HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD2011 Red Fisher Semi: McGuire's Monsters vs. Philadelphia Firebirds

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-16-2011, 10:38 AM
  #1
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
ATD2011 Red Fisher Semi: McGuire's Monsters vs. Philadelphia Firebirds




Arkady Chernyshev
Rudy Pilous

Alf Smith “A” - Norm Ullman - Andy Bathgate
Fred Stanfeild - Tom Dunderdale - Jack Marshall
Pete Mahovlich - Edgar Laprade - Andy Hebenton
Red Hamill - Paul Haynes - Peter McNab

Ray Bourque “C” - Ted Green “A”
Hod Stuart - Pat Egan
Hy Buller - Ken Randall

Vladislav Tretiak
Mike Richter



Eddie Wiseman, Victor Shuvalov, Kent Douglas


Approximate Ice Time (in minutes)

Forwards
NameESPPSHTotal
Norm Ullman154120
Andy Bathgate155020
Alf Smith153018
Tom Dunderdale134017
Fred Stanfield132217
Jack Marshall130114
Edgar Laprade100414
Pete Mahovlich100414
Andy Hebenton100313
Peter McNab83011
Paul Haynes8008
Red Hamill8008

Defensemen
NameESPPSHTotal
Ray Bourque204428
Ted Green180422
Hod Stuart183324
Pat Egan164020
Hy Buller103013
Ken Randall100313


VS.


Philadelphia Firebirds



Coach: Viktor Tikhonov
Assistant Coach: Father David Bauer
Captain: Jean Beliveau
Assistant Captain: Rod Langway
Assistant Captain: Brian Sutter

Dick Duff-Jean Beliveau(C)-Jari Kurri
Fred "Smokey" Harris-Frank McGee-Ken Hodge
Brian Sutter(A)-Pit Lepine-Johnny Peirson
Don Maloney-Bill Thoms-Goldie Prodgers
Herb Jordan, Murray Balfour

Rod Langway(A)-Eduard Ivanov
Harry Howell-Sergei Gonchar
Frantisek Tikal-George Owen
Jay Bouwmeester

Jiri Holecek
Charlie Hodge

PP1

Duff-Beliveau-Kurri
Gonchar-Ivanov

PP2

Harris-McGee-Hodge
Owen-Howell

PK1

Lepine-Kurri
Langway-Howell

PK2

Duff-Beliveau
Ivanov-Tikal

PK3

Maloney-Thoms
Langway-Howell


Last edited by Dreakmur: 05-16-2011 at 10:47 AM.
Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 11:42 AM
  #2
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
At first glance, this appears to be another close series. Hopefully, we can have a good clean debate here.


Here are my first thoughts:

Philadelphia appears to have a slight edge on the first line. Basically, at first glance, it looks like your advantage at center outweights my advantage on both wings.

Both of our second lines seem to be pretty equal. It's clear that we both wanted to build strong first lines and the second lines were just an afterthought.

Our third lines also appear to be pretty equal. Yours has a little more grit, but mine has a little more offenive punch I think.

Fourth lines also appear relatively equal.


McGuire's Monsters have substantial edge on the first pairing. This looks like it will be the biggest advantage in the match-up.

Second and third pairings look like they are also pretty even.


McGuire's Monsters has a difinitive edge in goal, both in starters and back-ups.

Coaching appears to be pretty even.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 12:00 PM
  #3
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
McGuire's Monsters has a difinitive edge in goal, both in starters and back-ups.

I disagree. Tretiak is really overrated, Holecek outplayed Tretiak more often than not, and regularly beat him for best goalie award. For some reason, Tretiak is considered better, but it's just wrong. Anyone who actually watched them play knows this.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 12:35 PM
  #4
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
I disagree. Tretiak is really overrated, Holecek outplayed Tretiak more often than not, and regularly beat him for best goalie award. For some reason, Tretiak is considered better, but it's just wrong. Anyone who actually watched them play knows this.
Tretiak outplayed Ken Dryden more often than not, often outplaying him badly. Does that mean he's better than Dryden?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 02:20 PM
  #5
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Tretiak outplayed Ken Dryden more often than not, often outplaying him badly. Does that mean he's better than Dryden?
The difference is that Holecek and Tretiak met more often, and they competed directly against each other for a number of years. Since Holecek has beaten Tretiak to many "best goalie" awards, I do not understand why Tretiak is ranked so much higher.

Dryden has had NHL career, which is why he's ranked so high.

Tretiak played in watered down soviet league / international hockey - where he was not better than Holecek, at all. So I do not think you have advantage in goal.


Last edited by Reds4Life: 05-16-2011 at 02:50 PM.
Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 03:42 PM
  #6
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
The difference is that Holecek and Tretiak met more often, and they competed directly against each other for a number of years. Since Holecek has beaten Tretiak to many "best goalie" awards, I do not understand why Tretiak is ranked so much higher.
Tretiak proved himself against the best of the best. Holecek never did.

Holecek's only real chance to play the best was at the 1976 Canada Cup, but his coach elected to go with Drziulla instead..... twice.....

Quote:
Dryden has had NHL career, which is why he's ranked so high.
If Holecek outplaying Tretiak means Holecek is better, then why doesn't Tretiak outplaying Dryden make him better?

Quote:
Tretiak played in watered down soviet league / international hockey - where he was not better than Holecek, at all. So I do not think you have advantage in goal.
Even if you think Holecek was as good as Tretiak, you still have to consider that Tretiak was that good for twice as long as Holecek.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 04:01 PM
  #7
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,730
vCash: 500
please correct Fischer to Fisher in the thread title... I would except I don't know how.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 04:10 PM
  #8
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,737
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Currently enduring a brutal day long UPenn graduation, might have some arguments up tonight but expect most tomorrow.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 04:48 PM
  #9
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
Currently enduring a brutal day long UPenn graduation, might have some arguments up tonight but expect most tomorrow.
Sounds good. I might do some tonight, but I'll wait to do most of it.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 10:30 PM
  #10
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,737
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
As my opponent pointed out, my first line is slightly better than his, at first glance. But, I think this difference might be a little more pronounced than you may believe. My 1st line holds a significant advantage in terms of playoff scoring. Bathgate had the misfortune(or fortune if you look at it in one way in terms of regular season scoring), of playing on bad teams. So, you can't criticize him for being a bad playoff performer. When he was in the playoffs, he was decent. But, let's compare how each guy stacks up to the other in the playoffs.

Alf Smith vs. Dick Duff

Alf Smith:

Play-off Goals - 2nd(1904), 2nd(1905), 2nd(1906), 6th(1907)

Dick Duff:

4x Top 10 Playoff Goals (4, 5, 7, 7)
6x Top 10 Playoff Assists (3, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9)
5x Top 10 Playoff Points (3, 4, 8, 9, 10)

Even before you consider the fact that those are very misleading finishes, Duff is still better. 12 of those 33 goals came against the Dawson City Nuggets, Toronto Marlboros, and Winnipeg Rowing Club. Add onto the fact that an unspecified amount came against Queen's University and Smith's Falls, the difference becomes even more pronounced. My opponent will be quick to point out that this means the same think for Frank McGee. Yes, it does. I acknowledged last round that his playoff competition was weak. My point is that Duff's playoff finishes are significantly more impressive considering the stats in Dreakmur's bio.

That brings us to Jean Beliveau and Norm Ullman.

Norm Ullman:

Play-off Points – 1st(1963), 1st(1966), 2nd(1964), 6th(1965)
Play-off Goals – 1st(1966), 2nd(1964), 4th(1965), 5th(1963)
Play-off Assists – 1st(1963), 2nd(1964), 2nd(1966)

Jean Beliveau:

9x Top 10 Goals NHL Playoffs (1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 8)
10x Top 10 Assists NHL Playoffs (1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7)
11x Top 10 Points NHL Playoffs (1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 9)

A big advantage goes to Beliveau there.

That brings us to Andy Bathgate and Jari Kurri.

Bathgate:

Goals: 1, 4, 5
Points: 7, 9

He has no top 10s in assists.

Kurri:

7x Top 10 Goals in Playoffs (1, 1, 1, 1, 7, 8, 9)
7x Top 10 Assists in Playoffs (3, 4, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10)
6x Top 10 Points in Playoffs (2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 7)

Kurri comes out miles ahead. That's without even looking at the fact that Kurri had a much deeper talent pool to compete against.

My point is not that we can criticize Bathgate, Ullman, and Smith really for being average playoff performers(for either not getting there enough like Bathgate, playing against bad competition like Smith, or just not being all that impressive when his teams made the playoffs like Ullman), but to realize that the difference between the level of playoff performance between the two lines is huge. Even if we were to count all of Smith's goal finishes as being point finishes(which isn't fair, but just to prove how big this gap is), Jean Beliveau alone has more top 10s in playoff points than the entire Monsters 1st line, 11 to 7! Overall, Philadelphia's 1st line is significantly better in the playoffs compared to the Monsters' 1st line. I never said that the playoffs mean more than the regular season or that the playoffs are all that matters, just pointing out that the gap between playoff point production in the first lines is very largely in Philadelphia's favor.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 11:04 PM
  #11
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,663
vCash: 500
Am I the only one who thinks 6th-10th place playoff finishes are meaningless before expansion?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 11:33 PM
  #12
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Am I the only one who thinks 6th-10th place playoff finishes are meaningless before expansion?
It depends.

If you lead your team in scoring, then a 7th overall isn't too bad. If your 5th on your team, then 7th overall isn't impressive.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 11:41 PM
  #13
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,663
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It depends.

If you lead your team in scoring, then a 7th overall isn't too bad. If your 5th on your team, then 7th overall isn't impressive.
True. I just think A scoring line player on the pre-expansion Montreal Canadiens could fall out of bed into a couple of 6th-10th place finishes.

Anyone have the numbers on the percentage of finals that involved the Canadiens between Maurice Richard's first season and Jean Beliveau's last season?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 11:42 PM
  #14
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
As my opponent pointed out, my first line is slightly better than his, at first glance. But, I think this difference might be a little more pronounced than you may believe. My 1st line holds a significant advantage in terms of playoff scoring. Bathgate had the misfortune(or fortune if you look at it in one way in terms of regular season scoring), of playing on bad teams. So, you can't criticize him for being a bad playoff performer. When he was in the playoffs, he was decent. But, let's compare how each guy stacks up to the other in the playoffs.
Simply using play-off top 10s is both lazy and misleading. Many factors impact those play-off top 10s, and very few of them are related to the player.



Quote:
Alf Smith vs. Dick Duff

Alf Smith:

Play-off Goals - 2nd(1904), 2nd(1905), 2nd(1906), 6th(1907)

Dick Duff:

4x Top 10 Playoff Goals (4, 5, 7, 7)
6x Top 10 Playoff Assists (3, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9)
5x Top 10 Playoff Points (3, 4, 8, 9, 10)

Even before you consider the fact that those are very misleading finishes, Duff is still better. 12 of those 33 goals came against the Dawson City Nuggets, Toronto Marlboros, and Winnipeg Rowing Club. Add onto the fact that an unspecified amount came against Queen's University and Smith's Falls, the difference becomes even more pronounced. My opponent will be quick to point out that this means the same think for Frank McGee. Yes, it does. I acknowledged last round that his playoff competition was weak. My point is that Duff's playoff finishes are significantly more impressive considering the stats in Dreakmur's bio.
The fact that Alf Smith only played in 4 play-off seasons hurts the number of top-10s he can rack up. I suppose 4 for 4 is decent enough. Just like the regular season, Smith's playmaking skills were not accounted for, so his true offensive production is actually quite a bit better than the goal totals indicate.

Dick Duff took advantage of many other factors that I talked about above. He played for a lot of great teams, where he got to play a lot of play-off games. He went to the finals 9 times, and he was most often a complimentry player on those teams. While Duff is a good play-off player, his top-10s are overly flaterring.

Both Smith and Duff are strong play-off performers, and since Smith is clearly the better regular season, he remains the better player in this match-up.

Quote:
That brings us to Jean Beliveau and Norm Ullman.

Norm Ullman:

Play-off Points 1st(1963), 1st(1966), 2nd(1964), 6th(1965)
Play-off Goals 1st(1966), 2nd(1964), 4th(1965), 5th(1963)
Play-off Assists 1st(1963), 2nd(1964), 2nd(1966)

Jean Beliveau:

9x Top 10 Goals NHL Playoffs (1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 8)
10x Top 10 Assists NHL Playoffs (1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7)
11x Top 10 Points NHL Playoffs (1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 9)

A big advantage goes to Beliveau there.
Again, top 10s flatter Beliveau. He went to the finals a dozen times, often with a high scoring dynasty, so it's not surprising that he was top 10 as many times as he was.

Ullman, on the other hand, only made the finals a handful of times, and he was never a Cup winner.

Quote:
That brings us to Andy Bathgate and Jari Kurri.

Bathgate:

Goals: 1, 4, 5
Points: 7, 9

He has no top 10s in assists.

Kurri:

7x Top 10 Goals in Playoffs (1, 1, 1, 1, 7, 8, 9)
7x Top 10 Assists in Playoffs (3, 4, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10)
6x Top 10 Points in Playoffs (2, 3, 3, 4, 6, 7)

Kurri comes out miles ahead. That's without even looking at the fact that Kurri had a much deeper talent pool to compete against.

My point is not that we can criticize Bathgate, Ullman, and Smith really for being average playoff performers(for either not getting there enough like Bathgate, playing against bad competition like Smith, or just not being all that impressive when his teams made the playoffs like Ullman), but to realize that the difference between the level of playoff performance between the two lines is huge. Even if we were to count all of Smith's goal finishes as being point finishes(which isn't fair, but just to prove how big this gap is), Jean Beliveau alone has more top 10s in playoff points than the entire Monsters 1st line, 11 to 7!
Again, Kurri is flatterred by his mutilple long play-off runs. He is further boosted by playing for the highest scoring dynastly of all time.

Bathgate is in the exact opposite boat.

Kurri is a slightly better play-off performer, but it doesn't close the gap from Bathgate's overall lead. Bathgate is still better in this series.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2011, 11:52 PM
  #15
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,663
vCash: 500
I'd be interested to see Beliveau's playoff finishes among teammates.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 12:05 AM
  #16
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'd be interested to see Beliveau's playoff finishes among teammates.
1954 3rd
1955 1st (tie)
1956 1st
1957 2nd
1958 2nd
1959 8th (injured)
1960 4th
1961 3rd
1962 4th
1963 1st (only 3 points)
1964 5th (6 way tie)
1965 1st
1966 2nd
1967 1st
1968 3rd
1969 1st
1971 2nd (tie)

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 12:27 AM
  #17
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,737
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Simply using play-off top 10s is both lazy and misleading. Many factors impact those play-off top 10s, and very few of them are related to the player.





The fact that Alf Smith only played in 4 play-off seasons hurts the number of top-10s he can rack up. I suppose 4 for 4 is decent enough. Just like the regular season, Smith's playmaking skills were not accounted for, so his true offensive production is actually quite a bit better than the goal totals indicate.

Dick Duff took advantage of many other factors that I talked about above. He played for a lot of great teams, where he got to play a lot of play-off games. He went to the finals 9 times, and he was most often a complimentry player on those teams. While Duff is a good play-off player, his top-10s are overly flaterring.

Both Smith and Duff are strong play-off performers, and since Smith is clearly the better regular season, he remains the better player in this match-up.
I stand by the statement that Duff is a better playoff performer. You can't discount what Duff did just because he made in the playoffs a bunch of times and Smith didn't.

Quote:
Again, top 10s flatter Beliveau. He went to the finals a dozen times, often with a high scoring dynasty, so it's not surprising that he was top 10 as many times as he was.

Ullman, on the other hand, only made the finals a handful of times, and he was never a Cup winner.
My point stands that Beliveau is definitely a better playoff performer. As I said with Duff, you can't punish Beliveau for being in the playoffs a bunch of times. It's like punishing longevity, it makes no sense. Beliveau is still easily a better playoff performer.

Quote:
Again, Kurri is flatterred by his mutilple long play-off runs. He is further boosted by playing for the highest scoring dynastly of all time.

Bathgate is in the exact opposite boat.

Kurri is a slightly better play-off performer, but it doesn't close the gap from Bathgate's overall lead. Bathgate is still better in this series.
A slightly better playoff performer? Even if Kurri played with Gretzky and a great team, he led the playoffs in goals four times. Bathgate has just two top 10s in points in a shallower era in terms of talent pool. Okay, Bathgate played on crappy teams. Just because of that doesn't mean you take away what Kurri did because he was on good teams. As I said with the first two, you can't discount them because they played in the playoffs a bunch of times. I'll re-iterate what I said in my first post because I don't think you got what I was saying. I was saying, we don't discount your guys because they didn't go deep into the playoff a bunch of times, and at the same time we don't discount my guys because they played on good teams. It's like cutting off longevity, which makes no sense. My first line is significantly better in the playoffs, regardless of opportunity. If you don't want to use top 10s, how would you prefer to measure playoff performance? Vs2? That would be even more misleading because guys are so close together.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 12:45 AM
  #18
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,737
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
1954 – 3rd
1955 – 1st (tie)
1956 – 1st
1957 – 2nd
1958 – 2nd
1959 – 8th (injured)
1960 – 4th
1961 – 3rd
1962 – 4th
1963 – 1st (only 3 points)
1964 – 5th (6 way tie)
1965 – 1st
1966 – 2nd
1967 – 1st
1968 – 3rd
1969 – 1st
1971 – 2nd (tie)
This is misleading too. You failed to list the guys he was behind these years. Here they are:

54-Moore, Geoffrion(Beliveau also played one less game)
57-Geoffrion
58-M. Richard
60-Geoffrion, H. Richard, Moore
61-Goyette, H. Richard(they only played one series)
62-Moore, Goyette, Provost(they only played one series)
63-he was first(they only played one series)
64-Provost, Backstrom, Balon, Tremblay(they only played one series)
66-Tremblay
68-Cournoyer, Lemaire(Beliveau played 3 less games than the other two. Beliveau led the playoffs in PPG.)
71-F. Mahovlich

In playoff years that mattered(when he wasn't first), he was behind Dickie Moore, Boom Boom Geoffrion, Maurice Richard, Henri Richard, Yvan Cournoyer, JC Tremblay, Jacques Lemaire, and Frank Mahovlich. All of those guys were top 175 picks. And if you throw out that one year with Lemaire(where Beliveau had the highest PPG in the playoffs), all were top 105 picks. He was hardly finishing behind a bunch of stiffs.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 02:06 AM
  #19
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
I stand by the statement that Duff is a better playoff performer. You can't discount what Duff did just because he made in the playoffs a bunch of times and Smith didn't.

My point stands that Beliveau is definitely a better playoff performer. As I said with Duff, you can't punish Beliveau for being in the playoffs a bunch of times. It's like punishing longevity, it makes no sense. Beliveau is still easily a better playoff performer.
It's not about how many times they made the play-offs. It's about the number of times their teams made it to the finals. If you play the most games, you are going to have more points than everyone else.

All 3 of your first liners benefited greatly from being on dynasty teams. You can't just ignore the context in which those top-10s were accumulated.

Quote:
A slightly better playoff performer? Even if Kurri played with Gretzky and a great team, he led the playoffs in goals four times. Bathgate has just two top 10s in points in a shallower era in terms of talent pool. Okay, Bathgate played on crappy teams. Just because of that doesn't mean you take away what Kurri did because he was on good teams.
Bathgate did play for crappy teams for most of his career. He did finally get a chance, later in his career, to play for good teams, and he excelled. Even the best teams Bathgat played for are nothing close to the teams Duff, Kurri, and Beliveau got to play on.

Quote:
As I said with the first two, you can't discount them because they played in the playoffs a bunch of times. I'll re-iterate what I said in my first post because I don't think you got what I was saying. I was saying, we don't discount your guys because they didn't go deep into the playoff a bunch of times, and at the same time we don't discount my guys because they played on good teams. It's like cutting off longevity, which makes no sense.
I'm not discounting them because they made the play-offs a lot of times. I'm placing their listed accomplishments into context. They aren't nearly as meaningful as you want them to be.

Quote:
My first line is significantly better in the playoffs, regardless of opportunity.
If we are just looking at play-off performances:
Smith is better than Duff, though Duff is still good.
Beliveau is bette than Ullman, but Ullman is still a beast.
Kurri is better than Bathgate.

If we're accounting for entire careers, and shifting them into a play-off series:
Smith is significantly better than Duff.
Beliveau is significantly better than Ullman.
Bathgate is narrowly better than Kurri.

Quote:
If you don't want to use top 10s, how would you prefer to measure playoff performance? Vs2? That would be even more misleading because guys are so close together.
The first thing to do is go on a per game basis. That eliminates the advantage that players get simply by playing more games.

I look at a players regular season PPG and compare that to their play-off PPG. I then take into account that most eras are lower scoring than the regular season.
-if they score at the same rate or slightly below, then I view that as them just playing like they always did.
-if they score at a significantly lower pace, then I view that as them perfroming poorly.
-if they score significantly more, then I view that as them performing well.

In a series like this, I look at what the player was in the regular season, then figure out if he's better, worse, or about the same.

Example:
Jari Kurri is better in the play-offs than regular season. Andy Bathgate is about the same as regular season. Since I have Bathgate clearly ahead in regular season, Kurri closes the gap a little bit in the play-offs, and the difference becomes "narrow".

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 04:35 AM
  #20
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Even if you think Holecek was as good as Tretiak, you still have to consider that Tretiak was that good for twice as long as Holecek.
I actually think prime Holecek is better than prime Tretiak, so the longetivity makes them equal (at best), for me.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 06:26 AM
  #21
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,970
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
I actually think prime Holecek is better than prime Tretiak, so the longetivity makes them equal (at best), for me.
I can see I won't change your mind, so I'll just drop it. I'm just glad you're in the minority.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 07:41 AM
  #22
Rick Middleton
Registered User
 
Rick Middleton's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ottawa, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 71,939
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rick Middleton
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
please correct Fischer to Fisher in the thread title... I would except I don't know how.
And you call yourself a Mod? For shame!

__________________
Rick Middleton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 11:44 AM
  #23
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,737
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It's not about how many times they made the play-offs. It's about the number of times their teams made it to the finals. If you play the most games, you are going to have more points than everyone else.

All 3 of your first liners benefited greatly from being on dynasty teams. You can't just ignore the context in which those top-10s were accumulated.
Agreed.
Quote:
Bathgate did play for crappy teams for most of his career. He did finally get a chance, later in his career, to play for good teams, and he excelled. Even the best teams Bathgat played for are nothing close to the teams Duff, Kurri, and Beliveau got to play on.
Agreed.
Quote:
If we are just looking at play-off performances:
Smith is better than Duff, though Duff is still good.
Beliveau is bette than Ullman, but Ullman is still a beast.
Kurri is better than Bathgate.

If we're accounting for entire careers, and shifting them into a play-off series:
Smith is significantly better than Duff.
Beliveau is significantly better than Ullman.
Bathgate is narrowly better than Kurri.
I disagree with the bolded part. You can offer the same criticism of Smith that you offer for Duff. Both played on dynasty teams, Duff spanning two different teams and Smith playing on those great Silver Seven Senators teams. I'll use the exact method that you prefer, the goals/game(in Smith's case) to compare them. In all Cup Challenge games, Smith's GPG is 1.63. Removing easy finishes, it's 1 GPG. Where should his true GPG in cup challenge games lie, considering the removing of easy finishes against bad teams, I'd say somewhere in the middle, about 1.3(and I think I'm being generous here). In the regular season(in seasons with the playoffs), he had 52 goals in 33 games for a GPG of 1.57. So, he was .27GPG worse in the playoffs than in the regular season if we use a nice round 1.3 as the middle road.

Now look at Dick Duff. Taking his entire regular season PPG in seasons where his team made the playoffs(.58PPG) and comparing it to the playoffs(.69PPG), I'd call that significantly better. By your own metric, that indicates that Duff is not only good in the playoffs, but that Smith is bad in the playoffs, making the gap between them fairly big.

I also find it interesting that you said Smith is significantly better than Duff, which I disagree with. Smith is definitely a better player, but I would not call it a significant gap. As I illustrated, Duff is better in the playoffs. Both provide two-way play, toughness(Smith provides more, admittedly), and corner ability.

Quote:
The first thing to do is go on a per game basis. That eliminates the advantage that players get simply by playing more games.

I look at a players regular season PPG and compare that to their play-off PPG. I then take into account that most eras are lower scoring than the regular season.
-if they score at the same rate or slightly below, then I view that as them just playing like they always did.
-if they score at a significantly lower pace, then I view that as them perfroming poorly.
-if they score significantly more, then I view that as them performing well.

In a series like this, I look at what the player was in the regular season, then figure out if he's better, worse, or about the same.

Example:
Jari Kurri is better in the play-offs than regular season. Andy Bathgate is about the same as regular season. Since I have Bathgate clearly ahead in regular season, Kurri closes the gap a little bit in the play-offs, and the difference becomes "narrow".
Fair enough.


Last edited by BillyShoe1721: 05-17-2011 at 12:00 PM.
BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 12:05 PM
  #24
Reds4Life
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Reds4Life's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Czech Republic
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,518
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I can see I won't change your mind, so I'll just drop it. I'm just glad you're in the minority.
Yeah, maybe because I actually watched them play, unlike the majority here.

Reds4Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-17-2011, 12:38 PM
  #25
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Yeah, maybe because I actually watched them play, unlike the majority here.
That is just crazy-talk.

BraveCanadian 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 04:14 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.