MLD2011 Finals - Eden Hall Warriors vs Regina Capitals
View Single Post
09-08-2011, 06:08 PM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Originally Posted by
Your top 6 group of forwards is the one weakness on your team, especially the wings. I was actually surprised at how much better Halifax's offense was than Regina's in the last series when I looked at things closely (Regina obviously had the better defense).
I'd be interested to know where this weakness lies. Certainly not in Warwick. Gracie, I demonstrated with little difficulty, is average in his role. Gingras and Richardson are EXTREMELY tough to get an actual relative read on, but I see no reason to believe that they are poor in any way, with their production compared to guys like Walsh, Gilmour and Bain being reasonable.
When Sargent was healthy. And those two seasons were better than any season Sargent ever had, if you go by Norris and All Star voting.
except for seasons this fresh in our minds, we don't necessarily need to.
I know that the average icetimes in the 70s and 80s were higher... not sure that it explains such a difference.
Ranking high in the league in TOI isn't some golden goose of greatness, but if you go through the years and look at the top-10, there is a reasonably strong connection between the very best defensemen and the very highest TOI totals.
Lots of players have had "some success" on the PP. McKay did for a couple of years, himself. Tucker played on the PP more than McKay of course, but I don't think he's all that much better out there.
no, not "all that much", but better. Actually, the two are a great little case study in PP time versus PP points for players of this caliber. McKay had 18% PP usage and averaged 7 adj. PP points per season. Tucker was 13 in 32%. Practically the same on a "per unit of usage" level. Wonder how much this holds true for other ATD forwards? I bet the variance is more than for defenseman, but I wonder how much.
I'm sure even you realize how terrible those point men are for the PP.
Honestly, you might have the worst PP I've seen of any team that's made a finals in this thing since I've been in, which says a lot about the other strengths of your team. Maybe EB's championship team in ATD12 had a worse relative PP, I donno.
Terrible, no. But they sure aren't ideal. As I've said many times, I'm relying on the overall ability of my defensemen and not their PP ability specifically to carry me through.
jarek mentioned Julien has some trouble with powerplays. I can't confirm or deny this myself, but you probably can. Sell me on why we should believe Julien will run a powerplay effective enough to outshine ours.
A "country mile?" That's a laugh and a half.
What makes Erixon all that much better than Dave Tippett?
IMO, drafting Erixon in the third round (before drafting any of your first liners) is the biggest strategic blunder you made, and no different than when Bob Gainey used to go in the third round of the ATD. Sure, you got the best defensive winger in the MLD, but really how much better is he than Tippett?
I'm going to go with "his reputation was considerably better throughout his career" if you don't mind. Despite missing as many games as he did, Erixon placed 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th in selke voting, being named on between 5 and 18 ballots each time, for a total of 48. Tippett was 9th, 12th, and 14th, with 2-5 ballots each time for a total of 11. Tippett's also one of the few forwards here who might be a weaker offensive threat than Erixon. (24 adjESPPS vs. 27)
I'm surprised you asked this, honestly.
I certainly don't think your defense is "clearly better," not when you have the clearcut worst defenseman in either team's top 4 (Gibbs). Not that Gibbs is bad, but he's definitely a step below the rest of each team's top 4.
If you won't engage in discussion regarding the relative worth of Gibbs' 7 seasons in which he led his team in TOI but was not in all-star voting, (in 3 of which the team was above .500, 4 of which were below), then how can we ever come to a consensus? You and I are both smarter (and usually more flexible) than to just "agree to disagree". We are both pretty certain he was his team's best defenseman for 9 years and we can place him in the top-15 overall in two of them. It's the other 7 that become tougher but you don't seem willing to work with me (and I certainly don't think that being top in TOI on your team "automatically" makes you good - thanks jarek and dreak)
Originally Posted by
I doubt Portland was as important as Milt Schmidt, Woody Dumart, Bobby Baeur, Roy Conacher, Bill Cowley, Eddie Shore, Dit Clapper, or Frank Brimsek. That's what I mean by "secondary player." He wasn't a key player but was likely more than a role player.
ok, fair enough. Just one note - As for guys like Bauer and Dumart and Conacher, just because they were better all-time players, they weren't necessarily better or more valuable in that particular season. That was his apex, it appears.
Votes for the 2007-08 Norris:
5. Brian Campbell, S.J. 333 (1-18-16-31-24)
8. Chris Pronger, ANA 56 (0-2-5-5-2)
You might have a case if it were close, but it wasn't.
Just because Pronger had a better career doesn't mean he had a better season. I'm sure the 10 games he missed and the excessive penalties he took that year affected the vote totals.
Pronger was the better player, it's obviously very arguable that he didn't have the better season.
Of course finishing 5th in voting for the Norris and 4th for the AS Teams only means that that's what the hockey writers who vote on the awards thought. But it's the same for every season and every award.
I understand. I would just rather not be a slave to them for seasons fresh in our memory.
He was good enough defensively to lead the best team in the league in ice time.
That is definitely to his credit.
Barry Gibbs would have been the #3 if he were in Campbell's place too.
I don't necessarily agree with that. I think Seabrook has
peaked higher than Gibbs, but not
drop Gibbs onto Chicago and he very well might be the #2.
Comparing the careers of guys who finished theirs and retired with guys who are still playing and still have much to add to their legacy? Awesome. The 2009 ASG roster would look a lot better if guys like Lidstrom and Pronger didn't skip it and the fans didn't vote Komisarek a starter. Campbell was one of a selection of guys picked by General Managers to play.
I had a feeling you would say that, but really which of those guys are going to make themselves ATD regulars when all is said and done?
Lidstrom and Pronger not skipping it would mean two names would be dropped off.... Campbell could have been one of them.
You are right about Komisarek, forgot about that.
When there's no proof that Gibbs was any better than Campbell defensively at even strength, yeah, I'll look at points.
Do you actually think this?
#1 of a great team > ( #3 of a great team / #1 of a mediocre team) > #5/PP specialist
Basically, you have no basis for claiming that Campbell's seasons in Chicago were any worse than Gibbs' best seasons. Gibbs would have been the #3 in Chicago too.
If you would actually partake in that side-discussion, we might get somewhere.
I don't really care where he ranked in terms of value to his team - I care how good he was. Guy Lapointe was probably less valuable to his team than Gibbs was to his, but even Gibbs' mother would pick Lapointe if she wanted to win a hockey game.
I agree, and I'm sorry but that isn't what I meant. I just meant overall value as a player, with team context removed.
What's with all the Dreakmur references? Some would consider that flaming.
A, he can't see them. B, I see people saying all the time "you're being like ushvinder" or "that's very bilros of you" and it's used in a negative context so no I don't consider it flaming... dreakmur himself would admit that he's probably the user most likely to judge a defenseman by his hockey card stats, and in this series as it applies to Campbell, you've appeared very dreak-like. I only mean it negatively in that I highly and strongly disagree with such a position and it is not meant to be taken personally.
4 writers gave Brian Campbell votes in that "superfluous" season. That's more writers than gave Bob Armstrong votes in all but his best season, and you certainly don't see to think Armstrong's 2nd and 3rd best finishes in voting are "superfluous."
No, definitely not, and such a statement could apply to Portland, Kampman Evans and Buswell too. I agree with your philosophy with these older players, of throwing out the seasons with one vote. But I think that in modern times when there are - what, 5 times as many voters? - that our standard for what constitutes significant should be adjusted and I don't consider that 16th significant. Without looking, I am pretty sure that it represents a smaller percentage of ballots than these other players were present on in the years that we both see as significant.
Of course he didn't deserve to be ahead of Seabrook - they provided similar value to Chicago that regular season, but the Norris votes have been biased towards more offensive guys since at least the mid 80s.
you nailed it.
Defensive stalwarts don't finish 1st, 2nd,* 7th in goals scored against their teams when they are on the ice.
*to a historical outlier
I don't think he was ever abysmal. I just don't think he's as good as you think he is.
Gibbs clearly shouldn't have been a #1 defenseman in the seasons he had such high goals-against numbers - that is pretty clearcut evidence he was playing over his head!
I agree he was playing over his head. Totally! It doesn't make him a worse player. But what did that make him? I don't think he was top-14 just by being a #1 in a 14-team league. I also don't think that the best defenseman of any team over .400 could be as bad as 40th in the league. Surely we can come to some sort of agreement on what those seasons mean!
I assume you mean 2007-08. Awards voting tends to take a little while to catch up to what a player actually did. IMO, Campbell could have finished higher than the 10th he finished in 2006-07 and lower than the 5th he finished in 2007-08.
yes, I meant 2008, sorry.
And I fear your blinders are on, my friend. I just don't see how you can think Gibbs would see any more ice time than Campbell on the Chicago Blackhawks. And we both agree that Campbell's 2 seasons before he joined Chicago are much better than anything Gibbs did, right?
correct, we do, but we also agree that Gibbs had 9 of the next-best 12 seasons among them. It's simply the order that we can't figure out, though I am trying.
Are we forgetting now how much higher average ice times in the early 80s were than today?
How did Sargent rank among his peers in ice time? I honestly don't know the answer to this one?
Did Sargent ever play on top 4s as good as Ehrhoff did in San Jose and Vancouver? I'm pretty sure he didn't.
no, not forgetting, but the differences are huge, I don't think era transcends it considering Sargent was 4th, 5th, and 7th in those three years. Ehrhoff was 58th, 42nd and 23rd in his best three years. As I touched on earlier, this does not mean anything conclusively, but a quick perusal of the leaders over the years does provide a very strong indication that Sargent was something special for three years, as we know other guys with similar credentials were.
If Ehrhoff having the worst plus minus on a team that almost won the Cup is bad, surely Campbell have the best plus minus on a Cup winner is good, right?
it's some degree of good, yes. Obviously he was kept away from heavy situations, but so was Ehrhoff and considering they were separated by over 20 +/- points in similar roles, that says something about both of them in those years.
Yup, Ehrhoff has only had 3 noteworthy seasons in his career.
Of course, Sargent only had 3.5 noteworthy seasons himself.
And while Ehrhoff's time as a specialist doesn't add that much to his legacy, I'll take it over what Sargent was doing when not having noteworthy seasons: sitting out injured.
well, none of this is really untrue, so all it comes down to now is, are Sargent's 3.5 years better enough to overcome Ehrhoff's specialist years? Let me know your thoughts on the icetime piece.
Originally Posted by
The All Star and Norris records just show what the professional writers who watch the games think about the players. You definitely need to account for the biases involved, such as the bias against defensive defensemen in the voting since the mid 1980s.
I agree. But do note that bias against defensive defensemen also means bias
offensive defensemen. Which makes it understandable why I'm not sure Campbell's norris votes reflect his true value in 2007 and 2008, although he was obviously very good.
I do take All Star and Norris voting more seriously before expansion, as every team played each other 14 times in the original 6 period, so writers got to watch everyone quite often.
Originally Posted by
So we should just ignore those years?
0 PP points, despite 2:21 per game on the PP..
he had better have been AWFULLY good defensively to say that this post season of his was worthy of all time greatness. And didn't you say he was 3rd in TOI/G for the cup winning Hawks among D? He was 4th.. and a distant 4th.
Keith - 28:11
Seabrook - 24:10
Hjalmarsson - 21:00
Campbell - 19:34
I've just lost even more respect for Campbell. He didn't do anything of note in this cup run. Nothing to display all time greatness.
my assumption was that he was 3rd as well... interesting.
Originally Posted by
Just one more thing.. Campbell's ice time distribution in the cup year:
Sometimes he was a #2-3.. and other times, he wasn't even a #4. Take this as you will. Now I'm done.
I'm not sure this tells us anything, really. I'm sure that most players see fluctuations nightly in their total, and in where that ranks on their team. The averages that emerge are much more meaningful.
anyway, at this point the campbell bashing is off-topic and I don't want this epic final to be about that.
Last edited by seventieslord: 09-08-2011 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by seventieslord