ATD2011 Sam Pollock Finals: (1) McGuire's Monsters vs. (2) Gwinnett Gladiators

[Dreakmur]

You seem to have a peculiar definition of the word "numerous", which apparently includes the singular

I gues being a ********* just comes naturally to some people....

I can find only one statement on this subject in your profile of Buller. Do you have any other sources for this anti-semitic speculation, or is it all coming from Jews In Sports Online?

Do I have sources specifically talking about antisemitizam? No.

Do I have other pieces of evidence that point towards antisemitizam? Yeah, lots. I'd present them again, but you ignored them all the first time.

You don't seem so convinced, yourself.

I usually try to avoid speaking in absolute truthes.

 

[Sturminator]

I gues being a ********* just comes naturally to some people....

I'm trying to figure out what nine letter word gets filtered here? D-bag? Well, at least we made it to page 2 before resorting to name-calling.

Do I have sources specifically talking about antisemitizam? No.

Do I have other pieces of evidence that point towards antisemitizam? Yeah, lots. I'd present them again, but you ignored them all the first time.

You have evidence which points to a player who toiled in the AHL for a while before his contract was purchased by an NHL club, a perfectly common occurrence in Buller's era.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'm trying to figure out what nine letter word gets filtered here? D-bag? Well, at least we made it to page 2 before resorting to name-calling.

That's the word.... and I just call it like I see it.

You have evidence which points to a player who toiled in the AHL for a while before his contract was purchased by an NHL club, a perfectly common occurrence in Buller's era.

As I said before, the fact that he out-performed guys who were brought up before before him should make you stop and wonder.

 

[Sturminator]

As I said before, the fact that he out-performed guys who were brought up before before him should make you stop and wonder.

Your habit of judging defensemen by their scoring totals is curious.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Somewhere, there's a clown crying about how it's unfair to make assumptions.

Guess what, Dreak? Here are the Nashville Preds selected to the NHL All-Star game during Timonen's career:

1999: Sergei Krivokrasov
2000: Kimmo Timonen
2001: ---
2002: ---
2003: ---
2004: Kimmo Timonen, Tomas Vokoun
---
2007: Kimmo Timonen

Doesn't seem to me that the NHL had any problem, whatsoever, leaving Nashville unrepresented in the all-star game.

For most (all?) of timonen's, career, the NHL tried to have each team represented in the All Star game. At some point, it no longer became official policy, but the NHL tried to do it anyway. If the original selection gets injured, the NHL doesn't care about replacing him with someone from the same team

I'm not going to do the work to figure out when the rule was in place for what year.

 

[Sturminator]

For most (all?) of timonen's, career, the NHL tried to have each team represented in the All Star game. At some point, it no longer became official policy, but the NHL tried to do it anyway. If the original selection gets injured, the NHL doesn't care about replacing him with someone from the same team

I'm not going to do the work to figure out when the rule was in place for what year.

It was obviously not that big a deal in the first part of the last decade; the NHL let Nashville go without representation for three straight years. I'm not sure it was ever official policy.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

For most (all?) of timonen's, career, the NHL tried to have each team represented in the All Star game. At some point, it no longer became official policy, but the NHL tried to do it anyway. If the original selection gets injured, the NHL doesn't care about replacing him with someone from the same team

I'm not going to do the work to figure out when the rule was in place for what year.

If I remember correctly, at some point they switched it to each team had to have a representative at All Star Weekend, which included the Young Stars Game. Some teams would have a rookie or sophomore in that game, but no one in the "big game."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If I remember correctly, at some point they switched it to each team had to have a representative at All Star Weekend, which included the Young Stars Game. Some teams would have a rookie or sophomore in that game, but no one in the "big game."

I think this is correct. But then if the original rep is injured, the league will replace him with someone from any team.

 

[seventieslord]

For all of my childhood, every team had to be represented. I think that reached its critical mass when Petr Buzek represented Atlanta in 1999 or 2000. Since about that point, it has not been mandatory for every team to have a player in the All-Star Game. many teams have gone unrepresented since then. And that is a good thing when there are 30 teams, I think. You try to represent all 30, that takes up 3/4 of the spots, and you have about a dozen left for the 10 best "second fiddles" in the league

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's not mandatory, but the league still tries to do it. In 2008, NJ and Colorado were the only teams without reps in either the AS game or young guns game, and that was only because their initial reps were injured. Patrik Elias went to the 2011 AS game, and there is no way he would have gone if the NHL didn't try to represent every team.

 

[BraveCanadian]

It's not mandatory, but the league still tries to do it. In 2008, NJ and Colorado were the only teams without reps in either the AS game or young guns game, and that was only because their initial reps were injured. Patrik Elias went to the 2011 AS game, and there is no way he would have gone if the NHL didn't try to represent every team.

Yeah it would be best if only the best players went but on the other hand it is more a marketing tool than a game anyways.. so it makes a lot of sense to represent as many teams as possible.

 

[Dreakmur]

For all of my childhood, every team had to be represented. I think that reached its critical mass when Petr Buzek represented Atlanta in 1999 or 2000. Since about that point, it has not been mandatory for every team to have a player in the All-Star Game. many teams have gone unrepresented since then. And that is a good thing when there are 30 teams, I think. You try to represent all 30, that takes up 3/4 of the spots, and you have about a dozen left for the 10 best "second fiddles" in the league

That makes sense. I just thought it was an official rule rather than a more.

 

[Dreakmur]

Why don't you post your special teams units, dreak?

I thought I already explained that my team does not have static PP and PK units. The defense pairs are pretty stable, but the forwards on both special teams are quite modulated. I did take your advice and scaled Dunderdale back by a minute on the PP, so you should be happy about that

Andy Bathgate is my main PP weapon. He'll play a lot of PP minutes. Norm Ullman and Tommy Dunderdale also play quite a bit. Alf Smith, Peter McNab, and Fred Stanfield fill in as needed.

As I said, nothing is static, but if you want an example of what it might look like, here is what it would look like if you assume each shift is 1 minute:

1: Peter McNab - Norm Ullman – Andy Bathgate – Ray Bourque – Pat Egan
2: Alf Smith – Tommy Dunderdale - Andy Bathgate – Hod Stuart – Hy Buller
3: Fred Stanfield - Norm Ullman – Tommy Dunderdale – Ray Bourque – Pat Egan
4: Alf Smith – Peter McNab - Andy Bathgate – Hod Stuart – Hy Buller
5: Fred Stanfield – Norm Ullman – Tommy Dunderdale – Ray Bourque – Pat Egan
6: Alf Smith – Peter McNab – Andy Bathgate – Hod Stuart – Hy Buller
7: Tommy Dunderdale - Norm Ullman – Andy Bathgate – Ray Bourque – Hod Stuart

When penalties are cut by the end of a period, I can really load up. That's likely when the #7 unit will get used.


On the PK, my two go-to guys are Edgar Laprade and Pete Mahovlich. Really, they are my only great PK forwards. After them, I've got quite a few decent PKers, but I still need to rely on the top guys. Andy Hebenton, Fred Stanfield, Jack Marshall, and Norm Ullman will fill in.

Same example as above:

1: Edgar Laprade – Andy Hebenton – Ray Bourque – Ted Green
2: Pete Mahovlich – Fred Stanfield – Hod Stuart – Ken Randall
3: Edgar Laprade – Andy Hebenton - Ray Bourque – Ted Green
4: Norm Ullman – Jack Marshall - Hod Stuart – Ken Randall
5: Pete Mahovlich - Andy Hebenton - Ray Bourque – Ted Green
6: Edgar Laprade – Fred Stanfield - Hod Stuart – Ken Randall
7: Pete Mahovlich – Edgar Laprade - Ray Bourque – Hod Stuart

Also as above, #7 gets used in situations where limited time is left in a period. Also, if a period starts with a short PK, that same unit will start.

 

[Sturminator]

Regarding Timonen's all-star game selections, three of the four seem fairly well unimpeachable:

2004: selected with Tomas Vokoun
2007: selected alone - 5th in Norris voting
2008: selected with Mike Richards

I don't think there's any reasonable argument that Timonen's teams were getting a gift by his presence in the years that he was selected along with one of his teammates, and his Norris finish in 2007 should make it clear that he fully deserved the selection in that season, as well. Only 2000 looks at all questionable as far as I can tell. Nashville, in its first season in the league, was represented by the somewhat questionable Sergei Krivokrasov in the season prior, but was represented by no one for the three seasons thereafter. Scoring isn't everything, but Timonen was putting up points at a very good clip in 2000 before being injured - scoring 33 in 51 games for a PPG of .65, which is excellent for a defenseman in the dead puck era, especially on an expansion team. It's possible that he was Nashville's sympathy selection in that season, but I think it's more likely that he earned the invite.

At any rate, even throwing out 2000 completely, Timonen's career actually stacks up remarkably well to that of the Monsters' nominal #2 defenseman, Ted Green. Indeed, history may well remember Timonen as the better player.

Ball's in your court, dreak.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I do agree that only Timonen's 2000 selection to the AS game is questionable.

 

[Dreakmur]

I do agree that only Timonen's 2000 selection to the AS game is questionable.

I'd probably agree with that. 3 of Timonen's all-stars look legit.

 

[Dreakmur]

At any rate, even throwing out 2000 completely, Timonen's career actually stacks up remarkably well to that of the Monsters' nominal #2 defenseman, Ted Green. Indeed, history may well remember Timonen as the better player.

Ball's in your court, dreak.

First of all, your are being unfair again. Timonen is your #4, and Green is my #3. Obviously you missed my opening post about looking forward to a fair and honest discussion. You have a very good team. You don't need to try to trick people into voting for you.

Timonen voted a top-10 defenseman once. Green accomplished that 5 years in a row before being almost killed. Timonen's peak is not comparable to Green's. Timonen does have better non-peak years, but not by very much.

 

[Sturminator]

First of all, your are being unfair again. Timonen is your #4, and Green is my #3.

It's debatable between Timonen and Burrows overall. Both are good #4s, in my opinion. Do I need to post again the GM/player polls from the 70's to show how highly Burrows was regarded?

Timonen voted a top-10 defenseman once.

By the hockey writers. He was picked to the all-star team four times by the league GMs, which is a rough equivalent of being a top-10 defenseman in the league. Do you honestly value the opinion of the writers above that of the GMs? I think it's perfectly clear which is the more knowledgeable group, especially when it comes to small-market players.

Green accomplished that 5 years in a row before being almost killed.

This again? Are you seriously still pushing this argument? You've got courage, I'll give you that.

Ted Green was voted 8th best defenseman in the first half of the 1966 season. He did not play a single game in the second half. That does not equal a top-10 season, dreak, and it is ridiculous for you to call it that. Green only played 27 out of 70 games in 1966. In terms of value, it's about on par with Timonen's 2000 season.

Green got one...one Norris vote in 1967, which tied him for 10th with Leo Boivin and Arnie Brown, who was a forgettable journeyman for the Rangers. Spare me the used car salesman pitch here; one vote is meaningless.

Ted Green was legitimately a top-10 defenseman three times during his career: 1964-65, 1967-68 and 1968-69 - being top-5 in the last of those seasons.

Kimmo Timonen was legitimately a top-10 defenseman three times during his career: 2003-04, 2006-07 and 2007-08 - being top-5 in the second of those seasons. Timonen played in a more competitive era, his non-peak years are better, and he was an Olympic all-star. There's a pretty good argument that Timonen had the better career.

I really don't see how you can think Green was clearly better...unless you really believe your own claims about him being top-10 in 1966 and 1967, but I think you're too smart for that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

By the hockey writers. He was picked to the all-star team four times by the league GMs, which is a rough equivalent of being a top-10 defenseman in the league. Do you honestly value the opinion of the writers above that of the GMs? I think it's perfectly clear which is the more knowledgeable group, especially when it comes to small-market players.

Since when has the All Star game been about the best players? It's about marketing the game.

It's definitely a plus to be selected to the All-Star game, but I can't believe you seriously think it's worth more than Norris votes or Postseason All Star Teams.

Ted Green was legitimately a top-10 defenseman three times during his career: 1964-65, 1967-68 and 1968-69 - being top-5 in the last of those seasons.

This I do agree with, however. Getting a single vote for the Norris (or any trophy the writers vote on) is entirely meaningless.

 

[seventieslord]

Since when has the All Star game been about the best players? It's about marketing the game.

It's definitely a plus to be selected to the All-Star game, but I can't believe you seriously think it's worth more than Norris votes or Postseason All Star Teams.




This I do agree with, however. Getting a single vote for the Norris (or any trophy the writers vote on) is entirely meaningless.

100% agree on both. Getting into the ASG, as long as it's agreed that it was on merit, is further evidence in any given season that the player was considered among the game's best. Sturm was right when he said was a "rough equivalent".

All this talk about Timonen and how long he's been a strong player, put up a good number of points, been 1st or 2nd on his team in ice time, and been recognized with norris votes and/or ASG appearances, makes me feel pretty good about Redden.

The Ted Green overselling also needs to stop. One vote? 27 games? Just no.

 

[Sturminator]

Since when has the All Star game been about the best players? It's about marketing the game.

It's definitely a plus to be selected to the All-Star game, but I can't believe you seriously think it's worth more than Norris votes or Postseason All Star Teams.

Ehhh...when you're talking about a small-market player who is being picked by the NHL GMs as a reserve when there's already another guy on his team going to the all-star game...yeah, I think that's a meaningful sign of how well-regarded that player is around the league. Do you really think Kimmo Timonen going to the all-star game in 2004 or 2008 was about marketing? 2000 maybe, but come on...he is the polar opposite of an exciting player.

The hockey writers have gotten worse and worse at judging the whole universe of NHL players the bigger the league has gotten. They still do a good job of picking the guys at the very top, but I don't think much of their judgment beyond that anymore, especially when it comes to small market teams. Sure, the top-5 or so of the Norris and the postseason all-star teams (though not the complete voting) are still useful, but beyond that? The GMs are, as a group, much better judges in my opinion. Do you disagree?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ehhh...when you're talking about a small-market player who is being picked by the NHL GMs as a reserve when there's already another guy on his team going to the all-star game...yeah, I think that's a meaningful sign of how well-regarded that player is around the league. Do you really think Kimmo Timonen going to the all-star game in 2004 or 2008 was about marketing? 2000 maybe, but come on...he is the polar opposite of an exciting player.

The hockey writers have gotten worse and worse at judging the whole universe of NHL players the bigger the league has gotten. They still do a good job of picking the guys at the very top, but I don't think much of their judgment beyond that anymore, especially when it comes to small market teams. Sure, the top-5 or so of the Norris and the postseason all-star teams (though not the complete voting) are still useful, but beyond that? The GMs are, as a group, much better judges in my opinion. Do you disagree?

If the GMs were selecting players for the All-Star game based on how good they were, then I would agree with you. But that's only part of the selection criteria - it's quite obvious that they want guys who will put up points, both on offense and defense. And Kimmo was always better offensively than defensively (though he ranged from fairly good to legitimately good defensively in his career relative to other NHLers).

And that's before getting into guys on stacked teams who are stuck behind multiple teammates - teams getting 3-4 guys selected to the team is rare indeed.

I do agree with you that the writers have gotten progressively worse (Mike Green, cough).

 

[Dreakmur]

It's debatable between Timonen and Burrows overall. Both are good #4s, in my opinion. Do I need to post again the GM/player polls from the 70's to show how highly Burrows was regarded?

I'd take Timonen over Burrows every day of the week, but I don't like one-dimensional players.

Burrows was very good defensively, but Timonen's overall game is better.

By the hockey writers. He was picked to the all-star team four times by the league GMs, which is a rough equivalent of being a top-10 defenseman in the league. Do you honestly value the opinion of the writers above that of the GMs? I think it's perfectly clear which is the more knowledgeable group, especially when it comes to small-market players.

The Gms voting with pressure to have every team represented vs the writers..... I'd say that's pretty close.

In addition to that pressure to include every team, there are other rules. Involved in selecting an all star team. Teams were divided into conference, so unless the each side has 6 of the top 12 defensemen, then the top 12 aren't going.

In 2004, there were quite a few non all-star defensemen from the east that were very clearly better than some western all-stars. Bryan McCabe, Sergei Gonchar, Brian Leetch, Zdeno Chara, and Dan Boyle were all left off the eastern side. That year, the best 12 defensemen were not the 12 all-stars.... not even close.

This again? Are you seriously still pushing this argument? You've got courage, I'll give you that.

Ted Green was voted 8th best defenseman in the first half of the 1966 season. He did not play a single game in the second half. That does not equal a top-10 season, dreak, and it is ridiculous for you to call it that. Green only played 27 out of 70 games in 1966. In terms of value, it's about on par with Timonen's 2000 season.

Didn't you just argue that Thomas Steen was a top-20 scorer based on per game average? Why do you think your guys get the benefit of using a per game system, but mine don't?

Green was clearly a top-10 defenseman when he played the first half.

Kimmo Timonen was legitimately a top-10 defenseman three times during his career: 2003-04, 2006-07 and 2007-08 - being top-5 in the second of those seasons. Timonen played in a more competitive era, his non-peak years are better, and he was an Olympic all-star. There's a pretty good argument that Timonen had the better career.

Being an All-Star is not the same as being a top-10 defenseman.


Timonen played in a more competitive era overall, but his competition at defense wasn't that great. Green had tougher competition for Norris and All-Star votes.

I really don't see how you can think Green was clearly better...unless you really believe your own claims about him being top-10 in 1966 and 1967, but I think you're too smart for that.

Green is very clearly better offensively. Over his 5 year peak, Green was 2nd best offensive defenseman in the world. Timonen doesn't come close to that.

Green is also much better in terms of physicallity and toughness. There's really no comparion there.

The only area where Timonen could conceivably be better is defensively. Having watched Timonen, I do think he is pretty reliable defensively, and he's probably better than Green in that area, but Green is pretty good too, and the gap is rather small.

 

[Dreakmur]

The Ted Green overselling also needs to stop. One vote? 27 games? Just no.

The fact that he got quite a few votes while playing 27 games is a testament to how good he actually was.

 

[Dreakmur]

Getting a single vote for the Norris (or any trophy the writers vote on) is entirely meaningless.

It's not meaningless. It's not worth a lot, but it's not worthless either.