View Single Post
Old
09-08-2011, 06:44 PM
  #121
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,049
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Double Edit: Actually, Ehrhoff's ice time numbers would suggest that he's had 4 noteworthy seasons: His first 3 seasons were all under 19 minutes per game, but his last 4 were all over 21 minutes per game.
he was the #4/5 in 2009 though, so unless QUALCOMP also takes "QUANTCOMP" into consideration before spitting out that number, I wouldn't say it was all that significant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
First line

Centers = McGimsie vs. Golonka

Golonka's competition has already been discussed in this thread. The second half of This post contains information about McGimsie's goal scoring. Since there's no way to conclusively compare the goal scoring of an era era forward with a relatively early Czech league forward, I'm not going to make a conclusion about who was the better goal scorer.

What we do know is that McGimsie was the more celebrated playmaker, while Golonka has more celebrated intangibles.

LWs = Mickoski vs. Gracie

Offense = slight advantage Gracie
Defense = close (both good not great)
Grit/Toughness/Puckwinning = large advantage Mickoski

Overall, I think these two are fairly equal players.

RWs = Drozdetsky vs. Gingras

Gingras is tougher, but Drozdetsky's offense is so much better established, I think it's clear he's a much better player.

When seventieslord drafted Golonka, he fell into the same trap I fell into in the last ATD when I drafted Starshinov. He very well may have been the best offensive center left, but as a goal-scoring center, he's incredibly hard to build around. Like me in the past ATD with Starsh, seventies was forced to draft inferior wingers for Golonka to have good chemistry. And it's what he had to do - someone like Drozdetsky would have awful chemistry with Golonka, who is known for scoring goals but not really passing very much. But it means his first line wingers are of inferior quality - he just don't have a standout offensive winger on the first line.

Mickoski (Eden Hall) is the complimentary winger every line needs. But due to Golonka's unique skillset, Regina was forced to draft him two complimentary wingers, while Eden Hall has a winger in Drozdetsky who can accurately be called a superstar at this level.

This is a fairly substantial advantage to Eden Hall because no matter what you think of the centers, Drozdetsky is by far the best winger on either top line.

Second lines

Center = Mike Ribeiro vs. Jozef Stumpel
Two offense-only guys.

Ribeiro percentages: 78, 75, 72, 71, 52, 49, 48
Stumpel percentages: 87, 77, 64, 62, 57, 50, 49, 47

Doesn't seem like either guy has an advantage to me to be honest.

Scoring winger = Marian Stastny vs. George Richardson

How can you even begin to compare these guys?

"Glue Guy winger" = Ulf Dahlen vs. Grant Warwick

In short, Warwick has a considerable offensive advantage. It's not huge, but it's fairly large. I'd still rather have Dahlen.

Both teams have soft second line centers and scoring wingers who don't appear to be tough at all either. So I really do think that Dahlen's elite boardwork is a necessity, considering the quality of the defensemen on both of these teams.

Warwick is okay as a puck winner, but as pointed out earlier, he's quite small and the quotes about his battling are on the weaker side.

I think Regina's top line can get away with puck winning by committee, as all 3 guys seem to have some amount of battle in them, despite a lack of size. But Regina's second line has a center who is known to be soft (Stumpel) and a winger (Richardson) who doesn't have anything written about his play away from the puck. So they are relying entirely on the smallish Warwick to win battles against Eden Hall's defensemen.

Don't get me wrong, Eden Hall's second line relies entirely on Ulf Dahlen to win puck battles, but I think he's much better equipped to do so on his own than Grant Warwick.

Stastny/Ribeiro and Richardson/Stumpel cancel out. Warwick provides more offense than Dahlen, but I think Eden Hall's line functions better because Dahlen is better equipped to carry the puck winning duties on his own than Warwick.
None of this is considerably unfair. A couple points:

- I know I said that Golonka was more of a goal scorer earlier in the draft, but upon further research compared to his contemporaries, it appears he was actually very balanced offensively.

- You can give Dahlen a big advantage in the board battles department if you like, but let's be honest about Warwick's scoring ability in comparison. That's a huge difference.

- Why does Warwick get grouped in with Richardson, Stastny and Dahlen as "don't appear to be tough at all"? a low centre of gravity he was tough as nails to knock around.... tough little fire hydrant... cagey... played a robust and efficient brand of offensive hockey... the Canadians brought a boisterous, gashouse-gang style of hockey to the championships... he established the standards of on-ice deportment, which was rather physical, to say the least... on the ice, they hit everything that moved... rugged... tough, sometimes rowdy, but singlemindedly dedicated to winning, at all costs... ... and then of course there is this:



yeah, he's tough. An elite puckwinner, not with his size, no. but that was poor terminology on your part, to be sure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
According to SIHR, Golonka started playing in Germany after 1968-1969, probably because he didn't want to retire yet. Take that as you will. His stats for those seasons are not available.
he was a defenseman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I honestly don't think a player by player comparison would be very productive, as our bottom 6s are constructed completely differently. So I'll try to compare them as a whole:

Third lines
  • Eden Hall's third line is a speedy two-way line
  • I'm honestly not sure what the purpose of Regina's 3rd line is supposed to be. The Harrises aren't really shutdown players, so their presence on the line makes it appear like it should be a two-way line like Eden Hall's third. But then you have Jan Erixon, a pure shutdown guy who never scored more than 8 goals, while playing in the highest scoring era in NHL history.
  • Erixon is the kind of guy who kills his own team's offense whenever the puck is on his stick, so I really don't think Regina's third line will be that effective in a two-way game. And while Erixon is the best defensive player here, he's playing with two guys who aren't really shut down guys.
have you read all the scouting reports on Erixon? He was not some talentless defensive waterbug. He had legitimate stick and puck skills. He was just an awful finisher. That's it. He doesn not kill his team's offensive ability - he just won't score goals. And those two things are not one and the same.

Harris of the 1970s placed 8th in Selke voting once... that makes him as much of a "shutdown" player as a lot of MLDers, doesn't it?

Quote:
Fourth lines:
  • Eden Hall's 4th line is a pure shutdown line - a huge asset at the end of periods and the end of close games.
  • Regina's 4th line is composed of a bunch of gritty guys who are good, but not great defensively. They have more offensive upside than Eden Hall's 4th line, but not all that much more.

Shutdown ability
  • Eden Hall's 4th line is the best shut-down line in the series, and it isn't particularly close.
  • Tippett is almost as good defensively as Erixon (and isn't any worse offensively), and Patey/McKay are much better defensive players than the Harrises
  • All 3 members of Eden Hall's 4th line are better defensively than anyone on Regina's 4th line, with the difference between Larry Patey and Darcy Tucker the biggest difference.
  • Regina's 3rd line is a bit better defensively than Eden Hall's with Erixon's advantage over Kapanen the main difference. Frankly though, I think Kapanen may be a better overall player than Erixon.
  • How much is Erixon's advantage in pure defense over Kapanen going to help when he isn't playing with a shutdown center?
  • I'll take the ability of Eden Hall's 4th line to close out close games over anything Regina can put together
Our 3rd line A BIT better defensively? There's only very modest defensive ability throughout your 3rd line (mainly because Kapanen actually played some D and because Sullivan is a shorthanded threat) but Erixon and Harris of the 70s are the two best defensive players on either 3rd line. And Harris of the 60s at least played a defensive role at times.

What makes McKay a better defensive player than Harris of the 70s? And what makes him conclusively any better than Grier defensively? (FWIW, Grier, in 130 more games, has the same ES production rate as well, and I think he did it with lesser linemates, too)

Tippett is not "almost" as good as Erixon, as much as you'd like to think so. (addressed above)

Erixon, to my knowledge, didn't ever play with a "shutdown" center in real life. He even did some cleanup work for Pierre Larouche IIRC.

Quote:
Offense
  • Eden Hall's 3rd line is a bit better offensively than Regina's 3rd line, because Kapanen doesn't kill an offense like Erixon does
  • Regina's 4th line has more offensive upside than Eden Hall's pure shutdown 4th line, but how much more? Boutette has 1 good offensive season, Tucker has 1 good and 2 more significant offensive seasons, and Grier has 0 significant offensive seasons.
looking back, it might have made sense to compare 3rd to 4th and vice versa, but anyways...

- Yes, your 4th line has less offensive ability than any in the draft, I determined this when adding up the offensive values earlier on, but I don't think that particularly makes a difference, as I said - it's how they play that counts. Which brings me to the next point.

- Your 4th line is a defensive line and it's a good one... where is the energy? Where is the intimidation? Where is the agitation? Obviously McKay was a real swashbuckler, but Patey and Tippett were pretty passive pure defensive players. Which line is going to go out there and cause a ruckus and get the momentum going in your team's direction when you need it? To be honest, I don't see three players in your starting lineup who can really be that kind of guy for you. I see McKay, and I see Cooke on the bench. This is a major gap in the makeup of Edan Hall, one that can be critical as the playoffs wear on... which they already have, considering this is the finals.


Last edited by seventieslord: 09-08-2011 at 06:55 PM.
seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote