HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   All Time Draft (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   MLD 2012 Mickey Ion QF: Winston-Salem Polar Twins vs. Winnipeg Monarchs (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=1256235)

seventieslord 09-05-2012 11:33 PM

MLD 2012 Mickey Ion QF: Winston-Salem Polar Twins vs. Winnipeg Monarchs
 
Coach
Don Cherry
Assistant Coach
Dave King

Fred Scanlan - Ulf Nilsson - Rick Kehoe
Joe Juneau - Bronco Horvath - Gary Dornhoefer
Buzz Boll - Charlie Burns (A) - Serge Bernier
Lorne Henning - Stephane Yelle - Dustin Brown (A)

Dave Ellett - Brad Maxwell
Albert Langlois - Jocelyn Guevremont
Arnie Brown - Garth Butcher (C)

Mike Karakas
Arturs Irbe


Spares
Jim Riley
Dolly Swift
Udo Kiessling


Power Play 1
Horvath - Nilsson - Kehoe
Ellett - Maxwell

Power Play 2
D. Brown - Juneau - Bernier
Langlois - Guevremont

Penalty Kill 1
Burns - Henning
A. Brown - Butcher

Penalty Kill 2
Yelle - D. Brown
Langlois - Guevremont


VS


Coach: Bobby Kromm
Captain: McGimsie
Assistant Captain: Babinov, Backes[/B]

Murray Craven-Billy McGimsie-Wally Hergesheimer
Nick Mickoski-Billy Reay-Blaine Stoughton
Bob Gracie-Pete Stemkowski-Dave Christian
Darcy Tucker-Forbes Kennedy-David Backes
Alexei Zhamnov, Pat Boutette

Joe Cooper-Larry Hillman
Sergei Babinov-Jim McKenny
Robert Picard-Janne Niinimaa
Oleg Tverdovsky, Keith Carney

Don Beaupre
Bill Ranford

PP1: Craven-McGimsie-Hergesheimer
McKenny-Niinimaa

PP2: Mickoski-Reay-Stoughton
Hillman-Cooper

PK1: Craven-Reay
Babinov-Hillman

PK2: Stemkowski-Kennedy
Cooper-Picard

PK3: Gracie-Backes
Babinov-Picard

tarheelhockey 09-06-2012 08:28 AM

First, thanks to BillyShoe for taking over the Monarchs mid-draft in a less than ideal circumstance. The team has certainly improved since you took the reins.


Initial thoughts on how the Polar Twins will handle this matchup:

1st line
The biggest player on the Monarchs' top line is Murray Craven, a beanpole. McGimsie and Hergesheimer are both 5'8" and about 150 pounds. They have some impressive speed as a unit, but I frankly don't see them having much success if they fail to score on initial entry into the zone. They certainly aren't going to get chances from the high-percentage areas -- even Hergesheimer is going to have a hard time finding "garbage" goals if there is nobody else established in front of the net. And defensively I'm not sure they will fare much better, Craven being the only one I know to have notable defensive ability. Possession time will be a serious issue for a line that operates on the basis of pure speed. They will be matched against the mobile defense pair of Ellett and Maxwell, and McGimsie will likely see a good bit of Charlie Burns as a shadow. He doesn't have the linemates here to thrive against an elite defender.

2nd line
To me, the second line is actually a bit scarier than the first. Mickoski and Reay play a gritty game and have moderate scoring talent. This line will see a lot of the Brown-Butcher pairing, which will not only counter their physical edge but hopefully abuse the softie, Stoughton. I'd expect they will be on the ice mostly against the Juneau-Horvath-Dornhoefer line. Meaning it's going to be Juneau vs Stoughton on one side, Dornhoefer vs Mickoski on the other, and Horvath vs Reay down the middle. I think Horvath gives the Twins a marked edge offensively here.

3rd line
The Monarchs' third line is not unlike the Twins' -- two good defensive forwards and a speedy winger. I'm not sure Gracie's offensive skill will be of much use with Stemkowski and Christian -- he'll have to do an awful lot on his own to create a scoring chance. I'm expecting to have this group largely squared off against the Langlois-Guevremont pairing and the top forward line.

4th line
The first thing I think when I see Darcy Tucker is "power play". Fourth lines commonly match up against each other, and Tucker will be on the same side of the ice as Dustin Brown. We know where that's headed. Kennedy is also known for playing with his heart instead of his head, so having him and Tucker together is even more volatile and a very real suspension risk.

1st defense pair
I'm not sure Cooper-Hillman has the capacity to produce offensively like a first pair should. Hillman is a solid two-way player but is he a #1 defenseman here? Likewise, Cooper is a very physical defender but his mobility will be tested against a 1st forward line that will move the puck with purpose. Offensively, his best seasons were during the watered down WWII era and even then they weren't spectacular.

2nd defense pair
McKenny and Babinov is an interesting pairing -- I'm curious to know how they will be used.

3rd pairing
This is a pretty wide-open offensive pairing, which is odd for a 3rd pair. I assume they're going to be skating mostly with bottom-6 forwards, which is less than optimal for their skill set. I can't imagine them being defensively successful against either opposing top-6 line. Niinimaa is weak for a top-6 MLD'er in my opinion. The most conspicuous moment of his career was getting dangled by Darren McCarty for a Cup-winning goal... that doesn't bode well for him in the playoffs. The Polar Twins will attack this pair at every opportunity.

Goaltending
In ATD terms, Beaupre's problem is consistency. He had a good playoff run as a rookie, and a couple of strong seasons after that, but he also had some pretty low lows including substantial AHL time in the middle of his prime. Apparently Minnesota thought they were better off with Kari Takko and Washington with Clint Malarchuk. Minnesota traded him for Claudio Scremin at age 27. He had a solid start in Washington, but next thing you know he gets dealt to the horrible Sens for a 5th, and that's all she wrote for his career. In a playoff series, he translates as a goalie who gives you some hope in the first game or two, playing well enough to keep a struggling team in the game but not necessarily winning, and then falls to pieces as the series presses on. He's not remotely a series-stealing goalie at this level.

Special Teams
Tough to say because the lines aren't posted, but I guess Picard is the PP quarterback here? I can piece together a good first unit, but it's tough to find 10 good power play players in that lineup. Their PK should be a bit stronger.

Coaching
I will admit, Bobby Kromm is the right coach in this situation. He will get as much out of the Monarchs as anyone in an underdog situation. But there is only so much he can do here.


Overall: The global game plan is pretty simple: hit their forwards, skate with their defensemen, and put rubber on Beaupre. The lack of size in the Monarchs' lineup could really be a problem in a 7-game series. I feel pretty good about the Polar Twins' chances in head-to-head matchups here.

TheDevilMadeMe 09-06-2012 02:00 PM

Hergesheimer made a living in front of the net in the O6 era. Why do you think his style would be less effective here?

jkrx 09-06-2012 03:27 PM

Bobby Kromm might be a key in this series between two teams build on character and hardwork.

tarheelhockey 09-06-2012 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 54133825)
Hergesheimer made a living in front of the net in the O6 era. Why do you think his style would be less effective here?

He made a living scoring on rebounds, yes, but it's hard to see how that will work if his linemates are being held to the perimeter. He certainly isn't going to post up as a power foward and create the screens and deflections necessary for rebound opportunities; McGimsie is going to be wallpapered by Charlie Burns; so that leaves Murray Craven as the guy who's going to create chaos in front? I don't see it working.

BillyShoe1721 09-06-2012 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 54127125)
1st line
The biggest player on the Monarchs' top line is Murray Craven, a beanpole. McGimsie and Hergesheimer are both 5'8" and about 150 pounds. They have some impressive speed as a unit, but I frankly don't see them having much success if they fail to score on initial entry into the zone. They certainly aren't going to get chances from the high-percentage areas -- even Hergesheimer is going to have a hard time finding "garbage" goals if there is nobody else established in front of the net. And defensively I'm not sure they will fare much better, Craven being the only one I know to have notable defensive ability. Possession time will be a serious issue for a line that operates on the basis of pure speed. They will be matched against the mobile defense pair of Ellett and Maxwell, and McGimsie will likely see a good bit of Charlie Burns as a shadow. He doesn't have the linemates here to thrive against an elite defender.

For his era, McGimsie is barely undersized, if at all. I'll admit, the first line doesn't bring much in terms of grittiness except Hergesheimer in front of the net. This line is going to work off of the transition most of the time. I think the line can work. McGimsie was one of the best goal scorers in the early west, despite the fact that many of the quotes we have on him are about his stickhandling and passing. Combine that with the fact that Craven is one of the better playmaking wingers in this draft, McGimsie is set up to succeed. Funny you should talk about the defensive ability of the line because your first line is even worse. Craven's 31% career PK usage and playmaking from the wing is a very rare combination at this level. Kehoe is a notably negative defensive player, Ulf Nilsson is average at best, and Fred Scanlan has no defensive abilities that I know of. And you criticize my line for not being able to get into the dirty areas and get high percentage shots, but how is your line going to do that? Rick Kehoe wouldn't hurt a fly, Nilsson brings no grit, and Scanlan is a great unknown in basically every area. I used to like Fred Scanlan, but now that I look at him, I'm unimpressed. He has 15 career goals in 23 career CAHL games. He was never even in the top 10 of a league that had I believe had 15 regular starting forwards. Possession time will be a serious issue for a line that operates on the basis of pure speed, which it looks like both lines are going to do. Kehoe isn't unlike my 2nd line RW, Stoughton. Both are basically goal scorers, and that's it. Between them, Stoughton has the best, 3rd best, 4th best, and 5th best seasons. Kehoe has longevity, but Stoughton's peak is significantly higher.

Quote:

2nd line
To me, the second line is actually a bit scarier than the first. Mickoski and Reay play a gritty game and have moderate scoring talent. This line will see a lot of the Brown-Butcher pairing, which will not only counter their physical edge but hopefully abuse the softie, Stoughton. I'd expect they will be on the ice mostly against the Juneau-Horvath-Dornhoefer line. Meaning it's going to be Juneau vs Stoughton on one side, Dornhoefer vs Mickoski on the other, and Horvath vs Reay down the middle. I think Horvath gives the Twins a marked edge offensively here.
I'm not a big fan of Horvath here. Stoughton and Horvath are the snipers of both these lines, and I'd argue Stoughton is a better goalscorer. Horvath has 2 big years of 1st and 5th in goals. Stoughton has 4 big years of 1st, 6th, 14th, and 15th in goals in an era with stronger competition, and he did it on a terrible team. Meanwhile, Horvath was playing with one of the best LWs of all time in Bucyk, and another ATDer in Stasiuk. Horvath does not give the Twins a marked edge offensively. Mickoski and Dornhoefer are the physical presences, with Dornohefer probably being a bit more physical, and Mickoski being a bit better offensively. That leaves Juneau and Reay as the playmaking and defensive consciouses of their respective lines. I question how good Juneau's offense is actually going to be from the LW. In his best season, he's listed as a LW, but in his other 3 best seasons(the only real good ones offensively besides his best year, 93-94 to 95-56) he's listed as a center. I think my line is better offensively, to be honest.
Quote:

3rd line
The Monarchs' third line is not unlike the Twins' -- two good defensive forwards and a speedy winger. I'm not sure Gracie's offensive skill will be of much use with Stemkowski and Christian -- he'll have to do an awful lot on his own to create a scoring chance. I'm expecting to have this group largely squared off against the Langlois-Guevremont pairing and the top forward line.
In terms of the 3rd lines, your line is more of a two-way line with a defensive lean, and my line is a two-way line with an offensive lean. I wouldn't say either is definitively better than the other.
Quote:

4th line
The first thing I think when I see Darcy Tucker is "power play". Fourth lines commonly match up against each other, and Tucker will be on the same side of the ice as Dustin Brown. We know where that's headed. Kennedy is also known for playing with his heart instead of his head, so having him and Tucker together is even more volatile and a very real suspension risk.
Slow your horses there. Tucker is an agitator and a pest who will take some penalties, but it's not like he's going to put us down every time he goes onto the ice. He had 1,410 career PIM, with 550 coming from fights. That leaves him with 860 career penalty minutes coming from non-fights. That doesn't include 10 minute misconducts(which you know with Tucker's mouth he had plenty), ejections, etc., which would bring the total even lower. Over his 947 career games, that means he would take .908 penalty minutes per game that weren't fights. So he's going to get on average, a penalty usually every 2 games. In comparison, one of the best agitator's in the NHL today Scott Hartnell takes an average of 1.2 non-fighting penalty minutes per game. I don't see what the big deal is here. Yelle and Kennedy are basically checkers/agitators(in Kennedy's case) and non-factors offensively. Henning is better defensively than Tucker, but worse offensively and less physical. Backes and Brown are basically the same player. They hit everything that moves. Brown is better offensively, and Backes better defensively.

I'll address the defenses/goaltending later.

tarheelhockey 09-07-2012 01:13 AM

Adjusted points-per-game for each team's top 6.


Winston-Salem
Scanlan (n/a) - Nilsson (.824) - Kehoe (.713)
Juneau (.722) - Horvath (.850) - Dornhoefer (.657)

Winnipeg
Craven (.624) - McGimsie (n/a) - Hergesheimer (.741)
Mickoski (.632) - Reay (.756) - Stoughton (.684)


In order:
Horvath .850 (W-S)
Nilsson .824 (W-S)
Reay .756 (WPG)
Hergesheimer .741 (WPG)
Juneau .722 (W-S)
Kehoe .713 (W-S)
Stoughton .684 (WPG)
Dornhoefer .657 (W-S)
Mickoski .632 (WPG)
Craven .624 (WPG)

seventieslord 09-07-2012 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 54147699)
Adjusted points-per-game for each team's top 6.


Winston-Salem
Scanlan (n/a) - Nilsson (.824) - Kehoe (.713)
Juneau (.722) - Horvath (.850) - Dornhoefer (.657)

Winnipeg
Craven (.624) - McGimsie (n/a) - Hergesheimer (.741)
Mickoski (.632) - Reay (.756) - Stoughton (.684)


In order:
Horvath .850 (W-S)
Nilsson .824 (W-S)
Reay .756 (WPG)
Hergesheimer .741 (WPG)
Juneau .722 (W-S)
Kehoe .713 (W-S)
Stoughton .684 (WPG)
Dornhoefer .657 (W-S)
Mickoski .632 (WPG)
Craven .624 (WPG)

I know this is just an indicator and you know that too, but let me critique it:

- adjusted points appear to downgrade pre-expansion guys by about 15%. Accounting for this would boost Horvath, Reay, Hergesheimer, and Mickoski. Just eyeballing it, that would give Winnipeg the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th on this list, meaning they are not very far behind at all.
- career length is obviously important. guys like Horvath and Hergesheimer only played in the NHL when they were at their very best and never were given the time to decline, but Craven played over 1000 games. A "best 5-6 years" type of study would be much more telling, IMO.

tarheelhockey 09-07-2012 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 54147785)
- adjusted points appear to downgrade pre-expansion guys by about 15%. Accounting for this would boost Horvath, Reay, Hergesheimer, and Mickoski. Just eyeballing it, that would give Winnipeg the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th on this list, meaning they are not very far behind at all.

Boosting the aforementioned players by 15% gives us the following:

Horvath .978 7 (W-S)
Reay .869 8 (WPG)
Hergesheimer .852 5 (WPG)
Nilsson .824 3 (W-S)
Mickoski .727 11 (WPG)
Juneau .722 12 (W-S)
Kehoe .713 12 (W-S)
Stoughton .684 8 (WPG)
Dornhoefer .657 11 (W-S)
Craven .624 14 (WPG)

Quote:

- career length is obviously important. guys like Horvath and Hergesheimer only played in the NHL when they were at their very best and never were given the time to decline, but Craven played over 1000 games. A "best 5-6 years" type of study would be much more telling, IMO.
Above, I included in bold the number of NHL seasons with 50%+ games played.

It should also be mentioned that Nilsson and Stoughton played a considerable part of their respective primes in the WHA, which isn't included in these numbers.

tarheelhockey 09-07-2012 02:33 AM

Adjusted PPG (including the 15% pre-expansion boost) for the best 5 years, non-consecutive:

Player 50%+GP Career APPG Best5 APPG Team
Horvath 7 .978 1.208 (W-S)
Reay 8 .869 1.047 (WPG)
Juneau 12.722 .975 (W-S)
Hergesheimer5.852 .909 (WPG)
Kehoe 12.713.851 (W-S)
Mickoski11.727 .844 (WPG)
Nilsson 3.824.824* (W-S)
Stoughton8.684 .814 (WPG)
Dornhoefer11.657 .773 (W-S)
Craven14.624 .771 (WPG)

* In Nilsson's case the data set is identical because he had fewer than 5 NHL seasons.

seventieslord 09-07-2012 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 54148147)
Adjusted PPG (including the 15% pre-expansion boost) for the best 5 years, non-consecutive:

Player 50%+GP Career APPG Best5 APPG Team
Horvath 7 .978 1.208 (W-S)
Reay 8 .869 1.047 (WPG)
Juneau 12.722 .975 (W-S)
Hergesheimer5.852 .909 (WPG)
Kehoe 12.713.851 (W-S)
Mickoski11.727 .844 (WPG)
Nilsson 3.824.824* (W-S)
Stoughton8.684 .814 (WPG)
Dornhoefer11.657 .773 (W-S)
Craven14.624 .771 (WPG)

* In Nilsson's case the data set is identical because he had fewer than 5 NHL seasons.

haha! that's kind of funny that after all this, he came out with the 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th-most potent forwards.

tarheelhockey 09-07-2012 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 (Post 54140847)
. McGimsie was one of the best goal scorers in the early west, despite the fact that many of the quotes we have on him are about his stickhandling and passing. Combine that with the fact that Craven is one of the better playmaking wingers in this draft, McGimsie is set up to succeed.

The problem is that McGimsie is up against one of the better defensive centers in the draft in Charlie Burns, and he isn't playing on a team with two top-250 players to back him up. He will be the primary focus of the opposing defense, and expected to carry his team as the primary weapon, two things that likely never happened to him in reality. How much of a benefit of the doubt are we giving him that he can carry a team in that manner?


Quote:

Kehoe is a notably negative defensive player
Kehoe was never a great two-way player, but he did learn to play a bit of D later in his career. It's easy to find quotes where he emphasizes the importance of backchecking and team defense; but it wasn't a strategic priority on his Pittsburgh teams and they collectively suffered for that. As an assistant coach he handled the defensemen, if that says anything about his defensive ceiling.


Quote:

Fred Scanlan has no defensive abilities that I know of.
We know as much about Scanlan's defense as we do about McGimsie's.

Quote:

And you criticize my line for not being able to get into the dirty areas and get high percentage shots, but how is your line going to do that? Rick Kehoe wouldn't hurt a fly, Nilsson brings no grit, and Scanlan is a great unknown in basically every area.
Kehoe might not be a gritty player, but he does score from high-percentage areas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V470jVj2cJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXjMBWwHPog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt9WcAcc5Sw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kJje4y9CMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9HmNo0xmqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLBsvW3QH8I

Aside from his straight-ahead skating and shooting, his biggest asset is a frustrating slipperiness in the slot that allowed him to bury a lot of goals before anyone realized he was there. All Nilsson and Scanlan need to do is get the puck on his stick for an instant to create a scoring opportunity.

Scanlan is not an unknown in every area. He was the star of the Montreal Shamrocks forward line and one of the best forwards in Canada at the time, noted for his skating, stickhandling, passing and shooting. The whole point of putting him on the first line is that he has first-line offensive ability. I'm not sure why you would say he is an unknown.

And in the bigger picture, both of these guys will be getting more offensive support from the blue line than the Monarchs' forwards.


Quote:

Possession time will be a serious issue for a line that operates on the basis of pure speed, which it looks like both lines are going to do. Kehoe isn't unlike my 2nd line RW, Stoughton. Both are basically goal scorers, and that's it. Between them, Stoughton has the best, 3rd best, 4th best, and 5th best seasons. Kehoe has longevity, but Stoughton's peak is significantly higher.
Funny that these two should end up compared head-to-head. They were traded for each other in 1974 -- of course, Pittsburgh had to add a 1st ;)

First, the "goal scorers and that's it" comment really helps Stoughton, who never in his NHL career had a full season with more assists than goals. Kehoe has three seasons with more adjusted assists than Stoughton's best, and seven seasons better than Stoughton's third-best. Kehoe produced more assists and it's not close. In terms of goal scoring, it's true that Stoughton had a higher peak, but Kehoe nearly doubles him in longevity and that has to count for something. Stoughton also had some extremely unimpressive goal-scoring seasons against the watered down late-WHA -- in his 24 and 25 year old seasons, in the late seventies against butter-soft competition, he scored at an unadjusted 82-game pace of 22 goals per season. In terms of an MLD playoff series, does that mean he just disappears for a game or two?


Quote:

I'm not a big fan of Horvath here.
Hopefully the adjusted PPG study cured you of that.

Quote:

That leaves Juneau and Reay as the playmaking and defensive consciouses of their respective lines. I question how good Juneau's offense is actually going to be from the LW. In his best season, he's listed as a LW, but in his other 3 best seasons(the only real good ones offensively besides his best year, 93-94 to 95-56) he's listed as a center.
This is just nitpicking, TBH. Juneau certainly wasn't moved off the wing because he wasn't producing there -- there's no basis for assuming he would be less effective at either position considering he moved back and forth throughout his career.

Examples from articles from the 1993-94 season, where he is listed at C:
"The line of left wing Joe Juneau, center Bryan Smolinski and right wing Steve Heinze..." [November 28]
"Left wing Joe Juneau passed from the right circle to Neely in the slot. " [January 29]
"Joe Juneau set up two goals by Bryan Smolinski for the Bruins. Smolinski knocked in Juneau's left wing pass" [March 9]

He simply played wherever the coach told him, and the MLD should view him as such.


Quote:

In terms of the 3rd lines, your line is more of a two-way line with a defensive lean, and my line is a two-way line with an offensive lean. I wouldn't say either is definitively better than the other.
I agree that neither is definitively better than the other, but I think you're underestimating the offensive ability of my third line. Boll and Bernier are pretty solid offensive players and Burns is a good playmaker for a defensive specialist. I expect to get some goals from that line.


Quote:

Slow your horses there. Tucker is an agitator and a pest who will take some penalties, but it's not like he's going to put us down every time he goes onto the ice. He had 1,410 career PIM, with 550 coming from fights. That leaves him with 860 career penalty minutes coming from non-fights. That doesn't include 10 minute misconducts(which you know with Tucker's mouth he had plenty), ejections, etc., which would bring the total even lower.
It's just about impossible to prove, but I distinctly remember Tucker being a player who took stupid penalties at the worst times. That was one of the big gripes that Leafs fans had about him. BTW, hockeyfights.com has Tucker at 78 career fights, for 390 PIM. That would bring Tucker's non-fighting PIM per game up to 1.08.

Really, the contrast I was trying to draw is between Tucker and Brown, who will be in close proximity for a good bit of this series. Both players are known for drawing a lot of penalties -- Brown being the post-lockout leader by a 49% margin -- but Brown takes only .647 non-fighting PIM per game. Now, you put two "elite" penalty-drawers next to each other for a 7-game series, and one of them is almost twice as likely as the other to take a penalty himself. What's the likely outcome here?

Agreed about pretty much everything else in the forward lines, minor nitpicks aside.

seventieslord 09-07-2012 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 54154305)
Scanlan is not an unknown in every area. He was the star of the Montreal Shamrocks forward line and one of the best forwards in Canada at the time, noted for his skating, stickhandling, passing and shooting. The whole point of putting him on the first line is that he has first-line offensive ability. I'm not sure why you would say he is an unknown.

Offensively, yeah, he is an unknown, and that's probably the best thing that could be said for him. His offensive stats are poor. I'm not sure why you would say he was "the" star of the Shamrocks when it was obviously Harry Trihey. Scanlan played a role but it appears he was more of a "glue guy". when he scored that much less than his linemate it is a major red flag as far as production goes.

Quote:

Hopefully the adjusted PPG study cured you of that.
Two things I just noticed:

1) Billy, like many of us, likes to see some high "finishes" in the scoring race as evidence of offensive dominance. that is fine, but in Horvath's case what would have been his 3rd, 4th and 5th-best seasons were wrecked by injuries. So no wonder Billy looks at point totals of 46, 39, and 30 and thinks they aren't impressive. You, on the other hand, are looking at his production on a "per-game" level, which is fine too, because - it actually reflects what he did on the ice - right? The thing is, he only played 82% of his team's scheduled games in that five-year period where he was an exclusive NHLer. So credit him for his per-game scoring rate if you will, but you'll be without him for one of these games too, if the law of averages applies.

2) I just noticed this - looks like you just took adjusted points per raw game instead of adjusted points per adjusted game. I pointed this out to Billy in the past, so he'd probably point it out to you himself now.

Post-expansion players are all adjusetd to 82 games, so the effects on pre-1994 players is really minimal. but before expansion, when the seasons were 70 games, or even earlier, the effect is quite huge.

Horvath had 369 adjusted points, but it was in 508 adjusted games. that makes him 0.726 per game.

Reay had 362 adjusted points, but it was in about 604 adjusted games. that makes him 0.599 per game (I knew there was something smelly about that original number!)

Hergesheimer had 263 adjusted points, but in 411 adjusted games. That puts him at 0.640 per game.

Dornhoefer's career adjusted GP total is about 810, putting him at 0.638.

and Mickoski's 444 adjusted points were in 835 adjusted games, putting him at 0.532.

As you are probably happy to see, this only greatly affects one of your players and three of your opponent's, but the one of yours it affects is the one you are touting as the top offensive player in the series. :p:

from these numbers you'd probably still want to apply the "boost" and look at best seasons (adjusted points over adjusted games) and boy, I can see that getting messy.

Quote:

It's just about impossible to prove, but I distinctly remember Tucker being a player who took stupid penalties at the worst times. That was one of the big gripes that Leafs fans had about him. BTW, hockeyfights.com has Tucker at 78 career fights, for 390 PIM. That would bring Tucker's non-fighting PIM per game up to 1.08.
I don't think he was any worse at it than some others. Roberts, Corson, Antropov, McCabe all had their moments in our temporary doghouse for penalties like this.

I would be inclined to trust dropyourgloves.com who has his career fight total at 101, it would make more sense that one is incomplete, as opposed to one having fights that didn't actually happen.

In any case, Billy meant to say 505, not 550. And he should have mentioned that this includes the playoffs, so he should include Tucker's playoff GP and PIMs in his calculations. After running the numbers it is 0.97 non-fighting PIM per game which I would estimate to be 0.7 non-fighting, non-misconduct PIM per game. (the fact that Tucker took many fewer penalties in the playoffs and the fact that Billy lopped off 45 more PIM than he should have basically cancelled eachother out, leaving us at the same number he originally quoted)

Brown's not really a misconduct taker so their NFNMPIMPG is more or less the same. Both have agitating, penalty-drawing qualities, but Brown is obviously an elite in that area. All said, I think you could claim to be a net +1 in the minor penalty department, and there's a 1/5 chance that turns into a goal for you, and that might be a crucial goal, so I guess that is something.

tarheelhockey 09-07-2012 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 54155679)
Offensively, yeah, he is an unknown, and that's probably the best thing that could be said for him.

Scanlan isn't completely lost to the mists of time. First of all there's the quote we all know from Selke:

"He was the workhorse of the great Shamrock forward line, always ready for his share in the new-style combination attacks, combining heady play with an accurate shot."

Which gives us some specific idea of what he was bringing to his line.

From the Ottawa Citizen's notes on a Feb 16 1901 match: "Scanlon was a little slower than usual." A backhanded way of determining that he usually stuck out as being very fast (even to the Ottawa writer who, I have to say, reeks of homer bias).


From the Gazette, Dec 19 1901:

"Scanlan's last appearance on the Auditorium ice was made early last March, when he was the acknowledged star on the old Shamrock "matchless seven".

[ed: here's someone who thinks he was "the" star of that team]

"'Frindy' has always had the reputation of being one of the best forwards in the Dominion. He is a fast skater and a splendid stickhandler.

There was some little competition between the two clubs [ed: Victorias and Shamrocks] for the possession of so valuable a player, but the champions won out. There was more paper talk about the movements of Scanlan than any other player in the Dominion."

Not only a reference to Scanlan being a real star of the Shamrocks and not just a role player, but also some specific description of how he contributed. Putting those quotes together we have a guy who left an impression for his speed and skill, and his ability to put those traits to work inside of a team concept. And the fact that his goals were lower than other stars' only means he wasn't a goal scorer; in an era in which assists were mostly unrecorded, it's a safe deductive bet that a guy who was held in high esteem for his offensive skill but wasn't a goal scorer was probably a very good playmaker.

A couple of concrete examples from 1898 based on game description:

1/10/1898: "They seemed to have sized up the Ottawa defence and found an opening with the aid of some interference. Pulford and Young were passed; Brennan and Scanlan saw the opening, and Brown was in the right place in the nick of time, scoring the first game for the Shamrocks."

2/14/1898: "Brennan and Scanlan worked the puck in front of the goals, when Brown took possession of it and scored the second game for the Shamrocks."

Just because he wasn't scoring goals, doesn't mean he wasn't a good offensive player! The guy is a Hall of Famer, and it's not for his defense.



Quote:

from these numbers you'd probably still want to apply the "boost" and look at best seasons (adjusted points over adjusted games) and boy, I can see that getting messy.
:surrender

BillyShoe1721 09-07-2012 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 54154305)
The problem is that McGimsie is up against one of the better defensive centers in the draft in Charlie Burns, and he isn't playing on a team with two top-250 players to back him up. He will be the primary focus of the opposing defense, and expected to carry his team as the primary weapon, two things that likely never happened to him in reality. How much of a benefit of the doubt are we giving him that he can carry a team in that manner?

McGimsie is tough to read because we know he was one of the best goal scorers out west, but the quotes talk about his great passing abilities and stickhandling. I have no data to back this up, but if McGimsie played in an era where assists were typically recorded, then I think he'd be seen as more of a playmaker. He should be seen as having at least some passing ability. He won't have to carry the entire first line, Hergesheimer has 3 top 7s in goals. However you view Billy McGimsie, he has the players he needs to succeed. If you see him as the goalscoring center that needs a playmaking winger, that's fine, he has Murray Craven. If you see him as a passer, then he's got Wally Hergesheimer to pass to.

Quote:

Kehoe was never a great two-way player, but he did learn to play a bit of D later in his career. It's easy to find quotes where he emphasizes the importance of backchecking and team defense; but it wasn't a strategic priority on his Pittsburgh teams and they collectively suffered for that. As an assistant coach he handled the defensemen, if that says anything about his defensive ceiling.
Kehoe is still average at best defensively, and I think I'm being generous there.

Quote:

We know as much about Scanlan's defense as we do about McGimsie's.
Agreed, we know nothing of either.
Quote:

Kehoe might not be a gritty player, but he does score from high-percentage areas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V470jVj2cJA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXjMBWwHPog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt9WcAcc5Sw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-kJje4y9CMU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9HmNo0xmqg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLBsvW3QH8I

Aside from his straight-ahead skating and shooting, his biggest asset is a frustrating slipperiness in the slot that allowed him to bury a lot of goals before anyone realized he was there. All Nilsson and Scanlan need to do is get the puck on his stick for an instant to create a scoring opportunity.
Okay, so you said that my line isn't going to work because McGimsie is going to do all the work despite having a playmaking winger to pass it to him, or a goalscoring winger to pass it to. See my point about Fred Scanlan's offense in my previous post, it barely exists at all. His career GPG in the CAHL is .652(15 goals in 23 games). In comparison, a player by the name of Jack Brannen scored 14 goals in 16 games for a GPG of .875. He was taken around #1,570 last year, and he has attested defensive abilities. Another guy by the name of Charlie Liffiton had 14 goals in 16 games for a GPG of .875. He's never been taken in any draft here at all. Billy Christmas had 17 goals in 12 games for a GPG of 1.42, more than double that of Scanlan. His highest ever draft position? He's never been drafted. He's never been taken or mentioned in any draft here whatsoever. His offense is terrible at this level, easily the worst of any top line player in the draft. Quotes be damned, those numbers are bad. I remember earlier you said my line isn't going to get any good chances from high percentage areas. If my line isn't going to get any, enlighten me as to how your line will. Those Rick Kehoe videos depict Wally Hergesheimer's biggest strength. Wally scores on rebounds and tip-ins from in tight. So, Hergesheimer is better at collecting garbage in front of the net(according to quotes and reputation) than Kehoe. But according to you, Kehoe is going to do it this series, and Wally isn't. Why?

Quote:

Scanlan is not an unknown in every area. He was the star of the Montreal Shamrocks forward line and one of the best forwards in Canada at the time, noted for his skating, stickhandling, passing and shooting. The whole point of putting him on the first line is that he has first-line offensive ability. I'm not sure why you would say he is an unknown.
See my thoughts on Scanlan above.

Quote:

And in the bigger picture, both of these guys will be getting more offensive support from the blue line than the Monarchs' forwards.
I'll address this later. You may be right, I'll need to run some numbers.

Quote:

First, the "goal scorers and that's it" comment really helps Stoughton, who never in his NHL career had a full season with more assists than goals. Kehoe has three seasons with more adjusted assists than Stoughton's best, and seven seasons better than Stoughton's third-best. Kehoe produced more assists and it's not close. In terms of goal scoring, it's true that Stoughton had a higher peak, but Kehoe nearly doubles him in longevity and that has to count for something. Stoughton also had some extremely unimpressive goal-scoring seasons against the watered down late-WHA -- in his 24 and 25 year old seasons, in the late seventies against butter-soft competition, he scored at an unadjusted 82-game pace of 22 goals per season. In terms of an MLD playoff series, does that mean he just disappears for a game or two?
Stoughton's peak is short, but high. Kehoe's peak is low, but he has longevity. People value each differently. I'd personally take a shorter but significantly higher peak compared to
Quote:

Hopefully the adjusted PPG study cured you of that.
I was about to correct you on the adjusting for games part, but seventies has already done that. You knock McGimsie for playing with good linemates, but ignore that 5 of 6 of Horvath's relevant years came when he was playing between Bucyk and Stastiuk.

Quote:

This is just nitpicking, TBH. Juneau certainly wasn't moved off the wing because he wasn't producing there -- there's no basis for assuming he would be less effective at either position considering he moved back and forth throughout his career.

Examples from articles from the 1993-94 season, where he is listed at C:
"The line of left wing Joe Juneau, center Bryan Smolinski and right wing Steve Heinze..." [November 28]
"Left wing Joe Juneau passed from the right circle to Neely in the slot. " [January 29]
"Joe Juneau set up two goals by Bryan Smolinski for the Bruins. Smolinski knocked in Juneau's left wing pass" [March 9]

He simply played wherever the coach told him, and the MLD should view him as such.
How is it nitpicking that most of his best offensive years come when HR lists him as a C and he's playing LW here? After seeing some of your quotes, I'll give Juneau his full playmaking from LW.

Quote:

It's just about impossible to prove, but I distinctly remember Tucker being a player who took stupid penalties at the worst times. That was one of the big gripes that Leafs fans had about him. BTW, hockeyfights.com has Tucker at 78 career fights, for 390 PIM. That would bring Tucker's non-fighting PIM per game up to 1.08.

Really, the contrast I was trying to draw is between Tucker and Brown, who will be in close proximity for a good bit of this series. Both players are known for drawing a lot of penalties -- Brown being the post-lockout leader by a 49% margin -- but Brown takes only .647 non-fighting PIM per game. Now, you put two "elite" penalty-drawers next to each other for a 7-game series, and one of them is almost twice as likely as the other to take a penalty himself. What's the likely outcome here?

Agreed about pretty much everything else in the forward lines, minor nitpicks aside.
The original one was a miscalculation on my part, I took a quick look at the Tucker bio seventies made and thought it said 110 when it really said 101. So, as seventies said, that leaves Tucker with about .7 non-fighting, non-misconduct penalty minutes per game, and Brown with .687 including playoffs. I think you're really digging at something that's not really there.

seventieslord 09-07-2012 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 54157773)
Scanlan isn't completely lost to the mists of time. First of all there's the quote we all know from Selke:

"He was the workhorse of the great Shamrock forward line, always ready for his share in the new-style combination attacks, combining heady play with an accurate shot."

Which gives us some specific idea of what he was bringing to his line.

From the Ottawa Citizen's notes on a Feb 16 1901 match: "Scanlon was a little slower than usual." A backhanded way of determining that he usually stuck out as being very fast (even to the Ottawa writer who, I have to say, reeks of homer bias).


From the Gazette, Dec 19 1901:

"Scanlan's last appearance on the Auditorium ice was made early last March, when he was the acknowledged star on the old Shamrock "matchless seven".

[ed: here's someone who thinks he was "the" star of that team]

"'Frindy' has always had the reputation of being one of the best forwards in the Dominion. He is a fast skater and a splendid stickhandler.

There was some little competition between the two clubs [ed: Victorias and Shamrocks] for the possession of so valuable a player, but the champions won out. There was more paper talk about the movements of Scanlan than any other player in the Dominion."

Not only a reference to Scanlan being a real star of the Shamrocks and not just a role player, but also some specific description of how he contributed. Putting those quotes together we have a guy who left an impression for his speed and skill, and his ability to put those traits to work inside of a team concept. And the fact that his goals were lower than other stars' only means he wasn't a goal scorer; in an era in which assists were mostly unrecorded, it's a safe deductive bet that a guy who was held in high esteem for his offensive skill but wasn't a goal scorer was probably a very good playmaker.

A couple of concrete examples from 1898 based on game description:

1/10/1898: "They seemed to have sized up the Ottawa defence and found an opening with the aid of some interference. Pulford and Young were passed; Brennan and Scanlan saw the opening, and Brown was in the right place in the nick of time, scoring the first game for the Shamrocks."

2/14/1898: "Brennan and Scanlan worked the puck in front of the goals, when Brown took possession of it and scored the second game for the Shamrocks."

Just because he wasn't scoring goals, doesn't mean he wasn't a good offensive player! The guy is a Hall of Famer, and it's not for his defense.

I've had Scanlan before, and I know there are redeeming qualities there. You chould look up my MLD11 bio. I forget if it's any good by today's standards, but at the time it was probably the most info on him that had ever been collected. My conclusion was that he was suited to be a 3rd line workhorse.

goals aren't everything in offense, no, but they are a big part - probably the biggest. You can attempt to put together a piece of a player's upside through quotes, but they are subjective and numbers aren't. Also, it can be asked, "if he was so skilled, why didn't he score many goals?"

I don't dispute that he was considered "a" star, but there is no disputing who was "the" star for the Shamrocks. Just look at the goal stats. i know that sounds really simplistic, but Trihey's teammates don't approach him statistically. To me it really looks like Scanlan was the subservient role player to the true star, Harry Trihey.

The case that he was probably a bad finisher but otherwise good player is reasonable. It's just tough to prove. That burden of proof was on Dreakmur and TDMM regarding Billy Gilmour, who was pretty much in the same boat, and they did a great job, proving he is an excellent MLD 3rd liner. I don't think that you have dug up nearly enough info to even match that case (again, check my MLD11 bio, there might be more in there than I remember), and remember, that case was only good enough to sell him as a 3rd liner, and you have Scanlan as a 1st liner here.

So I do think Billy has a point.

Quote:

:surrender
I don't blame you. But I would have liked to see the results.

BillyShoe1721 09-07-2012 06:14 PM

Re Horvath vs. Stoughton, Horvath has 4 good goalscoring seasons in the NHL. Stoughton has 4 good goalscoring seasons in the NHL, and one in the WHA. Since you noted that Horvath missed some games in two of those seasons, I've marked his rank in GPG. Here they are:

Horvath: 1, 5, 9*, 18*
Stoughton: 1, 4**, 6, 14, 15

*in GPG
**4th in WHA in scoring, probably somewhere in 15-20 overall

Factor in era and the fact that Horvath played with two great linemates and Stoughton played with garbage, there is definitively no way that Horvath is a better goalscorer than Stoughton. Stoughton did it in a stronger era with worse linemates than Horvath, and he actually did it, opposed to being "on pace" to do it.

Next, I'll attempt to examine Ulf Nilsson. I think the metric that was used against Robbie Ftorek was last year that about 1 point in the WHA was equal to about .65 or .7 points in the NHL. I think that was the number used so I'll use .68. So, that would leave him with hypothetical point totals of about 82, 78, 84, and 86 points for his WHA years. That would equate to point finishes of 17th, 28th, 14th, and 12th. Pretty good, but not mind blowing. In the subsequent two years in the NHL, Ulf was 15th and 21st in PPG in those two relevant NHL years. So, those projections are probably pretty accurate because they're right around the same range. Is that better than McGimsie, who was 1st, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd in his league? At the time, the major leagues were the CAHL, WPHL, and MNWHA(and later MHL). Somebody with more knowledge about this era correct me if I'm wrong. The only relevant players in the WPHL at the time of McGimsie's career were Bruce Stuart and Hod Stuart in 02-03, I think. Russell Bowie led the CAHL in goals 3 of the 4 years in McGimsie's career, and was 2nd in the other year. Where does that leave McGimsie? I'm really not sure. Nilsson has a couple good playoff runs, but wasn't all that good internationally.

tarheelhockey 09-07-2012 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 (Post 54160421)
If you see him as the goalscoring center that needs a playmaking winger, that's fine, he has Murray Craven.

The problem is that Craven is a pretty weak top-line playmaker. His very best season in assists had him one assist ahead of Claude Lemieux, Mike Ricci and Zarley Zalapski. He's a good two-way glue guy, I'll give you that, but the top playmaker on an MLD team? And you're getting nothing in terms of playmaking from Hergesheimer, so it's down to Craven and the Burns-shadowed McGimsie to carry the mail offensively. That's a tough sell.

Quote:

Kehoe is still average at best defensively, and I think I'm being generous there.
No argument there.

Quote:

Agreed, we know nothing of either.
Or there.

Quote:

See my point about Fred Scanlan's offense in my previous post, it barely exists at all.
So what the heck was Frank Selke talking about? What was that Gazette writer talking about? Scanlan quite clearly had more than non-existent offense for teams to fight over him.

Quote:

His career GPG in the CAHL is .652(15 goals in 23 games).
That cuts off his 5 goals in 3 games as a Cup winner in the MPHL.

Quote:

In comparison, a player by the name of Jack Brannen scored 14 goals in 16 games for a GPG of .875. He was taken around #1,570 last year, and he has attested defensive abilities. Another guy by the name of Charlie Liffiton had 14 goals in 16 games for a GPG of .875. He's never been taken in any draft here at all. Billy Christmas had 17 goals in 12 games for a GPG of 1.42, more than double that of Scanlan. His highest ever draft position? He's never been drafted. He's never been taken or mentioned in any draft here whatsoever.
With few exceptions, early era players are an area where ATD canon means next to nothing. The fact that Dave Semenko was taken in this draft does not automatically make him a relatively better hockey player than Billy Christmas.


Quote:

His offense is terrible at this level, easily the worst of any top line player in the draft. Quotes be damned, those numbers are bad.
So you want us to believe that McGimsie was primarily a playmaker based on quotes from blogs and a Google book whose author is a "sports fiction" novelist and self-identifies his books as "juvenile literature"... but first-hand witness from sports journalists that Scanlan had offensive skill are irrelevant? Ok.

Isn't it curious that Scanlan jumped to 1.67 goals per game when playing in the same league as McGimsie, and that McGimsie dropped to 0.57 against CAHL opponents? Let's talk about the level of play that McGimsie faced while racking up those sparkling goal totals.

Quote:

But according to you, Kehoe is going to do it this series, and Wally isn't. Why?
I'm not sure where you got that idea that Kehoe is a specialist in rebounds and tip-ins. The purpose of the videos was to show that he didn't just score on rushes and wrist shots -- he is also a slippery little eel in the slot area and has a knack for showing up just as a defenseman turns his back. But he is still deadly on the rush -- can't say that about Hergesheimer.

Quote:

I was about to correct you on the adjusting for games part, but seventies has already done that. You knock McGimsie for playing with good linemates, but ignore that 5 of 6 of Horvath's relevant years came when he was playing between Bucyk and Stastiuk.
Horvath skated on a line with one Hall of Famer, not three, and McGimsie never led the NHL in goals. Horvath is the more accomplished scorer and I really can't see how that's debatable.

Oh, and keep in mind you're comparing your 1st line center to my 2nd liner here.

TheDevilMadeMe 09-08-2012 02:00 PM

Quote:

With few exceptions, early era players are an area where ATD canon means next to nothing. The fact that Dave Semenko was taken in this draft does not automatically make him a relatively better hockey player than Billy Christmas.
Agreed for the most part - when the ATD first started, the book Ultimate Hockey was the primary source of info on early era guys. We have gotten a lot better since though

tarheelhockey 09-08-2012 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 54176287)
We have gotten a lot better since though

When all is said and done, I think that is going to be one of the greatest legacies of this forum. I don't know anywhere else, even SIHR, where such aggressive and exhaustive research is done in an organized manner.

Just taking Billy Christmas as an example, there's a player we know next-to-nothing about who was apparently a pretty good player in his day. If he eventually gets drafted and defended, the ATD can claim sole credit for resurrecting his legacy. And that's pretty damn cool :)

BillyShoe1721 09-08-2012 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tarheelhockey (Post 54163841)
The problem is that Craven is a pretty weak top-line playmaker. His very best season in assists had him one assist ahead of Claude Lemieux, Mike Ricci and Zarley Zalapski. He's a good two-way glue guy, I'll give you that, but the top playmaker on an MLD team? And you're getting nothing in terms of playmaking from Hergesheimer, so it's down to Craven and the Burns-shadowed McGimsie to carry the mail offensively. That's a tough sell.

I think Craven is one of the better playmaking wingers in the draft. Playmaking wings are a very rare commodity in these drafts, and guys get taken in the ATD despite the fact that their point totals probably aren't as good as others because they offer that very rare skillset of playmaking from the wing. Of the wingers in this draft, I see Tanguay, Romnes, Anton Stastny, Juneau and maybe Cory Stillman and Marian Stastny as stronger playmaking wingers than Craven. I think the line is going to be okay.

Quote:

So what the heck was Frank Selke talking about? What was that Gazette writer talking about? Scanlan quite clearly had more than non-existent offense for teams to fight over him.
You put forth the theory that maybe Scanlan was a playmaker rather than a goalscorer, and that could have been. But, then shouldn't the quotes about his play be about his passing ability rather than his speed and stickhandling? I stand by my point that his goal totals are just terrible, absolutely terrible.

Quote:

That cuts off his 5 goals in 3 games as a Cup winner in the MPHL.

So you want us to believe that McGimsie was primarily a playmaker based on quotes from blogs and a Google book whose author is a "sports fiction" novelist and self-identifies his books as "juvenile literature"... but first-hand witness from sports journalists that Scanlan had offensive skill are irrelevant? Ok.

Isn't it curious that Scanlan jumped to 1.67 goals per game when playing in the same league as McGimsie, and that McGimsie dropped to 0.57 against CAHL opponents? Let's talk about the level of play that McGimsie faced while racking up those sparkling goal totals.
Sorry I didn't thoroughly investigate every single source in my bios. I picked most of them from a previous bio. McGimsie's total GPG in the MNWHA/MHL/MHL-Pro is 2.21 over 34 games. Scanlan's is 1.67 over 3 games. Which is more impressive? There was never any doubt that the Silver Seven were significantly better players than the guys out west. Ottawa routinely crushed opponents from the west. McGimsie's performance in the 04-05 Challenge Cup series was definitely bad, but in 02-03 his team scored 4 goals total, and he had 3 of them. Then in 06-07, he had 4 goals in 2 games. That equals a GPG of 1, as far as I can see. What was Scanlan's GPG in cup challenge games you ask? .353.

Quote:

Horvath skated on a line with one Hall of Famer, not three, and McGimsie never led the NHL in goals. Horvath is the more accomplished scorer and I really can't see how that's debatable.

Oh, and keep in mind you're comparing your 1st line center to my 2nd liner here.
It's kinda hard to lead a league that wouldn't exist until 15 years in the future in goals isn't it? When McGimsie led the league in goals twice(02-03 and 03-04), Phillips wasn't even on the team, he was playing in the east. So, to help him he had Tom Hooper(who he obliterated in goals 26-9 despite playing just two more games) and Si Griffis(a defenseman) helping him. Bronco Horvath had a borderline top 10 all time LW helping him, and another ATDer. It doesn't matter who I'm comparing, I'm pointing out the fact that you're saying McGimsie had great linemates(when in reality he didn't in his best years) and ignoring the fact that the player that you touted as the best offensively in this entire series(which he isn't) easily had better ones.

TheDevilMadeMe 09-08-2012 05:59 PM

Yeah, it's striking how McGimsie's goal totals were basically unchanged when Tommy Phillips went out East.

I do think a critical look at the sources talking about McGimsie's playmaking might be in order, but I do think it's meaningful that two different secondary sources talk about his playmaking, which is two more than most players of the era

BillyShoe1721 09-08-2012 06:32 PM

1st Pairings

Here are the voting records of members of each top pairing:

Ellett: 16th AS 1990(3 voting points), 22nd AS 1987(2 voting points)
Maxwell: 19th AS 1984(1 voting point)
Hillman: 12th AS 1966(3 voting points, 3 2nd place votes), 11th Norris 1973(2 voting points), 14th AS 1970(7 voting points)
Cooper: 8th AS 1940(1 voting point), 13th AS 1942(2 voting points)

I think it's clear Hillman is definitely the best defenseman on either pairing, and I don't think it's very close. Offensively, Winston Salem definitely has the better top pairing, but I think defensively the Winnipeg tandem is better. Winnipeg's pairing will be used chiefly in shutdown scenarios. Personally, I'd rather have the Winnipeg pairing. The fact that Ellett and Maxwell were both strong offensive players, yet received basically no all star recognition is a bit of a red flag. I'm not sure how comfortable I'd be having the Ellett-Maxwell pairing out in critical situations.

2nd Pairings

I'm not a big fan of Langlois. In his years in Montreal, he was at best the #4 behind Harvey, Johnson, and Talbot. His time in NY is similar where he was behind Howell, Harvey, and Neilson. It's certainly no crime for him to be stuck behind those guys, but the fact that he was a top 3 defenseman for maybe 2-3 years of his career is not great. At the same time, Babinov was never the top guy on the Soviet national team either. I'd rather have Babinov personally. McKenny and Guevremont are serving the exact same purpose on these pairings, but I think McKenny is the better offensive player. They played at basically the same time, so I don't need to adjust games played when looking at adjusted PPG. Also, each guy had 7 relevant, good seasons of production. McKenny's adjusted PPG over those 513 games is .536. Guevremont's is .456 over those 581 games. I think McKenny gets the advantage here. Guevremont received one vote for the Norris in 1974, and one vote for the AS team in 1972. McKenny was 16th in AS voting in 1972 with 3 voting points. Neither has a strong record, but McKenny has the best finish among the two. Overall, I think Winnipeg gets the advantage here.

3rd Pairing

Here are the voting records of the 4 guys on each pairing:

Brown: 17th AS 1970(3 points), 11th AS 1967, 1 Norris vote, 1967
Butcher: none
Picard: 6th Norris 1979, 7th AS 1979, 16th AS 1980
Niinimaa: 18th AS 01(1 point), 11th AS 02

Offensively, Winnipeg's pairing is easily better. Defensively, Winston Salem's pairing might be a bit better. But, Winnipeg's pairing definitely has the better voting record. Part of that is likely due to the fact that Picard and Niinimaa put up points and probably were ranked higher than they actually deserved to be. But at the same time, in all the years that Picard & Niinimaa got those votes, they were very heavily relied upon by their teams at ES. Picard led his team in overall ice time by over 2 minutes, led in ES time by over a minute, and was 3rd in PK time. In 1980, he led overall ice time by over 4 minutes, led ES by over 2 minutes, but didn't kill many penalties. In 01, Niinimaa led overall ice time, was 3rd at ES, and was 3rd in PK. In 02, Niinimaa led overall ice time, was 2nd at ES, and 2nd in PK.

BillyShoe1721 09-08-2012 08:00 PM

Goaltending

Our goaltenders are similar, but they're in opposite roles. Beaupre and Irbe were good regular season performers, and Ranford and Karakas are known more for their playoff performances. I'll ignore Ranford and Irbe for this, because I don't expect either to play much. If Ranford needs to come in, he's more than capable of playing well in the playoffs. Here are the relevant voting records for the starters:

Beaupre

AS: 4, 4, 6, 7, 9
Vezina: 5, 6

Karkas

AS: 2, 3, 3, 5
Vezina: didn't exist at the time

Keep in mind that Karakas played in an era where it was rare that more than 6 or 7 goalies received votes, and only 12 goalies were really in the NHL. When Beaupre played, there were between 21-25 teams in the NHL. Karakas is best known for his playoff performances, but in reality, his GAA goes up in the playoffs from 2.92 to 3.01. But, a good bit of that is due to a very bad playoff he had at the end of his career. Which is better? Tough to tell. Some adjustment needs to be made for league size when comparing the two, but I'm not sure how to exactly do it. Karakas also spent 3 years in the AHL where he was a good performer. I'd like to hear what others think about which is better, because right now I'm not sure.

TheDevilMadeMe 09-08-2012 08:22 PM

Those All Star records are too close to eyeball without knowing the circumstances.

I would need to know the competition and voting points each season for both guys to make a decision.

Karakas does have a better playoff reputation, which is something


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:48 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.