HFBoards

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

Jim Coleman Conference Final: Minnesota Fighting Saints vs. Ak Bars Kazan

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-05-2012, 12:59 PM
  #1
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,542
vCash: 500
Jim Coleman Conference Final: Minnesota Fighting Saints vs. Ak Bars Kazan

Minnesota Fighting Saints


GM: Nalyd Psycho
Head Coach: Al Arbour
Captain: Dit Clapper
Assistant Captains: Maurice Richard & Guy Carbonneau

#40 Henrik Zetterberg-#26 Peter Šťastný-#9 Maurice Richard
#19 Markus Näslund-#25 Jacques Lemaire-#13 Bill Guerin
#21 Harry Westwick-#21 Guy Carbonneau-#16 Bengt-Åke Gustafsson
#22 Dennis Hextall-#15 Jaroslav Holík-#12 Ron Stewart

#4 Bill Gadsby-#5 Dit Clapper
#2 Derian Hatcher-#6 Art Duncan
#3 František Tikal-#8 Harry Mummery

#1 Hugh Lehman
#30 Tim Thomas

Spares: #14 Mattias Norström, D-#44 Barry Ashbee, D-#11 Art Gagne, RW-#7 Jason Arnott

First Power Play Unit:
Näslund-Šťastný-Richard
Gadsby-Duncan

Second Power Play Unit:
Zetterberg-Lemaire-Guerin
Mummery-Clapper

First Penalty Kill Unit:
Carbonneau-Westwick
Hatcher-Clapper

Second Penalty Kill Unit:
Lemaire-Gustafsson
Gadsby-Tikal


VS


AK BARS KAZAN
АК БАРС КАЗАНЬ




Coach: Toe Blake
Captain: Sprague Cleghorn
Alternate Captains: Zdeno Chara, Eric Desjardins, Mike Modano

#25 Dave Andreychuk - #10 Jean Ratelle - #68 Jaromir Jagr
#7 Vic Stasiuk - #9 Mike Modano (A) - #33 Zigmund Palffy
#4 Bob Davidson - #18 Walt Tkaczuk - #16 Eric Nesterenko
#26 Mats Naslund - #15 Bobby Smith - #17 Mike Foligno
#8 Johnny Wilson
#14 Barney Stanley
#12 Tom Lysiak

#3 Zdeno Chara (A) - #2 Sprague Cleghorn (C)
#5 Mike Ramsey - #37 Eric Desjardins (A)
#6 Calle Johansson - #23 Petr Svoboda
#44 Alexei Zhitnik

#1 Johnny Bower
#11 Roberto Luongo

PP1
Ratelle - Andreychuk - Jagr
Cleghorn - Desjardins

PP2
Naslund - Smith - Palffy
Chara - Modano

(Jagr will take extended shifts on PP.)

PK1
Tkaczuk - Nesterenko
Chara - Ramsey
Bower

PK2
Modano - Davidson
Cleghorn - Desjardins
Bower

other PKers: Johansson, Svoboda, Ratelle, Palffy, Smith, Davidson, Stanley, Lysiak

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 05:58 PM
  #2
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,717
vCash: 500
Well, this guarantees one team who built from the RW out will make the finals...

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2012, 10:45 PM
  #3
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Well, this guarantees one team who built from the RW out will make the finals...
and the team they just beat, had Gordie Howe!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2012, 12:00 AM
  #4
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
I'm not sure I've ever seen two more similar teams go head-to-head in the ATD.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2012, 02:47 PM
  #5
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
I'd really like to see how Lehman compares to Bower. I've thought Bower is slightly overrated here for a while, but I assume he's better than Lehman. However it wouldn't surprise me if that's not the case.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2012, 04:17 PM
  #6
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Bower is overrated because his NHL resume isn't substantially better than Billy Smith's. Bower does deserve extra credit for being the dominant AHL goalie in the O6 AHL before getting a full time NHL job, but I feel like that impresses other GMs more than it does me. I definitely think a team with Bower has to expect to platoon in the regular season.

But this is the playoffs, where Bower does shine.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-06-2012 at 04:22 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2012, 06:25 PM
  #7
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Two very well coached and constructed teams

Weaknesses?

I can see both first lines being vulnerable to physical play. Kazan features Jean Ratelle, who was a historically poor playoff performer in NYC before moving to Boston and performing very well in the playoffs. Was it because Boston gave the small Ratelle more physical protection? Andreychuk has very poor playoff numbers for his career. In a previous draft, I speculated it was because he wasnt very useful unless he was planted in front of the opponent's goal, and in the playoffs, he was more likely to find defensemen who could keep him out of the crease. On the other hand, Andreychuk put up pretty good numbers the two playoffs next to super-Gilmour, and he does have Jagr here.

Minnesota'a potential problem with physical play is completely different. All 3 players on their top line can handle themselves, though only the Rocket could be called a power player. The problem is that the Rocket might be a little too eager to handle things himself and get roped into bad penalties if played roughly. On the other hand, Sprague Cleghorn might be even more vulnerable to bad penalties.

I would love to see a detailed comparison of second lines. Markus Naslund vs Palffy, Modano vs Lemaire, and Guerin vs Stasiuk seem like very natural comparisons

I think Desjardins is probably the best dman on either second pair, but Ramsey is probably the worst. Kazan's bottom pairing does not impress me at all.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2012, 07:05 PM
  #8
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,542
vCash: 500
Johansson impresses me, Svoboda does not.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-06-2012, 10:47 PM
  #9
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,611
vCash: 4800
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Johansson does not impress me. Zero relevant finishes in Norris/AS voting, and 4 decent offensive seasons of 51, 55, 65, 52 to 2nd place isn't impressing me.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2012, 09:53 AM
  #10
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Johansson does not impress me. Zero relevant finishes in Norris/AS voting, and 4 decent offensive seasons of 51, 55, 65, 52 to 2nd place isn't impressing me.
Johansson was like Ohlund, but not as tough and solid. He was primarily there for defense and was almost always a top pairing ES guy, but got PP time in a few seasons, hence the occasional offensive spikes. His prime numbers in terms of icetime and team strength don't really look any worse than Numminen's.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2012, 01:08 PM
  #11
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,611
vCash: 4800
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Johansson was like Ohlund, but not as tough and solid. He was primarily there for defense and was almost always a top pairing ES guy, but got PP time in a few seasons, hence the occasional offensive spikes. His prime numbers in terms of icetime and team strength don't really look any worse than Numminen's.
Their TOI looks very similar, but Numminen has four top 12s in AS voting among defensemen. Johansson has nothing. In your study, only Johansson, Doug Bodger, and Jeff Brown have no relevant AS finishes/AS game elections. Johansson and Numminen played a similar style, yet Numminen got significantly more recognition for it. That says something, doesn't it?

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2012, 01:39 PM
  #12
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Their TOI looks very similar, but Numminen has four top 12s in AS voting among defensemen. Johansson has nothing. In your study, only Johansson, Doug Bodger, and Jeff Brown have no relevant AS finishes/AS game elections. Johansson and Numminen played a similar style, yet Numminen got significantly more recognition for it. That says something, doesn't it?
It might or might not. Only one of Numminen's all-star finishes really means much more than the opinions of 3-6 of over 100 voters.

Their on ice numbers indicate that they very well could have been performing at the same level. And let's face it, neither of them were ever a top-5 defenseman in the league, so no one should have given them any all-star votes (except 1998 when Numminen was a popular borderline candidate) so is it wise to put too much weight on votes that weren't really defensible?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2012, 02:23 PM
  #13
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
I'd really like to see how Lehman compares to Bower. I've thought Bower is slightly overrated here for a while, but I assume he's better than Lehman. However it wouldn't surprise me if that's not the case.
One thing I'll say is this. Bower did not dominate the minor leagues. From age 25-33, the AHL top goalie award was only won by Johnny Bower and Gil Mayer. Bower won 3 times, Mayer 5 times. Granted, Bower was not in the AHL for two of Mayer's wins, but conversly, Mayer was injured for two of Bowers wins. If it wasn't for Mayer's broken jaw, he could have been the goalie for Toronto all those years Biwer was, as Mayer was 5 years younger. So for those who say Bower gets a boost for dominating the minors, he flat out did not dominate the minor leagues.

Where as Hugh Lehman was the PCHA (A vastly superior league to the 1950's AHL) best goalie for eleven out of thirteen years.

Another question is, why did Gump Worsley beat out Bower for the Rangers starting job after Rayner retired? Worsley took over in 52-53, but then Bower got the job for 53-54. But then Worsley reclaimed it in 54-55. Bower's numbers in 52-53 were better than Worsley's in either 52-53 or 54-55. This is a mystery I would love to see solved.

How much of Bower's success was a product of Toronto's defence? Six of his seasons, he had another goalie play significant minutes.
62-63:
Bower: 42 gp, 2.60 gaa & .571 win%
Don Simmons: 28 gp, 2.46 gaa & .652 win%

63-64:
Bower: 51 gp, 2.11 gaa & .600 win%
Don Simmons: 21 gp, 3.17 gaa & .500 win%

64-65:
Bower: 34 gp, 2.38 gaa & .500 win%
Terry Sawchuk: 36 gp, 2.56 gaa & .566 win%

65-66:
Bower: 35 gp, 2.25 gaa & .643 win%
Terry Sawchuk: 27 gp, 3.16 gaa & .476 win%
Bruce Gamble: 10 gp, 2.51 gaa & .714 win%

66-67:
Bower: 27 gp, 2.64 gaa & .571 win%
Terry Sawchuk: 28 gp, 2.81 gaa & .750 win%
Bruce Gamble: 23 gp, 3.39 gaa & .333 win%

67-68:
Bower: 43 gp, 2.25 gaa & .437 win%
Bruce Gamble: 41 gp, 2.32 gaa & .594 win%

From this we can tell a few things:
1. Bower was the most consistent of the goalies.
2. Toronto did have a defence that probably benefited goalies.

What we can't tell:
Who played against top teams.

Is it possible to directly compare Bower and Lehman? No. Is there reason to believe there is a significant gap between Bower and Lehman? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Two very well coached and constructed teams

Weaknesses?

I can see both first lines being vulnerable to physical play. Kazan features Jean Ratelle, who was a historically poor playoff performer in NYC before moving to Boston and performing very well in the playoffs. Was it because Boston gave the small Ratelle more physical protection? Andreychuk has very poor playoff numbers for his career. In a previous draft, I speculated it was because he wasnt very useful unless he was planted in front of the opponent's goal, and in the playoffs, he was more likely to find defensemen who could keep him out of the crease. On the other hand, Andreychuk put up pretty good numbers the two playoffs next to super-Gilmour, and he does have Jagr here.

Minnesota'a potential problem with physical play is completely different. All 3 players on their top line can handle themselves, though only the Rocket could be called a power player. The problem is that the Rocket might be a little too eager to handle things himself and get roped into bad penalties if played roughly. On the other hand, Sprague Cleghorn might be even more vulnerable to bad penalties.
This is a major reason why I think Minnesota should win. Kazan is softer and has less heart and leadership. Ratelle was a piss poor playoff performer when he wasn't protected. He has limited protection here and Minnesota has the physicality to act upon it.

I don't think Richard's physical player and penalties will be a problem. Remember, there are outside factors that led to a lot of his suspensions and problems:

1. He played on small teams with few tough players.
2. He faced constant prejudicial slurring during games.
3. League authorities refused to give him protection and the benefit of the doubt versus thugs.

All three of those factors should not come into play. Will he take penalties? Of course, will some of them be frustrating? Yes. But will he take so many it's a detriment? Absolutely not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I would love to see a detailed comparison of second lines. Markus Naslund vs Palffy, Modano vs Lemaire, and Guerin vs Stasiuk seem like very natural comparisons
I'll try and get to that tomorrow.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2012, 06:49 PM
  #14
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
This is a major reason why I think Minnesota should win. Kazan is softer and has less heart and leadership.
Men in glass houses shouldn't throw stones around - you have bloody Naslund on your team.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2012, 07:33 PM
  #15
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,542
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Men in glass houses shouldn't throw stones around - you have bloody Naslund on your team.
Yes, but he has Dit Clapper, therefore his team is the toughest ever.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2012, 09:15 PM
  #16
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Men in glass houses shouldn't throw stones around - you have bloody Naslund on your team.
One player can neither make a team soft or tough. If Nik wants to send Steve Moore out there to cheapshot nazzy, I'll punch him in the back of the head.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2012, 09:33 PM
  #17
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Isn't there a lot of evidence to suggest that Bower's defense was spectacularly overrated based on shots against totals?

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-07-2012, 09:58 PM
  #18
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,717
vCash: 500
Shots against does not equal quality shots against.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 05:42 PM
  #19
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,526
vCash: 500
which team has home ice advantage?



matchups

main matchup i want is cleghorn and chara against richard and stastny. ramsey and desjardins against naslund and lemaire. at home, davidson will shadow richard as he did in reality. davidson was a physical agitator and he and richard often went to the penalty box together.

i do not mind jagr's line playing against any of minnesota's lines, but i would prefer jagr to avoid gadsby and clapper.


although minnesota's d-men are very big, i think they are also relatively slow. although jagr famously struggled with the big, slow behemoth hal gill,



richard vs davidson
davidson's shadowing of richard is a fairly large part of my bio, but i will write more in depth about it.

montreal were easily the best team in '44, 45 and '46, whereas TML were mediocre. richard seems to have had less success vs TML than other teams. richard scored 7p (5g, 2a) in his last 2 games vs TML late in '44, and davidson seems to have been used to shadow him only starting in the '44 playoffs. in '45, newspapers often mentioned habs' and richard's "jinx," b/c they struggled, especially in toronto. i have not found anything about davidson shadowing richard after '45.

tommy gorman, GM of habs, said in december of 1944 that interference and obstruction of richard was very excessive, and said that TML were the worst offenders. i read a report or column, i think by dink carroll, that said davidson wrapped his arms around richard toward the end of a game, but officials missed it.



richard's scoring vs TML from '44-'46 (including playoffs) was uneven. richard tended to explode at home, and scored much more at home than on road.


vs TML, '44-'46
home: 26g, 10a, 36p in 20 games
road: 8g, 4a, 12p in 19 games


2 playoff series in '44 and '45 are perfect examples of this uneven scoring. richard had games of 5g, 2+3, and 4+1 at home, but his highest output on road was 1g.


weak condition of the NHL almost certainly is an important part of the explanation. depth players during WW2 were generally weak. broda also missed '44-'46.

my bio of davidson quotes a '44 report in montreal gazette:
Quote:
To Bob Davidson, one of the loop's leading back-checkers, was assigned the task of hobbling the rocketing Richard, and he did a good job of it in the first game. Last night, Irvin played 4 defencemen and only 8 forwards and Richard played on all 3 lines. Half the time he was out there, Davidson was sitting on the bench and Richard made a monkey of the younger Leafs who tried to take over the task of shadowing him.
....
A fan may have aided the Canadiens to score their first goal: that at least is what the Leafs claim. He tore Bob Davidson's stick out of his hands while the Habs were pouring on the power. Then he threw the stick after Davidson and it looked as though the latter was back in plenty of time to resume his position, though the Leafs claim otherwise. But it was right after this that Richard combined with McMahon and Blake to rifle the puck past Paul Bibeault.







how good was gadsby's D?

there has been some debate about this in last couple of years. gadsby's offensive ability and physicality are well known, but his D is not as well established. gadsby was apparently a rusher for most of his career, and his D seems to have peaked toward the end of his career when he played conservatively.

in gadsby's era, it was common to use only 4 d-men, and star d-men usually played more than 30 minutes. it seems strange to me that his teams would have had such poor defensive performance if gadsby was very good offensively, defensively and physically.

i mentioned this in last ATD:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dink Carroll in 1-9-1956 Montreal Gazette
Listening to Muzz [Patrick] you get the impression that he doesn't want any stars on his club. Which is to say he doesn't want any of them singled out for praise above the others. He was asked about Andy Bathgate, who was right up among the scoring leaders. "He's playing pretty well," he answered briefly.

"How about Bill Gadsby. He looks like a cinch for the 2nd all star team, and he may catch the 1st team if the voters regard Red Kelly as a forward." "Gadsby is a good offensive defenseman," Muzz said, "but the key man on our defense is Harry Howell. He's the solid guy."
Carroll said patrick had a "policy to build up the rangers who don't get much ink, and talk down those who do," so that quote may be completely meaningless.

muzz patrick also said their internal stats show that andy hebenton was effective in a checking role.

this bit from a column by doug vaughan makes me a bit suspicious:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Windsor Daily Star: 4-4-1959
It is no secret that Worsley had incurred the wrath of Watson [NYR's coach] on several occasions this past season. However, Gump's protection was not exactly first-rate. As a matter of fact, Bill Gadsby proved the most dependable backliner the Rangers had.
that column does not mention gadsby anywhere else.

a post by overpass:
Quote:
The thing that bothers me about Gadsby is that he played on some really bad teams in his prime. It's hard to picture any team with some of the other defencemen taken recently ever being that bad. He changed teams a couple of times, but his departure and arrival didn't change the course of any franchises.

See the 1954-55 season. Gadsby was 27. Chicago had a 3-13-3 record (.250 W%). They traded Gadsby to New York and improved, going 10-27-14 (0.327 W%) the rest of the way. The Rangers were 6-9-3 (0.417 W%) when Gadsby arrived. With Gadsby on the team they were 11-26-15 (0.356 W%). Both teams were worse with Gadsby.

In the three seasons before Gadsby, New York averaged 59 points. In Gadsby's first three seasons there, they averaged 64 points. Chicago averaged 48 points in Gadsby's last three seasons there, and 47 points in the three seasons after he left.

The Rangers sent Gadsby to Detroit after the 1960-61 season. In the three seasons prior to that they averaged 56 points. In the three seasons after Gadsby left they averaged 58 points. Detroit averaged 64 points in the three seasons prior to acquiring Gadsby. After picking him up they averaged 69 points in three seasons.

Teams tended to improve slightly after acquiring Gadsby, and stayed about the same without him. His record just doesn't have a lot of team success on it, or evidence of making an impact, relative to other defencemen taken around here. Like Chris Pronger, for example.

Sure, this is crude analysis, and there are many factors that drive team success. But maybe the Hockey News panel, many whom watched Gadsby in his prime, knew what they were doing when they ranked him as the 99th best player in history as of 1996. I don't think most people would say that list underrated Original Six players, either.
there were other changes in '55 and '62. chicago added several other players in '55 and NYR added doug harvey in '62.


i see 2 main explanations of that.

1. gadsby got scored on very much and was not very effective in controlling play.
2. gadsby's teams had truly terrible coaching and depth, despite the small number of teams and smaller rosters, which i think casts doubt on the quality of the O6.


in support of #2 are lloyd percival's measurements of skating and shooting speeds. according to percival's numbers, fastest players were much faster than league average, meaning below average players were extremely slow compared to hull or orr.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Two very well coached and constructed teams

Weaknesses?

I can see both first lines being vulnerable to physical play. Kazan features Jean Ratelle, who was a historically poor playoff performer in NYC before moving to Boston and performing very well in the playoffs. Was it because Boston gave the small Ratelle more physical protection? Andreychuk has very poor playoff numbers for his career. In a previous draft, I speculated it was because he wasnt very useful unless he was planted in front of the opponent's goal, and in the playoffs, he was more likely to find defensemen who could keep him out of the crease. On the other hand, Andreychuk put up pretty good numbers the two playoffs next to super-Gilmour, and he does have Jagr here.
ratelle was soft, but not small. he was above average in size, i think. the general view of ratelle's playoff career is that NYR did not protect him, but boston did. i remember reading a discussion somewhere about nick fotiu, in which a longtime NYR fan said early/mid '70s NYR needed someone like him.

i generally do not like that kind of thinking, but '70s would be the period when protection of enforcers would be most useful.



andreychuk's career playoff numbers are skewed by his later career.

age 33 and after: 31p in 75 games ...... (.41p per game)
before age 33: 66p in 87 games ...... (.76p per game)

'97-'01 especially skews his numbers: 11p in 41 games. andreychuk had less TOI in that period and spent most of it with NJD.

rest of career: 86p in 121 games

Quote:
Minnesota's potential problem with physical play is completely different. All 3 players on their top line can handle themselves, though only the Rocket could be called a power player. The problem is that the Rocket might be a little too eager to handle things himself and get roped into bad penalties if played roughly. On the other hand, Sprague Cleghorn might be even more vulnerable to bad penalties.
although richard's short temper is well known, he is another player who i think is not punished for it as much as eddie shore and sprague cleghorn.

it seems to me that richard appears more on the PIM's leaderboard, even though cleghorn played against a smaller number of players. players generally played 50-60 minutes, and there were usually fewer teams. cleghorn was basically competing with 20-30 players in PIM, and richard with about 80-90.


when toe blake was habs' coach, he tried to punch an official, but missed.

Quote:
I would love to see a detailed comparison of second lines. Markus Naslund vs Palffy, Modano vs Lemaire, and Guerin vs Stasiuk seem like very natural comparisons.
in offense, i think naslund is better than palffy, mostly b/c he had better health and longevity. palffy was more consistent, but naslund's peak was higher.

modano is better offensively than lemaire and guerin a bit better than stasiuk.

nalyd may disagree about lemaire. the reason i put modano above of lemaire is that lemaire was usually not his team's offensive catalyst. he usually played with a better or equal offensive player (lafleur, f mahovlich, cournoyer).

modano was almost always the offensive driver of his team.


in defensive play, i think my players are better at each position, with the possible exception of guerin/stasiuk.

lemaire was a good defensive player, but i think his reputation has been exaggerated b/c of his coaching career. lemaire did not PK much, and as far as i know, was generally not used in a checking role. award and AS voting thread says lemaire got a total of 1 vote for selke in his career ('78).

i read a newspaper article in last ATD in which bowman publicly criticized lemaire's defensive play (i am nearly certain it was in early '70s), but sometimes bowman did those sort of things for motivation.


modano was one of the top checking C's in the NHL on a very good defensive team for about 7 seasons, was a primary PKer on a strong PK and had a great selke record (i have said before that i think it underrates him, though, b/c of splitting votes with lehtinen). modano was average defensively early in his career, though.



i cannot understand how guerin got 2nd AS RW in '02. outside the top 20 in scoring, minus player, not the driver of his team's offense, not a complete player, well below several other RW's in scoring.

no idea why he was picked above bertuzzi.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
One thing I'll say is this. Bower did not dominate the minor leagues. From age 25-33, the AHL top goalie award was only won by Johnny Bower and Gil Mayer. Bower won 3 times, Mayer 5 times. Granted, Bower was not in the AHL for two of Mayer's wins, but conversly, Mayer was injured for two of Bowers wins. If it wasn't for Mayer's broken jaw, he could have been the goalie for Toronto all those years Bower was, as Mayer was 5 years younger. So for those who say Bower gets a boost for dominating the minors, he flat out did not dominate the minor leagues.
hap holmes award is the AHL's version of the jennings trophy. bower won AHL's MVP 3 times (which is a record). mayer never won.

AHLHOF site says bower was 1st AS 5 times and 2nd AS once, and that mayer was 1st AS 3 times and 2nd AS twice.

based on AHLHOF profiles, i think bower's 5 first AS's is also a record.


mayer broke his jaw in '59, when bower was already TML's starter, and TML reached the finals.

Quote:
How much of Bower's success was a product of Toronto's defence? Six of his seasons, he had another goalie play significant minutes.
62-63:
Bower: 42 gp, 2.60 gaa & .571 win% ------ .914
Don Simmons: 28 gp, 2.46 gaa & .652 win% -----.901

63-64:
Bower: 51 gp, 2.11 gaa & .600 win% ----- .933
Don Simmons: 21 gp, 3.17 gaa & .500 win% ---- .889

64-65:
Bower: 34 gp, 2.38 gaa & .500 win% --------- .924
Terry Sawchuk: 36 gp, 2.56 gaa & .566 win% ----- .914

65-66:
Bower: 35 gp, 2.25 gaa & .643 win% ------------ .930
Terry Sawchuk: 27 gp, 3.16 gaa & .476 win% ------- .904
Bruce Gamble: 10 gp, 2.51 gaa & .714 win% -------- .924

66-67:
Bower: 27 gp, 2.64 gaa & .571 win% ------------ .918
Terry Sawchuk: 28 gp, 2.81 gaa & .750 win% ------- .920
Bruce Gamble: 23 gp, 3.39 gaa & .333 win% -------- .906

67-68:
Bower: 43 gp, 2.25 gaa & .437 win% ---------- .934
Bruce Gamble: 41 gp, 2.32 gaa & .594 win% ------ .934

From this we can tell a few things:
1. Bower was the most consistent of the goalies.
2. Toronto did have a defence that probably benefited goalies.

What we can't tell:
Who played against top teams.
i added sv% numbers in bold. bower's were generally clear above TML's other goalies.

bower's lower GAA but often lower win % probably means he played stronger teams, unless he was very unlucky with goal support. bower certainly benefited from his team's D, but that is normal. i don't see much reason to think he was a product of his team.

in '61, bower was runner up for the hart. in each of '62, '64, '65 and '68, bower got more votes for hart than any teammate. his votes other than in '61 were very low, though, so they do not mean much more than that he was not a product of his team.


i cited this earlier:
Quote:
Using the performance vs. backup approach described in a previous post, I wanted to see who was the best goalie in each decade. I calculated a total "goals better than backups" for each goalie, based on figuring out how much better each goalie was than their backups, and then multiplying that by the number of games played to get a total number of goals. So it was not only excellence that counted, but also longevity.

What I found was that for the most part, my answers for each ten year period followed along pretty closely with conventional wisdom, with one glaring exception.

1950s: 1. Al Rollins, 2. Jacques Plante, 3. Glenn Hall
1960s: 1. Johnny Bower, 2. Charlie Hodge, 3. Glenn Hall
1970s: 1. Tony Esposito, 2. Bernie Parent, 3. Ken Dryden
1980s: 1. Dan Bouchard, 2. Pete Peeters, 3. Chico Resch
1990s: 1. Dominik Hasek, 2. Patrick Roy, 3. Curtis Joseph
2000s: 1. Miikka Kiprusoff, 2. Dominik Hasek, 3. Roberto Luongo

Quote:
bower's sv%, rank in sv%, games played
'54: .922 -- (4) -- 70 games***

'59: .913 -- (2) -- 39 games
'60: .919 -- (1) -- 66 games
'61: .923 -- (1) -- 58 games
'62: .917 -- (2) -- 59 games
'63: .914 -- (2, tied) -- 42 games -- tiny margin between 1st (.915) and 5th (.913)
'64: .933 -- (1) -- 51 games
'65: .924 -- (1) -- 34 games
'66: .930 -- (1) -- 35 games
'67: .918 -- (5) -- 20 games
........... expansion to 12 teams
'68: .934 -- (1, tied) -- 43 games*
'69: .910 -- (9) -- 20 games*

* from seventieslord

*** calculated by BM67, presumably from hockey summary project. http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=29047654&postcount=5


is there any other time when a non-elite goalie consistently had such strong sv% numbers?

and bower did not just have nice regular season numbers. he was the primary goalie for a dynasty.


Quote:
Is it possible to directly compare Bower and Lehman? No. Is there reason to believe there is a significant gap between Bower and Lehman? No.
i think bower's statistics point to him being better than his reputation. his AS record may underrate his level of play, b/c he rarely played a whole season.



lehman

sturminator has found that lehman struggled on long shots, and especially screened shots. http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...11&postcount=4 this must be an important part of my plan.

andreychuk was a great slot man, and is very big. stasiuk, foligno, smith, and all my 3rd liners also played near the net. 3rd liners generally did not have good hands, though. tkaczuk was a good playmaker, but his shot was below average.

i also think minnesota's d-men will help screen lehman. they may be the biggest d-corps in ATD history, and are not the most mobile.


andreychuk's role on PP should be very important. minnesota has several heavily penalized players (richard, hatcher, gadsby, hextall, mummery), so there should be a good amount of time for special teams.


it would be dishonest to claim that long shots or screened shots were a fatal weakness of lehman. it is easier to find reports of him stopping long shots than allowing them. but they were a weakness, and not only when they went directly into the net. if lehman struggled to track long shots and screened shots, he would be unprepared for them even when he had made saves, which would reduce his control of rebounds.

although several of my F's were unphysical, every skater in ATD willingly went to the net for rebounds and loose pucks. minnesota's d-men as a group should be effective in protecting the middle of the ice, but that would also tend to obscure lehman's vision.


lehman's playoff career was not as stellar as his regular season career, in which he dominated PCHA. lehman reached 8 stanley cup finals, winning only 1. first 2 were with relatively weak teams, so i am thinking he should not be blamed for those losses.

a search shows that lehman allowed bad goals on long shots in at least 3 very important series (game 5 in '18, 2g in game 3 in '21 and game 4 vs ottawa in '23). i also found a bad goal on a long shot in '14 regular season.


i think b/c of the different rules of passing, NHL probably used more long shots than PCHA. PCHA was based more on combination, whereas NHL was more defensive. NHL teams generally played a defensive style, and opponents very often took long shots from outside the wall of players.

but that cannot be the only explanation, b/c long shots were not uncommon in PCHA. dunderdale scored on lehman with a long shot in '14.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 06:10 PM
  #20
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,542
vCash: 500
based on regular season points, Ak Bars Kazan have home ice advantage.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 07:34 PM
  #21
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
As far as Gadsby's defense, I've never really found anything about his positional game as far as his stick work or poke checking ability or anything like that, but I know he was noted as a great shot blocker. I know that in mine and arrbez's mini bio last year that was noted.

My honest guess is that he was a better version of Rob Blake defensively. He would go out of his way for a big hit (he was definitely noted as a big hitter) but was also a strong shot blocker, which makes me think he's an average defensive player at ES, but a strong PKer.


Last edited by vecens24: 05-08-2012 at 07:44 PM.
vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 08:26 PM
  #22
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
I think Gadsby was clearly sacrificing D for O when he was putting up big numbers for the Rangers - he almost had to - who else was going to score? I think he showed in Detroit that he could play fine D when he wasn't needed to lead the offense, but then his numbers dipped quite a bit

Edit: but just to be clear, those numbers were slightly better than Doug Harvey and way ahead of everyone else but Kelly


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-08-2012 at 10:06 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 11:43 PM
  #23
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,717
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post

how good was gadsby's D?

there has been some debate about this in last couple of years. gadsby's offensive ability and physicality are well known, but his D is not as well established. gadsby was apparently a rusher for most of his career, and his D seems to have peaked toward the end of his career when he played conservatively.

in gadsby's era, it was common to use only 4 d-men, and star d-men usually played more than 30 minutes. it seems strange to me that his teams would have had such poor defensive performance if gadsby was very good offensively, defensively and physically.

i mentioned this in last ATD:

Carroll said patrick had a "policy to build up the rangers who don't get much ink, and talk down those who do," so that quote may be completely meaningless.

muzz patrick also said their internal stats show that andy hebenton was effective in a checking role.

this bit from a column by doug vaughan makes me a bit suspicious:

that column does not mention gadsby anywhere else.

a post by overpass:

there were other changes in '55 and '62. chicago added several other players in '55 and NYR added doug harvey in '62.


i see 2 main explanations of that.

1. gadsby got scored on very much and was not very effective in controlling play.
2. gadsby's teams had truly terrible coaching and depth, despite the small number of teams and smaller rosters, which i think casts doubt on the quality of the O6.


in support of #2 are lloyd percival's measurements of skating and shooting speeds. according to percival's numbers, fastest players were much faster than league average, meaning below average players were extremely slow compared to hull or orr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
As far as Gadsby's defense, I've never really found anything about his positional game as far as his stick work or poke checking ability or anything like that, but I know he was noted as a great shot blocker. I know that in mine and arrbez's mini bio last year that was noted.

My honest guess is that he was a better version of Rob Blake defensively. He would go out of his way for a big hit (he was definitely noted as a big hitter) but was also a strong shot blocker, which makes me think he's an average defensive player at ES, but a strong PKer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think Gadsby was clearly sacrificing D for O when he was putting up big numbers for the Rangers - he almost had to - who else was going to score? I think he showed in Detroit that he could play fine D when he wasn't needed to lead the offense, but then his numbers dipped quite a bit

Edit: but just to be clear, those numbers were slightly better than Doug Harvey and way ahead of everyone else but Kelly
I have a mild eye problem that is acting up today, making reading and writing a pain, so, I'll go into more stuff tomorrow, and just answer the Gadsby stuff all at once.

1. Nik Jr. The quotes from Patrick have to be taken with a grain of salt, as you said, he actively disliked marquee players, Gadsby being one of his few marquee guys. So if his praise is rare and backhanded, that's on Patrick, not Gadsby.
2. There is no doubt that the O6 era's depth is either a) overblown or b) screwy. The combination of Montreal and Toronto having an unfair recruiting advantage combined with the fact that many farm teams operated independently of NHL teams and required compensation for player movement meant that some teams were ridiculously stacked, while others were shallow. And it meant that players were buried in the minors when they should not have been, which lead to players being in the NHL that were not as good as players in the minors. And Gadsby's Hawks and Rangers were definitely on the side of shallow and utilizing less than optimal players.
3. Coaching matters. The Hawks and Rangers had a variety of very poor coaches during Gadsby's days who would not utilize him in the best ways. When he went to a team that was not poorly managed in Detroit. (Although Detroit was not a superbly managed team, especially relative to Montreal.) He was able to be an elite defensive defenceman while also being an elite offensive defenceman. As TDMM said, his offence did take a clear step back, but, only Red Kelly and Pierre Pilote, probably two of the top ten offensive defencemen of all time were superior offensively to Gadsby. So he was still more than effective offensively. Like Yzerman, a 20% scale back in offence paid huge dividends. And Al Arbour is a man known to expect a strong defensive performance from every member of his teams. So I am positive the Minnesota Fighting Saints would see the Gadsby that got praise as one of the best defensive defencemen of the 1960's, only with a bit less mileage on his body.
4. vecens, one thing I've noticed when people question Gadsby's defence is that there is an implicit comparison to the Nik Lidstrom school of defencemen. Yes, Gadsby doesn't play like Lidstrom. But is Lidstrom the only way to be an effective even strength defensive defenceman? Scott Stevens doesn't play like Lidstrom, problem? My theory is that what makes Gadsby hard to understand is that there is no comparison in the modern NHL. Gadsby was a man of great pride and work ethic to go along with his great skill. He never gave less than 100% and paid no mind to his own safety. There are depth players who play that way now, but how many people who have the skill to earn 6 million+ play with the relentlessness that could end their career and cost themself millions? None. Imagine if Erik Karlsson played like he was Willie Mitchell in his own end, and you'd start to see Bill Gadsby. On offence he played like he was a franchise player, on defence he played like he was a bad shift away from being out of a job. There just isn't a point of reference for that nowadays. (Note: While Gadsby was often hurt and played like his body didn't matter, he had epic tier longevity, 2nd player to 20 seasons, 2nd to 1000 games played.)
5. This may be pointless sentiment, but when I told my dad that people questioned Gadsby's defensive ability, he laughed. (For the record, he was a Hawks and Bruins fan and not old enough to see Gadsby as a Hawk.)
6. Read my bio for some quotes about his defensive ability.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 12:00 AM
  #24
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
I have a mild eye problem that is acting up today, making reading and writing a pain, so, I'll go into more stuff tomorrow, and just answer the Gadsby stuff all at once.

1. Nik Jr. The quotes from Patrick have to be taken with a grain of salt, as you said, he actively disliked marquee players, Gadsby being one of his few marquee guys. So if his praise is rare and backhanded, that's on Patrick, not Gadsby.
2. There is no doubt that the O6 era's depth is either a) overblown or b) screwy. The combination of Montreal and Toronto having an unfair recruiting advantage combined with the fact that many farm teams operated independently of NHL teams and required compensation for player movement meant that some teams were ridiculously stacked, while others were shallow. And it meant that players were buried in the minors when they should not have been, which lead to players being in the NHL that were not as good as players in the minors. And Gadsby's Hawks and Rangers were definitely on the side of shallow and utilizing less than optimal players.
3. Coaching matters. The Hawks and Rangers had a variety of very poor coaches during Gadsby's days who would not utilize him in the best ways. When he went to a team that was not poorly managed in Detroit. (Although Detroit was not a superbly managed team, especially relative to Montreal.) He was able to be an elite defensive defenceman while also being an elite offensive defenceman. As TDMM said, his offence did take a clear step back, but, only Red Kelly and Pierre Pilote, probably two of the top ten offensive defencemen of all time were superior offensively to Gadsby. So he was still more than effective offensively. Like Yzerman, a 20% scale back in offence paid huge dividends. And Al Arbour is a man known to expect a strong defensive performance from every member of his teams. So I am positive the Minnesota Fighting Saints would see the Gadsby that got praise as one of the best defensive defencemen of the 1960's, only with a bit less mileage on his body.
4. vecens, one thing I've noticed when people question Gadsby's defence is that there is an implicit comparison to the Nik Lidstrom school of defencemen. Yes, Gadsby doesn't play like Lidstrom. But is Lidstrom the only way to be an effective even strength defensive defenceman? Scott Stevens doesn't play like Lidstrom, problem? My theory is that what makes Gadsby hard to understand is that there is no comparison in the modern NHL. Gadsby was a man of great pride and work ethic to go along with his great skill. He never gave less than 100% and paid no mind to his own safety. There are depth players who play that way now, but how many people who have the skill to earn 6 million+ play with the relentlessness that could end their career and cost themself millions? None. Imagine if Erik Karlsson played like he was Willie Mitchell in his own end, and you'd start to see Bill Gadsby. On offence he played like he was a franchise player, on defence he played like he was a bad shift away from being out of a job. There just isn't a point of reference for that nowadays. (Note: While Gadsby was often hurt and played like his body didn't matter, he had epic tier longevity, 2nd player to 20 seasons, 2nd to 1000 games played.)
5. This may be pointless sentiment, but when I told my dad that people questioned Gadsby's defensive ability, he laughed. (For the record, he was a Hawks and Bruins fan and not old enough to see Gadsby as a Hawk.)
6. Read my bio for some quotes about his defensive ability.
Nalyd I wasn't questioning Gadsby, I'm a pretty big fan of his myself. I totally agree with you that Lidstrom like isn't the only way to play defense, I was simply trying to make a point of reference on the WAY he played defense, not on how effective he was doing it by mentioning Nik early. I have Gadsby in my top 20 D all-time, and actually ahead of Clapper.

He was a very good defensive defenseman later in his career as he proved, but isnt this in many ways similar to a Scott Stevens situation, who having looked back on it would have been a MUCH stronger comparison than Blake. Gadsby produced great offense early in his career, then was worse later in his career as his defense got stronger as he focused on it more. Which Gadsby do you get here? I think it's somewhere in between. Gadsby was never bad on defense, but he clearly got much better as he aged and his offense went down. So basically what I'm saying you get here is above-average everything (read: both offense and defense) with Gadsby, but not a master at anything.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 07:43 AM
  #25
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,511
vCash: 500
Re: the criticism that Gadsby didn't improve his teams when he was traded - one possible response is "Which Original 6 players did have a large immediate impact when changing teams?" It could be that teams were deeper and the average team was stronger pre-expansion, so it was harder for one player to make a difference.

overpass 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 09:17 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.