AAA 2015 championship final: Regina Amber Alerts vs. Selkirk Fishermen
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
SPECIAL TEAMS
Regina Amber Alerts
PP1: Brunette - Jokinen - Lamb - Driver - Douglas
PP2: Grant - Reichel - O'Neill - Manson - Brydge
PK1: Dahlstrom - Keane - Marsh - Hannan
PK2: Boll - Maki - Manson - Brydge
vs.
Selkirk Fishermen
PP1: Payne - Breen - McDougall - Hedman - Wilson
PP2: Sorrell - Reibel - A. Golikov - Whitcroft - Plumb
PK1: Duchesne - Carpenter - Green - Bowman
PK2: Arvedson - V.Golikov - Hedman - Wilson
Regina Amber Alerts
PP1: Brunette - Jokinen - Lamb - Driver - Douglas
PP2: Grant - Reichel - O'Neill - Manson - Brydge
PK1: Dahlstrom - Keane - Marsh - Hannan
PK2: Boll - Maki - Manson - Brydge
vs.
Selkirk Fishermen
PP1: Payne - Breen - McDougall - Hedman - Wilson
PP2: Sorrell - Reibel - A. Golikov - Whitcroft - Plumb
PK1: Duchesne - Carpenter - Green - Bowman
PK2: Arvedson - V.Golikov - Hedman - Wilson
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
The format was standardized for equal comparison's sake, as per tradition.
Let's have a good series.
Let's have a good series.
To begin with, I'm wondering about Regina's defence. There's no doubt that they were all good value picks, but the end result doesn't seem the most mobile group.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Well, I guess I'll start with this.
This is not my most mobile defense group ever, but to be honest I am not sure what makes it any slower than yours. Marsh is a slug of course, but Driver was a very smooth skater and Manson could move as well. There's not much on Douglas, but he was more talented physically than mentally, and was an offensive oriented player so in all likelihood he could skate too. Brydge is a mystery, Hannan is average.
Hedman skates well, Whitcroft does too but isn't a defenseman (right?) and the other four, to my knowledge, don't have a wealth of information available on their skating ability.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
The first line comparison is one that's nearly impossible to make in two cases out of three. At left wing, Sorrell appears to be a better option than Brunette as an overall offensive producer. Their adjusted scoring is about the same, but Sorrell was a better goal scorer and I'd take the older player 10 times out of 10 if the scores are similar. He's also got a better playoff record. Breen is definitely a very strong scorer, but so is Jokinen. Jokinen is actually embarrassingly ahead of all other NHL players in this draft in terms of peak offense; Breen was often comparable to Billy McGimsie, which tells us very little. My gut tells me they're close to even but I'm more comfortable with a guy who's a demonstrably better scorer than his available peers in this draft. on the right side it's a matter of offense versus a glue guy. Lamb is nothing special offensively for a first liner, but he can hold his own while making room for his linemates, who have negligible intangibles. In the end, which line you like better is going to come down to how much you value a true physical/tough presence on a scoring line. If you don't, then take Selkirk's pure offense line. If you do, then Lamb ensures that Regina's line will function more efficiently. Breen and McDougall have maybe two quotes between them indicating any level of toughness or defense; I would not be comfortable with them carrying the load for the line in these areas.
Second lines: Our more offensive oriented wingers are both very qualified for this draft and among the best here. Golikov is a guy I've championed the last few years, and Grant is a proven NHL scorer. The equivalency study I did for the USSR league indicates they are in the same range as scorers, and both have little in the way of scale-tipping intangibles. I'd call them even. Reichel vs. Reibel is a matter of peak vs. consistency. Reibel had one season better than Reichel ever had, and that was 1955, when he was 7th in scoring (vsX score of 89), and seemingly even outperformed Howe. Not only that, but in that season he scored 0.93 PPG playing with players who averaged 0.61 themselves. In his other two seasons he had a VsX score of about 70, similar to Reichel's second best. But in these two seasons he averaged 0.69 PPG with players who averaged 0.84. From 1993-1999, a period that covers Reichel's five best NHL seasons, he was scoring at a rate of 62-83% of the 2nd highest scorer in the league, and he wasn't a passenger, either - he averaged 0.90 PPG playing with players who scored 0.69 themselves. That's six years of sustained play almost as good, but not quite as good, as Reibel did for one season, and better than Reibel ever did again. Neither is a scale-tipping intangible player. This should be a decisive victory for Reichel. Finally, we have the glue guys, O'Neill and Payne. One guy was a wrecking ball on the ice, we all remember him. The other was "big" and "difficult to move". I read up on Payne a lot, and couldn't find a single mention of him being a good defensive player, or tough, or physical. He is not a believable glue guy on the basis of having good size. He should not be expected to carry that kind of load for a line, and that's what Selkirk is asking of him. Offensively, O'Neill was about 12% better as a prime producer, and since i'm aware he benefited from Ron Francis in Carolina I took a look at his point collaboration scores compared to Payne. Although O'Neill's 1.10 score isn't great, it is better than Payne's 0.98 (indicating that, on average, Payne was scoring points with better players than him). Payne has a good playoff record but he's far enough behind on his career that it matters little. Given the clear offensive and physical advantage O'Neill holds, the "glue guy" comparison is no contest, and this line should dominate its Selkirk counterpart.
On the third line, Boll has a clear offensive advantage over Duchesne, so the counterpoint should be that the latter is a much better defensive player. But given what was written about Boll, and how little selke recognition Duchesne earned in his career, I'm not sure that's even the case. I will give him credit where it's due (on the PK) but as an all-around even strength performer he appears far below Boll. At center, Kisio has a good offensive edge of around 6% as a peak performer, and it should be noted that he did that despite missing 10% of his games in those 7 seasons. In addition, his collaboration score of 1.28 to 0.88 indicates a massive discrepancy in the talent levels of the linemates each had. I do remember Carpenter having a pretty good defensive reputation as his career closed out, but that didn't translate into any votes for the selke aside from one season (7th). Kisio was good himself, and I like what was written about him throughout his career, but I think he's likely behind carpenter defensively. Still, given the massive offensive gap that exists, he's better equipped to be a stronger two-way performer. Maki and McKay are comparable defensive players (McKay with a clear toughness edge) but Maki had a much better offensive prime, about 35% better than McKay did. And although he spent some time with Bobby Hull, as a whole both of these players had fairly even offensive opportunities, spending some time with plugs and high scorers. The third line comparison is a case of Regina keeping the pace defensively, while being far more effective on the counterattack.
The fourth lines are built around intangibles. On the RW, I don't think VI would even try to put Sutter ahead of Keane. He's just not in his league as a role player. Shack and Arvedson couldn't be more different, comparing them is pointless; they'll both be effective at their roles. Golikov and Dahlstrom are both noted penalty killers, though Dahlstrom's got a lot more info in his favour in that regard. Offensively the appear to be similarly talented based on my USSR project. I'm not going to split hairs with fourth line centers. I'd put Regina's line ahead by a small margin just thanks to Keane.
Second lines: Our more offensive oriented wingers are both very qualified for this draft and among the best here. Golikov is a guy I've championed the last few years, and Grant is a proven NHL scorer. The equivalency study I did for the USSR league indicates they are in the same range as scorers, and both have little in the way of scale-tipping intangibles. I'd call them even. Reichel vs. Reibel is a matter of peak vs. consistency. Reibel had one season better than Reichel ever had, and that was 1955, when he was 7th in scoring (vsX score of 89), and seemingly even outperformed Howe. Not only that, but in that season he scored 0.93 PPG playing with players who averaged 0.61 themselves. In his other two seasons he had a VsX score of about 70, similar to Reichel's second best. But in these two seasons he averaged 0.69 PPG with players who averaged 0.84. From 1993-1999, a period that covers Reichel's five best NHL seasons, he was scoring at a rate of 62-83% of the 2nd highest scorer in the league, and he wasn't a passenger, either - he averaged 0.90 PPG playing with players who scored 0.69 themselves. That's six years of sustained play almost as good, but not quite as good, as Reibel did for one season, and better than Reibel ever did again. Neither is a scale-tipping intangible player. This should be a decisive victory for Reichel. Finally, we have the glue guys, O'Neill and Payne. One guy was a wrecking ball on the ice, we all remember him. The other was "big" and "difficult to move". I read up on Payne a lot, and couldn't find a single mention of him being a good defensive player, or tough, or physical. He is not a believable glue guy on the basis of having good size. He should not be expected to carry that kind of load for a line, and that's what Selkirk is asking of him. Offensively, O'Neill was about 12% better as a prime producer, and since i'm aware he benefited from Ron Francis in Carolina I took a look at his point collaboration scores compared to Payne. Although O'Neill's 1.10 score isn't great, it is better than Payne's 0.98 (indicating that, on average, Payne was scoring points with better players than him). Payne has a good playoff record but he's far enough behind on his career that it matters little. Given the clear offensive and physical advantage O'Neill holds, the "glue guy" comparison is no contest, and this line should dominate its Selkirk counterpart.
On the third line, Boll has a clear offensive advantage over Duchesne, so the counterpoint should be that the latter is a much better defensive player. But given what was written about Boll, and how little selke recognition Duchesne earned in his career, I'm not sure that's even the case. I will give him credit where it's due (on the PK) but as an all-around even strength performer he appears far below Boll. At center, Kisio has a good offensive edge of around 6% as a peak performer, and it should be noted that he did that despite missing 10% of his games in those 7 seasons. In addition, his collaboration score of 1.28 to 0.88 indicates a massive discrepancy in the talent levels of the linemates each had. I do remember Carpenter having a pretty good defensive reputation as his career closed out, but that didn't translate into any votes for the selke aside from one season (7th). Kisio was good himself, and I like what was written about him throughout his career, but I think he's likely behind carpenter defensively. Still, given the massive offensive gap that exists, he's better equipped to be a stronger two-way performer. Maki and McKay are comparable defensive players (McKay with a clear toughness edge) but Maki had a much better offensive prime, about 35% better than McKay did. And although he spent some time with Bobby Hull, as a whole both of these players had fairly even offensive opportunities, spending some time with plugs and high scorers. The third line comparison is a case of Regina keeping the pace defensively, while being far more effective on the counterattack.
The fourth lines are built around intangibles. On the RW, I don't think VI would even try to put Sutter ahead of Keane. He's just not in his league as a role player. Shack and Arvedson couldn't be more different, comparing them is pointless; they'll both be effective at their roles. Golikov and Dahlstrom are both noted penalty killers, though Dahlstrom's got a lot more info in his favour in that regard. Offensively the appear to be similarly talented based on my USSR project. I'm not going to split hairs with fourth line centers. I'd put Regina's line ahead by a small margin just thanks to Keane.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Alright, these defenses are really tough to compare, but I have to try:
Brad Marsh vs. Phat Wilson - One is the more established hitter, crease clearer, positional defender, captain, leader, penalty killer and shot blocker. The other is an amateur who got into the HHOF. Why compare them? Because it's easier than comparing Driver to Wilson and Hedman to Marsh. The way I see it, knowing exactly what made Marsh good is key when we really have no idea what made Wilson good.
Bruce Driver vs. Victor Hedman - I feel like it's beating a dead horse by now, but Hedman is far too young to be effective in this draft, let alone on a first unit and drafted in the first round. He's played under 200 games at a very high level, higher than Driver ever played. But Driver was a good 2nd tier #1 defenseman for over that long, and a good #2/3 guy for almost the remainder of his 900 game career. It almost doesn't matter how good Hedman's been the last two+ seasons; 200 games doesn't override 900 when the difference in level of play is not that significant. I wouldn't claim some career third pairing plug like Steve Staios is better just because he played 1000 games - you have to draw the line somewhere, after all. but Driver played huge minutes for good teams for 900 games. He's an elite AAA defenseman and hedman is neither of those at this time.
Scott Hannan vs. Rick Green - both respected defensive guys. Main difference is that one (Hannan) got tons of respect from his coaches in that they put him out on the ice the most (at even strength) against the opposition's best players, year after year. Green, late in his career, was being praised as a good defensive defenseman, but he was getting this praise based on the 2nd and often 3rd pairing duty he was pulling. Could you see Green getting selected to play in a best-on-best tournament for Canada? Even if it was the dead puck era?
Kent Douglas vs. Ron Plumb - Plumb is another dead horse I don't want to beat too much. But if it wasn't for his WHA award, we wouldn't be talking about him here, and that was all because of a historically bad year for competition while his points and +/- spiked out of nowhere. I can see him as a PP specialist in an all-time setting to some degree, but then would he have earned big minutes in the NHL like Douglas did? Would he have been one of the NHL's top-2 PP scorers among defensemen twice like Douglas did?
Bill brydge vs. Scotty Bowman - Contemporaries. Both known as tougher, defensive oriented players. Can't really separate them there. Both earned some all-star recognition - Brydge was 6th once (with 4 voting points) and Bowman was 10th and 12th (12 total voting points). Not much separating them there. Bowman played for slightly better teams, but Brydge lasted about 25% longer in the big league. Can't separate them much there. So what does separate them? Just offense. Brydge scored 0.21 PPG in his career, over double Bowman's 0.09 mark. this actually understates the difference in their offensive abilities, though, because Brydge played half his career pre-forward pass and Bowman played all of his after it. (for illustration's sake, HR has their adjusted point totals at 202 and 48). Ergo, brydge is the better player because he's not one dimensional and Bowman is.
Dave Manson vs. Fred Whitcroft - One's a defenseman and one isn't. It should be as simple as that, right? In all seriousness though, when was Whitcroft a defenseman? There needs to be some serious information confirming he can do the job effectively, because he's being compared to an 1100 game, 21.5 minute player here.
I'm not sure where on the bluelines, if anywhere, Selkirk has an advantage over Regina.
Brad Marsh vs. Phat Wilson - One is the more established hitter, crease clearer, positional defender, captain, leader, penalty killer and shot blocker. The other is an amateur who got into the HHOF. Why compare them? Because it's easier than comparing Driver to Wilson and Hedman to Marsh. The way I see it, knowing exactly what made Marsh good is key when we really have no idea what made Wilson good.
Bruce Driver vs. Victor Hedman - I feel like it's beating a dead horse by now, but Hedman is far too young to be effective in this draft, let alone on a first unit and drafted in the first round. He's played under 200 games at a very high level, higher than Driver ever played. But Driver was a good 2nd tier #1 defenseman for over that long, and a good #2/3 guy for almost the remainder of his 900 game career. It almost doesn't matter how good Hedman's been the last two+ seasons; 200 games doesn't override 900 when the difference in level of play is not that significant. I wouldn't claim some career third pairing plug like Steve Staios is better just because he played 1000 games - you have to draw the line somewhere, after all. but Driver played huge minutes for good teams for 900 games. He's an elite AAA defenseman and hedman is neither of those at this time.
Scott Hannan vs. Rick Green - both respected defensive guys. Main difference is that one (Hannan) got tons of respect from his coaches in that they put him out on the ice the most (at even strength) against the opposition's best players, year after year. Green, late in his career, was being praised as a good defensive defenseman, but he was getting this praise based on the 2nd and often 3rd pairing duty he was pulling. Could you see Green getting selected to play in a best-on-best tournament for Canada? Even if it was the dead puck era?
Kent Douglas vs. Ron Plumb - Plumb is another dead horse I don't want to beat too much. But if it wasn't for his WHA award, we wouldn't be talking about him here, and that was all because of a historically bad year for competition while his points and +/- spiked out of nowhere. I can see him as a PP specialist in an all-time setting to some degree, but then would he have earned big minutes in the NHL like Douglas did? Would he have been one of the NHL's top-2 PP scorers among defensemen twice like Douglas did?
Bill brydge vs. Scotty Bowman - Contemporaries. Both known as tougher, defensive oriented players. Can't really separate them there. Both earned some all-star recognition - Brydge was 6th once (with 4 voting points) and Bowman was 10th and 12th (12 total voting points). Not much separating them there. Bowman played for slightly better teams, but Brydge lasted about 25% longer in the big league. Can't separate them much there. So what does separate them? Just offense. Brydge scored 0.21 PPG in his career, over double Bowman's 0.09 mark. this actually understates the difference in their offensive abilities, though, because Brydge played half his career pre-forward pass and Bowman played all of his after it. (for illustration's sake, HR has their adjusted point totals at 202 and 48). Ergo, brydge is the better player because he's not one dimensional and Bowman is.
Dave Manson vs. Fred Whitcroft - One's a defenseman and one isn't. It should be as simple as that, right? In all seriousness though, when was Whitcroft a defenseman? There needs to be some serious information confirming he can do the job effectively, because he's being compared to an 1100 game, 21.5 minute player here.
I'm not sure where on the bluelines, if anywhere, Selkirk has an advantage over Regina.
BubbaBoot
Registered User
BubbaBoot
Registered User
BubbaBoot
Registered User
My take:
While Regina's defense isn't that mobile, they're strong enough to clog the middle and keep the Selkirk offensive forwards to the outside, despite having some big guys who can take a beating. Any speed and skill, (Carpenter, Paybe, etc...) will have to deal with Konovalenko, who's probably one of the best, GK's in this draft.
I think Selkirk's defensive corps is better than Seventies has laid out. Phat Wilson is intriguing, but I wish he wasn't so prone to the big-fish-in-a-small-pond comparison and had played some higher quality players. Either way they're a better offensive back line, more mobile and not without some decent size that can take a hit.
Regina's forwards are all very good, very well rounded. Either of the bottom six lines match up well against Selkirk's top 6 while Selkirk's bottom 6 will have to be on at all times, especially against the likes of Regina's 2 top centers, both of whom are very good at this level.
Selkirk could have an advantage on the PP if they can combine their skill and speed to beat Regina's less mobile defensemen....why Carpenter isn't on either of the two units is beyond me. For a 6 year period he ranked 35th in forward PP goals during his playing era. Only one other AAA draftee forward and 2 undrafted forwards had more goals than him in this draft. The rest of the top 30 went in the higher drafts.
This is a banging series in my opinion, with both teams teams dishing it out well. The edge to me will be with the GK's. The ones that make the saves that need to made, will take the series. To me Regina's tandem has the skate up on Selkirk.
While Regina's defense isn't that mobile, they're strong enough to clog the middle and keep the Selkirk offensive forwards to the outside, despite having some big guys who can take a beating. Any speed and skill, (Carpenter, Paybe, etc...) will have to deal with Konovalenko, who's probably one of the best, GK's in this draft.
I think Selkirk's defensive corps is better than Seventies has laid out. Phat Wilson is intriguing, but I wish he wasn't so prone to the big-fish-in-a-small-pond comparison and had played some higher quality players. Either way they're a better offensive back line, more mobile and not without some decent size that can take a hit.
Regina's forwards are all very good, very well rounded. Either of the bottom six lines match up well against Selkirk's top 6 while Selkirk's bottom 6 will have to be on at all times, especially against the likes of Regina's 2 top centers, both of whom are very good at this level.
Selkirk could have an advantage on the PP if they can combine their skill and speed to beat Regina's less mobile defensemen....why Carpenter isn't on either of the two units is beyond me. For a 6 year period he ranked 35th in forward PP goals during his playing era. Only one other AAA draftee forward and 2 undrafted forwards had more goals than him in this draft. The rest of the top 30 went in the higher drafts.
This is a banging series in my opinion, with both teams teams dishing it out well. The edge to me will be with the GK's. The ones that make the saves that need to made, will take the series. To me Regina's tandem has the skate up on Selkirk.
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
Bubba, in what specific players/matchups do you see Selkirk's defense being better than what Seventies indicated?
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Two points I feel I must obviously make:
Though the majority of Selkirk picks were made by Hedberg (a slim majority, but 13 out of 25 nonetheless), if I was the sole GM in this draft and draft round was NOT a consideration, then I'd have wanted to draft Nolan as assistant coach, Brunette or Boll as 3rd line LW, Reichel somewhere from top-6 forward to extra skater, Kisio as 4th line pivot or extra skater, Shack as the 12th/13th forward, Keane as a Bottom-6 starter, Bernier as an extra skater, Driver as a 3/4 dman, Konovalenko as one of the two goalies. That's 10 of Regina's players who would have made my squad if I was picking it myself today.
Jokinen and O'Neill would be Double-A draft extra skaters ideally because both have disappointed repeatedly and their numbers don't show their true value, or lack thereof. They are losers I've always thought, and having seen them again and agaian and again hasn't changed my mind on the matter. I was HUGE on Olli Jokinen when he was drafted but he has been thrown into first lie duty a lot and was continually not done enough to merit his selection on a championship-geared squad. The duo should not be championed. They are simply not heroes in hockey history in any respect. Forgive me for overing some TOI stat or points per game average given their role and era. Ugh.
Though the majority of Selkirk picks were made by Hedberg (a slim majority, but 13 out of 25 nonetheless), if I was the sole GM in this draft and draft round was NOT a consideration, then I'd have wanted to draft Nolan as assistant coach, Brunette or Boll as 3rd line LW, Reichel somewhere from top-6 forward to extra skater, Kisio as 4th line pivot or extra skater, Shack as the 12th/13th forward, Keane as a Bottom-6 starter, Bernier as an extra skater, Driver as a 3/4 dman, Konovalenko as one of the two goalies. That's 10 of Regina's players who would have made my squad if I was picking it myself today.
Jokinen and O'Neill would be Double-A draft extra skaters ideally because both have disappointed repeatedly and their numbers don't show their true value, or lack thereof. They are losers I've always thought, and having seen them again and agaian and again hasn't changed my mind on the matter. I was HUGE on Olli Jokinen when he was drafted but he has been thrown into first lie duty a lot and was continually not done enough to merit his selection on a championship-geared squad. The duo should not be championed. They are simply not heroes in hockey history in any respect. Forgive me for overing some TOI stat or points per game average given their role and era. Ugh.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It seems like when you have something against a certain player you lose the ability to compare him contextually against his peers within a draft. Let's be honest here, If this was the AA draft and I had Jokinen and O'Neill, you'd tell me they are ideally single-A extra skaters.
We're not comparing Jokinen to freakin' Scott Gomez and Bill Hay here, and we're not comparing O'Neill to Slava Kozlov and Grant Warwick. These guys fell down to the AAA draft for legitimate reasons, but there's no reason to pretend they don't look good in this crowd of Reibels and Paynes.
Why is being the 7th most prolific goal scorer in the entire NHL over a six-season period not enough? Is scoring goals not an important part of winning hockey games? Yeah, he never made the playoffs the whole time, I realize that, it sure makes that whole loser narrative really easy to spin. But do you really blame the best player on the team for not making the playoffs?
No one said they were "heroes in hockey history", but Jokinen is the most accomplished offensive player in this draft, and it's not close, and Breen is probably the only player with a legitimate argument. O'Neill, whichever way you want to put it, is either the most physical forward on any scoring line in this draft, or is the best scorer among all physical forwards on scoring lines. This really comes down to you just not having the willingness to compare players to the players surrounding them on the draft list. They do not exist in a vaccuum.
I actually see the very same flaws in them that you do; it's just that I don't automatically disqualify a player from contention from my team over one issue; I treat it as a piece of the puzzle and take a look at all aspects.
This is just a red herring style diversion. It's meant to come off as "I don't just look at stats. LIKE YOU!!!" But does it really take more than an elementary understanding of ATD statistical shorthand to understand how proficient they were at scoring? And though you're loath to admit it, how much a player scored is actually a pretty good indication of how good he was at scoring. And scoring is an important thing, wouldn't ya say, Guy-who-drafted-Pierre-Larouche?
(FWIW, Sorrell, Breen, Golikov, Carpenter, McKay and Meloche were all on my radar at different points in this draft - if Khabibulin didn't inexplicably drop 400 spots he wouldn't have been available, and Meloche would have been a no-brainer backup for me).
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Zabrodsky might be the best player in this series. And he's on the bench. Though he does nothing but score...
BubbaBoot
Registered User
As noted above. I think they're more mobile than Seventies crew and could be used at an advantage on the PP.
I think he's rather dismissive of both Wilson (I don't think his HoF selection is pure humanitarian oriented....from all indications he was an excellent player but it's hard to gauge) and especially HoFer Whitcroft (because he was a rover? Given the definitions I've read, a rover is an offensive defenseman in the old 7 man system, which, given the intent of purpose for his position, how different is this from the Soviet 2-2-1 system with an offensive defenseman being used as a "halfback"?)
He downplays Rick Green (v Scott Hannan) and says "Could you see Green getting selected to play in a best-on-best tournament for Canada? Even if it was the dead puck era?"....which I find confusing since Green played in the 1987 Rendez-vous, played in 4 WCs, a Cup and one season garnered All Star, Byng and Norris votes. Hannan played in a WC, a World Cup, came in 19th in All-Satr votes one season and no Cups.
Is Regina's defensive corps better than Selkirk"s? Yes, but I think they're closer than Seventies thinks....and given a hypothetical game situational play, anything could happen with whatever offensive combo may be on the ice with either defensive corps.
BubbaBoot
Registered User
I have to agree here. The rebuttal wasn't thought out very well....I'm also a big fan of Reichel, who gets no real love around here. Given his 5 year peak, where he was 17th among centers in goals score during that time period, ALL of the players above him, (save for Pivonka), were picked in the MLD and ATD. Throw in his international stats, huzzahs, medals and leadership and you've got a pretty good AAA 2nd line CTR for sure.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It's not that I'm dismissive of Wilson, it's more like, why was he good? How do we even know if this is a well-constructed pairing without knowing what his strengths and/or weaknesses were? There's guesswork involved with him. he's a smaller question mark version of Jack Ruttan.
As for rovers, they are most comparable centers. They were the bolded 1 in a 3-1-1-1 formation. I've never seen anyone get away with putting them on defense, unless they also had success at point or coverpoint.
well, although I stand by that point, it's not really the meat of the argument. Hannan was just a much bigger piece of his teams. In the years from which Green gets all his mileage (Montreal, 1983-1989) he was a 17-20 minute defenseman, averaging 19.4 minutes per game. Was he solid? Yes he was. But he was solid against 2nd and 3rd lines, unless he was paired with Robinson, but with that ice time I don't think he was. In Hannan's prime (2003-2010) he was playing 22-24 minutes a game, for very good teams, while earning the same kind of praise Green did. What I'm saying is that anecdotally, they have similar cases, but a deeper look at the numbers shows that one guy was a good 2-3 spots higher on his team's depth charts over their primes, and that's huge.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
First thing: The role of "rover" in the modern game is an open question (seems absurd to equate it with a face-off artist).
Second thing: This si the 2nd quote from seventieslord's own biography:
Second thing: This si the 2nd quote from seventieslord's own biography:
Emphasis added.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
I think the hate for Jokinen and especially O'Neill is really unfounded. A player can only do so much with a crappy team.
OTOH Hannan is in no way average speed-wise.
OTOH Hannan is in no way average speed-wise.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
A guy who was a rover who may have moonlighted as a cover point (which I had forgotten about, thanks for pointing this out, I asked last series and received no response) is still a player primarily used to handling the middle of the rink. While that is indeed in one passage in his bio, even when he was my own player I didn't think it was strong enough evidence to call him "F/D", I had him marked as a forward only.
And no, I'm not sure it's really an open question in the ATDs where a rover should play. Rovers almost exclusively get used as centers, for good reason. They're not a wildcard that you can play anywhere. In the HOH centers project it was also agreed to use rovers because it's generally agreed that center is the closest thing to rover.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
By the way, where did you come up with this stat? what years and what criteria did you use? Only reason I'm even asking is because it kinda perked my ears a bit seeing Pivonka's name there... he'd never be ahead of Reichel on any list regarding goals.
BubbaBoot
Registered User
Between 91/92 - 96/97, via Hockey Reference, using the goals scored by centers filter on the player index....but you're right, it looks like I stated this wrong. Reichel had 139 goals during this period. Pivonka had 77.
I think it was the Points per game stat was what I meant. Reichel was 30th and Pivonka was 29th.....all the other players above them were all picked in the ATD and MLD drafts. I was just reaffirming Reichel's pretty decent 5 year peak.
Are top lines with physical presences really that much more productive/efficient than ones without?
