HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Why was Detroit more successful than Colorado?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-16-2013, 02:27 PM
  #26
Spitfire11
Registered User
 
Spitfire11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,531
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle McMahon View Post
If Patrick Roy doesn't do his statue of liberty move and then meltdown in Game 7 two days later, this question is probably reversed. Actually, it would definitely be reversed since Colorado would then have had a 4-1 head-to-head advantage.

I think Colorado's depth is underrated. Guys like Stephane Yelle, Adam Deadmarsh, Claude Lemieux and Shjon Podein were solid support players. Usually a Dave Reid or Mike Keane as the grizzled veteran on the third or fourth line. Theo Fleury brought in at the deadline one year, Dave Andreychuk came with Bourque. By around 2000 the emergence of Hejduk, Drury, and Tanguay gave them two first lines basically.
Pretty much right on. Detroit won those key games and that's the difference. Really that simple.

Spitfire11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 02:31 PM
  #27
Leafsdude7
Stand-Up Philosopher
 
Leafsdude7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,505
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Leafsdude7 Send a message via MSN to Leafsdude7 Send a message via Yahoo to Leafsdude7
Along with the goaltending and defense differences between the two, the fact is the Wings had much better depth on the wings () as well.

They had guys like Shanahan, Hull, Robitaille, Holmstrom, Slava Kozlov, and Knuble, and even had decent 4th liners like Maltby, Kocur, LaPointe and McCarty.

The Avs had a decent list of wingers, with Scott Young, Claude Lemieux, Kamensky, Deadmarsh, Tanguay, Chris Drury and Hejduk, but that's nowhere near as strong depth as the Wings. Their 3rd and 4th lines weren't as sharp, either, and they also went through way more names: Keane, Corbet, Eric Lacroix, Rychel, Landon Wilson, Podein, Ville Nieminen, Odgers, Dingman and more.

Really, other than down the middle and in goal, during the 95-04 period for the two teams the Wings were vastly superior.

Leafsdude7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 02:33 PM
  #28
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
What's your opinion on Terry Sawchuk?

Using your "SNW" (which I assume you are loosely referring to) he comes out even worse than Osgood does.
First, Terry Sawchuk does not have a lower SNW% than Chris Osgood:

http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/sawchuk.html

(Nor does he have fewer SNW, if indeed you were looking at that number for some reason)

Second, save percentages are not available for Sawchuk's first two tremendous regular seasons, which would make his numbers even higher.

Third, Sawchuk had five tremendous regular seasons (three of which are included in his SNW% calculations), after which he wasn't particularly compelling. His five-year peak was tremendous, however.

The remainder of your post seems to hinge on me comparing Sawchuk to Osgood, so I'll come back when you've posted a revised version.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 02:44 PM
  #29
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,127
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Now we know it's a fact that goaltenders on teams that focus on reducing shots are more likely to post a lower sv%. There are plenty of examples of this. Dominik Hasek in Detroit is an excellent example relevant to this; he was behind the same/similar defense and his numbers declined drastically from a Vezina winning season that was one of his best years. Did Hasek suddenly turn into an average goalie when he was traded? His SNW - and therefore his save percentage? - was below the league average multiple times in four seasons with the Red Wings and it was four of his five worst seasons. Yet his Ottawa numbers were better than his 2001 Vezina.
Since when is this a fact? Plenty of people say the opposite (see: "Hitchcock's system is the reason Elliott and Halak had such good save percentages!|), and the stats folks say that even-strength save percentage doesn't really vary based on the number of shots against. Reducing shots against on the penalty kill would be a surefire way to increase a goalie's save percentage, however...

...which shows why your example would be incorrect. Hasek's play in 2001-02 was pretty much the same as it was in 2000-01. The Red Wings simply took more penalties (19.8% of his shots were while the Red Wings were shorthanded in 2001-02 vs 17.4% the previous year) and his PK SV% dipped a bit, which could be either due to bad luck or slightly poorer PKing.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 02:45 PM
  #30
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,493
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowblindNYR View Post
Despite not having a superstar in net like the Avs did, the Avs still had less success during their heyday than the Wings (2 to 3 cups, not counting 2008, different era). They both had great centers. Maybe even the Avs were better there. I know the Avs didn't have a guy like Lidstrom. So was it that Detroit defense was that much better?
Your basically asking, which is fine, why did Team A (which had better players on paper) not be as successful as Team B. Well to start off, individual players are not the best way to judge how successful a team is. Secondary, many people underrated the Red Wings organization because they drafted european players.

But ultimately the answer derives from coaching and management. Look at both sides now, 5-10 years later. Which one is still successful and which is on the bottom of the food chain.

Scotty Bowman is one of the greatest hockey minds of all time. Its not about just putting line 1, line 2... out there. Its about how you prepare your troops, when you send them out, how you send them out and the type of players you have. Skill is one thing, but heart/hockey IQ/leadership is another.

You can say team A has 5 all stars and Team B only has 2. So why does Team B dominate more. Well its the intangibles that you have to review and study and then you will see why Detroit will always be a top notch organization.


Steve Yzerman was a stud but became a true leader when he took on several differ roles for the team and sacraficed offense points
Russian 5 was sent out to take control of games and be unpredictable
Lidstrom, Datsyuk, Zetterberg all unexpected draft picks and were young but lil did we know that these guys were gonna be who they are today.

Goes for all there rosters for the last 15 years

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 03:46 PM
  #31
vippe
Registered User
 
vippe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,863
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to vippe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
If we are going to compare the two teams I think it is worth noting that Colorado had a 3-2 edge over them in series wins (1996, 1999, 2000) while the Wings won in 1997 and 2002. Detroit has the 3-2 edge in Cups though.

Honestly, a lot of it came down to Marc Crawford being there. As Canadians we know full well what having Crawford behind the bench can do (1998 Olympics) or you can even ask a Canucks fan the same question. He was a guy who constantly got outcoached.

Also, for whatever reason Sakic and Forsberg never seemed to both be playing their best hockey at the best time. Forsberg was dominant in 1999 and 2002 definitely outplaying Sakic. While Sakic played his best in 1996, 1997 and 2001 with Forsberg not showing up like in other years (he was injured for the last two series in 2001). I really don't know why this was.

Honestly, these teams were close in these years. One Cup seperates them. Each have a year in the middle of their Cup wins that features a big upset (1998 Colorado, 2001 Red Wings). Detroit just had a better system overall with the left wing lock. When it worked, it thrived. That just might honestly be the difference. And Bowman of course.
Forsberg outplayed Sakic for the first two series in 2001 before getting injured so I'm not really sure why you are bothering to use that year.

vippe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 04:07 PM
  #32
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,182
vCash: 500
Also...

1996
Red Wings: 26.9 shots per game
Avalanche: 21.5 shots per game

1997
Red Wings: 35.6 shots per game
Avalanche: 21.2 shots per game

1999
Red Wings: 36.9 shots per game
Avalanche: 30.3 shots per game

2000
Red Wings: 27.9 shots per game
Avalanche: 24.6 shots per game

2002
Red Wings: 30.3 shots per game
Avalanche: 22.9 shots per game


It kinda makes the Avalanche look like over-achievers to have taken the majority of wins in head-to-head playoff series. They won the series they were out-shot by margins of 3.3 over 5 games, 5.4 over 6 games, and 6.6 over 6 games. They lost the series they were out-shot by margins of 7.4 over 7 games and 14.4 over 6 games.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 04:09 PM
  #33
Padan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 509
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vippe View Post
Forsberg outplayed Sakic for the first two series in 2001 before getting injured so I'm not really sure why you are bothering to use that year.
No, Sakic outplayed Forsberg against Vancouver and was injured against L.A.

Padan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:06 PM
  #34
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padan View Post
No, Sakic outplayed Forsberg against Vancouver and was injured against L.A.
I wouldn't say either one outplayed the other against Vancouver, as both took the Canucks to the proverbial woodshed. But even before Sakic separated his shoulder against Los Angeles early in Game 3, Forsberg was certainly asserting himself with six points in those three games to Sakic's one. Heck of a series by anyone's standards against St. Louis though.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:13 PM
  #35
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,217
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post

It kinda makes the Avalanche look like over-achievers to have taken the majority of wins in head-to-head playoff series. They won the series they were out-shot by margins of 3.3 over 5 games, 5.4 over 6 games, and 6.6 over 6 games. They lost the series they were out-shot by margins of 7.4 over 7 games and 14.4 over 6 games.
Doesn't this just support the theme that Detroit had better defense and Colorado had better goaltending?

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:15 PM
  #36
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Doesn't this just support the theme that Detroit had better defense and Colorado had better goaltending?
I think it says a lot about Detroit's offensive depth too.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:17 PM
  #37
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Since when is this a fact? Plenty of people say the opposite (see: "Hitchcock's system is the reason Elliott and Halak had such good save percentages!|), and the stats folks say that even-strength save percentage doesn't really vary based on the number of shots against. Reducing shots against on the penalty kill would be a surefire way to increase a goalie's save percentage, however...

...which shows why your example would be incorrect. Hasek's play in 2001-02 was pretty much the same as it was in 2000-01. The Red Wings simply took more penalties (19.8% of his shots were while the Red Wings were shorthanded in 2001-02 vs 17.4% the previous year) and his PK SV% dipped a bit, which could be either due to bad luck or slightly poorer PKing.
or slightly worse goaltending on the PK.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:19 PM
  #38
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,169
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Also...

1996
Red Wings: 26.9 shots per game
Avalanche: 21.5 shots per game

1997
Red Wings: 35.6 shots per game
Avalanche: 21.2 shots per game

1999
Red Wings: 36.9 shots per game
Avalanche: 30.3 shots per game

2000
Red Wings: 27.9 shots per game
Avalanche: 24.6 shots per game

2002
Red Wings: 30.3 shots per game
Avalanche: 22.9 shots per game


It kinda makes the Avalanche look like over-achievers to have taken the majority of wins in head-to-head playoff series. They won the series they were out-shot by margins of 3.3 over 5 games, 5.4 over 6 games, and 6.6 over 6 games. They lost the series they were out-shot by margins of 7.4 over 7 games and 14.4 over 6 games.
You call it overachieving, I call it significantly better goaltending.

Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
I think it says a lot about Detroit's offensive depth too.
True, but the goalie is part of the team, so I don't think it's overachieving.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 05:34 PM
  #39
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,182
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
You call it overachieving, I call it significantly better goaltending.
There's some truth there, sure, but there's a lot of luck and momentum at work as well, especially in 1997 and 1999.

I know it's strange saying this about a series in which he lost one game 6-0 and had a rare 6-game knockout, but 1997 was actually one of the best series I've seen from Roy.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-16-2013, 06:21 PM
  #40
vippe
Registered User
 
vippe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 10,863
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to vippe
Quote:
Originally Posted by Padan View Post
No, Sakic outplayed Forsberg against Vancouver and was injured against L.A.
They were pretty even in the Vancouver series, but considering the Forsberg show against LA I'd definitely say he outplayed Sakic (despite the injury he suffered)

Just as I can say that Sakic outplayed Forsberg in 1997 when Forsberg was concussed.

vippe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 10:09 AM
  #41
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
First, Terry Sawchuk does not have a lower SNW% than Chris Osgood:

http://hockeygoalies.org/bio/sawchuk.html

(Nor does he have fewer SNW, if indeed you were looking at that number for some reason)

Second, save percentages are not available for Sawchuk's first two tremendous regular seasons, which would make his numbers even higher.

Third, Sawchuk had five tremendous regular seasons (three of which are included in his SNW% calculations), after which he wasn't particularly compelling. His five-year peak was tremendous, however.

The remainder of your post seems to hinge on me comparing Sawchuk to Osgood, so I'll come back when you've posted a revised version.
The "even worse" remark had more to do with the fact that Sawchuk had so many seasons where he was below the .500 mark while Osgood was mostly hovering around the mark.

This makes me wonder... is there some way that SNW can be shown to be an effective indicator of talent/success? I'm also interested in why the GA, etc., are squared in the equation. What purpose does that serve? It seems like nothing but messing around with numbers and declaring it "better numbers" because they fit a certain school of thought.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 10:13 AM
  #42
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
This makes me wonder... is there some way that SNW can be shown to be an effective indicator of talent/success? I'm also interested in why the GA, etc., are squared in the equation. What purpose does that serve? It seems like nothing but messing around with numbers and declaring it "better numbers" because they fit a certain school of thought.
It's the pythagorean theorem (I believe first used by Bill James in baseball), and shows a very good correlation (for teams) between goals scored, goals allowed, and winning percentage.

You certainly don't have to go along with it. I would, however, like a justification of Osgood as top-five "in his generation" (since that's where we started).

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 10:27 AM
  #43
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Since when is this a fact? Plenty of people say the opposite (see: "Hitchcock's system is the reason Elliott and Halak had such good save percentages!|), and the stats folks say that even-strength save percentage doesn't really vary based on the number of shots against. Reducing shots against on the penalty kill would be a surefire way to increase a goalie's save percentage, however...
Hitchcock's system doesn't just limit shots; it's also very good at limiting chances. If the Detroit defense of the 90s played the way St. Louis does (or Dallas did) Osgood would have 5 or 6 Vezinas.

Quote:
...which shows why your example would be incorrect. Hasek's play in 2001-02 was pretty much the same as it was in 2000-01. The Red Wings simply took more penalties (19.8% of his shots were while the Red Wings were shorthanded in 2001-02 vs 17.4% the previous year) and his PK SV% dipped a bit, which could be either due to bad luck or slightly poorer PKing.
While it's true Detroit took more in 2001-02 than in 2000-01... Buffalo too significantly more in 2000-01 than Detroit in 2001-02. Buffalo's penalty kill dropped from 88% to 86.5% without Hasek; Detroit's improved from 85.7% to 86% with Hasek.

So I think we can pretty conclusively state that despite facing significantly fewer shots (26.5 with Buffalo, 25.6 with Detroit) that there's a good chance he may have been seeing fewer chances in Buffalo. Which backs up my longstanding argument; Buffalo had a solid defensive system and good defensive players, and focused on eliminating chances - especially second chances. With an elite goalie like Hasek whose only weakness is a bad rebound, getting rid of those rebounds religiously changes a mediocre defense into a very good one very quickly.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 10:50 AM
  #44
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
It's the pythagorean theorem (I believe first used by Bill James in baseball), and shows a very good correlation (for teams) between goals scored, goals allowed, and winning percentage.

You certainly don't have to go along with it. I would, however, like a justification of Osgood as top-five "in his generation" (since that's where we started).
Osgood was, in almost every season of his career, one of the key players on his team. He had one losing season, which is a season he spent battling injuries. He has some of the best regular season AND playoff numbers ever. But most simply this: When Osgood was in net, compared to other guys he tandemed with, you knew there was a higher likelihood he was going to win. Only Martin Brodeur won more regular season games during Osgood's career. Only Brodeur and Roy won more playoff games during his career. Did you know that? Is it included on his little bio page? It should be. All of Ed Belfour's accomplishments except for the 95 2nd team and the 99 Cup came in his three years before Osgood entered the league.

So realistically, in overlapping time, Osgood put up better accomplishments than Belfour, or Barrasso/Vanbiesbrouck/Richter/Joseph (who some consider better). That leaves Hasek/Roy/Brodeur. That puts him top five, unless you want to debate Carey, Kolzig, Theodore, Kiprusoff, and the three years he was injured when Tim Thomas and Ryan Miller were winning awards. Somehow, I don't think that's a debate the first four would win, and the last two it's like debating Greg Millen vs. Martin Brodeur, or Sidney Crosby vs. Steve Yzerman.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 10:51 AM
  #45
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco MacArthur View Post
It's the pythagorean theorem (I believe first used by Bill James in baseball), and shows a very good correlation (for teams) between goals scored, goals allowed, and winning percentage.
Show me an example or two? Declaring it to be so doesn't make it true.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 10:53 AM
  #46
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Osgood was, in almost every season of his career, one of the key players on his team. He had one losing season, which is a season he spent battling injuries. He has some of the best regular season AND playoff numbers ever. But most simply this: When Osgood was in net, compared to other guys he tandemed with, you knew there was a higher likelihood he was going to win. Only Martin Brodeur won more regular season games during Osgood's career. Only Brodeur and Roy won more playoff games during his career. Did you know that? Is it included on his little bio page? It should be. All of Ed Belfour's accomplishments except for the 95 2nd team and the 99 Cup came in his three years before Osgood entered the league.

So realistically, in overlapping time, Osgood put up better accomplishments than Belfour, or Barrasso/Vanbiesbrouck/Richter/Joseph (who some consider better). That leaves Hasek/Roy/Brodeur. That puts him top five, unless you want to debate Carey, Kolzig, Theodore, Kiprusoff, and the three years he was injured when Tim Thomas and Ryan Miller were winning awards. Somehow, I don't think that's a debate the first four would win, and the last two it's like debating Greg Millen vs. Martin Brodeur, or Sidney Crosby vs. Steve Yzerman.
Of the things you list here, I agree with all of the facts (including his postseason win total - despite your little dig at "his little bio page". Thanks. I appreciate that.)

However, all of the facts listed here tell me that Detroit had a great team. Teams wins games. Goaltenders are a part of a team, but are not the team.

Give me some evidence that Osgood was one of the five best goaltenders of his generation - don't give me evidence that Detroit was one of the five best teams of their generation. We already know that.

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 10:54 AM
  #47
Doctor No
Retired
 
Doctor No's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 23,367
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Show me an example or two? Declaring it to be so doesn't make it true.
This paper from Alan Ryder may interest those reading the thread:
http://www.hockeyanalytics.com/Resea...babilities.pdf

And another great article by Marc Foster and Chris Apple:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/sta...15/just_stats/

Here's a pretty good academic paper from 2012:
http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1208/1208.1725.pdf

Doctor No is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 12:04 PM
  #48
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Now we know it's a fact that goaltenders on teams that focus on reducing shots are more likely to post a lower sv%. There are plenty of examples of this. Dominik Hasek in Detroit is an excellent example relevant to this; he was behind the same/similar defense and his numbers declined drastically from a Vezina winning season that was one of his best years. Did Hasek suddenly turn into an average goalie when he was traded? His SNW - and therefore his save percentage? - was below the league average multiple times in four seasons with the Red Wings and it was four of his five worst seasons. Yet his Ottawa numbers were better than his 2001 Vezina.

Why is that? Why would such a great goalie as Hasek have such a drop in statistics on one team?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
...which shows why your example would be incorrect. Hasek's play in 2001-02 was pretty much the same as it was in 2000-01. The Red Wings simply took more penalties (19.8% of his shots were while the Red Wings were shorthanded in 2001-02 vs 17.4% the previous year) and his PK SV% dipped a bit, which could be either due to bad luck or slightly poorer PKing.
2 points...

hasek was already in decline due to age and groin injury in '00. his numbers in '00 and '01 were lower than before.

especially his ES sv% declined in that period.
'98: .946
'99: .946
'00: .923
'01: .924
'02: .925

nhl.com does not have those stats before '98.




in late march of 2002, DRW had already secured home ice advantage throughout the playoffs, so they stopped trying to win games, and rested many players.

they began resting players on march 25, and then won only 1 of last 10 games.

unsurprisingly, stats of both hasek and legace fell in that period.

legace's '02: 458 of 503 ~ .911
legace from march 25 to end of season: 85 of 100 =.850
difference: 373 of 403 ~ .926

hasek's entire season: 1514 of 1654 ~ .915
hasek from march 25 to end of season: 140 of 158 ~ .886
difference: 1374 of 1496 ~ .918

.918 is basically the same as .919 in '00 and .921 in '01.


Quote:
Originally Posted by quoipourquoi View Post
Also...

1996
Red Wings: 26.9 shots per game
Avalanche: 21.5 shots per game

1997
Red Wings: 35.6 shots per game
Avalanche: 21.2 shots per game

1999
Red Wings: 36.9 shots per game
Avalanche: 30.3 shots per game

2000
Red Wings: 27.9 shots per game
Avalanche: 24.6 shots per game

2002
Red Wings: 30.3 shots per game
Avalanche: 22.9 shots per game


It kinda makes the Avalanche look like over-achievers to have taken the majority of wins in head-to-head playoff series. They won the series they were out-shot by margins of 3.3 over 5 games, 5.4 over 6 games, and 6.6 over 6 games. They lost the series they were out-shot by margins of 7.4 over 7 games and 14.4 over 6 games.
i don't think that is a big deal.

i struggle to think of any series since early '90s in which DRW did not outshoot their opponents, and probably usually by fairly large margins. only i can think of is '95 finals.

DRW rarely have relied on their goalies to win.


DRW's goalies' sv% in those series vs colorado
'96: .859 --- (osgood)
'97: .905 --- (vernon, osgood)
'99: .886 --- (ranford, maracle, injured osgood)
'00: .9055 -- (osgood)
'02: .923 --- (hasek)

other than hasek, those are pretty bad, and hasek was not as good as .923 looks.


Last edited by nik jr: 01-17-2013 at 12:17 PM.
nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 12:11 PM
  #49
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Morocco
Country: Morocco
Posts: 22,053
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by eva unit zero View Post
Osgood was, in almost every season of his career, one of the key players on his team....He has some of the best regular season AND playoff numbers ever...
Osgoods' sort of the Rodney Dangerfield of his generation of Goalies, no (or limited) respect in a lot of quarters. Statistically he looks "Great", ranking 10th All Time with Regular Season Wins (401); 8th with post season wins (74) and 4th All Time Shutout King (15). From 94-96 Detroit didnt have complete confidence in the guy, as he did have a tendency to whiff from time-time so they went searching, landing Vernon of course, who was between the pipes when the Wings won in 97.

The next year however, it was Chris Osgood's stellar play that insured a Cup repeat, then the injury bug hits him, eventually winds up in Long Island, where he accomplished much, winning 32 games, that team making the playoffs for the first time in eons. Then its off to St.Louis, where again, he performs brilliantly, driving the Blues into the post season. Thereafter he reinvented his game (Butterfly elements) and of course post 04/05 Lockout he returns to Detroit, and in 2008 pretty much carried a lot of wins on his back after Hasek struggled early against Nashville; another Stanley Cup.

Based on his numbers & Cup wins alone, he should be a candidate for the HHOF, however, the lack of personal Silverware, a somewhat enigmatic career hindered by injuries & at times inconsistent play engenders in many strong opinion for or against not only possible induction but so too inclusion amongst his peers as being "the best" or even "one of the best" of his generation. Being an old goalie myself & having watched this guy pretty closely, I rate him highly, and absolutely agree that he was one of the best of his generation. The combination of occasional lapses of concentration (and injuries) in the very demanding environment of Detroit was as much a blessing as it was a curse.

Based on 98, what he did with the Islanders, with the Wings again in 2008, his overall numbers, character issues etc, all the while biding his time & biting his tongue as a backup to more celebrated goaltenders, reinventing himself, well, I thinks thats beyond Classy, Professional, gutsy & extremely admirable. He's more than earned the right to have his name included in any "Best of Generation" debate IMHO.

Killion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-17-2013, 12:23 PM
  #50
Luigi Lemieux
Registered User
 
Luigi Lemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Country: United States
Posts: 13,103
vCash: 500
I'd say they were neck and neck coming out of the lockout in 04-05. Detroit remained an elite team, Colorado didn't. Gotta give Holland the credit there. He had to cut his payroll in half and still managed to keep a powerhouse team going.

Luigi Lemieux 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 03:32 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.