View Single Post
12-18-2012, 03:01 PM
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 17,249
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
I see a couple things to note right away. The first is a large advantage for Eisbaren in firepower in the top 6. Looking at the first lines:

-Friesen's adjusted PPG is .648 over 893 games, and King's is .712 over 830 games. In terms of individual seasons of adjusted PPG, their 5 best are:

Friesen-72, 67, 65, 64, 57
King-69, 63, 61, 61, 59

I'll give King an advantage offensively here, but Friesen helps to close the gap by bring some intangibles like grit and defensive play later in his career. I also think Friesen is a better fit for how his line is going to operate.

-Jokinen and Young is an advantage to Jokinen IMO. I'll give Young the advantage in intangibles with some defensive ability, but Jokinen has an advantage in offensive ability. Young had a .715PPG over 628 games, and Jokinen has .702 over 1,042 games. Young did that with a much better supporting cast, and led his team in points only once, while Jokinen has led his team in points 5 times.

-Carter and Colville is a sort of hard comparison. Colville had the benefit of being the 3rd wheel on a great line, but brings some glue guy skills to the table as well. Carter had good size, but the impression I get from him is that he didn't use it all that much. He used it to gain position in front of the net and shield the puck, but didn't seem like much of a grinder considering he topped 40PIM only once in his career. Each guy has 6 seasons of over 40% of 2nd place, and they add up to 337 for Colville, and 318 for Carter. But, take into account Colville being helped by linemates, and his advantage gets smaller. Take into account that Colville was known as a good defensive player, I think he gets the advantage here. He also missed a couple years that likely would have been productive years as a result of being in WWII for 3 years.

That brings us to the chemistry of the first lines. Eisbaren's first line runs around getting Jokinen the puck with two wingers that were decent playmakers, could play some defense, and were willing to go in the corners. Macon's first line seems to lack a physical presence to retrieve pucks in the corners. King was mostly a speedy perimeter player, as was Young. Carter had size, but from what I remember of him, he didn't go in the corners much, instead using his size to get position in front of the net. I think Eisbaren has the advantage among first lines.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote