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.

ATD 12 Bob Cole Quater-Finals: 3 Regina Pats vs. 6 New York Golden Blades

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-27-2009, 01:18 PM
  #101
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
How did I criticize you for it? You posted an example, and I stated why I didn't think it really fit the bill. And either way, it's most certainly the exception, not the rule.

More like you should grow up. I disagreed that your article proved anything and stated why, and you freak out. It's ok if someone disagrees with you, you know.
It's more like, you're impossible to have a discussion with. EVERYTHING we have posted so far is not good enough for you it seems. It was the first example that came to mind, and most certainly not the only one. You keep going back to the same arguments over and over again, and we've given you as many different answers as we could have. Can we move on to something else now? This is getting very tiresome. I'm getting very weary with posting information in so many different ways to try to convince you one way or another. I can accept that Coffey MAY not like the training methods that Tarasov employs, HOWEVER, even under Bowman, Coffey was still a very successful player and clearly his relationship with Bowman NEVER affected his on-ice play. Bowman still gave him minutes, and he still used those minutes to maximum effectiveness. Many players didn't like Bowman's methods, yet they listened to him and respected him and played hard for him, because they knew it was a recipe for success. How is that any different than Tarasov? Except more often than not, MUCH more often than not, all of Tarasov's players had nothing but positive things to say about him. Even Fred Shero adopted his coaching methods and created 2 cup wins out of it. You STILL haven't responded to Tarasov - Kharlamov either. Kharlamov played a very similar style to Coffey, he was a fantastic stickhandler with great speed and he used that to dangle past opponents. Is that any different than Coffey? Oh right, because Coffey is the guy you're arguing against, you're going to create some completely false claims despite all the evidence to the contrary. Coffey and Tarasov may not always agree with each other, but dammit, Tarasov plays a system that suits Coffey extremely well, requiring great speed and passing precision. Besides, we have some fantastic leaders on our team that will get Coffey through it all, especially Hap Day. We are not worried at all.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:24 PM
  #102
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
And again you completely ignore that Coffey was very successful under Bowman, despite not agreeing with his methods. But what else should I expect? Also, what I said was that you cannot prove that Tarasov was MORE demanding than Bowman.
Yeah, he did put up some good numbers, but other than 94-95 he wasn't terribly successful with Detroit(don't believe he finished in any top-10s). Also, worth noting how well the teams did once he left. Pittsburgh struggled all year in 92, but picked it up a little once he left(despite getting no real quality players in return for him). Detroit was a regular season power with him, but couldn't get over the hump, and finally did once he was gone. They did get Shanahan in return for him in Detroit(as well as losing Primeau), but it is worth noting somewhat.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:24 PM
  #103
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Anyways, I'm done with this for now. If I sit here any longer to discuss this, I'm going to get a headache. I'm going to stress again, that if the only thing you have on us is Tarasov won't like Coffey's end to end rushes (of which you have not even proven that he's even prone to doing this, is it a reputation thing or did he ACTUALLY do this, and how often? I want some proof of this), then you're in serious trouble. There is a huge mismatch in the nets, and without evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that our team offensively is very good compared to yours, which is an even bigger advantage for us with Plante in net. Our team defense is top notch as well, with two lines that can check very well, and no line being an outright liability defensively. Despite whether or not you want to believe it, there really IS very little about defensemen defensively in the PCHA, but the little we do know is that Lester Patrick was very good defensively. Frank Patrick has been called the most outstanding athlete in Canada at one point. If you want to keep attacking our team's perceived weaknesses with relationships between coaches and players any more, go right ahead. I'm not worried in the slightest.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:28 PM
  #104
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Yeah, he did put up some good numbers, but other than 94-95 he wasn't terribly successful with Detroit(don't believe he finished in any top-10s). Also, worth noting how well the teams did once he left. Pittsburgh struggled all year in 92, but picked it up a little once he left(despite getting no real quality players in return for him). Detroit was a regular season power with him, but couldn't get over the hump, and finally did once he was gone. They did get Shanahan in return for him in Detroit(as well as losing Primeau), but it is worth noting somewhat.
There are so many factors to teams succeeding or not on a year to year basis that you can't just pinpoint it on one player. Detroit couldn't get over the hump, maybe because the teams they played were just better than them? Pittsburgh struggled all year, and perhaps Coffey being dealt sent a message to the rest of the players that no one's job is safe if it continues? There are way too many team factors to simply say that one guy leaving is the reason a team got better. Worth noting, perhaps, but definitely not the only reason.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:28 PM
  #105
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Yeah, he did put up some good numbers, but other than 94-95 he wasn't terribly successful with Detroit(don't believe he finished in any top-10s). Also, worth noting how well the teams did once he left. Pittsburgh struggled all year in 92, but picked it up a little once he left(despite getting no real quality players in return for him). Detroit was a regular season power with him, but couldn't get over the hump, and finally did once he was gone. They did get Shanahan in return for him in Detroit(as well as losing Primeau), but it is worth noting somewhat.
That's all important stuff to consider when discussing Coffey's legacy, but:

- Pittsburgh did with the cup with him, and

- Coffey was made redundant by Lidstrom's emergence. And I don't think there is any shame in that, given their all-time values and the ages they were both at. Wisely, he was shipped off for the missing piece they needed. It's no surprise they won after that.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:30 PM
  #106
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
It's more like, you're impossible to have a discussion with. EVERYTHING we have posted so far is not good enough for you it seems. It was the first example that came to mind, and most certainly not the only one. You keep going back to the same arguments over and over again, and we've given you as many different answers as we could have. Can we move on to something else now? This is getting very tiresome. I'm getting very weary with posting information in so many different ways to try to convince you one way or another. I can accept that Coffey MAY not like the training methods that Tarasov employs, HOWEVER, even under Bowman, Coffey was still a very successful player and clearly his relationship with Bowman NEVER affected his on-ice play. Bowman still gave him minutes, and he still used those minutes to maximum effectiveness. Many players didn't like Bowman's methods, yet they listened to him and respected him and played hard for him, because they knew it was a recipe for success. How is that any different than Tarasov? Except more often than not, MUCH more often than not, all of Tarasov's players had nothing but positive things to say about him. Even Fred Shero adopted his coaching methods and created 2 cup wins out of it. You STILL haven't responded to Tarasov - Kharlamov either. Kharlamov played a very similar style to Coffey, he was a fantastic stickhandler with great speed and he used that to dangle past opponents. Is that any different than Coffey? Oh right, because Coffey is the guy you're arguing against, you're going to create some completely false claims despite all the evidence to the contrary. Coffey and Tarasov may not always agree with each other, but dammit, Tarasov plays a system that suits Coffey extremely well, requiring great speed and passing precision. Besides, we have some fantastic leaders on our team that will get Coffey through it all, especially Hap Day. We are not worried at all.
It's an argument, dammit. Why would you expect me to agree with you? I'm out to defend my team. I've argued with seventies before, and he's the exact same way, never giving an inch. In our argument about Hainsworth last draft he basically said the THN Top 100 was crap, a published author knew nothing, yet he was a great authority on goalies from the 20s.

And you're no better. If anything, you're worse. Every detail I point out to be a flaw or advantage for me isn't one at all. Take Tarasov for instance. We both stated our cases, and haven't moved an inch. Don't accuse me of being the only one to be stubborn in here, and hell, I don't expect any less, especially from Regina. If you're gonna pout about people not agreeing with you then don't join the ATD, plain and simple. I don't mean to be harsh, but I'm going to challenge your every argument and be unflinching with my own. Deal with it.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:32 PM
  #107
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
That's all important stuff to consider when discussing Coffey's legacy, but:

- Pittsburgh did with the cup with him, and

- Coffey was made redundant by Lidstrom's emergence. And I don't think there is any shame in that, given their all-time values and the ages they were both at. Wisely, he was shipped off for the missing piece they needed. It's no surprise they won after that.
Pittsburgh won with him, yeah, but with Badger Bob coaching, who I think is a great fit with Coffey. As for his tenure in Detroit, I'd actually say it was Konstantinov's emergence(I'd say he was the better of the two at the time, anyway), but either way I don't think Coffey was a good fit on those Detroit teams.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:37 PM
  #108
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Anyways, I'm done with this for now. If I sit here any longer to discuss this, I'm going to get a headache. I'm going to stress again, that if the only thing you have on us is Tarasov won't like Coffey's end to end rushes (of which you have not even proven that he's even prone to doing this, is it a reputation thing or did he ACTUALLY do this, and how often? I want some proof of this), then you're in serious trouble. There is a huge mismatch in the nets, and without evidence to the contrary, I can only assume that our team offensively is very good compared to yours, which is an even bigger advantage for us with Plante in net. Our team defense is top notch as well, with two lines that can check very well, and no line being an outright liability defensively. Despite whether or not you want to believe it, there really IS very little about defensemen defensively in the PCHA, but the little we do know is that Lester Patrick was very good defensively. Frank Patrick has been called the most outstanding athlete in Canada at one point. If you want to keep attacking our team's perceived weaknesses with relationships between coaches and players any more, go right ahead. I'm not worried in the slightest.
See, it's posts like these that make your whining post seem just weird. You're basically saying our team's way better and I'm way off in my assessments of both teams involved. How is that any different than what I did?

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:45 PM
  #109
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
It's an argument, dammit. Why would you expect me to agree with you? I'm out to defend my team. I've argued with seventies before, and he's the exact same way, never giving an inch. In our argument about Hainsworth last draft he basically said the THN Top 100 was crap, a published author knew nothing, yet he was a great authority on goalies from the 20s.

And you're no better. If anything, you're worse. Every detail I point out to be a flaw or advantage for me isn't one at all. Take Tarasov for instance. We both stated our cases, and haven't moved an inch. Don't accuse me of being the only one to be stubborn in here, and hell, I don't expect any less, especially from Regina. If you're gonna pout about people not agreeing with you then don't join the ATD, plain and simple. I don't mean to be harsh, but I'm going to challenge your every argument and be unflinching with my own. Deal with it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
See, it's posts like these that make your whining post seem just weird. You're basically saying our team's way better and I'm way off in my assessments of both teams involved. How is that any different than what I did?
You are right. Argue all you want. Nothing wrong with that.

You should "give an inch" from time to time. I certainly do; I'm not sure why you'd say I don't. You're ignoring a lot of very obvious things, as has already been pointed out.

The facts ultimately support one side of the argument more than the other.

(also, pretty sure that the THN panel had exactly one person old enough to remember Hainsworth, it's generally a crap list according to most of us, and they didn't have access to a lot of the info we have access to just a decade later. And come on, Jenish is a good author, but "one of the pillars of the Stanley Cup winning Habs" doesn't prove much of anything.)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:47 PM
  #110
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,831
vCash: 500
I think the coaching argument is played out on both sides.

I think it comes down to whether New York's 1-2 punch at center and superior top 4 defensemen can overcome Regina's depth at every position (by that I mean on lower lines and at wings in particular), superior goaltending, and home ice advantage.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 11-27-2009 at 01:58 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 01:55 PM
  #111
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
(also, pretty sure that the THN panel had exactly one person old enough to remember Hainsworth, it's generally a crap list according to most of us, and they didn't have access to a lot of the info we have access to just a decade later. And come on, Jenish is a good author, but "one of the pillars of the Stanley Cup winning Habs" doesn't prove much of anything.)
At the same time, to assume they didn't do their jobs right, as you did, is incorrect, and regarding Jenish, you were basically saying Hainsworth wasn't a key cog of those Habs teams, and I showed a quote that states he was, and you just disregarded it as nothing. I remember that argument quite well, it was quite tiresome, and you did not give an inch one bit. Nothing wrong with that IMO. But, alas, that's neither here nor there.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 02:04 PM
  #112
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think the coaching argument is played out on both sides.

I think it comes down to whether New York's 1-2 punch at center and superior top 4 defensemen can overcome Regina's depth at every position, superior goaltending, and home ice advantage.
I agree to a point, and I think we can. I think our top six wingers are right up there with theirs, if not as good or better. Mikhailov is obviously the best of the bunch, but Anderson was a very good goalscorer, and one of the best clutch players of all-time, and Pitre was a star back in his day, and from what I can tell, was not overly far behind Newsy Lalonde. Tonelli wasn't a big star, but was a very good playoff performer, and should play his complimentary role well. And then there's Mullen, who wasn't a superstar, but still was a good goalscorer in his day and a HHOFer. In terms of bottom sixes, I'll concede he has the better checking line and fourth line, but I like my lines as well, as I feel my checkers can go a long way in slowing down their offensive attack, and I think my fourth line can chip in with some goals and some energetic play. As for home ice, I don't think it would matter who has it, as I don't think either team will get into the line matching game much, although I'm not opposed to having Fetisov out there against that top line at all.

Overall I think it should be a good series. I feel Hitch's system can act as a good foil to Tarasov's, and that my guys overall can pull it out. One thing I love about my team is the attitude. This isn't a slight on Regina's at all or anything, but I really love having so many winners, like Niedermayer, Richard and Fetisov, amongst others, in the line-up, who can really spread that around and create a winning atmosphere all around. I think the confidence and experience in pressure situations my guys bring can go a long way in terms of upsetting Regina. But we'll see, I guess.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 03:23 PM
  #113
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,238
vCash: 500
Goaltending

The biggest discrepancy in this series between Regina and their otherwise formidable opponent, is goaltending. No need to get into a smear campaign about Rayner. He's a pretty good goalie but a bottom-of-the-barrel starter. I like Rayner; I was very proud to have him as a backup just a year ago in ATD10. As you know, I post very detailed bios with as many quotes as I can find, in order to paint the player in the most positive light and highlight his strengths. Here is my Chuck Rayner bio from ATD10:

G Chuck Rayner

-5'11", 190 lbs
- member of the HHOF
-Stanley Cup Finalist (1950) - lost in game 7 Double OT, had no home ice due to a circus at MSG
-Second All-Star Team (1949, 1950, 1951)
-Hart Trophy Winner (1950)
-Retroactive Conn Smythe Trophy (1950)
-Has also finished 5th and 7th in Hart voting
-NHL Shutout Leader (1947)
-Played in NHL All-Star Game (1949, 1950, 1951, 1952) - never as the cup winner.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fischler's Hockey Encyclopedia
A classic example of a superb goaltender yoked to a mediocre hockey club... almost singlehandedly guided the Rangers to the final round of the 1950 Playoffs, only to see them fall to the mighty Wings in the final game...The Ranger coach during that cinderaella season, remembered Rayner's inspiring heroics with the defenseless blueshirts. "Rayner never had great protection. Yet he always came up with a better than average record and very often with a sensational performance."...A courageous netminder who constantly played with a painful assortment of injuries that would have kept lesser men on the sidelines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Trail Of the Stanley Cup, Vol. 3
He was a tower of strength for the Rangers for which he was eventually rewarded with the Hart trophy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Hockey
Rayner liked to yap during games, directing his team like a sergeant directing a military offense. He was a roving goaltender with the skating and stickhandling abilities of a forward...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Shero
When I played defense in front of Charlie, there was a defenseman on the Canadiens named Kenny Reardon, one of the toughest players in hockey. In this game, Reardon checked Rayner as he went through the crease. Well, you should have seen Charlie go after him. He chased reardon to center ice and kicked the ***** out of him. Charlie was one of the toughest players I ever saw play the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Breed Apart
Glenn Hall ranks Rayner second, behind Sawchuk, in his assessment of historic talent... Rayner was a star, if not in the record books, then certainly among his peers...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ted Kennedy
To appreciate the greatness of Rayner, you must remember that he played on some very weak New York teams... You would be going in on Charlie and that stick would come out like a serpent's tongue, and you would be on your fanny in no time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Bower
I owe a lot of my success to Prince Charlie. Chuck was the person who taught me the poke check while I was with the Rangers in 53-54. We'd work on the poke check move every day after practice...he knew that if I wanted to stick in the NHL I would have to learn how to take the puck from opposing forwards. The key to a successful poke check is timing. So Chuck would lay five pucks in front of the net and force me to poke them to him. We'd repeat this drill every day until I got the move down pat. I really appreciate what he did for me in my career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordie Howe
When you threw it in the corner, he would just go out and get the puck. He really forced us to change the way we came into the zone. No one other than Jacques Plante later on was doing that.
This is my own work; my own efforts to pimp Rayner as much as possible.

There is no doubt that he's a good goalie, and also underappreciated. But if I had Churk Rayner as my starter, I'd hope to face George Hainsworth, Tony Esposito, and Harry Lumley on my road to the finals. Overcoming a Jacques Plante-sized gap in goaltending is just too much to overcome unless you have massive edges in other areas and New York doesn't. How often does the team with superior goaltending AND superior coaching lose?

One other thing to mention is Rayner's retro Conn Smythe from 1950. I love the retro Smythes, I consider them on par with the real ones. But this one is rather suspect. The "Stanley Cup Official Centennial Book" states quite plainly that the seven New York writers voted on the Rangers MVP following the 1950 game 7 loss, and they unanimously selected center Don Raleigh. They saw the games. So I'm not sure Rayner really deserves that one. It should be Raleigh, or a Red Wing. Regardless, he was excellent either way, in his one trip to the finals.

Now, Plante:

Jacques Plante, G

- 6'0", 175 lbs
- Member of the HHOF
- Stanley Cup (1953, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960)
- Stanley Cup Finalist (1955, 1969, 1970)
- Hart Trophy (1962)
- 5th in Hart Voting (1971)
- Vezina Trophy (1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1962, 1969)
- Vezina Trophy Runner-up (1970)
- Retroactive Conn Smythe Trophy (1960)
- NHL 1st All-Star Team (1956, 1959, 1962)
- NHL 2nd All-Star Team (1957, 1958, 1960, 1971)
- NHL 3rd All-Star Team (1969, 1970)
- NHL sv% leader 5 times (1956, 1959, 1962, 1969, 1971)
- Top-3 in NHL sv% 4 more times (2nd-1955, 3rd-1957, 2nd-1958, 3rd-1960)
- also 6th, 7th, 5th in sv% in an expanded NHL with 37-49 goalies in 1970, 1972, 1973 at ages 41, 43, and 44)
- NHL playoff sv% leader 5 times (1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1970)
- Top-3 in NHL playoff sv% 7 more times (2nd-1953, 2nd-1954, 2nd-1955, 3rd-1959, 3rd-1961, 2nd-1963, 2nd-1969)


Quote:
Originally Posted by loh.net
If not the best goalie of all time, Jacques Plante was certainly the most important - the man who introduced the art of modern goaltending to the NHL and whose influence is seen every night a game is played...

...in his first full season began an incredible run of five consecutive Stanley Cup wins and five consecutive Vezina Trophy wins, records that have yet to be equaled.

...Plante was a pioneer of the style of play for goaltenders as well. While there had been other goalies before him who periodically came out of their crease to play the puck, he was the first to skate in behind the net to stop the puck for his defensemen. He also was the first to raise his arm on an icing call to let his defensemen know what was happening on the ice, and he perfected a stand-up style of goaltending that emphasized positional play, cutting down the angles and staying square to the shooter. His book, The Art of Goaltending, was the first of its kind and solidified his place in the game as not just a great stopper but a man who truly understood hockey and wanted to have an influence on how the game would be played in the future.

Plante retired in 1965 after playing two seasons with the Rangers, but he was lured out of retirement by the St. Louis Blues and the prospects of sharing the goaltending with the great Glenn Hall for the expansion team. Together they took the Blues to two Stanley Cup finals, and in 1969 Plante shared the Vezina Trophy with Hall at the ripe old age of 40. He also played with Toronto and Boston and played for one final season with the Edmonton Oilers in the WHA before becoming a scout and goalie coach in St. Louis. In 1962 he was the last goalie to win the Hart Trophy before Dominik Hasek in 1997, and he ranks among the leaders in games played and shutouts. He was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1978.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Jacques Plante Story, regarding his 1965 game against the Russian National Team
None of us there from the communications media had seen a game that so focused the spotlight on one goaler. True, the Junior Canadiens were reinforced by five players from the Houston Apollos, the Canadiens' farm team, but everyone seemed aware from the start that - as Scotty Bowman had sensed - the key figure would be Plante.

Jacques reacted as only a superstar can.

It was the greatest single display of goalkeeping I have ever seen, either at NHL level or in World Tournaments overseas. I even rate it above any display in any game he played during the 1961-62 season when he not only won the Vezina but was voted the Hart Trophy winner as well.

The first period was scoreless as the teams played it cozy. The Russians moved ahead, 1-0 at 9:04 of the second period - the only one of 26 shots Plante failed to stop. Junior Canadiens tied it up at 7:42 of the 3rd period and then, with only 29 seconds remaining, made it 2-1 as the Forum erupted. It was still erupting as the siren sounded without further scoring and Plante's mates hoisted him to their shoulders and skated around the ice for an ovataion unmatched even in that historic hockey haven.

He had stopped the Russians cold on five breakaways. ******* and ********* had each been robbed twice and ********** once. Although the Junior Canadiens scored two in the 3rd period, the Russians had outshot them, but their determined stand was no more determined than Plante's. During the game he gave the Russians his full "old pro" treatment, not only making several long sorties out of his net for loose pucks, but also delaying the game to adjust padding when mates were winded and constantly yelling advice and encouragement to his team.

The Russians had never faced Plante before but it was no greater than the disadvantage experienced by Plante. Afterwards, amid the chaotic celebration in the dressing room, he sat back sweating profusely and was utterly exhausted. He confessed: "I was even too tired to skate to the bench when the Russians got a delayed penalty!" He spoke with awe of the Russians' fantastic physical conditioning and then continued: "I went in with the damnedest case of the jitters I had ever known because I just didn't know what to expect. I had never even seen the Russians play on TV. I had a crash program of practices for the last 6 days, but even that didn't ease the jitters. In Stanley Cup games I had been playing for a team and a city but tonight, it seemed, I carried all of Canada with me and I dreaded letting my nation down.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fischler's Hockey Encyclopedia
The most remarkable of the modern goaltenders... soon hailed as a superb goalie and an innovative one at that. A superior skater.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Honoured Canadiens
Jacques Plante kept things exquisitely simple when playing goal for the Montreal Canadiens: he kept the puck out of the net, and the team kept on winning and winning.

Every goalie today owes his safety to Plante, and every goalie who has a goalie coach and who studies his position like it's something special owes Plante a debt of gratitude. He understood that being a goalie did not mean some neanderthal practice of standing in front ot the twine and sacrificing body to keep the puck out. He took a more intelligent and advanced approach.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Leafs: The First 50 Years
..what is less obvious is the leadership he gave to the teams he played for, a contribution that can't be set down in words or records, and the colour and style he introduced into a game renowned for its crowd appeal.

...it was generally acknowledged that he had a lot to do with developing the talents of Bernie parent. Plante explained the principles of goaltending to Parent at great length, and Parent listened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Breed Apart
now over 40, Plante was enjoying a second coming as a goaltending wizard. Though his wanderings tended to get him the most notice, Plante was also one of the most technically excellent netminders. He played his angles as well as anyone else in the league, and his manual on goaltending basics was a bible for young netminders. he never left a shooter with much net to aim for, and that skill was still with him, nearly 20 years after playing his first Stanley Cup.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Bathgate
The puck moved automatically out of their zone. It was very difficult to play against that, especially with the caliber of the team Montreal had. We were very hesitant to shoot the puck in because he handled it so well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jean Beliveau
I rate him and Terry Sawchuk as the best goalies I've ever seen, with Ken Dryden, Glenn Hall, Bernie Parent and Patrick Roy on the next rung down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Dryden
There are a lot of very good goalies, there are even a fair number of great goalies. But there aren't many important goalies. And Jacques Plante was an important goalie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Harvey
I figure Plante takes 15% of the load off the defense. Whereas we'd frequently get reefed into the corners going after pucks that they dump into our end, Jacques often saves us the trouble. Being faster than a lot of forwards, he starts the puck going back while the opponents are still rushing in. The rapid turnover in possession allowes us to leave opponents stranded behind our puck carrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Hall
So often, your skilled players are not dedicated. But Jacques was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gerry Cheevers
There's not a better Mechanical goalie in the game. You don't beat Plante with a fluky goal, you always beat him where you should beat a goaler - on the far side or wherever he gives you that inch of space.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 03:56 PM
  #114
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think the coaching argument is played out on both sides.

I think it comes down to whether New York's 1-2 punch at center and superior top 4 defensemen can overcome Regina's depth at every position (by that I mean on lower lines and at wings in particular), superior goaltending, and home ice advantage.
To be fair, I don't think Richard - Stastny is all that much better, if at all, than Ratelle - Ullman. Ullman has already been demonstrated to be a superior offensive player than Richard, and it's really up to opinion just who was better at everything else. Both were fantastic players in all 3 zones of the ice.

I think Ratelle is better then Stastny defensively, and I say this because Ratelle was content to accept a checking role in the Summit Series for the betterment of the team. Not once did he complain about his role on any team he was on. The only slight on Ratelle is that he never won a cup, and that wasn't his fault.

As for offense?

Playmaking (top-2, 5, 10, 15, 20):

Stastny: 1 4 7 8 8
Ratelle: 0 3 6 10 11

Edge Stastny. Ratelle was a fine playmaker, but he was no Stastny. Ratelle gets points for peak longevity here, but overall Stastny has the higher peak.

Goalscoring

Stastny: 0 0 0 4 6
Ratelle: 0 1 3 5 7

Edge Ratelle. Higher peak and longevity. Overall?

Top-2's: Stastny
Top-5's: even
Top-10's: Ratelle
Top-15's: Ratelle
Top-20's: Ratelle

I think these players are very very close offensively, with Ratelle having the longevity edge, while Stastny has the peak edge. New York's 1-2 punch at center isn't much better, if at all, than Regina's.

And the wingers:

Playmaking:

Tonelli: n/a
Pitre: 1 2 3 3 4
Anderson: 0 0 1 0 0 (this is going to need to be updated, is this the only time he was top-20?)
Mullen: n/a

Roberts: n/a
Mikhailov: n/a
Duff: n/a
Morris: 1 5 6 6 6

Goalscoring:

Tonelli: n/a (really? he was never top-20 in anything?)
Pitre: 2 3 7 9 9
Anderson: 0 2 3 3 4
Mullen: 0 1 3 5 5

Roberts: 1 3 5 8 8
Mikhailov: n/a
Duff: 0 0 2 3 5
Morris: 1 3 5 6 6

Most of the top-6 wingers for both teams were not renowned playmakers. However Morris beats out by himself both Pitre and Anderson combined for playmaking on the second line. He's paired with two great goal scorers, so the second line, offensively, is better than New York's for Regina, and better defensively as well.

For completion:

Ullman: 0 2 9 12 15 (playmaking), 1 3 9 12 13 (goal scoring)
Richard: 2 3 7 9 11 (playmaking), 0 1 2 6 11 (goal scoring)

So overall, it breaks down to this:

Regina top line totals for playmaking: 1 5 12 16 17
Regina top line totals for goal scoring: 1 4 8 13 15

This is WITHOUT Mikhailov's numbers, which are substantial for goal scoring.

New York top line totals for playmaking: 3 5 10 14 15
New York top line totals for goal scoring: 2 4 9 15 20

I'll have to check out Mikhailov's numbers later, but the top lines are very close offensively, neither team really has the edge offensively. Though once Mikhailov's numbers are tacked on, I would expect Regina to come out on top huge in goal scoring especially.

Now for the second lines:

Regina second line for playmaking: 1 7 15 18 21
Regina second line for goal scoring: 2 6 16 21 24

New York second line for playmaking: 1 4 8 8 8
New York second line for goal scoring: 0 3 6 12 15

Is New York's second line REALLY the better line offensively than their first line? Not by these numbers. That second line seems like it'll have an awfully hard time scoring goals, while the playmaking has peak value but very low longevity value as compared to Regina's second line. Regina's second line, however, is even better than the first line offensively before accounting for Mikhailov's numbers, and much better than New York's second line offensively AND defensively.

1st lines: even
2nd lines: big edge Regina

Now I understand why BRG didn't want to get into the stats. If anything here is wrong, please correct me.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:05 PM
  #115
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,467
vCash: 500
I'm not so sure it's so simple to say the team with the much better goaltending edge will win unless the other team has a massive edge elsewhere. It helps, obviously, but these are both very good goaltenders. Plante is no doubt the better goaltender, and he will play quite well all series long, but Rayner will be good as well, and I don't think he's going to lose any games for us. I feel if we can play solid defensive hockey and get some pressure on Plante, we're right in this thing, and both of those adjectives are attainable. As for coaching, it's been discussed too much today so I'll just say I disagree with your assessment of it and leave it at that.

One thing to compare with the goalies, and this isn't a slight on Regina's team at all but rather an appraisal of those Canadiens teams, is that Rayner's never played on a team this talented, whereas Plante typically played on much more talented teams than this(again, not a slight on Regina in any way, but just look at some of those Habs teams, it's insane). Plante's a great goalie and no matter the setting he always will be, but I just thought that was something interesting to note about the match-up.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:08 PM
  #116
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
To be fair, I don't think Richard - Stastny is all that much better, if at all, than Ratelle - Ullman. Ullman has already been demonstrated to be a superior offensive player than Richard, and it's really up to opinion just who was better at everything else. Both were fantastic players in all 3 zones of the ice.

I think Ratelle is better then Stastny defensively, and I say this because Ratelle was content to accept a checking role in the Summit Series for the betterment of the team. Not once did he complain about his role on any team he was on. The only slight on Ratelle is that he never won a cup, and that wasn't his fault.

As for offense?

Playmaking (top-2, 5, 10, 15, 20):

Stastny: 1 4 7 8 8
Ratelle: 0 3 6 10 11

Edge Stastny. Ratelle was a fine playmaker, but he was no Stastny. Ratelle gets points for peak longevity here, but overall Stastny has the higher peak.

Goalscoring

Stastny: 0 0 0 4 6
Ratelle: 0 1 3 5 7

Edge Ratelle. Higher peak and longevity. Overall?

Top-2's: Stastny
Top-5's: even
Top-10's: Ratelle
Top-15's: Ratelle
Top-20's: Ratelle

I think these players are very very close offensively, with Ratelle having the longevity edge, while Stastny has the peak edge. New York's 1-2 punch at center isn't much better, if at all, than Regina's.

And the wingers:

Playmaking:

Tonelli: n/a
Pitre: 1 2 3 3 4
Anderson: 0 0 1 0 0 (this is going to need to be updated, is this the only time he was top-20?)
Mullen: n/a

Roberts: n/a
Mikhailov: n/a
Duff: n/a
Morris: 1 5 6 6 6

Goalscoring:

Tonelli: n/a (really? he was never top-20 in anything?)
Pitre: 2 3 7 9 9
Anderson: 0 2 3 3 4
Mullen: 0 1 3 5 5

Roberts: 1 3 5 8 8
Mikhailov: n/a
Duff: 0 0 2 3 5
Morris: 1 3 5 6 6

Most of the top-6 wingers for both teams were not renowned playmakers. However Morris beats out by himself both Pitre and Anderson combined for playmaking on the second line. He's paired with two great goal scorers, so the second line, offensively, is better than New York's for Regina, and better defensively as well.

For completion:

Ullman: 0 2 9 12 15 (playmaking), 1 3 9 12 13 (goal scoring)
Richard: 2 3 7 9 11 (playmaking), 0 1 2 6 11 (goal scoring)

So overall, it breaks down to this:

Regina top line totals for playmaking: 1 5 12 16 17
Regina top line totals for goal scoring: 1 4 8 13 15

This is WITHOUT Mikhailov's numbers, which are substantial for goal scoring.

New York top line totals for playmaking: 3 5 10 14 15
New York top line totals for goal scoring: 2 4 9 15 20

I'll have to check out Mikhailov's numbers later, but the top lines are very close offensively, neither team really has the edge offensively. Though once Mikhailov's numbers are tacked on, I would expect Regina to come out on top huge in goal scoring especially.

Now for the second lines:

Regina second line for playmaking: 1 7 15 18 21
Regina second line for goal scoring: 2 6 16 21 24

New York second line for playmaking: 1 4 8 8 8
New York second line for goal scoring: 0 3 6 12 15

Is New York's second line REALLY the better line offensively than their first line? Not by these numbers. That second line seems like it'll have an awfully hard time scoring goals, while the playmaking has peak value but very low longevity value as compared to Regina's second line. Regina's second line, however, is even better than the first line offensively before accounting for Mikhailov's numbers, and much better than New York's second line offensively AND defensively.

1st lines: even
2nd lines: big edge Regina

Now I understand why BRG didn't want to get into the stats. If anything here is wrong, please correct me.
A couple things.

- Ullman is more accomplished offensively, but the jury is out on whether he was actually better. He did have pretty crap linemates compared to most HHOF forwards of the time, though. Richard is vastly underrated or vastly overrated depending on who you ask. I don't see that there can be more than 10 spots separating these guys on an all-time list.

- I think those second line numbers for new York are off. Are you missing Richard? Or did you flip Richard and Stastny? Stastny's on the first line.

- Attempting to quantify Mikhailov's Russian league results and convert them to North America is futile. It's enough for me to see that our line had about the same offensive achievements without Mikhailov being considered. he's a top-100 player and a major bonus as he complements his center very well.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:13 PM
  #117
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
A couple things.

- Ullman is more accomplished offensively, but the jury is out on whether he was actually better. He did have pretty crap linemates compared to most HHOF forwards of the time, though. Richard is vastly underrated or vastly overrated depending on who you ask. I don't see that there can be more than 10 spots separating these guys on an all-time list.

- I think those second line numbers for new York are off. Are you missing Richard? Or did you flip Richard and Stastny? Stastny's on the first line.

- Attempting to quantify Mikhailov's Russian league results and convert them to North America is futile. It's enough for me to see that our line had about the same offensive achievements without Mikhailov being considered. he's a top-100 player and a major bonus as he complements his center very well.
Based on the lineup posted on the first post, Stastny is on the second line and Richard is on the first line.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:16 PM
  #118
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,565
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
\
Now I understand why BRG didn't want to get into the stats. If anything here is wrong, please correct me.
I'm definitely not checking everything, but I checked Tonelli. You said he was never top-20 in anything. Wrong: he was top-20 in goals once, assists twice, and points twice (81-82 and 84-85).

Also, it' not surprising that Regina have more top-10s/20s than New York. You and seventies selected your team with top-10s/20s as a major criterion. However, there are many other relevant criteria, including peak value, defensive play, style of play, PP vs EV production, etc. Of course your team will look better if you measure based on one criterion that you considered more than your opponent when drafting.

For example, Richard and Tonelli are both considerably more impressive as scorers if you look at their even-strength results only. As I posted earlier in the draft, Richard was the best scorer in hockey at even strength over a 12 year period, and Tonelli was 6th and 7th in even strength scoring in his two big years. Both were typically second-unit power play players - the same role they are playing here. Scoring finishes don't pick up any of that.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:18 PM
  #119
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,238
vCash: 500
awww, crap, I coulda sworn it was the other way around. whoops.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:27 PM
  #120
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,238
vCash: 500
Jarek, the numbers you're looking for are these:

(overpass is right, Tonelli did crack the top-20 a couple of times)

Regina's first line: 1-4-8-13-15 in goalscoring, 0-4-8-12-14 in playmaking (w/o Mikhailov)
New York's first line: 2-4-9-15-21 in goalscoring, 3-5-10-13-17 in playmaking

(My guess is, since Mikhailov is a top-100 player, had he been an NHLer he would have had that one top-10, two-top-15s and 6 top-20s to bridge that gap. (this would have required him to have only about a Mark Recchi or Theoren Fleury goalscoring peak) He likely would have made the top-20 in assists a few times to bridge the 13-12 and 17-14 gap (he'd have to be like an Iginla or MacLeish, a guy whose main strength is scoring, but will pick up many assists too), but would not close the 3-0 and 5-4 gaps on the top-2s and top-5s IMO.)

Regina's second line: 2-6-16-21-24 in goalscoring, 1-7-15-18-21 in playmaking
New York's second line: 0-3-6-12-15 in goalscoring, 1-4-8-10-11 in playmaking (you missed a few lower finishes for Mullen and Anderson)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:38 PM
  #121
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
To be fair, I don't think Richard - Stastny is all that much better, if at all, than Ratelle - Ullman. Ullman has already been demonstrated to be a superior offensive player than Richard, and it's really up to opinion just who was better at everything else. Both were fantastic players in all 3 zones of the ice.

I think Ratelle is better then Stastny defensively, and I say this because Ratelle was content to accept a checking role in the Summit Series for the betterment of the team. Not once did he complain about his role on any team he was on. The only slight on Ratelle is that he never won a cup, and that wasn't his fault.

As for offense?

Playmaking (top-2, 5, 10, 15, 20):

Stastny: 1 4 7 8 8
Ratelle: 0 3 6 10 11

Edge Stastny. Ratelle was a fine playmaker, but he was no Stastny. Ratelle gets points for peak longevity here, but overall Stastny has the higher peak.

Goalscoring

Stastny: 0 0 0 4 6
Ratelle: 0 1 3 5 7

Edge Ratelle. Higher peak and longevity. Overall?

Top-2's: Stastny
Top-5's: even
Top-10's: Ratelle
Top-15's: Ratelle
Top-20's: Ratelle

I think these players are very very close offensively, with Ratelle having the longevity edge, while Stastny has the peak edge. New York's 1-2 punch at center isn't much better, if at all, than Regina's.

And the wingers:

Playmaking:

Tonelli: n/a
Pitre: 1 2 3 3 4
Anderson: 0 0 1 0 0 (this is going to need to be updated, is this the only time he was top-20?)
Mullen: n/a

Roberts: n/a
Mikhailov: n/a
Duff: n/a
Morris: 1 5 6 6 6

Goalscoring:

Tonelli: n/a (really? he was never top-20 in anything?)
Pitre: 2 3 7 9 9
Anderson: 0 2 3 3 4
Mullen: 0 1 3 5 5

Roberts: 1 3 5 8 8
Mikhailov: n/a
Duff: 0 0 2 3 5
Morris: 1 3 5 6 6

Most of the top-6 wingers for both teams were not renowned playmakers. However Morris beats out by himself both Pitre and Anderson combined for playmaking on the second line. He's paired with two great goal scorers, so the second line, offensively, is better than New York's for Regina, and better defensively as well.

For completion:

Ullman: 0 2 9 12 15 (playmaking), 1 3 9 12 13 (goal scoring)
Richard: 2 3 7 9 11 (playmaking), 0 1 2 6 11 (goal scoring)

So overall, it breaks down to this:

Regina top line totals for playmaking: 1 5 12 16 17
Regina top line totals for goal scoring: 1 4 8 13 15

This is WITHOUT Mikhailov's numbers, which are substantial for goal scoring.

New York top line totals for playmaking: 3 5 10 14 15
New York top line totals for goal scoring: 2 4 9 15 20

I'll have to check out Mikhailov's numbers later, but the top lines are very close offensively, neither team really has the edge offensively. Though once Mikhailov's numbers are tacked on, I would expect Regina to come out on top huge in goal scoring especially.

Now for the second lines:

Regina second line for playmaking: 1 7 15 18 21
Regina second line for goal scoring: 2 6 16 21 24

New York second line for playmaking: 1 4 8 8 8
New York second line for goal scoring: 0 3 6 12 15

Is New York's second line REALLY the better line offensively than their first line? Not by these numbers. That second line seems like it'll have an awfully hard time scoring goals, while the playmaking has peak value but very low longevity value as compared to Regina's second line. Regina's second line, however, is even better than the first line offensively before accounting for Mikhailov's numbers, and much better than New York's second line offensively AND defensively.

1st lines: even
2nd lines: big edge Regina

Now I understand why BRG didn't want to get into the stats. If anything here is wrong, please correct me.
The reason I didn't want to get into the stats, actually, is because using top-whatever finishes can sometimes be flawed. Case in point, Richard vs. Ullman. Ullman, for the majority of the career, was the top dog, or close to it, on the teams he played for. Richard, on the other hand, was never the best centerman on his own team, and that is no slight towards him, as there are about 2 guys all-time who could've dethroned Beliveau of that title. Now, when you're not even the top centerman on your team, getting second line minutes and so forth, it's hard to rack up top-10 finishes and so forth. Same thing with Glenn Anderson. Outside the first couple years he was on the second line. Again, he's not going to get the icetime and the opportunities to put up big numbers when the best dynamic duo the game has ever seen is on line 1. Doesn't make him any less of a player.

With Richard and Ullman, maybe it was Richard's incredible defensive play, but these guys were contemporaries, and there's no doubt who the better player was. No slight on Ullman, and again, maybe it's the defensive prowess, but is Ullman really offensively superior when those who watched the two play favor Richard? He really is an incredible playmaker. There's also a story of how he made the Canadiens, where basically he was invited solely because he was Maurice's brother, and then made the team because no one could take the puck away from him. Sounds like he's got some offensive skills to me.

As for my second line not scoring, this really hits home why top-whatever finishes are a little flawed. Now I've explained Anderson in this thread, and really his bread and butter is this time of year anyway. But Mullen is really a guy you underrated, solely because of top-whatever finishes. Even if you don't buy into the whole career thing, with his 500 goals, and chant about the 80s and whatever, his adjusted stats, flawed as they may be, kind of tell us something. Even after adjusted, he hits 30 goals a year 7 straight times, which could've been 9 if not for an injury riddled 90-91 campaign(he hit 42 the next year). And in reality that was 6 straight 40-goal campaigns, but yeah, it was the 80s. Either way, that's some great consistency in terms of his goal scoring. So, really, I have two fairly good goal scorers flanking an incredible playmaker in Peter Stastny. Am I really going to have that many problems scoring on that line? I don't think so, not one bit. I really don't see a big edge from your second line at all. The biggest question mark on both lines is Duff, who's a good playoff scorer but did very little in the regular season, and I would say I have the best offensive player between both lines. Also, with Morris are those his straight up PCHA stats or is the whole NHA taken into account? Because, if not, those aren't all that accurate. It's also worth noting that Morris had a very short peak, and that's something that simply can't be forgotten in this context.

So, all in all, I think I have a nice advantage on my second line overall. Will it be enough to overcome everything else? We'll see. But don't sell my guys short, here. Mullen and Anderson were two very good goalscoring wingers, and they're paired with a great playmaking centerman. I have a feeling things will work out just fine for them.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:39 PM
  #122
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I'm definitely not checking everything, but I checked Tonelli. You said he was never top-20 in anything. Wrong: he was top-20 in goals once, assists twice, and points twice (81-82 and 84-85).

Also, it' not surprising that Regina have more top-10s/20s than New York. You and seventies selected your team with top-10s/20s as a major criterion. However, there are many other relevant criteria, including peak value, defensive play, style of play, PP vs EV production, etc. Of course your team will look better if you measure based on one criterion that you considered more than your opponent when drafting.

For example, Richard and Tonelli are both considerably more impressive as scorers if you look at their even-strength results only. As I posted earlier in the draft, Richard was the best scorer in hockey at even strength over a 12 year period, and Tonelli was 6th and 7th in even strength scoring in his two big years. Both were typically second-unit power play players - the same role they are playing here. Scoring finishes don't pick up any of that.
We absolutely did not focus solely on top 10s or top-20s. I do like looking at the big picture and I enjoy a player with a good "body of work" - not just a few seasons in the top-10 and finished. That's no secret. but that's not all we look for.

Peak value is very important. Our top-6 forwards have between then 21 instances of finishing top-5 for goals or assists compared to 16 for New York, and that IS after adjusting for smaller early leagues for Morris, Roberts, and Pitre, and that is without considering Mikhailov's NHL potential. In the bottom-6, Oatman, Staal, Russell, and McKenney were top-5 offensive players at least once. Vaive and MacLeish for new York. (they do have an 8-4 gap in total top-2s in the top-6 forwards, however, Russell, Oatman and McKenney help to make up for that on other lines; New York has no one who does - and again, it doesn't count Mikhailov)

Intangibles, style of play, history of winning, clutch play and defensive play were also very important to us. There were a number of times we sacrificed the chance to take a stronger offensive player and went with one who provided more in other areas. It's part of building a team.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:43 PM
  #123
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,467
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
A couple things.

- Ullman is more accomplished offensively, but the jury is out on whether he was actually better. He did have pretty crap linemates compared to most HHOF forwards of the time, though. Richard is vastly underrated or vastly overrated depending on who you ask. I don't see that there can be more than 10 spots separating these guys on an all-time list.

- I think those second line numbers for new York are off. Are you missing Richard? Or did you flip Richard and Stastny? Stastny's on the first line.

- Attempting to quantify Mikhailov's Russian league results and convert them to North America is futile. It's enough for me to see that our line had about the same offensive achievements without Mikhailov being considered. he's a top-100 player and a major bonus as he complements his center very well.
Hmm, you kinda said what I did in a sentence, whereas I took a nice paragraph or so. Oh well, I think I made a nice case for Henri(as did overpass, thanks man!).

Also, no, Henri's on the top line. You can debate amongst yourselves which lines a better "first line" or whatever, but I really like that entire line's two-way abilities, and overall they're going to have the most icetime(likely). Thus, they get listed in the top spot. I seem to be unconventional in ranking my lines in terms of icetime as opposed to cookie cutter roles, but oh well, hopefully this clears things up.

Gibsons Finest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:43 PM
  #124
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
The reason I didn't want to get into the stats, actually, is because using top-whatever finishes can sometimes be flawed. Case in point, Richard vs. Ullman. Ullman, for the majority of the career, was the top dog, or close to it, on the teams he played for.
Ullman's entire prime was spent playing on the 2nd line while Delvecchio got to play with Howe. I am sure they got PP time together, but that's it.

Quote:
Also, with Morris are those his straight up PCHA stats or is the whole NHA taken into account? Because, if not, those aren't all that accurate. It's also worth noting that Morris had a very short peak, and that's something that simply can't be forgotten in this context.
First, yes, that is with the NHA taken into account. His "raw" finishes are 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th in goals, and 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 6th in assists.

His peak wasn't short. His peak was 6 years long. His career was short. His career was all peak.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-27-2009, 04:46 PM
  #125
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,238
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Hmm, you kinda said what I did in a sentence, whereas I took a nice paragraph or so. Oh well, I think I made a nice case for Henri(as did overpass, thanks man!).

Also, no, Henri's on the top line. You can debate amongst yourselves which lines a better "first line" or whatever, but I really like that entire line's two-way abilities, and overall they're going to have the most icetime(likely). Thus, they get listed in the top spot. I seem to be unconventional in ranking my lines in terms of icetime as opposed to cookie cutter roles, but oh well, hopefully this clears things up.
the stastny/richard thing was my bad.

Ullman is just far better than anyone realizes is all. If this was some softie who didn't backcheck and choked in big games, by all means, he should be 100 spots behind Richard, even with this great offensive record. But his toolbox wasn't really lacking anything aside from perhaps punishing physical play.

I really want the HSP to be done so we can take a closer look at all this even strength stuff. it will get us all one step closer to the truth. And what we know so far, is definitely a feather in Henri's cap. It helps to explain why we rank him higher than his offensive record suggests we should.

seventieslord 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 10:33 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.