I've been thinking about this too, was listening to MvsW the other week and they said Ovi was 9th in scoring since 1992 (NHL debut in 2005), fair to say he doesn't reach Gretzky but he might reach Bossy and Hull. Even if he doesn't, in an era where scoring is down, goalie pads are bigger etc he will surely go down as one of the greatest scorers the game has ever seen.
He also lost a season and a half to lockouts.
Where he ends up scoring wise depends on if the trend of allowing interference continues of if the league heads back to where it was after the lockout. He's certainly one of the greatest goal scorers the game has ever seen though.
Blech. I feel like the focus on statistics and fancy stats is ruining sports for me. It's turning away from a competition of will, luck, opportunity and whatnot and turning into a predictable pseudo-science.
I'm not a huge fan of "advanced" stats because they're so often abused, but it doesn't sound like what this is about.
And I've always thought a big part of Lidstrom's success was his ability to make the right play so consistently. He put up a lot of points but played pretty conservatively. Then if the Wings were down in key games is when you'd suddenly see Lids jumping into the play on offense. He was a coach's dream because he played the percentages, and usually correctly.
The Leafs offered him $50,000,000 --and-- Red Wings offered him $20,000,000.
If I hear another thing about Shanahan's "persuasiveness" or ability to sign the "big whale" - I'm going to absolutely... do nothing different because this is the exact same thing I hear everyday in the ridiculous market.
It sounds like term was a big deal too. Holland offered him 5 years, which honestly is a lot for a coach who's already been there 10 years. I don't fault Kenny for not offering longer at all and have to wonder if even that was a bit long.
But Babcock is 52. He just signed a contract that will guarantee his employment until he's 60 years old and for much better money. He faces a massive challenge in Toronto but it sounds like that's what he wanted.
Honestly this feels kind of like when Shanny moved on. The team could still use him but mostly likely will be fine without him and it will hopefully help trigger a new era for the Red Wings.
Except Calgary did so in 2004 and Edmonton did so in 2006. Three consecutive seasons where it happened (unfortunately all at our expense. )
None of these teams had repeated successes in the following seasons. That was just a weird mini-era during that three or four year run. You can throw the 2002 Hurricanes in there as well.
So your proof that it was a fluke run is that it happened three times in a row? Makes sense.
It wasn't some magical era when any team with a hot goalie could make it to game 7 of the finals. That line of reasoning is overly simplistic. If you seriously think of the runs of Calgary, the Oilers, the Ducks and Hurricanes as basically all the same, I really don't know what to say other than it seems like you're starting with your premise and then grabbing any information to support it. Or maybe as a Wings fan it's easier to accept them as fluke upsets? I really don't know.
I get that you don't like Babcock. I'm not arguing he's the absolute best coach in the league or that he was the best fit for the Wings next season. It's just amusing to see how far people will stretch reality to discredit his accomplishments.
I'm not one bit disappointed at the turn of events. Shocked at the number but that is the Leafs culture. I'm actually excited about our future.
One of the best zingers I read, as per Leafs' culture, management already working on buyout for Babcock.
The best one I saw was that it was hard for Detroit to compete with because Toronto was offering an extra months vacation.
They hardly scored any goals during those playoffs. It really was Giguere's doing more than anyone else's. Limiting scoring chances in that era wasn't hard as a 2-0 lead spelled doom for the losing team. Doesn't work that way today, which is why Price and Lundqvist have less cups than Crawford and Niemi.
The Ducks were one of four consecutive teams from the era to be underdog jobber teams that made the SCF. I had a good thread on this lately on hfboards. Three of those teams relied entirely on the goalie to save their bacon.
The Ducks were a 7 seed in 2003 and didn't even make the playoffs the following season.
Right. They didn't score a lot of goals because they weren't a talented team.
That doesn't anymore prove that it's because of Giguere than it does Babcock's coaching a good system with a not very talented team. And don't get me wrong, Giguere played amazing well that playoff run. But that alone doesn't get you to game 7 of the Cup finals. To completely discount the coach is absurd, especially given a team with as little talent as the Ducks had.
2003 was one of Giguere's best regular seasons and absolutely his best playoffs. The system is a part of that, especially with a big positional goaltender like he was. Like with Smith in Phoenix (though his fall off was more extreme).
Since it was apparently all Giguere, it's weird how a smart GM like Holland hired Babcock instead of trying to trade for the goalie that carried him to the Finals.
I do not fault Babcock at all for taking that unprecedented contract. It will be interesting to see what he is able to do with Toronto and how he handles the pressure. Boy have Detroit sports taken a beating lately with having their talent poached away. I am glad the Babcock drama is finally over with. It is time for the club to move forward and promote Blashill.
I wish the draft pick rule was in place 10 years ago. I'm trying to remember exactly how many people the Wings would've gotten picks for.
I blame Babcock for continuing to use E as a #2 just much as I blame Holland for not getting us another dman. It wasn't working yet Babs continued to put him out there.
I always saw that as making the best of what is a thin defensive corps.
Ericsson shouldn't be a #2 guy, but Dekeyser was actually 2nd on the team in terms of minutes. If you look at even strength minutes, Ericsson was 4th on the depth chart, which is about where he should be.
If you make Kronwall Dekeyser the top pair that's certainly better on paper, but it doesn't do great things for the other pairings. I think Ericsson was "good enough" to survive with Kronwall on the top pair and left more options for the other pairings.
That's why the Habs are a lock to win the Cup this year, right?
Babcock was there two seasons. He took a no talent team and a hot goaltender to within a win of the Cup. Giguere played great but to pretend it was all Giguere is inaccurate. Part of the reason he played so well was the system around him that was all about puck control and limiting scoring chances. Sound familiar?