I'm cherrypicking what I'm responding to. No need to quote parts of your post where you agree with me, after all.
I apologize if I miss anything important.
don't forget, we've moved into the playoffs now so, things will be slightly different...
in the playoffs, moore has an edge over malone - he's won more cups and, played a larger role on his cup winners then malone. malone led the playoffs in points once while dickie led the playoffs twice (1954, 1959). when it comes to tight-checking games, intangibles mean quite a bit...
Malone was the captain and undisputed best player of back to back Stanley Cup champions. I would imagine he played a bigger role on those Cup winners than the guy playing with Harvey, Beliveau, Plante, Geoffrion, and Richards x 2.
As I said, Malone was captain of two Cup winners, so he had to have intangibles. Sadly, the details have been lost to the sands of time.
Malone didn't lead the playoffs in scoring twice. He was 1st once and 2nd once in the Bulldog's only 2 Cups in their existence. Not bad. The Bulldogs were not a powerhouse like the Canadiens of... most eras, so Malone didn't get nearly as many chances as Moore.
again, we have moved into the playoffs - iginla had that one absolutely fantastic year (where, i agree with you, would have won the smythe had calgary won) - however, beyond that, he hasn't done much else. cournoyer on the other hand has been a significant member, and captain, of multiple cup-winning teams. he has a conn smythe to his name. this may be equal in the regular season, but cournoyer has a distinct advantage in the playoffs.
A more accurate statement is "Iginla might blow Cournoyer away in the regular season, but Cournoyer's playoffs might close the gap (depending on how much credit you want to give Cournoyer and how much you want to give his stacked team).
Iginla is a 3 Time 1st Team All Star, 1 Time 2nd Team, 1 Pearson trophy, 3 Time Hart finalist. Cournoyer has 4 2nd Team All Star selections. Highest Hart finish was 9th.
Iginla finished 1, 1, 3, 4 in goals and 1, 3, 8 in points, playing with nobodies. Cournoyer has 4, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9 in goals (playing with elite centermen) and only 6, 8 in points.
Iginla was better individually in the playoffs, as well. He has averaged .52 goals per game and .91 points per game in the playoffs. Cournoyer averaged .44 goals per game and .87 points per game in the playoffs.
This despite the fact that Cournoyer played on a stacked team in a significantly higher scoring era. Are you sure that Cournoyer has the advantage in the playoffs?
I give Cournoyer "bonus points" for being a key player on all those Cup champions,* but there's a limit to how much credit you can give a secondary star for his team winning a team trophy.
*or at least a key player after he became more than a PP specialist.
but, as i mentioned, my team has had much more success in the postseason - this should definitely add the advantage to kenora here. and, in tight playoff games, having strong defensive players on every line is a huge bonus...
Your team has lots of role players who happened to play to play on dynasties, so I guess that is some form of success. I doubt Kirk Maltby would trade all of his Cups for Alexander Oveckin's individual awards. But on the other hand, Team Canada would never select Ken Daneyko over Ray Bourque just because Daneyko has more Cups.
As for the defensive players on every line, I agree. It's the biggest strength of your team. You'll need it to compensate for your defensemen who are good, but not as good as mine.
i couldn't disagree with the "huge disadvantage" more - primarily because i think frank mcgee is one of the most underrated forwards in the atd.
mcgee was considered one of the greatest goal-scorers in the early years. with that said, he ramped up his game even more in the stanley cup - scoring 14 goals in one game! not sure why ovechkin gets the pass based on 4 years of work (and, as a first-liner) but mcgee is considered a borderline second liner...
In 1905! He scored 14 goals in a 22-2 victory! That's like calling a Canadian 1st liner clutch for scoring 14 goals against Japan.
Nitpicking aside, I buy McGee as a legit 2nd line center. But he's no Maltsev.
markus naslund has been absolutely terrible come playoff time.
This is a common misperception. While Naslund will never be accused of being a clutch player (which is why he's a 2nd liner and not a 1st liner in this thing), he only flopped in the playoffs once - in his first try in the playoffs as his team's top threat. He was great in the other 2 playoffs he played in during his prime.
From my bio:
5 goals, 9 assists, 14 points (all leading his team) in 14 playoff games in 2003.
2 goals, 7 assists, 9 points in 7 playoff games in 2004. 2nd place on his team had 5 points.
3rd best playoff points-per-game average from 2003-04, ahead of Peter Forsberg.
(He was admittedly over his head in the playoffs in 2002, but was very good the following two seasons, despite the fact that he became effectively the only offensive threat on his team).
Okay, maybe Naslund was a failure as a captain or something. But he's a second liner in this thing. He doesn't have to lead anyone anywhere. He just has to put up points, which is something he did in 2 of 3 playoffs in his prime.
however, considering all three of my players are strong defensively, i don't believe the swamp devils advantage is that large.
They might be able to limit the damage, somewhat, but they won't be able to do much to counteract it.
