I was hoping seventies would jump in 1st but I'll do so:
Coaching:
Ted Nolan vs. Terry Crisp:
Both are among the best coaches at this level. Nolan was known as always getting the best out of his players but always seemed to wear out his welcome, as to Crisp he was fiery. How players react to the style of their coaches could be key to who wins this series.
As far as coaching goes, I don't see any reason to believe either of these coaches will be the reason either team wins or loses the series.
Again, no rebuttal so let me add in some more thoughts about the forwards:
1st lines:
Brunette and Mceachern both appear to be the glue guys for the lines. Stoughton and Jokinen the goal scorers. i guess LAmb will add in some glue as well. Raleigh is going to be my playmaker here, will you get jokinen to double as a playmaker or have Lamb do that?
In what world is Brunette a glue guy? The toughness on this line is supplied by Lamb. Brunette is the playmaking winger and Jokinen the goalscoring center; it's pretty simple.
I'm not sure you know enough about these players to comment if you think Brunette is a glue guy and wonder who's doing the playmaking.
Brunette was 9th in the NHL in assists in the 2002 season, 3rd among wingers. He was also 13th another year and just out of the top-20 two other times. Comparing to Raleigh's best years (2nd, 11th, 11th, 12th, 16th, in a six-team NHL with shallower talent pool) and there's no major difference, although granted Raleigh has a higher single season spike than Brunette ever had.
If we just look at overall offensive production these two lines aren't really close. Regina's three 7-year VsX scores are 438, 479, 371, and Rum River's are 394, 416, 393. Lamb is the weakest producer on either line, but he's also brings, by far, the most toughness on either line. McEachern can barely be called a glue guy, given his size and lack of ability to win puck battles (as scouting reports confirm annually).
In summary, neither line has a huge defensive presence, Regina's glue guy is much more of a physical threat than Rum River's, and the overall offensive record of Regina's line is a good 7% better (not a small amount when talking about whole lines). It should be clear which line is built to be more effective.
2nd lines:
I said in the assisnation thread that I liked your 2nd line better than your 1st and I still do. 1 thing I would like to have answered is who will play the defensive responsibilities on your team's 2nd line. Grant, Reichel and O'neil are all decent offensive players with O'neil offering some grit but what about defense? On my 2nd line we have Pivonka who will play defense as well as offer some playmaking. Goalscoring on my 2nd line will be covered by Robinson, Jeff Friesen offers some grit and decent offense as well.
Yes I would agree there is more defensive ability on your 2nd line than Regina's, but let's not overstate the difference, either. Pivonka is sometimes referred to as a good two-way player over the years in his scouting reports (moreso in his later years) but he spent essentially his entire career in an offensive role with a far superior scorer on his wing. Reichel was put in a two-way role for the last 1/3 of his career, and though he wasn't really all that good at it, he was at least responsible and at least has experience playing a defensive and PK role. The difference between these two as two-way players is smaller than you're letting on.
Physically, there is no question that Regina's line is better equipped. O'Neill was inconsistent but when he was on, he was a league-leading hitter: he literally led the NHL in hits one season. Friesen was gritty and could throw his weight around from time to time, but he was not a frequent or intimidating physical player, and he's the best you've got on this line. The other four players here are non-factors.
Offensively, there's just as large a difference here between these teams as there is on the first line. The 7-year scores for Regina are 456, 450, 386, and on Rum River, 397, 400, 372. A sweep all the way, and about an 11% edge overall for Regina. A little bit more defense on Rum River isn't overcoming the large offensive difference and O'Neill's physical domination of Friesen.
Third Line:
My checking line got a lot of rave reviews, it's a pure checking line, Pronovost-Patey-Deblois are all pure checkers and maybe don't offer much in the way of offense. Your 3rd line has 3 good grit players who can also chip in with offense. Boll and Kisio are all good 3rd liners who can play a good 2 way game. Not so sure on Maki's 2 way game but I do know he's good offensively.
First, you've got it backwards on Maki. His defensive and penalty killing games are well-known; it's his offense that is questionable. He has pretty good numbers for a 3rd liner in the AAA, but he also played a lot with Bobby Hull so I wouldn't put full stock in them.
You're correct about the offensive difference here. The weakest scorer on Regina's line (Maki, 342 7-year VsX) has a similar offensive record to the best on Rum River's line (Patey, 354)
Defensively, Patey's definitely the strongest here. There's no doubt about that just looking at his selke record. But Boll doesn't appear to be that far behind him either, looking at the quotes about him, he appears to be one of the better two-way forwards and secondary scorers of his time. Pronovost we know very little about, other than he played on a checking line, we know nothing about how good he was at it and how he was viewed on a league-wide basis (I've read nothing saying he's among the best, for example).
Kisio and DeBlois are contemporaries, and having done extensive bios on both, I'm not sure what's all that different about them, aside from Kisio being faaaaaaar more talented. Kisio received two selke votes in his entire career, so as good as he was as an all-around player, I'm not trying to sell him as a defensive star. The thing is, DeBlois received none, so there's little reason to see him as any better, all things considered.
There is a slight defensive advantage on your third line, mainly thanks to Patey, the only one here who really ever stood out from the pack in that regard. But there is a huge difference (approximately 35%) in the overall offensive ability here, and it does matter.
4th Line:
Your 4th line reads more like your checking line than does your 3rd line. If our 4th lines are matched up it's going to be quite the difference as my 4th line will be my energy line that is used late in games. Young will probably be the defensive glue on the 4th line but other than that this battle is offense vs. defense.
Those are my thoughts on the forwards, looking forward to your rebuttal.
"Energy" line???
A one-dimensional goal scoring center, a speedster with a small bit of two-way ability, and a goal scoring LW with little else known about him other than he played with HHOFers in every game he ever played?
There's more "energy" in Eddie Shack's little finger than there is in that whole line. Never mind Keane and Dahlstrom, two hustling two-way guys themselves.
It's true that based on raw point scoring ability, there's about a 25% advantage in Rum River's favour here, but that's what happens when a 4th line is built seemingly only with offense in mind, with little regard to any other factors. Furthermore, I wouldn't even be sure that this line would generate more scoring than Regina's 4th in the long run, considering it's very poorly built, with three players heavily biased to goal scoring. Bullard scores 1.07 assists per goal, Young 1.2 and Riley 0.31. (Riley's ratio isn't fair considering there weren't that many assists in the PCHA, but consider he was twice top-10 and four times top-20 in goals in my consolidated offense project, and just twice barely top-20 in assists, at a time when 20th often had less than half of 10th). This line is just not built in a way that a line successful at anything is built.
summary:
- Offensive and physical advantages on the 1st lines for Regina, defensively similar
- offensive and physical advantages on 2nd lines for Regina, defensive advantage for Rum River
- major offensive advantage on 3rd lines for Regina, defensive advantage for Rum River
- better offensive players on 4th line for Rum River, but badly built line lacking any notable skills other than goal scoring compared to a well built, well-balanced, traditional 4th line with offense, defense, toughness, agitation energy, and leadership.
