ATD2011 Jim Robson Finals: (1) Kimberley Dynamiters vs. (2) Philadephia Firebirds
- Thread starter Velociraptor
- Start date
Velociraptor
Registered User
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
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
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
For easy reference and access, here is my roster with bios linked:
Philadelphia Firebirds
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
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
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
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.
-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.
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.
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.
Firebirds are just too much better defensively. Dynamiters will make a lot of mistakes and the Firebirds will capitalize on them.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
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.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,897
- 223
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.
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
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.
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:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
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?
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
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.
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
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:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
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)
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
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.
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.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
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
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
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.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
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.
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:
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
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.
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:
