2010 MLD Finals
- Thread starter Dreakmur
- Start date
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
What Might Moose Watson's Stats Have Looked Like If He Was In the NHL?
Moose Watson isn't impossible to compare to NHL players - there are plenty of players of known value, who played between 16 and 61 games as forwards in the SOHA. I basically made a rather simplistic formula that you should all be able to follow, in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about his NHL-level offensive capabilities. Basically, the more games a player played in the SOHA, the more valuable their data becomes and the more it weighs into the final result.
First, Harry Watson scored 84 points in 46 SOHA games for 1.82 PPG. He had 47 in 27 playoff games (including Allan Cup) for 1.74 PPG.
Here are some comparables:
Bert McCaffrey
McCaffrey joined the NHL rather late, and by the time he left, he was among the NHL's oldest players. He was decent enough that he was taken in AAA10. He had a pedestrian 73 points in 260 games, but this was at the ages of 31 to 37, and through the NHL's inagural dead puck era. During the range of his career, Cook and Denneny badly outscored him past age 31, and he tied Frank Fredrickson. His PPG average at the same ages in the same period was similar to Punch Broadbent and Ty Arbour, a very good western player who came over post-merger and didn't have quite the success that Art Gagne did. McCaffrey also had 3 points in 8 playoff games. In the SOHA, McCaffrey played 61 regular season games and 23 playoff games, averaging 1.31 and 1.08 PPG. Conclusion: Watson outscored McCaffrey by 39% and 61% in the OHA, and likely would have done the same in the NHL had he played at those ages.
Shorty Green
Green was not an excellent player, but he had flashes of greatness, particularly in 1925. He has likely found his niche as a 4th line MLD player. In the SOHA he played 16 and 14 games, averaging 2.00 and 2.07 PPG from age 27 to 30. Conclusion: Watson scored at 91% and 84% of Green's rate in the SOHA. Green is, however, the smallest sample size here.
Ernie Parkes
Parkes was an average PCHA player who put up 30 points in 83 games over 3 seasons, and 0 in 17 games at age 27 in the NHL. In the SOHA he had 2.09 and 0.92 PPG in 53 and 12 games. Conclusion: Watson scored at 87% and 189% of Parkes' rate in the SOHA.
Carson Cooper
Carson Cooper's value is well-known. He's an MLD first line winger who was 2nd and 3rd in the NHL in goals. He averaged 2.33 and 1.50 PPG in the SOHA. Conclusion: Watson scored at 78% and 116% of Cooper's rate in the SOHA.
Billy Burch
Burch is a 2nd-4th-line ATD player who won a Hart trophy. He scored 1.95 and 1.50 PPG in the SOHA over 19 and 2 games. Conclusion: Watson scored at 93% and 116% of Burch's rates in the SOHA.
Hap Day
Day is in the ATD because of his time as a defenseman. But he was a very good NHL forward for a few years, too. He had 54 points in 106 games from age 23-25 and 0 points in 2 playoff games. I assume he was a forward in his SOHA days, because he scored 1.45 and 0.87 PPG in 22 and 8 games in the SOHA. Conclusion: Watson scored at 126% and 198% of Day's rate in the SOHA.
Normie Himes
Himes is an average to good 2nd line MLD center. He was a one-man show for the NY Americans from age 23-31 in the NHL, scoring 219 points in 402 games. He scored 0.92 and 1.00 PPG in the SOHA. Conclusion: Watson scored at 198% and 174% of Himes' rates in the SOHA.
Bill Carson
Carson was a very good NHL player for a very short time. In 4 seasons, three of them very low-scoring, he had 78 points in 159 games. He was top-10 in goals twice and then top-10 in assists another year. He had 1.69 and 2.06 PPG in 70 and 16 SOHA games. Conclusion: Watson scored at 108% and 84% of Cooper's rate in the SOHA.
Watson played from age 18 through 27 in the SOHA. (he played very sporadically for 7 more years) We have no comparables from ages 18-21 but we have a minimum of three at each age from 23 through 32, so let's go with those as his ten-year period.
I made a chart with each of these 8 comparables, and the number of adjusted points they scored at each age according to hockey-reference.com. I then multiplied these numbers by Watson's factor (1.16 if he scored at 116% of that player's rate, for example). Then I multiplied those numbers by the total number of SOHA games of that player, so that a guy who played 55 SOHA games would be much more "certain" than a guy who played 16. here are the adjusted point totals I came up with for Watson after shifting by just one year so that his whole career can be stated in NHL terms:
age 23 (19) - 1918: 54
age 24 (20) - 1919: 62
age 25 (21) - 1920: 34
age 26 (22) - 1921: 101
age 27 (23) - 1922: 71
age 28 (24) - 1923: 85
age 29 (25) - 1924: 77
age 30 (26) - 1925: 98
age 31 (27) - 1926: 76
age 32 (28) - 1927: 61
This translates into point totals of about 32, 16, 19, 45, 32, 32, 17, 41, 20, and 14.
Based on these totals it is plausible that perhaps he could have led the NHL in points once and been the top-5 as many as five times; however, due to the timeshifting I did, this is far from certain.
After the NHL's first ten seasons, Watson may have had 268 points in about 263 games. (I used 263 games as this is the most anyone played during that time, and this period represents his ten-year prime and only some of other players' primes)
263 points would have seen him 2nd all-time behind Cy Denneny's 327 points by the end of the 1927 season. His 1.02 PPG average would have been well behind what Malone, Lalonde, and Denneny put up, a bit behind Dye and defenseman Harry Cameron, and slightly ahead of Jack Darragh (weaker HHOFer), Frank Nighbor (very valuable player who was aging and fading offensively), Corb Denneny (strong Odie Cleghorn-like non-HHOF offensive player), and Reg Noble (although this includes three seasons as a defenseman; Noble performed at a Babe Dye clip when he was a forward) - Each one of those players comes with a bit of a disclaimer, but it is still very good company to be in.
A few more caveats:
1. I made the assumption that a 23-32-year old Watson was about as good as an 18-27-year old Watson. Maybe he wasn't.
2. Watson missed a year for the war. This was not accounted for.
3. We know much more about how all those other guys played and this ncreases their value relative to Watson, of whom we know very little. (I bet a google news search would help this)
4. This was complete conjecture based on statistics but based on solid logic. However, Watson never played against the best, and these guys did, so anyone who did close to what he may have done without a "what if" attached, should be valued higher than Watson.
Conclusion: Harry Watson appears to have the talent to play a top line role in the MLD. His playoff numbers were very close to his regular season numbers, and maintained over a large period of time as well. Without more information as to how he played, it would be tough selling him as a 3rd/4th line ATD player, but if he was a tough player or defensive star, I see no reason why he couldn't play in the bottom six there. After all, the guy was named a HHOFer, and unlike some earlier amateurs, his pro contemporaries were of outstanding stature. It is fair to speculate that he was directly compared to them when the HHOF was voting on him just 30 years after he last played.
Moose Watson isn't impossible to compare to NHL players - there are plenty of players of known value, who played between 16 and 61 games as forwards in the SOHA. I basically made a rather simplistic formula that you should all be able to follow, in order to come to a reasonable conclusion about his NHL-level offensive capabilities. Basically, the more games a player played in the SOHA, the more valuable their data becomes and the more it weighs into the final result.
First, Harry Watson scored 84 points in 46 SOHA games for 1.82 PPG. He had 47 in 27 playoff games (including Allan Cup) for 1.74 PPG.
Here are some comparables:
Bert McCaffrey
McCaffrey joined the NHL rather late, and by the time he left, he was among the NHL's oldest players. He was decent enough that he was taken in AAA10. He had a pedestrian 73 points in 260 games, but this was at the ages of 31 to 37, and through the NHL's inagural dead puck era. During the range of his career, Cook and Denneny badly outscored him past age 31, and he tied Frank Fredrickson. His PPG average at the same ages in the same period was similar to Punch Broadbent and Ty Arbour, a very good western player who came over post-merger and didn't have quite the success that Art Gagne did. McCaffrey also had 3 points in 8 playoff games. In the SOHA, McCaffrey played 61 regular season games and 23 playoff games, averaging 1.31 and 1.08 PPG. Conclusion: Watson outscored McCaffrey by 39% and 61% in the OHA, and likely would have done the same in the NHL had he played at those ages.
Shorty Green
Green was not an excellent player, but he had flashes of greatness, particularly in 1925. He has likely found his niche as a 4th line MLD player. In the SOHA he played 16 and 14 games, averaging 2.00 and 2.07 PPG from age 27 to 30. Conclusion: Watson scored at 91% and 84% of Green's rate in the SOHA. Green is, however, the smallest sample size here.
Ernie Parkes
Parkes was an average PCHA player who put up 30 points in 83 games over 3 seasons, and 0 in 17 games at age 27 in the NHL. In the SOHA he had 2.09 and 0.92 PPG in 53 and 12 games. Conclusion: Watson scored at 87% and 189% of Parkes' rate in the SOHA.
Carson Cooper
Carson Cooper's value is well-known. He's an MLD first line winger who was 2nd and 3rd in the NHL in goals. He averaged 2.33 and 1.50 PPG in the SOHA. Conclusion: Watson scored at 78% and 116% of Cooper's rate in the SOHA.
Billy Burch
Burch is a 2nd-4th-line ATD player who won a Hart trophy. He scored 1.95 and 1.50 PPG in the SOHA over 19 and 2 games. Conclusion: Watson scored at 93% and 116% of Burch's rates in the SOHA.
Hap Day
Day is in the ATD because of his time as a defenseman. But he was a very good NHL forward for a few years, too. He had 54 points in 106 games from age 23-25 and 0 points in 2 playoff games. I assume he was a forward in his SOHA days, because he scored 1.45 and 0.87 PPG in 22 and 8 games in the SOHA. Conclusion: Watson scored at 126% and 198% of Day's rate in the SOHA.
Normie Himes
Himes is an average to good 2nd line MLD center. He was a one-man show for the NY Americans from age 23-31 in the NHL, scoring 219 points in 402 games. He scored 0.92 and 1.00 PPG in the SOHA. Conclusion: Watson scored at 198% and 174% of Himes' rates in the SOHA.
Bill Carson
Carson was a very good NHL player for a very short time. In 4 seasons, three of them very low-scoring, he had 78 points in 159 games. He was top-10 in goals twice and then top-10 in assists another year. He had 1.69 and 2.06 PPG in 70 and 16 SOHA games. Conclusion: Watson scored at 108% and 84% of Cooper's rate in the SOHA.
Watson played from age 18 through 27 in the SOHA. (he played very sporadically for 7 more years) We have no comparables from ages 18-21 but we have a minimum of three at each age from 23 through 32, so let's go with those as his ten-year period.
I made a chart with each of these 8 comparables, and the number of adjusted points they scored at each age according to hockey-reference.com. I then multiplied these numbers by Watson's factor (1.16 if he scored at 116% of that player's rate, for example). Then I multiplied those numbers by the total number of SOHA games of that player, so that a guy who played 55 SOHA games would be much more "certain" than a guy who played 16. here are the adjusted point totals I came up with for Watson after shifting by just one year so that his whole career can be stated in NHL terms:
age 23 (19) - 1918: 54
age 24 (20) - 1919: 62
age 25 (21) - 1920: 34
age 26 (22) - 1921: 101
age 27 (23) - 1922: 71
age 28 (24) - 1923: 85
age 29 (25) - 1924: 77
age 30 (26) - 1925: 98
age 31 (27) - 1926: 76
age 32 (28) - 1927: 61
This translates into point totals of about 32, 16, 19, 45, 32, 32, 17, 41, 20, and 14.
Based on these totals it is plausible that perhaps he could have led the NHL in points once and been the top-5 as many as five times; however, due to the timeshifting I did, this is far from certain.
After the NHL's first ten seasons, Watson may have had 268 points in about 263 games. (I used 263 games as this is the most anyone played during that time, and this period represents his ten-year prime and only some of other players' primes)
263 points would have seen him 2nd all-time behind Cy Denneny's 327 points by the end of the 1927 season. His 1.02 PPG average would have been well behind what Malone, Lalonde, and Denneny put up, a bit behind Dye and defenseman Harry Cameron, and slightly ahead of Jack Darragh (weaker HHOFer), Frank Nighbor (very valuable player who was aging and fading offensively), Corb Denneny (strong Odie Cleghorn-like non-HHOF offensive player), and Reg Noble (although this includes three seasons as a defenseman; Noble performed at a Babe Dye clip when he was a forward) - Each one of those players comes with a bit of a disclaimer, but it is still very good company to be in.
A few more caveats:
1. I made the assumption that a 23-32-year old Watson was about as good as an 18-27-year old Watson. Maybe he wasn't.
2. Watson missed a year for the war. This was not accounted for.
3. We know much more about how all those other guys played and this ncreases their value relative to Watson, of whom we know very little. (I bet a google news search would help this)
4. This was complete conjecture based on statistics but based on solid logic. However, Watson never played against the best, and these guys did, so anyone who did close to what he may have done without a "what if" attached, should be valued higher than Watson.
Conclusion: Harry Watson appears to have the talent to play a top line role in the MLD. His playoff numbers were very close to his regular season numbers, and maintained over a large period of time as well. Without more information as to how he played, it would be tough selling him as a 3rd/4th line ATD player, but if he was a tough player or defensive star, I see no reason why he couldn't play in the bottom six there. After all, the guy was named a HHOFer, and unlike some earlier amateurs, his pro contemporaries were of outstanding stature. It is fair to speculate that he was directly compared to them when the HHOF was voting on him just 30 years after he last played.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Plus he was, well, a Moose. He had the intangible quality of physical strength, I mean, isn't it obvious?
He was the 2nd line pivot of the all-HHOF line on our MLD10 championship Oxford Dark Blues.
Hooley Smith goes in the 4th round of the main ATD and yet no one takes a 24th round flyer on the superior player of the two when they played together before Hooley's NHL days????
----------------------
Moose was offered a then staggering $10,000 to play in the NHL in 1924 but he turned it down. Professional sports wasn't the end all and be all in those days, even though that was a pretty sum of cash he was offered (a brand new car, the Ford Model-T, cost only $290 in 1925).
Here is what his contract offer is worth in today's dollars:
$593,000.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$1,570,000.00 using the relative share of GDP
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/
He was the 2nd line pivot of the all-HHOF line on our MLD10 championship Oxford Dark Blues.
Hooley Smith goes in the 4th round of the main ATD and yet no one takes a 24th round flyer on the superior player of the two when they played together before Hooley's NHL days????
----------------------
Moose was offered a then staggering $10,000 to play in the NHL in 1924 but he turned it down. Professional sports wasn't the end all and be all in those days, even though that was a pretty sum of cash he was offered (a brand new car, the Ford Model-T, cost only $290 in 1925).
Here is what his contract offer is worth in today's dollars:
$593,000.00 using the nominal GDP per capita
$1,570,000.00 using the relative share of GDP
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Good point, Hooley SmithB the unquestioned HHOFer, is a useful reference point too.
You are right that his very nickname tells us something about him too, but of course I like to see these things backed upwith quotes. Considering who he played for, and for how long, google news should be a goldmine.
He better go in the main draft next time. I won't hesitate to take him, that's for sure. For that matter, I can only think of about 7 HHOFers who should last to the mld.... ruttan, seibert, maxwell, green, gilmour, hooper, mcgimsie, and maybe two others. I think that for everyone else by now, there is enough info supporting their greatness to at least have them in bottom line roles or as spares.
You are right that his very nickname tells us something about him too, but of course I like to see these things backed upwith quotes. Considering who he played for, and for how long, google news should be a goldmine.
He better go in the main draft next time. I won't hesitate to take him, that's for sure. For that matter, I can only think of about 7 HHOFers who should last to the mld.... ruttan, seibert, maxwell, green, gilmour, hooper, mcgimsie, and maybe two others. I think that for everyone else by now, there is enough info supporting their greatness to at least have them in bottom line roles or as spares.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I think Phat Wilson should last to the MLD too, no? Considering he was an amateur playing in an era when the best in the world were all professionals.
I don't think any HHOFers should last beyond that MLD though.
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
Nothing explicit, but he was fast, could handle the puck well, and was physical:
These three traits usually indicate a defenceman who can kill penalties (Kjell Samuelsson can also be used).
I don't think it's fair to assume a lack of evidence means he was bad at something.
We know he's not a McCabe because he clears pucks off the goal line, not into the goal:
Toronto World, Jan. 8, 1914
"McNamara saved a goal by grabbing the puck with his hand while lying down in front of the goal"
Basically, what we know about him is he could skate really well, was a good puck handler, and was a physical presence no one liked to deal with. While there are guys who match this description (Phaneuf) who are bad defensively, that's the exception, not the norm.
Toronto World, Dec. 8, 1916
"Last year's opposing forwards found themselves confronted by the huge bulk of Howard McNamara"
Toronto World, Jan. 14, 1915
"Howard and George McNamara used their bodies and Percy Leseur was in wonderful form"
"Howard and George McNamara were effective with excellent body checks"
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Honestly, I'm surprised you aren't using Kjell to kill penalties. It does sound like Henderson can handle the 2nd wave of the PK though.
Oh, I didn't mean he was bad. Just that I wouldn't necessarily call him great defensively, either.
Right, I just don't think he's ideal as a shutdown defenseman like his brother would be.
I mean, Keith worked pretty well with Shea Weber in the Olympics, and Shea is another rushing defenseman who is big and physical, so it could work.
I would agree there's no proof he's a shutdown guy. I think a Weber (or Seabrook with offence) type is what he'd be (but a bit better), which has proven to be a good match for Keith's more surgical defense style.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Who was he going to usurp? Certainly not Roberts, Duff, or Ramsay. Possibly Staal, I guess.
Our team was too deep. A lesser team could have easily found room.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Heck, why not a 4th liner with his work ethic? I think of spares more as versatile, , I'd want to see him start. But he could. There are at least 10 4th line LWs that you could easily make a case for Scanlan over.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I view Seabrook as a classic stay at home shut-down defenseman at even strength, who has the skill to get his points on the powerplay - not at all like Weber who I view as more of a rushing defenseman who is also solid defensively (which is what I picture Howard McNamara to be). It's a good pair for a puck possession team, though they could get in trouble on occasion if there's a turnover.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Brooklyn's offense
This may or may not be helpful, but this is a more in depth view of the offense provided by Brooklyn's forwards. I'm using points finishers where available (basically for everyone but Zabrodsky, Maxwell, and one season of Kerr).
I'm listing Top 20 finishes pre-expansion and Top 40 finishes post-expansion. Not that I think the talent pool magically doubled after 1967, but I think that the fact that more players got opportunities on scoring lines increased the "noise," or the likelihood of a guy having a career year and finishing 10-20 in scoring or so. I'm also only using Top 10 finishes for the pre-consolidation leagues for obvious reasons. Also take adjusted points for players who played before 1967 with a huge grain of salt.
Do note that the influx of Euros between the 80s and 90s probably effectively doubled the talent pool.
Line 1
Dennis Hextall (NHL 1968-80). 9th, 19th, 31st in points. 487 adjusted points in 681 games.
Vladimir Zabrodsky (Czech 1945-65). 1st in league goals 5 times. 158 goals in 93 national team games.
Eddie Wiseman (NHL 1932-42). 8th, 13th, 18th, 19th, 20th in points. 550 adjusted points over 10 seasons.
Line 2
Dubbie Kerr (half leagues 1908-1920). 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 7th, 8th in points. Details: (ECHA 1908-09). 5th in goals. (NHA 1909-12). 2nd, 5th in points. (PCHA 1913-1920). 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th in points.
Dutch Reibel (NHL 1953-59). 4th, 7th, 8th in points. 346 adjusted points over 6 seasons.
Todd Bertuzzi (NHL 1995-2010). 3rd, 5th, 35th in points. 776 adjusted points in 941 games.
Line 3
Jay Pandolfo (NHL 1996-2010). Best season: 33 adjusted points. 249 adjusted points in 819 games
Ron Sutter (NHL 1983-2001). Best season: 51 adjusted points. 506 adjusted points in 1093 games
Rich Preston (WHA 1974-79, NHL 1979-87). Best NHL season: 56 adjusted points. 250 adjusted points in 580 NHL games. Given the lesser competition in the WHA, his offense is pretty equivalent to his NHL days, except for the one playoffs when he won the playoff MVP.
Line 4
Steamer Maxwell (1909-1915 amateur leagues). 21 goals in 37 games as a rover.
Charlie Sands (NHL 1932-1944). Best season: 57 adjusted points. 386 adjusted points over 10 full seasons.
Keith Crowder (NHL 1980-1990). 25th in points. 430 adjusted points in 662 games.
Notes and observations
-Hextall's scoring was likely deflated by playing for an awful team in the incredibly imbalanced 70s. Regardless, his offensive peak was Bertuzzi short.
-Wiseman's offense spiked the year after he was traded to Boston (right before being a key to their Cup victory), but he produced at a lower but steady rate for quite some time.
-Dubbie Kerr looks even better than I thought here. If anybody goes the "third scoring line" root in an ATD, he'd fit right in.
-You can see just how short but spectacular the peaks of Reibel and Bertuzzi were. I didn't check for Reibel, but Bert does have a couple of 40th-60th place finishes I didn't include.
-Adjusted points makes Pandolfo look less pathetic than raw point totals would indicate. Remember also the recent discussion on the HOH board about how a large percentage of the increased offense in the 1980s was because the grinders were scoring more. So adjusted points might still underestimate Pandolfo compared to his linemates. Maybe he isn't that much worse than them offensively.
-Charlie Sands is the perfect example of where points paint a different picture of a player than looking at his goals and assists finishes. He was Top 10 in goals twice and Top 10 in assists once (in different seasons), but never Top 20 in scoring. Luckily, he does have some checking ability, so he isn't out of place here.
-Crowder was injury-prone during the regular season, which is a big reason his point totals are so low (also, he was mostly a fighter and PP scorer).
-I have no idea how to put Steamer Maxwell's offense in context. At first glance, it isn't very impressive.
=I'd like to do something similar with Florida, but I don't have detailed scoring info for a lot of the early era players. I can do it for the NHLers though.
This may or may not be helpful, but this is a more in depth view of the offense provided by Brooklyn's forwards. I'm using points finishers where available (basically for everyone but Zabrodsky, Maxwell, and one season of Kerr).
I'm listing Top 20 finishes pre-expansion and Top 40 finishes post-expansion. Not that I think the talent pool magically doubled after 1967, but I think that the fact that more players got opportunities on scoring lines increased the "noise," or the likelihood of a guy having a career year and finishing 10-20 in scoring or so. I'm also only using Top 10 finishes for the pre-consolidation leagues for obvious reasons. Also take adjusted points for players who played before 1967 with a huge grain of salt.
Do note that the influx of Euros between the 80s and 90s probably effectively doubled the talent pool.
Line 1
Dennis Hextall (NHL 1968-80). 9th, 19th, 31st in points. 487 adjusted points in 681 games.
Vladimir Zabrodsky (Czech 1945-65). 1st in league goals 5 times. 158 goals in 93 national team games.
Eddie Wiseman (NHL 1932-42). 8th, 13th, 18th, 19th, 20th in points. 550 adjusted points over 10 seasons.
Line 2
Dubbie Kerr (half leagues 1908-1920). 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 7th, 8th in points. Details: (ECHA 1908-09). 5th in goals. (NHA 1909-12). 2nd, 5th in points. (PCHA 1913-1920). 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 8th in points.
Dutch Reibel (NHL 1953-59). 4th, 7th, 8th in points. 346 adjusted points over 6 seasons.
Todd Bertuzzi (NHL 1995-2010). 3rd, 5th, 35th in points. 776 adjusted points in 941 games.
Line 3
Jay Pandolfo (NHL 1996-2010). Best season: 33 adjusted points. 249 adjusted points in 819 games
Ron Sutter (NHL 1983-2001). Best season: 51 adjusted points. 506 adjusted points in 1093 games
Rich Preston (WHA 1974-79, NHL 1979-87). Best NHL season: 56 adjusted points. 250 adjusted points in 580 NHL games. Given the lesser competition in the WHA, his offense is pretty equivalent to his NHL days, except for the one playoffs when he won the playoff MVP.
Line 4
Steamer Maxwell (1909-1915 amateur leagues). 21 goals in 37 games as a rover.
Charlie Sands (NHL 1932-1944). Best season: 57 adjusted points. 386 adjusted points over 10 full seasons.
Keith Crowder (NHL 1980-1990). 25th in points. 430 adjusted points in 662 games.
Notes and observations
-Hextall's scoring was likely deflated by playing for an awful team in the incredibly imbalanced 70s. Regardless, his offensive peak was Bertuzzi short.
-Wiseman's offense spiked the year after he was traded to Boston (right before being a key to their Cup victory), but he produced at a lower but steady rate for quite some time.
-Dubbie Kerr looks even better than I thought here. If anybody goes the "third scoring line" root in an ATD, he'd fit right in.
-You can see just how short but spectacular the peaks of Reibel and Bertuzzi were. I didn't check for Reibel, but Bert does have a couple of 40th-60th place finishes I didn't include.
-Adjusted points makes Pandolfo look less pathetic than raw point totals would indicate. Remember also the recent discussion on the HOH board about how a large percentage of the increased offense in the 1980s was because the grinders were scoring more. So adjusted points might still underestimate Pandolfo compared to his linemates. Maybe he isn't that much worse than them offensively.
-Charlie Sands is the perfect example of where points paint a different picture of a player than looking at his goals and assists finishes. He was Top 10 in goals twice and Top 10 in assists once (in different seasons), but never Top 20 in scoring. Luckily, he does have some checking ability, so he isn't out of place here.
-Crowder was injury-prone during the regular season, which is a big reason his point totals are so low (also, he was mostly a fighter and PP scorer).
-I have no idea how to put Steamer Maxwell's offense in context. At first glance, it isn't very impressive.
=I'd like to do something similar with Florida, but I don't have detailed scoring info for a lot of the early era players. I can do it for the NHLers though.
I will get to this tomorrow and examine the offensive finishes of my players as well.
Very true; The Weber comparison is definitely the better one in terms of style of play. I meant the Seabrook thing in the sense both Seabrook and McNamara would rely upon hitting as their main defensive approach (although McNamara wasn't as chippy as Seabrook).TheDevilMadeMe said:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
You're probably right about Wilson, at least now, without semi-conclusive evidence that can put his amateur greatness into context. It's too bad, too, because with forwards you can just compare their offense to known reference points and that tells you a lot of the story since that is their primary function. With defensemen, how do you conclusively say what percentage as good as, say, Sprague Cleghorn or King Clancy or Georges Boucher, Phat Wilson was?
Overall gameplan: Florida's style is to possess the puck as much as possible and skate it into the zone rather than dump it
Line 1: Marc Tardif (A) - Craig Janney - Dolly Swift
The primary offense line. Swift and Tardif are the goal scorers with Janney working as the set up man. When pucks need to be won, Tardif can adequately fill the role and he also provides the grit on the line. Swift's job in addition to scoring is to carry the puck in using his skills as a rover.
Robert McDougall - Paul Haynes - Bruce Ridpath
The auxiliary offense. The key combo here is McDougall's goal-scoring ability with Haynes' passing ability. Ridpath functions as a forechecking annoyance. Haynes brings a defensive presence. Admittedly there's not a ton of info on the non-offensive aspects of McDougall and Ridpath, but McDougall seems to have had a bit of a chippy game.
Moose Watson - Bob Gracie - Joe Lamb
This line is a mix of styles; Watson's offence, Gracie's defense, and Lamb's toughness. Gracie and Lamb both had 1 top ten finish and Watson seems to provide a very good level of offense for the MLD (based on seventie's great post). This line is probably most valuable in road games where they can pick up slack for lines being checked. Gracie can serve as the playmaker to Watson' offense with Lamb providing a net presence on offence.
Stan Jonathan - Samuel Pahlsson - Anders Kallur
The checking line. Pahlsson and Kallur are both playoff tested checkers augmented by Jonathan's toughness and "hard work". The ice time of this line varies, with it probably serving in icetime as the 3rd line when it's possible to get matchups.
Howard McNamara (C) - Duncan Keith
The big minute defence pairing. They're one of the few aspects that have been discussed at length so far in the series. Both are great at moving and rushing the puck, while greatly helps Florida's attacking, rushing style. On defense, McNamara hits while Keith plays a more finesse defensive style.
Haldor Halderson - Kjell Samuelsson
Halderson is the puck-moving element on this pairing and is paired with stay-at-home, solid Samuelsson. Halderson himself can play physical and isn't bad defensively.
Miroslav Dvorak - Phat Wilson (A)
A lesser version of the 2nd pairing with Wilson playing the puck moving role and Dvorak the defensive stay at home game. The final two pairs help to ensure there's not a huge dropoff of puck rushing game when the top pair is off.
Bill Ranford
A decent MLD goaltender who on the top of his game can compete with anyone.
PP1: Marc Tardif - Craig Janney - Dolly Swift - Howard McNamara - Duncan Keith
A barrage style PP. Tardif would be the slot presence, Janney the set up the guy in the middle of the zone, and McNamara and Keith quarterbacking from the line.
PP2: Robert McDougall - Paul Haynes - Joe Lamb - Haldor Halderson - Phat Wilson
The point men work the same as line 1. This unit has more grit in front of the net in Lamb and McDougall. The style on this unit is probably to crash the net after the rebound from a point shot, although Haynes can work as a set up guy to Lamb and McDougall patrolling the sides of the net.
PK1: Samuel Pahlsson - Anders Kallur - Howard McNamara - Duncan Keith
A classical style of penalty killing of trying to limit shots and wait for a chance to clear. McNamara will handle clearing the front of the net.
PK2: Bob Gracie - Paul Haynes - Miroslav Dvorak - Kjell Samuelsson
A PK unit more likely to be aggressive up front with the offensive talent of Gracie and Haynes.
Line 1: Marc Tardif (A) - Craig Janney - Dolly Swift
The primary offense line. Swift and Tardif are the goal scorers with Janney working as the set up man. When pucks need to be won, Tardif can adequately fill the role and he also provides the grit on the line. Swift's job in addition to scoring is to carry the puck in using his skills as a rover.
Robert McDougall - Paul Haynes - Bruce Ridpath
The auxiliary offense. The key combo here is McDougall's goal-scoring ability with Haynes' passing ability. Ridpath functions as a forechecking annoyance. Haynes brings a defensive presence. Admittedly there's not a ton of info on the non-offensive aspects of McDougall and Ridpath, but McDougall seems to have had a bit of a chippy game.
Moose Watson - Bob Gracie - Joe Lamb
This line is a mix of styles; Watson's offence, Gracie's defense, and Lamb's toughness. Gracie and Lamb both had 1 top ten finish and Watson seems to provide a very good level of offense for the MLD (based on seventie's great post). This line is probably most valuable in road games where they can pick up slack for lines being checked. Gracie can serve as the playmaker to Watson' offense with Lamb providing a net presence on offence.
Stan Jonathan - Samuel Pahlsson - Anders Kallur
The checking line. Pahlsson and Kallur are both playoff tested checkers augmented by Jonathan's toughness and "hard work". The ice time of this line varies, with it probably serving in icetime as the 3rd line when it's possible to get matchups.
Howard McNamara (C) - Duncan Keith
The big minute defence pairing. They're one of the few aspects that have been discussed at length so far in the series. Both are great at moving and rushing the puck, while greatly helps Florida's attacking, rushing style. On defense, McNamara hits while Keith plays a more finesse defensive style.
Haldor Halderson - Kjell Samuelsson
Halderson is the puck-moving element on this pairing and is paired with stay-at-home, solid Samuelsson. Halderson himself can play physical and isn't bad defensively.
Miroslav Dvorak - Phat Wilson (A)
A lesser version of the 2nd pairing with Wilson playing the puck moving role and Dvorak the defensive stay at home game. The final two pairs help to ensure there's not a huge dropoff of puck rushing game when the top pair is off.
Bill Ranford
A decent MLD goaltender who on the top of his game can compete with anyone.
PP1: Marc Tardif - Craig Janney - Dolly Swift - Howard McNamara - Duncan Keith
A barrage style PP. Tardif would be the slot presence, Janney the set up the guy in the middle of the zone, and McNamara and Keith quarterbacking from the line.
PP2: Robert McDougall - Paul Haynes - Joe Lamb - Haldor Halderson - Phat Wilson
The point men work the same as line 1. This unit has more grit in front of the net in Lamb and McDougall. The style on this unit is probably to crash the net after the rebound from a point shot, although Haynes can work as a set up guy to Lamb and McDougall patrolling the sides of the net.
PK1: Samuel Pahlsson - Anders Kallur - Howard McNamara - Duncan Keith
A classical style of penalty killing of trying to limit shots and wait for a chance to clear. McNamara will handle clearing the front of the net.
PK2: Bob Gracie - Paul Haynes - Miroslav Dvorak - Kjell Samuelsson
A PK unit more likely to be aggressive up front with the offensive talent of Gracie and Haynes.
Offensive analysis using Top 20 finishes pre-expansion and Top 40 finishes post-expansion for the NHL, top 3 for pre-1900 and top 10th between 1900 and 1911):
Tardif (NHL 1969-1973, 1979-1983; WHA 1973-1979)
Using the equivalent of a WHA point being worth 0.70 NHL points:
~4th 77-78 ~8th 75-76, ~22 76-77
Equivalent goals:
~5th 75-76, ~5th 77-78
Janney (NHL 1987-1999)
Points: 14th 90-91, 16th 92-93, 21st 91-92, 31st 93-94, 29th 95-96
Assists: 5th 92-93, 6th 93-94, 7th 91-92, 9th 90-91
Best season adjusted points: 93
774 AJP in 760 GP
Swift (AHAC 1887-1899)
1st 1887, 2nd 1893, 1st 1894, T3rd 1895, 2nd 1896
Haynes (1930-1941):
Points: 4th (32-33), 9th (38-39), 13th (37-38)
Assists: 2nd (38-39), 3rd (32-33), 7th (35-36), 7th (37-38)
Best season adjusted points: 96 points
414 AJP in 391 GP
McDougall (AHAC):
T3rd 1895, 1st 1896, 3rd 1898
Ridpath (OPHL 1906-1909; NHA 1909-1911)
4th 1911, 10th 1910
Gracie (1930-1939)
7th 36-37
Best season adjusted points: 79
413 AJP in 379 GP
Lamb (1927-1938)
9th 29-30
Best season adjusted points: 117 (very questionable)
519 AJP in 443 GP
Watson
Pahlsson (2000-2010)
Best season adjusted points: 28
184 AJP in 636 GP
Kallur (1979-1985)
Best season adjusted points: 53
180 AJP in 383 Gp
Jonathan (1976-1983)
Best season adjusted points: 49
178 AJP in 411 GP
I included the AJP because TDMM did as well for a consistent comparison, but the pre-expansion results seems very off to me.
Tardif (NHL 1969-1973, 1979-1983; WHA 1973-1979)
Using the equivalent of a WHA point being worth 0.70 NHL points:
~4th 77-78 ~8th 75-76, ~22 76-77
Equivalent goals:
~5th 75-76, ~5th 77-78
Janney (NHL 1987-1999)
Points: 14th 90-91, 16th 92-93, 21st 91-92, 31st 93-94, 29th 95-96
Assists: 5th 92-93, 6th 93-94, 7th 91-92, 9th 90-91
Best season adjusted points: 93
774 AJP in 760 GP
Swift (AHAC 1887-1899)
1st 1887, 2nd 1893, 1st 1894, T3rd 1895, 2nd 1896
Haynes (1930-1941):
Points: 4th (32-33), 9th (38-39), 13th (37-38)
Assists: 2nd (38-39), 3rd (32-33), 7th (35-36), 7th (37-38)
Best season adjusted points: 96 points
414 AJP in 391 GP
McDougall (AHAC):
T3rd 1895, 1st 1896, 3rd 1898
Ridpath (OPHL 1906-1909; NHA 1909-1911)
4th 1911, 10th 1910
Gracie (1930-1939)
7th 36-37
Best season adjusted points: 79
413 AJP in 379 GP
Lamb (1927-1938)
9th 29-30
Best season adjusted points: 117 (very questionable)
519 AJP in 443 GP
Watson
Pahlsson (2000-2010)
Best season adjusted points: 28
184 AJP in 636 GP
Kallur (1979-1985)
Best season adjusted points: 53
180 AJP in 383 Gp
Jonathan (1976-1983)
Best season adjusted points: 49
178 AJP in 411 GP
I included the AJP because TDMM did as well for a consistent comparison, but the pre-expansion results seems very off to me.
This depends on how one views the WHA, but the overall offense advantage would seem to go to Tardif
Very different players as one is a sniper, the other a playmaker. I would think Janney has the edge due to leagues.
The 1st 1887 doesn't mean alot so it can be relatively ignored. A matchup between a star 1890s player and a 2nd tier offensive player of the 1930's NHL. Wiseman faced a better level of comp, but Swift had much better results. I think this is a slight edge to Swift, but as always when comparing leagues, very interpretive.
Line 2
Definitely an edge to Kerr.
Reibel has slightly better finishes (a 13th vs a 8th), but Haynes was a better play maker (Reibel finished 4th, 5th, and 6th).
If the good Bertuzzi shows up, an edge to Brooklyn
If we use seventie's post as rough idea of Watson's ability, he should have a clear edge in this department (although figuring out Maxwell's points isn't easy either)
Edge to Gracie
Edge Lamb
I'm not going to do the checking lines because that's not their primarily purpose and neither are anything special (Brooklyn has a slight edge)
Conclusion:
Overall, it seems Florida's top line is better than Brooklyn's, Brooklyn's 2nd line is better than Florida's and Florida has the better depth offense.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I was hoping to have more time to discuss the teams and was waiting for Hedberg to respond earlier in the week before going into a detailed discussion. If voting is right now, I obviously don't have time though.
Anyway, here's a quick post since voting is apparently suddenly upon us.
Why Brooklyn should win
-1. Better goaltending
I was hoping to get into this in much more detail, but I think Kiprusoff is the 2nd best goaltender in the MLD after Riley Hern, and Ranford is a pretty mediocre starter. Ranford had two amazing runs at very important times, resulting in a Conn Smythe and an MVP of the Canada Cup. But his year to year consistency just isn't there at all - he spent much of his career as a below average starter in a relatively large league. Which Ranford are we going to get?
See my previous two series for detailed pimping of Kiprusoff.
If the deadline is extended, I will focus on this one.
-2. Better coaching
-Pilous > Patrick and Robinson makes it even better. Robinson, in particular, should get the most out of skilled defensemen like Redmond (who never received particularly good coaching in the NHL, I believe) and Olausson (who didn't have a good coach until Bowman in the twilight of his career, I believe).
3. Better shut down ability from the forwards
Brooklyn's 3rd line might = Florida's 4th line offensively, but their defensive credentials as a whole are much stronger.
This is the other thing I was hoping to get into more detail before voting.
Brooklyn's 4th line also has solid decent defensive credentials, with Crowder and Sands noted for their two-way play and Maxwell a rover. Hedberg's comparisons above (which I don't have time to respond to now) didn't mention the defensive edge that Brooklyn's 4th line has over his 3rd line.
Why Florida might win
1. Offense spread throughout the lineup
-3 strong offensive lines (1-3), at least one of which has a strong defensive presence in Haynes. This could create matchup problems for Brooklyn, which has 2 dedicated scoring lines and 2 dedicated checking lines (with the Brooklyn 3rd line obviously more lockdown than the 4th).
-4 of the defensmen provide a good amount of offense and puck possession ability from the backend.
-Counter-argument: Brooklyn's "2nd line" is a good deal better offensively than the Florida counterpart, mainly due to Dubbie Kerr. Is it comparable to Florida's 1st line?
2. Very strong first defense pair
I think pairs 2 and 3 are pretty equal.
Florida has the best top pair. I think Rochefort is the best stay at home defenseman and Redmond the best offensive defenseman in the series. But Keith/McNamara can control the play at both ends of the rink.
Anyway, here's a quick post since voting is apparently suddenly upon us.
Why Brooklyn should win
-1. Better goaltending
I was hoping to get into this in much more detail, but I think Kiprusoff is the 2nd best goaltender in the MLD after Riley Hern, and Ranford is a pretty mediocre starter. Ranford had two amazing runs at very important times, resulting in a Conn Smythe and an MVP of the Canada Cup. But his year to year consistency just isn't there at all - he spent much of his career as a below average starter in a relatively large league. Which Ranford are we going to get?
See my previous two series for detailed pimping of Kiprusoff.
If the deadline is extended, I will focus on this one.
-2. Better coaching
-Pilous > Patrick and Robinson makes it even better. Robinson, in particular, should get the most out of skilled defensemen like Redmond (who never received particularly good coaching in the NHL, I believe) and Olausson (who didn't have a good coach until Bowman in the twilight of his career, I believe).
3. Better shut down ability from the forwards
Brooklyn's 3rd line might = Florida's 4th line offensively, but their defensive credentials as a whole are much stronger.
This is the other thing I was hoping to get into more detail before voting.
Brooklyn's 4th line also has solid decent defensive credentials, with Crowder and Sands noted for their two-way play and Maxwell a rover. Hedberg's comparisons above (which I don't have time to respond to now) didn't mention the defensive edge that Brooklyn's 4th line has over his 3rd line.
Why Florida might win
1. Offense spread throughout the lineup
-3 strong offensive lines (1-3), at least one of which has a strong defensive presence in Haynes. This could create matchup problems for Brooklyn, which has 2 dedicated scoring lines and 2 dedicated checking lines (with the Brooklyn 3rd line obviously more lockdown than the 4th).
-4 of the defensmen provide a good amount of offense and puck possession ability from the backend.
-Counter-argument: Brooklyn's "2nd line" is a good deal better offensively than the Florida counterpart, mainly due to Dubbie Kerr. Is it comparable to Florida's 1st line?
2. Very strong first defense pair
I think pairs 2 and 3 are pretty equal.
Florida has the best top pair. I think Rochefort is the best stay at home defenseman and Redmond the best offensive defenseman in the series. But Keith/McNamara can control the play at both ends of the rink.
Last edited:
Sorry about that. Outside of exams, this was pretty much the worst possible time of the year for me to do this
Yes; that was pretty much a purely offensive overview. Different philosophies up front obviously, with you going with two checking lines and we went with 1 checking line and a supplementary scoring line.
It's definitely the better line in your top 6, but at this point it would be getting less ice time. It would narrow the gap if it saw first line minutes, but I'm not sure the Brooklyns "1st line" is that much better than Florida's 2nd.
To add to this, I think home ice is important in a series as close as this one as the more favourable matchups should allow Florida to maximize it's time with the puck and ability to generate chances. Ideally, the Pahlsson line would match up against Kerr-Reibel-Bertuzzi and the Janney line against Zabrodsky's line. This should limit Brooklyn's offense in the up to four games on Florida ice.
Evaluating goalies is probably the most frustrating part of the ATD/MLD because the position is so variable that questions like these are impossible to answer. Playing the odds, Kiprusoff should play better (although he'll probably face more shots), but 90 Ranford could show up (or 2010 Olympic Kiprusoff
).
I think special teams will factor in somewhat, and I like that matchup from our perspective. Another thing that hasn't been talked about much is each team's grittiness/toughness. While neither squad will be mistaken as the BSB (no, not the Backstreet Boys, don't get too excited ) or even the '07 Ducks, I think having someone like Jonathan in the lineup helps our cause in that respect.
) or even the '07 Ducks, I think having someone like Jonathan in the lineup helps our cause in that respect.
Considering the stage, I'd wager that we'd see the good Ranford. Despite his issues at times with consistency, the guy played his best when it counted. With this being the finals, I'd expect nothing less than the Conn Smythe caliber Ranford...I might still give the advantage to Kipper, but I personally think it's pretty close.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I don't have time to respond to everything now, but why would it get less ice time than the first line? Teams roll with 1A and 1B lines all the time and that's basically how the Brooklyn team was constructed from the start. Also coaches often give more ice time to the "hot line.
Anyway, good luck.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I think special teams will factor in somewhat, and I like that matchup from our perspective. Another thing that hasn't been talked about much is each team's grittiness/toughness. While neither squad will be mistaken as the BSB (no, not the Backstreet Boys, don't get too excited
Crowder and Bertuzzi can both hold their own against Jonathan, I would think.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
GAME 3 - Baie-Comeau Drakkar @ Drummondville Voltigeurs - Drummondville Voltigeurs leads series 2-0Wagers: 4Staked: $259.00Event closes- Updated:
-
GAME 3 - London Knights @ Oshawa Generals - London Knights leads series 2-0Wagers: 2Staked: $125.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 5 Carolina Hurricanes @ New York Rangers - NYR leads series 3-1Wagers: 6Staked: $2,018.00Event closes- Updated: