Round 2, Vote 7 (Stanley Cup Playoff Performers)

[Canadiens1958]

Duncan Keith

Duncan Keith is an interesting and enigmatic candidate, very misleading narrative, highly successful.

As presented earlier in a discussion about Nicklas Lidstrom, Duncan Keith rarely hits. Also he rarely blocks shots. Compared to Keith, Lidstrom and J.C. Tremblay were physical defencemen, reckless shot blockers.

Duncan Keith:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/keithdu01.html

Nicklas Lidstrom:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lidstni01.html

Difference is that Keith ramps it up a bit at playoff time while Lidstrom turned it down. Keith hits more and blocks more shots in the playoff than in the RSPlus Keith has an earned reputation as a dirty player / repeat offender even though his PIMs are fairly low.

Offensively nothing special, sneaky if ignored. Plays very well with his partner, usually Seabrooke, his goaltenders and forward lines.

Why is he being considered before Toews and Patrick Kane or even Marian Hossa?

 

[quoipourquoi]

Within two seasons after 2010 Pronger was out of the game for good. The giant was exposed.

Exposed? He was hit in the eye with a stick.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Visor

Exposed? He was hit in the eye with a stick.

Suggesting he should have worn a visor?

Not the point. The opposition started playing him tight after the 2010 finals as opposed to giving him leeway. Hockey accidents happen in proximity.

 

[seventieslord]

Within two seasons after 2010 Pronger was out of the game for good. The giant was exposed.

wow.

 

[MXD]

Exposed? He was hit in the eye with a stick.

wow.

That's pretty irrelevant anyways, since he isn't the only player to not achieve anything significant past 37 years old.

I mean, it was facepalm material, but probably quite inconsequential all things considered.

 

[quoipourquoi]

That's pretty irrelevant anyways, since he isn't the only player to not achieve anything significant past 37 years old.

I mean, it was facepalm material, but probably quite inconsequential all things considered.

I think the idea that he was exposed implies that he played hockey in a way that made him solveable, especially with the idea that it may have been such a Eureka moment for opponents that it forced him out of the game. 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 are a pretty big indicator that he wasn't solvable even just as an offensive player. Seems more likely that a great player having a great playoff had a bad Game 5.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Getting Warmer.

I think the idea that he was exposed implies that he played hockey in a way that made him solveable, especially with the idea that it may have been such a Eureka moment for opponents that it forced him out of the game. 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 are a pretty big indicator that he wasn't solvable even just as an offensive player. Seems more likely that a great player having a great playoff had a bad Game 5.

Well at least you are getting warmer. Regardless of size, age, temperment the opposition has to play the game properly, the way the rules allow against an intimidating opponent.

Similar to the way the opposition started playing Eric Lindros. Instead of playing timidly like he was played in junior, NHLers started to take the physical initiative to Lindros and he wore down. Some hits were more telling but the end result was the same.

Likewise Chris Pronger. He played defensively and offensively the way he played because the intimidation factor allowed him to. Paid with a trivial suspension for stomping a player in the playoffs - cost of doing business. No one challenged him until Chicago did in 2010. Then when the rest of the league saw the upside of getting inside his perimeter he lost effectiveness. The injury happened not out of intent but as a by product of playing hockey within the rules.

Many similar instances thru history. Eddie Shore being a prime example. From the start NHLers did not give him a free ride in the playoffs, rather they increased the physical challenges with the result that Shore`s playoff effectiveness was reduced drastically - not even considered so far in this project.

 

[seventieslord]

Well at least you are getting warmer. Regardless of size, age, temperment the opposition has to play the game properly, the way the rules allow against an intimidating opponent.

Similar to the way the opposition started playing Eric Lindros. Instead of playing timidly like he was played in junior, NHLers started to take the physical initiative to Lindros and he wore down. Some hits were more telling but the end result was the same.

Likewise Chris Pronger. He played defensively and offensively the way he played because the intimidation factor allowed him to. Paid with a trivial suspension for stomping a player in the playoffs - cost of doing business. No one challenged him until Chicago did in 2010. Then when the rest of the league saw the upside of getting inside his perimeter he lost effectiveness. The injury happened not out of intent but as a by product of playing hockey within the rules.

Many similar instances thru history. Eddie Shore being a prime example. From the start NHLers did not give him a free ride in the playoffs, rather they increased the physical challenges with the result that Shore`s playoff effectiveness was reduced drastically - not even considered so far in this project.

wow, you can really just come up with an explanation for anything.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

The thing is, Crosby is statistically the best playoff scorer of his generation, while I don't know if Morenz really stood out that much.

You're right that it was very rare for players to consistently put up playoff numbers when Morenz played, but depending on what you count as Morenz's generation, it did happen - off the top of my head, Frank Foyston, Cy Denneny, and Marty Barry were all consistently strong playoff scorers. Now Denneny was basically the designated cherrypicker/finisher of the Ottawa juggernaut, but Foyston and Barry showed that it wasn't impossible to put up consistently strong numbers in more normal situations.

FWIW, the HHOF/SIHR project gave Howie Morenz the retroactive Conn Smythe in 1923-24. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1990741

When I have a moment, I'll put together a run down on Morenz that goes further than just the stats. In the preliminary research phase of this project I came away with the impression that Morenz performed better than the stat sheet would have you believe in several instances.

In comparing him to Crosby, I feel that both burst into the scene and won a Cup early on, with a second close call. Then a lull for a few years (Crosby put up points still, but often against some pretty suspect opposition), before rebounding with strong all-around performances that resulted in back to back Cups (second Cup tbd for Crosby) on rosters that weren't particularly formidable.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

My recollection of the 2010 Finals was Joel Quenneville trying to match strength vs strength, literally, with the result being Dustin Byfuglien being pre-occupied and the whole line suffering as a result. Quenneville switched gears for Game 5, testing Pronger instead with smaller, quicker players like Versteeg. The result was Pronger not able to keep up and a disastrous end to a strong playoff campaign. Byfuglien broke through on the score sheet, but I believe the catalyst for that was Kris Versteeg in particular creating open ice by being too quick down low for Pronger to contain. As opposed to Byfuglien wearing Pronger down physically and the dam finally bursting late in the series.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Yes

My recollection of the 2010 Finals was Joel Quenneville trying to match strength vs strength, literally, with the result being Dustin Byfuglien being pre-occupied and the whole line suffering as a result. Quenneville switched gears for Game 5, testing Pronger instead with smaller, quicker players like Versteeg. The result was Pronger not able to keep up and a disastrous end to a strong playoff campaign. Byfuglien broke through on the score sheet, but I believe the catalyst for that was Kris Versteeg in particular creating open ice by being too quick down low for Pronger to contain. As opposed to Byfuglien wearing Pronger down physically and the dam finally bursting late in the series.

Exactly the point, but someone had to start the process and lead by example. Pronger was not going to tire if left alone.

 

[quoipourquoi]

My recollection of the 2010 Finals was Joel Quenneville trying to match strength vs strength, literally, with the result being Dustin Byfuglien being pre-occupied and the whole line suffering as a result. Quenneville switched gears for Game 5, testing Pronger instead with smaller, quicker players like Versteeg. The result was Pronger not able to keep up and a disastrous end to a strong playoff campaign. Byfuglien broke through on the score sheet, but I believe the catalyst for that was Kris Versteeg in particular creating open ice by being too quick down low for Pronger to contain. As opposed to Byfuglien wearing Pronger down physically and the dam finally bursting late in the series.

Still, we're looking at one game in a six-game series. He was back to being a +1 with an assist in Game 6 while the Gagne line went -3 in a 4-3 game. This wasn't the league figuring out Chris Pronger and chasing him out of the sport.

 

[Canadiens1958]

2010 Playoffs

Still, we're looking at one game in a six-game series. He was back to being a +1 with an assist in Game 6 while the Gagne line went -3 in a 4-3 game. This wasn't the league figuring out Chris Pronger and chasing him out of the sport.

Time to align a few things chronologically abour the 2010 playoffs.

Joel Quenneville copied what the Canadiens did in game 3 of the eastern finals - their only win. The Canadiens did not sustain the attack on the slot area so Michael Leighton played without pressure registering three shutouts in the series.. Game 3 eastern finals Pronger was -3.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/ppoboxscore.cgi?O20100313

Fast forward to games 5 of the finals.

Chicago scored 7 goals at home in a convincing victory.Pronger was -5. Effectively he was on the ice for all of Chicago`s ES goals. Simon Gagne`s line had a 0 +/-. Giroux and Richards were exploited defensively - Giroux was -4.

Now we get to game 6.

Why would Chicago change anything? If crashing the crease works against Pronger and whoever his partner may be, it will work against any and all Flyer defence pairings. Self-evident. Game 6 was the Gagne`s line turn to try and mitigate defensively. Like the other lines they could not do the job.

Game 5
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/ppoboxscore.cgi?O20100415

Game 6
http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/ppoboxscore.cgi?O20100416

Game was close because Philly found a way to buffer Giroux. But like the Dutch boy the Flyers and Pronger could not stem the inevitable.

Pro sport is not forgiving if a team is willing to make the necessary sacrifices.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Exactly the point, but someone had to start the process and lead by example. Pronger was not going to tire if left alone.

So you figure fatigue all of a sudden hit Pronger in Game 5 of the Final? I'm not convinced of that. I think if Quenneville had made necessary adjustments earlier, the series would have been a quick one.

Still, we're looking at one game in a six-game series. He was back to being a +1 with an assist in Game 6 while the Gagne line went -3 in a 4-3 game. This wasn't the league figuring out Chris Pronger and chasing him out of the sport.

I think the bigger takeaway is that Keith outlasted Pronger in a head to head battle for the Stanley Cup. If somebody is torn between the two of them for this vote, this might be a deciding factor.

Duncan Keith is an interesting and enigmatic candidate, very misleading narrative, highly successful.

As presented earlier in a discussion about Nicklas Lidstrom, Duncan Keith rarely hits. Also he rarely blocks shots. Compared to Keith, Lidstrom and J.C. Tremblay were physical defencemen, reckless shot blockers.

Duncan Keith:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/k/keithdu01.html

Nicklas Lidstrom:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lidstni01.html

Difference is that Keith ramps it up a bit at playoff time while Lidstrom turned it down. Keith hits more and blocks more shots in the playoff than in the RSPlus Keith has an earned reputation as a dirty player / repeat offender even though his PIMs are fairly low.

Offensively nothing special, sneaky if ignored. Plays very well with his partner, usually Seabrooke, his goaltenders and forward lines.

Why is he being considered before Toews and Patrick Kane or even Marian Hossa?

Keith has been an elite even-strength point producer in Chicago's trips to the Final though. Pedestrian PP numbers make the overall point totals a little less impressive looking. A quick look at ES/PP splits of the other defensemen available reveals that Keith is probably second only to Coffey in terms of ES scoring proficiency during long playoff runs.

Keith has driven Chicago's possession and transition game over the years, while also usually playing the number one shutdown role and logging near 30 minutes in most playoff games. Patrick Kane has not had to take on anywhere near this level of defensive responsibility. Hossa has been a steady defensive presence but less consistent or important on the offensive side of things. Toews perhaps has more of an argument given the extent that a three-time champion with surprisingly poor depth at center has leaned on him, though like Hossa he tends to go missing offensively at times. Overall, I believe Keith was Chicago's MVP in their three Cup wins, with one slam-dunk Conn Smythe performance.

Very similar resume to Scott Stevens. Stevens had a HOF goaltender backing him, which Keith lacked. But I would say Keith had a better top-end group of forwards to hit with breakout passes and counter attack with. I think both guys are strong candidates to be added to the list in this round.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Chris Pronger Plus

So you figure fatigue all of a sudden hit Pronger in Game 5 of the Final? I'm not convinced of that. I think if Quenneville had made necessary adjustments earlier, the series would have been a quick one.



I think the bigger takeaway is that Keith outlasted Pronger in a head to head battle for the Stanley Cup. If somebody is torn between the two of them for this vote, this might be a deciding factor.



Keith has been an elite even-strength point producer in Chicago's trips to the Final though. Pedestrian PP numbers make the overall point totals a little less impressive looking. A quick look at ES/PP splits of the other defensemen available reveals that Keith is probably second only to Coffey in terms of ES scoring proficiency during long playoff runs.

Keith has driven Chicago's possession and transition game over the years, while also usually playing the number one shutdown role and logging near 30 minutes in most playoff games. Patrick Kane has not had to take on anywhere near this level of defensive responsibility. Hossa has been a steady defensive presence but less consistent or important on the offensive side of things. Toews perhaps has more of an argument given the extent that a three-time champion with surprisingly poor depth at center has leaned on him, though like Hossa he tends to go missing offensively at times. Overall, I believe Keith was Chicago's MVP in their three Cup wins, with one slam-dunk Conn Smythe performance.

Very similar resume to Scott Stevens. Stevens had a HOF goaltender backing him, which Keith lacked. But I would say Keith had a better top-end group of forwards to hit with breakout passes and counter attack with. I think both guys are strong candidates to be added to the list in this round.

As stated Pronger wore down - had his knee scoped after the playoffs and suffered various nagging injuries until the incident in November 2011 with Grabovski which produced the eye injury - the final straw:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Pronger

So the constant grind of defending the slot/crease played a role. Ignore the revisionism.

Thank you for contributing to a clearer picture of Duncan Keith. Slowly the narrative is changing. Factor in Brent Seabrook and a better picture emerges as to who does the heavy lifting:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/seabrbr01.html

 

[quoipourquoi]

I think the bigger takeaway is that Keith outlasted Pronger in a head to head battle for the Stanley Cup. If somebody is torn between the two of them for this vote, this might be a deciding factor.

Outlasted? Pronger was on a 24-point underdog, and even with his even-strength offensive abilities you're referencing, Keith was having his second minus series on a Stanley Cup Champion (he was previously -4 against Nashville). Even with a -5 game, Pronger was +3 in the Finals. They weren't playing 1-on-1 hockey.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Thank you for contributing to a clearer picture of Duncan Keith. Slowly the narrative is changing. Factor in Brent Seabrook and a better picture emerges as to who does the heavy lifting:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/s/seabrbr01.html

Which way are you going with this? Are you saying Keith needs a partner like Seabrook to be effective? If so, I'm not seeing it...looking at the 3 Cup years, Keith, who played a lot of minutes with Seabrook, outscored him at ES by 14 pts and had a better +/- by 16. Keith also played 1st PK unit in 2013 + 2015, while Seabrook was 2nd unit during those years (both were 2nd unit in 2010).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Partner

Which way are you going with this? Are you saying Keith needs a partner like Seabrook to be effective? If so, I'm not seeing it...looking at the 3 Cup years, Keith, who played a lot of minutes with Seabrook, outscored him at ES by 14 pts and had a better +/- by 16. Keith also played 1st PK unit in 2013 + 2015, while Seabrook was 2nd unit during those years (both were 2nd unit in 2010).

Saying that it definitely does not hurt Keith to get significant icetime with the #2. Most #1`s are paired with weaker d-men.

 

[MXD]

Saying that it definitely does not hurt Keith to get significant icetime with the #2. Most #1`s are paired with weaker d-men.

That's hardly within the control of the player.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Unless.......

That's hardly within the control of the player.

Not so. Some #1s are able to play effectively with depth defencemen while others are not.

Examples have been provided. Harvey was able to play with Al Langlois.All of the Big 3 could play with rookies and fringers down to Gilles Lupien.

Last night P.K. Subban was playing with Roman Josi.

 

[MXD]

Not so. Some #1s are able to play effectively with depth defencemen while others are not.

Examples have been provided. Harvey was able to play with Al Langlois.All of the Big 3 could play with rookies and fringers down to Gilles Lupien.

Last night P.K. Subban was playing with Roman Josi.

There's a difference between "not be able to play effectively with depth D-Men" and "effectively not playing mostly with depth D-Men", and that isn't quite a decision that the player makes himself.

And I'd be extremely surprised if all the members of the Big-3 played MOST of their minutes with depth D-Men either. Which is what's at case here. One of them actually did for a while (Lapointe), but he wasn't effectively used as a #1 D.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

When separated from Keith, Seabrook has not looked nearly as good as when they're together. But Keith's play has not visibly suffered in a similar manner. To be fair though, Keith's alternate partner is often Hjalmarsson, who has been an excellent stay at home defenseman for a number of years.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Not so. Some #1s are able to play effectively with depth defencemen while others are not.

Doesn't the difference in +/- show that Keith does play effectively without Seabrook?

Also, for what it's worth, both Keith and Seabrook have been paired with young depth defensemen to help bring them along (or at least try to) during the regular season, but in the playoffs Quenneville would generally put them back together. Who gets paired with the young guys is usually just a matter of handedness, Keith plays with the RHS's and Seabrook with the LHS's.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Pronger VS Keith

There's a difference between "not be able to play effectively with depth D-Men" and "effectively not playing mostly with depth D-Men", and that isn't quite a decision that the player makes himself.

And I'd be extremely surprised if all the members of the Big-3 played MOST of their minutes with depth D-Men either. Which is what's at case here. One of them actually did for a while (Lapointe), but he wasn't effectively used as a #1 D.

Semantics.

Who played better in the playoffs with depth defencemen. Pronger or Keith or Stevens or J.C. Tremblay?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Opposition

Doesn't the difference in +/- show that Keith does play effectively without Seabrook?

Also, for what it's worth, both Keith and Seabrook have been paired with young depth defensemen to help bring them along (or at least try to) during the regular season, but in the playoffs Quenneville would generally put them back together. Who gets paired with the young guys is usually just a matter of handedness, Keith plays with the RHS's and Seabrook with the LHS's.

Function of the opposition. Nashville`s strength is on the left side, mainly Seabrook`s responsibility. Chicago was swept yet Keith was - 6 while Seabrook was -3.