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
05-02-2010, 07:40 PM
  #51
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
Strictly looking at the strength of each power play's unit maximum capability to produce, however, I feel I have a significant edge. Your somewhat stronger PK negates this somewhat, it is true, but I still feel my special teams are stronger on a whole due to the powerplay units. That is to say, I think my PP's ability to score against your PK is stronger than your PP's ability to score on my PK, because my PP has a lot more firepower.

Quote:
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.
The flaw in this formula is that it doesn't take into account at all the offensive strength of a 4th line. A stronger offensive 4th line is likely going to produce a greater % of a team's goals than a weaker one- in this series, my 4th line should produce a greater % of my team's goals than yours (both due to how strong mine is offensively, and how weak your's is offensively). It also doesn't take into account the specific matchups the fourthlines face- though you have plenty of great defensive forwards in your lineup, no one on your fourth line is a standout in that regard. I also think fourth lines kind of equate differently from a modern day to an NHL thing- modern day 4th liners are often grinders and goons who have virtually no offensive ability, whilst 4th liners here (at least, on my team) all spent at least some time as elite offensive players and have offensive ability.

If a fourth line is going to play 5-9 mintues a night, that's at least 20-36 minutes of ice-time in a series (and that assumes a sweep- more as it progresses). Plus OT to consider, if it occurrs. In this series, considering the relative defensive weakness of your fourth line, as well as you're (likely) going to be playing your bottom pairing against it, Housley is likely going to be on the ice when my fourth line is, that is plenty of time to chip a few goals. I don't expect my 4th line to score a huge amount, but whilst yours will likely score no goals with a lack of offensive ability, mine, I feel, can contribute a few,

Quote:
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.
Well, you're not really elaborating into what makes it debatable, but whatever floats your boat. I standby my statements, and I see any advantage as a good thing, even if it is for something relatively small.

Quote:
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.
This is true, but I think the bottom-6 can equate to the value of say, a 2nd line (ice-times of a whole bottom-6 would be similar to that of a 2nd line), and I think many teams have shown the important of a quality bottom-6. Of course top-6 on a whole is more important than bottom-6, but bottom-6 has some good significance as well.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 08:23 PM
  #52
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Why does Vancouver win this series?

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.


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-02-2010 at 08:28 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 08:33 PM
  #53
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
I don't want to address your post too much since it shouldn't be done for closing thoughts, but I'll again note we saw Brian Boucher beat out Martin Brodeur in the playoffs, and that the Pats have 3 lines with the ability to score vs two for Vancouver, and that Toronto has some great defensive and two-way forwards too. (for the record, each team really has 6 forwards amongst their top-9 forwards that really contribute defensively- Morenz, Joliat, Datsyuk, Ramsay, Otto, Russel vs Schmidt, Bailey, Gilmour, Fleury, Klukay, Luce- I'll let voters make the call on which group is stronger defensively).

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 08:39 PM
  #54
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
I feel tempted to respond to your last post because I strongly disagree wtih certain assertions, but I'm not going to.

We've done enough arguing, and these ARE the closing statements. Plus, none of the voters here are idiots, they can and likely will make up their own minds regardless of what we tell them.

This was a great series LF, congratulations on putting together a fine team and making it this far. We'll see who wins by the end of tomorrow hopefully. Thanks for being an active opponent.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 08:44 PM
  #55
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Great series indeed, and I hope to see who wins tomorrow. Good luck to you, and thanks for providing a great debate and series.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 10:43 PM
  #56
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
superstition.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 10:47 PM
  #57
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
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).
I think he is top-20 all-time.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 10:48 PM
  #58
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
superstition.
What?

Quote:
I think he is top-20 all-time.
Well, I'm afraid I am rather skeptical about that.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 05-02-2010 at 10:58 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 10:58 PM
  #59
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
What?
Probably that he wants to be the last person to post in his series thread.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2010, 11:25 PM
  #60
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Well, I'm afraid I am rather skeptical about that
Without getting into the logic of having to be in the top-20 of something that applies to all positions to be called "one of the greatest" without it being questioned, Gilmour has a huge playoff resume:

- He led the playoffs in scoring in 1986 without even getting to the Finals, and this was a huge elevation because he was just a 53-point player this season
- In 1988 he scored 17 points in 2 rounds fot St. Louis, 7 more than anyone else on his team. Had he just maintained his regular season average he'd have scored 12 points.
- He was huge in Calgary's 1989 cup win. He had 22 points in 22 games, led the playoffs in +/-, was a force at both ends of the ice, had 3 GWG (exceeded by only MacInnis), and one of them was the cup winner.
- His herculean efforts in Toronto's 1993 and 1994 Semifinals runs are well-documented. He apparently lost as much as 10 pounds in a game as he dominated both ends of the ice, scored at a clip not matched by a player in a 10+ game playoff since, again led the league in playoff +/-, scored the most kick-ass double OT goal in NHL history.
- In 17 playoffs, Gilmour led his team in goals, assists, and/or points in 9 of them.
- Gilmour is the only modern player to not play on a dynasty to be in the top-6 in playoff scoring four times.
- Gilmour's three career playoff OT goals are exceeded by just 14 players in history.
- Gilmour's career 1.03 PPG average is 8% higher than his regular season average, practically unheard of for a star player (usually the only guys who manage such a result are lesser players like Dick Duff, Bob Bourne, and Trevor Linden)
- If you take out his two big Leaf playoffs entirely, Gilmour has 125 points in 143 playoff games, good for 0.87 PPG, good for 91% of his regular season average, which is still well above average.
- Gilmour's playoff career averages are not skewed by playing a large or small proportion of them at certain parts of his career. However, as a 36-38-year old he did slow down somewhat (but only somewhat, as I recall his awesome performance in 2002 caused some Habs fans I know to change their previous opinions on him 180 degrees). prior to his last three playoffs, Gilmour had a career playoff PPG average 16% higher than his regular season average.
- Just watch the guy. With the game on the line, Gilmour was the epitomy of grit, fire, and determination. He wanted the puck on his stick and he wanted to win the big game.

You may have noticed in my last series against TDMM I listed 4 "+" players for their playoff ability. If I had Gilmour, I'd rate him "++".

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 12:06 AM
  #61
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,223
vCash: 500
Gilmour was great in NJ in the playoffs too. AT a time when Lemaire's trap was stiffling the offense of the Devils just as much as the other team, Gilmour was the only player on the team who could score in the playoffs with any regularity.

Still, I would definitely take these forwards over Gilmour in the playoffs:

Wayne Gretzky
Gordie Howe
Bobby Orr
Mario Lemieux
Maurice Richard

Jean Beliveau
Guy Lafleur
Bobby Hull
Henri Richard
Ted Kennedy

Mark Messier
Mike Bossy
Bryan Trottier
Joe Sakic
Sergei Fedorov

That's just off the top of my head, so I'm sure there are more.

At best, Gilmour is towards the bottom end of the Top 20 playoff forwards.

Considering I didn't list any defensemen or goalies, I don't think he has a case for Top 20 playoff players of all time.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 08:09 AM
  #62
Dwight
The French Tickler
 
Dwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,785
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Gilmour was great in NJ in the playoffs too. AT a time when Lemaire's trap was stiffling the offense of the Devils just as much as the other team, Gilmour was the only player on the team who could score in the playoffs with any regularity.

Still, I would definitely take these forwards over Gilmour in the playoffs:

Wayne Gretzky
Gordie Howe
Bobby Orr
Mario Lemieux
Maurice Richard

Jean Beliveau
Guy Lafleur
Bobby Hull
Henri Richard
Ted Kennedy

Mark Messier
Mike Bossy
Bryan Trottier
Joe Sakic
Sergei Fedorov

That's just off the top of my head, so I'm sure there are more.

At best, Gilmour is towards the bottom end of the Top 20 playoff forwards.

Considering I didn't list any defensemen or goalies, I don't think he has a case for Top 20 playoff players of all time.
I know Bobby was great, but I'm pretty sure he's out of position here

Dwight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 10:09 AM
  #63
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,022
vCash: 500
Bossy, Trottier, Henri Richard, and Fedorov were great players who were also great in the playoffs, who played on dynasties. I don't think any of them have a reputation for being particularly "clutch" individually. They won a bunch of cups and it's easy to point to them as big playoff performers because they were often among those cup winners' best 3 players. And team and individual success become more intrinsically linked when discussing playoff resumes. But I don't see how those four players should be considered better "playoff performers" than Gilmour.

Perhaps it's just a difference in evaluation method. I'm thinking about a) how good the player was to begin with, and b) how much he elevated his play.

For example, going back to the simplistic methodology I used in our playoff series, from that list I'd rate Richard, Kennedy, and Gilmour "++", and Lafleur, Messier, and Sakic "+". I wouldn't say the others were so much better in the playoffs than the regular season to warrant a + rating, even though I'd obviously take such clearly better players as Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Hull, etc over guys like Gilmour and Kennedy.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 12:32 PM
  #64
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chigurh View Post
I know Bobby was great, but I'm pretty sure he's out of position here
Oops, I mean...come on now, Bobby Orr was basically a defenseman and forward at the same time, and you know it!

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 12:34 PM
  #65
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Bossy, Trottier, Henri Richard, and Fedorov were great players who were also great in the playoffs, who played on dynasties. I don't think any of them have a reputation for being particularly "clutch" individually. They won a bunch of cups and it's easy to point to them as big playoff performers because they were often among those cup winners' best 3 players. And team and individual success become more intrinsically linked when discussing playoff resumes. But I don't see how those four players should be considered better "playoff performers" than Gilmour.

Perhaps it's just a difference in evaluation method. I'm thinking about a) how good the player was to begin with, and b) how much he elevated his play.

For example, going back to the simplistic methodology I used in our playoff series, from that list I'd rate Richard, Kennedy, and Gilmour "++", and Lafleur, Messier, and Sakic "+". I wouldn't say the others were so much better in the playoffs than the regular season to warrant a + rating, even though I'd obviously take such clearly better players as Gretzky, Howe, Lemieux, Hull, etc over guys like Gilmour and Kennedy.
I guess that's the difference between "elevating" and "already better." Mario Lemieux probably didn't elevate his play in the playoffs at all; he was just already that much better than Gilmour.

The only guy who I think you're wrong about is Fedorov, who definitely elevated his play, or sleepwalked through the regular season - one of the other.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-03-2010 at 12:43 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 12:46 PM
  #66
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,022
vCash: 500
With Fedorov, you must be referring to his four straight 20-point playoffs, when he had 1.06 points per game. While that is excellent, you also have to be on a team capable of advancing at least to the semis four straight times, to do this. He also had 1.10 PPG in the regular season during this time. A 4% drop is excellent and much better than average, but not so much that he should be considered "clutch". I don't recall him being a part of any epic plays, and his actual goal production saw a 23% drop. It was a concern at the time, and I do recall a THN writer referring to him as "Nogoals Fedorov" at one point. The fact that he experienced such a minor drop means that he was definitely performing better in the playoffs, and it's probably a combination of both factors you mentioned contributing to this. My recollections of what I saw and what was being said, and what has been said since then, corroborate that. Still, I don't think he is in Gilmour category.

If your list includes the full extent of players "already better" and those who elevated their play enough to jump/remain ahead of Gilmour, then that is a testament to his greatness, because based on regular season play, he's likely not a top-100 forward. If he's suddenly about 20th on your list come playoffs, that's a massive elevation and worthy of that "++" status which, in my unofficial estimation, represents an elevation two standard deviations off the mean, which is something like the top 2.5% (of ATD players, that is, surely among all players he and other ATDers would be in even a more prestigious bracket than that)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 01:03 PM
  #67
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
With Fedorov, you must be referring to his four straight 20-point playoffs, when he had 1.06 points per game. While that is excellent, you also have to be on a team capable of advancing at least to the semis four straight times, to do this. He also had 1.10 PPG in the regular season during this time. A 4% drop is excellent and much better than average, but not so much that he should be considered "clutch". I don't recall him being a part of any epic plays, and his actual goal production saw a 23% drop. It was a concern at the time, and I do recall a THN writer referring to him as "Nogoals Fedorov" at one point. The fact that he experienced such a minor drop means that he was definitely performing better in the playoffs, and it's probably a combination of both factors you mentioned contributing to this. My recollections of what I saw and what was being said, and what has been said since then, corroborate that. Still, I don't think he is in Gilmour category.

If your list includes the full extent of players "already better" and those who elevated their play enough to jump/remain ahead of Gilmour, then that is a testament to his greatness, because based on regular season play, he's likely not a top-100 forward. If he's suddenly about 20th on your list come playoffs, that's a massive elevation and worthy of that "++" status which, in my unofficial estimation, represents an elevation two standard deviations off the mean, which is something like the top 2.5% (of ATD players, that is, surely among all players he and other ATDers would be in even a more prestigious bracket than that)
It's not just Fedorov's points - it's the fact that he did it while playing elite-level defense for a generally defensive-minded team. I've said elsewhere that I think Fedorov, Stevens, and Sakic were the three best playoff performers of the dead puck era.

There's also the counter argument that players who advance farther tend to have lower PPGs, since the farther you go, the better the teams you are facing become. (Okay, except for finals in the late 90s because of the weak Eastern Conference at the time).

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 01:10 PM
  #68
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's not just Fedorov's points - it's the fact that he did it while playing elite-level defense for a generally defensive-minded team. I've said elsewhere that I think Fedorov, Stevens, and Sakic were the three best playoff performers of the dead puck era.

There's also the counter argument that players who advance farther tend to have lower PPGs, since the farther you go, the better the teams you are facing become. (Okay, except for finals in the late 90s because of the weak Eastern Conference at the time).
While that can be true, I think it's entirely offset by the fact that these are often high seeds who get to face low seeds in round 1, and often round 2 as well.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 02:28 PM
  #69
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Perhaps it's just a difference in evaluation method. I'm thinking about a) how good the player was to begin with, and b) how much he elevated his play.
Well, I think there's a difference between 'greatest playoff performers of all-time" and "Most elevation from regular season to playoffs all-time". Turk Broda, for example, is quite possibly the best goalie as far as how much he elevates his play from regular season to post season, but no one is going to even consder him as the greatest playoff goalie of all-time.

Doug Gilmour has a much better case as one of the top-20 rises from regular seasdon to playoffs, but not so much when you look at greatest playoff performers of all-time with no regular season factored in at all, and no bonus points for being better in the post season than the regular season.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 02:32 PM
  #70
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
This arguement doesn't really belong in this thread but....

Personally, I think Seventies and I both consider "elevation from regular season to playoffs" to be one of the biggest factors in determining who the "greatest playoff performers of all-time are".

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 02:41 PM
  #71
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,022
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
This arguement doesn't really belong in this thread but....

Personally, I think Seventies and I both consider "elevation from regular season to playoffs" to be one of the biggest factors in determining who the "greatest playoff performers of all-time are".
Right... to an extent.

If it was solely about being great, then Lemieux would be in my top-5. If it was solely about elevating play, Claude Lemieux would be in my top-5. Based on a fair combination of both, I rate Gilmour to be among the very best of all-time in the playoffs.

The better you are, the more difficult it is to be discernably better in the playoffs. Gilmour is definitely one player who was.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 02:42 PM
  #72
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
I don't really think elevation should be playing a factor in "greatest playoff performers of all-time"- perhaps if you inserted the word "elevation" in their somewhere, it'd be accurate, but really "greatest playoff performers" is, to me, merely defined by a player's playoff resume with no regular season factored in whatsoever. There just seems something off with Claude Lemieux being one of the greatest by such a metric.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 02:43 PM
  #73
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,223
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
This arguement doesn't really belong in this thread but....

Personally, I think Seventies and I both consider "elevation from regular season to playoffs" to be one of the biggest factors in determining who the "greatest playoff performers of all-time are".
I can see that.

But I would still take the better performer regardless of how they did in the regular season.

Wayne Gretzky is the best playoff performer of all time in my mind. The fact that he didn't elevate his play from his godly regular seasons shouldn't be a detriment at all.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 11:37 PM
  #74
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,022
vCash: 500
Vancouver defeats Toronto in 5 games. Series star Patrick Roy stonewalled Morenz and co. for the majority of the series, while 2nd star Doug Gilmour provided timely scoring. Howie Morenz, the 3rd star, carried the offense for Toronto but was unable to do it all himself. Some said his heart was broken by not being selected by Montreal.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2010, 11:47 PM
  #75
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
WOOOOT! Foster Hewitt division champions! Looks like Roy and the Bailey-Gilmour-Fleury checking line came through!

Of course, these teams were a lot closer than the 5 game series suggests. Congratulations LF for putting together such a great team and making it as far as you did. I wish you the best of luck next year.

Once again, thank you to everyone that took the time to read my arguments and eventually vote for the Maroons.

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 06:42 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.