HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   All Time Draft (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   MLD2011 - Mickey Ion SF - (1) Regina Capitals vs. (5) New New York Awesome Express (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=972475)

Velociraptor 08-22-2011 11:54 AM

MLD2011 - Mickey Ion SF - (1) Regina Capitals vs. (5) New New York Awesome Express
 
Regina Capitals

http://capitals.pjhl.ca/leagues/3573...a_Capitals.GIF

Bob Gracie - Jozef Golonka (C) - Tony Gingras
George Richardson - Jozef Stumpel - Grant Warwick
Jan Erixon - Billy Harris - Billy Harris (A)
Pat Boutette - Darcy Tucker - Mike Grier

Gordie Roberts (A) - Bob Armstrong
Jack Portland - Barry Gibbs
Gary Sargent - Bingo Kampman

Billy Nicholson
Earl Robertson

coach: Bun Cook
assistant coach: Dick Todd

Spares:

John Mayasich (C/D)
Eric Weinrich (D)
Charlie Tobin (F/D)

PP1: Warwick-Golonka-Gingras-Sargent-Roberts
PP2: Gracie-Stumpel-Tucker-Sargent-Gibbs
PK1: Erixon-Grier-Armstrong-Gibbs
PK2: Boutette-Harris (70s)-Portland-Roberts
PK3: Harris (60s)-Tucker-Armstrong-Kampman

vs.

New New York Awesome Express

http://pool.theinfosphere.org/images...xpress.svg.png

General Managers: Team Awesome - (Dwight) Conrad and Cubert Farnsworth (Velociraptor)

Head Coach: Randy Carlyle
Captain: Orest Kindrachuk
Assistant Captains: Dale McCourt, Warren Godfrey, Sheldon Souray
Trainer: Zapp Branigan
Team Doctor: Zoidberg

Jim Riley - Guy Chouinard - Martin Havlat
Darryl Sutter - Dale McCourt (A) - Ilkka Sinisalo
Ron Duguay - Orest Kindrachuk (C) - Don Saleski
Ted Irvine - Christian Ruuttu - Vlastimil Bubnik
Spares: Alf Pike F/D, Mikko Koivu C, Dustin Brown RW

Warren Godfrey (A) - Jocelyn Guevremont
Sheldon Souray - Brent Seabrook
Bret Hedican - Pat Quinn
Spares: Doug Lidster

Eddie Johnston
Jose Theodore


PP1: Riley - McCourt - Havlat - Guevremont - Chouinard
PP2: Sinisalo - Duguay - Bubnik - Souray - Seabrook
PK1: Kindrachuk - Saleski - Godfrey - Seabrook
PK2: McCourt - Duguay - Hedican - Quinn
PK3: Ruuttu - Irvine - Godfrey - Seabrook

Velociraptor 08-22-2011 02:10 PM

Looking forward to this series with you seventies, I will be adding debate over this matchup in the coming days.

I'll begin by my interpretation of each teams first lines:

Bob Gracie - Jozef Golonka - Tony Gingras vs. Jim Riley - Guy Chouinard - Martin Havlat

In an all-time context, Jim Riley was an all-star in the PCHL, a pre-requisite of the NHL, and if not the best, one of the better leagues before the NHL's time.

Riley was part of a Seattle Metropolitans trifecta that included Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, two sure-fire ATD'ers. What separates Riley from his counterparts? Your guess is as good as mine, Riley was a big man in his day, and with adjusted size he comes to about 6'3"-6'4" he was known as "Big Jim." In an era where assists were not recorded legitimately, and where Foyston would have 26 goal seasons, Riley would definitely have had to play a big part in those goals, which suggests he was also capable of taking on a playmaking role in addition to a goal scorer and a physical player.

It appears you don't have a puck-winner on your first line, Gracie and Gingras provide grit, but your first line is more of a high-octane offensive line rather than a line with a glue guy. Which is a similar case to our first line, Riley is essentially our guy when it comes to puck battles, as his large frame and his defensive ability will be able to churn the puck out. Riley and Chouinard are both capable goal-scorers, and both have the ability to make plays.

Golonka is an intriguing piece, your first line is strong but it really lacks a game-breaking player. Golonka definitely provides a lot of key essentials, and will be a tough player to contain, but I don't think he brings enough to the table. I think Guy Chouinard is the better offensive centre in this situation. Gracie is quick, but he is also small. When our third line is out against your first line, they will feed on the atomity of the line. I think if you take size out of the equation, Gracie and Riley are somewhat similar, Riley having been known as a strong goal-scorer. Gracie doesn't have any flattering accolades besides his cup victories and his top-10 in points, but he is far and away from being the best left winger in the draft.

Having Golonka with Gingras on the wing is an advantage, he can use Golonka like he used Bain. His play-making definitely adds to the chemistry of the line, and opens Golonka's effectiveness slightly. Martin Havlat is a prominent goal scorer, and will receive passes from either Riley or Chouinard to score goals. Gingras is the obvious play-maker on the line while Havlat has great speed and a nose for the net.

Overall, I think that the Express hold the first line advantage. The line is vanilla, and doesn't have the effectiveness of a first line, mind you it's a good first line considering how late you started drafting the players for it, but I think that our first line has the advantage here.

Velociraptor 08-22-2011 02:39 PM

Second Lines:

George Richardson - Jozef Stumpel - Grant Warwick vs. Darryl Sutter - Dale McCourt - Ilkka Sinisalo

George Richardson is a guy much more comparable to Jim Riley. He's a goal-scorer and he's effective in his second line role. Darryl Sutter is a hard-working goal scorer who definitely provides leadership qualities, he had great hands and scored 161 goals in 406 regular season games. Darryl was tough, having known not to back down in scuffles with Keith Magnuson. But Richardson is the better offensive player, Sutter is definitely a key player on the line, and adds the best of two-way play. Stumpel's size is definitely a plus, although he's about as fast as Jason Allison, he'd probably win in a race around the rink, good play-making center who is good on the faceoff dot. Dale McCourt is a fine playmaker who had very impressive numbers during his career, he was very consistent in most aspects of the game. Warwick is a rough and tumble winger who is capable of scoring goals, and had good numbers in much inferior leagues. Ilkka Sinisalo was an overlooked, prolific goal scorer, he was a good player at both ends of the ice, and serves as one of two viable options for McCourt to choose from when passing. A similar luxury that Stumpel has with Richardson and Warwick. I think Sinisalo is the stronger right winger, as he has a size advantage, and was a lethal goal scorer that some Flyers greats had great things to say about him. While McCourt and Stumpel both have assets and flaws, it's an even line for the most part.

All things considered, I think the Express have a slight advantage. With two genuine goal scorers on the wings of a quick, proven play-maker in McCourt. I think it's makes for a little more of a successful line than the opposition has presented. They are very even lines.

Velociraptor 08-22-2011 11:01 PM

Third Lines:

Jan Erixon - Hinky Harris - Billy Harris vs. Ron Duguay - Orest Kindrachuk - Don Saleski

Our third line plays a big part in this series, faced with the task of shutting down the oppositions top offensive line. I think we possess the strongest third line in the draft, a mix of two Broad Street Bullies who have proven chemistry of shutting down the top lines of the 70's, plus a great two-way player who has also been known to be a good candidate for a shutdown line. I think having a strong third line is a very important asset, and you've done a good job assembling one of your own. Jan Erixon as we know is a solid defensive minded player who was one of the better in his era, he'll contribute close to nothing offensively. I'm going to refer to the centre Hinky and the winger Billy, Hinky Harris was a decent two-way player, but not a shutdown centre, his presence adds a potential advantage, an elevation of Jan Erixon's offense. Billy Harris, is a strong defensive player who had some good offensive seasons. With the Capitals third line, if he plans to use it to shutdown our first line, it's a line that can compete, but Hinky Harris is a centre perhaps better envisioned as a fourth line centre, as he is not really a shutdown centre. He won't be overly effective winning faceoffs, or being a very strong physical presence. Which is the only problem I have with the line.

To reiterate, I think that we have the strongest third line in the draft, therefore I believe that the Express also hold an advantage over the Capitals third line. The entirety of our line adds the most in offensive and defensive play, and has three players who are extremely capable of patrolling the oppositions first line and being very effective. Although, the Capitals third line are no pushover, and I expect no easy way out of facing them.

Velociraptor 08-23-2011 08:56 AM

Fourth Lines:

Pat Boutette - Darcy Tucker - Mike Grier vs. Ted Irvine - Christian Ruuttu - Vlastimil Bubnik

Both fourth lines have an offensive flair, and can be effective in limited use. One of the Express's most dangerous scorers Vlastimil Bubnik plays on the fourth line, he occupies the role on the second power play, where he will be effective. His role in even strength isn't as important but will still be able to chip in timely offense in his limited minutes. Pat Boutette was tough little two-way player who had some good offensive years, and may have an epic rematch of fisticuffs with Don Saleski. It's news to me that Tucker was a centre, but your bio implicates he played the middle for a few seasons. Tucker's worst years seemed to have come when he was a centre, when he shifted back to wing, in his first season he had 59 points up from 37 the previous season, I always thought he was more effective on the wing. Nonetheless he will serve the purpose as a checking center. Christian Ruuttu was a solid two-way player who sometimes played wing, but was better classified as a center where he played his best hockey. He was an exuberant physical player, and was very quick, he was a tenacious fore-checker. Mike Grier is a decent offensive player who can chip in some partial offense, he's pretty physical and adds a more gritty element to the line. Ted Irvine is a mean, hard-working man who liked to crash bodies to the boards and he had a knack for scoring in clutch situations, he wasn't anything special offensively, but his defensive presence is a good fit for the fourth line.

The Express have a slight advantage when it comes to fourth lines, it has a great two-way element and can provide offense in the time that it gets. The Capitals fourth line is also a decent shutdown line, but doesn't quite match the two-way play of the fourth line of the Express.

Velociraptor 08-23-2011 11:17 AM

I'll begin my defensive comparisons now.

First Pairings:

Gordie Roberts - Bob Armstrong vs. Warren Godfrey - Jocelyn Guevremont

Both pairs are contrast pairs with a hard-hitting defenseman, and an offensive rearguard who is useful on the power play. Gordie Roberts had his better years pointwise in the WHA, which as we know was a strong league, but didn't have anything on the NHL. His NHL numbers were on par with Guevremont, but Guevremont would usually score almost twice the goals Roberts would. Both defenseman became better defensively throughout their careers, Roberts more so, but both took on more of a two-way role by then end of their careers. Armstrong and Godfrey are both very hard-hitting defenseman who complement their offensive counterpart. Both are solid stay-at-home defenseman who can deliver a bruising. Armstrong's Norris voting record perhaps suggests he was the stronger of the two, but Godfrey is a comparable, and will make it a task for the Capitals forwards to cross the blueline while he occupies the gate.

The Capitals have an advantage on the first pair. Both contrast pairs, the Capitals possess a stronger defensive unit, but both are effective two-way pairings.

vecens24 08-23-2011 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velociraptor (Post 36139731)
I'll begin my defensive comparisons now.

First Pairings:

Gordie Roberts - Bob Armstrong vs. Warren Godfrey - Jocelyn Guevremont

Both pairs are contrast pairs with a hard-hitting defenseman, and an offensive rearguard who is useful on the power play. Gordie Roberts had his better years pointwise in the WHA, which as we know was a strong league, but didn't have anything on the NHL. His NHL numbers were on par with Guevremont, but Guevremont would usually score almost twice the goals Roberts would. Both defenseman became better defensively throughout their careers, but were never solid two-way defenseman. Armstrong and Godfrey are both very hard-hitting defenseman who complement their offensive counterpart. Both are solid stay-at-home defenseman who can deliver a bruising.

The lines are very even, and there is no particular advantage, they will both be effective in having one offensive defenseman, and one defensive defenseman to make two strong contrast pairs.

Okay sorry there's no way these two pairings are equal. Armstrong is a 3 time top 10 Norris finisher (as well as narrowly missing out on becoming a Post Season All-Star with one 5th place finish), and he played in the same period of Godfrey, who doesn't have any real Norris consideration as far as I know.

As far as Guevremont vs. Roberts, Roberts is defintiely better defensively and always was as far as their career progression. Guevremont in his first three seasons was always top 6 in the NHL in goals on-ice against (part of which has to do with him playing a lot of minutes as a young defenseman, part of which has to do with his defensive inadequacies). He did get better as his career progressed, yes. However, Gordie Roberts has twice as long of a track record of solid defense (Guevremont's shorter career does him no favors here). Roberts by the end of his career was actually more of a defensive defenseman than an offensive guy (check his bio seventies provided for proof). Roberts is also a fair bit more physical than Guevremont. I think Guevremont is better offensively, but I think the difference in their defensive ability and physicality give Roberts the edge here.

TheDevilMadeMe 08-23-2011 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vecens24 (Post 36141547)
Okay sorry there's no way these two pairings are equal. Armstrong is a 3 time top 10 Norris finisher (as well as narrowly missing out on becoming a Post Season All-Star with one 5th place finish), and he played in the same period of Godfrey, who doesn't have any real Norris consideration as far as I know.
.

I'd like to see seventieslord's source for post-season all-star voting in 1960 - post-season all star voting isn't on the HOH sticky thread as far as I am aware.

If it was a distant 5th place finish, then I don't think you can say he "narrowly missed out." My guess is that it was a distant 5th in AS voting, since he finished 7th in Norris voting that year.

That said, Armstrong still has 3 low finishes (7, 8, 9) in Norris voting, which is 3 more than Godfrey has.

vecens24 08-23-2011 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 36142789)
I'd like to see seventieslord's source for post-season all-star voting in 1960 - post-season all star voting isn't on the HOH sticky thread as far as I am aware.

If it was a distant 5th place finish, then I don't think you can say he "narrowly missed out." My guess is that it was a distant 5th in AS voting, since he finished 7th in Norris voting that year.

That said, Armstrong still has 3 low finishes (7, 8, 9) finishes in Norris voting, which is 3 more than Godfrey has.

Very true in that I shouldn't say necessarily he "narrowly missed it", but still he was closer than anyone else that year. Most importantly he has three more finishes in Norris than Godfrey which is really what matters and we shoudln't get caught up in language.

seventieslord 08-23-2011 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velociraptor (Post 36116057)
Riley was part of a Seattle Metropolitans trifecta that included Frank Foyston and Bernie Morris, two sure-fire ATD'ers. What separates Riley from his counterparts? Your guess is as good as mine, Riley was a big man in his day, and with adjusted size he comes to about 6'3"-6'4" he was known as "Big Jim." In an era where assists were not recorded legitimately, and where Foyston would have 26 goal seasons, Riley would definitely have had to play a big part in those goals, which suggests he was also capable of taking on a playmaking role in addition to a goal scorer and a physical player.

Assists were actually recorded leitimately, and Riley was a brutal playmaker by the numbers. In all likelihood, the guy was more of a passenger on the line than anything. I've never been a big fan and I posted as much when he was taken:

Quote:

- Good to see Riley fall down here to the 1000s from the 800s.

The two times he was 2nd in PCHA goals are just a bit deceiving because:

-they happened when the PCHA started to weaken in the 1920s,
-one of the times he was tied for 2nd with just 62% as many goals as the leader, Jack Adams, and just 3 ahead of the guy in 7th,
-based on assist totals, he was a poor playmaker.

Riley's best seasons as a percentage of the PCHA leader's point total: 69, 53, 53, 44.

Based on overall offense, I think he's about the 17th-most dominant PCHA forward ever, behind Taylor, Morris, MacKay, Fredrickson, Foyston, Dunderdale, Oatman, Harris, Kerr, Adams, Walker, Stanley, Roberts, Rowe (as a forward), and two undrafteds. Also, there are guys like Skinner and Cully Wilson who were not quite as offensively dominant in the PCHA but had other very good seasons either in the WCHL or the NHA/NHL, or both. Throw in the exclusively Eastern guys, of whom there are at least this many, and he's pretty far down the pecking order for his generation.

If we knew something about his non-offense skills there would be hope for him in the ATD. But as-is, he belongs firmly in the 1000s here.
Pay attention to those percentages - they are thoroughly uninspiring. It would be unwise to bring Bob Gracie into a comparison with Riley, because his percentages achieved are much, much better, and he did it with much much weaker linemates, and was always his line's leading scorer.

Riley's linemates outscored him by absolutely obscene amounts. 54-48-16, 32-23-6, 29-16, 30-28 (this was a much better showing, obviously), 24-23-18, and then a year where they were all closer to even (28-27-26)... this is not awe-inspiring.

I have no problems with the PCHA, obviously... Riley just wasn't all that great.

Quote:

It appears you don't have a puck-winner on your first line, Gracie and Gingras provide grit, but your first line is more of a high-octane offensive line rather than a line with a glue guy. Which is a similar case to our first line, Riley is essentially our guy when it comes to puck battles, as his large frame and his defensive ability will be able to churn the puck out. Riley and Chouinard are both capable goal-scorers, and both have the ability to make plays.
- Golonka has more grit than Gingras and Gracie combined. Don't ignore him as a puck winner.

- riley has size, but where is this defensive ability you speak of? And where is the evidence that he was proficient at using this size? And why not focus on the fact that he had a couple of nice "finishes" in PCHA goal scoring and stop pretending he is any sort of a playmaker?

Quote:

Golonka is an intriguing piece, your first line is strong but it really lacks a game-breaking player. Golonka definitely provides a lot of key essentials, and will be a tough player to contain, but I don't think he brings enough to the table. I think Guy Chouinard is the better offensive centre in this situation.
Chouinard is more offensive talented most likely, but there is no way I would call him a better overall or more desirable player. Chouinard is one of the most one-dimensional players of all-time, with the caveat that he played the point on the PP too. He was called out recently by C1958 as an example of a good offensive player who was poor defensively on a bad team, and better teams went out there with the game plan of playing run and gun, knowing they could win that battle and therefore the game.

Quote:

Gracie is quick, but he is also small. When our third line is out against your first line, they will feed on the atomity of the line. I think if you take size out of the equation, Gracie and Riley are somewhat similar, Riley having been known as a strong goal-scorer. Gracie doesn't have any flattering accolades besides his cup victories and his top-10 in points, but he is far and away from being the best left winger in the draft.
I agree, and I hope you're not saying that I thought he was the best LW in the draft. Offensively speaking, he's approximately average for a first liner, and considering his modest (but present) grit and defense, I'd call him about average in intangibles, too... an average 1st liner.

seventieslord 08-23-2011 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velociraptor (Post 36116859)
Darryl was tough, having known not to back down in scuffles with Keith Magnuson.

But Richardson is the better offensive player, Sutter is definitely a key player on the line, and adds the best of two-way play.

To what are you referring? Sutter and Magnuson were both career Chicago Blackhawks, and their careers overlapped one season, 1979-80, when the two played a combined 11 games.

But how tough was Sutter, really? And what can you tell us about his two-way play? I'm asking because I honestly want to know. His PIM totals are really low and I always suspected he might not be a "typical" Sutter. I'm wondering if we just assume things about him because of his last name.

Sutter did have a good goal scoring season (sub-20th) but it appeared to come at the expense of assists, as he was one of the most goal-biased players of the post-expansion era:

most goals per assist, 150+ goals, 1968-present:

Wendel Clark 1.41
Darryl Sutter 1.36
Blaine Stoughton 1.35
Reggie Leach 1.33

as an overall offensive producer, though, Sutter wasn't that great. His best percentage seasons are 50, 47, 34, and 30. that's not even as good as Darcy Tucker, who is on our 4th line. To put it another way, both averaged 36 adjusted ESPPG per 80 games in their careers, but Tucker averaged that over double the games! yikes.

Quote:

Stumpel's size is definitely a plus, although he's about as fast as Jason Allison, he'd probably win in a race around the rink, good play-making center who is good on the faceoff dot. Dale McCourt is a fine playmaker who had very impressive numbers during his career, he was very consistent in most aspects of the game.
I like McCourt a lot, but he's out of his league on an MLD 2nd line with his offensive credentials. You know I consider Stumpel a "bargain basement" guy; if that's so, then you got McCourt in the MLD crawlspace. His best offensive seasons have percentages of 66, 65, 59, 55, 50, and 43. Stumpel's are 87, 77, 64, 62, 57, and 50. Stumpel played nearly double the games, but had 51 adjusted ESPPG to McCourt's 41. The only reason their raw percentages are even as close as they are, is because McCourt got to anchor the PP of a brutal Detroit squad, as they threw copious amounts of icetime at him because he was to be their saviour. He got a ton of PK time (with poor results) and I reckon his defensive resume is a little better as a result, but not enough to make him a better player.

Quote:

Warwick is a rough and tumble winger who is capable of scoring goals, and had good numbers in much inferior leagues. Ilkka Sinisalo was an overlooked, prolific goal scorer, he was a good player at both ends of the ice,
inferior leagues? I've never heard anyone describe the NHL that way. Or are you referring to his AHL and international stuff? That's window dressing for his real resume, which includes six top-20s in goals.

Sinisalo had two seasons that could be described as significant from a goalscoring standpoint in the NHL. Like Sutter, he wasn't much of a playmaker either, and his best offensive seasons for percentages are 62, 58, 41, 39, 36, 35. Again, to use 4th liner Tucker as a comparable, he had two more adjusted ESPPG (38) but in significantly fewer games - considering all that a guy like Tucker brings, is Sinisalo even a more desirable player than my 4th liner?

seventieslord 08-23-2011 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velociraptor (Post 36131551)
Third Lines:

Jan Erixon - Hinky Harris - Billy Harris vs. Ron Duguay - Orest Kindrachuk - Don Saleski

Our third line plays a big part in this series, faced with the task of shutting down the oppositions top offensive line. I think we possess the strongest third line in the draft, a mix of two Broad Street Bullies who have proven chemistry of shutting down the top lines of the 70's, plus a great two-way player who has also been known to be a good candidate for a shutdown line. I think having a strong third line is a very important asset, and you've done a good job assembling one of your own. Jan Erixon as we know is a solid defensive minded player who was one of the better in his era, he'll contribute close to nothing offensively. I'm going to refer to the centre Hinky and the winger Billy, Hinky Harris was a decent two-way player, but not a shutdown centre, his presence adds a potential advantage, an elevation of Jan Erixon's offense. Billy Harris, is a strong defensive player who had some good offensive seasons. With the Capitals third line, if he plans to use it to shutdown our first line, it's a line that can compete, but Hinky Harris is a centre perhaps better envisioned as a fourth line centre, as he is not really a shutdown centre. He won't be overly effective winning faceoffs, or being a very strong physical presence. Which is the only problem I have with the line.

To reiterate, I think that we have the strongest third line in the draft, therefore I believe that the Express also hold an advantage over the Capitals third line. The entirety of our line adds the most in offensive and defensive play, and has three players who are extremely capable of patrolling the oppositions first line and being very effective. Although, the Capitals third line are no pushover, and I expect no easy way out of facing them.

see, the thing is, Orest Kindrachuk is the only player with a defensive resume that's special in an way. Which means I could just as easily tell you that Duguay and Saleski are best envisioned as 4th line players. Erixon has more defensive ability than this whole line combined.

The line has the potential to score more. they have career ESP/80 averages of 43, 36, and 31. Regina's post-expansion counterparts have 36 and 27. TBH, Erixon was a more talented offensive player than Saleski, who was a "goon who can play", but Saleski benefitted from playing with an excellent ES producer in Kindrachuk, but since he also has Kindrachuk here, I can't take that away from him. Hinky is the x-factor. In his best ES seasons he might have been the best producer of all six of these players. Regardless, your guys do seem to have the better potential offense. You must remember, though, that this is a difference of perhaps 10 goals in a full season, or perhaps one in a series. Which one works for its intended purpose - a shutdown line? Regina's.

seventieslord 08-23-2011 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velociraptor (Post 36136817)
Fourth Lines:

Pat Boutette - Darcy Tucker - Mike Grier vs. Ted Irvine - Christian Ruuttu - Vlastimil Bubnik

Both fourth lines have an offensive flair, and can be effective in limited use. One of the Express's most dangerous scorers Vlastimil Bubnik plays on the fourth line, he occupies the role on the second power play, where he will be effective. His role in even strength isn't as important but will still be able to chip in timely offense in his limited minutes. Pat Boutette was tough little two-way player who had some good offensive years, and may have an epic rematch of fisticuffs with Don Saleski. It's news to me that Tucker was a centre, but your bio implicates he played the middle for a few seasons. Tucker's worst years seemed to have come when he was a centre, when he shifted back to wing, in his first season he had 59 points up from 37 the previous season, I always thought he was more effective on the wing. Nonetheless he will serve the purpose as a checking center. Christian Ruuttu was a solid two-way player who sometimes played wing, but was better classified as a center where he played his best hockey. He was an exuberant physical player, and was very quick, he was a tenacious fore-checker. Mike Grier is a decent offensive player who can chip in some partial offense, he's pretty physical and adds a more gritty element to the line. Ted Irvine is a mean, hard-working man who liked to crash bodies to the boards and he had a knack for scoring in clutch situations, he wasn't anything special offensively, but his defensive presence is a good fit for the fourth line.

The Express have a slight advantage when it comes to fourth lines, it has a great two-way element and can provide offense in the time that it gets. The Capitals fourth line is also a decent shutdown line, but doesn't quite match the two-way play of the fourth line of the Express.

As I demonstrated before, the difference in offensive ability of MLD 4th lines is really negligible, it is so insignificant that one could not even "round up" the difference to one goal in a 7-game series. It's the style that they play, and how effective they are at it, that will make the difference here.

I think Bubnik's presence gives Regina a built-in advantage there, being that I've never seen anything that indicates he was more than just a scorer. I don't want to get into a quote pissing match about which of Tucker, Grier, Irvine, Boutette and Ruutuu have the most intangibles, but if you'd like to, be my guest. (something demonstrating Ruuttu's physicality would be a start)

Dwight 08-23-2011 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 36148493)
As I demonstrated before, the difference in offensive ability of MLD 4th lines is really negligible, it is so insignificant that one could not even "round up" the difference to one goal in a 7-game series. It's the style that they play, and how effective they are at it, that will make the difference here.

I think Bubnik's presence gives Regina a built-in advantage there, being that I've never seen anything that indicates he was more than just a scorer. I don't want to get into a quote pissing match about which of Tucker, Grier, Irvine, Boutette and Ruutuu have the most intangibles, but if you'd like to, be my guest. (something demonstrating Ruuttu's physicality would be a start)

Bubnik is down on the 4th line as a PP specialist. I don't believe we claimed he has much in terms of intangibles.

seventieslord 08-23-2011 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velociraptor (Post 36139731)
I'll begin my defensive comparisons now.

First Pairings:

Gordie Roberts - Bob Armstrong vs. Warren Godfrey - Jocelyn Guevremont

Both pairs are contrast pairs with a hard-hitting defenseman, and an offensive rearguard who is useful on the power play. Gordie Roberts had his better years pointwise in the WHA, which as we know was a strong league, but didn't have anything on the NHL. His NHL numbers were on par with Guevremont, but Guevremont would usually score almost twice the goals Roberts would. Both defenseman became better defensively throughout their careers, but were never solid two-way defenseman. Armstrong and Godfrey are both very hard-hitting defenseman who complement their offensive counterpart. Both are solid stay-at-home defenseman who can deliver a bruising.

The lines are very even, and there is no particular advantage, they will both be effective in having one offensive defenseman, and one defensive defenseman to make two strong contrast pairs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vecens24 (Post 36141547)
Okay sorry there's no way these two pairings are equal. Armstrong is a 3 time top 10 Norris finisher (as well as narrowly missing out on becoming a Post Season All-Star with one 5th place finish), and he played in the same period of Godfrey, who doesn't have any real Norris consideration as far as I know.

As far as Guevremont vs. Roberts, Roberts is defintiely better defensively and always was as far as their career progression. Guevremont in his first three seasons was always top 6 in the NHL in goals on-ice against (part of which has to do with him playing a lot of minutes as a young defenseman, part of which has to do with his defensive inadequacies). He did get better as his career progressed, yes. However, Gordie Roberts has twice as long of a track record of solid defense (Guevremont's shorter career does him no favors here). Roberts by the end of his career was actually more of a defensive defenseman than an offensive guy (check his bio seventies provided for proof). Roberts is also a fair bit more physical than Guevremont. I think Guevremont is better offensively, but I think the difference in their defensive ability and physicality give Roberts the edge here.

vecens, you are absolutely right. These pairings are definitely not even. Godfrey's claim to fame is lasting in the O6 era for a pretty decent amount of time. But the guy was never a "star" defenseman. Armstrong was. No contest there.

Guevremont and Roberts, however, are closer. I'd say Roberts went from a C to a B defensively throughout his career, and Guevremont went from a D to a C. Offensively they are fairly similar. Guevremont didn't ever receive any recognition as a top player, while Roberts did finish high in norris voting once.

Regardless of what you think of those two, the chasm between Armstrong and Godfrey is tremendous and therefore so is the difference between these two pairings.

seventieslord 08-23-2011 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwight (Post 36148577)
Bubnik is down on the 4th line as a PP specialist. I don't believe we claimed he has much in terms of intangibles.

tha's fine, I'm not saying you did, however, even with him there, this falls right in line with all the other 4th lines in terms of offensive talent. Intangibles are what matter here, and he's lacking.

Dwight 08-23-2011 03:47 PM

I also believe Velociraptor is quoting Mr. Pelletier when he talks about Ruuttu's physicality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Pelletier
The bucket-headed Ruuttu was not your stereotypical 1980's Finnish hockey player. He was an exuberant physical player who worked hard on every shift. He was a fine defensive player as well. His quickness and endurance made him not only a tremendous forechecker, but a penalty killer as well. A face-off specialist, Ruuttu combined savvy intelligence and a lunch pail work ethic to excel defensively.


seventieslord 08-23-2011 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 36142789)
I'd like to see seventieslord's source for post-season all-star voting in 1960 - post-season all star voting isn't on the HOH sticky thread as far as I am aware.

If it was a distant 5th place finish, then I don't think you can say he "narrowly missed out." My guess is that it was a distant 5th in AS voting, since he finished 7th in Norris voting that year.

That said, Armstrong still has 3 low finishes (7, 8, 9) in Norris voting, which is 3 more than Godfrey has.

hmmm, I had this in my files before the start of this draft. it was the norris voting I updated recently thanks to BM67's work. I have him listed as 5th (and Tom Johnson 6th) in norris voting, with no totals listed.

hmmm, just ctrl-F'd the entire thread and couldn't find it. In any case, I know I didn't just make it up. He very well could have been a distant 5th, I don't know.

seventieslord 08-23-2011 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwight (Post 36148719)
I also believe Velociraptor is quoting Mr. Pelletier when he talks about Ruuttu's physicality.

ok, fair enough, His surprisingly high PIM totals also help to corroborate this.

Velociraptor 08-23-2011 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vecens24 (Post 36141547)
Okay sorry there's no way these two pairings are equal. Armstrong is a 3 time top 10 Norris finisher (as well as narrowly missing out on becoming a Post Season All-Star with one 5th place finish), and he played in the same period of Godfrey, who doesn't have any real Norris consideration as far as I know.

As far as Guevremont vs. Roberts, Roberts is defintiely better defensively and always was as far as their career progression. Guevremont in his first three seasons was always top 6 in the NHL in goals on-ice against (part of which has to do with him playing a lot of minutes as a young defenseman, part of which has to do with his defensive inadequacies). He did get better as his career progressed, yes. However, Gordie Roberts has twice as long of a track record of solid defense (Guevremont's shorter career does him no favors here). Roberts by the end of his career was actually more of a defensive defenseman than an offensive guy (check his bio seventies provided for proof). Roberts is also a fair bit more physical than Guevremont. I think Guevremont is better offensively, but I think the difference in their defensive ability and physicality give Roberts the edge here.

Alright, after further investigation, the pairing is perhaps better than mine. I didn't really take Armstrong's voting record into consideration, but Godfrey was fairly underrated for his capabilities, he was renowned as one of the hardest hitters in his day, along with Armstrong. Roberts and Guevremont were at one time equal, but Roberts eventually leapfrogged Guevremont when he became a more complete defenseman. Although Guevremont also became a solid two-way defenseman by the end of his career, and was no longer a defensive liability.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 36146175)
Assists were actually recorded leitimately, and Riley was a brutal playmaker by the numbers. In all likelihood, the guy was more of a passenger on the line than anything. I've never been a big fan and I posted as much when he was taken:


Pay attention to those percentages - they are thoroughly uninspiring. It would be unwise to bring Bob Gracie into a comparison with Riley, because his percentages achieved are much, much better, and he did it with much much weaker linemates, and was always his line's leading scorer.

Riley's linemates outscored him by absolutely obscene amounts. 54-48-16, 32-23-6, 29-16, 30-28 (this was a much better showing, obviously), 24-23-18, and then a year where they were all closer to even (28-27-26)... this is not awe-inspiring.

I have no problems with the PCHA, obviously... Riley just wasn't all that great.



- Golonka has more grit than Gingras and Gracie combined. Don't ignore him as a puck winner.

- riley has size, but where is this defensive ability you speak of? And where is the evidence that he was proficient at using this size? And why not focus on the fact that he had a couple of nice "finishes" in PCHA goal scoring and stop pretending he is any sort of a playmaker?



Chouinard is more offensive talented most likely, but there is no way I would call him a better overall or more desirable player. Chouinard is one of the most one-dimensional players of all-time, with the caveat that he played the point on the PP too. He was called out recently by C1958 as an example of a good offensive player who was poor defensively on a bad team, and better teams went out there with the game plan of playing run and gun, knowing they could win that battle and therefore the game.



I agree, and I hope you're not saying that I thought he was the best LW in the draft. Offensively speaking, he's approximately average for a first liner, and considering his modest (but present) grit and defense, I'd call him about average in intangibles, too... an average 1st liner.

Oh, I'm aware he had great goal finishes in the PCHL, and often outscored Foyston and Morris. But how do you explain 100 goals and 39 assists in this year of the PCHA? It's not like Riley and Foyston scored off every turnover they got, if that's the case Riley is a much better player than indicated because he generated all those turnovers into goals. I have a very hard time believing that the leader on that team had 9 assists, and we know in pre-NHL era leagues didn't record assists commonly (Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard) so it's inexplicable that 100 goals were scored, and only 39 assists unless the fact Riley, Foyston and Morris were frequently able to steal the puck without a pass from their teammate, and score on a breakaway. Something is not right about that.

Jim Riley had 50 penalty minutes in 1922-1923, that has to be some indication, second on the team in PIM. Me and Dwight found some quotes we could later not find online, but he had shifted back on defense.

"Jim Riley has been working out on defense with Briden at right wing and it is possible that the white, green, and red sweatered athletes will lineup in that manner today"

If he could play both forward and defense, he'd be a capable physical player. Riley is a better goal-scorer than Gracie, and I think we can establish that.

We're not relying on Chouinard to be a defensive catalyst, he's full-out offensive game is why he is pioneering our first line.

Riley is not the best left winger in the draft, but he at least deserves recognition as an accomplished first line left winger with the numbers he had in Seattle, scoring that many goals in a professional league in 30 games is impressive any way you cut it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 36147181)
To what are you referring? Sutter and Magnuson were both career Chicago Blackhawks, and their careers overlapped one season, 1979-80, when the two played a combined 11 games.

But how tough was Sutter, really? And what can you tell us about his two-way play? I'm asking because I honestly want to know. His PIM totals are really low and I always suspected he might not be a "typical" Sutter. I'm wondering if we just assume things about him because of his last name.

Sutter did have a good goal scoring season (sub-20th) but it appeared to come at the expense of assists, as he was one of the most goal-biased players of the post-expansion era:

most goals per assist, 150+ goals, 1968-present:

Wendel Clark 1.41
Darryl Sutter 1.36
Blaine Stoughton 1.35
Reggie Leach 1.33

as an overall offensive producer, though, Sutter wasn't that great. His best percentage seasons are 50, 47, 34, and 30. that's not even as good as Darcy Tucker, who is on our 4th line. To put it another way, both averaged 36 adjusted ESPPG per 80 games in their careers, but Tucker averaged that over double the games! yikes.



I like McCourt a lot, but he's out of his league on an MLD 2nd line with his offensive credentials. You know I consider Stumpel a "bargain basement" guy; if that's so, then you got McCourt in the MLD crawlspace. His best offensive seasons have percentages of 66, 65, 59, 55, 50, and 43. Stumpel's are 87, 77, 64, 62, 57, and 50. Stumpel played nearly double the games, but had 51 adjusted ESPPG to McCourt's 41. The only reason their raw percentages are even as close as they are, is because McCourt got to anchor the PP of a brutal Detroit squad, as they threw copious amounts of icetime at him because he was to be their saviour. He got a ton of PK time (with poor results) and I reckon his defensive resume is a little better as a result, but not enough to make him a better player.



inferior leagues? I've never heard anyone describe the NHL that way. Or are you referring to his AHL and international stuff? That's window dressing for his real resume, which includes six top-20s in goals.

Sinisalo had two seasons that could be described as significant from a goalscoring standpoint in the NHL. Like Sutter, he wasn't much of a playmaker either, and his best offensive seasons for percentages are 62, 58, 41, 39, 36, 35. Again, to use 4th liner Tucker as a comparable, he had two more adjusted ESPPG (38) but in significantly fewer games - considering all that a guy like Tucker brings, is Sinisalo even a more desirable player than my 4th liner?

Quote:

Darryl had a tremendous training camp in 1979-80 with Chicago. The camp was memorable for his multiple run-ins with legendary Hawks tough guy Keith Magnuson. Magnuson had had several famous battles with Darryl's brother, Brian Sutter of the St. Louis Blues, in the previous couple of years, so he decided to test Darryl out. Darryl, in typical Sutter style, never backed down even if he didn't fare quite as well as Brian did. That instantly impressed the coaching staff and Magnuson.
I assume in practice he attempted to rough him up and see if he was up to the physical challenge or not, and he impressed one of the better defensive defensemen of his era.

You can be tough and not warrant a high PIM count, Darryl had some low numbers, but he had as high as 86 one season, look at Dustin Brown, one of the best power forwards in the league today, he's tough and he's never had a flattering PIM count.

He's a 40 goal scorer, and he has a proven playmaker in McCourt on his line, John Ogrodnick benefitted from the likes of McCourt, and McCourt IMO is a better playmaker than Tom Lysiak, so Sutter will be effective. McCourt isn't really "bargain basement", I think he belongs on an MLD second line, he's certainly "bargain basement" on a first line. He didn't really get the opportunity to play with a contending team, but put up consistent respectable numbers on a bottom-feeding team, he never fulfilled his initial expectations, but he was a good player during his career. He was effective on the penalty kill for scoring shorthanded goals, something he'll be relied upon to do against your power play unit.

You can't seriously think I'm referring to the NHL as an inferior league, Warwick certainly didn't score 113 points in the NHL, he did in the OSHL, which is an inferior league to the NHL, right? Sure he could score goals, but so could Sinisalo, he was more clutch as he was a better power play performer and often finished high in game-winning-goals.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 36148123)
see, the thing is, Orest Kindrachuk is the only player with a defensive resume that's special in an way. Which means I could just as easily tell you that Duguay and Saleski are best envisioned as 4th line players. Erixon has more defensive ability than this whole line combined.

The line has the potential to score more. they have career ESP/80 averages of 43, 36, and 31. Regina's post-expansion counterparts have 36 and 27. TBH, Erixon was a more talented offensive player than Saleski, who was a "goon who can play", but Saleski benefitted from playing with an excellent ES producer in Kindrachuk, but since he also has Kindrachuk here, I can't take that away from him. Hinky is the x-factor. In his best ES seasons he might have been the best producer of all six of these players. Regardless, your guys do seem to have the better potential offense. You must remember, though, that this is a difference of perhaps 10 goals in a full season, or perhaps one in a series. Which one works for its intended purpose - a shutdown line? Regina's.

The two first bolded are pretty bush league statements, Kindrachuk and Saleski were part of the Philadelphia Flyers shutdown line which handled some of the best lines of the 70's. The missing piece is Dave Schultz, and he was not the reason they were so effective. Erixon better than the entire line defensively? you grossly overrate him, he's a great defensive player, nothing special offensively, but there's no way his ability is superior to ALL 3 players on the line, let alone even 2, Saleski is better than Erixon offensively, even when Saleski missed more than half the season, he'd score 11 goals, Erixon would score 2... He's good defensively, but it's not worth anyone's time to argue he was good offensively. Nothing implies he's good offensively, just that he's hard-working and tough to get the puck off his stick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 36148493)
As I demonstrated before, the difference in offensive ability of MLD 4th lines is really negligible, it is so insignificant that one could not even "round up" the difference to one goal in a 7-game series. It's the style that they play, and how effective they are at it, that will make the difference here.

I think Bubnik's presence gives Regina a built-in advantage there, being that I've never seen anything that indicates he was more than just a scorer. I don't want to get into a quote pissing match about which of Tucker, Grier, Irvine, Boutette and Ruutuu have the most intangibles, but if you'd like to, be my guest. (something demonstrating Ruuttu's physicality would be a start)

How is it an advantage for you if we possess a scorer who's dominated at international levels on our fourth line? that makes no sense, he's on the fourth line because he is nothing more than a high-octane offensive player, who will pack a punch on our second power play unit. As my esteemed colleague provided, Ruuttu is a confirmed physical specialist. I think in order of intangibles of the six players it goes.

Ruuttu
Boutette
Tucker
Irvine
Grier
Bubnik

Also, thought I might throw in this tidbit to shed some light on how good Bubnik is offensively.

Quote:

CZECHOSLOVAKIA all-time top scorers, Winter Olympic Games :

* 39 pts – 24 go – 15 as – 30 ga — Vlastimil BUBNIK
* 29 pts – 17 go – 12 as – 29 ga — Josef GOLONKA
xxx
* 23 pts – 15 go — 8 as – 12 ga — Milan NOVY
xxx
* 20 pts — 9 go – 11 as – 19 ga — Igor LIBA
* 19 pts – 13 go — 6 as – 14 ga — Vladimir MARTINEC
* 18 pts – 13 go — 5 as – 13 ga — Vaclav NEDOMANSKY
He has a better track record than Golonka by 10 points, Golonka is the more desirable all-around player, but you can't subtract the offensive firepower Bubnik will provide as he is a better offensive player than your first line center.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 36148595)
vecens, you are absolutely right. These pairings are definitely not even. Godfrey's claim to fame is lasting in the O6 era for a pretty decent amount of time. But the guy was never a "star" defenseman. Armstrong was. No contest there.

Guevremont and Roberts, however, are closer. I'd say Roberts went from a C to a B defensively throughout his career, and Guevremont went from a D to a C. Offensively they are fairly similar. Guevremont didn't ever receive any recognition as a top player, while Roberts did finish high in norris voting once.

Regardless of what you think of those two, the chasm between Armstrong and Godfrey is tremendous and therefore so is the difference between these two pairings.

I'll change my opinion on the first pairing in my original post, and resume my comparisons tomorrow.

seventieslord 08-24-2011 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Velociraptor (Post 36159147)
Oh, I'm aware he had great goal finishes in the PCHL, and often outscored Foyston and Morris. But how do you explain 100 goals and 39 assists in this year of the PCHA? It's not like Riley and Foyston scored off every turnover they got, if that's the case Riley is a much better player than indicated because he generated all those turnovers into goals. I have a very hard time believing that the leader on that team had 9 assists, and we know in pre-NHL era leagues didn't record assists commonly (Sprague Cleghorn, Eddie Gerard) so it's inexplicable that 100 goals were scored, and only 39 assists unless the fact Riley, Foyston and Morris were frequently able to steal the puck without a pass from their teammate, and score on a breakaway. Something is not right about that.

Jim Riley had 50 penalty minutes in 1922-1923, that has to be some indication, second on the team in PIM. Me and Dwight found some quotes we could later not find online, but he had shifted back on defense.

"Jim Riley has been working out on defense with Briden at right wing and it is possible that the white, green, and red sweatered athletes will lineup in that manner today"

If he could play both forward and defense, he'd be a capable physical player. Riley is a better goal-scorer than Gracie, and I think we can establish that.

- ok, let me clarify. assists were legitimately (officially) recorded, they just werent issued as commonly as later on in history. i am sure that many of things were done that would count as assists today. but what makes you think it was all Riley doing those things?

- the pcha had about 0.5 assists per goal in its history, and we have used similar assist totals from the early nhl and reconstructed nha stats to conclude many people are good playmakers or otherwise. dont pretend that these numbers dont indicate that riley was very one-dimensional offensively.

- dont forget that your line's ability to generate offense is going to come from the TOTAL offensive ability of all players, not just the sum of one players' goalscoring and another's playmaking. riley could score some goals but as an overall offensive threat he was not dominant. those percentages i quoted are with pcha assists "normalized", which hurts him but they are versus the #2 scorer of a "half league" which helps him greatly. those figures are nowhere near Gracie, and that is before you consider linemates.

the one expplanation that youre not considering is that maybe riley was just a mediocre player who benefitted from playing with a hhofer and another who should be. yes he kept up with them in that one season but the larger six-season sample size i provided clearly shows he usually didnt.

- your quote says Riley once practiced at defense. forgive me for not being convinced by that one.

Quote:

I assume in practice he attempted to rough him up and see if he was up to the physical challenge or not, and he impressed one of the better defensive defensemen of his era.

You can be tough and not warrant a high PIM count, Darryl had some low numbers, but he had as high as 86 one season, look at Dustin Brown, one of the best power forwards in the league today, he's tough and he's never had a flattering PIM count.

He's a 40 goal scorer, and he has a proven playmaker in McCourt on his line, John Ogrodnick benefitted from the likes of McCourt, and McCourt IMO is a better playmaker than Tom Lysiak, so Sutter will be effective. McCourt isn't really "bargain basement", I think he belongs on an MLD second line, he's certainly "bargain basement" on a first line. He didn't really get the opportunity to play with a contending team, but put up consistent respectable numbers on a bottom-feeding team, he never fulfilled his initial expectations, but he was a good player during his career. He was effective on the penalty kill for scoring shorthanded goals, something he'll be relied upon to do against your power play unit.
- a training camp quote? come on, you have to do better than that.

- i realize toughness and pims dont perfectly correlate. see mike grier. i am just saying he doesnt appear to have the same chip on his shoulder that the other sutters did. i could be wrong, but if i am, there should be info out there.

- i already showed you that mccourt's production doesnt even match stumpel's, and stumpel is mediocre. lets not get caught up in the terminology. if you dont like the "bargain basement" term, that is fine. but he's very lacking in demonstrated production. only tim young jumps to mind as a guy with less.

Quote:

You can't seriously think I'm referring to the NHL as an inferior league, Warwick certainly didn't score 113 points in the NHL, he did in the OSHL, which is an inferior league to the NHL, right? Sure he could score goals, but so could Sinisalo, he was more clutch as he was a better power play performer and often finished high in game-winning-goals.
- ok, i guess i dont really get the point of bringing up warwick's oshl year, but ok.

- sinisalo's strength is goalscoring, and his record as a goalscorer is not remotely close to warwick's by any measure. his record as a point producer is even further away. when a post expansion player cant post the percentages that a pre-expansion guy did, that's what we call a slam dunk.

- how do you know he was better than warwick on the pp? and arent we comparing 2nd lines and not pp units? pp goals dont make a player clutch, and gwg goals are a weak indicator, at best.

Quote:

The two first bolded are pretty bush league statements, Kindrachuk and Saleski were part of the Philadelphia Flyers shutdown line which handled some of the best lines of the 70's. The missing piece is Dave Schultz, and he was not the reason they were so effective. Erixon better than the entire line defensively? you grossly overrate him, he's a great defensive player, nothing special offensively, but there's no way his ability is superior to ALL 3 players on the line, let alone even 2, Saleski is better than Erixon offensively, even when Saleski missed more than half the season, he'd score 11 goals, Erixon would score 2... He's good defensively, but it's not worth anyone's time to argue he was good offensively. Nothing implies he's good offensively, just that he's hard-working and tough to get the puck off his stick.
- first, lets get one thing straight. Bobby Clarke says hi. that was the shutdown line, the one that got the tough assignments.

- i stand by what i said about Erixon having more *defensive* ability than your whole line. this guy had selke votes in 5 seasons. kindrachuk never did (or did he once?) saleski was a goon playing with a better player.

- your propensity to judge forwards strictly by goals is beginning to trouble me. saleski was really not much better at putting up points than erixon. yes, look at goals exclusively, and it looks worse than it was. the difference in point totals between kindrachuk and saleski tell you all you need to know. kindrachuk participated in a lot of goals that saleski didnt have a part in.

Quote:

How is it an advantage for you if we possess a scorer who's dominated at international levels on our fourth line? that makes no sense, he's on the fourth line because he is nothing more than a high-octane offensive player, who will pack a punch on our second power play unit. As my esteemed colleague provided, Ruuttu is a confirmed physical specialist. I think in order of intangibles of the six players it goes.

Ruuttu
Boutette
Tucker
Irvine
Grier
Bubnik

Also, thought I might throw in this tidbit to shed some light on how good Bubnik is offensively.

He has a better track record than Golonka by 10 points, Golonka is the more desirable all-around player, but you can't subtract the offensive firepower Bubnik will provide as he is a better offensive player than your first line center.
- WOW. you have a lot of information to provide, in order to legitimately claim that the "exuberant" Ruuttu is anywhere near boutette, tucker, grier, or even irvine in intangibles. until you do, that claim is dubious if not laughable. i politely declined the quote pissing match; would you like me to chamge my mind? :laugh:

- you have to understand that bubnik will get limited minuted with limited players, he is not enough to rise the line above the vanilla offensive wasteland that is the mld 4th line.

- re: bubnik and golonka, that comparison is deeply flawed for two very important reasons. one, there is no good reason to just compare olympic records when they played as many games in the worlds, which were the same tournaments with the same competition. they have basically the same ppg average based on that, with golonka playing more games. which brings me to number two. competition. bubnik's international career was from 52 to 63. golonka's was from 59 to 69. that is a major difference! bubnik's career total is hugely padded by a couple of big tournaments such as 1955, when the only player present confirmed to have nhl ability was bill warwick. he played two tournaments before the soviets even sent a team! golonka was playing firsov, starshinov, loktev, alexandrov, ragulin, davydov, ivanov, and canadian amateurs that actually played in the nhl, even if they didnt star. your comparison was an offense to statistics and to golonka.

do me a favour and pay attention to all-star voting when comparing second and third pairings at least, alright? :)

Dwight 08-24-2011 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 36162979)
- first, lets get one thing straight. Bobby Clarke says hi. that was the shutdown line, the one that got the tough assignments.

Kindrachuk himself would say otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Orest Kindrachuk (via Joe Pelletier)
"A lot of times when we would go on the road our line would have to play against our opponent’s top line. The three of us were plus players. We could keep up with anybody. We were actually a very good line,"

I'll take his word for it over yours, thank you.

Stoneberg 08-24-2011 07:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwight (Post 36163037)
Kindrachuk himself would say otherwise.



I'll take his word for it over yours, thank you.

If you're contesting that Bobby Clarke didn't get the tough defensive assignments more often than not, that quote comes nowhere close to proving it to me. There is far too much evidence to the contrary.

Dwight 08-24-2011 08:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stoneberg (Post 36163523)
If you're contesting that Bobby Clarke didn't get the tough defensive assignments more often than not, that quote comes nowhere close to proving it to me. There is far too much evidence to the contrary.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Bobby Clarke didn't get all the tough assignments. Why would Kindrachuk lie?

Stoneberg 08-24-2011 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dwight (Post 36163753)
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that Bobby Clarke didn't get all the tough assignments. Why would Kindrachuk lie?

Fair enough.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 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.