MLD2011 Finals - Eden Hall Warriors vs Regina Capitals

[seventieslord]

In his profile, I don't talk about Evans' "12th place" finish in 1957 with 1 point - I always omit seasons with only 1 voting point, I'm talking about his 12th place finish in 1961 with 3 points. (His name is spelled wrong in the thread for that year, so I don't blame you for missing it).

gotcha. ok, it's legit.

I have no idea where the 13th place finish you have for Armstrong comes from - not on the HOH board.

recently released: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=36242672&postcount=556

and this one is for all-star voting... same thing, really.

According to the thread on the HOH board, Evans has 19 points for the Norris over the course of his career (15+3+1). Armstrong also has 19 points for the Norris over the course of his career (12+4+3). I don't see how you can say that they aren't close - they played at the same time so point totals can be directly compared.

no, they are close. You're right, my search didn't yield the word "Evens" so I got confused.

Still, we're talking three significant seasons in voting versus two. It is advantage Armstrong, even if it's close.

When you drafted Armstrong after we drafted Evans, didn't you say you had wanted Evans more? What happened?

more info came out... plus I was not done compiling the info that had already come out.

I wouldn't call the 4 to 0 difference in seasons in the 70th percentile "marginal." Isn't one of those Roberts seasons a crude conversion for the WHA?

the two with asterisks, they are likely only his 5th and 6th-most significant offensive seasons.

Contributing more on offense doesn't make Portland a better overall player, it just shows that Buswell must have been better defensively to have a similar All-Star record. I can't believe you're actually trying to say that the 381-368 difference in games between the two players is meaningful. It's nice that Portland contributed to a Stanley Cup as a secondary player, but IMO, it's countered by the fact that Buswell was captain of the Canadiens for a season (a more individualized accomplishment than being a secondary player on a Cup winner IMO).

ok on the GP. Secondary player? no, that was the year Portland was 5th in voting, so although that still placed him behind teammates Shore and Clapper, he was hardly a "secondary player" if his league-wide standing was that high.

Is this misdirection to attempt to distract us from the fact that Campbell's 2nd best season was a lot better than any season Gibbs ever had?

Campbell was the #1 defenseman on the President's Trophy winner in 2007. By your own methods, that was a great season!

Absolutely, it's a great season. But was he really a top-4 d-man? Better than Pronger, for example?

Yes, I do think it's very reasonable to think the #1 on the President's Trophy winner was the 9th or 10th best defenseman in the NHL that season.

20th would be reasonable. He was still considered very suspect defensively at this time. Regardless, I said myself that this was better than any Gibbs season (which means I'm being pretty fair to you, acknowledging that the stuff from the 70s should be effectively doubled)

Campbell played in 3 straight All Star games (2 more than Gibbs with tougher competition to make the games than Gibbs), so I think that saying he only had 2 good seasons is a bit... wrong, don't you? Over a 5 year stretch, he had over 90% as many points as prime Niedermayer or Pronger. Only 2 good seasons, my ass.

1. Campbell in 2009 was not an ASG-caliber player, this was just a carryover from the previous season, which happens a lot. He was his own team's 3rd-best defenseman.

2. Take a look at that 1973 ASG roster. All bonafide ATD top-2 pairing guys, plus Dallas Smith, a 3rd-pairing guy, plus Manery and Gibbs. Look at 2009. Chara, Bouwmeester, Kaberle, Komisarek, Markov, Streit, Boyle, Robidas, Souray, Campbell - that's, by my count, an all-time great, four 3rd pairing ATD players, three legit MLD players, one AAA guy, and one who won't get drafted.

3. You're descending into dreakmur territory, getting a little too caught up with point totals here.

"Career paths notwithstanding," nice way to give yourself an out when called on this crap. Do I really need to go through those guys one by one and show how many were past their primes when they played with Gibbs?

sure, go for it. I did the exact same thing for Zhitnik, and only Galley was anywhere close to his prime among those three.

So the highlight of his career was being the #1 on a team that was a little bit over 0.500 3 times. Yeah, he's not even close to as good as Campbell.

no, five times. (3+2)

as opposed to twice #1 of a great team, three times #3 of good/great team, once #5 and PP specialist, otherwise a fringe player.

Not sure why that looks like such a stretch to you.

Who cares? Zhitnik isn't in this series and he's hardly "my boy." Is this another attempt to try to distract us from the fact that Campbell is a much better defenseman than Gibbs?

No, I just know that you think Zhitnik is a top-1000 player (as do I) and if Zhitnik was in this draft you'd surely consider him one of the top-10 defensemen here.

If you're "honest with yourself," you'll admit that Campbell had 2 seasons that absolutely blow Gibbs out of the water - 2006-07 when he was the #1 on a President's Trophy winner and finished 10th in Norris voting, and 2007-08 when he was a 2nd Team All Star. I would take his 2008-09 season over anything Gibbs did quite easily as well.

He was a #3 defenseman! Let's clear the air here: where do you think Campbell truly ranked among all NHL defensemen in overall value delivered in the 2009 season?

And I'd probably take Campbell's 2005-06 season over any of Gibbs - he scored more points than Gibbs ever did playing in a lower scoring league. So by my count, that's 2 seasons where Gibbs can't hold Campbell's jock and 3-4 total seasons for Campbell better than anything Gibbs ever did. And of course, Campbell's 2010 postseason is better than anything Gibbs did in the postseason.

dreak, is that you?

A #5 defenseman in total TOI (but first in PP TOI) capitalizes and scores 44 points and doesn't get a sniff of recognition as an elite player, and that's better than placing 11th or 13th in all-star voting in the 70s?

The only insanity is attempting to discredit Brian Campbell for not being as good as Duncan Keith.

seventies passes to TDMM.... and it skips off his stick and out of play.

want to try again? It's a legitimate question about the differences between the leagues and it's worth looking into. How bad can the defenseman of a .500 team be in a league with poor parity? How good can the #3 defenseman of a good team be in a league with incredible parity? Where is the overlap? You seem to act like there isn't any but I think you know there is some.

Do you actually expect anyone to believe that Gibbs' had 5 seasons better than one when Campbell played in the All Star game and finished 16th in postseason All Star voting? (That would be 2008-09). Oh and Campbell scored 52 points that season. Gibbs' career high is 40, in a higher scoring league. And it's not like Gibbs was a defensive stalwart.

wow, you're really milking that superfluous 16th, aren't you?

How many voting points did he have? I have Bouwmeester at 15th with 7 points. And do you think he deserved to be ahead of Seabrook?

If he was truly the league's #16 defenseman I would agree it was more impressive than anything Gibbs did, but I don't think he was really the league's #16 defenseman.

2009-10 was probably Brian Campbell's 5th best season. He scored 38 points in 68 games. In Gibbs' best offensive season, he scored 40 points in 76 games in a higher scoring league. There is a massive offensive difference between the two. And Gibbs wasn't exactly a defensive stalwart - in his second best season, he scored 38 points (same as Campbell's 5th best only in more games in a higher scoring league), but was on the ice for more goals against than any other defenseman in the league.

Ok, first, why are points so important now all of a sudden? shouldn't we be concerned with overall value?

And yes, a defensive stalwart is exactly what Gibbs was. He played a ton for bad (and slightly over average) teams and yes, he was clearly stretched too thinly by them, but that doesn't make him any worse. Do you think he really went from getting all-star votes in 1973, to being abysmal in 1974 - even though five years after that, he was still a #1 defenseman?

Definte "most." Your only argument is that Campbell didn't deserve his votes in 2006-07... when he was #1 of the best team in the league.

"more than otherwise". I think that most people in the HOH section, for example, if asked, would not name Campbell among their own top-4 for the 2007 season.

Well, it's definitely better to be #1 out of a rotten bunch than #2....

*sigh*... no, not necessarily, but it's an indication at least. I realize there's gray area between "#1 on a .500 team in the 1970s but not an all-star" and "#3 on a good team in modern times" but you don't seem to be willing to work with me on this one, at all. Everything's just "not even close" at this point... regarding these two players, I fear your blinders are on.

And yet Ehrhoff has two seasons over overall play better than anything Sargent did.

That is certainly up for debate.

Ehrhoff has never even had the TOI in one season, that Sargent averaged in his career!

LOL, I knew you would bring this up. And I really don't think that you can use +/- numbers from Vancouver's run as a meaningful sample size. That was such a weird run - the team won lots of close games and lost a lot of blowouts, so every player's +/-s were bad.

true, but he was an outlier in this regard. And it wasn't him getting the tough matchups either, was it?

I think it's important to realize two things:

• Ehrhoff played more playoff games in 2011 than Sargent played in his entire career!
• What's worse? Ehrhoff having a bad plus minus as his team loses in game 7 of the SC finals? Or the trend of Sargent teams advancing farther in the playoffs when he was injured than when he was healthy?

that's just being cheap.

In 76, the Kings won a round without him. In 77, they won a round with him.

In 1980 the Stars got to the semis without him, but it was acknowledged that he would have been a big help, and his 50 games of all-star caliber play were still a part of them even getting there and getting the matchups they did.

In 1981 the stars got to the finals, and he didn't play at all. sounds very similar to the year before, in other words, when did they have him in the lineup and tank? You didn't mention that in 1982 they tanked without him.

Ehrhoff had 2 great seasons - one in San Jose and one in Vancouver. Calling him a PP specialist in San Jose is entirely inaccurate.

Surely you must be talking about 2008, when he was a #2. And they were a very good team. Yes, that is very good. I don't think it's as good as Sargent's three big seasons, or for that matter, Ehrhoff's two seasons as the #1 on a legit contender. Aside from three years, he was just a #4-5 PP specialist.

Okay how about this - Ehrhoff had the best 2 seasons, Sargent had the next best 3.5, then Ehrhoff had the next best 5 seasons (since Sargent wasn't exactly helping his team when he was constantly injured).

no, no, yes, yes.

It's not anywhere near as crystal clear as you think it is, that Ehrhoff was a better player in '10 and '11 as Sargent was in 77, 78, 79, and 80. The dude just finally played over 23 minutes a game for the first time last year.

This is a load of crap and you know it. Doughty had the best top season, but after that Campbell blows him away if we line up their top seasons. Other than Doughty's best season, nothing he did was even close to Campbell's second best.

only all-star voting supports this. I don't think that it passes the eye test.

we agree Doughty's best was better than Campbell's.

last year was Doughty's 2nd-best. He was a #1 in all situations and was definitely a top-10 defensemen in the NHL, likely higher. All-star voting says Campbell was in 2008 - I don't think he was.

as a rookie Doughty was not a huge offensive threat but was already a legit #1. Campbell's 3rd-best year has him as a #3 on a cup-winning Chicago team. Individually, I take the Doughty season every time.

naturally, his other three good post lockout years overtake Doughty in the end, but Doughty has peaked higher in his three years.

 

[jarek]

I think what this shows is that we perhaps take all star voting and trophy voting of players that we haven't seen play far too literally. We have the data for Campbell, but some of us don't agree with it. I wonder how often this would be the case for older players if we had actually been able to watch them? Despite all his fancy voting, I'm sure that Doug Harvey had his fair share of horrible games and bad seasons (for his standards). Perhaps he didn't deserve some of his individual recognition either.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

ok on the GP. Secondary player? no, that was the year Portland was 5th in voting, so although that still placed him behind teammates Shore and Clapper, he was hardly a "secondary player" if his league-wide standing was that high.

I doubt Portland was as important as Milt Schmidt, Woody Dumart, Bobby Baeur, Roy Conacher, Bill Cowley, Eddie Shore, Dit Clapper, or Frank Brimsek. That's what I mean by "secondary player." He wasn't a key player but was likely more than a role player.

Absolutely, it's a great season. But was he really a top-4 d-man? Better than Pronger, for example?

Votes for the 2007-08 Norris:

5. Brian Campbell, S.J. 333 (1-18-16-31-24)
8. Chris Pronger, ANA 56 (0-2-5-5-2)

You might have a case if it were close, but it wasn't.

Just because Pronger had a better career doesn't mean he had a better season. I'm sure the 10 games he missed and the excessive penalties he took that year affected the vote totals.

Of course finishing 5th in voting for the Norris and 4th for the AS Teams only means that that's what the hockey writers who vote on the awards thought. But it's the same for every season and every award.

20th would be reasonable. He was still considered very suspect defensively at this time. Regardless, I said myself that this was better than any Gibbs season (which means I'm being pretty fair to you, acknowledging that the stuff from the 70s should be effectively doubled)

He was good enough defensively to lead the best team in the league in ice time.

1. Campbell in 2009 was not an ASG-caliber player, this was just a carryover from the previous season, which happens a lot. He was his own team's 3rd-best defenseman.

That's your opinion, not the opinion of the NHL GMs who selected him to play in the All Star game, or the several hockey writers who gave him votes for the All Star team.

Again, he was the #3 defenseman on his team because he wasn't as good as Duncan Keith and was the wrong type of player to play with Keith. Barry Gibbs would have been the #3 if he were in Campbell's place too.

2. Take a look at that 1973 ASG roster. All bonafide ATD top-2 pairing guys, plus Dallas Smith, a 3rd-pairing guy, plus Manery and Gibbs. Look at 2009. Chara, Bouwmeester, Kaberle, Komisarek, Markov, Streit, Boyle, Robidas, Souray, Campbell - that's, by my count, an all-time great, four 3rd pairing ATD players, three legit MLD players, one AAA guy, and one who won't get drafted.

Comparing the careers of guys who finished theirs and retired with guys who are still playing and still have much to add to their legacy? Awesome. The 2009 ASG roster would look a lot better if guys like Lidstrom and Pronger didn't skip it and the fans didn't vote Komisarek a starter. Campbell was one of a selection of guys picked by General Managers to play.

3. You're descending into dreakmur territory, getting a little too caught up with point totals here.

When there's no proof that Gibbs was any better than Campbell defensively at even strength, yeah, I'll look at points.

Campbell's lack of size keeps him from being good in front of the net, so yeah, Gibbs is a better PK option. Good thing we don't need Campbell on the PK.

no, five times. (3+2)

as opposed to twice #1 of a great team, three times #3 of good/great team, once #5 and PP specialist, otherwise a fringe player.

#1 of a great team > ( #3 of a great team / #1 of a mediocre team) > #5/PP specialist

Basically, you have no basis for claiming that Campbell's seasons in Chicago were any worse than Gibbs' best seasons. Gibbs would have been the #3 in Chicago too.

No, I just know that you think Zhitnik is a top-1000 player (as do I) and if Zhitnik was in this draft you'd surely consider him one of the top-10 defensemen here.

I don't necessarily think Zhitnik is a top 1000 player; really haven't thought about it. I definitely wouldn't think he was a top 10 defenseman at the MLD level - above average, sure, but not top 10. I already said that he was a lazy pick when I drafted him in the ATD as my spare - I needed someone who could competently play both special teams and was familiar with Zhitnik from drafting him before. I was well-aware that Brian Campbell was available and a superior player to Zhitnik, but Campbell can't very well kill penalties at the ATD level. Zhitnik can (as a spare only!)

He was a #3 defenseman! Let's clear the air here: where do you think Campbell truly ranked among all NHL defensemen in overall value delivered in the 2009 season?

I don't really care where he ranked in terms of value to his team - I care how good he was. Guy Lapointe was probably less valuable to his team than Gibbs was to his, but even Gibbs' mother would pick Lapointe if she wanted to win a hockey game.

Do you really think that Gibbs, even at his best, would have been anything but a #3 on Chicago?

dreak, is that you?

A #5 defenseman in total TOI (but first in PP TOI) capitalizes and scores 44 points and doesn't get a sniff of recognition as an elite player, and that's better than placing 11th or 13th in all-star voting in the 70s?

I was unaware of Campbell's lack of ice time at even strength in 2005-06. That was definitely not a better season than either of Gibbs' 2 best seasons. I would still take Campbell's 06-07, 07-08 and 08-09 over anything Gibbs did.

What's with all the Dreakmur references? Some would consider that flaming.

want to try again? It's a legitimate question about the differences between the leagues and it's worth looking into. How bad can the defenseman of a .500 team be in a league with poor parity? How good can the #3 defenseman of a good team be in a league with incredible parity? Where is the overlap? You seem to act like there isn't any but I think you know there is some.

Worse than at other times in history, considering all the best players were loaded on stacked teams like the Canadiens and Bruins. Gibbs joined the North Stars 2 seasons after they were an expansion team, then was traded to the Flames 2 seasons after they were an expansion team.

I think Gibbs is a fine #4, but considering how stacked these teams are otherwise defensively, he sticks out like a sore thumb.

wow, you're really milking that superfluous 16th, aren't you?

4 writers gave Brian Campbell votes in that "superfluous" season. That's more writers than gave Bob Armstrong votes in all but his best season, and you certainly don't see to think Armstrong's 2nd and 3rd best finishes in voting are "superfluous."

How many voting points did he have? I have Bouwmeester at 15th with 7 points. And do you think he deserved to be ahead of Seabrook?

Of course he didn't deserve to be ahead of Seabrook - they provided similar value to Chicago that regular season, but the Norris votes have been biased towards more offensive guys since at least the mid 80s. The 4 votes when combined with the fact that the NHL GMs selected him to play in the All Star game is evidence of a good season, nothing more.

Ok, first, why are points so important now all of a sudden? shouldn't we be concerned with overall value?

Offense is the main difference between Campbell and Gibbs at even strength. Gibbs is more physical too, which by itself isn't nearly as important as offense or defense.

And yes, a defensive stalwart is exactly what Gibbs was. He played a ton for bad (and slightly over average) teams and yes, he was clearly stretched too thinly by them, but that doesn't make him any worse.

Defensive stalwarts don't finish 1st, 2nd,* 7th in goals scored against their teams when they are on the ice.

*to a historical outlier

Do you think he really went from getting all-star votes in 1973, to being abysmal in 1974 - even though five years after that, he was still a #1 defenseman?

I don't think he was ever abysmal. I just don't think he's as good as you think he is. Gibbs clearly shouldn't have been a #1 defenseman in the seasons he had such high goals-against numbers - that is pretty clearcut evidence he was playing over his head!

"more than otherwise". I think that most people in the HOH section, for example, if asked, would not name Campbell among their own top-4 for the 2007 season.

I assume you mean 2007-08. Awards voting tends to take a little while to catch up to what a player actually did. IMO, Campbell could have finished higher than the 10th he finished in 2006-07 and lower than the 5th he finished in 2007-08.

*sigh*... no, not necessarily, but it's an indication at least. I realize there's gray area between "#1 on a .500 team in the 1970s but not an all-star" and "#3 on a good team in modern times" but you don't seem to be willing to work with me on this one, at all. Everything's just "not even close" at this point... regarding these two players, I fear your blinders are on.

And I fear your blinders are on, my friend. I just don't see how you can think Gibbs would see any more ice time than Campbell on the Chicago Blackhawks. And we both agree that Campbell's 2 seasons before he joined Chicago are much better than anything Gibbs did, right?

That is certainly up for debate.

Ehrhoff has never even had the TOI in one season, that Sargent averaged in his career!

Are we forgetting now how much higher average ice times in the early 80s were than today?

How did Sargent rank among his peers in ice time? I honestly don't know the answer to this one?

Did Sargent ever play on top 4s as good as Ehrhoff did in San Jose and Vancouver? I'm pretty sure he didn't.

true, but he was an outlier in this regard. And it wasn't him getting the tough matchups either, was it?

No, Ehrhoff definitely didn't get the tough matchups. I honestly thought he was never the same after the injury against San Jose, but I'm not sure.

If Ehrhoff having the worst plus minus on a team that almost won the Cup is bad, surely Campbell have the best plus minus on a Cup winner is good, right?

that's just being cheap.

In 76, the Kings won a round without him. In 77, they won a round with him.

In 1980 the Stars got to the semis without him, but it was acknowledged that he would have been a big help, and his 50 games of all-star caliber play were still a part of them even getting there and getting the matchups they did.

In 1981 the stars got to the finals, and he didn't play at all. sounds very similar to the year before, in other words, when did they have him in the lineup and tank? You didn't mention that in 1982 they tanked without him.

LOL, yeah it was definitely a cheap shot. Just pointing out that perhaps Sargent wasn't as vital to his team as his ice time estimates would indicate. We have a pretty good idea of how they did without him. Obviously, it's not his fault when they lost with him.

Surely you must be talking about 2008, when he was a #2. And they were a very good team. Yes, that is very good. I don't think it's as good as Sargent's three big seasons, or for that matter, Ehrhoff's two seasons as the #1 on a legit contender. Aside from three years, he was just a #4-5 PP specialist.

Yup, Ehrhoff has only had 3 noteworthy seasons in his career.

Of course, Sargent only had 3.5 noteworthy seasons himself.

And while Ehrhoff's time as a specialist doesn't add that much to his legacy, I'll take it over what Sargent was doing when not having noteworthy seasons: sitting out injured.

It's not anywhere near as crystal clear as you think it is, that Ehrhoff was a better player in '10 and '11 as Sargent was in 77, 78, 79, and 80. The dude just finally played over 23 minutes a game for the first time last year.

I'll take 77-80 games per season of Ehrhoff over the 52 games that Sargent played in 1979-80 quite easily.

only all-star voting supports this. I don't think that it passes the eye test.

Right, the "unbiased" seventieslord eyeball test.

we agree Doughty's best was better than Campbell's.

Of course.

last year was Doughty's 2nd-best. He was a #1 in all situations and was definitely a top-10 defensemen in the NHL, likely higher. All-star voting says Campbell was in 2008 - I don't think he was.

You've got to be the biggest Doughty fan on this site. No, I don't think he was top 10 in the NHL last season. Norris voting, All Star voting, and my eyes confirm that. It just took him too long to recover fully from the injury. I would definitely take Ehrhoff's 2010-11 over Doughty's

Campbell was a 2nd Team All Star in 2007-08 and finished 5th in Norris voting. Even if you think that's a little bit high for him, it's a huge stretch to say he was not top 10. The GM of Chicago certainly thought he was top 10 when he gave him that albatross contract after the season.

Or are you talking about 2006-07, when Campbell was 10th in Norris voting and was the #1 on the best team in the league?

So whichever season you think was Campbell's 2nd best, it was definitely better than Doughty's second best.

as a rookie Doughty was not a huge offensive threat but was already a legit #1. Campbell's 3rd-best year has him as a #3 on a cup-winning Chicago team. Individually, I take the Doughty season every time.

Individually, I'll take Campbell's 2008-09 season every time. He scored 52 points and was selected to play in the All Star game. Doughty was only the #1 on LA as a rookie because the team sucked.

naturally, his other three good post lockout years overtake Doughty in the end, but Doughty has peaked higher in his three years.

Doughty has the best single year peak, but it's only one season. His second best season was probably about as good as Campbell's 3rd best. I have no doubt that Doughty will have a better career than Campbell if he avoids injury - possibly much better. But he hasn't yet.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think what this shows is that we perhaps take all star voting and trophy voting of players that we haven't seen play far too literally. We have the data for Campbell, but some of us don't agree with it. I wonder how often this would be the case for older players if we had actually been able to watch them? Despite all his fancy voting, I'm sure that Doug Harvey had his fair share of horrible games and bad seasons (for his standards). Perhaps he didn't deserve some of his individual recognition either.

The All Star and Norris records just show what the professional writers who watch the games think about the players. You definitely need to account for the biases involved, such as the bias against defensive defensemen in the voting since the mid 1980s.

I do take All Star and Norris voting more seriously before expansion, as every team played each other 14 times in the original 6 period, so writers got to watch everyone quite often.

 

[jarek]

He was good enough defensively to lead the best team in the league in ice time.

At best, this is circumstantial.

And I fear your blinders are on, my friend. I just don't see how you can think Gibbs would see any more ice time than Campbell on the Chicago Blackhawks. And we both agree that Campbell's 2 seasons before he joined Chicago are much better than anything Gibbs did, right?

And how would Campbell have fared in the 80s' on Gibbs' team? Probably worse.. how do I know this? I only have to look at what he did on a terrible Buffalo team before he turned 27. Yeah.. when he couldn't crack 17 minutes per game.

Or are you talking about 2006-07, when Campbell was 10th in Norris voting and was the #1 on the best team in the league?

And it's high time someone applied your logic against you. Campbell might have been first on that team.. but who was he better than? Henrik Tallinder, Teppo Numminen and Toni Lydman. None of these guys, except Numminen, will see ATD duty. The "competition for ice time" on that team wasn't much better than what Gibbs' had to deal with, as far as I can tell. Numminen at the tail end of his career, and two guys who would barely crack any other lineup. Campbell got all the PP time in the world to pad his stats (which he failed at, IIRC), and was otherwise getting points by feeding passes to two stacked forward lines, and was used as the #1 because nobody else was better. Make no mistake - Miller and their ridiculous offense carried that team, not Campbell.

Did Sargent ever play on top 4s as good as Ehrhoff did in San Jose and Vancouver? I'm pretty sure he didn't.

Ehrhoff wasn't exactly competing with excellent defensemen for ice time.

Since 07-08:

When Campbell arrived, he started smoking Ehrhoff for ice time. Otherwise, Vlasic, Rivet, McLaren were behind him, and seconds separated him, Vlasic and Rivet.
Boyle and Vlasic were smoking him in TOI/G, and an aging Rob Blake beat him as well. He was a #3-4 this year.
Ehrhoff beating a young Edler, Mitchell and Bieksa isn't exactly world beating, and he wasn't 1st by much. The top-4 guys on this group all had very comparable TOI/G.
And finally.. Edler and Ehrhoff comfortably in 1st in TOI/G, the only real year that he was a clear cut top pairing d-man, and Edler was actually beating him in TOI/G by a hair. Hamhuis and Bieksa rounded out the top-4.

 

[Dreakmur]

At best, this is circumstantial.

Kind of like the assumption that leading a team in icetime automatically makes you good?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

At best, this is circumstantial.

It's a much bigger feather in his cap than leading a mediocre team in ice time.

Somewhat related:

In 2009-10 when Chicago won the Cup, Campbell actually tied with Brent Seabrook for 2nd on the team in average ice time in the regular season. That team was 5th in the league in goals against and 2nd in the league (after the regular season wonder Capitals) in goal differential. And this was not one of the 3 seasons in which Campbell was selected to play in the All Star game.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And how would Campbell have fared in the 80s' on Gibbs' team? Probably worse.. how do I know this? I only have to look at what he did on a terrible Buffalo team before he turned 27. Yeah.. when he couldn't crack 17 minutes per game.

1. Gibbs played in the 1970s, not the 1980s. It's kinda important - it's why I keep harping on his relative lack of competition for awards recognition and how most of the league's best players were concentrated on a few teams. If you still didn't realize that, then it really doesn't seem like you are interested in anything going on in this series, other than anti-Campbell trolling.
2. So now we're judging Brian Campbell on what he did before he was in his prime? Do we get to do that to every player or just the guy who apparently slept with your sister?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

.
And it's high time someone applied your logic against you. Campbell might have been first on that team.. but who was he better than? Henrik Tallinder, Teppo Numminen and Toni Lydman. None of these guys, except Numminen, will see ATD duty. The "competition for ice time" on that team wasn't much better than what Gibbs' had to deal with, as far as I can tell. Numminen at the tail end of his career, and two guys who would barely crack any other lineup. Campbell got all the PP time in the world to pad his stats (which he failed at, IIRC), and was otherwise getting points by feeding passes to two stacked forward lines, and was used as the #1 because nobody else was better. Make no mistake - Miller and their ridiculous offense carried that team, not Campbell.

And where did Gibbs carry his team?

Ehrhoff wasn't exactly competing with excellent defensemen for ice time.

When Campbell arrived, he started smoking Ehrhoff for ice time. Otherwise, Vlasic, Rivet, McLaren.

Wait, I thought Campbell sucked?

Boyle and Vlasic were smoking him in TOI/G, and an aging Rob Blake beat him as well. He was a #3-4 this year.

Boyle, Vlasic, Blake, Ehrhoff - most people who actually watched the games thought that was one of the best top 4s in the league.

San Jose traded Ehrhoff because they were so stacked, they didn't need him. Edit: They needed to cut cap space and were stacked on D. They obviously would have kept him without the cap.

Ehrhoff beating a young Edler, Mitchell and Bieksa isn't exactly world beating, and he wasn't 1st by much. The top-4 guys on this group all had very comparable TOI/G.
And finally.. Edler and Ehrhoff comfortably in 1st in TOI/G, the only real year that he was a clear cut top pairing d-man, and Edler was actually beating him in TOI/G by a hair. Hamhuis and Bieksa rounded out the top-4.

So basically, he was a top guy on great teams like we said.

 

[overpass]

And it's high time someone applied your logic against you. Campbell might have been first on that team.. but who was he better than? Henrik Tallinder, Teppo Numminen and Toni Lydman. None of these guys, except Numminen, will see ATD duty. The "competition for ice time" on that team wasn't much better than what Gibbs' had to deal with, as far as I can tell. Numminen at the tail end of his career, and two guys who would barely crack any other lineup. Campbell got all the PP time in the world to pad his stats (which he failed at, IIRC), and was otherwise getting points by feeding passes to two stacked forward lines, and was used as the #1 because nobody else was better. Make no mistake - Miller and their ridiculous offense carried that team, not Campbell.

Are you seriously suggesting that Henrik Tallinder and Toni Lydman would barely crack any other team's lineup? They were solid defensive defencemen who played against the other team's top lines every night, and every coach in the NHL would have loved to have either one on his team. They would have been top-4 on most other NHL teams, maybe bottom pairing on a stacked team.

Did you ever watch those Buffalo teams play?

 

[vecens24]

Oh, well at least I thought jarek said he had better things to do than troll Campbell. Good stuff. Absolute joke. You clearly have no idea the impact Campbell had on those Buffalo teams. The year he was the number one in ice time, they were also the number one offensive team in the NHL by a far margin I believe. Do we seriously not think that had a lot to do with Campbell's puck rushing and moving abilities? And you also clearly never watched the Sabres if you think Lydman (who WILL eventually get drafted in this thing) and Tallinder wouldn't have cracked other teams' rosters, let alone most other teams top 4s.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I can't wait until tomorrow when we start talking about forwards.

 

[jarek]

Kind of like the assumption that leading a team in icetime automatically makes you good?

When did I EVER say that? That is seventies' position, not mine.

It's a much bigger feather in his cap than leading a mediocre team in ice time.

It doesn't mean he was good defensively.

Somewhat related:

In 2009-10 when Chicago won the Cup, Campbell actually tied with Brent Seabrook for 2nd on the team in average ice time in the regular season. That team was 5th in the league in goals against and 2nd in the league (after the regular season wonder Capitals) in goal differential. And this was not one of the 3 seasons in which Campbell was selected to play in the All Star game.

That had a lot more to do with the very responsible forwards and Keith/Seabrook, who played against the other teams' best players. Campbell was also getting better defensively by this time, so this shouldn't surprise anyone.

1. Gibbs played in the 1970s, not the 1980s. It's kinda important - it's why I keep harping on his relative lack of competition for awards recognition and how most of the league's best players were concentrated on a few teams. If you still didn't realize that, then it really doesn't seem like you are interested in anything going on in this series, other than anti-Campbell trolling.
2. So now we're judging Brian Campbell on what he did before he was in his prime? Do we get to do that to every player or just the guy who apparently slept with your sister?

Point 1: Sorry, my mistake. I still do not submit to this idea of relativism for many things, and I probably never will.

Point 2: Don't you? If we only want to look at the good seasons that players played, then why do we count the seasons that players played poorly and use it against them when it comes time to arguing? Specifically, poor playoffs. How do we even determine what "prime" is? When they get good? So in other words, when it's convenient. The awful seasons that players had don't just disappear, and they should certainly count for something.. otherwise, what's the point of continuing the draft after Bobby Orr gets taken? Nobody could stop Orr in his prime.

And where did Gibbs carry his team?

I'm not defending Gibbs here, I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic, and how they can be used against you in the same way. What Gibbs did not do is what Gibbs did not do, but Gibbs also did quite a lot of good things in his career too. If he was leading his teams in ice time for so many years, that means SOMETHING, doesn't it? The same argument you're trying to use for Campbell..

Wait, I thought Campbell sucked?

I don't even know what to say to this. Facts are facts.

Boyle, Vlasic, Blake, Ehrhoff - most people who actually watched the games thought that was one of the best top 4s in the league.

San Jose traded Ehrhoff because they were so stacked, they didn't need him.

So basically, he was a top guy on great teams like we said.

They didn't need a supposedly top flight defenseman, huh? That's great logic.. or maybe they kept Vlasic instead of Ehrhoff because they saw the flaws in Ehrhoff's play and chose to keep the more stable Vlasic?

Moreover, those D-corps were no better than average from my recollection. 1 or 2 good defensemen at the top does not make the whole D-corps. Many teams had much better #1s and #2s.. these defenses were strong because of DEPTH.. not top end talent.. and Ehrhoff could only crack the top pairing once. If I looked harder into it, I bet that he probably led these teams in PP TOI/G, and was outclassed in ES time. In fact, I'll do that right now:

07-08: Vlasic and Campbell, when he arrived, were beating Ehrhoff in ES TOI/G by healthy amounts. Ehrhoff was relegated to the #3 at ES after Campbell. Ehrhoff was 5th in PP TOI/G, and 2nd in SH TOI/G.
08-09: Ehrhoff 2nd in PP TOI/G, 3rd in ES TOI/G, 5th in SH TOI/G.
09-10: Essentially 1st in PP TOI/G, 2nd in ES TOI/G, 4th in SH TOI/G.
10-11: 2nd in PP TOI/G, led the team in ES TOI/G, 5th in SH TOI/G.

Interesting results. Seems like he did fine at ES, but struggled to ever find his way on the PK units.

Are you seriously suggesting that Henrik Tallinder and Toni Lydman would barely crack any other team's lineup? They were solid defensive defencemen who played against the other team's top lines every night, and every coach in the NHL would have loved to have either one on his team. They would have been top-4 on most other NHL teams, maybe bottom pairing on a stacked team.

Did you ever watch those Buffalo teams play?

Of course I watched them play.. the Leafs kept losing 33-2 against them.

I was never impressed with the Buffalo D-corps. The only thing I noticed about them was that Brian Campbell didn't know what "wait for your teammates" meant, and often raced ahead of everyone else. He definitely had wheels. Even though they were stacked at forward and had Campbell, they were only average on the PP, and even worse on the PK. They got by mainly on their even strength play, and Ryan Miller. There were a lot of teams that had better options for D, and the Buffalo guys will never see the ATD. They just weren't that special.

For what it's worth, Lydman was 3rd last year on the Ducks in TOI/G among D, barely ahead of the rookie, Fowler. Beauchemin, who probably also will never see the ATD (and if someone actually did draft him when I wasn't paying attention, god help them), was well ahead of him in TOI/G. Nothing wrong with Beauchemin, but this tells me all I need to know about Lydman. He's a #3-4 on most teams. Both him and Tallinder were just solid, but unspectacular defensemen.. but not all time greats, and they never will be.

I will never understand this love for modern defensive defensemen. We've all seen them play, true.. but there are so many comparable guys, it's not even funny. For my money, I'll take Dan Girardi ahead of both of these guys in an ATD. I think he's better defensively than either of Tallinder or Lydman ever were, and I'm not even sure if he'll ever crack a top-6 in the ATD. Unless you can show me something that proves otherwise, Girardi has actually had notable all time seasons, even if he'll never win an award for what he does.

 

[jarek]

Oh, well at least I thought jarek said he had better things to do than troll Campbell. Good stuff. Absolute joke. You clearly have no idea the impact Campbell had on those Buffalo teams. The year he was the number one in ice time, they were also the number one offensive team in the NHL by a far margin I believe. Do we seriously not think that had a lot to do with Campbell's puck rushing and moving abilities? And you also clearly never watched the Sabres if you think Lydman (who WILL eventually get drafted in this thing) and Tallinder wouldn't have cracked other teams' rosters, let alone most other teams top 4s.

I do know the impact he had. The highest any of those teams placed on the PP was 9th, and Campbell was always tops in PP TOI/G for them on D. They relied a lot on their forwards to score at even strength. Obviously, Campbell's speed and passing ability likely helped them a lot, but in an all time sense, does that make up for his deficiencies in his own zone and his lack of physicality? I don't think so. Campbell should be a specialist on a bottom pairing.. not a defenseman in the top-4.

 

[vecens24]

I do know the impact he had. The highest any of those teams placed on the PP was 9th, and Campbell was always tops in PP TOI/G for them on D. They relied a lot on their forwards to score at even strength. Obviously, Campbell's speed and passing ability likely helped them a lot, but in an all time sense, does that make up for his deficiencies in his own zone and his lack of physicality? I don't think so. Campbell should be a specialist on a bottom pairing.. not a defenseman in the top-4.

You do realize the past two seasons he's been much better right? To the point where he is actually was the Hawks most consistent PKer this year right? Yeah it doesn't make up for the rest of his career but come on here. His deficiencies apparently weren't glaring enough for teams to stop using him. And to say Campbell lacks physicality REALLY makes me think you haven't seen him play. He actually does hit from time to time. Ask Umberger if Campbell lacks physicality. He's not the most physical guy in the world, sure. But to say he actually lacks physicality is awful. His defensive positioning is what causes him issues when he's been bad. His size causes him issues in front of the net sure. A lot of smaller Defensemen have that issue. But you clearly are out of your element saying that he lacks physicality.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Point 2: Don't you? If we only want to look at the good seasons that players played, then why do we count the seasons that players played poorly and use it against them when it comes time to arguing? Specifically, poor playoffs. How do we even determine what "prime" is? When they get good? So in other words, when it's convenient. The awful seasons that players had don't just disappear, and they should certainly count for something.. otherwise, what's the point of continuing the draft after Bobby Orr gets taken? Nobody could stop Orr in his prime.

Orr only won 2 Cups - the Flyers and Canadiens both beat him in his prime.

Whatever "prime" is, it's clear Campbell wasn't in it before the lockout.

I'm not defending Gibbs here, I'm pointing out the flaws in your logic, and how they can be used against you in the same way. What Gibbs did not do is what Gibbs did not do, but Gibbs also did quite a lot of good things in his career too. If he was leading his teams in ice time for so many years, that means SOMETHING, doesn't it? The same argument you're trying to use for Campbell..

Leading a team in ice time means something. Leading a good team in ice time means more.

Interesting results. Seems like he did fine at ES, but struggled to ever find his way on the PK units.

Is Ehrhoff a regular on Eden Hall's PK units?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I do know the impact he had. The highest any of those teams placed on the PP was 9th, and Campbell was always tops in PP TOI/G for them on D. They relied a lot on their forwards to score at even strength. Obviously, Campbell's speed and passing ability likely helped them a lot, but in an all time sense, does that make up for his deficiencies in his own zone and his lack of physicality? I don't think so. Campbell should be a specialist on a bottom pairing.. not a defenseman in the top-4.

If Campbell should be a bottom pairing guy, then Gibbs, a clearly inferior defenseman, should be a spare.

It's not like teams don't win Cups with Campbell on their second pairing, right?

 

[jarek]

You do realize the past two seasons he's been much better right? To the point where he is actually was the Hawks most consistent PKer this year right? Yeah it doesn't make up for the rest of his career but come on here. His deficiencies apparently weren't glaring enough for teams to stop using him. And to say Campbell lacks physicality REALLY makes me think you haven't seen him play. He actually does hit from time to time. Ask Umberger if Campbell lacks physicality. He's not the most physical guy in the world, sure. But to say he actually lacks physicality is awful. His defensive positioning is what causes him issues when he's been bad. His size causes him issues in front of the net sure. A lot of smaller Defensemen have that issue. But you clearly are out of your element saying that he lacks physicality.

The most consistent PK'er that was 7th on the Hawks in SH TOI/G, 4th among D. Campbell also only had 28 hits to his credit last season. If I kept going further back, I doubt that'd change. Obviously, hits isn't the be all and end all of physicality, but it sure is a pretty big part of it. How, exactly, is he physical? I've never really seen it.

Orr only won 2 Cups - the Flyers and Canadiens both beat him in his prime.

Whatever "prime" is, it's clear Campbell wasn't in it before the lockout.

So we should just ignore those years?

Leading a team in ice time means something. Leading a good team in ice time means more.

Agreed.. something Campbell did once.

Is Ehrhoff a regular on Eden Hall's PK units?

No, and thank god for that. He's brutal defensively. Maybe brutal is too strong a word, but he definitely is well below average in my books.

If Campbell should be a bottom pairing guy, then Gibbs, a clearly inferior defenseman, should be a spare.

I don't know enough about Gibbs to comment on this. You may be right. The only reason I don't want Campbell on a 2nd pairing is because the only thing he really brings at any significant level is offense.

It's not like teams don't win Cups with Campbell on their second pairing, right?

Spare me the cup counting. Campbell wasn't the main reason they won. 15th on the team in scoring, 5th among D, 0 PP points, despite 2:21 per game on the PP.. he had better have been AWFULLY good defensively to say that this post season of his was worthy of all time greatness. And didn't you say he was 3rd in TOI/G for the cup winning Hawks among D? He was 4th.. and a distant 4th.

Keith - 28:11
Seabrook - 24:10
Hjalmarsson - 21:00
Campbell - 19:34

I've just lost even more respect for Campbell. He didn't do anything of note in this cup run. Nothing to display all time greatness.

He was much better in 2009.. but still a very distant 3rd in TOI/G for that playoff run. At least he actually did something with his PP time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Did jarek just say that Brian Campbell did nothing of note in Chicago's Cup win?

Does this mean we finally know the answer to markrander's question?

Seriously man, it was barely more than a year ago. You don't remember how Chicago's usually dominant puck possession game went to crap when Campbell was injured? They relied on him to carry the puck possession duties when Keith/Seabrook weren't on the ice.

 

[jarek]

Did jarek just say that Brian Campbell did nothing of note in Chicago's Cup win?

Does this mean we finally know the answer to markrander's question?

Seriously man, it was barely more than a year ago. You don't remember how Chicago's usually dominant puck possession game went to crap when Campbell was injured? They relied on him to carry the puck possession duties when Keith/Seabrook weren't on the ice.

Alright.. and what did he do with that puck? Got a whole 5 points. I would expect a guy that was playing around with the puck that much to get more than 5 points. Moreover, the entire Chicago team must have totally forgotten how to play without Campbell, because he only played 17 minutes at ES. Are you telling me that they forgot how to move the puck for the other 43 minutes as well?

This was not an all time great post season run for Campbell. At all. Nothing will change my opinion of this.

EDIT: He missed the first 3 games of the playoffs. This is hardly enough of a sample size to say that their entire puck possession game went to **** because he wasn't playing. There are a multitude of reasons why this happened. I would like to direct you to how badly Vancouver schooled Chicago in games 1-3 last playoffs, only to win the next 3. Who were they missing then that made them forget how to play hockey for those games?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Since jarek apparently spent the spring of 2010 blacked out, here's an article to remind us about how important Campbell was to Chicago. I had forgotten the details myself, but the article jogged my memory:

Campbell missed the last 14 games of the season from a broken collarbone caused by an Ovechkin hit. He missed the first few games of the playoffs and Chicago went down to Nashville in the first round. Campbell's return was credited with turning things around for Chicago in the first round:

He was eased back into the lineup, hence the relatively low average minutes (much lower than his regular season average), but his impact was large, at least in the first round after he returned.

And has time has progressed, Campbell has become more and more comfortable and in synch with the game.



"By the Vancouver series I started to feel comfortable," Campbell said. "I didn't notice it anymore. Now, I don't do anything special with it anymore."



"His addition to the rush and his pace to the game and joining the offensive zone really gives our team some speed and more puck possession," Hawks coach Joel Quenneville told Tim Sassone of the Arlington Heights Daily Herald. "We really noticed his addition when we got him in Game 4 in Nashville. It turned the series around for us with his energy and pace. It was a big boost for our team, and the timing of when we got him back couldn't have been better."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/05/30/new-math-campbells-return-double-boost/#ixzz1XKpIpmIY

 

[jarek]

Since jarek apparently spent the spring of 2010 blacked out, here's an article to remind us about how important Campbell was to Chicago. I had forgotten the details myself, but the article jogged my memory:

Campbell missed the last 14 games of the season from a broken collarbone caused by an Ovechkin hit. He missed the first few games of the playoffs and Chicago went down to Nashville in the first round. Campbell's return was credited with turning things around for Chicago in the first round:

He was eased back into the lineup, hence the relatively low average minutes (much lower than his regular season average), but his impact was large, at least in the first round after he returned.



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2010/05/30/new-math-campbells-return-double-boost/#ixzz1XKpIpmIY

What a pathetic team, needing a #4 D to come back to remember how to play hockey against an inferior team. They would have adjusted eventually. Good teams always do. If they didn't.. then they aren't a good team. They were more than capable enough without Campbell to win the cup.

Ugh. I'm done talking about Campbell.. and Ehrhoff. I can't do it anymore. It's hurting my brain.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What a pathetic team, needing a #4 D to come back to remember how to play hockey against an inferior team. They would have adjusted eventually. Good teams always do. If they didn't.. then they aren't a good team. They were more than capable enough without Campbell to win the cup.

Campbell was Chicago's co-#2 in the 2009-10 regular season, with the exact same average ice time as Brent Seabrook. He was their #3 in the playoffs once he shook the cobwebs off. Elsewhere in the article I quoted, it mentions how Campbell returned quite a bit earlier from his injury than expected.

And no offense, but I'll believe what Coach Quennville says over what you say about the matter.

Ugh. I'm done talking about Campbell.. and Ehrhoff. I can't do it anymore. It's hurting my brain.

Is that a promise?

Seriously though, this is pointless. You came in here to trash a pair of modern defensemen who happen to play on our team, and you have admitted multiple times that you don't care how they compare to their Regina counterparts (Gibbs and Sargent). So what's the point?

 

[jarek]

Is that a promise?

Just one more thing.. Campbell's ice time distribution in the cup year:

2010-04-22|14:04

2010-04-24|19:11

2010-04-26|19:08

2010-05-01|23:19

2010-05-03|21:22

2010-05-05|18:52

2010-05-07|16:26

2010-05-09|24:49

2010-05-11|19:24

2010-05-16|17:48

2010-05-18|18:24

2010-05-21|23:30

2010-05-23|18:45

2010-05-29|13:07

2010-05-31|16:31

2010-06-02|19:07

2010-06-04|22:30

2010-06-06|23:39

2010-06-09|22:07

Sometimes he was a #2-3.. and other times, he wasn't even a #4. Take this as you will. Now I'm done.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That explains his lower than expected playoff ice time. He had 2 outlier low games: his first game back from the long term injury (4/22), and 5/29, when I'm not sure what happened.