ATD #10, Foster Hewitt Quarterfinals. Winnipeg Jets (5) vs Regina Pats (4)

[Murphy]

Coach Patrick was not pleased with the performance of his top line and implored them to respond like they had in game 1. He employed some tricky line changes and for the most part was successful in getting them away from the tough checking line of Winnipeg. What insued however was a game of constant line matching and it took away from some of the flow of the game. Yvan Cournoyer had a strong game and was a constant threat but Jaromir Jagr continued his strong performance from game 3and had himself a 2 point night. Regina out shot Winnipeg 26-20 for the game but it was Winnipeg who found themselves on the winning side of a 3-2 score. Jim Peplinski broke a 2-2 deadlock with 3;42 remaining. Goal scorers for Regina were Coffey & Cournoyer. Jagr scored 2 for Winnipeg with Peplinski scoring the winner.

Winnipeg leads the series 3-1

 

[Murphy]

With Regina having their backs to the wall they were hoping a game back home would be the tonic needed. With the exception of a bad game 3 they had played well and could just as easily be up 3 games to 1 themselves in this series. Terry Sawchuk seemed to be the difference. The game plan seemed to be to get in front of Sawchuk and try to rattle him. Demers and Ruff got their line matchups they wanted and for the most part nullified the Ullman line. Clint Benedict picked up his play as well and the result was a magnificant goaltending display that resulted in shutouts for both goalies at the end of regulation play.

Overtime saw Jack Crawford slipping in from the point and Pete Mahovolich feeding him from behind the net. With Crawford all alone he deftly deked Sawchuk to his back hand and scored the game winner. Regina staves off elimination in overtime and forces a game 6 back in Winnipeg.

Winnipeg leads the series 3-2

 

[seventieslord]

See? I told you Crawford is an offensive defenseman!

 

[Murphy]

"We have to win on the road, thats all there is to it!" Coach Lester Patrick thinks its just bad bounces and doesn't thing Regina's inability to win a road game this series is a problem. Coach Demers is confident as well. "The last optional practice was attended by everyone and it was the most focused I've ever seen the boys, they're all focused on the job at hand and that job is to put away Regina in game six".

Coach Patrick has inserted Al Secord & Steve Thomas into the lineup. Jack Marshall & Martin St Louis are healthy scratches. Coach Demers elected to stay pat with his lineup.

Coach Patrick's line up changes payed immediate dividends with Secord getting away with goaltending interference and Bob Bourne scoring the games first goal. Steve Thomas drawing an assist on the goal, 3:06 into the game. At the 14 minute mark some fireworks erupted with Al Secord crashing into the net. Keith Magnuson challenged Secord with Sawchuk also trying to get a shot in. When the smoke cleared Magnuson drew an extra penalty for instigating and Sawchuk drew an unsportsmanlike. Regina scored on the two man advantage on a tip from Newsy Lalonde. Paul Coffey & Lester Patrick drawing assists. The period ending with Regina leading 2-0.

The second period saw Regina with the momentum. The crowd booed Secord at every chance and also directed their displeasure towards the ref at every stoppage in play. The booing grew more intense when Mark Recchi scored his first of the series to put Regina ahead 3-0. Reg Noble finally solved Benedict with his first of the series with 22 seconds left in the second to make the score 3-1 Regina.

Both teams came out strong. Sawchuk stopped Cournoyer on a break away and Noble thought he had his second with a wide open net but Bendict dived and got enough of it and deflected the puck just inches from the side of the net. The score remained 3-1 until the 19:01 mark of the third when Dale Hawerchuk put in his own rebound. With Sawchuk pulled Winnipeg threw everything at Benedict registering 5 shots on net in the last minute but to no avail. Regina wins one on the road by a score of 3-2

The series is tied at 3-3

 

[Murphy]

General Manager Evil Speaker is incensed at what he thought was open season on Terry Sawchuk. "The tapes are sent and on them are 5 instances of Regina crashing into and in my opinion trying to hurt Sawchuk" Either the league looks after this or we will" says Speaker. "I think they're just getting desperate" replied Regina's gm Seventies Lord. "They've thrown their best at us but we've clawed back from a 3-1 deficit, this just shows they're very worried over there". "Sawchuk ain't no angel himself anyways"

 

[Murphy]

It appears Winnipeg has elected to take matters into their own hands with some pre game warmup jawing from Ted Green towards Al Secord. The crowd tension was thick in Regina but they were loud and proud as well. The noise was deafning as the players stepped on the ice and the cheering turned ear splitting when the startng lineup was announced and the Secord/Bourne/Thomas trio found themselves starting the game.

The pace was furious with end to end action and no whistle stoppage for over 6 minutes from the start of the game. The first stoppage came with Steve Thomas trying to dig at a lose puck under Sawchuk. Ted Green jumped in knocking Thomas to the ice and then immediately turned his attention to Al Secord. A scrum ensued with Green & Secord in the middle of it all. They continued jawing all the way to the penalty box and continued the talk after play resumed. With play back underway Regina threw 5 straight shots towards Sawchuk including a glorious chance by Eric Nesterenko but his stick snapped on the one timer with the net wide open. With the Green and Secord penalties over, they exited the penalty box still jawing at each other but common sense prevailed even with a crowd urging them on. The game remained scoreless until the 17:13 mark when it was Hap Day spying Jagr behind the defense and Day sprung Jagr in alone and he made good on his chance with a nifty deke and sliding the puck in behind Clint Benedict. The period ends with Winnipeg leading 1-0

 

[Murphy]

The teams exited the dressing rooms and entered the ice but there was no sign of Terry Sawchuk? Bill Ranford took his place in the crease and that seemed to energize Regina as they threw all they could at Ranford. For the next 8 minutes Regina out shot Winnipeg 8-2 but Ranford was every bit as stellar as Sawchuk had been. The frustration grew for Regina after Lalonde elected to pass to Nighbor instead of shoot on his opportunity and Lalonde smashing his stick in disgust with his mistake. Rick Martin added to Regina's frustration when he scored on just the third shot of the period for Winnipeg. At the 14 minute mark Terry Sawchuk made his return to the ice exchanging high fives with Bill Ranford as he made his way to the bench. The crowd mocked Sawchuk with Sawwwwchuk, Sawwwwchuk chants at every turn but he turned away everything he saw and the second period saw Winnipeg with a 2-0 lead despite being outplayed for much of the period.

 

[Murphy]

The tension was thick in Regina as the teams returned to the ice to start the third. The tension eased somewhat with Regina finally being able to solve Sawchuk and with a somewhat fortunate bounce. It was Jim Schoenfield who slapped a knuckler and it handcuffed Sawchuk to make the score 2-1 four minutes into the period. The crowd erupted two minutes later when Paul Coffey scored his 3rd of the series on a end to end rush that was very reminicent of his goal in game 1. With the game tied 2-2 the hometown crowd urged their team to complete the comeback and they thought they had done just that with a goal mouth scramble that appeared to have had the puck cross the redline but still under Sawchuk. The goal went to video review and after what seemed an internity it was ruled no goal! Inconclusive was the reason that came from the NHL war room.

With time ticking down and the score deadlocked at 2. Jack Crawford scored his second of the series with 2:43 remaining in the game to put Regina ahead. Coach Demers called an immediate timeout and was seen having to yell his strategy to overcome the crowd noise. The clock was at 2:02 when Winnipeg gained the zone and Sawchuk went to the bench for the extra attacker. Dale Hawerchuk raced from the bench and straight to the goal mouth where he found a loose puck and was able to chip it over a sprawling Clint Benedict to tie the game up at 3-3 with 1:47 remaining in the game.

 

[Murphy]

Rod Langway gains the redline and dumps the puck in on net. Clint Benedict kicks it out easily towards a waiting Gus Mortson but the puck takes a strange bounce and Mortson bobbles it. A hard charging Jagr gains the puck and sends it to a late Doug Wilson who fakes his shot and slides it to Norm Ullman and he taps in the game winner and the series winner with only 14 seconds left in the game.

Winnipeg wins the series in 7 games.

1st star honors to Terry Sawchuk.

2nd star honors to Newsy Lalonde

3rd start honors to Jaromir Jagr.

 

[shawnmullin]

Murphy I love your write ups. Classic stuff.

Seventies I feel your pain of having a team who deserved more. Congrats to Winnipeg on getting that playoff win you've long worked towards and deserve.

 

[vancityluongo]

Wow.

Great series writeups Murph. Loved the way you did the game 7 by periods.

seventies, wow man, what can I say...congrats on what was a great team. I understand what you were feeling last time, as I really liked your squad and thought you could've easily came out on top of the division.

Thanks to everyone who voted, btw. Woooo, this is cool. Looking forward to the second round.

 

[seventieslord]

Wow.

Great series writeups Murph. Loved the way you did the game 7 by periods.

seventies, wow man, what can I say...congrats on what was a great team. I understand what you were feeling last time, as I really liked your squad and thought you could've easily came out on top of the division.

Thanks to everyone who voted, btw. Woooo, this is cool. Looking forward to the second round.

Thanks for the kind words, VCL. I enjoyed the series... not the outcome. I wish you all the best, because you're a great guy and also because you're the only GM who I know didn't vote on this series. The others... I'm not too fond of them at the moment.

Are you actually 14? If so, that's crazy. The strength of your team taken as a quotient of the number of years you've been studying hockey, has to be the highest in the draft.




Murphy, the writeup was fantastic.

 

[seventieslord]

I'll still have fun in the MLD but I am not sure I will ever do one of these again. This is all about education and I treasure what I learned, but in all honesty I'm a hockey nerd and I learn more every day of my life whether I am in an ATD or not. The time I invested in player research, bio writing, 11 lineup assassinations, 1 series writeup, and making several very strong arguments within my own series, only to lose it to a team who I think even knows they weren't better (look up and down the rosters, the only better players Winnipeg had are Jagr, Hawerchuk, Provost, Day, and Sawchuk), is disillusioning.

I had a built-in advantage after the trade with VI. He handed me the draft on a silver platter. Not blowing a single pick is tough; not blowing a single pick AND thanks to a big trade, completing your roster when others are filling out third lines is a recipe for domination. I don't see what I could have possibly done better and it's not like anyone else had any criticism of the team other than Pete Mahovlich is a below-average 2nd line center. If this lineup doesn't do it for you guys, nothing ever will. I don't think I ever will make a better lineup than this because it's not possible. I won't get the same chance I had this time, that's for sure.

What could I have done differently? In terms of picks, I don't see it. Someone's gonna have to fill me in here. In my playoff series, I guess I could have really gone for the throat. I could have really emphasized the difference in playoff scoring records of the two teams (see below). And I could have deconstructed Terry Sawchuk's mediocre playoff record. But I didn't want to be nasty to win. If only I knew that's what it would take. Or would it have mattered, with GMs voting without reading the thread?

One thing that will always puzzle me is how the same voters who thought this was a better regular season team than Winnipeg, ultimately thought that Winnipeg was the better playoff team. The differences between the two teams only got more pronounced in the playoffs. Regina led, 37-15 in top-10 playoff points finishes. 23-6 in top-5s! 12-3 in top-2s. That's 2.5, 3.8, and 4.0 times as many. Regina had 7 players who had been top-2 in playoff scoring before - Winnipeg had two. As a result, Regina's players had managed nearly double the amount of Stanley Cups as Winnipeg's. Cup counting? Not at all. Just cause and effect.

Did we lack top-end talent after trading out of round 1? Not likely. we still got the 29th best player, 39th overall, and a total of 4 of the HOH top-100 players which technically is more than our "fair share" of 3.5.

Was it all that depth on defense? I suppose it could create chemistry problems when you have a third pairing that could almost be a 2nd pairing...

Did I have too much speed? Too much defensive awareness from my forwards? Too great a coach?

Did I just win too many arguments for your liking? I mean, when your opponent, all in the same post, says:

Okay, I'll give you that.

and:

My mistake there, big time.

Okay, I think you've convinced me here.

and:

Fair enough. As long as you're consistent with that, which you are.

and:

That's true again. It's hard to argue with you when all you do is make valid points!

... anyone who read the thread would see who's winning the arguments and proving their team is the more deserving.

But hey, tell me I'm out of line. Tell me Winnipeg deserved this. Did you vote for them? Come in and show me why. Unless you're the type who thinks a better goaltender always wins, irregardless of any other factors, then I can see them taking this series. Otherwise, I would really like to know why this roster didn't at least win the division.

VCL, I mean you no disrespect. And I think that, in some small way, you agree. When I won our last series as the 5th seed upsetting the 4th, it felt.... weird, unsatisfying, even, because as I admitted to you in the past, I thought your roster was better and as a result didn't even give it my full effort. If I was Winnipeg's GM, I'd feel 17.53998 times as weird right now.

I'm probably pretty unpopular now, but all I can surmise after losing this series, is that I must not have been very popular prior to it anyway.

 

[Know Your Enemy]

Hockey history is alot deeper than top 10 finishes, and also more subjective. Don't act like a hockey know-it-all

 

[MXD]

Seventies... I was as pissed as you when my Castors de Sherbrooke were eliminated by whatever was Nik's team at that time - especially because the very reason why I was eliminated was because of what seemed to be a huge difference in goaltending, which actually wasn't and because of somewhat weak defense - but notice how Bucko McDonald has gone up the rankings since then. I had a similar reaction in my first ATD as well : again, with a defense that was considered a bit weak (and like you, I had Jack Crawford on a 2nd pairing, on which he didn't had to provide any kind of offense because he played with Lennard Svedberg anyways). I thought my awkwardness to argue didn't help either.

For the record, and after proofreading, it doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand, but whatever, I still think Alex Connell is hugely underrated (we saw an example with the elimination of the Red Wings -- nothing against the Malboros squad) around here. I would have some problems explaining that, but I would take him ahead of many others that are considered better keepers -- think Ed Belfour, Gerry Cheevers and Harry Lumley, and I do have him really close to George Hainsworth. I was one big Red Wings fans for this draft, mainly because they were able to have an above-average offense (Gare was miscast, but they had 2nd best second line in the draft, or the first, depending on which line is EB's 1st and 2nd, I can't remember), above average defense, and a goalie that would be enough to cash on their respective advantages.

It depends on your objectives... I can say that for the last two drafts, I entered the thing as much for putting up a great team than for showing off and do something that could be at the same time awesome and downright stupid - which is bound to happen when the first D-Men that you pick is Eric Desjardins, or when you pick Phil Watson to be your 4th (!!!) center. I have a bit of a short temper - which you might have, I dunno - as some fellow GM's and former GM's might testify, but this time (and it was about time...), I remembered what I was here for... To learn, and to take a load off from... well, whatever I need to take a load off.

 

[seventieslord]

Murphy I love your write ups. Classic stuff.

Seventies I feel your pain of having a team who deserved more. Congrats to Winnipeg on getting that playoff win you've long worked towards and deserve.

Funny, I missed this message earlier on; didn't see it until now. I was actually going to PM you and tell you I feel your pain.

Back to the drawing board? I don't want to go back to no *&^%$#@ drawing board! I just built the best lineup I'll ever build and it went out in the first round!

Hockey history is alot deeper than top 10 finishes, and also more subjective. Don't act like a hockey know-it-all

Know-it-all? Not quite. At this rate, maybe in another 2-3 years.

Subjective? You mean subjective like analyzing defensmen's point production, decade by decade? That's your life's work and isn't subjective at all. Subjectivity is B.S. All it means is "I can think whatever I want to think for whatever reason. You will never change my mind, and I don't have to prove or justify anything." We are all here in the HOH and ATD sections to teach and to learn. no one is going to learn anything if subjectivity is the order of the day.

And yeah, I get it. There is more to life than top-10 finishes. That statement would make a real impression on me if it were all I talked about. That is not the case. That said, when you look at the discrepancies I described above (37-15, 23-6, and 12-3), it would take a whole lot of objective facts and figures (or of course, the trump card, subjectivity by the bushel) to overcome it. I didn't see either presented in this thread. Did you?

I was going to reply to your post about Crawford yesterday... got too preoccupied with refreshing to see the series results. Basically, you're right - I still disagree about Reinhart and the value of playing in more games - but yeah, you got me. Crawford isn't that special offensively. And you sure didn't prove it with subjective posturing.

I just realized now that you're a co-GM. Never knew that before. I thought you were just an ATD veteran, taking a draft off, coming in to weigh in on a series and bring Crawford back to earth where he belongs. I enjoyed our little debate. But you know I should have won.

I'm still waiting for a voter to come in and give me one reason besides the goaltending matchup, that I should have lost. Or you know, some negative or constructive feedback that I never received earlier, like a pick I shouldn't have made, or a pick I made too early, or a player out of place or overmatched or miscast in my lineup. Never had those before; suddenly I do.

Seventies... I was as pissed as you when my Castors de Sherbrooke were eliminated by whatever was Nik's team at that time - especially because the very reason why I was eliminated was because of what seemed to be a huge difference in goaltending, which actually wasn't and because of somewhat weak defense - but notice how Bucko McDonald has gone up the rankings since then. I had a similar reaction in my first ATD as well : again, with a defense that was considered a bit weak (and like you, I had Jack Crawford on a 2nd pairing, on which he didn't had to provide any kind of offense because he played with Lennard Svedberg anyways). I thought my awkwardness to argue didn't help either.

For the record, and after proofreading, it doesn't have anything to do with the subject at hand, but whatever, I still think Alex Connell is hugely underrated (we saw an example with the elimination of the Red Wings -- nothing against the Malboros squad) around here. I would have some problems explaining that, but I would take him ahead of many others that are considered better keepers -- think Ed Belfour, Gerry Cheevers and Harry Lumley, and I do have him really close to George Hainsworth. I was one big Red Wings fans for this draft, mainly because they were able to have an above-average offense (Gare was miscast, but they had 2nd best second line in the draft, or the first, depending on which line is EB's 1st and 2nd, I can't remember), above average defense, and a goalie that would be enough to cash on their respective advantages.

It depends on your objectives... I can say that for the last two drafts, I entered the thing as much for putting up a great team than for showing off and do something that could be at the same time awesome and downright stupid - which is bound to happen when the first D-Men that you pick is Eric Desjardins, or when you pick Phil Watson to be your 4th (!!!) center. I have a bit of a short temper - which you might have, I dunno - as some fellow GM's and former GM's might testify, but this time (and it was about time...), I remembered what I was here for... To learn, and to take a load off from... well, whatever I need to take a load off.

thanks for the note. I'll reply to this by MSN.

 

[Spitfire11]

lol I thought the same thing last draft, that I'll never be able to make a better team and it still got eliminated in the 2nd round (of a 32 team draft). I know it's frustrating as heck but really what does it matter? This draft is still fun to do. If you really want to win you can't build what you think is the best team, you have to build what the other GMs will think is the best team. Anyways, I hope you decide to stick around and give it at least one more shot.

 

[Know Your Enemy]

Subjective? You mean subjective like analyzing defensmen's point production, decade by decade? That's your life's work and isn't subjective at all. Subjectivity is B.S. All it means is "I can think whatever I want to think for whatever reason. You will never change my mind, and I don't have to prove or justify anything." We are all here in the HOH and ATD sections to teach and to learn. no one is going to learn anything if subjectivity is the order of the day.

History hasnt changed and no subjective opinions will change history yes, but if there was no subjectivity when evaluating the players of hockey history then there should be a concrete top 100 list of players. That will never happen though because there will always be a difference in opinion from player to player, and thats not because one person is better researched than another, it's simply because they have a different veiw of how to evaluate players. Take the HOH top 100 for example, alot of enlightening information was revealed about the players for everyone to see, but there was still discrepancy in voting.

And yeah, I get it. There is more to life than top-10 finishes. That statement would make a real impression on me if it were all I talked about. That is not the case. That said, when you look at the discrepancies I described above (37-15, 23-6, and 12-3), it would take a whole lot of objective facts and figures (or of course, the trump card, subjectivity by the bushel) to overcome it. I didn't see either presented in this thread. Did you?

Looking at them superficially as just numbers, yeah is a big difference. However, something as simple as the team you play for will determin succes in the playoffs and how many points you can gather. If you didnt play for the canadiens or leafs in the 1960's, or the Canadiens or Wings in the 50's how do you expect to place in the top 3 or even top 5 in scoring? Is Dollard St.Laurent a better playoff performer than Bill Gadsby or was he just fortunate to play with the dynasty candiens? I'm thinking the latter. Also players like Vaive and Hawerchuk had hardly a chance of making it out of the 1st round because of the teams they played for. Things like that can make a difference, and you know that. and I'm not saying that your team wouldnt have more succes scoring in the playoffs than mine (and this is just scoring we're talking about), because they probably would, but that doesnt mean you have the better team.

 

[MXD]

Is Dollard St.Laurent a better playoff performer than Bill Gadsby or was he just fortunate to play with the dynasty candiens? I'm thinking the latter. Also players like Vaive and Hawerchuk had hardly a chance of making it out of the 1st round because of the teams they played for. Things like that can make a difference, and you know that. and I'm not saying that your team wouldnt have more succes scoring in the playoffs than mine (and this is just scoring we're talking about), because they probably would, but that doesnt mean you have the better team.

I won't say that St-Laurent was superior to Gadsby - which would obviously be wrong - but I think Gadsby is one of those guys that gets a free pass BECAUSE he played with bad teams. That's kind of reverse discrimination, and I know it might not be really politically correct, but all the (Gadsby was on a bad team so he couldn't shine) arguments tends to overrate him. I not so sure Gadsby's numbers would have been better if he had played in Montreal. There is no evidence that Tom Johnson was a better D-Men, but there isn't overwhelming evidence that Gadsby was much better than Johnson either. And we cannot credit Gadsby for what he hasn't done. I haven't saw any of those guys play, so maybe my opinion isn't the most enlightened around here.

As for Vaive. I saw him play and he shouldn't be on a 2nd line, unless somebody is looking for some physical play. Quite below Alex Kovalev (at least, as far as offense is concerned), which was a criticized pick. Granted, Vaive-Hawerchuck-Martin made sense as a unit so I didn't really care about Vaive, but he's one of the guys I wonder why he's on an ATD team. He might have had terrible linemates - well, Sittler was not so bad - but he also faced terrible goalies.

 

[pappyline]

I won't say that St-Laurent was superior to Gadsby - which would obviously be wrong - but I think Gadsby is one of those guys that gets a free pass BECAUSE he played with bad teams. That's kind of reverse discrimination, and I know it might not be really politically correct, but all the (Gadsby was on a bad team so he couldn't shine) arguments tends to overrate him. I not so sure Gadsby's numbers would have been better if he had played in Montreal. There is no evidence that Tom Johnson was a better D-Men, but there isn't overwhelming evidence that Gadsby was much better than Johnson either. And we cannot credit Gadsby for what he hasn't done. I haven't saw any of those guys play, so maybe my opinion isn't the most enlightened around here.

.

I would disagree that Gadsby gets a free pass because he played for bad teams.I also think your Gadsby/Johnson comparison is a terrible one. For players of the last 50 years or so there is enough video & eyewtness accounts out there that a comparison of stats is unnecessary. I think almost everyone that saw them play rates Gadsby far ahead of Johnson. I know I do. If you decide to add in stats (not necessary IMO) Gadsby belows Johnson away in the regular season. Even with limited playoff opportunity Gadsby has more playoff points than Johnson. Gads has 27 points in 67 games. Johnson had 23 points in 111 games.

Do some research before making wild statements.

 

[MXD]

I would disagree that Gadsby gets a free pass because he played for bad teams.I also think your Gadsby/Johnson comparison is a terrible one. For players of the last 50 years or so there is enough video & eyewtness accounts out there that a comparison of stats is unnecessary. I think almost everyone that saw them play rates Gadsby far ahead of Johnson. I know I do. If you decide to add in stats (not necessary IMO) Gadsby belows Johnson away in the regular season. Even with limited playoff opportunity Gadsby has more playoff points than Johnson. Gads has 27 points in 67 games. Johnson had 23 points in 11 games.

Do some research before making wild statements.

Not exactly the kind of answer I was looking for, thank you.

Who's next?

 

[seventieslord]

lol I thought the same thing last draft, that I'll never be able to make a better team and it still got eliminated in the 2nd round (of a 32 team draft). I know it's frustrating as heck but really what does it matter? This draft is still fun to do. If you really want to win you can't build what you think is the best team, you have to build what the other GMs will think is the best team. Anyways, I hope you decide to stick around and give it at least one more shot.

The way I see it, the two are one and the same. For all intents and purposes, if the majority thinks it, it's right. It's frustrating that all I received was positive feedback but then didn't advance. It certainly seemed that this was a team that the other GM's thought was a contender.

P.S. Top-20 hockey books list coming soon - you wouldn't believe how rare and expensive some of those books at your library are. They are too good to pass up, though.

History hasnt changed and no subjective opinions will change history yes, but if there was no subjectivity when evaluating the players of hockey history then there should be a concrete top 100 list of players. That will never happen though because there will always be a difference in opinion from player to player, and thats not because one person is better researched than another, it's simply because they have a different veiw of how to evalate players. Take the HOH top 100 for example, alot of enlightening information was revealed about the players for everyone to see, but there was still discrepancy in voting.

OK. That makes a lot more sense, and it seems that I've misunderstood you yet again.

I think we have enough info on any player that we can judge them with 100% objective material. If the only subjectivity involved is how much weight we put on each piece of objective material, that is the ideal situation.

FWIW, I think the top-100 list we did is as definitive as it gets, considering the time it took, the discussion of players, justification of rankings, and diversity of opinions. Obviously it is not concrete, though.

Looking at them superficially as just numbers, yeah is a big difference. However, something as simple as the team you play for will determin succes in the playoffs and how many points you can gather. If you didnt play for the canadiens or leafs in the 1960's, or the Canadiens or Wings in the 50's how do you expect to place in the top 3 or even top 5 in scoring? Is Dollard St.Laurent a better playoff performer than Bill Gadsby or was he just fortunate to play with the dynasty candiens? I'm thinking the latter. Also players like Vaive and Hawerchuk had hardly a chance of making it out of the 1st round because of the teams they played for. Things like that can make a difference, and you know that. and I'm not saying that your team wouldnt have more succes scoring in the playoffs than mine (and this is just scoring we're talking about), because they probably would, but that doesnt mean you have the better team.

Well, I don't think Dollard St. Laurent was ever in the top-10, but yes, that is a legitimate point. (correction, he was in a large tie for 9th in playoff assists in 1955)

I think that good teams get further in the playoffs because of the good players that they have. Players advance teams, but it can certainly also be argued that teams advance players. I don't think there are many players like that in the ATD, and I don't think I have any; correct me if I'm wrong, though. If you're top-10 in the playoffs, it means you probably made the finals and were likely top-4 on your team, so there shouldn't be any passengers making a playoff top-10 list. It's chicken and egg, but being in the top-10 in any playoff is an accomplishment.

Regarding Hawerchuk and Vaive, it's partially true and partially coulda-woulda-shoulda. I think the exercise where I compare a player's regular season PPG to their playoff PPG does a good job of insulating players like that from too much disdain. For example, if a guy was never top-10 in the playoffs because of his teams never advancing far enough, then it's more fair to judge him based on whether his level of production was up to his standards, i.e., was he at least pulling his weight? Hawerchuk were -14 and -12 - roughly average levels of decline.

I won't say that St-Laurent was superior to Gadsby - which would obviously be wrong - but I think Gadsby is one of those guys that gets a free pass BECAUSE he played with bad teams. That's kind of reverse discrimination, and I know it might not be really politically correct, but all the (Gadsby was on a bad team so he couldn't shine) arguments tends to overrate him. I not so sure Gadsby's numbers would have been better if he had played in Montreal. There is no evidence that Tom Johnson was a better D-Men, but there isn't overwhelming evidence that Gadsby was much better than Johnson either. And we cannot credit Gadsby for what he hasn't done. I haven't saw any of those guys play, so maybe my opinion isn't the most enlightened around here.

As for Vaive. I saw him play and he shouldn't be on a 2nd line, unless somebody is looking for some physical play. Quite below Alex Kovalev (at least, as far as offense is concerned), which was a criticized pick. Granted, Vaive-Hawerchuck-Martin made sense as a unit so I didn't really care about Vaive, but he's one of the guys I wonder why he's on an ATD team. He might have had terrible linemates - well, Sittler was not so bad - but he also faced terrible goalies.

Vaive belongs. I think ES and VCL would be the first and second to admit he's a lower-tier 2nd liner but he belongs. 3 times top-10 in goals, and he faced the same crappy goalies everyone else did.

Unless you're referring to crappy Norris goalies in particular, in which case you may have a point. Let me check my brand new copy of Klein & Reif's 1987 Hockey Compendium. they compiled save percentages for 1981-82 through 1986-87, basically Vaive's heyday. They broke it down by division, too. the Norris goalies faced teh highest number of shots per game, 31.65, and had the 3rd highest sv% as a division, 87.39% - significantly behind 1st, significantly ahead of 4th, very close behind 2nd. It's safe to say the Norris had below average goalies, but I wouldn't call them terrible. Keep in mind Vaive played just 1/3 of his schedule against them anyway.

Even with limited playoff opportunity Gadsby has more playoff points than Johnson. Gads has 27 points in 67 games. Johnson had 23 points in 11 games.

Yeah, but Johnson's 2.09 points per game average is phenomenal.

 

[MXD]

Unless you're referring to crappy Norris goalies in particular, in which case you may have a point.

Exactly what I was referring to. I brought up a similar point in regards to Bernie Federko a little earlier

 

[pappyline]

Yeah, but Johnson's 2.09 points per game average is phenomenal.

Thanks for pointing out my typo. Fixed it. Now reads 23 points in 111 games.