Ken Dryden's The Game and accuracy thereof

[optimus2861]

I've recently been reading Ken Dryden's "The Game". Many years later than I should have, of course. That said... Just how accurate is this book supposed to be anyway?

He clearly sets the book in the latter half of the 78/79 season, as he is playing out his final season and the Canadiens are en route to their fourth straight Cup. He goes on to vividly describe a number of games supposedly from that season, starting with a visit to Toronto with roughly three months to go. That places the game some time around late January / early February. He describes the flow of the game, and names specific goal scorers leading to a Canadiens win. Now there was a Montreal / Toronto game on Feb. 3/79 which fits the timeline. But the box score is all wrong. The real game didn't unfold the way Dryden described. The goal scorers didn't match.

Next he says the team went to Boston. But they didn't. Their next game was in Washington. They didn't go to Boston for nearly two more months. He also described a home game against Colorado earlier in the season that he tried to lose single handedly, surrendering numerous bad goals but they escaped with what he called a 6-5 victory. Except the closest real game to that would have been in December, the Habs did win only 3-2, but Dryden didn't even play that night. Nor was Dryden in goal during the other Colorado / Montreal game in Montreal that season.

It's knocking me right out of the flow of the book. Just how many times did he get a puck in the head that season?

Click to read more...

 

[JMCx4]

This blogger beat you to the fact-checking by 10 years; see the 8 historical accuracy points following his literary critiques. I never thought The Game was the best hockey book as many claim, but I also never considered Dryden's hockey action descriptions to be more than a frame for the story he was attempting to paint.

 

[LeBlondeDemon10]

If you want to read stats, go to the stat websites. If you want to read art, read The Game.

 

[buffalowing88]

If you want to read stats, go to the stat websites. If you want to read art, read The Game.

That's a pretty apt way to sum it up. I personally was disappointed by the book because I was expecting something a bit more insightful into all the players and the specific games. Dryden focused more on the overall toll of the games and the mentality of the team. It reminded me a lot of Breaks of the Game about the 77 Trailblazers. Cool stuff but I didn't close the book thinking I knew that team much better than I had before.

 

[Staniowski]

I've recently been reading Ken Dryden's "The Game". Many years later than I should have, of course. That said... Just how accurate is this book supposed to be anyway?

He clearly sets the book in the latter half of the 78/79 season, as he is playing out his final season and the Canadiens are en route to their fourth straight Cup. He goes on to vividly describe a number of games supposedly from that season, starting with a visit to Toronto with roughly three months to go. That places the game some time around late January / early February. He describes the flow of the game, and names specific goal scorers leading to a Canadiens win. Now there was a Montreal / Toronto game on Feb. 3/79 which fits the timeline. But the box score is all wrong. The real game didn't unfold the way Dryden described. The goal scorers didn't match.

Next he says the team went to Boston. But they didn't. Their next game was in Washington. They didn't go to Boston for nearly two more months. He also described a home game against Colorado earlier in the season that he tried to lose single handedly, surrendering numerous bad goals but they escaped with what he called a 6-5 victory. Except the closest real game to that would have been in December, the Habs did win only 3-2, but Dryden didn't even play that night. Nor was Dryden in goal during the other Colorado / Montreal game in Montreal that season.

It's knocking me right out of the flow of the book. Just how many times did he get a puck in the head that season?

Dryden sets the book in a 9 day period, but it isn't any particular 9 day period, as you've discovered. And, therefore, the games, etc. aren't accurate, at least not per those particular days.

 

[Staniowski]

This blogger beat you to the fact-checking by 10 years; see the 8 historical accuracy points following his literary critiques. I never thought The Game was the best hockey book as many claim, but I also never considered Dryden's hockey action descriptions to be more than a frame for the story he was attempting to paint.

And many others beat that blogger by 28 years.

 

[The Panther]

I have to say, based on my limited exposure to Dryden's writing, that I find him (a) really intelligent and fair-minded, and (b) a dull writer.

Like, how do you tell Scotty Bowman's life and history in hockey and make it boring? Dryden somehow did it. Okay, in fairness, Scotty didn't give him much help, but still just telling Bowman's amazing hockey life should be a page-turner. But, no.

I read large chunks, if not all, of The Game back when I was about 11 or 12, and I recall finding it kind of stuffy, as well, though perhaps I should give it another look.

 

[hacksaw7]

Dryden is all those things. Very intelligent but man is he dull. Can you imagine being a pro hockey player, backstopping the Habs to Cups and all you want to do during that period is bury your nose in thousands of pages of legal nonsense? I mean sure to him that was interesting. He found it entertaining and enlightening I'm sure. But what a bore he was

 

[reckoning]

In Brian Kilrea's book, he talks about how he played in one game for Detroit in the 1950s. And how he only only got one shift late in the game, but it was on a line with Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay. He talks what great guys they were and what a thrill it was to have one shift with them.

The only problem was that Ted Lindsay had been traded to Chicago the year before. Does that invalidate everything he said? No. I'm sure he got to know Howe and Lindsay at multiple Wings training camps in the 50s, and his recollections about them as people were legit. He's just mistaken about the game.

It's best just to focus on what the overall message is, and not get hung up on the details. Many players don't remember specifics about certain events that us fans do.

There's lots of details about my job and people I used to work with years ago that I don't remember now.

 

[Jim MacDonald]

My thoughts on The Game are positive. Maybe I had "prepared" expectation going in, as beforehand I read/heard Dryden described as a "colorless" personality. However, I enjoyed the descriptions of Lafleur, Bowman, Gainey......the talk of a good "good team" goalie versus a good "bad team" goalie. Even showing props to Orr and Esposito too! If you pay attention/worry about the statistical accuracy/minutae, don't you miss out on the opportunity for you mind to visualize what you read? Just food for thought I suppose. I find it a really good read.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I can recall reading "Ball Four", Jim Bouton's controversial baseball book about his 1969 season with the Seattle Pilots. I was a senior in high school and I just loved all the sophomoric humor and insider stuff. But when I came across facts that I knew were wrong, it did take away from my enjoyment a bit.

When reading The Game I didn't realize there were factual errors. I enjoyed that read completely.

 

[Bring Back Bucky]

I found his book pretentious and that he tried too hard to be sincere and “real”. That was my first read at 15 or 16. My opinion didn’t change in subsequent readings.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

No disrespect to Dryden, but man, what was up with that guy? Just seemed to be an athlete that showed up at the right place, right time, and then he was done with it all.

Even Esposito said in the Summit Series documentary that the guy was a hermit. Never talked to anyone.

 

[double5son10]

Loved The Game but I'm an admitted Dryden fanboy (meeting him as a kid is the reason I became a goalie). Yes, Dryden is undoubtedly long-winded, pompous even but his intelligence and aloufness probably are in part why he's such a fine observer of the sport, at least imv. I never saw his descriptions of games in the book as play by play historical accounts, but more impressions of games, his sensations of being in and trying to stay in games. It's probably the least important aspect of the book. I think it shines when he describes team dynamics, in the locker room, on the road and on the ice. His admiration of the Russians, particularly for the time, is admirable and on point. Dryden's look at Bowman and how he manipulated players, how uncharismatic but brilliant Scotty was in coaching that team, really was a great depiction. And how Savard and Lapointe were the teams counter balance to Bowman's autocracy.

That said I'd agree with Panther that Dryden's Scotty was a bit of a disappointment, particularly in comparison to the Douglas Hunter biography which I found really insightful. There are few insights in to how Bowman thinks the game, such as lines not being 1-4, but scoring 1&2 checking 1&2 and that Bowman views his own late 70s dynasty as the best team ever because of its checking/defensive game, and there is some good stuff about his development as a coach in the minors and as a scout. Yet Dryden really gives Scotty a pass for his failures as a GM in St. Louis and Buffalo. Neither are really delved into, nor is Ken's confrontation with Scotty in '73 (which if memory serves is dicussed in The Game) or his exit from Montreal, so it's hard to glean much about his personality if all you wish to talk about is his successes. It seems like half the story, really.

 

[buffalowing88]

Dryden is all those things. Very intelligent but man is he dull. Can you imagine being a pro hockey player, backstopping the Habs to Cups and all you want to do during that period is bury your nose in thousands of pages of legal nonsense? I mean sure to him that was interesting. He found it entertaining and enlightening I'm sure. But what a bore he was

You get the feeling, even while reading the book, that he was missing out on all the interesting stuff. He came across like a reporter...which is fine...but he was actually in the lockeroom.

 

[buffalowing88]

Loved The Game but I'm an admitted Dryden fanboy (meeting him as a kid is the reason I became a goalie). Yes, Dryden is undoubtedly long-winded, pompous even but his intelligence and aloufness probably are in part why he's such a fine observer of the sport, at least imv. I never saw his descriptions of games in the book as play by play historical accounts, but more impressions of games, his sensations of being in and trying to stay in games. It's probably the least important aspect of the book. I think it shines when he describes team dynamics, in the locker room, on the road and on the ice. His admiration of the Russians, particularly for the time, is admirable and on point. Dryden's look at Bowman and how he manipulated players, how uncharismatic but brilliant Scotty was in coaching that team, really was a great depiction. And how Savard and Lapointe were the teams counter balance to Bowman's autocracy.

That said I'd agree with Panther that Dryden's Scotty was a bit of a disappointment, particularly in comparison to the Douglas Hunter biography which I found really insightful. There are few insights in to how Bowman thinks the game, such as lines not being 1-4, but scoring 1&2 checking 1&2 and that Bowman views his own late 70s dynasty as the best team ever because of its checking/defensive game, and there is some good stuff about his development as a coach in the minors and as a scout. Yet Dryden really gives Scotty a pass for his failures as a GM in St. Louis and Buffalo. Neither are really delved into, nor is Ken's confrontation with Scotty in '73 (which if memory serves is dicussed in The Game) or his exit from Montreal, so it's hard to glean much about his personality if all you wish to talk about is his successes. It seems like half the story, really.

Did a great job with team dynamics and how that factors into a run and continued excellence. I thought he did cover Scotty well enough in that period but I don't remember him touching on him afterwards. I know he certainly has in further interviews. At the end of the day, Dryden knew Scotty's tactics and I'm sure that pissed him off to some extent, but there's a whole world of that guy to discuss after the fact which really changed my opinion of him. Not always for the best, but certainly for some degree of appreciation.

He essentially retooled a dominant Sabres club into a competitive organization when they otherwise should have been dwindling. Then he captained a dynasty in Pittsburgh and did some of the most incredible coaching in NHL history with Detroit. Dryden saw the forest, instead of the trees, when he spoke well of him. He just didn't always focus on that. But my GOD if he speaks one more time in that book about Yvan. Such a man crush.

 

[The Panther]

He essentially retooled a dominant Sabres club into a competitive organization when they otherwise should have been dwindling. Then he captained a dynasty in Pittsburgh and did some of the most incredible coaching in NHL history with Detroit. Dryden saw the forest, instead of the trees, when he spoke well of him. He just didn't always focus on that. But my GOD if he speaks one more time in that book about Yvan. Such a man crush.

I mean, I like Bowman, but a few counter-points:
-- The Sabres had already been very successful before Bowman got there. It's true that Bowman re-energized them and had a few strong seasons, but he also (a) started a revolving door of hire-and-fire coaches who didn't satisfy him, inserting himself in between them and basically de-stabilizing the team for years, and (b) ran the Sabres into the ground by 1986. When he was fired the following spring, Buffalo was the worst team in the NHL.
-- The Penguins were not a dynasty. And Bowman was out-matched by Al Albour in 1993.
-- Bowman was the key thinker in Detroit, for sure, but there were only about 5 teams that had a financially realistic chance of winning the Cup back then, and Detroit had by far the deepest line-up. (Bowman does deserve a lot of credit for assembling that line-up, however.)

 

[MeHateHe]

No disrespect to Dryden, but man, what was up with that guy? Just seemed to be an athlete that showed up at the right place, right time, and then he was done with it all.

Even Esposito said in the Summit Series documentary that the guy was a hermit. Never talked to anyone.

Some people are introverts, who don't deal well with social situations. Not everyone likes to be the life of the party. Dryden could stop the puck, and he was a smart guy who recognized at a young enough age that there was more to life than hockey. I'm not sure why anyone would think it necessary to rag on him for that.

 

[Smirnov2Chistov]

Some people are introverts, who don't deal well with social situations. Not everyone likes to be the life of the party. Dryden could stop the puck, and he was a smart guy who recognized at a young enough age that there was more to life than hockey. I'm not sure why anyone would think it necessary to rag on him for that.

Wasn't necessarily ragging on him per se, it's just in my limited viewings of Dryden, he seems very (as what @double5son10 said) aloof and distant when it came to the game. He is still in my eyes considered a great of the game, but I wish he played even longer.

 

[hacksaw7]

Wasn't necessarily ragging on him per se, it's just in my limited viewings of Dryden, he seems very (as what @double5son10 said) aloof and distant when it came to the game. He is still in my eyes considered a great of the game, but I wish he played even longer.

He probably bowed out at the right time though, the Habs dynasty was winding down. He was 31 and his play was starting to slip. He didn't want to get exposed...and I suspect he would've to some extent been once the high flying 80's arrived

 

[double5son10]

He probably bowed out at the right time though, the Habs dynasty was winding down. He was 31 and his play was starting to slip. He didn't want to get exposed...and I suspect he would've to some extent been once the high flying 80's arrived

Fear of getting "exposed" had nothing to do with Dryden retiring. As is clear in The Game he was already considering retiring after the third straight cup in '78, and was convinced to return by management. Dryden retired because there was nothing left to prove after 6 cups in 8 yrs and he had other interests he wanted to pursue. If he was so worried about being exposed he wouldn't have approached the Soviet authorities about going and training in Russia. As for the high flying 80s, Montreal continued to be a very good defensive team. The hydra of mediocrity that was Herron, Larocque, Sevigny & Wamsley won a Vezina and the initial Jennings trophy and collectively that bunch wasn't anywhere near as good as Dryden was. *** If he plays to say 35 he's winning those awards, just doesn't likely wind up with more Cups, but either way his legacy would've been stellar.

Regarding his aloofness, his being "different", welcome to the wonderful world of goaltenders. None of Sawchuck, Plante, Hasek, Roy, Thomas were known to be particularly good teammates or locker room presences. As long as their teammates believed in them on the ice, that's all that mattered.


***thinking about this the Vezina was changed from goalie(s) surrendering fewest goals to "best" goaltender. The Jennings then became the trophy to recognize the previous distinction. In a world of the purely theoretical Dryden winning the Vezina in '81 instead of the committee of Herron, Sevigny, Larocque, does the change in awards even happen? A Dryden/Larocque tandem wouldn't lead to the impetus for change as Dryden at the very least is considered a "legitimate" Vezina winner. Montreal surrenders the fewest goals against again the following year (the Herron/Wamsley Jennings) so Dryden theoretically wins back to back Vezinas and ties Plante for the record with 7. Just a thought.

 

[The Panther]

As for the high flying 80s, Montreal continued to be a very good defensive team.

This is correct.

1981-82 -- the highest-scoring season in modern history, and three years after Dryden retired -- saw Montreal as the NHL's best defensive club, giving up 223 goals, or 2.79 per game. In 2020, that would have tied them with the NY Islanders for one of the better defences in the League.

How good were they defensively? They had Brian Engblom, Rod Langway, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, Robert Picard, and Gaston Gingras. They made Rick Wamsley a Jennings winner.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

This is correct.

1981-82 -- the highest-scoring season in modern history, and three years after Dryden retired -- saw Montreal as the NHL's best defensive club, giving up 223 goals, or 2.79 per game. In 2020, that would have tied them with the NY Islanders for one of the better defences in the League.

How good were they defensively? They had Brian Engblom, Rod Langway, Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, Robert Picard, and Gaston Gingras. They made Rick Wamsley a Jennings winner.

They also had Bob Gainey and Doug Jarvis up front.

 

[cupcrazyman]

Is it me or did Dryden let in some week goals vs Toronto especially at MLG ?

 

[reckoning]

Is it me or did Dryden let in some week goals vs Toronto especially at MLG ?

Dryden's record against Toronto was 22-2-9 with a .934 save percentage. Any soft goals he let in were few and far between.