HFBoards

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

ATD 2010 Milt Dunnell Cup Final: New Jersey Swamp Devils vs. Vancouver Maroons

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-18-2010, 06:50 PM
  #101
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
the logo at center ice doesn't count as a player



sorry...
I don't if you were just using the glorious opportunity to make a joke about him, but...

1:00 - skates 2/3s of a circle around the defenseman

1:25 - you can't really see the beginning of the play well, but you see enough to know he skates a full arc across the offensive zone between 3 chicago players, and to the net.

1:36 - skates a half circle around the defenseman

1:45 - skates right through both the defensemen


hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2010, 07:52 PM
  #102
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
I don't if you were just using the glorious opportunity to make a joke about him, but...
Yes, that's all it was.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2010, 09:44 PM
  #103
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Forward Matchups

Remember, Vancouver's strategy is to send the checking line out against NJ's 1st line with a purely defensive, kill-time, limit scoring opportunities mentality, to try and contain the 1st line as best as possible through out this series. Vancouver accepts a loss (that particular matchup) in doing this, but I think this strategy helps Vancouver more at the end of the day because it's the most effective way to take on the NJ 1st line, and Vancouver's other two lines can then be depended on to over-match NJ's 2nd and 3rd line.

Of the 3 lines for each team that will play the overwhelming majority of EVEN-STRENGTH minutes, Vancouver loses the matchup 40% of the time (when NJs 1st line is on), and wins the matchup in the other 60% of the time.

-----------

Klukay-Luce-Dornhoeffer (and Patrick Roy ) vs Jackson-Abel-Howe

Just a couple notes on what Vancouver will do to be most effective at containing the NJ 1st line:

- Defense, defense, defense. As cautious as can be, and always in position.

- Vancouver is looking at this matchup with a 1 shift at a time mentality. The typical shift for a 1st line will last between 40 and 60 seconds, and Vancouver wants to try and kill as many seconds as possible. Little things like trapping the play in the neutral zone, forcing turnovers in the neutral zone and then dumping the puck back in so New Jersey has to regroup and go back for the puck and try to bring it up ice again, trapping the puck along the boards, etc... all sorts of things to chip away at the other lines TOI and try and give them as little time in the offensive zone as possible.

- TDMM has said that this line will be dumping and chasing, it's a good line for that, but remember, you can't dump the puck into the offensive zone until you get past the red line, so NJ will still have to deal with the initial wingers' trap. Also, dumping and chasing doesn't even guarantee puck possession. The defending team always gets a head start, and the goalie can help too (if he is an even semi-capable puck handler). Whenever Vancouver's defenseman gets to the puck, they're going to be instructed to just flick it up high and into the neutral zone.

- As for the ability of Vancouver's two main checkers...

I'm glad to have Joe Klukay (4 retro-Selkes) and Don Luce who are top-notch checking line players (easily the best in the series), and I'm glad that Klukay is familiar with the role of shadowing Gordie Howe, and was able to hold his own against Howe in the 1953 playoffs.

Quote:
Joe Pelletier:

Joe Klukay is one of the greatest defensive forwards to ever play the game of hockey.

A strong skater with an above average understanding of the game, Joe learned from the legendary defensive forward Nick Metz when he was a rookie in Toronto in 1946.

In the semi-finals of the 1953 playoffs, Klukay was assigned to shadow the immortal Gordie Howe. Klukay held Howe to only 2 goals in 6 games, a remarkable achievement.
and Don Luce,

Quote:
The HHOF:

Don Luce was a superior defensive centre and penalty killer who could score and work the power play. His strong two-way play and work on face offs aided all five teams on which he played, especially the Buffalo Sabres.

Luce was traded to the Buffalo Sabres in May 1971 and went on to become one of the top defensive centres and penalty killers in the game.
Quote:
Joe Pelletier:

It is unfortunate that the NHL did not award a trophy for best defensive forward until 1978, as Luce likely would have won the trophy at least in 1974-75, if not in other years.
As for Dornhoeffer, he's been criticized by TDMM, but understand this: he won't need to or be expected to do anything that requires offensive skill, and his responsibility defensively is to keep the crease clear for Roy, abuse anyone that goes to the net, and help with battles along the boards. He'll be just fine in this capacity. I could've replace Dorny on this line with someone better, but I honestly think he'll be the best at keeping the crease clear, providing a physical presence, and battling behind the net and along the boards. Dornhoeffer will thrive in any capacity that just requires him to be physical and give it his all.

Quote:
Joe Pelletier:

Dornhoefer was as gritty as any Flyer... He thrived in the corners and along the boards.... Gary was perhaps at his best in the playoffs. His unequaled work ethic and body checking is most valuable in the post season.
Vancouver wants to keep a tight cautious formation in the defensive zone and play smart defense.

We don't care about the quantity of shots, just the quality. If it's physically possible, chances are Roy will make the save. It'll take really high quality scoring chances to beat Roy, and even then, we all know he's capable of putting on a goalie clinic or making that big save.

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

Bailey-Schmidt-Bure vs Tkachuk-Savard-Martinec

Advantage Vancouver, clearly! As I said in my previous post about the trap, New Jersey's 2nd line is going to have a real tough time dealing with a trapping team. This line is not a good dump and chase line, and will have a lot of problems dealing with the lack of time and space that they are accustomed to.

This line is carried by Savard mostly, and to some extent, Martinec, but they are both going up against a system that hinders their best abilities, and they will have to lineup across from Milt freaking Schmidt, and Ace Bailey who was "one of the game's fiercest defensive players. He was a penalty-killer extraordinaire and a great shadow." (Pelletier)

Tkachuk is clearly the weakest player in this matchup. He was not particularly skilled or particularly good defensively. In this context, he is dependent on Savard to score.

Going up against the trap, and being checked by Schmidt and Bailey, this line will be rendered pretty ineffective offensively.

Meanwhile, this is a pretty weak defensive line, and they're going to be out matched in their own zone against Schmidt, Bure, and Bailey.

Schmidt was the cornerstone of a Boston dynasty for years, similar to Trottier. He finished top-4 (1st, 3rd, 4th, 4th) in assists 4 times, even though he missed 3 years right in the middle of his career to go to war. He clearly had elite play making abilities.

Because of a tragic accident, Bailey's career was shortened, and only lasted 7 years. In these 7 years, he was asked to play a defensive role in 3, and an offensive role in 4. In those 4 years that the Leafs looked to him for scoring, he finished top-8 in assists every single year, had 1st, 4th, and 6th place point finishes, and won a retro Rocket Richard trophy as well.

So you have Milt Schmidt, with elite playmaking capabilities and the ability to score as well, Bailey who has a good mix of playmaking and scoring abilities, and Pavel Bure who is one of the greatest pure goal scorers in history. Bure has the speed and deking ability to breakout at any time and beat the defenseman 1-on-1, but he also had a "lethal wrist shot" (Joe Pelletier) and could snipe.

Once again, we can start to see the priceless value of Vancouver's versatility and two-way ability. The Schmidt line can dominate their NJ opposition in a checking match-up and keep them off the scoresheet, but has the offensive ability to sustain pressure in the offensive zone and score against a line that is pretty weak in it's own zone.

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

Fleury-Gilmour-Bauer vs Marshall-Lepine-Graham

Okay, it's getting late and I need to move on to other arguments...

Clearly, Vancouver is getting the favorable match-up again. This is NJ's checking line against Vancouver's 2nd line, and the checking will probably just try and do the best they can to prevent scoring opportunities.

The Lepine line will clearly be focused on checking and defense though, and won't do any scoring, especially considering how comparably weak their scoring ability is, and two-way forwards like Gilmour and Fleury are on against them as well.

Vancouver will win this match-up easily, and hope to get the secondary scoring boost from Gilmour (top 110 player of all-time, incredible playmaker) setting up his wingers, Fleury and Bauer. The clutch Gilmour-Fleury connection will hopefully come through big time at key moments in the series.


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-18-2010 at 09:52 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2010, 10:51 PM
  #104
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Playoff Performers

Both teams obviously have guys that brought their game up a bit in the playoffs, or guys who struggled a bit in the playoffs, but Vancouver has some incredibly clutch players, with no notable playoff chokers. New Jersey has a few notable playoff chokers though, and no one that really elevated their game in the playoffs (this is unfair to Howe though, but that's the only case for NJ that's arguable)

I'm sure TDMM is going to respond with "You forgot so and so who was pretty good in the playoffs... but keep in mind that I'm not including a bunch of my guys as well who were pretty good in the playoffs, such as Schmidt, Bure, and Reinhart.

These are just the extreme cases of guys that elevated their game when it mattered most, and guys that struggled when it mattered most.

New Jersey features the following:

- Busher Jackson, whose career PPG average of 0.40 (!!!) is a whopping 44% lower than his regular season average, (-)
- Keith Tkachuk, whose game has suffered in all areas throughout his playoff career, particularly 1999 and beyond and has a 38% PPG drop, (-)
- Wilf Paiement, whose career PPG average of 0.51 is 41% lower than his regular season average (-)

Vancouver features the following:

- Patrick Roy, first three-time winner of the Conn Smythe trophy, also see below (++)
- Doug Gilmour, see below (++)
- Theo Fleury, lead the playoffs in PPG twice and finished 3rd another time. There have been 3 separate post-seasons in which Fleury lead the league in playoff scoring at the time of his team's elimination. (+)

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

Patrick Roy:

Quote:
Joe Pelletier:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Doug Gilmour:


- 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.


NOTE: credit to seventieslord for digging up those Gilmour facts and for the section about NJ's notable playoff chokers (it's from his series against NJ)


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-18-2010 at 11:01 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2010, 11:04 PM
  #105
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post


-----------

Klukay-Luce-Dornhoeffer (and Patrick Roy ) vs Jackson-Abel-Howe


- Defense, defense, defense. As cautious as can be, and always in position.
Can Gary Dornhoeffer play cautiously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Pelletier
Dornhoefer was as gritty as any Flyer, playing with reckless abandon as he headed into the boards, usually with his elbows just a touch high.
He's a great tough guy who is on Dirk Graham level offensively, but I don't know if "cautious" is in his vocabulary.

Quote:
. The defending team always gets a head start, and the goalie can help too (if he is an even semi-capable puck handler).
Why does the defending team always get the head start? The defensemen are closer to the puck when the forwards dump it in, but they are facing in the wrong direction.

However, in this case, I want Vancouvers defensemen to get to the puck first. That way they are fair game to be physically assaulted by the likes of Howe and Abel.

Quote:

[B]I'm glad to have Joe Klukay (4 retro-Selkes) and Don Luce who are top-notch checking line players (easily the best in the series),
Easily the best? I'm not even sure they are the best. Are you forgetting that Pit Lepine has 3 retro Selkes himself and was given the title of something like "Best Shadow of the 1930s" by Ultimate Hockey? Don Marshall has 2 Retro Selkes himself and Dirk Graham has a real Selke.

If anything, I think Lepine and Marshall are probably more valuable players at even strength, as they are more capable of scoring on a counterattack. Lepine was Top 10 in goals 3 times and Marshall was top 15 3 times. Not great, but a big step up from Klukay and Luce.
Quote:
As for Dornhoeffer, he's been criticized by TDMM, but understand this: he won't need to or be expected to do anything that requires offensive skill, and his responsibility defensively is to keep the crease clear for Roy, abuse anyone that goes to the net, and help with battles along the boards. He'll be just fine in this capacity.
As far as I know, Dornhoeffer has zero defensive credentials. That's fine - you can have players like that. Guys like Denis Savard and Keith Tkachuk, for instance. But I wouldn't want guys like that going opposite Busher Jackson, especially when Dornhoeffer doesn't provide much offense either (about the same as Dirk Graham, the worst offensive forward on NJ).


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-18-2010 at 11:24 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2010, 11:08 PM
  #106
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy
Bailey-Schmidt-Bure vs Tkachuk-Savard-Martinec
Excellent. I think this is the best possible matchup for NJ, as Bure will be doing his own thing without the puck.

The neutral zone trap requires a full commitment from all 5 guys on the ice, including the 1 forechecking forward who needs to steer the opposing player into "The Trap." With Bure off doing his own thing, it basically created a 5-on-4 powerplay for NJ with a cherrypicking player (who needs to be watched) behind them them. Schmidt and Bailey are great defensive players who can cover to Bure, but I'm not sure if they'll be able to make up for his deficiences if Vancouver wants to run a strict trap. All 5 skaters need to at least show up to play a system like that.

Another benefit for NJ is that Salming and Blake will always be out there against Bure, and their puck moving ability will be really nice to have out there with Savard and Martinec.

Quote:
Tkachuk is clearly the weakest player in this matchup. He was not particularly skilled or particularly good defensively. In this context, he is dependent on Savard to score.
Martinec is probably almost as good a passer as Savard. And Tkachuk led the NHL in goals twice without playing with an elite passer. It's one reason it was so easy to shut him down in the playoffs - teams just focused on him alone.

Quote:
Meanwhile, this is a pretty weak defensive line, and they're going to be out matched in their own zone against Schmidt, Bure, and Bailey.
I'm not sure how much NJ's line will be outmatched by Vancouvers.' Schmidt and Bailey are obviously excellent defensive players (probably even better than Abel and Howe!). But they will be playing basically 4 against 5 when NJ has the puck.

None of NJ's 2nd line is particularly great defensively (though there is limited evidence that Martinec was pretty good), but none is a liability either, like a Pavel Bure.

Quote:
Once again, we can start to see the priceless value of Vancouver's versatility and two-way ability. The Schmidt line can dominate their NJ opposition in a checking match-up and keep them off the scoresheet, but has the offensive ability to sustain pressure in the offensive zone and score against a line that is pretty weak in it's own zone.
How much pressure is the line going to sustain when they are playing a passive 1-4 trap? As soon as the puck looks like it might turn over, Vancouver's defensemen will retreat to their own side of the red line and Schmidt and Bailey will start to think defense-first, even in their own zone. Remember, Jacques Lemaire is a guy who would forgo a good scoring chance to avoid a potential 3-on-2.

Quote:

Fleury-Gilmour-Bauer vs Marshall-Lepine-Graham

Vancouver will win this match-up easily, and hope to get the secondary scoring boost from Gilmour (top 110 player of all-time, incredible playmaker) setting up his wingers, Fleury and Bauer.


What does "easily" mean? I doubt either line will score very often, as they will be engaged in a back-and-forth trapfest.

Quote:
The clutch Gilmour-Fleury connection will hopefully come through big time at key moments in the series.
Assuming the right-handed Fleury can take the puck on his backhand in stride, something he didn't have to do while playing right wing in the NHL.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-18-2010 at 11:30 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2010, 11:13 PM
  #107
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,925
vCash: 500
I just want to point out that Pavel Bure will definitely spend some time against NJ's checking lines. Imagine how frustrated Bure will get, playing in the middle of a trapfest, while everyone on his own team and the opponent's team is trapping!

I think it would make him even more prone to abandon the system and cherry pick, when Lemaire does get the matchup he wants (against the Savard line).


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-18-2010 at 11:22 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2010, 11:41 PM
  #108
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
Both teams obviously have guys that brought their game up a bit in the playoffs, or guys who struggled a bit in the playoffs, but Vancouver has some incredibly clutch players, with no notable playoff chokers. New Jersey has a few notable playoff chokers though, and no one that really elevated their game in the playoffs (this is unfair to Howe though, but that's the only case for NJ that's arguable)

I'm sure TDMM is going to respond with "You forgot so and so who was pretty good in the playoffs... but keep in mind that I'm not including a bunch of my guys as well who were pretty good in the playoffs, such as Schmidt, Bure, and Reinhart.

These are just the extreme cases of guys that elevated their game when it mattered most, and guys that struggled when it mattered most.

New Jersey features the following:

- Busher Jackson, whose career PPG average of 0.40 (!!!) is a whopping 44% lower than his regular season average, (-)
- Keith Tkachuk, whose game has suffered in all areas throughout his playoff career, particularly 1999 and beyond and has a 38% PPG drop, (-)
- Wilf Paiement, whose career PPG average of 0.51 is 41% lower than his regular season average (-)

Vancouver features the following:

- Patrick Roy, first three-time winner of the Conn Smythe trophy, also see below (++)
- Doug Gilmour, see below (++)
- Theo Fleury, lead the playoffs in PPG twice and finished 3rd another time. There have been 3 separate post-seasons in which Fleury lead the league in playoff scoring at the time of his team's elimination. (+)

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

Patrick Roy:



In each of Patrick Roy's 4 Stanley Cup playoff runs, his SV% rose by unbelievable amounts in the playoffs.

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

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

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

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

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

Doug Gilmour:


- 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.


NOTE: credit to seventieslord for digging up those Gilmour facts and for the section about NJ's notable playoff chokers (it's from his series against NJ)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2010, 11:51 PM
  #109
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
FACT: Gary Dornhoefer has a higher career playoff PPG than Busher Jackson!

In Jackson's 12 playoff runs between 1931 and 1943, he has 30 points in 71 games for a career playoff PPG of 0.42

In Dornhoefer's 9 playoff runs between 1968 and 1978, he has 36 points in 80 games for a career playoff PPG of 0.45

What's sad (besides the fact that I'm serious ) is that this isn't even because Jackson played in an era where it was tougher to score....

Between 1931 and 1943, Jackson's 0.42 PPG ranks 58th amongst skaters with 10 or more playoff games played.

Between 1968 and 1978, Dornhoefer's 0.45 PPG ranks 56th amongst skaters with 10 or more playoff games played.

Not to mention, Dornhoefer played in an era where 8-12 teams made the playoffs, but Jackson played in an era where only 4-6 teams made the playoffs, so Dornhoefer had more competition.

I don't think Dornhoefer even compares to Jackson offensively, just thought this little tid-bit was hilarious and helps reflect how under-whelming Jackson's playoff resume really is.


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-18-2010 at 11:57 PM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 12:21 AM
  #110
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
What's sad (besides the fact that I'm serious ) is that this isn't even because Jackson played in an era where it was tougher to score....
Actually, it is because of that. If you look at the league GPG average throughout their careers it's not even close.

Still, after adjustment, Dornhoefer and Jackson would have fairly comparable playoff averages, and that doesn't reflect well on Jackson.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 12:27 AM
  #111
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
NJ is going to make this game a trap fest?

So basically, you've decided to start copying Vancouver's strategy and playing the same system that this Maroon team has excelled at all season and used to get here...

Not only is it bizarre/peculiar/questionable that you're basically just copying your opponent's strategy in an ATD series, but...

Does Tommy Ivan even KNOW what a neutral zone trap is? Has he ever seen it played in his life or have ANY experience what so ever dealing with it? How is he supposed to teach it to his players?

Jacques Lemaire, on the other hand, is the godfather of the neutral zone trap...

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 12:35 AM
  #112
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
It's getting really late, I should've gone to bed a long time ago, but I really want to do the post on special teams before you guys start voting tomorrow...

It won't be as in-depth or complete as I would've liked though...

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 01:06 AM
  #113
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
FACT: Gary Dornhoefer has a higher career playoff PPG than Busher Jackson!

In Jackson's 12 playoff runs between 1931 and 1943, he has 30 points in 71 games for a career playoff PPG of 0.42

In Dornhoefer's 9 playoff runs between 1968 and 1978, he has 36 points in 80 games for a career playoff PPG of 0.45

What's sad (besides the fact that I'm serious ) is that this isn't even because Jackson played in an era where it was tougher to score....

Between 1931 and 1943, Jackson's 0.42 PPG ranks 58th amongst skaters with 10 or more playoff games played.

Between 1968 and 1978, Dornhoefer's 0.45 PPG ranks 56th amongst skaters with 10 or more playoff games played.

Not to mention, Dornhoefer played in an era where 8-12 teams made the playoffs, but Jackson played in an era where only 4-6 teams made the playoffs, so Dornhoefer had more competition.

I don't think Dornhoefer even compares to Jackson offensively, just thought this little tid-bit was hilarious and helps reflect how under-whelming Jackson's playoff resume really is.
Here are some facts that are actually relevant : Busher Jackson’s prime was from 1931-32 to 1936-37. All of Jackson’s All Star nods were from this time. This is actually a pretty average-length prime for this violent era. During this 6 year period, Busher Jackson led the league in total playoff goals and was tied for second in playoff points.

Source: http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

This is a case where the use of career "per game" stats does nothing but “punish” Jackson for playing quite a few long playoffs after his prime.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-19-2010 at 10:22 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 01:34 AM
  #114
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,925
vCash: 500
Denis Savard vs. Doug Gilmour

Denis Savard

Regular season points finishes: 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 7th

Playoff points: 175 points in 169 games

Doug Gilmour

Regular season points finishes: 4th, 5th, 7th

Playoff points: 188 points in 182 games.

___________________________________________

Gilmour might have "elevated his game" more than Savard, but only because he was a significantly worse points producer in the regular season.

Their production in the playoffs is virtually identical, and their careers overlapped almost entirely (Gilmour got his start only 4 years later).

Gilmour has the edge in defense and intangibles, but let's not pretend that Gilmour was a better offensive player in the playoffs than Savard.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 01:49 AM
  #115
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
NJ is going to make this game a trap fest?

So basically, you've decided to start copying Vancouver's strategy and playing the same system that this Maroon team has excelled at all season and used to get here...
Only the 2 checking lines will play a "traplike system." And it worked for the Rangers in 1997, who "surprised Lemaire by using a trap like his own."

The top 2 lines will play a dump and chase game as explained above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy

Does Tommy Ivan even KNOW what a neutral zone trap is? Has he ever seen it played in his life or have ANY experience what so ever dealing with it? How is he supposed to teach it to his players?
First off, we are assuming that every coach has access to every tactic in the modern game. Just like the players. It's not like Milt Schmidt knew what the trap was. It's not like Bure... nevermind.

Second off, I said "traplike system" like the "kitty bar the door" system that Art Ross pioneered while still a player, well before Tommy Ivan was born.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Pelletier
Ross also came up with early forms of a helmet and the plus/minus system, not to mention the "kitty bar the door," which resembles today's neutral zone trap.
Hap Day, who was a veteran coach when Ivan got started, was also famous for playing a conservative, defensive style of hockey.

Stop acting like Lemaire is the only coach in history who ever thought of clogging up the neutral zone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy
Jacques Lemaire, on the other hand, is the godfather of the neutral zone trap...
As most GMs are aware, this is basically false, and you really need to stop giving your coach undue credit.

Lemaire learned the trap the same place that Larry Robinson did - from Scottie Bowman who used the system on the dynasty team in the late 70s. Bowman combined tactics that the Swedes used to slow down the Soviets with preexisting strategies used by Toe Blake.

This is how everyone's favorite poster Canadiens1958 described it:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Basically "The Trap" can be traced back to the Blake coached Canadiens. Eliminate offensive options for the opposition trapping them into situations where only high risk options are left with a great possibility of a turnover resulting in an odd man rush. Lachine in the old MMJHL played a similar style when Lemaire played his junior as did NDG where Bowman coached a bit of junior in between Peterborough and Montreal in the OHA. Lemaire then played junior for Bowman with the Junior Canadiens.

Bowman and Lemaire then added the various European elements as the game evolved. "The Trap" is a 1990's media description that took writers about 40 years to figure out and produce a buzz word.
Of course, he emphasizes the credit given to Toe Blake and minimizes the Euro influence, but whatever.

The point is that The Trap(tm) and systems like it were around long before Lemaire was even born. Sure Lemaire added new wrinkles (such as barring his defensemen from joining the attack), but the basics were the same.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-19-2010 at 02:00 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 04:43 AM
  #116
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The point is that The Trap(tm) and systems like it were around long before Lemaire was even born. Sure Lemaire added new wrinkles (such as barring his defensemen from joining the attack), but the basics were the same.
Didn't Art Ross develop the first "trap" in the 1920s?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 04:48 AM
  #117
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,792
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Actually, it is because of that. If you look at the league GPG average throughout their careers it's not even close.

Still, after adjustment, Dornhoefer and Jackson would have fairly comparable playoff averages, and that doesn't reflect well on Jackson.
Almost half of Jackson's play-off games come after he was no longer an all-star. Before that time, he was a very strong play-off performer.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 09:40 AM
  #118
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Vancouver's Special Teams Advantage

I didn't get around to doing an analysis, but just look at the PK units:

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

vs

PK1: Lepine - Marshall - Siebert - Green
PK2: Graham - Oliver - Salming - Blake
New Jersey

Klukay and Luce are both definitely penalty killers than Lepine and Marshall, and Howell is definitely a better penalty killer than Seibert. Also, Gardiner is a better penalty killer than Green, or am I mistaken about this one?

Vancouver has one of the best penalty kills in the league (arguably the best), and it is clearly better than NJ's.

TDMM has actually said in the past that he think Klukay and Luce are two of the top PKing forwards in history!

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Is Brind'amour one of the Top 20 PKing forwards in the ATD? I doubt it. He's no Clarke, Nighbor, Ramsey, Luce, Gainey, Madden, Klukay, Metz, etc.
Here is overpass' analysis/comment on who the top-10 PKing forwards since 1968 are, note Luce:

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I estimate Brind'Amour as 3rd since 1968 among forwards in the sheer amount of penalty killing he did, behind Messier and Carbonneau. The method is basically player PPGA adjusted for team PPGA. (or the numerator of the SH% I posted over on the history section.)

Top 10: Messier, Carbonneau, Brind'Amour, Ramsay, Westfall, Luce, Yzerman, Jarvis, Gainey, Goring.
Here is what Joe Pelletier says about Klukay's penalty killing:

Quote:
If you ever had the chance to coach an all time team, choosing players from any era, you couldn't go wrong with picking Joe Klukay as one of your penalty killing forwards.
Here is what Pelletier says about Luce's penalty killing:

Quote:
In Buffalo Luce would develop into one of the best defensive centers and penalty killers of his era... And in 1973-74 Luce achieved a career high 33 goals and 76 points. Eight of his goals came while shorthanded, then a NHL record.
Howell and Gardiner were two pure defensive defenseman, Howell was arguably the best defensive defenseman in the league for 15 years. I found an article a while ago that unfortunately I can't go look for right now, but it basically said that he was "a consistent, indestructable workforce" on the blueline, and that he had been the "most-underrated" defenseman in the league for 15 years, and that he had been consistently overlooked for Norris voting and all-star selection because he didn't score much. I also read someone say (though I can't confirm this) that Howell was named the best penalty killer of his era/decade or something by Ultimate Hockey.

Then on the second units you have Ace Bailey who was "a penalty-killer extraordinaire" and MILT SCHMIDT (nuff said). Note that Graham and Oliver, for whatever reason, are NOT TDMM's preferred 2nd unit PKing forwards. All throughout this ATD he has gone with Howe and Abel.

Then there's the depth of Vancouver's PK, because Gilmour-Fleury can alos play on the PK as a 3rd forward unit... btw, Gilmour (and Bure, LOL) had as many coach's votes for "best penalty killer" as Graham did in that 1 year that TDMM has mentioned.

And then, any advantage Vancouver already has in penalty killing personnel, is only amplified by the difference in net! Your goaltender is your most important penalty killer, and Vancouver has a far superior goaltender!

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

PP units:

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

vs

PP1: Jackson - Abel - Howe - Salming - Blake
PP2: Tkachuk - Savard - Martinec - Siebert - Leduc
New Jersey

Vancouver has more dangerous and potent defensemen on the points, quarterbacking the powerplays. New Jersey, in all likelihood has better forwards down low, but Vancouver's advantage at the points is greater than NJ's advantage with the forwards. Also, it's totally arguable that the points on the powerplay are more important than the other players. Bowman thought the points were the most important of the PP. I read an article in the Montreal Gazette where Bowman said (paraphrasing): "I'm moving Lafleur back from the half-boards to the point... this will be a big loss for the PP forwards/down low, but that's not as important as the boost our powerplay will get at the points, and the points are the most important part of our powerplay"

Don't underestimate Vancouver's PP forwards either! Lapointe and Reinhart QBing the powerplays with Holmstrom screening in front of the net, and Gilmour setting up plays for Bure who can snipe. Then on the second unit, Milt Schmidt who has 4 top-4 assist finishes (missed 3 years of his prime in the war), along with his real life partner, Bobby Bauer who has 4 top-10 finishes in goals (missed 3 years of his prime in the war as well) and Ace Bailey who won a retro Art Ross and Rocket Richard and finished top-8 in assists all 4 years of his short career. Schmidt and Bauer are 2/3s of the best line in the league in the late 30s/early 40s.


Here is overpass' analysis about the pointmen on the powerplay, btw:

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I think that Vancouver has an advantage on the points, as Lapointe and Reinhart are better pointmen than Blake and Salming.

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.
Bob Johnson on Reinhart's PP ability:

Quote:
He's the big reason we've got one of the strongest power plays in the NHL.
------------

Vancouver's penalty kill unit is clearly better than NJ's, and with Patrick Roy in net, the difference is even larger.

The powerplay units are pretty close, I think Vancouver's advantage at the points is greater and more important than NJ's advantage with the forwards, but I understand that this is arguable. I think Vancouver has better PP units, but at worst, they're very close and comparable.

However, the effectiveness of a PP is dependent on the strength of the opposing penalty kill. Vancouver's PP is more likely to convert than NJ's PP is, because Vancouver has a much stronger penalty kill unit than NJ does.

20% of the game will be on the special teams (by TDMM's estimations, I think it's more than that), and the percentage of goals scored on the PP will be even higher than 20% because there are more goals scored per minute of PP ice time than there are per minute of even strength ice time. In a series like this where the games will be tight and close, an advantage in special teams can make a huge difference, and Vancouver has that advantage!


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-19-2010 at 10:03 AM.
hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 09:49 AM
  #119
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Almost half of Jackson's play-off games come after he was no longer an all-star. Before that time, he was a very strong play-off performer.
Even if we were to isolate his "peak" playoff seasons, he still struggled big-time.

From 1932-1936, Jackson's regular season PPG of 0.90 was the 2nd highest in the league, only behind Charlie Conacher.

From 1932-1936, Jackson's playoff PPG of 0.59 was only the 17th highest (minimum 10 games played) in the 10 team league, behind quite a few very average or mediocre players.

Even in his peak, his playoff PPG dropped from 0.90 in the regular season to 0.59 in the playoffs. That's a drop of 34%

hungryhungryhippy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 10:42 AM
  #120
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Denis Savard

Regular season points finishes: 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 7th

Playoff points: 175 points in 169 games

Doug Gilmour

Regular season points finishes: 4th, 5th, 7th

Playoff points: 188 points in 182 games.

___________________________________________

Gilmour might have "elevated his game" more than Savard, but only because he was a significantly worse points producer in the regular season.

Their production in the playoffs is virtually identical, and their careers overlapped almost entirely (Gilmour got his start only 4 years later).

Gilmour has the edge in defense and intangibles, but let's not pretend that Gilmour was a better offensive player in the playoffs than Savard.
That is a laugh and 3/4.

You are pretending that Savard's 31 playoff games from age 19-21 in 1981-1983 (in which he scored 35 points) can just be equated to Gilmour's 36 playoff games from age 34-38 in 1998-2002 (in which he scored 24 points) can be just bunched all together and say "their careers overlapped almost entirely" as if it barely matters.

It matters big-time! The difference in league goals per game between 1981-1983 and 1998-2002 is about 25%.

Comparing the years they were in the league together (which is not perfect either, due to ages, but a much better indicator than you're using) shows Gilmour outscoring Savard 1.12 to 1.01.

let's not pretend that Savard is even a reasonable facsimile of Gilmour in the playoffs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Almost half of Jackson's play-off games come after he was no longer an all-star. Before that time, he was a very strong play-off performer.
OK, I'm open to looking at what else contributed to this discrepancy. Let's look at his prime years as described by TDMM:

241 pts in 269 GP (0.90), 23 pts in 39 GP (0.59) - 35% drop

rest of career: 234 Pts in 364 GP (0.64), 7 pts in 32 GP (0.22) - 65% drop

It seems Jackson was always scoring much less in the playoffs than in the regular season. It should be noted that a 25-30% drop was the norm during these times, which is more than usual.

Also, his prime years should matter more than the rest of his career, because those are the years that got him drafted, and because that's where he really put together good sample sizes of games for analysis. Even looking at that, his 35% drop is quite dramatic.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 10:55 AM
  #121
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,586
vCash: 500
Quote:
Here is overpass' analysis/comment on who the top-10 PKing forwards since 1968 are, note Luce:
Luce is a great penalty killer. However, note that this is more of a compiling statistic than anything, in the same way that Messier and Francis are 2nd and 4th all-time in points despite not being among the 4 best scorers of all-time.

Not that this necessarily takes away from Luce. But the list shouldn't be read as "the best penalty killers post-expansion", more like "the guys who killed the most penalties post-expansion"

Quote:
Reinhart was as productive as Ray Bourque on the power play during the 1980s on a per-game basis.
I noticed when calculating Phil Russell's ice time for his bio, that Reinhart often had a massive amount of PPTOI. This one year, he was on the ice for 64 PPGF and the team had just 69 PPGF all season. So if he's playing entire powerplays it is only natural that his "per-game" average would approach that of a guy like Bourque.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 10:57 AM
  #122
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,925
vCash: 500
More unsupported claims, this time about the special teams.

Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post

Klukay and Luce are both definitely penalty killers than Lepine and Marshall, and Howell is definitely a better penalty killer than Seibert.
If they are better at all, the difference is marginal:

These are the penalty killing forwards for NJ:

Don Marshall

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass
This poll was taken by US hockey magazine "Hockey Illustrated", and the results were summarized in the Toronto Star by Jim Proudfoot on January 22, 1965.

Best penalty killer
1. Bob Pulford
2. Don Marshall

No other players received votes.
-Awarded two Retro Selkes by Ultimate Hockey (1959, 1960).

Retro Selkes don't mean much on their own, but it seems like elite penalty killing plays a huge part in awarding them.

His legends of hockey bio says he became "one of the league's premiere penalty killers" in Montreal as he won 5 straight Cups. His Pelletier bio says that " continued to be a top penalty killer in New York but also received more ice time and therefore a more offensive role."

Pit Lepine
-Awarded 3 Retro Selkes (1931, 32, 34)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Hockey
A honey-smooth skater and playmaker, Lepine was the head-coach's go-to guy when it came to shadowing or penalty-killing.
Dirk Graham
-Selke winner in 1991

In a 1993 poll of 21 NHL coaches, Graham received
-2 votes for “Best Defensive Forward”
-2 votes for “Best Penalty Killer”

Murray Oliver
"adept at killing penalties."

-Big part of the excellent Toronto PK in the 1960s.

Quote:
Howell and Gardiner were two pure defensive defenseman, Howell was arguably the best defensive defenseman in the league for 15 years.
That would be a pretty poor argument, considering Howell only received multiple Norris votes on 2 occasions in an era where the writers saw all the players play.

1 single 1st Team All Star and 0 Second 1st Team All Stars vs. 3 First Team All-Stars for Siebert. Siebert was also one of the strongest men of his era - perfect to move forwards in front of the net on the PK.
Quote:
Then on the second units you have Ace Bailey who was "a penalty-killer extraordinaire" and MILT SCHMIDT (nuff said). Note that Graham and Oliver, for whatever reason, are NOT TDMM's preferred 2nd unit PKing forwards. All throughout this ATD he has gone with Howe and Abel.
Oliver and Graham received as much PK time as Howe and Abel when NJ went with 3 units. A full 2 minute PK has 3-4 shifts for the PKing forwards. Howe and Abel were the second unit out to try to take advantage of tired pointment on the first wave of the opponent's PP. It's a common strategy for coaches to put out their greatest shorthanded threats on the 2nd wave of the PK for this reason.
Quote:
Vancouver has more dangerous and potent defensemen on the points, quarterbacking the powerplays. New Jersey, in all likelihood has better forwards down low, but Vancouver's advantage at the points is greater than NJ's advantage with the forwards.
Look at the forwards on the first PP units and say that with a straight face. In a previous series I went after Andreychuk for being "useless if not in front of the net," but at least Andreychuk could score goals when he's in front of the net. Holmstrom, for the most part, is only useful as a screen. And Babe Siebert and Terrible Ted Green are well equipped to move him with strength and dirty tricks.

Quote:

Don't underestimate Vancouver's PP forwards either! Lapointe and Reinhart QBing the powerplays with Holmstrom screening in front of the net, and Gilmour setting up plays for Bure who can snipe.
Most one-dimensional first unit in the draft? Bure isn't going to pass much and Holmstrom is nothing but a screener (who Babe Siebert is strong enough to move).

Quote:
Vancouver's penalty kill unit is clearly better than NJ's
[/QUOTE]

Any particular reason you didn't compare the defensemen on the 2nd pair of the PKs? In my opinion, the single biggest difference between the PKs is the quality of the defensemen on NJ's second unit.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 10:59 AM
  #123
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Reinhart often had a massive amount of PPTOI. This one year, he was on the ice for 64 PPGF and the team had just 69 PPGF all season. So if he's playing entire powerplays it is only natural that his "per-game" average would approach that of a guy like Bourque.
Honestly, from the info gathered about Reinhart this time around, he seems like a guy best used as a bottom pairing / full PP guy.

His PP point totals are very impressive, but it makes his even strength production that much less impressive.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 11:05 AM
  #124
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,925
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by hungryhungryhippy View Post
Even if we were to isolate his "peak" playoff seasons, he still struggled big-time.

From 1932-1936, Jackson's regular season PPG of 0.90 was the 2nd highest in the league, only behind Charlie Conacher.

From 1932-1936, Jackson's playoff PPG of 0.59 was only the 17th highest (minimum 10 games played) in the 10 team league, behind quite a few very average or mediocre players.

Even in his peak, his playoff PPG dropped from 0.90 in the regular season to 0.59 in the playoffs. That's a drop of 34%
Busher Jackson played 39 playoff games during this time - tied for most in the league during this era. Don't even pretend that 10 playoff games is a comparable sample size to 39. It's basically 1/4 of the size.

And you can "per game" it all you want - the fact is that Jackson was the leading goal scorer and 2nd leading point getting (to Charlie Conacher) on a team good enough to play all those playoff games. Advancing in the playoffs is a good thing.

As 70s said, a drop of 25-30% is average during those years. And I think the fact that Jackson's team advanced in the playoffs more often than any other team during these years probably accounts for a large part of why his was apparently 35%

And on a per-game level, Jackson is 5th in goals per playoff game during this time. He played 39 games. The guys in front of him played 3, 5, 21, and 15 games. Only one of them played more than half of what Jackson did, and just barely.

Playing more playoff games is a good thing, not a bad thing - it means you are helping your team advance. Especially when you are one of the team's key players, like Jackson obviously was (leading the team in goals and a close 2nd in points to Charlie Conacher).

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2010, 11:25 AM
  #125
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
 
hungryhungryhippy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 739
vCash: 500
On the Blueline

TDMM made a post earlier that made it look like his defense was a lot better than mine, and that assessment is deceiving. Like I said before, the defensive cores of both teams are very similar and comparable, both in terms of quality and how they were built. Neither team can boast a noteworthy enough advantage on the blueline, and I don't think either blueline is going to make a difference over the other in this series.

In terms of quality of players, basically every single comparison of the defensemen on the depth charts is either incredibly close or could go either way.

What's more important though, is how well built and well-rounded both defensive cores are. There is no ability on either blueline that the other one doesn't have. IMO, the effectiveness of the pairings and all-around strength of the bluelines is more important than any individual comparison of personnel.

As far as the actual pairings go:

minor edge to New Jersey's 1st, minor edge to Vancouver's 2nd, and the 3rd pairings are too close to call. Both Vancouver and New Jersey's "edges" though are incredibly minor in an ATD context.

1st Pairing: Lapointe-Gardiner < Salming-Blake, minor edge NJ...

because Blake has better career value than Gardiner. Gardiner was a rock defensively, definitely more steady and reliable than Blake, but Blake has better offensive ability and longevity.

As for Lapointe and Salming... Salming gets a minor edge, but realistically, they both have similar career value and a similar skill set.

Salming was the 23rd defenseman taken, Lapointe the 28th, so they're both lower tier #1 defensemen. The Norris Voting records are actually very close:

Lapointe: 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5
Salming: 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5

Both are well rounded and physical, Salming likely a bit better defensively, Lapointe likely a bit better offensively

2nd Pairing: Howell-Reinhart > Siebert-Green, minor edge VAN...

because Vancouver's defensemen compliment each other incredibly well, and Vancouver has the steadiest defender of the 4, and the best puck-carrier/offensive defenseman of the 4

Again though, the defensemen on both pairings are in the same tier in terms of quality and the pairings are totally comparable.

I give Howell a minor edge over Siebert, see this post: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=131

I give Reinhart a minor edge over Green because he has an incredible defensive defenseman in Howell covering for him, which allows him to focus more on the best aspect of his game, the offense.

Reinhart is pretty underrated imo, his defensive game was nothing more than competent and capabale, but offensively, his abilities as a defenseman are in an elite tier. People who watched Reinhart play with MacInnis have said that there wasn't much separating their skill and ability, and his composure on the powerplay reminded them of Ray Bourque. This is interesting, because overpass' statistical analysis showed that on per game basis, Reinhart was as productive as Bourque on the powerplay. Reinhart was also a strong puck carrier, and great playoff performer.

Quote:
Joe Pelletier:

Paul Reinhart was a tremendous cerebral player who could have been a Hall of Famer had his body held up.... Paul goes down to history as one of the games most underrated skilled defensemen.

Paul was very strong with the puck. Once he got the puck it was very hard to get it away from him. Paul picked up a total of 559 pts (133 goals and 426 assists) in only 648 games

During the 1984 playoffs the Flames lost in the 7th and deciding game against the Oilers who went on to win the Stanley Cup that year. After the series Paul Reinhart was the leading playoff scorer with his 17 pts in 11 games and his partner on the blue line Al MacInnis was the second highest defenseman in the playoffs to that point (14 pts in 11 games). Paul was a very good playoff performer who got 77 pts (23 goals and 54 assists) in 83 career playoff games.
Quote:
Bob Johnson:

He's a capable defender in his own zone, first of all. Moreover, he's got the mobility and the offensive skills to make an important contribution to our attack. He's the big reason we've got one of the strongest power plays in the NHL
3rd Pairing: Bergman-Hatcher ?=? Leduc-Engblom, too close to call...

I don't even know how to compare these pairings or how one can even conclude that either team really gets an advantage from any of these guys...

Leduc and Hatcher seem to be the offensive defensemen of the pairings, they're basically the exact same, except Leduc was better defensively, so advantage to Leduc.

Bergman and Engblom were both defensively inclined, but all-around defensemen. Bergman had more consistency and longevity, so his career value is better, and that's what gives him the edge imo.

TDMM argued that Bergman and Enblom are equal though, because Engblom has "a better peak with a 2nd team AS and 6th and 8th in Norris voting". I just want to point out that this is the equivalent of me saying that Phaneuf is better than both these guys because he has TWO 2nd Team AS and a 3rd, 6th, and 8th in Norris voting. He obviously isn't though...


Last edited by hungryhungryhippy: 05-19-2010 at 12:45 PM.
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 02:35 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.