AAA 2011 Ambrose O'Brien semi-finals: #2 Regina Pat Habs vs. #3 Philadelphia Sting
View Single Post
11-19-2011, 01:42 AM
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Finally some action!
Originally Posted by
Brown vs. Osborne: Brown's best years came in war years, which discounts what he did. I'll say Brown is probably a little more physical, but Osborne is a better defensive player considering he was actually used on a very good shutdown line, where's Brown was "decent". Osborne's adjusted PPG is .4755. Also consider that's with a good amount of time being spent on a 3rd line as a checker. Brown's adjusted PPG(when you adjust his games played) is .496. Considering difference in era and Osborne's edge in defensive play, I'll give him a slight advantage here considering he got those totals playing in a defensive role for the most part.
I only touched on this one because it was obvious to me.
The fact that Brown's adjusted PPG is ahead despite being a pre-expansion player should tell you everything. More on this later.
(you did mean postwar era, right? Brown excelled in 1946 and 1947, and didn't play in 1945)
O'Neill vs. Robinson: O'Neill definitely has the advantage in grit and physicality, being one of(if not the) best power forwards in this draft. In terms of offense, I think there's an obvious advantage to O'Neill. His peak offense, and adjusted PPG(.655 to .499) is way better. Advantage O'Neill.
There's not an offensive advantage for O'Neill; I'll explain why.
When I selected Robinson, he was far and away the most offensively established pre-expansion player - despite being a winger (almost all the time the top offensive guy left is a center who has just gotten caught in a numbers game). His best 5 percentages top O'Neill's best 5 by a total of 316 to 310, despite being a pre-expansion guy, and he was actually always the best player on his own line, so he didn't ride anyone's coattails to success. O'Neill would not have earned his 70%+ seasons without the help of Ron Francis.
You could ignore the linemate factor and use percentages to say that they are more or less equal offensively, but the thing about percentages is that they start to break down once we are down at players of this caliber. If you become a slave to the percentages in the AAA, then you have to think that the best 10 offensive NHL players in the draft, and about 18 of the top 20, are all from after 1967. I personally don't believe that. As you may have noticed during this draft, I talked about pre- and post-expansion separately when talking about offense for this reason.
Anyway, I didn't make this comparison because it was pretty close. Robinson is one of the few premier players here. O'Neill is close and has the physicality bonus. Good enough to call even.
Prospal vs. Daze: Overall, Prospal is probably the better player. Better career adjusted PPG(Daze was the better goalscorer, Prospal the better playmaker) and Prospal did it for longer. I actually really underrated Vinny Prospal. He's a very good 2nd liner here.
I underestimated him too. Once I selected him, I was like, "OK, why am I just taking him now?"
Mullen vs. Mallen: Difficult comparison. I'll say Mallen is probably better offensively, but I picked Mullen for his consistent production and fairly high PPGA on ice, indicating he probably had some needed two-way ability.
I left this one alone for a reason too. They are both middling above average offensive players in their time. Not much to say, really.
Smith vs. Reid: Smith is better offensively, Reid is better defensively. I think the gap between the offense is bigger than the gap between the defense. Smith's adjusted PPG is .502(with games adjusted) and Reid's is .363. But, do note that Smith played in the post-war era, which discounts his PPG a bit. Smith also has this quote, which I like:
Reid clearly has the better PK resume (simply because it's impossible to prove anything about Smith). Smith is a better offensive player and has defensive credentials of his own. As an overall player I give him the edge. I got Reid because he's an excellent niche player.
McDonald vs. Horeck: Not sure how you're getting Horeck and McDonald are equal offensively. McDonald's adjusted PPG is .764, and Horeck's is .517 when adjusted for game totals. McDonald isn't really suited as a 4th liner, but he's there to help out my PP and chip in timely goals when possible.
McDonald is easily the better player in a vacuum, but who's the better 4th liner is up for debate
I'll try to explain. Horeck's top 5 percentage years add up to 261, just to give a rough idea of his peak offensive value. McDonald is 289. Considering what the league size does do players of AAA draft caliber I am very confident saying that 261 pre-expansion is as good as 289 post-expansion.
If you are not convinced that there should be a different standard for pre- and post-expansion players, then your bolded statement is at least fair.
Horcoff vs. Ingarfield: Before I even adjust for games played for Ingarfield, Horcoff already has the superior PPG .668 to .574. When I would adjust for games, the difference would be even larger. Ingarfield was more of a checking forward, which could be a source of lower PPG. Ingarfield is probably better defensively. They're close.
I did avoid this one because it was close, but I can't agree with the offensive assessment. Despite being mostly an O6 player, Ingarfield's best 5 percentages add up to 269. Horcoff, just 245. One of those five seasons for Horcoff was wrecked by injuries. For Ingarfield it is his 2nd and 5th-best seasons (a 58 and 44 score that could have been 84 and 69 in a full season).
Both have the leadership and defensive resumes that make them capable 4th liners but I think Ingarfield is better equipped to put in some points in this role.
Sabourin vs. McCarty: Two very gritty players. Both solid two-way players. McCarty is the grittier of the two. In terms of offense, Sabourin's adjusted PPG before I adjust for games is .539 and McCarty's .416. Meaning once games were adjusted, it would probably just be a slight advantage to Sabourin. Overall, 2 very good 4th liners in this.
tell me about Sabourin. I see he was a middling but decent offensive player who put up a few ok seasons. But doesn't a simple phrase like "McCarty is grittier" really do a disservice to McCarty? The guy was a warrior who would do anything to win. Aside from putting pucks in the net, you name it, the guy did it regularly.
the per-game stats punish McCarty for playing beyond the lockout when he was a pure grinder with no other skills. Obviously Sabourin is a better offensive player but it's not by as much as the numbers above may indicate.
Kuvers vs. Makarov: It's difficult to decide which was better offensively, which is the main job of both of them. I'll leave it at these are two very good offensive defensemen that play the same role.
I agree, I left this one alone for the same reason.
Kuchevsky vs. Fowler: Difficult comparison. Fowler had a very short career, but up good #s as a defenseman that was sometimes a "utility forward", whatever that means. I take it as his finishes aren't as impressive as they seem. Kuchevsky offers little in terms of offense, but was a 3x Soviet 1st Team All Star, twice getting in ahead of Nikolai Sologubov, who is a high ATD selection. That's more of a matter of Sologubov being too high, but I'll take Kuchevsky because Fowler just doesn't really impress me.
Yeah, Fowler is really tough to judge. I left this one alone. What's a three-time soviet league all-star (the most recent of which was 1960, the first before they had even competed internationally) worth on an NHL basis? Does he make the NHL at that time? Is he just a #4 on a bad team? Which NHL defensemen could he displace? what do the late 1950s results of the soviets versus canadian amateurs tell us? And so on. Both are question marks selected for intriguing upside. Who's better? Who knows. If Fowler played half the time as a forward then his offensive credentials as a defensemen are shot. So far I see no evidence of that.
MacIver vs. Hardy: MacIver is better offensively(significantly), adjusted PPG .534 to .322, but Hardy is the better all-around player in a vacuum. MacIver's here for his offense and is the better PPQB, but Hardy is the better ES and PK player.
As I mentioned, in Hardy's best period as long as MacIver's career he had similar offensive credentials. he just played longer (because he was still a useful player once no longer scoring) and killed his per game stats. MacIver is a better PP guy for sure. Overall offensively, it's as good as even. I think the other aspects between these two are obvious.
Casey vs. Collins: I wouldn't even know where to begin.
I ventured the guess that as the best of his generation, Collins would be superior to Casey, who was regarded as approximately the 15th-best of his best 5-year period of 1989-1993 (Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Fuhr, Joseph, Barrasso, Hextall, Vernon, Beezer, Richter, Moog, Ranford, McLean, Hrudey, Puppa, and I did leave out other contemporaries who had better overall careers but didn't play this whole period or didn't play it very well, and I do realize a small handful are arguable for that period). Not all eras are equal and big adjustments have to be made to a goalie so old. But I think 1st > 15th no matter how you slice it.
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by seventieslord