Ramsay was not used the same as Gainey. Gainey was used all over the lineup - always matched against the guy Bowman wanted to shut down. The Ramsay-Luce-Gare line stayed together, did it not?
Did Ramsay ever shut anybody down in the playoffs or an international tournament? I'm asking because I honestly don't know. The case for Ramsay is entirely based off regular season team stats, but Gainey is in te HHOF for what he did in the playoffs
i think buffalo's line scored more, so it would not be surprising at all if they controlled play more and spent less time in the defensive zone.
did buffalo have better defensive structure than habs, at least on PK?
i have seen some comparison of PK's of habs and buffalo, and implications that gainey had better defensive teammates so habs' PK should have been better than buffalo's. but much of team D is structure. teams are clearly not the sum of their parts.
i don't think the size of the rink is particularly important.
The case for Ramsay is entirely based off regular season team stats, but Gainey is in te HHOF for what he did in the playoffs
Gainey is in the Hall of Fame for what his team did in the playoffs. Yeah, he had one great postseason individually, but that's not why he's in the hall. Swap their teams and there's a good chance Ramsay the Hab is the one that ends up in the hall. Guys like Gainey never make the hall (except for flat-out bad picks like Laprade) without playing on great teams, because defensive contributions are historically valued only in the context of winning.
i think buffalo's line scored more, so it would not be surprising at all if they controlled play more and spent less time in the defensive zone.
did buffalo have better defensive structure than habs, at least on PK?
i have seen some comparison of PK's of habs and buffalo, and implications that gainey had better defensive teammates so habs' PK should have been better than buffalo's. but much of team D is structure. teams are clearly not the sum of their parts.
i don't think the size of the rink is particularly important.
Ramsay's line was almost unique among checking lines in modern history (defined as a line that faces top lines and rarely plays PP) in that they generally had the best plus-minus on their team, by a lot. They must have been doing something right territorially.
I looked at home/road scoring for Buffalo in the past and found at EV that 1. The French connection scored at the same rate at home and on the road, and 2. Ramsay and his linemates' EV scoring was 30-40% higher at home than on the road. It appears that something about playing at home helped Ramsay and linemates to outscore threir opponents - possibly the rink dimensions.
It makes a difference if you're attacking in transition, yes. I remember Selanne and Kariya crying about the goal being moved out further (forget exactly what year that was) because it tightened the angles at the point of attack when sweeping in off the wing on a rush. I'm not sure how much a couple feet would have mattered for the Luce line, though, which mostly scored in odd-man situations and on the forecheck/cycle. They weren't exactly Kariya/Selanne stylistically.
It makes a difference if you're attacking in transition, yes. I remember Selanne and Kariya crying about the goal being moved out further (forget exactly what year that was) because it tightened the angles at the point of attack when sweeping in off the wing on a rush. I'm not sure how much a couple feet would have mattered for the Luce line, though, which mostly scored in odd-man situations and on the forecheck/cycle. They weren't exactly Kariya/Selanne stylistically.
Are you suggesting that non-transition offense isn't impacted by ice size?
In transition, two things would have major impacts - ice width and zone lengths.
Where the net is placed would definately have an impact. If it's further from the boards, you have less room to get past the defenseman. Also, your angles are cut right from the start. That's not as big as the above two though.
Are you suggesting that non-transition offense isn't impacted by ice size?
The effect of a couple feet of rink length in non-transition offense is likely negligible. It shortens the offensive zone slightly and so you'll every now and again lost the zone when you wouldn't have on a longer rink, but in general the differences we're talking about here (not NHL vs. international...that's a different animal) aren't going to have much effect on the cycle in my opinion.
Quote:
Where the net is placed would definately have an impact. If it's further from the boards, you have less room to get past the defenseman. Also, your angles are cut right from the start. That's not as big as the above two though.
This will matter a lot less in odd-man situations, where the angles always favor the attackers. It's the "skate around the defenseman and cut in on goal" play that is specifically the most affected here, which is what Kariya/Selanne were whining about.
The effect of a couple feet of rink length in non-transition offense is likely negligible. It shortens the offensive zone slightly and so you'll every now and again lost the zone when you wouldn't have on a longer rink, but in general the differences we're talking about here (not NHL vs. international...that's a different animal) aren't going to have much effect on the cycle in my opinion.
When the bluelines come down, so do the point men, and so do the wingers covering them. When they come down, they collapse towards the net. One of the most common results of cycling is that a player walks off the side boards to the slot. When the winger is lower, he is close to the slot, which means another body to avoid.
When we play teams who cover closely the points on small ice, we usally just back out defense right onto the blueline. That pulls their wingers out, and gives us more room to work down low.
Quote:
This will matter a lot less in odd-man situations, where the angles always favor the attackers. It's the "skate around the defenseman and cut in on goal" play that is specifically the most affected here, which is what Kariya/Selanne were whining about.
Unless you are going straight down the gut, it matters regardless. The shooting angles are cut when the net moves out.
I personally played in the arena Maurice Richard in Montreal many many times when I was younger and the rink is larger but not by a lot , and it's completely different.I couldn't tell you how exactly , but it was very differant and you felt it on the ice.
When the bluelines come down, so do the point men, and so do the wingers covering them. When they come down, they collapse towards the net. One of the most common results of cycling is that a player walks off the side boards to the slot. When the winger is lower, he is close to the slot, which means another body to avoid.
We are talking about a difference of what...one foot in the offensive zone in this case?
Quote:
Unless you are going straight down the gut, it matters regardless. The shooting angles are cut when the net moves out.
Of course they are, but it is much easier to manuever yourself to a good angle in an odd-man situation. It's at the margins where a couple of feet of rink length may have a large effect on shot angle, and odd man rushes are generally not at the margins in this sense.
We are talking about a difference of what...one foot in the offensive zone in this case?
I have no idea, but it doesn't matter. Less area to cover makes a difference. Obviously, 10 feet makes more of a difference than 2, but that 2 is still impactful.
Quote:
Of course they are, but it is much easier to manuever yourself to a good angle in an odd-man situation. It's at the margins where a couple of feet of rink length may have a large effect on shot angle, and odd man rushes are generally not at the margins in this sense.
