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 Division Final: 2 Kimberley Dynamiters vs. 4 Cairo Desert Dogs

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
12-03-2009, 10:09 PM
  #1
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
ATD 12 Bob Cole Division Final: 2 Kimberley Dynamiters vs. 4 Cairo Desert Dogs

KIMBERLEY DYNAMITERS

GM: Mr Bugg
Head Coach: Pete Green
Assistant Coach: John Muckler

Sid Smith - Joe Sakic - Larry Aurie
Brian Bellows - Marcel Dionne - Reggie Leach
Thomas Steen - Kent Nilsson - Hakan Loob
Johnny Gottselig - Dave Poulin - Mario Tremblay
Johnny Wilson - Duane Sutter

Ray Bourque - Rob Blake
Kevin Lowe - Adam Foote
George Owen - Bill Hajt

Grant Fuhr
Charlie Hodge

Callups:
F: Morris Lukowich, Jason Spezza, Russ Courtnall
D: Normand Rochefort, Rick Green
G: Earl Robinson


VS


CAIRO DESERT DOGS

Toe Blake(C) - Cyclone Taylor - Teemu Selanne
Smokey Harris - Cooney Weiland - Theo Fleury
Jack Walker - Edgar Laprade - Ken Wharram
Gaye Stewart - Pit Martin - Jimmy Peters
Herb Cain - Billy Taylor

Ebbie Goodfellow(A) - Doug Wilson
Harvey Pulford(A) - Gus Mortson
Ken Randall - Albert Leduc
Sandis Ozolinsh

Glenn Hall
Normie Smith

PP1: Toe Blake-Cyclone Taylor-Teemu Selanne-Ebbie Goodfellow-Doug Wilson
PP2: Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Sandis Ozolinsh-Gus Mortson

PK1: Jack Walker-Edgar Laprade-Harvey Pulford-Gus Mortson
PK2: Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Albert Leduc-Doug Wilson

Callups:
F: Don Grosso, Cal Gardner, Bill Fairbairn
D: Gord Fraser, Howard Mcnamara
G: Roland Melanson

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2009, 10:23 PM
  #2
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
For easy reference..click on a player to find out more about him.

Cairo Desert Dogs

GM: Leafs Forever
Head Coach: Hector "Toe" Blake
Captain: Hector "Toe" Blake
Assistant Captain: Ebbie Goodfellow
Assistant Captain: Harvey Pulford


Toe Blake(C)-Cyclone Taylor-Teemu Selanne
Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury
Jack Walker-Edgar Laprade-Ken Wharram
Gaye Stewart-Pit Martin-Jimmy Peters

Ebbie Goodfellow(A)-Doug Wilson
Harvey Pulford(A)-Gus Mortson
Ken Randall-Albert Leduc

Glenn Hall
Normie Smith

Spares: D Sandis Ozolinsh[/URL] LW Herb Cain, C Billy Taylor

PP1: Toe Blake-Cyclone Taylor-Teemu Selanne-Ebbie Goodfellow-Doug Wilson
PP2: Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Albert Leduc-Gus Mortson

PK1: Jack Walker-Edgar Laprade-Harvey Pulford-Gus Mortson
PK2: Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Albert Leduc-Doug Wilson

Cairo Desert Devils (Minor League Team):

Don Grosso-Cal Gardner-Bill Fairbairn
Gord Fraser-Howard Mcnamara

Roland Melanson



Good luck Kimberley. Looking forward to a great series!


Based on the MVP votes last series I think I have convinced people Glenn Hall can be awesome in the playoffs. I won't be able to start on comparisons tonight because I'd figure while waiting for the series to come up, I'd work on continuing to disprove Glenn Hall's supposedly poor playoffs, and began working on bringing together accounts of the Detroit Series for Hall in '63 in an effort to disprove his supposedly bad series. (And I think my evidence is going to show that.)


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-05-2009 at 04:59 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:40 AM
  #3
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
I remember HO did an analysis of the 60's Hawks and found that while Hall didn't step up, he didn't step down either. He just kept on being great. The problem with the team was that beyond the big 4, they struggled greatly in the post season.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:43 AM
  #4
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,260
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
I remember HO did an analysis of the 60's Hawks and found that while Hall didn't step up, he didn't step down either. He just kept on being great. The problem with the team was that beyond the big 4, they struggled greatly in the post season.
Yeah, I think the analysis went something like, "Pilote stepped up big time, Hull stepped up almost as much, Mikita usually stepped up, Hall played at the same very good level, the rest of the team crapped the bed."

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 06:39 AM
  #5
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Sounds about right (although not completely in this particular playoffs; although Mikita may have had injures). Where can I find this analysis?

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 03:27 PM
  #6
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Disproving the supposed "bad" Glenn Hall Playoffs Volume II: Hawks vs Wings 1963

This is the second edition of the series of newspaper article gathering created to disprove my goali, Glenn Hall, of having any questionability in the playoffs. Volume I can be found here: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...6&postcount=47

All quotes are taken directly from the globe and mail archive.

The year is 1963. The Chicago Blackhawks, coming off a rather poor end to the season, finish second in the NHL in what would be a close year points wise in the standings. The Red Wings, who finished a mere 4 points behind the Hawks, would be their opponents. The Hawks were favored, but the Red Wings certainly had a chance.

This playoff year would prove to be the highest GAA in a single playoff season of Glenn Hall's career. That must mean he performed poorly, right?

Wrong.

Game 1 account: Hawks win 5-4

Quote:
It was the first game game of the best-of-seven series and the Hawks, incompetent in the closing weeks of the schedule, played with a deliberate nonchalance that is normally not witness in playoff games.
Seems like the Hawks were playing poorly. As I showed in volume I of this series, team play can have a dramatic effect on GAA.

Quote:
Each team played with a reckless indifference and it was not determined whether this was deliberate or otherwise.

There was no indication in last night's game that the Hawks would make it two in a row.
Looks like neither team was playing well and without emotion- likely causing the high score.

Quote:
Delvecchio and Howe scored in the third period and the anxious chicago stadium fans thought Wins would least tie the score. Goalkeepers Terry Sawchuk and Glenn Hall, of the Hawks, had to make several big saves. At other times, their performance was erratic. Each appeared uneasy on routine of shots.
Glenn Hall evidently was able to perform to some degree, making big saves. Terry Sawchuk in opposing net seems to have played similarly. Although it appears the style of game threw off Hall (again, evidence that team play has an effect on GAA and goalie play), Sawchuk, another great goalie, also seemed to be thrown off to the same degree. As far as shots, Detroit would outshoot the Hawks 35-34.

And Account of the first goal, and evidence of the nonchalant attitude leading to poor defence on chicago's part:

Quote:
Detroit defenceman Marcel Pronovost tied the score with an end to end rush which looked ridiculously easy. He wasn't even knocked off balance as he split the Chicago defence of Al MacNeil and Wayne Hillman. He beat Hall with a backhand shot.
Looks like lazy and weak defensive and checking work; and it directly led to a goal against Hall.

An account of the fourth goal scored on Hall:

Quote:
Then Al MacNeil, a Chicago defenceman, drilled a shot at Detroit defenceman shin guards. The puck bounced back about 15 yards and Howe broke away, recovered the puck and went on a solo to score.
Looks like Howe on a breakway scored another. Hall is a fantastic goalie and I am sure he stopped Howe a number of times, but still, there were very few, if any, goalscorer in NHL history better than Howe. And giving him a breakaway?

Post game account:

Quote:
Pious and Detroit coach Sid abel agreed that the type of hockey in the series opener was not what they would endorse. They thought both teams were exceptionally casual in their checking. "It wasn't a good hockey game. said Abel, a frank admission that might cause him to be regarded suspicously by the coaches union. "Both teams will probably play a lot tigher in the remaining games. Hell, they'll have to." "I never thought either team would be loose or careless in a playoff game. The goalkeeping on both teams was bad, and the checking was weak."
Hall was in no way outplayed by Sawchuk, it appears. The nonchalant attidude's power on defensive play hurt both goalies, it seems. They both struggled somewhat, but I am based on the poor play on defence and, in Hall's case, letting in a goal with one of the greatest goalscorers of all time coming in on a breakaway, it does not seem like Hall had a poor game (to me at least) and was certainly not outplayed or the cause of loss for Hawks.

Game 2 account: Hawks win 5-2

Quote:
Hawks, excercising the same muscular dominance that used to identify their play early in the season, took a 2-0 lead in their best of seven series against the unimpressive Red wings.
The Hawks seemed to have come out of their slumping form of the late-regular season and back into the beginning of the regular season, the play that really made them where they were in the standings. Hall lets in two less goals as a result of this change of form. coincedence?

Quote:
"This looked like the rough, tough Chicago team of a few weeks ago- which nobody pushed around.
Evidently Chicgo played a much better game and dominated a lot more- and as shown by the GAA difference, Hall benefitted greatly. Again, another indication of how team play is an effect on GAA.

Post game account

Quote:
"It's as simple as this" Rudy Pious told waiting to flash the word to a breathless world. "We've tighened up our goals against average and our goal production is up. How are you going to beat it?"
Hawks evidently put up a much better show in all aspects of the game, and managed to outshoot the Wings 36-29. Although not much is said of Hall's goaltending, it seemed he had a good game based on letting only 2 goals in on 29 shots. And again, the benefit of better team play in relation to GAA is evident in these two games.

And becomes more evident in game 3:

Game 3 account: Wings win 4-2

Quote:
The Hawks, before they ran into an injury problems, won the first two games of this best-of-seven series set in Chicago. Fourth game will be played here tomorrow and if the incredible Howe plays with similar stamina and skill, the series will probably revert to Chicago tied.
Hawks run into injures, Howe dominates, Hawks lose and Hall lets in 4.

Quote:
Stan Mikita, one of the few Hawks that didn't wilt in the soggy heat of the Olympia, scored two goals.
Looks like almost all the Hawks played poorly and worse. But what about Hall's play?

Quote:
Although the Hawks outshot Hawks by a 48-21 margin they had to fight from behind twice and went ahead two goals in 41 seconds in the third period when Chicago goaltender goalkepper Glenn Hall suddenly stopped performing mircales. Hall was magnificent, tumbling acrobat throughout and, for a great part of the game, it appeared as though he would frustrate the Wings. But Howe wouldn't concede.
Hall stopped 44 of 48 shots in this game, and was brilliant. Of course, the GAA of 4.00 would have you believe he performed poorly. GAA can be a liar sometimes.

More on Hall:

Quote:
Hall's brilliance prevented the Wings from tying the score until near the mid-way point of the game.
A description of the first goal:

Quote:
Nesterenko, who was trying to skate with Howe, took a wrong turn as he guessed wrong on Howe's plan. Howe rambled, unescorted, down right wing. Nesterenko and the Chicago defence were trapped. Howe took careful aim and drove the puck between Hall's pads.
Another one with one of the greatest goalscorers ever scoring on a breakaway..is Hall really bad for that?

A description of another goal:

Quote:
Howe nudged the puck to Young, he shot through a tangle of players but Hall blocked the shot. Parker tapped in the rebound with his customary delicacy.
Hall even made a good stop through a bunch of bodies on this one; just one of those pesky rebound goals.

And the other two described:

Quote:
Faulkner gave the Wings the lead for the first time in the third period, also on a rebound. Howe trapped the puck in the in the Chicago zone, faked two Hawks with a bewildering shift, and drove a hard shot at the embattled Hall. Faulker darted in and scooped the rebound past Hall. Then, 41 seconds later, MacGregor fired from the right point, and the puck skipped past Hall.
Poor defensive play evidently contributed as well.

Post game:

Another look at Howe's breakaway goal-

Quote:
He strode in 30 feet, then whistled a wrist shot, knee high. Hall flailed at the puck but his sprawling effort was futile. Howe had been beating goalies from this range in the National Hockey league for 17 years.
Another account of Hall's play and the team play:

Quote:
Chicago led 2-1 late in the second period but at that juncuture the Hawks were like a reeling fighter, reeling and desperate. They were in contention soley because Hall was commiting acts of thievery that would have earned him a 10-year stretch in in civillian life. Before it was over he was to stop 44 shots, most of them tough, Terry Sawchuk made 19 saves for Detroit, the majority routine.
Looks like Hall played a fantastic game and robbed a lot of people, and kept the Hawks in it very well.

Coach Pious's thoughts on why Hall let in a few goals:

Quote:
"Hall was tremendous" Mr.Pious said "Outstanding, terrific, and also pretty good." "But"- Mr.Pious stabbed at the reporters chest- "it was like Hall was in a shooting gallery. You get enough shots at the clay pigeon and you're going to crack him.
Again, more proof of Hall's brilliance of the game. Looks like it was the team play, and not Hall, that was a greater factor in the 4 goals against.

And Pious thoughts on how the team played

Quote:
"All we did was check and let them come back in wave after wave. Nester checked Howe good enough but we didn't have enough guys to back him up."
Poor defensive work on Howe, it seems.

And again, more on Hall's play:

Quote:
They were thourughly beaten in the third game here although the score was only 4-2Wings, a flottering tribute to the magnificent play of Glenn Hall.
Game 4: Wings win 4-1

Quote:
Detroit Red wings, superior in stamina, skill, and speed, trounced the Chicago Blackhawks here last night to send last night to tie their Stanley Cup best of seven semi final 2-2.

Wings, skating with suprising vigour in the pressure cooker that is the Detroit Olympia, dominated play with ridiculous ease.
Looks like Wings dominated- again- and Hall let in 4 goals- again. But wait..

Quote:
Hall prevented several Detroit goals as the Wings outshot the Hawks 39-28
Looks like Hall still managed to play well.

Another account of Detroit's dominance:

Quote:
"Wings, seldom out of position and all dedicated in their pursuit of the puck,
seldom gave the Hawks room to manouevre, a formula that incited the Chicago
team to needless fits of petulance late in the game.
An account of a goals:

Quote:
Faulkner deflected Alex Delveccio's shot from the right point past Hall.
Those dang deflected shots..difficult to stop, no?

Quote:
Howe made it 2-0 in the second period on one of his typical romps down right wing. Hawks Bob Turner lost the puck in Detroit's zone, Parker MacDonald slid it ahead of Howe and tramped down the right boards, ignored some harrasament by Vasko and rammed a shot in the short side.
Looks like more poor defensive work leading to a goal.

Quote:
Bill Gadsby's shot was blocked by chicago's defenceman Pierre Pilote but Pronovost spurted in from left wing and slapped the rebound past Hall.
A rebound.

Quote:
A few seconds after the third period got under way, Smith deflected Doug Barkley's shot from right point into the Chicago net for his first goal of the series.
And another deflection.

Does not at all seem like Hall was letting in bad goals. And it seems, based on the one statement, Hall played fairly well. But there will be more support of this from coach Pious.

Post-Game:

Pious perspective on Wings dominance:

Quote:
"Our guys might have well worn shoes out there for all the skating they did"
he said after watching Wings manhandle the Hawks with ease to tie the series
at two games each.
It seems as a result of this poor play, he calls all the players to come out for
early practice. But he leaves out..

Quote:
" He ordered all of them, with the exception of Glenn Hall, to report to practice session in Chicago tomorrow morning."
A sign that he was one of the only ones to perform well, perhaps?

This confirms that:

Quote:
"Chicago, which jumped into a two game lead on its home ice, looked ragged and tired in dropping it's second successive game on Detroit ice."

" I was suprised when Bobby Hull (who fractured his nose last Thursday's game in chicago) showed up today to play and he did a real terrific job out there, but he and Hall could not do it all themselves." Pious said
Looks like Hull and Hall were the only guys doing a good job based on these comments and the game accounts.

An elaboration on why Hall wasn't at pracite the next day:

Quote:
" Hull took part in a 75 minute scrimage at the Stadium here yesterday. Only absentee was goalkeeper Glenn Hall. Pious figures he doesn't need practice.
Game 5 account: Wings win 4-2.

Quote:
"There is aboslutely nothing in the conduct of the Chicago Blakhawks last night to indicate that they were capable of prolonging the series beyond Sunday.

Wings did nothing glamourous or outstanding in winning. They simply adhered
to a monotonous routine of skating and checking and were seldom out of position.
It was the same formula that discouraged the Hawks the past two games and will
probably succeed again.
Looks like the Wings employed the same formula, and the Hawks were still terrible when it was employed.

But despite Hall let in 4 goals:

Quote:
"Wings outshot the Hawks, 44-35 throughout the game"
He was overworked but seemed to perform well, stopping 40 shots.

More on the dominance:

Quote:
"In the final few minutes, Wings were skating and checking viguourlsly, and Hawks looked weary and confused.
Another game where not much is said on Hall: but he clearly stopped a ton of shots to keep the Hawks in it on the shot count, and again appeared to be poorly supported.

Account of game 6- Wings win 7-4

Quote:
"But the Wings, employing the formula that was successful for them in earlier
games, simply skated away from the Hawks with three goals in the third period."
Again, Wings employ the strategy that appears to be a weakness for the Hawks,
and Wings dominate. But yet again, more justification for Hall's play:

Quote:
"There were moments in this erratic game when it appeared that Hull
and Hawk's goalie Glenn Hall were providing the only opposition for the
Wings
.
Seems like Hall and Hull were again the only ones performing well, with everyone else, including Hall's supporting defensive cast, playing poorly.

Quote:
Checking was careless, sometimes indifferent, there was blatant defensive
lapses by both teams and goaltending, especially by Wing's Terry Sawchuk,
was inferior.
Defensive lapses it seems, and Hall did outplay goalie Sawchuk too.

And Hall would again be overworked; Wings outshot the Hawks 45-24.

Quote:
Hall, Hawks overworked goalie, had another exasperated time. The game was delayed about 10 minutes in the first period when he had to retire to get 15 stiches underneath his nose. He returned to play with his usual efficency. You couldn't say the same for the other Hawks.
Hall shows toughness to return to the game after getting stiches. And he played how he usually does; it again seems like the team in front is responsible for the high GAA.

Accounts of the goals:

Quote:
Ullmann missed the open side of the net but the puck bounced off the back-boards and Macdonald poked it past Hall."
Bad luck with those crazy backboards.

Quote:
"He rached in on right wing, trapped Delveccio's rebound and flipped the puck into the Chicago net.
Doesn't seem like Hall's team is doing well to get rebounds out.

Quote:
..and Delveccio stole the puck from Stan Mikita and romped in to beat Hall with a backhander in the short side.
Poor defensive work leading to a goal.

Quote:
Faulkner, alert an elusive, thurst in the tie breaker after Hall had foiled Andre Pronovost.
Hall stops a shot but is overwhelemd by a second guy coming in to score, it seems.

Quote:
Ullman scored his second while Chicago defenceman Jack Evans was sitting on Gordie Howe in the goal crease.
Seems like Hall was getting some interefrence- somewhat from his own defenceman- in letting this one in.

Quote:
Gadsby scored with a drive from the right point.

Summary
In game 1, both teams play nonchantly, and both goalies come up with big saves but struggle to an extent. Seems like defensive work is the more-so responsible for the GAA.

In game 2, Hall performs well, letting in only 2 goals on 29 shots.

in game 3, Hall plays brilliantly, the sole reason why the Hawks were kept in it, stopping 44 of 48 shots.

In game 4, Hall stops 35 of 39 shots; his team in front gets dominated and skates poorly. Pious calls out his team to early practice, except Hall, and ntoes that Hull and Hall could not do it all themselves. It looks like Hall played pretty well based on Pious specficially noting him seperate from the rest of the very poor team play.

In game 5, Wings still dominate but Hall, although not much is said of his goaltending, stops 40 of 44 shots. Seems like he again performed fairly well.

In game 6, it is noted it seems at time Hull and Hall were the only opposition to the Wings, clearly showing that Hall was not apart of the very poor team play around him.

Hall even comes back from some injury to play with his usual eficency; the other Hawks, on the other hand don't. Poor defensive work leads to numerous goals in this game, and in the series.

Hall, on a whole, seems to preform pretty well in this series. Not once is he singled out as a bad player compared to the rest or opposing goalie. The overworked Hall stops a ton of shots, performs brilliantly in a game, and performs pretty good in most others. This series does not at all seem to be a bad one for Hall, and Hall seems to show in it that he can perform well and can come up brilliantly in the playoffs in this series.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-05-2009 at 12:03 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 04:58 PM
  #7
hfboardsuser
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,281
vCash: 500
I suppose this is a good time to mention that I don't particularly buy the argument Hall was a bad playoff goalie either. Net is the least of your team's worries in this series, as it is for mine. Having said that, Fuhr's pedigree in the post-season is much, much better- can't really argue with that many Cups as a starter, regardless of the team in front of him. If you can agree that Fuhr was more than a passenger, I can agree that Hall wasn't a 'bad' playoff goalie.

Anyway, Cairo is a carbon copy of the two teams Kimberley previously defeated- strong in goal, a balanced D that lacks a star player, and decent two-way play from the forwards along with a fair amount of offense.

Top Six

I'm a big fan of Cyclone Taylor, and I'd like to have one of these drafts. Sakic and he are about as equal as you can get, and it's the first time I think I've faced a team I can say that about.

The second line is a mis-match, though. Your team also suffers from the value pick thing- Smokey Harris and Cooney Weiland are great contributors to lines where there are two players better than they are. But when you put them together on a unit it's not a strong combination. Fleury's a borderline 1st line winger, so there's that, but can Harris and Weiland as good offensively as Dionne and Leach? As much work as you and seventies have done to give them credit for their accomplishments, both are at the lower end when we talk of the top 64 LWs and Cs.

[/quote]

Shutdown Line

Walker-Laprade-Wharram is the weakest shutdown unit I've faced so far, and it all starts with Laprade. He's not an elite shutdown center in an ATD. If two teams with much, much better units couldn't stifle my top two lines enough to prevent losses, what makes a voter think that line can do it?

Fourth line

However, you've got one of the better fourth lines around when it comes to defensive play- I'd actually rate is higher than your third, at least for the role they'll play.

Defense

Looks identical to the last couple- one bona fide but not elite number one, a well-rounded but not elite unit. One question: Where is the transition offense coming from here? I could overlook it last series since Jacques Plante was back there, but that's not the case anymore. With limited offense past the first line, the D has to help out. I don't think Mortson, Pulford or Randall can do that.

hfboardsuser is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 05:34 PM
  #8
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post
I suppose this is a good time to mention that I don't particularly buy the argument Hall was a bad playoff goalie either. Net is the least of your team's worries in this series, as it is for mine. Having said that, Fuhr's pedigree in the post-season is much, much better- can't really argue with that many Cups as a starter, regardless of the team in front of him. If you can agree that Fuhr was more than a passenger, I can agree that Hall wasn't a 'bad' playoff goalie.

Anyway, Cairo is a carbon copy of the two teams Kimberley previously defeated- strong in goal, a balanced D that lacks a star player, and decent two-way play from the forwards along with a fair amount of offense.

Top Six

I'm a big fan of Cyclone Taylor, and I'd like to have one of these drafts. Sakic and he are about as equal as you can get, and it's the first time I think I've faced a team I can say that about.

The second line is a mis-match, though. Your team also suffers from the value pick thing- Smokey Harris and Cooney Weiland are great contributors to lines where there are two players better than they are. But when you put them together on a unit it's not a strong combination. Fleury's a borderline 1st line winger, so there's that, but can Harris and Weiland as good offensively as Dionne and Leach? As much work as you and seventies have done to give them credit for their accomplishments, both are at the lower end when we talk of the top 64 LWs and Cs.

Shutdown Line

Walker-Laprade-Wharram is the weakest shutdown unit I've faced so far, and it all starts with Laprade. He's not an elite shutdown center in an ATD. If two teams with much, much better units couldn't stifle my top two lines enough to prevent losses, what makes a voter think that line can do it?

Fourth line

However, you've got one of the better fourth lines around when it comes to defensive play- I'd actually rate is higher than your third, at least for the role they'll play.

Defense

Looks identical to the last couple- one bona fide but not elite number one, a well-rounded but not elite unit. One question: Where is the transition offense coming from here? I could overlook it last series since Jacques Plante was back there, but that's not the case anymore. With limited offense past the first line, the D has to help out. I don't think Mortson, Pulford or Randall can do that.
"Fuhr's pedigree in the post season is much, much better"? He doesn't have a conn smythe that Hall does. After what I've shown disproving three of Hall's supposedly poor playoffs and turned them to perhaps three solid/good years? I think seventies post on Fuhr is enlightening, noting Fuhr's difference from the average s%:

Quote:
- 3 brutal years (15+ points below average)
- 0 merely "bad" years (5-15 points below average)
- 4 average years (within 5 points of average)
- 4 good years (5-15 points up)
- 1 excellent year (15+ points up)
What does Fuhr have on Hall? Cups? That's the difference playing on a dynasty makes.

I'm not saying Fuhr was more than a passenger, he was a good contributor. He is, however, not Hall, and I have a signifigant advantage in goal. An arguement I drove home in the last series; this is an 11 time all-star vs a 2 time all-star here.

Your main arguement seems to be trying to compare my teams to team you beat and saying "My team beat those guys, so.."

Well I could say the same to yours; I found quite a few connections to Medicine Hat Great top-2 centres but not the greatest wings. A somewhat out of place guy on the top line. A good defence built around a great #1, but I think my guys no.2-6 are, again, can compete or are better. A third line that doesn't stack up to mine. Money goaltending, but not goaltending that stacks up to Hall. (and I'd call Fuhr worse than Smith)

Trying to pass this off "this team is so similar to the last guys I'll definetly win!" is foolhardy- every team is very different. I didn't have the grit or #1 of Hartford; I didn't have quite the third line of Regina, #1 or quite the goaltending; Hartford didn't have anywhere near my goaltending, I had better defensive depth than either (I feel), and neither had the supremely dangerous speed of my top line. Regina certainly definetly didn't have my top line, and mine could be better than Hartford's as well. I could say I beat the no.1 and no. 5 seeds while you beat the no.3 and no.7seeds- therefore I beat the better teams and I will win- is that a fair arguement? Since when do we just matchups by teams the other guy beat?

Every team, although some may have some similarities, will be quite different in a lot of ways. Don't try and compare my team to teams you beat; that is NOT the way to determine who has the better team in this series, and it seems rather foolhardy to me. Compare my team to yours; simple as that, and it will see who has the better team.

Sakic and Taylor are about as equal as you can get? Uhh, no, don't think so, and I will show that. And my first line wingers are much better- it's a big first line mis-match.

Of course Dionne drops in the playoffs; I will address things in the second unit matchup.

Walker-Laprade-Wharram is an great third line anyway you slice it. Laprade isn't an elite third line C? The guy got inducted to the hall of fame almost entirely due to defensive work. I think he has a case over Otto perhaps. He was one of the best defensive centres of his day. I'd argue my third line over Hartford, I think. Laprade is definetly not a weakness. My third line is definetly not a weakness; and is ready to take on your lines.

And how are you going to stop one of the deadliest top lines in the draft exactly?

My fourth rates higher than my third defensively Well, I agree my fourth has two good defensive guys in Martin and Peters, but Walker and Laprade were two of the best defensive guys of their respective era's. Walker played excellent defensively and was said to have shut down Howie Morenz. Ultimate hockey gave him 7 retro selke's (not as much a real selke's, but it shows how dominant he was). Laprade I've covered. Walker and Laprade are by far the two best defensive guys on either line. But Martin and Peters are both good defensive players; particularly Peters.

You don't think Mortson, a very consistent offensive producer who is describes as a great rusher, can't providee well in transition? Wait, your second pairing features Foote and Lowe, and I am the one getting critized for transition and offense from the D? Is this bizarro world?

Transition isn't Pulford's job- that's why Mortson is there. His job is to be dominant defensively.

As for Randall and my third pairing- have you read my previous two series, or his bio? You know, the one with all the quotes describing his superb rushing abilities, getting past the likes of Gerard and Clancy with ridiculous ease? Or how about his partner, Leduc, who's rushes are describes as what could bring life to a dull game, and who is tied for the most points amongst defenceman in his time in the playoffs?

5/6 of my defencemen contribute quite well offensively; 3/6 of your guys do that. Transition is not a problem for me. If anything, outside of your top pairing, it's an issue for you.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-04-2009 at 05:47 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 06:39 PM
  #9
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Toe Blake-Cyclone Taylor-Teemu Selanne vs Sid Smith-Joe Sakic-Larry Aurie

Not a first line matchup I'm likely going to seek. But the edge my top line has over his is worth noting.

Toe Blake vs Sid Smith

Not even close.

Sid smith never finishes top-10 in assists. Toe Blake does so on 7 occasions. Sid Smith does have 5 top 10's in goals to his credit (4,4, 5, 7, 10) but Blake bests him in that regard as well (2,3,3,8.10). Points? Sid Smith has a 5,8, 10, while Blake has a 1, 3,3, 6, 7, 9. And I'm pretty sure Blake, his retro smythe, and his most playoff points of the 1940s is the better playoff producer as well.

Intangibles? We all know about Blake, but here it is again:

Quote:
his competitive spirit and sheer tenacity making him one of the NHL’s most feared forwards. He was quick and skilled but also willing to play the game as gritty as he had to in order to emerge victorious.- ourhistory.canadiens.com
Quote:
Hard-nosed and dedicated, he was an important cog in the Canadiens’ teams of the late 1930s and early 1940s-ourhistory.canadiens.com
What intangibles doers Sid Smith provide? He seems to be a one-dimensional goalscorer to me. Blake, on the other hand, seems to be very multi-dimensional. Brings leadership too.

Big edge Blake.

Cyclone Taylor vs Joe Sakic
As promised, a comparison, using my favorite resource for these kind of comparisons.

Again, seventies consistency threads adjust for the split league era Taylor played in. If he, for example, finished 4th in PCHA assists, he likely only gets a top-10 finish for assists. These put pre-merger guys like Taylor and modern guys like Sakic on an even playing field in that regard, at least.

Top 2' finishes- Top 5 finishes- Top 10 finishes- Top 15 finishes- top 20 finishes

Goalscoring:
Taylor: 1-5-5-5-5
Sakic: 1-2-5-6-7

Playmaking:
Taylor: 6-7-7-8-8
Sakic: 0-6-9-12-14

Total:
Taylor: 7-12-12-13-13
Sakic: 1-8-14-18-21

By virtue of domination as far as top-2 and top-5 finishes go, I think Taylor has an edge. Sakic is better as far as longevity goes, but Taylor's superb time as a defenceman may have a factor in that regard.

Playoffs? Sakic is good in that regard, but Taylor is superb as well a with 20 points in 11 cup challenge games.

Sakic likely has the intangible edge, but I think Taylor's dominance beats out Sakic. Taylor was just evidewntly more much more dominant in his time than Sakic in his.

Edge Taylor

Teemu Selanne vs Laurie Aurie

Another big mismatch.

This is a huge, huge, huge gap offfensively.

Aurie has a 1, 8 in goals vs Selanne's 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 10 in goals. Aurie has a 3, 6, 8 in assists vs Selanne's 4,7,9,9 in assists.

And in points, Aurie has a 3 and a 4, while Selanne has a 2, 2, 5, 5, 7, 8 in points.

And for once, Selanne isn't going to get the pretty short stick as far as playoffs go. Outside of one great year where he led the playoffs in points, Aurie has done nothing of note in the playoffs. I will again contest that Selanne's superb two years of leading the olympics in best on best format in points show he can perform well in the playoffs. Although Aurie has a good intangible edge, I do not feel it touches the edge Selanne has as far as offense goes. And if I were to reverse the wings and compare puckwinner vs puckwinner and primay goalscorer vs primary goalscorer, Aurie and Sid Smith both still get blown out big time. Big edge Selanne.

Overall, my huge advantages on the wings and somewhat of an edge at C make my line the signifigantly better of the two.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 07:37 PM
  #10
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Here's a junk stat I like to look at for defencemen - percentage of even strength on-ice goals that the player gets a point on. I look it as a crude measure of style - how defensively or offensively did he play?

Here are the 10 most defensive ATD defencemen by this metric* (with at least 500 GP since 1968)

Player GP ESGF ESP Pts/Goal
Don Awrey 842 922 162 0.175
Ken Morrow 550 553 99 0.179
Ken Daneyko 1286 878 158 0.180
Dave Burrows 724 773 142 0.184
Robyn Regehr 663 409 83 0.203
Brian Engblom 659 827 169 0.205
Craig Ludwig 1256 971 202 0.208
Terry Harper 795 820 178 0.217
Bill Hajt 854 988 221 0.224
Ed van Impe 639 502 113 0.225
* I didn't do an exhaustive check of who was drafted, and may have missed a spare or minor leaguer or two.

How does Harvey Pulford compare to these defencemen in defensive orientation? Do we assume he basically becomes a Don Awrey or Ken Daneyko and becomes at least minimally involved in the offensive game? Or is he even more defensive than those guys?

Also, I believe Pulford was drafted ahead of every one of these players. None of them are really elite defensive defencemen. Is Pulford elite defensively? Can one be an elite defensive defenceman while doing so little offensively, considering that defensive play and offensive play are so intertwined in hockey?

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 07:40 PM
  #11
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Also, I believe Pulford was drafted ahead of every one of these players. None of them are really elite defensive defencemen. Is Pulford elite defensively? Can one be an elite defensive defenceman while doing so little offensively, considering that defensive play and offensive play are so intertwined in hockey?
Pulford played pre-assist, so, don't read too much into his offence or lack there of.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 07:44 PM
  #12
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,533
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Pulford played pre-assist, so, don't read too much into his offence or lack there of.
I understand that, it's an important point. But his lack of offensive play is emphasized in accounts of his play.

I'll admit I haven't compared his goal-scoring record to contemporary defenders, but it looks pretty weak at face value. Even the worst offensive defencemen score a goal here or there.

I'm throwing this out there because I'm not entirely sure how to handle it. A weak offensive defenceman can be a liability in the transition game, even if it's not "his job.", so I think it's an important point.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 07:48 PM
  #13
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Bugg View Post

I'm a big fan of Cyclone Taylor, and I'd like to have one of these drafts. Sakic and he are about as equal as you can get, and it's the first time I think I've faced a team I can say that about.
if LF concedes this to you, it would be a major concession. Taylor should be a good 15 spots ahead of Sakic on an all-time list.

Quote:
The second line is a mis-match, though. Your team also suffers from the value pick thing- Smokey Harris and Cooney Weiland are great contributors to lines where there are two players better than they are. But when you put them together on a unit it's not a strong combination. Fleury's a borderline 1st line winger, so there's that, but can Harris and Weiland as good offensively as Dionne and Leach? As much work as you and seventies have done to give them credit for their accomplishments, both are at the lower end when we talk of the top 64 LWs and Cs.
I think there is room for Harris in the top-64 LWs. It's really troubling that he was usually the 3rd-best player on his line. But he was a PCHA scoring leader and had pretty good playoff numbers.

Weiland, though, I'm not a fan of on the 2nd line. I don't think he is in the top-64 centers.

Harris was not selected when I took guys like Roberts, Oatman, and Morris. When I took those guys, I did some analyses that I'm sure you saw. I left him out because I'm sure he's not at the level of the players I analyzed, plus, he was undrafted. But here they are, with Harris included:

PCHA All-Time Scoring leaders

Name DOB HHOF GP G A Pts PIM GPG APG PPG best-5 G best-5 A best-5 Pts
Cyclone Taylor 1884 Y 130 159 104 263 65 1.22 0.8 2.02 1, 1, 1, 2, 2 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
Tommy Dunderdale 1887 Y 241 194 60 254 494 0.8 0.25 1.05 1, 1, 1, 3, 6 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 1, 1, 3, 3, 5
Smokey Harris 1890 252 156 90 246 416 0.62 0.36 0.98 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 1, 1, 2, 2, 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Mickey MacKay 1894 Y 192 159 82 241 193 0.83 0.43 1.26 1, 1, 2, 5, 6 1, 2, 2, 2, 4 2, 2, 2, 3, 5
Bernie Morris 1890 167 155 76 231 137 0.93 0.46 1.38 1, 2, 2, 2, 4 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 1, 2, 2, 2, 4
Frank Foyston 1891 Y 202 174 53 227 133 0.86 0.26 1.12 1, 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 5, 7, 8, 11 2, 3, 3, 4, 4
Eddie Oatman 1889 195 129 81 210 278 0.66 0.42 1.08 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 3, 4, 4, 5 3, 3, 4, 4, 6
Jack Walker 1888 Y 186 82 58 140 31 0.44 0.31 0.75 4, 7, 9, 9, 11 3, 4, 4, 4, 6 4, 8, 9, 9, 10
Frank Fredrickson 1895 Y 105 93 46 139 83 0.89 0.44 1.32 1, 3, 4, 4, DNP 1, 2, 2, 3, DNP 1, 2, 2, 3, DNP
****** 1885 174 100 30 130 126 0.57 0.17 0.75 3, 5, 6, 8, 8 7, 9, 14, 15, 17 3, 8, 9, 9, 11
****** 1895 164 93 27 120 214 0.57 0.16 0.73 2, 2, 3, 6, 16 7, 9, 13, 15, 15 5, 5, 7, 7, 19
****** 1889 122 91 29 120 203 0.75 0.24 0.98 4, 6, 6, 8, 12 6, 9, 13, 15, 21 5, 6, 8, 9, 13
****** 1888 92 78 39 117 176 0.85 0.42 1.27 4, 5, 8, 8, 11 2, 2, 9, 11, 19 2, 3, 7, 8, 14

Harris is 6th in goals, 5th in assists, and 3rd in points. Among the top-13, Harris is just 10th in GPG, 7th in APG, and 9th in PPG. 6 players had more GPG and more APG than Harris. Based on this he appears to have been more of a "longevity" player than a "peak" player.

Next, the study I did to portray Roberts as a power forward, with Harris now inserted:

Name Height Weight GP PIM PIM/GP Top-3 In Goals
Newsy Lalonde 5'9" 168 330 957 2.9 7
Harry Hyland 5'6" 156 163 435 2.67 3
Punch Broadbent 5'7" 183 401 850 2.12 2
Tommy Dunderdale 5'8" 160 289 567 1.96 4
Jack Adams 5'9" 175 271 517 1.91 1
Gord Roberts 5'11" 180 179 315 1.76 5
Rusty Crawford 5'11" 165 260 442 1.7 0
Tommy Smith 5'6" 150 154 252 1.64 2
Smokey Harris 5'11" 165 296 482 1.63 2
Didier Pitre 5'11" 185 317 476 1.5 3
Odie Cleghorn 5'9" 195 327 456 1.39 2
Jack Darragh 5'10" 168 273 376 1.38 0
Dick Irvin 5'9" 162 261 245 0.94 1
Cy Denneny 5'7" 168 513 475 0.93 7
Cyclone Taylor 5'8" 165 219 196 0.89 5
Mickey MacKay 5'9" 162 444 364 0.82 4
Frank Nighbor 5'9" 160 479 363 0.76 4
Joe Malone 5'10" 150 288 212 0.74 5
Bernie Morris 5'7" 145 239 162 0.68 4
Frank Foyston 5'9" 158 407 233 0.57 4
Jack Walker 5'8" 153 504 127 0.25 0
AVERAGE 5'8.5'' 165 316 401 1.27 3.2

Conclusions from this: Harris was quite tall for a star forward. He was only of average weight. He took about 28% more PIMs than usual for a star forward. And he was a decent goalscorer, but not the greatest.

Then, the study that showed Oatman was not just a guy that played with a bunch of HHOFers, re-run to include Harris:
Help from HHOFers | Per Season

Name Elig. Seasons TD EO FFo MM BM CT BS FFr JA GR FB FN DP NL TP DI SH Total
Gord Roberts 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9
Didier Pitre 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 N/A 0 0 0 1 3
Barney Stanley 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 N/A 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 11
Frank Nighbor 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 0 0 0 1 5
Cyclone Taylor 8 0 0 0 5 0 N/A 4 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 4 19
Jack Adams 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N/A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 7
Mickey MacKay 9 0 0 0 N/A 0 5 4 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 4 19
Neswy Lalonde 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 0 1 2
Tommy Phillips 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N/A 0 1 2
Dick Irvin 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 2
Smokey Harris 13 3 3 1 4 0 4 1 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 N/A 26
Frank Boucher 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 1 3
Frank Fredrickson 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5
Eddie Oatman 10 6 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 12
Tommy Dunderdale 11 N/A 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 13
Bernie Morris 8 1 0 7 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9
Frank Foyston 9 0 0 N/A 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 9

the average per season is 1.7, and the median among players is 2.0, so Harris isn't that "hard done by" (ala Oatman), nor was he too often the beneficiary of other stars (like Barney Stanley)

I'm not here to pimp or discredit Smokey Harris; I just thought I'd insert him in some tables so you can see where he really fits in.

Quote:
One question: Where is the transition offense coming from here? I could overlook it last series since Jacques Plante was back there, but that's not the case anymore.
Whaaaaa? Did you think my team had a problem with transition offense? We had Coffey or a patrick on each pairing. this was a strength of our team...

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 07:59 PM
  #14
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Here's a junk stat I like to look at for defencemen - percentage of even strength on-ice goals that the player gets a point on. I look it as a crude measure of style - how defensively or offensively did he play?

Here are the 10 most defensive ATD defencemen by this metric* (with at least 500 GP since 1968)

Player GP ESGF ESP Pts/Goal
Don Awrey 842 922 162 0.175
Ken Morrow 550 553 99 0.179
Ken Daneyko 1286 878 158 0.180
Dave Burrows 724 773 142 0.184
Robyn Regehr 663 409 83 0.203
Brian Engblom 659 827 169 0.205
Craig Ludwig 1256 971 202 0.208
Terry Harper 795 820 178 0.217
Bill Hajt 854 988 221 0.224
Ed van Impe 639 502 113 0.225
* I didn't do an exhaustive check of who was drafted, and may have missed a spare or minor leaguer or two.

How does Harvey Pulford compare to these defencemen in defensive orientation? Do we assume he basically becomes a Don Awrey or Ken Daneyko and becomes at least minimally involved in the offensive game? Or is he even more defensive than those guys?

Also, I believe Pulford was drafted ahead of every one of these players. None of them are really elite defensive defencemen. Is Pulford elite defensively? Can one be an elite defensive defenceman while doing so little offensively, considering that defensive play and offensive play are so intertwined in hockey?
Pulford is definetly elite defensively. He was the best defensive defenceman of his day.

Quote:
“He was considered a masterful defensive defenseman.” – Who’s Who in Hockey
Ultimate Hockey’s “Best Body-Checker” from 1900 to 1909
Ultimate Hockey’s “Best Shot-Blocker” from 1900 to 1909
Ultimate Hockey’s “Finest Athlete” from 1900 to 1909
Ultimate Hockey’s “Strongest Player” from 1900 to 1909

As for your question, well to start I believe he was given a number of retro norrises by Ultimate hockey (correct me if I'm wrong)- but evidently his lack of offense didn't stop him from being one of the best defenceman of his day. It's hard to tell; but still, I don't think his offense was horrid to the point where he couldn't defend or do his job well. I'm sure he can make a short passes to Mortson and maybe a guy high on the boards to do the offensive load when he's on the ice. And as Nallyd noted, we don't know the assist finishes. Perhaps he wasn't bad in that regard- considering the team he played on, and being the #1 of that team, it wouldn't suprise me to see him do decent in that regard.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-04-2009 at 08:06 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 08:03 PM
  #15
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
"Fuhr's pedigree in the post season is much, much better"? He doesn't have a conn smythe that Hall does. After what I've shown disproving three of Hall's supposedly poor playoffs and turned them to perhaps three solid/good years? I think seventies post on Fuhr is enlightening, noting Fuhr's difference from the average s%:

What does Fuhr have on Hall? Cups? That's the difference playing on a dynasty makes..
I guess it's only fair that I do the same analysis for Hall, then.

Hall had eleven 300+ minute playoffs.

- 3 brutal years (15+ points below average)
- 1 merely "bad" years (5-15 points below average)
- 5 average years (within 5 points of average)
- 2 good years (5-15 points up)
- 0 excellent years (15+ points up)

Hull was more often average. He had one fewer bad to brutal year, but three fewer good to excellent years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Here's a junk stat I like to look at for defencemen - percentage of even strength on-ice goals that the player gets a point on. I look it as a crude measure of style - how defensively or offensively did he play?

Here are the 10 most defensive ATD defencemen by this metric* (with at least 500 GP since 1968)

Player GP ESGF ESP Pts/Goal
Don Awrey 842 922 162 0.175
Ken Morrow 550 553 99 0.179
Ken Daneyko 1286 878 158 0.180
Dave Burrows 724 773 142 0.184
Robyn Regehr 663 409 83 0.203
Brian Engblom 659 827 169 0.205
Craig Ludwig 1256 971 202 0.208
Terry Harper 795 820 178 0.217
Bill Hajt 854 988 221 0.224
Ed van Impe 639 502 113 0.225
* I didn't do an exhaustive check of who was drafted, and may have missed a spare or minor leaguer or two.

How does Harvey Pulford compare to these defencemen in defensive orientation? Do we assume he basically becomes a Don Awrey or Ken Daneyko and becomes at least minimally involved in the offensive game? Or is he even more defensive than those guys?

Also, I believe Pulford was drafted ahead of every one of these players. None of them are really elite defensive defencemen. Is Pulford elite defensively? Can one be an elite defensive defenceman while doing so little offensively, considering that defensive play and offensive play are so intertwined in hockey?
If we only had assist stats for Pulford, we could just assume he was on the ice for every goal for (since there were just 7 man rosters usually) and we would know where he fits in.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 08:09 PM
  #16
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
I guess it's only fair that I do the same analysis for Hall, then.

Hall had eleven 300+ minute playoffs.

- 3 brutal years (15+ points below average)
- 1 merely "bad" years (5-15 points below average)
- 5 average years (within 5 points of average)
- 2 good years (5-15 points up)
- 0 excellent years (15+ points up)

Hull was more often average. He had one fewer bad to brutal year, but three fewer good to excellent years.
He wasn't excellent in his conn smythe year? Or his cup year?

It's fair enough I suppose. I'd be interested in seeing excatly what years those bad years refer to though. And although this will apply well to Fuhr too, even s% isn't perfect. Especially when playing for teams as often the underdog as the favorite in Hall's case.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 08:32 PM
  #17
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury vs Brian Bellows-Marcel Dionne-Reggie Leach

A few things stick out to me on this one.

-Who is going to pass pucks to Dionne? Neither Bellows or Leach ever finished top-10in assists; neither are good playmakers at this level. As Dionne is the best goalscorer on the line, I think his talents in that department are going to be wasted.

- I'm getting critized by some for using Fleury has a puckwinner. Who is puckwinner on this line? Who is the defensive consience in this line? I read through some of the info bios on all three of your lines, and I wm left wondering where the intangibles are coming from. There is a bit about Leach taking on some pK duties, but that seems to be only towards the end of his career. There doesn't seem to be anything to suggest any one of these guys can carry an intangible load; or did I miss something?

Of course, if I am spot on with these two points, your 2nd line seems rather disfunctional despite having Dionne.

And they are likely going to be a line I will be aiming to have my top line out against.

Onto the compairsons-

Smokey Harris vs Brian Bellows

I think Harris may actually have a signifigant edge here. But let's look at the consistency threads:

Top 2 finishes-Top 5 finishes-top 10 finishes-top 15 finishes-top 20 finishes

Goalscoring:

Harris- 0-0-1-3-7
Bellows-does not earn mention

Wait, what? Bellows doesn't earn mention?

Of course, we know of his 3rd place finish..and, looking at years in which he made the all-star game, he tied for 15th in goals..so that makes him:

0-1-1-2-2

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Playmaking:

Harris- 2-3-4-6-7
Bellows- does not earn mention

Bellows never placed top-10 in playmaking and never made top-20 in his all-star game years. Ok, I'm starting to question this guy's ability..big time. Offensively, in the regular season at least, Harris appears to fair much better, even if you factor competition.

Now, Bellows is a great playoff producer certainly, but Harris, who twice led the PCHA playoffs in points, is no slouch in that regard. Bellows does have an advantage in the playoffs I'll concede. But all things taken into account, I think Harris has the better offensive record, both seasons of play included. And as neither is known in the intangible department, for that, I'd say edge Harris.


Cooney Weiland vs Marcel Dionne

There's a lot going against Dionne in the position first off:

-Weiland's great defensive quote and Dionne's lack of defense. Here is the quote on Weiland in question:

Quote:
And his offensive totals might have been even greater than they were had Weiland not also been such an adept penalty killer.
Dionne, on the other hand, is not all known for defense. I think Weiland will be able to impede Dionne much more than Dionne can impede Weiland.

- Again, who is passing to Dionne? I think his goalscoring abilities are going to get reduced to a pretty signifigant degree, as he is the only playmaker on the line and will be busy making passes and will not be getting many passes to him to score goals. And although he is a great playmaker too, that is bad.

- We all know it: playoffs. From 1976-1982, where Dionne made the playoffs every year, he only placed 40th in points. Although he places a better 19th in playoff points per game from that time stretch, it is not good and is a severe downgrade from his regular season dominance.

Weiland, on the other hand? Twice led the playoffs in points; came 4th in that regard another year. From the period Of 1929-1936, only two players have a higher playoff PPG than him: Cowley, and Lynn Patrick who only played 4 playoff games. He's also tied with Busher Jackson for 3rd in playoff points in that stretch, only behind Joe Primeau and Charlie Conacher; and he played about 12 less games than each of them and only trails Conacher by 4 points! He was clearly a dominant playoff performer in his time. His last 3 playoffs are lacking, but by then his prime was well gone and was not producing nearly as well in the regular season.

With a big playoff edge, defensive edge, and I would say chemistry with linemates edge, Weiland should fair well going head to head against Dionne. Dionne's regular season edge makes up for the difference- but in these playoff times, the gap gets closed signifigantly.


Theo Fleury vs Reggie Leach
Let me first present some quotes on Fleury that Dreakmur kindly gave to me that he found in his readings:

Quote:
"As a young player in the league, I was lucky to have a captain like Theoren Fleury. I've never played with a more tenacious and determined player. The way he competed, night in and night out, set the standard for the rest of us to try and match; he gave everything he had every game." -- Jarome Iginla
Quote:
"I've known Theo Fleury since back in junior, and I always hated playing against him. Theo was the ultimate competitor. He would do anything to win. Thet kind of attitude is tough to beat." -- Joe Sakic
Quote:
"Theoren Fleury was a brilliant hockey player. He excelled in a team game He understood roles." -- Ron MacLean
Sounds like he was an extremely determined, team player who was a great leader, who understood roles- which is important.

Now, why can't Fleury play the puckwinner role? He seems to have the grit, the determination, the team play and willingness to do anything to win. Is it his size? Well for that, I'm going to note a quote on a guy named Larry Aurie (yes, I know he's our opponent- doesn't change who has the much better top line at any rate.)

Quote:
He was very small, only 145 pounds, but very strong. He would stand in front of the net and take on players 50 to 60 pounds heavier and handled it well.
Doesn't seem you always need size to succeed in that role. Earlier in the same article, Aurie is even compared to Fleury:

Quote:
Like modern day Theoren Fleury, Aurie was a fiesty, scrappy right winger who played with full out heart and desire. That made him not only a favorite of the fans, but of his coach and his boss.
So..why can't Fleury play a puck winner role?

But anyway, I disgress- the matchup here. Fleury aboslutely owns this in intangibles. Fleury, I believe, has the better selke record and is noted more as a defensive guy. Fleury is, of course, much grittier and peskier.

Offensively it's not much a contest all things considered. Although Leach is a decent goalscorer (1, 7, 7), he does not best Fleury in that regard, who has a 2, 6, 7 record in goals. And unfortunately for Leach, those are his only top-10 finishes in one of the three major offensive categories- while Fleury has a 6, 7 in assists as well as a 6, 7, 8 in points.

To extend to more finishes for a tiebreaker in goalscoring:
Fleury- 1-1-3-4-6
Leach- 1-1-3-4-4

Fleury is definetly the better playmaker, offensive player, and intangible player.

But what about playoffs?

Leach has his conn smythe, but it is also his only year in the top-10 in playoff points. Fleury, as well noted, has 2 1sts in playoff PPG and another 3rd in playoff PPG and a 3 year stretch where no one scored at the same rate he did- including the likes of Gretzky. That considred, I don't think Leach really has the better playoff record- and it is definetly not one that would make up for Fleury's other advantages in other arweas. Fairly big edge Fleury here.

Overall: Again, I stress and wonder how this line will work. There is not another playmaker on the line to give Dionne the ability to score goals well. There is a definite deficit of intagibles, especially compared to my line. Although Burrows and Leach raise their games in the playoffs, Dionne plummets like a rock and as he is the only playmaker on the line that is crucial. My wingers, together, are a lot better. With chemistry, defensive play, and playoffs considered, I think Weiland closes the gap on Dionne.

Where does Dionne rank amongst centres once the playoffs hit? And is my opponents line really above average in the playoffs? Burrows and Leach aren't standouts, and although it is evident that Mr.Bugg tried to surround Dionne with playoff wingers, he built the line, it seems, poorly in other areas.

With the factors of superior wingers, chemistry, defensive and intangible ability, and the only standout on the 2nd line in Dionne plummeting in the playoffs..well, it makes me wonder who really has the better 2nd line here.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-04-2009 at 08:38 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 09:08 PM
  #18
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
He wasn't excellent in his conn smythe year? Or his cup year?

It's fair enough I suppose. I'd be interested in seeing excatly what years those bad years refer to though. And although this will apply well to Fuhr too, even s% isn't perfect. Especially when playing for teams as often the underdog as the favorite in Hall's case.
His brutal years were 1957, 1963, and 1966.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 09:10 PM
  #19
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,027
vCash: 500
As for Dionne: while it is important to note that he did not do too well in the playoffs, you had better not start making wild claims like Weiland is going to outperform him. If you believe this to be true, then it means that you believe we should entirely throw out a player's regular season resume at this point and focus solely on the playoffs. If that's the way you feel, you've got a goaltending issue.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 09:18 PM
  #20
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,379
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yeah, I think the analysis went something like, "Pilote stepped up big time, Hull stepped up almost as much, Mikita usually stepped up, Hall played at the same very good level, the rest of the team crapped the bed."
Yes, that was my conclusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Sounds about right (although not completely in this particular playoffs; although Mikita may have had injures). Where can I find this analysis?
You'd have to be a member of SIHR (Society of International Hockey Research) to have access to the article.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 09:20 PM
  #21
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Two of the supposed brutal years for Hall I have covered. The stats can be rather decieving from how he really played, particularly with how the teams tended to fair in front. It does not at all seem like he played "brutal" in these years. He actually seemed to play fairly well which was, in 1963 at least, a very sharp contrast to how the rest of the team did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
As for Dionne: while it is important to note that he did not do too well in the playoffs, you had better not start making wild claims like Weiland is going to outperform him. If you believe this to be true, then it means that you believe we should entirely throw out a player's regular season resume at this point and focus solely on the playoffs. If that's the way you feel, you've got a goaltending issue.
No, I don't think Weiland will outperform him. I'm just noting the gap is narrowed in the playoffs and with the other factors considered. I just don't want people to look at second lines and go "One guy has Dionne as his 2nd line C, and the other guy has Weiland? The Dionne line owns the other guys second line!" when that is very far from the whole story.

And if we were to do that, based on the stuff I've gathered and read, I don't think I've got a goaltending issues personally.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-04-2009 at 09:42 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 09:27 PM
  #22
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,260
vCash: 500
I feel much more comfortable with a team using Dionne as a second line center than I would have if he were the first line center. The lack of playmaking on his wings does concern me, though.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 10:30 PM
  #23
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Two of the supposed brutal years for Hall I have covered. The stats can be rather decieving from how he really played, particularly with how the teams tended to fair in front. It does not at all seem like he played "brutal" in these years. He actually seemed to play fairly well which was, in 1963 at least, a very sharp contrast to how the rest of the team did.

.
What you did was far more thorough. But strictly from a sv% perspective, those were three brutal seasons.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2009, 10:44 PM
  #24
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
What you did was far more thorough. But strictly from a sv% perspective, those were three brutal seasons.
Yes, I get that. And as a result of the contrast between them and game accounts I will stop holding those studies against either of them, althought they can be useful. (without more evidence to back up what the s% suggests at any rate).

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 08:19 AM
  #25
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Are we seriously comparing playoff save percentages here? seventies, aren't you some kind of accountant, or am I mixing your job up with HO? Anyway, I haven't read the full analysis (wherever it is) that LF is quoting, but the small amount of information that he did quote - wholly divorced from context as it is - is absolutely brutal.

It is becoming more and more clear to me just how easily people here are being mislead by the use of goalie stats, especially playoff stats. Let me make a few points:

- in general, there is no way to rationally correct for shot quality when analyzing goalie stats. None.

- the NHL playoffs are not anything resembling a controlled sample of games. As opposed to the regular season, different goalies often face entirely different teams in the playoffs.

- the shortness and intensity of the playoff schedule often renders the quality of the offenses faced by one goalie or another in the same year widely different. If one team gets hot and shells a goalie in the first round, his SV% is going to look brutal, and it may not be his fault, at all. Conversely, if a goalie faces primarily defensive teams or teams with key injuries, he is going to look better.

- the deeper you get into the playoffs, the higher the quality of the teams and the offenses faced, on the whole. For a guy like Grant Fuhr, who played a huge chunk of his playoff games in the conference or Stanley Cup finals, this is an important fact to keep in mind.

In short: the length of the playoffs introduces very serious sample size issues and no hope of controlling to equality when attempting pure numerical analysis. Over the course of a season's ups and downs (and better yet, a career's), it is reasonable to assume that at least the quality of offenses faced will even out (though that still leaves us with the defensive quality problem), but over the course of a playoffs this is very far from a reasonable assumption. The kind of superficial SV% vs. the playoff average analysis that we see posted above is worse than worthless.

I don't really feel like lecturing the ATD GMs in p-values and statistical significance, but for the love of god, you people need to start looking at comparisons of goalie statistics with a lot more skepticism than I have seen lately.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:18 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.