Seriously? Tucker made headlines for the same reason Matt Cooke did - everyone hated the POS.
Wow, Tucker really is forgotten, isn't he? haha... lately I get the idea that it doesn't matter how physical you are if you're small.
At his best, Tucker threw everything he had at everybody. He wasn't intimidating like a bigger player might be. But he was annoying and effective, and it wasn't just because of shenanigans, either.
You really think a twerp like Tucker would scare guys like Jack Evans, Walt Buswell, and Garth Butcher?
No, I don't need for him to scare them, of course. A player like Tucker just needs to forecheck hard and cause the occasional rushed pass or loose puck. Big hits along the end boards inspire the team and change momentum. That's what energy lines do. This trio provides an element Eden Hall just doesn't have enough of.
As for Larry Patey:
- He was 6'1 in the 1970s and 80s
- One teammate raved about how tough he was to play against in practice
- Another teammate said he was so physically strong, he was impossible to knock over
I understand that Tucker has all that agitator cred, but that's only one type of toughness.
Here's one additional source I found on Patey. It's from junior hockey, so I'm not sure how it translates. I don't have time for an extensive archive search right now:
(
Source
that's something, I guess.
This is not entirely accurate - McKay was often the second best defensive member on his line after Bobby Holik (the center and a regular 3rd liner in the main draft). I don't remember every line combo the Devils had, but the left wings those guys had were usually solid but unspectacular guys like Sergei Brylin and Sergei Nemchinov. Madden was only their LW for one series.
ok, I said I was going to check, so I finally got the time to, but I can't post it now (please don't make me). I checked 10 McKeen's and Sports Forecaster guides, and just one even said one word about defensive ability: 2000, a year after he got selke votes. the words "crash" and "grind" come up a lot, as do notes about his physicality and timely goals. Defense doesn't appear to have been what made him valuable. At best, it appears to have been 3rd, maybe 4th after leadership and being a good teammate.
I think Sargent is probably slightly worse than Gibbs. Sargent peaked higher, but he played so few seasons before the injuries hit, I'd lean towards Gibbs. I think Kampman is better than both, but he doesn't have the right skillset to play with another defense-only guy in Portland - Regina wouldn't be able to get the puck out of their zone.
Kampman actually appears to be a pretty good rusher according to Pelletier. He is probably my 4th-best guy followed by Gibbs and Sargent, yes.
Sargent, Ehrhoff and Butcher are the only starting defensemen here who actually belong in the MLD following a 40-team ATD if all players were actually drafted in order of how good/valuable they were. (Of course, there will be major corrections done on many of our defensemen following the new info and the attention we called to it)
I'll get back to Butcher later. Do your files have his ice times or just rankings?
here are the icetimes by year as per above:
15.008
16.037
18.659
14.801
18.817
19.839
21.244
21.462
21.139
21.451
20.781
21.249
19.708
career average: 19.56
Yeah I'm sorry, there's no way that Matt Cooke isn't a more valuable piece than Tucker. Even if you think about it Tucker outside of Toronto has been largely forgotten. Matt Cooke was a valuable member of a Cup winning team who was much more infamous and to be honest much better for this role than Tucker ever was.
I disagree strongly, but what will really solve that aside from a quote pissing match? Tucker could have contributed to a winner if he was just ever on one. Good on Cooke for his contributions, but he didn't make Pittsburgh win, did he?
Cooke's a bigger POS but I don't think he was more effective overall. The cup doesn't prove he was, of course.
Tucker also has the beneficiary of playing in an age where there is the most available information about players. Quotes about current players are everywhere. It's not like quotes don't exist about late 70s, early 80s players, but they are certainly less plentiful than for a guy that just retired.
Yeah, but Tucker was hugely notorious around the league. It's not just that he's more modern. That's a lofty claim to say that a guy like Patey is on his level as far as "4th line skills" go. If he was, it would be a lot easier to prove. For example, I wouldn't have a problem proving it for JP Parise, Eddie Shack, Leo Labine or Dennis Hextall.
Garth Butcher
About what I expected. A guy who was 2nd or 3rd in ice time on his teams through his prime. Teams no worse than Gibbs' teams.
why are you making me do this? sigh...
1971: #1, .462
1972: #1, .551
1973: #1, .545
1974: #1, .404
1975: #1 on .365 (that went to .302 after he left), #1 on .524 (up from .513)
1976: #1, .513
1977: #1, .500
1978: #1, .482, #1, .366 (both teams got 100 % points better after trade)
1979: #1, .300
Butcher was only ever a clearcut #2 for halves of two seasons. The better of those two teams had a win% of .506, Gibbs was #1 of three teams better than that. Butcher was a #3 four times, for .519, .497 (avg), .463, .400. In Gibbs' 3rd-6th-best years he was higher on the depth chart and for slightly better teams, too: .513, .500, .462, .444 (avg). Yes, that leaves three seasons in which he was #1 for stinkers (.405 avg, .404, .300), but I'm pretty sure that's better than #3 on teams that were only marginally better.
I don't see why this is any worse than any of Gibbs' non all-star seasons to be honest. Butcher was a defense-only defenseman, and guys like that just never lead their teams in ice time.
They do sometimes, actually (for one who is MLD-caliber, look at Ragnarsson). But I'm not going to go all hard line on you. I realize Butcher is a niche player and can't be perfectly described by icetime. Call him a lesser version of Jason Smith (who I originally wanted) or Bob Rouse. Regardless, Gibbs was a similar type of player and got more responsibility for better teams (and the difference was not just offensive usage, either)
Not sure if it's deliberate, but you are perhaps dismissing the large difference that exists between the average #1, 2, and 3 defenseman. It's certainly not as simple as saying 2 is just behind 1.
For me, Butcher is the ideal defensive-minded #6. Gibbs would probably be best served as a well-rounded #5 but he's not awful as a #4. He's just not great, either.
I wonder if you speak of our teams in a bubble because of the relative quality of our defenses, or of the MLD as a whole. I can't see any team (other than yours) that shouldn't be tickled pink to get Gibbs as a #4, and in most cases much higher than that.
Just so we don't have to argue about it later in a long post - I assume you have evidence that either Grier or Erixon can take faceoffs, seventies? (they are your first PK duo)
..........................hmmm... let's say for now that I don't. I know I read somewhere "Erixon played lots of center last year" or something to that effect. But I can't find it now. If I don't locate it (and I don't really care to) I will just move Harris up and let Boutette take faceoffs for the 2nd unit.
But I think Cooke is similar to a less offensive version of Bourdias, who seventies drafted in the main draft. He will be remembered for being one of the best pests of his generation in 10 years.
A. I don't think you know Boudrias very well. He was a very honorable and gentlemanly player, and a leader who wore the C for two teams (VAN and WHA Nords). He was the most honest "pest" I can think of. He's nothing like Cooke.
B. If you are saying Tucker
won't be remembered for being one of the best pests of his generation, you're either nuts or not old enough to remember 1998-2004 clearly. If you are indeed 21, it is probably the latter. You were 8-14 and in the USA when Tucker was at his most rambunctious. I actually posted three separate lists that named him as one of the top pests.
-------------------------------
toying with a couple of lineup changes.
- Gibbs goes to the 3rd pairing in favour of Kampman. Kampman was able to rush the puck so this doesn't hurt the transition game much.
- Tobin joins the 3rd line as the RW, where he played 40% of his career. He has some defensive ability, having spent 22% of his career at defense. Harris of the 70s was able to play center, so he moves there. Harris of the 60s is out of the starting lineup and goes to the role he was best at - "hockey's ultimate pinch hitter". The option is there to keep him in the lineup on the 4th line but I don't want to disrupt the bang and crash system that they will have going.
- Tobin becomes a legitimate option for the point on the PP, either to relieve Sargent (who I don't think really needs it) or to replace Gibbs (who is not the best pointman and is only there by necessity). Weinrich, Roberts, Tobin, Gibbs would play the PP with Sargent out.
---------------------------------
interested to hear why Regina's PP is so terrible. It's definitely not as good as Eden Hall's, mainly because we don't have the specialists Campbell and Ehrhoff there (though we expect that to pay off, and then some, at even strength). That's where the major differences exist. TDMM already went over the top-6 forwards (who, aside from our Tucker/Richardson swap, comprise our PPs) and only really declared an advantage for Drozdetsky. Gracie is slightly better offensively than Mickoski and Warwick is significantly better than Dahlen. Though the Eden Hall players above are puckwinning specialists, that becomes much less important on the PP as opposed to pure offense. This is where it stops apparently mattering that our top-6 forwards are "so small".
At forward, I see PP1 units being fairly similar, with Warwick's edge over Dahlen similar to Droz' over Gingras. On PP2, although Gracie edges Mickoski, Stastny trumps Tucker, giving Eden Hall the edge.
On the points, we each have matchups that cancel out, with Eden Hall getting the advantage on the other. Campbell trumps Sargent on PP1, and Sullivan (probably) trumps Gibbs on PP2. (would he trump Tobin?)
Overall, that doesn't look like our PP warrants the tag TDMM has attempted to give it. Theirs is definitely better, and ours is not our strength, but better team defense at even strength can offset that quite easily. They have about 7 times as much time to bridge the gap.
considering our PKs are practically identical with a slight advantage going our way (I really only see an advantage for Gibbs over Butcher on PK1 and Harris/Grier over Pettersson on PK2), I think that is a fair assessment.
Our PK is better, but their PP is better by a larger degree. Expect them to score a couple more goals this series on special teams. Can Regina get those goals back in 40 minutes of even strength time over 6-7 games? I have no doubt they can.