Toggle sidebar

ATD Draft Summary

BM67

BM67

Registered User
Mar 5, 2002
4,778
287
In "The System"
Visit site
How Irvin did vs teams with better or worse records in the playoffs:

Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 17 - 5 - 12 - 80 - 33 - 46 - 1
Equal 1 - 0 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 3 - 0
Worse 28 - 21 - 7 - 106 - 66 - 39 - 1

Hmmm... lost 12 Finals, but only lost 7 series total to teams with inferior records, perhaps making the Finals wasn't too bad after all.

Cecil Hart
Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 4 - 2 - 2 - 14 - 7 - 6 - 1
Equal 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Worse 8 - 4 - 4 - 23 - 9 - 11 - 3

Irvin's teams lost after they hit the wall? They don't have a losing record to teams with inferior records.

Tommy Gorman
Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 5 - 3 - 2 - 14 - 7 - 5 - 2
Equal 1 - 1 - 0 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0
Worse 4 - 3 - 1 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 2

Hmmm... Doesn't look too bad, until you realize that he won only one series outside of his two Cup wins and missed the playoffs 3 times in 8 years. Hmmm... Looking back I see that Hart also only won one series outside of his two Cup wins as well.

Seems to me there are some folk around here that stress that short peaks equal bad selections. Hmmm...
 
Sturminator

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
BM67 said:
Seems to me there are some folk around here that stress that short peaks equal bad selections. Hmmm...
Click to expand...

BM, this is a case in which Nalyd and I speak for ourselves. Actually, that has been the case throughout. Although we respect one another's opinions, we think quite independently. This fact has probably improved our collective ability to evaluate players and construct a team, but it makes our comments/criticisms of other GMs' squads seem rather disjointed, at times. It is appropriate that we've got Hart and Gorman coaching our team because we are sort of like them: two guys with quite different approaches working together towards a common goal. Hopefully our coaches can work together as well as I think we have.

Dick Irvin was on my shortlist for coaches to look at in the range where we took Cecil Hart. While I think Hart is surely the better fit for Oakland's style, I do not share my colleague's opinion of Dick Irvin. To be honest, I don't have a detailed enough picture of Irvin's coaching tenure to make a really complete judgment. We decided to go with Hart before I had time to complete my research on Irvin. I understand Nalyd's criticism of several coaches' playoff records (and I agree with his assessment of Punch Imlach - he needs the right kind of team - one that doesn't include Andy Bathgate, to begin with), but without more information, I certainly wouldn't say that I'd never draft Dick Irvin. In fact, I've got him in the top half of league coaches.

I'm the guy who stresses longevity and consistency, not Nalyd.

A note on Cecil Hart: both times he coached in Montreal, he completely turned around the franchise. The Habs went from bad to good. Comparing the performances of Hart's teams in the regular season to their performance in the playoffs ignores the fact that Cece was a huge part of the reason those teams were in the playoffs to begin with. Everyone knows the story of how, starting in 1926, Hart turned a cellar-dweller into a back-to-back champion within four seasons, but it should also be said that the Habs were in a similar state of disarray when Hart returned for his second (and much shorter because he got sick and died) tenure in 1936.

In fact, so great was the reverence for Cecil Hart in Montreal, that he returned to the Habs only after a lengthy press campaign to bring him back. And it was in his second tenure that Hart really distinguished himself as an innovator, bringing an old Howie Morenz back, acquiring Babe Siebert and moving him to defense and taking the team from worst to first in one season.

If Cecil Hart's playoff record doesn't look that shiny next to his regular-season record, that is only because his regular-season accomplishments are almost impossibly good. The guy was a fantastic tactical coach and twice a savior in Montreal. His accomplishments are limited only by the fact that he didn't coach for that long and spent half of his time fixing the mess that others had made of the Habs.
 
Last edited:
Nalyd Psycho

Nalyd Psycho

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
24,415
16
No Bandwagon
Visit site
I always forget Irvin was still coach with the 1953 Habs.

BM67 said:
How Irvin did vs teams with better or worse records in the playoffs:

Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 17 - 5 - 12 - 80 - 33 - 46 - 1
Equal 1 - 0 - 1 - 4 - 1 - 3 - 0
Worse 28 - 21 - 7 - 106 - 66 - 39 - 1

Hmmm... lost 12 Finals, but only lost 7 series total to teams with inferior records, perhaps making the Finals wasn't too bad after all.

Cecil Hart
Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 4 - 2 - 2 - 14 - 7 - 6 - 1
Equal 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0
Worse 8 - 4 - 4 - 23 - 9 - 11 - 3

Irvin's teams lost after they hit the wall? They don't have a losing record to teams with inferior records.

Tommy Gorman
Series - Wins - Losses - Games - Wins - Losses - Ties
Better 5 - 3 - 2 - 14 - 7 - 5 - 2
Equal 1 - 1 - 0 - 3 - 2 - 1 - 0
Worse 4 - 3 - 1 - 8 - 4 - 2 - 2

Hmmm... Doesn't look too bad, until you realize that he won only one series outside of his two Cup wins and missed the playoffs 3 times in 8 years. Hmmm... Looking back I see that Hart also only won one series outside of his two Cup wins as well.

Seems to me there are some folk around here that stress that short peaks equal bad selections. Hmmm...
Click to expand...

I like how my criticizing your pick means my picks must be criticized. Would this conversation go differently if I had picked Toe Blake or Al Arbour? (Both were given very serious consideration.)

But, if you want to go that way. Hart vs Irvin: 1930=Hart over Irvin in a single elimination game. 1931=Hart over Irvin 3 games to 2. (Worth noting to back up my point about Irvin teams hitting a wall, they were up 2 games to 1 but lost the final 2 games to give Hart's Habs the win.) While Gorman vs Irvin, the only match-up is Gorman beating Irvin in a 3 game sweep in 1935 with a Maroons team that, on paper was weaker than the Leafs. So my coaches never lost a series to your coach.

Another flaw in your argument is that the coach is a big part of regular season standings. In Toronto Irvin had arguably 3 of the decade's top 5 forwards, the best trio of d-men and goalies like: Chabot, Hainsworth and Broda. Then in Montreal, again, 3 of the top 5 forwards, a brilliant 2nd line in Buddy O'Conner, the great trio of d-men in Bouchard, Reardon and Harmon and a dominant regular season goalie in Durnan. So the question is, with such an assortment of talent, why wasn't he winning more league championships?

In Toronto, people question the clutch play of The Kid Line. In Montreal people question Durnan. I'm questioning the common denominator. How is it that a coach that is 4-12 in the finals, who coached a who's who of talent from the era, not questioned for his inability to seal the deal? He was out done by Ivan, out done by Day, by Adams, Gorman, Hart. When push comes to shove and everything is on the line, Dick Irvin gets out coached.

I'm open to being proved wrong, but I don't see how the numbers are deceiving me.
 
BM67

BM67

Registered User
Mar 5, 2002
4,778
287
In "The System"
Visit site
Sturminator said:
A note on Cecil Hart: both times he coached in Montreal, he completely turned around the franchise. The Habs went from bad to good. Comparing the performances of Hart's teams in the regular season to their performance in the playoffs ignores the fact that Cece was a huge part of the reason those teams were in the playoffs to begin with. Everyone knows the story of how, starting in 1926, Hart turned a cellar-dweller into a back-to-back champion within four seasons, but it should also be said that the Habs were in a similar state of disarray when Hart returned for his second (and much shorter because he got sick and died) tenure in 1936.
Click to expand...

In 26 he turned around a team that he coached to last place by adding Herb Gardiner and George Hainsworth from out west. That hardly speaks of great coaching, although it doesn't count it out of course.
 
BM67

BM67

Registered User
Mar 5, 2002
4,778
287
In "The System"
Visit site
Nalyd Psycho said:
I like how my criticizing your pick means my picks must be criticized. Would this conversation go differently if I had picked Toe Blake or Al Arbour? (Both were given very serious consideration.)
Click to expand...

You're the one that said I couldn't win with Irvin, but would be unbeatable with Gorman.

But, if you want to go that way. Hart vs Irvin: 1930=Hart over Irvin in a single elimination game. 1931=Hart over Irvin 3 games to 2. (Worth noting to back up my point about Irvin teams hitting a wall, they were up 2 games to 1 but lost the final 2 games to give Hart's Habs the win.) While Gorman vs Irvin, the only match-up is Gorman beating Irvin in a 3 game sweep in 1935 with a Maroons team that, on paper was weaker than the Leafs. So my coaches never lost a series to your coach.
Click to expand...
Irvin didn't coach Chicago in 1930, and they played a 2 game total goal series. In 31, Chicago's 2 wins came in OT, and the last 3 games of the series were in Montreal, so it's hardly an upset to lose the last 2 games.

While the Maroons might be weaker on paper in 35 that's not the same as being a weak team. The had 6 ATD #8 selections on the roster as well as Gorman.

Another flaw in your argument is that the coach is a big part of regular season standings. In Toronto Irvin had arguably 3 of the decade's top 5 forwards, the best trio of d-men and goalies like: Chabot, Hainsworth and Broda. Then in Montreal, again, 3 of the top 5 forwards, a brilliant 2nd line in Buddy O'Conner, the great trio of d-men in Bouchard, Reardon and Harmon and a dominant regular season goalie in Durnan. So the question is, with such an assortment of talent, why wasn't he winning more league championships?

In Toronto, people question the clutch play of The Kid Line. In Montreal people question Durnan. I'm questioning the common denominator. How is it that a coach that is 4-12 in the finals, who coached a who's who of talent from the era, not questioned for his inability to seal the deal? He was out done by Ivan, out done by Day, by Adams, Gorman, Hart. When push comes to shove and everything is on the line, Dick Irvin gets out coached.

I'm open to being proved wrong, but I don't see how the numbers are deceiving me.
Click to expand...
Boston had a better record during the 31-40 period when Irvin coached in Toronto, and they also only won 1 Cup.

Year - Best record - Coach - Cup winner - Coach
31-32 - Canadiens - Hart - Toronto - Irvin
32-33 - Boston - Ross - Rangers - L. Patrick
33-34 - Toronto - Irvin - Chicago - Gorman
34-35 - Toronto - Irvin - Maroons - Gorman
35-36 - Detroit - Adams - Detroit - Adams
36-37 - Detroit - Adams - Detroit - Adams
37-38 - Boston - Ross - Chicago - Stewart
38-39 - Boston - Ross - Boston - Ross
39-40 - Boston - Ross - Rangers - F. Boucher

In 31-32 he won the Cup with Toronto.

In 32-33 he beat the top team in Boston, then lost the Final to the Rangers, a team with the same record, who had 8/1 drafted players/coach.

In 33-34 he lost with the #1 team to the #2 team, Detroit, in the semi-final. Detroit went on to lose to #3 Chicago in the Final. Detroit had 5/1 drafted players/coach, while Chicago had 6/1.

In 34-35 his #1 Leafs beat the #2 Bruins, before losing in the Final to the #4 Maroons, who had 6/1 drafted players coach.

In 35-36 his #3 Leafs beat #4 Boston and the #7 Americans bfore losing to the #1 Red Wings in the Final. Detroit had 8/1 drafted players/coach.

In 36-37 his #5 Leafs lost to the #6 Rangers (49 vs 47 pts), who then beat the #4 Maroons, before losing to the #1 Red Wings. The Rangers had 10/1 drafted players/coach and Detroit had 7/1.

In 37-38 his #3 Leafs beat #1 Boston before losing to #6 Chicago in the Finals. Chicago had only 3 drafted players, although two others have been drafted before.

In 38-39 his #3 Leafs beat the #4 Americans and the #5 Red Wings before losing to the #1 Bruins in the Finals. Boston had 11/1 drafted players.

In 39-40 his 3 Leafs beat #4 Chicago and #5 Detroit before losing to the #2 Rangers in the Finals. The Rangers had 9 drafted players.

While 1 Cup is a disappointment, it's more in contrast to his 6 Finals losses than a reasonable expectation of 2 or 3.

As for his years in Montreal, compare his roster to the dynasties in Toronto and Detroit.

He had some good goalies, but he also lost to some good goalies, including a few of the goalies he coached. Irvin got to the Finals 16 times with 7 different starting goalies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Ad

Latest posts

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom