Round 2, Vote 2 (2009 update)

[MXD]

What makes you think Clancy will be on the list for voting next round?

My thoughts exactly....

I for one would be utterly shocked if Clancy showed up next round.

If Messier isn't up for the next round, I'll have to seriously question the sanity of this board. Many of us had him in our top 20, so I'm curious how low some of you had him since he wasn't among the top 25 in the original lists.

I predict that all four of the #19's will be up next round.

I'm voting king Clancy for the next round, last time he ended up 53rd on the list. I think he was better than that. Five times in the top 5 for hart trophy voting should be an automatic top 40 player of all times. Post expansion defencemen like larry robinson, brad park and chris chelios get overrated.

I really like Clancy, but i have to be realistic here : he shouldn't be much ahead of Earl Siebert, and I doubt somebody placed Siebert in their top-40.

I placed Messier low. Some would even say outrageously low. Now that I look at my list, i think it was a bit irrationnal. But then, a guy like Kharlamov probably had received some top-15 rankings, and that's IMO worst than where I've placed Messier.

I think next round will see the first NHA/WCHL/PCHL guys (discounting Eddie Shore, who did play in the Western Leagues but actually made his bigger splash in the NHL). It would actually be extremely nice those two being compared one to each other.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I really like Clancy, but i have to be realistic here : he shouldn't be much ahead of Earl Siebert, and I doubt somebody placed Siebert in their top-40.

I placed Messier low. Some would even say outrageously low. Now that I look at my list, i think it was a bit irrationnal. But then, a guy like Kharlamov probably had received some top-15 rankings, and that's IMO worst than where I've placed Messier.

I think next round will see the first NHA/WCHL/PCHL guys (discounting Eddie Shore, who did play in the Western Leagues but actually made his bigger splash in the NHL). It would actually be extremely nice those two being compared one to each other.

Once we get by the first round, everything is debatable. Its so hard to list 120 players in order that this second phase of voting can help make corrections.

Funny you mention Kharlamov and Messier. I had them 25 & 26 on my list. When they come up again, I'd have no problem changing my preference.

I had Clancey at 65. Is that irrational enough?

 

[NOTENOUGHJTCGOALS]

Just looking back at my original list:

Dominik Hasek
Patrick Roy
Bobby Clarke
Phil Esposito
Stan Mikita
Bryan Trottier
Howie Morenz
Jacques Plante
Denis Potvin
Guy Lafleur

That was my 11-20. I really had no idea Red Kelly was that good. I always had him on level just behind Robinson, now I'm thinking of slotting him up there just ahead. I'm also one of the guys that had Messier way too low, considering where I had Trottier.

 

[MXD]

I had Clancey at 65. Is that irrational enough?

No. Lower than I did, but there's no problem with that. Actually, ranking him 65th makes much more sense than, let's say, 25th.

Funny that I mentionned Siebert in my post. I just looked at my list again and Clancy-Siebert are back to back.

As for Kharlamov, I do have him just behind a left winger, but a pure one unlike Messier.

 

[lextune]

Clancy comes in at 66 on my original list....Siebert at 79. With only one Defenseman between them though, (Horton).

 

[Dark Shadows]

I'm voting king Clancy for the next round, last time he ended up 53rd on the list. I think he was better than that. Five times in the top 5 for hart trophy voting should be an automatic top 40 player of all times. Post expansion defencemen like larry robinson, brad park and chris chelios get overrated.

I'm voting king Clancy for the next round, last time he ended up 53rd on the list. I think he was better than that. Five times in the top 5 for hart trophy voting should be an automatic top 40 player of all times. Post expansion defencemen like larry robinson, brad park and chris chelios get overrated.

Dare I ask where you ranked Sprague Cleghorn then?

He was runner up for the Hart twice, and would certainly have been many more had the trophy existed before 23-24.

Another thing is, there are multiple players who have been top 5(Or close enough) in Hart voting 5 times, or close to it, but I consider none of them close to top 40 all time.

Case in Point. Joe Thornton.
I know you favor the "The league is much larger today, so 10th place is like 5th" sort of arguments, which I personally do not favor, but ill assume you use it equally amongst your distribution of that Criteria.

Thornton has a 4th, 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th Hart voting record in the modern league, and his career is still young, and I do not even consider him a top 120 player yet(And he has been a favorite of mine for years)

Does that mean you think he should be considered much higher? He is on the bubble of your criteria.

Rod Langway has 3 top 4 Hart finishes in an era infinitely more difficult for defensemen to get Hart consideration.

Ted Kennedy? Also just on the bubble of your criteria.

I am just trying to get a feel for what you are rating by?

Since you claim to be voting Clancy in Next round(Which will cover spots 20-35, but only induct 20-30), I have to question the logic. He is definitely not top 30. I question this particularly since you vehemently detracted Morenz as "Overrated" and ranked him 30 on your previous list, yet his Hart record is much better, and most people consider him a lock for top 15.

What makes you think Clancy will be on the list for voting next round?

 

[canucks4ever]

Dare I ask where you ranked Sprague Cleghorn then?

He was runner up for the Hart twice, and would certainly have been many more had the trophy existed before 23-24.

Another thing is, there are multiple players who have been top 5(Or close enough) in Hart voting 5 times, or close to it, but I consider none of them close to top 40 all time.

Case in Point. Joe Thornton.
I know you favor the "The league is much larger today, so 10th place is like 5th" sort of arguments, which I personally do not favor, but ill assume you use it equally amongst your distribution of that Criteria.

Thornton has a 4th, 1st, 5th, 6th, 9th Hart voting record in the modern league, and his career is still young, and I do not even consider him a top 120 player yet(And he has been a favorite of mine for years)

Does that mean you think he should be considered much higher? He is on the bubble of your criteria.

Rod Langway has 3 top 4 Hart finishes in an era infinitely more difficult for defensemen to get Hart consideration.

Ted Kennedy? Also just on the bubble of your criteria.

I am just trying to get a feel for what you are rating by?

Since you claim to be voting Clancy in Next round(Which will cover spots 20-35, but only induct 20-30), I have to question the logic. He is definitely not top 30. I question this particularly since you vehemently detracted Morenz as "Overrated" and ranked him 30 on your previous list, yet his Hart record is much better, and most people consider him a lock for top 15.

He's the second best defensemen of Eddie Shore's era. If eddie gets so much props for winning 4 hart trophies and being the best of his era, then the next best d-man should certainly be a top 25-35 player.

King Clancy would have 8 all star team selections if it existed before 1931.

Cleghorn was the best of his era, therefore he should make the top 50. I dont like the modern bias towards defensemen. Every top 10 d-man list that I see always has 7-8 post 67 d-man in it. Too much of a bias towards newer guys.

 

[Dark Shadows]

He's the second best defensemen of Eddie Shore's era. If eddie gets so much props for winning 4 hart trophies and being the best of his era, then the next best d-man should certainly be a top 25-35 player.

The vast difference between the two is that Shore was considered better than most of the forwards too, while Clancy, was on occasion, but not all the time like Shore.

King Clancy would have 8 all star team selections if it existed before 1931.

8? Maybe, but That is a bit optimistic.

Cleghorn was the best of his era, therefore he should make the top 50. I dont like the modern bias towards defensemen. Every top 10 d-man list that I see always has 7-8 post 67 d-man in it. Too much of a bias towards newer guys.

This statement is nearly the opposite of what you said a year ago.

A Year ago you were complaining about the bias against Modern players, and blasted us for over-favoring the older players.

Many would argue that Cyclone Taylor was the better(Although the situations differ. Rover some of the time and all that)

For the record, I do agree Cleghorn and Clancy were great. I rank Clancy as the 15th best defenseman of all time, and Cleghorn as 20th.

But I have a personal bias against the pre-consolidated era, and I do not rank some of those guys as high as you all. Matter of preference and differing in reasoning.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'll be out most of the day, so I sent my vote already.

I hope and expect to be able to vote for Messier, Brodeur, Bossy, Kharlamov, and Cyclone Taylor next round. They are currently my top 5 not yet added.

 

[Triffy]

I just made a simplistic statistical comparison between Messier and Geoffrion. Why is there such a large gap between the two players? Geoffrion's the better offensive player and their playoff resumes are quite identical.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Bernie Geoffrion

I just made a simplistic statistical comparison between Messier and Geoffrion. Why is there such a large gap between the two players? Geoffrion's the better offensive player and their playoff resumes are quite identical.

Bernie Geoffrion will be discussed when he will be eligible for voting.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just made a simplistic statistical comparison between Messier and Geoffrion. Why is there such a large gap between the two players? Geoffrion's the better offensive player and their playoff resumes are quite identical.

Geoffrion always played second fiddle to first Richard and then Beliveau. While Messier got Hart consideration immediately after he escaped the shadow of Gretzky. But then are we punishing Geoffrion for playing for a good team? Geoffrion's playoff stats are outstanding (far better than Dickie Moore who does look more like a product of the dynasty).

But yeah, I'm starting to think I ranked Geoffrion too low on my original list. But I still don't have him up with Messier for whatever reason. I guess because Geoffrion was never counted on as a leader?

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Three times the MVP of the playoffs. Got to the semis or further eight times. Always had a sv% well above the league average in both the regular season and playoffs. Played for teams that took a lot of penalties, making his save percentages even more impressive. 40-19 in playoff overtime. What's not to like?

Roy is perhaps the most accomplished goalie of all time, but there's a difference between that and being the best. As it stands, I have no problem calling him #3 all-time, and might in fact vote that way.

Part of the reason why Roy isn't in my personal top-20 (I may vote him into this top-20, as two of my top-20's are not yet up for voting) is that I see a clear gap between him and Hasek. As far as watching the two play, there was never a question in my mind as to who was better at stopping the puck. Hasek's peak was more dominant, and there is a very good argument that he was the best player in the world for a few years in the late 90's. I don't think Roy could have ever been called that, and was only the second or third best player on his own team after going to Colorado IMO.

Roy went to the semis nine times, but six of those were with Colorado. During that span, the western conference basically consisted of three teams. Detroit, Dallas, and Colorado, who all enjoyed success by outspending everyone else. If Roy were placed onto any other team, he would most certainly not have had those deep playoff runs. In those six semi-finals, he beat Chris Osgood and Roman Turek, while losing to Mike Vernon, Ed Belfour twice, and Hasek. Interesting that he was unable to beat the HOF-caliber (or close to it) goalies in head-to-head matchups. Of course I'm not blaming him for those losses, but the team lost and he's a part of the team.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

My original list is quite different from what I'd do now, but, it's not as far off as expected.

My next ten to add, in alphabetical order.

Mike Bossy
Martin Brodeur
Chris Chelios
Bill Cook
Viacheslav Fetisov
Valeri Kharlamov
Newsy Lalonde
Brad Park
Cyclone Taylor
Brian Trottier

I just made a simplistic statistical comparison between Messier and Geoffrion. Why is there such a large gap between the two players? Geoffrion's the better offensive player and their playoff resumes are quite identical.

I only have 4 spots between them. But, longevity, physical play, defensive play and intangibles. I was probably too hard on Messier... But not nearly as hard as I was on Robinson, that was a mistake.

 

[MXD]

Geoffrion always played second fiddle to first Richard and then Beliveau. While Messier got Hart consideration immediately after he escaped the shadow of Gretzky. But then are we punishing Geoffrion for playing for a good team? Geoffrion's playoff stats are outstanding (far better than Dickie Moore who does look more like a product of the dynasty).

But yeah, I'm starting to think I ranked Geoffrion too low on my original list. But I still don't have him up with Messier for whatever reason. I guess because Geoffrion was never counted on as a leader?

As I remember (can't access my list from here), Geoffrion and Messier were extremely close, and I can't even remember which one I had first.

Best guys not in?

Lalonde
Trottier
Bossy
Taylor

The first three are absolute locks to make my top-10 next round (if they're in), my 1st place player will be one of them as well, and they all would have made my top-10 (or top-11-to-20) this round.

And 6 other guys I don't remember exactly their placement
Amongst them
- Larry Robinson
- Stevie Y
- Milt Schmidt
- Joe Sakic


And two other ones. Probably Dryden and Bill Cook are probably the better guesses.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Roy is perhaps the most accomplished goalie of all time, but there's a difference between that and being the best. As it stands, I have no problem calling him #3 all-time, and might in fact vote that way.

Part of the reason why Roy isn't in my personal top-20 (I may vote him into this top-20, as two of my top-20's are not yet up for voting) is that I see a clear gap between him and Hasek. As far as watching the two play, there was never a question in my mind as to who was better at stopping the puck. Hasek's peak was more dominant, and there is a very good argument that he was the best player in the world for a few years in the late 90's. I don't think Roy could have ever been called that, and was only the second or third best player on his own team after going to Colorado IMO.

Roy went to the semis nine times, but six of those were with Colorado. During that span, the western conference basically consisted of three teams. Detroit, Dallas, and Colorado, who all enjoyed success by outspending everyone else. If Roy were placed onto any other team, he would most certainly not have had those deep playoff runs. In those six semi-finals, he beat Chris Osgood and Roman Turek, while losing to Mike Vernon, Ed Belfour twice, and Hasek. Interesting that he was unable to beat the HOF-caliber (or close to it) goalies in head-to-head matchups. Of course I'm not blaming him for those losses, but the team lost and he's a part of the team.

How about the 2001 finals?

That was a 7 game series that his outplaying Brodeur badly resulted directly in the Avs winning the Cup.

 

[overpass]

But yeah, I'm starting to think I ranked Geoffrion too low on my original list. But I still don't have him up with Messier for whatever reason. I guess because Geoffrion was never counted on as a leader?

I wouldn't say Geoffrion wasn't counted on as a leader. He was an alternate captain, and when Jean Beliveau was voted in as Montreal captain in 1961 Beliveau and Geoffrion were tied after the first round of voting. One player voting differently and Geoffrion would have been the team captain. Beliveau would have probably still become captain at some point, but how differently would we view Geoffrion if he had put in a few years as captain?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Details

I wouldn't say Geoffrion wasn't counted on as a leader. He was an alternate captain, and when Jean Beliveau was voted in as Montreal captain in 1961 Beliveau and Geoffrion were tied after the first round of voting. One player voting differently and Geoffrion would have been the team captain. Beliveau would have probably still become captain at some point, but how differently would we view Geoffrion if he had put in a few years as captain?

A few details are missing about the election of Jean Beliveau as captain of the Canadiens. They story may be read towards the bottom of this Red Fisher article:

http://www.nhl.com/ice/news.htm?id=405560

At the time of the election Jean Beliveau had not risen to the rank of alternate captain. Also he was in a leg cast-knee injury, that would see 27 games pass before he could assume his role of captain.

 

[overpass]

On a request from foame, I'm posted pre-97 and post-97 even-strength on-ice numbers for Chelios, Bourque, Stevens, and MacInnis, in order to help assess the competition level for Nicklas Lidstrom. Unfortunately this is coming a little late for this vote, but here it is for the record.

Stat Glossary:

$ESGF/G - even-strength goals for per game, adjusted for scoring level. Higher is better.
$ESGA/G - even-strength goals against per game, adjusted for scoring level. Lower is better.
R-ON - Player's even-strength on-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA). Should be higher than R-OFF.
R-OFF - Player's even-strength off-ice goal ratio (ESGF/ESGA).
XEV+/- - Players expected EV+/-, based on off-ice results.
EV+/- - Even-strength plus-minus, adjusted for scoring level.
AEV+/- - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus. =(EV+/-) - (XEV+/-). If you look at just one number, make it this one.
/82 - Adjusted even-strength plus-minus per season.
PP% - Percentage of team's PP goals for that the player was on the ice for.
SH% - Percentage of team's PP goals against that the player was on the ice for.
$PPP/G - Power play points per game, adjusted for PP scoring level.


Pre-1997

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | PP% | SH% | $PPP/G
Raymond Bourque | 88-96 | 8.37 | 1.23 | 0.88 | 1.40 | 0.91 | -49 | 241 | 290 | 35 | 0.90 | 0.62 | 0.50
Al MacInnis | 88-96 | 8.00 | 1.12 | 0.76 | 1.47 | 1.18 | 71 | 236 | 165 | 21 | 0.86 | 0.40 | 0.54
Chris Chelios | 88-96 | 8.41 | 1.08 | 0.77 | 1.40 | 1.23 | 93 | 213 | 120 | 14 | 0.78 | 0.60 | 0.37
Scott Stevens | 88-96 | 8.48 | 1.14 | 0.89 | 1.28 | 1.18 | 80 | 171 | 91 | 11 | 0.56 | 0.54 | 0.25

Post-1997

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | PP% | SH% | $PPP/G
Al MacInnis | 97-03 | 6.05 | 1.19 | 0.90 | 1.32 | 1.07 | 23 | 142 | 119 | 20 | 87% | 46% | 0.47
Chris Chelios | 97-02 | 5.02 | 1.15 | 0.89 | 1.30 | 1.02 | 7 | 109 | 103 | 20 | 50% | 61% | 0.21
Scott Stevens | 97-03 | 6.78 | 1.16 | 0.81 | 1.44 | 1.23 | 79 | 196 | 117 | 17 | 17% | 74% | 0.05
Raymond Bourque | 97-01 | 4.68 | 1.03 | 0.97 | 1.06 | 0.98 | -5 | 21 | 26 | 6 | 88% | 63% | 0.50

Bourque clearly dropped of from 1997 on. MacInnis, Chelios, and Stevens were all still playing at a high level, although Chelios and Stevens didn't have the power play responsibilities that they had earlier in their career.

And here are the 97-03 numbers for Lidstrom and a few other prominent defensemen.

Player | Year | Seasons | $ESGF/G | $ESGA/G | R-ON | R-OFF | XEV+/- | EV+/- | AEV+/- | /82 | PP% | SH% | $PPP/G
Nicklas Lidstrom | 97-03 | 6.87 | 1.19 | 0.93 | 1.28 | 1.21 | 79 | 149 | 70 | 10 | 77% | 62% | 0.49
Chris Pronger | 97-03 | 5.37 | 1.28 | 0.86 | 1.49 | 1.02 | 7 | 186 | 178 | 33 | 67% | 61% | 0.37
Scott Niedermayer | 97-03 | 6.33 | 1.08 | 0.84 | 1.30 | 1.30 | 90 | 129 | 39 | 6 | 57% | 33% | 0.26
Rob Blake | 97-03 | 6.13 | 1.06 | 0.98 | 1.08 | 1.09 | 30 | 41 | 11 | 2 | 76% | 54% | 0.37
Sergei Gonchar | 97-03 | 5.96 | 1.12 | 0.96 | 1.17 | 0.94 | -21 | 79 | 100 | 17 | 74% | 13% | 0.35
Eric Desjardins | 97-03 | 6.48 | 1.11 | 0.85 | 1.30 | 1.24 | 79 | 136 | 57 | 9 | 59% | 44% | 0.26
Brian Leetch | 97-03 | 6.16 | 1.18 | 1.23 | 0.96 | 0.88 | -52 | -26 | 26 | 4 | 87% | 52% | 0.44

Lidstrom's even-strength numbers are surprisingly unimpressive for this time period. He didn't start putting up big plus-minuses relative to team until 2003 and on. Pronger was very strong competition during this time period when he was on the ice. Rob Blake, Sergei Gonchar, and Brian Leetch also placed in the Norris voting multiple times. Blake and Leetch's even-strength numbers are unimpressive, and Gonchar didn't play the penalty kill back then. Scott Niedermayer and Eric Desjardins probably don't quite belong in this group, as seen by their lesser roles on special teams.

I'd say that the group of Stevens, Chelios, and MacInnis largely maintained their effectiveness until late in their career, and the fact that they were still a presence in Norris voting shouldn't be a mark against the league's defensemen on it's own. However, the group of defensemen was weak at this time. Among other defensemen, Pronger, Blake, and Leetch were the only defensemen that played big minutes in all situations and provided real competition for Lidstrom in Norris voting. Gonchar didn't PK, and Desjardins and Niedermayer didn't log big special teams minutes on the PP or PK. I do think that if Pronger had played full seasons over this time period he would be considered much better in an all-time sense and would have provided stronger competition for Lidstrom.

But overall, I think Lidstrom has been a late bloomer who has really improved his game after the age of 30. It's true that he didn't stand out far above players like MacInnis, Chelios, Stevens, etc, when they were nearing 40, but I don't think Lidstrom was at his best then either. IMO Lidstrom has improved since he began winning Norrises and he would have won more had he played at that level in the 90s. It's not just the competition getting weaker.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

How about the 2001 finals?

That was a 7 game series that his outplaying Brodeur badly resulted directly in the Avs winning the Cup.

I am aware of course, I was only using semi-final results in my previous post. I would contend though, that Brodeur's play was quite mediocre, while Roy's was just decent. It wasn't a goaltenders duel by any means. Roy gassed one game for Colorado by wandering out to play the puck and giving it away, allowing a New Jersey goal and subsequent victory (this was Game 2 or 4 I'm pretty sure). He did rebound and shut the Devils down in the final two games to capture the Cup though.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I am aware of course, I was only using semi-final results in my previous post. I would contend though, that Brodeur's play was quite mediocre, while Roy's was just decent. It wasn't a goaltenders duel by any means. Roy gassed one game for Colorado by wandering out to play the puck and giving it away, allowing a New Jersey goal and subsequent victory (this was Game 2 or 4 I'm pretty sure). He did rebound and shut the Devils down in the final two games to capture the Cup though.

Roy was definitely better than "decent." He had one bad game, but his play in the other games in the finals is a huge reason he deservedly won the Smyth.

 

[Master_Of_Districts]

I am aware of course, I was only using semi-final results in my previous post. I would contend though, that Brodeur's play was quite mediocre, while Roy's was just decent. It wasn't a goaltenders duel by any means. Roy gassed one game for Colorado by wandering out to play the puck and giving it away, allowing a New Jersey goal and subsequent victory (this was Game 2 or 4 I'm pretty sure). He did rebound and shut the Devils down in the final two games to capture the Cup though.

While Roy was indeed at fault on that particular goal, it's difficult to blame him for the loss considering that his team was outshot 35-12.

 

[eltopinio]

I've been a long time lurker on the HoH board and want to give props to everyone involved in this project. It has given me insight on a lot of players, although I wouldn't feel knowledgable enough to discuss a lot of the older ones.

I read mostly every post in this thread, but I did skip a few so forgive me if it's already been brought up but I'd like to say the following regarding the Lidstrom-Potvin debate:

Let's suppose I'm a fairly good hockey player that can be depended upon for contributing offensively to my team. I would certainly not shy away from going on Lidstrom's side. He will most definitely beat me, but I would keep coming and maybe at one point he would make that mistake that could give a scoring opportunity to my team. If I'm going on Potvin's side, I might not shy away at first, but once he nailed me hard I might play nervous around him. I might be the one prone to mistake and robbing my team of a scoring opportunity, because of the intimidation factor Potvin brings with him.

Obviously I'm not a fairly good hockey player, I'm an utterly terribad hockey player. Professional players might be more fearless than I'm ready to give them credit for. But it always seemed to me that some players where suddenly more "careful" when going on Scott Stevens's side for example.

I think it's fair to say that Lidstrom has accomplished more. He has the hardware, awesome longevity and durability all the while being an all-time great. But if we're talking about this big game where everything is on the line, I would take Potvin every single time. He just bring more to the team imo.

We can't quantify the intimidation factor, but I'm pretty sure it's counting for something on a team's "morale". Is it significant enough to get Potvin above Lidstrom, I would think that yes because they are very very close as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry if this was already brought up, but in any case cheers to everyone on this project.

 

[seventieslord]

No, in fact Montreal took fewer penalties. Their record in avoiding penalties from the mid seventies to the mid nineties is excellent, and is matched only by the Devils of the last 15 years.

Fewest powerplays against on average, 1985-86 to 1995
1. Montreal, 323
2. St. Louis, 351
3. Washington, 354
4. Boston, 355
League Average, 372

Montreal was also a strong defensive club, so Patrick Roy's years in Montreal came in a similar situation to Martin Brodeur in New Jersey, with a tight defensive team that took few penalties.

My bad.

Take a look at Roy's Colorado days. The Avs were frequently very high in PP opportunities against.

I didn't realize he had Brodeur-like shelter as a Hab.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My bad.

Take a look at Roy's Colorado days. The Avs were frequently very high in PP opportunities against.

I didn't realize he had Brodeur-like shelter as a Hab.

It makes sense. Jacque Lemaire and Larry Robinson basically brought the Canadien model to NJ and modified it slightly to account for the difference in personel.