HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Histories Great Chokers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-10-2010, 03:53 PM
  #51
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
You never told anyone what you feel the treshhold is. You simply weaseled to a global average over the course of NHL history. A global average that was not the same in 1939. A gross misrepresentation of the situation.

The metric is very simple. In a series you have two players from distinct teams, who are expected to or went head to head. Player from Team A has a 1PPG seasonal result. Player from Team B has a .8PPG seasonal result. How does each impact the others PPG result over the course of the series? In the Hextall / Dumart comparison where Dumart rendered Hextall to app 20% or 1 / 5 of seasonal efficiency Dumart did an outstanding job even though his own numbers fell below this global average that you have. A global average that was different in 1939 than it is today. If you had such an average leading up to 1939 it may contribute to the overall understanding but you don't. Reasons why you don't are irrelevent.

Repeat for any two player match - up and see the impact on the team result for the series.

As for a higher level of discourse - using a global average over the course of NHL history for a 1939 specific fails your own standards for rather obvious reasons.
I really don't care about 1939 by itself, nor should I. A lot of statistical anomalies can happen in one short playoff season. Fact is, when you look at a sample size that actually matters, it is clear that Woody Dumart had serious trouble scoring in the playoffs throughout his career.

I also said "a 10-20% drop is normal and anything more than that would classify as a drop worthy of further discussion" so if that isn't a good enough starting point for a threshold for you, too bad. If you're expecting charts and graphs out of me, don't hold your breath. 43% is a massive drop no matter which era, and you know this.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 03:56 PM
  #52
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I just told you what I feel the threshold is. You can disagree if you like. You disagree with everything in the world, after all. If you think the threshold should be different, quit being a child and state your case.



OK there.



All that means is that his other playoff numbers were really solid compared to the regular season. Net career total: 17% drop.

With something like playoff totals which are only a sample size of around 1-2 full seasons for most players (or even much less) it makes sense to look at full careers.

Instead of sniping at me at every possible opportunity, why don't you provide something of substance. You've added little to every thread in this section for three days now, despite making a lot of posts.

Any conversation including C1958, by nature, is going to have a confrontational vibe to it, since he is here to convert us savages to his civilized way of thinking, but the chip you've been carrying around on your shoulder hasn't helped.

I'm guilty of "getting into it" with you as well; I often can't resist and it's something I need to work on. It's a fortunate thing that a large number of well-respected posters have merely posted one-liners regarding some of the silly ideas you've promoted instead of going into further detail like I did; otherwise, this section would be out of control. (so yeah, thank goodness not everyone is like me)

Seriously, though. Lose the chip. We expect a higher level of discourse in the HOH section. Did I piss you off in another thread at some point? If I did, I have long forgotten.
I have already said that Dumart was the checker on the line and werent there to score points. He was supposed to stop the opposition while the others took risks on the offense. Its hard when your best offensive line is also the best defensive line. For all I know I wouldnt call it choking. He were incredible at stopping the other teams best players.

Quote:
Case in point Woody Dumart. During the 1938-39 season Woody Dumart averaged .63 PPG. During the playoffs his PPG average dropped to .33. In the first playoff series he was responsible for checking Bryan Hextall .73 seasonal PPG ave, reduced to .14 PPG or less than 1/5th his regular season performance.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 04:10 PM
  #53
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
Then .....................

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I really don't care about 1939 by itself, nor should I. A lot of statistical anomalies can happen in one short playoff season. Fact is, when you look at a sample size that actually matters, it is clear that Woody Dumart had serious trouble scoring in the playoffs throughout his career.

I also said "a 10-20% drop is normal and anything more than that would classify as a drop worthy of further discussion" so if that isn't a good enough starting point for a threshold for you, too bad. If you're expecting charts and graphs out of me, don't hold your breath. 43% is a massive drop no matter which era, and you know this.
Then you should not interject yourself into such threads.

The point is understanding performance of various players over the course of a series not conforming to your abstract notion of sample size. Playing hockey is not based on some abstract conformity to Statistics 101.

The issue is not whether any % is a massive drop or not. The issue is understanding the cost of winning. From a strict cost / benefit analysis, two equal teams, if one player sacrifices 40% of his offense to reduce an opposing equal player's offense by 80% he is clearly ahead in the match-up. If every player from the same team performs in their respective match-up would accomplish similar results the team improves its chances of winning significantly.

As for my expectations of your contributions. Zero would be fine since your contributions tend to the negative.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 04:16 PM
  #54
Ogie Goldthorpe
Piloted Ogre Hog
 
Ogie Goldthorpe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NS via BC
Posts: 2,688
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MS View Post
Tony Tanti : 3 goals in 30 playoff games. 1 goal in 18 games for Vancouver during the stretch where he averaged 40+ goals/season from 1983-88. Didn't help that all of those games were against elite Calgary/Edmonton teams, but still.
Tony Tanti, IIRC, was a guy who tended to wear down over the course of a season. During his peak seasons, around Christmas time, he would always seem to be on target for 50+ goals... then he would gradually tail off, and end up somewhere between 39 and 45 goals. To take one example, in his 87-88 season (where he scored 40), he managed just 5 goals in his last 18 games... in 12 of those games he was held pointless. Of his goals, 3 came in one game, and 1 came in the last game of the season, a mean nothing outing against the last place North Stars.

So, choker... I dunno. Sprinter trying to run a marathon? That's my vote.

Ogie Goldthorpe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 04:51 PM
  #55
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
I have already said that Dumart was the checker on the line and werent there to score points. He was supposed to stop the opposition while the others took risks on the offense. Its hard when your best offensive line is also the best defensive line. For all I know I wouldnt call it choking. He were incredible at stopping the other teams best players.
I don't think he was as good a checker as Schmidt, honestly, though that's nothing to be ashamed of.

Dumart's two cups in a career his length in a league that size are nothing more than par for the course. Why should he be considered a "winner" or "paying the price to win"? If he kept winning the cup despite his lack of offense in the playoffs you would have a point. He didn't, and you don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Then you should not interject yourself into such threads.

The point is understanding performance of various players over the course of a series not conforming to your abstract notion of sample size. Playing hockey is not based on some abstract conformity to Statistics 101.

The issue is not whether any % is a massive drop or not. The issue is understanding the cost of winning. From a strict cost / benefit analysis, two equal teams, if one player sacrifices 40% of his offense to reduce an opposing equal player's offense by 80% he is clearly ahead in the match-up. If every player from the same team performs in their respective match-up would accomplish similar results the team improves its chances of winning significantly.

As for my expectations of your contributions. Zero would be fine since your contributions tend to the negative.
Show me the way, oh leader!!!!

I'm actually really pleased to hear that you think my contributions are negative. This most likely means that 95% of other respected HOH posters think my contributions are positive.


Last edited by seventieslord: 05-10-2010 at 06:59 PM.
seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 05:56 PM
  #56
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
I have already said that Dumart was the checker on the line and werent there to score points. He was supposed to stop the opposition while the others took risks on the offense. Its hard when your best offensive line is also the best defensive line. For all I know I wouldnt call it choking. He were incredible at stopping the other teams best players.
But I've only said it a million times on this thread that despite Dumart's checking responsibilities he does not follow the mold of other elite players who also went head to head with top players. Many players have been checkers but still scored. Let's just say that Dumart had more offensive skill than Carboneau so if you are interested in using him as an example, don't bother. Why did Zetterberg check Crosby so well that he could smell his breath yet still put up points in the finals? Or how about Joe Thornton in the 2004 World Cup? Or Messier in 1984 vs. Trottier? I also don't want to engrage you, but add Gilmour to that list.

Why did all of those players among others need to stop the best players on the other team yet still found time to score? Why them and not Dumart. The numbers for him are just too underwhelming to sweep under the rug

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 06:14 PM
  #57
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
But I've only said it a million times on this thread that despite Dumart's checking responsibilities he does not follow the mold of other elite players who also went head to head with top players. Many players have been checkers but still scored. Let's just say that Dumart had more offensive skill than Carboneau so if you are interested in using him as an example, don't bother. Why did Zetterberg check Crosby so well that he could smell his breath yet still put up points in the finals? Or how about Joe Thornton in the 2004 World Cup? Or Messier in 1984 vs. Trottier? I also don't want to engrage you, but add Gilmour to that list.

Why did all of those players among others need to stop the best players on the other team yet still found time to score? Why them and not Dumart. The numbers for him are just too underwhelming to sweep under the rug
You do know that Zetterbergs PPG against pens were 1.00 and in the previous rounds it were 1.43 right? There is always a pretty substantional drop in a players production when he goes to neutralize the other teams best man.

Funny thing is.. when Dumart had his best offensive playoffs the team lost. He went from ~0.55ppg to ~0.30ppg, oh the humanity.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 06:45 PM
  #58
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
Checking

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
But I've only said it a million times on this thread that despite Dumart's checking responsibilities he does not follow the mold of other elite players who also went head to head with top players. Many players have been checkers but still scored. Let's just say that Dumart had more offensive skill than Carboneau so if you are interested in using him as an example, don't bother. Why did Zetterberg check Crosby so well that he could smell his breath yet still put up points in the finals? Or how about Joe Thornton in the 2004 World Cup? Or Messier in 1984 vs. Trottier? I also don't want to engrage you, but add Gilmour to that list.

Why did all of those players among others need to stop the best players on the other team yet still found time to score? Why them and not Dumart. The numbers for him are just too underwhelming to sweep under the rug
Amazing that you should ask such a question that may be answered by almost anyone paying attention to a hockey game.

Take checking Crosby vs checking Ovechkin. When the play is in the offensive zone the checker depending on his team's style has to set-up within a perimeter of the player who he is responsible for. Someone like Ovechkin who basically stays near the blueline with minimal defensive responsibility, is in the the "useless ice" area for the player assigned to check him. It is rather hard to generate scoring points if the player's defensive responsibilities take him to the "useless ice" areas of the offensive zone. Conversely checking a player like Crosby who comes back deep into his defensive zone including the slot and other prime scoring areas facilitates scoring for the player checking Crosby. The checking perimeter that the defensive player has to establish also takes him into the prime scoring areas of the rink. So it is much easier for him to score points while accomplishing his defensive responsibility.

Rather elementary - Hockey 101.

Trust you understand that it is not a question of choking or underachieving but a question of circumstance dictated by the defensive responsibilities and the balance between sacrifices and opportunities that are presented to the defensive player.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 05-10-2010 at 06:47 PM. Reason: clarification
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 09:23 PM
  #59
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
 
Hockey Outsider's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,458
vCash: 500
Is there any evidence to show that Dumart deserves most/all of the credit for shutting down Bryan Hextall in the 1939 playoffs? Ideally somebody can provide excerpts from newspaper articles explicitly stating that Dumart contained Hextall.

How should the credit be allocated between Dumart, Shore, Brimsek and others?

Hockey Outsider is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:49 PM
  #60
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,639
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Is there any evidence to show that Dumart deserves most/all of the credit for shutting down Bryan Hextall in the 1939 playoffs? Ideally somebody can provide excerpts from newspaper articles explicitly stating that Dumart contained Hextall.

How should the credit be allocated between Dumart, Shore, Brimsek and others?
Hextall was playing hurt in the 1939 finals.

From the game 2 recap in the NYT:
"Carse was pressed into service to relieve the pressure on Bryan Hextall, who could not play his full time because of a wrenched shoulder."

And from the game 3 preview:
"Bryan Hextall and Lynn Patrick were ******** by injuries in Thursday’s contest and neither was able to turn in his top game against the hard-hitting Boston skaters."

Game 4 preview:
"Bryan Hextall has returned to the line-up and is expected to be of material aid to the home forces."

Regarding Dumart's offensive production, it appears that Boston was playing very conservatively for much of the series. The Rangers were attacking hard, and the Bruins were going into a defensive shell and counter-attacking off turnovers.

From the Game 1 Recap:
"The Bruins, playing what seemed a coldly studied game, stressed close checking and most of their aggressive tactics were confined to releasing long shots at Kerr."

Game 3 Recap:
"The Blue Shirts, sworn to risk all in a tremendous offensive drive that would enable them to hope, at least, for survival in the Stanley Cup playoffs, could do practically nothing against the closely knit Boston defense, and in essaying a completely aggressive game left the way open for the local forces to score at least once in every period.

In encompassing their triumph the Bruins played their characteristically sound and calculating defensive game. They disdained to rush except when the opportunity was brightest, and contented themselves mainly with forcing the Rangers to come to them.

Deep in their own ice, the Bruin guards so muffled the Ranger forwards that the Blue Shirts were able to get off comparatively few dangerous shots at Frank Brimsek, guardian of the Boston goal. Although Brimsek made twenty-three by official count, a good number of his stops were on drives that could hardly be called dangerous.

On the other hand, Bert Gardiner, substitute Ranger goal-tender, was credited with twenty-nine saves. Boston, while admittedly following a defensive policy, had so many chances to break away from the five-strong Ranger rushes that Gardiner put in a busy evening indeed. His work was brilliant, and time and again he made rapid stops on successive shots sent at him by both members of a two-man Boston break."

Game 4 Recap:
"New York played five men up all through the overtime, and in doing so caused a lot of work to fall on Gardiner. Frequently the embattled Bruins intercepted Ranger passes and skated in on the New York net, only to find it impossible to get past the visiting netminder."

Boston spent much of the series playing conservatively and primarily counter-attacking. Maybe Dumart was better off the cycle than off the rush? Maybe it was usually Schmidt and Bauer on the "two-man Boston break?"

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 10:53 PM
  #61
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
You do know that Zetterbergs PPG against pens were 1.00 and in the previous rounds it were 1.43 right? There is always a pretty substantional drop in a players production when he goes to neutralize the other teams best man.

Funny thing is.. when Dumart had his best offensive playoffs the team lost. He went from ~0.55ppg to ~0.30ppg, oh the humanity.
Why is having 1 PPG in the Cup finals a bad thing all of the sudden?

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:15 PM
  #62
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
Woody Dumart

From Legends of Hockey.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Legen...t=ByName#photo

Also into junior hockey Woody Dumart was a defenseman.

In the 1939 semi finals against the Rangers Eddie Shore suffered injuries including a broken nose, in a fight against one of the Patrick's.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2010, 11:59 PM
  #63
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 31,341
vCash: 500
Eric Lindros: called a choker by his own coach in his one Cup final.

Hasbro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 05:45 AM
  #64
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
By Your Standards

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Why is having 1 PPG in the Cup finals a bad thing all of the sudden?
By the standards proposed by various posters including yourself the drop from 1.43 PPG to 1 PPG is below the threshold of an accepted drop in offense. Used by the poster and interpreted by others as an obvious counter-example to your attempts ar branding players as chokers.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 10:24 AM
  #65
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,725
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
By the standards proposed by various posters including yourself the drop from 1.43 PPG to 1 PPG is below the threshold of an accepted drop in offense. Used by the poster and interpreted by others as an obvious counter-example to your attempts ar branding players as chokers.
No one said that going from 1.43 in one playoff round to 1.00 in another playoff round is choking or not acceptable.

You are bothersome enough without putting words in people's mouths; please refrain from adding that to your repertoire of tactics, thank you.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 12:17 PM
  #66
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Why is having 1 PPG in the Cup finals a bad thing all of the sudden?
Where did I say it was a bad thing? As I stated to you in another post. Read what I write and dont imply some nonsense.

You said that Zetterberg checked Crosby while keeping his offense going. I showed you the stats that it was the opposite and that his PPG dropped significantly.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 12:28 PM
  #67
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasbro View Post
Eric Lindros: called a choker by his own coach in his one Cup final.
season: 1.36 playoffs: 1.14 during his flyers years. He didnt choke as much in playoffs as he did in the cup finals. After 97 he was done as a playoff performer.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 03:40 PM
  #68
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 31,341
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
season: 1.36 playoffs: 1.14 during his flyers years. He didnt choke as much in playoffs as he did in the cup finals.
That's when it matters
Quote:
After 97 he was done as a playoff performer.
The series where he came back for game 7 and Stevens flattened him you almost got the sense the Flyer would have been better off without him.

Hasbro is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 08:56 PM
  #69
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
Where did I say it was a bad thing? As I stated to you in another post. Read what I write and dont imply some nonsense.

You said that Zetterberg checked Crosby while keeping his offense going. I showed you the stats that it was the opposite and that his PPG dropped significantly.
Yes it dropped, but it's despite the drop Zetterberg still managed to do his part offensively. That's how good he was in the previous three rounds. You're doing something right if you "drop" yet still managed a point a game while checking the best player in hockey. You certainly cannot say that about Dumart. While I would call Zetterberg's production a drop I certainly would mention he managed to still be dangerous offensively and his 2009 final was far from a choke job

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 08:58 PM
  #70
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
By the standards proposed by various posters including yourself the drop from 1.43 PPG to 1 PPG is below the threshold of an accepted drop in offense. Used by the poster and interpreted by others as an obvious counter-example to your attempts ar branding players as chokers.
As I said above the difference between Zetterberg's drop in the final and Dumart's drop is that Zetterberg still put up good numbers with his drop. He checked Crosby for crying out loud which is similar to having to contain Howe or Richard back in Dumart's day

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 09:25 PM
  #71
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
Difference

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
As I said above the difference between Zetterberg's drop in the final and Dumart's drop is that Zetterberg still put up good numbers with his drop. He checked Crosby for crying out loud which is similar to having to contain Howe or Richard back in Dumart's day
Difference is that checking Crosby - a center, as explained earlier, takes the player into the prime scoring areas of the offensive zone. Crosby comes back very deep in his own end, often behind his own net, in the slot defensively, etc.

Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe were not centers but right wingers and their defensive responsibility required that they come back high to mid wing towards the boards on their wing. This is the "useless ice" area of the offensive zone from which it is hard for the checket playing a defensive perimeter to participate offensively.

Rather simple to understand why players, such as Dumart, checking Howe and Maurice Richard were far from an ideal position to contribute offensively, while Zetterberg checking Crosby is in the prime scoring areas and is much better positioned to help offensively.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 05-11-2010 at 09:33 PM. Reason: clarification.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 09:41 PM
  #72
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 20,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Difference is that checking Crosby - a center, as explained earlier, takes the player into the prime scoring areas of the offensive zone. Crosby comes back very deep in his own end, often behind his own net, in the slot defensively, etc.

Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe were not centers but right wingers and their defensive responsibility required that they come back high to mid wing towards the boards on their wing. This is the "useless ice" area of the offensive zone from which it is hard for the checket playing a defensive perimeter to participate offensively.

Rather simple to understand why players, such as Dumart, checking Howe and Maurice Richard were far from an ideal position to contribute offensively, while Zetterberg checking Crosby is in the prime scoring areas and is much better positioned to help offensively.
Looking for an excuse a little bit don't you think? Why don't we take a quote from Phil Esposito when he says: "sooner or later the puck always comes to the slot"

Dumart is very much on the bottom tier of HHOFers and his playoff production is a good reason why

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2010, 10:05 PM
  #73
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,909
vCash: 500
No Excuses

Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Looking for an excuse a little bit don't you think? Why don't we take a quote from Phil Esposito when he says: "sooner or later the puck always comes to the slot"

Dumart is very much on the bottom tier of HHOFers and his playoff production is a good reason why
No excuses just an understanding of how hockey is played and the resulting consequences.

Better question would be why Phil Esposito was rarely in the low slot defensivle, preferring to flirt with the high slot, explaining some of his rather useless playoff performances like 1967.

Canadiens1958 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 03:04 AM.

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

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