Dreakmur
Registered User
I would say he's clearly "not 3rd". My days of putting Plante with Roy and Hasek ended probably 2-3 years ago.
However, in the playoffs he's a clear #1 and I'm not aware of a case in which it would be particularly close.
Let's not pretend that either of us believe that we're just going to look at each goalie's play-off resume here. Both you and I evaluate goalies in about the same way - their regular season resume builds the bulk of their resume, and what they do in the play-offs, or other high-stake games adds to it. Hasek very clearly has the best regular season resume. Roy very clearly has the best play-off resume. Does Roy's play-off resume add enough to surpass Hasek? I don't think so, not with the width of the regular season gap.
I see the word "wide" as so subjective! We could perfectly agree on the quantitative difference but disagree on what word to describe it. For the record, I'd say Roy over Brodeur is wide, and any post I've ever made comparing the two will confirm that is indeed my stance
anyway, what I'm trying to say is it's semantics. I think Roy is significantly better, in a "Gretzky vs. Morenz" kind of way, but ultimately it's up to the voters how significant it really is.
There is no "Gretzky" of goalies. The gap between the top half dozen is not wide, which is why they continue to fall in the draft.
Really, take a look and compare the resumes of Roy and Brodeur. I don't think you'll find a huge different.
Maybe this will help. I know that puck movement and offensive production are not the exact same thing, but they are at least linked. There are very few point producers who weren't good at moving the puck, and though there are guys who moved it well without scoring points, they're not that common. The 7 year VsXD score for our guys are as follows:
Pratt: 710
Seibert: 620
Vadnais: 587 (or 610 if it's correct that he only scored 6 points as a forward in 1969 as the evidence suggests; currently this season is omitted)
Hall: 580 (details described earlier in the draft thread)
Johnson: 472
Savard: 466
Tremblay: 701 (includes WHA)
Robinson: 644
Keith: 614 (includes this season's 95 score, 4th place shattenkirk is the benchmark, the top 3 are clear outliers)
Larson: 611
Harper: 294
Ramsey: 286
Pratt and Seibert stand up well to Tremblay and Robinson, both statistically and in the accounts of their play. Vadnais and Hall are very good mid-level ATD puck movers but Keith and Larson probably have them by a small margin. It's actually Johnson and Savard, the supposed weak links, that show up as the strengths here. Star ATD puckmovers they are not, but my that measure I don't see what would make them more exploitable than Harper or Ramsey.
Are you really using Pratt's numbers without adjusting for the War Years? We both know that's bogus. There's no way you actually believe he's the best puck-moving defenseman in this series...
As I've said before, Brodeur adds to the puck-moving ability of my blue line. Yeah, Ramsey and Harper are not strong in the skill department, but they don't have to be. They both have very mobile partners as a well a goalie who will do a lot of the initial puck-handling for them.
In addition to a defenseman's general efficiency in moving the puck, their size contributes a lot to their durability in standing up to the forecheck over the course of a series. Duncan Keith and J.C. Tremblay, for example, have been pretty unflappable in real life against NHL/WHA level competition, but in an ATD environment they're a bit shrimpy and stand out as guys who the likes of Tocchet, Hunter, Nolan and Tkachuk can really wear down. Here are the adjusted sizes of our blueliners:
Pratt: 6'6", 242
Savard: 6'5", 230
Seibert: 6'5", 228
Hall: 6'3", 215
Johnson: 6'3", 210
Vadnais: 6'3", 205
Robinson: 6'5", 235
Ramsey: 6'4", 205
Harper: 6'3", 220
Larson: 6'1", 205
Keith: 6'1", 192
Tremblay: 6'1", 190
Regina's blueliners have an average of 1.7" and 14 pounds on Orillia's guys.
Size is something that all these players already used to their advantage, or in some cases overcame, during their careers. If Keith was bigger, he'd be better, which would be reflected in his career achievements and voting recognition.
In addition, let's look at who the four biggest forechecking threats are on each team:
Tkachuk
Tocchet
Nolan
Hunter
Lindsay
Mackell
Ramsay
Walker
I'm just guessing on the last two for Orillia. Because Lindsay and Mackell are the only two Orillia wingers with a real appreciable physical game that can cause trouble. Ramsay and Walker would be the next most effective due to their smarts, but the ones who really have a shot at forcing turnovers through intimidation are Lindsay and Mackell. The problem is, Regina has four guys like that and they are going up against a much smaller defense corps with a lower overall puck moving ability. What was originally brought up as an area of concern for Regina is something I think Orillia actually needs to worry about more.
For starters, great puck movement is the best way to deal with a strong fore-check. Teams most often get hemmed in their zone because they can't make a good first pass. Yes, fore-checking pressure can cause rushed passes, but great puck-moving will beat a fore-check more often that not.
This is also where the Martin Brodeur X-factor comes in. With the best puck-moving goalie of all time handling the dump-ins, it makes it extra hard to create an effective fore-check.
As fore-checkers go, why shoudn't Darryl Sittler and Mark Recchi be considered pretty good here?
You find this stuff and then don't put it in bios? Sounds very unlike you.
As for Foyston, the general impression seems to be he was not deficient. Put it this way, we question his all-around mettle a lot less than we do Bernie Morris. I think the biggest reason is because he was awarded that trophy once as the best "all-round" player in the league. But I don' actually know if we have much else on him.
I'll have to look around for it, I thought I already put some more in the bio. But as of right, you may be right.
I don't know if that is more important, actually. Is that really how it works in real life? I think you want that game breaker on your line because he's the one who will actually make something happen in the crucial minutes when everything tightens up and the best defensive players are determined to stop you.
It absolutely is easier to game plan around one player.
Foyston was very good. He made my top-60 list in the project. He was always there, often went deep and scored as expected, if not better. I don't mean to downplay him. But he's not Gilmour and he's not Lafleur.
As a player, not he's not either one of those guys. As a purely play-off scorer, I don't see why he shouldn't be considered close to Gilmour, and better than Lafleur.
Lafleur was "about the same" in the playoffs? I'm not sure what to say to that. Lafleur was so good in the regular season that his numbers approached "impossible to duplicate in the playoffs" levels - like we all know Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr and Crosby did. The fact that he led the playoffs in points three times and the cartoonish margins he outscored his teammates over four years should tell you all you need to know about his playoff ability. He didn't just "meet expectations".
During Lafleur's 5 year peak, he only led Montreal play-off scoring by a wide margin once. He led it a 2nd time by a few points. 2 other times, he was the co-leader. The 5th season, he was injured, so obviously didn't lead.
You know what the above statement really ignores? games played. Malkin is quite the injury case and I freely admit he will miss one game in this series with some sort of ailment. But he'll be replaced by Bernie Nicholls (VsX 77.4 after Gretzky adjustment), not a Malkin-sized pocket of air. His VsX may say 90.7 but that doesn't mean that in the other 5-6 games he will merely play at a 90.7 level. In his best 7 seasons he played at a level that would have earned him a VsX score of 102.7 (yes, significantly ahead of Orillia 1st line center Bill Cowley) and that is what you can expect from Malkin when he plays. Recchi, of course, never missed games in his prime. And good for him, he's a hell of a guy and I love him to bits, but no one seriously thinks he's a Malkin-level talent, or close to it.
You say that like Bill Cowley never missed a game.....
You sure? Lewis scored at a level that would have made him an ATD 2nd line caliber player even if he was one-dimensional; yet, he was more known for his defense than his offense.
I've never researched him, but I do read the bios... and based on the bios, yeah, I'm sure.
Not every single one of his performances has been great. But he has a Smythe trophy (I'm on record saying he didn't deserve it but the dude was 2nd at worst and scored an incredible 36 points) and already has one of the highest playoff VsX scores of all-time, a symptom of consistently being an important player to a team that goes deep in the playoffs.
His play-offs are just like his regular seasons. When he's healthy, he scores. That doesn't add to his resume, nor does it diminish.
I think he's just as good in the play-offs, but definitely not better.
The two best defensive players out of our 12 top-6 forwards are Gilmour and Lewis, with the lesser of the two, Lewis, being 1-2 tiers ahead of anyone else. I'd say the defensive mismatch is clear.
I am quite confident saying Ted Lindsay is every bit the defensive player than Herbie Lewis. Based on the information in each of their respective biographies, I think there's a strong case to say Lindsay is better.
Last edited: