HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Best Red Wings, Avs, and Devils teams?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-04-2012, 02:25 PM
  #51
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 46,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrhockey193195 View Post
For me, I personally believe the 2001 Devils were the best team that franchise has ever produced...unfortunately for them, they ran into a team just as good in the Avs.
Maybe from game 1 of the regular season, but the post-deadline 2000 Devils were better than the 2001 version of the team. Claude Lemieux actually led the 2000 Devils forwards in ice time in the playoffs - he was technically a 4th liner, but the team rolled 4 lines, Lemieux played both PP and PK, and Larry Robinson would give him shifts on the 2nd and 3rd lines when he thought they needed a jump. Vladimir Malakhov gave them a top notch puck mover on all three defensive pairs. And perhaps biggest of all, the 2000 team was highly motivated, while the 2001 team coasted at times even in the playoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
I have hard time believing that that 2003 Devils team was their best team. Look at those forwards in the top 6.
2003 Devils were clearly the worst of their three championship teams, IMO.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 06-04-2012 at 02:31 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 02:29 PM
  #52
Ivan13
Just a flesh wound!
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 19,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnobs View Post
I saw them too. Another superb counter argument. Oh and good job adding the "dont know what hes talking about"-argument once again. Whats next? A strawman too just to build your case even better?
I fail to see where you present any sort of facts to back up your argument, yet you act like you've made a good case and that your opinion carries most weight.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 02:33 PM
  #53
shadow1
Registered User
 
shadow1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Country: United States
Posts: 12,585
vCash: 500
If the 2001 Devils were the best, they wouldn't have lost to a Peter Forsberg-less Colorado Avalanche, especially when they had the cup in sight on home ice during game 6.

shadow1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 02:35 PM
  #54
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 46,047
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadow1 View Post
If the 2001 Devils were the best, they wouldn't have lost to a Peter Forsberg-less Colorado Avalanche, especially when they had the cup in sight on home ice during game 6.
Not just Colorado - there is no way the 2000 version of the Devils would have ended up down 3-2 to a Toronto team like the 2001 team was in the 2nd round.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 03:32 PM
  #55
ZetterBurger
Registered User
 
ZetterBurger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Detroit, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,211
vCash: 500
1997 Wings were the best. 1998 Wings were my favorite (Believe). 2002 Red Wings were the most talented.

ZetterBurger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 03:36 PM
  #56
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Calling the 2002 Avalanche the "Cup champs" is like calling the 2007 Hurricanes the "Cup champs;" they were clearly inferior to the squads that won the championship in the previous season. Give me the 1997 Wings that beat Patrick Roy at the top of his game in 6 games (he doesn't exactly lose a series in less than 7 that often) They embarrassed an Avalanche team that was even better than they were in 1996. Those Red Wings might be the best team in this thread.
We'll have to disagree there. Sure Bourque wasn't around any longer, but substitute a healthy and very dangerous Forsberg who was peeling through the playoffs and I think it is fairly close. Because Forsberg missed the regular season it explains why they only had 99 points but with him in the postseason it was very much like the 2001 team, capable of beating the Wings. The 2002 Avs had 7 players with at least 12 playoff points and that didn't include Hejduk. They were one game away from winning the Cup in 2002 (honestly the semis were the true final) so I'd say calling them legitimate defending champs is honest

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 04:20 PM
  #57
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
We'll have to disagree there. Sure Bourque wasn't around any longer, but substitute a healthy and very dangerous Forsberg who was peeling through the playoffs and I think it is fairly close. Because Forsberg missed the regular season it explains why they only had 99 points but with him in the postseason it was very much like the 2001 team, capable of beating the Wings. The 2002 Avs had 7 players with at least 12 playoff points and that didn't include Hejduk. They were one game away from winning the Cup in 2002 (honestly the semis were the true final) so I'd say calling them legitimate defending champs is honest
No it isnt because he can show you stats that say that they were a worse team even though they were in conf finals.

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 09:37 PM
  #58
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnobs View Post
I saw them too. Another superb counter argument. Oh and good job adding the "dont know what hes talking about"-argument once again. Whats next? A strawman too just to build your case even better?
You thought they had Deadmarsh!

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-04-2012, 09:44 PM
  #59
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
We'll have to disagree there. Sure Bourque wasn't around any longer, but substitute a healthy and very dangerous Forsberg who was peeling through the playoffs and I think it is fairly close. Because Forsberg missed the regular season it explains why they only had 99 points but with him in the postseason it was very much like the 2001 team, capable of beating the Wings. The 2002 Avs had 7 players with at least 12 playoff points and that didn't include Hejduk. They were one game away from winning the Cup in 2002 (honestly the semis were the true final) so I'd say calling them legitimate defending champs is honest
Phil, did you miss the disparity in GF/GA in the playoffs? When they added Forsberg, their offense got worse.

GPG/GAG
Season: 2.58/2.06
Playoffs: 2.54/2.64

This was the 2001 Playoffs:

2.85/1.69

Offense was better. Defense was better by almost a goal.


Not even close to playing at the same level. Since when is a negative goal differential worthy of being the Stanley Cup Champion? And yes, Hobnobs, I'm using statistics. How crazy of me.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 06:38 AM
  #60
Hobnobs
Pinko
 
Hobnobs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Country: Sweden
Posts: 5,446
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
You thought they had Deadmarsh!
and you thought you've done the math. Your numbers are incorrect. and I didnt think they had Deadmarsh I was just writing in a hurry and made an error.

Quote:
And yes, Hobnobs, I'm using statistics. How crazy of me.
Still wrong stats.

2.57/2.67 after the '02 playoffs however 2.93/2.43 going into the conf finals. So offense was actually better than '01 until they ran into the wings.

Hobnobs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 03:38 PM
  #61
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnobs View Post
and you thought you've done the math. Your numbers are incorrect. and I didnt think they had Deadmarsh I was just writing in a hurry and made an error.



Still wrong stats.

2.57/2.67 after the '02 playoffs however 2.93/2.43 going into the conf finals. So offense was actually better than '01 until they ran into the wings.
So you decided to pretend that overtime does not exist? Okay. Good for you for putting in less effort and chastising me for it.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 04:22 PM
  #62
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 25,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Not just Colorado - there is no way the 2000 version of the Devils would have ended up down 3-2 to a Toronto team like the 2001 team was in the 2nd round.
Didn't they win 4-2 against the Leafs? Isn't that just a one game difference?

SnowblindNYR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 08:10 PM
  #63
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
Didn't they win 4-2 against the Leafs? Isn't that just a one game difference?
I gotta agree with TDMM; Brodeur seemed to get stronger to close out series in 2000. He wouldn't have four stinkers against Toronto like he did in 2001. People are looking at the 18 skaters but not the difference in goaltending for whatever reason. Brodeur in 2000 is not the same as Brodeur in 2001. It's enough on its own to call the 2000 team better, and that's before we get into the mid-season acquisitions.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 11:20 PM
  #64
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I gotta agree with TDMM; Brodeur seemed to get stronger to close out series in 2000. He wouldn't have four stinkers against Toronto like he did in 2001. People are looking at the 18 skaters but not the difference in goaltending for whatever reason. Brodeur in 2000 is not the same as Brodeur in 2001. It's enough on its own to call the 2000 team better, and that's before we get into the mid-season acquisitions.
I was unaware that talent was so transient.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-05-2012, 11:58 PM
  #65
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
I was unaware that talent was so transient.
You watch the NHL playoffs every year, yes?

Hasek
1994: .950
1995: .863

Giguere
2006: .864
2007: .922
2008: .898

Roy
1997: .932
1998: .906
1999: .920

Brodeur
2000: .927
2001: .897
2002: .938

Richter
1994: .921
1995: .878
1996: .883
1997: .932

Khabibulin
1997: .932
1998: .877
1999: .924

Joseph
1993: .938
1994: .905
1995: .865


This year's MVP is next year's goat. Pretending that Brodeur's level of play didn't fluctuate from the 2000 playoffs to the 2001 playoffs in an effort to anoint the 2001 Devils as the best team displays ignorance towards anything but the names on the roster. Teams are capable of playing above or below the quality expected from the number of HOFers on the roster.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 11:48 AM
  #66
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
You watch the NHL playoffs every year, yes?

Hasek
1994: .950
1995: .863

Giguere
2006: .864
2007: .922
2008: .898

Roy
1997: .932
1998: .906
1999: .920

Brodeur
2000: .927
2001: .897
2002: .938

Richter
1994: .921
1995: .878
1996: .883
1997: .932

Khabibulin
1997: .932
1998: .877
1999: .924

Joseph
1993: .938
1994: .905
1995: .865


This year's MVP is next year's goat. Pretending that Brodeur's level of play didn't fluctuate from the 2000 playoffs to the 2001 playoffs in an effort to anoint the 2001 Devils as the best team displays ignorance towards anything but the names on the roster. Teams are capable of playing above or below the quality expected from the number of HOFers on the roster.
Do you know what random binomial variation is?

If not, I would read about it. And try to understand it.

And then think about how it might apply to goaltender save percentage.

And then further think about how it might explain why the save percentage of the same goalie can vary wildly from one sample to the next.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 11:59 AM
  #67
Ivan13
Just a flesh wound!
 
Ivan13's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Zagreb
Country: Croatia
Posts: 19,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Master_Of_Districts View Post
Do you know what random binomial variation is?

If not, I would read about it. And try to understand it.

And then think about how it might apply to goaltender save percentage.

And then further think about how it might explain why the save percentage of the same goalie can vary wildly from one sample to the next.
The quality of performance of a certain player can vary from one playoff year to another, players aren't robots (and I'm quite happy about that, otherwise it wouldn't be fun), they can have ups and downs in their respective careers and especially during a shorter period of time like the playoffs.

Ivan13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 12:01 PM
  #68
WarriorOfGandhi
Was saying Boo-urns
 
WarriorOfGandhi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Denver, CO
Country: Scotland
Posts: 17,897
vCash: 500
This thread has got me thinking about matching up some adversaries of these teams. Who would win if

1) the 00 Stars played the 98 Wings

2) the 96 Wings played the 01 Devils

3) the 03 Ducks played the 96 Panthers

WarriorOfGandhi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 01:57 PM
  #69
Master_Of_Districts
Registered User
 
Master_Of_Districts's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Black Ruthenia
Country: Belarus
Posts: 1,744
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivan13 View Post
The quality of performance of a certain player can vary from one playoff year to another, players aren't robots (and I'm quite happy about that, otherwise it wouldn't be fun), they can have ups and downs in their respective careers and especially during a shorter period of time like the playoffs.
Firstly, I'm just talking about goaltenders (and save percentage specifically). Not all players.

Secondly, I'm not claiming that random binomial variation accounts for all of the year-to-year variance in save percentage. Just a substantial fraction of it. Certainly more than half. But it's not the only factor. Injuries and age-related decline or improvement, to name two, would be expected to have some effect.

Thirdly, my hypothesis (and your's, for that matter) is testable. We know how much variation we would expect to observe if random binomial variation was the only factor. So any extra varation observed must be the product of other factors. When I have the time, I will run the numbers.

Master_Of_Districts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-06-2012, 03:57 PM
  #70
quoipourquoi
Moderator
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 6,622
vCash: 500
That's all SUPER interesting, MOD, but here's the thing: We know what we're getting from Brodeur in 2001 compared to 2000: a worse performance in the Stanley Cup playoffs. This is a thread about playoff teams with 20-game sample sizes. If we're going to name the 2001 Devils, then it would have helped if Brodeur had binomial-variated his pad on Adam Foote's drive in Game 6 like he would have any other year in his life.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
06-12-2012, 03:33 PM
  #71
SnowblindNYR
Registered User
 
SnowblindNYR's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 25,305
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarriorOfGandhi View Post
This thread has got me thinking about matching up some adversaries of these teams. Who would win if

1) the 00 Stars played the 98 Wings

2) the 96 Wings played the 01 Devils

3) the 03 Ducks played the 96 Panthers
I was thinking of doing that too.

SnowblindNYR 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 01:50 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. @2017 All Rights Reserved.