HFBoards

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

ATD 2010 Foster Hewitt Final: Toronto St. Pats (1) vs. Vancouver Maroons (3)

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-29-2010, 03:33 PM
  #1
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,957
vCash: 500
ATD 2010 Foster Hewitt Final: Toronto St. Pats (1) vs. Vancouver Maroons (3)

The Foster Hewitt Division Final Round:


Toronto St. Pats

coach Pete Green

Aurel Joliat - Howie Morenz - Vaclav Nedomansky
Alf Smith - Pavel Datsyuk - Babe Dye
Craig Ramsay - Joel Otto - Blair Russel
Tommy Smith - Buddy O'Connor - Billy Boucher
Billy Hay, Reggie Fleming

Mark Howe - Art Ross
Joe Hall - Pat Egan
Phil Housley - Don Awrey
Hamby Shore

Glenn Hall
Curtis Joseph


vs.


Vancouver Maroons

coach Jacques Lemaire

Ace Bailey - Milt Schmidt (C) - Pavel Bure
Theo Fleury - Doug Gilmour (A) - Bobby Bauer
Joe Klukay - Don Luce - Gary Dornhoefer
Tomas Holmstrom - Dale Hunter - Duane Sutter
Craig Simpson, Corb Denneny

Guy Lapointe - Herb Gardiner
Harry Howell (A) - Paul Reinhart
Kevin Hatcher - Gary Bergman
Dion Phaneuf

Patrick Roy
Ron Hextall

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 03:33 PM
  #2
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,957
vCash: 500
Toronto St. Pats

PP1: Joliat-Morenz-Dye-Howe-Housley
PP2: Smith-O'Connor-Nedomansky-Egan-Housley

PK1: Ramsay-Otto-Howe-Awrey
PK2: Morenz-Russel-Ross-Hall

vs.

Vancouver Maroons

PP1: Bailey - Gilmour - Bure - Lapointe - Reinhart
PP2: Holmstrom - Schmidt - Bauer - Hatcher - Bergman

PK1: Klukay - Luce - Howell - Gardiner
PK2: Bailey - Schmidt - Lapointe - Bergman

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 03:56 PM
  #3
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
All LC Division Final! I wish you luck HHH. Let's make it a good one.

So now I get to face the trap..this will be interesting.

I never really got to see the trap played to it's fullest, and am not an expert. Is speed particularly advantageous against it?

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 04:44 PM
  #4
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Why does Vancouver win this series?

I copy and pasted this post from the 3rd page of the thread...

Please take just 2 minutes to read this post!

1. Patrick Roy, Patrick Roy, Patrick Roy! There is no greater playoff goalie, this man has proven that he can carry a team on his back in the playoffs. Goaltending is the only true equalizer in hockey, how many times in your lifetime have you seen a team make a deep playoff run simply because of a hot goalie? Just look at Halak and the Habs right now, Halak is playing hot and he's the reason Montreal just upset a much stronger Washington team. Vancouver has a distinct advantage in net because Glenn Hall did not elevate his game in the playoffs, and is considered to be in the 8-12 tier of goalies in the playoffs, but Roy is considered to be THE greatest goalie of all-time in the playoffs.

2. Vancouver's 2nd line of Bailey-Gimour-Fleury can provide scoring and sustain pressure, while also acting as an extremely effective checking line against Toronto's 1st line. This is an invaluable asset for Vancouver, and it helps reflect the advantages of having so many great two-way forwards. In the playoffs, a forward's contributions in the defensive zone can be just as important as his contribution's in the offensive zone, and the two-way ability of Vancouver's forwards is something to really consider when evaluating the forward groups. The forward lines battle each other in both zones of the ice, and if one line can be much more effective in the defensive zone than the opposing line is, while STILL providing good offense, then what might originally seem like a weaker line, can be a more effective one at the end of the day.

3. Vancouver has a more balanced offensive attack, both the top two lines can provide as much scoring as the other. Toronto's 1st line is the best line offensively, but Vancouver has both a good 1st and 2nd scoring line. Vancouver's 2nd line advantage greatly compensates for Toronto's 1st line advantage.

4. Toronto is relying extremely heavily on their first line, whereas Vancouver has better secondary scoring and two balanced offensive lines. Teams that rely on 1 line to provide all their scoring do NOT go far in the playoffs. What happens when things aren't going great for that 1 line, or when that 1 line goes into a bit of a slump? Toronto will live or die by their first line.

5. Vancouver is a much better defensive team. Vancouver has better (and more) two-way forwards, better defensive defensemen, and the players follow a system that emphasizes cohesive team defense, cautiousness, and defensive responsibility amongst the forwards. The teams that are best built for the playoffs are the responsible defensive teams that grind out wins, not the teams that trade chances offensively or run-and-gun.

6. Vancouver's core players all have tremendous playoff reputations. Guys like Patrick Roy, Doug Gilmour, and Theo Fleury completely elevated their game to a whole other level during the playoffs. Whereas some of the core Toronto players like Glenn Hall and Pavel Datsyuk have questionable playoff records and have been criticized for not elevating their game in the playoffs.

----------------

For your convenience:

Vancouver has a significant edge in net, and a minor edge on the blueline

lineup tweak/the preferred forward matchups

Vancouver's core players stepped it up in the playoffs, whereas the Toronto core players have questionable playoff records


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-02-2010 at 08:36 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 04:49 PM
  #5
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
So now I get to face the trap..this will be interesting.

I never really got to see the trap played to it's fullest, and am not an expert. Is speed particularly advantageous against it?
It's hard to define the "trap" strictly. Many teams play or have played some version of it. TDMM or someone else could give you a better idea of the Lemaire version. The elimination of the two-line pass rule also forced some adjustments.

Here's an article about how the Tampa Bay Lightning attacked the trap in 2003-04.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 05:12 PM
  #6
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
I just want to point out that Vancouver doesn't live or die by the trap. It's the preferred playing system of Jacques Lemaire, but as overpass just said, many team use variations of "the trap" or defensive systems that are similar to it.

Vancouver isn't jailed down to a strict 1-4 trap, in essence, this is just basically a defensively conscious team that will play a cautious style of hockey or some variation of the trap.

This style of hockey bodes well with the style of Vancouver's players, and will present advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day, this is about the personnel on each team.


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 04-30-2010 at 09:57 AM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 05:59 PM
  #7
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Really? That wasn't the tune you were singing earlier...

Quote:
2. Vancouver has a much better coach, and in a series like this, you can bet the defensive mastermind that is Jacques Lemaire will be able to control the style and flow of the game. He will scheme all sorts of defensive systems to make Atlanta's speedy offensive players as ineffective as possible. Vancouver WILL play a heavy neutral zone trap to prevent the Atlanta players from having enough time to pick up speed or make long passes. The trap will also obviously force turnovers, and the Vancouver forwards are more than capable of creating chances on these turnovers and capitalizing.
Quote:
. Vancouver is being coached by Jacques Lemaire, and all players (except Bure) will be playing in a structured system that focuses on cohesive team defense, defensive responsibility, and goal prevention. Tidewater will also have to deal with the neutral zone trap.
Interersting that you seem to want to change right in the middle of the playoffs. (scared the system won't work against my team? ). The trap is a very specific system that requires full commitment from practically every player on the team that employs it. Suddenly changing that and abandoning it to an extent after two full series (and presumably, a majority of the regular season) could be a difficult adfjustment for the Vancouver players to make, which could make them sluggish to start the series, which my team can capitilize on.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 06:12 PM
  #8
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
I just want to point out that Vancouver doesn't live or die by the trap. It's the preferred playing system of Jacques Lemaire, but as overpass just said, many team use variations of "the trap" or defensive systems that are similar to it.

Vancouver isn't jailed down to a strict 1-4 trap, in essence, this is just basically a defensively conscious team that will play a cautious style of hockey.

This style of hockey bodes well with the style of Vancouver's players, and will present advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day, this is about the personnel on each team.

You pick Jacques Lemaire as your coach, you are living and dying by the trap. He knows no other way.

Anyway, the most important thing to beat the trap are defensemen who can transition the puck quickly.

I am not a fan of the St. Pats defense in general, but they seem like they might be well suited to trap breaking.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 06:14 PM
  #9
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
1) your first quote comes from an entirely different series, it was against a team that was completely dependent on Coffey and Taylor's speed. Damn right Lemaire wanted to play a strong neutral zone trap against that team. As the teams and players change, the style of play get TWEAKED accordingly.

2) In that entire series, the ONLY time I ever even brought up the trap to establish any sort of advantage at all (as a result of the trap) was that 1 sentence that came in the middle of a lengthy post with 5-6 much longer points.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here, your second quote only confirms that the trap became less of an issue/focus point for me personally after the first round.

Finally, VANCOUVER IS NOT MAKING ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO IT'S STYLE OF PLAY WHAT SO EVER. This team is coached by Lemaire, has trapped all season long, and will continue to trap all season long because with the forwards Vancouver has, it benefits the team greatly.

I was just saying that there are many variations to the trap, and degrees to which a team can "trap". 1-4, 2-3, 1-3-1 Nothing about Vancouver's style of play is changing.

Stop pretending this is a big deal LF, you're more mature then this.

btw, the trap is less relevant for than it was in the last series. Why? Because unlike in the Tidewater series where they had a serious advantage on the blueline, Toronto really has no advantage over Vancouver in anything. Vancouver's goal tending is significantly better, Vancouver's top two pairings are both marginally better, and Vancouver's top-six is better. If Joliat and Morenz are contained, Toronto's offense will have some big problems. Your second line is one of the weakest in this draft.

Give me a few minutes to post some arguments.


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 04-30-2010 at 09:58 AM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 06:15 PM
  #10
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
For convenience, yet again:

Toronto St.Pats

(1919-1927)
GM:Leafs Forever13
Head Coach: Pete Green
Captain: Alf Smith
Assistant Captains: Howie Morenz, Craig Ramsay


Aurel Joliat-Howie Morenz(A)-Vaclav Nedomansky
Alf Smith(C) -Pavel Datsyuk-Babe Dye
Craig Ramsay(A)-Joel Otto-Blair Russel
Tommy Smith-Buddy O'Connor-Billy Boucher

Mark Howe-Art Ross
Joe Hall-Pat Egan
Phil Housley-Don Awrey

Glenn Hall
Curtis Joseph

Spares: D/W Hamby Shore, C Billy Hay, LW/D Reggie Fleming

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 06:24 PM
  #11
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
1) your first quote comes from an entirely different series, it was against a team that was completely dependent on Coffey and Taylor's speed. Damn right Lemaire wanted to play a strong neutral zone trap against that team. As the teams and players change, the style of play get TWEAKED accordingly.

2) In that entire series, the ONLY time I ever even brought up the trap to establish any sort of advantage at all (as a result of the trap) was that 1 sentence that came in the middle of a lengthy post with 5-6 much longer points.

I don't understand what you're trying to do here, you second quote only confirms that the trap became less of an issue/focus point for me personally after the first round.

Finally, VANCOUVER IS NOT MAKING ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO IT'S STYLE OF PLAY WHAT SO EVER. This team is coached by Lemaire, has trapped all season long, and will continue to trap all season long because with the forwards Vancouver has, it benefits the team greatly.

I was just saying that there are many variations to the trap, and degrees to which a team can "trap". 1-4, 2-3, 1-3-1 Nothing about Vancouver's style of play is changing.

Stop pretending this is a big deal LF, you're more mature then this.
You sounded like you were downplaying your team as a trap one, and that you were just a defensive and responble team. The quotes were just showing that you did indeed use the trap in the previous two series. Evidently, I misinterpreted, and for that I apologize, but had I interpreted correctly, changing styles like that and leaving the trap behind would have been significant- both for adjustment, as as TDMM said, because Lemaire is a guy that only traps.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
You pick Jacques Lemaire as your coach, you are living and dying by the trap. He knows no other way.

Anyway, the most important thing to beat the trap are defensemen who can transition the puck quickly.

I am not a fan of the St. Pats defense in general, but they seem like they might be well suited to trap breaking.
If there is one thing my defense does not lack, it's puck movement/transition.

Speed puckmover Howe partned with another good puckmover in Ross (said to be one of the the top rushing defencemen in the game during his time), Egan on the second pairing (A "good skater with a heavy shot" who was "relied on to rush the puck out of the zone and man a point on the powerplay"), and Housley on the third.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 06:36 PM
  #12
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
btw, the trap is as irrelevant in this series for Vancouver as it has even been before. Why? Because unlike in the Tidewater series where they had a serious advantage on the blueline, Toronto really has no advantage over Vancouver in anything. Vancouver's goal tending is significantly better, Vancouver's top two pairings are both marginally better, and Vancouver's top-six is better. If Joliat and Morenz are contained, Toronto's offense will have some big problems. Your second line is one of the weakest in this draft.
Your team style and system is irrelvent? Righty-O then.

No advantage over Vancouver in anything? Seriously? Joliat-Morenz-Nedomansky- I'm going to do an analysis, but it is VERY clearly better than Bailey-Schmidt-Bure as a top line. Your second line has to bridhe the gap- which I'm not sure it does. My third line, with a very distinctly better LW, a comprable C, and a much better RW who does not drag down the line as your RW does, is also better. I wager my highy flying fourth is better too.

Your top-4 and defence being better is also highly debatable. Your goaltending advantage, though distinct, has never been smaller with the great, elite goalie Glenn Hall facing off against you, and I don't know how "significant" your advantage really is (the word suggests to me quite large- perhaps my perception of it is different).

As for Morenz and Joliat being contained, well I'm confident in Morenz being the best offensive player in this series, and centre by far, despite the checking ability you do have at centre- because I too have some great defensive ability at centre, and of course none of your centres are close to Morenz offensively. And what RW is going to be containing Joliat? It's a problem with your team- you have no RW capable of doing well defensively against a top-flight LW like Joliat. Bure, Bauer, and Dornhoefer- none are really capable defensively, and certainly not capable enough to succeed against Joliat.

I don't boast the strongest second line, but I do boast one of the best goalscorers on any second line in Babe Dye (and arguably a better goalscorer than anyone on your team- five top 2's is tough to beat), who is likely the best offensive player on either line. My whole line is built for Dye to succeed, with the playmaking and room provided for him to succeed. I also have one of the toughest players on any second line in Smith- can Bure or Bauer really stand up well against him?


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 04-29-2010 at 06:46 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 06:44 PM
  #13
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
This one's good already!

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 06:47 PM
  #14
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
I should remind you that I'm considering tweaking the forward lines, so hold off on the forward evaluations. I'm only saying this because it's not fair to you if you spend time working on arguments and then realize that I'm changing my lines (making some of your points moot).

Also, I'm about halfway done a lengthy post right now, so I'm trying to finish that before I start arguing. So just hold tight until that comes out and then we can really get into it.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 06:52 PM
  #15
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Oh, right. Got ahead of myself there. Very well, I'll hold off for a bit- though expect the floodgates to open when you do your tweaking.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 07:43 PM
  #16
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Vancouver has the advantage in net and on the blue line

Roy vs Hall

Vancouver has a significant advantage over Toronto in net, make no mistake about it. In the regular season, Glenn Hall is relatively close to Roy, he's in the 4-9 tier of goalies right after the Roy/Hasek/Plante tier. In the playoffs though, this advantage for Vancouver is much greater.

Glenn Hall has an awful playoff reputation, and Toronto has already been criticized for this in every series. To be fair to LF, some of the criticism is undeserved, and he's done a good job of defending Hall. I'm sure he'll be fine in net for Toronto.

However, there's no denying the fact that year after year Hall did NOT elevate his game in the playoffs. Roy on the other hand, is a goalie who has a long resume built around his reputation as a guy that ALWAYS brought his game to another level in the playoffs. Roy is widely considered to be the best playoff goalie of all-time, and he can absolutely a steal a game or two for Vancouver.

Hall will be fine in net for Toronto, but he will not be a gamebreaker or difference maker in this series for Toronto. Whereas Roy can be expected to make the big saves and stand on his head to steal games for Vancouver. Goaltending is the only true equalizer in hockey, and we all saw that first hand last night when Jaroslav Halak won Montreal a series against the best team in the league.

---------

Vancouver's has a better top-4 defense than Toronto. The first pairings are very close, but the only reason they are even close is because Vancouver has it's #3 guy playing with Lapointe, while Toronto have their two best defensemen on this pairing. As a result, Vancouver's 2nd pairing is much better than Toronto's 2nd pairing.

Lapointe-Gardiner vs Howe-Ross

Lapointe and Howe are about equal, and play a very similar style of game as well. Their Norris records are almost identical, both have a ton of quotes to support their outstanding play in both ends of the ice, etc...

Gardiner gives Vancouver a slight edge though. It's important to note that Gardiner is only Vancouver's #3 defenseman, whereas Ross is Toronto's #2 defenseman, and I'd still argue that Gardiner is a better defenseman than Ross, and a more effective partner for Lapointe than Ross is for Howe. I think with guys like Lapointe/Howe, you want them to be as effective as possible offensively, so a defensive rock like Gardiner is perfect for Lapointe.

Quote:
HHOF:

A stellar two-way defenseman, Herb Gardiner didn't make a name for himself until relatively late in his career. He was proficient at the amateur level in western Canada before traveling east to play in the NHL. Gardiner was a rock on the defense corps of every team he played on, and he was also respected for his consistent play through each season
Gardiner also won a Hart trophy over Bill Cook in 1926 I think, which is no small feat. Does Art Ross have any accomplishment that even compares to this?


Howell-Reinhart vs Hall-Egan

Big advantage for Vancouver. Harry Howell is by far the best play on either of these pairings!

Howell's Norris Voting record: 1st, 5th
Howell's Hart Voting record: 5th

Howell was the last guy to win a Norris trophy before Orr started dominating. The guy is an elite defensive defenseman, here are some anectodes:
Quote:
Joe Pelletier:

It could be said that Howell was the last defensive defenseman to win the Norris trophy, as the award took on a different definition after Bobby Orr....

Although not an overly aggressive rearguard he used his hockey sense to become an extremely effective defensive player. He was quite the unsung hero....

He was a reliable work horse who could always be counted on to bring his steady game every night of the week. A master of the poke check, his understated brilliance was certainly appreciated by his coaches and teammates, especially his goaltenders. He always was able to steer oncoming attackers to the boards and away from scoring spots.
Quote:
Doug Harvey:

They don’t come much better than Harry
Quote:
Emile Francis:

Hockey is a game of mistakes, and Harry doesn't make many of them.
Howell is superior to Joe Hall, and Reinhart and Egan are in the same tier. However, Reinhart was extremely gifted offensively, and benefits from having such a great defensive defenseman like Howell to cover for him defensively. It'll help him be as effective as possible. The Egan-Hall pairing doesn't really make either of them more effective, and seems to be an imbalanced pairing. Also, both these guys took a lot of penalties, and that's very concerning. Most of the time, PIM doesn't just represent toughness, it represents a lack of control over emotions and a tendency to hook/grab/trip players you can't keep up with. How many penalties are these guys gonna take to try and keep up with Bure as he spins circles around them?

--------------

So Vancouver has a significant edge in net, and an edge on the blueline as well.

Now I'm going to post my new forward lines for home games, and then I'll analyze the forwards.


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 04-29-2010 at 08:24 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 08:25 PM
  #17
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Hall will be fine in net for Toronto, but he will not be a gamebreaker or difference maker in this series for Toronto. Whereas Roy can be expected to make the big saves and stand on his head to steal games for Vancouver. Goaltending is the only true equalizer in hockey, and we all saw that first hand last night when Jaroslav Halak won Montreal a series against the best team in the league.
Not a gamebreaker or difference maker? You have an edge in net, but make no mistake that Glenn Hall is a difference maker- his stellar regular season play does translate equally to the playoffs- and he isn't Roy, but with the rather low amount of firepower your team has, Hall can aboslutely be a difference maker and shutdown your team. He has the ability to steal games as well.

I again stress that Hall is by far the best goalie your team has faced so far- and the edge in net you tended to have that really helped get you this far is getting really negated here. Hall is still an elite goalie, and I don't see him as very far behind Roy, even in the playoffs (though Roy has a distinct edge over Hall, no doubt). Hall is also facing a worse offensive team, in my estimation.

As for your modern day reference- You know what else we saw in the first round? Brian Boucher beat and outperform Martin Brodeur. (statistically, at least) We also saw Tuuka Rask beat Ryan Miller.

Quote:
Lapointe and Howe are about equal, and play a very similar style of game as well. Their Norris records are almost identical, both have a ton of quotes to support their outstanding play in both ends of the ice, etc...

Gardiner gives Vancouver a slight edge though. It's important to note that Gardiner is only Vancouver's #3 defenseman, whereas Ross is Toronto's #2 defenseman, and I'd still argue that Gardiner is a better defenseman than Ross, and a more effective partner for Lapointe than Ross is for Howe. I think with guys like Lapointe/Howe, you want them to be as effective as possible offensively, so a defensive rock like Gardiner is perfect for Lapointe.


Quote:
HHOF:

A stellar two-way defenseman, Herb Gardiner didn't make a name for himself until relatively late in his career. He was proficient at the amateur level in western Canada before traveling east to play in the NHL. Gardiner was a rock on the defense corps of every team he played on, and he was also respected for his consistent play through each season

Gardiner also won a Hart trophy over Bill Cook in 1926 I think, which is no small feat. Does Art Ross have any accomplishment that even compares to this?
Top pairing I feel I have an edge on, and I'll explain why.

Lapointe and Howe pretty close- but Art Ross, I feel, has an edge on Gardiner.

Gardiner does have the hart trophy to his credit, but that is practically all he has, it would seem. It' unfair to inquire if Art Ross has any accomplishment like a hart trophy, since they didn't have awards like that during his day. There is little doubt, however, that Art Ross was an elite defencemen in his time-one of the top rushing defencemen of his day, and some great offense it seems.

One must note:

-Art Ross was undoubtedly tougher. I haven't seen much that indicates Gardiner played a particularly tough game, but Art Ross was a "viewed as a fearless player who never backed down from a fight in his life". Art Ross's PIMs also indicated he played a rought and tough games.

-Art Ross is likely better offensively. Gardiner was only 9th in d-men points during his hart year, and didn't crack the top-15 in his second NHL season (scored no points in his last NHL season). I'm not sure how well he did in his days as a WCHL defencemen, but offensive really doesn't seem his forte. Only 1 point in 9 NHL playoff games as well, 1 goal in two stanley cup challenge games, and 1 goal in 6 WCHL playoff games.

Art Ross, on the other hand, was one of the best defencemen offensively of his day, from all accounts. He was one of the top rushers of his day, and scored 85 goals in 167 regular season games (no assists recorded back then), which, to my knowledg,e was rather high. He also scored 3 goals in 5 games in one stanley cup challenge, which was very good. Though he didn't score in his other two stanley cup challenge series, it was said in one that "Although he didn't score, he made a number of quality offensive rushes that contributed to Kenora's Stanley Cup Win".

Art Ross was likely an elite defenceman offensively of his day, while Gardiner rather lacks offensively. There is little doubt in my mind Art Ross is much better than Gardiner offensively.

-Gardiner, however, has an admitted defensive advantage- but Art Ross, unlike Gardiner offensively (or so it seems), was no slouch defensively. He developed a defensive alignment as a player that was heavily reliant on defenceman back, and seemed to have played out this system. The system worked very well, and saw his team beat the Ottawa Senators. He was also said to provide "stability and svvy in the defensive zone" by loh. It indicates he could play good defense and hang back well (and I think these show he can stay beack and be steady if Mark Howe wants to rush).

Gardiner though, his likely a superior defensively. Does that make up the gaps of Ross's offense and toughness advantages? I do not feel this is the case, and I think Art Ross has an edge over Gardiner, and gives me a top pairing edge.

As for stylistic questions, I feel Ross and Howe are both good enough defensively that one can cover for the other rushes up ice. Especially true considering your team isn't really dangerous offensively, and plays a cautious style. Ross packs the toughness too, ensuring thatr isn't a question.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 04-29-2010 at 09:09 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 08:31 PM
  #18
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,194
vCash: 500
70s did an analysis of Ross's offense in one of the previous ATDs (I think in someone else's playoff series) and I think I quoted this at some point when I had Ross in ATD12. I don't have the numbers offhand, but I think the conclusion was that Ross is pretty close to Sergie Gonchar offensively.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-29-2010 at 08:37 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 08:55 PM
  #19
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Ross was definitely better than Gardiner offensively, but Gardiner was definitely better than Ross defensively.

Gardiner still won a Hart Trophy over Bill Cook though, which give Gardiner a big edge in peak value. You haven't, and likely won't be able to provide any sort of evidence for Ross that reflects that sort of peak value. Just because the information wasn't there for Ross, doesn't mean we can assume he would've won a Hart Trophy in his time (he wouldn't have). You can't take Gardiner's Hart away from him just because Ross played in an era with no Hart voting.

You've cited Ross's ability to carry the puck up the ice as the #1 reason you think he's better than Gardiner, but why would Ross even be carrying the puck up ice if he's playing with Howe? 90% of the time, Howe is going to be the guy that carries the puck up ice for you and/or makes the first pass. Same with Lapointe. So how much value are you really getting out of Ross' puck carrying ability? Not much, because like I said before, Gardiner's style is more effective with a player like Lapointe/Howe.

In the end though, I think the fact that you have to argue so much to even establish that Vancouver doesn't have the advantage, or that you have an incredibly minor advantage, just proves that Vancouver's defense is stronger.

Like I said in my first post, Gardiner is my #3, Ross is your #2, so obviously your defense is weaker if you're trying to argue that Ross is slightly better than Gardiner.

I have Harry Howell playing on my 2nd pairing, and he's far better than any of your second pairing defensemen. The first pairings are close, but Vancouver's second pairing is much better, and that give Vancouver the edge on the blue line.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 09:00 PM
  #20
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post


Howell-Reinhart vs Hall-Egan

Big advantage for Vancouver. Harry Howell is by far the best play on either of these pairings!

Howell's Norris Voting record: 1st, 5th
Howell's Hart Voting record: 5th

Howell was the last guy to win a Norris trophy before Orr started dominating. The guy is an elite defensive defenseman, here are some anectodes:


Howell is superior to Joe Hall, and Reinhart and Egan are in the same tier. However, Reinhart was extremely gifted offensively, and benefits from having such a great defensive defenseman like Howell to cover for him defensively. It'll help him be as effective as possible. The Egan-Hall pairing doesn't really make either of them more effective, and seems to be an imbalanced pairing. Also, both these guys took a lot of penalties, and that's very concerning. Most of the time, PIM doesn't just represent toughness, it represents a lack of control over emotions and a tendency to hook/grab/trip players you can't keep up with. How many penalties are these guys gonna take to try and keep up with Bure as he spins circles around them?

--------------

So Vancouver has a significant edge in net, and an edge on the blueline as well.

Now I'm going to post my new forward lines for home games, and then I'll analyze the forwards.
Yes, Howell is likely the best defencemen here. By How much, though?

I find it interesting that Howell only ever made 1 AST Team (granted, I don't have any multiple AST guys myself- though Hall never played in a league with them). Granted, he won a Norris trophy that year, and is the best here.

Again though, similar to Gardiner vs Ross:

-Hall is definetly tougher than Howell, who doesn't really seem well known for his toughness side of things (though his PIMs suggest some toughness.)

-I'm not sure if Howell is better offensively or not than Hall. Hall has a 4th and a 5th in NHL points (split-league era, granted) amongst defencemen of good significance, and seemed to have had three years of more good offense in the NHA. Hall also has some great playoff numbers, with 6 goals in 12 stanley cup games and 5 points in 4 NHA playoff games. Howell, from reading, doesn't sound like an offensive threat- though perhaps the stats indicate otherwise.

Howell, though, is definetly better defensively than Hall, and does bridge the gap in that sense. Hall, though, is no slouch, as I will indicate shortly.
-----------------------------------
I don't think Reinhart is in the same tier as Egan- at all. Reinhart never made an AST like Egan did, and was not nearly as good offensively as Egan was. Here is Egan's offensive record:

Points amongst defencemen- 12th (1941), 3rd(1942), 2nd(1944), 6th(1945), 4th(1946), 1st(1947), 6th(1948), 1st(1949), 10th(1950), 10th(1951)

Reinhart has some great years, but I don't think he really has the longevity to match something like this. (he likely played in a tougher era, but I still don't think that adjustment is a good as Egan's- unless HHH can provide the offensive numbers to show otherwise).

Reinhart was a strong playoff producer, but Egan wasn't a slouch either- 2nd in d-men playoff points from 1945-50 (quite a bit lower in PPG granted, but he played a lot more games than the guys ahead of him in that sense).

Egan was undoubtedly much tougher than Reinhart- Egan was one of the toughest defencemen of his era, Reinhart doesn't have a lot (to my knowledge) showing toughness. Reinhart was said to be capable of his own zone and may be a bit better in that sense than Egan, but neither is here to play defence well- and I think, especially with the large toughness gap, Egan has an edge over Reinhart. And, overall, I think the only edge the Maroons have on top-4, looking at positions, would be the left-side of second pairings (though it is a good edge).

As for your latter part- let's estabilish a few things:

1. Both players have quotes establishing toughness, particularly Hall. I've been attacked for this repeatdly and have posted quotes repeatedly, but as it seems the message isn't getting through, I'll post the defensive ability quotes again-

Hall:

Quote:
The series proved to be everything hockeyists had hoped for, brilliant scoring and strong defense. Joe Hall was in an especially surly mood, making full use of his complement of defensive tactics-hobokin.net
Some accounts of his play from the globe and mail:

Quote:
Quote:
In the final session Ottawa started fast, but Vezina, Hall and Corbeau stood firm in the face of bombardment- Jan 31, 1918
Quote:
Quote:
Joe Hall, just out of the clutches of the Toronto police, drew down the only major foul of the night when he tripped Cy Denneny and saved a probable goal in the third period. -Jan 31, 1918
Quote:
Quote:
Hall and Corbeau played nice defence hockey, but they were outplayed and outguessed by the Toronto forwards.- March 12, 1918
Quote:
Quote:
Corbeau relieved the situation by making several clever rushes, and Hall was also prominent with his blocking. -december 24, 1918
Not the only quotes on Hall out there in the globe and mail likely, though I haven't had a lot of time to check more.

One quote on Egan, though he likely lacks defensive at this level:

Quote:
Egan’s defensive play was as impressive as his sniping. He tossed out half a dozen jolts, far above par in this season of the “Vanished Body Check”. His blocking on the Metz-Hamilton breakaway was the high defensive spot of the night. Not only did Blackie Pat take care of Nick, but he wound up with the puck. -Globe and Mail, February 4, 1946
These quotes show they had some defensive ability, particularly Hall, who seemed pretty good defensively. And he also seemed to be able to take timely penalties too, such as when he tripped Denneny to save a goal. They aren't going to win awards defensively, but with Hall, I think they can be adequate- especially against a much more defensive-minded team.

As for the notion they are going to take penalties- sure they will, but every team has players like that. Howell, with 3 top 10's in PIMs, seems to have taken a fair amount of penalties himself, for example. I don't think my team is too overbearing in penalties, and frankly, your powerplay isn't really threatening anyway.

As for the notion that Bure of skating circles around them, Egan was known as a good skater himself. And with either Ramsay or Joliat likely on him most of the time (although more on that when you do get your lines sorted out), I am not too concerned about him or his speed. Plus, Hall is a fantastic last line of defense against Bure, too. As for how many penalties are they going to take with him around? Well, with the forwards I intend to have on Bure, not too bad or abnormal to what they normally did. They likely will take seom penalties though- but then, how will Bure stand up to the physical punishment these two can dish out on him?

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 09:07 PM
  #21
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
70s did an analysis of Ross's offense in one of the previous ATDs (I think in someone else's playoff series) and I think I quoted this at some point when I had Ross in ATD12. I don't have the numbers offhand, but I think the conclusion was that Ross is pretty close to Sergie Gonchar offensively.
Thanks for the info. Well, that pretty well blows Gardiner out of the water offensively.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
Ross was definitely better than Gardiner offensively, but Gardiner was definitely better than Ross defensively.

Gardiner still won a Hart Trophy over Bill Cook though, which give Gardiner a big edge in peak value. You haven't, and likely won't be able to provide any sort of evidence for Ross that reflects that sort of peak value. Just because the information wasn't there for Ross, doesn't mean we can assume he would've won a Hart Trophy in his time (he wouldn't have). You can't take Gardiner's Hart away from him just because Ross played in an era with no Hart voting.

You've cited Ross's ability to carry the puck up the ice as the #1 reason you think he's better than Gardiner, but why would Ross even be carrying the puck up ice if he's playing with Howe? 90% of the time, Howe is going to be the guy that carries the puck up ice for you and/or makes the first pass. Same with Lapointe. So how much value are you really getting out of Ross' puck carrying ability? Not much, because like I said before, Gardiner's style is more effective with a player like Lapointe/Howe.

In the end though, I think the fact that you have to argue so much to even establish that Vancouver doesn't have the advantage, or that you have an incredibly minor advantage, just proves that Vancouver's defense is stronger.

Like I said in my first post, Gardiner is my #3, Ross is your #2, so obviously your defense is weaker if you're trying to argue that Ross is slightly better than Gardiner.

I have Harry Howell playing on my 2nd pairing, and he's far better than any of your second pairing defensemen. The first pairings are close, but Vancouver's second pairing is much better, and that give Vancouver the edge on the blue line.
The hart trophy is about value to team and not better player, however, keep in mind- though that does have some great value, it seems pretty stand alone in Gardiner's accomplishments.

Who says it'd be 90% of the time? If Art Ross is indeed near Sergei Gonchar offensively, then I expect it to be more than that. Plus, Art Ross can undoubtedly score goals in the offensive zone based on his totals. Mark Howe won't always be in ideal stance to make the first pass out of the zone, or the first pass could be better done on Ross's side, and can dish it off to Ross in such a scenario. I don't expect Ross's offence to be much hindered by Howe.

I'm merely compairing top pairings- it doesn't mean my defense on a whole as weaker. I'm just trying to show my top pairing is better than yours is- always a good thing to have. And you've only evaluated top-4- I think my third pairing has a good edge as well. You do have the second pairing due to Howell, but if I have the other two- well then, my defense doesn't look weaker now, does it? I don't see your defence as really having an edge, on a whole.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 09:35 PM
  #22
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
The hart trophy is about value to team and not better player, however, keep in mind- though that does have some great value, it seems pretty stand alone in Gardiner's accomplishments.


I'm merely compairing top pairings- it doesn't mean my defense on a whole as weaker. I'm just trying to show my top pairing is better than yours is- always a good thing to have. And you've only evaluated top-4- I think my third pairing has a good edge as well. You do have the second pairing due to Howell, but if I have the other two- well then, my defense doesn't look weaker now, does it? I don't see your defence as really having an edge, on a whole.
And what exactly are Ross's accomplishments again?

Your defensemen on a whole are certainly weaker...

You're putting a lot of effort into arguing that the first pairings are just barely equal, when you have your two best defensemen on this pairing, and I don't. I've put my 2nd best defenseman, who is significantly better than anyone else in this series except Howe and Lapointe, on my second pairing. This give me a huge advantage, my 2nd pairing overall is much stronger than your second pairing, and the second pairing are probably going to play around 20-22 minutes a game. During that period, Vancouver has a big advantage.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 09:41 PM
  #23
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
And what exactly are Ross's accomplishments again?

Your defensemen on a whole are certainly weaker...

You're putting a lot of effort into arguing that the first pairings are just barely equal, when you have your two best defensemen on this pairing, and I don't. I've put my 2nd best defenseman, who is significantly better than anyone else in this series except Howe and Lapointe, on my second pairing. This give me a huge advantage, my 2nd pairing overall is much stronger than your second pairing, and the second pairing are probably going to play around 20-22 minutes a game. During that period, Vancouver has a big advantage.
Two time stanley cup champion..great offensive accomplishments and ranked very highly, it seems, in his league's offensive standings..would have likely had AST's had they been around at the time.

I'm not arguing my first pairing is barely equal, I'm arguing it's better.

I disagree with Howell being greatler better than a guy like Ross- he, like Gardiner, seems to have only one year of real good accomplishments, and seems rather one-dimensional towards defense based upon information presented thus far (granted, he's very good at that dimension). Considering I'll have an advantage for all the other ES minutes when your 2nd isn't on the ice (I feel), I'm not too worried. And considering Egan being better than Reinhart, and Hall being a bit more multi-dinmensional than Howell (it would seem, at least), I'm not sure how big an advantage that really is.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 09:53 PM
  #24
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Your team style and system is irrelvent? Righty-O then.
wait a minute....

wtf! When did I ever say that? Stop being words in my mouth and stop pulling **** out of thin air.

My team style is obviously relevant, and is obviously a huge advantage for Vancouver. Vancouver has two way forwards sprinkled all through out the lineup, elite two-way centers, and two elite checkers on the third line. Vancouver has a solid defenively inclined defenseman on both top pairings, and possibly the greatest goalie ever.

This team plays a responsible, cautious, two-way style of hockey and I don't know when I ever said that wouldn't be the case or how anything has changed today that's making you raise all these unfounded allegations.

Vancouver's style of play and multi-dimensional forwards are a huge asset, and the reason this team is here right now. I don't know what makes you say that I said "style of play is irrelevant".

--------

I made some comments about the trap that you totally misused and took advantage of unfairly (like the 1 and only sentence about the trap I ever made in my 2nd round series).

To think that you're making such a big deal out of this because I said Vancouver doesn't live or die by the trap, and there are variations of the trap which Vancouver will use accordingly from series to series. I never ever said Vancouver wasn't going to trap (something you made a big deal of and accused me of saying).

Let me clear up my comment about the trap being irrelevant, I meant to say:

"The trap is less relevant for me in this series than it was in the 1st round, personally, because I think Vancouver has an overall advantage in every department over Toronto. Some variation of a trap will still be played though, probably a heavier, more traditional trap against your top line, and a lighter version of the trap against your second line because it sucks."


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 04-29-2010 at 10:01 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 10:03 PM
  #25
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
wait a minute....

wtf! When did I ever say that? Stop being words in my mouth and stop pulling **** out of thin air.
I don't have to put anything into your mouth, and I am not pulling stuff out of thing air.

Quote:
btw, the trap is as irrelevant in this series for Vancouver as it has even been before.
You keep downplaying your trap this series, then act really shocked and angry when I misinterpret mixed messages. Make your intentions clear. You're not treating the trap, it seems, like what it is: a complete team system that is the only thing Lemaire has excelled at. Seems more like a weapon that comes to play in varying degrees at your leisure, and not really noteworthy unless you feel the need to draw it.

It would seem though, that I misinterpreted what you were saying again, and I apologize for it. Also didn't read as carefully as I should have, I admit, though it is clear why one could make the mistake as to think you were saying the trap was irrelvant.

Quote:
This team plays a responsible, cautious, two-way style of hockey and I don't know when I ever said that wouldn't be the case or how anything has changed today that's making you raise all these unfounded allegations.
They aren't unfounded, again- you are confusing me with your statements on the subject of the trap in this series.
--------

Quote:
I made some comments about the trap that you totally misused and took advantage of unfairly (like the 1 and only sentence about the trap I ever made in my 2nd round series).
Agtain, merely to illustrate you were indeed using the trap in the 2nd round series.

Quote:
To think that you're making such a big deal out of this because I said Vancouver doesn't live or die by the trap, and there are variations of the trap which Vancouver will use accordingly from series to series. I never ever said Vancouver wasn't going to trap (something you made a big deal of and accused me of saying).
It sounded like that's what you were saying. I misinterpreted that, and already apologized for it.

Let me clear up my comment about the trap being irrelevant, I meant to say:

Quote:
"The trap is less relevant for me, personally, because I think Vancouver has a serious overall advantage in every department over Toronto. Some variation of a trap will still be played though, probably a heavier, more traditional trap against your top line, and a lighter version of the trap against your second line because it sucks."
That's much clearer, thank you.

Oh, as for two notions:

-No, you don't have an overall advantage on my defence core.

-No, you don't have a serious overall advantage on forwards- you can mix and match, but I am very confident my forward group will still be quite a bit better, personnel wise.

-I already explained second line of course, but will again stress how well built it is for Babe Dye, arguably a better goalscorer than anyone on Vancouver, to succeed, and I fully expcet him to score.

-I will also note my forward core has lots of two-way play and intangibles as well, as well as a great checking line. But, we will do a more detailed comparison on forwards when hhh sorts his out.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:13 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.