Mail
Quote:
On the defense, he and "Red" Stuart held the Ottawa Attackers at bay with unexpected skill, and on the attack, Randall bored right in on the net in telling fashion. Severeal times he beat the Gerard-Boucher-Clancy second line [To explain, another quote: "Eddie Gerard and George Boucher had a bad night on defense, and when "King" Clancy was inserted the second line was still shaky"] with ridiculous ease. -Globe and Mail
Quote:
Randall played the entire sixty minutes, and his rushing was one of the bright features. -Globe and Mail
Quote:
With Langlois and Randall giving him air-tight protection, the local sharpshooters drilled the puck from all angles at all distances..-Globe and Mail
Unlike Maxwell, looks like Randall could dominate at an NHL level. All these quotes are from Randall as a defenceman.

Toughest guy of his day? Seemed tougher than Maxwell. A defensive record that uncludes shutting down the likes of Nighbor, Darragh and the other Senators? Maxwell is described as a good two-way better, but I think these show Randall better defensively. Offensively? Randall seems to be described as dominant rusher in that regard (getting past guys like Gerard and Clancy with "ridiculous ease"). Randall is hard to determine exactly how much he spent on forward and defense in each season; although from my readings, he seemed to spend almost all time on defense in his early days (and if he is counted as a defenceman in his first year for example, he places 5th amongst NHL defenceman.) He, as his bio indicates, has a pretty good offensive record, and I think he can compete with if not best Maxwell in that regard all things considered. All thigns considered, edge Randall.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-01-2009 at 10:01 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 09:57 PM
  #89
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,621
vCash: 500
grrr... it's Ragulin, not Rugalin.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 10:00 PM
  #90
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Down low, Rugalin can handle pretty much anybody. In open ice, he's in big trouble against Cyclone and Teemu.
Fair enough and agreed.


Quote:
Carlyle has a 1st AST too, and Desjardins has two 2nd ASTs.

Overall, I'd take Mortson first, but the other two are close behind.
I was contesting that none of these guys were close to dominant. Mortson was dominant physicall if nothing else (but he was superb in the other facets of the game as well)

Quote:
I'd read the bio.

I think, like Bowman, he benefited greatly from having the best talent. He's a top-3 coach, but Hap Day is damn close to that as well.
Hap Day had talent as well. As noted, he was a dominant coach; called a mastermind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
The thing about Blake isn't ONLY the fact that he won 8 cups in 13 years or so. It's the fact that he won them as a coach with so many superstar egos to tame, and he managed to keep them all happy. He was a complete psychological mastermind genius. He could have a profound impact on any man that talks to him, and that is his asbolute number one biggest strength - the size of the ego didn't matter, he still squeezed every ounce of effort out of every single one of his players. The stats will never show that.
Agreed. He was known to be able to keep the fiery Richard under control- and if he can do that he can handle almost any temper. He can drive a bunch of personalities be a mastermind strategist and psychological genius and affect players. He is truly worth of being considered a top-2 coach all-time.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 10:03 PM
  #91
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Toe Blake is the best coach ever in my mind, followed by Bowman and then Arbour. Noone in history has ever had to deal with the kinds of egos that Blake had to deal with, and he more than succeeded.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 10:05 PM
  #92
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,512
vCash: 500
Fun fact about Charlie Huddy - he's the leader in playoff plus-minus since the NHL started tracking it in 1984.

OK, given the dates, it's no surprise that an '80s Oiler is in first, but Huddy still beat some pretty good competition.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 10:16 PM
  #93
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Fun fact about Charlie Huddy - he's the leader in playoff plus-minus since the NHL started tracking it in 1984.

OK, given the dates, it's no surprise that an '80s Oiler is in first, but Huddy still beat some pretty good competition.
Never been a fan of +/- because, as you somewhatn oted, it can be highly inflated by what team you're on. It can perhaps be used as a support for a guy for two-way play and very low +/- and high scoring will make me see if a guy has anything contradiction the slight suggestion of poor defensive paly, but still don't think it's a good evaluator of the quality of a guy defensively- especially since we can't compare it to old guys, who may be excellent or better than Huddy in +/- departmenr for all we know.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 10:58 PM
  #94
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Steve Payne-Mike Richards-Allan "Scotty" Davidson vs Gaye Stewart-Pit Martin-Jimmy Peters

Steve Payne vs Gaye Stewart

Offensively, no contest. Steve Payne never placed top-10 in any major offensive category; Stewart has two top-5 in points (2nd and 4th), a league leading in goals as well as a bunch of other good goalscoring finishes, and another 6th in assists. No era adjustment makes up that gap. Payne had one great playoff, but did little else otherwise. The problem is, offense might be Payne's forte.

Stewart also has an intangible edge as well I think, mainly off of this quote on Payne:

Quote:
Steve, who was at times lazy defensively, was never a great physical player despite his size.
Doesn't seem like Payne was a good intangible. Although we know little on Stewart in this regard, here's quotes that suggest some grit;

Quote:
The following season, he got off to a great start and made a big hit with the fans because of his aggressive play-Joe Pelletier
Quote:
He was a fine stickhandler, aggressive but clean in his play and perhaps the best skater of his day.-Joe Pelletier
Not stellar, but not something you could mark him down for like Payne. Edge Stewart

Pit Martin vs Mike Richards

I don't know if Mike Richards is worthy of an ATD role yet at 4 full years under his belt, one with some injury troubles. And outside of his lasty ear, I don't know of anyother years where he was a standout defensively.

Pit Martin's quotes:

Quote:
Although only 5'8" and 165 pounds, the rugged two-way forward proved that he could leave his mark in the NHL by playing hard every shift of every game.-LOH
Quote:
The powerful and agile skater was traded from the Red Wings to the Boston Bruins midway through the 1965-66 season, where he spent a season and a half. He then moved to the Chicago Blackhawks in 1967 where he played another 11 years. He eventually won over Chicago fans with is speedy attack and insistent digging for loose pucks in the corners.-Joe Pelletier
Quote:
As much as his playmaking, he was known for his heart. In 1969, when the Blackhawks missed the playoffs, he called out his team, saying that only three players on the team “wear their uniforms with any desire to win.”-wayne Scanalan
Pretty good all-around ability.

As far as the intangible battle goes- I'll throw this out there- we've discussed this with toughness at LeafsCentral, and it is a good question. Why don't we consider toughness of modern players in the ATD the same as we do offense? If a guy is great offensively for 4 years vs a guy who is great offensively for 10, we say the guy who was great in 10 better. Why don't we tend to do that for toughness, and perhaps even defensive ability too? Instead it seems they get an auto-transfer for the most part. This also goes for when a guy's peak wasn't as great; there are a numer of forwards drafted ahead of Ovechkin who don't have the peak of offense he does, but we consider are better offensively because they were good/great for longer. Why don't we do the same for intangibles?

At any rate, MArtin should get this on offense alone, despite Richards great shorthanded ability. Richards has one top-20 in points while Martin has 3 top 15's and two top-10's in assists. Even if Richards has an intangible edge (which I don't think eh does for Martin's much greater longevity), I think Martin is the better here.

Allan Scotty Davidson vs Jimmy Peters

Aaa yes, the two season wonder. Having two guys with such very short records isn't a good idea on any line, but I disgress.

I'll give Davidson the offensive advantage because Peters doesn't have much of an offensive trackrecord himself, and Davidson was better in his short record. But Peters gets a huge intangible edge. We know Davidson backchecked responsibly, but it doesn't suggest he was great defensively. Peters, on the other hand?

Quote:
During the finals of his first big-league season, him and his defensive corps were instrumental in shutting down the Bruins' Kraut Line of Schmidt, Bauer, and Dumart. The end result was a Stanley Cup victory for the Habs.-LOH
Quote:
The Max Bentley-Bill Mosienko-Doug Bentley trio again squared off against *******, ***** ***********, and Jimmy Peters of the Canadiens, and figured no more prominently than in the previous game-NY Times
And again assaumbly, better for much longer. Although Davidson appears to have PIMs, not much is said on his toughness to my knowledge. Peters, on the other hand..

Quote:
Hewas a scrappy winger who was known as a "Fighting Irishman" in the company of the Flying Frenchmen of Quebec.-LOH
Seems pretty gritty.

I think the defensive edge gives Peters a win here, and my fourth line a pretty seems to have a pretty signifigant edge. Your fourth line is questionable offensively, has two very short career guys carrying the load intangible-wise and another who seems somewhat poor in that department..what is this line supposed to do? Seems to me like a liability whenever it's on the ice.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 11:06 PM
  #95
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Glenn Hall vs Billy Smith

At the end of the day, I didn't have time to go and defend those Glenn Hall series, but here is my main defence of him in Detroit series that should, I hope, open the mind that the team in front of him was also at fault. The post I quote also shows this somewhat as well.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...6&postcount=47

But as Dreak noted, although Glenn hall gets a little worse off, it's not so dramatic. He has a conn smythe trophy; he back stopped his team to numerous final appareances; he lowered his GAA by nearly half a goal in that Chicago cup run. And the quotes in the post I show here do show he could come up in the clutch and do well. Glenn Hall drops off slightly on the info we have now(but when I get the time, perhaps over that christmas break, I will try and find the answers), but I don't feel it's by much. And it's been mentioned, but Hall was as often the underdog in his series as the favorite; Smith played behind one of the greatest dynasties of all time. And when the hugely massive gap between these two in the regular season (again, 11t post-season all-star teams vs 1), despite Billy Smith's rise in the playoffs, I think Hall still has a signifigant edge here.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2009, 11:35 PM
  #96
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Concluding thoughts, the chemistry and cohesiveness

I think my many comparisons have shown that my guys are better in pretty much every position to my opponents counterpart other than two; Second line C and no.1#D (perhaps fourth line RW..but that is a rather insignigant role) .

My top line, as mentioned, is aboslutely destructive. Taylor, the "cyclone" rusher who was the fastest guy of his days and the excellent playmaker that can also snipe very well; Selanne, the finnish flash who is also very fast, is an excellent goalscorer who can also pass pretty well. And Toe Blake, the "quick" glue guy who is also a very good balanced scorer and is definetly ahead of the pack in first line LW's, a tough guy who has all the tools to win this guy the puck. Outside of Potvin, my opponent lacks the elite defensive guy to take these guys on. They are going to light it up big time in this series, and are a big edge over the line featuring Gary Roberts, who is one of the worst first liners offensively, Max Bentley, who is really an average centre, and Rick Middleton, a lower-tier first line RW whose offensive accomplishments weren't very good.

Second lines, I think I showed my wingers better; Fleury is an aboslutely great playoff performers who bests, I think, St.Louis's short peak. Brian Sutter, although a good intangible guy, wasn't necessary for his line with Lach and Harris, the skilled playmaking speed guy from the PCHA, is much better offensively- and although a myster in intangibles, his offense gets him the win. Lach I won't argue Weiland against; I'll just say I am glad I'll have Weiland, a great two-way guy who can defend well, and Laprade, a great defensive player to play against Lach most of the time.

Fleury has the grit, I think, necessary to play the puckwinner role. Not the ideal size, but I think he can play it; but these lines will definetly score well on the rush and transition, with more speed, skill, and stickhandling abilities.

Third lines are another mismatch; Walker is the best defensivew forward by far on this series. Roberts and Sutter are rather poor offensive guys for the linrs they are playing on, and Walker, a guy described as defending Morenz very well, won't have much problems against the relatively weak RW's Medicine Hat has in their top-6, making Roberts and Sutter the primary offensive support guys to Medicine Hat's centres- not good. And when this line goes up against his top-6, his two centres really become one-men shows offensively, and have to go up against Laprade, a great defensive centre. Gilles Tremblay isn't a bad player, but just doesn't stack up to Walker at all.

Speaking of Laprade, another mistmatch; Prystai's lack of defensive ability has been well shown (or at least, lack of evidence that really backs up any defensive ability), and he will get destroyed by Taylor if faced up against him. And although Prystai is a better offensive player than Laprade, Laprade is a very solid playmaker and is much better defensively, described as one of the best in his day and a good matchup when the line goes against the top-6 and when the third lines face-off.

Wharram, who is really accomplished more offensively to my opponents top line LW's, doesn't have to worry too much about the opposing LW's offensively, but he has some decent grit to help. Of course the opposing LW's are arguably going to be more worried about defending him and his great goalscoring and speed abilities, and feeding off of the passes of Laprade and Walker, should do quite well. Robert has the intangible edge but has much tougher guys to deal with and isn't Wharram offensively.

My third line has the golden combination of Walker and Laprade who are tremendous defensively and bring some very solid playmaking games to a third line role. With Wharram getting all those great passes, it will contribute offensively, while with Walker, who has the ability to shutdown any of the opposing RW's I feel I've shown, being able to create one-men shows out of my opponents top line and Laprade taking on those guys, it will be a very effective line when utilizied.

Fourth lines I recently showed well- Stewart, Martin, and Peters all provide some grit. Martin, a playmaker, is flanked well by Stewart, a great goalscorer, and Peters, who was a decnet goalscorer. The line can contribute to both sides of the ice and Martin and Peters also have some good defensive ability (great in the case of Peters). It's a do-it-all line that will work well when playing. More so, I feel, than my opposing line-who's problems I explain a little bit above this post.

On defence, we know about Potvin of course. Problem his is partner in Ragulin is slow, and that is something my deadly top line will expose. I also think Doug Wilson is the better all-around defenceman than Ragulin. Goodfellow-Wilson is a pairing where both guys contribute very well offensively, Goodfellow bringing good toughness and Wilson good defensive ability, and both can handle the trench and in front of the net work. It's a good, chemistry pairing that will provide good in all areas of the game.

Pulford-Mortson, I again, challenge anyone to find a tougher pairing, or second pairing, in the draft. This one is certainly amongst them. Mortson, playing with another stay at home guy, provies some offensive punch to this pairing. Both Mortson and Pulford are great defensively, particularly Pulford, who is a masterful defensive defenceman and the best defensive defenceman of his day, Both are tough and very physical- while the opposing pairing, Desjardins and Carlyle, have little showing their toughness.

Mortson, I think, I have showed better all things considered than Desjardins. Offense, I'll let you guys decide. Carlyle really wasn't that special outside of his norris year is something I've also showed, and Pulford was just the more dominant defensively than Carlyle offensively, and Pulford provides much more toughness as well. Carlyle's defensive game is still an unknown at best at this point. I think my destrucive pairing will fair a lot better.

Leduc and Randall are another very tough pairing. Both are very good all-around guys- both much tougher and physical than their counterparts in Huddy and Maxwell. Leduc, I think, I have shown better offensively than Huddy, physicall than Huddy, and somewhat comprable defensively, and Randall brings much better intangibles than Maxwell and likely similar offense.

Of course this pairing is also quite cohesive as the rest of my team's lines, which I have tried to keep balanced; two great all-around defenceman who can take turns rushing and both be effective and punishing defenders.

All backed up by one of the greates goaltenders of all-time in Glenn Hall who, I think I have also shown, has a fairly signifigant advantage over Billy Smith.

Coaching, again, edge to Blake, although Day is a good coach too.

The top line chemistry has been defended quite well. My second line is a very balanced offensive line that has good two-way ability in Weiland and Fleury and Fleury to well-carry the grit load. My third line features perhaps the two best defensive forwards in this series in Edgar and Laprade, two very solid playmakers who will shutdown opposition well and have Wharram to score well with their passes and ensure the line also contributes offensively. My fourth line is also quite cohesive- grit from all three, defensive play from Martin and especially Peters, and a playmaker (martin) flanked by a great goalscorer on the left and a decent one on the right. This line brings plenty of chemistry as well.

Medicine Hat just doesn't have the talent level to compete with the Desert Dogs. My team has the much better offensive game led by my deadly, speedy top line who Medicine Hat cant't defend well against, and backed up by a group with some solid secondary scorers, who are better than what Medicine Hat has for the most part. The speed and skill of my forward group with some good grit mixed in is backed up by a much tougher defence core that is better all-around and has no mobility issues from defence no.2 to no.6 that can do very well against the lacking Medicine Hat offense. And of course, the goaltending edge in Glenn Hall plays another factors.

Cairo has all the skills, tools, and ability to win this series and do very well against Medicine Hat, and that is is exactly what I think they will do.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-01-2009 at 11:46 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 10:31 AM
  #97
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,081
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
[url]




Woh, woh, woh, woh there. You're telling me Goodfellow is worse than Bouchard, Brewer, AND Pronovost? Goodfellow is aboslutely an elite no.2. It's occasionally crossed my mind he might be in that top.32 range

Why don't you tell me this; how many hart trophies did those guys win? Oh wait, they didn't. How much time did they spend as a disadvantage to building a defenceman record to be an aboslutely star centre? Oh wait, they didn't. And yet Goodfellow managed to accomplish a similar amount, perhaps more, than they did in a shorter time span.
I think Goodfellow is pretty clearly better than those 3 guys, but not necessarily by a whole lot.


Quote:
My wingers are better, I think I showed. By a fair margin. Lach does push his line better- the question is how he can fair being a one-man show sometimes.
I'm sorry, I don't buy that Fleury was better than St. Louis. Meaner, sure. Better? I'd call it pretty even. Sorry to pick on this one point, but these are guys most of us saw play.

That said, I agree with what you said about Sutter. With Lach at center, it seems Medicine hat could have gotten a better offensive player to play with him.

Quote:
Agreed. Despite Billy Smith's upping of game, even if Hall downgrades slightly in the playoffs (and, as evident by cup, conn smythe, and apparent good play in Detroit- which did show that the possibility for it happening in Chicago as well), the gap between an 11 team AST and 1 team AST is so massive in the regular season Hall's edge is still signifigant.
I thought he was the scapegoat in Detroit, when they traded him away so they could bring back Sawchuk? I think you likely do still have the advantage, but I'm not sure how huge it is in the playoffs over Smith

In case you can't tell by my last minute comments, this series is giving me a lot of trouble.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 12-02-2009 at 10:43 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 11:40 AM
  #98
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,621
vCash: 500
St. Louis generally gets underrated in these things (picked at average 449th spot in last 4 drafts) and Fleury overrated (average 248) - I'd like to see them selected at about 375 and 275, respectively - but I don't see an argument for St. Louis being better than Fleury. Better peak, that's it. If you take out the 2004 season, St. Louis doesn't have much to separate him from a Rick Vaive or a Bill Guerin (yeah, they're primarily goalscorers and he's a playmaker, I know) but Fleury was an elite player for a few seasons.

Say "Theoren Fleury, hall of famer" to yourself, and then say "Martin St. Louis, hall of famer". Which of the two just sounds wrong? (I'd say both, but to say Fleury should be in the Hall is more feasible to me)

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 03:24 PM
  #99
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
I'm sorry, I don't buy that Fleury was better than St. Louis. Meaner, sure. Better? I'd call it pretty even. Sorry to pick on this one point, but these are guys most of us saw play.

That said, I agree with what you said about Sutter. With Lach at center, it seems Medicine hat could have gotten a better offensive player to play with him.
Better grit, comparable defensively, better offensively -particularly in the playoffs. St.Louis has the one big playoff for that cup win, and is a solid guy otherwise, but Fleury has three- two where he led the playoffs in PPG and another where he was 3rd in the PPG. To quote myself from my first series:

Quote:
Fleury has the better playoff record, with his 2 1sts in playoff PPG and a 3rd as well. He would also show later he could place high in more exteneded playoff runs (5th in 1999). To put how good these years first, Fleury came ahead of guys like Gretzky, Gilmour, and Lemieux in PPG in 1993, Messier and Lemieux in 1994 (Lemieux played on less game than Fleury with 3 less points). Pretty impressive. From his peak playoff years, 1993-95, Fleury scored at a higher PPG than anybody, including Gretzky. (Gretzky played 4 more games than Fleury in this stretch and had only 4 more points).
St.Louis has the better peak, but that's it; Fleury has the better longevity in the top-10 in what I'd say was a tougher era.

Quote:
I thought he was the scapegoat in Detroit, when they traded him away so they could bring back Sawchuk? I think you likely do still have the advantage, but I'm not sure how huge it is in the playoffs over Smith

In case you can't tell by my last minute comments, this series is giving me a lot of trouble
Did you read the post I linked to? It does not at all seem like Hall played poorly, nor was the reason why the Wings lost. He seemed to play pretty good actually. HE lost to the high-powered Canadiens that were much better in the cup final his first year, and although his team was a favorite in the second year, the Bruins were only 8 points worse (and were way ahead of the team below them) in the regular season, and the Wings just didn't play that well in front of him. When your team manages only 1 goal in one loss and gets shutout in another, you can't pin the blame soley on the goalie.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-02-2009, 06:21 PM
  #100
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,787
vCash: 500
I think Fleury's a better player than St. Louis. I think Theo should be in the HHOF; whether he makes it is another issue. (Looking forward to reading Theo's book between games at the WJC). As for St. Louis being in the HHOF, I think he has a few chapters to write yet. Tremendous two-way player with fantastic speed. I think he's the best playmaking winger in the game. (Just look at what he's meant for Steven Stamkos. Not saying that Stamkos is a product of St. Louis, but it helps).

But I like St. Louis in his role - a skilled, fast, two-way guy who can finish plays or set them up on a line with Lach - more than Fleury in his role. I think Theo's in trouble as the puck-winner. Love his grit and his fearlessness. But he won't be able to win the battles along the boards and in front of the net that the Cairo second line needs.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:09 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.