Red Fisher Conference Semi Finals (1) Edmonton Oilers vs (1) Worcester Railers

[ImporterExporter]

@ResilientBeast @VanIslander feel free to post rosters starting now.

Click to read more...

 

[ResilientBeast]

Coach: Toe Blake

Patrik Elias (A) --- Cyclone Taylor --- Charlie Conacher
Sweeney Schriner --- Norm Ullman --- Cecil Dillon
Ed Sandford --- Cooney Weiland --- Corey Perry
Tony Leswick--- Derek Sanderson --- Ron Stewart

Ivan Johnson --- Doug Harvey (A)
Ebbie Goodfellow (C) --- Cy Wentworth
Bobby Rowe --- Art Duncan (A)

Hugh Lehman
Hap Holmes

Extra: Jack Adams (LW), Art Chapman (C), Bruce MacGregor (RW/C), Viktor Kuzkin (D)

PP1: Schriner - Ullman - Conacher - Taylor - Harvey
PP2: Elias - Weiland - Perry - Goodfellow - Duncan
PK1: Sanderson- Dillon - Johnson - Harvey
PK2: Leswick - Stewart - Goodfellow - Wentworth
PK3: Weiland - Elias​

Estimated Minutes Per Game, Forwards

​

Player	ES	PP	PK	Total
Cyclone Taylor	15	5	0	20
Charlie Conacher	15	5	0	20
Patrik Elias	15	2	0	17
Norm Ullman	14	5	0	19
Cecil Dillon	14	0	4	18
Sweeny Schriner	14	5	0	19
Cooney Weiland	10	2	0	12
Corey Perry	10	2	0	12
Ed Sandford	7	0	0	7
Derek Sanderson	7	0	4	11
Ron Stewart	7	0	3	10
Tony Leswick	10	0	3	13
Totals	138	26	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

*Notes* Taylor is playing the point on my first power play unit. Leswick is playing on our dedicated checking line but will see heavy time as a shadow against top right wings.

​

Estimated Minutes Per Game, Defensemen

Player	ES	PP	PK	Total
Doug Harvey	18	5	4	27
Ivan Johnson	18	0	4	22
Ebbie Goodfellow	16	2	3	21
Cy Wentworth	16	0	3	19
Art Duncan	12	2	0	14
Bobby Rowe	12	0	0	12
Totals	92	9	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

​

 

[VanIslander]

Worcester Railers
coach Viktor Tikhonov
incessant skating, puckhandling, playmaking & shots
associate coach Roger Neilson​

Reg Noble - Elmer Lach (A) - Guy Lafleur
Herbie Lewis - Doug Gilmour (C) - Marian Hossa
John Tonelli - Marty Walsh - Ziggy Palffy
Camille Henry - Ryan Kesler - Ernie Russell
Milan Novy, Vsevolod Bobrov​

Zdeno Chara (A) - Earl Seibert
Herb Gardiner - Doug Wilson
Bert Corbeau - Brent Burns
Pat "Boxcar" Egan

Terry Sawchuk
Rogie Vachon
​

PP1: Henry - Lach - Lafleur - Chara - Wilson
PP2: Lewis - Gilmour - Hossa - Seibert - Burns
PK1: Gilmour - Kesler - Gardiner - Seibert - Sawchuk
PK2: Lach - Lewis - Chara - Wilson - Sawchuk

COACHING STRATEGY: The Railers have a hard-working bunch, with a defensive-minded center, creative right winger and puck-wielding defenseman on every shift, utilizing the strategy of rolling four lines (though of course the top lines jump the bench more often), as per the Tikhonov way, with each left winger renowned for their ability to get into opportunistic scoring positions by the crease. The squad is to maintain a relentless pace and focus on puck possession and puck recovery, with a lot of shots on net by blueliners and freedom to experiment by wingers. Tikhonov didn't stifle the on-ice creativity of his stars, like Balderis, Makarov, Krutov and Fetisov - quite the opposite - he has the reputation for getting the most out of his players and letting creativity reign as long as pivots backchecked and passing lanes were maintained (I'm confident he'll use associate coach Captain Video and his savvy scouting and NHL rules usage to the team's advantage more often than not, giving insight to Lafleur, Hossa, Palffy and Russell on the tactics of opposing goalies and tendencies of defensemen that they can capitalize on in their creative surges) . This is not dump-and-chase hockey, though a lot of shots on net will result in a lot of rebounds and deflections to corners for forechecking; as well, corner work will help dmen counter dumps by the opposition in the Worcester end of the ice (Lach, Gilmour and Tonelli are highly praised cornermen).

 

[ResilientBeast]

This should be an interesting test for the Oilers, the Railers have maybe the best offensive player in the series in Lafleur but the Oilers have the next 3 best players.

Taylor >>> Lach
Elias > Noble
Conacher < Lafleur

Ullman >= Gilmour
Schriner >>> Lewis
Dillon =< Hossa

In terms of offence using VsX

Lach - 86.1
Lalfeur - 104.5
Noble - ? (in my research I've never been impressed with his offence)

Total - 190.6 + Noble

Taylor - 100ish with my fudge
Conacher - 96.2
Elias - 78.9

Total - 196.2 (without Elias) 275.1 with him.

I don't think Noble is better than Elias offensively, so first line offense is probably a clear advantage for Edmonton

Gilmour - 82
Lewis - 75
Hossa - 82.4

Total - 239.4

Ullman - 89.5
Schiner - 91.3
Dillon - 78.1

Total - 258.9

In raw offence the Oilers posses the two best offensive players on a second line and gives Edmonton a ~20ish points advantage in VsX on a second line.

 

[ResilientBeast]

We also posses a strong group of wingers on the left side to chase Lafleur in Elias and Lesiwck and they will likely be Blake's choice to handle the Flower.

On defence the Oilers have the best D on either team in Harvey

Harvey >> Seibert
Johnson < Chara
Goodfellow > Wilson
Wentworth =< Gardiner

The biggest gap is IMO between our #1s

In top 4s I think I have the advantage. My top 3 D is incredibly strong featuring the second best D of all time and 2 #2s which your team can't quite match.

Compairing bottom pairs is quite difficult but as a 5 Burns looks quite solid.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Sawchuk is without a doubt the better goalie especially in the playoffs.

My defence is constructed to hopefully minimize the risk of dangerous shots with quite possibly the strongest shutdown pair in Johnson and Harvey who will likely be Blake's choice to handle the Railers top line.

And a second pair with an excellent two way guy in Goodfellow and noted excellent defensive D for his time in Wentworth.

In a vacuum the Railers goaltending is a large advantage, but when reviewing my team as a whole I think I've done the best one can do to minimize the risk with an excellent defensive top 4 and good two way players filling in up front.

 

[Dreakmur]

Noble - ? (in my research I've never been impressed with his offence)

It's bad... really bad for a 1st liner, even as a glue guy. I forget the exact number, but his 7 season vs. x score was just above 60. I'll calculate it again if you care about the exact number.

Taylor - 100ish with my fudge.

And without the arbitrarily added points?

 

[ResilientBeast]

It's bad... really bad for a 1st liner, even as a glue guy. I forget the exact number, but his 7 season vs. x score was just above 60. I'll calculate it again if you care about the exact number.



And without the arbitrarily added points?

The definition of arbitrary
"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

It's not random and it's not personal whim, so it's not particularly "arbitrary"

I don't have it handy, but it would be 3-4 points lower if I recall.

Appendicitis is a non hockey related issue that with modern medicine wouldn't have been nearly as severe and he managed to outdo that season the preceding and following two seasons.

On top of the scores from only age 28 to 34 being accounted for, missing likely several strong seasons when he was on defence. There is no way to account for his seasons spent on D. I think that score is far close to representative of Taylor's offensive capabilities

2x 2nd in NHA Points Among Defensemen
2nd in ECAHA Points Among Defensemen, 06-07
3rd in ECAHA Points Among Defensemen, 07-08

 

[Dreakmur]

The definition of arbitrary
"based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system."

It's not random and it's not personal whim, so it's not particularly "arbitrary"

Arbitrary has several different definitions.

Appendicitis is a non hockey related issue that with modern medicine wouldn't have been nearly as severe and he managed to outdo that season the preceding and following two seasons.

That doesn't mean you arbitrarily add numbers to his resume.

2x 2nd in NHA Points Among Defensemen
2nd in ECAHA Points Among Defensemen, 06-07
3rd in ECAHA Points Among Defensemen, 07-08

Add those to his total. Don't just make stuff up.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Arbitrary has several different definitions.



That doesn't mean you arbitrarily add numbers to his resume.



Add those to his total. Don't just make stuff up.

By all means take what you will from the numbers, I've been fairly transparent about it if you read the bio. People can ascribe what value they will to them, like with other PPG based measures and comparisons.

You've made it plenty clear in the past that you are not particularly impressed with Taylor in a historical context on the basis of the unadjusted numbers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He shouldnt make up numbers, but we shouldn't necessarily use 7 years as the standard for pre-1926 player. 7 years was picked as the VsX standard, as it was considered a normal length for the prime of a post-consolidation, pre-expansion player.

 

[ResilientBeast]

He shouldnt make up numbers, but we shouldn't necessarily use 7 years as the standard for pre-1926 player. 7 years was picked as the VsX standard, as it was considered a normal length for the prime of a post-consolidation, pre-expansion player.

I "made up" a number that reflected his PPG at the time and resulted in him being 3rd in scoring when condensed. A season he outdid the season before and the season following. The issue was not hockey related, and was done because the standard method of Vs2 severely undervalued his offensive production.

Here are his numbers for 4, 5 and 6 seasons excluding the appendicitis season. Take whatever value you will from these

These season only count the PCHA

His best 4 years (appendicitis year doesn't even make it) - 468.19 - 117.04
His best 5 years (excluding the appendicitis year) - 563.36 - 112.672
His best 6 years (excluding the appendicitis year) - 615.92 - 102.65

If my math is accurate his appendicitis year would result in a score of 67 unadjusted which is good enough to bump a worse finish down. Using that

4 years - Unchanged
5 years - Unchanged
6 years - 630.36 (his disappointing first year gets bumped) - 105.06
7 years - 682.92 - 97.56

So for 7 years the adjustment shifts his Vs2 up ~3-5

 

[VanIslander]

Lach's PPG VsX is better than Petr Forsberg's 7-year peak!

Ullman is better than Gilmour? (Gawd, is it too late to drop "Killer"?)

Noble was the NHL leader in career assists when he retired (and we know how underreported assists were, so that fact should bolster not shoo away his impressive career stats).

RB, Dreaks and TDMM... "uncle!"

 

[ResilientBeast]

Lach's PPG VsX is better than Petr Forsberg's 7-year peak!
Ullman is better than Gilmour?
Noble was the NHL leader in career assists when he retired (and we know how underreported assists were, so that fact should bolster not shoo away his impressive career stats).
RB, Dreaks and TDMM... "uncle!"

I would say Ullman is better than Gilmour from a career perspective.

Noble, per Eagle Belfour's old bio has points finishes

Top-10 Scoring (3rd, 6th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 8th) all in a split league which isn't particularly impressive.

By all means keep cherry picking things to try invalidate statistical comparisons

 

[VanIslander]

I would say Ullman is better than Gilmour from a career perspective.

Gilmour was listed ahead of Crosby, Esposito and every forward my team faces this round in the HfBoards HOH project Stanley Cup performers project.

You of course can say what you want.... they are at best equal... please don't be flippant about your judgements here.

Let's not posture, and instead talk about hockey history and facts of the matter.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Gilmour was listed ahead of Crosby, Esposito and every forward my team faces this round in the HfBoards HOH project Stanley Cup performers project.

And? You win by default then?

Doug Harvey is ahead of every other player in this series, (that was why you said forward)

Norm Ullman lead the playoffs in scoring twice
Cecil Dillon did it once
Charlie Conacher did it once
Cooney Weiland did it twice

Just because they didn't make the list doesn't mean they aren't still excellent playoff performers

 

[ResilientBeast]

Gilmour was listed ahead of Crosby, Esposito and every forward my team faces this round in the HfBoards HOH project Stanley Cup performers project.
You of course can say what you want.... they are at best equal... please don't be flippant about your judgements here.
Let's not posture, and instead talk about hockey history and facts of the matter.

How are they at best equal?

Ullman is better offensively, was likely weaker defensively but it's hard to say for sure.

If we're comparing using the HOH lists (which is a terrible way to do this) Ullman is 7 spots ahead of Gilmour in the centers project

 

[VanIslander]

1. Defense wins championships.
2. I cited Gilmour's better HOH ranking in the Stanley Cup performers project, you in the regular season project. Er,... given the context, my saying they are about equal is kinda generous.

 

[BlueBull]

Gilmour was listed ahead of Crosby, Esposito and every forward my team faces this round in the HfBoards HOH project Stanley Cup performers project.
You of course can say what you want.... they are at best equal... please don't be flippant about your judgements here.
Let's not posture, and instead talk about hockey history and facts of the matter.

since when did i say that?

 

[ResilientBeast]

1. Defense wins championships.
2. I cited Gilmour's better HOH ranking in the Stanley Cup performers project, you in the regular season project. Er,... given the context, my saying they are about equal is kinda generous.

Doug Harvey is the 6th best playoff performer of all time according to that list

Reducing it down to just the HOH playoff list doesn't seem like something you'd do VanI

Additionally those lists (positionally) were for the players career not exclusively playoffs or regular season to my knowledge. Can anyone confirm?

 

[VanIslander]

RB, you know well that my 'defense wins championship' was part of my reply to your idea that Ullman is better than Gilmour in everything but defense. I cited the HOH ranking of Gilmour as among the greatest playoff performers ever as a shorthand reference to a lot of people's opinion that Gilmour was not less than Ullman in playoff prowess. I wasn't being reductive, just didn't have time to do much more than provide some evidence that your opinion was far from universal.

And citing Harvey would outright silliness if I was uncharitable and thought your reference to someone who plays less than 50% of the ice time was evidence of a better defense when the goalie plays 100% of the minutes and the Railers have a clearly better goalie (to wit, a better playoff goalie).

I haven't enjoyed writing a single thing in this post, but felt the frustrated need to reply to some argumentative tactics. It's Thursday night here. I'll be back on Friday night or Saturday morning, and hope to take a fresh and historically-reflective look at the series.

Before I go.... There are historical references to Seibert as equal to Shore but less flashy, not getting the Hart trophy votes but being the only defenseman other than Harvey to have ten consecutive 1st/2nd team all-star selections. So, if Seibert=Shore (or at least close if one isn't just Hart trophy counting) and Shore=Harvey (or at least close, given the long history of their relative equalness in the eyes of ATDers) then there is no huge gap between underrated Seibert and Harvey. But why make individual player comparisons like this when defensemen play as a pairing and Seibert with Chara is clearly at least as strong as Harvey with Johnson. I see no competitive advantage with the 1st pairings!!

 

[ResilientBeast]

RB, you know well that my 'defense wins championship' was part of my reply to your idea that Ullman is better than Gilmour in everything but defense. I cited the HOH ranking of Gilmour as among the greatest playoff performers ever as a shorthand reference to a lot of people's opinion that Gilmour was not less than Ullman in playoff prowess. I wasn't being reductive, just didn't have time to do much more than provide some evidence that your opinion was far from universal.
And citing Harvey would outright silliness if I was uncharitable and thought your reference to someone who plays less than 50% of the ice time was evidence of a better defense when the goalie plays 100% of the minutes and the Railers have a clearly better goalie (to wit, a better playoff goalie).
I haven't enjoyed writing a single thing in this post, but felt the frustrated need to reply to some argumentative tactics. It's Thursday night here. I'll be back on Friday night or Saturday morning, and hope to take a fresh and historically-reflective look at the series.
Before I go.... There are historical references to Seibert as equal to Shore but less flashy, not getting the Hart trophy votes but being the only defenseman other than Harvey to have ten consecutive 1st/2nd team all-star selections. So, if Seibert=Shore (or at least close if one isn't just Hart trophy counting) and Shore=Harvey (or at least close, given the long history of their relative equalness in the eyes of ATDers) then there is no huge gap between underrated Seibert and Harvey. But why make individual player comparisons like this when defensemen play as a pairing and Seibert with Chara is clearly at least as strong as Harvey with Johnson. I see no competitive advantage with the 1st pairings!!

1) No I didn't my apologies
2) I'm sorry I can't get behind Siebert = Shore at all, there are a few quotes I found in seventies bio from last year. You're suggesting that (using the HOH list as a quick reference) that the 17th best D is actually equal to the 3/4 best D of all time? That is lunancy, I'm sure I could find enough quotes favorably comparing my players to give them a boost to. (Taylor, Johnson, for sure). On top of that Shore is not even on the HOHPO list, so if that becomes your shorthand barometer there is still no way Seibert is even close to Harvey.
3) Yes defence should be compared as a pairing, but when one member of my pairing is substantial better and the other not that much worse it matters.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Why does VanI's quotation of RB's post in post #15 has BlueBull's name?