View Single Post
05-25-2011, 12:10 AM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,646
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It doesn't matter how they compare to others of their position. It matters how they compare to each other. Bathgate and Ullman are about equal to Messier and Selanne.
Selanne and Ullman are similar in value (towards the bottom of the top-100 all-time), yes, but this makes me wonder.... do you think Bathgate is a top-30 player? Or do you think Messier belongs down in the 60s?

Cashman is very nearly an offensive zero. He put up points at even strength because he played with Esposito and Orr.
And who do you think Stanfield played with? He wasn't the top scorer on the second line, you know. Sometimes not 2nd, either.

Obviously those two helped. But it doesn't matter who you're playing with, if you end up 4th and 7th in points with very little PP time, you're not an offensive zero. You brought up the fact that they played on the same time as a method of comparison, and I showed that Cashman ranked higher on the Bruins and more often. What happened to that?

Bathgate won't be intimidted. If you want to goon him, you'll just be giving the Monsters extra chances to kill you on the PP.
I know that he gave back as much as he took on occasion, but that's similar to a guy like Selanne - he'd surprise with his toughness for a 1st line player, but that didn't necessarily make him tough. In the ATD, he is one of the more likely first liners to get thrown off his game. Ullman's not a protector type. Smith certainly is, but he's all the way across the ice.

This isn't about what their draft positions should be.

Hod Stuart is arguable a legitimate #1 defenseman here. He is very strong in every aspect of the game. Defensively and physically, Neilson is close to Stuart, but offensively it's not even close.
Agree. And Neilson played over twice as long against a deeper talent pool. 70 spots from 200th-270th is significant. No doubt Stuart is better.

Reise it better than Egan defensively. Physically, they are about the same. Offensively, Egan is better than Reise. The gaps between offense and defense are probably similar. You can slam Egan's defensive play all you want, but it doesn't take away from the other aspects of his game.
Trying to break it down into components like this is just glossing over the fact that these are two players whose careers overlapped six seasons, and one received much better recognition as an overall player, despite inferior offensive output. You know damn well what this means!

What we know is basically nothing. What you assume is damning.
What I, and others, assume, is a very fair assumption.

Let's take a look at some of the other times a defenseman has led the league's blueliners in scoring and didn't receive great Norris/All-Star recognition:

Sergei Gonchar, 2004: 1st in points, 9th in Norris voting.
Brian Leetch, 2001: 1st in points, 5th for the Norris.
Phil Housley, 1993: 1st in points, 5th for the Norris.
Paul Coffey, 1990: 1st in points, 4th for the Norris.
Paul Coffey, 1983: 1st in points, 5th for the Norris.
Mike McMahon, 1968: 1st in points, NIL for the Norris.
Pat Egan, 1949: 1st in points, NIL for the AST.
Jim Thomson, 1948: 1st in points, NIL for the AST.
Pat Egan, 1947: 1st in points, NIL for the AST.
Babe Pratt, 1946: 1st in points, NIL for the AST.
Babe Pratt, 1945: 1st in points, 4th for the AST.
Flash Hollett, 1943: 1st in points, 4th for the AST.
Flash Hollett, 1939: 1st in points, NIL for the AST (top-15 known).
Red Horner, 1938: 1st in points, 5th for the AST.

With the exception of Jim Thomson, there is a definite common thread here. Of course, this is just the guys who came 1st in points,. The list of guys who were 2nd in points and not top-6 in voting, or 3rd in points and not top-8 in voting, would get even longer.

Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Here's why you should vote for McGuire's Monsters:

Once again, we'll have a distinct advantage between the pipes. Tretiak is definately better than Esposito, especially when you consider Tretiak's big game play vs. Esposito's play-off results.

The Monsters have a significant edge on the top pairing and a distict advantage on the second pair. With horse like Ray Bourque and Hod Stuart on the ice for almost the entire game should give me a huge edge on the blueline.

Power Play:
With Bourque and Bathgate running things, the Monsters have a distinct edge on the powerplay. The pointmen especially are a significant advantage for the Monsters. Also, with Regina's plan to "goon Bathgate", the Monsters will have plenty of chances to make them pay with the man advantage.

Maybe it's just because this draft was incredibly balanced, or maybe I've just had an abnormally tough path to the semi finals, but, once again, I'm in a series that I can see myself winning or losing. I see my team as alightly better, and I beleive the Monsters should edge this out, but I won't be disappointed to lose to a strong Regina team.
Well, I hate "campaigning", but here goes. Here's why Regina deserves to win:

- McGuire's can can claim a small edge in net and a razor-thin one on the blueline. (this boils down to Bourque/Green over Clancy/Day, we're talking 10th & 300th over 50th & 200th, it's an edge but a pretty small one) It's not enough.

- Don't be fooled by McGuire's supposed "PP advantage". Bathgate has been touted as some sort of unstoppable ATD PP weapon, but it's getting carried away. Bathgate's 7 times in the top-5 in PP points are great, but they are no better than Selanne's (they are in fact worse if you look at % of leader), and he never led the league like Selanne once did, by 10 points. It is not Regina's team plan to goon Bathgate, that is simply the M.O. of one player, and Regina is a team equipped to take very little penalties overall, despite the best efforts of thugs like Bridgman.

The truth about the PP units is, Bucyk and Selanne are probably the ATD's best PP wing duo. Bucyk is 5th among the 655 700-game post-expansion players with a career average of 44 adjusted PPP per 80 games, and Selanne is 9th, despite a massive amount of games played. Turgeon is 35th and Messier 72nd. Think about that - all 80 of the top-80 should be selected by now, with every team having an average of two. Regina's got four. One in four teams should have a top-10 guy. Regina's got two of them.

Regina's top-6 forwards are clearly better offensively than McGuire's, and these are the same six forwards on the PP. McGuire's drops Marshall in favour of McNab. OK, but McNab's 18 adjusted PPP per 80 games is 218th among those 655 players - he's not a great specialist.

- Regina has the better coach, even if we have just one.

- Regina has the better PK units.

- There's no forward line on the Monsters that compares favourably to their Regina counterpart. The 2nd line is the only arguable one, and the highly dubious offensive achievements of Stanfield and Marshall collapse that house of cards pretty quickly.

- The Monsters are relying fairly heavily, for a team so deep in the playoffs, on forwards who did practically nothing in the playoffs. Bathgate, Dunderdale, Laprade, and 2/3 of the 4th line have poor resumes in the playoffs relative to their overall reputations. This should be a factor in a long series and after getting this far on the backs of their defense and goalie.

Very minor advantages in net and on the blueline and little else, do not a conference champion make.

Good luck to you, this has been fun. And I can keep if up too. You know I can't resist replying... ball's in your court, Pennywise.

Last edited by seventieslord: 05-25-2011 at 12:20 AM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote