Giant Center
Head Coach: Toe Blake
Assistant Coach: Punch Imlach
GM: 87and71
Captain: George Armstrong
Alternate: Rod Langway
Alternate: Frank Foyston
"Toe was the ultimate coach," suggested John Ferguson, one of Blake's prized pupils. "He had a memory like an elephant and he treated the players like men. He had a great feeling for the game and could mastermind behind the bench in a way nobody has ever been able to. Maybe (Scotty) Bowman can nowadays, but Toe, Toe was just too smart."
“There are 20 guys in that dressing room,” replied Worsley, “and it’s seldom you find even two of them alike. He knew each individual – the ones who worked from the needles, the ones who needed another approach.
“Between periods, he never blasted an individual,” said Worsley. “He’d say some guys aren’t pulling their weight. The guys who weren’t knew who he was talking about and you’d see the heads drop. But he’d never embarrass anyone in front of everyone.
“His ability to handle players – I guess that’s what you’d say made him great.”
I don't need to elaborate much on Toe Blake's resume as a coach. 8 Stanley Cups in 13 seasons will make arguments fairly easy. A record 5 in a row to start his career. He was the master to the pupil, Scotty Bowman, who in turn, ended up being a pretty darn good hockey coach himself. He was tough but fair. He knew every single player individually and how to push their buttons. Players loved him. He was innovative, he was fiercely committed to winning. There was no other option for him. He could coach fire wagon, offensive hockey. He could shift teams into a defensive first mode when needed. Basically he was it when it came to coaching in the NHL prior to Bowman peaking many years later.
I drafted Punch Imlach as an assistant very late in the draft. In fact, 34 other coaches had gone and quite frankly i couldn't let him fall further. He was a firebrand personality which is somewhat different than Blake. Blake had his moments of a hot temper or anger, but generally was more even keel. I think Imlach makes for the "bad cop" of the two. He can push people verbally when needed. He had a lot of defensive acumen and 2 of his most beloved players from real life are on this team (Armstrong and Horton). I think his style matches up well with what Blake did throughout their careers. They certainly had more a similar idea towards winning hockey, then different. It's an unorthodox pairing but not one that i feel is out of place. Both were extremely driven coaches with many similar schemes. And Imlach is quite frankly far better than many of the coaches drafted before him. 2 legendary coaches with my roster built the way it is, shouldn't be a bad thing.
Roster:
George Armstrong - RW - 6'3'' 204 lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1930 +2/20)
Frank Foyston - LW - 6'1'' 198 lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1891 +4/40)
Bobby Holik - C - 6'4'' 230 lbs
Tim Horton - D - 6'0'' 200 lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1930 +2/20)
Erik Karlsson - D - 6'0" 180 lbs
Joe Klukay - W - 6'2'' 202 lbs lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1923 +2/20)
Rod Langway - D - 6'3'' 218 lbs
Pete Mahovlich - C - 6'6'' 220 lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1946 +1/10)
Georges Mantha - LW/D - 5'11'' 195 lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1908 +3/30)
Teppo Numminen - D - 6'2'' 198 lbs
Adam Oates - C - 5'11'' 190 lbs
Pete Peeters - G - 6'1'' 195 lbs
Alex Pietrangelo - D - 6'3'' 201 lbs
Didier Pitre - RW - 6'3'' 230 lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1893 +4/40)
Ken Randall - RW/D - 6'2'' 220 lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1888 +4/40)
Stephane Richer - RW - 6'2'' 215 lbs
Patrick Roy - G - 6'2'' 185 lbs
Ernie Russell - C/RW/Rover - 5'10'' 200 lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1883)
Hod Stuart - D - 6'4 1/2'' 235 lbs (Adjusted for era/birth year 1879 +4 1/2/45)
Marc Tardif - LW - 6'1'' 205 (Adjusted for era/birth year 1949 +1/10)
Keith Tkachuk - LW - 6'2'' 235 lbs
Rick Tocchet - RW - 6'0'' 210 lbs
Pierre Turgeon - C - 6'1'' 200 lbs
LW
|
C
|
RW
Foyston
|
Oates
|
Pitre
Tkachuk
|
Turgeon
|
E. Russell
Klukay
|
Mahovlich
|
Armstrong
Mantha
|
B. Holik
|
Tocchet
Considering i didn't draft a F until round 5, i'm pretty happy with how this part of the roster turned out. Is it going to stack up offensively vs many others? Probably not. But i think it has more then enough talent to score and win tight, low scoring games, which with the defensive prowess of many of my F, D, and elite goalie, many teams will struggle to put up much offense. Get the puck in deep, any shot is a good one and take advantage of our size and physical nature to score dirty/simple goals. Flash and style is not important to me. I wanted a big, physically imposing team and feel it fits that model to a T.
The first line has a nice blend of size, passing, goal scoring, physicality etc. Foyston is the all around force on the unit. He was best in the high traffic areas as a goal scorer and had solid assist numbers in a time where they were not tracked at all or not very well. His playoff resume is arguably the best of his era. Oates brings elite vision and play making skill, as well as solid defensive awareness for the unit. He's the QB of this group. Another guy who has a pretty damn good playoff resume, even with no Cup wins.
Pitre, IMO, was a VERY underrated player. I found a lot of good information and feel he should easily be a top 200 player moving forward. He had elite speed/skating ability as well as the games most powerful and intimidating shot (think Bobby Hull or Al MacInnis) of his era. He was a huge player (adjusted 6'3'' 230 lbs) for his day. He was also a lot tougher than his previous (small) bio's suggested. His speed gives the line an element that should keep D's honest. He also played substantial time on D in his career and that bodes well for his ability to be competent in his own end of the rink.
The 2nd line features again a blend of size and skill like the 1st. Tkachuk is a low end 1st line LW or a higher end 2nd line player by my estimation and had a regular season career on par with Brendan Shanahan. He has very good goal scoring ability as well as elite physical traits. He will also serve as the muscle for a softer Turgeon, if teams want to get rough with the latter. Speaking of Turgeon, he's another very underrated offensive player. He's easily a 2nd line scoring C based on his 7 and 10 year VsX averages. He has a few warts like being soft, and some attitude issues but given the physical wingers on either side and the great leadership this team has, i don't see either problem being a distraction. Great coaching will also aid in that regard.
Ernie Russell is my RW and was probably my favorite player to study.
I really hope people read his bio as i feel he's GREATLY underrated as his goal scoring ability was on par with Russell Bowie when their careers overlapped 3 years in the same league. He was a rough player as well. Was a retro league MVP and his best trait was having one of the all time great Stanley Cup scoring numbers available. With his sterling postseason numbers and Turgeon's underrated numbers, they more than make up for Tkachuk's underwhelming performances.
The 3rd line has great defensive talent, and a lot of physical power. Joe Klukay is widely regarded as one of the greatest defensive F's ever as well as penalty killer's. 4 retro Selkes, he also offers tremendous flexibility as he can play either wing at a high level and C in an emergency. He will serve as the primary shadow/checker for the elite W's in the ATD. Pete Mahovlich is another player i enjoyed scouting. He was a very good if not elite on the PK early in his career. Was voted tied for 1st in the NHL in 1974 in that role. He was used their extensively during the 72 Summit Series for team Canada and scored one of the most memorable goals against Tretiak on the PK. He was a huge body 6'6'' 220-230 lbs who played with a lot of physicality. When he was given 1st line opportunities in the mid 70's he blossomed into a full fledged offensive star.
Another bio i urge people to read also shows he was good if not great as a face off man. Given the big bodied C's in my division he will be a great equalizer and asked to make life tough for guys like Lemieux, Esposito, Lindros etc. George Armstrong is the epitome of a great leader and hockey player. He is widely regarded as one of the better Captains in history and was an all out player who could check, dig in the corners, penalty kill and make life tough on opposing players. He won a retro Selke and like Klukay and Mahovlich played on and was a key factor on multiple SC winners. His purpose is to use his big body and relentless checking to make life hard on opposing D in the offensive zone and cover up the better W's on the teams we face.
The 4th line is just plain nasty. It's going to be a high energy line with above average offensive scoring (Holik and Tocchet as 4's) as well as solid defensive instincts. He was referred to being as fast and sometimes faster than the great Howie Morenz (bio). Mantha was a versatile player who spent most of his career as a checking W of the Habs through the late 20's and 30's. He was often matched up against the other teams best player and is on record having completely shut down the likes of Charlie Conacher. He did have solid offensive outputs in the late 30's when he played with Howie Morenz. Bobby Holik is a very good all around 4th liner. He had solid scoring numbers in the dead puck era and garnered Selke attention multiple times. He was an extremely physical player who can make life miserable for other top line players, which is a theme for this team. Lastly, Rick Tocchet is about as perfect a 4th liner as you can get if looking at it in a traditional sense. He's extremely high energy, a brute as a fore checker and enforcer type when needed. His scoring is above average as a 4 and will chip in his fair share along the way. This line's goal is to get pucks into the offensive zone and keep it there as long as possible. Play dirty (within reason) and make life miserable for the other team.
D
|
D
H. Stuart
|
Horton
Langway
|
Numminen
Karlsson
|
Randall
My first 3 picks after taking Roy were on Dmen. I had definitely planned to use at least 2 on blue liners but given how the draft fell I really couldn't go any other way based on my desire to have a very strong blue line and netminder. Horton is about mid pack in terms of #1's in a 32 team draft but he fits my model to a T. Tremendously physical player who was a rock in his own end. Extremely durable and log heavy minutes. Great leadership qualities as well. There are not many right handed shots among #1's and it's a little bit of a bonus. Hod Stuart is a higher end #2 so this should give me one of the better 1st pairings. Stuart for a few years was widely considered the best hockey player in the world (
READ BIO PLEASE), not just among defencemen, but all players. He was equally dominant in his own end as he was attacking. Sadly he died at 28 in a freak diving accident and thus cut short a career that could have had him ranked considerably higher had he played another 5+ years. This will be one of the most physically dominating pairs as well. Hod, when you adjust for era would be about 6'4'' and 235 lbs and he was once banned from his league for being "too rough" before being reinstated. Having a physical team is paramount to my strategy and he fits the mold (like Horton). I'm very happy with how this pair matches up. Stuart is more of an elite 2 way Dman who can carry the offensive burden and puck movement while Horton is the rock solid player in his own end.
Rod Langway would be a very low end #1 in a 32 team draft or an elite #2. Here he's my
NUMBER 3. Langway is another big, physical presence who is a force in his own end. He won 2 Norris' in the most dominant offensive era as a stay at home D. He was a Captain for 11 years and instantly helped transform a terrible Caps team into a perennial playoff team. Teppo Numminen is your run of the mill #4. Nothing spectacular but just steady play in both ends. He ran power plays, killed penalties and could move the puck at ES. This should be another above average pairing IMO that compliments each other well.
The third pairing is a bit weaker than i'd like, but it's important to note that the high end 1st and 2nd pairs will do the heavy lifting on this team. I know some disagree, but i feel i've proven that Karlsson, when compared to other bottom pairing ATD'ers is more than legit based on his accolades. Some bottom pairing D here were never top 10 in Norris, AS voting, or scoring and yet are accepted because they had 800 games as a run of the mill player vs 3-4 of high end play. But i digress. Karlsson is an elite offensive D, especially at ES and he will be used sparingly at ES and on the 2nd PP due to his skill set. Next to him will be Ken Randall, who played about two thirds of his career at D and was a punishing player to say the least. You want somebody who adds a physical element and good defensive play next to Karlsson and if you read his bio, Randall fits that bill. Both IMO are more #6's, so the pair is probably below average but it will be asked to do less than most.
Pietrangelo is another guy who will catch flak for his age and 370+ games and i'll shrug my shoulders. I'd rather have a guy who's had 2 higher end ATD seasons (2nd team AS selections, top 5 Norris', #1 minutes, huge PK and shot blocking numbers) and a 3rd that is ATD worthy than the same old tired players who were never considered elite, or even near elite.
The strategy here was to build from the net out. Patrick Roy is universally thought of as the best and occasionally 2nd best goalie of all time (misinformed souls). His playoff resume is unparalleled in the sport and is the main reason i traded up to get him in the middle of round 1. Players like Grant Fuhr, Tom Barrasso and Hugh Lehman were good goal tenders in their day, but the gap between them (and other similar names) and Roy in an all time sense is massive. Roy proved multiple times on inferior Montreal teams (relative to other teams in the league at that time) in the 80's and 90's that he was capable of putting a team on his back and winning Cups. 3 Conn Smythe's is a record he shares with no one. And these studies of adjusted save percentages of regular season and playoff numbers only further my claim that Roy has no equal (yes, even Hasek can sit down at #2).
Save percentage is, in my opinion, the best statistic to evaluate a goalie with. Every goaltending statistic (save percentage, wins, GAA, shutouts, etc) is influenced by the goalie’s team, however save percentage is less team-dependent than the others. I think this is intuitively obvious to anyone who studies goaltending, but I’ll explain if anybody’s curious.
The problem with save percentage is that it’s highly era-dependent. The purpose of this study is to adjust save percentage so that it’s comparable across seasons. I have data for 1983-2009.
Career Adjusted Save Percentage (min 400 games)
Goalie|Save Percentage
Dominik Hasek | 92.5%
Patrick Roy | 92.0%
Roberto Luongo | 91.7%
Martin Brodeur | 91.3%
Tomas Vokoun | 91.3%
John Vanbiesbrouck | 91.3%
Guy Hebert | 91.2%
Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 91.2%
Ed Belfour | 91.2%
Andy Moog | 91.1%
Kelly Hrudey | 91.1%
Patrick Roy is incredibly underrated from a save percentage perspective. His peak occurred in the high-scoring late eighties and early nineties. He towered over his peers with almost Hasek-like dominance, but his raw numbers aren’t impressive because his played during an era that was very unfriendly to goalies. I often see people argue that Brodeur is better than Roy due to a higher save percentage. That would like comparing stats from an eighties player to a modern player, and concluding that the former was better. Adjusted for era, Roy was a significantly better regular season goalie than every goalie aside from Hasek in the past three decades.
Best Peak
Goalie|Save percentage
Dominik Hasek | 93.3%
Patrick Roy | 93.1%
John Vanbiesbrouck | 92.4%
Curtis Joseph | 92.2%
Ed Belfour | 92.2%
Tom Barrasso | 92.1%
Martin Brodeur | 92.1%
Roberto Luongo | 92.1%
Kelly Hrudey | 91.9%
Tomas Vokoun | 91.8%
Andy Moog | 91.8%
Sean Burke | 91.8%
Ron Hextall | 91.8%
Guy Hebert | 91.7%
Jean-Sebastien Giguere | 91.7%
Dwayne Roloson | 91.5%
Nikolai Khabibulin | 91.5%
A few observations:
- Remember what I said earlier about Roy being underrated? He was so far ahead of all the other goalies in the league (in the late eighties and early nineties) that it’s almost Hasek-like. I think the Hasek/Roy debate is a lot subtler than most people realize. Adjusted for era, Roy separated himself from the pack almost as much as Hasek; despite winning only two Stanley Cups, Hasek was almost always an outstanding playoff goalie.
- This is the weighted average of each goalie’s best five seasons in terms of save percentage. They don’t have to be consecutive. I am only including seasons when the goalie played in at least 40 adjusted games.
I've put together a chart comparing the playoff save percentage of every Stanley Cup Finalist of the official save percentage era (1984-2014) to the average regular season shooting percentage of their four respective playoff opponents.
Example: In 2002, Dominik Hasek and the Detroit Red Wings played the Vancouver Canucks, St. Louis Blues, Colorado Avalanche, and Carolina Hurricanes. Their respective shooting percentages were 10.9%, 9.5%, 9.4%, and 9.2%, for an average of 9.75%, meaning that the expected save percentage was .9025 or .903. Dominik Hasek had a .920, so he exceeded expectations by .017.
Looking strictly at a raw difference undoubtedly has its flaws, as it's not adjusted to the exact amount of games played against each team. And the higher the expectation, the harder it is to exceed those expectations by the same raw amount. And conversely, if one were to play against the Edmonton Oilers or Pittsburgh Penguins in their heyday (Lindbergh, Smith, Vanbiesbrouck, Vernon, etc.), very little was expected at all.
More than that, some of the goalies on the list didn't play 100% of their teams' games - for instance, Grant Fuhr was absent for much of the 1984 Finals against a team shooting at 14.7%.
Top Performances - Stanley Cup Winners
1. Patrick Roy, 1993 (+.057)
2. Patrick Roy, 1986 (+.049)
3. Grant Fuhr, 1984 (+.044)
4. Martin Brodeur, 1995 (+.039)
4. Patrick Roy, 2001 (+.039)
6. Patrick Roy, 1996 (+.037)
7. Bill Ranford, 1990 (+.036)
8. Jonathan Quick, 2012 (+.035)
9. Tim Thomas, 2011 (+.033)
10. Martin Brodeur, 2000 (+.032)
Top Performances - Stanley Cup Losers
1. Pelle Lindbergh, 1985 (+.053)
2. John Vanbiesbrouck, 1996 (+.049)
3.
Patrick Roy, 1989 (+.043)
3. Jean-Sebastien Giguere, 2003 (+.043)
3. Tuukka Rask, 2013 (+.043)
6. Dominik Hasek, 1999 (+.041)
7. Billy Smith, 1984 (+.040)
8. Ron Hextall, 1987 (+.038)
8. Kirk McLean, 1994 (+.038)
10. Olaf Kolzig, 1998 (+.035)
10. Arturs Irbe, 2002 (+.035)
A lot of the usual suspects, but we get some surprises in the form of Martin Brodeur (2000) and Tuukka Rask (2013), two runs we've seen get overlooked when compared to other performances from nearby years.
Player
|
+/-
|
SPCT
|
EXPCT
Patrick Roy, 1993
| .057 | .929 | .872
Pelle Lindbergh, 1985 | .053 | .914 | .861
John Vanbiesbrouck, 1996 | .049 | .932 | .883
Patrick Roy, 1986
| .049 | .923 | .874
Grant Fuhr, 1984 | .044 | .910 | .866
Jean-Sebastien Giguere, 2003 | .043 | .946 | .903
Patrick Roy, 1989
| .043 | .920 | .877
Tuukka Rask, 2013 | .043 | .940 | .897
Dominik Hasek, 1999 | .041 | .939 | .898
Billy Smith, 1984 | .040 | .905 | .865
Martin Brodeur, 1995 | .039 | .927 | .888
Patrick Roy, 2001
| .039 | .934 | .895
Kirk McLean, 1994 | .038 | .928 | .890
Ron Hextall, 1987 | .038 | .908 | .870
Patrick Roy
, 1996 | .037 | .921 | .884
Bill Ranford, 1990 | .036 | .912 | .876
Arturs Irbe, 2002 | .035 | .938 | .903
Jonathan Quick, 2012 | .035 | .946 | .911
Olaf Kolzig, 1998 | .035 | .941 | .906
Dwayne Roloson, 2006 | .033 | .927 | .894
Tim Thomas, 2011 | .033 | .940 | .907
via Imgflip Meme Maker
via Imgflip Meme Maker
I'm very happy with how this unit fits stylistically and quite frankly the 1-3-1 should work to a T with this group.
Up front you have a big body (6'2'' 235 lbs) in Tkachuk who is extremely physical and can do a great job of screening the opposing netminder and re directing shots that get through as well as collecting rebounds. His profile has him as an above average net presence in the ATD on the PP.
You have one of the all time great play making pivots in Oates who has damn good PP numbers and ratios. He'll be a great facilitator from the right half wall or transition to the point on occasion to mix things up.
Forwards on the power play
Rk | Player | GP | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPP/S
1 | Mario Lemieux | 915 | 94% | 1.06 | 58
2 | Ilya Kovalchuk | 545 | 86% | 0.91 | 36
3 | Phil Esposito | 1047 | 82% | 1.36 | 51
4 | Wayne Gretzky | 1487 | 82% | 1.10 | 46
5 | Paul Kariya | 914 | 81% | 0.90 | 38
6 | Kent Nilsson | 553 | 81% | 1.06 | 39
7 | Joe Sakic | 1378 | 79% | 1.05 | 39
8 | Guy Chouinard | 578 | 79% | 1.08 | 32
9 | Marcel Dionne | 1348 | 77% | 1.03 | 40
10 | Rene Robert | 744 | 76% | 1.05 | 33
11 | Mike Bossy | 752 | 75% | 1.27 | 41
12 | Brad Richards | 620 | 75% | 0.96 | 29
13 | Dany Heatley | 507 | 75% | 0.95 | 35
14 | John Bucyk | 785 | 74% | 1.46 | 41
15 | Teemu Selanne | 1132 | 74% | 1.07 | 38
16 | Ron Francis | 1731 | 73% | 1.00 | 35
17 | Pavel Bure | 702 | 73% | 0.91 | 30
18 |
Adam Oates
| 1337 |
72%
|
1.08
| 32
19 | Pat Lafontaine | 865 | 72% | 1.05 | 35
20 | Dale Hawerchuk | 1188 | 71% | 1.01 | 36
21 | Stan Mikita | 845 | 71% | 1.04 | 33
22 | Peter Forsberg | 706 | 71% | 1.15 | 41
23 | Brett Hull | 1269 | 71% | 1.10 | 35
24 | Bernie Federko | 1000 | 71% | 0.91 | 32
25 | Alexei Zhamnov | 807 | 71% | 0.94 | 30
26 | Rick Martin | 685 | 70% | 1.10 | 31
27 | Peter Stastny | 977 | 70% | 0.98 | 34
28 | Zigmund Palffy | 684 | 70% | 1.01 | 35
29 | Frank Mahovlich | 511 | 70% | 1.15 | 31
30 | Gilbert Perreault | 1191 | 70% | 1.05 | 33
Foyston will work in front of the point man in the slot, between the circles. His presence will shrink the standard box and keep active F's up top from cheating high. He was an apt goal scorer and passer so he provides a nice asset from the middle. He can transition outside to the left half wall if Pitre needs to slide up into point position (standard 2-2-1) or go right while Oates slides up top.
Pitre was the Bobby Hull or Al MacInnis of his day in terms of shot power and intimidation. He will be used much like Alex Ovechkin is for Washington on his off wing ready to strike with 1 timers. His presence should force teams to cheat a little bit and when he does let loose, it should make for some goals and/or rebounds and redirects from Tkachuk and Foyston.
Hod Stuart will man the point up top. He was an elite offensive Dman in his day both as a goal scorer and passer. What i like is his elite skating and mobility. You want somebody with good offensive instincts and mobility if leaving them on an island and Hod had that. He and Pitre were elite skaters and that bodes well in terms of recovery. Pitre also had extensive time on D over his career and I feel very comfortable with both of them out there in terms of recovering in the off chance of play going the other way. There is quality defensive conscience here with Stuart, Pitre, and Oates. The key here is getting pucks on net and generating chances from in close.
[FIELDSET="Penalty Kill"]
[/FIELDSET]
I'll give you one as well, when I have some more free time on my hands.
