ATD2011 Jim Robson Finals: (1) Kimberley Dynamiters vs. (2) Philadephia Firebirds

Discussion in 'All Time Draft' started by Velociraptor, May 7, 2011.

  1. Velociraptor

    Velociraptor Registered User

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    10,953
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Big Smoke
    Kimberley Dynamiters

    Head Coach: Joel Quenneville
    Assistant Coach: Marc Crawford

    Roy Conacher - Syl Apps Sr. - Gordie Drillon
    Keith Tkachuk - Dale Hawerchuk - Billy Boucher
    Frank "Pud" Glass - Ernie Russell - Bruce Stuart
    Wayne Merrick - Ryan Kesler - Ron Stewart

    Spares: RW Billy Gilmour, W Bruce Ridpath

    Denis Potvin - Ken Morrow
    Hobey Baker - Dunc Munro
    Sandis Ozolinsh - Al Arbour
    Spares: D/F Walter Smaill

    Dominik Hasek
    Ryan Miller


    vs.


    Philadelphia Firebirds

    Coach: Viktor Tikhonov
    Assistant Coach: Father David Bauer

    Dick Duff - Jean Beliveau (C) - Jari Kurri
    Fred "Smokey" Harris - Frank McGee - Ken Hodge
    Brian Sutter(A) - Pit Lepine - Johnny Peirson
    Don Maloney - Bill Thoms - Goldie Prodgers
    Spares: Herb Jordan, Murray Balfour

    Rod Langway (A) - Eduard Ivanov
    Harry Howell - Sergei Gonchar
    Frantisek Tikal - George Owen
    Spares: Jay Bouwmeester

    Jiri Holecek
    Charlie Hodge​
     
  2. Velociraptor

    Velociraptor Registered User

    Joined:
    May 12, 2007
    Messages:
    10,953
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Big Smoke
    Kimberley Dynamiters

    PP1: Tkachuk - Hawerchuk - Boucher - Potvin - Ozolinsh
    PP2: Conacher - Apps - Drillon - Baker - Munro

    PK1: Kesler - Stewart - Arbour - Morrow
    PK2: Merrick - Glass - Munro - Potvin

    Philadelphia Firebirds

    PP1: Duff - Beliveau - Kurri - Gonchar - Ivanov
    PP2: Harris - McGee - Hodge - Owen - Howell

    PK1: Lepine - Kurri - Langway - Howell
    PK2: Duff - Beliveau - Ivanov - Tikal
    PK3: Maloney - Thoms - Langway - Howell
     
  3. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    For easy reference and access, here is my roster with bios linked:

    Philadelphia Firebirds

    [​IMG]

    Coach: Viktor Tikhonov
    Assistant Coach: Father David Bauer
    Captain: Jean Beliveau
    Assistant Captain: Rod Langway
    Assistant Captain: Brian Sutter

    Dick Duff-Jean Beliveau(C)-Jari Kurri
    Fred "Smokey" Harris-Frank McGee-Ken Hodge
    Brian Sutter(A)-Pit Lepine-Johnny Peirson
    Don Maloney-Bill Thoms-Goldie Prodgers
    Herb Jordan, Murray Balfour

    Rod Langway(A)-Eduard Ivanov
    Harry Howell-Sergei Gonchar
    Frantisek Tikal-George Owen
    Jay Bouwmeester

    Jiri Holecek
    Charlie Hodge

    PP1

    Duff-Beliveau-Kurri
    Gonchar-Ivanov

    PP2

    Harris-McGee-Hodge
    Owen-Howell

    PK1

    Lepine-Kurri
    Langway-Howell

    PK2

    Duff-Beliveau
    Ivanov-Tikal

    PK3

    Maloney-Thoms
    Langway-Howell
     
  4. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Some initial thoughts:

    -Kimberley's top 6 looks rather weak defensively, and the first line looks quite soft. They look susceptible to being pushed around by a bigger, more physical team, and could have some troubles against my two physical defensive stalwarts on my first pairing. The highest PIM total among all of them in their entire careers is 16PIM!! The first line looks weak defensively, and the 2nd line doesn't look all that great either, but they provide adequate physicality. Not really sold on Boucher as a top 6 forward. He had the benefit of Howie Morenz, and Aurel Joliat in 23-24 and 24-25, and Joliat in 22-23 I believe.
    -Bottom sixes look to be an advantage to Philadelphia, as Bugg sacrificed depth in exchange for top end talent. Philadelphia's top 6 looks better offensively, and a little better defensively I think as well.
    -First pairing is an advantage to Kimberley, but the 2nd pairing is a massive advantage to Philadelphia. 3rd pairing looks like a Philadelphia advantage as well.
    -Goaltending is an advantage to Kimberley, but not as large as some may think.
    -Special teams look like an advantage to Philadelphia as well.

    I'll go more in depth with my comparisons with statistical backing of player by player comparisons soon.
     
  5. hfboardsuser

    hfboardsuser Registered User

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Messages:
    12,280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First off, congratulations to Billy_Shoe on building a hell of a club. In terms of defensive ability, that first unit would be a stud in a 30-team ATD, never mind this one.

    You also used some early-era stars in prominent roles- something we both have in common- and overall it's a strong entry.

    First lines

    Conacher-Apps-Drillon is a high-powered unit, but they've met the closest thing to their match in Duff-Beliveau-Kurri. Although last series highlighted an average defensive and offensive line vs. my high offense/slightly below average defensive line, this is guaranteed to be a much tighter match-up.

    The question is, can Philly's top unit still score while trying to juggle defensive duties? While I'm one of Duff's biggest fans, he's useful in the ATD for only one top-six role, and that's as a complimentary defensive winger. When compared to my three- who all have very good offensive resumes- I have to wonder if Duff doesn't limit his line's output.

    That could be a problem when of the three, only Kurri is substantiated as a "great" defensive player. Billy_Shoe made this point last round- we have a few scant pieces of evidence regarding Beliveau, some generalizations more than anything. Do we know that Kurri is not the only one of the three capable of playing a shutdown game? If not, can a line with Dick Duff on it out-gun one with Conacher (SIX TTGs) and Drillon (FIVE TTGs)?

    Second Lines

    Another tight match-up, and as I say, I really appreciate the early-era guys. Harris was a skilled winger who has plenty of offense behind him, and some of McGee's anecdotes are legendary.

    My problem with McGee is that I don't personally know how he ranks among his peers in scoring finishes. I imagine it was great, but I don't want to make assumptions. Can this data be presented?

    I'd also be curious to see consolidation data for both Harris and McGee, preferably using a variety of adjustment formulas for comparison's sake.

    Third Lines

    Billy_Shoe said above that he feels his bottom-six to be deeper than my own, but I'm not sure this bears scrutiny.

    For example, if we're to take Smokey Harris' PCHA finishes as proof he's a legitimate top-six forward, Ernie Russell is unquestionably one based on goals finishes:

    Smokey Harris (PCHA): 1st, 3rd, 7th
    Ernie Russell (NHA): 2nd, 2nd, 8th

    One thing I'll highlight from Billy's bios that I don't really understand is the inclusion of finishes outside the top ten. Does it really matter that Brian Sutter finished 18th in scoring one year during the 1980s? It means about as much as Bruce Stuart being an IHL All-Star.

    Fourth Lines

    As someone who drafted Don Maloney beforehand, I definitely appreciate what he brings. But here again, Billy's bio style inflates the relative importance of his players:

    Bill Thoms, TTGs: 1
    Ryan Kesler, TTGs: 1

    Don Maloney, TT Selke Votes: 0
    Wayne Merrick, TT Selke Votes: 0

    Regardless, I will admit Philly's fourth line holds an offensive advantage. But I'd say my line is better defensively; Kesler looks to win a Selke, and Stewart was a renowned PKer who was top ten in SH goals four times despite getting limited minutes. Thoms' bio indicates he was "good defensively", but I didn't see that in the bio itself. Prodgers has a little more substance behind his, but was he better than Stewart?

    Ultimately, I'm not concerned about an offensive advantage due to one factor: ice-time. Can Thoms and Prodgers contribute meaningfully while a) being engaged in a defensive battle with my fourth line b) playing only a few minutes a night?

    Defence

    First pairing, as Billy has highlighted, is a definite Kimberley advantage. Potvin is the best defender by a good mile in the series and if he's playing 25-30 minutes a night, no combination of four defenders can match that.

    This is why I'm not too concerned about the second pairing match-ups. Howell is the best player among those four, but his primary responsibility is to watch Gonchar- a substantial task if you consider the bulk of his career. Can he do that AND hold down his end with the same amount of excellence? Can he do that AND defend a Dale Hawerchuk?

    In a lot of ways, our second and third pairings are very similar, and vice versa. Arbour was a defensive stalwart who played his end with zeal and expert proficiency; Ozolinsh was a European puck-mover with lesser finishes than Gonchar, but nearly identical playoff PPG (0.66 vs. 0.67). Owen was an American rearguard who never got a fair shake at the can but was elite in limited career action- almost exactly like Baker.

    Any way you match them up, Philly's bottom four defenders are better than mine, but the purposes and players are nearly identical.

    Goaltending

    I'll let Billy_Shoe handle this on his own. He's an intelligent guy, so he must have some reason for believing this, but Hasek is the best prime goaltender ever. Not sure what information we're missing on Holecek that can possibly narrow this gap, but I'm an open-minded individual.
     
  6. Derick*

    Derick* Guest

    Firebirds are just too much better defensively. Dynamiters will make a lot of mistakes and the Firebirds will capitalize on them.
     
  7. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,488
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    18th in scoring in the 1980s is worth at least as much as 8th in the 1910s...
     
  8. seventieslord

    seventieslord Student Of The Game

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    32,127
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Regina, SK
    You probably saved me a lot of typing with this short sentence.

    Being an IHL all-star is not a worthless achievement to me. It was the 2nd-best league at the time. But that decade was a weaker one for talent, certainly a lot less than the decade that would follow.

    You have to think the talent pool was at least twice the size 80 years later.
     
  9. Reds4Life

    Reds4Life Registered User

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2007
    Messages:
    3,795
    Likes Received:
    65
    Trophy Points:
    101
    Location:
    the Czech republic
    I think Holecek is better/as good as Tretiak (I rank Tretiak way lower than most, it seems), but Hasek is just a few levels higher.
     
  10. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    You've built a very strong team as well with a lot of star power that will be difficult to handle. Congrats on being 1st in the regular season as well. I'll attack this piece by piece.

    Is Duff a weak link on a first line with Beliveau and Kurri? Yeah, but I still think he's a passable first liner considering the intangibles that he brings to the table. He isn't there to score goals, he's there to muck and grind in the corners, which my bio notes he was good at. He's also there to provide a defensive presence along with Kurri. He was known as a good two-way forward, and with Kurri being arguably the best 1st line RW defensively in the entire draft(MacKay is his only competition IMO), and Beliveau being above average, I have zero doubt that they will be able to be effective against your first line if need be. Conacher and Drillon might combined for 11 top 10s in goals, but Beliveau has 10 by himself, and didn't do any during a partial war year or the years immediately after the war. On the other side of it, I think Kimberley should be more concerned about facing my first line. I wouldn't call Conacher, Apps, or Drillon good defensively, and Drillon was a known cherrypicker and is a negative defensively. How will they fair if they get stuck out against my first line, and Potvin's not on the ice? They'll be completely screwed. Denis Potvin is one of the best all time, but can't play the entire game. If your first line is caught out against my first and Baker-Munro or Ozolinsh-Arbour are out, which will inevitably happen, then I think I'll hold a large advantage. Offensively, the real question over who is better is that is the gap between Duff and Conacher enough to make up for the gaps between Beliveau and Apps, and Drillon and Kurri? I say no.

    I'll easily concede an advantage to Kimberley when comparing Conacher and Duff offensively. But, I'd say Duff is better defensively, more physical, and might be a little better playoff performer as well. Here are their playoff finishes:

    Goals

    Duff-4, 5, 7, 7
    Conacher-2, 4

    Assists

    Duff-3, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9
    Conacher-3, 6, 7

    Points

    Duff-3, 4, 8, 9, 10
    Conacher-3, 4, 7

    Before we even taken into account eras, partial war years, and depleted talent pools after, I think it's safe to say Duff has an advantage here. Conacher didn't play on that many playoff teams, but still won 2 cups, but not close to Duff's 6. Conacher is still better offensively, but Duff is more physical, better defensively, and was better in the playoffs. Another thing to take into account is the fact that Conacher played during the war, and one 7th place finish, and two 2nd place finishes in goals occurred during the war. One of his 10th place finishes in points was during the war as well. Add into the fact that the NHL talent pool after WWII was one of the weakest and most depleted in history, Conacher's finishes don't look nearly as impressive as looking purely at the numbers. Playoff performances and experience are the bread and butter of my first line. They've got 21 Stanley Cups as players between them. To put that in perspective, your entire starting lineup has 29 cups between them. That brings us to Big Jean, and Syl Apps. Apps has the same problem as Conacher, he played during early WWII and after, which sort of discounts some of his finishes. I think you would concede that Beliveau is easily the better player. To put this in perspective, let's look at raw finishes(a comparison that favors Apps, but still makes Beliveau look that much more impressive):

    Goals

    Beliveau-1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9
    Apps-4, 5, 5, 6, 10

    Assists

    Beliveau-1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10
    Apps-1, 1, 6, 6

    Points

    Beliveau-1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9
    Apps-2, 2, 2, 6, 7, 8

    Clearly, the advantage goes to Beliveau, and that advantage is large. To hammer home my point, here are the playoff finishes:

    Goals

    Beliveau-1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 6, 6, 8
    Apps-1, 3, 4*, 4, 5*

    Assists

    Beliveau-1, 1, 1, 3, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7
    Apps-1*, 2, 2, 6

    Points

    Beliveau-1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 9
    Apps-1*, 3, 4, 5, 8, 8, 10*

    *-War Year As you can see, the large advantage goes to Beliveau here. Beliveau was also more physical, and better defensively. While Apps missed two years during the war, the advantage still goes to Big Jean.

    That brings us to Gordie Drillon and Jari Kurri. Defensively, this is no contest. Drillon could never be mistaken for good defensively, whereas Kurri was three times voted the best defensive RW in the NHL, twice second best, and once 3rd best. Kurri blows Drillon out of the water in this area. Offensively, I think Kurri has an advantage here as well. When comparing raw top finishes(which again favors Drillon massively), they look close.

    Goals

    Kurri-1, 2, 3, 5
    Drillon-1, 3, 4, 4, 5, 7

    Assists

    Kurri-9, 9, 10
    Drillon-3, 10

    Points

    Kurri-2, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9
    Drillon-1, 2, 4, 8

    Considering the fact that Drillon played in the partial war years and had those totals compared to Kurri's totals in the high flying, extremely difficult and deep 1980s, Kurri is definitely the better offensive player. In terms of speed, I'd call Kurri the better player as well. In terms of physicality, neither are a big factor. Kurri is definitely a better all around player. In terms of playoff scoring, Kurri holds an advantage here as well, four times leading the playoffs in goals. I don't even need to run the numbers to know this.

    With all of that considered, the first lines are an advantage to Philadelphia. Philadelphia's unit makes more sense chemistry wise, and has all the parts it needs to succeed. Kimberley's on the other hand lacks physicality and a puck winning presence in the corners. Their ability to dump and chase will be almost zero. My opponent may point to chemistry between Apps and Drillon, and that line had a lot of success. While it did, there is a key difference between how that line succeeded and was built, and how Kimberley's is built. That line featured Bob Davidson at LW, a physical two-way presence that made the line click. Instead, Kimberley has another shooter. Another problem I foresee with Kimberley's line is that Apps isn't a good enough playmaker to support the largely shoot first Conacher and Drillon. Philadelphia's unit is also miles ahead defensively.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2011
  11. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,488
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    Billy, what years are you counting as war years?
     
  12. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    1939-40 to 1944-45. A quick google search didn't give me any definitive answer as to when NHL players left for the war, so I went with the years WWII happened. Is there any definitive data of when players left and how may left each year?
     
  13. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,488
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    43-44 and 44-45 were the only true war years in hockey, where most of younger players left to fight. 42-43 was a partial war year, with most of the players still in the league, but not all of them. The first players to leave for the war were the Kraut Line (Milt Schmidt and his buds), about halfway through 41-42. 45-46 is often considered a "war recovery" year, with most of the players back, but not all of them up to par.

    In general, the 40s are considered a weak era for forwards, but not all because of the war.

    At some point, I think arrbez made a nice chart of the guys who went off to war.
     
  14. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Okay, thanks. I honestly had no idea. Even if you consider that, my first line still comes out better. I adjusted the stats to reflect what you said and I think I corrected when I said war years and changed it to partial war years and depleted talent eras after.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2011
  15. Derick*

    Derick* Guest

    Wasn't the first line to go down because of the war the Maginot line?
     
  16. seventieslord

    seventieslord Student Of The Game

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    32,127
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Regina, SK
    I don't like pretty much the whole 1940s. There are, of course, the war years of 1944 and 1945 where many great players were gone. But besides that, the league was already weakening in the years leading up to that (was it because players we never heard about who would have been great or at least strengthened the NHL, went off to war and were either killed or had their lives set in a different path?) and it took a good 5 years after to recover (really, it could be the same reason as speculated above)
     
  17. TheDevilMadeMe

    TheDevilMadeMe Registered User

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2006
    Messages:
    47,488
    Likes Received:
    1,756
    Trophy Points:
    186
    Location:
    Brooklyn
    Awards:
    True, but 43-44 and 44-45 were far worse than the rest of the 40s.
     
  18. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    In an attempt to put Sergei Gonchar's point finishes in perspective, here they are in comparison to Denis Potvin, who is one of the best offensive defensemen in NHL history. One would think that Potvin would blow him out of the water, but here are their finishes with identical results removed:

    Goals

    Potvin-1, 1, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 6
    Gonchar-2, 2, 2, 7

    Assists

    Potvin-1, 3, 4, 4, 4, 6
    Gonchar-2, 8, 10

    Points

    Potvin-1, 3, 9
    Gonchar-6, 8

    Now, this certainly indicates that Potvin was the better offensive defenseman, but I think this sort of puts into perspective how good Gonchar was offensively. I really think he is being underrated in the ATD because he's a modern player. Now, Potvin played in a more competitive era, but played on a stacked, dynasty Islanders team with Bossy, Potvin, Gillies, Trottier, and Nystrom whereas Gonchar played on very weak Capitals teams, and a good but not anywhere close to the Islanders Pens team.
     
  19. seventieslord

    seventieslord Student Of The Game

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    32,127
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Regina, SK
    oh, no doubt about that.

    This badly underrates Potvin because he always seemed to miss a few games every year. Per-game, he was better than you make him sound. It hurt his norris voting record too.

    They are two games apart in career games right now.

    Career Adjusted ES Pts/82GP: Potvin 0.40, Gonchar 0.30
    Career Adjusted PP Pts/82GP: Potvin: 0.41, Gonchar 0.34
     
  20. Leafs Forever

    Leafs Forever Registered User

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2009
    Messages:
    2,802
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    66
    I wouldn't give Potvin a free pass because he was injured a fair amount, though.
     
  21. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    You could say the same thing of Gonchar. Potvin had 9 seasons of 74 or more games out of 15 seasons, and Gonchar has 7 seasons of 74 or more games out of his 15 full seasons. Actually, if you count Gonchar's last 15 seasons(I don't count his first 31 game season), Gonchar has 1,027 career games and Potvin has 1,060.
     
  22. seventieslord

    seventieslord Student Of The Game

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2006
    Messages:
    32,127
    Likes Received:
    1,086
    Trophy Points:
    169
    Location:
    Regina, SK
    so where does that leave us, then? Per-game numbers. Already posted.
     
  23. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Touche seventies. I stand by my point that people underrate Gonchar because of his modern status and he's not as far away from Potvin as some would indicate.

    For Harris, I'll reference what LF posted in one of his old bios for Harris, and there's a link to a study that seventies did of old PCHA players.

    http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=31600448&postcount=912

    Take from that what you will. Now, Tkachuk was five times in the top ten in goals in the NHL; 1, 6, 7, 7, 10. He was never a top 10 in assists or points. He's quite different than Harris, who was chiefly a playmaker, and not a goal scorer, twice leading the PCHA in assists, and doing that again in the playoffs. According to the first study, that puts him at 5 top 10s overall, equal to the 5 top 10s in goals Tkachuk had. Both bring physicality to the table as well. In terms of skating, Tkachuk is below average, and Harris was known to be a good skater, so an advantage goes to Harris there. Four times, Harris was voted the best LW in the PCHA, and Tkachuk was twice a second team all star. That equates to roughly four second team all stars at LW for Harris to Tkachuk's 2. Defensively, Harris has one quote that calls him a master hook checker, and by my count that's one more than Tkachuk has about his defensive ability. In terms of the playoffs, Tkachuk was pretty below average, whereas Harris twice led the PCHA playoffs in assists. How to call them? I'm not sure. I'd say they are very close to even.

    Moving on to Frank McGee and Dale Hawerchuk. Again, I'll post what statistical comparisons I have found in regards to McGee, and I'll leave them up for interpretation. I don't know what his exact finishes were, I'm sure they exist but I don't have the knowledge or possibly resources to access them.

    I believe McGee also has 2 Retro Hart Trophies, I thought I saw that somewhere, but I'm not sure. How to compare these two? It's impossible to quantify the difference if you ask me. In the interest of the debate, I'll concede that Hawerchuk is a better offensive player. How much better? Good question. In terms of toughness, I might give a slight edge to McGee because he was known to be scrappy. In terms of skating, maybe a slight advantage to McGee as well, but not much. Defensively, I'd say they are about even, both being slightly above average. In the playoffs, McGee was a known star whereas Hawerchuk's playoff resume is pretty underwhelming for a player of his stature, but he isn't to blame because he wasn't on the greatest teams and was stuck in the shadow of the Oilers.

    That brings us to Ken Hodge and Billy Boucher. Both were members of famous lines, with Hodge being on a line with Esposito and Cashman, and Boucher with Morenz and Joliat. When comparing them, one thing I'd note is that Hodge was the second best player offensively on his line, whereas Boucher was a distant 3rd on his line. Both benefited from their linemates, but that is much more true of Boucher than Hodge. Here is a comparison of their finishes(this comparison massively favors Boucher):

    Goals

    Hodge-4, 4, 4, 16
    Boucher-2, 3, 8, 9

    Assists

    Hodge-4, 8, 12, 24
    Boucher-3, 3, 11, 12, 21

    Points

    Hodge-3, 4, 5, 20
    Boucher-3, 3, 7, 12, 22

    That might suggest Boucher is better, but taking into account era and linemates, Hodge is definitely the better offensive player. Some of those finishes are single digit assists, and are quite misleading. Hodge is definitely a better offensive player. Boucher is probably a little better defensively, and physically they are probably about even. In the playoffs, Hodge is easily better. Boucher has 3 career goals in 14 playoff games, whereas Hodge once led the playoffs in goals, and six times was in the top 8 in playoff points. Overall, Hodge is the better player.

    Second lines are a slight edge to Kimberley. What it comes down to is, the gap between Hawerchuk and McGee(Kimberley's largest advantage) is a little bigger than the gap between Hodge and Boucher(Philadelphia's biggest advantage). Overall, these units are close. Both are built well chemistry wise, with Philadelphia having two big, physical guys that will feed the superstar center that can work magic with the puck, and Kimberley has a playmaking center, and two gritty wingers, with Tkachuk being the shooter and Boucher the glue guy.
     
    Last edited: May 17, 2011
  24. BillyShoe1721

    BillyShoe1721 Terriers

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    17,252
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    126
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    Bugg-if possible, could you dig up some information about Glass's, Russell's, and Stuart's playing styles and strengths/weaknesses? They are all pre-NHL era guys, and that is by far the era I know the least about. My knowledge is basically restricted to star players and guys I've owned, and I those don't apply to any of them. From what a quick search I've gathered, Glass provides some toughness, Russell is a scorer, and Stuart a power forward. How do they fit together as a line? What is their purpose exactly? I'd appreciate it, and I think most of the voting population would agree that we don't know much about these guys.
     
  25. arrbez

    arrbez bad chi

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2004
    Messages:
    13,303
    Likes Received:
    185
    Trophy Points:
    141
    Location:
    Toronto
    Yeah, I'll find that list and put it up later tonight. If I recall, things weren't really that bad until 1944. 1943 was a little weaker, but 1942 really wasn't missing many players at all. 1946 might be worse than 1943 in terms of overall league quality, and was definitely worse than 1942. There were a lot of partial seasons, and guys who came back from the War and just didn't have it anymore.

    The Kraut line missed 10 games in the 1942 season, but weren't among the league leaders in any per-game categories. I don't know where they were in scoring at the time they left, but unless league scoring jumped quite a bit after they left then it looks like they wouldn't have really been factors anyways that year.

    Here's the link for anyone interested. I'll post this in the "dishing the dirt" thread as well.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2011

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "358c248ada348a047a4b9bb27a146148"