HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

MLD 2011 Mickey Ion Division Final - (1) Regina Capitals vs (2) Halifax Sleepwatchers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-29-2011, 11:54 AM
  #1
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
MLD 2011 Mickey Ion Division Final - (1) Regina Capitals vs (2) Halifax Sleepwatchers





Bob Gracie - Jozef Golonka (C) - Tony Gingras
George Richardson - Jozef Stumpel - Grant Warwick
Jan Erixon - Billy Harris - Billy Harris (A)
Pat Boutette - Darcy Tucker - Mike Grier

Gordie Roberts (A) - Bob Armstrong
Jack Portland - Barry Gibbs
Gary Sargent - Bingo Kampman

Billy Nicholson
Earl Robertson

coach: Bun Cook
assistant coach: Dick Todd

Spares:

John Mayasich (C/D)
Eric Weinrich (D)
Charlie Tobin (F/D)

PP1: Warwick-Golonka-Gingras-Sargent-Roberts
PP2: Gracie-Stumpel-Tucker-Sargent-Gibbs
PK1: Erixon-Grier-Armstrong-Gibbs
PK2: Boutette-Harris (70s)-Portland-Roberts
PK3: Harris (60s)-Tucker-Armstrong-Kampman

VS

Halifax Sleepwatchers
GMs: markrander87 & Stoneberg

Coach: Brian Sutter

Don Smith - Gus Bodnar - Tom Hooper
Nick Libett - Bill Carson - Joe Carveth
Murray Craven - Mike Bullard (A) - Howie Meeker
Randy Burridge - Steve Rucchin (A) - Mark Hunter

Spares: Niklas Sundstrom (W), Danny Lewicki (LW), Ron Schock (C)

Jim McKenney - Bob Murdoch
Curt Giles (C) - Richard Matvichuk
Dan Hamhuis - Marek Zidlicky

Spares: Brendan Witt

Don Beaupre
Niklas Backstrom

PP:

Don Smith - Gus Bodnar - Tom Hooper
Jim Mckenney - Marek Zidlicky

Murray Craven - Mike Bullard - Joe Carveth
Curt Giles - Bob Murdoch

PK:
Steve Rucchin - Randy Burridge
Dan Hamhuis - Richard Matvichuk

Murray Craven - Nick Libbet
Curt Giles - Bob Murdoch

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 02:36 PM
  #2
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Excellent, the match up we were waiting for. Good luck 70's.

To start off I feel as though we match up very well against the Capitals. He has a pure shut down line for his 3rd line but which line will he chose to play them against? Halifax have 3 scoring lines who can all put points up.


Also id like a little more selling on why Sargent can play both the 1st and 2nd unit PP, I think it clearly shows the lack of offense provided by his blue line when you have to double shift a D-man on the PP.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 03:48 PM
  #3
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,610
vCash: 4800
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Also id like a little more selling on why Sargent can play both the 1st and 2nd unit PP, I think it clearly shows the lack of offense provided by his blue line when you have to double shift a D-man on the PP.
I had the same concerns, especially since Sargent wasn't really an elite point producer himself. The argument seventies used when I questioned it earlier was the following and I assume this would be his response to you:

- there are only a handful of defensemen who could play both PP units in the MLD, and Sargent is one of them. Here are the MLD defensemen with at least 400 GP, who averaged at least 20 adj.PPP/80 games:

Siltanen 29
Zidlicky 27
Berard 26
Sargent 23
Malakhov 22
Ehrhoff 21
Guevremont 20
Zalapski 20

any of those guys, particularly those on the top-4, could play both units on the PP, provided they are on the 3rd pairing at even strength. Sargent is on my 3rd pairing at even strength. Also, it's not like real-life NHL teams haven't done this before - this is why there are defensemen who were on the ice for 70+% of their team's PP goals (Sargent was at 63%)

In addition, Sargent demonstrated great stamina. He averaged 25.11 minutes a game in his career, and was used extensively in all situations.

Those other defensemen averaged just 21.10, 21.22, 21.25, 22.28, 20.63, 24.56, and 23.05, respectively, so in most cases (Guevremont excepted), their extra PP time had to take away from other situations; this was not the case with Sargent.

I think Sargent's effectiveness might be limited with the extra time, that would be the case with any D-man being double shifted, but like real life I made the decision that he'd still be better than a fresh Armstrong, Portland or Kampman. based on the offensive credentials of the four players, it's tough to disagree.

In terms of PP offense, I might end up with a defense corps that lags behind. I think they're still well ahead of the curve in overall effectiveness though.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-29-2011, 04:11 PM
  #4
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
I had the same concerns, especially since Sargent wasn't really an elite point producer himself. The argument seventies used when I questioned it earlier was the following and I assume this would be his response to you:

- there are only a handful of defensemen who could play both PP units in the MLD, and Sargent is one of them. Here are the MLD defensemen with at least 400 GP, who averaged at least 20 adj.PPP/80 games:

Siltanen 29
Zidlicky 27
Berard 26
Sargent 23
Malakhov 22
Ehrhoff 21
Guevremont 20
Zalapski 20

any of those guys, particularly those on the top-4, could play both units on the PP, provided they are on the 3rd pairing at even strength. Sargent is on my 3rd pairing at even strength. Also, it's not like real-life NHL teams haven't done this before - this is why there are defensemen who were on the ice for 70+% of their team's PP goals (Sargent was at 63%)

In addition, Sargent demonstrated great stamina. He averaged 25.11 minutes a game in his career, and was used extensively in all situations.

Those other defensemen averaged just 21.10, 21.22, 21.25, 22.28, 20.63, 24.56, and 23.05, respectively, so in most cases (Guevremont excepted), their extra PP time had to take away from other situations; this was not the case with Sargent.

I think Sargent's effectiveness might be limited with the extra time, that would be the case with any D-man being double shifted, but like real life I made the decision that he'd still be better than a fresh Armstrong, Portland or Kampman. based on the offensive credentials of the four players, it's tough to disagree.

In terms of PP offense, I might end up with a defense corps that lags behind. I think they're still well ahead of the curve in overall effectiveness though.
I thought it was funny when he said "particularly those on the top-4". There is a clear gap between 3 and 4, yet no significant gap between 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 09:11 AM
  #5
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,824
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I thought it was funny when he said "particularly those on the top-4". There is a clear gap between 3 and 4, yet no significant gap between 4 and 5 and 6 and 7 and 8.
lmao , I would like to hear an explanation for this.

Jafar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 12:32 PM
  #6
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Is Grant warwick suppose to be the physical presence on that 2nd line? Stumpel and Richardson are both very soft players, 5'6 155lb Warwick as your only source of toughness paired with two very soft players will be a problem.


Edit: Wow I just realized that 1st line may be softer then the 2nd.....Who is the puck winner/physical presence on that line? In your bio for Gingras you state "Dan Bain was getting all the goals but Gingras appears to have been his playmaker and maybe the tough guy of the line, too. In 27 MNWHA games, Bain had 65 goals and just 17 assists and 3 PIM."

But have no actual evidence supporting this claim. This to me is the softest top 6 in the MLD and will get punished especially considering we are in the 3rd round of playoffs.


Last edited by markrander87: 08-31-2011 at 12:56 PM.
markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 11:43 AM
  #7
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
I think 70s said Golonka and Warwick were going to be the primary puck winners on his top 2 lines.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 12:37 PM
  #8
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think 70s said Golonka and Warwick were going to be the primary puck winners on his top 2 lines.
...

I see no evidence of Golonka having any type of physical or puck winning presence, and Warwich was known to have a "bad temper" but at 5'6 155 lbs playing with two soft forwards, surely he cant be the sole physical/puck winner on a scoring line.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 12:40 PM
  #9
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Question is mark, which of your Defensemen make Regina pay for it?

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 03:09 PM
  #10
Stoneberg
Bored
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Question is mark, which of your Defensemen make Regina pay for it?
We're considering putting Witt in the lineup, but aren't even convinced the oppositions forwards strong enough to warrant the change yet. I really don't think they are, but we will see what seventies has to say. As far as guys already in the lineup who can clearly take advantage:

-Giles was known as a very good hitter, mainly for hip-checks.
-Matvichuk plays a rugged style as well, and should have no problem being effective along the boards.
-Hamhuis has always been good at using the body very effectively as well. Not necessarily the roughest, but he will certainly be able to take advantage of mismatches on the boards.
-Murdoch is a heady defensive defenseman with good hockey sense, so I can see hime being able to exploit softer forwards as well.

That said, if his scoring line forwards are as soft as they appear to be at first glance, it benefits every single one of our defensemen, especially our puck movers McKenney and Zidlicky, as they will take minimal punishment moving the puck up ice. It goes both ways, but the advantage of a softer top six clearly goes to the team defending against it, no matter which way you slice it.

All that said, we are also toying with the idea of putting Sundstrom in the lineup for Hunter to have a fourth line geared more towards dealing with a skilled, softish, offensive attack. Thoughts on this?

Stoneberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 09:46 PM
  #11
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
To start off I feel as though we match up very well against the Capitals. He has a pure shut down line for his 3rd line but which line will he chose to play them against? Halifax have 3 scoring lines who can all put points up.
They're not just a pure shutdown line... the Harrises are two of the more offensively-oriented 3rd liners in the draft. this line will stop whichever line we choose to match it up aganst... but believe me, bud, my defensive forwards are the least of your concerns.

Quote:
Also id like a little more selling on why Sargent can play both the 1st and 2nd unit PP, I think it clearly shows the lack of offense provided by his blue line when you have to double shift a D-man on the PP.
Glad you are focused on something so minor.

Let me ask (and answer) a few questions.

Am I asking Sargent to do something that hasn't been done many times in the past? No. Teams double shift some defensemen on the PP on a regular basis, and it's often players who are playing 1st/2nd pairing minutes, too.

Am I asking Sargent to do something that he hasn't personally done in the past? No. Sargent was on the ice for as many as 79% and 91% of his team's PP goals in his prime.

Is Sargent in danger of getting too tired by playing too difficult minutes? No. The point on the PP is the easiest position and situation on the ice to play for two straight minutes.

Is Sargent in danger of getting too tired by playing too many minutes? No. Sargent is on my third pairing, getting about 12 ES minutes per game against weaker competition, and is not on the penalty kill.

Even if he was, is he a player with a history of poor stamina? No. Sargent averaged over 25 minutes per game in his career and was top-7 in the NHL in icetime three times.

Does this highlight a lack of offensive ability on my blueline?No. not unless Halifax concedes that they suffer from the same problem!

Here are the instances of 50% or more versus the league's #2 scoring defenseman, with Orr and Coffey removed as obvious outliers:

* = WHA converted at 0.67 exchange rate

Roberts: 66, 62, 58, 55, 52*, 52*, 51
Sargent: 68, 60, 52
Gibbs: 64, 64, 53
Kampman: 54
Portland: N/A
Armstrong: N/A

and Halifax:

McKenny: 100, 98, 71, 63, 57, 56, 54 - can't be taken at face value, had lots of time at forward
Zidlicky: 98, 69, 66, 64, 62
Murdoch: 56
Hamhuis: 54
Giles: N/A
Matvichuk: N/A

three peak seasons by McKenny and Zidlicky definitely stand out here, but other than that, these two defense corps are practically equal in terms of demonstrated offensive capacity. I've just choosen to deploy mine differently, that's all.

Keep in mind that McKenny spent a lot of time at forward; it it was possible to remove points scored as a RW on the PP, these percentages would look a lot different. And the only two offensive threats on the Halifax blueline are notorious for being defensive liabilities, Zidlicky a physical one as well. There are no such liabilities in Regina's lineup.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Is Grant warwick suppose to be the physical presence on that 2nd line? Stumpel and Richardson are both very soft players, 5'6 155lb Warwick as your only source of toughness paired with two very soft players will be a problem.
so, the first thing I noticed is that you demonstrated you don't know a thing about Jozef Golonka. Secondly, I noticed you called a player "very soft" despite not knowing really anything about him. Please explain.

Quote:
Edit: Wow I just realized that 1st line may be softer then the 2nd.....Who is the puck winner/physical presence on that line? In your bio for Gingras you state "Dan Bain was getting all the goals but Gingras appears to have been his playmaker and maybe the tough guy of the line, too. In 27 MNWHA games, Bain had 65 goals and just 17 assists and 3 PIM."

But have no actual evidence supporting this claim. This to me is the softest top 6 in the MLD and will get punished especially considering we are in the 3rd round of playoffs.
actually, there is plenty of evidence for a player who is so old. It says he had "herculean strength" and was "fiery" - this is also supported by his 52 PIMs in 37 games and a few in-game quotes that don't say much on their own, but add up to something.

but, I really don't care what you think of my forwards. It doesn't matter

while we are on the topic, what makes you think that Tom Hooper alone, whose resume as a puckwinner is only marginally better, carries the board work for a line with two softer players, and that Nick Libett, a good defensive forward will do the same for the second line? Sounds like you're making a couple of logical leaps while pretending they can't go the other way. For example, there is plenty more evidence that Golonka is a fiery, competitive player who will win puck battles through sheer will, than there is Hooper will win them. And don't forget "gritty, two-way" Gracie, clearly that is a puckwinner's recipe there. On line 2, there is plenty more information to support the combative Warwick potentially winning battles for the puck than there is for Libett, a sound defensive forward. See what I did there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stoneberg View Post
We're considering putting Witt in the lineup, but aren't even convinced the oppositions forwards strong enough to warrant the change yet. I really don't think they are, but we will see what seventies has to say. As far as guys already in the lineup who can clearly take advantage:

-Giles was known as a very good hitter, mainly for hip-checks.
-Matvichuk plays a rugged style as well, and should have no problem being effective along the boards.
-Hamhuis has always been good at using the body very effectively as well. Not necessarily the roughest, but he will certainly be able to take advantage of mismatches on the boards.
-Murdoch is a heady defensive defenseman with good hockey sense, so I can see hime being able to exploit softer forwards as well.

That said, if his scoring line forwards are as soft as they appear to be at first glance, it benefits every single one of our defensemen, especially our puck movers McKenney and Zidlicky, as they will take minimal punishment moving the puck up ice. It goes both ways, but the advantage of a softer top six clearly goes to the team defending against it, no matter which way you slice it.

All that said, we are also toying with the idea of putting Sundstrom in the lineup for Hunter to have a fourth line geared more towards dealing with a skilled, softish, offensive attack. Thoughts on this?
Really, please put Witt in the lineup. I'd love to have a career #5-6 NHL D-man playing a regular shift for my opponents, I really would!

You are making a bit of a leap on Murdoch there, don't you think? A "heady defensive defenseman" will exploit my forwards now? Not really. Because if those kinds of leaps are allowed then the fiery leader Golonka, and the gritty, two-way Gracie will be beasts along the boards. Not to mention Warwick the fire hydrant with a temper. Surely you agree?

----------------------------------

anyway, good series guys. This would have been the time to take advantage of an absentee opponent if there ever was one. I'm so glad we didn't have to quibble about Erixon/Libett and about the merits of a defensive 3rd line versus an offensive one.

It really doesn't matter what subtle differences exist in our forwards, or in net, or behind the bench, or in the offensive abilities of our forwards. Because whatever those are, they are completely insignificant in the face of the most important difference between the two teams - the overall abilities of our defense corps. Just to illustrate, here is a list of the most impressive seasons put up by blueliners playing in the top-6 on this series. It starts with all-star/norris finishes (none duplicated of course), then moves onto seasons where the player was selected to, or played in an ASG (obviously only if not recognized in the above ways), then seasons in which they were #1 in icetime on a team .500 or better. (I don't have icetime for pre-1967, and of course, I can't make it up, so since you have six post-expansion d-men and I have three, you are at a major advantage in this last category)

black = Regina, red = Halifax. win% adjusted for OTL.

5th
5th
5th
7th
7th
8th
8th
8th
9th
9th
9th
11th
11th *Murdoch
13th
13th
ASG
ASG *McKenny
#1 .598 *Hamhuis
#1 .544
#1 .535
#1 .531 *Murdoch
#1 .520
#1 .519
#1 .513 *McKenny
#1 .500
#1 .500 *Hamhuis
#1 .500 *Murdoch

our defensemen adjust to 5-11, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 6-5. Halifax's adjust to 5-9, 5-11, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3. A difference of more than one inch per player. Of course, Halifax was quick to point out that even though Warwick is tough as nails, he's small. They didn't point out that their crushing hitter who will strike fear into our forwards, Curt Giles, is 5'8".

please, gentlemen. Between your top-6 defensemen, there are just six times they did something even as impressive as being the #1 defenseman on an above-average team. Only once was one of them ever recognized in year-end voting. On the other hand, every Regina defenseman earned postseason recognition at least once, and Armstrong did four times. This is like a bunch of ATD #5-6 guys against an average (at best) MLD defensive corps. It's safe to say that it's not even close... which is also a fair description of the likely proximity of Halifax's forwards and Billy Nicholson.

Don't feel bad though, your D isn't the only one in this MLD not close to mine. All of them suffer from the same ailment, except for my next opponents.

Doesn't matter how soft you think my forwards are or how much of an advantage an offense-only player on your 3rd line gives you... your defense isn't close to ours. Not by any stretch. That's the key. If you want to get to the MLD finals, draft some bloody defensemen next time.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 09:06 AM
  #12
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
They're not just a pure shutdown line... the Harrises are two of the more offensively-oriented 3rd liners in the draft. this line will stop whichever line we choose to match it up aganst... but believe me, bud, my defensive forwards are the least of your concerns.

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
Quote:
SEVENTIESlord....Not the greatest defensive player, just a "two-way" guy. Not the most popular guy with his coaches, but loved by fans and players.

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)

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


Quote:
Glad you are focused on something so minor.

Let me ask (and answer) a few questions.

Am I asking Sargent to do something that hasn't been done many times in the past? No. Teams double shift some defensemen on the PP on a regular basis, and it's often players who are playing 1st/2nd pairing minutes, too.

Am I asking Sargent to do something that he hasn't personally done in the past? No. Sargent was on the ice for as many as 79% and 91% of his team's PP goals in his prime.

Is Sargent in danger of getting too tired by playing too difficult minutes? No. The point on the PP is the easiest position and situation on the ice to play for two straight minutes.

Is Sargent in danger of getting too tired by playing too many minutes? No. Sargent is on my third pairing, getting about 12 ES minutes per game against weaker competition, and is not on the penalty kill.

Even if he was, is he a player with a history of poor stamina? No. Sargent averaged over 25 minutes per game in his career and was top-7 in the NHL in icetime three times.

Does this highlight a lack of offensive ability on my blueline?No. not unless Halifax concedes that they suffer from the same problem!

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.

Quote:
Here are the instances of 50% or more versus the league's #2 scoring defenseman, with Orr and Coffey removed as obvious outliers:

* = WHA converted at 0.67 exchange rate

Roberts: 66, 62, 58, 55, 52*, 52*, 51
Sargent: 68, 60, 52
Gibbs: 64, 64, 53
Kampman: 54
Portland: N/A
Armstrong: N/A

and Halifax:

McKenny: 100, 98, 71, 63, 57, 56, 54 - can't be taken at face value, had lots of time at forward
Zidlicky: 98, 69, 66, 64, 62
Murdoch: 56
Hamhuis: 54
Giles: N/A
Matvichuk: N/A

three peak seasons by McKenny and Zidlicky definitely stand out here, but other than that, these two defense corps are practically equal in terms of demonstrated offensive capacity. I've just choosen to deploy mine differently, that's all.

Keep in mind that McKenny spent a lot of time at forward; it it was possible to remove points scored as a RW on the PP, these percentages would look a lot different. And the only two offensive threats on the Halifax blueline are notorious for being defensive liabilities, Zidlicky a physical one as well. There are no such liabilities in Regina's lineup.

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.

Quote:
so, the first thing I noticed is that you demonstrated you don't know a thing about Jozef Golonka. Secondly, I noticed you called a player "very soft" despite not knowing really anything about him. Please explain.
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.


Quote:
actually, there is plenty of evidence for a player who is so old. It says he had "herculean strength" and was "fiery" - this is also supported by his 52 PIMs in 37 games and a few in-game quotes that don't say much on their own, but add up to something.
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...

Quote:
but, I really don't care what you think of my forwards. It doesn't matter
of course why would it matter? Clearly I have exposed glaring weaknesses in your team, but again "they don't matter"

Quote:
while we are on the topic, what makes you think that Tom Hooper alone, whose resume as a puckwinner is only marginally better, carries the board work for a line with two softer players,
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.




Quote:
and that Nick Libett, a good defensive forward will do the same for the second line? Sounds like you're making a couple of logical leaps while pretending they can't go the other way
.

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

Quote:
http://redwings.nhl.com/club/page.htm?id=43846 It was without the puck where Libett was most respected, however. His work as a checker rated him among the best in the NHL.

"We'd play against Montreal and we''d play against the (New York) Rangers," Libett said. "They had right wings like (Hall of Famers) Guy Lafleur and Rod Gilbert and I'd have to check them."

He checked them pretty well. Just ask Gilbert. "Every time I played against him, I cringed, because I knew I wouldn't have any room and I was going to have a tough time," Gilbert said.

"Checking was different then," Libett said. "Today, checkers can have only four goals. I wasn't a prolific scorer, but I knew I could score 20 or 25 (a season)."

A durable, hard-working sort, Libett missed only two games his first six NHL seasons and once played 389 consecutive games. "He had that determination and drive you'd like to see all the players on your team have," noted Dave Lewis, Libett's NHL opponent for seven seasons. "You'd slow him down and he'd keep coming. You'd hit him and he'd get back up. And he was relentless as a checker."

Libett performed these challenging and often dirty tasks for a team which made the playoffs just twice during his 12 seasons as a Red Wing. "Playing on a bad team, it's difficult, but the motivation comes from within," he explained. "I like to think I have a lot of pride."

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.



Quote:
For example, there is plenty more evidence that Golonka is a fiery, competitive player who will win puck battles through sheer will, than there is Hooper will win them. And don't forget "gritty, two-way" Gracie, clearly that is a puckwinner's recipe there. On line 2, there is plenty more information to support the combative Warwick potentially winning battles for the puck than there is for Libett, a sound defensive forward. See what I did there?


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


Quote:
Really, please put Witt in the lineup. I'd love to have a career #5-6 NHL D-man playing a regular shift for my opponents, I really would!
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 NHL.com is being a b*tch this morning, im sure he is up there in both.



Quote:
You are making a bit of a leap on Murdoch there, don't you think? A "heady defensive defenseman" will exploit my forwards now? Not really. Because if those kinds of leaps are allowed then the fiery leader Golonka, and the gritty, two-way Gracie will be beasts along the boards. Not to mention Warwick the fire hydrant with a temper. Surely you agree?
Why would we agree? See above, you have no evidence in your bios

----------------------------------

Quote:
anyway, good series guys. This would have been the time to take advantage of an absentee opponent if there ever was one. I'm so glad we didn't have to quibble about Erixon/Libett and about the merits of a defensive 3rd line versus an offensive one.
Im not sure if your aware, but Stoneberg and I also have quite the busy schedule and work commitments.


Quote:
It really doesn't matter what subtle differences exist in our forwards, or in net, or behind the bench, or in the offensive abilities of our forwards. Because whatever those are, they are completely insignificant in the face of the most important difference between the two teams - the overall abilities of our defense corps. Just to illustrate, here is a list of the most impressive seasons put up by blueliners playing in the top-6 on this series. It starts with all-star/norris finishes (none duplicated of course), then moves onto seasons where the player was selected to, or played in an ASG (obviously only if not recognized in the above ways), then seasons in which they were #1 in icetime on a team .500 or better. (I don't have icetime for pre-1967, and of course, I can't make it up, so since you have six post-expansion d-men and I have three, you are at a major advantage in this last category)

black = Regina, red = Halifax. win% adjusted for OTL.

5th
5th
5th
7th
7th
8th
8th
8th
9th
9th
9th
11th
11th *Murdoch
13th
13th
ASG
ASG *McKenny
#1 .598 *Hamhuis
#1 .544
#1 .535
#1 .531 *Murdoch
#1 .520
#1 .519
#1 .513 *McKenny
#1 .500
#1 .500 *Hamhuis
#1 .500 *Murdoch

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.

Quote:
our defensemen adjust to 5-11, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, and 6-5. Halifax's adjust to 5-9, 5-11, 6-0, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3. A difference of more than one inch per player. Of course, Halifax was quick to point out that even though Warwick is tough as nails, he's small. They didn't point out that their crushing hitter who will strike fear into our forwards, Curt Giles, is 5'8".
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.

Quote:
please, gentlemen. Between your top-6 defensemen, there are just six times they did something even as impressive as being the #1 defenseman on an above-average team. Only once was one of them ever recognized in year-end voting. On the other hand, every Regina defenseman earned postseason recognition at least once, and Armstrong did four times. This is like a bunch of ATD #5-6 guys against an average (at best) MLD defensive corps. It's safe to say that it's not even close... which is also a fair description of the likely proximity of Halifax's forwards and Billy Nicholson.
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



Quote:
Don't feel bad though, your D isn't the only one in this MLD not close to mine. All of them suffer from the same ailment, except for my next opponents.

Doesn't matter how soft you think my forwards are or how much of an advantage an offense-only player on your 3rd line gives you... your defense isn't close to ours. Not by any stretch. That's the key. If you want to get to the MLD finals, draft some bloody defensemen next time.
Our defence is very close to yours, actually they are ahead offensively, i'd like for you to prove otherwise.



WHY HALIFAX WILL WIN

- 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


Last edited by markrander87: 09-02-2011 at 09:53 AM.
markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 11:11 AM
  #13
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
As per 70's "self evaluation"

Quote:
First line is led by Golonka, the Czech Doug Gilmour, the spirit of the team. He's mainly a goalscorer in my estimation, so he has two gritty wings (gritty is actually a really mild word for Gingras) who have playmaking credentials. This line will be very tough to play against and its offensive potential should at least be average by the standards in this draft.
How did Doug Gilmour ever enter this conversation?


So we are suppose to buy both these wingers as gritty and a physical presence when you have provided next to nothing in that regard.


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

Quote:
Jozef Stumpel: Call him a bargain basement 2nd liner and color me unimpressed. Two very good seasons for this level, and on pace for two more very good ones. Other than that, a small handful of "decent" seasons. Meh. Not great in the playoffs, and softish, even though he's big. Smooth playmaker though. His overall offensive production is in the same league as others I looked at like Bullard, Zhamnov, Reichel, etc. Comparing him to Zhamnov, for example, is easy - take off Zhamnov's big 1995 season, 2 years of captaincy, and PKing ability and you have Stumpel. He's a lower-tier guy and I'd rather have the other guys who went earlier in most cases, but he shouldn't hurt me either, as he's not a large dropoff from them. There is no doubt that he underwhelmed me once I researched.

Sounds about right.


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.


Last edited by markrander87: 09-02-2011 at 11:17 AM.
markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 11:34 AM
  #14
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
Power play goals only constitute about 20% of a PP defenseman's overall offensive statistics, on average, I think. Last year, no defenseman had more than 9 goals on the PP. Only 14 of them had more than 5. Conversely, 23 of them had 15 or more PP assists. I suppose I was off with my 20% estimation, but you get the point - PP goals is a very small indicator of how good a defenseman is on the PP. I'm much more interested in assists and overall point production.. as far as can Sargent handle being double shifted on the PP? He sure can.. he did it in real life, according to the numbers.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 11:42 AM
  #15
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
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.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 11:55 AM
  #16
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Power play goals only constitute about 20% of a PP defenseman's overall offensive statistics, on average, I think. Last year, no defenseman had more than 9 goals on the PP. Only 14 of them had more than 5. Conversely, 23 of them had 15 or more PP assists. I suppose I was off with my 20% estimation, but you get the point - PP goals is a very small indicator of how good a defenseman is on the PP. I'm much more interested in assists and overall point production.. as far as can Sargent handle being double shifted on the PP? He sure can.. he did it in real life, according to the numbers.
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.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 11:58 AM
  #17
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Power play goals only constitute about 20% of a PP defenseman's overall offensive statistics, on average, I think. Last year, no defenseman had more than 9 goals on the PP. Only 14 of them had more than 5. Conversely, 23 of them had 15 or more PP assists. I suppose I was off with my 20% estimation, but you get the point - PP goals is a very small indicator of how good a defenseman is on the PP. I'm much more interested in assists and overall point production.. as far as can Sargent handle being double shifted on the PP? He sure can.. he did it in real life, according to the numbers.
Thats pretty impressive that Sargent can account for all of that time on the PP considering throughout his career he averaged 50 games a season. Sargent was an absolute band-aid, I thought we accounted for a players entire career and not just 2-3 peak seasons, Sargent will miss games, what's his plan when that happens.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 12:27 PM
  #18
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
I am going to need quite a bit of selling on Golonka.

He did put up pretty good numbers, but it was in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world. Offensively, I'd take Fred Glover, who dominated the AHL, since the AHL was as good or better than the Czech league of that time.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 12:59 PM
  #19
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I am going to need quite a bit of selling on Golonka.

He did put up pretty good numbers, but it was in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world. Offensively, I'd take Fred Glover, who dominated the AHL, since the AHL was as good or better than the Czech league of that time.
I agree, honestly though where is the offense coming from for Regina? When you use your 1st pick for a Defenseman, 2nd pick for a goalie and then 3rd pick for a 3rd liner obviously you will be behind offensively. And Regina is far far behind Halifax offensively as shown above.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 01:06 PM
  #20
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
This isn't a pissing contest about who is better. This is about your erroneous conclusion that PP goals = PP effectiveness for defensemen.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 01:07 PM
  #21
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Thats pretty impressive that Sargent can account for all of that time on the PP considering throughout his career he averaged 50 games a season. Sargent was an absolute band-aid, I thought we accounted for a players entire career and not just 2-3 peak seasons, Sargent will miss games, what's his plan when that happens.
How am I supposed to know? When Sargent played, he played most of the PPs for his team. The numbers reflect that. That's what this is about..

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 01:14 PM
  #22
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,323
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
How am I supposed to know? When Sargent played, he played most of the PPs for his team. The numbers reflect that. That's what this is about..
Was the competition as good as he is going to face here?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 03:48 PM
  #23
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Can somebody explain to me why my last two posts were deleted? How can I possibly defend myself when my responses are getting deleted?

Quote:
This isn't a pissing contest about who is better. This is about your erroneous conclusion that PP goals = PP effectiveness for defensemen.
Quote:
How am I supposed to know? When Sargent played, he played most of the PPs for his team. The numbers reflect that. That's what this is about..

And my responses are being deleted, this is ridiculous, i'm messaging a global mod about this. There is no way a GM participating in the ATD/MLD etc.. should be able to delete another Gm's response to a thread regarding their own series. This is absolute nonsense, I have no idea how anybody could think this is rational, I spend a lot of time and effort with these and am terribly unimpressed.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 03:56 PM
  #24
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
This isn't a pissing contest about who is better. This is about your erroneous conclusion that PP goals = PP effectiveness for defensemen.
SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THIS???? hopefully this message doesnt get deleted

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 03:58 PM
  #25
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
How am I supposed to know? When Sargent played, he played most of the PPs for his team. The numbers reflect that. That's what this is about..
No its not, its also about him averaging 50 games out of an 82 games season....

I thought the MLD was based on a players entire career and not just 2-3 peak seasons? Sargent was a band-aid and should be looked upon so while GM's who are voting do so.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:46 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.