Oates vs. Shanahan

[Big Phil]

Did a quick search of the HSP comparing Bob Gainey vs Rick Middleton head to head between 1977 - 87 in the playoffs. When the Canadiens played Boston usually they were matched - up. Regardless of the Canadiens goalie. Over this stretch in the match-ups, Middleton had a 16 to 15 edge in points over Gainey. BUT the numbers go beyond the superficial. Seven series between the two teams, 31 games, Bruins went 7 - 24, a .226 W%, 0 - 7 in the series. Middleton PPG regular season / playoffs was reduced by close to 50% while Gainey's actually went up by ~ 5%. Talk about a difference maker. Bob Gainey over Rick Middleton every time. Sam Pollock definitely saw the future.

Lots wrong with this post, the Gainey vs. Middleton battle is not our fight. I'm challenging you to prove Lafleur wasn't more valuable. The numbers speak volumes for my side as it is, as do the results

During the stretch of season's in question Bob Gainey and Larry Robinson were the only constants. With or without Lafleur, defense carried the day.

Carried the day to what? Two upsets at the hand of the Nordiques? The Oilers? Honestly when Lafleur was less productive and not in his prime anymore the Canadiens just simply stopped winning

Bringing things back full circle. Brendan Shanahan was a LW like Bob Gainey. Better offensively, not as good defensively. He was the final piece in the puzzle when the Red Wings won their Stanley Cups(3). He made the necessary adjustments in his game to respond to the team needs.

Relevant to Adam Oates as well. The Bruins started to beat the Canadiens in the playoffs when Cam Neely became the team's #1 RW. As a result Neely was perceived not only as a great talent whose career was cut short by injury but a difference maker. Oates lacks the perception that he was a difference maker.

Shanahan was a good missing piece. So was Larry Murphy though. Both have been well documented as being credited for the Wings Cup win in 1997 as the "final piece of the puzzle".

Did the Bruins ever have a team in Oates' tenure as good as the Red Wings championship years? Even in Oates' term the Bruins still managed to beat the Habs twice in the playoffs by the way. Oates still had good numbers. Neely was great in 1988 but Oates also helped a team reach two finals as well. But we are getting off topic anyways............at least at this juncture of the thread

 

[Canadiens1958]

Disjointed

Lots wrong with this post, the Gainey vs. Middleton battle is not our fight. I'm challenging you to prove Lafleur wasn't more valuable. The numbers speak volumes for my side as it is, as do the results



Carried the day to what? Two upsets at the hand of the Nordiques? The Oilers? Honestly when Lafleur was less productive and not in his prime anymore the Canadiens just simply stopped winning



Shanahan was a good missing piece. So was Larry Murphy though. Both have been well documented as being credited for the Wings Cup win in 1997 as the "final piece of the puzzle".

Did the Bruins ever have a team in Oates' tenure as good as the Red Wings championship years? Even in Oates' term the Bruins still managed to beat the Habs twice in the playoffs by the way. Oates still had good numbers. Neely was great in 1988 but Oates also helped a team reach two finals as well. But we are getting off topic anyways............at least at this juncture of the thread

Defense carried the day during Lafleur's prime as well. Jacques Lemaire was the defensive presence that allowed Lafleur to ignore defense. After the loss to the Sabres in the 1975 playoffs Bowman phased in Lemaire with Lafleur and Shutt, eventually trading Pete Mahovlich for Larouche. After Lemaire retired in 1979 the Canadiens never found a defensive center to play with Lafleur. Lafleur spent his time whining about having to play with Keith Acton, etc and the production dropped while the defensive liability increased. The losses to the Nordiques, Oilers and Sabres in the playoffs speak volumes about the liability side of Lafleur's game. The only difference with the pre prime Lafleur - 1973 SC team and the post prime Lafleur is that in 1973 he was not a leader and had little influence on the team. Post prime he was a leader and had the media on his side. Lafleur tried to challenge Jacques Lemaire when changes to his game and lifestyle were suggested. Lafleur lost, the team was put back on track, re-focusing on solid defense with the net result of a Stanley Cup and a final appearance within five seasons. The Canadiens history of winning has always been traced back to defense from the forwards. Before, during and after Lafleur. Once the defensive forwards left - Guy Carbonneau, the winning stopped.

As for Adam Oates, the major difference still comes down to the fact that Oates did not make the necessary changes in his game until very late in his career - the Washington and Anaheim Stanley Cup final appearances. Both teams were much weaker than the early 1990's Blues and Bruins that Oates played for but in the early part of his career Oates was a defensive liability who would have benefited from a responsible defensive winger to play with.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Defense carried the day during Lafleur's prime as well. Jacques Lemaire was the defensive presence that allowed Lafleur to ignore defense. After the loss to the Sabres in the 1975 playoffs Bowman phased in Lemaire with Lafleur and Shutt, eventually trading Pete Mahovlich for Larouche. After Lemaire retired in 1979 the Canadiens never found a defensive center to play with Lafleur. Lafleur spent his time whining about having to play with Keith Acton, etc and the production dropped while the defensive liability increased. The losses to the Nordiques, Oilers and Sabres in the playoffs speak volumes about the liability side of Lafleur's game. The only difference with the pre prime Lafleur - 1973 SC team and the post prime Lafleur is that in 1973 he was not a leader and had little influence on the team. Post prime he was a leader and had the media on his side. Lafleur tried to challenge Jacques Lemaire when changes to his game and lifestyle were suggested. Lafleur lost, the team was put back on track, re-focusing on solid defense with the net result of a Stanley Cup and a final appearance within five seasons. The Canadiens history of winning has always been traced back to defense from the forwards. Before, during and after Lafleur. Once the defensive forwards left - Guy Carbonneau, the winning stopped.

As for Adam Oates, the major difference still comes down to the fact that Oates did not make the necessary changes in his game until very late in his career - the Washington and Anaheim Stanley Cup final appearances. Both teams were much weaker than the early 1990's Blues and Bruins that Oates played for but in the early part of his career Oates was a defensive liability who would have benefited from a responsible defensive winger to play with.

This is interesting. I've never considered him a defensive "liability", and remembering back to talks about why he went undrafted, he was described as a hard-working guy who was solid defensively and, despite being "unspectacular", had a knack for setting up linemates.

It has also been mentioned in the past that Detroit (as a team) moving to a more offensive mindset is what allowed Oates to show what he has to offer, but I don't think the implication/insinuation is that he was having trouble defensively prior to that. I certainly don't remember it getting played with that spin, anyways.

I remember comments about his skating ability and conditioning, and you can extrapolate that to contributing to "defensive deficiency" without needing much imagination (although imagination and hockey sense are exactly why I consider the liability label to be a stretch), but reality is that his defense wasn't even a talking point. If it had been, Devellano probably wouldn't have considered it his worst trade ever (source: Daily Gazette, March 17 1991 - grab and scroll over to page C8 for continuation of the article) and that trade, and the Wings' subsequent drop in the standings, wouldn't be pointed to as the main reasons behind Demers and Devellano losing their jobs.

In fact, it doesn't take much searching to find sources where people refer to him as an underrated defensive centre "who was utilized on the penalty kill or when there was a defensive zone face off late in the game" (source: Greatest Hockey Legends.com).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Defensive Liability

This is interesting. I've never considered him a defensive "liability", and remembering back to talks about why he went undrafted, he was described as a hard-working guy who was solid defensively and, despite being "unspectacular", had a knack for setting up linemates.

It has also been mentioned in the past that Detroit (as a team) moving to a more offensive mindset is what allowed Oates to show what he has to offer, but I don't think the implication/insinuation is that he was having trouble defensively prior to that. I certainly don't remember it getting played with that spin, anyways.

I remember comments about his skating ability and conditioning, and you can extrapolate that to contributing to "defensive deficiency" without needing much imagination (although imagination and hockey sense are exactly why I consider the liability label to be a stretch), but reality is that his defense wasn't even a talking point. If it had been, Devellano probably wouldn't have considered it his worst trade ever (source: Daily Gazette, March 17 1991 - grab and scroll over to page C8 for continuation of the article) and that trade, and the Wings' subsequent drop in the standings, wouldn't be pointed to as the main reasons behind Demers and Devellano losing their jobs.

In fact, it doesn't take much searching to find sources where people refer to him as an underrated defensive centre "who was utilized on the penalty kill or when there was a defensive zone face off late in the game" (source: Greatest Hockey Legends.com).

Defensive liability is none of the above. Adam Oates stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/oatesad01.html

matched with Joe Thornton's:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/t/thornjo01.html

Notice both player's career +/- stats are + during the regular season and - during the playoffs. Must be a reason or a few. Not wishing to get into the merits of +/- but I will use the stat to show how a generalized or superficial overview of a player's performance is used by coaches to win by breaking down the data and finding the exploitable weaknesses which are a players"defensive liability".

Any time there is such a significant change in performance there are many obvious questions. Performance vs playoff bound teams vs non-playoff teams, performance vs various styles and types of centers or defensemen or checking schemes to list a few.Break down the stats and certain exploitable tendencies or habits will emerge that will be confirmed by game films.

Both Oates and Thornton tended / tend to create offense from the perimeter. High risk because a center that generates offense from the perimeter risks getting trapped out of position when the play goes the other way. So their defense game may be "solid" if they can get back to their own end and play a scheme or zone but they are a "defensive liability" because they create odd man rushes if they are caught behind the play.

Other facets of a players game have to be looked at with a critical eye. Does a center play equally well defensively against RHS center as he does against a LHS center? Is the optimum approach outscoring or out defending his line? Crunching the numbers and videos for all these questions gives the coach the answers he needs when playing in the playoffs.

Very few centers in the history of hockey did not have "defensive liabilities". From the ones I have seen for all or the vast majority of their careers I would limit the group to Jean Beliveau, Henri Richard, Jacques Lemaire, Guy Carbonneau, Stan Mikita, Dave Keon, Bryan Trottier, Bobby Clarke, Dave Poulin, Rod Brind'amour, Ron Francis,Pavel Datsyuk, Joe Sakic, Peter Forsberg, Sidney Crosby while reserving comment on Nicklas Backstrom until he learns the league.

Getting back to Adam Oates. He did have positive defensive attributes but he could be caught up ice, could be played by a strong skating center or physical center, was not known to battle for positioning on offense or defense. Traits that could be used to advantage by the opposition.

 

[Ohashi_Jouzu*]

Defensive liability is none of the above. Adam Oates stats:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/oatesad01.html

matched with Joe Thornton's:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/t/thornjo01.html

Notice both player's career +/- stats are + during the regular season and - during the playoffs. Must be a reason or a few. Not wishing to get into the merits of +/- but I will use the stat to show how a generalized or superficial overview of a player's performance is used by coaches to win by breaking down the data and finding the exploitable weaknesses which are a players"defensive liability".

Meh, Yzerman's +/- was worse than Oates' in each of those years. Interpret that any way you want, it's pretty much a red herring.

As for the rest of your post (which I didn't include), if almost all offensive centres are, indeed, "defensive liabilities" to a certain extent, or have "defensive deficiencies", I still don't know why you chose to mention it specifically earlier with reference to Adam Oates. He wasn't a power forward who muscled people off of pucks in the corner, much like Marc Savard isn't now, or like Denis Savard wasn't then. We know this, and it certainly doesn't provide any useful avenue for discussion in the context of this thread. That's usually reserved for players whose offense DOESN'T by far compensate for anything that will come up on the topic.

And even in the early days, as the 2nd centre behind Yzerman, I would argue that Oates' "deficiencies" were more than balanced out by the relatively modest offensive numbers he put up, especially in the playoffs, and despite the relative lack of team success or positive integers in the +/- column.

 

[Ogopogo*]

It should be noted: defensive forwards come with offensive liabilities. When a forward's primary objective is to create offense (make no mistake, that is the primary function of a forward) and they aren't good enough to do it so they focus on being defensive - that is an offensive liability.

 

[Big Phil]

Defense carried the day during Lafleur's prime as well. Jacques Lemaire was the defensive presence that allowed Lafleur to ignore defense. After the loss to the Sabres in the 1975 playoffs Bowman phased in Lemaire with Lafleur and Shutt, eventually trading Pete Mahovlich for Larouche. After Lemaire retired in 1979 the Canadiens never found a defensive center to play with Lafleur. Lafleur spent his time whining about having to play with Keith Acton, etc and the production dropped while the defensive liability increased. The losses to the Nordiques, Oilers and Sabres in the playoffs speak volumes about the liability side of Lafleur's game. The only difference with the pre prime Lafleur - 1973 SC team and the post prime Lafleur is that in 1973 he was not a leader and had little influence on the team. Post prime he was a leader and had the media on his side. Lafleur tried to challenge Jacques Lemaire when changes to his game and lifestyle were suggested. Lafleur lost, the team was put back on track, re-focusing on solid defense with the net result of a Stanley Cup and a final appearance within five seasons. The Canadiens history of winning has always been traced back to defense from the forwards. Before, during and after Lafleur. Once the defensive forwards left - Guy Carbonneau, the winning stopped.

Well, they were the Flying Frenchmen for a reason as well. Not to say the Habs weren't excellent defensively because they were regardless of era but their forwards were elite in their dynasty 1970s years too. I just think my point is proven that once they lost a prime Lafleur then they weren't the same. You can't replace the goals and assists he racked up in the playoffs those 4 years, they were peerless. Gainey was valuable too for sure, no one doubts that but if this is 1977 they would hurt a lot less with Gainey off their team than Lafleur. You just can't debate that.

Even the year Gainey wins the Smythe they aren't even in the finals if not for Lafleur putting on a clinic in Game 7 in 1979. The Habs don't win 4 in a row without Lafleur, plain and simple

 

[Dark Shadows]

The game is played against an opponent not against teammates.

Did a quick search of the HSP comparing Bob Gainey vs Rick Middleton head to head between 1977 - 87 in the playoffs. When the Canadiens played Boston usually they were matched - up. Regardless of the Canadiens goalie. Over this stretch in the match-ups, Middleton had a 16 to 15 edge in points over Gainey. BUT the numbers go beyond the superficial. Seven series between the two teams, 31 games, Bruins went 7 - 24, a .226 W%, 0 - 7 in the series. Middleton PPG regular season / playoffs was reduced by close to 50% while Gainey's actually went up by ~ 5%. Talk about a difference maker. Bob Gainey over Rick Middleton every time. Sam Pollock definitely saw the future.

As for Rick Middleton's defensive skills it would be a very reasonable question to ask how good he actually was defensively if he couldn't even reduce a Bob Gainey's scoring when it mattered.

This also helps to explain why Rick Middleton is still waiting for HHOF induction.

During the stretch of season's in question Bob Gainey and Larry Robinson were the only constants. With or without Lafleur, defense carried the day.

Bringing things back full circle. Brendan Shanahan was a LW like Bob Gainey. Better offensively, not as good defensively. He was the final piece in the puzzle when the Red Wings won their Stanley Cups(3). He made the necessary adjustments in his game to respond to the team needs.

Relevant to Adam Oates as well. The Bruins started to beat the Canadiens in the playoffs when Cam Neely became the team's #1 RW. As a result Neely was perceived not only as a great talent whose career was cut short by injury but a difference maker. Oates lacks the perception that he was a difference maker.

I did the same search in that time frame, and Middleton outscored Gainey 17 to 11. I can provide the direct links to the games from HSP if you like.

Furthermore, in the 77 and 78 playoffs, Middleton was still only a 40-60 point player in the regular season, and the Bruins 3rd RW, not getting PP time, nor time with the better forwards. I do not remember offhand without going back to watch the games, but somehow I think Gainey would not be relegated to checking the Bruins 3rd line RW who was not yet even close to a PPG player when there were more serious threats to cover.

In the 79 playoffs was when Middleton started to come into his own, and finished the regular season with 86 points as the Bruins #1 threat, and they took Montreal to within a goal of winning game 7, while he scored 7 points in 7 games in that series as well. Gainey also was huge with 5 points in 7 games, winning the Smythe playing at a level he would never again match. It was also interesting that several of his points that year were assisting Lemaire/Lafleur since you mention "Middleton could not stop Gainey". I did not remember them playing together much, but it has been years.

As a Whole, the Bruins were outclassed by the Habs superior team, but Middleton defined himself well. Scoring a point per game in a 7 game series against a team boasting a wall of the big 3 defensemen, Dryden, Lemaire and Gainey all game is an excellent achievement.

In any case, it does nothing to further your strange ideas. I did not misquote you at all. I took you word for word while you explained that "The player willing and capable of doing both is a lot more valuable", yet mentioning Gainey over Middleton in this context makes no sense since Gainey was a below average offensive player who had a flash here and there. Defensively was where he was unparalleled. But since you personally said "The player willing and capable of doing both is a lot more valuable", it makes no sense. you can bring up all the head to head statistics you want, but it does not paint the true picture. Gainey had far more support from one of the greatest teams of all time. The head to head statistics are influenced by this fact.

Overall, a few of your points were good, as I agree that the player who does both is often more valuable, but then your Montreal bias seeped through when you tried to paint Gainey as a guy who did both when he was offensively pedestrian compared to Rick Middleton, who did do both.

Now, if it came down to picking a player, it would depend on a teams needs. A team that already had top offensive players and great two way forwards would probably go for the Shutdown forward, while a team that needed a great two way player would take Middleton. Pollock's decision was wise due to the fact that he already had the great two way forwards, and he added the proper piece to the puzzle in a shutdown forward.

Questioning Middleton's defensive abilities is also downright silly. Anyone who ever saw the man play knows how good he was in both regards. He received praise from Selke voters and NHL Coaches alike for his strong defensive play.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Check Your Numbers

I did the same search in that time frame, and Middleton outscored Gainey 17 to 11. I can provide the direct links to the games from HSP if you like.

Furthermore, in the 77 and 78 playoffs, Middleton was still only a 40-60 point player in the regular season, and the Bruins 3rd RW, not getting PP time, nor time with the better forwards. I do not remember offhand without going back to watch the games, but somehow I think Gainey would not be relegated to checking the Bruins 3rd line RW who was not yet even close to a PPG player when there were more serious threats to cover.

In the 79 playoffs was when Middleton started to come into his own, and finished the regular season with 86 points as the Bruins #1 threat, and they took Montreal to within a goal of winning game 7, while he scored 7 points in 7 games in that series as well. Gainey also was huge with 5 points in 7 games, winning the Smythe playing at a level he would never again match. It was also interesting that several of his points that year were assisting Lemaire/Lafleur since you mention "Middleton could not stop Gainey". I did not remember them playing together much, but it has been years.

As a Whole, the Bruins were outclassed by the Habs superior team, but Middleton defined himself well. Scoring a point per game in a 7 game series against a team boasting a wall of the big 3 defensemen, Dryden, Lemaire and Gainey all game is an excellent achievement.

In any case, it does nothing to further your strange ideas. I did not misquote you at all. I took you word for word while you explained that "The player willing and capable of doing both is a lot more valuable", yet mentioning Gainey over Middleton in this context makes no sense since Gainey was a below average offensive player who had a flash here and there. Defensively was where he was unparalleled. But since you personally said "The player willing and capable of doing both is a lot more valuable", it makes no sense. you can bring up all the head to head statistics you want, but it does not paint the true picture. Gainey had far more support from one of the greatest teams of all time. The head to head statistics are influenced by this fact.

Overall, a few of your points were good, as I agree that the player who does both is often more valuable, but then your Montreal bias seeped through when you tried to paint Gainey as a guy who did both when he was offensively pedestrian compared to Rick Middleton, who did do both.

Now, if it came down to picking a player, it would depend on a teams needs. A team that already had top offensive players and great two way forwards would probably go for the Shutdown forward, while a team that needed a great two way player would take Middleton. Pollock's decision was wise due to the fact that he already had the great two way forwards, and he added the proper piece to the puzzle in a shutdown forward.

Questioning Middleton's defensive abilities is also downright silly. Anyone who ever saw the man play knows how good he was in both regards. He received praise from Selke voters and NHL Coaches alike for his strong defensive play.

The actual numbers with notesG/A)
Head to head Middleton / Gainey

Middleton
1977 (0/2),1978(1/0)*,1979(3/4), 1984(0/0), 1985(3/0), 1986(0/0)
1987(2/2)** = (9/8) = 17 PTS
* = EVS goal assisted by Jean Ratelle.
** = 1 SHG which Gainey would not have been on the ice for.

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?O19780042

Gainey
1977(0/0), 1978(1/1),1979(1/5),1984(1/3),1985(0/1),1986(2/0),1987(0/0) = (5/10)

Factor out the SH goal and my 16 - 15 advantage is accurate. Should have explained the SH goal previously.

The Ratelle assist on Middleton's EV goal in 1978 raises issues with part of your explanation. Gainey with Lemaire and Lafleur, Bowman's habit of adjusting lines to situations and match-ups.

The 1987 numbers produced by Middleton are interesting since the include EV points while playing with Neely who would have been Gainey's prime responsibility.

Voters and coaches praise for his strong defensive play is based on a seasonal overview or an overview for an era or career overview. Seasonal overview would serve as a starting point to break down what has to be done to neutralize a player in a playoff series which is what my numbers try to do. That Middleton had all the qualities that you attribute against other teams is nice and is not being questioned, that he could not transport the same qualities to series against the Canadiens and Bob Gainey is very telling. An 7-0 record in series between 1977 and 1987 favouring the Canadiens and Bob Gainey is rather hard to ignore especially when Middleton's numbers dropped significantly compared to his global seasonal and playoff numbers while Gainey's actually increased slightly.