Let the Crosby-Lindros comparisons begin.
- youarewrong

No comparison. A healthy, in his prime Lindros is Crosby's equal in point production and superior in everything else.

So sad...the what could have been's.

you are welcome here

you guys beat Boston with a major player missing all three games this year, still I don't think it's a done deal getting past them
- Marc D

This is Pitt's first test of the playoffs. If it's a physical series, Boston wins. But if Pitt can get the Bruins off their game, frustrated and taking penalties, the Pens will destroy them with the PP.

Ugh, I hope there's not a poopload of penalties...that's just so f'n annoying.

And, of course, Pitt has the bigger question mark regarding goalie.

Can't wait to watch the game Saturday.

Still needs to sign Mathias Niederberger, no clue why this goalie isn't signed yet.
- ob18

Because he ain't no (frank)ing good.

you are welcome here

you guys beat Boston with a major player missing all three games this year, still I don't think it's a done deal getting past them
- Marc D

appreciate it. you guys are a fun lot. and it is far from a done deal. going to be a war of a series.

No comparison. A healthy, in his prime Lindros is Crosby's equal in point production and superior in everything else.

So sad...the what could have been's.
- wolfhounds

When he was healthy, Lindros was the most dominating player I've ever seen. I've seen players with more skill play in person (Gretzky, Lemieux, hell, even Giroux) but I've never seen a player just go on the ice and pretty much decide he was going to score, and there was nothing the other team could do to stop it.

No comparison. A healthy, in his prime Lindros is Crosby's equal in point production and superior in everything else.

So sad...the what could have been's.
- wolfhounds

lindros would dominate in todays game...

When he was healthy, Lindros was the most dominating player I've ever seen. I've seen players with more skill play in person (Gretzky, Lemieux, hell, even Giroux) but I've never seen a player just go on the ice and pretty much decide he was going to score, and there was nothing the other team could do to stop it.
- jmatchett383

Also how he would just ragdoll very capable defenseman. He made them look hopelessly outclassed in the physical department. Injuries kept him from being considered one of the best who ever played. It's a shame.

lindros would dominate in todays game...
- Philly1980

No doubt about it.

This is Pitt's first test of the playoffs. If it's a physical series, Boston wins. But if Pitt can get the Bruins off their game, frustrated and taking penalties, the Pens will destroy them with the PP.

Ugh, I hope there's not a poopload of penalties...that's just so f'n annoying.

And, of course, Pitt has the bigger question mark regarding goalie.

Can't wait to watch the game Saturday.
- wolfhounds

Saturday is shaping up to be a tremendous sports watching day. Phils at 4. Heat-Pacers. Pens-Broons.

Saturday is shaping up to be a tremendous sports watching day. Phils at 4. Heat-Pacers. Pens-Broons.
- johndewar

Other then one Sixers game, haven't watched an NBA game in years. I'm most looking forward to Kings/Hawks at 5.

Bill,

Great blog yesterday, though I don't necessarily fully agree with some of the statistics that were presented in the SB article. Or rather, statistics can tell any story you want if you use the right statistics.

So if I may, here is a counter-argument.

I used Kurt's table on how teams built their roster, and added the GAA from the regular season. I then sorted lowest to highest and created three groups. Here is the breakdown of the number of drafted defenseman by percentage of the teams in each tier. For example, Boston and CBJ each had 1 drafted defensemen, or 20% of the top 10 teams.

Top 10 teams
1 - 20%
2 - 20%
3+ - 60%

Middle 10 teams
1 - 30%
2 - 20%
3+ 50%

Lowest 10 teams

0 10% (and we know which team this is)
1 20%
2 - 50%
3+ 20%

So 60% of the teams in the top 10 had 3 or more of their own D, 50% of the middle 10 had 3 or more, and only 20% of the bottom 10 had 3 or more.

On the flip side, only 40% of the top 10 teams had 2 or less, 50% of the middle, but 80% of the bottom tier teams had 2 or less.

Obviously there are other mitigating factors, such as system, goalie, shortened season, etc.

And yes, there are anamolies, such as Boston/Columbus in the top 10 with 1 drafted D, and Buffalo/Winnipeg in the bottom 10 with 3+ drafted defensemen.

And GAA is only one statistical measure of defensive quality. But clearly there is a corrolation between drafting and developing defense and GAA.

Edit: Bad math corrected in bold.

Bill,

Great blog yesterday, though I don't necessarily fully agree with some of the statistics that were presented in the SB article. Or rather, statistics can tell any story you want if you use the right statistics.

So if I may, here is a counter-argument.

I used Kurt's table on how teams built their roster, and added the GAA from the regular season. I then sorted lowest to highest and created three groups. Here is the breakdown of the number of drafted defenseman by percentage of the teams in each tier. For example, Boston and CBJ each had 1 drafted defensemen, or 20% of the top 10 teams.

Top 10 teams
1 - 20%
2 - 20%
3+ - 60%

Middle 10 teams
1 - 30%
2 - 20%
3+ 50%

Lowest 10 teams

0 10% (and we know which team this is)
1 20%
2 - 50%
3+ 20%

So 60% of the teams in the top 10 had 3 or more of their own D, 50% of the middle 10 had 3 or more, and only 20% of the bottom 10 had 3 or more.

On the flip side, only 40% of the top 10 teams had 2 or less, 50% of the middle, but 80% of the bottom tier teams had 2 or less.

Obviously there are other mitigating factors, such as system, goalie, shortened season, etc.

And yes, there are anamolies, such as Boston/Columbus in the top 10 with 1 drafted D, and Buffalo/Winnipeg in the bottom 10 with 3+ drafted defensemen.

And GAA is only one statistical measure of defensive quality. But clearly there is a corrolation between drafting and developing defense and GAA.

Edit: Bad math corrected in bold.
- TheGreat28

I don't see how you can use GAA and make a correlation between teams who have drafted defenseman and teams that don't. That implies that defenseman, who are drafted and developed by their team, are better defensively. There's way too may variables. Goaltenders and Forwards are just as involved in a team's GAA as defenseman are. That is a huge reach.

I don't see how you can use GAA and make a correlation between teams who have drafted defenseman and teams that don't. That implies that defenseman, who are drafted and developed by their team, are better defensively. There's way too may variables. Goaltenders and Forwards are just as involved in a team's GAA as defenseman are. That is a huge reach.
- MJL

Yeah, I was a bit confused. We are now attributing GAA to defensemen alone?

When he was healthy, Lindros was the most dominating player I've ever seen. I've seen players with more skill play in person (Gretzky, Lemieux, hell, even Giroux) but I've never seen a player just go on the ice and pretty much decide he was going to score, and there was nothing the other team could do to stop it.
- jmatchett383

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!

So as far as the undrafted players that homer had coming to the rookie camps, there was that goalie prospect (forget his name) and that Clapperton kid, any word if they will be back for tryouts or are the draft eligible again? I was high on the clapperton kid, I remember watching some of his junior stuff and being pretty impressed..

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

He was, but he never used his strength the way that Lindros did. Mario used his size and strength to shrug off defenders and carry them on his back. Lindros used his strength to lay them out. Lindros had the finesse game and used his size to also be (to me) the most physically dominating player ever. Lemieux used it almost solely to accomodate his finesse game.

And yes, as far as overall hockey skill goes, Lemieux was better. I have no problem admitting that.

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

Lemieux was most certainly a better player then Lindros. But he wasn't bigger, faster, and stronger. Lindros was one of the most imposing physical players, ever to play the game.

So as far as the undrafted players that homer had coming to the rookie camps, there was that goalie prospect (forget his name) and that Clapperton kid, any word if they will be back for tryouts or are the draft eligible again? I was high on the clapperton kid, I remember watching some of his junior stuff and being pretty impressed..
- iroc4me2

Etienne Marcoux put up a 2.14 GAA and 91.3 SV% this year with the Armada (QMJHL). That made him the best goalie in the league this year. I believe he is draft eligible this year.
Also, he was runner-up to Jacob Markstrom for Calder in the 2014-2015 season on my NHL 13 Be A GM.

Lemieux was most certainly a better player then Lindros. But he wasn't bigger, faster, and stronger. Lindros was one of the most imposing physical players, ever to play the game.
- MJL

Mario would and could embarass a defender with a move.

Eric could embarass defenders occasionally, but mostly, he'd just truck them instead.

Yeah, I was a bit confused. We are now attributing GAA to defensemen alone?
- jmatchett383

The SB article concluded that it doesn't matter if you draft a defenseman or not, using how the teams constructed their roster to reach that conclusion. But 2.37 was the AVERAGE number of drafted defenseman on a team. Some teams had more, some had less. How did those teams that had more or less than average perform?

I tried to look at whether the "better" teams were above the average or below it.
So what measure would you use to measure a TEAM's defensive ability?

The SB article concluded that it doesn't matter if you draft a defenseman or not, using how the teams constructed their roster to reach that conclusion. But 2.37 was the AVERAGE number of drafted defenseman on a team. Some teams had more, some had less. How did those teams that had more or less than average perform?

I tried to look at whether the "better" teams were above the average or below it.
So what measure would you use to measure a TEAM's defensive ability?
- TheGreat28

A TEAM's defensive ability? Probably some combination of ES shots allowed, shots blocked, takeaways, hits, scoring chances against. I don't think there's a true team defense stat.

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

Nobody would argue Lemieux wasn't better, and Lemieux ended up playing 155 more games than Lindros.

- 4th fastest player in NHL history to score 300 points (210 GP) behind Wayne Gretzky (159), Mario Lemieux (186) & Peter Stastny (186)
- 4th fastest player in NHL history to score 400 points (277 GP) behind Wayne Gretzky (197), Mario Lemieux (240) & Peter Stastny (247)
- 5th fastest player in NHL history to score 500 points (352 GP) behind Wayne Gretzky (234), Mario Lemieux (287) & Peter Stastny (322) & Mike Bossy (349)
- 6th fastest player in NHL history to score 600 points (429 GP) behind Wayne Gretzky (273), Mario Lemieux (323) & Peter Stastny (394), Mike Bossy (400) & Jari Kurri (419)

Not too shabby.

A TEAM's defensive ability? Probably some combination of ES shots allowed, shots blocked, takeaways, hits, scoring chances against. I don't think there's a true team defense stat.
- jmatchett383

Yes, but at the end of the day ALL of these stats are leading indicators to GAA, so it is very likely that for example a team that is > average on ES shots allowed is > average in GAA.

Yes, but at the end of the day ALL of these stats are leading indicators to GAA, so it is very likely that for example a team that is > average on ES shots allowed is > average in GAA.
- TheGreat28

No, because there's another player on the team whose job is solely to stop any shots that the team (team, not just defensemen) allows. Some of them are better than others. Some of them are MUCH better than others. In a perfectly even Bettman's wet dream world, yes, the team that allows more shots would have more goals against. But this is the real world, and it's the reason guys like Lundqvist, Rinne, and Quick get paid more money than guys like Mike Smith, Ondrej Pavelec, and Semyon Varlamov. That's why GAA is attributed to goalies.

The SB article concluded that it doesn't matter if you draft a defenseman or not, using how the teams constructed their roster to reach that conclusion. But 2.37 was the AVERAGE number of drafted defenseman on a team. Some teams had more, some had less. How did those teams that had more or less than average perform?

I tried to look at whether the "better" teams were above the average or below it.
So what measure would you use to measure a TEAM's defensive ability?
- TheGreat28

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