MLD2011 - Mickey Ion SF - (1) Regina Capitals vs. (5) New New York Awesome Express
View Single Post
08-26-2011, 10:40 AM
Student Of The Game
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Originally Posted by
Kindrachuk himself would say otherwise.
I'll take his word for it over yours, thank you.
OK, dubiosity of a player's claims about himself aside, "a lot of times" can mean many things. it can mean 500 times, or ten times, or anything in between. it can mean a few games a season, every single game, or anything in between. He can also be talking about a period half a season long, or ten seasons long, or anything in between.
Anyway, Bobby Clarke didn't earn the reputation as one of the best defensive players of his time, and all-time, by playing against mediocre 2nd and 3rd lines.
What's really telling about Orest's quote, though, is that he says "in road games"... which means that was not what Shero wanted, it was what the other coach wanted. Why was that?
Originally Posted by
Erixon top 5 seasons: 30,29,26,26,25
Salesk top 5 seasonsi: 47,45,40,38,28.
Erixon career high goals: 8
Saleski career high goals: 27
Erixon career high assists: 25
Saleski career high assists: 26
I know you keep going with per game rates trying to prop up a guy who was so brittle he couldn't finish a single season, but come on.. give it up. He missed so many games that doing per game rates is pretty disingenuous.
Erixon is pretty much a non-factor offensively.
not sure what the problem with per-game rates is, for a guy who was so often injured. The point is deterining "how good he was", wasn't it? "how many games he played" is another thing altogether.
Ironically enough, Saleski is one of the few post-expansion forwards here who didn't play as many games as Erixon's 556.
In any given game that either of them played, adjusted for era, Saleski was 15% more likely to participate in an even strength goal. Can I attribute that all to Kindrachuk? Hell yeah, Kindrachuk was an excellent ES producer in his role. Can I hold that against Saleski here? No, because he has Kindracuk centering him.
Based on descriptions of both players, I don't find it obscene at all to suggest that Erixon was actually a more skilled player. Not sure why you and others are focusing so hard on finishing in particular - which Erixon was obviously brutal at.
Originally Posted by
Well still if Riley isn't as good as a playmaker as he could've been (no harm in suggesting he's possibly effective in an era where assists weren't recorded accordingly, the PCHA seems to be the one league in which assists were recorded officially (according to you) 39 assists for 100 goals just doesn't seem right, I just don't see how you can conclude or justify that Riley is missing assists that were recorded when there isn't even 50% assists than there were goals.
He's still a pretty lethal goal scorer to have on a first line.
I'm not telling you I'm moving him to defense or telling you he was the original power forward? I'm just saying they were comfortable with having a guy of his stature and potential defensive ability. Unfortunately there's extremely scarce information on Riley. I don't know what more maybe SIHR has to say about him, but we know Riley is at the very least an average first line goal scorer, and I'm willing to say he's above average. We don't know he's even an average playmaker, but there's legitimate reason to believe perhaps he isn't getting all the playmaking credit he possibly had, you can't excuse the fact that because the assists aren't there makes him an inept playmaker, the fact that it's from the 1920's and close to no providing evidence on the matter.
- No, I am sure Riley is missing assists, but I'm sure that everyone else is too, and I'm sure that there's no evidence to suggest this phenomenon affects him significantly more than anyone else. Foyston and Morris were awesome and plenty is written to support this (nothing about Riley). It's possible that all the "missing assists" were theirs and none were Riley's - right? But the most logical solution (with the greatest probability of being as close to the truth as possible) is that assists were "missed" to about an equal degree for everyone. Conclusion - Riley was as poor a playmaker compared to his contemporaries as his numbers indicate.
He's an above average 1st line goal scorer, well below average playmaker, slightly below average overall offensive producer, and no real proven intangibles. I only ever claimed Gracie to be average for a 1st line, and Riley is less than that.
Well it's a quote that provides evidence that Sutter had some degree of toughness. Clearly Magnuson wasn't going to beat him senseless right there and then, but wanted to see if he had any toughness at all, which Magnuson and the coaching staff claimed they were impressed by. Sure he wasn't as two-way as some of his siblings, but it's not a long shot to say he had some defensive ability. He was renowned as a very hard-working player, who gave it his all for the Blackhawks.
come on, you still have to know that's pretty weak. What about something that describes his play in NHL games?
Besides your percentage theory how is Stumpel is more productive than McCourt? Stumpel played on half-decent teams contrary to his contemporary, McCourt was a strong offensive player on a bottom-feeding team, he was very consistent, it's not that I don't like the term, I just don't think McCourt deserves to be classified under it, especially where he was a strong first line center and put up good numbers.
well, for one thing, Stumpel was top-13 in points twice. McCourt peaked at 21st.
Or this: Stumpel averaged 72 adjusted points per 80 games compared to 69 for McCourt, and this includes games played well into his 30s, nearly twice as many as McCourt. If I was to just take Stumpel's best 8-year period, 1996-2002, his per-80 average was 82, significantly higher than McCourt's, and that still ignores a couple of decent 50-point seasons.
McCourt being on a bad team is significant to note, yes, but it is significant because it
his production! The guy got copious minutes in all situtions because there was no one else to take them. It translated into higher scoring stats than he'd have anywhere else in the NHL at that time.
Warwick's best season in goals: 22
Sinisalo's best season in goals: 39
Sinisalo had a career GPG of 0.48, Warwick had a career GPG of 0.51. That's not far off, nor does it imply Sinisalo is "not even remotely close" to Warwick, that's a pretty brutal and unfair statement to make.
Sinisalo has some great finishes on the power play, including 19 goals one year, respectable percentages like 55%, 50%. What evidence do we have that Warwick is "even remotely close" to that?
OK, from now on let's stick to saing things that we actually believe, ok? The fact that you're in an MLD series doesn't mean your sense-making abilities need to vanish.
Warwick was 7th in the NHL in goals when he had 22. (his highest was actually 23). Sinisalo's 39 goals were 24th in the NHL and he was nowhere near that again. Warwick had six seasons where he ranked better than that. Percentages would make it closer, yes, but you threw that out as an acceptable comparison method apparently. It's true, Sinisalo is not remotely close as an offensive producer, that is not an unfair statement, at all.
as for the PP, good for him, but you do realize, of course, that there are no available PP stats for Warwick's career, right? Considering he was top-20 in goals with percentages over 50% six times, it's probably safe to say he was getting PP time and PP goals (and if not, hey, better for him anyway!) so I'm not sure what the point of that was, or if you have one, really.
My reasoning for my third line is in response to Stoneberg's comment, and your comment about Erixon being superior defensively than my entire line is still grossly absurd and laughable, your overrating of him is sick.
OK, but what I said is "he has more defensive skill than your whole third line" - obviously no one player can actually be better defensively than any three. but the funny thing is, I don't regret saying it at all. Erixon received selke votes in five seasons and his scouting reports rave about his defensive abilities, consistently calling him the best, or one of the best, and namedropping Bossy and Lemieux as guys he's stifled. Your trio has no selke votes between them, Is there anything, anywhere, that states they are teh best, or among the best at something?
Pelletier's bio of Ruuttu explains he has intangibles? did you ignore that? He is not lacking in that department. And the fact Bubnik is on the line, he will produce offense, not much because of his limited minutes, you can't ignore his offense prowess. He stilled played against players like Sologubov, Bobrov and Tregubov who definitely aren't pushovers, so it's not like he was competing against total amateurs, Golonka had better competition, but 10 points difference in one game is a little flattering.
1. Pelletier is just a blogger with a lot of books who does research - like me or a lot of ATD GMs. He's no more credible than an ATD GM; he should be the "seasoning" to an argument for a player, definitely not the "main course".
2. Grier is active, Tucker just retired. Therefore Pelletier didn't profile them, or Boutette. If he did, what do you suppose he'd write about them? Do you think he'd speak in any less exemplary terms about Tucker's exuberance, Boutette's combativeness or Grier's intimidation? Regardless, refer to point #1. It doesn't really matter. Multiple sources (see bios) are quite clear about what types of players these are. I've only seen a quote from a blogger from your end.
I don't know where to find those records, if you could supply me with the source I'll probably pay attention to them.
They're called "bios"...
Originally Posted by
Jack Portland - Barry Gibbs
Sheldon Souray - Brent Seabrook
Seventies may disagree, but I see Barry Gibbs and Brent Seabrook as pretty similar players. Both are defenseman with a little better defensive ability than offensive ability, making them solid two-way defensemen. Gibbs has a pretty displeasing on-ice goals against total, as well as power play goals against total. Seabrook had one bad season of on-ice goals against total, but he plays in a slightly lower scoring era. He's great at controlling play in his end and is a pretty solid defenseman. Gibbs was much rougher, and had some pretty high PIM totals. Seabrook is occasionally rough and hits hard, but Gibbs is the more aggressive, rougher of the two. Jack Portland is a stay-at-home defenseman, who like Armstrong will contribute close to no offense, albeit he is a solid defensive defenseman who can cover for Gibbs if he decides to rush with the puck. Sheldon Souray had a very high peak, and is a big-bodied defenseman, he can protect his teammates and clear any players from the front of the net. He isn't complete defensively, but he is fairly good offensively, and his big shot from the point will be useful.
The Capitals hold a slight advantage
on the second pairing, Gibbs and Seabrook are solid #3 defenseman. But Portland's defensive ability outweighs Souray's offensive contribution.
Yes, Gibbs and Seabrook are pretty similar. Seabrook has arguably peaked higher, being the #2 defenseman for a cup winner. He's probably well on his way to being a better player than Gibbs, but I don't think he's there yet. Gibbs was a #1 defenseman for nine straight years, Seabrook has only played for six and he's never been a His career progression looks like this:
- #5 on a brutal team
- #3 on an improving, but still bad team
- #2 on a decent, non-playoff team
- #2 on a conference finalist
- #2 on a cup winner
- #2 on a playoff team.
the whole time he has been a #2, he was paired with a player whom most would agree is significantly better - Duncan Keith.
Seabrook did receive a couple scattered all-star votes the last two seasons, placing 10th and 15th, but the 15th was based on just one vote.
Gibbs placed 11th and 13th in all-star voting himself, with 11 and 5 voting points. His GA totals are not really relevant considering he was the guy getting the most (and toughest) minutes on teams that were below average. Yeah, being a #1 on a below-average team isn't as great as doing it on a good team, that's why he's in the MLD. PPGA totals say nothing more than "he spent a ton of time on the PK".
not sure if missing the AS/Norris voting was deliberate or not, but let me just point out that the Regina pairing has the better voting results between the two: 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 13th, vs. 8th, 10th, 12th, 13th (three of those four the results of Souray being overrated by his offense which was all his shot, not passing/skill/mobility)
Originally Posted by
Gary Sargent - Bingo Kampman
Bret Hedican - Pat Quinn
I like the idea of your defensive corps, one two-way defenseman paired with a defensive defenseman. Sargent was injury prone, but when he was healthy he was a decent two-way defenseman, I think he's good offensively, but not great. Bret Hedican may be the fastest of all defenseman in the series, he'll be relied on to get back and prevent scoring chances with his quickness. Pat Quinn is a two-way defenseman who was an intimidating, punishing hitter who will be an effective player when it comes to stopping players one-on-one, or crossing the blue line. Bingo Kampman is a solid bottom pairing defenseman who played great defense in his very short career.
I believe the pairings are even in effectiveness.
Someone may beg to differ due to some accolades, but I think a fast defensive defenseman, and a mean-spirited defenseman are just as effective as the Capitals third pairing.
Sargent was much better than Hedican ever was. Hedican never received a norris or AS vote in his career and was never in the running for a best on best roster. Sargent finished 9th/12th in 1978, was named to the 1980 ASG, and was USA's 2nd best player in the 1976 CC. He was also top-7 in the NHL in minutes three times. Hedican was a decent #2-5 defenseman for 1000 games but didn't do anything even close to that. We saw enough of both to know Sargent was better.
Kampman was just as tough, strong and physical as Quinn, but he actually earned all-star votes for it. 5th, 7th, and 9th, to be exact.
These two pairings are so far off that you probably should have just skipped them.
Originally Posted by
Billy Nicholson and Earl Robertson
Eddie Johnston and Jose Theodore
I don't know what to say about Nicholson, he seems to be a very slow goaltender, although he had a lot of success in his day. His win/loss record is fine at this level. I'll need to see what kind of team played in front of him before making a final judgement. Johnston played on some pretty miserable Bruins teams in the 60's which took a toll on his W/L percentage, but he elevated his play when the team improved, and was a top goaltender in the league and was part of two Stanley Cups, one of which he played the entire way through, and played a key role in the teams championship. Minus a cup championship, Jose Theodore's resume is just as impressive and possibly more impressive than Robertson's. Robertson had one winning seasons, while Theodore has received a point in 315 of 580 games, has won a Vezina, and has a SAST. As well as several top 10's in wins, shutouts, save percentage and goals-against-average. I'll wait to see what Nicholson's team was like to finalize my verdict.
sorry, I don't understand, what exactly do you need to know avout Nicholson's teams? He won two Stanley Cups and was a finalist for another at the turn of the century. the team he won with had Dickie Boon on defense; I can't recall him playing with any other HHOF defensemen offhand but I could be wrong.
"slow"? based on what, his weight? That's pretty lame, man.
"minus a cup championship"? nice. yeah, except for that, they're about the same.
I'm curious, where would you rank Ed Johnston in terms of importance to Boston's cup win?
Originally Posted by
I know college hockey and the AHL are much different leagues, but when we drafted Red Berenson his college coaching record wasn't very enticing, nor do I find Cook's AHL resume as enticing. He coached a step-below the NHL, and coached far inferior players (Darren Haydar/Jason Krog like players), only a few ATD/MLD caliber players who had very short AHL careers, besides the help of Johnny Bower, which Cook wouldn't have had any influence on his play as he wasn't a goaltending coach. He's far and away the best AHL coach of all time, but I'm not sure how that will translate to dealing with much higher caliber players. While Randy Carlyle has had good success in his fairly short career, missing the playoffs once and winning the Stanley Cup in his second year, he has been known to get the most out of his bottom-line players (Pahlsson, Marchant, Moen, R.Niedermayer) he's a tactical and smart coach who has the ability to match lines well.
I think the Express hoist the coaching advantage
because Cook is not a proven winner at the highest level, he's proven at a "B" level, but so were a lot of coaches who could never be successful after an AHL career, and why was he never given an opportunity from an NHL team?
what a joke. Darran Haydar/Jason Krog-type players? Where is Iain when I need him?
Cook coached in a league that contained the next-best 100 or so players in the world. Are you really going to punish him for the NHL being just 6 teams? Even extrapolating for talent pool and stuff, the players he coached were relavitely as good as average NHL players today. I don't know why he didn't get a chance in the NHL, or even if he was never offered one. He might have been. There were quite a few coaches who came and went in the O6 era that Cook was clearly better than, though.
Line matching won't help Carlyle a lick if there are no advantages for him to take advantage of.
Originally Posted by
I think there's a very good argument Theodore had a better career than Nicholson.
Based on one hart season (should have been 3rd) and a career of being an average/mediocre and very inconsistent goalie?
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by seventieslord