HFBoards

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

Foster Hewitt Division 2nd Round - New Jersey Swamp Devils vs. Montreal Shamrocks

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-15-2014, 08:25 PM
  #1
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,222
vCash: 500
Foster Hewitt Division 2nd Round - New Jersey Swamp Devils vs. Montreal Shamrocks

New Jersey Swamp Devils

Style = fast, aggressive, puck possession. Built around skilled defensemen, puck possession centers, and gritty wingers.



Head coach: Tommy Ivan

Toe Blake (A) - Bill Cowley - Bill Cook (C)
Gordon Roberts - Peter Forsberg - Gordon Drillon
Tony Leswick - Patrice Bergeron - Frank Finnigan
Sergei Kapustin - Vladimir Shadrin - Todd Bertuzzi

Babe Siebert - Red Kelly (A)
Herb Gardiner - Harry Cameron
Ryan Suter - Kevin Hatcher

Grant Fuhr
Chuck Rayner

Spares: Ray Getliffe (LW/C), Ryan Kesler (C/RW), Alexei Kovalev (RW/C), Ed Van Impe (D)

PP1: Drillon - Cowley - Cook - Kelly - Cameron
PP2: Roberts - Forsberg - Blake - Siebert - Hatcher

PK1: Shadrin - Finnigan - Gardiner - Siebert
PK2: Bergeron - Leswick - Suter - Kelly
PK3: Forsberg - Blake

When defending a lead late in the game, Ivan can put out three lines that are strong defensively:

Blake-Forsberg-Cook
Leswick-Bergeron-Finnigan
Roberts-Shadrin-Bertuzzi

VS

MONTREAL SHAMROCKS


Lester Patrick
Frank Patrick

Frank MahovlichHooley Smith "A"Frank Foyston "A"
Dean Prentice - Marty Barry - Andy Bathgate
Herbie Lewis – Ken Mosdell – Jack Darragh
Vic Hadfield - Red SullivanJohn McKenzie

Ray Bourque "C" – Lionel Hitchman
Jacques LaperriereReed Larson
Jean-Guy TalbotYuri Liapkin

Bernie Parent
Mike Liut

Goldie Prodger
Jimmy Roberts
Corb Denneny



Power Play #1
Frank Mahovlich - Marty Barry - Andy Bathgate - Ray Bourque - Reed Larson

Power Play #2
XXXX - Hooley Smith - Frank Foyston - Jean-Guy Talbit - Yuri Liapkin

XXXX will be filled with any of Jack Darragh, Vic Hadfield, or John McKenzie, depending on the situation.

Also, Andy Bathgate will take some time on the point on the second unit, depending on the situation.


Penalty Kill #1
Red Sullivan - Ken Mosdell - Ray Bourque - Jacques Laperriere

Penalty Kill #2
Hooley Smith - Herbie Lewis - Lionel Hitchman - Jean-Guy Talbot


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-16-2014 at 10:24 AM.
Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2014, 04:34 AM
  #2
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
MONTREAL SHAMROCKS


Lester Patrick
Frank Patrick

Frank Mahovlich Hooley Smith "A" Frank Foyston "A"
Dean Prentice - Marty Barry - Andy Bathgate
Herbie Lewis Ken Mosdell Jack Darragh
Vic Hadfield - Red Sullivan John McKenzie

Ray Bourque "C" Lionel Hitchman
Jacques Laperriere Reed Larson
Jean-Guy Talbot Yuri Liapkin

Bernie Parent
Mike Liut

Goldie Prodger
Jimmy Roberts
Corb Denneny



Power Play #1
Frank Mahovlich - Marty Barry - Andy Bathgate - Ray Bourque - Reed Larson

Power Play #2
XXXX - Hooley Smith - Frank Foyston - Jean-Guy Talbit - Yuri Liapkin

XXXX will be filled with any of Jack Darragh, Vic Hadfield, or John McKenzie, depending on the situation.

Also, Andy Bathgate will take some time on the point on the second unit, depending on the situation.


Penalty Kill #1
Red Sullivan - Ken Mosdell - Ray Bourque - Jacques Laperriere

Penalty Kill #2
Hooley Smith - Herbie Lewis - Lionel Hitchman - Jean-Guy Talbot


Forward Minutes
Player ES PP PK Total
Hooley Smith 14 3 3 20
Frank Mahovlivh 15 4 0 19
Frank Foyston 13 3 0 16
Marty Barry 14 4 0 18
Dean Prentice 13 0 0 13
Andy Bathgate 15 5 0 20
Ken Mosdell 10 0 4 15
Herbie Lewis 10 0 2 13
Jack Darragh 10 1 1 12
Red Sullivan 8 0 4 13
Vic Hadfield 8 1 0 10
John McKenzie 8 1 0 10
TOTAL 138 22 14 174

Defense Minutes
Player ES PP PK Total
Ray Bourque 20 4 3.5 27.5
Lionel Hitchman 16 0 3.5 19.5
Jacques Laperriere 20 0 4 24
Reed Larson 11 3 0 14
Jean-Guy Talbot 14 3 3 20
Yuri Liapkin 11 3 0 14
TOTAL 92 13 14 119

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-16-2014, 10:14 AM
  #3
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
Swamp Devils estimated minutes for this series

Forwards

I think Ivan would play the 3rd line less and the 4th line more against Montreal than most other teams for two reasons. 1) Montreal spread out its scoring, rather than stacking a top line, so a dedicated checking line would be less useful, other than for big defensive zone draws. 2) NJ's 3rd line can certainly chip in the offense, especially from the wingers, but it is the weakest of our 4 lines offensively. I want good offensive players out there as often as possible to try to take advantage of Reed Larson and Yuri Liapkin.

PlayerESPPPKTotal
Toe Blake153119
Bill Cowley144018
Bill Cook164020
Gordie Roberts143017
Peter Forsberg153119
Gordie Drillon134017
Tony Leswick100313
Patrice Bergeron8.50311.5
Frank Finnigan100313
Sergei Kapustin7007
Vladimir Shadrin8.50311.5
Todd Bertuzzi7007
Total1382114173

Defensemen

Nothing fancy with the defensemen, just giving the top 4 extra ice time in the playoffs.

PlayerESPPPKTotal
Babe Siebert182424
Red Kelly195327
Herb Gardiner180422
Harry Cameron185023
Ryan Suter100212
Kevin Hatcher92112
Total921414120


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-16-2014 at 11:16 AM. Reason: 4 lines, not 3 lines, duh
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2014, 02:00 PM
  #4
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
Guess I'll get things started here.

A big Montreal weakness - having two offense-only defensemen who need to be sheltered in the lineup at the same time

Reed Larson and Yuri Liapkin put up great stats, but the awards records indicate that they were never thought of as great defensemen.

First Larson. As always, I'm requiring a minimum of 2 votes for this to count.

Larson's All-Star record: 10, 10, 12, 14

Larson's All-Star record is shockingly bad for a defenseman who put up the stats he did. Compare to NJ's 5th, 6th, and 7th defensemen:

Hatcher All-Star record: 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14
Suter All-Star record: 2, 6, 10, 15 (plus a likely top 10 finish in 2013-14)
Van Impe All-Star record: 10, 11, 12, 15, 18

There is very little difference between Reed Larson's All-Star record and that of NJ's #7 defenseman, Ed Van Impe. Now consider the fact that Larson was exactly the type of "big hockey card stats" defenseman who attracted attention based on his numbers alone, while Van Impe was a defensive specialist, and I think there is a very good case that Van Impe was a bigger overall impact defenseman than Reed Larson.

It's easy to guess from the lack of recognition that Larson was very poor in his own zone. But in this case, we have specific information confirming it. From this thread on the history of hockey board called "How Good was Reed Larson?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by RabbinsDuck View Post
I don't remember him playing forward but he was one of those 'all the tools, but no toolbox' players - like Iafrate.

Great skater, good size, could lay a hit or keep the puck in, had a hard shot and could skate with the puck or lay a nice stretch pass down - just rarely 2 at a time. Lots of dumb penalties from being out of position, constantly. Probably over-forgotten, but nothing really special - just great skill, at times.
RabbinsDuck is a Red Wings fan who would have seen a lot of Larson.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Looking at an article in Sports Special Hockey Spring 1980 entitled Computerized Ratings of NHL Players he rated 15th of 15 defensemen rated with a 30 out of 50. He rated last (mostly tied for lowest) in leadership, strength, shot blocking, skating, passing, and big game. That's 6 of the 10 categories. His best ratings came in move puck out of end, shooting, power play, and durability. The only area where they rated him ahead of Ian Turnball was power play.
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug hamilton View Post
My recollection was that Larson had a great deal of talent but the bad luck to end up on the Red Wings at a time when they were truly terrible. Without good coaching, a team system or a long term focus Larson was not properly developed and though he put up decent numbers over the years he never became the player he could have been.
By the time Detroit started figuring out what they were doing Larson was most useful to them as trade bait so he shipped to Boston for the more defensively responsible Mike O'Connell.
There's more in the thread, including posters noting Larson's strong numbers, and seventieslord going through a season by season list of scouting reports.

Liapkin is more of the same, only from the USSR. Great stats, never recognized as one of the best defensemen in the weaker Soviet league. Liapkin was never a 1st Team Soviet league All-Star. We have 2nd and 3rd Teams in the Soviet league for the first half of Liapkin's career... and he was never a 2nd Teamer. A 3rd Teamer just once, in 1972-73, behind Lutchenko, Vasiliev, Tsygankov, and the undrafted Gusev.

Liapkin was great on the PP, and had a great outlet pass (and apparently really good chemistry with Yakusev), but like Larson, he's a guy who really needs to see sheltered minutes in the ATD.

How NJ can take advantage of this

First off, judging from the minutes chart, Montreal is wisely limiting the ice time that Larson and Liapkin are playing at even strength, by playing Talbot more. But that presents its own set of problems - you can't play Larson and Liapkin together, because that would be a goal against waiting to happen. This presents two problems for Montreal:

1) To limit the ice time of both Larson and Liapkin without playing them together is going to require a lot of judging by Montreal, which can throw off chemistry.

2) More importantly, since Larson and Liapkin shouldn't play together, it means that Reed Larson will be on Montreal's 2nd pairing most of the time (occasionally replaced by Talbot). I'm assuming that Montreal wants to use the Bourque-Hitchman pair against NJ's first line. That leaves Larson out there, seeing major minutes against Peter Forsberg and Gordie Drillon, giving them ample opportunity to abuse his poor play in his own zone. Jacques Laperriere is one of the best defensive defensemen on a 2nd pairing in the draft, but 1 defenseman can't cover the entire ice surface by himself.

Peter Forsberg and Gordie Drillon both have the scoring talent to be first liners

Forsberg is more or less a known commodity by this point, so I'll focus on Gordie Drillon here. Drillon falls because he was terrible defensively, and pretty one dimensional offensive - basically a guy only useful in the offensive zone, one of history's ultimate trash collectors. He needs a two-way center who can carry the play in order to be effective at this level - someone like Peter Forsberg. But once you give Drillon his proper linemates, his offense is lights out, and he could be a 1st line goal scorer with the right linemates:

Goals: 1, 4, 4, 3, 5, 7, 15
Assists: 3, 10, 12, 18
Points: 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 15, 17

Here is the Top-7 weighted VsX for Right Wings (1926-2013). These are Hockey Outsider's updated numbers.

*The second number for Bill Cook includes his Western years, based on Dreakmur's consolidation study and is far from precise. Edit: I changed it (see below)

Rank Player Rank
1 Gordie Howe 126
2 Jaromir Jagr 114.6
3 Maurice Richard 105.7
4 Guy Lafleur 104.9
5 Andy Bathgate 101.2
6 Charlie Conacher 97.1
7 Bill Cook 96.6/101.8*
8 Mike Bossy 94.4
9 Teemu Selanne 92.9
10 Martin St. Louis 92.5
11 Bernie Geoffrion 90.2
12 Mark Recchi 88.6
13 Brett Hull 88.2
14 Jari Kurri 88.1
15 Gordie Drillon 88.1
16 Jarome Iginla 87
17 Pavel Bure 86
18 Bryan Hextall 84.5
19 Marian Hossa 82.6
20 Daniel Alfredsson 82.6
21 Theoren Fleury 82.3

A few pre-1926 players and non-NHLers would push Drillon down, but not all that many. (Off the top of my head, definitely Makarov, probably Mikhailov and Dye, possibly Pitre). Drillon was a very limited player, but strictly in terms of production, he would be a decent first liner

NJ's 2nd line is one of the most offensively potent in the draft (as is Montreal's), which is ideal for taking advantage of Larson and Liapkin's poor defensive play even if Patrick can get the Bourque pairing out there against NJ's 1st line at all times (no guarantee in itself).

Stability on the NJ blueline (in contrast to Montreal's need to constantly juggle its lower defensive pairs)

NJ has 3 pairs of defensemen who will almost always play together at even strength. The 2nd and 3rd pairing feature a LH-shot with a RH-shot, playing their proper sides.

Kelly is a LH-shot playing the right side, but he's an elite puck handler, even at this level - a quote in his profile says that he can "maneuver the puck with his skates better than most players can with their sticks" - obvious hyperbole, but you get the point. In addition to playing D, Kelly excelled at both LW and C when asked to play them. Basically, I can't see Kelly losing effectiveness, regardless of the side he plays on (I honestly don't know which one he usually did).

I think it's less desirable to have to juggle your defensemen (like Montreal seems to be doing) than it would be for forwards. If your forwards screw up because of lack of familiarity, you are losing a scoring chance. If your defensemen screw up, you are creating a scoring chance against.

Ivan could bench Kevin Hatcher in late in the third period of a game when NJ is defending a 1 goal lead, but that's a far cry from constantly needing to juggle the pairings to shelter two players.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-18-2014 at 04:16 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2014, 03:23 PM
  #5
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Guess I'll get things started here.

A big Montreal weakness - having two offense-only defensemen who need to be sheltered in the lineup at the same time

Reed Larson and Yuri Liapkin put up great stats, but the awards records indicate that they were never thought of as great defensemen.

First Larson. As always, I'm requiring a minimum of 2 votes for this to count.

Larson's All-Star record: 10, 10, 12, 14

Larson's All-Star record is shockingly bad for a defenseman who put up the stats he did. Compare to NJ's 5th, 6th, and 7th defensemen:

Hatcher All-Star record: 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14
Suter All-Star record: 2, 6, 10, 15 (plus a likely top 10 finish in 2013-14)
Van Impe All-Star record: 10, 11, 12, 15, 18

There is very little difference between Reed Larson's All-Star record and that of NJ's #7 defenseman, Ed Van Impe. Now consider the fact that Larson was exactly the type of "big hockey card stats" defenseman who attracted attention based on his numbers alone, while Van Impe was a defensive specialist, and I think there is a very good case that Van Impe was a bigger overall impact defenseman than Reed Larson.

It's easy to guess from the lack of recognition that Larson was very poor in his own zone. But in this case, we have specific information confirming it. From this thread on the history of hockey board called "How Good was Reed Larson?"



RabbinsDuck is a Red Wings fan who would have seen a lot of Larson.

There's more in the thread, including posters noting Larson's strong numbers, and seventieslord going through a season by season list of scouting reports.
Yes, Reed Larson is weak defensively. He brings very good offense and a good amount of physical play and toughness.

As for all-star voting, it's a tough one to evaluate. Guys who put up offensive numbers do tend to get more votes than they should, but guys who play for weak teams tend to get less. Considering Larson played for some absolutely dreadful teams, his voting record is as like to over-rate him as it is to under-rate him. His terrible plus minus, caused primarily by being the best player on a terrible team, probably eliminated him from a lot of ballots.

Quote:
Liapkin is more of the same, only from the USSR. Great stats, never recognized as one of the best defensemen in the weaker Soviet league. Liapkin was never a 1st Team Soviet league All-Star. We have 2nd and 3rd Teams in the Soviet league for the first half of Liapkin's career... and he was never a 2nd Teamer. A 3rd Teamer just once, in 1972-73, behind Lutchenko, Vasiliev, Tsygankov, and the undrafted Gusev.

Liapkin was great on the PP, and had a great outlet pass (and apparently really good chemistry with Yakusev), but like Larson, he's a guy who really needs to see sheltered minutes in the ATD.
Soviet All-star voting is somewhat useful, but we still don't know very much about the criteria for the voting. As I have said before, Liapkin's non-traditional style of play made him very under-rated during his career.

Liapkin may not have been voted a league all-star, but he was selected to the Soviet National team on a regular basis. For a non-traditional player who never played for CSKA, that is a lot more significant than all-star voting.

Quote:
How NJ can take advantage of this

First off, judging from the minutes chart, Montreal is wisely limiting the ice time that Larson and Liapkin are playing at even strength, by playing Talbot more. But that presents its own set of problems - you can't play Larson and Liapkin together, because that would be a goal against waiting to happen. This presents two problems for Montreal:

1) To limit the ice time of both Larson and Liapkin without playing them together is going to require a lot of judging by Montreal, which can throw off chemistry.
Defensemen are fully capable of playing with more than one partner. Very few teams play their pairs together at all times.

Quote:
2) More importantly, since Larson and Liapkin shouldn't play together, it means that Reed Larson will be on Montreal's 2nd pairing most of the time (occasionally replaced by Talbot). I'm assuming that Montreal wants to use the Bourque-Hitchman pair against NJ's first line. That leaves Larson out there, seeing major minutes against Peter Forsberg and Gordie Drillon, giving them ample opportunity to abuse his poor play in his own zone. Jacques Laperriere is one of the best defensive defensemen on a 2nd pairing in the draft, but 1 defenseman can't cover the entire ice surface by himself.
They don't need to play together. Montreal's top-4 defensemen are very steady and reliable defensively. Any of them are capable of covering for a more offensively inclined partner.

It's true that Laperriere can't play both sides of the ice, but he doesn't have to. Montreal actually got a little lucky in this match-up. New Jersey's left wingers are quite a bit weaker than their counterparts, so Montreal's weakness on right defense is much less exposed than it otherwise could be.

The biggest factor on Montreal's blue line is Ray Bourque. The fact that he can handle close to 30 minutes with ease means the lesser defensemen don't need to play as much.

Quote:
Peter Forsberg and Gordie Drillon both have the scoring talent to be first liners

Forsberg is more or less a known commodity by this point, so I'll focus on Gordie Drillon here. Drillon falls because he was terrible defensively, and pretty one dimensional offensive - basically a guy only useful in the offensive zone, one of history's ultimate trash collectors. He needs a two-way center who can carry the play in order to be effective at this level - someone like Peter Forsberg. But once you give Drillon his proper linemates, his offense is lights out, and he could be a 1st line goal scorer with the right linemates:

Goals: 1, 4, 4, 3, 5, 7, 15
Assists: 3, 10, 12, 18
Points: 1, 2, 4, 8, 13, 15, 17

Here is the Top-7 weighted VsX for Right Wings (1926-2013). These are Hockey Outsider's updated numbers.

*The second number for Bill Cook includes his Western years, based on Dreakmur's consolidation study and is far from precise.

Rank Player Rank
1 Gordie Howe 126
2 Jaromir Jagr 114.6
3 Maurice Richard 105.7
4 Guy Lafleur 104.9
5 Andy Bathgate 101.2
6 Charlie Conacher 97.1
7 Bill Cook 96.6/105.3*
8 Mike Bossy 94.4
9 Teemu Selanne 92.9
10 Martin St. Louis 92.5
11 Bernie Geoffrion 90.2
12 Mark Recchi 88.6
13 Brett Hull 88.2
14 Jari Kurri 88.1
15 Gordie Drillon 88.1
16 Jarome Iginla 87
17 Pavel Bure 86
18 Bryan Hextall 84.5
19 Marian Hossa 82.6
20 Daniel Alfredsson 82.6
21 Theoren Fleury 82.3

A few pre-1926 players and non-NHLers would push Drillon down, but not all that many. (Off the top of my head, definitely Makarov, probably Mikhailov and Dye, possibly Pitre). Drillon was a very limited player, but strictly in terms of production, he would be a decent first liner
Using the up-to-date numbers on Bill Cook, his score would be 101.8 instead of 105.3. I'll do up Gordie Roberts for you later.

Drillon is your team's version of Larson. He does what he does well, and he doesn't do much else.

Quote:
NJ's 2nd line is one of the most offensively potent in the draft (as is Montreal's), which is ideal for taking advantage of Larson and Liapkin's poor defensive play even if Patrick can get the Bourque pairing out there against NJ's 1st line at all times (no guarantee in itself).
Your second line runs entirely through Forsberg. Drillon is an excellent scorer, but it seems like he relied almost entirely on his line mates to create his scoring chances for him.

Quote:
Stability on the NJ blueline (in contrast to Montreal's need to constantly juggle its lower defensive pairs)

NJ has 3 pairs of defensemen who will almost always play together at even strength. The 2nd and 3rd pairing feature a LH-shot with a RH-shot, playing their proper sides.

Kelly is a LH-shot playing the right side, but he's an elite puck handler, even at this level - a quote in his profile says that he can "maneuver the puck with his skates better than most players can with their sticks" - obvious hyperbole, but you get the point. In addition to playing D, Kelly excelled at both LW and C when asked to play them. Basically, I can't see Kelly losing effectiveness, regardless of the side he plays on (I honestly don't know which one he usually did).

I think it's less desirable to have to juggle your defensemen (like Montreal seems to be doing) than it would be for forwards. If your forwards screw up because of lack of familiarity, you are losing a scoring chance. If your defensemen screw up, you are creating a scoring chance against.

Ivan could bench Kevin Hatcher in late in the third period of a game when NJ is defending a 1 goal lead, but that's a far cry from constantly needing to juggle the pairings to shelter two players.
Here is the extent of Montreal's line juggling...

Laperriere takes Hitchman's place beside Bourque on occasion.
Talbot takes Larson's place beside Laperriere on occasion.

That's it.

As I said above, very few pairings play exclusively together. Familiarity is great, but there's no reason a defenseman can't be familiar with 2 or 3 partners who they play with regularly.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2014, 09:49 PM
  #6
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
Gord Roberts' best 7 season is 77.3... though he has basically nothing after those 7.

That puts his peak slightly below, but basically equal to, Frank Foyston (78.8) and Hooley Smith(78.8).

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 04:01 AM
  #7
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Yes, Reed Larson is weak defensively. He brings very good offense and a good amount of physical play and toughness.

As for all-star voting, it's a tough one to evaluate. Guys who put up offensive numbers do tend to get more votes than they should, but guys who play for weak teams tend to get less. Considering Larson played for some absolutely dreadful teams, his voting record is as like to over-rate him as it is to under-rate him. His terrible plus minus, caused primarily by being the best player on a terrible team, probably eliminated him from a lot of ballots.
You have a fair point about the tradeoff between good hockey card stats and playing on a bad team. But even if Larson's record is indicative of his true ability - it just isn't very good. It seems like Larson sometimes brought physical play and toughness but was pretty inconsistent about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur
Soviet All-star voting is somewhat useful, but we still don't know very much about the criteria for the voting. As I have said before, Liapkin's non-traditional style of play made him very under-rated during his career.



Liapkin may not have been voted a league all-star, but he was selected to the Soviet National team on a regular basis. For a non-traditional player who never played for CSKA, that is a lot more significant than all-star voting.
I'm not saying Liapkin doesn't deserve to be drafted here - just that I don't see him as anything better than a bottom pairing offensive guy. Which is how you are using him. The issue is that I see Reed Larson as basically the same.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur
Drillon is your team's version of Larson. He does what he does well, and he doesn't do much else.
Eh, I understand why you would make the comparison, but it's a really imperfect analogy for a couple reasons:

1) From a team perspective, it's much, much better to have a defensive liability at wing than at defense. Especially, when he has linemates who are strong backcheckers.

2) In his prime, Gordie Drillon was arguably the best goal scorer in the league. He was certainly one of the best goal scorers. Somewhat weak competition in the late 30s/early 40s, but still. Larson put up good numbers, but compared to other defensemen, they didn't stand out as much. He basically put up Borje Salming level numbers, which I would consider good at this level, not great. (I would consider Salming's defense to be stronger than his offense, though his offense is also good).

3) Most importantly, Gordie Drillon was considered a great player by people who watched him play. He was a 1st Team All-Star twice, 2nd Team All-Star once --- and the voters back then actually took a player's full game into account (Drillon finished below guys he outscored a few times). At Larson's best, he would have been a "5th Team" All Star twice, "6th Team once" (same as Van Impe), if one were so inclined to award teams for voting totals that low.

Drillon finished 1, 2, 2, 4, 4 in Lady Byng voting back when when the trophy was a prestigious award, and has a single top 5 finish in Hart voting (4th place). Finally, Drillon was enshrined into the HHOF in 1975.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur
Your second line runs entirely through Forsberg. Drillon is an excellent scorer, but it seems like he relied almost entirely on his line mates to create his scoring chances for him.
Yes, Drillon is definitely a finisher, not a creater. Which is another reason he always falls so far, despite his gaudy stats (and less gaudy but still solid awards recognition). But I think the Swamp Devils have the players to create things for him - not just Forsberg, but also the skilled defensemen.

Keep in mind that the Swamp Devils second line will usually be backed up by Harry Cameron, one of the best puck moving defensemen on a second pairing here. Just going to repost the stats here from his profile to remind everyone about why Cameron was so highly thought of:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey from the HOH defensemen project
The following table shows the top 5 defensemen in scoring from 1917 through 1923. Note that it does not include two seasons (1914 and 1915) when Cameron was a point-per-game scorer.

Rk Name GP G A P PIM
1 Harry Cameron 128 88 51 139 189
2 Eddie Gerard128 50 48 98 108
3 George Boucher 109 50 39 89 207
4 Sprague Cleghorn 100 52 33 85 257
5 Bert Corbeau 127 45 30 75 291

Starting in 1917-18, Cameron led all NHL defensemen in the following categories:

1917-18: Goals, Assists, Points
1918-19: Goals, Points (tied with his partner Randall)
1919-20: Points (tied with his partner Randall) and 2nd in goals to Cleghorn
1920-21: Goals, Assists, Points
1921-22: Goals, Assists, Points


Best I can tell, Cameron was likely the premier puck-rushing defenseman in hockey during the early years of the NHL. He took the solo-rushing sensibility of early hockey and applied it to the "modern" game. The major weakness in his game was the need for a steady partner, a Marshall or Cleghorn, to give him a bit of space to roam. Still, he was by no means a one-way player and if we had plus-minus numbers from back then, they would probably show very favorably for him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur
Here is the extent of Montreal's line juggling...

Laperriere takes Hitchman's place beside Bourque on occasion.
Talbot takes Larson's place beside Laperriere on occasion.

That's it.

As I said above, very few pairings play exclusively together. Familiarity is great, but there's no reason a defenseman can't be familiar with 2 or 3 partners who they play with regularly.
Fair enough, but again, that means Larson spends a lot of time on your 2nd pairing matched against Forsberg and company, which is a matchup I really like for NJ.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-18-2014 at 05:53 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 04:15 AM
  #8
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur
Using the up-to-date numbers on Bill Cook, his score would be 101.8 instead of 105.3. I'll do up Gordie Roberts for you later.
I'll change it. I really have no idea what the math is behind these numbers, though. I realize it's time consuming, but I think we really would be well served if you could start a thread on your consolidation studies, like Sturm did for his more straightforward VsX, so you could show your methodologies and we could perhaps tweak them like Sturm ended up doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Gord Roberts' best 7 season is 77.3... though he has basically nothing after those 7.

That puts his peak slightly below, but basically equal to, Frank Foyston (78.8) and Hooley Smith(78.8).
Thanks.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2014, 02:56 PM
  #9
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'll change it. I really have no idea what the math is behind these numbers, though. I realize it's time consuming, but I think we really would be well served if you could start a thread on your consolidation studies, like Sturm did for his more straightforward VsX, so you could show your methodologies and we could perhaps tweak them like Sturm ended up doing.
I have planned to get that done, but as you can tell by my participation in the draft, I haven't had a lot if time to devote to this kind of thing lately.

The basics of the project equalize the leagues. Games played, goals per game, and assists per goal were all adjusted.

Games played is easy. If the NHA played 18 games and the PCHL played 24, the start are adjusted by 18/24.

Goals per game is simple too. Just calculate the scoring rates of each league and equalize them just like the games played.

Assists per goal was a bit trickier. Basically, I counted all the goals and assists recorded in the leagues and than calculated how many assists, on average, were awarded on each goal. Once again, those numbers were equalized.



As I have stated before, the single biggest weakness of this study is that it has to assume all the leagues are exactly equal

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-19-2014, 01:19 AM
  #10
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
You have a fair point about the tradeoff between good hockey card stats and playing on a bad team. But even if Larson's record is indicative of his true ability - it just isn't very good. It seems like Larson sometimes brought physical play and toughness but was pretty inconsistent about it.

I'm not saying Liapkin doesn't deserve to be drafted here - just that I don't see him as anything better than a bottom pairing offensive guy. Which is how you are using him. The issue is that I see Reed Larson as basically the same.
I don't disagree that Larson has defensive issues, nor that Liapkin may have those same issues. I just think you're exaggerating the effect of those kinds of players on the flow of the game.

Can defensively suspect players be caught chasing on the cycle, get beat in one-on-one battles in the corner, or lose their check in the slot? Yes. Will that happen every time? No. As I have said before, in regards to puck-winning along the boards, even the best guys don't win every time, and even the worst guys don't lose every time. Gordie Howe in the corner is going to walk out with the puck probably 60% of the time. The same goes for defensive play - even the worst player in the draft is still going to do something right sometimes!

More importantly, the defensively suspect defensemen who are drafted here are going to bring very strong puck skills and offensive play. When skilled guys do get the puck, they are more likely to make good passes or skate the puck out of our end. As a result, they spend less time in positions to be exposed in their weaknesses. Do their strengths bring more positives than their weaknesses bring negatives? I think so.

In addition to that, down low defensive coverage is not a one person job. In most systems, teams use two players on the puck, one of which is the center in defensive zone. Montreal has excellent centers to help out Larson and Liapkin in their end. Smith and Sullivan are both among the elite when it comes to combining defensive smarts with a vicious compete level in puck battles. Modsell is very good defensive, and he has the size and strength to battle well, even if he does lack the bite of the previous two. Barry was not know as a great defensive player, but he was very strong on the puck and very tough, so he would be quite good in the corners and in battles along the boards.

Finally, as I mentioned before, left wingers are quite a bit weaker than your right wingers. If you want to attack my weakness on the right defense, you'll have to get away from your strength on the right wing.

Quote:
1) From a team perspective, it's much, much better to have a defensive liability at wing than at defense. Especially, when he has linemates who are strong backcheckers.
Partially agree. Having a defensive liability on the wing is the best place to have one. I was referring to more than just defensive play though - Drillon does nothing outside scoring.

Quote:
2) In his prime, Gordie Drillon was arguably the best goal scorer in the league. He was certainly one of the best goal scorers. Somewhat weak competition in the late 30s/early 40s, but still. Larson put up good numbers, but compared to other defensemen, they didn't stand out as much. He basically put up Borje Salming level numbers, which I would consider good at this level, not great. (I would consider Salming's defense to be stronger than his offense, though his offense is also good).
In terms of percentages, their offensive contributions are not far off. Larson best 7 seasons come out to a score of 85.0, which is not far behind Drillon's 88.1.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-20-2014, 11:28 PM
  #11
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
It's one thing for the GMs to come in this thread and talk about the weaknesses and potential areas that could be exploited, but it's another to get it done in a game. TDMM is not wrong about the defensive issues of Montreal's #5 and #6 defensemen.

In a series like this, I would think it is up to the coaches to develop strategies to exploit opposing teams' weaknesses and hide their own. The better the coach, the better he'll be able to manipulate those aspects.

Tommy Ivan is a solid coach, but he's more in the average range for a draft this size. Moreover, he tended to allow his offensive player to do their own thing rather than set up offensive systems or game plans. In that regard, he might not be the kind of coach to even make the attempt to expose weaknesses in an opposing team. Even if we was, though, he's going head to head with Lester Patrick, who I think we can all agree is the much superior coach in addition to being an excellent strategist. So, as much as there is a weakness to expose, the Swamp Devils might not be able to actually take advantage of that.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2014, 02:04 PM
  #12
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It's one thing for the GMs to come in this thread and talk about the weaknesses and potential areas that could be exploited, but it's another to get it done in a game. TDMM is not wrong about the defensive issues of Montreal's #5 and #6 defensemen.

In a series like this, I would think it is up to the coaches to develop strategies to exploit opposing teams' weaknesses and hide their own. The better the coach, the better he'll be able to manipulate those aspects.

Tommy Ivan is a solid coach, but he's more in the average range for a draft this size. Moreover, he tended to allow his offensive player to do their own thing rather than set up offensive systems or game plans. In that regard, he might not be the kind of coach to even make the attempt to expose weaknesses in an opposing team. Even if we was, though, he's going head to head with Lester Patrick, who I think we can all agree is the much superior coach in addition to being an excellent strategist. So, as much as there is a weakness to expose, the Swamp Devils might not be able to actually take advantage of that.
First off, I somewhat agree with you on Tommy Ivan. I think he's gotten a little overrated in the ATD, largely because of the sell-job I did on him in ATD2010 (which I believed at the time by the way). That said, I still think he's a fringe top 10 coach of all-time. His players raved about him, he was given credit for a great deal of Detroit's success; then only downside is a fairly short coaching career, but it's not like he was fired - he moved to Chicago to take on the GM's job after he got sick of the domineering Jack Adams interfering with everything from the Detroit GM's position.

Ivan will continue to be drafted fairly early, because he's one of the few great coaches who played a fairly offensive-minded system, and when I had drafted Red Kelly, Harry Cameron, and Bill Cowley, I was committed to playing that style.

I think you're somewhat mischaracterizing Ivan as someone who "let offensive players do their things." I think Red Kelly said it best:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Kelly
(Ivan) Never shouted. Never ranted and raved. Very quiet but very authoritative too. I was lucky. Tommy knew the systems and he trained you in those systems - how to play your position, where to play. I was lucky to have those kind of coaches
Tommy did let his creative offensive players design their own plays to score, which is a big reason I like him as the coach of an offense-first team. But he didn't have them ignore defense. I know that during the Ted Lindsay/Maurice Richard rivalry (those two hated each other), one of the shots Lindsay would take at Richard was to say that Detroit players would never be allowed to neglect backchecking like Richard did (at least in Lindsay's mind).

Back to this series, I agree that Patrick is a better tactician than Ivan. But coaches can only do what their rosters allow them to do. I see each of NJ's top 2 lines playing about 1/3 of the time, and the two bottom lines combining for the remaining 1/3. (This will change if NJ is trying to hold a late lead, in which case the 3rd line sees more ice time, and the other 2 lines are shuffed as I said in the OP). But the point is that in the normal course of play, NJ"s scoring lines will be out there for 2/3 of the time. Considering Larson and Liapkin play on different pairings (if they play together, it would be a disaster), that is just simply too much ice time between them to avoid NJ's scoring lines. Assuming Bourque-Hitchman is going to be out there against NJ's top line (the most potent offensive line in the series by a fair margin), that leaves one of Larson or Liapkin to see significant time against the Forsberg line.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-21-2014 at 02:14 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2014, 02:40 PM
  #13
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
First off, I somewhat agree with you on Tommy Ivan. I think he's gotten a little overrated in the ATD, largely because of the sell-job I did on him in ATD2010 (which I believed at the time by the way). That said, I still think he's a fringe top 10 coach of all-time. His players raved about him, he was given credit for a great deal of Detroit's success; then only downside is a fairly short coaching career, but it's not like he was fired - he moved to Chicago to take on the GM's job after he got sick of the domineering Jack Adams interfering with everything from the Detroit GM's position.

Ivan will continue to be drafted fairly early, because he's one of the few great coaches who played a fairly offensive-minded system, and when I had drafted Red Kelly, Harry Cameron, and Bill Cowley, I was committed to playing that style.

I think you're somewhat mischaracterizing Ivan as someone who "let offensive players do their things." I think Red Kelly said it best:



Tommy did let his creative offensive players design their own plays to score, which is a big reason I like him as the coach of an offense-first team. But he didn't have them ignore defense. I know that during the Ted Lindsay/Maurice Richard rivalry (those two hated each other), one of the shots Lindsay would take at Richard was to say that Detroit players would never be allowed to neglect backchecking like Richard did (at least in Lindsay's mind).
From what I have read, Ivan did implement some good defensive strategies, but did not do the same thing in terms of offensive strategies.

Quote:
Back to this series, I agree that Patrick is a better tactician than Ivan. But coaches can only do what their rosters allow them to do. I see each of NJ's top 2 lines playing about 1/3 of the time, and the two bottom lines combining for the remaining 1/3. (This will change if NJ is trying to hold a late lead, in which case the 3rd line sees more ice time, and the other 2 lines are shuffed as I said in the OP). But the point is that in the normal course of play, NJ"s scoring lines will be out there for 2/3 of the time. Considering Larson and Liapkin play on different pairings (if they play together, it would be a disaster), that is just simply too much ice time between them to avoid NJ's scoring lines. Assuming Bourque-Hitchman is going to be out there against NJ's top line (the most potent offensive line in the series by a fair margin), that leaves one of Larson or Liapkin to see significant time against the Forsberg line.
Agreed, coaches can only do what their rosters allowed them to do, and that's why exposing my weakness on the right side of the blue line is going to be tough for any coach, let alone a guy who was not known for doing similar things during his career.

Your right side is a lot stronger than your left, and that will have a lot of your offensive power going head to head with my very solid left side.


Again, we all know Reed Larson is weak defensively, but that doesn't erase what he can do offensively and in transition. Yes he will struggle when forced to deal with New Jersey's cycle, but his skill with the puck will allow him to reduce the amount of time he'll be stuck in those defensive situations. Yuri Liapkin is a bit more of a mystery defensively, but his offensive skill will prevent him from being hemmed in his own zone.

As we've all seen in current NHL games, teams really get in trouble when their players have a chance to control the puck or clear the zone and fail. Teams that can consistently make good outlet passes and get the puck out of their zone efficiently are going to spend a lot less time trapped in their zone chasing the puck. Skilled puck movers and puck handlers on defense are a huge key to making those first passes.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2014, 03:08 PM
  #14
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
I'm having a tough time getting a good read on the offense of your top-6 forwards. The War Years for Toe Blake and Bill Cowley make it pretty tricky to figure out their exact offensive accomplishments. I think New Jersey has an edge in pure offensive play, but it's tough to figure out exactly how much. I think the gap closes a little bit in the play-offs as well.

Of that group, only Forsberg is known as a big play-off producer. Cook, Cowley, and Drillon have some great seasons and some weak ones, and should be considered about equal to their regular season selves. Toe Blake was a decent performer pre-war and very good during the war years, which makes him hard to evaluate, but I have a hard time saying he raises his game when he only managed to do that against a weakened field. Gordon Roberts has very little play-off play to dray from, so it's tough to say either way.

Frank Foyston definitely raises his offensive game in the play-offs. Same goes for both Frank Mahovlich and Marty Barry. Hooley Smith stayed pretty similar. Dean Prentice is in the same boat as Gord Roberts. Andy Bathgate is the only one in the either top six who's production could drop. Bathgate was dropped to the 2nd line in an attempt to allow him to maintain his production by avoiding the big-time match-ups.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-21-2014, 03:31 PM
  #15
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I'm having a tough time getting a good read on the offense of your top-6 forwards. The War Years for Toe Blake and Bill Cowley make it pretty tricky to figure out their exact offensive accomplishments. I think New Jersey has an edge in pure offensive play, but it's tough to figure out exactly how much. I think the gap closes a little bit in the play-offs as well.

Of that group, only Forsberg is known as a big play-off producer. Cook, Cowley, and Drillon have some great seasons and some weak ones, and should be considered about equal to their regular season selves. Toe Blake was a decent performer pre-war and very good during the war years, which makes him hard to evaluate, but I have a hard time saying he raises his game when he only managed to do that against a weakened field. Gordon Roberts has very little play-off play to dray from, so it's tough to say either way.

Frank Foyston definitely raises his offensive game in the play-offs. Same goes for both Frank Mahovlich and Marty Barry. Hooley Smith stayed pretty similar. Dean Prentice is in the same boat as Gord Roberts. Andy Bathgate is the only one in the either top six who's production could drop. Bathgate was dropped to the 2nd line in an attempt to allow him to maintain his production by avoiding the big-time match-ups.
Sturminator (before took his yearly vacation from hfboards) did make adjustments to the VsX formula to account for the war years, and I think they are fair: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=131

They would give Bill Cowley a VsX-7 of 97.4 and Toe Blake 85.3, which I think are pretty reasonable. Each of them had the bulk of their primes before the war, including each of their best individual seasons, but they did each have a few of their later prime years during the war.

That would give our top 6 these numbers (disclaimer as always - this just measures best 7 regular seasons)

NJ Cook 96.6/(101.8)
MON Bathgate 101.2
NJ Cowley 97.4
NJ Forsberg 90.9
MON Barry 89.9
NJ Drillon 88.1
MON Mahovlich 85.5 (held back by Punch Imlach, I would love to see a quantification attempt at the "Punch Imlach effect" sometime, though that might be impossible)
NJ Blake 85.3
MON Smith 78.8
MON Foyston (78.8)
NJ Roberts (77.3)
MON Prentice 67.1

The numbers in parathesis include your consolidation studies. The first number for Bill Cook is just his NHL-only numbers (not including what he did before 1926).

Hooley Smith also saw a massive drop in his production in the playoffs. It's one of the first things I noticed about your team - 2 of your forwards are among the guys whose stock rises most in the playoffs (Mahovlich, Foyston) and 2 of your forwards are among the guys whose stock declines most in the playoffs (Bathgate, Hooley Smith), with Barry also a noteworthy playoff performer.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-21-2014 at 03:38 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 01:15 AM
  #16
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Hooley Smith also saw a massive drop in his production in the playoffs. It's one of the first things I noticed about your team - 2 of your forwards are among the guys whose stock rises most in the playoffs (Mahovlich, Foyston) and 2 of your forwards are among the guys whose stock declines most in the playoffs (Bathgate, Hooley Smith), with Barry also a noteworthy playoff performer.
I meant that it stayed similar compared to the league average. League scoring generally drops, so unless his scoring drops by more than the league average, I don't consider that a negative.

Hooley Smith and Bill Cook have very similar drops in production in the play-offs over their careers. Without a calculator, it looks like Smith scores at a 60-65% pace of his regular season numbers. Bill Cook scores at a 65-70% pace.

If Hooley Smith is a poor playoff performer, that would mean Bill Cook is similarly poor, which would be great news for Monteal, since New Jersey counts more on Cook to score than Montreal on Smith. Bill Cowley's play-off production is 70-75% of his regular season numbers. Is he a poor play-off performer too? Even Peter Forsberg, a well-known play-off hero, see's his play-off production fall to approximately 90% of his regular season rate. Marty Barry maintains his pace to within a few percentage points in the playoffs.

Speaking of Bathgate, his play-off numbers drop at 70-75%, the same as Bill Cowley. Bathgate actually raised his goal-scoring in the play-off by 15-20%, so he was not the play-off flop people want to portray him as. Did his production drop a little in the play-offs? Yes, but not my an abnormally significant amount.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 01:47 AM
  #17
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
Good luck TDMM. As always, you built a strong team and we had some good discussion.


For those who have not yet voted, here is why Montreal should win this series:
1. Advantage in net. Bernie Parent > Grant Fuhr
2. Advantage on the bench. Lester Patrick > Tommy Ivan
3. Ray Bourque. He can play half the game, and dominate that whole time.
4. Scoring depth. 3 lines with significant offensive threats.
5. Clutch scoring. Foyston and Darragh are legendary play-off heroes.
6. Top-End Talent. It may be spread out, but Montreal's best 5 can stand up to anyone's and win.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 08:16 AM
  #18
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I meant that it stayed similar compared to the league average. League scoring generally drops, so unless his scoring drops by more than the league average, I don't consider that a negative.

Hooley Smith and Bill Cook have very similar drops in production in the play-offs over their careers. Without a calculator, it looks like Smith scores at a 60-65% pace of his regular season numbers. Bill Cook scores at a 65-70% pace.

If Hooley Smith is a poor playoff performer, that would mean Bill Cook is similarly poor, which would be great news for Monteal, since New Jersey counts more on Cook to score than Montreal on Smith. Bill Cowley's play-off production is 70-75% of his regular season numbers. Is he a poor play-off performer too? Even Peter Forsberg, a well-known play-off hero, see's his play-off production fall to approximately 90% of his regular season rate. Marty Barry maintains his pace to within a few percentage points in the playoffs.

Speaking of Bathgate, his play-off numbers drop at 70-75%, the same as Bill Cowley. Bathgate actually raised his goal-scoring in the play-off by 15-20%, so he was not the play-off flop people want to portray him as. Did his production drop a little in the play-offs? Yes, but not my an abnormally significant amount.
Some of this is misleading. You have to compare playoff production to the era a player played in, and Smith, Cook, and Cowley all played at a time when playoff scoring dropped tremendously. Bathgate spent much of his career in the 50s, the only decade when playoff scoring rose. Cowley led the playoffs in scoring in 1939 and was awarded the Retro Conn Smythe, though that was definitely his career year in the playoffs.

Hooley Smith's playoff production dropped 41%, which wasn't good even for the era. Bill Cook's dropped by 33%, which was pretty average for the era. (Of course, Bill Cook's drop was to basically Smith's regular season level). I'd say Cook wasn't an outstanding playoff scorer but an average one (though based on Lester Patrick's reverence for Cook, I would imagine he opened up a lot of room for Frank Boucher's playoff heroics with his power forward game). Maybe this is splitting hairs - Smith wasn't as bad in the playoffs as Bathgate, whose relatively weak performance was at least partly due to playing for a bad team.

Anyway, I hate talking about career % drops since they often involve pre and post prime years, but at this point, there really isn't time to do anything else.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 08:37 AM
  #19
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
Why NJ should win

1) Much better top 6 forwards. NJ's top line is the most offensively potent in the series by a good margin, while the 2nd lines are pretty close (each built around a clear 1st line talent in Forsberg and Bathgate).

2) Better top 4 defense as a whole. Kelly should be considered Denis Potvin's equal, which makes him only a small step down from Bourque. If Siebert is worse than Laperriere, it isn't by much. But Hitchman is a fairly large step down from Gardiner/Cameron, and Talbot is another step down from that. And Reed Larson is going to be spending a lot of time in Montreal's top 4 making mistakes.

3) Strong clutch performers of our own. Toe Blake, Peter Forsberg, Patrice Bergeron, and prime Grant Fuhr were/are consistently excellent playoff performers. Drillon (1938) and Cowley (1939) each have a Retro Conn Smythe to their names, and based on newspaper clippings, Gordon Roberts was considered the best performer during the 1910 Cup Challenge.

Leswick was noted as a "money player" (Joe Pelletier) and was one of two Rangers (along with Rayner) to be specifically praised for his playoff performance by a Doug Vaughan column in 1948 (these are in his profile). Then he became a checker for the Detroit dynasty.

Shadrin and Kaspustin both put up strong stats in international competitions, which is where Soviet players would show their "clutch" ability, and Kapustin was an All-Star at the World Championships several times.

Kelly, Cameron, and Finnigan were key players on multiple championships, as well (Finnigan less key than the others).

Finally, while Bill Cook's playoff stats are only average compared to his regular season stats, Lester Patrick thought his leadership was a big contributor to championship hockey:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lester Patrick
It's very simple. I look for the leaders. Then I let them lead. I give my last instructions in the dressing room right before the game, the I sit and let them think about whatever they like. I see some of the players just sitting there placidly, thinking about nothing much and worrying about less. Then I look to the bench and see Bill Cook. A great player. An outstanding player. He's already made his mark and has nothing to worry about.

But is he at ease? Not on your life. He sits there rubbing his thighs and rocking back and forth on the bench, a bundle of nerves just aching to get at it and break the tension.

The placid player can be depended on for a safe, steady game, but for the kind of inspired hockey needed to win championships, I need the Bill Cooks. The other players, when it comes right down to the crunch, will follow the Bill Cooks. Then I just tag along and I enjoy it.
Thanks for the debate, Dreakmur.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-22-2014 at 09:25 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 01:15 PM
  #20
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Some of this is misleading. You have to compare playoff production to the era a player played in, and Smith, Cook, and Cowley all played at a time when playoff scoring dropped tremendously. Bathgate spent much of his career in the 50s, the only decade when playoff scoring rose. Cowley led the playoffs in scoring in 1939 and was awarded the Retro Conn Smythe, though that was definitely his career year in the playoffs.
I don't have the project I did on scoring rates on this computer, but I am quite sure the scoring jump in the play-offs actually coincided with Detroit's runs to the finals, which lasted from 1950 to 1956.

The other times where scoring went up were some of the war years, which includes Cowley, and a few of the early years, where 1 high-scoring game could skew the whole league totals.

Quote:
Hooley Smith's playoff production dropped 41%, which wasn't good even for the era. Bill Cook's dropped by 33%, which was pretty average for the era. (Of course, Bill Cook's drop was to basically Smith's regular season level). I'd say Cook wasn't an outstanding playoff scorer but an average one (though based on Lester Patrick's reverence for Cook, I would imagine he opened up a lot of room for Frank Boucher's playoff heroics with his power forward game).
So Hooley Smith's offense drops by 8% more than Bill Cook. Montreal can live with that, especially considering Smith's role on his line and team, compared to Cook's role on his line and team.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 01:22 PM
  #21
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
whatever


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-22-2014 at 04:49 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 01:24 PM
  #22
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,915
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Why NJ should win

1) Much better top 6 forwards. NJ's top line is the most offensively potent in the series by a good margin, while the 2nd lines are pretty close (each built around a clear 1st line talent in Forsberg and Bathgate).
Offensively, I agree. New Jersey's top line has a lot more punch than Montreal's. Montreal's second line has a little more offense, but doesn't come close to closing the gap in the top 6.

Montreal is helped by the scoring threats on the 3rd line.

Quote:
2) Better top 4 defense as a whole. Kelly should be considered Denis Potvin's equal, which makes him only a small step down from Bourque. If Siebert is worse than Laperriere, it isn't by much. But Hitchman is a fairly large step down from Gardiner/Cameron, and Talbot is another step down from that. And Reed Larson is going to be spending a lot of time in Montreal's top 4 making mistakes.
Bourque and Laperreire are better than Kelly and Siebert. Gardiner and Cameron are better than Hitchman and Talbot.

Kelly, at his peak, was close to Bourque's peak. In terms of overall careers, which is their value here, it's not close.

Quote:
Thanks for the debate, Dreakmur.
Yes sir. I wasn't involved as I wanted to be, but life happens.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 01:31 PM
  #23
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
I really hate trying to rush this in with no time to actually go into details before voting ends tonight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post

Montreal is helped by the scoring threats on the 3rd line.
The wings, sure, but I don't see Mosdell as any better than Bergeron as a scorer. He had those 2 great years, but very little outside of it (as an offensive player). Fantastic checker though, and he can certainly chip in the offense (as can Bergeron).

Herbie Lewis is the best offensive player on either 3rd line in a vacuum, but his offensive prime corresponds to his time on a dominant Detroit power play, and he isn't on your power play here. See overpass's post here: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...9&postcount=36

NJ also has one of the better scoring 4th lines in this thing.

Quote:
Kelly, at his peak, was close to Bourque's peak. In terms of overall careers, which is their value here, it's not close.
First off, Kelly was not just "close" to Bourque in terms of peak. At Kelly's peak, he was in the conversation for the best player in the world, while Gordie Howe and Maurice Ricahrd were both in their primes. Kelly also has the best Hart record of any defenseman not named Shore or Orr. His absolute peak didn't last that long, but it was extremely high, and he has a decent length overall prime, plus massive career value.

Would you consider Bourque vs Potvin to be "not close?" There's a definite winner, but I don't think many people consider it a huge gap.

Or to compare him to a contemporary, Doug Harvey definitely had a longer and more consistently elite prime than Kelly, but overall, the gap doesn't seem that large.

Edit: I mean, if you consider there a big gap from the Bourque/Harvey/Shore tier of defensemen to the Potvin/Kelly one, then that's your opinion, but it's one that I don't happen to share. There is a gap, but I don't find it a big one.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-22-2014 at 01:52 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 01:35 PM
  #24
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
Here's an illustration as to just how far Kelly and Harvey were ahead of any other defenseman in the O6 era. From the HOH Defensemen project:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Defensemen who finished Top 5 in Hart voting by season.

1923-24 2) Sprague Cleghorn 4) Georges Boucher
1924-25 none
1925-26 2) Sprague Cleghorn
1926-27 5) King Clancy
1927-28 3) Eddie Shore 5) Ching Johnson
1928-29 3) Eddie Shore 4) Sylvio Mantha 5) King Clancy
1929-30 2) Lionel Hitchman 4) King Clancy
1930-31 2) Eddie Shore 3) King Clancy 4) Ebbie Goodfellow?
1931-32 2) Ching Johnson 4) Red Dutton (we only have the top 4)
1932-33 1) Eddie Shore (we only have the top 3)
1933-34 2) Lionel Conacher 3) King Clancy 4) Earl Seibert
1934-35 1) Eddie Shore 3) Art Coulter
1935-36 1) Eddie Shore 5) Red Dutton
1936-37 1) Babe Siebert 2) Lionel Conacher 3) Ebbie Goodfellow
1937-38 1) Eddie Shore 3) Babe Siebert
1938-39 5) Eddie Shore
1939-40 1) Ebbie Goodfellow 3) Dit Clapper
1940-41 2) Dit Clapper
1941-42 1) Tom Anderson
1942-43 none
1943-44 1) Babe Pratt 4) Earl Seibert
1944-45 4) Flash Hollett
1945-46 5) Jack Stewart
1946-47 none
1947-48 none
1948-49 none
1949-50 none
1950-51 3) Red Kelly
1951-52 none
1952-53 3) Red Kelly
1953-54 2) Red Kelly
1954-55 5) Doug Harvey
1955-56 4) Red Kelly 5) Doug Harvey
1956-57 5) Doug Harvey
1957-58 3) Doug Harvey
1958-59 none
1959-60 none
1960-61 none
1961-62 2) Doug Harvey
1962-63 none
1963-64 none
1964-65 none
1965-66 none
1966-67 5) Harry Howell
1967-68 4) Bobby Orr
1968-69 3) Bobby Orr
1969-70 1) Bobby Orr 5) Brad Park
1970-71 1) Bobby Orr
1971-72 1) Bobby Orr
1972-73 3) Bobby Orr
1973-74 3) Bobby Orr
1974-75 3) Bobby Orr
1975-76 2) Denis Potvin 5) Brad Park
1976-77 4) Borje Salming 5) Larry Robinson
1977-78 5) Brad Park
1978-79 4) Denis Potvin
1979-80 none
1980-81 none
1981-82 none
1982-83 4) Rod Langway 5) Mark Howe
1983-84 2) Rod Langway 5) Ray Bourque
1984-85 4) Rod Langway 5) Ray Bourque
1985-86 3) Mark Howe 4) Paul Coffey
1986-87 2) Ray Bourque
1987-88 none
1988-89 none
1989-90 2) Ray Bourque
1990-91 4) Ray Bourque
1991-92 none
1992-93 none
1993-94 none
1994-95 4) Paul Coffey
1995-96 none
1996-97 none
1997-98 none
1998-99 none
1999-00 1) Chris Pronger
2000-01 none
2001-02 none
2002-03 none
2003-04 none
2004-05 lockout
2005-06 none
2006-07 none
2007-08 4) Nicklas Lidstrom
2008-09 none
2009-10 none
2010-11 none
From 1947-1966, no defenseman other than Harvey and Kelly finished top 5 in Hart voting and they finished there often.

Also, when Kelly was runner-up for the Hart in 1954, he was voted the best player in the league in a separate poll. From his profile:

Quote:
Kelly was likely the best player in the world for the season of 1953-54, right in the middle of Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard's prime.
  • Kelly finished a close 2nd in Hart voting to a Al Rollins (a goalie) and many people think that Rollins was being given credit for his previous season (when he lost the Hart to Gordie Howe the year Howe shattered all the records).
  • Kelly was voted the best player of the year in a press poll. (At the time, the Hart Trophy really did seem to go to "most valuable," not best player).
  • Note that Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe were both in their primes and finished 3rd and 4th in Hart voting respectively
.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-22-2014 at 01:54 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-22-2014, 02:05 PM
  #25
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,262
vCash: 500
If anyone hasn't read or at least skimmed my Red Kelly profile (much of it a rewarding of hockey outsider's research for the old HOH Top 100 lists but with added contemporary quotes), please do so. It's definitely the best and most important profile I've made this time around. I absolutely think that he should be considered Denis Potvin's equal. I actually think there is a case that his time as a defenseman alone is equal to Potvin, but then Kelly adds a significant amount of career value as a center. Either way, he's close enough to Potvin where they should be considered effectively equals for ATD purposes (with somewhat different skillsets).

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   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 01:58 PM.

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.