Robson Division Final: Montreal Canadiens vs Regina Pats

[jarek]

Even if I am to accept that Fredrickson can be a PP net presence, he wouldn't be a particularly great one. I actually think you would be neutering his offensive game a little bit by restricting him to the front of the net. Fredrickson, first and foremost, is a strong passer as I understand it.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Even if I am to accept that Fredrickson can be a PP net presence, he wouldn't be a particularly great one. I actually think you would be neutering his offensive game a little bit by restricting him to the front of the net. Fredrickson, first and foremost, is a strong passer as I understand it.

If I thought he was a ''particularly great PP net presence'', I would put him on the 1st unit.

Edit: As for neutering some of his offense, then so be it.I feel doing so will boost Weber's chance at scoring PP goals with his bomb from the point, which will increase the efficiency of my 2nd unit overall as it is mostly built from the blueline.Weber is probably the best PP slapshot on any 2nd PP unit this year (competing with Rob Blake and maybe a few others (Reed Larsson?)), so it's not surprising I want to put the emphasis on that skill and not on Fredrickson's playmaking.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Jarek never misses a chance to pimp Marty Walsh!

 

[jarek]

Jarek never misses a chance to pimp Marty Walsh!

 

[BenchBrawl]

This has been a pretty fun series overall.Good luck to Regina.

 

[seventieslord]

If forward physicality is Regina's go-to strategy, you'd expect some playoff warriors who would pound Montreal's players left and right in an almost heroic and brave fashion, showing character at every turn, but all they've got in the Top 9 to execute that strategy is two playoff no-shows.

Tkachuk and Nolan are not great playoff performers. They were unable to score points for their mediocre teams when they most needed them to topple the big boys. This is pretty common, but regardless, no one is saying they were good playoff scorers. But why would they suddenly forget how to play an effective physical game in the playoffs?

Regina has brought up Brimsek's losing record as an argument against his playoff performance.Brimsek's record transformed into a losing one only in his last two seasons, when Boston ended up with an identical 1-4 record for the three last post-seasons of Brimsek's career.

Season - W-L
38-39: 8-4
39-40: 10-8
40-41: 18-11
41-42: 20-14
42-43: 24-19
WAR
WAR
45-46: 29-24
46-47: 30-28
47-48: 31-32
48-49: 32-36

The switch from winning to losing record occured in 47-48.

This boils down to "Brimsek had a losing playoff record, except when he didn't." Every goalie would have a better record if you just removed their worst few seasons; Brimsek is not unique in this regard.

Gilmour is just a very low-end #1.

Yes, that's true, however, this is not necessarily a negative thing. For starters, giving Lafleur a center with the proper skill set is more important than a better "in a vaccuum" kind of player. Knowing this allowed us to strengthen the roster in other ways knowing a Gilmour/Abel/Delvecchio/Francis would be available. Secondly, Malkin has surpassed Gilmour by now and is actually our best center and a legit 1st liner (though, low end, obviously). I realize if you compare best to best, Trottier still
comes out well ahead but let's not forget the centers are placed where they are for the purposes of balance.

Fredrickson vs Goyette

Harder to compare Fredrickson and Goyette, but here's an attempt anyway:

Sturminator did an analysis and tried to give "modernized Top finishes" to both Frank Fredrickson and Duke Keats.The methodology and Sturm's post can be found in my Frank Fredrickson bio at the very bottom.

Frank Fredrickson's Top 10 Finishes (Modern Equivalent)

-Goals: 1, 5, 5, 6, 6, 7
-Assists: 1, 3, 3, 4, 8, 8
-Points: 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9

Phil Goyette's Top 10 Finishes

-Goals: 9
-Assists: 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10
-Points: 4, 7, 8

Even if you disagree with Sturm's methodology, I see no way that Fredrickson is not much better than Goyette offensively.

Yes, Fredrickson has more offensive achievements than Goyette, but the difference in their actual ability is nowhere near that high. One was given all the opportunities to be a star from the start, one wasn't.

Star Power

This is a slamdunk in favor of Fredrickson.Fredrickson's star power was huge, and his reputation by far exceeded Goyette's.

Frank Fredrickson's reputational quotes:

Phil Goyette's reputational quotes:

But:

You say, "but", I say "and". Those quotes speak very well to Goyette's all-around play as much as they show he took a backseat to Montreal's stars. Goyette is well equipped to be the more effective two-way player here. And they're not even the most glowing quotes in his bio:

his biggest contribution to the club was his stiffening of the third line defensively

he’ll earn his keep in many other important hockey roles, such as forechecking, playmaking, and, in spite of his lack of weight, the effective use of his body in checking.

Phil has been rated the soundest all-round center with the four-time world champions by Toe Blake, which is saying a lot when you consider the Habs also have some pretty fair pivots named Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Ralph Backstrom and Donnie Marshall.

He cites Goyette’s great determination and good hockey sense as two vital factors for his presence in the NHL… a deft stickhandler and tremendous forechecker, checking and not scoring is Goyetts’s primary role with the Canadiens, and he and his two wingmates, Pronovost and Provost, do a pretty good job of it. Billed as the team’s 3rd line, it has often been said they are better than some first lines in the NHL

centered the Habs' checking line against the best three-somes the opposition had to offer.

In addition, once in his 30s he was an offensive star in his own right - it's impossible to say what he could have done had he been given more opportunity early on. He's a highly talented player.

Defensive Game

It should be clear Goyette was a superior defensive player.OTOH, Fredrickson was not a defensive no-show.Ignoring Goyette's PK abilities which are irrelevent to that comparison, Goyette should still come out easily ahead defensively.

Conclusion

I believe Frank Fredrickson is one of those players that are still underrated in the ATD.Fredrickson might be the best 3rd line center in the draft (Gilbert Perreault and Hooley Smith doesn't count because they're the 2nd best center on their team).His star power was enormous for where he was taken in the draft, and he's combining size (his adjusted size is 6'4'' and 220 lbs!), speed and offensive talent while keeping a defensive conscience.Goyette is a good all-around player, but ultimately not the star or impact player that Fredrickson was.Advantage Fredrickson.

I agree with your analysis of these two players' components, but in the end they're not in a vaccuum. Third and Fourth lines are expected to do more than just score. Fredrickson is not Pierre Turgeon, but he's far from an ideal option as a checker or someone who will make scoring difficult in any way for the lines he matches up against. Goyette will do exactly that. He is not a better player, but he is a better third liner.

Size of Centers

Adjusted-size from tallest to shortest.

Name|Team|Height|Weight
Fredrickson | MTL |6'4'' | 220
Modano | MTL |6'3'' | 212
Malkin | REG |6'3'' | 195
Goyette | REG |6'1'' | 190
Trottier | MTL |6'0'' | 195
Gilmour | REG|6'0'' | 177

Montreal's center line is taller, but also much heavier.Regina's top 9 center are all under 200 lbs, even after adjustment.

Don't forget Hunter (5'11", 208) and Sheppard (5'10", 190).

Your centers are better offensively, but defensively these four centers are a wash. Regina makes up for the big loss on Malkin, with small gains at Gilmour & Hunter, and a larger gain at Goyette.

Physically, there are relatively minor edges in favour of Trottier, Malkin and Fredrickson, but a really large one at Hunter - size aside, I think we have the more physical centers overall.

#1 Defensemen

Franchise Defenseman

Regina has another major weakness: The lack of an elite #1 defenseman.

One thing that is much more likely to decide the series than having a tougher 4th line is Montreal having Doug Harvey as their #1 defenseman versus Earl Seibert for Regina.

Doug Harvey controlled the flow of the game better than any defenseman not named Bobby Orr.He had no real weakness as a player.

Regina unfavorably compared Harvey to modern Doughty.Who's Seibert then? According to some silly polls in the polls-section from 2016, the 15th-17th best NHL defensemen were T.J. Brodie, Justin Faulk and Erik Johnson.Everyone is free to provide a better comparison for Seibert.

The Big Threes

-Doug Harvey vs Earl Seibert is a massive advantage for Montreal.Shift after shift, Harvey will be in control from the blueline and consistently make the right decisions, leading to a smoother transition without sacrificing any defense.

-Serge Savard vs Shea Weber is an advantage for Regina.It would be unfair to Serge Savard to compare his Norris record with Shea Weber's (with the latter being significantly better), because 1) Savard was a great defensive defenseman and his style is not friendly to Norris votes, 2) Savard had to share his spotlight with Robinson and Lapointe and 3) Savard was a great playoff performer, whereas Weber is a playoff no-show.

-Georges Boucher vs Tom Johnson is an advantage for Montreal.Regina agreed earlier that Georges Boucher > Tom Johnson.

Montreal's Big Three is better at moving the puck, mostly because of Harvey but also Boucher.Montreal is more likely to control the tempo of the game when the best players are on the ice.

This is just an unnecessary focus on the top-3 defensemen as though the rest don't matter. I'm in complete agreement about who has the advantage at which spot in the depth chart - just don't ignore that Regina has the depth to make those gaps up in the 4-6 slots.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Tkachuk and Nolan are not great playoff performers. They were unable to score points for their mediocre teams when they most needed them to topple the big boys. This is pretty common, but regardless, no one is saying they were good playoff scorers. But why would they suddenly forget how to play an effective physical game in the playoffs?

We could also ask: Why would any player suddenly forget how to play an effective offensive game in the playoffs?

Yet we know for a fact that it happens, so why not the physical aspect of the game too?

Some people are just psychologically stronger under pressure, which means others are weaker.The psychological aspect of a player's game can impact all the other aspects, including his fighting spirit and competitiveness, both required to play an effective physical game.

This boils down to "Brimsek had a losing playoff record, except when he didn't." Every goalie would have a better record if you just removed their worst few seasons; Brimsek is not unique in this regard.

You're right.But his worst few seasons happen at the end of his career, after the war, and in consecutive seasons, and we have reports of him playing some strong hockey in them.

Regardless, my main argument in favor of Brimsek's playoff resume is his signature runs and the fact he managed to get it done, which is not true of every goalie.That seems more important than the W-L stat line.

You say, "but", I say "and". Those quotes speak very well to Goyette's all-around play as much as they show he took a backseat to Montreal's stars. Goyette is well equipped to be the more effective two-way player here. And they're not even the most glowing quotes in his bio:

I said "but" because the context of those quotes were precisely to substantiate their star power and nothing else (they were all presented in a sub-section called "Star Power").When your style is described as "colorless" and "unlikely to overwhelm audiences", even if the purpose of the description is to subsequently praise your defensive play, it doesn't look very good for you in terms of star power.

In addition, once in his 30s he was an offensive star in his own right - it's impossible to say what he could have done had he been given more opportunity early on. He's a highly talented player.

It's impossible to say what he could have done, so we're forced to concentrate on what he did.Your description of Goyette as a "highly talented player" doesn't fit with the description of his play as "colorless" and "unlikely to overwhelm audiences".Of course, "highly talented player" could be used to described nearly every single Top 9 centers in the ATD, so it doesn't say much as to how talented he was compared to Fredrickson or anyone else.I prefer to check star power.I have no doubt that Goyette was talented, but I doubt he was as near as talented as Fredrickson.

I agree with your analysis of these two players' components, but in the end they're not in a vaccuum. Third and Fourth lines are expected to do more than just score. Fredrickson is not Pierre Turgeon, but he's far from an ideal option as a checker or someone who will make scoring difficult in any way for the lines he matches up against. Goyette will do exactly that. He is not a better player, but he is a better third liner.

This seems like a rather restrictive way of seeing third lines.There's no absolute law as to how a third line should be constructed.Even if we agree with you as to what role third lines should play, it should be noted Fredrickson is the worst defensive center on Montreal and that the reason MTL could afford to have a Benn-Fredrickson-Amonte third line is because they already had two excellent two-way centers in their Top 6 with Trottier and Modano.

This is just an unnecessary focus on the top-3 defensemen as though the rest don't matter. I'm in complete agreement about who has the advantage at which spot in the depth chart - just don't ignore that Regina has the depth to make those gaps up in the 4-6 slots

I just chose to focus on the team's Big Threes in this particular post (because it revealed an important fact: Montreal have the best defenseman on the first two pairings).In the end, top players have more impact.Also, the concept of "Big Three" or having three strong defensemen is well-known in hockey and it has a buzz around it.Everytime a team is icing three strong defensemen people talk about it a lot.

For the record, I obviously agree that Regina have a better Bottom-3 defensemen group and that it makes up some of the gap.

For some recent examples:

Truth be told, the Ducks’ Big Three Defence of Chris Pronger, Scott Niedermayer and Francois Beauchemin deserve much of the credit for suffocating the Sens’ offence.

By far the youngest group of champion defencemen was last year’s Chicago Blackhawks, which included a “big three” that were drafted and developed by the Hawks.

Those three guys – Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson – were the peak of an impressive mountain of drafting success

...and Nicklas Lidstrom. The big three on defense was filled out by Brian Rafalski and Niklas Kronwall on defense.

My point is that it's reasonable to talk about both teams' "big three" as an isolated concept from the entire defense group, especially when the concept of the post was to enumerate "Montreal's Main Advantages vs. Regina", as it was titled.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Physically, there are relatively minor edges in favour of Trottier, Malkin and Fredrickson, but a really large one at Hunter - size aside, I think we have the more physical centers overall.

I don't get this.. you mean line by line or literally by their size?

Cause Trottier has a bigger gap in size than Hunter does over his counterpart.. and with all due respect to Gilmour, who backed down from no one and was gritty as all hell, Trottier does a lot more damage physically.. within the rules anyways.

This size thing is such a weird thing to keep bringing up when some of the biggest guys here like Modano and Malkin are absolute nothings physically anyways..

 

[BenchBrawl]

Well this one could have gone either way.Good series seventieslord.

Your contributions in this year's draft were tremendous; both your presence as a commentator/researcher, the strenght of your team and the phenomenal biographies you've created elevated the quality of the ATD.Hopefully you find the passion and time to participate again in the future.

 

[seventieslord]

Well this one could have gone either way.Good series seventieslord.

Your contributions in this year's draft were tremendous; both your presence as a commentator/researcher, the strenght of your team and the phenomenal biographies you've created elevated the quality of the ATD.Hopefully you find the passion and time to participate again in the future.

Thank you. Those are very flattering words. I put everything into it and I hope I have the time and the passion for this again next year. I know that after losing I will at least remain hungry for a championship, so that is promising.

I didn't give it my all in this series. It's hard to explain. I've been trying to figure out why I took my foot off the gas a little and all I can say is this is the first series I wasn't 100% confident in my heart that I had a real shot in. I would have felt a little dirty winning it (perhaps on reputation?) and felt I'd let whatever happens happen. Had I won it though, I'd be balls to the wall in the semis and finals. I don't mean to sound elitist, but this division was a killer. This was the finals to me.