View Single Post
05-24-2011, 02:53 PM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,114
vCash: 500
I wills ay this: You are more honest about your weaknesses and holes than I initially gave you credit for.

Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
The Cs and RWs basically even out, so the difference in the line comes down to Johnny Bucyk vs. Alf Smith. That doesn't make it a significant gap.
A. if it was that simple, yes it would.
B. Messier and Bathgate even out in terms of their respective standings among 1st liners at their positions, yes. Selanne is a much better RW than Ullman is a C, though. At this point there are only 10 RWs definitely better than Selanne (Bathgate might be 9th of those 10) and then Kurri, Mikhailov and Hull are debatable. He's 11th-14th, and that's better than Ullman, who I was generous calling "average" as I'm a fan, but he's likely closer to 30th than 20th.

I agree that Dunderdale and Turgeon are about even in terms of offensive impact. I don't think Dunderdale is much better defensively, but he does have a solid physical edge.

I'm not sure why you chose to compare them this way. Stanfield and Cashman played on the same team, so they are an easy comparison. Also, Marshall and Adams played in the pre-consolidation era, so they are easlier to compare aswell.

Fred Stanfield vs. Wayne Cashman
- both guys are the glue guys
- Cashman did provide elite puck-winning and toughness, but he provided basically nothing else
- Stanfield provides lesser amoungs of both, but he also provides better offense and better defense.
- overall, Stanfield brings a lot more to the table, and that makes up for Cashman's one elite aspect.
- Stanfield provides "much lesser" amounts of both. In the same way that almost any player brings "much less" size than Pete Mahovlich, or "much less" speed than Yvan Cournoyer. We're talking about a guy top-5 all-time in this regard.
- Why is Stanfield's offense better? He didn't produce more at even strength, as already demonstrated, and produced more on the PP due to opportunities and situations he's not the beneficiary of here.
- Despite the PP advantage he had, I already demonstrated that he did not place as highly in team scoring (4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7) as Cashman did, or as often (3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6)

He's not close. He compares to my 3rd liners, certainly not my second liners.

Jack Marshall vs. Jack Adams
- both guys are the secondary offensive producers
- Adams provides good offense and solid physical play
- Marhsall provides slightly less offense, the same physical play, and better defensive play
- overall, they are pretty close to equal
- Marshall's defensive ability as a defenseman was well-known, but I'm not sure how great he was as a forward.
- In any case, his offense is not just "slightly" less than Adams. He led the weaker FAHL in scoring twice; this is not anywhere close to what Adams did. In 1905, he tied McGee (took two extra games to do it) - pretty good, but not like outright leading the PCHA in scoring. The other year he is now apparently 2nd according to updated SIHR stats (10 pts, leader had 11) His other three decent offensive years were at least in the top leagues. Here are his percentages of the leader in those seasons: 65, 64, 36.
- So what we're left with is, he has a 100% and 91%, exactly like Adams, except that his 100 and 91 are not of the same value as Adams, not by a long shot. He has two seasons with scores in the mid-60s like Adams - those are of fairly similar values. He has nothing to compare to Adams' two other seasons of 86% and 85%. he's not close offensively.

Pete Mahovlich vs. Mel Bridgeman
- Mahovlich brings much better offense and defense
- Bridgeman brings more toughness and grit
- don't let Bridgeman's mustache fool you, he's not in Mahovlich's league
Yes he is much better offensively.

However, you are attempting to extrapolate his PK excellence to even strength situations here. Oftentimes the two are closely correllated, other times they aren't at all. Mahovlich likely falls closer to the latter than the former, given what we know of him and his skillset.

Edgar Laprade vs. Murray Oliver
- both provide similar grit
- Oliver brings better offense
- Laprade brings significantly better defense
You can say Laprade's defense is significantly better if you like, but you must admit Oliver's offense is significantly better, considering both are going to get their prime offensive opportunities at even strength. Having been top-7 in ESP three times, he's miles ahead.

Bridgeman's ability to take people off their games won't effect Bathgate. In an erarlier series, you jumped in and said that Tony Leswick couldn't do the job, why would you think Bridgeman can?
Not the same thing at all. Leswick's most well-documented skill was his ability to really engage Maurice Richard and make him stoop to his level, a tradeoff his team would take any time. the Rocket was a spaz and he took full advantage. I said that he would have a more difficult time making Bathgate spaz, and that is true. I'm not suggesting Bridgman would be any more successful at that. I'm suggesting he would intimidate or goon up Bathgate, a very real possibility.

Even if you do beleive Reise is better than Egan, the gap between them is small. The gap between Hod Stuart and Jim Neilson is pretty big.
the gaps are equally-sized. Stuart should be a good 70 spots ahead of Neilson/Reise, and they should be about 200 spots ahead of Egan. 200th-270th and 270th-470th are about equal in terms of the player values associated.

Only changes I would make is move Raise down below Green and Egan, and move Watson down to the bottom.
You don't care at all that Watson was Philly's top ES defenseman both times they won the cup? Surely that has to be worth more than an AHL career plus two good NHL seasons and the "potential" for more.

As for Reise being behind Green and Egan... Sturm was quite prophetic when he said, "Your habit of judging defensemen by their scoring totals is curious."

I feel Reise being significantly better than Egan has been well-demonstrated by this point. As for Green - he was 3rd-best in 1969 (norris/AS), 6th/7th in 1968, and 7th in 1965. 1966 has been, of course, well-debunked by now, and 1967 was a single vote. 3rd/6th/7th is not a better resume than 3rd/4th/two other times from 5th-9th. Especially when you consider the greater visibility that comes from being on the top PP unit and putting up some points. It is close, though.

Considering your PP isn't very good, I'm not that worried.
It's incredible that you would say such a thing.

Are you aware that Selanne was top-13 in PP points 7 times, including five in the top-6, and once leading 54-44 over 2nd place?

Are you aware that bucyk was top-12 in PP points an amazing ten times, including 7 times in the top-5?

This is probably the best PP winger combination in the entire ATD.

And Clancy is, of course, one of the six most prolific offensive defensemen of all-time (probably 6th)

I never said he wasn't an offensive specialist.

I did say there was very little evidence that he was poor defensively. Actually, there is more evidence that he was good defensively than there was that he was bad.
Then you are refusing to read between the lines.

Finding direct evidence of anyone being particularly bad defensively from those times, is difficult. Make no mistake, what we do know is damning.

Reise's 4 best years are probably better than Egan's best 4, Egan actually had a reall solid 10 year career. Reise did basically nothing outside those 4 years.
Egan had a solid offensive 10-year career.

And actually, a lack of detailed voting results and a lack of an ASG format to provide further depth is the only reason it looks to you like Reise did nothing outside of 4 years. It's really doubtful that he just stunk, then was a star for four years, then stunk again.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote