View Single Post
09-02-2011, 07:40 PM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,981
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Oh yea Toronto Billy Harris who has a 18th and 25th in points and thats it, not to mention 18 points (8 goals) in 62 career playoff games is going to light it up offensively how could I have overlooked such dominating offense statistics? Pretty terrible stats for I quote
Actually Harris was top-27 in ESP four times, for an MLD 3rd liner that is really good. Most ATD 3rd liners can't even say that.

Mike Bullard has more offensive ability then your entire 3rd line, not to mention he's paired with two perfect Wingers in Craven and Meeker (Who you even said are a perfect fit for him)
I said Craven was perfect for Bullard, and that's because he prevents the line from being as terrible as Bullard is defensively. Meeker I liked a lot as a AAA 4th liner. He's nothing special on a 3rd line here. He had one very good season and one decent one, with a HHOF center.

The Sleepwatchers have by far the best two offense players on either line in Bullard and Meeker, and the best playoff performer in Craven who had 70 points in 118 playoff games
What makes Meeker a better offensive player than Harris?

God seventies you baffle me sometimes, how on gods green earth are we suppose to buy a guy who played a total of 402 career professional hockey games with only 28 career PP goals as not only a number 1 Powerplay Dman. but a guy who will run both Power play units?? First we can expect Sargent to be beaten and battered as he had terrible longevity so playing in the conference finals and being expected to play a 2 minute shift will have its toll on his "offensive abilities." I think any other reasonable GM would want to have another option on there 2nd unit.
Already addressed, thank you.

It seems as though you already answered the question for me.... Of course they stand out, Checkmate Halifax, It seems kind of funny that Zidlicky has almost twice as many career Power Play goals then your beloved Sargent.
Mmm hmmm, and pp goals are of course how we should evaluate defensemen.

You must have completely omitted all of this "evidence" in your bio for him, please enlighten me... All I see his a bunch of bs about him being a "street kid" and "hockey being in his blood", who cares? That doesnt mean a thing. Are we really suppose to buy a 5'8 165lb czech player form the 1960's as any type of physical puck winning presence? Who was he out muscling for the puck Team Japan? We have no proof of how he would fair against tougher caliber players and now he is a top end MLD Center?? You should change your name to "Seventiesmagician" for trying to pull all of these rabbits out of your hat. I'd hope the remaining GM's who vote can see through theses far fetched claims.
You know, i never claimed him to be a big puckwinning presence, nor did i spend any time pimping him at all, but all those other supposedly gullible GMs sure gave him a lot of all-star votes, didn't they? My only point is that the evidence is just as strong for guys like him and gingras and gracie, as it is for libett or hooper.

Ahh yes plenty of evidence followed by stating he had 52 PIMS in 37 games..... How could I have overlooked such a telling stat, forgive me. I guess Zidlickys 82 PIMS in 82 games as a rookie in the NHL should have been noted too...
Bain supposedly "hit like a dump truck", yet Gingras was the guy going to the box for rough play... connect the dots.

I'd like you to direct me to some other 1900-1910 players who have written factual evidence about there puck winning battles? Not that many to chose from , clearly Hooper was among the best during his time. I'll absolutely take "Hooper built an early reputation as a fearless skater, formidable checker, and clever stickhandler" over any guy on your 1st line.
You are just reading what you want to read. There is nothing there that says he will win battles any better than my 1st liners.

Gingras' toughness is better substantiated, plus he delivered a level of offense reasonably close to the player many consider the very best of that era, Dan Bain.

I guess you completely missed or decided to ignore the info we found on Libett, allow me to refresh your memory:

Ya sorry Libett is not just purely a "defensive forward", Sounds like the perfect type of guy I want as my 2nd line glue guy. The fact that he more then able to produce offensively is a complete bonus.
Again, reading what you want to read. You are talking about "winning battles for pucks along the boards" but there is nothing in there about that.

SHOW ME THIS EVIDENCE?? Gracie has a bad attitude and is cocky?? Why does that even matter (Easily a negative), thats what I got out of your bio for him. Absolutely no physical of puck winning information on him whatsoever.

All your evidence for Warwick is regarding the Allan cup (Ya I saw what you did there, nice try. Voters can take that as they want, again who was he playing against? Hockey reference has him listed at Height: 5-6 Weight: 155 lbs. GIVE ME A BREAK
Uh, i have no idea what you're talking about. I have plenty of information supporting Warwick's toughness, more than just the Allan Cup, and that is if I even used that. Off the top of my head, i don't think i did.

5'6", 155 in the 40s is not like the same size today, everyone knows that including you, it is just not convenient for you to admit it right now.

There is this little Stat in hockey called total Hits, Witt led the entire league in them in 2000-01, not to mention was among the leagues top shot blockers as well and captained his team, I really wish I could find the HITS and blocked shots stats during Witts career is being a ****** this morning, im sure he is up there in both.
Great, Witt was so good at hitting and it made such a big impact on winning hockey games, that his coaches put him on the ice for lots of minutes, demonstrating that they trusted him to actually defend the zone and move the puck. Oh wait, they didn't?

( took down the pre-lockout RTSS stats years ago)

Unlike other Gm's I can sort through your statistical smoke and play on words. As per above we've already determined Halifax has the advantage offensively for Dmen. To say the massive advantage we have in regards to puck winning and physical play and secondary scoring in both forwards groups is hilarious. Joe Carveth has a better playoff resume then any forward for Regina, and he is on our 2nd line Regina's 3rd line will produce next to nothing offensively and there top 2 lines are very poorly constructed. Halifax's blueline will have a lot easier time breaking out of our end and moving the puck due to the lack of physical players in Reginas top 3 lines.
Yes, you do have a VERY MINOR offensive advantage on the blueline, ASSUMING MCKENNYS POINTS CAN ALL BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE. (Be honest and paste in the McKenny discussion from when he was drafted, will ya?) Assuming there is an edge at that point, isn't it amazing how Regina's defensemen are all the ones in the series consistently known as nearly elite players even though they were supposedly so bad offensively? While we are on the topic, answer me this, if your guys are better offensively but never got allstar/norris votes and mine did, what does that say about their defensive games?

Your really scrapping the bottom of the barrel on this one, resorting to adjusting size and claiming this extra inch per player will serve any extra edge at all. Since you've decided to bring up height,(Aside from Stumple, who we've all seen with our own two eyes and is a very soft player. The biggest player in your top 6 is 5'8 Golonka What a small group.
Good for you. But Everyone knows by now that adjusting size by era makes more sense than using raw size, so i am not sure what your point is.

You also neglected to mention that two of my guys have unknown heights, are you assuming they were midgets? Seems to me that average for the era would be a lot more reasonable assumption.

It is painfully obvious that you realize you are completely outmatched offensively and between the pipes so you have to try and direct all the importance to the defenseman. The difference in nets is larger then the difference on the blueline Billy Nicholson is a complete unknown with next to nothing on his resume. Don Beaupre is a 2 time NHL All star and proven number 1. What the Hell is Nicholson? It would be an absolute farce if a team with a goalie like Nicholson made it to the league finals. Why do we not put more importance on goaltending during playoffs (See last years playoffs) It is a massive advantage for Halifax
Ok, so bio reading isnt your strong suit, gotcha.

Let me recap. From 1900 to 1909, nicholson had just three years where he didnt lead his league in gaa or wins, or get named to an allstar team, or make/win the league final. Most years he did a combination of the above. He won two stanley cups in three cup finals. On the surface his resume appears as strong as his HHOF contemporaries Moran, Lesueur, and Hern. I wouldnt dream of taking Beaupre over him. It seems most voters agreed too... but hey, Beaupre's 7th place finish in the voting isnt THAT bad...

Our defence is very close to yours, actually they are ahead offensively, i'd like for you to prove otherwise.
Already done, beyond a shadow of a doubt, thank you very much.


- Huge advantage among forwards in several facets. Regina has the smallest top 6 in the league, relying on 5'8 Golonka as there physical presence. This not only effects his forwards but helps our defenseman.

-No puck winning presence on either of Reginas top two lines. Unless seventies can prove otherwise he has yet to show any proof any of those 5'8 and under forwards will be able to battle and win those important puck battles

-Halifax has the massive edge in secondary scoring. Carveth has a better playoff resume the any Regina player. Leading two different playoff seasons in points and or goals and assists he is a playoff monster.

-Reginas third line will provide next to nothing offensively, No Bill Harris who averages what 0.26 PPG in the playoffs is not an offensive threat. NEXT

- Yes we all know seventies is trying to milk these new 9th and 12th place votes among defenseman but as shown above Halifax has the better offensive production in our top 6.

-Regina has a glaring lack of puck movers in his back end, clearly proved by needing Sargent on both PP. Zidlicky has almost twice as many Powerplay goals then Sargent. For a team who has a lack of scoring up front, you'd think they'd make sure they have several puck movers on the back end to produce more offense. BUT THEY DON'T. VERY POORLY CONSTRUCTED
Nice, your whole case is based on trashing my team!

- any physicality/puckwinning advantage you have is being very overstated, nothing more than a case of reading your own quotes one way and mine another way.

- Carveth's playoff resume was from the war years so curb your enthusiasm just a little, ok?

- yes, you probably do have better secondary scoring, but it is at the expense of defense. There is a reason most teams dont go for balls to the wall offense like you are here.

- no one is buying your "let's ignore everything except playoff ppg" angle for harris, but admirable effort.

- you went to the school of Dreakmur, i see. As far as defensemen are concerned, point totals FTW! Unfortunately for you, that doesn't tell the story. Except for a few cases, your defensemen were not good enough to be a top player for a good team, nor did they ever, aside from Murdoch once, get recognized as one of the League's best defenseman. EVERY REGINA DEFENSEMAN WILL BE SELECTED SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER THAN HALIFAX'S DEFENSEMEN NEXT YEAR, with the possible exception of Murdoch. Now that the allstar voting is known, no one would ever take stiffs like mckenny, giles, matvichuk or zidlicky over armstrong, kampman or portland. You would be best advised to just try to sweep this advantage under the carpet and hope there are 6 or 7 voters who didn't notice it.

I focesed hard on defense and i did pay a little on my offense, but it was worth it. All the little matchups here and there are a +1 or +2 for Regina or Halifax, but on the blueline it is a +20 for Regina. Nothing else in this series can make up for it, it is insurmountable.

How did Doug Gilmour ever enter this conversation?
It is my opinion that descriptions of Golonka colour him as the Czech version of Doug Gilmour. Disagree if you like.

Let's not forget 70's self assessment of his 2nd line Center:

Sounds about right.
Yep, 100% correct, i think Stumpel is just a bargain basement 2nd liner. So is Collins though. (Liked him as a aaa player)

How about that, hey? A GM who can be realistic about his players. You should give it a try sometime.

Who will be scoring the goals for Regina? He drafted Golonka in the 8th round Halifax's 3rd line has better offense finishes then Reginas first line.
I dunno, but Golonka's excellent array of high finishes in the Czech league and internationally seem to paint him as quite the goal scorer. Warwick's six top-20s in goals in the NHL do the same.

Bullard got to play big minutes for a horrible teams, was bad defensively and expected his linemates to "feed" him, his finishes are hardly an indication of his true value.

Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
The massive advantage in scoring is shown in the following:

Top 10 Goals: 1, 6

Top 10 Assists: 3, 6

Top 10 Points: 2, 5

The unbolded Regina and Bolded as Halifax. Halifax has the advantage in every offensive category

And before 70's can mention Gingras, Golonka and Richardson I will point out that Don Smith and Tom Hooper can not be measured by this stat either. So unless Golonka (Who was drafted in the 8th round) can make up for these enormous differences in stats in is plain as day that Halifax as the MASSIVE advantage offensively in this series.

The two best offensive Defenseman in this series belong to Halifax too with Mckenney and Zidlicky. With those two great puck movers feeding our forwards it will be an all out attack for Halifax.
Nice, boiling it down to top-10s even though the majority of mld players have none of them. The above comparison is useless and pointless.

Smith and hooper can both be measured by top-10, but of course they played in half-leagues so only top-5s have the same value. I know Hooper never came close, and you can check my aaa11 bio for smith to see how many he has, i am guessing one in points and a couple in goals.

Of course, leading the czech league in goals multiple times in the mid-1960s is nothing, and beating the soviets twice at the height of their power is nothing, right?

As for McKenny and Zidlicky, just because they can put up PP points, dont make the assumption that they will be any good at getting the puck out of the zone. McKenny had an awful habit of circling in front of his net, often with disastrous results. Zidlicky gets outmuscled nightly and can be forced into turnovers.

Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Let me ask you a question. Who has the better resume Zidlicky or Sargent?

Sargent had a career 402 Professional hockey games, 222 points, 28 playoff games and one Canada Cup where he scored zero points.

Zidlicky has 507 career NHL games and 474 more Czech and Finnish elite league games with 284 career NHL points with 42 PP Goals and another 246 points in the Czech/Finnish league. On top of this he also has 10 points in 12 olympic games, 4 points in 5 world cup games and 21 points in 39 World Cup games.

Not only are Zidlickys NHL numbers better, he also has the Elite league and International experience as absolute gravy.

It's not even close between the two. If all of Golonkas International and Euro league accomplishments hold value then you better not ignore all of Zidlickys.
Not even close. Zidlicky has been a 2nd or 3rd pairing defenseman his entire career, who gets a bunch of minutes on the PP because that is the only nhl situation in which he is above average. Despite all these points, Zidlicky has never received allstar or Norris votes or been selected for the all-star game... why do you suppose that is?

Sargent, on the other hand, was 8th in voting in 1978 and was named to the 1980 allstar game. Yeah, he had no points at the canada cup, but you forgot to mention that because he was a great all-around defenseman, something no one would ever call Zidlicky, he was voted USA's 2nd most valuable player in the tournament. In 77, 78, and 79, he was one of the most heavily-used defensemen in the NHL. It's not even close. Sargent proved to be a semi-elite player over a period of four seasons, Zidlicky hasnt done anything close to that, and doesnt even have a big nhl longevity advantage to fall back on.

Last edited by vecens24: 09-02-2011 at 07:59 PM. Reason: Trolling both.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote