12/21/24
May 29, 2005
London 'Knighted' as best junior team in Canada.:
Ranked #1 at the start of the season and every week afterwards, including the playoffs and the Memorial Cup, London completes the dream season by winning it all in front of the home fans.
"...some consider them the best team in CHL history." ...? Time will tell. Consider the 1981-82 Kitchener Rangers. The year before they lost in the Memorial Cup final. But most of the players were underage and could not be drafted into the NHL, so played another year OHL, and won the Memorial Cup. Look at some of the players on that roster - there's a reason why Sports Illustrated called them "Team NHL" a full year before those players were drafted: Scott Stevens - 22 years NHL - 1635 NHL games - a LOCK for the Hall of Fame. Al MacInnis - 23 years NHL - 1416 NHL games - a LOCK for the Hall of Fame. MacInnis broke Bobby Orr's OHL season record for most points by a defenceman. Behind those two HoF defencemen was goalie Wendell Young - 10 years NHL - 179 NHL games. They had a few goal-scorers and grinders too... Brian Bellows - 18 years NHL - 1188 NHL games. Mike Eagles - 15 years NHL - 853 NHL games. John Tucker - 12 years NHL - 656 NHL games. Dave Shaw - 16 years NHL - 769 NHL games. Mike Hough - 14 years NHL - 707 NHL games. Jeff Larmer - 5 years NHL - 158 NHL games. Grant Martin played 44 NHL games and Lou Crawford played 26 NHL games. Even goon Mike Moher - who set an OHL record for most penalty minutes (384) that season - played 9 NHL games. Get back to me when the Knights can pull these sorts of career stats together...
posted by the red terror at 04:01 PM on May 30, 2005
Get back to me when the Knights can pull these sorts of career stats together... I'm pretty sure we are both going to lose contact with each other in less than 22 years, so I hope you can keep track yourself. And I was talking about the best team in CHL history, not the best team of players and their future NHL stats. I don't know how dominating those Rangers really were, if they "only" went 44-21-3. It's a good record, but not one that suggests they dominated the league. But for the record, 9 of the Knights (Kell, Prust, Schremp, Perry, Fritsche, Bolland, Rediker, Methot, Coleman) have already been picked by NHL teams in the first 7 rounds of their respective drafts, and Danny Syvret (top OHL defenceman and team captain) is an unrestricted free agent. Then there are the players that are eligible for the 2005 (or later) draft (whenever that might be), so I suspect quite a few of them will be in the NHL in the future (if there is one). And the other "stars" you listed on the Rangers were journeymen players at best. Except for the two HOF defencemen and Bellows, none of those players averaged over 60 games a season in the NHL.
posted by grum@work at 04:39 PM on May 30, 2005
Very selective reasoning. And also clueless... Mike Eagles played 8 NHL seasons with a minimum of 60 games. Mike Hough played 7 NHL seasons with a minimum of 60 games. Dave Shaw played 8 NHL seasons minimum of 60 games. John Tucker played 6 NHL seasons with a minimum of 60 games. All those players suffered injuries and missed games during seasons. If you see their stats, you will see lots more 50+ game-seasons. You seem to think that extrapolating averages makes you a statistician. Do the math. 7640 NHL games on that squad alone -- for an 18-man roster, that works out to 44 games per player average. But the average is a dumb statistic for purposes of proving an athlete's worth. Look at the entire CAREER GAMES. Are you saying that 700+ games in the NHL doesn't mean shit? You're deluding yourself if you don't think there was depth in talent on that team, even when you conveniently brush aside a pair of Hall of Famers. That Rangers team could have won MORE Memorial Cups except for a simple reason: the players were so good, they got drafted well before playing out their junior careers. That is why we look at their NHL numbers. Scott Stevens only played ONE season of junior hockey. If he hadda sucked, the Rangers might have gotten more seasons out of him. Problem was - Stevens didn't suck, so the Rangers only got a single season out of him. You do understand how the system works, right? Did you ever see "Bull Durham"? Remember how Crash didn't see the big deal about career numbers in the minors? You might imagine why -- 'cuz he'd much rather have been getting hit by pitches in the majors. That's the way it is with great hockey players too -- if they are good, they don't spend much time playing with teenagers, they graduate to competing against GROWN PROFESSIONAL ELITE ATHLETES, not highschoolers. Because the fact of the matter remains: a hockey player would much rather miss the playoffs in the NHL than stay down in the juniors and win championships. Take it to the bank. And regards the NHL draft picks of Knights - big whoop. There have been lots of OHLers drafted high in the NHL and didn't amount to jack. All it means is that their "potential" was measured highly. Actual NHL game experience -- which you dismiss as irrelevant -- is by comparison far better at measuring a players actual value.
posted by the red terror at 05:06 PM on May 30, 2005
based on the discussion so far, i'll side with grum. let's compare a jr team to a jr team. the comparison to the Kitchener Rangers team you mention simply cannot be made in terms of things like NHL longevity until we see how the Knights players pan out, so who knows. we can compare them on their memorial cup winning seasons. the 0.882 winning percentage is pretty monstrous. are you taking offense that "some" might consider this team the best ever? it is a topic of discussion. i don't see how a rebuttal of calling somebody clueless is the way to make your case. I myself don't see a lot of NHL name recognition on that Rangers team beyond the defence pair + Bellows though, sure, the length of career is worth noting. but post-jr career and memorial cups that they didn't win? the question is who would win a head to head matchup - the 05 London Knights or the 82 Kitchener Rangers? so far this discussion seems to have two opposing sides of two different conversations.
posted by gspm at 07:51 PM on May 30, 2005
Very selective reasoning. And also clueless... Mike Eagles played 8 NHL seasons with a minimum of 60 games. - The best season he ever had was 32 points in 1986-87, in 73 games. Mike Hough played 7 NHL seasons with a minimum of 60 games. - The best season he ever had was 38 points in 1991-92, in 61 games. Dave Shaw played 8 NHL seasons minimum of 60 games. - The best season he ever had was 32 points in 1987-88, in 68 games. John Tucker played 6 NHL seasons with a minimum of 60 games. - The best season he ever had was 65 points in 1985-86, in 75 games. All those players suffered injuries and missed games during seasons. - Since I can't research their history to determine injuries, I'll have to take your word and assume you have some facts to back it up. My assumption, however, would be that they were journeymen and didn't always dress for every game. Because if you can't score at least 20 goals in the 1980's (well, to be fair, in the combined 29 premium seasons you list above, it happened twice, both by Tucker), that's pretty much what you are - journeymen. That Rangers team could have won MORE Memorial Cups except for a simple reason: the players were so good, they got drafted well before playing out their junior careers. That's the way it is with great hockey players too -- if they are good, they don't spend much time playing with teenagers, they graduate to competing against GROWN PROFESSIONAL ELITE ATHLETES, not highschoolers. Funny how you seemed to ignore that MacInnis was drafted the year BEFORE the championship season, and then played another year AFTER the championship season. Or that Eagles did, in fact, play another year of junior hockey after the championship season. Or that Hough did, in fact, play another year of junior hockey after the championship season. Or that Shaw did, in fact, play another 3 years of junior hockey after the championship season. Or that Tucker did, in fact, play another 2 years of junior hockey after the championship season. So what was that about "selective reasoning"? Actual NHL game experience -- which you dismiss as irrelevant -- is by comparison far better at measuring a players actual value. I don't dismiss it as irrelevant, except when you are trying to compare a team from over 20 years ago to a team from less than two days ago. How can you "penalize" the London Knights for something they couldn't possibly do (play in the NHL for an extended period of time)? In this case it's a ridiculous comparison, not "far better". You seem to think that extrapolating averages makes you a statistician. No, I think my BMath degree from here makes me a pretty good statistician. But thanks for trying to insult me!
posted by grum@work at 10:15 PM on May 30, 2005
A subscriber article on the Globe and Mail website today looks into a discussion of this nature and can be accessed if you know where to look. They conclude that Kamloops '95 vs these London Knights is the discussion to be had.
posted by gspm at 07:44 AM on May 31, 2005
Final record, including pre-season, regular season, OHL playoffs and Memorial Cup tournament: 82 wins, 9 losses, 2 ties. An .882 winning percentage, a 31-game unbeaten streak to start the season (losing only after 3 of their top players were off playing with their national junior teams), leading the OHL in goals for, goals against, power play efficiency, penalty killing efficiency, and having the top ranked OHL forward and defenceman...some consider them the best team in CHL history.