Lemieux was the first in this bunch to under achieve .... With cancer and injuries shortening his career.....he was bigger, stronger, faster , better than lindros!
- huks99

Under achieve? Being stricken with hodgkins and also suffering from back ailments, does not mean he under achieved in his career. Not playing up to your talent is under achieving. Mario's circumstances were unfortunate.

Under achieve? Being stricken with hodgkins and also suffering from back ailments, does not mean he under achieved in his career. Not playing up to your talent is under achieving. Mario's circumstances were unfortunate.
- KINGKENZO

Could you actually argue that he OVER achieved? He was never able to realize his true potential, maybe. But given the hand he was dealt, I'd say he did pretty good.

GAA can certainly be used to measure a Teams defensive ability. You're post completely eliminated the team from the variables, and only used it to measure the defense.
- MJL

I mentioned in the post that there are other mitigating factors, such as the system the team plays, the goalie, etc. You could build a weighted KPI for example that uses GAA and save%, shots allowed, shots blocked, etc. Perhaps that gives a truer measure of a team's overall defensive ability.

But at the minimum, if you are saying that the statistics I presented do not justify drawing a conclusion about whether it is important to draft or acquire D, then I would say that the article Bill cites is also flawed because it simply looked at how rosters were built with NO correlation to performance.

I mentioned in the post that there are other mitigating factors, such as the system the team plays, the goalie, etc. You could build a weighted KPI for example that uses GAA and save%, shots allowed, shots blocked, etc. Perhaps that gives a truer measure of a team's overall defensive ability.

But at the minimum, if you are saying that the statistics I presented do not justify drawing a conclusion about whether it is important to draft or acquire D, then I would say that the article Bill cites is also flawed because it simply looked at how rosters were built with NO correlation to performance.
- TheGreat28

The article absolutely correlated how rosters were built to performance. It looked at how recent Cup winners were built.

Could you actually argue that he OVER achieved? He was never able to realize his true potential, maybe. But given the hand he was dealt, I'd say he did pretty good.
- jmatchett383

yeah. to say that either lindros or mario underachieved is absolutely ridiculous. it is tragic that both were historically marred by injuries. regardless of the team or drama surrounding him, and despite whatever rumors about his personality that may or may not have been true, lindros had dominating ability that few players could dream of possessing. i fully agree with the assessment that although lindros and 66 both had similar size, they used it in different ways. lindros could have skated through a wall and buried a shot on the other size had he been so inclined.

I mentioned in the post that there are other mitigating factors, such as the system the team plays, the goalie, etc. You could build a weighted KPI for example that uses GAA and save%, shots allowed, shots blocked, etc. Perhaps that gives a truer measure of a team's overall defensive ability.

But at the minimum, if you are saying that the statistics I presented do not justify drawing a conclusion about whether it is important to draft or acquire D, then I would say that the article Bill cites is also flawed because it simply looked at how rosters were built with NO correlation to performance.
- TheGreat28

So, if the Flyers defense consisted of, say, a healthy Pronger, Timonen, Shea Weber, Coburn, Grossmann, and Mesazros, 0 of which were drafted, the consensus drawn from your post would be that there's a good chance they'd have a high GAA (in fact, based on the evidence in the table, their GAA would still be bottom 12/3rd) because zero of them were drafted by the team.

*sigh*

So, if the Flyers defense consisted of, say, a healthy Pronger, Timonen, Shea Weber, Coburn, Grossmann, and Mesazros, 0 of which were drafted, the consensus drawn from your post would be that there's a good chance they'd have a high GAA (in fact, based on the evidence in the table, their GAA would still be bottom 12/3rd) because zero of them were drafted by the team.
- jmatchett383

*sigh*
- Don'tForgetTocchet

's gonna be a long day on the web.

's gonna be a long day on the web.


- mayorofangrytown

So, if the Flyers defense consisted of, say, a healthy Pronger, Timonen, Shea Weber, Coburn, Grossmann, and Mesazros, 0 of which were drafted, the consensus drawn from your post would be that there's a good chance they'd have a high GAA (in fact, based on the evidence in the table, their GAA would still be bottom 12/3rd) because zero of them were drafted by the team.
- jmatchett383

Because Bryzgalov.

The article absolutely correlated how rosters were built to performance. It looked at how recent Cup winners were built.
- MJL

Use ONLY Cup Winners is inherently flawed because, as we all know and love about the sport, anything can happen, matchups matter (like the Flyers beating the Pens who would were one of the favorites to win the cup last year), and hot goalies can steal a series.

So, if the Flyers defense consisted of, say, a healthy Pronger, Timonen, Shea Weber, Coburn, Grossmann, and Mesazros, 0 of which were drafted, the consensus drawn from your post would be that there's a good chance they'd have a high GAA (in fact, based on the evidence in the table, their GAA would still be bottom 12/3rd) because zero of them were drafted by the team.
- jmatchett383

The Flyers could NOT have fielded that defense in a CAP world. That is the crux of the argument for those of us who are on the side of drafting D. All expensive players that would have consumed a disproportiante amount of the cap.

EDIT: Removed free agents and replaced with players.

's gonna be a long day on the web.


- mayorofangrytown

it sure is

That was fun.

Bill- since its such a slow day, what do you think of the Dman the Oilers signed out of the KHL?

Thanks

Use ONLY Cup Winners is inherently flawed because, as we all know and love about the sport, anything can happen, matchups matter (like the Flyers beating the Pens who would were one of the favorites to win the cup last year), and hot goalies can steal a series.
- TheGreat28

The point of the article was that there is not one best way to build a Cup-winning defense... but even within the variance, there has been no team that has won with zero drafted defensemen, so hopefully the Flyers could do better in that regard. In no way shape or form does it preclude the Flyers being able to win with such a setup... only that there is no precedent for it, just like there isn't a precedent for a team having only drafted defensemen in their lineup.

As for the correlation between GAA% and quality of a team'd defense... let's just say it's not strong. Even if you just look at even-strength GAA% (taking out the wide variance of team PK% from year to year), the relationship is still pretty weak. GAA% of teams tend to fluctuate wildly from year to year... some of it has to do with how the team plays in front of the goaltenders, some of it has to do with the goaltenders themselves, some of it comes down to variance in luck from year to year, and there's a host of other variables like injuries/coaching/schedule/etc that go into it too.

Use ONLY Cup Winners is inherently flawed because, as we all know and love about the sport, anything can happen, matchups matter (like the Flyers beating the Pens who would were one of the favorites to win the cup last year), and hot goalies can steal a series.
- TheGreat28

It's not flawed in terms of correlating it to performance, as you said it didn't. Everything you mentioned there is relative to performance. A Cup favorite has to perform and beat the teams it's matched up with to win the Cup.

The Flyers could NOT have fielded that defense in a CAP world. That is the crux of the argument for those of us who are on the side of drafting D. All expensive players that would have consumed a disproportiante amount of the cap.

EDIT: Removed free agents and replaced with players.
- TheGreat28

While it's very unlikely that a team would devote that much of cap assets to the defense, it's not impossible to do so. The rest of the team would of course suffer greatly. But his example was a hypothetical to show that the correlation between the number of defenseman drafted to GAA, is at best, very weak.

I was a huge Lindros fan in the 90s and still remember him fondly. He was the complete package. However, the players have gotten bigger and stronger since then. Lindros at 6-4 and 240lb was considered HUGE back then. Today, he would be considered mildly big for a power forward/center. With guys like Chara at 6-9 and Byfluglien at 260lb, Lindros wouldn't have a power advantage as often as he would back in the day. No doubt his skill level would be considered top shelf still but his size and power would not be. Because of that, I think he would make a very good player in today's NHL but not dominant.

There isn't really a dominant big power forward today probably because defenseman have gotten bigger. This era favors the small to averaged sized player like Giroux, Crosby, Ovechkin over the bigger players.

Note: Even in the 90's, Lindros had trouble with bigger defenseman like Ed Jovanovski and I can remember Keith Primeau having good success shutting him down when he was a Cane. Lindros was not able to dominate big players who could skate as much as he did the rest of the NHL.

Really, in terms of the defense issue facing the Flyers. There's really two elements to it. They have to continue to try and bolster the prospect base for defenseman in the Organization. And improve the success rate of developing those players. Secondly, any of the prospects that they currently have, or will possibly be drafting soon, aren't likely to make an immediate impact. And are a number of years away from making a difference if at all. Meanwhile players like Giroux and Voracek, entering their prime. They can't wait and waste 2-3 years of that prime, for young defenseman to develop. They need to bite the bullet, and pay a price, and make a move to bolster the current D core. it will be a lot easier to supplement and fill a hole at forward, then it is to find a top defenseman. So if it costs them a Simmonds or B Schenn to add that player. So be it. They don't have much of a choice.

's gonna be a long day on the web.


- mayorofangrytown

It's all about location...



*goes back to the other sites he was visiting*

I was a huge Lindros fan in the 90s and still remember him fondly. He was the complete package. However, the players have gotten bigger and stronger since then. Lindros at 6-4 and 240lb was considered HUGE back then. Today, he would be considered mildly big for a power forward/center. With guys like Chara at 6-9 and Byfluglien at 260lb, Lindros wouldn't have a power advantage as often as he would back in the day. No doubt his skill level would be considered top shelf still but his size and power would not be. Because of that, I think he would make a very good player in today's NHL but not dominant.

There isn't really a dominant big power forward today probably because defenseman have gotten bigger. This era favors the small to averaged sized player like Giroux, Crosby, Ovechkin over the bigger players.

Note: Even in the 90's, Lindros had trouble with bigger defenseman like Ed Jovanovski and I can remember Keith Primeau having good success shutting him down when he was a Cane. Lindros was not able to dominate big players who could skate as much as he did the rest of the NHL.
- phillydentist

Ovechkin is about 235-240 lbs. He's not a small to average size player. Back when Lindros was in his prime, Centers such as Joel Otto were around that coould handle Lindros. I went to a game where the Flyers played Calgary, at home. Every time Calgary put Otto out against Lindros, Murray would pull Lindros off. Ovechkin is about one of the few players who are on par with Lindros physically. That there aren't many player like Lindros, is a testament to how special he was. And with the new rules that take away clutiching, grabbing, and hooking. Lindros would be just as dominant in today's game in his prime, as he was back then. No doubt about it.

I was a huge Lindros fan in the 90s and still remember him fondly. He was the complete package. However, the players have gotten bigger and stronger since then. Lindros at 6-4 and 240lb was considered HUGE back then. Today, he would be considered mildly big for a power forward/center. With guys like Chara at 6-9 and Byfluglien at 260lb, Lindros wouldn't have a power advantage as often as he would back in the day. No doubt his skill level would be considered top shelf still but his size and power would not be. Because of that, I think he would make a very good player in today's NHL but not dominant.

There isn't really a dominant big power forward today probably because defenseman have gotten bigger. This era favors the small to averaged sized player like Giroux, Crosby, Ovechkin over the bigger players.

Note: Even in the 90's, Lindros had trouble with bigger defenseman like Ed Jovanovski and I can remember Keith Primeau having good success shutting him down when he was a Cane. Lindros was not able to dominate big players who could skate as much as he did the rest of the NHL.
- phillydentist

I dont agree with this, for the most part. The biggest difference is that the obstruction rules are night and day. In todays game, it wouldnt matter if players are slightly bigger, they wouldn't be able to clutch, grab and use their sticks with impunity.....he would run rough-shod over this league

Ovechkin is about 235-240 lbs. He's not a small to average size player. Back when Lindros was in his prime, Centers such as Joel Otto were around that coould handle Lindros. I went to a game where the Flyers played Calgary, at home. Every time Calgary put Otto out against Lindros, Murray would pull Lindros off. Ovechkin is about one of the few players who are on par with Lindros physically. That there aren't many player like Lindros, is a testament to how special he was. And with the new rules that take away clutiching, grabbing, and hooking. Lindros would be just as dominant in today's game in his prime, as he was back then. No doubt about it.
- MJL

Ovechkin is 6-3 and 230lb. I was surprised to see that. He looks average sized compared to the rest of the league. The NHL has gotten bigger. "Big" guys don't stand out or look as big because of that.

As for the new rules taking away clutching and grabbing, I wouldn't notice them from watching the playoffs.

I'm not saying Lindros wouldn't be a very good player in this era. I just wouldn't expect him to dominate in an NHL full of bigger and stronger players regardless of the rule changes which the refs sometimes don't enforce.

Edit: Come to think of it, Ovechkin makes for a good comparable to Lindros. Lindros was a bigger hitter, better fighter, but Ovechkin is a better skater and has the slight edge imo in the skills department.