HFBoards

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

Bob Cole Divisional Quarterfinals: Philadelphia vs. Winnipeg

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-08-2012, 12:49 PM
  #26
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
First Line

Winnipeg took an odd approach with their first line in that it's their best defensively, but well below average offensively. This comparison offensively does not approach close. Winnipeg's offense has a combined 10 top 10s in points. Gordie Howe has 21 by himself. Howe dwarfs Fleury offensively, as does Kariya over Bailey. I'll give Kennedy an advantage over Nieuwendyk offensively and overall for sure(I'll be conceding that in likely every series I have). These lines are definitely going to be facing each other a lot because Bailey is the only left wing on your roster that is able to match up against Howe. Your other three left wings are big, strong guys, but none have anything of a defensive reputation that I know of. Kennedy and Fleury bring strong physicality for your group, but Howe is likely the toughest player in a top 6 in this draft, and Nieuwendyk is no slouch. My first line is going to operate its best while on the transition, and while Bailey can play that game and Fleury can to an extent, Kennedy's effectiveness may be hurt a bit by it. In your own bio it says he had a lack of speed, was not an "easy skater", and was an outright "horrendous skater". Howe and Kariya in transition could pose a problem because of Kennedy's poor skating.

I'll definitely give Winnipeg the advantage defensively between these two lines. Howe and Fleury are close with a small advantage to Howe, Kennedy gets a plus over Nieuwendyk, and Bailey gets the biggest advantage over Kariya. My line is still a solid line defensively for a first line with Howe and Nieuwendyk both plus defensive players, but the Winnipeg line is one of the strongest defensive first lines in the draft.

Overall the first lines are an advantage to Philadelphia. The Philadelphia first line simply boasts too much firepower for Winnipeg to compete. Winnipeg's line will be better defensively, but the gap between the offensive abilities is significantly larger than the gap between the lines' defensive abilities.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 03:44 PM
  #27
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
2nd Lines

Since Winnipeg decided to have a defensively geared first line, this line is going to be relied upon a pretty good amount to score goals. The chemistry of this line works very well. The entire objective will be to get the puck to Joe Malone at center with two corner-men in Olmstead and Tocchet. The chemistry of Winnipeg works.

However, the Philadelphia line boasts more firepower. Because of the unique skillsets needed to maximize Malone's heavily goalscoring biased talents, Winnipeg sacrificed talent for skillset on the wings, where Philadelphia's advantages lie. Dickie Moore can do everything Olmstead can at an elite level. They are both elite muckers and grinders. Olmstead's only advantage is that he was bigger than Dickie was. Dickie beats him out in offense and defense. Dickie was more true catalyst, whereas it seems Olmstead was a guy that just got the puck out of the corner and passed it to his more talented teammates, collecting a lot of likely secondary assists in the process. Moore was also one of the best two-way LWs in history. Olmstead wasn't anything of a defensive player that I know of. Moore has better speed as well. Definitive advantage to Moore here.

Malone over Primeau is Winnipeg's lone advantage on the 2nd lines. Malone is an elite 2nd liner here. To get a little bit of scope on him, two of my guys played against him in the two main parts of his career, the NHA(Hyland) and NHL(Dye). Here's how they competed head to head:

1910-11 to 1916-17

Malone: 206 points in 123 games-1.67PPG
Hyland: 140 goals in 105 games-1.33PPG(Hyland left to play in the PCHA for one year, 11-12)

1917-18 to 1923-24

Malone: 175 points in 126 games-1.39PPG
Dye: 148 points in 112 games-1.32PPG(only from 1919-20 to 1923-24)

I'm not saying Malone is nearly equal to Dye offensively because that includes the tail end of Malone's career and focuses on most of Dye's prime without the wall he hit towards the end. Malone is definitely the best offensive player on either 2nd line, but he's not miles ahead.

Back to Malone and Primeau. Malone is a better goalscorer and overall offensive player, but Primeau is easily the better playmaker. I also don't think Malone was anything of a defensive player, which is a problem with how the rest of the line is constructed. Primeau, meanwhile, was known as one of the best two-way players of his era, and a strong penalty killer. Malone still gets the advantage here.

Babe Dye and Rick Tocchet isn't much of a comparison offensively. Dye was 7x top 2 in goalscoring(caveat, all but one 2nd were pre-consolidation), and Tocchet never cracked a top 10 in goals, assists, or points. Dye is significantly, significantly better. I'll give Tocchet an edge in physicality and skating ability, but Dye was not afraid of physical contact, and it seems his skating and defensive issues may have been a bit overblown, but they are still definitely areas of weakness. In the end, Babe Dye is easily the superior player here.

Overall, the 2nd lines are an advantage to Philadelphia. I believe that our advantage on the wings outweighs the advantage that Winnipeg has at center. I also see some serious issues with defensive abilities on Winnipeg's 2nd line. As far as I know, none of those guys have any defensive ability whatsoever. Combined with the fact that my 2nd line boasts two very strong two-way players to cover up for a weak link and the fact that I have 3 legitimate scoring lines to worry about, I think this line could run into trouble. If they get pinned in their own defensive zone, they are not going to have any idea what to do. Because of this, Gorman may be a little hesitant to give them heavy minutes considering they will be facing one of my top 3 lines the majority of the time. Combined with the fact that this line is going to be relied upon a lot to score goals because of how the first line is built, I sense some trouble for Winnipeg in the matchup department. Philadelphia's unit is better offensively, and defensively as well.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-08-2012, 11:50 PM
  #28
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,120
vCash: 500
Just got back from a couple of days away. I think this is an interesting matchup as Philadelphia is in my view one of the most "conventional" ATD teams ever assembled while our team is a perhaps not entirely succesfull attempt to take the "eternal undercurrent of a kind of goonish conservatism among ATD GMs" (Sturminator, post 446, assassination thread) to an extreme.

I need to think about the series a bit and then I'll get more indepth in the next day or two.

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 05:52 PM
  #29
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
3rd Lines

Graves-Stanfield-Hyland vs. Hadfield-Weiland-Bondra

First off, the resemblances in how these two lines were built is striking. Two tough LW Ranger fan favorites, two two-way playmaking Bruins' centers, and two spunky goalscoring RWs who are among the best offensive players on any 3rd line.

Graves and Hadfield are two crash and bang LWs that will play bodyguard, work in the corners, and in front of the net for these lines. In terms of offensive production, Hadfield's numbers look a bit better. But, he spent about 10 years playing LW for Ratelle and Rod Gilbert, and was only able to muster one really big season of 2nd in goals and 4th in points. That season is definitely better than Graves' one big season of 5th in goals. But, when you think about it, I'm not sure how effective Hadfield is going to be. He was only able to muster decent offense playing alongside two ATD first liners, and will be playing with much worse linemates in Weiland and Bondra. Graves did play with Messier, but it wasn't during Messier's prime, and he didn't do it for 10 years like Hadfield did. Graves also played a lot more in a defensive role, limiting his ability to produce offense. Here is how their voting records look:

AS

Graves: 2
Hadfield: 2, 3, 5

Hart

Graves: 8
Hadfield: 5

Selke

Graves: 5, 5, 9
Hadfield

Now, the Selke didn't exist during the vast majority of Hadfield's career, but as far as I know his defensive reputation is non-existent, so it's not like he would have received any votes anyway. I'm surprised at how good Hadfield's all star voting looks, but it appears that he competed in an extremely weak era for LW depth. His competition was basically Bobby Hull, Bucyk, and Mahovlich, then a huge drop. If an offensive advantage exists here(I'm not sure it does when you consider linemates), I'll give the slightest of advantages to Hadfield.

Even with Hadfield's possible advantage in offense, I think Graves' defensive reputation more than makes him the better player. He was three times voted top 9 for the Selke, including first, second, and second among LW. Three seasons as one of the two best defensive LWs in the NHL is much more than Hadfield has defensively, who is basically a non-factor. With this, I think Graves takes the advantage over Hadfield as an overall player.

Now on to the playmaking centers. Another similarity is that they both benefited from having strong linemates. Both were the 2nd best players on their line, with Stanfield behind Bucyk and Weiland behind Clapper(when he was a forward). Weiland is by far the better goal scorer, but Stanfield was probably the better playmaker. 4x Top 7(4, 6, 7, 7) during the late 60s and early 70s is definitely better than 3x Top 7(3, 6, 7) in the late 20s and early 30s. Weiland gets the advantage in goal scoring, Stanfield in playmaking. In terms of overall offense, Weiland has the best one year out of the two where he led the league in goals and points. But, Weiland comes out as the better overall offensive player because Stanfield is so assists-biased.

Defensively, both are solid players. If an advantage exists, it's probably a small one for Weiland. Physically, Stanfield has the advantage. He was known for leading the line of muckers, and was willing to play physically when need be, compared to the relatively tiny Weiland. Overall, Weiland is the better player.

On the right wings, there are two of the best 3rd line snipers in the ATD. Hyland is a great goal scorer, but he's not as good as Bondra, who has six top 8 finishes in goals, including two first place finishes. The problem with Bondra is that he's heavily goal biased. He's so goal biased that even though he led the league in goals twice, he never had a top 10 finish in points, with his top finishes being 11th and 18th. I see a bit of an issue with too much goal scoring on this Winnipeg 3rd line. Bondra benefited a lot from the play of Michal Pivonka, who was very playmaking biased, fitting Bondra's talents. Weiland, on the other hand, doesn't have those playmaking credentials. He was a pretty good playmaker, but I'm not sure if he was good enough to maximize the effectiveness of Bondra.

Bondra brings a bit of a two-way game and a PK threat. Hyland doesn't really bring anything except offense. Bondra is probably the better overall player.

Overall, Winnipeg's 3rd line is better offensively and Philadelphia's is better defensively. In terms of overall effectiveness, a slight advantage to Winnipeg probably exists.

In terms of defensive ability, I'd rank the players:

Graves/Weiland(pretty close)
Stanfield
Bondra
Hyland/Hadfield(non-factors)

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 06:10 PM
  #30
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,889
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
I gotta admit, I don't see what's the rage with Philly. Poor Howe is saddled with 2nd line center and lower-end 1st line LW. There's friggin' Boivin on the top pairing. Mediocre goaltending. And almost certainly the worst coach in the draft.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Kariya is still a legit 1st liner
Talent-wise I would agree.

Quote:
Nieuwendyk is somewhat out of place as a 1st line center in a 32 team draft, but that's fine. I chose to have my glue guy at center because there is so much depth at center that the difference between the talents of one center is much less than that of a winger. There is way more depth at center compared to either wing position. Having your glue guy at center rather than having him at wing makes your line more talented.
Nieuwendyk as a "glue guy"? What does that even mean? We all seem to have our own definition.

As for being "somewhat" out of place, Nieuwendyk sticks out like a sore thumb. And I actually like the guy.

Quote:
If Holecek is mediocre, then what does that make my opponent's starter Hap Holmes? Holecek is a polarizing goalie. Some think he's better than Tretiak, some think he's much worse.
I have Fuhr so I get what it is like having a polarizing goalie. The one thing I do have on my side is that he got it done at the highest level. What is the case for Holecek being better than Tretiak?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-09-2012, 11:44 PM
  #31
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Nieuwendyk as a "glue guy"? What does that even mean? We all seem to have our own definition.

As for being "somewhat" out of place, Nieuwendyk sticks out like a sore thumb. And I actually like the guy.
Nieuwendyk is the guy that is going to go to the front of the net, tip in shots, and get rebounds. He's a guy who's willing to work the corners and forecheck. He's also above average defensively. Sounds like a glue guy to me.

Quote:
I have Fuhr so I get what it is like having a polarizing goalie. The one thing I do have on my side is that he got it done at the highest level. What is the case for Holecek being better than Tretiak?
The biggest thing is that Holecek was voted the best goalie at the World Championships, and was elected to the World Championships all star team more often than Tretiak. He was elected the best goalie in the World Championships five times, whereas Tretiak only won the honor 3 times. Seth Martin won it four times, but in a highly questionable era in terms of competition. The only other player(of any position) to be named the best at the World Championships five times is Fetisov at defense. He was also named to the World Championships All-Star team 5 times to Tretiak's 3. His 5 elections is the most all-time among goalies. And Bobby Hull said he was the best goalie in the world, better than Tretiak and Dryden if that means anything.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 02:22 AM
  #32
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Graves vs. Hadfield is no contest for Graves from an all-around sense. Offensively, they are close, but Gravy was the much more complete player.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 11:18 AM
  #33
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
i would say the glue guy of the line is gordie howe.

great thing about howe was that he was a glue guy, puck carrier, sniper, slot man, playmaker, backchecker, etc.

but howe is certainly better used for his offensive skills than for his intangibles. howe usually played with a playmaking C (abel, delvecchio, ullman), but nieuwendyk was more of a goalscoring net man. this could reduce howe's production.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 11:28 AM
  #34
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,277
vCash: 500
I don't remember Nieuwendyk having much of a presence in the corners. I don't know who he played with in Calgary, but in both Dallas and NJ, he played with Langenbrunner who was a real life "glue guy."

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 11:31 AM
  #35
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i would say the glue guy of the line is gordie howe.

great thing about howe was that he was a glue guy, puck carrier, sniper, slot man, playmaker, backchecker, etc.

but howe is certainly better used for his offensive skills than for his intangibles. howe usually played with a playmaking C (abel, delvecchio, ullman), but nieuwendyk was more of a goalscoring net man. this could reduce howe's production.
I don't think Howe played with Ullman much, but Ullman was a goal scorer more than a playmaker so your point kind of stands.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 12:11 PM
  #36
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't think Howe played with Ullman much, but Ullman was a goal scorer more than a playmaker so your point kind of stands.
i am fairly sure howe played with ullman in '57 and '58. i know they were linemates in '57. i think delvecchio may have played LW in '58.

i had this argument in my 1st ATD, and i still don't think ullman was more a goalscorer. only in '65 did ullman have more goals than assists, and ullman's career ratio of goals to assists is almost the same as sid abel's. ullman was a balanced offensive player.

ullman
490g - 739a --- .66g per assist

sid abel
189g - 283a --- .67g per assist

delvecchio
456g - 825a --- .55g per assist


abel and especially delvecchio probably got more easy assists from playing with howe and lindsay, whereas ullman more often played with role players.

ullman in '57: 16g, 36a
ullman in '58: 23g, 28a

lindsay led the NHL in assists in '57, though, and ullman trailed howe and delvecchio in assists in '58.


jean beliveau in his autobiography, writing about gretzky:
Quote:
He had great peripheral vision on the ice, and if a teammate was about to get open, he'd find him, a lot like Norm Ullman used to do.
this quote from howe also indicates ullman preferred to pass:
Quote:
"Normie always tried to move past one too many men, so he could make the perfect pass," Howe said. "Once he started to shoot, he started scoring more goals."

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 04:16 PM
  #37
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i would say the glue guy of the line is gordie howe.

great thing about howe was that he was a glue guy, puck carrier, sniper, slot man, playmaker, backchecker, etc.

but howe is certainly better used for his offensive skills than for his intangibles. howe usually played with a playmaking C (abel, delvecchio, ullman), but nieuwendyk was more of a goalscoring net man. this could reduce howe's production.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't think Howe played with Ullman much, but Ullman was a goal scorer more than a playmaker so your point kind of stands.
While Howe did normally play with a playmaking center, the LW that played alongside them was almost always a goal scorer like Ted Lindsay. Howe actually might have been a better playmaker than a goalscorer, which is almost unheard of for a power forward like him. Combined with the fact that Kariya is a playmaker first that shoots second at left wing, I don't see why the heavily goal-biased Nieuwendyk can't work at center. Howe and Kariya are both capable of being snipers when they want to be, which they will be on occasion. But most of the time, they'll be working their magic between the two and finding Nieuwendyk open in front of the net. All the components are there for Howe to succeed. It's a different composition than the one he had in real life, but for a player as versatile as he is, I don't see why it can't work.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 04:32 PM
  #38
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,277
vCash: 500
Quote:
While Howe did normally play with a playmaking center, the LW that played alongside them was almost always a goal scorer like Ted Lindsay.
Lindsay was like Howe - a balanced offensive force. These are Lindsay's top 10 finishes:

Points finishes: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 7th, 9th
Goals finishes: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 6th, 9th
Assist finishes: 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 9th

Quote:
Howe actually might have been a better playmaker than a goalscorer, which is almost unheard of for a power forward like him.
This is true, at least in the playoffs. In the regular season, Howe appears balanced, but it the playoffs his goals per game goals down and his assists per game goes up.

Quote:
Combined with the fact that Kariya is a playmaker first that shoots second at left wing
Why do you think Kariya was a pass first guy? I always saw him as another balanced guy.

Quote:
But most of the time, they'll be working their magic between the two and finding Nieuwendyk open in front of the net.
I don't see Nieuwendyk keeping up with the other two in transition, so he's not getting in front of the net off the rush. In a cycle game (where Kariya isn't that useful), Joe will make his way to the net.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 05:00 PM
  #39
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
was a pass first guy? I always saw him as another balanced guy.
7x Top 23 in assists compared to 4x Top 10 in goals for a winger seems a bit more pass-biased that even. That and he always drew comparisons to Gretzky due to his tremendous vision and passing ability. The quotes in my bio are all glowing about his playmaking abilities, mentioning much less about his shooting.

Quote:
I don't see Nieuwendyk keeping up with the other two in transition, so he's not getting in front of the net off the rush. In a cycle game (where Kariya isn't that useful), Joe will make his way to the net.
This is a legitimate criticism. Nieuwendyk will likely be serving as the trailer a lot of the time for these guys considering Salming is going to be jumping up on the rush and working the transition game he was so famous for a lot. While Kariya is no Dickie Moore in the corners, he wasn't afraid to work in traffic and behind the other team's net. Much like Gretzky loved to operate behind the net, Kariya did as well because it allowed him to use his great vision to see the entire ice. From my bio:

Quote:
Kariya was particularly adept at making plays from deep in the offensive zone and beside the opposing team's net.
Quote:
At 5'10" and 180 pounds, the 24-year-old Kariya is a blur on skates and is not averse to coursing through traffic to make plays.
Quote:
Kariya is stylish and clever, looking to make the pass first, take the shot second. He sometimes swirls in circles to shake free from opponents. He makes short little passes off the boards to himself to avert body checks. He takes the puck behind the opposition net and waits, as if he is counting the paying customers, waits and waits until he finds someone open. He—does all this sound familiar?—has that sense that he knows where the game is going before everyone else does. He sees what nobody else seems to notice.
Quote:
A leftwinger, Kariya nevertheless likes to set up behind the opponent's net to the goalie's left, a la Mr. Wayne-derful. And at 5'11", 165 pounds, Kariya has been knocked for being too small, a criticism Gretzky endured before turning pro.
Kariya's ability set up behind the net will allow Howe to give him another option to shoot, or use his great vision to find Nieuwendyk in front of the net. His patience and smarts with the puck will allow Nieuwendyk to get into position in front of the net to do what he does best.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-10-2012, 11:01 PM
  #40
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
4th Lines

Fleming-Linden-Wharram vs. Secord-Hunter-Boucher

In a vacuum, I'll concede Secord is the better player. But for the role I want my 4th line to play, I'd rather have Fleming. Secord is a better offensive player, and has more size. Both were very physical players, with Secord as a prototypical power forward, and Fleming as more of a small annoying agitator that would drop the gloves with the guy he annoyed. Fleming's defensive game is vastly superior to Secord's, being noted as a shadow that checked Hull and the great RWs of his era.

Linden vs. Hunter is a close debate. Offensively, they are close to dead even. Linden's career adjusted PPG is .6324 over 1,382 games, and Hunter's is .625 over 1,407 games. In the regular season, they're basically even. But in the playoffs, Linden pulls ahead. Linden's PPG is .7984 over 124 games in a mostly lower scoring era to Hunter's .634 in 186 games in a mostly higher scoring era. Slight advantage offensively to Linden. Defensively, they are both very strong players. Hunter brings more physicality because most of Linden's physical prowess came when he was a right wing, rather than at center where he was seen as playing his best defensive hockey of his career. Overall, these two guys appear to be pretty even.

Kenny Wharram is a significantly better offensive player than Boucher. Even if you believe Wharram benefited greatly from playing with Stan Mikita, he was definitely the 2nd best offensive player on that line whereas Boucher was a distant 3rd behind Howie Morenz and Aurel Joliat, who he benefited greatly from. Wharram was a five time 6 RW in all star voting. Boucher's 3 best finishes in a split league NHL are 3, 3, and 7. In the late 1960s, Wharram was able to put up a 4, 6, and 9 in the late 60s. Wharram's finishes are definitely more impressive when era is considered. Wharram is definitely the vastly superior offensive player. The only advantage Boucher has on Wharram is that he brings a little bit of grit. Wharram is definitely better offensively, and brings a lot of speed to the table. I don't think either was much of a defensive player. Overall, Wharram gets the check here.

Overall, Philadelphia's line is slightly better offensively and better defensively. Secord>Fleming, Linden>Hunter(not a huge advantage), and Wharram>Boucher offensively. Fleming and Secord is the largest gap in terms of defensive play among the matchups, Hunter enjoys an advantage over Linden, and Wharram/Boucher are non-factors.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 09:13 AM
  #41
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Now that we've looked at all the forward matchups, it's time to look at how they will work.

Matchups will eventually doom Winnipeg

It doesn't take any great knowledge to realize that my offense revolves around the offensive ability of my right wings. Top to bottom, I believe they are the best right wings in this entire draft. In order to effectively check the 4 strong right wings I have, a team needs to have good checking ability on left wing. This is Winnipeg's biggest problem. Their only left wing with any checking ability is Ace Bailey. I'll wait for Winnipeg to confirm this, but I cannot help but think that he is going to be the one assigned to check Gordie Howe. Their first line is the only line that I could see reasonably going up against my first line and having any sort of remote success. Doing this takes away a lot of the offensive ability of the line, which is its second best offensive line.

As a result, the 2nd line of Winnipeg is going to be relied upon a lot to score goals. But, they are not going to be able to score very effectively. The strength of the 2nd line is undoubtedly at center with Joe Malone. This line is going to be facing a tandem of either: Moore-Primeau, Graves-Stanfield, or Fleming-Linden. We're fine with any matchup. Three strong two-way centers that will be able to play good defense against Malone, limiting his effectiveness. That will leave Rick Tocchet and Bert Olmstead to do more work in terms of creating offense instead of just digging for the puck and getting it to Malone. Winnipeg's 2nd line will also struggle mightily in their own zone. If they get caught and pinned by one of my lines(which is certainly possible considering the talent on the 2nd line and the forechecking ability between Graves and Stanfield on the 3rd with Hyland's goalscoring), they'll be lost. None of those guys were good two-way players, and will struggle to keep up defensively with my 2nd and 3rd lines, who are adept at playing in both zones when need be.

We're not going to worry about trying to matchup up any lines against Winnipeg because we don't think it's necessary with our team composition. We'll let Winnipeg pick their poison. Don't want to match any lines? Okay, let Howe and Dye wreak havoc on Olmstead, Hadfield, and Secord who are power forwards, but offer nothing in terms of defensive ability, with Bailey providing the only defensive support. Match the top line against Howe? That leaves Dye and Hyland to attack those 3.

Overall, this is how the matchups are going to look:

Bailey, Olmstead, Hadfield, Secord vs. Howe, Dye, Hyland, Wharram

Kennedy, Malone, Weiland, Hunter vs. Nieuwendyk, Primeau, Stanfield, Linden

Kariya, Moore, Graves, Fleming vs. Fleury, Tocchet, Bondra, Boucher

His left wings cannot check my right wings. Our right wings are going to dictate the play and the matchups and force Winnipeg to do what we want to do because of our depth. On the other side, my centers should be decent(Nieuwendyk) to very effective(Primeau) in terms of checking any four of Winnipeg's centers. My left wings(which include my best defensive forwards) should be very effective in countering the offense of Fleury and Bondra specifically. Winnipeg is at a severe disadvantage in terms of matchups.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 09:38 AM
  #42
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
First Pairings

Eddie Shore is an all time great defenseman. He's a much better #1 than Salming. His all star voting record is easily superior, and is one of the best defensemen ever. His presence alone is what makes Winnipeg's first pairing so good.

Red Horner is an interesting partner for Shore. As I mentioned earlier, these two are going to get in heaps of trouble in terms of taking penalties. They both like to run around a bit, looking for the big hit. They also both like to jump into the offensive zone and rush the puck, which exposes them to a quick transition the other way(the bread and butter of the Kariya-Howe combination). They'll be a terror to play against for sure. Both of them will try to take liberties with some of my smaller guys like Hyland and Kariya, but Graves and Fleming will be there to take on all comers when need be. Howe and Goodfellow(master of the one punch knockout) will not fight unless absolutely necessary because they are much more valuable on the ice. Horner is a better player than Boivin, but I'd give Boivin the edge in terms of defensive play. The read I get on Horner is that he's like a defenseman that rushed the puck and was physical, but was not all that great in his own zone because his all star voting record does not reflect his offensive abilities and physicality.

Philadelphia's pairing is no pair of buttercups either. Salming is about as tough a European player in the NHL as you're going to find, and Boivin was known as one of the best body-checkers of all time. My first pairing is very physical, and will make life hard on my opponent's forwards.

Winnipeg holds the advantage on the first pairings. Shore's presence and his advantage over Salming is what makes Winnipeg's pairing better. Both pairings are extremely physical as well. Winnipeg's first pairing could run into problems with taking too many penalties, and running around in their own zone looking for the big hit, or pinching on offense, taking themselves out of position. I'm not sure if I would want these guys to be out together protecting a lead at the end of the game.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 10:36 AM
  #43
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
2nd Pairings

Goodfellow-Reise vs. Conacher-Housley

Goodfellow and Conacher are extremely close. They played pretty close to each other in era, with a small overlap at the end of Conacher's career and when Goodfellow switched from center to defense. Here is their all star voting:

Goodfellow: 2, 2, 3, 5, 5, 7
Conacher: 2, 4, 4, 8

But, it's important to note that all star voting didn't exist until 1930-31, cutting off 5 years of Conacher's career. But, we do have Hart voting from that time. It is:

Goodfellow: 1, 3(also a 4th place finish as a forward)
Conacher: 2, 2, 7, 10

Goodfellow holds a decisive advantage in all star voting, and the 1st and 3rd of Goodfellow and two 2nds in Hart voting for Conacher basically cancel out. Do those other Hart finishes make up for Goodfellow's advantage in all star voting? I'm not so sure. Let's look at offense:

Vs2 Points

Goodfellow: 110, 114*, 61, 100, 88(Total 473)
Conacher: 72**, 89, 106, 84****, 100, 100, 66, 114 (Total 731)

*Tie between Conacher & Goodfellow for 1st
**Split league
***Tie between Shore & Conacher for 1st
****Vs3

Conacher's longevity as a defenseman gives him the advantage here. But, doesn't Goodfellow's time as a forward get some credit in terms of offensive ability? Goodfellow's PPG in the playoffs is .267 over 30 games, whereas Conacher's is .114 over 35 games. Between all star voting and offense, these two are basically dead even as far as I'm concerned. Goodfellow does have two advantages, in skating and physicality. He was known for mixing it up often, and was a great fighter. He was also a very good skater compared to Conacher, who was seen as sub-par and made up for it with his size. Between these two guys, you can really just take your pick.

Phil Housley's sham of a Norris record is well known. It looks phenomenal on paper, but is based entirely on hockey card stats. I probably would not be comfortable with him on a 2nd pairing in a 32 team ATD. Conacher is a solid partner for him, but I'd rather have him play on the 3rd pairing and play as much PP as possible. That's why I'd rather have Reise in this situation. Housley's offense is definitely much better, but Reise was no slouch in that area, three times being top 9 in scoring among defensemen. Reise was also a rock defensively for a team that won two cups, and was named to the 2nd all-star team twice. He was also named to the all-star game on merit for two years that we don't have a voting record beyond the top 4. Because of Housley's shortcomings on defense and Reise's strong defensive play with some offense, I'd rather have Reise personally.

Overall, the 2nd pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. Winnipeg's pairing brings better offense, but Housley is a weak link defensively, and Reise's superior defense over him is what tips it in our favor if you ask me.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 11:16 AM
  #44
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Fleming's defensive game is vastly superior to Secord's, being noted as a shadow that checked Hull and the great RWs of his era.
Secord has no defensive game to speak of, so you're safe here. But, I wonder if this business about Fleming being "the guy" who checked the other team's greats is based on assumptions, i.e. he was a lesser skilled player, so it must have been his job to check the better players.

Also, I'm not sure how much he'd have been checking Hull, since Hull is a LW too.

Certainly in Chicago, it doesn't look like he was getting much ice time at all, based on his offensive totals. In New York, it seems like he got a bigger role, but it was the Marshall/Goyette/Nevin line that would have been the main checking line, right?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 01:08 PM
  #45
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Secord has no defensive game to speak of, so you're safe here. But, I wonder if this business about Fleming being "the guy" who checked the other team's greats is based on assumptions, i.e. he was a lesser skilled player, so it must have been his job to check the better players.

Also, I'm not sure how much he'd have been checking Hull, since Hull is a LW too.

Certainly in Chicago, it doesn't look like he was getting much ice time at all, based on his offensive totals. In New York, it seems like he got a bigger role, but it was the Marshall/Goyette/Nevin line that would have been the main checking line, right?
It doesn't make much sense for him to be checking Hull, but from my bio:

Quote:
But when the Hawks played the Red Wings, Fleming was assigned to left wing to check Gordie Howe. When they played the Maple Leafs, he shadowed Frank Mahovlich. Against the Rangers, he skated against Andy Bathgate. After he was traded by the Hawks, he lined up against his old teammate Bobby Hull. His coaches knew he could play the game. He was also a good penalty killer.
Quote:
New York's Reg Fleming is often picked to guard Chicago's mighty Bobby Hull because his similar body helps him to sense and counter Hull's lightning moves.
Quote:
Emile Francis, coach and general manager of the Rangers, chose Fleming to shadow Hull for tonight's game.

Francis said he chose the rambunctious Fleming-the reformed bad boy of the NHL-over Bob Nevin, a strong, two-way player because "in 1962, Hull and Andy Bathgate were battling for the scoring championship and the Hawks put Fleming on Andy and he(Fleming) stuck to him like paint. Andy didn't get any points and they tied for first place, but Hull had 50 goals to Andy's 28 so he won the trophy and the $1,000."

Fleming was with the Blackhawks the year he checked Bathgate, who now plays for Detroit.
Quote:
Mr. Fleming, assigned to check Gordie Howe, stole the puck in the Red Wings’ end and scored.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 01:11 PM
  #46
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
New York's Reg Fleming is often picked to guard Chicago's mighty Bobby Hull because his similar body helps him to sense and counter Hull's lightning moves.
Is anyone else a little bit wierded out by this quote?

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 01:44 PM
  #47
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Is anyone else a little bit wierded out by this quote?
i am pretty sure that idea came from lloyd percival.


from this thread i posted in history section:


Quote:
Lloyd Percival apparently thought that players of a similar body type (endomorph, mesomorph, ectomorph) would naturally tend to behave in similar ways, so a defender should be ideally of a similar body type as the forward he is marking, and linemates of a similar body type would generally be more effective than linemates of mismatched types.


page 110 of this link:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jdQ...page&q&f=false

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 03:59 PM
  #48
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
3rd Pairings

Larson-Smith vs. McDonald-Prodger

If it means anything, Reed Larson came out slightly better in the large study of offensive defensemen that seventieslord did. Larson came out with a "Score" of 25.29 over 707 games compared to Housley's 25.14 over 686 games. It seems like people really didn't like the Larson pick looking at the ATD 2012 Summary thread, but I don't think he's getting the credit he deserves. Larson's ESPPG was the 2nd best of anyone on that table behind only Duchesne, and tied with Turnbull(but Larson did it for longer). Combined with the fact that he played on teams with the lowest "score" for team quality, the fact that he was able to generate that much ES offense by himself considering teammates is pretty impressive. At even strength, he produced at a better rate than Sergei Gonchar, Sergei Zubov, and Gary Suter. Imagine if Larson had the PP talent to work with, and think about what his numbers could have been like it he had better teammates.

I'll compare Prodger and Larson, then Smith and McDonald because their styles are more comparable. My first, and biggest question is, how much defense did Prodger actually play?

10-11: forward(bio)
11-12: defense(bio)
12-13: ?
13-14: ?
14-15: ?
15-16: ?
16-17: ?
19-20: forward(HR)
20-21: forward(HR)
21-22: D/F(HR)
22-23: D/F(HR)
23-24: D/F(HR)

I'll assume that D/F means that he played mostly defense, but played a little bit of forward as well. He seems like a rushing defenseman that liked to hit and was decent defensively. I had him last year, so I'm familiar with him as a player, just not as him as a defenseman. Either way, I'm not seeing enough here to show that he was as good an offensive defenseman as Reed Larson, who was a premier offensive defensemen in the late 70s and early 80s. I'll take Larson.

That brings us to Bucko McDonald(who I have a strong distaste for because his face angers me), and Dallas Smith. McDonald has 2 relevant all star finishes, 4th and 6th in the O6 era. Smith has 6, 6, 9, 17, 18, 19, and 23. Smith also has a 6th and 8th in Norris. Considering Smith's finishes came in a stronger era, I find his record to be a bit more impressive. Add in his impressive 49% PK usage for a dynasty team like the Bruins(used more than Green or Awrey), I think I'll take Smith in this matchup. Both guys bring a dimension of physicality, and a little bit of offense as well.

Overall, 3rd pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. Larson's offense is something that what we know about Prodger just can't compete with. Winnipeg's pairing is probably a bit better defensively because of Larson, but Philadelphia's definitely has the advantage offensively because of the capabilities of Larson. Overall, Philadelphia's pairing is better.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-11-2012, 04:18 PM
  #49
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,331
vCash: 500
Quote:
My first, and biggest question is, how much defense did Prodger actually play?

10-11: forward(bio)
11-12: defense(bio)
12-13: ?
13-14: ?
14-15: ?
15-16: ?
16-17: ?
19-20: forward(HR)
20-21: forward(HR)
21-22: D/F(HR)
22-23: D/F(HR)
23-24: D/F(HR)

I'll assume that D/F means that he played mostly defense, but played a little bit of forward as well. He seems like a rushing defenseman that liked to hit and was decent defensively. I had him last year, so I'm familiar with him as a player, just not as him as a defenseman.
I don't have time to look this up now, but if you want, search for posts by me containing the word Prodger or Prodgers, and I am sure you'll find one that fills in those blanks. His bio in "the Trail" describes quite well which positions he played. I do know that in his last few NHL years he was shuttled abck and forth and it's impossible to call him one or the other.

If you are a person who thinks for these "split career" type players that only time spent as a forward counts for forwards, and the same for defensemen, then Prodger(s) should really only be a spare in the ATD... but a very good one, IMO.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2012, 12:47 PM
  #50
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,518
vCash: 844
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Seventies-I did a search and found more info for one year, but didn't find anything concrete for any of the others.

Goaltending

Jiri Holecek vs. Hap Holmes

I don't think I'm stretching when I say Holecek is better. He was the 18th goalie selected, and Holmes was the 28th. Both come from eras/times where very few ATD goalies are selected, so doing any type of award/statistical comparison is impossible. I don't like to rely on canon to declare someone better than the other, but I just think Holecek is the better goalie. I don't see either backup playing a significant role here, but they are both pretty good backups.

Philadelphia has the superior starting goaltender, and an overall advantage in goal.

BillyShoe1721 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 12:27 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.