The MLD 2013 CHAMPIONSHIP FINAL: Regina Capitals vs. Cornell Big Red
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Post your special teams, any of your extra skaters you might want to sub-in in this series or any other information.
The format of the first post is standardized for easy, clean, equal comparison, both teams viewable without having to scroll down.
The first seed versus first seed, the regular season divisional champs meet in the Final.
Let's have a good series!
The format of the first post is standardized for easy, clean, equal comparison, both teams viewable without having to scroll down.
The first seed versus first seed, the regular season divisional champs meet in the Final.
Let's have a good series!
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Best of luck. I'll be back to put in my best effort.
I've never lost an MLD semifinal, but never won a final.
lost MLD 10 to VI
lost MLD 11 to LF
lost MLD 2011 to TDMM
*shakes fist*
I've never lost an MLD semifinal, but never won a final.
lost MLD 10 to VI
lost MLD 11 to LF
lost MLD 2011 to TDMM
*shakes fist*
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
I've won it all twice (with co-GMs Hockey Outsider and later Nalyd Psycho) but never by myself.
Look forward to it!
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
The Trade:
To Regina: rounds 3,4,5,6
To Cornell: rounds 1,2,10, 11
To Regina: rounds 3,4,5,6
To Cornell: rounds 1,2,10, 11
To Regina: Paul Shmyr, Pete Peeters, Dave Ellett, Bill Hay
To Cornell: Roger Crozier, Rick Meagher, Jimmy Peters, Randy Gregg
1st team all-star Shmyr, 2nd team all-star Peeters + two others
for
1st team all-star Crozier, 1st team all-star Peters + two others.
A win-win trade it seems. Pretty balanced, as it turned out.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I'll start by pointing out a few areas where I see definite edges for Regina:
- 1st line center. Gus Bodnar is a guy I'm honestly surprised to see on a MLD first line, and that his team won its division and got to the finals must be a testament to the rest of the lineup. Bodnar didn't really bring much to the table besides offense, and his top 6 percentage scores add up to 375 after WW2 adjustment: 20 points behind my 2nd line center, Bill Hay. (Hay, of course, brought a lot more to the table than offense). As for my first line center, Janney's best 6 scores total 440. It may surprise a few to see this, but I readily admit Janney is just an average 1st line MLD center. I had 5 firmly ahead of him in this thing. But I had Bodnar ahead of only Giroux and Reay. Of course, in the playoffs, Janney is a proven poing producer, with 110 in 120 games. No amount of era adjustment can apologize for Bodnar's 7 in 32 games.
- At 2nd line center, I think Raleigh is decent, mainly because he's almost an identical player to Bodnar which means he's going to be a better 2nd liner than Bodnar is a 1st liner. But he is no Bill Hay. He wasn't as strong a producer as Hay, and he did not have as good an all-around game as Hay did, either. He had one great playoff, but ultimately got into just 18 playoff games. Hay's playoff resume lacks that single season peak but is a ton more fleshed out with 67 games of solid contributions to a strong team.
- 1st line glue guy. As in, my opponent doesn't have one. Crowder is a wrecking ball who hits everything that moves, and will win pucks like it's going out of style. Who will do that for Cornell? Romnes? I'm not feeling it.
- 2nd line offensive winger. I don't think comparing Lala/Lebedev or Gilmour/Smith is fair as they have opposite roles, from the looks of things. I'd rather not concern myself with the impossible task of comparing Lebedev and Gilmour, the requisite grinders with weak offensive resumes. Smith vs. Lala is not much easier; however, with Lala being potentially a decent ATD 2nd liner, and Smith having the offensive resume of a pretty underwhelming MLD 2nd liner (best percentage scores are 100- in the weak FAHL - 76, 70, 62) I would be comfortable giving the underrated Lala a solid edge here.
- 3rd line center. Meagher is a very good defensive player and won a Selke. However, given the rave reviews Ridley earned throughout his 12-year career for his performances against the opposition's best players, I'm not sure how much better Meagher is defensively. Offensively, Ridley was obviously far superior. Both are excellent "little things" guys. Seriously, read what was written about Ridley throughout his career. He can play on an ATD 4th line because he won't hurt you offensively like a Rick Meagher will.
- 3rd line LW. Jack Marks is a great "little things" type of player. He's also got some size and physicality. A few drafts ago I compared his offensive upside to that of a Kirk Maltby and that still looks accurate. Picture a bigger, more physical Maltby. So, he'll be an effective 3rd liner, no doubt. But Maloney was all that and more. These last two comparisons are perfect case studies of the difference in philosophy VI and I often have. He likes "pure" role players, while I don't want to limit myself, when I can get players who can play that role while also making the opposition pay with some goals.
- 3rd pairings: Kasparaitis and Gregg are simply lesser versions of their Regina counterparts.
Gregg, a defensive specialist, compares to Johnsson. Although Johnsson accomplished much more offensively, that's not really the way to judge them. Gregg was a top-3 defenseman just 4 times (2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd) and his team was never successful defensively, whether he was in a higher role or not (9th, 11th, 12th, 13th defensively when he was). Johnsson, on the other hand, was a #1 defenseman six times, and when he was a #1/1a, his teams were elite at keeping the puck out of the net: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th in his best 5 years. Johnsson is far more accomplished defensively.
Manson was every bit as effective physically as Kasparaitis and could take the other team off their game just as well, though more through intimidation than agitation. But, here's the thing: he could really play. He lasted 240 more NHL games than Kasparaitis (and 29 more in the playoffs), playing 3 more minutes per game in that time. Although he could be "wild" defensively, so could Kasparaitis. Both were outstanding open ice hitters and both could get caught running around as a result. Manson was a much better skater and fighter. Seven times Manson had more points in a season than Kasparaitis' career high of 23. He was his team's #1 defenseman four times, something Kasparaitis never did. And he was in two all-star games. Kasparaitis was a role player, Manson was a role player and so much more.
Interestingly even players and lines:
3rd line RWs: Charlie Sands and Jimmy Peters seem practically identical. Their offensive resumes read almost exactly the same: Their best 6 percentage scores add up to 325 and 327. Defensively, there's reason to believe Peters is a tad better. But both are guys who are mentioned in passing as pretty good defensively, not raved about like a Murph Chamberlain. Overall, you have to go with Peters for lasting longer in the NHL, playing almost double the playoff games and having a slightly better established defensive game.
4th lines: Kindrachuk and Clement are very similar players in value, with Clement having more defensive value and Kindrachuk having more offensive value. Peplinski is a bigger Sutter with better offense. Konowalchuk is a less-talented Khristich but he had no "off button" like Dmitri did. Overall there's not much to choose there.
Captain and #1 defenseman: I think Shmyr and Munro are practically even from a skill set perspective. Elite leaders, hitters and (correct me if I'm wrong on Munro) fighters. Both led an underdog team all the way, though Munro actually won the cup when he did. Shmyr did have a lot more offensive upside, though. If it wasn't for Munro's peak at 7th in Hart voting, when he was potentially also a 2nd team all-star, I'd question what made him better than Shmyr at all.
Goalies: I know Crozier has become an MLD sacred cow here in recent weeks, but Peeters has a practically identical resume and, in some ways, even better.
- Both Peeters and Crozier have a deserved 1st all-star team nod.
- In Peeters' case, he was actually 2nd in MVP voting. Crozier finished a decent 4th.
- Both have their peak season backed up by some decent other seasons. Crozier was 3rd in voting (79 points), 5th (13 pts) and 6th (7 pts). Peeters was 4th (39 pts), 4th (15 pts), 5th (22 pts) and 5th (18 pts). He was also 10th in 1988, which wouldn't be worth mentioning except that he had 12 voting points in a year with incredible vote-splitting behind Fuhr, who had 46 more points than the rest of the top-10 combined.
- Both got to a Stanley Cup Final as a starter.
- They lasted in the NHL for approximately equal career durations
- Peeters played in an era with longer playoffs, so his 71 career games are approximately equal to Crozier's 32.
- Both did not have very strong individual playoff numbers on the aggregate. Peeters averaged 6 sv% points below the league average, Crozier 8 points below.
Ways in which they are different:
- Crozier won a deserved Smythe. Peeters did not win or deserve one, though he was solid in 1980.
- Peeters had solid sv% numbers his entire career, finishing top-10 four times for three different teams. His career average was 9 points above the league average. Crozier actually averaged 2 points below the league average. That's an 11 point swing, which is actually quite large.
- I've done extensive bios for each of them and Crozier seems to have been more popular. Towards the end of Peeters' career (not the part of his career he should be judged on, mind you) it appears that he had an "act" that the league was finally figuring out. Whether that's true, I don't know. I just typed what I read.
- 1st line center. Gus Bodnar is a guy I'm honestly surprised to see on a MLD first line, and that his team won its division and got to the finals must be a testament to the rest of the lineup. Bodnar didn't really bring much to the table besides offense, and his top 6 percentage scores add up to 375 after WW2 adjustment: 20 points behind my 2nd line center, Bill Hay. (Hay, of course, brought a lot more to the table than offense). As for my first line center, Janney's best 6 scores total 440. It may surprise a few to see this, but I readily admit Janney is just an average 1st line MLD center. I had 5 firmly ahead of him in this thing. But I had Bodnar ahead of only Giroux and Reay. Of course, in the playoffs, Janney is a proven poing producer, with 110 in 120 games. No amount of era adjustment can apologize for Bodnar's 7 in 32 games.
- At 2nd line center, I think Raleigh is decent, mainly because he's almost an identical player to Bodnar which means he's going to be a better 2nd liner than Bodnar is a 1st liner. But he is no Bill Hay. He wasn't as strong a producer as Hay, and he did not have as good an all-around game as Hay did, either. He had one great playoff, but ultimately got into just 18 playoff games. Hay's playoff resume lacks that single season peak but is a ton more fleshed out with 67 games of solid contributions to a strong team.
- 1st line glue guy. As in, my opponent doesn't have one. Crowder is a wrecking ball who hits everything that moves, and will win pucks like it's going out of style. Who will do that for Cornell? Romnes? I'm not feeling it.
- 2nd line offensive winger. I don't think comparing Lala/Lebedev or Gilmour/Smith is fair as they have opposite roles, from the looks of things. I'd rather not concern myself with the impossible task of comparing Lebedev and Gilmour, the requisite grinders with weak offensive resumes. Smith vs. Lala is not much easier; however, with Lala being potentially a decent ATD 2nd liner, and Smith having the offensive resume of a pretty underwhelming MLD 2nd liner (best percentage scores are 100- in the weak FAHL - 76, 70, 62) I would be comfortable giving the underrated Lala a solid edge here.
- 3rd line center. Meagher is a very good defensive player and won a Selke. However, given the rave reviews Ridley earned throughout his 12-year career for his performances against the opposition's best players, I'm not sure how much better Meagher is defensively. Offensively, Ridley was obviously far superior. Both are excellent "little things" guys. Seriously, read what was written about Ridley throughout his career. He can play on an ATD 4th line because he won't hurt you offensively like a Rick Meagher will.
- 3rd line LW. Jack Marks is a great "little things" type of player. He's also got some size and physicality. A few drafts ago I compared his offensive upside to that of a Kirk Maltby and that still looks accurate. Picture a bigger, more physical Maltby. So, he'll be an effective 3rd liner, no doubt. But Maloney was all that and more. These last two comparisons are perfect case studies of the difference in philosophy VI and I often have. He likes "pure" role players, while I don't want to limit myself, when I can get players who can play that role while also making the opposition pay with some goals.
- 3rd pairings: Kasparaitis and Gregg are simply lesser versions of their Regina counterparts.
Gregg, a defensive specialist, compares to Johnsson. Although Johnsson accomplished much more offensively, that's not really the way to judge them. Gregg was a top-3 defenseman just 4 times (2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd) and his team was never successful defensively, whether he was in a higher role or not (9th, 11th, 12th, 13th defensively when he was). Johnsson, on the other hand, was a #1 defenseman six times, and when he was a #1/1a, his teams were elite at keeping the puck out of the net: 1st, 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th in his best 5 years. Johnsson is far more accomplished defensively.
Manson was every bit as effective physically as Kasparaitis and could take the other team off their game just as well, though more through intimidation than agitation. But, here's the thing: he could really play. He lasted 240 more NHL games than Kasparaitis (and 29 more in the playoffs), playing 3 more minutes per game in that time. Although he could be "wild" defensively, so could Kasparaitis. Both were outstanding open ice hitters and both could get caught running around as a result. Manson was a much better skater and fighter. Seven times Manson had more points in a season than Kasparaitis' career high of 23. He was his team's #1 defenseman four times, something Kasparaitis never did. And he was in two all-star games. Kasparaitis was a role player, Manson was a role player and so much more.
Interestingly even players and lines:
3rd line RWs: Charlie Sands and Jimmy Peters seem practically identical. Their offensive resumes read almost exactly the same: Their best 6 percentage scores add up to 325 and 327. Defensively, there's reason to believe Peters is a tad better. But both are guys who are mentioned in passing as pretty good defensively, not raved about like a Murph Chamberlain. Overall, you have to go with Peters for lasting longer in the NHL, playing almost double the playoff games and having a slightly better established defensive game.
4th lines: Kindrachuk and Clement are very similar players in value, with Clement having more defensive value and Kindrachuk having more offensive value. Peplinski is a bigger Sutter with better offense. Konowalchuk is a less-talented Khristich but he had no "off button" like Dmitri did. Overall there's not much to choose there.
Captain and #1 defenseman: I think Shmyr and Munro are practically even from a skill set perspective. Elite leaders, hitters and (correct me if I'm wrong on Munro) fighters. Both led an underdog team all the way, though Munro actually won the cup when he did. Shmyr did have a lot more offensive upside, though. If it wasn't for Munro's peak at 7th in Hart voting, when he was potentially also a 2nd team all-star, I'd question what made him better than Shmyr at all.
Goalies: I know Crozier has become an MLD sacred cow here in recent weeks, but Peeters has a practically identical resume and, in some ways, even better.
- Both Peeters and Crozier have a deserved 1st all-star team nod.
- In Peeters' case, he was actually 2nd in MVP voting. Crozier finished a decent 4th.
- Both have their peak season backed up by some decent other seasons. Crozier was 3rd in voting (79 points), 5th (13 pts) and 6th (7 pts). Peeters was 4th (39 pts), 4th (15 pts), 5th (22 pts) and 5th (18 pts). He was also 10th in 1988, which wouldn't be worth mentioning except that he had 12 voting points in a year with incredible vote-splitting behind Fuhr, who had 46 more points than the rest of the top-10 combined.
- Both got to a Stanley Cup Final as a starter.
- They lasted in the NHL for approximately equal career durations
- Peeters played in an era with longer playoffs, so his 71 career games are approximately equal to Crozier's 32.
- Both did not have very strong individual playoff numbers on the aggregate. Peeters averaged 6 sv% points below the league average, Crozier 8 points below.
Ways in which they are different:
- Crozier won a deserved Smythe. Peeters did not win or deserve one, though he was solid in 1980.
- Peeters had solid sv% numbers his entire career, finishing top-10 four times for three different teams. His career average was 9 points above the league average. Crozier actually averaged 2 points below the league average. That's an 11 point swing, which is actually quite large.
- I've done extensive bios for each of them and Crozier seems to have been more popular. Towards the end of Peeters' career (not the part of his career he should be judged on, mind you) it appears that he had an "act" that the league was finally figuring out. Whether that's true, I don't know. I just typed what I read.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
jkrx
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2010
- 4,337
- 21
The same could be said about Droz. Next year we could see a good AAA first line consisting of Droz and Giroux because thats where they both belong.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
jkrx
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2010
- 4,337
- 21
I could potentionally see him on a MLD 4th line as a PP specialist. He wasn't the MVP in soviet and it baffles me to this day how he was voted as such. Even if we acknowledge it, it's still a bit like a Jose Theodore award. We are talking about a player that no SEL team wanted as a 32 year old. He was lazy and living on his teammates against tougher opposition but could light it up big time with his speed and puck control versus lesser resistance.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
You think that because he apparently didn't give a crap about playing in a second rate league (which the SEL was by that point - the best Swedes were already coming to the NHL) after basically being banished from his homeland, it takes away from what he did in the Soviet league?
I mean, trash him all you want for his play after he was banished from the Soviet league, but if he kept up his level of play that he had in the Soviet league, he'd be an ATDer.
jkrx
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2010
- 4,337
- 21
He contacted several SEL teams after being banished and he had to settle for less than a second rate league (Swedish Div. 2) which is basically amateur level.
What he did in the Soviet league? You mean excel at being an secondary scorer on the most stacked team in the league? Look at what he did in tournaments where there were actually good opponents (Canada Cup or '82 WC). You do realize that his best season just happens to coincide with the dip of talent in the soviet league. Both Kaspustin and Balderis had seen their best seasons. The next generation of great soviets were still young and Nikolai Drozdetskys biggest competition for scoring titles were players on his own team.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
And I'm sure you don't believe it should be a sweep, so you must strongly disagree with some of those assessments! Let's go!
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
By the way, of course I don't think this should be a sweep. In real life, the better team doesn't always win, and in real life one team is often better than the other at most positions (which I think is the case) and that hardly means a sweep is in the cards. The better team could win in 4, 5, 6, or 7... or even lose.
Anyway, I'm rambing because I'm getting bored. LETS GO!!!
Anyway, I'm rambing because I'm getting bored. LETS GO!!!
Say Hey Kid
MI retired Nick Saban
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I thought Lala was a viable 2nd liner in a 40 team draft.
Lala' short career is the only reason I wouldn't really want him as a 2nd liner in a 32 team draft. Still, he'd be a great spare for a team with an injury-prone scoring RW.
I'm also not sure what makes Mogilny better, but that might just be me thinking that Mogilny is overrated.
Lala' short career is the only reason I wouldn't really want him as a 2nd liner in a 32 team draft. Still, he'd be a great spare for a team with an injury-prone scoring RW.
I'm also not sure what makes Mogilny better, but that might just be me thinking that Mogilny is overrated.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Seventies, any information on why Lala dropped off the face of the earth after his 5 year stretch as a top 5 player in Europe?
By the way, the "undrafted Czech" from the quote of mine in your profile on the Izvestia Golden Stick Trophy voting is Jiri Kralik
Also, perhaps it is interesting that the Golden Stick voters favored 4 Soviets in 1984 over "Soviet Player of the Year" Drozdetzsky
By the way, the "undrafted Czech" from the quote of mine in your profile on the Izvestia Golden Stick Trophy voting is Jiri Kralik
Also, perhaps it is interesting that the Golden Stick voters favored 4 Soviets in 1984 over "Soviet Player of the Year" Drozdetzsky
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
jeez, so sensitive! I'm not criticizing you. (For being silent for 6 days, I was critical of myself both publicly and privately, though.)
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Well, let's put it this way. I think Lala is likely the best offensive RW in this draft. He's a scoring line or bust type player so he wouldn't be a 4th or 3rd liner in most cases. If one guy could jump up to an ATD 2nd liner from here, it would be him (IMO). To be an ATD 2nd liner there would only have to be one ATD 2nd line RW that he would have to displace. I wouldn't go after a "glue guy" unless he was so grossly unqualified for the role (like a Vic Hadfield type) but surely there's gotta be an ATD 2nd liner out there that's relatively one-dimensional and doesn't have an offensive resume that wows you? I'm cerrtainly not selling Lala as an average 2nd liner, but there's gotta be at least one guy he could displace.
If I'm incorrect, then we've successfully segregated all RWs of history into their proper drawers. ATDers over there, and MLDers over here, and all the ones in that drawer are better than all the ones in this drawer. I know that day's gotta come eventually, but I didn't think we've quite gotten there.
Good question. I don't have an answer. Some guys have shorter primes. If he didn't, I don't think I'd be answering why I think he's a passable ATD 2nd liner right now.
Not surprising. Different voters, and voting on different games. I guess it's a little surprising, because he did lead that team in goals and points in the Olympics but likely wasn't seen as the engine of the team at the international level. Then again, why was he seen as the engine of the Moscow team? Makarov killed him in points. It's a weird anomaly. It was probably undeserved, to be honest. But he must have been doing something to be "in the mix" at least.
jkrx
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2010
- 4,337
- 21
I said this earlier. He has a good '84 but he was still a second liner who got some time on the first PP unit.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
KNOCKOUT Rochester Knighthawks @ Toronto Rock (Hamilton)Wagers: 2Staked: $400.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 4 Florida Panthers @ Tampa Bay Lightning - Florida leads series 3-0Wagers: 9Staked: $5,851.00Event closes- Updated:
-
