ATD2011 Milt Dunnell Cup Final: Regina Pats vs. Ottawa Senators

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Doesn't matter. The cup could have been powered by excellent goaltending and a powerful offense. You need only look at this year's playoffs - Vancouver and Tampa have gotten as far as they have without an elite #1 defenseman.. I would say that neither of them even have a top-10 defenseman.

The Flyers were a defensive-minded club who won 2 Cups back to back, largely on the strength of their defense. And while Clarke and Parent were obviously their top guys, don't you think their top shutdown defenseman deserves a little credit?

 

[BraveCanadian]

The Flyers were a defensive-minded club who won 2 Cups back to back, largely on the strength of their defense. And while Clarke and Parent were obviously their top guys, don't you think their top shutdown defenseman deserves a little credit?

I don't think he is saying that specifically.. just that in general ice time stats on a team without the details don't really say anything definitive.

And I'd have to agree that both Tampa and Vancouver are good examples of that this year.

 

[jarek]

The Flyers were a defensive-minded club who won 2 Cups back to back, largely on the strength of their defense. And while Clarke and Parent were obviously their top guys, don't you think their top shutdown defenseman deserves a little credit?

Putting it that way, sure, I agree Watson deserves some credit.. just that, throwing the ice time stat in my face, saying "here you go" and not backing it up, why should I care about your argument if you're gonna do that?

I think those cups had more to do with Clarke, MacLeish and Parent than Watson.. just saying. I respect Watson's contributions, however.

 

[seventieslord]

Doesn't matter. The cup could have been powered by excellent goaltending and a powerful offense. You need only look at this year's playoffs - Vancouver and Tampa have gotten as far as they have without an elite #1 defenseman.. I would say that neither of them even have a top-10 defenseman.

no team is going to win the cup without a defense corps that is at least decent - the worst I can think of is Carolina in 2006, and their top guys still deserve that credit for being "the top defensemen on a cup winner".

Tampa Bay and Vancouver definitely don't have a top-10 defenseman. They both have a couple of very good ones. Those that play the biggest roles in getting them this far, deserve that credit.

You play to win, that's the point. Coaches want to win. Coaches play their best players the most. The teams that go the furthest are the most successful, and the players that played the most for them deserve credit. Otherwise, who do we credit for contributing to winning? no one?

To go back to your original point, I know that just being the #1 defenseman in itself isn't a big deal. Ottawa's #1 in 1993 was Norm MacIver, and he was a #4 at best anywhere else. But Ottawa was crap. if you're a good team, you have to have some good defensemen, it's impossible not to. And the best of those good defensemen is your #1. This is the context you're looking for. Just being on a good team doesn't mean anything. Just being the #1 doesn't mean anything. Being the #1 on a good team means lots!

When we are comparing 3rd pairing defensemen in a 40-team draft, we are well past all-star teams and things like that. The last of those tend to dry up with the 2nd pairing defensemen. We need to have other ways to appropriately evaluate them. How much of a contribution they made to winning, is a great place to start, I'd say.

 

[Dreakmur]

Being the #1 on a good team means lots!

Not necessarily. It depends who the other defensemen are.

 

[jarek]

no team is going to win the cup without a defense corps that is at least decent - the worst I can think of is Carolina in 2006, and their top guys still deserve that credit for being "the top defensemen on a cup winner".

Tampa Bay and Vancouver definitely don't have a top-10 defenseman. They both have a couple of very good ones. Those that play the biggest roles in getting them this far, deserve that credit.

You play to win, that's the point. Coaches want to win. Coaches play their best players the most. The teams that go the furthest are the most successful, and the players that played the most for them deserve credit. Otherwise, who do we credit for contributing to winning? no one?

To go back to your original point, I know that just being the #1 defenseman in itself isn't a big deal. Ottawa's #1 in 1993 was Norm MacIver, and he was a #4 at best anywhere else. But Ottawa was crap. if you're a good team, you have to have some good defensemen, it's impossible not to. And the best of those good defensemen is your #1. This is the context you're looking for. Just being on a good team doesn't mean anything. Just being the #1 doesn't mean anything. Being the #1 on a good team means lots!

When we are comparing 3rd pairing defensemen in a 40-team draft, we are well past all-star teams and things like that. The last of those tend to dry up with the 2nd pairing defensemen. We need to have other ways to appropriately evaluate them. How much of a contribution they made to winning, is a great place to start, I'd say.

Again.. being the number one on a cup winner doesn't mean much to me, without context. For example, say Tampa wins the cup.. are you REALLY going to say Eric ****ing Brewer, who has 7 points in 17 games (respectable, I'll admit), should garner all-time praise for this cup run?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If Tampa won 2 Cups in a row playing a defensive style with Brewer their top shut down guy both times, then yes, he would deserve all-time consideration. A lot of it.

Of course, there are a lot of "ifs" here that are unmet, which is why your analogy is terrible.

Edit: actually, now that o
I think about it, Brewer leads Tampa in ice time by more than three minutes? Quite impressive.

 

[jarek]

If Tampa won 2 Cups in a row playing a defensive style with Brewer their top shut down guy both times, then yes, he would deserve all-time consideration. A lot of it.

Of course, there are a lot of "ifs" here that are unmet, which is why your analogy is terrible.

You're doing pretty bad lately. The second really out there statement in a row.

Tampa is playing a high tempo offensive system. Roloson has been given a lot of credit for their success so far. It's basically been St. Louis and Roloson. Brewer has also been fighting to keep an NHL job for several seasons now, so unless every single GM missed out on him somehow, I'd say that he hasn't really been all that special. So.. what "ifs" are you referring to?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You're doing pretty bad lately. The second really out there statement in a row.

Tampa is playing a high tempo offensive system. Roloson has been given a lot of credit for their success so far. It's basically been St. Louis and Roloson. Brewer has also been fighting to keep an NHL job for several seasons now, so unless every single GM missed out on him somehow, I'd say that he hasn't really been all that special. So.. what "ifs" are you referring to?

So then how does Brewer compare to Watson?

 

[Dreakmur]

If you go by ice time, Chara is Boston's #2 in the play-offs

 

[jarek]

So then how does Brewer compare to Watson?

I'm not comparing Brewer to Watson. You're making the mistake that I'm comparing Watson to anyone. I'm not interested in the situation of those Flyers cup runs.

What I'm getting at is that saying a blanket statement like "being a #1 on a winning team deserves a lot of praise" is inaccurate and irresponsible. The context is EXTREMELY important.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you go by ice time, Chara is Boston's #2 in the play-offs

Haha, by one second. If Boston wins it all, Seidenberg has to get a lot of credit actually as a key secondary player. 28+ minutes per game is intense.

Anyway, it would be useful to know hoe much Watson led his team in ice time by.

 

[VanIslander]

Number one in ice time is misleading. (Even Zhitnik did that and that means squat in terms of assessing his overall ability, specifically in his own zone.)

Eric Brewer is the back 1 in the 1-3-1 coaching system. He deserves some credit for the Lightning's playoff run AFTER the star forwards, AFTER the secondary scorers, AFTER the goaltending, AFTER the coaching, AFTER the powerplay, and then, then he does, in the context of the role he is assigned and the style they play.

Is the 10+ NHL season veteran going to make his MLD debut after 22 games post trade and one playoff run within which he played a widget role in an innovative coaching style because he led the team in ice time? Gawd, hopefully not.

 

[seventieslord]

Not necessarily. It depends who the other defensemen are.

Of course it does. What you're saying is, "if the other defensemen on your team are crap, then who cares if you're the best of them?"

I agree. But such a question can be asked of the #1 defenseman on a crap team... not a 100 point team, and not a cup winner! The support defensemen on a 100-point or cup-winning team are not crap - if they are, they would be highly unlikely to win.

Again.. being the number one on a cup winner doesn't mean much to me, without context. For example, say Tampa wins the cup.. are you REALLY going to say Eric ****ing Brewer, who has 7 points in 17 games (respectable, I'll admit), should garner all-time praise for this cup run?

First, about Brewer, when you lead your team in ice time by three minutes, you are doing something right. In the playoffs, more than ever, coaches dole out icetime on merit, and change strategy on the fly. I'm confident saying there is no defenseman Boucher trusts on the ice more than Brewer right now.

Second, I LOL at your quick assessment of his play based on points. Same old jarek.

Last, I am really confused about your "context". If someone told me, "so and so is good, he was a #1 defenseman for this team." The first thing I would want to know is, "ok, so? How good was this team that had him as a #1 defenseman? How many points? Did they make the playoffs? How far did they get?" This is the exact kind of stuff I pointed out re: the four bottom pairing defenseman - did you read this? Isn't it interesting that when Samuelsson was a #1 his team missed the playoffs, but when he was a #3/4 his teams did well? Isn't it interesting that Gusarov only missed the playoffs when he was a #2, but won the cup as a #3?

Tampa is playing a high tempo offensive system. Roloson has been given a lot of credit for their success so far. It's basically been St. Louis and Roloson. Brewer has also been fighting to keep an NHL job for several seasons now, so unless every single GM missed out on him somehow, I'd say that he hasn't really been all that special. So.. what "ifs" are you referring to?

I know you said you weren't watching hockey in round 1, but are you watching now? Roloson has been absolutely unreal... at times. Other times he has been very, very shaky, and it seems more and more that he's getting shaky at crucial moments. St. Louis is Tampa Bay's MVP.

Fighting to keep an NHL job for several seasons? Where are you getting this stuff? Brewer led the Blues in icetime by over two minutes in 2007 and 2008. (yeah, I realize they sucked, so not a big deal, but much closer to a legit #1 defenseman than "fighting to keep an NHL job") Brewer was injured for much of 2009, but when he played, he led the Blues in icetime by two minutes again. He was 2nd in icetime for them in 2010, and 1st this year before the trade (although the top-3 were very close)

Not even close to my favourite player (although I have been extremely impressed by his physical strength) but jeez, give the guy his due. I love how some of you like yo act like you know so much more than the coaches who put players on the ice to win hockey games.

Number one in ice time is misleading. (Even Zhitnik did that and that means squat in terms of assessing his overall ability, specifically in his own zone.)

Eric Brewer is the back 1 in the 1-3-1 coaching system. He deserves some credit for the Lightning's playoff run AFTER the star forwards, AFTER the secondary scorers, AFTER the goaltending, AFTER the coaching, AFTER the powerplay, and then, then he does, in the context of the role he is assigned and the style they play.

Is the 10+ NHL season veteran going to make his MLD debut after 22 games post trade and one playoff run within which he played a widget role in an innovative coaching style because he led the team in ice time? Gawd, hopefully not.

Yes, VI, we know you have a least-favourite type of player, and that is any defenseman that you are old enough to have watched, who wasn't perfect defensively. Which makes it even more curious that you selected Sandis Ozolinsh a few drafts ago and defended his defensive play.

I'll defer to Guy Boucher in this case. He might be in the Stanley Cup Finals within the hour, so I think he's doing something right by giving Brewer these extra three minutes than splitting them up among a few other decent defenseman. You mentioned players like Jon Klemm and Frank Musil in the last round of drafting - do they help a team win more than Brewer?

----------

We should really take the Brewer stuff to the chat thread at this point.

Anyway, it would be useful to know hoe much Watson led his team in ice time by.

I don't have my files with me, but I know it wasn't that much. Not like three minutes or anything.

 

[jarek]

Whatever man. I don't have a vested interest in this series, so you can think how you like. I'm not convinced by your arguments, either way.. refer to all my posts as to why.

 

[Dreakmur]

What you're saying is, "if the other defensemen on your team are crap, then who cares if you're the best of them?"

That is what I'm saying.

Being the tallest midget doesn't make you an NBA center.

I agree. But such a question can be asked of the #1 defenseman on a crap team... not a 100 point team, and not a cup winner! The support defensemen on a 100-point or cup-winning team are not crap - if they are, they would be highly unlikely to win

Unlikely, but not impossible.

The Watson-led Flyers actually proved you can win a cup with crappy defense.

 

[seventieslord]

Whatever man. I don't have a vested interest in this series, so you can think how you like. I'm not convinced by your arguments, either way.. refer to all my posts as to why.

Well, jeez, i should HOPE you don't have a vested interest in the series! Wouldn't you only have a vested interest in a series you're actually participating in?

 

[seventieslord]

That is what I'm saying.

Being the tallest midget doesn't make you an NBA center.



Unlikely, but not impossible.

The Watson-led Flyers actually proved you can win a cup with crappy defense.

....twice?

there were five ATD regulars on that defense. Not super high picks, but ATD-caliber players. That's not crappy defense.

Shero did have a way of getting the most out of everyone, though. Not many players were better in the other stops in their career, than they were in Philly.

 

[Dreakmur]

....twice?

there were five ATD regulars on that defense. Not super high picks, but ATD-caliber players. That's not crappy defense.

Shero did have a way of getting the most out of everyone, though. Not many players were better in the other stops in their career, than they were in Philly.

Joe and Jimmy Watson, Ed Van Imp, Anre Dupont, and Tom Bladon - that definately is a crappy defense.

 

[jarek]

Well, jeez, i should HOPE you don't have a vested interest in the series! Wouldn't you only have a vested interest in a series you're actually participating in?

I'm going to take this as a refusal to justify why being the number 1 defenseman on a good team automatically makes you an amazing defenseman.

 

[seventieslord]

Joe and Jimmy Watson, Ed Van Imp, Anre Dupont, and Tom Bladon - that definately is a crappy defense.

As in, below average at the time?

You have to be kidding.

These are guys who got all-star votes, PP specialist Bladon excluded.

I'm going to take this as a refusal to justify why being the number 1 defenseman on a good team automatically makes you an amazing defenseman.

What?

You: OK, I'm done with this. You haven't convinced me so we'll just drop it.

Me: something unrelated

You: So are you going to keep trying to prove me wrong, or what?

 

[jarek]

As in, below average at the time?

You have to be kidding.

These are guys who got all-star votes, PP specialist Bladon excluded.



What?

You: OK, I'm done with this. You haven't convinced me so we'll just drop it.

Me: something unrelated

You: So are you going to keep trying to prove me wrong, or what?

I highly doubt I'm the only one who wants an explanation as to why Watson being number 1 on his team in ice time actually matters. TDMM is the only one who even came close to giving a reason for it. If you won't explain it properly, then I'm just going to disregard that entirely.

 

[Dreakmur]

As in, below average at the time?

You have to be kidding.

These are guys who got all-star votes, PP specialist Bladon excluded.

The group as a whole isn't that bad, but each individual is. Not one guy would be considered top 20 in the league.

 

[jarek]

Also, one of the reasons why Watson may have been that high in ice time is that the Flyers likely took a disproportionate amount of penalties in the playoffs. If Watson was their best PK'er (this definitely works in his favor), that'll boost his ice time over the other defensemen.

However, for me, I prefer to look at even strength TOI to determine who is the "#1", as that really demonstrates who the coach feels is his most reliable defenseman. Hedman actually leads Tampa Bay in ES TOI/G, over Brewer.. and I agree with that. I think Hedman is better than him. Another reason why Brewer leads the team in TOI/G for defensemen: he gets 3:39 per game on the PP, next best is Bergeron with 1:47 PP TOI/G.

 

[seventieslord]

I highly doubt I'm the only one who wants an explanation as to why Watson being number 1 on his team in ice time actually matters. TDMM is the only one who even came close to giving a reason for it. If you won't explain it properly, then I'm just going to disregard that entirely.

I did a fine job. If it wasn't good enough for you... I can't help that.

(In short: Because it was a cup-winning team.)

The group as a whole isn't that bad, but each individual is. Not one guy would be considered top 20 in the league.

in 1974, Ashbee was 4th in all-star voting and Van Impe 11th. In 1975, Watson was 14th. It's not much, but it's something. It was definitely "defense by committee", though.