HFBoards

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

MLD11 Final: Regina Capitals vs. North Pole Dancers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-01-2009, 01:41 PM
  #1
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
MLD11 Final: Regina Capitals vs. North Pole Dancers

Regina Capitals

Coach - Eddie Gerard

Ryan Smyth - Craig Janney - Bill Goldsworthy
Simon Gagne - Normie Himes - Cully Wilson
Fred Scanlan (A) - Cal Gardner - Leroy Goldsworthy
Walter Smaill - Josef Golonka (C) - Konstantin Loktev
Art Farrell - Steamer Maxwell

Hamby Shore (A) - Fred Lake
Moose Dupont - Ron Stackhouse
Wade Redden - Dunc Munro (A)
Slim Halderson

Tom Barrasso
Wilf Cude

vs.

North Pole Dancers

Coach - Jimmy Skinner

Lynn Patrick - Billy Taylor - Yevgeny Babich
Smokey Harris - Billy McGimsie - Alf Skinner
Baldy Cotton - Mike Ricci - Mush March
Bob Gracie - Andy Blair - Bill Fairbairn
Mike Krushelnyski, Wally Hergesheimer

Billy Coutu - Dave Babych
Gord Fraser - Bob Rouse
Al Arbour - Bryan McCabe
Larry Hillman

Johnny Mowers
Don Edwards

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 01:47 PM
  #2
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
But what happens when one of us beats you over here?
I guess it's time to find out the real answer to that question

Never thought we'd make it all the way to the finals as MLD newbies.

Good luck to all.

I'll probably need it.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 02:02 PM
  #3
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
First volley:

You're going down, North Pole.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 02:13 PM
  #4
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
First volley:

You're going down, North Pole.
It is you who shall go

I will likely start making my arguement tonight and/or tomorrow morning.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 03:10 PM
  #5
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,812
vCash: 500
I would love to watch Mike Ricci terrorize Craig Janney in real life

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 03:11 PM
  #6
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,812
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
First volley:

You're going down, North Pole.
Does that sound dirty to anyone else?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 03:33 PM
  #7
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
oh, look who came out of hiding to share in the glory of the finals! So nice to see you, dreak!

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 03:51 PM
  #8
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
This is one series where I think I could really use his help.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 04:06 PM
  #9
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
[intimidation]You're gonna need all the help you can get, buddy boy. You's in my house now![/intimidation]

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2009, 06:39 PM
  #10
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,947
vCash: 500
It's an all-LeafsboardFanboys Final !

VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 02:37 PM
  #11
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Let the fun begin!

Lynn Patrick-Billy Taylor-Yevgeny Babich vs Ryan Smyth-Craig Janney-Bill Goldsworthy

I think comparing by position isn't the best way to go in this one; comparing playmaker vs playmaker, primary goalscorer vs primary goalscorer, and character/glue guy vs character/glue guy, would paint a more accurate picture.

Lynn Patrick vs Bill Goldsworthy- The two primary goalscorer for their respective lines. Goldsworthy, as many know, has one year where he led the playoffs in goals and points to his credit. Problem is, he didn't do much in the playoff outside of that 1 year- a 14th in goals his only other top-15 outside of that leading playoff year. Patrick brings a couple of more good playoff years- his one notable assist finishes is a bit better than Goldsworthy, his 3rd and 4th in goals better than Goldsworthy 1st and 14th by quite a margin, and his 5th and 10th in points probably better as well. Edge Patrick, quite easily.

Billy Taylor vs Craig Janney- Aaa yes, these two go at it yet again. Janney, as many know, has a good playoff record. But so does Taylor. As far as top-10 finishes go, Taylor has a slight edge- Janney has a 6th and a 9th in points and a 2nd and 4th in assists, while Taylor has a 4th and a 8th in points and a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 9th in assists. The only other top-15 Janney has is a 15th in assists, which doesn't make up for the edge Taylor has here. In addition, Janney has a bunch of problems in other areas of the game, as illistrated by this quote from Joe Pelletier:

Quote:
However Janney was also labeled as a very soft player. The game plan against Janney was to hit him early and he would not be a factor for the remainder of the game. He would often just turnover the puck rather than take a hit to make a play. During his prime he was more willing to get his face rubbed against the glass, but in his latter years he lost a step and was unable to sneak away from a big hit. That of course, coupled with his spotty defensive play, landed him in many coaches and fans dog house.
Now, Bill Taylor isn't known as a stud in the areas of defensive play and physicality- the only thing we really know about him outside his offense his that he was apparently a good faceoff guy- but it doesn't seem as if he was nearly as bad as Janney. This, coupled with Taylor's slight offensive edge, leads me to believe that Taylor has a fair edge here.

Ryan Smyth vs Yegeny Babich- The two character guys of their respective lines. Now, I have been told that Babich was nothing special offensively, but Smyth is not exactly an offensive dynamo himself. Smyth may have more grit, but I am unsure if he has the defensive ability that Babich does. As far as offense goes, it is difficult for me to make a call on this until I see this research that shows Babich is. "nothing special" offensively.

Overall: Even if SMyth has an edge over Babich (I say this because I am unsure of that matchup) I feel it would not best the edges we have at playmaker and primary goalscorer, and for that, I think North Pole has the better top-line.

Third lines on first lines:

Baldy Cotton-Mike Ricci-Mush March against Ryan Smyth-Craig Janney-Bill Goldwrothy

vs

Fred Scanalan-Cal Gardner-Leroy Goldsworthy against Lynn Patrick-Billy Taylor-Yevgeny Babich

Mike Ricci vs Cal Gardner- Despite Gardner's boasted two-way ability, he really only has one year in the playoffs where he did much of note offensively, just like Ricci. Now, he did more in that 1 year than Ricci did (4th in points vs 10th in points), but Ricci is arguably the best defensive forward in the draft. In addition, Gardner isn't going up against a pushover like Ricci is (as Dreakmur alluded to, Janney isn't going to be a happy camper facing Ricci- he may be rendered almost ineffective), and so, all things considered, I think we'll have an edge at third-line C.

Mush March vs Leroy Goldsworthy- Offensively, no contest- Leroy Goldsworthy did nearly NOTHING in the playoffs- 1 point (which was a goal) in 24 playoff games is bad. March, on the other hand, is a great playoff producer- 4 top 10's in points (including a 5th), 3 top 10's in goals, and 4 top 10's in assists (including a 2nd). March probably brought quite a bit more in the grit department as well; and he's got a much easier matchup facing Smyth, while Goldsworthy goes up against the best offensive player in this series in Patrick. March has a signifigant edge here, I think.

Baldy Cotton vs Fred Scanalan

Scanalan is a bit of a mystery- we know he's a workhorse, but what else shows he might be a good third-liner? 6 goals in 17 playoff games sounds decent, but how good was it exactly? With Cotton, you know what you are getting- offensively, with 3 top 10's in playoff points, a 3rd and a 9th in playoff goals, and 4 top 10's in playoff assists, I think it is safe to say he was signifigantly better than Scanalan offensively as far as playoffs go. We know Cotton as a good defensive player; he was called a persistent checker and quality penalty killer, and we know that he was gritty- called fearless and "very willing to mix it up." Overall, I think Cotton has a signifigant edge in this matchup, unless there is some information on Scanalan I am missing.

Overall: I think our third-line is signifigantly better offensively, and better defensively, and in grit. Our third-line shall be able to check your top scorers better than yours can check ours as well.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2009, 07:03 PM
  #12
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Smokey Harris-Billy McGimsie-Alf Skinner vs Simon Gagne - Normie Himes - Cully Wilson

Smokey Harris vs Simon Gagne- You're a Harris appreciator, so I don't need to tell you that Harris is the best player on either line by a signifigant margin. Gagne's playoff record and offense does not compare to Harris, who led the playoffs in scoring a couple of times. Major edge Harris.

Billy McGimsie vs Normie Himes- An interesting matchup. Even though Himes played on dreadful team, his non-existent playoff record has to be a minus. McGimsie on the other hand, scored 4 goals in 7 cup challenges games, including 3 in 2 games in his first challenge, along with winning the cup in his last challenge, which thourghly bests Himes playoff record. Himes may have a bit of an edge as far as intangibles go, but in playoff offense, McGimsie has to has an edge. McGimsie was no slouch in the regular season either, often doing well in regular season scoring too. I suppose this is a matchup that depends on how much you dislike Himes playoff record; I think it is fairly close mathcup in the playoffs.

Alf Skinner vs Cully Wilson- A good matchup; both serve as the powerforward of their respective lines, and the glue more or less. Of course, Skinner likely has the best playoff peak of the two with his retro conn smythe. I'll borrow your stuff from the bio you made of him:

Quote:
- 2X Top-2 in playoff goals (2nd-1918, 2nd-1921)*
- 2X Top-3 in playoff points (3nd-1918, 2nd-1921)*
- Retroactive Conn Smythe - 1918 (8 goals and 11 points in 7 games, upstaging Cyclone)
- From 1915 through 1954, only Bernie Morris scored more points in a cup series than Skinner did in 1918. Aside from Morris and Babe Dye in 1922, no one in history has matched Skinner's 8 goals in a finals series, even after the final became a best-of-7 tilt. In this series, Skinner scored 8 of his team's 18 goals. No one else on Toronto had more than 3
Incredible stuff certainly. Now, Wilson is no slouch of a playoff performer himself, but does he have the top-end peak that Skinner does? I am unsure- you'll have to throw more detailed stats at me. His leading one cup champion in goals and another in assists is impressive, but where did he rank amongst the league in those playoffs? It shows he was valuable to his team certainly, but is it as valuable as Skinner was in 1918, when he scored nearly half his teams goals in the finals? Wilson has one more cup than Skinner, but Skinner has an more cup-final I believes. At the moment, I would give the playoff offensive edge to Skinner due to his incredible 1918 run, but I could be convinced otherwise depending on what you present to me.

I can not deny that Wilson probably has the intangible edge here; both were tough, but Wilson was known to be a bit tougher. Overall, I think these two are fairly close, and it's tough to call.

Overall: I think C and RW are fairly close, but Harris's decisive edge at LW gives North Pole the overall better 2nd line.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 12:12 AM
  #13
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
I'll be in here to put all this nonsense to rest....


no, seriously though. I'll come in and make my arguments. Some good points so far. I'll make this a better series than it looks like right now.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 12:33 AM
  #14
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
I'm sure you will. Wouldn't have it any other way.

I'll move to the offensive again tomorrow afternoon.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 01:37 PM
  #15
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Bob Gracie-Andy Blair-Bill Fairbairn vs Walter Smail-Josef Golonka-Konstantin Loktev

Bob Gracie vs Walter Smail- Walter Smail is somewhat tough to gauge, as you said in a previous comparison. Smail has 6 goals in 11 games in stanley cup matches as his playoff record; I inquire how good exactly is that. I am doubting whether it is better than Gracie's 4th in goals, 9th in points, and 4th in assists, plust 2 stanley cups during the playoffs. Smail does have the 1st and 2nd in scoring to his credit (tieing and behind Taylor), but what was his competition level outside of Taylor? There seemed to be a lot of notable defencemen names in his league, but what about forwards? Gracie has a 3rd in assists and 6th in points, against more clear competition. Overall, I think Gracie might be a bit better offensively based on his clearer playoff record, unless I see more evidence.

Smail was probably tougher; Gracie was probably a better defensive player. Hard to determine which was better; although Gracie does have a quote suggesting a measure of toughness- being a part of the "Peppery" or "Aggressive" Pepper Boys line, while Smail doesn't seem to have anything written on his defensive game, unless you count him spending time as a defenceman (although not all defencemen are good defensively). As it is hard to make a call on intangibles, I'd give a slight edge to Gracie on the clearer playoff record.

Andy Blair vs Josef Golonka- I again inquire what was Golonka's competition. He was high in Cezech league scoring, and led his team in scoring often times during international tournaments- but who was he up against? His team beat the Soviets a couple of time, but that doesn't mean he was playing with offensive dyanamos. Blair led the league in playoff goals and points against some pretty notable competition, in addition to having 2 top 10's in playoff assists, plus a 2nd in assists and a 3rd in points. It's hard to make a call offensively until Golonka's offensive game is made slightly clearer.

Golonka probably has an edge in intangibles; a lot more is said of his toughness than Blair's, and it does'nt seem as if much is said on either guy's defensive game. Overall, I can't yet make a call on it until I see more evidence of good competition for Golonka.

Bill Fairbairn vs Konstantin Loktev- Loktev is probably better offensively, as that is not Fairbairns game, and he has good scoring records amongst the powerful Soviets.

Toughness, it could go either way I suppose; I'd say Fairbairn might be a bit tougher, but I can't say for certain. Fairbairn seems to be better defensively, as nothing is really said of Loktev's defensive game as far as I can see. Overall, it might be a slight edge to Loktev.

Overall: These are two great fourth-lines, that I think are pretty close. 4th lines certainly won't be a series-deciding factor. It's tough to make a call on until Smail's and Golonka's offensive resumes are cleared up, if possible. Defensively, I think my line has a decent edge, while the Regina 4th line has a fair edge in toughness.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 03:02 PM
  #16
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Dave Babych-Billy Coutu vs Hamby Shore-Fred Lake

I'm assuming that Shore was the more-so the offensive wizard of the pairing while Lake was the more steady stay-at home- guy, although correct me if I should switch how to compare these.

Dave Babych vs Hamby Shore- It kills me to say this, but it seems like Shore might be better all-around. Now, in his bio, you list that he came 7th in playoff scoring, so I ask; was that as a forward, or a defencemen? And who was he competing with in that year? It would go a long way to determine who has the better offensive resume in the playoffs, but it seems like Shore had more success besides that, playing well in numerous cup matches, not that Babych is a slouch, a top-5 in defencemen in playoff goals, top 10 amongst defencemen in assists and points, and numerous top 10's and 5's in regular season scoring amongst defencemen and playing a steadying role for the Canucks when they reached the cup final. Shore also seems to be very tough and good defensively- and although Babych was good two-way in the later stages of his career, that wasn't the case in the earlier stages. Edge Shore, and he should go higher in future drafts.

Billy Coutu vs Fred Lake- The esscence of who has the better pairing becomes, I think, is the difference between Coutu and Lake larger than the gap between Babych and Shore? Toughness, it seems, is no contest- although Lake seemed to have decent physicality and toughness, it doesn't seem they are near that of Coutu. Offensively, it doesn't seem to be much of a contest either; Coutu seems to have much more in offense credentials in both the regular season and playoffs. Defensive games, I'm not sure of, but it seems Coutu was a bit more known for it. Overall, I think it's a large edge Coutu.

Overall: Two good pairings. Again, I think it comes down to is the gap between Babych and Shore better than that between Coutu and Lake. I would say the gap between Coutu and Lake might be a bit larger, but that might be bias, and I am unsure.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 05:57 PM
  #17
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Let the fun begin!

Lynn Patrick-Billy Taylor-Yevgeny Babich vs Ryan Smyth-Craig Janney-Bill Goldsworthy

I think comparing by position isn't the best way to go in this one; comparing playmaker vs playmaker, primary goalscorer vs primary goalscorer, and character/glue guy vs character/glue guy, would paint a more accurate picture.

Lynn Patrick vs Bill Goldsworthy- The two primary goalscorer for their respective lines. Goldsworthy, as many know, has one year where he led the playoffs in goals and points to his credit. Problem is, he didn't do much in the playoff outside of that 1 year- a 14th in goals his only other top-15 outside of that leading playoff year. Patrick brings a couple of more good playoff years- his one notable assist finishes is a bit better than Goldsworthy, his 3rd and 4th in goals better than Goldsworthy 1st and 14th by quite a margin, and his 5th and 10th in points probably better as well. Edge Patrick, quite easily.
No doubt that Patrick is one of the finest wingers in the whole MLD. Goldsworthy is above average but not in that league. Just don't sell him short on his playoff record. Having excellent per-game numbers but not making the playoff leaderboard because your team didn't get far enough for you to play more games, doesn't mean you didn't do much in the playoffs. Take the larger sample size to get a more accurate result: Goldsworthy's regular season PPG of 0.70 jumps up to 0.93 in the playoffs - that's huge!

Quote:
Billy Taylor vs Craig Janney- Aaa yes, these two go at it yet again. Janney, as many know, has a good playoff record. But so does Taylor. As far as top-10 finishes go, Taylor has a slight edge- Janney has a 6th and a 9th in points and a 2nd and 4th in assists, while Taylor has a 4th and a 8th in points and a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 9th in assists. The only other top-15 Janney has is a 15th in assists, which doesn't make up for the edge Taylor has here. In addition, Janney has a bunch of problems in other areas of the game, as illistrated by this quote from Joe Pelletier:

Now, Bill Taylor isn't known as a stud in the areas of defensive play and physicality- the only thing we really know about him outside his offense his that he was apparently a good faceoff guy- but it doesn't seem as if he was nearly as bad as Janney. This, coupled with Taylor's slight offensive edge, leads me to believe that Taylor has a fair edge here.
Yes, Janney's softness is legendary. All I have to say is this: Imagine how talented he must have been to still finish among the assist leaders with such consistency, after being taken out of the game with an early hit.

Comparing the leaderboard finishes between two guys who played 45 years apart isn't perfectly fair when there are different lengths of playoffs, and different amounts of teams in them. I will take Janney's 2nd and 4th in playoff assists over Taylor's 2nd, 3rd, and 9th anyday, especially when the 3rd and 9th were obtained by getting 5 and 3 assists.

Taylor has a perfectly reasonable drop from 0.83 PPG to 0.73 PPG in the playoffs. Janney, likewise, goes from 0.99 to 0.92. Both were very good in the playoffs.

Here's another way to spin it:

Playoff scoring leaders, 1940-1948:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...al=&c4stat=&c4

Note that Taylor sits tied for 18th, along with and behind six MLD players.

Playoff scoring leaders, 1988-1999:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...al=&c4stat=&c4

Janney sits 11th on this list, behind three first round ATD picks, Six ATD 3rd-4th round picks, and an elite ATD checking LW. There are some pretty great names below him too.

Quote:
Ryan Smyth vs Yegeny Babich- The two character guys of their respective lines. Now, I have been told that Babich was nothing special offensively, but Smyth is not exactly an offensive dynamo himself. Smyth may have more grit, but I am unsure if he has the defensive ability that Babich does. As far as offense goes, it is difficult for me to make a call on this until I see this research that shows Babich is. "nothing special" offensively.

Overall: Even if SMyth has an edge over Babich (I say this because I am unsure of that matchup) I feel it would not best the edges we have at playmaker and primary goalscorer, and for that, I think North Pole has the better top-line.
First, the easy part: defensively. Smyth is nothing special there. Babich was covering for Bobrov's laziness for a decade. He can backcheck.

Grit: Yes, Smyth gets the edge. His grit, board work, and ability to stand in front of the net are legendary. Babich is no slouch but Smyth is a warrior.

Offense: It's a playmaker versus a goalscorer. Babich has some OK goals finishes in the Russian league, but they are far from impressive. I can't remember exactly what they were offhand, but they weren't great, especially considering it was 1950s Russia - certainly not approaching the level of a Bobrov, Guryshev, or Shuvalov. Assist totals don't exist, but reports indicate he was a good playmaker. Just how well being a 1950's Russian playmaker translates into being a playmaker on an MLD first line remains to be seen. I don't think he'll be a major factor offensively, but you don't really need him to be. Smyth, on the other hand, is just a goalscorer. Top-20 in the NHL three times at a time when all the best players were in one league. Would have had a couple more, too, if not for injuries. I think Smyth should be far more valuable from an offensive standpoint.

Quote:
Mike Ricci vs Cal Gardner- Despite Gardner's boasted two-way ability, he really only has one year in the playoffs where he did much of note offensively, just like Ricci. Now, he did more in that 1 year than Ricci did (4th in points vs 10th in points), but Ricci is arguably the best defensive forward in the draft. In addition, Gardner isn't going up against a pushover like Ricci is (as Dreakmur alluded to, Janney isn't going to be a happy camper facing Ricci- he may be rendered almost ineffective), and so, all things considered, I think we'll have an edge at third-line C.
On the other hand, Ricci was a face in the 1990s crowd and Gardner was a very significant player for his time. He had size, loved to play physical, and was a beauty of a passer, as evidenced by his frequent placements on the assist leaderboards. Although he's not the elite defensive player Ricci is, he can hold his own. And he'll get some opportunities going the other way, too. Ricci is a complete non-factor offensively at this level. You better hope Babich is real good defensively because Taylor and Patrick ain't coming back hard to stop Gardner and Leroy.

Quote:
Mush March vs Leroy Goldsworthy- Offensively, no contest- Leroy Goldsworthy did nearly NOTHING in the playoffs- 1 point (which was a goal) in 24 playoff games is bad. March, on the other hand, is a great playoff producer- 4 top 10's in points (including a 5th), 3 top 10's in goals, and 4 top 10's in assists (including a 2nd). March probably brought quite a bit more in the grit department as well; and he's got a much easier matchup facing Smyth, while Goldsworthy goes up against the best offensive player in this series in Patrick. March has a signifigant edge here, I think.
I'm aware of Leroy's terrible offensive record in the playoffs. He was a good regular season scorer, though, and an excellent checker and defensive forward. perhaps that's why he didn't put up points in the playoffs - he had more important business to attend to.

March is a notorious intangibles guy. He was a good two-way player and he was physical. I have no problem with Goldsworthy where I got him, but look where I got him. He's a bargain basement 3rd-liner. March is a better player, you don't need to convince anyone of that.

Quote:
Baldy Cotton vs Fred Scanalan

Scanalan is a bit of a mystery- we know he's a workhorse, but what else shows he might be a good third-liner? 6 goals in 17 playoff games sounds decent, but how good was it exactly? With Cotton, you know what you are getting- offensively, with 3 top 10's in playoff points, a 3rd and a 9th in playoff goals, and 4 top 10's in playoff assists, I think it is safe to say he was signifigantly better than Scanalan offensively as far as playoffs go. We know Cotton as a good defensive player; he was called a persistent checker and quality penalty killer, and we know that he was gritty- called fearless and "very willing to mix it up." Overall, I think Cotton has a signifigant edge in this matchup, unless there is some information on Scanalan I am missing.
First of all, Scanlan is not a great offensive player. I see him in that Cecil Blachford/Billy Gilmour/Jimmy Gardner/Tom Hooper category of early players who achieved some notoreity for their part on winning teams, but did not have the talent to be a factor on scoring lines. Thing is, Scanlan is not on a scoring line. He's on a two-way third line.

Scanlan helps teams win, plain and simple. You need your workhorses. There's a reason the guy made the HHOF. Trihey and Farrell scored all the goals but his work on that line was seen as just as important. Based on what we know of Trihey and Farrell (finesse players, known for beautiful passing plays) you can pretty safely assume Scanlan was shouldering the physical and defensive load for that line.

Next, you know I like Cotton, but to sell a guy with 13 points in 43 playoff games as some kind of playoff hero is just wrong.

3 top-10s in playoff points? So you must mean the year he had 4 points, the year he had 3, and one of the two years that he had..... 2? Seriously?

4 top-10s in playoff assists? So that would be the time he had three, the two times he had two, and one of the years that he had...... 1? Seriously???

3rd and 9th in playoff goals? So he was 3rd in 1932 with 2, I guess, and then... in a massive tie for 9th in 1926 or 1927 with one measly goal? SERIOUSLY????

Come on dude. Don't nickel and dime me to death here.

I like Cotton, he's a forgotten Leafs icon but Scanlan's place in history is far more secure.

Quote:
Overall: I think our third-line is signifigantly better offensively, and better defensively, and in grit. Our third-line shall be able to check your top scorers better than yours can check ours as well.
I must disagree. You focused on defense when comparing Ricci to Gardner, ignoring the MASSIVE offensive gap, then focused on playoff offense when comparing March to Goldsworthy, ignoring the fact that their regular season goals and assists finishes are actually fairly similar and ignoring that Goldsworthy is his equal defensively, and you're nickel-and-diming me on a comparison of Baldy Cotton and a hall of famer.

Your third line is great; it's going to do its job well. But Ricci in the middle tells me one thing - it's a defensive line. Whatever offense this line might have provided with Cotton and March went down the tubes with Ricci in the middle. Your line is better defensively by a very thin margin, and ours has a vast offensive edge with Gardner, a legitimate 2nd-liner, centering a two-time top-20 goalscorer and an important member of an early dynasty. Yours will battle harder and make life tougher for our first line, but they'll be lucky to score more than a goal in this series. Our unit of three defensive players will perform adequately against your first line and be quick to pounce on any mistakes they make.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 08:17 PM
  #18
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Smokey Harris-Billy McGimsie-Alf Skinner vs Simon Gagne - Normie Himes - Cully Wilson

Smokey Harris vs Simon Gagne- You're a Harris appreciator, so I don't need to tell you that Harris is the best player on either line by a signifigant margin. Gagne's playoff record and offense does not compare to Harris, who led the playoffs in scoring a couple of times. Major edge Harris.

Billy McGimsie vs Normie Himes- An interesting matchup. Even though Himes played on dreadful team, his non-existent playoff record has to be a minus. McGimsie on the other hand, scored 4 goals in 7 cup challenges games, including 3 in 2 games in his first challenge, along with winning the cup in his last challenge, which thourghly bests Himes playoff record. Himes may have a bit of an edge as far as intangibles go, but in playoff offense, McGimsie has to has an edge. McGimsie was no slouch in the regular season either, often doing well in regular season scoring too. I suppose this is a matchup that depends on how much you dislike Himes playoff record; I think it is fairly close mathcup in the playoffs.

Alf Skinner vs Cully Wilson- A good matchup; both serve as the powerforward of their respective lines, and the glue more or less. Of course, Skinner likely has the best playoff peak of the two with his retro conn smythe. I'll borrow your stuff from the bio you made of him:

Incredible stuff certainly. Now, Wilson is no slouch of a playoff performer himself, but does he have the top-end peak that Skinner does? I am unsure- you'll have to throw more detailed stats at me. His leading one cup champion in goals and another in assists is impressive, but where did he rank amongst the league in those playoffs? It shows he was valuable to his team certainly, but is it as valuable as Skinner was in 1918, when he scored nearly half his teams goals in the finals? Wilson has one more cup than Skinner, but Skinner has an more cup-final I believes. At the moment, I would give the playoff offensive edge to Skinner due to his incredible 1918 run, but I could be convinced otherwise depending on what you present to me.

I can not deny that Wilson probably has the intangible edge here; both were tough, but Wilson was known to be a bit tougher. Overall, I think these two are fairly close, and it's tough to call.

Overall: I think C and RW are fairly close, but Harris's decisive edge at LW gives North Pole the overall better 2nd line.
- Yes, Smokey Harris is the man. Gagne does have great two-way and penalty killing ability, and we know nothing about Harris' intangibles.

- Himes' ability to play in the playoffs is a question mark, not nonexistant as you've made it out to be. Along with Worters, the guy carried the Americans for years. The numerous quotes about his play show that he was a real dynamo who was too often left doing things himself. McGimsie was not merely a Gilmour/Blachford/Hooper offensively - he led the Manitoba league one year and was a distant 3rd another time. But he's no Himes. Himes was THE man in New York for close to a decade; McGimsie was always playing second banana to Tommy Phillips. His highlights (and they are good highlights) are placing 8th in cup scoring in 1903 (3G, 2 GP) and winning the cup with Kenora briefly in 1907 (1G, 2 GP - Kenora scored 12 goals). He was then replaced by ringers Alf Smith and Rat Westwick for the defense of the title. So yes, he has somewhat of a playoff resume, but it's not very extensive either. Himes has a much longer and more impressive regular season record, and it's not exactly his fault he has no playoff record. Overall, the better offensive player will be Himes, and it's not close. Boiling it down to a simple "playoffs vs. playoffs" comparison doesn't fly.

- As for Skinner and Wilson, let's go piece by piece. Regular season stats in top-level leagues: Skinner: 252-113-35-148. Wilson: 342-187-77-264. Note that Wilson got into 92 more top-level games than Skinner, scored 74 more goals and 42 more assists for 116 more points. Per-game, he has the edge too: .55 to .45 in goals, .23 to .14 in assists, and .77 to .59 in points. Wilson was the better regular season scorer and playmaker. Skinner's goal placements were a bit more impressive (very marginally so) but Wilson was the more consistent and productive point producer. In the playoffs, there's no doubt Skinner was an offensive beast. He ended up with 17 goals and 23 points in 30 games, Wilson had 9 goals and 17 points in 26 games. Skinner's playoff resume is based on two excellent years - the 1918 Smythe run, and the 1921 run to the finals. Likewise, Wilson was the leading goalscorer for Toronto (for either team, actually) in the 1914 finals, with 3 in 3 games. (Walker and Foyston each had 4 in total, 2 apiece from the NHA final). In the 1917 playoffs (which for Seattle was just the cup final), Wilson led outright with 4 assists. Walker and Foyston had 2 each. In the 1919 unfinished semifinals, Wilson again outright led Seattle with 4 assists. On Montreal, who played 10 games to Seattle's 7, Pitre led with 6 assists. But strictly in the finals, it was Wilson who led in assists, outright, once again. That makes him a two-time leader of the Stanley Cup finals in assists, and once in goals! So although Skinner has the more important playoff resume, Wilson is still the guy who you can count on to score. It's not all playoffs vs. playoffs!

Now as for toughness, you are taking my educated guess about Skinner, which you are desperate to believe, and running with it. "tough" is a strong word, and should not be thrown around without some sort of anecdotal evidence or extremely high PIM totals. Skinner has neither. He was almost certainly gritty, but Wilson's bad-boy status was legendary. Look at everything I posted in his bio. the guy tangled with everyone, turned opposing crowds against him, levelled Howie Morenz (how'd he catch him, anyway?) and was an all-around pain in the neck to play against. He gives our second line a real intimidating presence, one that your second line lacks. Your line will be dynamite with the puck, but if Skinner is your primary puckwinner, you may be in tough.

Your second line has a very minor edge in offense (Harris' edge just slightly outweighs those of Himes and Wilson), it lacks severely in defense (Gagne is an excellent two-way player and Himes also appears to have had a two-way game; none of your guys have a two-way game to speak of) and toughness (Wilson plus two semi-gritty guys vs. a gritty Skinner and two possible powderpuffs). So when your 2nd line gets the puck it may be able to do something with it, but will it get the puck often? Edge: Regina.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 08:53 PM
  #19
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Bob Gracie-Andy Blair-Bill Fairbairn vs Walter Smail-Josef Golonka-Konstantin Loktev

Bob Gracie vs Walter Smail- Walter Smail is somewhat tough to gauge, as you said in a previous comparison. Smail has 6 goals in 11 games in stanley cup matches as his playoff record; I inquire how good exactly is that. I am doubting whether it is better than Gracie's 4th in goals, 9th in points, and 4th in assists, plust 2 stanley cups during the playoffs. Smail does have the 1st and 2nd in scoring to his credit (tieing and behind Taylor), but what was his competition level outside of Taylor? There seemed to be a lot of notable defencemen names in his league, but what about forwards? Gracie has a 3rd in assists and 6th in points, against more clear competition. Overall, I think Gracie might be a bit better offensively based on his clearer playoff record, unless I see more evidence.

Smail was probably tougher; Gracie was probably a better defensive player. Hard to determine which was better; although Gracie does have a quote suggesting a measure of toughness- being a part of the "Peppery" or "Aggressive" Pepper Boys line, while Smail doesn't seem to have anything written on his defensive game, unless you count him spending time as a defenceman (although not all defencemen are good defensively). As it is hard to make a call on intangibles, I'd give a slight edge to Gracie on the clearer playoff record.
Never said Smaill was tough to gauge, it was the comparison of Smaill to his Tidewater counterpart that was tough.

- How impressive is Smaill's 6 goals in 11 cup games? Semi. He scored 3 in 2 games as a cover-point against a decent Winnipeg team, and then 1 in 2 games in 1909 as a cover-point, then 1 in 2 as a forward in the PCHA, then 1 in 3 as a sub in the 1914 finals.

- You're confusing playoff scoring with regular season scoring by defensemen. Smaill was 8th in playoff scoring in 1908, as a defenseman, which I guess Trump's Gracie's 9th as a forward.

- I'm not sure you knew what you were asking, but to answer your question about Smaill's competition for his 1st and 2nd in ECAHA defense scoring: In 1908 Cyclone led with 9, then Smaill tied with Frank Patrick & Art Ross with 8, then a nobody with 4, McNamara with 3, Pitre with 3, then a bunch of guys with 1 apiece including Pulford and Laviolette. In 1909, Smaill and taylor tied with 9, then Lake with 6, McNamara with 4, McNamara again with 4, Ross with 2, and Laviolette had 1. A few scrubs were mixed in there too, with 1-2 goals.

So yes, it was against excellent, HHOF competition. Make no mistake about the ECAHA/ECHA - It was THE top league! It was the NHA's predecessor and contained all of the same greats who would found the NHA in 1910. Smaill was definitely a more significant offensive player in his time than Gracie was in his - both as a forward and as a defenseman.

For toughness, it's about even. Gracie was peppery and agressive. Smaill was "off colour" and once gooned up Lester Patrick (I didn't put the quote in the bio)

Defensively, I'm inclined to call this even. Smaill was a good defenseman for a number of years and his bio states that although he was never a superstar, he gave great balance in his team play. I see that as a guy who does the little things; the kind of guy you need to win, like Scanlan.

Quote:
Andy Blair vs Josef Golonka- I again inquire what was Golonka's competition. He was high in Cezech league scoring, and led his team in scoring often times during international tournaments- but who was he up against? His team beat the Soviets a couple of time, but that doesn't mean he was playing with offensive dyanamos. Blair led the league in playoff goals and points against some pretty notable competition, in addition to having 2 top 10's in playoff assists, plus a 2nd in assists and a 3rd in points. It's hard to make a call offensively until Golonka's offensive game is made slightly clearer.

Golonka probably has an edge in intangibles; a lot more is said of his toughness than Blair's, and it does'nt seem as if much is said on either guy's defensive game. Overall, I can't yet make a call on it until I see more evidence of good competition for Golonka.
Golonka crushes Blair in intangibles. the guy was a terror, enough said. He's a hell of a leader and will do whatever it takes for us to win.

Offensively, keep in mind I'm not going around pimping his 14th and 16-place finishes in the Czech league, I'm talking about finishing in the top-6. Something he did 8 times. This was the 1960s, not the 40s. Czech hockey was at a very high level; they were easily the 3rd-best hockey country after Canada and USSR, as shown by their ability to beat them. As for competition level: How does Vaclav Nedomansky sound? Some people have him on their top-100 lists. He dominated the Czech league for ages and his career in the czech league overlaps Golonka's by 5 years. In those 5 years, Golonka was 27-31 and Nedomansky was 20-24. Golonka scored a very respectable 120 goals to Big Ned's 168. He also had Jiri Holik, Jaroslav Jirik, and amazing defenseman Jan Suchy to contend with. This was at a time when the top-10 or so Czech players could have starred in the NHL and he was definitely among them. Internationally, he had to play against many Russian greats, as well as Canadian amateurs, and placed 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th in his four best of these highly competitive tournaments. There's no denying his talent.


Quote:
Bill Fairbairn vs Konstantin Loktev- Loktev is probably better offensively, as that is not Fairbairns game, and he has good scoring records amongst the powerful Soviets.

Toughness, it could go either way I suppose; I'd say Fairbairn might be a bit tougher, but I can't say for certain. Fairbairn seems to be better defensively, as nothing is really said of Loktev's defensive game as far as I can see. Overall, it might be a slight edge to Loktev.

Overall: These are two great fourth-lines, that I think are pretty close. 4th lines certainly won't be a series-deciding factor. It's tough to make a call on until Smail's and Golonka's offensive resumes are cleared up, if possible. Defensively, I think my line has a decent edge, while the Regina 4th line has a fair edge in toughness.
Fairbairn's not a bad offensive player at all. Five seasons with 56+ points for a guy who brings a boatload of intangibles, is pretty good. He was even 20th in assists once! Loktev had a bevy of top finishes in the Russian league just as it was getting to the point where their top players were NHL-caliber. It's about even. Fairbairn's a bulldog but lots is said about Loktev's toughness and rough play, too. Defensively, you're right that not much exists on Lokteve, but he was a very strategic player who had a keep ability to analyze a game. they were grooming him to be a coach for years. I contend that you don't have those things said about you unless you have some two-way game. Fairbairn's two-way game, of course, is no guessing game. Overall, these two are too close to call.

In total, a wash at RW leaves us with a major edge for Regina at C and a minor edge at LW, slightly mitigated by the real-life chemistry of Gracie and Blair. But Regina's line is just plain more talented and will be an absolute nightmare to play against.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 08:55 PM
  #20
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Yes, Janney's softness is legendary. All I have to say is this: Imagine how talented he must have been to still finish among the assist leaders with such consistency, after being taken out of the game with an early hit.

Comparing the leaderboard finishes between two guys who played 45 years apart isn't perfectly fair when there are different lengths of playoffs, and different amounts of teams in them. I will take Janney's 2nd and 4th in playoff assists over Taylor's 2nd, 3rd, and 9th anyday, especially when the 3rd and 9th were obtained by getting 5 and 3 assists.

Taylor has a perfectly reasonable drop from 0.83 PPG to 0.73 PPG in the playoffs. Janney, likewise, goes from 0.99 to 0.92. Both were very good in the playoffs.

Here's another way to spin it:

Playoff scoring leaders, 1940-1948:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...al=&c4stat=&c4

Note that Taylor sits tied for 18th, along with and behind six MLD players.

Playoff scoring leaders, 1988-1999:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/p...al=&c4stat=&c4

Janney sits 11th on this list, behind three first round ATD picks, Six ATD 3rd-4th round picks, and an elite ATD checking LW. There are some pretty great names below him too.
You sell Taylors competition a bit short though; just noting he was with some MLD guys and not the ATDs, when he came behind and seemingly did better than his fair share of ATD mainstays; for example, scoring only 3 less points in 12 less games than one of your favorites in Syd Howe, and being around the likes Billy Cowely, Sweeney Schriner, and Roy Conacher. Janney's competition was good, there's no denying that, but it's not like Taylor was competing with scrubs here.

It's not Taylor's fault that he played less games; and as the chart will show, he was able to do well over a longer stretch- 4th in playoff assists per game for his time, with 30+ games played, ahead of guys like Cowely is pretty impressive.

Quote:
First, the easy part: defensively. Smyth is nothing special there. Babich was covering for Bobrov's laziness for a decade. He can backcheck.

Grit: Yes, Smyth gets the edge. His grit, board work, and ability to stand in front of the net are legendary. Babich is no slouch but Smyth is a warrior.

Offense: It's a playmaker versus a goalscorer. Babich has some OK goals finishes in the Russian league, but they are far from impressive. I can't remember exactly what they were offhand, but they weren't great, especially considering it was 1950s Russia - certainly not approaching the level of a Bobrov, Guryshev, or Shuvalov. Assist totals don't exist, but reports indicate he was a good playmaker. Just how well being a 1950's Russian playmaker translates into being a playmaker on an MLD first line remains to be seen. I don't think he'll be a major factor offensively, but you don't really need him to be. Smyth, on the other hand, is just a goalscorer. Top-20 in the NHL three times at a time when all the best players were in one league. Would have had a couple more, too, if not for injuries. I think Smyth should be far more valuable from an offensive standpoint.
Not sure if three top 20's is what I would call "far more valuable"- that's not impressive for a first liner either. I can concede the offensive edge though.

Quote:
On the other hand, Ricci was a face in the 1990s crowd and Gardner was a very significant player for his time. He had size, loved to play physical, and was a beauty of a passer, as evidenced by his frequent placements on the assist leaderboards. Although he's not the elite defensive player Ricci is, he can hold his own. And he'll get some opportunities going the other way, too. Ricci is a complete non-factor offensively at this level. You better hope Babich is real good defensively because Taylor and Patrick ain't coming back hard to stop Gardner and Leroy.
I'll start off by noting that, as you mentioned, Babich covered for the terrible and lazy defensive forward in Bobrov. Patrick and Taylor aren't defensive studs, but they aren't Bobrov. Babich will do fine.

Gardner really only has one year where he did much of note in the playoffs offensively. I don't know about you, but for me, playoff scoring is my main evaluation of how good offensively a player is going to be in these finals. In that regard, I don't see that wide a gap. Ricci isn't a great offensive player, true, but his 10th in playoff points (plus a 15th in playoff goals in another year) has to count for something. Gardner, by comparison, has a 4th in points in one year, and that's pretty much it. He has another year where he was in a large tie for 9th in goals, but he only scored 2, and seeing how you discredit our players for high finishes with low totals, I can disrcredit this finish as well. I don't see that as that big an offensive gap.


Quote:
I'm aware of Leroy's terrible offensive record in the playoffs. He was a good regular season scorer, though, and an excellent checker and defensive forward. perhaps that's why he didn't put up points in the playoffs - he had more important business to attend to.

March is a notorious intangibles guy. He was a good two-way player and he was physical. I have no problem with Goldsworthy where I got him, but look where I got him. He's a bargain basement 3rd-liner. March is a better player, you don't need to convince anyone of that.
As I noted, playoff scoring totals take a forefront in these finals. Clearly, Leroy wasn't able to bring his decent regular season scoring into the playoffs, and for that, I don't see how him being a decent regular season scorer holds much value, if any at all.

Quote:
First of all, Scanlan is not a great offensive player. I see him in that Cecil Blachford/Billy Gilmour/Jimmy Gardner/Tom Hooper category of early players who achieved some notoreity for their part on winning teams, but did not have the talent to be a factor on scoring lines. Thing is, Scanlan is not on a scoring line. He's on a two-way third line.

Scanlan helps teams win, plain and simple. You need your workhorses. There's a reason the guy made the HHOF. Trihey and Farrell scored all the goals but his work on that line was seen as just as important. Based on what we know of Trihey and Farrell (finesse players, known for beautiful passing plays) you can pretty safely assume Scanlan was shouldering the physical and defensive load for that line.

Next, you know I like Cotton, but to sell a guy with 13 points in 43 playoff games as some kind of playoff hero is just wrong.

3 top-10s in playoff points? So you must mean the year he had 4 points, the year he had 3, and one of the two years that he had..... 2? Seriously?

4 top-10s in playoff assists? So that would be the time he had three, the two times he had two, and one of the years that he had...... 1? Seriously???

3rd and 9th in playoff goals? So he was 3rd in 1932 with 2, I guess, and then... in a massive tie for 9th in 1926 or 1927 with one measly goal? SERIOUSLY????

Come on dude. Don't nickel and dime me to death here.

I like Cotton, he's a forgotten Leafs icon but Scanlan's place in history is far more secure.
Hmm..I seem to recall Dreak and I getting burned for making assumptions in the ATD on a guys defensive ability..now the question becomes to do the same.

I guess I'll just leave it to the voters. You can assume this, I suppose, but there really isn't anything that I can see that comes right out and says "Scanalan was a good defensive player". He played on a famous scoring line; not all scoring lines have good defensive and physical players. A voter can decide how much information they want before considering a guy good defensively and good toughness.

Are you saying Cotton's numbers don't hold any weight at all? This was a result of the era he played in- it's hardly his fault that this was the look of the era. It's how scoring went in those days. And I think it's more established than Scanalan's somewhat mysterious offensive ability, and I don't have to assume things with Cotton's defensive ability and toughness- I KNOW he was good defensively and was tough.

Quote:
I must disagree. You focused on defense when comparing Ricci to Gardner, ignoring the MASSIVE offensive gap, then focused on playoff offense when comparing March to Goldsworthy, ignoring the fact that their regular season goals and assists finishes are actually fairly similar and ignoring that Goldsworthy is his equal defensively, and you're nickel-and-diming me on a comparison of Baldy Cotton and a hall of famer.

Your third line is great; it's going to do its job well. But Ricci in the middle tells me one thing - it's a defensive line. Whatever offense this line might have provided with Cotton and March went down the tubes with Ricci in the middle. Your line is better defensively by a very thin margin, and ours has a vast offensive edge with Gardner, a legitimate 2nd-liner, centering a two-time top-20 goalscorer and an important member of an early dynasty. Yours will battle harder and make life tougher for our first line, but they'll be lucky to score more than a goal in this series. Our unit of three defensive players will perform adequately against your first line and be quick to pounce on any mistakes they make.
As I noted, I don't see the gap between Ricci and Gardner offensively as massive in the playoffs. Ricci did show he had some measure of offensive ability in the playoffs in those two decent years- I don't see the offence of our third-line as down the tubes because of Ricci.

However similar March and Goldsworthy are in the regular season, this isn't the regular season, this is the playoffs, and March just plain destroys Goldsworthy offensively in the playoffs. Goldsworthy being a two-time 20 goal scorer is almost meaingless considering he was never able to bring that kind of production to the playoffs.

Being in the HHOF isn't everything- some guys in that era get put in and left out mistakenly, as I think you have argued previously, Not that I am saying Scanalan is an undeserving hall of famer, just saying that Cotton has a lot more evidence to back him up.

Fact is, for their times, Cotton and March were good playoff producers, and Ricci produced well in a couple of playoffs himself. I don't see how you have a "vast offensive edge". Goldsworthy did nothing in playoff production. You said it yourself, Scanalan is not a great offensive player- his resume is still a mystery to me, and likely voters. The only clear offensive edge you have on third lines is at centre, and it's not that big in the playoffs, so I don't see how your offensive edge is vast or how your third-line will score much more than ours.


Last edited by Leafs Forever: 09-03-2009 at 09:10 PM.
Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 08:57 PM
  #21
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
I keep having to refer to this, so I am just going to paste it here.


seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 09:22 PM
  #22
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=seventieslord;20975371]
Quote:
- Himes' ability to play in the playoffs is a question mark, not nonexistant as you've made it out to be. Along with Worters, the guy carried the Americans for years. The numerous quotes about his play show that he was a real dynamo who was too often left doing things himself. McGimsie was not merely a Gilmour/Blachford/Hooper offensively - he led the Manitoba league one year and was a distant 3rd another time. But he's no Himes. Himes was THE man in New York for close to a decade; McGimsie was always playing second banana to Tommy Phillips. His highlights (and they are good highlights) are placing 8th in cup scoring in 1903 (3G, 2 GP) and winning the cup with Kenora briefly in 1907 (1G, 2 GP - Kenora scored 12 goals). He was then replaced by ringers Alf Smith and Rat Westwick for the defense of the title. So yes, he has somewhat of a playoff resume, but it's not very extensive either. Himes has a much longer and more impressive regular season record, and it's not exactly his fault he has no playoff record. Overall, the better offensive player will be Himes, and it's not close. Boiling it down to a simple "playoffs vs. playoffs" comparison doesn't fly.
It is nonexistent- he doesn't have a playoff record as he only played 2 games in the playoffs to my knowledge, therefore a playoff record for him does not really exist. No, it's not Himes fault as I said, but being a playoff question mark is far from a good thing. Sure, Himes was the man in New York, but who challenged him for that role? Reminds me of people saying Sundin is a top-10 Leaf because he was, more or less, THE MAN in Toronto for so long. You say McGimsie playing second banana to Phillips is a bad thing- does anyone on the New York teams Himes played on even come close to Phillips? I doubt it. I suppose the closeness on offense comes down to what your opinion on Himes combination of good reagular season offense with no playoff record to speak of (not his fault, but still).

Quote:
- As for Skinner and Wilson, let's go piece by piece. Regular season stats in top-level leagues: Skinner: 252-113-35-148. Wilson: 342-187-77-264. Note that Wilson got into 92 more top-level games than Skinner, scored 74 more goals and 42 more assists for 116 more points. Per-game, he has the edge too: .55 to .45 in goals, .23 to .14 in assists, and .77 to .59 in points. Wilson was the better regular season scorer and playmaker. Skinner's goal placements were a bit more impressive (very marginally so) but Wilson was the more consistent and productive point producer. In the playoffs, there's no doubt Skinner was an offensive beast. He ended up with 17 goals and 23 points in 30 games, Wilson had 9 goals and 17 points in 26 games. Skinner's playoff resume is based on two excellent years - the 1918 Smythe run, and the 1921 run to the finals. Likewise, Wilson was the leading goalscorer for Toronto (for either team, actually) in the 1914 finals, with 3 in 3 games. (Walker and Foyston each had 4 in total, 2 apiece from the NHA final). In the 1917 playoffs (which for Seattle was just the cup final), Wilson led outright with 4 assists. Walker and Foyston had 2 each. In the 1919 unfinished semifinals, Wilson again outright led Seattle with 4 assists. On Montreal, who played 10 games to Seattle's 7, Pitre led with 6 assists. But strictly in the finals, it was Wilson who led in assists, outright, once again. That makes him a two-time leader of the Stanley Cup finals in assists, and once in goals! So although Skinner has the more important playoff resume, Wilson is still the guy who you can count on to score. It's not all playoffs vs. playoffs!

Now as for toughness, you are taking my educated guess about Skinner, which you are desperate to believe, and running with it. "tough" is a strong word, and should not be thrown around without some sort of anecdotal evidence or extremely high PIM totals. Skinner has neither. He was almost certainly gritty, but Wilson's bad-boy status was legendary. Look at everything I posted in his bio. the guy tangled with everyone, turned opposing crowds against him, levelled Howie Morenz (how'd he catch him, anyway?) and was an all-around pain in the neck to play against. He gives our second line a real intimidating presence, one that your second line lacks. Your line will be dynamite with the puck, but if Skinner is your primary puckwinner, you may be in tough.
I'm not contending who was the tougher of the two- Wilson is, undoubtedly. I think the anecdote you showed was good enough to show Skinner had a fair measure of grit; I'm not too worried of his puckwinner ability.

Wilson was the better regular season scorer, true, but it seems Skinner has the better offensive resume it would seem. I suppose it depends on one's personal evaluation of how much you factor regular season scoring to playoff scoring in comparing players and lines.

Quote:
Your second line has a very minor edge in offense (Harris' edge just slightly outweighs those of Himes and Wilson), it lacks severely in defense (Gagne is an excellent two-way player and Himes also appears to have had a two-way game; none of your guys have a two-way game to speak of) and toughness (Wilson plus two semi-gritty guys vs. a gritty Skinner and two possible powderpuffs). So when your 2nd line gets the puck it may be able to do something with it, but will it get the puck often? Edge: Regina.
I don't think I'd call our offensive edge "very minor". Skinner and Wilson is rather close, and on a whole, the matchups at C and LW depend on how much you value regular season scoring in the playoffs. You seem to a fair amount- not all people do.

I'll concede the defensive and toughness edge (Although I have not seen evidence of Harris and McGimsie being powderpuffs. Not much is written on eithers intangible game, and I though we assumed them to be average in this case).

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 09:23 PM
  #23
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,622
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Dave Babych-Billy Coutu vs Hamby Shore-Fred Lake

I'm assuming that Shore was the more-so the offensive wizard of the pairing while Lake was the more steady stay-at home- guy, although correct me if I should switch how to compare these.

Dave Babych vs Hamby Shore- It kills me to say this, but it seems like Shore might be better all-around. Now, in his bio, you list that he came 7th in playoff scoring, so I ask; was that as a forward, or a defencemen? And who was he competing with in that year? It would go a long way to determine who has the better offensive resume in the playoffs, but it seems like Shore had more success besides that, playing well in numerous cup matches, not that Babych is a slouch, a top-5 in defencemen in playoff goals, top 10 amongst defencemen in assists and points, and numerous top 10's and 5's in regular season scoring amongst defencemen and playing a steadying role for the Canucks when they reached the cup final. Shore also seems to be very tough and good defensively- and although Babych was good two-way in the later stages of his career, that wasn't the case in the earlier stages. Edge Shore, and he should go higher in future drafts.
- First of all, yes, that's correct. Lake was the good cop.

- When Shore was 7th in playoff scoring he was a defenseman, to answer your question. The players ahead of him were HHOFers Bruce Stuart, Marty Walsh, Gord Roberts, Fred Whitcroft, Ernie Russell, and the excellent non-HHOFer Brude Ridpath.

- I can't exactly list out a bunch of "top-5 among defensemen in playoff goals" for Shore and Lake due to the nature of playoffs in their era - generally 2-4 teams had playoff games at all, and they each had 2 defensemen and usually a sub. More often than not, five defensemen wouldn't even get on the scoresheet in these limited games.

What I can tell you, is that Shore's 1905 cup was won against the Phillips-led Rat Portage Thistles, and that his 1910 cup was defended against subpar challengers, but Ottawa was the top team in hockey and he was the top defenseman on that team. How many MLD defenseman can say that?

Let's stop the obsession with playoff figures; it's getting silly. Show me Babych's offensive placements among defensemen in the regular season; I'd like to see how they compare to Shore's 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 6 in a splinter NHA. Shore was tougher and better defensively, too. Babych steadied up later on but was brutal for the first half of his career. You're going to get the average of that, and that ain't good.

This one's not even close. Possibly the top defenseman in the MLD versus an OK #2.

Quote:
Billy Coutu vs Fred Lake- The esscence of who has the better pairing becomes, I think, is the difference between Coutu and Lake larger than the gap between Babych and Shore? Toughness, it seems, is no contest- although Lake seemed to have decent physicality and toughness, it doesn't seem they are near that of Coutu. Offensively, it doesn't seem to be much of a contest either; Coutu seems to have much more in offense credentials in both the regular season and playoffs. Defensive games, I'm not sure of, but it seems Coutu was a bit more known for it. Overall, I think it's a large edge Coutu.

Overall: Two good pairings. Again, I think it comes down to is the gap between Babych and Shore better than that between Coutu and Lake. I would say the gap between Coutu and Lake might be a bit larger, but that might be bias, and I am unsure.
Yes, Coutu is tougher. He was one of the toughest of his time. But I'd be interested in seeing him go up against Shore.

Coutu has better offensive credentials? Why? Because he placed 6th, 9th, and 10th among defensemen in scoring in a 4-team NHL from 1921 to 1923? Lake also played in splintered leagues and placed 3rd & 5th among D-men in his best seasons. That's an edge for Lake. Defensively? Show me something about Coutu being solid. My quotes showed that they made a "tough" and "solid" pairing; and also showed Lake laying out a good hit. He can defend. Can Coutu? Show me!

Coutu is not necessarily better than Lake, and you can't beat this real life chemistry.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 09:35 PM
  #24
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Never said Smaill was tough to gauge, it was the comparison of Smaill to his Tidewater counterpart that was tough.

- How impressive is Smaill's 6 goals in 11 cup games? Semi. He scored 3 in 2 games as a cover-point against a decent Winnipeg team, and then 1 in 2 games in 1909 as a cover-point, then 1 in 2 as a forward in the PCHA, then 1 in 3 as a sub in the 1914 finals.

- You're confusing playoff scoring with regular season scoring by defensemen. Smaill was 8th in playoff scoring in 1908, as a defenseman, which I guess Trump's Gracie's 9th as a forward.

- I'm not sure you knew what you were asking, but to answer your question about Smaill's competition for his 1st and 2nd in ECAHA defense scoring: In 1908 Cyclone led with 9, then Smaill tied with Frank Patrick & Art Ross with 8, then a nobody with 4, McNamara with 3, Pitre with 3, then a bunch of guys with 1 apiece including Pulford and Laviolette. In 1909, Smaill and taylor tied with 9, then Lake with 6, McNamara with 4, McNamara again with 4, Ross with 2, and Laviolette had 1. A few scrubs were mixed in there too, with 1-2 goals.

So yes, it was against excellent, HHOF competition. Make no mistake about the ECAHA/ECHA - It was THE top league! It was the NHA's predecessor and contained all of the same greats who would found the NHA in 1910. Smaill was definitely a more significant offensive player in his time than Gracie was in his - both as a forward and as a defenseman.

For toughness, it's about even. Gracie was peppery and agressive. Smaill was "off colour" and once gooned up Lester Patrick (I didn't put the quote in the bio)

Defensively, I'm inclined to call this even. Smaill was a good defenseman for a number of years and his bio states that although he was never a superstar, he gave great balance in his team play. I see that as a guy who does the little things; the kind of guy you need to win, like Scanlan.
I seem to have misread part of your bio. So now I inquire, what did he do as a forward as far as scoring leaderboards go? The defence seem to be loaded in the league, but I don't know that it was the same for forwards.

"great balance in his team play" doesn't come out right and say "good defensively" as it does for Gracie, however.


Quote:
Golonka crushes Blair in intangibles. the guy was a terror, enough said. He's a hell of a leader and will do whatever it takes for us to win.

Offensively, keep in mind I'm not going around pimping his 14th and 16-place finishes in the Czech league, I'm talking about finishing in the top-6. Something he did 8 times. This was the 1960s, not the 40s. Czech hockey was at a very high level; they were easily the 3rd-best hockey country after Canada and USSR, as shown by their ability to beat them. As for competition level: How does Vaclav Nedomansky sound? Some people have him on their top-100 lists. He dominated the Czech league for ages and his career in the czech league overlaps Golonka's by 5 years. In those 5 years, Golonka was 27-31 and Nedomansky was 20-24. Golonka scored a very respectable 120 goals to Big Ned's 168. He also had Jiri Holik, Jaroslav Jirik, and amazing defenseman Jan Suchy to contend with. This was at a time when the top-10 or so Czech players could have starred in the NHL and he was definitely among them. Internationally, he had to play against many Russian greats, as well as Canadian amateurs, and placed 1st, 3rd, 5th, and 6th in his four best of these highly competitive tournaments. There's no denying his talent.
I figured Nedomansky was a part of things, but he is one man.

I concede the edge to you.

Quote:
Fairbairn's not a bad offensive player at all. Five seasons with 56+ points for a guy who brings a boatload of intangibles, is pretty good. He was even 20th in assists once! Loktev had a bevy of top finishes in the Russian league just as it was getting to the point where their top players were NHL-caliber. It's about even. Fairbairn's a bulldog but lots is said about Loktev's toughness and rough play, too. Defensively, you're right that not much exists on Lokteve, but he was a very strategic player who had a keep ability to analyze a game. they were grooming him to be a coach for years. I contend that you don't have those things said about you unless you have some two-way game. Fairbairn's two-way game, of course, is no guessing game. Overall, these two are too close to call.

In total, a wash at RW leaves us with a major edge for Regina at C and a minor edge at LW, slightly mitigated by the real-life chemistry of Gracie and Blair. But Regina's line is just plain more talented and will be an absolute nightmare to play against
Not sure RW is a wash though with what you stated here. You're calling offense a wash, toughness is close to seemingly, but it again, comes down to the fact the Fairbairns defensive ability is clearly stated- which isn't the case for Loktev.

Two pretty good 4th lines certainly- I'll concede an ovrall edge to Regina, although make no mistake, our 4th line won't be the easiest to play against either.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2009, 09:41 PM
  #25
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 17,947
vCash: 500
Quote:
Defensively? Show me something about Coutu being solid.
Quote:
Cleghorn returned to Montreal to suit up for the Canadiens. Teamed with Billy Coutu, the Canadiens had what was arguably the most feared defensive tandem in hockey at that time.
http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Legen...t=ByYear#photo

Coutu played nearly a decade with the Canadiens, was partnered with Cleghorn on the top pairing, won the Stanley Cup, even captained the Habs for a year right after Cleghorn.

Coutu was a stay at home type, that's why he fit with Cleghorn as a pairing. I read that somewhere. I have never read anything about his stickhandling or puck moving, only about his defensive play.

Everything seemed solid about Coutu's career until he went to the Bruins at age 34 and roughed up Eddie Shore in a preseason hit along the boards and followed coach Art Ross' demand later that season in a playoff game that someone hit a particular referee.

VanIslander 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 12:26 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.