View Single Post
05-23-2011, 03:33 PM
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,935
vCash: 500
Depth forwards:

Hard to compare because the lines are playing different roles, but I'll try to respond to overpass's comments and make some more of my own.

•I counted four "probably"s and one "may not" in overpass's Lewis vs Gottselig comparison. Heh. I certainly don't think speculation about who probably saw more PP time is enough to overcome the advantage Lewis has in terms of numbers.

But given Lewis's superior real life linemates, I think their offense is "probably" similar here. (See what I did there? Heh). Lewis, on the other hand, has much better substantiated defense and is a much better defensive player here.

•As for Starsh/Mayorov vs. Modano / Provost, of course your guys are better - just look at their respective draft positions! I am not sure, however if your guys are better offensively - best goal scorer of the mid-late 60s Soviets vs Mike Modano? Mayorov won't score much himself, but he's well equipped to dig the puck out of corners and feed it to Starsh in front of the net. Like I said above, I'm not sure how Provost will do without that elite playmaker on his line. Modano and Provost are obviously better overall, by virtue of their excellent defensive play.

Overall, your line is better because it is quite a bit better defensively (despite Lewis's relatively large defensive edge over Gottselig) - it should be, it's your checking line.

Third lines:

•This is where I really disagree with you.

•All four wingers played post-expansion, so a percentage approach is the best way to compare them.

Doan: 78, 74, 66, 66, 62, 61, 56, 54, 50
Palffy: 96, 93, 83, 82, 73, 70, 66, (*77)

*on pace during his holdout year

Nash: 72, 67, 66, 65, 61, 51
Henderson: 63, 59, 57, 55, 52, 52

Nash is a very biased goal scorer, so his offensive value is greater than his raw points finishes, but how much better?

Henderson is obviously the defensive conscience of the line, but I don't think his defensive effort is enough to overcome the very large advantage that Shane Doan (also a good defensive player) has in terms of offense. Not sure how to account for Henderson's WHA years, but he seemed to be past his prime by then anyway (34 points in his last NHL season).

•Centers are tougher to compare. Bain is a top notch physical presence, but I think Smith is more proven offensively.

Smith finished 3rd, 4th, and 9th in scoring, then also has the pair of 5th place finishes tainted by the War. We only know about 38 games that Bain played in total, and who knows where the best player in Manitoba ranks overall in the 1890s.

I think Smith is probably better offensively, but Bain has a better overall game. I don't think it's enough to account for NJ's superior wingers.

Overall, NJ has a substantial edge in offense, and therefore a better third line, since neither line is being used in a checking role. . Nash and Bain give Ottawa that robust physical duo every team needs, but I don't think they are that much more physical than the Starshinov/Mayorov pair from NJ's second line. And you'd have to have a very high opinion of Rick Nash's defensive ability to give this line more than a small defensive advantage.

•I disagree with overpass that my third line is softer than either of his top lines. Smith and Palffy are non-physical players, but I don't think either is uniquely soft. And Doan is more physical than anyone from either Ottawa top line. Doan's coach calls him a "bull in a China shop:"

•Like I said, Ottawa's top 2 lines are completely capable of battling for the puck, but they don't have anyone to lay punishing hits on the defense and tire them out. Shane Doan can do that (as can Nash/Bain obviously). Given the fact that Ottawa obviously intends on giving their top 2 lines the lion's share of the ice time, it is a weakness that may or may not matter.

Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-23-2011 at 03:42 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote