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
12-05-2009, 12:02 PM
  #26
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Quote:
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.
Although your points on playoff save percentage are more than fair, what makes the game accounts from the globe and mail absolutely brutal exactly? I included bits that critized goaltending even (although for the series in question, it tended to critize goatlending in general and not Hall specfically). If we can't trust stats, how else shall we evaluate a goalie in the playoffs few of us have seen? And if you haven't read it, how can you make a complete judgement on it anyway?

I have done my best to illustrate how each game went in context to my goalie without typing up and quoting entire articles. If you feel that I have somehow misrepresented these games, then I encourage you to read the articles yourself and show me why.

I added my own perceptions of the quotes to the analysis. Anyone can make their own judgement after reading them.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-05-2009 at 12:09 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 12:21 PM
  #27
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Although your points on playoff save percentage are more than fair, what makes the game accounts from the globe and mail absolutely brutal exactly?
Re-read what I wrote and it should be clear that I was criticizing the stats posted, not the game accounts. The "analysis" to which I was referring was that done by seventieslord, from which the stats are drawn. When it comes to goaltending, I trust the game accounts much more, although a bit more brevity might be wise in this case.


Last edited by Sturminator: 12-05-2009 at 12:24 PM. Reason: I guess it wasn't so clear
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 12:25 PM
  #28
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Re-read what I wrote and it should be clear that I was criticizing the stats posted, not the game accounts. The "analysis" to which I was referring was that done by seventieslord, from which the stats are drawn. When it comes to goaltending, I trust the game accounts much more, although a bit more brevity might be wise in this case.
My apologies then- misunderstood which analysis you were referring too.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-05-2009 at 12:37 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 02:08 PM
  #29
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,723
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
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.
save percentage is not perfect, but it is the most important individual goaltending statistic. It's especially good when taken in context, such as when comparing it to the league average. Even more context would be great, such as shot quality adjustments and PP/ES breakdowns. But that simply is not available. Going with what we have, is better than going by nothing. It's good for LF that he found more information to corroborate his story that Hall wasn't that bad in those years, and I told him what he did was far more thorough.

As for the small sample size, if brodeur comes back from the Olympics with an .884 sv% and no medal, should we say "hey, it was 5 games, a really small sample size"??? I don't think so. The playoffs are short, these are the greatest goalies of all-time, and they have a short time to stand out. Whether they stopped a higher or lower percentage of shots than the league's other goalies is an important thing to consider, considering it also tends to correlate with how far they advance, which is the point in the playoffs. In the absence of game accounts or visual proof, what do you suggest I do to help get to the bottom of who performed better individually? WIN totals? No thank you.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 02:13 PM
  #30
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Jack Walker-Edgar Laprade-Ken Wharram vs Thomas Steen-Kent Nilsson-Hakan Loob

These lines likely see soem time against eachother, although I will likely be putting this line up against your top-6 a lot more than the vice-versa. Onto the comparison:

Jack Walker vs Thomas Steen

Not even close.

Thomas Steen was a good two-way forward, but he peaks at a 8th in selke voting I believe. Walker, on the otherh and, was likely the best defensive LW of his era- 7 retro selke's (not as much as real selke's, but hsow his dominance), a retro conn smythe where he was said to have shut down Howie Morenz- the two just don't compare defensively.

Offensively, I think Walker is better as well. Walker has a very solid playmaking record for a third liner in the seventies consistency studies- 1-2-3-6-9. Steen does not earn mention in these studies, although he does have the 1 top-10 in assists. Still, even after any era adjustments I don't think Steen is as good in playmaking. Neither were really goalscorers.

Playoffs, as mentioned, Walker has the retro conn smythe to his credit. In addition to have being said to shutdown Howie Morenz in this final series, he led the cup challenge in points and goals. He also has two years outside of this where he led the PCHA playoffs in points- Walker seemed to step it up in the playoffs. Although Steen has an acceptable drop off in production, I don't think he played as well as Walker did in the playoffs.

Steen also has to deal with the tougher matchups. I am quite confident in Walker's ability to make Aurie and Leach non-factors offensively when he facers off against them. Steen shutdown Serlanne and Fleury? Don't think so.

Also, did Steen ever play LW..at all? I was under the impression he was only a C.

Walker is the much better defensive player, better offensive player and better playoff performer. Steen is tougher, but it does not nearly make up the other advantages. Big edge walker.

Edgar Laprade vs Kent Nilsson

I find it odd I got critized by my opponent earlier for Laprade when he hwas Kent Nilsson on his third line. Why don't we look at some of the qutes on Nilsson?

Quote:
Others say he earned the name because he disappeared when the NHL playoffs came around.-Joe Pelletier
Numbers confirm this- his PPG drops by 29% in the playoffs.

Quote:
He was lazy. He'd even admit it on occassion. He rarely worked out and relied strictly on his god given talent.-Joe Pelletier
Quote:
In 1981 Kent Nilsson played in the Canada Cup, the Swedish team was heralded as a "dream team" and the expectations among the Swedish fans and media was high. But the Swedes flopped including Kent Nilsson, who simply wasn't prepared physically to play.
Doesn't look good for Nilsson. He suffers a big drop off in the playoffs- and if he isn't contributing well offensively he is a negative factor. As mentioned in his last series, he is one-dimensional and soft. And there isn't really a good matchup for him in this- either he is facing one of my great two-way centres in Weiland, Laprade, or even Martin, or he has Cyclone Taylor coming down on him, a guy I don't think he will be able to impede at all- and when you aren't impeding the best offensive forward in this series, you are in trouble.

Laprade, on the other hand?

Quote:
A tremendous playmaking center and smooth skater, he was one of the NHL's best forwards during the late 1940s. Blessed with exceptional lateral mobility and an effortless skating style, he was a brilliant penalty killer and determined checker. Laprade could also score and was one of the league's most dangerous skaters on the counterattack-LOH
Quote:
He was a tremendous defensive player as well, making him one of the greatest two way centers in NHL history. A strong back checker and prolific penalty killer, Laprade perfected the "poke check" as an effective strategy.-Joe Pelletier
Quote:
An outstanding playmaker, he was the National Hockey League's premier checking centres during an era when defensive forwards were overshadowed by the exploits of the goal scorers.-LOH
Quote:
He proved to be an excellent penalty killer and dogged checker. But the two-way centre could also score, contributing 108 goals and 172 assists for 280 points in 500 regular season games-LOH
Excellent defensively. No contest in that department.

Now, Laprade only went to the playoffs in two seasons becayse of the teams he played on, but when he did go to the playoffs he performed fairly well. I believe he only has 9% drop of from his two playoff years offense from the two respective regular seasons. In the two years, he also managed to place 10th and 5th in playoff points.

Laprade was also a very solid playmaker in the regular season- 0-1-1-4-4 in the playmaking studies. He isn't as good as Nilsson in the regular season, but he isn't a slouch in that regard.

I am also not afraid to face off Laprade against any of your centres. The great defensive centre should fair reasonably well again Sakic and Dionne and I think he can completely shut down Nilsson when they face off.

Considering Laprade's big edge in defense, edge in playoff offense, greater ability to go up against opposing centres, and that he's no slouch in the regular season production, I think he has a big edge.

Ken Wharram vs Hakan Loob

Wharram isn't much an intangible guy, but as I showed in previous series, he's no completely one-dimensional and can play with a slight edge. I have not seen anything to suggest Loob a good intangible guy. Which makes this more of an offensive battle.

As mentioned in previous series, Loob also sees a dropff in the playoffs- 26% drop off in production. Although he can handle the playoff grind better than Nilsson, not good. Wharram doesn't have a good drop either- his is about a 23%. In the regular season however, no contest. Looking a top-10s, Wharram has a 2, 3 in goals vs a 6th in goals for Loob, a 9th in assists vs no top-10 in assists for loob, and a 4, 6, 9 vs a 9th in points for Loob. Loob may have his international record, but I don't think it makes up this offensive gap at all. Edge Wharram.

Overall: I feel I have a signifigant edge on third lines. My third line has a playoff advantage, is better offensively in 2/3 positioins, much better defensively in 2/3 positions. His third line is rather unsuited to go up agaisnt my dominant top line which will exploit the defensive defiencies of his third line, or my superb two-way second line. With two great defensive players, I think my third line can matchup well to his top-6 and with the extra defensive ability will do better in a head-to-head matchup. Overall, it's a big, signifigant edge to my third line.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-05-2009 at 02:20 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 02:52 PM
  #31
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
As usual, I will touch on fourth lines later.


Ray Bourque-Rob Blake vs Ebbie Goodfellow-Doug Wilson

Bourque is of course the best blueliner and is better than Goodfellow- of course that is something I showed I could overcome in my last series. Won't argue this one much- just that the hard-nosed, hart-winning Goodfellow is a pretty darn good player.

As for Blake vs Wilson..I'll let HO take it away:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t...lake+vs+Wilson

What I gather from the two superb posts made by HO and later overpass-

- Wilson was a slightly better offensive defenceman, particularly at even strength.

- Wilson was the better defensively.

- Blake was better physically.

- Wilson was the better playoff performer.

- Blake has better longevity.

- Draw in Norris voting when competition is factored.

- Wilson has a better hart record.

- Wilson was the better even strength performer.

- Blake was the slightly better special teams performer.

I do not at all think it's a stretch to conclude Wilson the better of the two based on the information presented in the thread. Your top pairing has an edge to the Bourque factor, but no.2-no.6, I think my guys will prove to be better.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 03:30 PM
  #32
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
As for Blake vs Wilson..I'll let HO take it away:

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t...lake+vs+Wilson

What I gather from the two superb posts made by HO and later overpass-

- Wilson was a slightly better offensive defenceman, particularly at even strength.

- Wilson was the better defensively.

- Blake was better physically.

- Wilson was the better playoff performer.

- Blake has better longevity.

- Draw in Norris voting when competition is factored.

- Wilson has a better hart record.

- Wilson was the better even strength performer.

- Blake was the slightly better special teams performer.

I do not at all think it's a stretch to conclude Wilson the better of the two based on the information presented in the thread. Your top pairing has an edge to the Bourque factor, but no.2-no.6, I think my guys will prove to be better.
For one, neither of them was ever Top 5 in Hart voting, so take that for what you will. Wilson's record is very slightly better.

As for the conclusions, at least in that thread, it looks like HO concluded that they are close to equals. overpass concluded that Wilson was better in the regular season and Blake "wasn't much better in the playoffs." So you can conclude that Wilson is better, but that's not necessarily what the two people in the thread you are linking to concluded.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 03:41 PM
  #33
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Harvey Pulford- Gus Mortson vs Kevin Lowe-Adam Foote

The good old pairing that gives you absolutely nothing offensively. I'm just going to note something-

A quote on Kevin Lowe:
Quote:
An agile though not fast skater
In general, I can't help but wonder if Lowe-Foote has the speed suitable for going up against perhaps the fastest line in the ATD and some other good, fast forwards for depth. But anyways..

Gus Mortson vs Adam Foote
Offensivelly, this is no contest. Mortson's very solid 5, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10 and is something I don't think Foote ever comes close to touching. It's a big mismatch offensively.

Physically, I think Mortson has an edge as well. Foote is certainly a good, rugged, defenceman, but was he really as dominant physically as Mortson?

Quotes on Mortson:

Quote:
He was one of those players who you loved to hate - unless he was one of your own! ...he earned his corn smashing, crashing, and bashing opponents of all shapes and sizes... He made up one half of the infamous Gold Dust Twins...they both enjoyed the physical game and, as a result, often set the tone of Leafs games....The physical game was easily his strongest suit. A fine skater and rusher, he loved nothing more than crashing some poor opponent into the corner chicken wire. It was this lust for rough stuff that often got him in trouble, as his penalty record indicates. - Ultimate Hockey
Interesting to note if physicality was his strongest suit yet he was also pretty good offensively..well I think that'd further show Mortson better physically. Anyways..

Quote:
Mortson built his game around keeping his opponents honest... He was a fearless checker who was not above giving a chop across the ankles to stop an opposing attacker. Players who dared to go into the corner with him knew they were in for a battle. If all else failed, he would simply use the Leafs' clutch and grab style.- Maple Leafs Legends
Quote:
Mined his way through life's prospects and came out a winner every way...a rusher with a mean streak... The Gold Dust Twins allowed less than a goal per game...-Players: The ultimate A-Z Guide Of Everyone Who Has Played In the NHL
Quote:
He was strongly built and the hardrock type of defenseman who liked nothing better than exchanging bumps. He was also a good skater and effective rusher-The Trail Of the Stanley Cup, Vol. 3
Quote:
He was once one of the baddest men in hockey.-Joe Pelletier
Seems more dominant than Foote in that regard to me- off the strength of the first quote.

I will give Foote the defensive edge, but Mortson is no slouch in that regard either- shown in this quote:

Quote:
He, along with his defensive partner and fellow "Gold Dust Twin" Jim Thomson, perfected the art of defending the zone by playing the man instead of by playing the puck.
And also letting in less than a goal a game.

I will also note Mortson once mad a first all-star team- Foote never made an all-star team.

Although Foote has a defensive edge, I do not at all think it makes up for Mortson's edge offensively let alone the added physicality. Fairly good edge Mortson.

Harvey Pulford vs Kevin Lowe

This is a more suitabe matchup for your pairing. But quite simply I don't think Lowe was as good. Pulford was just much more dominant.

Physically and toughness, I don't think it's close.

Lowe's main toughness quote:

Quote:
A rugged but intelligent physical player, Lowe played with fire and determination, hating to lose.-Joe Pelletier
and:

Quote:
"You always knew he would take somebody out of the play; he'd take a hit; he'd block a shot. He never played on the fringes."-Mike Bossy
Pulford?

Quote:
“The sight of big him on defence struck waves of fear through the hearts of the enemy.” – Ultimate Hockey
Quote:
“He could take out a man with hits that "could have crippled even the Creator himself." All hyperbole aside, he was a bruiser, a battleship on blades.” – Total Hockey
Quote:
“He was a brick wall on blades. In a 1905 Stanley Cup match against the speedy Rat Portage Thistles, he was given the green light to throw the body around. The result was one of the most impressive displays of one-man ganging ever seen, and his teammates were enough for Ottawa to take the next two games 4-2 and 5-4, en route to the Stanley Cup.” – Ultimate Hockey
Ultimate Hockey’s “Best Body-Checker” from 1900 to 1909

I think Pulford was more dominant physically.

Defensively? It was off the strength of his defense that Pulford is considered the 2nd best defenceman of his era, and the best defensively.

Quote:
“He was considered a masterful defensive defenseman.” – Who’s Who in Hockey
The rest of his UH awards:

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

And I believe UH gave him a few of those retro norrises as well; this with his offensive game relatively unknown.

Granted Lowe played in the more competitive era, but still. Lowe likely has a but of an offensive edge, but Pulford was just plain a lot more dominant physicall and offensively and overall as a defenceman than Lowe was. Edge Pulford.

Overall: This pairing gives you very little offensively at this level- which is a concern as your 2nd and 3rd lines likely aren't going to get the transition game support they need, and it has been shown how crucial the offensive game can be to a forwads offensive ability. Off the strength of Mortson, my pairing is a lot better offensively, and is better physically/toughness as well most likely. Lowe-foote may have a bit of a defensive edge, but I don't think it makes up the other gaps. My second pairing is more dominant and has an edge.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 03:44 PM
  #34
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
For one, neither of them was ever Top 5 in Hart voting, so take that for what you will. Wilson's record is very slightly better.

As for the conclusions, at least in that thread, it looks like HO concluded that they are close to equals. overpass concluded that Wilson was better in the regular season and Blake "wasn't much better in the playoffs." So you can conclude that Wilson is better, but that's not necessarily what the two people in the thread you are linking to concluded.
Two top-10s vs 1 in Hart voting though.

I'm not saying those two concluded Wilson better; I'm just saying on the information shown, one could conclude Wilson better.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 03:51 PM
  #35
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,540
vCash: 500
I believe that Cairo has probably has a better second defensive pairing, but I'm not sure how much better they are offensively. Foote and Lowe don't bring much to the table offensively, but neither was the total black hole on offense that Pulford was. Foote is actually underrated offensively IMO. He was no puck-mover, but has a pretty good shot and was actually used on the PP by Colorado from time to time. Mortson is the best of the 4 offensively, but it's not like his offense is exactly overwhelming.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 03:52 PM
  #36
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,540
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Two top-10s vs 1 in Hart voting though.

I'm not saying those two concluded Wilson better; I'm just saying on the information shown, one could conclude Wilson better.
Fair conclusion then.

Blake does get a little bonus for his chemistry with Bourque, but that can only take you so far.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 03:57 PM
  #37
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I believe that Cairo has probably has a better second defensive pairing, but I'm not sure how much better they are offensively. Foote and Lowe don't bring much to the table offensively, but neither was the total black hole on offense that Pulford was. Foote is actually underrated offensively IMO. He was no puck-mover, but has a pretty good shot and was actually used on the PP by Colorado from time to time. Mortson is the best of the 4 offensively, but it's not like his offense is exactly overwhelming.
Pulford is really more unknown than blackhole though.. overpass brought this up earlier. He didn't score a lot of goals, but being a #1 on the team he played on and playing almost all the time, if they recored assists I could see him doing decently.

Mortson is overwhelming offensively compared to the other three, I think.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 05:06 PM
  #38
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Albert Leduc-Ken Randall vs George Owen-Bill Hajt

This will be fun. Two rather one-dimensional defenders vs two of the guys I have shown to be wonderfull all-around players.

Albert Leduc vs George Owen

Easy to compare playing around the same time. I suppose I'll show Owen's offensive record in his time amongst defenceman, ordered from greatest to lead (taken from Kimberley's first round matchup):

Owen: 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 12th, 23rd

here's Albert:

Leduc: 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th, 9th

It gets even worse for Owen in the playoffs. Owen has two solid years; one in 1930 where he tied for 3rd in defenceman scoring with 2 points- but this was a year where Leduc led in decenceman scoring in the playoffs, with 4 points in the same nubmer of games as Owen.

He outdoes Leduc in the next year, leading all defenceman in playoff scoring with 5 points in 5 games. But this is offset somewhat by his two other playoffs where he scores a total of 0 points in 10 games. Leduc does have one year similar before he hit his stride, but otherwise it neverh appened to him.

As mentioned in previous arguements; between 1928-1933, Leduc tied for 1st amongst defenceman playoff points. He was one of the best playoff defenceman of his day. Edge to Leduc offensively, both in the regular season and playoffs.

And then Leduc destroys Owen in the other areas. We know next to nothing about the other aspects of Owen's game. Leduc?

Quote:
When he took his first strides on Forum ice, he did so with big skates to fill. Replacing Sprague Cleghorn on the Habs’ blue-line was no easy task, but the Valleyfield, QC native quickly cemented his role as a pillar of the team’s defense corps.

As physically punishing and imposing as his predecessor, this hard-hitting defenceman was equally renowned for his ability to lead the rush, propelling him to a career high 10 goals in his rookie campaign in 1925-26-canadiens.com.
Quote:
He was a clever goal scorer who often played rough when protecting his own end-LOH.
Quote:
He spent eight years with Montreal delivering solid hits and making life difficult for opposing forwards-LOH
Quote:
Always moving at top speed, his devastating body checks made him a fan favorite at the Forum. Cracking the NHL’s top 10 most penalized players list on three occasions, the robust rearguard fittingly earned himself the nickname “Battleship”.
Quote:
A penalty to S.Mantha early in the third period found Leduc in the hero role keeping out four-man Detroit rushes-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Morenz, Leduc, Sylvio Mantha, Smith, Gorsvenor and Lamb took turns thrilling the onlookers with masterful all-around work.- Globe and Mail
Quote:
Joseph Albert Leduc, otherwise known as "Battleship" Leduc, is one of the most colorful figures in hockey. Besides being sturdy and effective defenseman, "Albair" is a scoring threat of considerate ability, and his stenming rush down the ice is sometimes the "piece de resistance" of an otherwise dull game-Globe and Mail
Quote:
One day overdue, but apparently in good shape, Albert "Battleship" Leduc, former defense ace of the Montreal Canadiens, turned out for the first time last night with the Ottawa Senators. Leduc teamed up on defence in the practice session with Harvey Rockburn, Scotty Bowman and Harry Radley, in turn, and was going in fine style. He blocked well, and his attacking plays were good.
Much better physically; better defensively and better offensively. Big edge Leduc.

Ken Randall vs Billy Hajt

We know Hajt is good defensively. We also know that's pretty much all he does. Quotes on him:

Quote:
Hajt wasn't known for utilizing his size in an overly-physical manner-Joe Pelletier
Quote:
Because of his less-than-flamboyant style of play and complete lack of an offensive game, Bill was virtually unnoticed most of his 13 year NHL career, spent entirely with the Sabres.-Joe Pelletier
A slouch in the toughness and offensive aspects of the game, it seems.

Randall, on the other hand?

Quote:
He was known in that era as being one of the toughest players on the ice, and in fact many writers took to calling him a "hooligan" or "thug" for what was often perceived as dirty play by fans and opposing players.-HHOF
Ken Randall was one of the original tough guys. Coined a "Hooligan" and a "Thug", Ken was not afraid of throwing his weight around with opponents or the NHL brass.

Quote:
Among the more rugged and aggressive players who liked to combine a fair amount of jousting with their play with resultant penalties, Ken Randall stands forth as a good example.

He was an even more chunky player than Pitre and it was remarkable the way he could hustle as a forward.

A good slam bang player who gave his best at hockey and as a fighter, Ken Randall was on four championship teams and two Cup winners.-SIHR
Quote:
Among the most rough and uncut characters to grace the page of hockey history was Ken Randall.

Randall was a chunky barrell-chester pug, prone to weight fluctuation. But for a big man, he could hustle. He handled the puck well and had a good shot.

Randall was a colorful slam-bang hockeyist, the kind of bulldog every coach wants in the dressing room. Although he was not enrishned in the Hockey Hall of Fame, he was nonetheless one of the top hockey players in the new NHL.-Ultimate Hockey
Quote:
"Ken" Randall played the beat game he has ever shown on local ice and his rushes were of sensational variety.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Mummery and Randall gave a grand display, and their blocking and rushing was well nigh perfect. The latter had settle down to buisness in earnest, and if anybody stood out last night it was Randall. He completely bewildered the visitors by his sensational rushing and seemed to be able to outguess the defence with ridiculous ease.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Nighbor and Darragh had chances but were stopped up by Mummery and Randall-Globe and mail
Quote:
Randall and Noble again bore the brunt of the work for the blueshirts. The former notched three goals after clever end-to-end dashes.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
Two players stood out for the wearers of green and white, these being Randall and Noble. The former checked well and was very effective on the attack. His rushes generally led to a shot on goal.-Globe and Mail
Quote:
On the defense, he and "Red" Stuart held the Ottawa Attackers at bay with unexpected skill, and on the attack, Randall bored right in on the net in telling fashion. Severeal times he beat the Gerard-Boucher-Clancy second line [To explain, another quote: "Eddie Gerard and George Boucher had a bad night on defense, and when "King" Clancy was inserted the second line was still shaky"] with ridiculous ease. -Globe and Mail
Good defensively, great toughness, and good offense. It is hard to determine exactly where he places amongst defenceman was we are unsure of what seasons he played which, but for his earlier career he seemed to be mostly defenceman and would place well amongst NHL defenceman if he was. These quotes at least, certainly show his offensive game.

Hajt is better defensively, but Randall is a lot more tough and likely a lot better offensively. Edge Randall.

Overall: These two one-dimensional defenceman, although complimentary, do not compare at all well to my two guys who were great players in all aspects of the game and are an all-around force. Big edge to my bottom pairing.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 06:11 PM
  #39
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Two top-10s vs 1 in Hart voting though.

I'm not saying those two concluded Wilson better; I'm just saying on the information shown, one could conclude Wilson better.
Keep in mind that my post was comparing Blake and Wilson in an abstract way (who was the better player). I still think they're basically even, in an all-time context, but you need to consider how they fit into the context of both teams.

I could see Blake (the more aggressive, less disciplined of the two) going out of position to look for a big hit, which could be exploited by the deadly, speedy Taylor-Selanne duo. I have no doubt that Bourque could cover for Blake's impatience if necessary; however, Bourque was generally paired with play-it-safe partners, so he might lose some effectiveness if he has to cover for Blake. Still, Blake was very intimidating in his prime and his powerful hip-check could cause some damage to a somewhat small top six.

Wilson is a very good offensive defensemen, but he isn't the perfect fit for Cairo. Wilson liked carrying the puck himself and was (compared to other defensemen) more of a goal-scorer than a playmaker. That's not a bad thing, obviously, and is useful on the powerplay, but I think a defenseman with more emphasis on playmaking would suit the team better (as the team's speedy forwards would do a better job than Wilson of carrying the puck up the ice and/or generating offense from the transition). However, Wilson was quite balanced and would be an asset to the PP and PK, which can hopefully reduce the burden on Goodfellow; I think Cairo's decision to ensure he has a manageable workload by keeping him off the PK is a good idea.

One thing I didn't mention in the post you quoted, but probably should have, was that both Blake and Wilson received so few Hart votes in the years they placed in the top ten, that it was probably statistically meaningless for both of them.

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 07:42 PM
  #40
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Gaye Stewart-Pit Martin-Jimmy Peters vs Johnny Gottselig-Dave Poulin - Mario Tremblay


These two lines will likely be seeing a fair amount of eacother.

Gaye Stewart vs Johnny Gottselig

Stewart has the distinct offensive edge; a better goalscorer certainly (1, 4, 7, 10 in goals vs 9th, 9th in goals for Gottselig). Although Gottselig is the better playmaker (6th for Stewart vs 7th, 7th for Gottselig), Stewart is the better goalscorer and better point producer (2nd, 4th in points vs 8th in points for Gottselig).

I concede the playoff edge to Gottselig. Stewart is likely the better intangible guy as well, known as a good penalty killer. Does that overcome Stewart edge in offensive regular season production? Unsure on that.

Pit Martin vs Dave Poulin

Offensively, again, comparison goes well to my favor. Poulin never placed top-10 in any major offensive category; Martin has a 4th and 8th in assists, as well as three top-15's in points.

Martin is a rugged two-way player with great heart, skating, and leadership abilites, but I will concede the intangible edge to Selke-voting Poulin. Although I don't see anything that suggests he was tougher (although he was no slouch in that regard), he was better defensively. Martin has the better offensive record in the playoffs as well, the only one of either to finish top-10 in playoff points, although I don't think either was a slouch in the playoffs to my knowledge.

Does Poulin's defense advantage overcome Martin's offensive advantage? Not sure on this one either.

Jimmy Peters vs Mario Tremblay

Neither is a great offensive producer- although Peters does have an 8th in goals to his credit, the only time either finishes top-10 in the regular season.

Tremblay doesn't have the defensive record that Peters does. Although Tremblay is known as a decent all-around contributor, Peters was a big contributor in shutting down the Kraut line on his way to his team winning the cup, and was was also have said to shutdown the Pony line with his linemates. I think Peters is much better in that regard.

Although Peters was known as a scrappy winger, I give Tremblay the physical/toughness edge, and he seems to be more well known for that. Does that make up the defensive edge Peters has? I don't think so.

Overall:

I think these fourth lines are pretty close. Mine provides much more offense, but his brings more in the way of intangibles (not that my line is a slouch in that regard). I don't see it as a series where either line plays a real factor as a result.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 07:47 PM
  #41
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Keep in mind that my post was comparing Blake and Wilson in an abstract way (who was the better player). I still think they're basically even, in an all-time context, but you need to consider how they fit into the context of both teams.

I could see Blake (the more aggressive, less disciplined of the two) going out of position to look for a big hit, which could be exploited by the deadly, speedy Taylor-Selanne duo. I have no doubt that Bourque could cover for Blake's impatience if necessary; however, Bourque was generally paired with play-it-safe partners, so he might lose some effectiveness if he has to cover for Blake. Still, Blake was very intimidating in his prime and his powerful hip-check could cause some damage to a somewhat small top six.

Wilson is a very good offensive defensemen, but he isn't the perfect fit for Cairo. Wilson liked carrying the puck himself and was (compared to other defensemen) more of a goal-scorer than a playmaker. That's not a bad thing, obviously, and is useful on the powerplay, but I think a defenseman with more emphasis on playmaking would suit the team better (as the team's speedy forwards would do a better job than Wilson of carrying the puck up the ice and/or generating offense from the transition). However, Wilson was quite balanced and would be an asset to the PP and PK, which can hopefully reduce the burden on Goodfellow; I think Cairo's decision to ensure he has a manageable workload by keeping him off the PK is a good idea.

One thing I didn't mention in the post you quoted, but probably should have, was that both Blake and Wilson received so few Hart votes in the years they placed in the top ten, that it was probably statistically meaningless for both of them.
To address a couple things-

-Yes, Wilson is more of a goalscorign defenceman. But as shown in his bio, he is no slouch at playmaking and has a pretty good assists amongst defense record. He and Goodfellow should be able to move the puck up to our dominant first line quite well, and provide plenty of goals on the opposing blueline as well when they set up there.

- Interesting note on hart voting; I suppose if they got so few hart votes it's not worth much.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 07:54 PM
  #42
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Goaltending

Glenn Hall vs Grant Fuhr

Big edge Cairo. Yes, Fuhr may have done well in playoffs, but as I've shown, Hall's seemed to perform rather well even in his supposed poor years. Hall also has a conn smythe trophy Fuhr lacks, also has the great cup run in '61, and seems pretty good otherwise. As noted, this is a 11 time post-season all-star vs a 2 time post-season all-star. Hall was just more dominant, and could come up big in the playoffs as well. Big, signifigant edge Cairo.

Coaching

Toe Blake vs Pete Green

Nice to see my coaching is going to make a difference. Pete Green is a solid coach, but he is definetly locked in the second tier of coaches. Toe Blake is, of course, a top-2 coach of all-time and a coaching mastermind, and will be able to outcoach Pete Green in this series. The gap between these two is enough to make a difference, I think. Signifigant edge Cairo.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 09:25 PM
  #43
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Concluding Thoughts

The Dyanamiters just don't stack up well to the Desert Dogs. They have the 2nd line C and #1D advantages, and fourth lines and number.2 D are close (although I'd argue no.2 D leans towards I..but I'll let people make their own call), but beyond that it's all Desert Dogs.

With two rather weak 2nd and 3rd lines defensively and no real standout pairing to face off against our top line (as noted, Blake goes out of position for physicality sometimes, which could be exploted..Lowe-Foote is questionable speed to handle it, and I don't think their third pairing is good enough with Owen there), it will burn the opposing team. My first will be employed against the opposing forward as little as possible to take advantage of this.

With two great two-way lines (2nd and 3rd lines) and two great two-way centres (Laprade, Weiland)and another solid one in Martin, my team is well suited to deal with the Sakic-Dionne combination and their rather weak wingers, as well as the disfunctionalness of the Dionne line, with no playmaking on the wings and no intangible prescence. Sakic doesn't really have strong wingers as well, and Aurie is somewhat out of place on the top line.

Fourth lines are too close to be a real factor in this series, I think. But my deadly, speedy top line, fantastic third line that is well suited to go up against my opponents top-6, and two-two way lines in addition to his only real advantage in top-9 forwards being 2nd line C (and Dionne, of course, drops in the playoffs and does not have the playmaking on the wings to support his goalscoring), gives my forward corps a signifigant advantage.

Although he has an edge #1D and thus top pairings, my two bottom pairings have signifigant edges. Mortson and Pulford were just more dominant in their time than Foote-Lowe, and with Mortson the transitional game is evident, while with Foote-lowe there is no real offense from the blueline, a big concern. And I don't know is Foote-Lowe has the speed necessary to take on my forward corps and do well.

Bottom pairings aren''t even close; Leduc and Randall are two great all-around blueliners that can be employed in all situations, while Owen and Hajt are complimentary but one-dimensional players. Leduc and Randall will be a much bigger factor in this series than Owen and Hajt.

And of course, the big goaltending advantage. Glenn Hall, who most consider top-6, is a big advantage on Fuhr really. Hall does have, I think I have shown, a sound playoff record and can step it up and perform well in the playoffs, at the same incredible level he does in the regular season. Fuhr, who has 9 less post-season all-star teams than Hall, just doesn't stack up.

All backed up by the superior coaching in Toe Blake, and my team will win this series with better speed, skill, and all-around ability, backed up by the much better goaltender.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 09:45 PM
  #44
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
As for the small sample size, if brodeur comes back from the Olympics with an .884 sv% and no medal, should we say "hey, it was 5 games, a really small sample size"??? I don't think so. The playoffs are short, these are the greatest goalies of all-time, and they have a short time to stand out. Whether they stopped a higher or lower percentage of shots than the league's other goalies is an important thing to consider, considering it also tends to correlate with how far they advance, which is the point in the playoffs. In the absence of game accounts or visual proof, what do you suggest I do to help get to the bottom of who performed better individually? WIN totals? No thank you.
Small sample size can be a problem not just because we're not sure a goalie's performance is indicative of his "true talent", but also because we're not sure how good his performance was in a small sample. He might have faced an abnormally high or low number of high-percentage scoring chances. That's something that we don't really worry about over a season, but can be a problem in a small sample.

I would agree there's still not a better stat, but there are certainly limits to what one can conclude from it, and it's more limited the smaller the sample size.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 10:04 PM
  #45
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
[CENTER]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

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
Here's my comparisons again...

First Lines:
Cairo has one of my favourite lines of the draft, and they are better at all 3 positions. I think this is a pretty big advantage for Cairo.

Second Lines:
Both second lines are pretty weak. Dionne is probably the best 2nd line center, but I don't think Bellows should have even been drafted, let alone be a top-6 guy, and Leach is kind of a mediocre 2nd liner. Basically, everyone except Dionne is either a weak 2nd liner (asside from Bellows). Edge goes to Kimberly.

Third Lines:
As I've said before, Jack Walker, in my opinion, should be mentioned with Gainey as the best defensive left winger. He's by far, the best checker in this series. Laprade and Wharram aren't really elite defensive guys, but they are decent 2-way guys. Edge goes to Cairo.

First Defense Pair:
Ray Bourque is an absolute beast. What really separates him from Shore and Harvey? Cairo doesn't have anyone even close to Bourque, and Blake is a pretty solid #2 anyway. Kimberly gets a pretty big edge here... biggest edge either way in the series.

Second Defense Pair:
I'm not a huge Mortson fan, but I do love Pulford. The two together is pretty much guarenteed stretchers for the other team.... Foote and Lowe are solid defensively, but not like Pulford-Mortson. The edge here goes to Cairo.

Goaltending:
Same as last series. Even if Fuhr gets better in the play-offs, and I'm not sure he does, he's still nowhere near Glenn Hall. Big edge to Cairo.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 10:17 PM
  #46
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Second Lines:
Both second lines are pretty weak. Dionne is probably the best 2nd line center, but I don't think Bellows should have even been drafted, let alone be a top-6 guy, and Leach is kind of a mediocre 2nd liner. Basically, everyone except Dionne is either a weak 2nd liner (asside from Bellows). Edge goes to Kimberly.
What makes Fleury a weak second liner, exactly?

I'll note that I have the stronger wings and that my lines is better built to feature intangibles and ensure balance in goalscoring and playmaking (two areas where my opponents 2nd line is lacking). I can accept the rest though.

Quote:
Third Lines:
As I've said before, Jack Walker, in my opinion, should be mentioned with Gainey as the best defensive left winger. He's by far, the best checker in this series. Laprade and Wharram aren't really elite defensive guys, but they are decent 2-way guys. Edge goes to Cairo.
I'd consider Laprade a bit more than a "decent 2-way guy". Maybe not "elite" defensively, but certainly more than decent in that regard.

Quote:
First Defense Pair:
Ray Bourque is an absolute beast. What really separates him from Shore and Harvey? Cairo doesn't have anyone even close to Bourque, and Blake is a pretty solid #2 anyway. Kimberly gets a pretty big edge here... biggest edge either way in the series.
He doesn't have the peak of Harvey or Shore, I believe.

Wilson is a pretty solid #2 as well; and is arguably better than Blake.

But yes, Bourque is a big advantage, and with that so is the first pairing. I'd argue that it's the only big advantage pairing/line they have (2nd line may be better due to Dionne, but with Dionne in the playoffs, lack of intangibles, and lack of playmaking on wings factored..), and that Cairo has a better pairing/line everywhere else (except maybe 4th..which, as noted, is quite close and thus isn't going to be a real factor in the series).

Bourque is an advantage, but it gets off set when the other guy has the arguably better #2 and better #3-#6


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 12-05-2009 at 10:23 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 11:08 PM
  #47
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,792
vCash: 500
Votes for the division finals in the ATD are due by 11:59 P.M. EST on Sunday, December 6. All votes are to be sent to me.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 11:23 PM
  #48
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,278
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
What makes Fleury a weak second liner, exactly?

I'll note that I have the stronger wings and that my lines is better built to feature intangibles and ensure balance in goalscoring and playmaking (two areas where my opponents 2nd line is lacking). I can accept the rest though.
Fleury is probably more average than weak, but Dionne still makes his line better. Yes, Dionne's play-off resume should be taken into account, but it's not hte be-all and end-all. Just like Glenn Hall, he's a little worse, but he starts off really high.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
I'd consider Laprade a bit more than a "decent 2-way guy". Maybe not "elite" defensively, but certainly more than decent in that regard.
He was a pretty good checker, but where does he rank among ATD checkers? He's a decent 2-way guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
He doesn't have the peak of Harvey or Shore, I believe.
They don't have his longevity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Wilson is a pretty solid #2 as well; and is arguably better than Blake.
Rob Blake is better than Doug Wilson. It's not a huge gap, but it's clear which one is better.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-05-2009, 11:51 PM
  #49
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Fleury is probably more average than weak, but Dionne still makes his line better. Yes, Dionne's play-off resume should be taken into account, but it's not hte be-all and end-all. Just like Glenn Hall, he's a little worse, but he starts off really high.
Fleury is definetly not weak with all he brings in addition to offense; particularly in the playoffs.

The more I research Glenn Hall the more I doubt any notion he dropped off in the playoffs.

Although I'd call Dionne more than "a little worse", fair enough otherwise.


Quote:
He was a pretty good checker, but where does he rank among ATD checkers? He's a decent 2-way guy.
From a strictly defensive standpoint? Likely above average. Perhaps between elite and above-average.


Quote:
Rob Blake is better than Doug Wilson. It's not a huge gap, but it's clear which one is better.
From the thread I posted earlier, no, it's not clear which is better or Rob Blake is clearly better.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-06-2009, 03:40 AM
  #50
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It's especially good when taken in context, such as when comparing it to the league average.
League average in the playoffs is not the kind of context that we're looking for in a rational analysis, as there is precious little common ground from goalie to goalie. Achieving a state of ceteris parabis in such an analysis is extremely, extremely difficult, if not impossible.

Quote:
Even more context would be great, such as shot quality adjustments and PP/ES breakdowns. But that simply is not available. Going with what we have, is better than going by nothing.
This is where your mistake lies. A mistaken hypothesis which is known to he hugely flawed is worse than no hypothesis, at all. I strongly dislike scientific approaches which refuse to discard their hypotheses when they become unworkable. Although the goal may be noble, if the results are producing obvious gibberish (Bill Ranford as #1 playoff goalie of all-time or Tony Esposito as better than Ken Dryden) then we need to discard them and improve the method.

Quote:
As for the small sample size, if brodeur comes back from the Olympics with an .884 sv% and no medal, should we say "hey, it was 5 games, a really small sample size"??? I don't think so. The playoffs are short, these are the greatest goalies of all-time, and they have a short time to stand out. Whether they stopped a higher or lower percentage of shots than the league's other goalies is an important thing to consider, considering it also tends to correlate with how far they advance, which is the point in the playoffs. In the absence of game accounts or visual proof, what do you suggest I do to help get to the bottom of who performed better individually? WIN totals? No thank you.
You are attempting to smuggle game results (the old method which you implicitly reject) into the results of your SV% analysis. As manuevers go, it is weak, and as analysis goes, it is patently false. If SV% correlated so well with game results, then Hall and Fuhr should have nearly identical postseason records, as their "vs. average" postseason SV% results are quite similar. And yet they could hardly be further apart.

This is science, not a ****ing marriage. If the method obviously doesn't work, you throw it out and work towards a better one.

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 08:49 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.