HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   All Time Draft (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   René Lecavalier Divisional Seminfinals: Minnesota vs. Guelph (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1168447)

TheDevilMadeMe 04-16-2012 06:35 PM

René Lecavalier Divisional Seminfinals: Minnesota vs. Guelph
 
Minnesota Fighting Saints
http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile...742_3463_n.jpg

GM: Nalyd Psycho
Head Coach: Al Arbour
Captain: Dit Clapper
Assistant Captains: Maurice Richard & Guy Carbonneau

#40 Henrik Zetterberg-#26 Peter Šťastný-#9 Maurice Richard
#19 Markus Näslund-#25 Jacques Lemaire-#13 Bill Guerin
#21 Harry Westwick-#21 Guy Carbonneau-#16 Bengt-Ĺke Gustafsson
#22 Dennis Hextall-#15 Jaroslav Holík-#12 Ron Stewart

#4 Bill Gadsby-#5 Dit Clapper
#2 Derian Hatcher-#6 Art Duncan
#3 František Tikal-#8 Harry Mummery

#1 Hugh Lehman
#30 Tim Thomas

Spares: #14 Mattias Norström, D-#44 Barry Ashbee, D-#11 Art Gagne, RW-#7 Jason Arnott

First Power Play Unit:
Näslund-Šťastný-Richard
Gadsby-Duncan

Second Power Play Unit:
Zetterberg-Lemaire-Guerin
Mummery-Clapper

First Penalty Kill Unit:
Carbonneau-Westwick
Hatcher-Clapper

Second Penalty Kill Unit:
Lemaire-Gustafsson
Gadsby-Tikal

Vs

http://img141.imageshack.us/img141/1...lphplaters.png

Guelph Platers
1986 Memorial Cup Champions

Home Rink: Guelph Memorial Gardens (1948)
GM: BraveCanadian

Coaches: Pat Quinn, John Muckler
Captain: Joe Sakic
Alternates: Art Coulter, Si Griffis

Johnny Bucyk - Joe Sakic -Brett Hull
Jack Adams - Marty Barry - Bill Mosienko
Jere Lehtinen - Brad Richards - Marian Gaborik
John Madden - Mel Bridgman - Bobby Gould

Paul Coffey - Art Coulter
Gennady Tsygankov - Si Griffis
Bill Hajt - Hobey Baker

Grant Fuhr
Chris Osgood

Reserves
Adrian Aucoin - Bob Probert - Michal Handzus

Powerplay:
PP1: Johnny Bucyk - Joe Sakic - Brett Hull - Paul Coffey - Si Griffis
PP2: Jack Adams - Marty Barry - Bill Mosienko - Paul Coffey - Brad Richards

Penalty Kill:
PK1: Jere Lehtinen- John Madden - Bill Hajt - Art Coulter
PK2: Bobby Gould - Mel Bridgman - Gennady Tsygankov - Si Griffis


Nalyd Psycho 04-17-2012 01:25 PM

Advantages for Minnesota:
-Coaching: Two good coaches who should have chemistry can out coach a very good coach, and maybe be an equal to a great coach. But against an elite coach? No. Arbour is a clear advantage.
-Defence: After Paul Coffey Minnesota has the better defence top to bottom. Bigger, more skilled, more polished.
-Team defence: Guelph's only really strong defensive line is their low usage fourth line. While Minnesota has a strong 3rd line that can be used a lot. While also having balance throughout the line-up with Zetterberg, Lemaire, Stewart and Holik.
-Toughness: Minnesota is bigger and more physical throughout the line-up. Guelph has a few guys like Bucyk, Bridgeman and Coulter that will have to shoulder a heavy load. While Minnesota has size, strength and the will to use it throughout the line-up.


Disadvantages for Minnesota:
-Offence: The scoring lines are close. Richard is clearly better than Hull as the lead sniper. But Bucyk is much better than Zetterberg. The second lines are both good, not great. But with Paul Coffey backing it all up, a likely saw-off becomes advantage Guelph. Gadsby, Clapper and Duncan just can't do what Coffey does.

Saw-offs:
-Leadership: Both teams are loaded with high character players.
-Special Teams: Coffey is not an elite PP QB. So the advantage he offers 5 on 5 is not there 5 on 4. So the two teams are very close to equal when it comes to powerplay offence. Both teams have fantastic penalty killing forwards. Guelph's 1st unit PK has a great defence as well, one of the best, but Hatcher-Clapper is also one of the best. That said, I would give Minnesota an advantage on the 2nd PK unit. The question is whether or not that is significant.

I'm not sure:
-Goaltending: On the one hand, Lehman is the more skilled goalie. On the other hand, Fuhr locks it up when it counts. Normally I find the whole money goalie vs good goalie thing overblown. (Like how Broda got rated over Brimsek.) But this is actually a great case study in it. It really depends on how much you value Lehman's ability as a goalie. How much one punishes Fuhr for his mid-career floundering. How much one punishes Lehman for his below expectation play in a couple series. How much credit one gives Fuhr for winning in Edmonton. These are pretty big variables and one can walk away saying Lehman is clearly better, Fuhr is clearly better, or they are equal. And all would be perfectly justifiable. (Naturally, I think Lehman is clearly better. :D )

Anyone else find it strange that I'm in a series where my team is weaker offensively than my opponent, but tougher and better defensively?

Sturminator 04-17-2012 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho (Post 48247499)
Anyone else find it strange that I'm in a series where my team is weaker offensively than my opponent, but tougher and better defensively?

Yeah. You are just about the only GM here who can make me feel like one of the conservatives.

Nalyd Psycho 04-17-2012 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sturminator (Post 48258399)
Yeah. You are just about the only GM here who can make me feel like one of the conservatives.

I take more pleasure from changing perceptions than I do from winning.

overpass 04-17-2012 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho (Post 48247499)
-Special Teams: Coffey is not an elite PP QB. So the advantage he offers 5 on 5 is not there 5 on 4. So the two teams are very close to equal when it comes to powerplay offence.

I agree with the second sentence - Coffey was the second best offensive defenceman ever more because of his scoring at ES than on the PP. But really, Coffey not an elite PPQB? How many players would you want ahead of him in that role? Not Gadsby, for sure.

jarek 04-17-2012 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by overpass (Post 48289521)
I agree with the second sentence - Coffey was the second best offensive defenceman ever more because of his scoring at ES than on the PP. But really, Coffey not an elite PPQB? How many players would you want ahead of him in that role? Not Gadsby, for sure.

I found that very strange, myself. Besides Orr, I can't think of a single defenseman I'd rather have QB'ing my PP than Coffey.

Nalyd Psycho 04-17-2012 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by overpass (Post 48289521)
I agree with the second sentence - Coffey was the second best offensive defenceman ever more because of his scoring at ES than on the PP. But really, Coffey not an elite PPQB? How many players would you want ahead of him in that role? Not Gadsby, for sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jarek (Post 48292471)
I found that very strange, myself. Besides Orr, I can't think of a single defenseman I'd rather have QB'ing my PP than Coffey.

Bourque, Potvin and MacInnis were all peers of Coffey that I would take over him. Harvey is another.

Keep in mind that during his best years, Coffey wasn't even the QB on the PP. His centres were.

As for Gadsby and Duncan, unfortunately, I don't have the data, so I don't know if they were particularly good or bad.

BraveCanadian 04-17-2012 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho (Post 48247499)
Advantages for Minnesota:
-Coaching: Two good coaches who should have chemistry can out coach a very good coach, and maybe be an equal to a great coach. But against an elite coach? No. Arbour is a clear advantage.

I agree that Arbour is an amazing coach. I've been a fan of his a long time and I had him last year in the ATD.

There is no coach clearly better than him imo.

That being said, I think that:

1) Quinn backed up by Muckler closes up the gap substantially because I think Quinn's biggest weakness is systems and strategy, an area Muckler excels at.

2) I believe that the fact that our team is built top to bottom to do what it does closes it even more.

Arbour is still better in my opinion, especially in an all time sense, but I don't think it will be a deciding factor in this case.

Quote:

-Defence: After Paul Coffey Minnesota has the better defence top to bottom. Bigger, more skilled, more polished.
Not sure about this one. We have very good size and skill on the defense.

Guys like Griffis and Hajt are huge for their era, meanwhile Coffey/Coulter/Tsygankov are all average to above average as well, I'm sure. Baker may be a little smallish for his time (not sure?) but has great speed to help make up for it.

Most importantly our defense corp was selected specifically to play our game.


Quote:

-Team defence: Guelph's only really strong defensive line is their low usage fourth line. While Minnesota has a strong 3rd line that can be used a lot. While also having balance throughout the line-up with Zetterberg, Lemaire, Stewart and Holik.
This is by design on my part, we're going to just keep attacking in waves. More on this later in the post.

Each of our lines I would term at the worst responsible and at best quite good defensively. This was to make sure someone would be covering for Coffey and to a lesser degree Griffis & Baker, when they get adventurous, because we want to push the odds in our favour when they do.

As for having balance sprinkled through the lineup, I see your Zetterberg, Lemaire, Stewart and Holik and raise you a Sakic, Barry, Lehtinen, Madden, Gould etc.

Quote:

-Toughness: Minnesota is bigger and more physical throughout the line-up. Guelph has a few guys like Bucyk, Bridgeman and Coulter that will have to shoulder a heavy load. While Minnesota has size, strength and the will to use it throughout the line-up.
We have at least one solid physical presence or noted board/corner man on every forward line, and if we can take care of the business of playing hockey without taking penalties, all the better for us.

Our preference will just be to keep skating and let you take penalties trying to keep up. You can't hit what you can't catch, Bridgman will dust anyone who gets too far out of line, and if the issue gets pressed we'll insert Probert too.

Quote:

Disadvantages for Minnesota:
-Offence: The scoring lines are close. Richard is clearly better than Hull as the lead sniper. But Bucyk is much better than Zetterberg.
This is where I have to disagree. The scoring lines are not close.

1st lines

Richard vs. Hull

You're correct that Richard is clearly better than Hull, but Hull at least keeps him within sight as a goal scorer (even if he doesn't do as well overall outside of his peak).

The point I'm getting at is that Hull is much closer to Richard than Zetterberg is to Bucyk in this setting.


Statsny vs. Sakic

Sakic is better than Stastny both ways. Offensively for five seasons they are close (Sakic still ahead) and then Sakic just starts to pick up steam and pulls away.

Player10G10A10Ptsvs2
Stastny07 6100,95,94,87,81,74,74,71,57,57,50,46,27,13,3
Sakic5910100,100,95,90,88,88,86,83,81,79,77,76,71,71,69,68,56,41,38,11


Zetterberg vs. Bucyk

Bucyk is miles, no, light years better than Zetterberg in an ATD setting. Zetterberg is a fine player, but even if you give solid credit for his defensive play over his much shorter career, I don't know how he can begin to make it up.

Offensively, Bucyk's 10th season is as good as Zetterbergs 5th. Bucyk's 18th best offensive season is as good as Zetterbergs 7th.

Then add in Bucyk's hitting and corner work.

Player10G10A10Ptsvs2
Zetterberg11287,81,71,69,66,64,60,49,42
Bucyk 55689,83,82,81,78,73,71,70,70,66,66,65,65,64,62,62,61,60,43,35,25,15,11


Quote:

The second lines are both good, not great.
Hey, my second line is great. ;)

2nd line

Naslund vs. Adams

Naslund has 4 Top 10 in goals, 3 in assists and 3 in points. All three of his top finishes for points were top 5.

Adams has 4 top 10 in goals, 2 in assists and 4 in points in just the NHL part of his career. 2 of them top 5.

These two are tough to compare being so distant.. but adding in Adams physical play and discounting his offense some for being in his lesser used position.. it could go either way for me at first glance.

Maybe you can weigh in more on this one...


Lemaire vs. Barry

Lemaire has 1 top 10 in goals, 1 top 10 in assists and 3 in points.
Top 10 seasons: 91,79,72,69,61,61,59,55,50,44

Barry has 7 top 10 in goals, 3 top 10 in assists and 6 in points.
Top 10 seasons: 100,98,93,85,85,84,76,65,58,53

Lemaire is also noted as a very good two way player and maybe he makes up some ground there, but Barry is known as a good too way player too.

Put another way, Barry is as good offensively on my second line as Stastny is on your first:

Barry's 10 best seasons vs2:
100,98,93,85,85,84,76,65,58,53

Stastny's 10 best seasons vs2:
100,95,94,87,81,74,74,71,57,57


Guerin vs. Mosienko

Guerin: 3 top 10 in goals.
Top 10 seasons vs2: 79,73,72,60,49,49,48,44,43,43

Mosienko: 5 top 10 in goals, 5 top 10 in assists, 5 top 10 in points.
Top 10 seasons vs2: 92,91,77,74,73,67,64,55,52,51

Guerin adds physicality and size, Moseinko adds elite speed. Take those for what you will.

3rd lines

This is where our teams completely differ so it is hard to compare.

You have a much more defensive shutdown type line whereas ours is a 3rd responsible scoring line.

I will just put out there that the nice thing for us in this series is that our 3rd line center and right winger is as good as your 2nd line ones.. so even if you are using your shutdown line on one of our top two lines, our remaining two scoring lines still have more punch than what you have.

Richards: 91,83,78,74,71,69,68,61,58,53,44
Lemaire: 91,79,72,69,61,61,59,55,50,44,42,40

(In this case, I think Lemaire's two way play may push him back over the top overall though)

Guerin: 79,73,72,60,49,49,48,44,43,43,42,41
Gaborik: 79,78,78,74,63,54,50,48,46,31,21


Quote:

But with Paul Coffey backing it all up, a likely saw-off becomes advantage Guelph. Gadsby, Clapper and Duncan just can't do what Coffey does.
Offense is already looking like a very strong advantage for us, even before adding in another weapon like Coffey.

Waves man, waves! ;)

Quote:

Saw-offs:
-Leadership: Both teams are loaded with high character players.
Agree. I don't think leadership will be a determining factor for either of us.

Quote:

-Special Teams: Coffey is not an elite PP QB. So the advantage he offers 5 on 5 is not there 5 on 4. So the two teams are very close to equal when it comes to powerplay offence.
Coffey certainly is an elite PP QB.

Furthermore, our PP units may be fairly close, but we aren't going to be in the box often and should enjoy a lot more opportunities.

Quote:

Both teams have fantastic penalty killing forwards. Guelph's 1st unit PK has a great defence as well, one of the best, but Hatcher-Clapper is also one of the best. That said, I would give Minnesota an advantage on the 2nd PK unit. The question is whether or not that is significant.
Agreed - besides the fact that your PKers will get a lot more work than mine - I don't think the quality of them differs enough to make them a distinct advantage or disadvantage for either of us at first glance.

Quote:

I'm not sure:
-Goaltending: On the one hand, Lehman is the more skilled goalie. On the other hand, Fuhr locks it up when it counts. Normally I find the whole money goalie vs good goalie thing overblown. (Like how Broda got rated over Brimsek.) But this is actually a great case study in it. It really depends on how much you value Lehman's ability as a goalie. How much one punishes Fuhr for his mid-career floundering. How much one punishes Lehman for his below expectation play in a couple series. How much credit one gives Fuhr for winning in Edmonton. These are pretty big variables and one can walk away saying Lehman is clearly better, Fuhr is clearly better, or they are equal. And all would be perfectly justifiable. (Naturally, I think Lehman is clearly better. :D )
Yeah, well I think that Fuhr is better. ;)

I don't know enough about Lehman yet to make a strong determination either way. I do know I like Fuhr on our team with our style of play -- he's used to it!






(I hope I have all the numbers in here correct, its late!)

BenchBrawl 04-17-2012 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho (Post 48297373)

As for Gadsby and Duncan, unfortunately, I don't have the data, so I don't know if they were particularly good or bad.

Here is at least some data regarding Gadsby provided by overpass that I used with Red Kelly:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=76

(EV/PP numbers)

Nalyd Psycho 04-18-2012 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BenchBrawl (Post 48301359)
Here is at least some data regarding Gadsby provided by overpass that I used with Red Kelly:

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...1&postcount=76

(EV/PP numbers)

Thanks. That certainly supports Gadsby as being a strong PP performer.

(BC, I'll give a detailed reply tomorrow.)

Sturminator 04-18-2012 02:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho (Post 48297373)
Keep in mind that during his best years, Coffey wasn't even the QB on the PP. His centres were.

I'm not sure that's entirely fair. I guess we could have a semantic argument about what it means to be a "powerplay QB" (there can be only one!), but Coffey spent a lot of time controlling the puck up high on those Oilers/Penguins teams. He was the guy who controlled play from the point, absolutely. The fact that he had very strong centers who could control the play down low doesn't make him not a "powerplay QB" in my opinion. He's not the clear 2nd best all-time in that role as he is offensively at even strength, but he's still an elite ATD pointman, I think.

BenchBrawl 04-18-2012 05:52 AM

Can you really just have 1 PP QB? I think there's some cases where you can have two of them.

Sturminator 04-18-2012 05:54 AM

It was a joke, Reen.

BenchBrawl 04-18-2012 05:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sturminator (Post 48308671)
It was a joke, Reen.

:laugh: I woke up about 10 minutes ago , I need a coffee.

seventieslord 04-18-2012 12:13 PM

I know you're comparing a 3rd liner to a 2nd liner to make a point there, but Richards is not a perfect example of a player you can compare in this way. He's the kind of player whose even strength play almost has to be analyzed separately if you're going to compare lines. With most players we can reasonably assume it's a wash as they were all top offensive players who played some PP time. But thanks to his usefulness on the point, Richards' PP usage and percentage of PP points (particularly assists) are quite high compared to a lot of players and his raw, overall, "combined" totals are not a good reflection of what one could expect from him in an ES, "on a line" basis.

BraveCanadian 04-18-2012 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 48321719)
I know you're comparing a 3rd liner to a 2nd liner to make a point there, but Richards is not a perfect example of a player you can compare in this way. He's the kind of player whose even strength play almost has to be analyzed separately if you're going to compare lines. With most players we can reasonably assume it's a wash as they were all top offensive players who played some PP time. But thanks to his usefulness on the point, Richards' PP usage and percentage of PP points (particularly assists) are quite high compared to a lot of players and his raw, overall, "combined" totals are not a good reflection of what one could expect from him in an ES, "on a line" basis.

When we're comparing him to Lemaire and both of them *are* playing PP time in this series?

Seems ok to me, especially since like you said, I'm really just making a point about our offensive depth, and I did note that Lemaire is probably better overall still.

seventieslord 04-18-2012 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 48321895)
When we're comparing him to Lemaire and both of them *are* playing PP time in this series?

Yeah, I still wouldn't. I would compare lines to lines, and then PP units to PP units, and when doing so, Richards is just a 2nd unit pointman, not an elite pointman who plays the full PP, like he often is in real life.

BraveCanadian 04-18-2012 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 48323317)
Yeah, I still wouldn't. I would compare lines to lines, and then PP units to PP units, and when doing so, Richards is just a 2nd unit pointman, not an elite pointman who plays the full PP, like he often is in real life.

And Lemaire takes a similar demotion in his powerplay time I'd imagine. I can't recall who was the 1st unit center during his time.

I mean I get what you're saying: Richards has 40% of his production on the PP while Lemaire is around 25% I believe.

How much is each going to drop on 2nd unit PP duty here? Who knows?

Lemaire individually should be a better even strength scorer at first glance. But if we're going to nitpick we could start looking at his linemates, team, and the league environment in which he produced those compared to Richards.

However, I think that is a little beside the point and I'm not going to quibble about it. I have a pretty overwhelming advantage offensively anyways..

BraveCanadian 04-20-2012 09:57 AM

Adding this from the lineup thread again because it has some important points about how and why my team is constructed the way it is:


The game plan for my team this year:

I built this team attempting to suit and take advantage of Paul Coffey to a large degree. He is not going to be hidden on this team, we are going to try to force our opponents to hide from him.

To do so I've drafted a coach that didn't buy into the trap during the dead puck era and who liked to roll lines for the most part and occasionally match against an important opponent player or line. (Pat Quinn). I feel we have given him the horses to do this with three defensively responsible scoring lines that will be able to take advantage of Coffey and support our own zone, and one gritty more defensively oriented line that can be used to somewhat blunt an opponents best attackers when need be.

I feel Quinn is a little bit light in the X's and O's game so I have given him a master strategist in John Muckler. Muckler was the game planner who got the most out of Coffey in Edmonton.

We will be an attacking team, high speed, up tempo, all out, all the time.

To be successful with this strategy I did a couple of things very carefully:

1) We won't be in the box often. We have several Lady Byng winners on our team, including one of our biggest physical presences in Johnny Bucyk. We want to minimize the time we're in the box. That having been said, to make sure we don't get run out of the rink we do have Bucyk, Adams, Bridgman, Coulter etc. to keep the peace. I also drafted Probert so that he can be inserted into the lineup if a team is getting out of hand in the playoffs and he and Bridgman can introduce the other team to the virtues of a clean game.

2) We are specialized so that all our best offensive players will play only PP and ES and our best defensive-focused players will play only ES and PK. This will keep the minutes down on our big guns and let us maintain our tempo. Only Si Griffis is playing both special teams and he is a second pairing at ES and second team PK.

3) Speed. With players like Sakic, Barry, Mosienko, Richards, Gaborik, Coffey, Griffis, Baker and on and on.. I tried to pick speed whenever it was feasible to take full advantage of being able to streak from transition with Coffey's long passes.. or just keep up with him on the rush.

4) I tried to make sure we had a rushing speedy defenseman on each pairing. Coffey is paired with an anchor in Coulter. Baker is paired with a defensive anchor in Hajt. Our second pairing features two two-way defenseman so they will take turns. The point being that our team has the capability of playing the same all the time.

5) We have goaltenders who were known for having a good attitude and shrugging off their personal numbers for team success. Which will be important when we're trading chances a lot of the time.

Nalyd Psycho 04-20-2012 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 48301135)
Not sure about this one. We have very good size and skill on the defense.

Guys like Griffis and Hajt are huge for their era, meanwhile Coffey/Coulter/Tsygankov are all average to above average as well, I'm sure. Baker may be a little smallish for his time (not sure?) but has great speed to help make up for it.

Most importantly our defense corp was selected specifically to play our game.

Not saying your defence is particularly small, more that mine is pretty massive. And a lot tougher. Coffey, Tsygankov and Baker are not physical. Griffis, hard to say, but I see no evidence of being overly tough.

Also, I believe my defence to be a lot stronger in their own end. Hajt is a legendary penalty killer, but 5 on 5 is just solid. Coulter is your best defensive defenceman, but I'd rank Clapper, Gadsby and Hatcher above him without a moment of doubt. Coffey is weak in his own zone, Griffis and Baker are questionable. Where as my defence has no question marks about defensive ability.

As you said, your defence is built for your style. My defence is built for any style. Great offensively. Great defensively. Big. Mobile. Physical. You name it, my defence delivers.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 48301135)
This is by design on my part, we're going to just keep attacking in waves. More on this later in the post.

Each of our lines I would term at the worst responsible and at best quite good defensively. This was to make sure someone would be covering for Coffey and to a lesser degree Griffis & Baker, when they get adventurous, because we want to push the odds in our favour when they do.

As for having balance sprinkled through the lineup, I see your Zetterberg, Lemaire, Stewart and Holik and raise you a Sakic, Barry, Lehtinen, Madden, Gould etc.

I don't see a raise when you include your specialists. In that case. I raise you Carbonneau, Gustaffson and Westwick.

You may be able to have offensive pressure, but my team is defensively much stronger and will be able to withstand the pressure. But given the speed and transitional offensive pressure throughout my line-up, we will punish you for every defensive gaff. And that will lead to a Minnesota victory.


Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 48301135)
We have at least one solid physical presence or noted board/corner man on every forward line, and if we can take care of the business of playing hockey without taking penalties, all the better for us.

Our preference will just be to keep skating and let you take penalties trying to keep up. You can't hit what you can't catch, Bridgman will dust anyone who gets too far out of line, and if the issue gets pressed we'll insert Probert too.

You infer that my team can't keep up with yours, which is patently false. And as tough as my team is, there are very few instigators on the team. It's mostly guys who can ramp up the violence in response. So if you play clean, don't expect a lot of power plays.




Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 48301135)
This is where I have to disagree. The scoring lines are not close.

1st lines

Richard vs. Hull

You're correct that Richard is clearly better than Hull, but Hull at least keeps him within sight as a goal scorer (even if he doesn't do as well overall outside of his peak).

The point I'm getting at is that Hull is much closer to Richard than Zetterberg is to Bucyk in this setting.


Statsny vs. Sakic

Sakic is better than Stastny both ways. Offensively for five seasons they are close (Sakic still ahead) and then Sakic just starts to pick up steam and pulls away.

Player10G10A10Ptsvs2
Stastny07 6100,95,94,87,81,74,74,71,57,57,50,46,27,13,3
Sakic5910100,100,95,90,88,88,86,83,81,79,77,76,71,71,69,68,56,41,38,11


Zetterberg vs. Bucyk

Bucyk is miles, no, light years better than Zetterberg in an ATD setting. Zetterberg is a fine player, but even if you give solid credit for his defensive play over his much shorter career, I don't know how he can begin to make it up.

Offensively, Bucyk's 10th season is as good as Zetterbergs 5th. Bucyk's 18th best offensive season is as good as Zetterbergs 7th.

Then add in Bucyk's hitting and corner work.

Player10G10A10Ptsvs2
Zetterberg11287,81,71,69,66,64,60,49,42
Bucyk 55689,83,82,81,78,73,71,70,70,66,66,65,65,64,62,62,61,60,43,35,25,15,11




Hey, my second line is great. ;)

2nd line

Naslund vs. Adams

Naslund has 4 Top 10 in goals, 3 in assists and 3 in points. All three of his top finishes for points were top 5.

Adams has 4 top 10 in goals, 2 in assists and 4 in points in just the NHL part of his career. 2 of them top 5.

These two are tough to compare being so distant.. but adding in Adams physical play and discounting his offense some for being in his lesser used position.. it could go either way for me at first glance.

Maybe you can weigh in more on this one...


Lemaire vs. Barry

Lemaire has 1 top 10 in goals, 1 top 10 in assists and 3 in points.
Top 10 seasons: 91,79,72,69,61,61,59,55,50,44

Barry has 7 top 10 in goals, 3 top 10 in assists and 6 in points.
Top 10 seasons: 100,98,93,85,85,84,76,65,58,53

Lemaire is also noted as a very good two way player and maybe he makes up some ground there, but Barry is known as a good too way player too.

Put another way, Barry is as good offensively on my second line as Stastny is on your first:

Barry's 10 best seasons vs2:
100,98,93,85,85,84,76,65,58,53

Stastny's 10 best seasons vs2:
100,95,94,87,81,74,74,71,57,57


Guerin vs. Mosienko

Guerin: 3 top 10 in goals.
Top 10 seasons vs2: 79,73,72,60,49,49,48,44,43,43

Mosienko: 5 top 10 in goals, 5 top 10 in assists, 5 top 10 in points.
Top 10 seasons vs2: 92,91,77,74,73,67,64,55,52,51

Guerin adds physicality and size, Moseinko adds elite speed. Take those for what you will.

Firstly, Guerin is actually a fantastic skater with great speed. Secondly, it's not the pieces, it's the fit.

Not only is Richard significantly better than Hull. Hull is only an ATD calibre sniper in a specific setting. Joe Sakic and Johnny Bucyk are not that setting. Hull is pretty unspectacular without Oates, and I do not believe you have compensated. Where as Richard needs no one, but benefits greatly from from having two linemates that he can cycle the puck with and who can control the puck possession element, thus giving him a lot more opportunities to score.

Then your second line you have a player playing out of position who played primarily in a 3-way split league, where I'm certain his scoring finishes would be average. I have nothing bad to say about Barry, and Mosienko who was never more than a third wheel.

Whereas the Twin City Express is specifically designed to duplicate Naslund and Lemaire's greatest success. Naslund had his dominant years when he had a speedy centre two-way centre and a puck carrying bull. Lemaire had his best years when he had a winger who could dominate the puck and use the threat of a deadly shot to create passing lanes. Which Naslund excels at. My second line will highlight and bring out the very best in the individual pieces.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 48301135)
3rd lines

This is where our teams completely differ so it is hard to compare.

You have a much more defensive shutdown type line whereas ours is a 3rd responsible scoring line.

I will just put out there that the nice thing for us in this series is that our 3rd line center and right winger is as good as your 2nd line ones.. so even if you are using your shutdown line on one of our top two lines, our remaining two scoring lines still have more punch than what you have.

Richards: 91,83,78,74,71,69,68,61,58,53,44
Lemaire: 91,79,72,69,61,61,59,55,50,44,42,40

(In this case, I think Lemaire's two way play may push him back over the top overall though)

Guerin: 79,73,72,60,49,49,48,44,43,43,42,41
Gaborik: 79,78,78,74,63,54,50,48,46,31,21

If you don't see how Guerin's physical play gives him a clear edge, you're fooling yourself. Your third line may be able to score, but I don't see how Richards or especially Gaborik offer much defensively. Neither are players I'd want on the ice when Richard is on the ice, in fact, every line has clear points of liability for the best and easily most dominant force in the series to exploit. And also, my third line has excellent speed on the wings, designed for a high pressure forecheck and counter attack offence that will exploit your teams clear defensive disadvantage.


Quote:

Originally Posted by BraveCanadian (Post 48301135)
Coffey certainly is an elite PP QB.

I concede that I overstated that point. While he isn't as good 5 on 4 as he is 5 on 5, he is high end.

seventieslord 04-20-2012 10:40 PM

A good solid debate here, with good points going both ways, and, this is the important part... respect.

Nalyd Psycho 04-20-2012 11:04 PM

Since I have a lot of plans all weekend. I probably won't get to say any more. So here's my last word.

This is a classic offence vs defence match-up. I like my line-up and I like how it's built offensively. But I can't honestly say that my offence is as strong as BC's, it would be a lie. Just as I don't believe he can say his line-up is as strong defensively. So what is the difference maker? Versatility and coaching. Minnesota has, I believe, a more versatile line-up. More players who can play multiple roles and multiple positions. Players who can be high tempo offensive players or defensive lockdown players. And what's more, with arguably the greatest coach of all time, this versatility will be used to the utmost effectiveness. And that is why I believe Minnesota will win.

BraveCanadian 04-21-2012 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho (Post 48483687)
Not saying your defence is particularly small, more that mine is pretty massive. And a lot tougher. Coffey, Tsygankov and Baker are not physical. Griffis, hard to say, but I see no evidence of being overly tough.

Coulter was very tough.

Coffey played in the playoffs with a broken jaw and after almost losing his sight.

Griffis continued playing for a few years after a leg injury that eventually slowed him down and caused him to retire.

Tsygankov amazed Fetisov with his physique and strength.

We're plenty tough enough to play our game.

Unless you equate tough to penalty minutes. We're not into that.


Quote:

Also, I believe my defence to be a lot stronger in their own end.
You'd better hope so.. I think you'll be spending a lot of time there. ;)

Quote:

Hajt is a legendary penalty killer, but 5 on 5 is just solid.
I'd love to know why you believe that to be the case.

When we're outnumbered he is legendary, but when we aren't he's just pretty good... does that make a lot of sense to you?

Quote:

Coulter is your best defensive defenceman, but I'd rank Clapper, Gadsby and Hatcher above him without a moment of doubt.
Hatcher better defensively then Coulter?

Particularly when defending our team speed? I don't think so.

It will be like jets buzzing the tower.

Quote:

Coffey is weak in his own zone, Griffis and Baker are questionable. Where as my defence has no question marks about defensive ability.

As you said, your defence is built for your style. My defence is built for any style. Great offensively. Great defensively. Big. Mobile. Physical. You name it, my defence delivers.
Your defense is no doubt more adaptable, however my team isn't adapting.

I've made no secret that we're attempting to dictate the way the game is played.

Quote:

You may be able to have offensive pressure, but my team is defensively much stronger and will be able to withstand the pressure. But given the speed and transitional offensive pressure throughout my line-up, we will punish you for every defensive gaff. And that will lead to a Minnesota victory.
Such as?

Our offensive ability is overwhelming in comparison to yours as I showed in my earlier post.

And that was before adding in the Coffey dimension - easily the best transitional player in the series imo.

Quote:

You infer that my team can't keep up with yours, which is patently false. And as tough as my team is, there are very few instigators on the team. It's mostly guys who can ramp up the violence in response. So if you play clean, don't expect a lot of power plays.
I'm fairly confident no team in the draft has the overall team speed, and more importantly the ability to do things at top speed, that we have.

Also, we aren't looking to "instigate" anything.. quite the opposite.

Part of our entire gameplan is staying out of the box and continuing our high tempo attack.

Quote:

Firstly, Guerin is actually a fantastic skater with great speed. Secondly, it's not the pieces, it's the fit.
You can quibble about Guerin's skating in my comparison to Mosienko if you like I'm not really concerned because Guerin is completely outclassed offensively here.

By any of the usual metrics we use here Mosienko is in a different league, and even Gaborik, our third line winger, is a better offensive player.


Quote:

Not only is Richard significantly better than Hull.
Fully agree.

Unfortunately Zetterberg is so poor offensively on a first line in the ATD at this point in his career (at least in comparison to his counterpart Bucyk here) he acts like a giant black hole for your first line.

Quote:

Hull is only an ATD calibre sniper in a specific setting. Joe Sakic and Johnny Bucyk are not that setting.
And what reason would that be, praytell?

Sakic & Bucyk have 14 top ten finishes in assists feeding Hull.

Zetterberg and Stastny 8.

Now add in another 9 top 10 assist finishes from Coffey.

Not top 10s among defensemen.. top 10 assist finishes among all players.

Hull will have more opportunities then he knows what to do with.

Quote:

Hull is pretty unspectacular without Oates, and I do not believe you have compensated.
Been waiting all draft for this to come up.

Here you go:

Quote:

Originally Posted by matnor (Post 36094935)
Only two players have ever broken the 70 goal barrier three times, Wayne Gretzky and Brett Hull. While Gretzky holds numerous other scoring achievements, in Hull's case that's really what stands out from his career. The only three times he scored more than 60 goals, let alone 70, was the only three seasons one of the greatest playmakers of all time, Adam Oates, played on his team. This has lead a lot of people to conclude that Oates was instrumental to Hull's extraordinary achievement. Using some game-by-game scoring logs from the HSP I thought I'd take a closer look at this. Hopefully, people who saw them play together can comment on the conclusions I draw.

1989-90 season

In their first season together Hull scored 72 goals while Oates had 79 assists. Both played the full season, 80 games. Out of Hull's 72 goals, 45 was scored at even strength. However, Oates did only assist on 14 of them. More surprising is that that is the same amount of assists as the left-winger on Hull's line, Sergio Momesso, had. Momesso wasn't really a first-line caliber player so it is surprising that he had as many assists as Oates. One reason for this is that Oates wasn't Hull's center the entire season. Peter Zezel seems to have centered Hull for part of the season, he had 8 assists on Hull's goals at even strength. No other player had more than 5 ES assists.

Turning to the powerplay. Out of Hull's 27 PP goals, Oates assisted on 9 of them. That is actually fewer than Zezel's 13 assists. The only other player with more than 5 PP assists was Jeff Brown with 7.

So, in total, Oates assisted on 23 of Hull's goals, Zezel on 21 whereas Momesso assisted on 19. To me, that hardly suggests that Oates was crucial for Hull's success that season.

1990-91 season

Turning to Hull's Hart-winning season. He scored an astounding 86 goals in 78 games while Oates had a fantastic 90 assists in only 60 games. Out of Hull's 86 goals, 57 was scored at even strength. Unfortunately, HSP only includes 56 of those goals so that is what I can analyze. Of those 56 goals Oates assisted on 21 of them. Since Oates was out for a large part of the season this is a fairly high number. Of the other players Brind'amour had 12 assists and Gino Cavallini 9.

Hull scored 29 goals on the powerplay and here is where the chemistry between Hull and Oates really can be seen. Oates assisted on 20 of those 29 goals. Excluding the games Oates was injured that means he assisted on 80% (20/25) of Hull's PP goals. Other notable players with a high number of assists were the two defensemen, Scott Stevens (10) and Jeff Brown (8).

Another way of analyzing this season is to look at the 19 games which Oates missed. During these games Hull scored 18 goals and added 9 assists. This is lower than his pace with Oates (59 games, 68 goals and 36 assists) but still very good. Overall, I would say this is the season where the chemistry between these two players were most important.

1991-92 season

For this season there are no game-by-game data available from the HSP. However, since Oates was traded midway through the season we can compare their play before and after the trade. Overall, Hull scored 70 goals in 73 games this season, while Oates had 79 assists in 80 games. Breaking it down before and after the trade we get:

 GP G A Pts  
Hull before 54 54 26 80 
Hull after 19 16 12 28 
Oates before 54 10 59 69 
Oates after 26 10 20 30 

Overall, the difference is not that big. Hull scored points at the same rate after the trade as before but with slightly less goals and slightly more assists. Oates on the other hand increased his goal scoring but decreased his assists production after the trade.

Overall Conclusion

While Hull and Oates certainly benefited from playing with each other I think Oates' impact on Hull's goal scoring has been a little overstated thanks to the drop in Hull's goal scoring after Oates left. Without Oates I think it's still likely Hull scores 60+ goals all three seasons and likely over 70 in at least one or two of them.

So there we have it.


Quote:

Where as Richard needs no one, but benefits greatly from from having two linemates that he can cycle the puck with and who can control the puck possession element, thus giving him a lot more opportunities to score.
I have to disagree. Hull is in a much, much, better situation than Richard here.

Stastny is about as good offensively as our second liner Barry.. Zetterberg is completely out of his depth offensively on a first line here. He's a good player for real and everything but his career and offense is not up to snuff in an all time sense here.

Again:

Zetterberg 87,81,71,69,66,64,60,49,42

Bucyk 89,83,82,81,78,73,71,70,70,66,66,65,65,64,62,62,61 ,60, 43,35,25,15,11

Quote:

Then your second line you have a player playing out of position who played primarily in a 3-way split league, where I'm certain his scoring finishes would be average.
Even if you completely discount his career in the other leagues (which we shouldn't be doing), Adams still has NHL scoring finishes that are competitive with your LW (although Naslunds are better), and an all around game at least competitive with your LW even after discounting his offense for playing his less experienced position.

I'm comfortable that, when giving him credit for his whole career, he comes out ahead as an overall player.

Quote:

I have nothing bad to say about Barry, and Mosienko who was never more than a third wheel.

Whereas the Twin City Express is specifically designed to duplicate Naslund and Lemaire's greatest success. Naslund had his dominant years when he had a speedy centre two-way centre and a puck carrying bull. Lemaire had his best years when he had a winger who could dominate the puck and use the threat of a deadly shot to create passing lanes. Which Naslund excels at. My second line will highlight and bring out the very best in the individual pieces.
I'm sorry, are we comparing Naslund to Lafleur now?

In any case, none of them stand up offensively to their counterparts on my team, and in fact, (again) Barry is probably as good offensively as your first liner.

Quote:

If you don't see how Guerin's physical play gives him a clear edge, you're fooling yourself. Your third line may be able to score, but I don't see how Richards or especially Gaborik offer much defensively.
The fact that we have been comparing your 2nd liner to my third line speaks volumes right off the bat.

Also, even if it were true that Richards and Gaborik don't have a lot to offer defensively, which it isn't, they are playing with a three time Selke winner whose goal scoring bias meshes perfectly with Richards bias as a playmaker.

The fit of the players on my third line is absolutely awesome. I like them more all the time. :laugh:

Quote:

Neither are players I'd want on the ice when Richard is on the ice, in fact, every line has clear points of liability for the best and easily most dominant force in the series to exploit. And also, my third line has excellent speed on the wings, designed for a high pressure forecheck and counter attack offence that will exploit your teams clear defensive disadvantage.
As demonstrated in my earlier post, outside of Richard, we have more talented players and more depth at practically every forward position.

You're really asking for a lot from Richard.

Especially since Quinn, despite his usual habit of rolling lines and keeping his players fresh, was actually known for paying special attention to one or two key players on the other squad.

Since we have three lines that are frankly ideal to alternatively overpower or limit Richard, we're all set:

If our first lines are facing one another, Richard will have his hands full trying to prop up a line completely out of its depth in comparison.

The gap that Bucyk and Sakic open up over Zetterberg and Stastny is much more than Richard gains over Hull.

When our 3rd and 4th lines are facing Richard he is facing a Selke winner on one line and a Selke winner on the other. It is perfect.

With three lines that we are fine with facing Richard and with the way your offensive ability drops off after him.. we're in great shape.

BraveCanadian 04-21-2012 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho (Post 48491241)
Since I have a lot of plans all weekend. I probably won't get to say any more. So here's my last word.

This is a classic offence vs defence match-up. I like my line-up and I like how it's built offensively. But I can't honestly say that my offence is as strong as BC's, it would be a lie. Just as I don't believe he can say his line-up is as strong defensively.

I would agree that this is an offense vs defense battle and that your team has better traditional defense for sure.

I've tailor made our team to play in a certain fashion, though, and I do think that helps us keep from getting hemmed in our zone.

Quote:

So what is the difference maker? Versatility and coaching. Minnesota has, I believe, a more versatile line-up. More players who can play multiple roles and multiple positions. Players who can be high tempo offensive players or defensive lockdown players. And what's more, with arguably the greatest coach of all time, this versatility will be used to the utmost effectiveness. And that is why I believe Minnesota will win.
This is actually really interesting that you cite this as your main advantage, because as I just alluded to in my reply to your post.. our team isn't going to adapt.

I've meticulously built this team for one type of game - we're going to win guns blazing or go down guns blazing.

We are trying to force the game open and dictate the tempo of the game. When you have a Paul Coffey you don't put the reins on him you let him run!

I've taken a lot of care in setting up our team to be capable of doing so.. focusing on having all defensive pairs capable of supporting our type of play all the time, emphasizing speed, specializing the PP and PK so that our players stay fresh and able to maintain the tempo etc..

This is a clash of a versatile cross over suv and a ferarri to put it into a car analogy. If we can keep things on the black top, we win.







EDIT - just wanted to add that either way it goes it will be a great series and I enjoyed the civil debate with you Nalyd.

seventieslord 04-21-2012 12:25 AM

Don't go changing. Do it your way, go down blazing.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.