ATD #11, Bob Cole Quarterfinals. Lada Togliatti (3) vs. Montreal Canadiens (6)

[EagleBelfour]

Lada Togliatti

Coach: Jacques Lemaire

#16 Brian Propp - #21 Stan Mikita (A) - #9 Charlie Conacher
#11 Brian Sutter (A) - #19 Jean Ratelle - #15 Cecil Dillon
#5 Gilles Tremblay - #20 Dave Poulin - #26 Jere Lehtinen
#12 Georges Mantha - #77 Garry Unger - #24 Jim Peplinski
#22 Peter McNab
#10 Camille Henry

#8 Eddie Gerard (C) - #17 Earl Seibert
#7 Alexei Kasatonov - #2 Frank Patrick (A)
#6 Jack Crawford - #3 James Patrick
#55 Phil Russell

#20 Ed Belfour
#34 John Vanbiesbrouck

vs.

Montreal Canadiens

HEAD COACH: Mike Babcock
ASSISTANT COACH: Bun Cook

Frank Mahovlich - Henri Richard - Teemu Selanne
Alexander Yakushev - Evgeni Malkin - Alexei Kovalev
Don Marcotte - Derek Sanderson - Ed Westfall
Kirk Muller - Pit Martin - Jean Pronovost

Bobby Orr - Tom Johnson
J.C. Tremblay - Ted Harris
Keith Magnuson - Ian Turnbull

Gerry Cheevers
Rogatien Vachon

Marc Tardif
Ziggy Palffy
​

Click to read more...

 

[EagleBelfour]

This is going to be a very good serie.

- Lada has the stronger, more reliable top-6, although potentially the Canadiens top-6 can be devastating, depending on which Selanne, Mahovlich or Kovalev shows up.

- Lada bottom 6 is reliable, gritty, very good defensively. A very prototypical bottom-6. However, the Canadiens, reuniting Marcotte-Sanderson-Westfall is a coup. I love it. A strong 4th line that brings everything on the table gives them the edge.

- Two very strong defensive corp. A Seibert-Gerard duo is as good as you can get for a first pairing. Along with the underrated Frank Patrick, the Lada Togliatti has put together a very strong defensive unit. Again though, the Canadiens with Bobby Orr to anchor their defensive unit is really ''as good as you can get''. Johnson and Tremblay are strong enough to be #2 defenseman. I'm not the biggest fan of either Harris or Turnbull, but the Canadiens top-3 will play a whole lot. Very close call, but it's difficult not giving the edge defensively to a team anchor with the greatest player ever.

- Belfour was inconsistant in playoffs at the start of his career, but shown he could be a very strong ''money goaltender'' with Dallas and Toronto. I still think the 2000 Conn Smythe should of been his, but I might be too biased to give a fair judgement. Gerry Cheevers is another goaltender with strong performance in the playoffs. I'm not his biggest fan, but he won two Stanley Cup with Marcotte-Sanderson-Westfall and Bobby Orr in front of him. He's accustomed to them. Again very close.

- A team both coach will love to coach. Babcock always strike me a coach that love strong ethical teams. He's got the talent, but he will have his hand full with the moody Mahovlich and Kovalev. I'm giving the edge to Lada, as I think Lemaire suits better his team than Babcock.

- I really like Lada's powerplay unit. Mikita feeding one-timers to Conacher, Propp burying the rebound, if any. All four defenseman are strong offensively; when Frank Patrick is the least offensively gifted player of the four!

- On the other hand, I will give the edge on penalty-kill unit to the Canadiens. Again, Sanderson-Westfall-Orr were great defensively for the 1970's Bruins. A saw 3-4 games of them, and they were very good on the PK. Having Henri on the second unit is pretty good too. However, will Tom Johnson doubleshift on the PK? That's a lot for someone who also play a regular shift with Bobby Orr.

|Lada|Montreal
Top-6 Forward|X|
Bottom-6 Forward||X
Defensive Unit||X
Goaltenders|X|X
Power Play Unit|X|
Penalty Kill Unit||X
Coach|X|

I hope both GM will show up and talk about their strategy. I have absolutely no idea for who I will vote.

 

[arrbez]

I hope both GM will show up and talk about their strategy. I have absolutely no idea for who I will vote.

Write-in vote for Rory Fitzpatrick?

 

[nik jr]

PK

1 of the reasons i picked lemaire is b/c his teams took very few penalties, and usually had a very good PK.

the best way to keep the other team from scoring on the PP is to not give them many opportunities.

NJ times SH (1 is fewest times SH)
'94 3
'95 1
'96 1
'97 1
'98 3
'99 5
'00 12
'01 2
'02 1
'03 1
'04 1
(NJ changed its style of play after the lockout. they still took very few penalties, though.)

minnesota times SH
'01: 13
'02: 23
'03: 2
'04: 3
'06: 4
'07: 4
'08: 6
'09: 1

lemaire's teams were able to play very strong D while not taking many penalties.


NJ PK rank
'94: 15th
'95: 16th
'96: 4th
'97: 1st
'98: 4th
'99: 11th
'00: 4th
'01: 12th
'02: 19th
'03: 1st
'04: 6th


minnesota PK rank
'01: 11th
'02: 23rd
'03: 4th
'04: 14th
'06: 1st
'07: 2nd
'08: 4th
'09: 1st

i think my PK forwards (mikita, tremblay, poulin, propp, ratelle, lehtinen) are a threat to score SH, but i do not think lemaire's teams have ever really made a point to score SH.



defense

montreal is a fast team, but i think there are a couple of mitigating factors.

1. their speed through the neutral zone will be reduced by the trap.

2. with the possible exception of crawford, all my d-men are good skaters, so montreal's speed is not as big an advantage as it would be against a slower team.

another important aspect of lemaire's teams has been the ability to keep the majority of play to the perimeter. reducing montreal's speed through the neutral zone is also an important part of keeping play to the perimeter.

none of montreal's top 6 are physical players, so defending them is primarily a matter of positional D, which is my team's main strength.


although belfour proved with TML that he could excel behind weak D, he played most of his career behind strong D in chicago and dallas.
so i think this environment suits him well.


dump and chase?

babcock is actually a defensive minded, dump and chase coach, not a puck possession coach. the puck possession style was started by the russian 5 and bowman.

a few years ago, babcock tried to move DRW more towards dump and chase, but it was not effective.
schneider actually said openly (i think on CBC) that changing the style of play is a bad idea. it created a bit of controversy, as it was seen as sort of a public attack on the coach and as a sign of mutiny among the players.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=306352&highlight=schneider+babcock

basically, the players and management said that puck possession was there to stay.

here is a recent post by the great Fugu that mentions the conflict:

Holland recounted a story once about his discussions with Babcock. Apparently when Babs first got here, he and Holland weren't exactly seeing eye-to-eye on the puck possession/skill game and the grittier, dump/chase game Babs wanted instead.

He told Babs to run a practice and just throw a puck out and tell the guys to play. What he would see is a group of skilled players that would just start passing the puck around, looking for an opportunity. The reason for that is that they draft players, who as others mentioned above, are skilled and good skaters. Hakan Andersson (Wings head Euro scout) points out that at 18 yr of age, looking at things like size isn't the best to way to pick talent. The superior skater at 18 is going to be the better player. At that age, they still have time to grow and to get stronger, while the right development program will teach them how to think out on the ice, positioning, etc. If their skating and hockey skills - relative to their peers - isn't very developed at that age, they're not going to somehow leapfrog those guys at 21.

There is intent to their system in what they prefer to draft and develop. There is a system and a philosophy, and yes, Scotty Bowman was a huge part of starting that tradition in Detroit. They draft players who will fit that system. They build around a mobile defense and centers (several of their wingers are natural centers). I think they just pay more attention to the fundamentals: face-offs, two-way play, moving the puck, positional D and team D. It's not a team that will trade chances with an opponent, but try to assert control instead.

To get back to the Holland/Babs debates, I think what Holland was saying was twofold: (1) this is what we drafted, so we must use it, and (2) we like this system because it has worked for us in the past. Babcock, to his credit, has improved on things by ensuring the fundamentals aren't overlooked-- no one gets a free pass; and he can get the team to switch things around, using elements of dump/chase when necessary but with possession game intact otherwise. He also likes players who go into the tough areas. When the pretty stuff doesn't work they have to have a Plan B.

i think since lada is a trapping team, dump and chase is important for montreal to get through the neutral zone.
but i think montreal's top 6 rarely played a dump and chase game, and are relatively soft, so they may struggle to dump and chase effectively.

the mobility of my d-men and the puckhandling of belfour will also help blunt montreal's forechecking.


i recently read an analysis of belfour's puckhandling. belfour's shots against were compared to his backups' shots against. it is not very hard comparison, b/c belfour played for several teams and his backups played more than a few games per season. the conclusion was that belfour's puckhandling prevented about 1 shot per game, about the same number as brodeur.

http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2009/03/belfours-shot-prevention.html



goaltending

i think belfour is better than cheevers.

other than things like personality, i do not really know what separates cheevers from someone like vernon. vernon was probably more important to his teams than cheevers was to his, though.

for all the talk about cheevers' status as a money goalie, cheevers was also not always "the go to guy."

'72 playoffs
cheevers: 6-2, 2.61
johnston: 6-1, 1.86

johnston played games 2, 4 and 5 in the finals. boston won the cup.

imo, the entire concept of money goalie is overblown, and it especially is when the 36 year old backup plays 1/2 the games, even in the finals, and the team still wins.


orr

it was pointed out a few weeks ago in the history of hockey section was that orr was a tough, fearless player and was penalized more than any of the other candidates for best player.
from '67-'75 (which is all but 36 games of his career), orr was actually in the top 10 in PIM.
mikita was a protege of ted lindsay and also took a high number of penalties early in his career, but lucky for me, he played almost 3/4 of his career after realizing that it is stupid to sit in the box.

obviously, trying to get orr to take penalties is not something to rely on, but when you play against orr, even the smallest things help.


orr is the key to montreal's attack, not only b/c he is their best offensive player, but also b/c his skating and playmaking can break down the D, which would also reduce the need for a dump and chase style.

i don't think it is necessarily true that orr will be able to skate through the trap.
in '95, DRW had excellent skaters like coffey and fedorov (who are very comparable to orr in skating ability), and other great puck movers like lidstrom, howe, fetisov, etc, but NJ's trap and team D suffocated them.


i want seibert and gerard and my 3rd line against orr and whichever scoring line plays with him.
that matchup will not always be possible, even at home, but since almost all my players were good defensively, and since the main characteristic of lemaire's teams has been strong team D even when talent is lacking, i do not think the decline in team D when seibert and gerard are off the ice would be severe.


i want to keep my 1st line away from orr and montreal's 3rd line.



the big bomber

it has been pointed out many times in the ATD and elsewhere that playoff scoring in the '30s was extremely low.

but conacher was 1 of the only star players whose playoff scoring did not decline drastically.
regular season points/game: .87
playoff points per game: .71

over his career ('30-'41), charlie conacher was 1st in playoff points (35), 1st in playoff assists (18) and 2nd in playoff goals (17).
he was also 1st in regular season points (398), 1st in regular season goals (225) and 8th in regular season assists (173).

 

[God Bless Canada]

Familiar scene. nik-assembled lada finishes third in the division, and plays a No. 6 seed named after an O6 team in the first round. Last draft Lada lost to Toronto. This draft it's Lada vs. Montreal. nik's hoping we won't have deja vu.

I think the difference in this series could be the second line. lada's second line is excellent, with the skill of Ratelle, the two-way play of Dillon and the toughness of Brian Sutter. While Sutter's post-season record isn't terrific (one post-season better than a point-per-game, 21 goals in 65 games for a guy who topped 35 goals five times isn't quite what you'd expect), but he doesn't have to score goals to be a force. His job is to play tough and open up room for his linemates.

Malkin's probably the most dangerous offensive forward on either second line. But Kovalev's inconsistent. His playoff numbers are still below what they should be for a player with his HHOF-calibre skill set. Some people rave about 98 points in 116 games. I think he was capable of much more. And while it's a bigger second line than lada's, it's not an overly physical second line. Malkin's probably the most physical player. They'll use their size for advantages on puck possession, but will that work against a guy like Earl Seibert or Alexei Kasatonov? Probably not.

Outside of that, both teams have a lot of similarities. Their first lines are magnificent. lada's is punishing and talented. All three guys can score and hit. Montreal's is frighteningly mobile. If Mike Babcock loves Pavel Datsyuk, he'll really love Henri Richard. Both teams have excellent third and fourth lines.

Both teams have excellent defence. Montreal has the edge for top-end talent (hey, who wouldn't with Orr, and then Tremblay and Johnson), lada has more depth.

Eagle, I wouldn't have given Belfour the Conn Smythe in 2000. Win or lose, Scotty Stevens was going to win the Conn that year. He was unstoppable, a force on every shift who shut down some pretty dandy hockey players. He was the best player in the playoffs that year, and it would a significant drop-off to second-best. I think Belfour's a better goalie than Cheevers. But once the game is on the line, Cheevers is a fortress in net. You don't get much past him. If it's a 6-2 game with three minutes left, he'll give up a soft goal, because he doesn't care. If it's a 2-1 game, 2-2 game, 5-5 game or 8-7 game with five minutes left, have fun trying to beat Cheevers.

Give lada the edge in coaching. I'm not a Lemaire fan, but if it's a defensive team that nik wants, he found the right coach. Great defensive mind and a great teacher.

Just a note on Babcock: he was let go in Anaheim because he wanted the defensive game, while Burke wants nothing to do with that. Burke wants an aggressive team, and preferably a high-scoring one, that entertains the fans. He's even told me that if the team loses - and they will lose at some point - he wants fans to go home feeling they've been entertained, that they got their money's worth. Babcock circa 2005 didn't fit that. While Detroit plays a more free-skating team than Babcock might prefer, their team defence is also the best in the league, and the only one who likes that more than Babcock is Chris Osgood.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

This is the first part of my look at the Montreal Canadiens upcoming playoff series with Lada Togliatti. In this writing I look at the coaching matchup. I will also be doing write-ups on the goalie, defense, and forward matchups in the next day or two in anticipation of Thursday's vote.

Coaching

Jacques Lemaire has been an NHL head coach for 15 years. During that time his teams have finished …,

In first place in their division four times
In second place in their division three times
In third place in their division twice
In fourth place in their division once

Six times in his coaching career Jacques Lemaire has had his team’s miss the playoffs.

And while Lemaire has been praised for his defensive, trapping style it has been his team’s inability to produce even an average offensive attack that has been his undoing more seasons than not. During his fifteen year career as a coach only two of his team’s finished above the league median in regular season goal scoring; the 1993-94 New Jersey Devils and the 1997-98 Devils.

Further compounding the offensive problems was that a Jacques Lemaire coached team has never increased its goal scoring once the playoffs started.

1983-84 – 3.58 goals per game, 2.8 goals per playoff game
1984-85 – 3.86 goals per game, 3.58 goals per playoff game
1993-94 - 3.64 goals per game, 2.6 goals per playoff game
1994-95 - 2.83 goals per game, 2.8 goals per playoff game
1996-97 - 2.81 goals per game, 2.6 goals per playoff game
1997-98 - 2.74 goals per game, 2 goals per playoff game
2002-03 – 2.41 goals per game, 2.39 goals per playoff game
2006-07 – 2.87 goals per game, 1.8 goals per playoff game
2007-08 – 2.72 goals per game, 2 goals per playoff game

Now on the other end of the ice his defense has always been full value, especially in the following years.

1983-84 coached the Canadiens to the semi-finals.
Scored 3.58 goals per game, 2.8 goals per playoff game
Allowed 3.69 goals per game, 2.13 goals per playoff game

While the Habs goals scoring dropped, it was their goals against, of more than a goal-and-a-half better in the playoffs that propelled them that spring to within two games of the final.

1993-94 coached the Devils to the semi-finals.
Scored 3.64 goals per game, 2.6 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.62 goals per game allowed, 2.45 goals per game allowed

One has to wonder if the Devils could have won the Cup that year if they could have stemmed their one goal drop in the post-season.

1994-95 coached the Devils to a Stanley Cup championship.
Scored 2.83 goals per game, 2.8 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.52 goals per game allowed, 1.7 goals per game allowed

This is the closest a Lemaire coached New Jersey team came to maintaining their regular season goal scoring and coincidentally it’s his only Cup winner. Furthermore the Devils never tightened up their defense more in a post season under Lemaire. As a side note it would also be the last time a Lemaire coached team allowed on average less goals in the post season than it had in the regular season. In the next five playoff seasons, the goals against average rose in the post season.

2002-03 coached the Wild to the semi-finals.
Scored 2.41 goals per game, 2.39 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.17 goals per game allowed, 2.33 goals per game allowed

The Wild walked a tightrope in this particular post season, winning two seven game series by the slimmest of margins. However, in the conference final the Wild could only score one goal in the four-game series setting an inglorious league post-season record. Ironically, the coach who bested Lemaire in that post-season sweep was Mike Babcock.

……

So in four years out of a fifteen-year career Jacques Lemaire has enjoyed a successful post season. As we have stated before in six other years his team failed to qualify for the playoffs, including the year after winning the Cup in New Jersey. That leaves us with the following five post-seasons.

1984-85 coached the Canadiens to a first place finish in the Adams Division (sixth overall), lost to the Quebec Nordiques (finished 3 points behind Montreal in the regular season) in the second round.
Scored 3.86 goals per game, 3.58 goals per playoff game
Allowed 3.28 goals per game allowed, 3.42 goals per game allowed

A gap between goals for and goals against on average dropped from .58 to an uncomfortably close .16 as the Habs goals against rose in the post season while their goal scoring slightly dropped.

1996-97 coached the Devils to a first place finish in the Atlantic Division (second overall), lost to the New York Rangers (finished 18 points behind New Jersey in the regular season) in the second round.
Scored 2.81 goals per game, 2.6 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.22 goals per game allowed, 2.3 goals per game allowed

Similar story to the 1985 Canadiens and a similar result.

1997-98 coached the Devils to a first place finish in the Atlantic Division (second overall), lost to the Ottawa Senators (finished 24 points behind New Jersey in the regular season) in the first round.
Scored 2.74 goals per game, 2 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.02 goals per game allowed, 2.16 goals per game allowed

The Devils lack of scoring was never more pronounced in this series where with the exception of Doug Gilmour’s seven points and Steve Thomas’ three points, no New Jersey player had more than 2 points in the six-game series.

Just for the record the Ottawa goalie was Damian Rhodes and the Senators defense consisted of Igor Kravchuk, Janne Laukkanen, Jason York, Chris Phillips (19 years old), Wade Redden (20 years old), Lance Pitlick, and Stan Neckar. In six games, the Devils scored 12 goals on this group.

2006-07 coached the Wild to a second place finish in the Northwest Division (eleventh overall), lost to the Anaheim Ducks (finished six points ahead of Minnesota in the regular season) in the first round.
Scored 2.87 goals per game, 1.8 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.33 goals per game allowed, 2.4 goals per game allowed

While the Wild were able to maintain a solid goals against it was the loss of almost a goal scored per game that would prove to be their undoing. Anaheim would go on to win the Cup becoming only the second team to beat a Lemaire coached team on their way to capturing the Cup.

2007-08 coached the Wild to a first place finish in the Northwest Division (seventh overall), lost to the Colorado Avalanche (finished three points behind Minnesota in the regular season) in the first round.
Scored 2.72 goals per game, 2 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.66 goals per game allowed, 2.83 goals per game allowed

Once again, a Lemaire coached team was unable to offset a drop in post season goal-scoring and once again eliminated in the first round.

In closing,

Jacques Lemaire was never a consistently successful NHL head coach once the playoffs began. In 1994 the Devils made it to the semi-finals, in 1995 they won the Cup, before missing the playoffs in 1996, losing in the second round in 1997, and the first round in 1998. Also keep in mind that New Jersey was able to win 2 Cups soon after his departure just as the Canadiens did in 1986 the year after he left.

Furthermore, as a coach he tended to have problems and disagreements with his biggest offensive stars, first Guy Lafleur in Montreal and then with Marian Gaborik in Minnesota. Simply put he was a system coach who popularized the trap but seemed unwilling and unable to adjust his system to suit his personnel or changing times in the league.

In looking over his playoff record one is struck by the fact that he only had four out of fifteen seasons one could term as being successful. For a coach who prided himself on playing a defensive system it is ironic that it was his inability to exploit the opposition doing the same that quite often led to his playoff demise.

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

Mike Babcock is now in his sixth season as a head coach in the NHL. During that time his teams have finished …,

In first place in their division four times
In second place in their division once
In fourth place in their division once

Only once in his career has his team failed to make the playoffs.

Unlike Lemaire who only did it twice, Babcock has had his team finish above the median in regular season goal scoring in four of his six seasons coaching. At the same time his teams have also finished above the league median in goals allowed in four of his six seasons coaching. Like Lemaire, Babcock’s team’s have been extremely good on the penalty kill finishing in the top ten four times in his six years. In addition, in four of his six season’s he has also had a top ten power-play, two of which were the league’s best.

Here are Babcock’s five playoff team’s …,

2002-03 coached the Ducks to a second place finish in the Pacific Division (eleventh overall), lost to the New Jersey Devils (finished thirteen points ahead of Anaheim in the regular season) in the Stanley Cup Finals.
Scored 2.47 goals per game, 2.14 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.35 goals per game allowed, 1.90 goals per playoff game allowed

Although Anaheim’s goals for decreased in it was exceeded by the decrease in goals against. As a side note Anaheim’s 1.90 goals per playoff game allowed was only bettered once by a Lemaire coached team; the 1994-95 Cup champion Devils.

2005-06 coached the Red Wings to a first place finish in the Central Division (first overall), lost to the Edmonton Oilers (finished twenty-nine points behind Detroit in the regular season) in the first round.
Scored 3.72 goals per game, 2.83 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.55 goals per game allowed, 3.17 goals per playoff game allowed
A decrease of almost a goal per game and an increase of half-a-goal allowed per playoff game spelled a first round upset. The fact that Edmonton made it to within a game of the Stanley Cup championship later that spring dulled the initial shock of this defeat.

2006-07 coached the Red Wings to a first place finish in the Central Division (first overall), lost to the Anaheim Ducks (finished three points behind Detroit in the regular season) in the Western Conference Finals.
Scored 3.10 goals per game, 2.67 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.43 goals per game allowed, 1.94 goals per playoff game allowed

Once again the Red Wings decrease in goals scored in the playoffs was matched by their decrease in goals allowed. This marked the second time that Babcock had lost a series to the eventual Cup champion in only his third playoff appearance.

2007-08 coached the Red Wings to a first place finish in the Central Division (first overall), and a Stanley Cup championship.
Scored 3.13 goals per game, 3.27 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.24 goals per game allowed, 1.82 goals per playoff game allowed

In last years playoffs Babcock’s team accomplished a rare feat, in that they not only decreased their goals allowed in the post season but increased their goals for. To give an idea of hard this is to do … the 1976-77 Canadiens saw their average goals scored in the playoffs drop from 4.84 to 3.92, and the 1983-84 Oilers saw their average also drop from 5.58 to 4.95.

2008-09 (in progress)
Scored 3.60 goals per game, 3.80 goals per playoff game
Allowed 2.98 goals per game allowed, 2.20 goals per playoff game allowed

Sitting only one game away from a repeat visit to the finals the Red Wings once again have lowered their goals against and amazingly increased their goals for, despite the loss of Pavel Datsyuk, a nominee this year for the Hart trophy.

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


In looking at the two coaches resumes there are some startling similarities. Like Lemaire, Babcock has missed the playoffs the year after being in the finals and like Lemaire he has suffered an embarrassing first round exit after a first place season. As of this writing each possesses one Stanley Cup championship and both have won their division four times.

However, there are some key differences;

Lemaire – one visit to the Finals in a fifteen year NHL coaching career.
Babcock – on the verge of his third in a six year coaching career.

Lemaire – regular season winning percentage .556, playoff winning percentage .536 (interestingly enough if you remove his Cup winning season, his playoff record is four games under .500)

Babcock – regular season winning percentage .645, playoff winning percentage .659

For me the difference between Lemaire and Babcock is the latter’s willingness to adapt his methods and teachings to the team he has in front of him; something I would think would be hugely valuable in the ATD and something very apparent in the Red Wings current series against the Blackhawks. Put him alongside Bun Cook, winner of seven Calder Cup championships, as his assistant and I think you have a well rounded coaching staff.

I saw it described above where Babcock might have trouble dealing with moody Mahovlich and Kovalev. In response I would only say that he seem's to have dealt with Chris Chelios and Dominic Hasek fine.

Random quotes about Mike Babcock.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080606/OPINION03/806060403/1341/SPORTS0103
"He had all the ingredients to work with: Great passion, great work ethic. He has a plan -- he doesn't make it up on the fly -- and the first thing he does is he makes the team accountable." Ken Holland

http://blog.mlive.com/snapshots/2009/04/espns_lebrun_mike_babcock_wont.html
Yes, I do believe Babcock is among the very best coaches in the NHL, which is why I think he'll be coaching Team Canada in February 2010. No one will consider the fact the Wings appear to be the first Cup champion in a while to fight off the hangover (see Tampa, Carolina and Anaheim after their Cup wins) and deliver another 100-plus point season and eighth consecutive Central Division title. Pierre Lebrun

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...t-another-great-coach-who-goes-unfeted/page/2
Yesterday, Mike Babcock became the first coach in NHL history to win 50 games in the first four years with a new team. He joins Scotty Bowman, no less, as the only other coach to win 50 games four times in a row, period. Babcock displayed his coaching genius in last year’s playoffs when he sat goalie Dominik Hasek down in a 2-2 first round series. It was a bold move, predicated on the belief/hunch that Chris Osgood gave the Red Wings a better chance to win, at that moment. Babcock may have won the Stanley Cup for the Red Wings with that decision — one that very few coaches in the league would have had the cojones to make.

http://www.thestar.com/sports/article/615426
More than anything, however, it may come down to style. Babcock has the most offensively talented team in the league with Detroit, and they play an attractive style of attacking hockey combined with stingy defence. Canadians just want to win, first and foremost. But they won't want a team that checks and plays a passive neutral zone trap. They will want to see a squad with an all-around game that highlights the skills of Canadian players, and Babcock is the coach who best fits that job description.

http://www2.canada.com/windsorstar/news/story.html?id=3bd33c66-ab22-410f-859a-dea4a4e4521e
Scotty Bowman, considered the best bench manager in hockey history, lauds Babcock for his diligent approach to the game. "He's very thorough," Bowman said. "He uses his staff well. I just think he touches all the bases all the time."

 

[shawnmullin]

That's about as detailed an argument for coaches as I think we've ever seen.

 

[vancityluongo]

That's about as detailed an argument for coaches as I think we've ever seen.

Agreed. Great work CanadiensFan.

 

[Sturminator]

orr

it was pointed out a few weeks ago in the history of hockey section was that orr was a tough, fearless player and was penalized more than any of the other candidates for best player.
from '67-'75 (which is all but 36 games of his career), orr was actually in the top 10 in PIM.

This is a very good point. As I have said a few times already here, Bobby Orr was not Jesus on iceskates, as some people (less here than elsewhere) make him out to be. Bobby's PIMs came mainly from two sources:

1) His raw physical strength. Although he never looked particularly stout, Bobby was just one of those guys. He took a lot of penalties doing things that normally wouldn't be penalized - give a guy a little shove from behind and...whoops, you drive his face into the boards - that kind of thing. It's really unbelievable how strong Bobby was even as a skinny 18 year old when he broke into the league.

2) His habit of hooking when he was trying to get back into the play. Bobby skated himself out of position pretty often and used every trick in the book to keep his team from being down a man when the counterattack came. The refs wised up to this quickly, and as a consequence, Bobby was usually good for at least one cheapie every other game or so, although he also prevented his share of goals by doing this.

Orr also got into a few scraps early in his career, but after pummeling all comers, nobody really challenged him for a long time. I think his center ice bout with Brad Park in the 72 finals was the first time he'd fought in over a year.

 

[Sturminator]

This has the makings of a great series. Again, I find myself liking nik's teams probably more than most GMs, although a 3rd place finish for Lada in this division is very respectable. Impressive argument vis-a-vis coaching, Canadiens Fan. It's refreshing to see new GMs pulling rabbits from their hats; we need more of that in the ATD. Speaking of new GMs, I'm almost to the point that I think we should make the "active players assumption" (which is nothing more than convention, but increasingly etched in stone, it seems) - eg. that no projection of future performance is factored into player evaluations - public and known to rookie GMs before the draft even commences. I hate watching excellent rookie GMs like Canadiens Fan get tooled on because they take a Malkin or a Crosby on their second line (Dr D's ATD#8 team comes to mind, as well) possibly not knowing how "the academy" views active players (to say nothing of the "microscope bias" against active or recently retired players). I agree with the convention (projecting future performance is a big, stinky can of worms), but I just hate to see one rookie after another get knocked for it.

Ok, onto the matchup...

- with the above in mind, I hope Canadiens Fan will forgive me what I say that the 2nd lines look like the area of greatest imbalance in this series. I'm not going to beat up Evgeni Malkin, but two fantastic seasons is what it is. Jean Ratelle was only as good as Malkin is now for one year (and was never as good in the playoffs), but his career is much, much longer, and that has to count for something. I'm also not going to dwell on what goes on between Alex Kovalev's ears. The problem with Kovie here is that even if we only look at his paper resume, it's still well below average for a 2nd line scorer and he doesn't make up ground with grit, physicality or defensive awareness. Finally, Yakushev is a solid second liner, though not as good through his whole career as he looked in 1972. It's not a particularly strong second line no matter how you slice it.

- on the other side of the ice, Lada's 2nd line looks like a fairly tight unit. It's refreshing not to see Vic Hadfield on Ratelle's wing anymore because as a fan of those Rangers teams, I have to say that I really did not care for Hadfield. What he did in 1972 is irrelevant, but what he did as a Ranger was just not all that great. Hadfield's reputation as a power forward is undeserved, and his (and the whole team's, to be fair to Hadfield) unwillingness or inability to stick up for the downy-soft Ratelle is one of the biggest reasons Jean was so often subjected to slashes, spears, and general ragdolling by any and every defenseman in the league. I like Brian Sutter a lot more as a bodyguard for Ratelle, and the presence of bruisers like Seibert and Peplinski in the lineup doesn't hurt, either. Dillon is a nice finisher on Ratelle's right and generally the line works quite well. It's not the best second line in the league, but it's a nice "value" line and could easily be more than the sum of its parts.

- this is probably the best way to use Teemu Selanne in the ATD. I think criticism of his playoff struggles is mostly overblown and unfair, but as the 3rd or 4th best offensive player on a top unit, Selanne has almost no pressure to lead and can simply play his game. There's a good argument that Teemu is a top-15 all-time goalscorer, and if you can get the best out of him (which I think you can in this case), he's a serious bargain for #168, overall. In terms of scoring, there is little to seperate Selanne and Conacher (blasphemy, I know) when both are playing at the top of their games, though obviously the Big Bomber brings a lot more to the table in other aspects of the game.

- with that in mind, I like Montreal's 1st line a bit better in this matchup, and that is saying something because [anybody] - Mikita - Conacher is dynamite. I'm not quite sure what the point of Propp on this line is when a guy like Robitaille was available. I mean, Propp adds grit, defensive awareness and intangibles, sure, but those were already in abundance on this line and he doesn't add so much of any one thing to make it a real over-the-top-skull-cracker like Nanaimo's 1st line. In terms of talent and scoring ability, he's on the extreme low end by 1st line standards. But that's my only real gripe about this Lada team, and others may disagree. I'm generally a sucker for balance.

That's all I've got for now.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

PK

goaltending

i think belfour is better than cheevers.

other than things like personality, i do not really know what separates cheevers from someone like vernon. vernon was probably more important to his teams than cheevers was to his, though.

for all the talk about cheevers' status as a money goalie, cheevers was also not always "the go to guy."

'72 playoffs
cheevers: 6-2, 2.61
johnston: 6-1, 1.86

johnston played games 2, 4 and 5 in the finals. boston won the cup.

imo, the entire concept of money goalie is overblown, and it especially is when the 36 year old backup plays 1/2 the games, even in the finals, and the team still wins.

This is the second part of my look at the Montreal Canadiens upcoming playoff series with Lada Togliatti. In this writing I look at the goaltending matchup. I will also be doing write-ups on the defense, and forward matchups in the next day or two in anticipation of Sunday's vote.

Goaltending

An intriguing matchup, both great goalies, both excellent puckhandlers, both Stanley Cup champions, but in a playoff situation like this I think the edge must go to the more accomplished Cheevers.

My opponent in the first round makes mention of the 1972 Stanley Cup finals. He is right in that Eddie Johnston played in games two, four, and five. He argues that this means that Cheevers wasn’t always the “go to guy.â€

What he doesn’t mention is game six …,

Game 6 May 11 Boston Bruins 3 New York Rangers 0

Of course the list of goalies who clinched the Stanley Cup in the opposing team’s home rink while pitching a shutout is a short one indeed. That was what made Cheevers the Bruin’s “go-to-guy.â€

Boston Bruins playoff winning percentage from 1968 to 1980 …

without Cheevers in the net – 49 games, 26 wins, = .530

with Cheevers in the net – 88 games, 53 wins = .602

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

Career Regular Season Winning Percentage amongst Hall of Fame Goaltenders

Ken Dryden .650
Gerry Cheevers .550
Bill Durnan .543
Georges Vezina .542
Patrick Roy .535
George Hainsworth .529
Clint Benedict .524
Jacques Plante .522
Tiny Thompson .514
Frankie Brimsek .490
Turk Broda .480
Tony Esposito .477
Ed Giacomin .475
Grant Fuhr .464
Alex Connell .463
Terry Sawchuk .460
Johnny Bower .453
Glenn Hall .449
Billy Smith .449
Bernie Parent .446
Hugh Lehman .416
Harry Lumley .411
Gump Worsley .389
Hap Holmes .378
Chuck Gardiner .354
Roy Worters .353
Chuck Rayner .325

Career Playoff Winning Percentage amongst Hall of Fame Goaltenders

Georges Vezina .769
Ken Dryden .714
Billy Smith .667
Jacques Plante .634
Grant Fuhr .613
Patrick Roy .611
Gerry Cheevers .602
Bill Durnan .600
Turk Broda .594
Gump Worsley .571
Chuck Gardiner .571
Bernie Parent .535
Terry Sawchuk .509
Chuck Rayner .500
Johnny Bower .473
Frankie Brimsek .471
Tony Esposito .454
Tiny Thompson .454
Ed Giacomin .446
Glenn Hall .426
George Hainsworth .423
Clint Benedict .393
Harry Lumley .382
Alex Connell .381
Roy Worters .273

For those of you curious as to where Ed Belfour fits into this equation;

Ed Belfour regular season winning percentage .503 (Cheevers .550)

Ed Belfour playoff winning percentage .547 (Cheevers .602)

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

Ed Belfour played in the post season on twelve occasions;

He won the Stanley Cup once.
He lost in the finals twice.
He lost in the semi finals twice.
He lost in the quarter finals three times.
He lost in the first round four times.

Gerry Cheevers played in the post season on ten occasions;

He won the Stanley Cup twice.
He lost in the finals twice.
He lost in the semi finals three times.
He lost in the quarter finals three times.

On the surface their playoff careers are very similar. However, here is a list of goalies that defeated Ed Belfour in a playoff series.

Jon Casey, Tom Barrasso, Curtis Joseph, Felix Potvin, Mike Vernon, Patrick Roy, Chris Osgood, Martin Brodeur, Roman Turek, Roman Cechmanek, & Robert Esche.

The list of goalies that defeated Gerry Cheevers in the playoffs is;

Gump Worsley, Rogie Vachon, Ken Dryden, Bernie Parent & Billy Smith.

Of the eleven goalies that bested Belfour in the post-season only one is in the Hall of Fame with only one other sure to follow. Of the five goalies who bested Cheevers four in the Hall and an argument could be made for the fifth.

An interesting sidenote;

Of the eleven times that Belfour was bested in the post season, only four times did that team go on to win the Stanley Cup that same spring.

Of the eight times that Cheevers was bested in the post season, the team that beat the Bruins went on to capture the Stanley Cup an astounding seven times that spring.

In other words Cheevers was only ever beaten in the playoffs by the best.

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

Many claim that a large part of Cheevers success is based on him playing with Bruins. Earlier one saw how the Bruins were a different and less successful team with Cheevers out of the net. Ironically, in the three years that Cheevers spent in the WHA the Bruins didn't seem to miss a beat, posting a record of 143-65-28 with a-goals-against average of 2.97.

The playoffs revealed however, how much they missed their departed goalie as their record was 12-12 over those three post seasons as their goals against rose to 3.25.

During his career with the Bruins, Cheevers posted a goals against average of 2.89. In the playoffs however he lowered it to 2.69.

It's not hard to imagine him making a difference come playoff time those three years.

Clearly the Bruins of the time stood a better chance of winning with Cheevers in the net, than without him.

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

Further notes about Cheevers.

A 1960 Memorial Cup winner with St. Mike’s, Cheevers still holds the American Hockey League single-season record for most victories by a goalkeeper. In 1965 he totaled 48 victories in leading the Rochester Americans to their first Calder Cup championship.

As a sidenote, here is how strong the goaltending was in the AHL during Cheevers championship season. The following all played goal that year for the circuits other eight teams.

Jacques Plante, Eddie Giacomin, Gump Worsley, Ed Chadwick, Les Binkley, & Ernie Wakely.

In 1972, he went undefeated in 33 consecutive games, a NHL record that still stands.

He was also second in the WHA's history in career GAA and shutouts, despite playing in only half the league's seasons, playing three and a half seasons for the Cleveland Crusaders, winning First Team All-Star honors in 1973 and Second Team honors in 1974 and 1975.

Gerry Cheevers is the only starting goalie to win the Memorial Cup, the Calder Cup, and the Stanley Cup.

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

“I don’t care much about my average. My philosophy’s always been that the other team can fill the net on me as long as we get one more goal.†Gerry Cheevers, Goaltender

“When asked why he wouldn’t shake hands after a playoff series, Cheevers responded. “If we’re playing golf or tennis and it’s for fun, I’ll shake your hand if you win. But this is different. These are the playoffs, and there’s a lot of money and your livelihood at stake.†The Great New York Sports Debate, by Roger Rubin & David Lennon.

“Next to Bobby Orr he’s the greatest player ever. He takes control of the game. Think what that means, a goalie controlling the game! But he does. He does it with his handling of the puck and by talking all the time. He keeps reminding us where to go, and you do what he says because that gives him an outlet for the puck.†Wayne Cashman, Tales from the Boston Bruins.

“Two of his greatest assets were his skating and stickhandling. He was the equivalent of a third defenseman, and his puck-handling had undoubtedly been helped by his lacrosse play, which he had given up in the 1960’s for fear of an injury that would hamper his hockey career. At St. Mike’s he had even played left wing for a dozen games.†Douglas Hunter, A Breed Apart.

“Certainly we had Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito, but I’m sure we couldn’t have won the Cups without Gerry Cheevers.†Harry Sinden, Boston Bruins: Greatest Moments & Players.

“I was fascinated by the goalie Gerry Cheevers. He was fearless, skillful and calm; a very good goalkeeper. As an individual he was one in a million. Before the game he would come over and hit me on the pads with his stick. Had it not been for Cheevers we would have won even more persuasively.†Vladislav Tretiak, Tretiak: the Legend.

“The offense first Bruins played an attacking game that often left Cheevers on his own to stop the opponents counterattack. Although this style drove up his goals-against-average, it suited Cheevers competitive and combative on-ice nature.†Stan Fischler, Who’s Who in Hockey.

“Gerry brings a lot of class to the position of goaltending. Everyone thinks of the goalie as the flake and the guy who is a bit weird. He defies all that. He doesn’t have the best technique in certain instances but he’s an intelligent guy, a thinking goalie. He reacts to situations better than others. He doesn’t lose his angles and has excellent anticipation.†Glenn ‘Chico’ Resch, A Breed Apart.

“Although Gerry Cheevers never won a Vezina Trophy, it’s unlikely he was eve bothered by the omission. In Cheevers mind it was all about the Stanley Cup, and he got two with the Boston Bruins.†Stan Fischler, Who’s Who in Hockey.

 

[nik jr]

Agreed. Great work CanadiensFan.

also agreed

i think coaching is 1 of the more neglected parts of ATD.


but to respond...


i think assigning credit or blame to the coach for offensive output of teams without regard to the players makes very little sense.

offensive talent is not something that can be taught.

it is far more reasonable to look at the players.


NJ's offense: lemaire and after

NJ saw its scoring increase toward the end of lemaire's tenure, and it continued after he left.

'97: 16th
'98: 9th (lemaire's last season with NJ)
'99: 2nd
'00: 2nd
'01: 1st

the reason for the increase in NJ's scoring was maturation of several talented players. elias, sykora and niedermayer entered their primes. gomez and rafalski joined the team (rafalski was age 26). mogilny was acquired in '01. holik's role increased.

increased talent also led to a more effective PP:

'97: 13.9% (22nd)
'98: 18.9% (2nd)
'99: 19.7% (4th)
'00: 20.0% (3rd)
'01: 22.9% (1st)

important note
NJ still played a defensive style even when they were the highest scoring team. there need not be conflict between strong defensive hockey and scoring.


for the most part, lemaire's teams have had little offensive talent. for about 1/2 his coaching career, his teams also had little defensive talent.

but lemaire does not lack a talented roster here, so i do not think an anemic offense is a big concern.

--my 1st liners won 6 art rosses, several of them by large margins.

--over conacher's career, he was the top scorer in both the regular season and playoffs.

--over mikita's career, he was 2nd to esposito in regular season scoring, and 1st in playoff scoring.

--propp is the highest scoring LW in playoff history. only gretzky outscored propp in the '87 playoffs. he was a great playoff scorer and reached the finals 4 times.

--ratelle was the 4th highest playoff scorer in the '70s. he was close to winning the art ross in '72 but broke his ankle late in the season.

--dillon was 1 of the best goalscorers of the '30s, and set a playoff record for goals that was not broken until maurice richard.

--unger scored more goals in the '70s than all players but esposito and lafleur.

i also think it is important to note that several of my key offensive players were high scoring players for defensive teams (mikita, ratelle, propp).


babcock

for most of babcock's time as an NHL coach, he had the most talented roster in the NHL which already had a well established style of play.

DRW rank in scoring
'02: 2nd
'03: 1st
'04: 2nd

'06: 2nd
'07: 10th
'08: 3rd
'09: 1st

DRW were an elite offensive team before babcock (again due to the high talent level, and not to coaching), and their offense was already in place when he arrived. in fact, he tried to overhaul the offense and move to a style unsuited to the team and that led to a weaker offense.
it makes very little sense to credit babcock for DRW's offense.


anaheim's offense under babcock
'03: 22nd
'04: 28th

these teams played babcock's preferred style--defense first, dump and chase hockey.
anaheim's PP was average in '03 and above average in '04.


anaheim was a low scoring team before babcock, and a low scoring team after babcock. when anaheim acquired more talent (selanne, getzlaf, lupul, perry, macdonald, niedermayer, pronger), their scoring increased, as NJ's did after more talent was acquired toward the end of lemaire's tenure.
by '07, anaheim was 7th in scoring, above babcock's DRW.


babcock was not the cause of anaheim's low scoring, just as lemaire was not the cause of his teams' low scoring. in both situations, the teams lacked talent.

i think it should also be pointed out that the main cause of anaheim's lower GAA in the '03 playoffs was the historically great performance of giguere.


my point in all of this:
the different offensive outputs of lemaire's teams and babcock's DRW teams is due almost entirely to the large difference in talent, not to coaching.

it is true that my team could score more if it played a less defensive style, but i think it is true that D wins championships.


playoff scoring

i do not think it is not particularly relevant that the scoring of lemaire's teams declined in the playoffs, b/c that is normal.
the scoring of teams coached by babcock also usually declined in the playoffs, b/c that is normal.

the typical lower scoring in the playoffs was only exacerbated by NJ's lack of offensive talent.


NJ's playoffs GFA (goals for average) and GAA after lemaire

'99
GFA: 3.02, playoff GFA: 2.39
GAA: 2.57, playoff GAA: 3.00

'00
GFA: 3.06, playoff GFA: 2.48
GAA: 2.61, playoff GAA: 1.65

'01
GFA: 3.60, playoff GFA: 2.38
GAA: 2.76, playoff GAA: 2.08

'02
GFA: 2.50, playoff GFA: 2.28
GAA: 1.83, playoff GAA: 1.50

'03
GFA: 2.63, playoff GFA: 2.02
GAA: 2.58, playoff GAA: 1.71

'04
GFA: 2.60, playoff GFA: 2.00
GAA: 1.80, playoff GFA: 2.80


i don't see much difference, even though NJ was a more talented team for most of this period than they were under lemaire. oddly enough, it was in '01, when NJ was the top offensive team, that NJ had its biggest drop off in playoff scoring.

 

[nik jr]

My opponent in the first round makes mention of the 1972 Stanley Cup finals. He is right in that Eddie Johnston played in games two, four, and five. He argues that this means that Cheevers wasn’t always the “go to guy.â€

What he doesn’t mention is game six …,

Game 6 May 11 Boston Bruins 3 New York Rangers 0

Of course the list of goalies who clinched the Stanley Cup in the opposing team’s home rink while pitching a shutout is a short one indeed. That was what made Cheevers the Bruin’s “go-to-guy.â€

johnston was absolutely nothing special, (some still blame him for losing the '71 series by blowing game 2.) but the bruins decided to start johnston in game 5, an elimination game, even though he had just played game 4.

johnston also had a better record and lower GAA in those playoffs.


in how many finals did the backup goalie play 1/2 of the games? has it ever happened aside from '72?

that is much more important than who was in net for game 6.



the bruins also turned to gilles gilbert instead of cheevers in game 7 in '79. they lost that game but gilbert was probably their best player. boston was outshot 32-52.

actually, boston probably would have defeated montreal in '79 (and probably would have won the cup) if they had not started cheevers in games 1 and 2. dryden was not at his best, and there was definitely an opening for boston.

game 1: cheevers allowed 4 goals on 21 shots.
game 2: cheevers allowed 5 goals on 20 shots.

Boston Bruins playoff winning percentage from 1968 to 1980 …

without Cheevers in the net – 49 games, 26 wins, = .530

with Cheevers in the net – 88 games, 53 wins = .602

i think it is true that cheevers was better than gilles gilbert, ron grahame and ed johnston.

.530 in the playoffs with goalies like johnston, gilbert and grahame is actually very good, though.

Career Regular Season Winning Percentage amongst Hall of Fame Goaltenders

Career Playoff Winning Percentage amongst Hall of Fame Goaltenders

For those of you curious as to where Ed Belfour fits into this equation;

Ed Belfour regular season winning percentage .503 (Cheevers .550)

Ed Belfour playoff winning percentage .547 (Cheevers .602)

osgood's record: 389-204-66-23
osgood's playoff record: 70-45

winning % means very little about how good a player was.


it is funny, though, that osgood has more NHL all star selections than cheevers, and more rings, despite playing in a time of better goalies and more parity in the NHL.

Ed Belfour played in the post season on twelve occasions;

He won the Stanley Cup once.
He lost in the finals twice.
He lost in the semi finals twice.
He lost in the quarter finals three times.
He lost in the first round four times.

Gerry Cheevers played in the post season on ten occasions;

He won the Stanley Cup twice.
He lost in the finals twice.
He lost in the semi finals three times.
He lost in the quarter finals three times.


On the surface their playoff careers are very similar. However, here is a list of goalies that defeated Ed Belfour in a playoff series.

Jon Casey, Tom Barrasso, Curtis Joseph, Felix Potvin, Mike Vernon, Patrick Roy, Chris Osgood, Martin Brodeur, Roman Turek, Roman Cechmanek, & Robert Esche.

The list of goalies that defeated Gerry Cheevers in the playoffs is;

Gump Worsley, Rogie Vachon, Ken Dryden, Bernie Parent & Billy Smith.

Of the eleven goalies that bested Belfour in the post-season only one is in the Hall of Fame with only one other sure to follow. Of the five goalies who bested Cheevers four in the Hall and an argument could be made for the fifth.

An interesting sidenote;

Of the eleven times that Belfour was bested in the post season, only four times did that team go on to win the Stanley Cup that same spring.

Of the eight times that Cheevers was bested in the post season, the team that beat the Bruins went on to capture the Stanley Cup an astounding seven times that spring.

In other words Cheevers was only ever beaten in the playoffs by the best.

i notice you ignored cheevers' WHA career.

cheevers was probably the best goalie in WHA history. he was an all star in 3 of his 4 seasons.
he also is 2nd in WHA history in GAA and SO, which i think shows he was not indifferent to those kind of things.

7-12 playoff record
got out of the 1st round once, by beating a sub .500 team.

regular season GAA: 3.09
playoff GAA: 3.315

lost series to ernie wakely/joe daley, les binkley/gilles gratton and ron grahame (who was 1 of cheevers backups in boston).

were those goalies the best, too?


but if the goalie is responsible for the success of his team, i am perfectly willing to have everyone vote for the winner of the series based on cheevers vs belfour.

Many claim that a large part of Cheevers success is based on him playing with Bruins.

i think cheevers' WHA career points to cheevers' success being due in large part to the very strong or dominant bruins teams he played behind.

while the bruins were able to reach the finals again without cheevers, cheevers won only 1 series in his WHA career.

Earlier one saw how the Bruins were a different and less successful team with Cheevers out of the net. Ironically, in the three years that Cheevers spent in the WHA the Bruins didn't seem to miss a beat, posting a record of 143-65-28 with a-goals-against average of 2.97.

The playoffs revealed however, how much they missed their departed goalie as their record was 12-12 over those three post seasons as their goals against rose to 3.25.

During his career with the Bruins, Cheevers posted a goals against average of 2.89. In the playoffs however he lowered it to 2.69.

It's not hard to imagine him making a difference come playoff time those three years.

most goalies on good teams have lower GAA in the playoffs, b/c scoring usually declines.
gilles gilbert's GAA dropped from 3.27 to 3.03 in the playoffs.


you also have to look at who replaced cheevers, and who boston played.

'73
2nd in the NHL (107p)

37 year old johnston
44 year old plante
35 year old robb brooks (54 career games)

lost to 102p NYR in the 1st round.

'74
gilles gilbert

best record in the NHL (113p)
lost in the finals to 2nd place philadelphia (112p). i don't see cheevers changing the outcome. parent was just incredible.

but this was better than boston did most seasons. phildadelphia was also better than any of the teams boston played in '70 or '72.

'75
5th place (94p)

gilbert

lost to 12th place chicago (84p) in the 1st round.


but i think you are right that cheevers was better than gilles gilbert, ron grahame and ed johnston.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

in how many finals did the backup goalie play 1/2 of the games? has it ever happened aside from '72?

that is much more important than who was in net for game 6.

Off the top of my head. In the 1953 finals the Montreal Canadiens goaltending duties were split between Jacques Plante & Gerry McNeil. In 1967 the Champion Leafs used both Terry Sawchuk & Johnny Bower and the runner-up Canadiens used both Gump Worsley & Rogie Vachon. In 1968 the Champion Canadiens used both Worsley & Vachon again in tandem. In the 1969 playoffs the St. Louis Blues used both Jacques Plante & Glenn Hall in the nets and in 1970 actually rotated three; Plante, Hall, & Ernie Wakely.

This practice was fairly common at the time. Cheevers went all the way in the 1970 Cup victory. In the 1972 final not only did the Bruins use both Cheevers and Johnston but their opponent in the finals, the Rangers used both Eddie Giacomin & Gilles Villemure.

An interesting sidenote.

If not for a puck in the head from teammate Doug Risebrough in the warm-up the 1979 Canadiens would have gone with 'Bunny" Larocque as their goalie in game two of the finals against the Rangers. Ken Dryden only played because of this injury.

And in 1984 I know that the Champion Oilers used both Grant Fuhr & Andy Moog in the nets during their playoff run.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

but this was better than boston did most seasons. phildadelphia was also better than any of the teams boston played in '70 or '72.

You might get an argument from a fan of the 1969-70 Chicago Black Hawks.

-Finished in first place in the league with 99 points (tied with Boston)
-Gave up the fewest goals in the league; 170
-led the league in penalty killing 87%
-finished first in league goal differential, plus 80

-had the league's #3 and # 4 goal scorers; Stan Mikita & Bobby Hull
-Mikita finished 7th in league assists
-Mikita finished 3rd in league scoring
-Keith Magnusson finished 5th in plus/minus, Doug Jarrett 6th, and Stan Mikita & Doug Mohns tied for 7th
-Mikita led the league in even strength goals, Hull finished 5th, Pit Martin 6th
-Eric Nesterenko & Hull tied for 8th in short-handed goals
-Hull & Mikita tied for first in game winning goals, with Jim Pappin one behind
-Martin finished second in shooting percentage, Pappin fifth
-Tony Esposito led the league in wins, shutouts, and finished second in goals against average
-Esposito's mark of fifteen regular season shutouts is still the league record
-Esposito won the Vezina & the Calder trophy

-Three members of this team ended up in the Hall of Fame
-Ten members of this team were selected on ATD

The Blackhawks swept the Red Wings in the first round of the playoffs.

In the East Finals the Bruins swept the Blackhawks four straight.

The goalie for all the games was Gerry Cheevers.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

osgood's record: 389-204-66-23
osgood's playoff record: 70-45

winning % means very little about how good a player was.


it is funny, though, that osgood has more NHL all star selections than cheevers, and more rings, despite playing in a time of better goalies and more parity in the NHL

Osgoode also has more rings than Belfour.

i notice you ignored cheevers' WHA career.

cheevers was probably the best goalie in WHA history. he was an all star in 3 of his 4seasons.
he also is 2nd in WHA history in GAA and SO, which i think shows he was not indifferent to those kind of things.

i think cheevers' WHA career points to cheevers' success being due in large part to the very strong or dominant bruins teams he played behind.

????

And how many Stanley Cups did the Bruins win in Cheevers abscence ??

but if the goalie is responsible for the success of his team, i am perfectly willing to have everyone vote for the winner of the series based on cheevers vs belfour.

In looking through the history of the game one could surmise that the goalie is the most crucial player come playoff time.

 

[nik jr]

i think it is clear that befour's regular season career was much better than cheevers'.
belfour won a couple of vezinas during roy's peak, and lost another to hasek in '95.
he finished in the top 4 in vezina voting 7 times ('91, '92, '93, '95, '98, '00, '03).

belfour was also great in the playoffs.
he had a couple of poor playoffs early in his career ('91 and '93), but was usually very good.
belfour was excellent in '95 (chicago was outshot 183-113 in the WCF, but belfour almost stole the series), '99, '00, '04. very good in '92, '94, '98.

i thought belfour was a better choice for the '99 smythe, but that is very arguable.


'90-'04 playoff sv% of belfour's main rivals
hasek: .927
brodeur: 921
belfour: .920
roy: .920
joseph: .916

the flaw is that average sv% was significantly lower in the 1st 1/2 of that period.

belfour '90-'96: .912
belfour '97-'04: .925


BM67 posted an interesting breakdown of goalie performance in playoff OT games.

Here is a home/road breakdown of Brodeur, Roy, Hasek, Belfour and Joseph in playoff OT games.

Player|GP|MIN|W|L|GA|GAA|SOG|SV%|SO|SOG/60|MIN/GP
Brodeur H|13|1009:24|6|7|30|1.78|443|0.932|1|26.33|77:39
Brodeur R|17|1351:21|5|12|42|1.86|576|0.927|0|25.57|79:29
Roy H|23|1613:05|15|8|53|1.97|709|0.925|0|26.37|70:08
Roy R|35|2509:57|25|10|86|2.06|1211|0.929|1|28.95|71:42
Hasek H|14|995:13|5|9|35|2.11|432|0.919|1|26.04|71:05
Hasek R|14|1129:33|9|5|36|1.91|531|0.932|0|28.21|80:41
Belfour H|18|1388:58|10|8|49|2.12|640|0.923|0|27.65|77:10
Belfour R|24|1839:01|12|12| 49|1.60|834|0.941|2|27.21|76:38
Joseph H|16|1188:58|7|9|41|2.07|571|0.928|0|28.81|74:19
Joseph R|11|798:59|6|5|26|1.95|452|0.942|2| 33.94|72:38

Here is an home/road breakdown of Brodeur, Roy, Hasek, Belfour and Joseph in playoff OT games for the OT only. The Summary Project doesn't have 88-93 or 97 playoffs up yet, so Brodeur is missing 2 games, Roy is missing 25 games, Hasek is missing 2, and Belfour is missing 3, Joseph is missing 9. The missing games have been given a shot total based on the overall game average per minute. The minutes and GAA should be accurate, but the SOG, SV% and SOG/60 are unlikely to be.

Player|GP|MIN|W|L|GA|GAA|SOG|SV%|SOG/60|MIN/GP
Brodeur H|13|250:12|6|7|7|1.68|115|0.939|27.58|19:15
Brodeur R|17|277:31|5|12|12|2.59|112|0.893|24.21|16:19
Roy H|23|233:57|15|8|8|2.05|109|0.927|27.95|10:10
Roy R|35|428:25|25|10|10|1.40|225|0.956|31.51|12:14
Hasek H|14|175:25|5|9|9|3.08|99|0.909|33.86|12:32
Hasek R|14|292:02|9|5|5|1.03|124|0.960|25.48|20:52
Belfour H|18|309:44|10|8|8|1.55|172|0.953|33.32|17:12
Belfour R|24|418:29|12|12|12|1.72|191|0.937|27.38|17:26
Joseph H|16|229:39|7|9|9|2.35|110|0.918|28.74|14:21
Joseph R|11|143:16|6|5|5|2.09|86|0.942|36.02|13:01

OT record: 22-20

sv% in OT games: .934
sv% in OT: .944

Osgoode also has more rings than Belfour.

yes, but unlike you, i am not judging goalies based on team accomplishments.

under your team based criteria, osgood could easily be considered better than cheevers and could be considered a starter in ATD b/c he had great team success.

i think team results are not very useful for understanding how good 1 of its players was. imo, osgood was an average goalie and should only be a backup.

And how many Stanley Cups did the Bruins win in Cheevers abscence ??

same number they would have won if cheevers had not gone to WHA. other teams were better than boston when cheevers was in the WHA.

cheevers returned in '76, but boston did not win. other teams were better.

boston probably won when they should have and lost when they should have (other than '71).

it is ironic, though, that boston probably would have won the cup in '79 if cheevers had not played.


how did cheevers' teams do in WHA playoffs?

In looking through the history of the game one could surmise that the goalie is the most crucial player come playoff time.

i am very happy if the voters think cheevers is more important than orr.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

i am very happy if the voters think cheevers is more important than orr.

How many Cups did Orr win without Cheevers. As great as he was (the greatest ever) the Stanley Cup is not won unless you have the goaltending.

“Certainly we had Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito, but I’m sure we couldn’t have won the Cups without Gerry Cheevers.†Harry Sinden, Boston Bruins: Greatest Moments & Players.

The most important statistic in the playoffs for goaltenders is for the win.

For example if one looks at the list for the goalies that have the best post-season career goals-against-average they would find this ...

Patrick Lalime 1.76
Martin Brodeur 1.97
Dominic Hasek 2.02
Patrick Roy 2.30

and in post-season save percentage they would find this ...

Patrick Lalime .926
Domick Hasek .925
Martin Brodeur .919
Patrick Roy .918

According to your criteria of individual statistics being more important than wins when evaluating goalies in the playoffs Patrick Lalime was the preeminent post-season goalie of his time.

 

[nik jr]

How many Cups did Orr win without Cheevers. As great as he was (the greatest ever) the Stanley Cup is not won unless you have the goaltending.

the most important change from the early '70s, when the bruins won twice, to the mid and later '70s was not the loss of cheevers, it was the improvement of the flyers and habs.

'72 bruins were able to win with johnston in net.

bruins made the finals in '74, '77, '78. they lost to the better team each time, even when cheevers was in net.



if we judge goalies on wins, then cheevers would not have been much help to the '73-'75 bruins, b/c cheevers was not able to beat any team above .500 in WHA.

The most important statistic in the playoffs for goaltenders is for the win.

For example if one looks at the list for the goalies that have the best post-season career goals-against-average they would find this ...

Patrick Lalime 1.76
Martin Brodeur 1.97
Dominic Hasek 2.02
Patrick Roy 2.30

and in post-season save percentage they would find this ...

Patrick Lalime .926
Domick Hasek .925
Martin Brodeur .919
Patrick Roy .918

According to your criteria of individual statistics being more important than wins when evaluating goalies in the playoffs Patrick Lalime was the preeminent post-season goalie of his time.

a very shallow look at those numbers while ignoring all other evidence could lead you to that conclusion.

similarly, a very shallow look at team stats like wins and winning % could lead you to the conclusion that cheevers was better than belfour, or that osgood is 1 of the best ever.


lalime played 41 playoff games. all of lalime's playoff games came in the height of the clutch and grab era ('01-'04), when average sv% was much higher than it was in the early '90s.
ottawa under jacques martin was usually a very good defensive team, and lalime faced easier shots than most goalies.

when you look at the actual games, lalime was not as impressive.

in '02, philadelphia was not able to get through ottawa's trap, and very rarely had any serious offensive pressure.
philadelphia scored only 2 goals in the series.
it was 1 of the worst offensive performances i can remember (especially since philadelphia was not a weak offensive team).

lalime's numbers in '02: 1.39, .942

'03 series vs NYI was very similar. 8th seed NYI were obviously a weaker team than philadelphia, though.

lalime's numbers in the NYI series: 1.40, .949


lalime was usually very solid for ottawa, though. he had a meltdown in '04, but belfour had 3 SO and stole that series from ottawa.

lalime was not a bad goalie, but when a goalie loses confidence, he can become terrible very quickly.

 

[seventieslord]

This is a ****ing awesome series. Keep it up, guys.

 

[nik jr]

mikita and conacher

Just a note about Conacher: In Frank Selke's autobiography (which I recently bought at a used book store for $1), while he has plenty of compliments for Conacher, he describes Joe Primeau as being the real workhouse of the Kid Line. Basically he says that Primeau was a master at drawing away the two defencemen then passing the puck to Conacher or Jackson for an easy shot on goal.

i traded up to pick conacher b/c i thought they would mesh well together. mikita played a similar style to primeau:

When Mikita takes over at center ice, he digs into the corners to free the puck and then skates effortlessly over the enemy's blue line with the puck out in front, drawing the defense toward him. Once the defense is committed to Stan's center position, a wingman on the right or left is wide open and Stan's lightning pass often sets up a shot on the net.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1078140/2/index.htm

Mikita executed this strategy around his own basic philosophy of a center-man's function. "I'm a great believer in this: the center should handle the puck going over the blue line. I'm the type that likes to carry it across the blue line and mess around with it until some other guy gets into position for a shot." His gift is that he can control the puck under the most inclement conditions, i.e., one dense with the butt ends of hostile sticks. "He won't pass the puck if a man isn't clear," says Worsley. "He won't give the puck away to a guy that's half-covered just to get rid of it." And because he can shift effortlessly in either direction—not favoring, as do most centers, one side or the other—he can fake as naturally as blinking to split the defense wide open. "Stan will give you a couple of hi-hos-and-here-we-go and suddenly he's in on you with the puck," says Glenn Hall, who has to deal with him in Hawk practices.

mikita was able to control the puck so well due to his skating, intelligence and stickhandling.

reckoning also posted in the top 100 debate something from a '76 poll of NHL coaches.

Best Stickhandler: Stan Mikita

Smartest Player: Stan Mikita

keep in mind this was near the end of mikita's career.

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=190951


even though mikita did not have the greatest linemates, he boosted his linemates' scoring, and his line was often the highest scoring line in the NHL.
in '67, the scooter line was very close to breaking the record for most points by a line in a season, which was set by the production line of lindsay ullman howe in '57.
mikita won the art ross by 21% over bobby hull.


on mikita's RW, ken wharram twice beat howe (and others) for 1st AS. mikita won the art ross both in both seasons.

on mikita's LW, 33 year old converted d-man doug mohns cracked the top 10 in scoring. mikita won the art ross.

after mohns was moved back to the blueline, dennis hull played on mikita's LW. dennis scored 40g in '71, and was 2nd AS in '73.

Mikita's best shot is the wrist shot. This season it helped him score 25 goals, which, with his 52 assists, give him a total of 77 points, for a third-place tic in the NHL, with Gordie Howe of Detroit. One reason for his deadliness with the wrist shot: he does as many as 40 pushups at a time—some 50 to 100 a day—to build his arms and wrists. "His forearms are so big," says Goalie Hall, "that his wristwatch would slide off the normal man's biceps." More than that, Mikita enjoys the simple exhilaration of combat.

http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1073742/index.htm
mikita's goalscoring ability is very much underrated.

mikita finished 2nd in goals 3 times, and in the top 6 in goals 7 times. at retirement, he was 1 of only 6 players who scored 500 goals.


as mikita's goalscoring is underrated, charlie conacher's playmaking ability is underrated. he was a dominant goalscorer, but he had decent playmaking ability.
over his career ('30-'41), conacher was 8th in assists and 1st in playoff assists.

 

[seventieslord]

Selke's autobiorgaphy? As in "After the Applause"?

If you got that for $1 I am highly jealous. I can't remember what I spent on it but it was a lot more. I looked specifically for a hardcover with a dustjacket in good condition since it's such an old book, which is probably why it cost so much more...

anyway, looks like an awesome book. Lots of good old anecdotes in there. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

 

[nik jr]

something interesting i found

Selke's autobiorgaphy? As in "After the Applause"?

If you got that for $1 I am highly jealous. I can't remember what I spent on it but it was a lot more. I looked specifically for a hardcover with a dustjacket in good condition since it's such an old book, which is probably why it cost so much more...

anyway, looks like an awesome book. Lots of good old anecdotes in there. I haven't gotten around to reading it yet.

i don't know, you would need to ask reckoning. i wish i had that book.

 

[Canadiens Fan]

mikita and conacher

Originally Posted by reckoning
Just a note about Conacher: In Frank Selke's autobiography (which I recently bought at a used book store for $1), while he has plenty of compliments for Conacher, he describes Joe Primeau as being the real workhouse of the Kid Line. Basically he says that Primeau was a master at drawing away the two defencemen then passing the puck to Conacher or Jackson for an easy shot on goal.

i traded up to pick conacher b/c i thought they would mesh well together. mikita played a similar style to primeau:

Since we're discussing the merits of our players vis-a-vis the judgement of Frank Selke Sr. I feel compelled to add the following quote.

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=405330

"I have been blessed with a lot of great stars over the years. But game in, and game out, Henri Richard may have been the most valuable player I ever had."

"Think about it -- what he was saying was that Henri, a member of a record 11 Stanley Cup teams, "may have been" more valuable than Beliveau and more valuable than his older brother, Maurice, and meant more to the team than Bernie Geoffrion, Jacques Plante and even Doug Harvey."

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Defensemen:

Not to spend too much time on Bobby Orr but it is worth noting.

Lada Tagliatti’s defense corps (all seven players).

- 12 All-Star selections
- finished in the top ten in goals once
- finished in the top ten in assists four times
- finished in the top ten in plus/minus twice
- finished in the top ten in penalty minutes eleven times

Bobby Orr

- 9 All Star selections
- 8 time Norris Trophy winner
- 3 time Hart Trophy winner
- 2 time Conn Smythe winner
- 2 time Art Ross trophy winner
- Calder Trophy winner
- finished in the top ten in goals three times
- finished in the top ten in assists six times (league leader five times)
- finished in the top ten in points six times (league leader twice)
- finished in the top ten in plus-minus eight times (league leader six times)
- finished in the top ten in penalty minutes three times
- finished in the top ten in power play goals three times
- finished in the top ten in short handed goals four times
- finished in the top ten in shots on goals seven times (league leader twice)

As dominant as Orr was and he was the most dominant player of his time (and probably all-time) with the exception of Ted Green in 1969 and Brad Park for a handful of games in 1975 he never played with a coterie of All-Star defensemen.

On this team however, he is joined by three all-star defensemen, including one fellow Norris trophy winner as well as a fellow Hall-of-Famer. All told a combined eighteen Stanley Cup rings.

Tom Johnson – 1959 Norris Trophy Winner & 1956 second team All-Star, 1959 first team All-Star.

I think he makes the ideal partner for Orr.

http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2007/05/tom-johnson.html

"I was classified as a defensive defenceman. I stayed back and minded the store. With the high powered scoring teams I was with, I just had to get them the puck and let them do the rest." Tom Johnson

"Johnson's on my black list. He liked to hit you from behind. When he got into a fight he never dropped his stick. Instead of using his fists, he used his stick for protection.†Stan Mikita.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/

An accomplished skater and puckhandler, defenseman Tom Johnson played a valuable role on the powerful Montreal Canadiens teams of the 1950s. He contributed to the Habs' rapid transitional game and would have scored more points had the team not already been blessed with Doug Harvey to quarterback the power-play. One of his key traits was an ability to recover almost immediately after making a rare mistake on the ice. Johnson soon became a stalwart on the penalty-killing unit, where the team utilized his speed and his ability to win the majority of the battles in the corners. One of Johnson's patented moves was to steal the puck from an attacking forward without bodily contact. This allowed him to feed a pass to one of his teammates while the opposition was still heading toward the Montreal net.

J.C. Tremblay – 1968 second team All-Star, 1971 first team All-Star, finished top ten in league assists twice (1971 & 1972), finished top ten in plus minus twice (1968 & 1972), and led the league in short handed goals in 1964.

In the WHA he twice won the Dennis Murphy trophy as the league’s top defenseman, was a four time All-Star (three times first team), and twice led the league in assists.

http://www.habsworld.net/article.php?id=1462

There wasn’t a better puck handler in the league than J.C. He was able to produce offense from the blue line, and was the leagues best playmaking defenseman until the arrival of Bobby Orr. One of his signature plays was to rush up to the center red line and flip the puck in the air towards the goaltender. When done properly the puck would take an unpredictable bounce in front of the goaltender. Tremblay later estimated that he was able to score 25 goals off these weird bounces by frustrated goalies.

http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2008/05/j-c-tremblay.html

Jean-Claude (J.C.) Tremblay is one of the most intelligent, two-way defenders of all time. Tremblay was an excellent all around performer and saved his best performances for the playoffs. He was tremendously responsible defensively and a great two way defenseman, often headmanning the puck to the speedy Montreal forwards. Defensively Tremblay was efficient and heady, relying on his intelligent stick to break up plays rather than bones.

Ted Harris – 1969 second team All Star, finished top ten in plus/minus once (1968).

http://habslegends.blogspot.com/2008/07/ted-harris.html

Harris was an imposing defenseman at 6'2" and 183lbs, and he liked to use his size. He accumulated over 100 PIMs in 5 of his 8 minor league seasons with the Springfield Indians. His feistiness resembled his coach’s, but Eddie Shore showed Harris how to become a stalwart defensive blue liner through perfect positioning. "He (Shore) taught me how to play the man and the puck. I figure he made me more versatile," said Harris of his mentor.

Though he was generally a role player who was happy to be in the shadows of more talented teammates, once in a while Harris took the center stage spotlight, almost always in terms of a fight. He quickly established a reputation as one of the top rumblers in the league, thanks to a heavyweight battle against Orland Kurtenbach of the Rangers early in the 1966-67 season.

“Ted Harris was a throwback defenseman to the days when crunching body checks were more the vogue than in contemporary hockey.†Stan Fishler, Who’s Who in Hockey.

Personally I think this top four is as strong as any in the ATD. Three of the four played under Toe Blake who stressed an offensive style of play that included his defensemen making crisp, fast passes to his rushing forwards, creating a fast break offense.

My opponent has noted that he will be playing a trap system of defense. He also says he expects my team to play a dump and chase style. This is incorrect. When you have quality passers and stickhandlers on both your blue line and on your front line you play a game of puck possession and if anything Babcock has shown as a coach a willingness to adapt to his personnel.

Speaking with Brad Park recently he diagrammed for me personally, that the easiest way to beat the trap is by making a good quality first pass, thus putting the defense out of position. I don’t think that this group of d-men (along with Ian Turnbull, who also is more than capable of rushing the puck from the blueline or creating offense with his passes).
Montreal will not use a dump and chase, but will instead attack the neutral zone with their speed, finesse, and skill. Can the other team keep Orr, Tremblay, Turnbull, Richard, Mahovlich, Malkin, Yakushev etc. all to the perimeter????

My opponent has admitted that he is looking to play a position game as opposed to a physical one to stop my offensive attack. For me this figures to be the key to the series. He maintains that he can keep Orr and my forwards to the perimeter, but by using a position game as opposed to a physical game. Will that work on a consistent basis????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv0-9Wi713o&feature=player_embedded