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

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,131
Regina, SK
Billy, you are doing some real big overselling here.

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. ....... I'd say they are very close to even.

Wow. That's some major disrespect for being the NHL's goal leader. And some extremely selective memory regarding Harris' linemate - namely, the best offensive player hockey had seen up to that point (who outscored Harris by some of the widest margins seen in that time)

You have to be smart enough to know that top-10s in the PCHA era are not like top-10s in the post-euro NHL era. at the very least those "finishes" need to be doubled. At the very least.

"both bring physicality as well"? Harris' physicality is backed up by decent PIM totals and a few very short and non-descriptive quotes, plus he had a "feud" with a player in the minors... sure, that's something, I guess. We all saw Tkachuk's career. At his peak, the guy was a wrecking ball out there. A legitimate power forward, and in some people's eyes, the best in the game.

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.

He played four seasons:

- 2nd (68% of leader)
- 7th (43% of leader) - but on pace for 2nd/87%, it's not his fault Ottawa got only 4 games
- 1st (tied, 100% of leader obviously) - in the weaker FAHL
- 3rd (82% of leader)

How much better is Hawerchuk, you ask? Considering he played as long as he did and had only three seasons with less than a PPG average.... quite a lot better. Hawerchuk is among the finest 2nd line centers in this draft.

You don't get to play 4 seasons and get a scoring title in a second rate league, and suddenly get to hang with a guy like Hawerchuk.

Sure, McGee was a star in the playoffs.... against who? So much of his legacy is based on that series against Dawson City. As great a story as it made, they were a joke for competition. And it's universally accepted that Hawerchuk actually played very well in the playoffs with regularity.

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.

OK, I am not a fan of Boucher on a 2nd line whatsoever, and Hodge is better, but you're still getting it all wrong here. In 1923 and 1924 he was a legitimate star. Check it out, he was leading Montreal in points and finishing high in the league standings. In 1925 he managed 30 points while new star Morenz had 39, still a good year by any standard. It's after that, that he saw a big dropoff. And sure, he was a shotgun rider for Joliat and Morenz but he never really did anything with them anyway, that you would want to dismiss as being their doing. He was the catalyst for his own best seasons.

I don't get the whole "linemates considered" part, either. Boucher had Morenz and Joliat, after he was done being a star, yes. Hodge got to play on the PP with Orr (best per-game player ever), Espo (as good offensively as Morenz) and Bucyk (= Joliat). He had the better situation, not the worse one. Like I said, I think he's better. I really respect his puckwinning abilities; they are important. But I didn't grab Cashman to brag about his scoring finishes and you shouldn't be concerned with Hodge's either.

(also just wanted to point out, though it does not relate to this series, Hodge likely was a bit better than Cashman offensively, but it wasn't by as much as the raw totals would appear to show. From 1970 to 1975, he averaged 0.78 ESPPG; Cashman averaged 0.74. It was the 118 to 44 gap in PP points that really made the difference. Bucyk was the main LW on that PP so Cashman wasn't used much, while Hodge took the right side and the lucrative totals that went with it)
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
Billy, you are doing some real big overselling here.



Wow. That's some major disrespect for being the NHL's goal leader. And some extremely selective memory regarding Harris' linemate - namely, the best offensive player hockey had seen up to that point (who outscored Harris by some of the widest margins seen in that time)

You have to be smart enough to know that top-10s in the PCHA era are not like top-10s in the post-euro NHL era. at the very least those "finishes" need to be doubled. At the very least.

"both bring physicality as well"? Harris' physicality is backed up by decent PIM totals and a few very short and non-descriptive quotes, plus he had a "feud" with a player in the minors... sure, that's something, I guess. We all saw Tkachuk's career. At his peak, the guy was a wrecking ball out there. A legitimate power forward, and in some people's eyes, the best in the game.

Double them again? The one I posted that LF posted was already doubled from his results. A top 40 in the 90s and early 2000s(where guys were all sort of lumped together in the dead puck era when scoring was down) is equal to being top 10 in the 1910s and early 1920s? I certainly disagree with that. Being called the roughest and toughest in the league doesn't mean anything? Fine, advantage goes to Tkachuk because his toughness is proven. Harris is a better playmaker. Tkachuk the better goal scorer. Point producer? Because I don't want to get into a debate, I'll give it to Tkachuk even though his highest point finish is 15th.

He played four seasons:

- 2nd (68% of leader)
- 7th (43% of leader) - but on pace for 2nd/87%, it's not his fault Ottawa got only 4 games
- 1st (tied, 100% of leader obviously) - in the weaker FAHL
- 3rd (82% of leader)

How much better is Hawerchuk, you ask? Considering he played as long as he did and had only three seasons with less than a PPG average.... quite a lot better. Hawerchuk is among the finest 2nd line centers in this draft.

You don't get to play 4 seasons and get a scoring title in a second rate league, and suddenly get to hang with a guy like Hawerchuk.

Sure, McGee was a star in the playoffs.... against who? So much of his legacy is based on that series against Dawson City. As great a story as it made, they were a joke for competition. And it's universally accepted that Hawerchuk actually played very well in the playoffs with regularity.

Seeing this, I'll conclude that Hawerchuk was significantly better. I said I didn't know his finishes and couldn't quantify it. Seeing that, Hawerchuk is in a different class. When Hawerchuk was in the playoffs, he was good. But, he only made it to the finals once, his last year with the Flyers when he was a shell of his former self. And he never made it to the conference finals except that year in Phillly. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ATD canon say that we can't say he would have continued that good play from the first round into the later rounds, had he made it, because he never did? McGee's competition was poor, admittedly.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
And yes, a top 5 in a pre-consolidation league probably is a top 20 today. Half for the split league effect, half for the Euro effect.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
Tkachuk finished 11th, 12th, 13th, 15th in regular season points. Playoffs are another story, but that's been well covered.

With this knowledge, I'll easily concede an advantage to Tkachuk. I just looked at Tkachuk's top raw point total and looked and where he finished and assumed that was his best. Should have known better with the dead puck era. Now, I'll be moving on to the 3rd lines, despite the fact that Bugg has provided no information about the function of his line, and why they should fit together.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
With this knowledge, I'll easily concede an advantage to Tkachuk. I just looked at Tkachuk's top raw point total and looked and where he finished and assumed that was his best. Should have known better with the dead puck era. Now, I'll be moving on to the 3rd lines, despite the fact that Bugg has provided no information about the function of his line, and why they should fit together.

Yeah, figuring out points finishes below 10 is hard work. Hockey reference really needs to make it easier. I only knew because I had tkachuk on my team last year, remembered he had an 11th place finish, and looked at my old profile.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,131
Regina, SK
Double them again? The one I posted that LF posted was already doubled from his results. A top 40 in the 90s and early 2000s(where guys were all sort of lumped together in the dead puck era when scoring was down) is equal to being top 10 in the 1910s and early 1920s? I certainly disagree with that.

No, you're getting it wrong here. I'm not asking you to "double it again". You would just be doubling it for the first time, really. For example, a 5th in the PCHA would be like a 10th [/i]overall[/i] in 1920. That's what matters. But a 10th overall in 1920 is at least a 20th overall in modern times. And that's extremely generous to the old player considering the percentages often associated with these placements.

Being called the roughest and toughest in the league doesn't mean anything?

I read that entire book (and his last one, and they are both great) but it really says nothing about on-ice play in it, not about particular players. That might be the only time in either book that he provides a description of a player's playing style. It's just not what his books are about. I have no idea where Mr. Wong might have gotten something like this aside from PIM totals.

Harris is a better playmaker.

No doubt.

Tkachuk the better goal scorer. Point producer? Because I don't want to get into a debate, I'll give it to Tkachuk even though his highest point finish is 15th.

Not sure where you got that, because he has four seasons at least that high. He was top-25 four more times, and yes, that is significant.

Best 8 percentages of #2 non-outlier: 87 85 83 82 82 73 73 72
Best 8 for Harris vs. #2 in the PCHA (which is not #2 overall like Tkachuk was compared to) : 112 100 97 87 84 69 54 51 - and Taylor had as much to do with it as Harris. No one really "made Tkachuk better". He was a catalyst.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't ATD canon say that we can't say he would have continued that good play from the first round into the later rounds, had he made it, because he never did?

Yes, it's fair to remind anyone who gets too excited about Hawerchuk's playoff numbers that if he had twice as many games (from getting into rounds 2 and 3 more often) it definitely doesn't mean he'd also have twice as many points.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
Sutter-Lepine-Peirson

vs.

Glass-Russell-Stuart

Brian Sutter and Pud Glass. Quantifying this will be next to impossible. In my continuing referencing of seventies hard work, here's a table that offers more information about Glass than I could find anywhere, and provides a little bit of information about all 3 of the guys on Kimberley's 3rd line:

Name | DOB | GP | G | PIM | G/GP | PIM/GP | GP w/PIM* | Top-5s
Name | DOB | GP | G | PIM | G/GP | PIM/GP | GP w/PIM* | Top-5s in Goals
Ernie Russell | 1883 | 112 | 215 | 419 | 1.92 | 3.74 | | 6
Bruce Stuart | 1881 | 104 | 111 | 280 | 1.07 | 3.33 | 84 | 3
Harry Smith | 1883 | 65 | 150 | 211 | 2.31 | 3.25 | | 4
Newsy Lalonde | 1887 | 254 | 329 | 769 | 1.30 | 3.03 | | 11
Tommy Phillips | 1883 | 45 | 71 | 100 | 1.58 | 2.56 | 39 | 1
Marty Walsh | 1884 | 75 | 167 | 181 | 2.23 | 2.41 | | 4
Pud Glass | 1884 | 103 | 109 | 221 | 1.06 | 2.15 | | 0
Tom Dunderdale | 1887 | 289 | 226 | 527 | 0.78 | 1.82 | | 5
Didier Pitre | 1883 | 239 | 267 | 433 | 1.12 | 1.81 | | 6
Tommy Smith | 1886 | 175 | 274 | 288 | 1.57 | 1.65 | | 7
Cyclone Taylor | 1885 | 228 | 246 | 355 | 1.08 | 1.56 | | 4
Russell Bowie | 1880 | 82 | 249 | 43 | 3.04 | 1.39 | 31 | 10
Frank McGee | 1882 | 41 | 135 | 56 | 3.29 | 1.37 | | 4
Blair Russell | 1881 | 69 | 109 | 68 | 1.58 | 1.36 | 50 | 5
Herb Jordan | 1884 | 61 | 146 | 19 | 2.39 | 0.31 | | 4

Offensively, he doesn't look that great, especially in comparison to his linemate Russell, who looks pretty good. He's got above average penalty minute totals that indicates some toughness, but certainly not on the same level of Brian Sutter. In terms of intangibles, Bugg hasn't provided anything that says anything about how he played or intangibles. Sutter has better PIM totals to back it up, and the quotes that indicate he was much more physical. A quick Google book search indicated a cut off quote that called him the Wanderers' hardest working forward, and another that called him small and aggressive. So he was basically a mucker and grinder for the more talented players on the team. But was he as good a grinder as Sutter? Highly doubtful. Offensively, I don't see Glass being as good as Sutter. Defensively, I don't see anything that indicates Glass is better than Sutter. Unless there's something I'm really missing here, I think Sutter is a much better player.

That brings us to Lepine and Ernie Russell. Defensively, I think Lepine is in a different atmosphere compared to Russell. I haven't seen a quote that suggests Russell had any defensive ability. And if seventies couldn't find it in his bio he did of Russell, I doubt that it exists. Offensively, Lepine was three times top 10 in the late 1920s and early 1930s NHL. Here is Russell's offensive resume, again, taken from seventies:

- 4th in CAHL Scoring (1905)
- 5th, 1st, 5th in ECAHA Scoring (1906, 1907, 1908)
- 2nd, 8th, 2nd in NHA Scoring (1910, 1911, 1912)

I'm assuming by "scoring" he means goals because I don't think there are any assist totals for this era. How do they compare? Russell's is probably better, but by how much? Again, I don't know. Calling on seventies, what is the general accepted comparison for years in the ECAHA, CAHL, and NHA compared to late 1920s and early 30s NHL? Either way, I'd call Lepine the better overall player because of what appears to be a herculean gap in defensive ability. Both were good skaters. Lepine was physical when he needed to be, and Russell has some high penalty minute totals that indicate toughness, but no quotes to substantiate it.

That brings us to Bruce Stuart and Johnny Peirson. Stuart was called a "good all around player" and a power forward with good PIM totals. The chart seventies posted indicates that his offense was on par with Pud Glass's, but Stuart has higher penalty minute totals, indicating he was a physical player. Peirson was physical as well, but not to the degree of Stuart. That also says he has 3 top 5s in goals. But, Peirson has goal finishes of 5, 7, and 9 in a much deeper and competitive era that appear to be stronger than those top 5s that Stuart his in a divided era with not so great competition. Do we know of any of Stuart's other finishes besides the one in this chart? Defensively, a couple of quotes about being an "all around player" don't appear to be as good as the ones Peirson has that specifically call him a good two way player. Going by what I know from that chart and knowledge about physicality and defensive play, I'd say Peirson is a better player, despite the 98 pick gap in draft position. Stuart is definitely more physical, but that doesn't make up for what appears to be other advantages to Peirson. I could very well be proven wrong if Stuart has any more better finishes than the one posted in seventies chart, but seventies is usually extremely thorough and accurate, so I'm only going by what he posted.

Overall, I'd call the 3rd lines an advantage to Philadelphia. Sutter is a better player than Glass from all indications, I'd say Lepine is a better 3rd line center compared to Russell(Russell is better offensively, but I'd say Lepine makes up for it in defense), and from the info that I have, Peirson looks better than Stuart.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,131
Regina, SK
- Buggs bio pretty much hits the nail on the head with Glass. I see him as a good ATD 4th liner... really no offense to him, but good work ethic, grit and defense, while playing clean. A better Kirk Maltby, maybe. Sutter is definitely better.
- About Russell, that's right, I know nothing about his defense, he likely doesn't provide any. He outscored guys like Lester Patrick and Ernie Johnson but they were the ones who were called the best players most frequently. I would definitely give him a really solid edge on Lepine offensively though, even after any era considerations. when you say "Lepine was top-10 3 times" you mean "Lepine was 10th three times... in goals. But was 18th, 19th, and 24th in points those years"
- In the era you're talking about (1905-1912) I would say the CAHL, EC(A)HA and NHA are all pretty much the same. It was 1913 when the next great generation really started to dominate. Russell's eea was weaker, but that's still 6 times top-5 in goals, not shabby at all. How does it compare to the 1920s and 30s NHL? I'd use percentages, personally. This would bring Lepine closer to Russell but not really that close (offensively).
- I know very little about Stuart but what little I know tells me that as far as HHOFers go, he's overrated.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Okay, so that pretty much re-affirms what we thought. A scrappy grinder that worked hard, and was above average defensively.

I actually see Pud Glass and Brian Sutter as guys who played a very similar style. Both had skill to score. Both had great work ethic that led to good defnsive play. Both had a load of grit.

It's a tough comparison, but I think Sutter is a better player. He's a little bit better in all areas.


As for Bruce Stuart, I think he's under-rated. I was really hoping to get him to play RW on my second line. Stuart was 6'2" in an era where players averaged like 5'7". If you like Seventies' adjustment chart, Stuart would be 6'7"! He was also known as one of the faster skaters of his era. That gives you a scary combination of speed and size. In an all-time sense, I think Stuart is better than Pierson, but Pierson is a better 3rd liner. I think they're pretty close.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
I'll complete the forward matchups tonight with a look at the 4th lines.

Maloney-Thoms-Prodgers

vs.

Merrick-Kesler-Stewart

Don Maloney and Wayne Merrick are the 4th line LWs. Neither provides very much in terms of point scoring. They played pretty close in proximity, so a percentage comparison should be good. I choose percentages because that's what I did in the first round, and don't feel like running the new numbers. As with my previous comparison, 1st place has been removed for Maloney and Merrick.

Maloney-58, 55, 53, 52
Merrick-56, 51, 45, 35

Advantage Maloney, every one of his finishes is better than Merrick's. In terms of physicality, Maloney holds an edge here as well. Defensively, they are close. Reputation would suggest that Merrick is slightly better, but Maloney's 15 career SHG to Merrick's 0 tells a different story. Maloney was chosen to two all star games as well, whereas Merrick wasn't picked to any. Overall, I'd say Maloney is the better player.

That brings us to Bill Thoms and Ryan Kesler. My opponent pointed out that both have a top 10 in goals, which is true. But, Thoms was in first, and Kesler 4th. True, Kesler's era and competition was much more impressive. Kesler really has 3 seasons offensively that matter in the ATD, here they are compared to Thoms.

Goals

Thoms-1, 19, 20, 21
Kesler-4, 47, 52

Assists

Thoms-4, 5, 9, 14, 16, 22
Kesler-10, 42, 52

Points

Thoms-4, 6, 7, 19, 22
Kesler-13, 19, 55

After considering era, I still think Thoms comes up stronger here. Defensively, I'll concede an advantage to Kesler with his Selke finalist nominations. But, that's not to say that Thoms isn't a solid defensive player, he was regarded as one of the better two-way centers players during his career. Neither are anything great in the postseason, Kesler had one good year last year, and Thoms was 2nd in goals, 1st in assists, and 2nd in points once. Thoms was also a 2nd team All Star at center once, and was 3rd in Hart Trophy voting once. In terms of toughness, a slight edge to Kesler, but neither are a significant factor in this area. Overall, I'd say Thoms is a better player.

That brings us to Goldie Prodgers and Ron Stewart. I don't think an offensive comparison is even necessary. Prodgers was four times top 13 in points, and four times top 12 in goals. Ron Stewart's highest four finishes were 21st, 31st, 34th, and 39th. Even considering era(they were both O6), Prodgers definitely comes out on top here. In terms of physicality, Prodgers holds a good edge here as well. In terms of defense, they are pretty close. Stewart probably holds a small edge there, but not large. Overall, Prodgers is the better player.

All things considered, 4th lines are an advantage to Philadelphia. In terms of offense, Philadelphia's 3 forwards are better than their counterparts. In terms of defense, Kimberley's group is stronger. But, the gap in offensive ability and physicality is larger than the gap in defensive ability, which tips this in Philadelphia's favor.
 

seventieslord

Student Of The Game
Mar 16, 2006
36,080
7,131
Regina, SK
Billy, you forgot to mention that Kesler is currently leading the 2011 playoffs in points. If Vancouver goes out in 4 straight and he gets shut out, he's almost surely a top-10 scorer still.

As for Bruce Stuart, I think he's under-rated. I was really hoping to get him to play RW on my second line. Stuart was 6'2" in an era where players averaged like 5'7". If you like Seventies' adjustment chart, Stuart would be 6'7"! He was also known as one of the faster skaters of his era. That gives you a scary combination of speed and size. In an all-time sense, I think Stuart is better than Pierson, but Pierson is a better 3rd liner. I think they're pretty close.

I disagree that he is underrated, but you're right about his size. He is, relative to era, possibly one of the four tallest ATD/MLD-caliber players of all-time. (Chara, Mahovlich, Halderson are a few others I can think of)
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
Billy, you forgot to mention that Kesler is currently leading the 2011 playoffs in points. If Vancouver goes out in 4 straight and he gets shut out, he's almost surely a top-10 scorer still.

Good point. When I was looking at his stats I thought his 2010-11 playoffs were 09-10. So, he had an average year last year(21st in assists, 41st in points, just one goal), and a good year this year.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
Let's take a look at the top pairings. As I said, I already concede that Kimberley's is better. But, I'm going to try to demonstrate that it's closer than some may think.

Langway-Ivanov

vs.

Potvin-Morrow

Langway and Potvin are clearly the #1s. Potvin is miles ahead of Langway offensively, that's no question. In terms of skating, again Potvin. Physicality? Both bring a decent amount to the table, and I don't think either has an advantage. In an attempt to quantify how much of a gap there is between them, I'll look at both Norris finishes, All Star finishes, and Hart finishes. Seventies said that Potvin missing games hurt his Norris record, but how much?

Norris

Potvin-1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 8
Langway-1, 1, 3, 5, 5, 9

Those are the relevant finishes that both have in Norris voting. With exact finishes removed, it's

Potvin-1, 2, 2, 4, 8
Langway-5, 5, 9

Definitely still an advantage to Potvin, but it's not as though it's a runaway race.

All Star

Potvin-1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 7, 9, 10
Langway-1, 2, 3, 5, 5, 8, 8, 9

With exact removed

Potvin-1, 1, 1, 4, 6, 7, 7, 9, 10
Langway-5, 5, 8, 8

The advantage again goes to Potvin, but I get the impression that all star voting tends to be more about offense and flair compared to defense in general. Anyone else agree?

Hart

Potvin-2, 4, 7
Langway-2, 4, 4

Advantage Langway at face value. But, Potvin played on a team of all stars and that helped his offensive numbers. Hart Trophy is defined as a player that is most valuable to his own team, and Langway was more valuable to the Capitals because he didn't have the supporting that Potvin had. I'm not saying Langway was better, but he was more "valuable" to his team because he was the one holding that team together, and Potvin did not have that big of a role in NY. Potvin was a captain for 9 years, whereas Langway was a captain for 12 years. Overall, Potvin is the stronger player, but I think the gap is closer than what people may think.

That brings us to Eduard Ivanov and Ken Morrow. Here is where I think there is a case to be made. It seems like I've got a bone to pick with guys named Morrow and where they're picked. I didn't like where Brendan Morrow was picked, and I don't get why Ken Morrow is picked so high. I think Morrow gets a whole lot of mileage out of being one of the few guys that won a Gold Medal and a Stanley Cup in the same year, and being on that Miracle on Ice team. He won four cups on a stacked dynasty team, and scored some timely playoff goals. Here are Ken Morrow's relevant Norris and All Star team votes:

Norris-
All Star-

He doesn't have any significant votes(at least ten points) for the Norris or being an All Star. He won four cups and that Gold Medal. His highest point total, in a high scoring era, was 19. His highest point finish among defensemen? 80th. If a guy is that bad offensively(It's my understanding that he played with Potvin) and that he couldn't pick up a good amount of secondary assists, you'd think he'd have some glowing accolades about his defense, or Norris/All Star votes to back it up, but I don't really see any. I see quotes calling him "reliable", "steady", and "consistent", but nothing that makes him worthy of being a top pairing guy IMO. Okay, was he a great hitter or a tough guy? No, he had a career high penalty minute total of 56PIM. I have to ask, why is Ken Morrow drafted this high? He was drafted as a #4 defenseman in this, and I don't see anything tangible that makes him worthy of that. He covered for Denis Potvin, and was pretty good at it. Does that make him better than Ivanov? I don't think so.

Ivanov was known to be a physical defenseman that played tough in his own zone and in front of his net, just like his partner Ragulin. Ivanov is more physical than Morrow. In terms of awards and accolades, he was three times voted a 1st Team Soviet All Star, and once a 2nd and 3rd team All Star. In terms of offense, Ivanov averaged .203 goals/game in international play. In the NHL, Morrow averaged .03 goals/game(adjusted). Defensively, is there any proof that Morrow is better than Ivanov? And if there is, I don't see it, and I don't think it would be enough to overcome the advantage that Ivanov has in offense and physicality. The one thing that could provide some actual evidence is if we had time on ice totals, and that Morrow played some ridiculous amount of minutes. Overall, I think Ivanov is better.

Overall, first pairings are an advantage to Kimberley. Potvin is a much better overall player compared to Langway. But, from what evidence I see Ivanov is a better player than Morrow. The thing that tips it in Kimberley's favor is that the gap between Potvin and Langway is larger than the gap between Ivanov and Morrow.

My top pairing is serving specifically as a shutdown first pairing that will be able to provide solid outlet passes to its forwards. The problem that I see with Kimberley's top pairing is how the rest of the defense is built. The 2nd pairing is populated by a big question mark in Hobey Baker, and a guy that dominated horrific competition at the Olympics, and never appeared to be anything special during his time in the NHL. The 3rd pairing on the other hand is populated by one of the worst players defensively in the entire draft in Ozolinsh, and a shutdown guy in Arbour that provides basically nothing in terms of offense. My question is, do you want that second pairing(with two question marks), and 3rd pairing(with an awful guy defensively and a guy that's a decent #6) facing Jean Beliveau and Jari Kurri? I can't help but think Beliveau and Kurri would eat them alive. In an effort to avoid this, I'm assuming Kimberley(and correct me if I'm wrong Mr. Bugg), is going to try to get Potvin out as much as possible against my first line. In this sense, that is going to take away the best part of Potvin's game, his offense. If Potvin has to be worried about shutting down my top forwards, then he is not going to be nearly as effective in the offensive zone, his meat and potatoes. If Kimberley is going to have Baker-Munro and Ozolinsh-Arbour out against my first line, then Kimberley runs the risk of being severely outmatched. Kimberley is really stuck between a rock and a hard place in this situation. Either limit Potvin's effectiveness and assign him to Beliveau, or put out his shaky bottom four against one of the best lines in the draft.

Now, if Kimberley had some really strong two-way forwards that would be able to support their 2nd and 3rd pairings, they might be okay. But, this is far from the case. The entire first line is below average defensively, Hawerchuk is above average but nothing special, as are Boucher and Glass. The entire top 9 doesn't feature any forwards that I would call "good defensively". The 4th line features 3 good two-way players, the best being Ryan Kesler. So, does Kimberley sacrifice minutes for its top 9 in order to get defensive players like Merrick, Kesler, and Stewart out against my better players in order to overcompensate for the poor bottom 4 defensemen? If so, that will limit the effectiveness and offensive ability of its top 9. In any of these scenarios, Philadelphia comes out with the upper hand in the matchup department. Of course, Kimberley has as good of an equalizer as you can get in Dominik Hasek, but I don't think he's good enough to offset the obvious matchup problem that my forwards poses against his bottom 4 defensemen and top 9 forwards.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
That brings us to the 2nd pairings, where I think there is the most lopsided advantage in my favor.

Howell-Gonchar

vs.

Baker-Munro

Harry Howell and Hobey Baker is a difficult comparison. I have generally seen Baker listed as a rover or a forward, but not as a defenseman. Do you have anything that says he was a defenseman? In terms of actual accomplishments at the professional level, Baker doesn't have any. His is a career of what could have been, but we can only go by his domination of college and amateur leagues in the ATD. He was supposedly a tremendous skater and stickhandler, and a great offensive player. But, from what I've read, I haven't seen anything about defensive play, and I think he would be a pretty big liability as a defender with the evidence that I've seen. Overall as a defenseman, Harry Howell is significantly better, by a large margin. Baker simply never played against the best competition, and his resume of actual accomplishments is essentially nothing, especially compared to Howell. Large advantage to Howell.

Sergei Gonchar and Dunc Munro. I don't even need to run an offensive comparison to know that Gonchar is ahead by miles compared to a guy who scored 46 points in 239 games(no matter what the era), and dominated some scrubs at the Olympics. LOH also said that he played some LW which puts his point totals into question, not that there was any chance he could approach Gonchar. Munro was a good leader from all accounts. He also had a physical element that Gonchar didn't. Gonchar's defensive problems are well documented(and lamented on too much in the ATD because he's a modern player IMO), so Munro is probably better here. In terms of skating, I'd say Gonchar holds a decisive edge. Overall, Gonchar is a much better and more effective player.

Overall, the 2nd parings are a very large advantage to Philadelphia. Take the two guys that are the weakest defensively, Gonchar and Baker, and I'd say Gonchar easily wins out considering that he was actually a defenseman, was a defenseman against NHL competition, and was actually good at it for a couple years, unlike Baker. Harry Howell and Dunc Munro is a massive advantage to Harry Howell. Overall, these 2nd pairings aren't close at all. This is a large, large advantage to the Firebirds.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
Third pairings...

Tikal-Owen

vs.

Ozolinsh-Arbour

I'll approach this based on the defined roles of the players, so I'll be comparison Owen and Ozolinsh, and Tikal and Arbour.

Owen and Ozolinsh were both mostly offensive defensemen. Here are their finishes:

Goals

Owen-1, 2, 5, 5, 7
Ozolinsh-1, 2, 5, 7, 10, 11, 11, 14

Assists

Owen-2, 3, 3, 19
Ozolinsh-2, 7, 8, 9, 17, 18, 19, 19

Points

Owen-1, 2, 5, 8
Ozolinsh-2, 5, 6, 7, 11, 14, 15, 20

Owen's finishes might look more impressive at face value, but Ozolinsh has better longevity, and considering era Ozolinsh's finishes are definitely better. Offensively, Ozolinsh is better. Defensively, I'd say Owen was better. Sandis is one of the weakest defensemen in terms of actually playing defense in the draft. Owen isn't ideal to have out against a team's best players, but I'd be much more comfortable with him facing Syl Apps than Ozolinsh facing Jean Beliveau. Both were very good skaters, I don't see a huge advantage for either here. Overall, Ozolinsh is a better player because of his offensive abilities.

That brings us to Tikal and Al Arbour. Arbour's only real personal accomplishment is being 5th in all star voting twice, both legit finishes. In terms of offense, he brings very little. He was physical, and blocked shots. Tikal was supposedly a stay at home guy to his rushing partner Karel Gut, but was able to put up some points. This is from my last round:

In years that were recorded, we know Tikal had 17 points(10G, 7A) in 34 World Championships games, with assists not being recorded in two of those years, for a .5PPG. As a point of reference, Ragulin had 37 points in 97 career points in World Championship games for a PPG of .38. Another comparable is Eduard Ivanov who had 18 points in 29 career WC games for a PPG of .62. So, Tikal falls in the middle of those two.

I think that would indicate Tikal is better than Arbour offensively. In terms of defense, Tikal was twice the best defenseman at the World Championships over Eduard Ivanov, Alexander Ragulin, Karel Gut, Lennart Svedberg(in 1965), Vitaly Davydov, Viktor Kuzkin, and Jan Suchy(in 1965). I'd go as far to say that Tikal might be better than Arbour defensively. Overall, Tikal is definitely the better player.

Overall, the 3rd pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. What it comes down to is, the gap between Ozolinsh and Owen isn't enough to make up for the larger gap between Tikal and Arbour.
 

Hockey Outsider

Registered User
Jan 16, 2005
9,056
13,985
The gap between Potvin and Langway is much larger than it appears by simply counting Norris placements.

- Not all Norris wins are created equal. Potvin dominated the voting in a way that Langway never did (89% share in 1979, 88% share in 1976; in comparison Langway earned 73% of the votes in 1984 and 57% in 1983).

- Langway only received a small handful of votes in many years. If you restrict it to seasons where the defensemen earned at least 20% of the maximum possible votes, Potvin had seven seasons as a serious Norris contender (1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1984) versus only three for Langway (1983, 1984, 1985).

- Despite spending most of his career on average to very good teams, Langway really doesn't have any notable playoff performances to speak off. Potvin was a consistently excellent playoff performer, even before the Islanders were a good team. I'd rank only Orr and maybe Harvey superior in terms of playoff performances.

- Potvin was the more physical player by a comfortable margin. He was named the best bodychecker in the league in 1979, and was in the top three in 1976 and 1985. Link. Potvin was significantly more aggressive than Langway too.

Not trying to bash Langway or your team at all - just think that Potvin is a decisive advantage over Langway.

Also - I consider Morrow to be quite similar to Adam Foote - both were very good shutdown defensemen with minimal offensive ability (especially considering the teams they played for), good international track records and basically non-existent Norris/all-star records. Foote was better, but not by a huge margin. Anyone else agree/disagree?
 
Last edited:

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
In terms of goaltending, Hasek is one of the best all time. Holecek is definitely a step down. But, my bio has one quote that suggests Holecek might have been a better goalie than Tretiak, and just because he didn't have the same exposure against NHL competition, he isn't seen as being as good. Some think he might have been the best goalie in the world at that time, including Bobby Hull, Joe Pelletier, and the author of "A Century of Hockey Heroes", a book I recently found. There is a very nice page on Holecek. Here it is:

NHL stars like Jaromir Jagr and Dominik Hasek are two of the latest examples of great hockey players from the countries that once were Czechoslovakia. Hasek is now considered to be the greatest goalie in the world. Once, the same was true of Jiri Holecek. To this day many international hockey experts still consider Holecek to be one of the two greatest goalies ever to come from Europe. The other one is Vladislav Tretiak of Russia. If Holecek had been given as many opportunities as Tretiak to play tournaments against NHL stars, his name would be much more famous today.

He was the type of goalie that never seemed to let pressure bother him. No matter how exciting a game got, Holecek could keep calm. He was very good with his gloves, using his blocker to deflect pucks away or his catcher to grab them. His hands were so fast that Holecek was nicknamed "The Magician".

Like all the great European stars of his era, what truly made Holecek stand out was his performances at international events.

-A Century of Hockey Heroes

While I still concede an advantage here to Kimberley, I think Holecek should be regarded more in the 13-15 tier of goaltenders, and that the gap between he and Tretiak should not be as large. Hasek is still the better goalie, but I'll refer to my post about the matchup issues that Kimberley has to face in defending my forwards and the use of Denis Potvin. The matchups will just be too much to overcome for Kimberley, even with Hasek.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,516
3,352
The gap between Potvin and Langway is much larger than it appears by simply counting Norris placements.

- Not all Norris wins are created equal. Potvin dominated the voting in a way that Langway never did (89% share in 1979, 88% share in 1976; in comparison Langway earned 73% of the votes in 1984 and 57% in 1983).

- Langway only received a small handful of votes in many years. If you restrict it to seasons where the defensemen earned at least 20% of the maximum possible votes, Potvin had seven seasons as a serious Norris contender (1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1981, 1984) versus only three for Langway (1983, 1984, 1985).

- Despite spending most of his career on average to very good teams, Langway really doesn't have any notable playoff performances to speak off. Potvin was a consistently excellent playoff performer, even before the Islanders were a good team. I'd rank only Orr and maybe Harvey superior in terms of playoff performances.

- Potvin was the more physical player by a comfortable margin. He was named the best bodychecker in the league in 1979, and was in the top three in 1976 and 1985. Link. Potvin was significantly more aggressive than Langway too.

Not trying to bash Langway or your team at all - just think that Potvin is a decisive advantage over Langway.

Also - I consider Morrow to be quite similar to Adam Foote - both were very good shutdown defensemen with minimal offensive ability (especially considering the teams they played for), good international track records and basically non-existent Norris/all-star records. Foote was better, but not by a huge margin. Anyone else agree/disagree?

I think you're right on the money for what my opinion is worth.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
Now to take a look at special teams. I'll do PP first.

Duff-Beliveau-Kurri
Gonchar-Ivanov

vs.

Tkachuk-Hawerchuk-Boucher
Potvin-Ozolinsh

Kimberley has chosen to distribute its PP units in order to give them more balance, with their 2nd line on the first unit and first line on the 2nd unit, and the opposite with the defensemen.

Duff and Tkachuk are similar players, both physical presences and goal scorers. But overall, Tkachuk is the better goalscorer. Beliveau and Hawerchuk is a definite advantage to Beliveau in both goalscoring and playmaking I'd say. Kurri and Boucher isn't even a comparison, Kurri wins in a landslide. You can refer to my comparisons between Sergei Gonchar and Denis Potvin on the first page. Either way you slice it, Potvin is better. Kimberley has decided to stack their first PP unit with the two best pointmen, and Ozolinsh comes out better than Ivanov. Overall, first PPs are a slight advantage to Kimberley.

Harris-McGee-Hodge
Owen-Howell

Conacher-Apps-Drillon
Baker-Munro

Kimberley's 3 forwards are better than my 3 forwards, no bone to pick there. In terms of pointmen, I think Philadelphia holds a large advantage. Hobey Baker has nothing that shows he could ever be a PPQB. Owen has solid totals as an offensive defenseman. Howell's totals are better than Munro's, by a good margin. Overall, these still come out to an advantage to Kimberley because of better forwards.

The PPs are an advantage to Kimberley. This is true because Kimberley chose to pick overwhelmingly one-way offensive forwards. Their top 9 doesn't feature a player that I would call "very good" defensively. I chose a balance between offense and defensive responsibility instead of pure offense for my forwards, and this will be extremely evident in my comparison of penalty kill units.

Lepine-Kurri
Langway-Howell

Kesler - Stewart
Arbour - Morrow

Kesler's defensive peak is short but impressive. But, Lepine is on a different level. Shorthanded goals were recorded for part of Stewart's career and he's got 11, so we at least know he killed penalties. Still, Kurri is a better penalty killer. Langway is easily better than Arbour, and Howell easily better than Morrow. All four Philadelphia players are better than their Kimberley counterparts, and this is a large advantage to Philadelphia.

Maloney-Thoms
Ivanov-Tikal

Merrick - Glass
Munro - Potvin

I've decided that this will be my 2nd PK unit after doing a lot of flip flopping. Maloney and Merrick at face value appears to be close, but a look at career SHG tells a different story. Malone has 15, to Merrick's 0. Merrick was supposedly good defensively, but zero career shorthanded goals(when SHG were recorded his entire career) suggests that he didn't do much penalty killing at all. If he didn't do much of it, that doesn't mean he was very good at it. Advantage Maloney. Glass and Thoms is a tough one to call. We don't have any specific proof that either killed penalties, we're more going on the principle of "they were good defensively, so they must be decent at penalty killing". In terms of defense, I would give a slight advantage to Thoms, and I'd say he's probably a little bit of a better penalty killer. Ivanov is definitely a better player than Munro, but Potvin is vastly superior to Tikal. How to call these? The Denis Potvin factor is the real question. His presence alone makes this a close call. Philadelphia has an advantage(IMO) in the 3 other positions, but Kimberley has the largest advantage in Potvin. Even if the advantage is large, if we have 3 guys on the ice that are better at their job than Kimberley's, I think we'll have the advantage even if the other gap is large simply because one player can't do everything, especially on a penalty kill.

Kimberley doesn't have a 3rd PK unit listed at all. Were they to field one, I'd be quite confident in saying it wouldn't be as good as my 3rd pair. I'd venture to say that I have 4, maybe 5 forwards that are better defensively than the next forward Kimberley would use on their PK(Duff, Beliveau, Peirson, Sutter, and maybe Prodgers), who I would hypothesize would be Hawerchuk. Their defensemen would have to be a combination of Morrow, Baker, Ozolinsh, or Arbour. Pick your poison there, Langway-Howell would be eons ahead.

Overall, Kimberley has the advantage in PPs, but Philadelphia a decisive advantage in PKs. In terms of special teams as a whole, I would surmise that the gap between the PK units in favor of Philadelphia is larger than the gap between PP units in Kimberley's favor, tipping the special teams scale slightly in Philadelphia's favor as a whole.
 

BillyShoe1721

Terriers
Mar 29, 2007
17,252
6
Philadelphia, PA
To finish off the comparisons, I'll take a quick look at coaches. Joel Quenneville and Marc Crawford compared to Viktor Tikhonov and Father David Bauer. Tikhonov has definitely won more championships in the Soviet Union, and built a dominant national team that rarely lost. Quenneville has made the Stanley Cup finals once, winning with Chicago last year. He only ever made the Conference Finals two other times, losing both times. Quenneville isn't known as any great tactician as far as I know, whereas Tikhonov was. I'd say Tikhonov is a better head coach than Quenneville due to a much better championship and winning resume. Father David Bauer was known as a great teacher of the game and built teams that were greater than the sum of their parts. He's a perfect compliment to Tikhonov's style. Crawford on the other hand won one cup and a Jack Adams for coaching a star studded 95-96 Colorado team over Florida, who had no business in the finals. Crawford only ever made the Conference Finals one other time. I'd say Father David Bauer is a more valuable coach to have, especially considering my head coach. Overall, I'd say coaching is an advantage to Philadelphia.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->