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 Milt Dunnell Cup Final: New Jersey Swamp Devils vs. Vancouver Maroons

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-13-2010, 11:51 PM
  #26
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
It doesn't even matter. In my mind, the teams being equal and with Roy and Belfour in net, Roy would sweep the series. Every single time. I think the gap is that huge.
Wow, talk about hyperbole. To continue your use of hyperbole, I guess the Dallas Stars were miles better as a team than the Colorado Avalanche in the late 90s, when Belfour beat Roy twice.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 12:00 AM
  #27
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Wow, talk about hyperbole. To continue your use of hyperbole, I guess the Dallas Stars were miles better as a team than the Colorado Avalanche in the late 90s, when Belfour beat Roy twice.
Belfour was in his prime and Roy's career was about winding down. The situations weren't even close to equal.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 12:05 AM
  #28
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Belfour was in his prime and Roy's career was about winding down. The situations weren't even close to equal.
Belfour was a few months older than Roy. Belfour's regular season prime was at the exact same time as Roy's - the early 90s, when Eddie won his pair of Vezinas. Roy won the Conn Smythe in 2001 and was a First Team All-Star in 2002 over Theodore's Hart season.

Anyway, this is mostly off-topic, since Belfour isn't in the series. But I think he's a good comparable to Gardiner in terms of talent.

This is also probably pointless - most GMs already have their minds set up as to whether they view the ATD as some world where the difference between average goalies and top goalies is equal to say the difference between Ryan Miller and an average NHL starter last year. Or if they look at it as I do - trying to compare the goalies as they actually were.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 12:09 AM
  #29
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
I guess I stand corrected, but I still believe that Roy is a huge step up from Gardiner. Otherwise, what's the point of drafting him and ranking him so high? In a case like this, their all time rankings DO matter.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 12:18 AM
  #30
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
I'll make a set of posts on Saturday.

- Defending Lemaire

- Why Vancouver would win.

All I'll say right now is, take TDMM's posts with a grain of salt until I attack back.

I hope no one buys into the foolish XXXX > YYYYY, XXXX > YYYYYY, etc.. so edge to this 1st line and edge to that 2nd pairing stuff. When was the last time that worked in real life? It's not that simple, there's so much to consider

I've always thought that this sort of comparison is foolish, I'm more interested in observing and trying to understand what the dynamic of the series would be, and then looking at the respective match-ups (which would NOT be head to head, as he compared them) and trying to determine which players can have a greater effect on the series, all things considered.


EDIT: About the Roy vs Gardiner thing, it's important to remember that everything is relative in the ATD. Gardiner was a great goalie in the NHL, that's why he's here. But in an ATD context, "13th-18th" amongst starters is average, and likely a bit mediocre. Gardiner will be exactly that in this series, average at best, he won't be stealing anything for the Swamp Devils. Roy is truly elite though, one of only 5 or 6 goalies in the ATD that imo can realistically be expected to win or steal anything for their team, and Roy is the best. Remember, goal tending is the only true equalizer in hockey, there isn't another position where just 1 guy will play the entire game and can make as much of a difference. No center, or winger, or defenseman can *potentially* have as big an impact on the game as a hot goalie putting up a brick wall for 60 minutes can.

Depending on how the rest of this debate goes, I might pimp Roy with a lengthy post about how much his game truly elevated in the playoffs, and how much of a difference he made in the playoffs when he won his Stanley Cups.

It seems like I'm the underdog in this series, so if there was ever a time to pimp Roy, it's now. In the previous rounds, I typically tried to stay away from relying on Roy too much for the win (in arguments) because I thought it would make people underrate the rest of my team. Desperate times call for desperate measures though.


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-14-2010 at 12:37 AM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 12:36 AM
  #31
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
I guess I stand corrected, but I still believe that Roy is a huge step up from Gardiner. Otherwise, what's the point of drafting him and ranking him so high? In a case like this, their all time rankings DO matter.
Well, there are some GMs who are open about absolutely refusing to draft a goalie in the first round...

In the absolute sense of skill, I think every goalie drafted before Belfour was a reach (yes, including Gardiner), because the replacement value of the goalie you can get a round later is better than the defenseman or forward you can get a round later.

As for all-time rankings, on the last HOH all-time list, Roy was ranked the 16th best player of all time (any position) and Gardiner the 91st. Roy is obviously a step up, but these are both great goalies capable of stealing games. Sure, Roy will do it more often on average, but the idea that he can steal 4 games to Gardiner's 0 is ludicrous. If Roy can steal 3 games in a series, why can't Gardiner steal 2?

Anyway, that's all I meant. This is on the verge of going in circles, so it's best to be dropped.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-14-2010 at 12:44 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 12:38 AM
  #32
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
I'll make a set of posts on Saturday.

- Defending Lemaire

- Why Vancouver would win.

All I'll say right now is, take TDMM's posts with a grain of salt until I attack back.

I hope no one buys into the foolish XXXX > YYYYY, XXXX > YYYYYY, etc.. so edge to this 1st line and edge to that 2nd pairing stuff. When was the last time that worked in real life? It's not that simple, there's so much to consider

I've always thought that this sort of comparison is foolish, I'm more interested in observing and trying to understand what the dynamic of the series would be, and then looking at the respective match-ups (which would NOT be head to head, as he compared them) and trying to determine which players can have a greater effect on the series, all things considered.
Looking forward to it.

One thing though, if the player vs. player comparison thing is foolish, why have you done it in previous rounds?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 12:49 AM
  #33
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
It doesn't even matter. In my mind, the teams being equal and with Roy and Belfour in net, Roy would sweep the series. Every single time. I think the gap is that huge.
MASSIVE hyperbole there.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 12:53 AM
  #34
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,749
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Belfour was a few months older than Roy. Belfour's regular season prime was at the exact same time as Roy's - the early 90s, when Eddie won his pair of Vezinas. Roy won the Conn Smythe in 2001 and was a First Team All-Star in 2002 over Theodore's Hart season.

Anyway, this is mostly off-topic, since Belfour isn't in the series. But I think he's a good comparable to Gardiner in terms of talent.

This is also probably pointless - most GMs already have their minds set up as to whether they view the ATD as some world where the difference between average goalies and top goalies is equal to say the difference between Ryan Miller and an average NHL starter last year. Or if they look at it as I do - trying to compare the goalies as they actually were.
I think the thing is, we're not just trying to compare them from one game here or there at average or standard points in their careers. We are comparing their whole careers.

So although it is hyperbole to say that Roy would sweep belfour with all things being equal, in this context I would liken it to a Miller vs. Fleury-type matchup.

(I'm probably higher on Belfour than anyone but you and maybe two others)

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 01:00 AM
  #35
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Looking forward to it.

One thing though, if the player vs. player comparison thing is foolish, why have you done it in previous rounds?
I never do it like that, the closest to that I've ever gone was in the Tidewater series when I compared the centers, cause i was sort of a noob

I didn't mean that comparing lines is wrong, god no, how else would we debate then ?

It's how it's done that matters...

There's a difference between taking the 1st line and comparing it to the respective 1st line, and etc... and then going "well the best player on this line is better then the best player on that line the 3rd best player on this line is better then the 3rd best player on that line, so it's a 2-1 advantage for this line, and the 1st, 3rd, and 4th lines on this team are better so it's like a 3-1 advantage for this team's offense."

I like to compare lines that will be matched against each other, consider factors that would make certain player more or less effective in certain areas of the game (such as the dynamic of the matchup, the role players play, chemistry, intangibles, etc...) then look at how the players compliment each other and how they would fare against the other team, and highlight the areas where I feel advantage and disadvantages are. A bit of player vs player career comparison is fair game here and there throughout the comparison, or to prove points and establish advantages, but I would never make a comparison of the lines based purely on that.

It's also important to look at how big each advantage or disadvantage is, and how much of an impact that advantage or disadvantage can have.

Anyways, I should really stop blabbering, and just make my case on Saturday.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 09:22 AM
  #36
Stoneberg
Bored
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I agree about Smiths Fall, I think they were a superb team, that probably should have won that conference, but Halifax knocked them off (I'm not sure how). I disagree on Halifax being anywhere close to one of the top-2 teams in the draft as well.
Now that I'm out it won't be hurting my chances, I agree with this. I'm not really sure how I was ranked higher than Smith's Falls AND beat them in the playoff round, either.

Pre-rankings I thought my team was maybe around 8-12ish overall, and was hoping to finish second or third in the division. Off the top of my head I can name 5 or 6 better teams and would likely come up with a few more if I looked back at the roster thread. I wasn't going to come out and say it while I was winning rounds, though.

Also, HHH, I definitely haven't decided on this series either. I'm looking forward to your arguments.

Stoneberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 09:40 AM
  #37
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,650
vCash: 500
Thanks guys. Just having one's team appreciated is enough. My teams have never gone far in the playoffs, though this time I thought chaos' Montreal Shamrocks would be the only obstacle on the road to the conference finals! Can a better team be built around Nels Stewart? I can't do it and won't try again with that guy.

Anyways...

I was impressed how many teams received some lovin' during the lineup assassinations. The purpose of the playoffs is to present one more opportunity to appreciate some teams. The point of the ATD is the draft itself, reflecting on the worth of all-time grat hockey players from each and every era. The playoffs are almost beside the point, an interesting addition we didn't do until after the first few ATDs. I gave up feeling awful about losing a series a while ago and others should too. Remember what the draft is all about, not the championship itself, as only one of dozens will do that. but of building quality squads of historical greats, and you know what? the difference between teams is shrinking, the competitiveness level is so great that any team can knock off any other. Sure we haven't had #8 seeds going to conference finals nor anything less than a top-3 seed going all the way but upsets are becoming more common and the factors we are weighing in our decision making are getting more complex and various.

Both teams in this championship final are well built, and I love how each doesn't look like an all-star game roster, instead, have Bottom-6 guys who are role guys, the sort of line-ups one could imagine thriving in the postseason.

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 10:40 AM
  #38
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,674
vCash: 500
Since it was pointed out that I didn't use sources to support my rant about Jacques Lemaire, here are some old New York Times articles from 1998, right after he "retired." The first one is called "Styles Changed, but Lemaire Did Not."

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/09/sp...e-did-not.html

It's worth reading in full, but here are some highlights:

Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
But Lemaire is also as stubborn as he is brilliant, as sensitive as he is dedicated.
...
Last week's first-round elimination by underdog Ottawa underscored several worrisome elements about Lemaire. The mechanical, defensive approach that he perfected is now under attack. Obstruction fouls are being called throughout the playoffs.
...
Lemaire's difficulties preceded the current crackdown. Last spring, when the Rangers upset the Devils in the second round, Lemaire seemed unable to adapt when the Rangers surprised him with a neutral-zone trap similar to his own. He seemed bothered by all the news media attention, just as he did this spring against Ottawa. Through both early eliminations, he stuck to his defensive-oriented matchups, coaching in a reactive rather than a proactive way. Sometimes, a team that plays afraid to lose becomes a team afraid to win.
...
the Oilers felt that the secret to a happy, successful team in the playoffs was to let the players enjoy the regular season and get their points. When the playoffs arrived, they would naturally tighten up their approach and increase their defensive intensity.

Lemaire's teams did it the opposite way. They hit the ice in October with the same conservative methods seen in the playoffs. By springtime, when other teams switched to this style, the Devils had no different gears, no new wrinkles. After 82 games in the regular season, they seemed ground down by their own approach. The playoffs promised up to two more months of the same thing, against opposition that was better disciplined.
This is an article by a different author. It's not as direct about Lemaire's methods, but it shows that the sentiments about Lemaire weren't just from one guy:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/09/sp...it-s-time.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
For the Devils, life will go on without a coach who made them into one of the best and most consistent regular-season teams in the league in the 1990's. But set against that image is the fact that the Devils somehow failed to qualify for the playoffs the year after they won the Cup; were ambushed by their rivals, the Rangers, in the second round of last year's playoffs, and were then knocked aside this time by the No. 8 Senators, the lowest-seeded team in the Eastern Conference.
...
As it turned out, this year's Devils were the best team in the East in the regular season and nearly the best in the league, narrowly losing out in total points to the Dallas Stars.

Nevertheless, the team fell into a slump near the end of the season and kept slumping in the playoffs, having the same difficulty scoring as they did the year before against the Rangers.
From another

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05/05/sp...d-gilmour.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
For the second consecutive year, the Devils were knocked out of the post-season far earlier than they had expected. Lemaire's defense-first approach, which worked so well in the regular season, has come under criticism.
"New Freedom Confuses Devils" - from October, 1998, on the difficulty Lemaire's succesor had on getting the team to think more offensively:

http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/16/sp...es-devils.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by NY Times
Coach Robbie Ftorek has given the Devils the freedom to go on the attack whenever possible, but the defensive philosophy of his predecessor, Jacques Lemaire, has been so ingrained in the players that they seem confused about choosing the right time to venture into the attacking zone.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 02:33 PM
  #39
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
The documentary "On Home Ice" had an interesting section where the Team Canada coaches were discussing what to do on a 3-on-2. I thought it showed off Lemaire's commitment to (or obsession with) defence pretty well.

See here, around 4 minutes in.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 06:59 PM
  #40
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Thanks guys. Just having one's team appreciated is enough. My teams have never gone far in the playoffs, though this time I thought chaos' Montreal Shamrocks would be the only obstacle on the road to the conference finals! Can a better team be built around Nels Stewart? I can't do it and won't try again with that guy.

Anyways...

I was impressed how many teams received some lovin' during the lineup assassinations. The purpose of the playoffs is to present one more opportunity to appreciate some teams. The point of the ATD is the draft itself, reflecting on the worth of all-time grat hockey players from each and every era. The playoffs are almost beside the point, an interesting addition we didn't do until after the first few ATDs. I gave up feeling awful about losing a series a while ago and others should too. Remember what the draft is all about, not the championship itself, as only one of dozens will do that. but of building quality squads of historical greats, and you know what? the difference between teams is shrinking, the competitiveness level is so great that any team can knock off any other. Sure we haven't had #8 seeds going to conference finals nor anything less than a top-3 seed going all the way but upsets are becoming more common and the factors we are weighing in our decision making are getting more complex and various.

Both teams in this championship final are well built, and I love how each doesn't look like an all-star game roster, instead, have Bottom-6 guys who are role guys, the sort of line-ups one could imagine thriving in the postseason.
I'll be blunt. You lost because you provided little to no actual arguments.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 07:55 PM
  #41
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,749
vCash: 500
That could be true. Arguments have been very important in this draft. Witness EB's first round upset.

I was leaning towards Smiths Falls for sure, and still would have voted for them. But as the vote collector I was able to see how it was shaping up, and by the time I was ready to vote, there was no need for me to even bother, on that series or on any. It wouldn't have made a difference, in the winner or number of games.

(VI is right though, winning is nice, but don't get too caught up in it)

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 09:52 PM
  #42
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
VanIslander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,650
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
I'll be blunt. You lost because you provided little to no actual arguments.


stalberg provided absolutely nothing!!!!!! I was waiting for his reply after I started the discussion with a respectful:

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander
A huge size, strength and physicality advantage up the middle when the Fusiliers is on the offense and against Old Poison and Trotts is Pocket Richard and Lady Byng Boucher.

Of course, the Mooseheads top centers are elite passers and skilled at avoiding traffic and dishing off when challenged physically, and that should help control the periphery when their team is on offense, setting up some Orr shots from the point, though can their forwards park themselves in front of the net for screens and deflections? The ugly goals are so important come playoff time.

The coaching and goaltending advantage is offset by the best player in the series. But is it an ideal Orr team? Smith's Falls certainly tried to make itself an ideal Nels Stewart team.
jareklajkosz, was i to pile it on when the opposing GM provided nothing??? I provided two key questions for Halifax and one key disadvantage for Halifax, three very salient points, none of which were responded to. i waited and waited and in the end when stalberg was too busy to reply decided not to pile it on

no votes should be made based on number of words written...

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 11:25 PM
  #43
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
To be quite honest, even if your opponent isn't there to defend himself, does not mean that you shouldn't make your whole point. That's why EB lost, IMO. markrander answered the questions that were posed and made some good key arguments, and he won because of it.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2010, 11:54 PM
  #44
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,976
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
I'll be blunt. You lost because you provided little to no actual arguments.
People seem to be inconsistent in that regard, and that Smith's Falls series is a perfect example. My series with Kimberly is another one.

Personally, I view the arguments as how well a team plays. If they put up good aarguments, they play to their maximum potential, and if they put up no arguments, they play to their minimum potential. If the weaker team plays to it's potential, they may upset the stronger team...

I think that's why Vancouver has advanced this far. Really, they've been the weaker team in every series they played. The arguments that HHH has put forth were very good, and that's why he's here.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2010, 02:35 AM
  #45
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,674
vCash: 500
Lineup clarification

Gordie Howe and Sid Abel will not be taking regular shifts on the PK in this series. This allows NJ's top line to play together for about 21 minutes or so per game (plus some extra minutes for Howe being doubleshifted).

The second unit will be Dirk Graham (Selke in 91, 2 coach votes for "best penalty killer" and 2 coach votes for "best defensive forward" in 1993) and Murray Oliver (a big part of the excellent Toronto PKs in the 60s).

I'll refrain from discussing NJ's strategy until HHH finalizes his line combos.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-15-2010 at 03:43 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2010, 10:39 AM
  #46
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,601
vCash: 500
HHH requested that I say something about the power plays of these teams. I think that Vancouver has an advantage on the points, as Lapointe and Reinhart are better pointmen than Blake and Salming.

Here are the power play scoring numbers for each of these four during their primes. (Pre-1988 power play assist data come from the Hockey Summary Project, all other numbers are official NHL numbers).

Top D-men in power play points, 1970-71 to 1978-79
Player GP PPG PPP PPP/G
Bobby Orr 407 55 225 0.55
Denis Potvin 467 57 215 0.46
Brad Park 593 49 197 0.33
Guy Lapointe 646 56 195 0.30
Carol Vadnais 652 41 176 0.27
Dick Redmond 593 42 152 0.26
Dennis Kearns 564 11 131 0.23
Borje Salming 448 26 129 0.29
Jean Potvin 563 23 116 0.21
Ron Stackhouse 661 20 114 0.17

Top D-men in power play points, 1975-76 to 1982-83
Player GP PPG PPP PPP/G
Denis Potvin 545 74 277 0.51
Borje Salming 596 27 196 0.33
Brad Park 514 48 184 0.36
Stefan Persson 437 22 175 0.40
Larry Robinson 583 36 151 0.26
John Van Boxmeer 541 27 143 0.26
Guy Lapointe 459 30 141 0.31
Randy Carlyle 441 28 140 0.32
Doug Wilson 432 30 137 0.32
Reed Larson 486 39 135 0.28

Top D-men in power play points, 1980-81 to 1989-90
Player GP PPG PPP PPP/G
Paul Coffey 733 96 375 0.51
Ray Bourque 714 80 337 0.47
Dave Babych 731 71 308 0.42
Al MacInnis 528 55 291 0.55
Doug Wilson 681 64 278 0.41
Larry Murphy 785 60 277 0.35
Paul Reinhart 569 61 260 0.46
Phil Housley 608 61 247 0.41
Rob Ramage 760 59 236 0.31
Randy Carlyle 684 48 233 0.34

Top D-men in power play points, 1997-98 to 2006-07
Player GP PPG PPP PPP/G
Nicklas Lidstrom 725 66 300 0.41
Sergei Zubov 705 57 267 0.38
Sergei Gonchar 660 66 250 0.38
Chris Pronger 587 50 224 0.38
Rob Blake 668 82 212 0.32
Mathieu Schneider 655 51 210 0.32
Brian Leetch 556 43 200 0.36
Scott Niedermayer 680 46 185 0.27
Kimmo Timonen 573 46 182 0.32
Al MacInnis 427 47 178 0.42

Lapointe was as productive on the power play as any defenceman of the 1970s after Orr and Potvin. He also quarterbacked the power play for a dynasty team, posting his best numbers in those years.

Reinhart was as productive as Ray Bourque on the power play during the 1980s on a per-game basis.

Both Blake and Salming were good on the power play as well, but maybe a step down. Blake was definitely a second-tier PP quarterback in terms of points scored, behind Lidstrom, Zubov, Gonchar, Pronger, etc. Salming's PP numbers were as good as any non-Islander D-man during his prime. However, like Lapointe, his era wasn't terribly deep in top PP quarterbacks.

There's also a predictability issue here. Looking at their PPG totals, it's clear that Salming was very much a passer, and Blake a shooter. Opposing penalty killers would be able to key on Blake's shot. On the other hand, Lapointe and Reinhart are both threats to score and good passers.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2010, 12:23 PM
  #47
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post

Top D-men in power play points, 1980-81 to 1989-90
Player GP PPG PPP PPP/G
Paul Coffey 733 96 375 0.51
Ray Bourque 714 80 337 0.47
Dave Babych 731 71 308 0.42
Al MacInnis 528 55 291 0.55
Doug Wilson 681 64 278 0.41
Larry Murphy 785 60 277 0.35
Paul Reinhart 569 61 260 0.46
Phil Housley 608 61 247 0.41
Rob Ramage 760 59 236 0.31
Randy Carlyle 684 48 233 0.34

Reinhart was as productive as Ray Bourque on the power play during the 1980s on a per-game basis.

Thank you for those numbers overpass, really appreciate it.

I found this part of your post particularly interesting, because I had seen comments from other posters on this forum who watched Reinhart play, and they said that his PP quarterbacking ability reminded them of Ray Bourque. I'd always wondered if this was just hyperbole, or actually a fair comparison, the numbers suggest that Reinhart truly was as efficient at running a PP as Bourque.

As I expected, Lapointe-Reinhart is far more dangerous and efficient pairing on the point. I also have been digging up quotes about their powerplay quarterbacking ability, and how important the points are to the PP. (Scotty Bowman considered the points to be THE most important part of the hab's dynasty PP in the 70's, the one Lapointe QB'd)

I'm going to have Lapointe and Reinhart play the entire PP in this series.

Vancouver's PP unit is arguably better, but what really gives a Vancouver a decisive special teams advantage is the PK.

The opposing penalty kill and powerplay units are entirely dependent on each other. A power play's success is based largely on how it fares against the success of the opposing penalty kill, and vice versa.

Vancouver has much better PK units (including the most important PKer of all, the goalies), with a PP that is just as good as New Jersey's, arguably better.

This gives Vancouver a decisive special teams advantage (20-30% of the game), and in a close low-scoring game/series like this, converting on that 1 extra PP or killing that 1 extra penalty off late in the game can make ALL the difference!


More on this later though, I wasn't planning on discussing special teams until after my first set of arguments...


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Gordie Howe and Sid Abel will not be taking regular shifts on the PK in this series. This allows NJ's top line to play together for about 21 minutes or so per game (plus some extra minutes for Howe being doubleshifted).

The second unit will be Dirk Graham (Selke in 91, 2 coach votes for "best penalty killer" and 2 coach votes for "best defensive forward" in 1993) and Murray Oliver (a big part of the excellent Toronto PKs in the 60s).

I'll refrain from discussing NJ's strategy until HHH finalizes his line combos.
If you're not changing your lines, I'm not changing my lines either.

btw - when you say 21 minutes per game, that includes their time on the 1st PP unit, right? So at even strength, Howe is playing about 15 minutes....


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-15-2010 at 12:30 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2010, 01:41 PM
  #48
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post

As I expected, Lapointe-Reinhart is far more dangerous and efficient pairing on the point. I also have been digging up quotes about their powerplay quarterbacking ability, and how important the points are to the PP. (Scotty Bowman considered the points to be THE most important part of the hab's dynasty PP in the 70's, the one Lapointe QB'd)
"Far" more dangerous is hyperbole. Guy Lapointe had Guy Lafleur QBing the Montreal PP from the half boards, which helped quite a bit I'm sure. As did Steve Shutt in front of the net. Borje Salming had Sittler and... ?

Quote:
I'm going to have Lapointe and Reinhart play the entire PP in this series.[/B]
What does this do to their ice times at even strength? Do they just receive that much more overall ice time than their partners? I think I like the possibility of a tired out Guy Lapointe and a Reinhart who gets more overall ice time than Howell.

Quote:
Vancouver's PP unit is arguably better, but what really gives a Vancouver a decisive special teams advantage is the PK.
Vancouver has slightly better pointmen on the first unit. NJ has better forwards, as all of Howe, Abel, and Jackson are capable of shooting, passing, working the board, and going to the net. Totally unpredictable group of forwards. Doug Gilmour is pass first, Pavel Bure is shoot first, and Ace Bailey is simply a weakness on a first PP unit.

Also, NJ definitely has better pointmen on the 2nd PP unit, as Gary Bergman is weak in particular back there. Edit: Forgot you are playing Lapointe-Reinhart the whole PP. The fact that they are playing the whole PP means that they will be slightly tired by the end, and therefore less effective.

Quote:
The opposing penalty kill and powerplay units are entirely dependent on each other. A power play's success is based largely on how it fares against the success of the opposing penalty kill, and vice versa.

Vancouver has much better PK units (including the most important PKer of all, the goalies), with a PP that is just as good as New Jersey's, arguably better.
How do you figure? You have Roy. Other than that, the PK units are very close in quality.

Vancouver probably has a marginally better 1st PK unit (forwards and defensemen), but NJ has a slightly better 2nd PK unit (forwards and defensemen).

Refer to this post for information about the penalty killing ability of NJ's forwards.

Quote:
This gives Vancouver a decisive special teams advantage (20-30% of the game), and in a close low-scoring game/series like this, converting on that 1 extra PP or killing that 1 extra penalty off late in the game can make ALL the difference![/B][/COLOR]
First off, there is no advantage for Vancouver on special teams unless you count the goaltender.

Even then, NJ has as much better group of forwards on the first PP than Vancouver does.

Second of all, you're overestimating the time of the game spent on special teams. Jarek calculated earlier that an average team is going to spend about 7 minutes on the PP. So 14/60 minutes total on special teams. And given the fact that both NJ and Vancouver have coaches who preach discipline, I think special teams are going to be less of a factor in this series than in most. So I'd say 10% for each team to be on the PP and each to be on the PK is a fair estimate.

Edit:

Quote:
btw - when you say 21 minutes per game, that includes their time on the 1st PP unit, right? So at even strength, Howe is playing about 15 minutes....
Only if Vancouver is planning on giving NJ 10+ minutes of PP time.

If NJ gets 6 minutes of PP time, Howe will probably play 4 minutes of it or so.

And the 21+ minutes is for the whole top line. Howe will get an extra 3 minutes give or take doubleshifting on the 3rd and 4th line.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-15-2010 at 03:23 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2010, 01:44 PM
  #49
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
I've had some things come up today, so I don't know how much I'll be able to write, hopefully most of what I want to say because I have even less time tomorrow.

It's unfortunate that I've had to spend so much energy on defending Lemaire (almost done). I really think it's ridiculous to spend so much time talking about coaching when it is not, and has never been an important factor in any series. I would've rather been able to devout my time talking about the matchups, the players, the speical teams, my strategy, the goalies, etc...

I'll finish up my lengthy rebuttal about Lemaire within the hour, and then try and get a word in about my strategy, the matchups, and the aspects of the series where I feel Vancouver has a favorable advantage.

Hopefully, I'll be able to go more in depth and include some other things I had in mind.

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2010, 01:48 PM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,674
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
I've had some things come up today, so I don't know how much I'll be able to write, hopefully most of what I want to say because I have even less time tomorrow.

It's unfortunate that I've had to spend so much energy on defending Lemaire (almost done). I really think it's ridiculous to spend so much time talking about coaching when it is not, and has never been an important factor in any series. I would've rather been able to devout my time talking about the matchups, the players, the speical teams, my strategy, the goalies, etc...

I'll finish up my lengthy rebuttal about Lemaire within the hour, and then try and get a word in about my strategy, the matchups, and the aspects of the series where I feel Vancouver has a favorable advantage.

Hopefully, I'll be able to go more in depth and include some other things I had in mind.
I hope you have more time for more too.

I think too big a deal has been made of "The Trap" along the way, partly by you in previous series. But Billy did say that NJ had to prove it could break the trap. So it was important to show that Lemaire's trap wasn't exactly unbeatable, especially in the playoffs.

I'm definitely interested to see what you came up with about Lemaire. So long as you aren't trying to give him credit for Cups that he didn't actually win (like a lot of media talking heads do for some reason), I won't be harsh on it.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   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.