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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-29-2010, 11:18 PM
  #26
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
I never said anything about "team style" though, and you totally took advantage of some of my comments and put them out of context.

Whatever though, I guess there was a misunderstanding between us, and I did have some typos I never noticed.

It's been cleared up now, and you apologized.

I have to go to bed right now, I'll be around on Satuday during the day and probably all of Sunday. So if you're not busy, can we pick this up again then?

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-29-2010, 11:22 PM
  #27
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Yes, I'm fine with that. I was hoping you'd hold off for the rest of the night (as we've covered a fair amount). I don't mind holding off till saturday.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 05:18 AM
  #28
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
A Brief Summary of the Two Lengthy Posts that Follow:

- Vancouver is adjusting the home lineup to put Bailey-Gilmour-Fleury together to take on the Joliat-Morenz-Nedomansky line. The Gilmour line is capable of sustaining pressure against the Morenz line and keeping them pegged in their own zone, while also acting as an elite checking line on the other end of the ice.

- The new first line of Bauer-Schmidt-Bure totally outmatches the Toronto second line of Skinner-Datsyuk-Dye.

- The 3 greatest playoff performers in this series all play for Vancouver. While at the same time, some of Toronto's core players all have questionable playoff records.

Roy was clutch in the playoffs, Hall could not elevate his game in the playoffs.

Schmidt won his Conn Smythe after an 11 game performance, Morenz won his after a 2 game performance. Morenz only ever played in 2 relatively "lengthy" playoff campaigns, and he choked in both of them. His production greatly declined. Morenz has never proven that he can elevate his game in the playoffs for more than just a 2 or 3 game campaign, Schmidt has.

Gilmour was one of the greatest playoff performers in history, Datsyuk's playoff record is questionable.

Bure led the nucks to the Stanley Cup finals in 1994 with 31 points in 24 games, Babe Dye has only played 10 career playoff games, and only has 2 career playoff points.

Theo Fleury is one of the three best playoff performers in this series.


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-02-2010 at 01:51 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 05:19 AM
  #29
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
minor lineup tweak/foward matchups

When I look at Toronto's top-six, 2 things immediately stand out to me:

1) Toronto has very, very little secondary scoring. 75-80% of their scoring is probably going to come from just 1 line, and a good chunk of that other 20-25% is going to come from Babe Dye alone (who I should point out is a very poor skater playing with poor linemates). So whenever Joliat and Morenz aren't playing up to their full potential, Toronto's scoring is going to take a big hit.

2) Toronto has an extremely weak 2nd line, especially offensively.

There were a lot of significant lineup changes I thought about making, but in the end, I decided to stay away from big changes and just make a minor tweak.

Vancouver's lineup on the road will stay the same, there's nothing wrong with it, and Vancouver has great two-way forwards spread out across all 3 top lines, so Lemaire doesn't need to worry about the match-up game.

At home though, Lemaire can get all the matchups he wants, and will take advantage of that by playing the new 2nd line against Toronto's first line at all times:



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


Bauer is moving to the first line, where he'll be re-united with Milt Schmidt. Bailey will move down to the 2nd line, and Fleury will take Bauer's spot on the 2nd line right wing, to form the checking/scoring line of Bailey - Gilmour - Fleury.

Lemaire will match the 2nd line against Toronto's 1st line. Bailey Gilmour and Fleury are all elite two-way players who will be able to do a great job of containing Joliat-Morenz-Nedomansky, while also sustaining pressure in the other and providing scoring.

Lemaire will match the new 1st line against Toronto's very weak 2nd line of Skinner-Datsyuk-Dye. Vancouver's 1st line will be able to take advantage of this matchup. Bauer and Schmidt re-united, along with Bure's incredible speed and lethal scoring makes this line very dangerous, and any line centered by Schmidt will still be responsible in its own zone.

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

Bailey-Gilmour-Fleury vs Joliat-Morenz-Nedomansky

There's no doubt that Morenz's line is the best here. The Gilmour line's #1 priority in this matchup is checking and containing Toronto's 1st line. I don't expect my 2nd line to outperform Toronto's 1st line (although it is possible), just to minimize the damage in the defensive zone with elite checking and defensive play, and to keep the Toronto 1st line pegged deep in their own zone as much as possible by sustaining pressure. The only advantage Toronto has in this series is that their 1st line is the best line offensively, but if this line can be relatively contained, Toronto is going to have a lot of problems because they don't have much secondary scoring.

The Bailey-Gilmour-Fleury line is an elite checking line, and will thrive in this matchup. These guys are all tremendous two-way players who can handle the opposing forwards very efficiently, but they are also very capable offensively.

Quote:
Joe Pelletier on Ace Bailey:

Bailey established himself as a premier scoring threat and excellent defensive forward...he became one of the game's fiercest defensive players. He was a penalty-killer extraordinaire and a great shadow.... his selfless defensive sacrifice and gritty play and leadership made him more valuable than ever, and it showed in the team's success.
Quote:
Pelletier/HHOF on Doug Gilmour:

the brilliance of Gilmours game was his status as a defensive player with few peers.... He was earning rave reviews for his defensive excellence... Gilmour proved it was no fluke when in 1986-87 when he emerged with a 105 point season which included a career high 42 goals. Yet he maintained his gritty defensive game.... His tenacious checking however is what assured him of plenty of ice time.... He finished second in Hart Trophy voting, but did pick up the Selke Trophy as the league's best defensive forward. It is kind of ironic how he finally got recognized as the league's best defensive forward in his most explosive offensive season!

He was a pesky defensive forward who seemed fearless in his checking.... he was a solid defensive forward who could also score.... a defensive specialist... he returned to his checking ways.... Gilmour placed second to Mario Lemieux in the race for the Hart Trophy as the league's most valuable player and won the Selke Trophy as the top defensive forward, a remarkable achievement for a player with such offensive numbers.

[Selke Voting Record: 1st, 2nd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 9th]
Quote:
Pelletier/HHOF on Fleury:

Intense and fearless, Fleury made a name for himself for more than his stature he could score, play defensively and lead teams to championships in junior hockey, in the NHL and on the international stage.

he played with ferocious physicality. Grit and determination were his calling cards, even though he had the speed and skill to twice break the 100 point barrier.

[Selke voting: 5th]
Gilmour will throw everything he has at Morenz at both ends of the ice, Bailey will be shadowing Nedomansky all game, and Fleury will be responsible defensively and great on the forecheck, while keeping Joliat busy with his feisty and gritty play. Joliat was a pitbull, and so was Fleury, these two will be bumping heads all series, and I think Fleury can help throw Joliat off his game by creating a physical duel between the two.

Gilmour is an elite playmaker, Bailey is a former Rocket Richard and Art Ross winner, and Fleury lead the league in playoff PPG twice. Vancouver's 2nd line has the ability to sustain pressure in the offensive zone and provide secondary scoring, while acting as an elite checking line on the other end of the ice.

Remember, the Morenz line can't score if they're pegged in their own zone trying to play defense (something they are not equipped to do) against Gilmour and friends!


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

Bauer-Schmidt-Bure vs Skinner-Datsyuk-Dye

This match up favors Vancouver greatly, both in the offensive and defensive zone. This is where Toronto gets hurt by their weak second line. Skinner and Datsyuk are well below-average 2nd liners offensively, and in general, weak 2nd liners. Dye was a good scorer for his era, but he's a very slow and poor skater. He is playing with bad linemates, and doesn't have the speed to beat anyone by himself. Dye will be rather ineffective in this series, trying to beat Roy from the perimeter (good luck lol), and contributing nothing defensively.

Earlier, LF suggested that Dye was a comparable scorer to Pavel Bure, which is hilarious. I don't think he really understands how effective Bure was, he probably just looked at the top-10 scoring finishes and went "well hmmm, they have similar scoring finishes so Dye must be as good". This is not the case, you can't just compare the top scoring finishes of two guys from different eras like that and come to a conclusion. Bure has a much more illustrious scoring repertoire, and will be far, far, FAR more lethal than Dye in any situation and in any series. Bure is twice the scoring threat Dye is.

Quote:
Joe Pelletier:

Pavel Bure was the most electrifying hockey player as the world approached the 21st century.

Bure ranks as one of the greatest pure goal scorers in hockey history. Names like Mike Bossy and Rocket Richard are fair comparisons.

Bure is nicknamed the Russian Rocket because of his incredible speed. While some players can match his foot speed, what makes Bure so special is he can carry the puck at top speed. Most players just push the puck in front of them as they break down the wing; Bure is capable of deking through a top defenseman without losing steam. Sometimes he even dropped the puck into his feet and kick it by the blueliner, and then accelerate by him to get in alone. He was truly a magnificent player to watch, and you often watched with your jaw hanging open.

Though small by NHL standards, Bure was built like a rock, with great strength and balance. He had legs like tree trunks that powered his scary speed. He had an arsenal of goal scoring tricks. His wrist shot was lethal, as was his much rarer slap shot. But most of all he loved to deke.
Quote:
Cliff Ronning:

I've never seen a guy skate that fast, that confident, and go end to end like that. I've never seen it before, and I don't know if you'll ever see that again... how fast he skated. I don't think anyone has ever skated THAT fast.
Quote:
Stan Smyl:

Some of the things Pavel did at high speed, I couldn't do walking through it.
Quote:
Trevor Linden:

Pavel was the type of player that literally brought people out of their seat, incredibly explosive, I mean, you know, just made things happen where you didn't think ANYTHING could happen.
Quote:
Arthur Griffiths:

He was scary with the puck, I mean he could do stuff that made other players look like they were in anther league, it'd be boys playing with men sometimes.
Bauer is a superior player to Skinner, Schmidt blows Datsyuk out of the water in a comparison of the "two-way centers", and Bure is a much more dangerous scorer than Dye. Vancouver wins this matchup in every sense. Schmidt and Bauer are re-united offensively and have that chemistry factor going, and Bure can create a scoring opportunity out of thin air whenever he's on the ice. This line also doesn't have to worry about being outplayed in their own zone, because Schmidt brings enough defensive consciousness and back-checking to handle the offensively handicapped Skinner-Datsyuk-Dye line.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 05:20 AM
  #30
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Playoff Records

So after reading about Glenn Hall's lack of playoff success in the other thread (McGuire's Monsters vs Toronto St. Pats), I started to look further into some of the player's playoff records. I was looking at Morenz's playoff totals, and they seemed questionable to me, the numbers indicate that he choked in his two biggest playoff runs. Then I compared his playoff record to Schmidt's playoff record, and realized that there was an advantage for Vancouver here. Vancouver has the 3 best playoff performers in the entire series, and Toronto's goalie and #1 center have questionable playoff records. When I looked further into this, I realized that a few of Toronto's best players have questionable playoff records, while many of Vancouver's best players stepped it up big time in the playoffs. So here is a bit of a position to position comparison of some of the key players and biggest discrepancies...

Patrick Roy vs Glenn Hall


Glenn Hall simply did not bring his game to another level in the playoffs. LF has even admitted this:

Quote:
He [Glenn Hall] does not step it up to the same degree the other big 7/8 do
Now before LF cries verbatim, I should point out that that quote comes in a post where he's trying to defend Hall against criticisms of being a choker. However, that quote is NOT taken out of context. After stating that he agrees that Hall "did not step up in the playoffs", he tries to defend Hall's lacklustre playoff statistics by saying the team in front of him had more to do with it than he did.

A lot of people think Glenn Hall was a playoff choker, and there is evidence to support this (like his playoff GAA consistently being higher than his regular season GAA), I'm not going to push the issue though or assert that this reputation is completely warranted.

All I'm saying is: Glenn Hall consistently failed to elevate his game to another level during the playoffs, and LF has admitted that this is true to some extent.

What he probably won't admit, but is also true, is that Hall's team made just as many mistakes in front of him during the regular season as they did in the playoffs, Hall just was never able to bail them out or win them series' in the playoffs like he was able to during the regular season. Hence, his performance in the playoffs dropped.

Dreakmur put it best when he said this to LF:

Quote:
You have done a very good job in helping to prove Glenn Hall was not a complete play-off disaster. He was quite solid in the play-offs. The problem is he was much more than that in the regular season, so as much as you would like to argue, his performace does drop in the play-offs.
On the other hand Patrick Roy is the most clutch, money, playoff goaltender of all-time. Everyone knows that he brought his game to another level during the playoffs.

Quote:
Joe Pelletier:

While he was very good in the regular season, it was in the playoffs that St. Patrick worked his miracles. Again the statistics are all on his side. He owns records for most career playoff games played by a goaltender (247), minutes played (15,209), most career playoff wins (151), and most career playoff shutouts (23). To say he was instrumental in each championship is an understatement. He was the first three-time winner of the Conn Smythe Trophy as the playoff's most valuable player.
In each of Patrick Roy's 4 Stanley Cup playoff runs, his SV% rose by unbelievable amounts in the playoffs.

1986 - Regular Season: .875% Playoffs: .923% - Increased by .048 % points

1993 - Regular Season: .894% Playoffs: .929% - Increased by .035 % points

1996 - Regular Season: .908% Playoffs: .921% - Increased by .013 % points

2001 - Regular Season: .913% Playoffs: .934% - Increased by 0.21 % points

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

Milt Schmidt vs Howie Morenz


Morenz has several playoff campaigns with only 2 or 3 games played. Obviously 2-3 games is a very small sample size, and as such you see a lot of inconsistency. There are several years where he didn't score a single point during those 2-3 games, but there are also a couple years where he had 4 points in 2 games or 3 points in 2 games. It would probably be to my advantage to use all those playoff games against Morenz, but I think it's pointless to try and analyze them or make anything out of a 2 game playoff run.

However, there were two seasons in which Morenz played a relatively significant amount of playoff games. In 1930 he played in 6 playoff games, and in 1931 he played in 10 playoff games. Here is are his regular season and playoff numbers from those years:

1930
Season: 50 points in 44 games, 1.14 PPG (8th)
Playoffs: 3 points in 6 games, .50 PPG (12th)
PPG decreased by 56%

1931
Season: 51 points in 39 games, 1.31 PPG (1st)
Playoffs: 5 points in 10 games, .50 PPG (14th)
PPG decreased by 62%

In Morenz's only two relatively "lengthy" playoff runs, he totally choked. His regular season PPG took a huge drop in the post-season and the numbers aren't deceiving or out of context. You can look at where he finished in PPG during the season amongst players (1st and 8th), and then look at where he finished in PPG during the playoffs amongst players (12th and 14th).

Morenz did win a Conn Smythe trophy in the 1924 playoffs, for his performance in a whopping total of 2 games played. Y'all can think of this what you will, personally, I take that with a grain of salt.

Schmidt on the other hand, also had a few playoff flops, but again, when you're playing so few games in the playoffs, there's a lot of inconsistency from season to season.

However, when Schmidt won his Conn Smythe trophy, he scored 11 points in 11 games, a PPG ratio that was higher than his regular season PPG ratio of .84

Schmidt was also able to elevate his game in other "lengthy" playoff runs, like in 1946 when his regular season PPG ratio of .65 rose to .80 when he scored 8 points in 10 games.

Schmidt and Morenz both have some playoff flops, it comes with the era I think, but the only time that Morenz was able to elevate his game was during a 2 game playoff run, whenever Morenz actually played a significant number of games in the playoffs, his production dropped severely. Morenz was never able to prove that he could play well in the playoffs for more than a 2 game period. Schmidt, however, played 11 games during his Conn Smythe year , and on multiple occasions proved that he could elevate his game over a lengthy playoff run.

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

Doug Gilmour vs Pavel Datsyuk


Earlier in his career, Datsyuk started to earn a reputation of being a choker in the playoffs when he only scored 6 points in 21 playoff games and then only 6 points in 12 playoff games. After the lockout, his playoff numbers started to improve when he scored 16 points in 18 games, but his regular season PPG had still dropped from 1.10 to 0.89 in the playoffs.

Datsyuk finally got rid of his playoff woes in 08 when he scored 23 points in 22 games. I give him props for this. However, he did follow it up the next year with only 9 points in 16 games after putting up a 1.20 PPG during the regular season.

Overall, Datsyuk has proven that he can do well in the playoffs during a run to the cup final, but also has some questionable performances in the playoffs. If you look at his 8 career playoff runs, only 2 of them can really be considered successes, and 4 of them were flat out flops.

Regardless of what you think of Datsyuk's playoff record, it doesn't even compare to Gilmour's or come close. Doug Gilmour is one of the greatest playoff performers of all time, he always brought his game to another level during the playoffs and played his best when it mattered most. He has finishes 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th in playoff scoring during runs where he's had:

- 28 points in 18 games
- 35 points in 21 games
- 17 points in 10 games
- 21 points in 19 games
- 22 points in 22 games

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

Pavel Bure vs Babe Dye


Dye has only played a career total of 10 playoff games. This is an ATD, these are the best players in history going at it, and Babe Dye has only played 10 playoff games, that's some serious inexperience.

Furthermore, Dye only has 2 points in those 10 playoff games, and was pointless in 4 of his 5 playoff "campaigns". LF is trying to suggest that this guy is a better goalscorer than Bure, but he has only scored 2 playoff goals in his life.

Pavel Bure has played 64 playoff games, and has 35 career playoff goals and 70 career playoff points. In 1994, he carried the Vancouver Canucks to the Stanley Cup finals with 31 points in 24 games.

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

Theo Fleury vs XXXXX


I don't know who to compare him to on Toronto, but it doesn't matter, Fleury is a better playoff performer than anyone on Toronto's roster. Fleury lead the playoffs in PPG twice and finished 3rd another time. There have been 3 separate post-seasons in which Fleury lead the league in playoff scoring at the time of his team's elimination. Fleury was always better in the playoffs.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 01:02 PM
  #31
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Well, I'll have to put a stop to this.

A Brief Summary of the Two Lengthy Posts that Follow:

Quote:
- Vancouver is adjusting the road lineup to put Bailey-Gilmour-Fleury together to take on the Joliat-Morenz-Nedomansky line. The Gilmour line is capable of sustaining pressure against the Morenz line and keeping them pegged in their own zone, while also acting as an elite checking line on the other end of the ice.
It's a nice line, certainly.

Quote:
- The new first line of Bauer-Schmidt-Bure totally outmatches the Toronto second line of Skinner-Datsyuk-Dye.
Wait- you're comparing first lines to second lines now? Why? Considering I have home-ice advantage, and my second line is not a line I want out there against your first, they aren't going to see more time against your line than others.

Your new second line is certainly better than mine- which is ok, because I have the better first, third, and fourth lines. And it's rather clear.

Quote:
- The 3 greatest playoff performers in this series all play for Vancouver. While at the same time, some of Toronto's core players all have questionable playoff records.
Really now..well, since you want to play it that way, we'll see.

Quote:
Roy was clutch in the playoffs, Hall could not elevate his game in the playoffs.
Hall performance in the playoffs didn't really drop in comparison to the regular season either, and since he is quite arguably a top-3 regular season goalie all time, that's not really all that bad.

Quote:
Schmidt won his Conn Smythe after an 11 game performance, Morenz won his after a 2 game performance. Morenz only ever played in 2 relatively "lengthy" playoff campaigns, and he choked in both of them. His production greatly declined. Morenz has never proven that he can elevate his game in the playoffs for more than just a 2 or 3 game campaign, Schmidt has.
Ok, here your being flat out WRONG

Morenz did not win his conn smythe after a 2 game performance- it was after 6 games- recall he went through a 4 game cup series after his 2 game playoffs. Not lengthy, cerrtainly, but long enough to estabilish that he didn't just play well in 2 games to win it and the smythe was a fluke. And it's not his fault the playoffs weren't longer back then.

Morenz had two 6 game playoffs to start his career- in one, he scored 10 points in 6 games, the other, 8 points in 6 games. Both fantastic runs. That shows plenty of elevation.

As for the other campaigns you speak of, keep in mind that in Morenz's day, well for a good portion of career top seeded teams face-off, giving a lack of time to wrack up points.

As for the other playoffs, no they aren't brilliant, but scoring in the playoffs dropped dramatically (to my knowledge) across the board at the time of the other two runs.

Quote:
Gilmour was one of the greatest playoff performers in history, Datsyuk's playoff record is questionable.
Gilmour is a fantastic playoff performer ("one of the greatest" seems a bit hyperbole though), and Datsyuk isn't great in that sense. Again, a second line edge I am willing to conceed because I still hold the edge on 3/4 lines.

Quote:
Bure led the nucks to the Stanley Cup finals in 1994 with 31 points in 24 games, Babe Dye has only played 10 career playoff games, and only has 2 career playoff points.
Are you just conveniently forgeting stanley cup series because ignorning them makes my team look much worse than it? Come on now, HHH.

Babe Dye won a retro conn smythe in 1921-22. He had 2 goals in the 2 NHL playoff games, then 9 goals and 10 points in a 5 game stanley cup series, for a total of 11 goals, 12 points, in 7 games. That's outstanding, and every bit if not more so as dominant as Bure was in the playoff run you speak of.

He lacks any points in his other playoffs, but keep in mind in Dye's (as well as for a good portion of Morenz's career), the playoffs in the NHL was one, short series where the best two teams faced off. There was no reward for finishing first or second- you just got to face off against another great team in a short series with no time to wrack up points against weak teams or over many games as many modern players (like Bure) get to do.

Quote:
Theo Fleury is one of the three best playoff performers in this series
.

Something I'll counter when I address the more indepth stuff.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 01:41 PM
  #32
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,894
vCash: 500
Monday is Voting Day.

Send all votes to seventieslord.

VanIslander is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 02:07 PM
  #33
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
1) Toronto has very, very little secondary scoring. 75-80% of their scoring is probably going to come from just 1 line, and a good chunk of that other 20-25% is going to come from Babe Dye alone (who I should point out is a very poor skater playing with poor linemates). So whenever Joliat and Morenz aren't playing up to their full potential, Toronto's scoring is going to take a big hit.
Because you have the most diversified scoring in the league, of course. Your bottom-6 is going to produce minimal offensively, whilst I have one of theb est scoring fourth lines around too. Essentially, you have two lines that can score, I have 3. Though it is true I count on my first line for a good chunk in the scoring, does every team, including yours since it's one of your two lines that can score. And whenever one of your lines isn't playing to its potential, your scoring takes a big hit, because then you only have one line scoring.

Quote:
Toronto has an extremely weak 2nd line, especially offensively.

There were a lot of significant lineup changes I thought about making, but in the end, I decided to stay away from big changes and just make a minor tweak.

Vancouver's lineup on the road will stay the same, there's nothing wrong with it, and Vancouver has great two-way forwards spread out across all 3 top lines, so Lemaire doesn't need to worry about the match-up game.

At home though, Lemaire can get all the matchups he wants, and will take advantage of that by playing the new 2nd line against Toronto's first line at all times:
"Extremely" is a strong word, considering, again, I have one of the best scorer on any second line in Babe Dye, a decent playmaker who is a great two-way player for a second line in Pavel Datsyuk, and one of the toughest and best glue guys for a second line in Alf Smith. As I stressed earlier, the point is to make Babe Dye succeed in this line, because he is such a fantastic second line scorer- and with a solid passerl ike Datsyuk, Alf Smith clearing room, and his defensive defeciences covered, he will.

I have great defensive forwards spread out as well, frankly.

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


Quote:
Bauer is moving to the first line, where he'll be re-united with Milt Schmidt. Bailey will move down to the 2nd line, and Fleury will take Bauer's spot on the 2nd line right wing, to form the checking/scoring line of Bailey - Gilmour - Fleury.
Bauer moves up to play with Milt Schmidt, but he is on the wrong side which hurts him somewhat, and it opens up a big oppurtunity:

Your top line now only has one guy to bring intangibles (Schmidt), and is rather weak offensively. It lacks the ability to check any wingers, and as a result, I plan to go for a top-line on top-line matchup at home, and with home ice advantage, my top line should be seeing more of your top line than second line overall in this series.

Quote:
Lemaire will match the 2nd line against Toronto's 1st line. Bailey Gilmour and Fleury are all elite two-way players who will be able to do a great job of containing Joliat-Morenz-Nedomansky, while also sustaining pressure in the other and providing scoring.
They are a good two-way line; but my top line will be seeing more time against a much weaker defensive line (your first).

Quote:
Lemaire will match the new 1st line against Toronto's very weak 2nd line of Skinner-Datsyuk-Dye. Vancouver's 1st line will be able to take advantage of this matchup. Bauer and Schmidt re-united, along with Bure's incredible speed and lethal scoring makes this line very dangerous, and any line centered by Schmidt will still be responsible in its own zone.
That's Smiith-Datsyuk-Dye.

Again, keep in mind who has home-ice here. I expect my second line to primarily see your second and third lines. Not that a second and first matchup is one I am worried about- Bauer has no ability to check Dye whatsoever. I like Datsyuk's defensive ability against Schmidt, and Smith's incredible toughenss against Bure.

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

Bailey-Gilmour-Fleury vs Joliat-Morenz-Nedomansky

Quote:
There's no doubt that Morenz's line is the best here. The Gilmour line's #1 priority in this matchup is checking and containing Toronto's 1st line. I don't expect my 2nd line to outperform Toronto's 1st line (although it is possible), just to minimize the damage in the defensive zone with elite checking and defensive play, and to keep the Toronto 1st line pegged deep in their own zone as much as possible by sustaining pressure. The only advantage Toronto has in this series is that their 1st line is the best line offensively, but if this line can be relatively contained, Toronto is going to have a lot of problems because they don't have much secondary scoring.
"Only advantage"? My first line is the best line overall, my third line is better, my fourth line is better (two things I shall show), my top pairing is better (as I believe I showed), my third pairing is better (third pairing I will show too). Don't try to minimize my advantages with the word "only" or the notion earlier that I had no advantages on you.

And if I contain one of your lines, then you'll have the same problem- because you don't have a tremendous amount of secondary scoring yourself. And I think my first line will do just fine and be able to perform to maximum efficency, considering it'll spend the most time against your top line, in a situation where my wingers won't have any real forwards impeding them.

Quote:
The Bailey-Gilmour-Fleury line is an elite checking line, and will thrive in this matchup. These guys are all tremendous two-way players who can handle the opposing forwards very efficiently, but they are also very capable offensively.
"Elite checking" is a strong word. All three are great two-way players, but their defense isn't that of a real elite checking third line (though still quite good).


Quote:
Gilmour will throw everything he has at Morenz at both ends of the ice, Bailey will be shadowing Nedomansky all game, and Fleury will be responsible defensively and great on the forecheck, while keeping Joliat busy with his feisty and gritty play. Joliat was a pitbull, and so was Fleury, these two will be bumping heads all series, and I think Fleury can help throw Joliat off his game by creating a physical duel between the two.
There is a problem with your second line on first strategy too- the fact that my first line is tremendous defensively as well. Morenz is every bit as good if not better than Gilmour offewnsively, and Gilmour does not have near the offense of Morenz does to overcome that. Joliat is likely a better defensive player than Fleury (who is a good defensive player, but I would not say great), and I am confident in the vice-versa happening- Fleury being shutdown. I am confident in Joliat's offense though to shine through against probably the worst defensive player of your second line.

With Fleury and Gilmour both going up against tremendous defensive players themselves though, it really hinders your second line's ability to score during the times it is against my top line (which is when my team is on the road). And with only one other line that can score, that hurts.

Quote:
Gilmour is an elite playmaker, Bailey is a former Rocket Richard and Art Ross winner, and Fleury lead the league in playoff PPG twice. Vancouver's 2nd line has the ability to sustain pressure in the offensive zone and provide secondary scoring, while acting as an elite checking line on the other end of the ice.
I note again that GIlmour and Fleury are both facing tremendous defensive players the times they do go up against my top line. It's a line with some great two-way ability, but "elite checking" is a strong term in the sense of an ATD with all of the tremendous defensive-sepcialists likely better than these three defensively comprising third and fourth lines.

Quote:
Remember, the Morenz line can't score if they're pegged in their own zone trying to play defense (something they are not equipped to do) against Gilmour and friends!
"Not equipped to do"? You're not serious, are you? Morenz and Joliat were two of the best two-way players of their time. Do you want me to pull out the quotes?

No, they can't score if that's the case, but they won't be. The trademark of the Joliat-morenz duo is the ability to providse some great defence with a speedy offensive breakout and elite offensive ability. I expect them to fair well defensively against your line, but they won't be hemmed down in their own zone- certainly not more than your second line will be, which has far, far less offensive ability than my top line.

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

Bauer-Schmidt-Bure vs Skinner-Datsyuk-Dye

Quote:
This match up favors Vancouver greatly, both in the offensive and defensive zone. This is where Toronto gets hurt by their weak second line. Skinner and Datsyuk are well below-average 2nd liners offensively, and in general, weak 2nd liners. Dye was a good scorer for his era, but he's a very slow and poor skater. He is playing with bad linemates, and doesn't have the speed to beat anyone by himself. Dye will be rather ineffective in this series, trying to beat Roy from the perimeter (good luck lol), and contributing nothing defensively.
First off, it's Smith, not Skinner. Skinner is a spare on the monsters, and will get people confused.

They are below-average, certainly, but each has some production abilities, and provide some great intangibles for second liners. Dye a "good scorer for his era"? The guy led the NHL in goals 3 times (and place 2nd another 3 times)! He is a fantastic scorer for his era, and for a second line.

And I fully expect him to succeed. Datsyuk, though not great opffensively overall, is a decent playmaker with more than enough passing ability to feed Dye well enough. Smith clears room for Dye to work his stuff. He isn't a good skater, but he never had to be to score so greatly. He won't have to beat Roy from the perimiter- he will get his chances from closer to in. And, when on the road, he will be facing off against Bauer according to you- a guy playing on his off-wing with no defensive ability whatsoever- perfect for Dye. I expect Dye to do just fine in this series. (as for the whole Patrick Roy thing, consider that I have a tremendous goalie myself in Glenn Hall for your team to beat, and Dye is perhaps better than any goalscorer on your team).

Quote:
Earlier, LF suggested that Dye was a comparable scorer to Pavel Bure, which is hilarious. I don't think he really understands how effective Bure was, he probably just looked at the top-10 scoring finishes and went "well hmmm, they have similar scoring finishes so Dye must be as good". This is not the case, you can't just compare the top scoring finishes of two guys from different eras like that and come to a conclusion. Bure has a much more illustrious scoring repertoire, and will be far, far, FAR more lethal than Dye in any situation and in any series. Bure is twice the scoring threat Dye is.
"Twice the scoring threat"? This is pure hyperbole. Pure, pure hyperbole. And a bunch of quotes saying how great he was and how fast he was prove nothing. Tell me- why were you afraid to pull out the scoring stats here? Sure, Bure is much faster, but Dye never needed speed to scvore greatly.

I'll use seventies consistency in goalscoring studies to prove a point- as Dye spent most of his days in a split league era, I like using these as these adjust for that fact.

Top 2 goal finishes-Top 5's-Top 10's-Top 15's-Top 20's

Dye- 5-5-6-7-7-
Bure- 3-5-5-6-6

Right, the notion that Dye being a better goalscorer and threat is really crazy. Perhaps these studies do favour older guys to an extent, but I do not feel that this is the case dramatically enough for Bure to bve "twice" or "far more dangerous" a scorer- really, these two are fairly comparable offensively and as goalscorers. So, spare me the proofless notion that Bure is twice the scorer Dye is, which is laughable.

Quote:
Bauer is a superior player to Skinner, Schmidt blows Datsyuk out of the water in a comparison of the "two-way centers", and Bure is a much more dangerous scorer than Dye. Vancouver wins this matchup in every sense. Schmidt and Bauer are re-united offensively and have that chemistry factor going, and Bure can create a scoring opportunity out of thin air whenever he's on the ice. This line also doesn't have to worry about being outplayed in their own zone, because Schmidt brings enough defensive consciousness and back-checking to handle the offensively handicapped Skinner-Datsyuk-Dye line.
It's Smith, not skinner, again. Alf Smith, not Alf Skinner, who is much worse than Alf Smith. Smith has a huge toughness edge on Bauer, is no worse defensively, is a better leader- only thing Bauer has on Smith is offense, and he isn't good for a top line winger in that sense, and he is playing in a position that there is no evidence he everp layer in his life.

Schmidt does blow Datsyuk out of the water. ( Bure is NOT a much more dangerous player than Dye-Dye is arguably a better scorer)- Bure has no defensive edge, and Dye brings some toughness that Bure doesn't.

Schmidt brings some great defense, but he's playing with a non-factor and a negative factor defensively on his line, that really hinders this (granted, my second line isn't great defensively outside of Datsyuk). He is also matchup against Datsyuk, and not Dye, who is the most dangerous scorer here. He is also the only guy on your line bringing any intangibles at all.

Of course, your top line is better than my second (mainly due to Schmidt- I don't think your wingers hold a real edge over mine), but then, you are comparing top lines to second lines here- that should be the case. AGain, I have home-ice, and as this is a matchup I don't want, your top line will spend more time against other lines- mainly, my top line.

And again, Smith, not Skinner.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 02:52 PM
  #34
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:

Patrick Roy vs Glenn Hall


Glenn Hall simply did not bring his game to another level in the playoffs. LF has even admitted this:



Now before LF cries verbatim, I should point out that that quote comes in a post where he's trying to defend Hall against criticisms of being a choker. However, that quote is NOT taken out of context. After stating that he agrees that Hall "did not step up in the playoffs", he tries to defend Hall's lacklustre playoff statistics by saying the team in front of him had more to do with it than he did.

A lot of people think Glenn Hall was a playoff choker, and there is evidence to support this (like his playoff GAA consistently being higher than his regular season GAA), I'm not going to push the issue though or assert that this reputation is completely warranted.

All I'm saying is: Glenn Hall consistently failed to elevate his game to another level during the playoffs, and LF has admitted that this is true to some extent.
Quote:
What he probably won't admit, but is also true, is that Hall's team made just as many mistakes in front of him during the regular season as they did in the playoffs, Hall just was never able to bail them out or win them series' in the playoffs like he was able to during the regular season. Hence, his performance in the playoffs dropped.

Dreakmur put it best when he said this to LF:
Uh-huh. And what's your evidence of this? Dreakmur is not a legitimate ATD source, as nice as it would be for you if this was the case. (actually it wouldn't- Dreak has gone on record as saying the gap between Jacques Plante and Glenn Hall is small when Glenn Hall was actually on his team in the LC ATD)

Rarely did Glenn Hall get the critiscsm in playoff failiures, in my readings- the blame usually fell onto poor defensve or scoring or other players. The writers did not write "Where was the Glenn Hall of the regular season?" The writers did not critize Hall much, whilst did full lashings on other stars. And Glenn Hall did so some bailings of his teams, it sounds like, in the playoffs- it was just for naught as his team could not perform in front of him to the degree that they did in the regular season


Sure, Roy does step it up in the playoffs and Hall doesn't. You have a goaltending edge- distinct
--------------

Milt Schmidt vs Howie Morenz


Quote:
Morenz has several playoff campaigns with only 2 or 3 games played. Obviously 2-3 games is a very small sample size, and as such you see a lot of inconsistency. There are several years where he didn't score a single point during those 2-3 games, but there are also a couple years where he had 4 points in 2 games or 3 points in 2 games. It would probably be to my advantage to use all those playoff games against Morenz, but I think it's pointless to try and analyze them or make anything out of a 2 game playoff run.
Quote:
However, there were two seasons in which Morenz played a relatively significant amount of playoff games. In 1930 he played in 6 playoff games, and in 1931 he played in 10 playoff games. Here is are his regular season and playoff numbers from those years:

1930
Season: 50 points in 44 games, 1.14 PPG (8th)
Playoffs: 3 points in 6 games, .50 PPG (12th)
PPG decreased by 56%

1931
Season: 51 points in 39 games, 1.31 PPG (1st)
Playoffs: 5 points in 10 games, .50 PPG (14th)
PPG decreased by 62%

In Morenz's only two relatively "lengthy" playoff runs, he totally choked. His regular season PPG took a huge drop in the post-season and the numbers aren't deceiving or out of context. You can look at where he finished in PPG during the season amongst players (1st and 8th), and then look at where he finished in PPG during the playoffs amongst players (12th and 14th).
I won't pretend those are good playoff runs- but many players have bad ones, and these were very well off-set to the two outstanding playoff runs he had early in his career.

Quote:
Morenz did win a Conn Smythe trophy in the 1924 playoffs, for his performance in a whopping total of 2 games played. Y'all can think of this what you will, personally, I take that with a grain of salt.
WRONG

Morenz won his Conn smythe after a 6 game performance- and I hope voters don't intend to forget the stanley cup series of NHL vs PCHA that Morenerz played twice and did outstanding in. It's not a large sample size, but as I noted earlier, large enough to shoiw it isn't some fluke, especially with how well Morenz did in this series, as well as the series next year.

Quote:
Schmidt on the other hand, also had a few playoff flops, but again, when you're playing so few games in the playoffs, there's a lot of inconsistency from season to season.
Hey wait, Schmidt has some playoff flops too? You mean, like Morenz? So then, how does he have an edge on Morenz?

Quote:
However, when Schmidt won his Conn Smythe trophy, he scored 11 points in 11 games, a PPG ratio that was higher than his regular season PPG ratio of .84
And when Morenz won his conn smythe in 1924, he scored 10 points in 6 games, while in the regular season he scored 16 points in 24 games- a ppg difference of going to 0.66 PPG to 1.66 PPG, for a 1.00 PPG improvement.

Quote:
Schmidt was also able to elevate his game in other "lengthy" playoff runs, like in 1946 when his regular season PPG ratio of .65 rose to .80 when he scored 8 points in 10 games.
Morenz can claim similar or better rises in 33 and 34, though they weren't length years. His production in the 1925 playoffs was similar to that of his regular season, which was pretty good (4th in the NHL).

Quote:
Schmidt and Morenz both have some playoff flops, it comes with the era I think, but the only time that Morenz was able to elevate his game was during a 2 game playoff run, whenever Morenz actually played a significant number of games in the playoffs, his production dropped severely. Morenz was never able to prove that he could play well in the playoffs for more than a 2 game period. Schmidt, however, played 11 games during his Conn Smythe year , and on multiple occasions proved that he could elevate his game over a lengthy playoff run.
Your main arguement, Morenz's conn smythe came in as a result of 2 game series and he never showed that kind of elevation again, has been very much disproven. Schmidt is no better a playoff performer than Morenz (as you said, both had flops), and the very large gap between these two in the regular season does not shrink at all in the playoffs.

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

Doug Gilmour vs Pavel Datsyuk


You're right here, Gilmour s a better playoff producer than Datsyuk.

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

Pavel Bure vs Babe Dye


Quote:
Dye has only played a career total of 10 playoff games. This is an ATD, these are the best players in history going at it, and Babe Dye has only played 10 playoff games, that's some serious inexperience.

Furthermore, Dye only has 2 points in those 10 playoff games, and was pointless in 4 of his 5 playoff "campaigns". LF is trying to suggest that this guy is a better goalscorer than Bure, but he has only scored 2 playoff goals in his life.
Again let me stress- Dye won a retro conn smythe, and scored an incredible 11 goals in 7 playoff/stanley cup series games during this run. HHH is forgetting the stanley cup series factor that really shows Dye's dominance. Though he didn't score in the other playoffs, 2 game series are tough because they are so short and don't give any time to wrack up points, and considering these two games series were the best two teams in the NHL facing off, Dye didn't have the ability to wrack up points in the playoffs like modern players do. In the only lengthy run Dye got the opportunity to do, he dominated in it.

Quote:
Pavel Bure has played 64 playoff games, and has 35 career playoff goals and 70 career playoff points. In 1994, he carried the Vancouver Canucks to the Stanley Cup finals with 31 points in 24 games.
Dye's conn smythe is every bit if not more dominant than Bure's, as mentioned. Your arguement here has been completely deflated because of Dye's conn smythe and stanley cup series performance, and Dye is a comprable scorer to Bure, in the playoffs or otherwise.

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

Quote:
Theo Fleury vs XXXXX[/SIZE][/B]

I don't know who to compare him to on Toronto, but it doesn't matter, Fleury is a better playoff performer than anyone on Toronto's roster. Fleury lead the playoffs in PPG twice and finished 3rd another time. There have been 3 separate post-seasons in which Fleury lead the league in playoff scoring at the time of his team's elimination. Fleury was always better in the playoffs
Fleury was great in the playoffs, but he is not better in that regard than everyone on my roster. Those finishes are impressive, but the fact that in those years of leading the playoffs in PPG he was only playing one series certainly damages the finishes, as who knows if he would have mtainined the pace over al onger playoff run. I don't see him as a better playoff producer than say, Mark Howe (who placed 3rd, 4th, and 4th in playoff points amongst defencemen and not in PPPG amongst defencemen, and almost certainly provided better defence in these years than Fleury did in his big year), or Howie Morenz with his retro conn smythe, two years of leading playoff/stanley cup production (and not just in PPG), and some other decent runs (though short).

Dye has the conn smythe run's which awesomeness likely compares to Fleury's 3 great years but rather short, and Nedomansky was a great international producer (butr a head to head comparison of that is tough with Fleury for obvious reasons)

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

I think I've thrown this arguement out of the window, to an extent. Gilmour and Roy are clearly better playoff producwers than their counterparts on my team, but then that was rather self-evident. This doesn't change the advantages I hold on 3/4 of the forwward lines, which I will now elaborate on. I will also note the advantages of the matchups that I intend to do at home, and as I have home-ice advantage, these hold some more significance than the matchups Vancouver wants to employ.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 05-02-2010 at 02:58 PM.
Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 03:13 PM
  #35
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Edited: Woops, it appears I missed the portion of Vancouver's newlinup being a lineup for home games only. Well then, that changes things certainly if it's original lineup is intact for road games. Makes head to head comparison difficult if they are going to be not keeping lines together for more than two games (won't this mess up chemistry though, and prevent any good cheistry from building up?).

As such, I will first compare the bottom 6's (which Vancouver is keeping the same on road and home) to stress how better mine is, before focusing again on top 6's.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 03:18 PM
  #36
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
A couple things:

- I think you're forgetting that my lineup on the road isn't changing. The new lineup is for home games when Lemaire can get the matchups he wants. On the road, I'm rolling the same lineups as before because the matching game becomes irrelevant. I'll always have at least two of Bailey/Schmidt or Fleury/Gilmour or Klukay/Luce on the ice.

- My bad about the Skinner-Smith thing, I wrote that pretty late last night so must've been a brain far, just thought his name was skinner the whole time.

- Basically, we don't seem to be too far off in our opinions about some of the issues regarding playoff reputations. You've accepted most of the things I really cared about (Roy/Hall, Gilmour/Datsyuk, Morenz choking in those two big runs)

- I still think Fleury's reputation as a guy who consistently brought his game to another level during the playoffs, along with the playoff point finishes, are more than enough to establish him as a better playoff performer than anyone on your team.

- You realize that the average 4th line only plays 2-3 minutes a period during the playoffs? Some (like mine) play even less than that. Some 4th lines don't even play even strength, and are used instead as 7th dmen, PP specialists, enforcers etc... I don't know why you would waste your time comparing 4th lines when their contribution to the series (at least for me) is only a small, small fraction of everyone elses.


I'm busy with some other stuff right now, you can go ahead and make your posts, but I probably won't respond to them until later on tonight, if that. I'm not going to bicker back and forth about small points, I don't think other people are engaged in those debates.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 03:32 PM
  #37
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
A couple things:

Quote:
- I think you're forgetting that my lineup on the road isn't changing. The new lineup is for home games when Lemaire can get the matchups he wants. On the road, I'm rolling the same lineups as before because the matching game becomes irrelevant. I'll always have at least two of Bailey/Schmidt or Fleury/Gilmour or Klukay/Luce on the ice.
Ya, I realise it. I'll address it in due time.

Quote:
- Basically, we don't seem to be too far off in our opinions about some of the issues regarding playoff reputations. You've accepted most of the things I really cared about (Roy/Hall, Gilmour/Datsyuk, Morenz choking in those two big runs)
THe former two I can't argue with. The latter playoff scoring dropped quite a bit in those days to my knowledge, but I admit Morenz wasn't gppd there- but as you noted, Schmidt had his own flops.

Quote:
- I still think Fleury's reputation as a guy who consistently brought his game to another level during the playoffs, along with the playoff point finishes, are more than enough to establish him as a better playoff performer than anyone on your team.
His playoff point finishes aren't that impressive to my knowledge- it's his PPG performances that are good, but then, getting eliminated consantly in the first round helped him in that.

I don't feel he is really better than a number of players on my team, for reasons I have explained.

Quote:
- You realize that the average 4th line only plays 2-3 minutes a period during the playoffs? Some (like mine) play even less than that. Some 4th lines don't even play even strength, and are used instead as 7th dmen, PP specialists, enforcers etc... I don't know why you would waste your time comparing 4th lines when their contribution to the series (at least for me) is only a small, small fraction of everyone elses.
6-9 minutes a game, more in OT, still matters, and it's a good 6-9 minutes where I'll have an advantage. Having a quality fourth line also helps avoid fatiguing of the better lines as you're less afraid to play it.

Quote:
I'm busy with some other stuff right now, you can go ahead and make your posts, but I probably won't respond to them until later on tonight, if that. I'm not going to bicker back and forth about small points, I don't think other people are engaged in those debates.
Well, I'm not going to take the chance assuming people aren't engaged in those debates.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 03:36 PM
  #38
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,977
vCash: 500
- So Skinner's on the left side too? Seems to be a theme in this series, RWs playing on the left side.

- Why should we buy Pavel Bure being a significantly better offensive player than Babe Dye? However Dye did it, he was clearly effective at it. I would love to see a more detailed comparison of the two before I agree to anything.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 03:38 PM
  #39
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,977
vCash: 500
Quote:
Gilmour is a fantastic playoff performer ("one of the greatest" seems a bit hyperbole though),
I don't think it's hyperbole.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 03:50 PM
  #40
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Third Lines
Craig Ramsay-Joel Otto-Blair Russel vs Joe Klukay-Don Luce-Gary Donhoefer

Well, I feel I have a very distinct edge here.

Craig Ramsay vs Joe Klukay

Klukay is a great third line LW that is likely top-10 in the league. Ramsay though, is an elite one and is likely top-2 in the league.

Neither of these players (to my knowledge) provides much other than defense, but in that dimension, I think Ramsay has an edge.

I will stress Ramsay's voting results in selke and all-star teams:

Selke Voting Results: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 7th
- LW All-Star Team Voting Results: 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th

This playing in an era of Bob Gainey and a good portion of his career without selke trophy.

Now, Klukay didn't play in an era of the selke trophy, but I'm curious about his all-star team voting record.

For the rest, well I'll merely redirect folks to Ramsay's bio- http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=78- that features tha many quotes on Ramsay's fantastic defence, as well as a statistical comparison between Ramsay and Gainey. I feel I have a very good edge on third line LW's.

Otto vs Luce
Aaa yes, the player I almost took. I struggled with this one, because I saw them as two very close players. Neither is likely to bring much in the way of offense (especially with how strong centres in this series are defensively), but otto does have a great toughness to his game that Luce lacks.

Otto has a ratherr good selke record- Selke Voting record: 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 11th, 11th, 13th, 15th, 21st- and stepped up his game in the playoffs, offensively at least. Luce doesn't have the selke record to my knowledge, but then he played a good portion of his career without the award around.

Personally, with Otto's toughness factored, I see these two players as rather close, and not a distinct edge going either way.

Blair Russel vs Gary Doenhoefer
Which isn't the case in this comparison- Russel blows Doenhoefer out of the water.

Now, I don't think there is much doubt Russel holds a defensive edge here- he is one of the best defensive players and shadows of his day, while Doenhoefer is not very well known for his defensive abilities.

Russel, I am fairly certain has an offensive advantage too. Though seventies showed that these finishes are not as strong as they seem considering era, they are still likely better than Doenhoefer, who doesn't bring much in the way of offense:

Russel's finishes in his league (consider that this is a multi-league era):

Points 6th(1900), 4th(1901), 5th(1902), 7th(1903), 3rd(1904), 2nd(1905), 3rd(1907)
Goals 6th(1900), 4th(1901), 5th(1902), 7th(1903), 3rd(1904), 2nd(1905), 3rd(1907)

Though Doenhoefer is certainly tougher than Russel, Russel's defensive and two-way ability is better and more valuable, and combine with Ramsay's advantage on the LW, gives my third line a good and distinct advantage personnel wise.

As far as matchuping goes- it seems that Vancouver (based on his top-6 matchups), intends to matchup third on third line, which will nullify their effect (though my coach will certainly try to prevent this and get more favorable matchups when/ if possible on the road, of course, should Lemaire make a mistake).

However, this won't be the case when I am at home. I intend for my third line to see time against the Vanoucver top line of Bailey-Schmidt-Bure when I am at home, because it's such a fantastic matchup. Having Ramsay, who is perhaps the best forward defensively on this series, against Bure, a finnesse player and dangerous threat, is perfect for me. Otto has the size, strength, defensive ability, and toughness to handle Milt Schmidt as much as possible. Russel, a fantastic shadow and another finnese defender, should do quite well against Bailey, a finnese scorer as well. My third line has great potential to shutdown and do very well against the line of Bailey-Schmidt-Bure, and will see some good time against them.

When I am at home, I intend for the Vancouver third line to see my second line, with some shifts like against my bottom-6. It'll do good defensively, certainly, but not as good as my third line shall do.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 04:02 PM
  #41
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
- So Skinner's on the left side too? Seems to be a theme in this series, RWs playing on the left side.

- Why should we buy Pavel Bure being a significantly better offensive player than Babe Dye? However Dye did it, he was clearly effective at it. I would love to see a more detailed comparison of the two before I agree to anything.
I don't have Alf Skinner, I have Alf Smith, who was known to play both wings to my knowledge.

As for Bure vs Dye:

-Intangible wise, Dye holds an edge for once. Dye is no worse than Bure defensively, maybe even a shade better. Dye brought some more toughness, to my knowledge.

-I showed the comparison in their goalscorign finishes above- Dye was somewhat better, but then, maybe era helps him somewhat there (though I don't think this is the case in top 2's, where Dye has Bure beat 5-3). Neither is really a playmaker, though Dye has one good finish. I could do percentage, but then Dye played in the split league era.

-As for playoffs, Dye's at a disadvantage in circumstance of era, though I feel his conn smythe performers is as if not more dominant than Bure's big run.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I don't think it's hyperbole.
Gilmour being one of the greatest playoff performers ever? I suppose it depends on your definition of "greatest"- but really, the term suggests to me at least one of the top-20 players in the playoffs of all-time, which I don't reallly buy (though he was great and one of the greatest of his time).

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 04:25 PM
  #42
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Fourth Lines
Tommy Smith-Buddy O'Connor-Billy Boucher vs Tomas Holmstrom- Dale Hunter-Duane Sutter

Two lines built to do different things, but I think I have a very good edge here.

Tommy Smith vs Tomas Holmstrom
Holmstrom provides virtually no offense whatsoever at ES, and even his PP production is limited (we'll get to that later).

Tommy Smith, of course, led the NHA in points/goals twice and came 2nd another time. He is a vastly superior offensive player to Holmstrom.

Neither is really known for their defence. Holmstrom has some grit to stand in front of the net, but is not overbearing in that sense, and Tommy Smith was by no means soft.

Has neither really provides good significance in intangibles, but Smith has a huge offensive edge, I think Tommy Smith has a significant advantage here.

Buddy O"Connor vs Dale Hunter
Dale Hunter has some good fame as a fourth liner, but he is no Buddy O'Connor.

Yet again, I have a huge offensive advantage. Hunter was never top-20 in anything to my knowledge, nor did he make an post season AST- O'Connor has a 2, 3, 4, 9 in assists, a 2nd and 9th in points, a hart trophy and a second team AST, and a good playoff producer. He is vastly better offensively here.

Hunter is undoubtedly a better intangible guy- certainly tougher, and likely better defensively. Does this compare to O'Connor's awards and offensive resume? Personally, I'm not inclined to think so, and I think O'Connor's offense and hart trophy is stronger than Hunter's intangibles.

Billy Boucher vs Duane Sutter
Again, huge offensive advantage to me. Duane provides virtually no offense, while Boucher has two 2nd's in goals (split-league granted), two 3rd's in assists, and was a good playoff producer too.

Neither is known much for defence, to my knowledge.. Duane is a famous agitator and grinder, but Billy Boucher was actually a pretty tough guy himself, counted on to protect Morenz and be a fairly gritty player. That considered, I fell Boucher's significant offensive advantage gives hime a great edge on Duane here, who'sd toughness advantage isn't large with Boucher's own grit.

Overall: Neither line is going to do well in stopping scoring, which is very good for my fourth line as it has an overwhelming scoring advantage and does not have to worry too much about the scoring from the other fourth line at ES. Though his line is somewhat tougher and perhaps a shade better defensively, I do not feel it even remotely clsoe to the offensive advantage my fourth line has, and I think my fourth line is significantly better.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 05:02 PM
  #43
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
First Line's
Well, as you have two top line's going to be employed, I suppose I'll just compare mine to both.

Joliat-Morenz-Nedomansky vs Bailey-Schmidt-Bure OR Bauer-Schmidt-Bure

I feel my top line has a significant advantage in either case. I''ll compare personnel:

Joliat vs Bailey or Bauer

Neither left wing is remotely close to Joliat, and I hold a significant advantage on top line LW's.. I'll use seventies consistency studies as they conveniently adjust for Joliat's aplit league (I'll do the same for Morenz).

Goalscoring:
Joliat- 1-3-4-9-12
Bailey- 1-1-2-4-4
Bauer- 1-1-4-4-5

Neither is close to Joliat in goalscoring, really.

Plamking:
Joliat- 0-4-6-7-8
Bailey- 0-2-4-4-4
Bauer- 0-1-2-3-4

And not close at all in playmaking, either.

I think Joliat likely has a playoff advantage too. Bailey has only one year of some playoff note- 1929, where he scored 3 points in 3 games to tie for the playoff scoring lead. After that, he never appears in the top playoff scorrers, and has 4 points in 17 games afterwards. Joliat has a 2nd 3rd and 4th in playoff production (granted, low numbers and games, but Bailey played in similar conditions) and scored a pretty good 6 points in 8 stanley cup challenge games. Bauer has but two playoffs of note- one where he played 10th in points, another he tied for 5th.

Overall, I think Joliat has a significant offensive advantage. Joliat also has a great intangible avdantage- Bauer brings no intangibles whatsoever to my knowledge, while Bailey was a great two-way player, Joliat, however, was also a fantastic two-way player and is likely comprable to Baileyi n that regard, while also providing toughness and feistiness that neither Bailey or Bauer has, and as a result, I believe he has an intangible advantage on both of these guys as well, and a huge advantage overall on both.

Morenz vs Schmidt
We;ve gone through playoff records already- Schmidt certainly not better with Morenz's two fantastic runs. But, let's look at the rest of their offense, using the consistency studies:

Goalscoring:
Morenz- 2-7-8-8-10
Schmidt- 1-1-3-5-6

Playmaking:
Morenz- 1-5-7-8-8
Schmidt- 1-4-4-7-8

Not even close offensively.

Defensively, I don't think Morenz is far behind Schmidt, if at all- Schmidt has fantastic two-way ability, but so to does Morenz, a tremendous backchecker and defensive player. Schmidt brings some good toughness as well, but Morenz was fairly gritty himself, said to go through you if he couldn't go around you, and able to spring right back up from fearsome hits. I don't think any intangible advantage Schmidt has is nearly as distinct as Morenz's offensive one, and Morenz has a fairly significant edge on Schmidt.

Vaclav Nedomansky vs Pavel Bure
A tough comparison considering the different situations, but I think Nedomansky holds his own quite well against Bure.

Nedomansky has some better intangibles than Bure- unlikey Bure, Nedomansky is not a real negative factor defensively (to my knowledge), and Nedomansky was fairly tough, a bit of a power forward later in his career and not afraid to mix it up in the NHL.

Nedomansky was more dominant in his league than Bure in his (5 time cezh league goal leader, 4 time point leader), but obviously Bure played in a better league. Nedomansky was a dominant international performer however, and thrice made the world championship AST over more notable Russian RW's to my knowledge (and named best forward in one of these), as well as beating out all russian forwards but Khlarmov in scoring during the 1972 olympics. Perhaps not quite as good as Bur'es goalscoring, but still very good, and I think he's pretty close to Bure.

overall however, my significant advantages at C and LW will give my top line a great advantage in comarpsion to his whether at home or in the road.

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

As far as how matchups are goind to work, when I am at home my top line will have some head to head time (and I am confident in them winning with their own fantastic two-way ability), but my top line I intend to play mainly against his second at home, with my third against his first for a good amount of time. I think my third line is better than his road second line defensively- Ramsay is much betterr than Fleury defensively, Russel certainly much better than Bauer defensively, and Otto fairly comparable or not too far behind GIlmour.

When I am on the road, he will get the more favorable circumstance- his second line being better than mine defensively when he's at home, and he intends to cross match 1st with 2nd lines (which I'll try to escape, if possible). However, I do have home-ice advantage, and I will get the good matchup more often then not, and in combination with my first line's generally much greater offensive ability, I expect my first line to outperform his by a significant margin.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 05:24 PM
  #44
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Second Line's
Your one forward line advantage in this series.

Alf Smith-Pavel Datsyuk-Babe Dye vs Theo Fleury-Doug Gilmour-Bobby Bauer OR Ace Bailey-Doug Gilmour-Theo Fleury

Well, there is little doubt you have the better second line. Looking at personnel:

Alf Smith vs Bobby Bauer or Ace Bailey
As mentioned, the only thing Bauer has on Smith is offense- Smith is certainl;y the better intangible guy and can chip in somewhat offensively while Bauer doesn't bring any intangibles. It's likely enough to give him an edge, though I don't see it as a large one.

Bailey is better offensively and defensively, and has a good edge on Smith.

Doug Gilmour vs Pavel Datsyuk
Well, this is one I quite simply can't argue against- Gilmour wins.

Babe Dye vs Theo Fleury or Bobby Bauer
Second line RW, however, belongs quite distinctly to me.

Looking at offense, using consistency studies due to Babe Dye's time in the split-league era:

Goalscoring: Top 2's-Top 5's-Top 10's- Top 15's- Top 20's

Dye- 5-5-6-7-7
Fleury- 1-1-3-4-6
Bauer- 1-1-4-5-5

Playmaking:
Dye- Does not appear (one top-10 finish most likely )
Fleury- 0-0-2-4-4
Bauer- 0-1-2-3-4

Though both hold playmaking advantages, Dye goalscoring is so overwhelming that it is quite clear has has a great offensive advantage.

Fleury brings better intangible than Dye, while Dye and Bauer are fairly equal intangible wise- Dye has toughness Bauer lacks, but Dye is bad defensively while Bauer is a non-factor. I think Dye's tremendous pconn smythe run gives him a better playoff resume than Bauer, and not far behind Fleury's if at all.

OVerall, Dye's tremendous offensive and goalscoring gives him a significant edge over either of your second line RW's, I feel.

Overall though, primarily to Gilmour, your second line has a good edge.

-------------------------------
Matchups:

When I am on the road, my second line definetly has the better matchup. As Vancouver wants to play Bauer-Schmidt-Bure on my second line on the road, Dye gets some great free reign as Bauer brings no defense, which is great as my second line is designed to make him succeed.

His second line will have a much tougher time against Joliat-morenz-Nedomansky, as it features two outstanding defensive players as opposed to one on his home-ice top line (and also lacks a negative factor like Bure), plus it is harder to defence with much more offensive punch.

When I am at home, his second line of Fleury-Gilmour-Bauer will still be seeing my first line primarily, which is another tough matchup. My second line will likely see his third line, which is somewhat easier, with less defense to worry about and his third not being much better defensively as my first. The two lines will also likely get some head to head time when I am at home, with Dye being a match up I like against good but not great defensive player in Fleury, Datsyuk's defense aginst Gilmour and Smith's toughness against a guy who brings no intangibles.

His second line will hold an edge, but as it will mainly be seeing my top line for the series, it'll have much more of a challenge than my second line will. I don't think his second line advantage is as good as my top line one considering the strength I have with Dye at RW, plus it is generally better to have a significant edge on a line that will see more-ice time (in most cases).

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 05:42 PM
  #45
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Alright, well I'm going to address bottom pairings, special teams, then make my closing thoughts.

Bottom Pairings
Phil Housley-Don Awrey vs Kevin Hatcher-Gary Bergman

Phil Housley vs Kevin Hatcher

Both of these are primarily offensive defencemen. Kevin Hatcher, though with a bigger frame and could play with a mean streak, also seemed disinterested at time in that side of the game according to Joe Pelletier. Pelletier also states that Hatcher "was suspectivle to making boneheaded, risky plays, overhandling the puck and hurting his team offensively". He seems very inconsitency-poor in the intangible department. Housley, though poor in intangibles as well, brings this kind of overwhelming offense:

Points amongst defensemen- 9th(1983), 4th(1984)*, 5th(1985), 13th(1986), 5th(1987), 6th(1988), 6th(1989), 4th(1990), 5th(1991), 2nd(1992), 1st(1993), 2nd(1995), 5th(1996), 18th(1997), 6th(1999), 4th(2000)

That really blows Hatcher's out of the water. Housley also has a 2nd team AST that Hatcher does not. Overall, I think Housley's much stronger offense, with offense being both of these play'ers trademarks, makes him a significantly better defenceman.

Don Awrey vs Gary Bergman
Gary Bergman is a good all-around defenceman certainly, though I don't think he's quite as tough as "mean and miserable S.O.B." Don Awrey, and I'm not sure how his defense compares. His offense is likely better however, but it's tough to make a call on without the numbers I am in no mood to dig.

I do not think, however, that any edge Bergman edge is quite as strong as the one Housley, by far the best defencemen on either pair most likely, has over Hatcher, and as a result, I think my third pairing has the advantage.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 05:56 PM
  #46
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Special Teams

Powerplay

PP1: Joliat-Morenz-Dye Howe-Housley vs Bailey-Gilmour-Bure-Lapointe-Reinhart

My powerplay unit holds a very good advantage here.

Joliat-Morenz are far better offensively than Bailey-Gilmour, and as I think I've displayed, Dye and Bure are fairly comprable, though I think Dye has a bit of an edge. Lapointe and Howe are fairly comparable, but Housley's offense is a lot stronger than Reinhart's is, and the advantages of that and C-LW make my top powerplay a lot stronger.

PP2: Smith-O'Connor-Nedomansky-Egan-Housley vs Holmstrom-Schmidt-Bauer-Hatcher-Bergman

Smith is undoubtedly stronger than Holmstrom- though Holmstrom is a good PP prescence, his PP stats seem underwhelming, with only 1 top 10 in PP goals and none in points. Smith, though we lack his PP stats, peak of leading the NHA in points/goals twice as well as 2nd another time is much stronger than this.

Schmidt owns a big edge over O'Connor, but Nedomansky has a significant edge over Bauer too- I don't think Bauer's good offensve beats Nedomansky's world stage domination.

I am also much stronger on the points- Housley's offensive resume is much stronger than that of Hatcher, and Egan twice leading the NHL in defencemen points and being one of the best defencemen offensively in the 40 as well as a great PP QB in his day likely has a better resume than that of Bergman.

Though you do hold a great advantage on PP2 centre, I don't think it's strong enough to counteract my advantages at all other PP2 positions, and thus I have a fairly significantly stronger PP and a much stronger powerplay overall- a very good advantage to have.

Penalty Kill

PK1: Ramsay-Otto-Howe-Awrey vs Klukay-Luce-Howell-Gardiner

Not alltogether uncomprable. I have the best defensive forward on either pairing (Ramsay), though Luce is likely a better PKer than Otto is (but Otto is no slouch), and I wager the gap between Ramsay and Klukay greater than that of Otto and Luce. Howe brings some elite defense that I don't see as much behind, if at all, Howell's. Gardiner holds a good advantage over Awrey, but overall, I think these units are fairly close.

PK2: Morenz-Russel-Ross-Hall vs Bailey - Schmidt - Lapointe - Bergman

I think the forwards are fairly close- Russel seems comparable to Bailey defensively, both great shadows, and Morenz isn't far behind Schmidt. I admit however your defencemen here are likely better defensivey andf give your second unit a bit of an edge.

Overall: PKs are fairly close, a bit of an edge to the Maroons most likely, but my powerplay is far superior and that gives me a special teams edge.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 06:07 PM
  #47
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
Coachjing- Pete Green vs Jacques Lemaire

Though I think Pete Green is likely a better coach, coaching a fantastic Ottawa dynasty, and his showing of being able to coach all kinds of different methods (plenty of ability he showed to coach his teams so succeed both offensively and defensively, as well as toughness and less-so) make him a better coach and pretty well suited for me, Lemaire is very well suited for your team (though the line juggling things he does isn't a good thing), and as a result I don't see coaching as playing a large factor here, beyond the fact that Lemaire employs the trap.

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

Closing Thoughts
-Though the Maroons do hold a second line advantage, I hold significant edges on first, third, and fourth lines.

-Defences are fairly comparable- I feel my top and bottom pairings are better, Vancouver's second pairing likely better. Isn't a large edge either way.

-I feel my special teams are superior- my powerplay is significantly better, while Vancouver holds only a fairly minor edge on the PK.

-Patrick Roy holds a disinct advantage in goal, but Glenn Hall is a tremendous goalie himself who I don't feel will be dealing with as much offense.

-My team should fair well against the trap- as TDMM mentioned, "the most important thing to beat the trap are defensemen who can transition the puck quickly." and with great puckmovers like Howe, Ross, Egan, and Housley spread through my defense core, I think my team can break the trap well.

-Overall, I feel the advantages come down to goaltending and second line vs my top line, bottom-6, and special teams. I do not feel that the advantages Vancouver has outweigh these advantages I hold, and my defencemen's trapbreaking ability as well as the strength of my forward core, as well as the weakness of his team offensively (at least, compared to my team), shall see the Toronto St.Pats be victorious in this series.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 06:57 PM
  #48
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
A lot of hyperbole in those posts, but whatever, people can make up their own minds.

It's very convenient for you to forget the most important special team's players when doing that comparison... the goalies

Also, you don't hold a "significant" advantage on the 3rd and 4th line. Even if you hold an advantage, it's not really going to make any difference in the series. Both our 3rd lines are geared towards checking and defense, and head to head, neither is going to make a difference in the series. As for the 4th lines, like I said, the typical NHL 4th line only plays 5 or so irrelevant minutes in each playoff game. By ATD standards, the players on our 4th lines are both terrible (the reason they are 4th liners), neither of these fourth lines are going to do much scoring in this series, if any scoring at all.

I don't see how you have a coaching advantage when both Lemaire and Green are considered middle of the pack coaches and get picked around the same time. Lemaire is also a perfect fit for this Vancouver team, that matters a lot, how suited a coach's style is for the team he's coaching.

Anyways, I'll post my final thoughts on the series later tonight, a few short bullet points on why Vancouver wins the series. Then I'm calling it a rap for this series.


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-02-2010 at 07:06 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 07:37 PM
  #49
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,792
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=hungryhungryhippy;25590612]

Quote:
It's very convenient for you to forget the most important special team's players when doing that comparison... the goalies
Fair point- forgot about that. Doesn't negate the powerplay advantage I have, though strengthens your penalty killing one somewhat. Still don't think it's as strong as my power play advantage.

Quote:
Also, you don't hold a "significant" advantage on the 3rd and 4th line. Even if you hold an advantage, it's not really going to make any difference in the series. Both our 3rd lines are geared towards checking and defense, and head to head, neither is going to make a difference in the series. As for the 4th lines, like I said, the typical NHL 4th line only plays 5 or so irrelevant minutes in each playoff game. By ATD standards, the players on our 4th lines are both terrible (the reason they are 4th liners), neither of these fourth lines are going to do much scoring in this series, if any scoring at all.
And why not to both significant and making a difference? You seem to want to play them head to head on the road, but I have no intention of doing that most of the time when I am at home- because I think my third line can do great stuff against your top line.

Hockey is a game of inches, no? 5 miniutes is far from irrelvant- a game can be won or lost (in one sense) in 5 minutes. Though it is true that neither line will play much, it's still 5 minues where I have a significant (well, in my opinion) advantage over you-and any advantage is nice to have.

Oh, and I don't think my 4th liners are terrible. heck, Tommy Smith and Billy Boucher were second liners last ATD (on a weak 2nd line, granted). I think each of my 4th liners could do decently as second liners if they were the worst players on their lines. And considering the lines will go head to head, and your 4th line lacks defense, I expect my fourth line to contribute and score a very good amount for a 4th line over the course of the series.

Quote:
I don't see how you have a coaching advantage when both Lemaire and Green are considered middle of the pack coaches and get picked around the same time. Lemaire is also a perfect fit for this Vancouver team, that matters a lot, how suited a coach's style is for the team he's coaching.
The fact that Lemaire is well suited for your team, which I stated, is why I don't see coaching as making a real difference in this series beyond the team style that's going to be employed. (that is to say, neither will outcoach the other)

Green coached a dynasty, led his team to 1st in his league many times, and won 5 cups; Lemaire won once. (granted, era makes a difference, but still). Ottawa was also better with Green than without, to my knowlede. Green also seemed to be a very adaptable coach- able to coach more offensively, defensively, toughness, and not so much- Lemaire can only coach strict, defensive, trapping teams with succeess. (which is what you've built). But, with how well suited your team is to Lemaire (not that Green isn't well suited to mine), and Green doesn't hold any large edge over Lemaire, I do feel that coaching isn't going to make a real impact in this series beyond the fact that the trap is going to be used.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 08:15 PM
  #50
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
The powerplay and penalty kill are inherently linked though, in a matchup.
Your goalie is your best penalty killer, and the only constant on the penalty kill. Vancouver has an advantage in Roy over Hall, making the Vancouver penalty kill stronger than it already is anyways. And the stronger Vancouver's PK is, the weaker Toronto's PP becomes. It goes vice-versa too.

The average 4th line plays spends 10% of the game on the ice for their team and their impact towards the game is even less than that. A 4th line doesn't score at the same rate (per minute of ice time) as your top two lines do, so their offensive production is always far less than even 10%.

For example, a 4th line will score 1 goal for every 20 the top two lines score (about 5% of total team production). Now consider that these are the ATD playoffs, with some of the best players in history, responsible two-way forwards, Lemaire coaching, Roy in net, etc... and decide how many goals your team might score in this 7 game series. 10? 15? 20? Then divide that number by 20. Your 4th line isn't going to score a "fair amount", it might not even score at all.

Of course, I'm not even taking into consideration that your 4th line's "significant" advantage is highly debatable. I'm not going to bother, it's not worth my time for the reasons stated above.

It's worth something, obviously, but I'm just saying that the importance of our top two lines is exponentially greater than the value of our bottom two lines.

Anyways, stop distracting me so I can get my final statements done just jokin around

hungryhungryhippy 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 07:11 PM.

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

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