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.