ATD 12 Bob Cole Division Semi-Final: 1 Medicine Hat Tigers vs. 4 Cairo Desert Dogs

[Leafs Forever]

I think Fleury's a better player than St. Louis. I think Theo should be in the HHOF; whether he makes it is another issue. (Looking forward to reading Theo's book between games at the WJC). As for St. Louis being in the HHOF, I think he has a few chapters to write yet. Tremendous two-way player with fantastic speed. I think he's the best playmaking winger in the game. (Just look at what he's meant for Steven Stamkos. Not saying that Stamkos is a product of St. Louis, but it helps).

But I like St. Louis in his role - a skilled, fast, two-way guy who can finish plays or set them up on a line with Lach - more than Fleury in his role. I think Theo's in trouble as the puck-winner. Love his grit and his fearlessness. But he won't be able to win the battles along the boards and in front of the net that the Cairo second line needs.

And I think he has enough grit to do well enough in the role and the line's speed and skill will do plenty of scoring on it's own otherwise.

 

[God Bless Canada]

There's a difference between grit and actually being able to win the corner battles. As I said before, I think it's an art form.

And I don't think Fleury's the guy you want for front-of-the-net battles. As I said before, Smith's going to have a clear view of most shots when the Weiland line is on the ice.

 

[Leafs Forever]

He's not ideal- but I think he can manage to be his pesky self in there and do sufficently.

And again, although it's not the strongest physical line, it's got skill and some speed to put that puck in the net on the rush too.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I do want to apologize to LF for accusing him of a misquote. It's my fault. I would never legitimately hint that Carlyle was ever the Jets best player. Meant to say best defenceman. He still played the most among Jets' defencemen against the opposition's best players (at least in the six years I watched him in Winnipeg, but I guess eye-witness testimony from a GM who gets paid to watch hockey just isn't good enough).

I believe it was mentioned, or hinted, that Carlyle won the Norris because he had the most points. Disagree. He only had seven more points than Potvin and Murphy. He played in what was, at the time, a hockey notoriety wasteland. Nobody paid attention to Pittsburgh. (Just like nobody paid attention to Winnipeg, but that's another rant for another time). For a guy to win an award, or get an all-star selection, in Pittsburgh, Winnipeg, Hartford, LA, Vancouver, Minnesota, Quebec, Washington or New Jersey - he had to be doing something special. (And that's why the guys universally heralded as underrated throughout the 80s usually played in those markets).

 

[Leafs Forever]

I do want to apologize to LF for accusing him of a misquote. It's my fault. I would never legitimately hint that Carlyle was ever the Jets best player. Meant to say best defenceman. He still played the most among Jets' defencemen against the opposition's best players (at least in the six years I watched him in Winnipeg, but I guess eye-witness testimony from a GM who gets paid to watch hockey just isn't good enough).

I believe it was mentioned, or hinted, that Carlyle won the Norris because he had the most points. Disagree. He only had seven more points than Potvin and Murphy. He played in what was, at the time, a hockey notoriety wasteland. Nobody paid attention to Pittsburgh. (Just like nobody paid attention to Winnipeg, but that's another rant for another time). For a guy to win an award, or get an all-star selection, in Pittsburgh, Winnipeg, Hartford, LA, Vancouver, Minnesota, Quebec, Washington or New Jersey - he had to be doing something special. (And that's why the guys universally heralded as underrated throughout the 80s usually played in those markets).

No problem. We all make mistakes.

As for the last bit- again, if he did that and did it well- why isn't there more said from others? As I noted earlier, I could say a lot of things about what I saw in the outside world watching hockey that are lies or exaggerations, but the only way you would really be able to tell if I was wrong in some instances is lack of evidence suggesting play at a certain level.

There is little doubt in my mind Carlyle won it mostly off the strength of that offense. Perhaps he was solid in the other areas too, but I have yet to see anything suggest he is ATD level in those aspects of the game. (and I mean quotes).

Leading the league in defenceman scoring is pretty special. It's not something you can ignore. He only managed top-5 again in that regard once, but he was special offensively in the one year, at least.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Fun fact about Charlie Huddy - he's the leader in playoff plus-minus since the NHL started tracking it in 1984.

OK, given the dates, it's no surprise that an '80s Oiler is in first, but Huddy still beat some pretty good competition.

At first glance, I was surprised, but I shouldn't be. Huddy was solid. Just a solid, steady, reliable defenceman. He wasn't the guy that the Oilers leaned on to play against the opposition's best. (That would be Kevin Lowe). But he was solid, a guy who could play against Hawerchuk, or Dionne, or anyone from the Flames, or Gretzky (post-88) and not be exposed or exploited. That's why I wanted him so much: give me 18 minutes a game of good, solid, smart hockey, make the good first pass, and take very good care of his own zone. He got to be on the ice for a lot of goals for, which isn't a surprise, but he was very, very good in his own zone.

From a statistical perspective, I think one of Huddy's most incredible accomplishments is the plus-4 he had in 1994 with LA. How a defenceman could be a plus player on that LA team, even at that stage in Huddy's career, is impressive. (Especially since he wasn't a factor offensively at that point).

 

[God Bless Canada]

Toe Blake is the best coach ever in my mind, followed by Bowman and then Arbour. Noone in history has ever had to deal with the kinds of egos that Blake had to deal with, and he more than succeeded.

I have him at No. 2. Bowman's first. Arbour's third. I think Ivan's maybe the best-suited to the ATD, since he's so level-headed - a rare trait for top Original 6 coaches. Day would be in the five to seven range. I don't think there's a drop-off of any tangible kind when looking at 1-7. The drop-off comes when you get to No. 8, guys like Shero and Sather and Imlach. (If I'm building a run-and-gun team, like, say, Victoria, Sather might be at the top of my list).

I can't believe anyone would think Blake would be overrated. Nine rings. The right guy to coach that Montreal team. Yes, he came along at the right time, as the Habs were getting the breakthroughs from Beliveau and Henri Richard down the middle. But you still have to bring it all together. That's why great coaches do.

Those Montreal teams from 65 to 69 weren't overwhelming. I think Chicago, on paper, was a better team. But the Habs played better as a team. They didn't have depth on the wings like they did in the late 50s. But they played a fantastic team game, and they were backstopped by a wonderful goalie.

 

[seventieslord]

I think one of Huddy's most incredible accomplishments is the plus-4 he had in 1994 with LA. How a defenceman could be a plus player on that LA team, even at that stage in Huddy's career, is impressive. (Especially since he wasn't a factor offensively at that point).

this is where overpass should explain why adjusted +/- is a very important and telling statistic. Guys whose +/- stuck out in relation to their team deserve credit. Just sayin'....

 

[overpass]

this is where overpass should explain why adjusted +/- is a very important and telling statistic. Guys whose +/- stuck out in relation to their team deserve credit. Just sayin'....

Oh, I know GBC understands the general point about plus-minus that you make. But you and I know there's not much point in trying to sell him on an adjusted statistic. That's OK - he can make his own mental adjustments.

I'm sure that everyone here doesn't consider plus-minus without putting it in context of team performance. If adjusted plus-minus helps someone in doing so, I'm glad to have helped - that's what it's for. Even adjusted plus-minus has to be put in context, as it's far from a perfect adjustment, but I think it's a pretty good start.

Finally, I've never done adjusted plus-minus for the playoffs - not because I wouldn't like to, but because I don't have the data necessary. Playoff stats are not easy to find in general. I'm sure Huddy would do well on playoff adjusted plus-minus as well, although you might see Mark Howe and others pass him. Certainly some Montreal Canadiens would score very well if the available numbers went back further.

 

[seventieslord]

adjusted +/- is something I'd like to see in the playoffs.