Also, Nash doesn't need an elite playmaker to give him perfect passes to finish. He's not a one-touch sniper like a Dany Heatley, he's an elite goal scorer with size, speed, and skill. Just getting him the puck in transition or on the cycle will give him his share of opportunities.
You are talking about real life, though. The ATD is going to be more difficult.
Hay was far from an offence-only guy. I won't say that Hay's point finishes accurately portray his offence. Obviously he benefited from passing the puck to Hull. But why was Hay on Hull's line? To be a defensive conscience! He got the puck to Hull to let him go to work on on offence, and covered for him defensively.
I know Hay had some defensive skill. I think that overall, with physicality and agitation considered, he's not going to bring as good a "4th line" game as Gardner. But no, he's not incapable.
Pronger - Clancy is close, I think. I actually picked Pronger over Clancy because I wanted the size and toughness that Pronger adds. Clancy has a lot going for him as well, of course. But I think Ottawa is at least equal on the top pairings.
Funny thing is, if you asked King Clancy he would probably tell you that Eddie Gerard was the best defenceman in the series.
... damn Clancy and his modesty!
I had forgotten you actually took Pronger over Clancy. Not the biggest reach in the draft, and you obviously had a specific skill set in mind, but... thanks for letting me have Clancy!
Agreed, Bergman is not as good as Neilson, who had better awards voting support. But:
Bergman's teams were not terrible at all. Pre-expansion, they were above average in a 6 team league.
64-65: 0.621
65-66: 0.529
66-67: 0.414
Average: 0.521
In his post-expansion years where we know he played big minutes, they were a bit weaker, but still average:
67-68: 0.446
68-69: 0.513
69-70: 0.625
70-71: 0.353
71-72: 0.487
72-73: 0.551
Average: 0.496
1974 to 1976 were terrible. But I didn't include those years in the minutes I posted in my Bergman bio:
I had read all that about Bergman, but a quick look at his hockey-reference profile showed he only made the playoffs in one of those seasons. I made the mistake of saying that meant the team was "terrible". In the O6 division, missing the playoffs didn't necessarily make you terrible. They were pretty mediocre, still. His high minutes are more impressive than I first thought.
Bergman was not an offensive specialist at all, either. In fact, he played a defensive role on team Canada in 1972. First paragraph of his LOH bio:
I also know he played more of a defensive role for Canada. I may be remembering incorrectly, but I thought in the past Bergman had been referred to by other GMs as something along the lines of "an adventure in his own end". It is not worth the time it might take to find, and who knows if I do, if it would be even meaningful at all... forget I said it.
Have you read my Simpson bio? I think I've dug up a lot more on him this draft. He was a bit of a bust in New York, but contemporary observers said he gained 20 pounds when he came East and didn't have his old quickness that allowed him to dominate the West. Also, remember that his NHL seasons were his age 32 through 37 seasons. His prime years were spent in Manitoba senior hockey playing for the Allan Cup, fighting in the war, a year in the Big 4, and four great seasons in the WCHL.
Simpson was probably the best rushing defenceman in the world in his prime. He is the 5th best defenceman in this series and having him on my second pairing is a strength of my team.
I did read his bio when you posted it, and I read it again now. I agree that he was an impressive rusher in the WCHL. It is just amazing how preciptous his drop in offense was, once he got to the NHL. It was so drastic, and so fast. He did not have as many points in his first four NHL seasons, as he did in 1925 in the West.
He was the highest scoring defenseman in that period you stated, but the differences between the leagues did not lend themselves to easy comparison between raw numbers, particularly among defensemen.
His four seasons in the West can be broken down like this:
1922: 1st in D scoring, 2nd overall, 1st AST, this was one of three major leagues and for this season it was the weakest of the three
1923: 1st in D scoring, 6th overall, 1st AST, this was again one of three major leagues but had gotten stronger
1924: 1st in D scoring, 13th overall, 2nd AST, one of three leagues, stronger still, perhaps stronger than the PCHA now
1925: 1st in D scoring, 11th overall, 1st AST, one of just two leagues, IMO this league was every bit as good as the 1925 NHL
so when someone has a season to evaluate from years like these, the next question I often ask is, "so if he was Xth in this league, where would that place him overall?" - in this case, there is not much room for that. being the best scoring defenseman in the WCHL when there are three leagues might mean you're anywhere from 1st to 8th overall. Being on the 1st AST means you're among the two best overall defensemen in your league, meaning you could be 1st-12th, realistically, among the three leagues. The 2nd AST? probably a 5th-15th. The best season, IMO, is his 1925 year, where being on the 1st AST (almost certainly behind Shore, though), makes him the 3rd-5th-best overall blueliner in the business.
So much guesswork involved in understanding just how good he was. if we were to split the difference on the upper and lower limits of what he might have done in an imagined consolidated league during his prime, I see him as a sure 2nd AST member (if ASTs existed) and a possibility for a 2nd.
I am surprised that you see him as the best defenseman on either 2nd pairing, 5th in the series. I'm not sure I'm convinced he's better than 8th. Potentially, he could be, but the other three 2nd pairing guys are such known quantities.
How many playoff series did Ottawa win from 1999 to 2001, when Redden was their top defensive defenceman? Zero.
And that's fine by me. It's the ugly wart on Redden's resume. If they had a couple conference finals in there, he'd be what? a #3 defenseman all-time? He still was a major part of them being an excellent regular season team. As-is, he's a #5 that should be a #4. Watson's winning history and proven ability to be a top defensive player on a team that wins in the playoffs, is a nice backup for Redden.
Gusarov and Samuelsson are certainly not as good overall as Redden and Watson. But they might be better for their role. They will be used as defensive specialists as much as possible - penalty kill, defensive zone faceoffs, etc.
Both were among the best defensive defencemen in the league in their primes.
Top penalty killing defencemen - 1992 to 1998
Player | GP | SH% | TmPK+
Ray Bourque | 502 | 65% | 0.90
Chris Chelios | 522 | 59% | 0.87
Brian Leetch | 488 | 58% | 0.94
Scott Stevens | 521 | 56% | 0.93
Teppo Numminen | 483 | 56% | 1.01
Jamie Macoun | 510 | 55% | 0.97
Calle Johansson | 503 | 52% | 0.81
Eric Desjardins | 525 | 51% | 0.96
Alexei Gusarov
|
432
|
51%
|
0.90
Mark Tinordi | 409 | 50% | 0.86
Top penalty killing defencemen - 1989 to 1995
Player | GP | SH% | TmPK+
Ray Bourque | 488 | 63% | 0.83
Kjell Samuelsson
|
450
|
60%
|
0.94
Chris Chelios | 498 | 60% | 0.84
Kevin Hatcher | 502 | 57% | 0.86
Craig Ludwig | 504 | 56% | 0.97
Scott Stevens | 494 | 53% | 0.97
Jamie Macoun | 510 | 51% | 0.93
Doug Lidster | 429 | 50% | 1.08
Remember that Gusarov also played in Russia and on their national team for several years before he came to the NHL. He played in the top Russian league from the age of 18 and the national team since the age of 20, and didn't make it to the NHL until he was 26. A lot of people thought that Gusarov was older than his listed age, which would explain why his career lasted from age 18-37 at the top level as a defenceman.
Gusarov and Samuelsson don't need to be better overall. They just need to be better defensively.
Edit: To compare these numbers to your guy: from 1968 to 1976 Joe Watson's SH% was 46%, which was around 20th among defencemen over that time. To be fair, Philly had a very good penalty kill over this time. But he wasn't always a top guy on that unit.
OK, so they definitely killed penalties frequently. And that's part of the battle, because you get those minutes on merit. But the performance of the PK unit is important, too. I would prefer if you could show a composite metric that takes usage and PK unit performance into consideration at a reasonable weighting. If you could do that, I'd appreciate it. I trust your ability to weight it reasonably. I think it would show that Watson isn't that far off a PKer from Goose and Shell.
Better defensively or more effective overall at even strength, that is another story. Redden and Watson should be considerably more effective. I feel comfortable going into the series that there are a few players in Ottawa, pigeonholed into specialist roles and being less effective in the 75% of the game that isn't played with the man advantage.
IMO Jagr and Selanne are pretty close. Bentley is a very good winger on the power play. I'm not sure he wasn't Bucyk's equal. Henry's role is different from Messier's but I think he's the more dangerous weapon in the end. On the point, Clancy > Pronger and Simpson > Day.
I think you underrate Day's offensive record when you conclude so quickly Simpson is better for the PP. He led all NHL defensemen in points in the consolidated NHL one season, and was 4th four times. Simpson's WCHL record for scoring, as I touched on earlier, may or may not translate to a better record.
Remember as well, that Simpson's offensive worth appears to be primarily due to his rushing ability. The same could be said for a lot of older defensemen but it seems even more extreme with Simpson, with his fast skating and corkscrew rushes being his specialties. In a Paul Coffey or Mark Howe sort of way, these are skills that would serve him better at even strength. He is not a player whose offensive totals I'd be 100% comfortable using to declare him a great ATD PP player.
I never really considered Selanne could be as good as Jagr on the PP, but after another look, you are right.
I don't agree that your PK forwards are better. Messier-Nevin and Zetterberg-Provost are both excellent duos. Gottselig-Hay is, IMO, better than Bridgman-Nevin. Gottselig's penalty killing ability was widely noted in his day, and he's the best option of the four, IMO. Hay was also a valuable penalty killer.
You mean Bridgman-Oliver. Gottselig and Hay are both noted penalty killers, so is Oliver. I am not sure I can declare any of them better. However, Bridgman is only "capable" at the ATD level and is a step below those three.
As for first units, Messier and Nevin both have extremely long careers of excellent and frequent penalty killing behind them. Provost, as one of the best defensive forwards of all-time, can be argued to be on their level, even in the absence of supporting numbers. But Zetterberg, halfway into his career, should not yet be considered close
Also, did we ever figure out who has home ice?
If there's no satisfactory way to do so, I propose both teams travel by train to Toronto to play the Cup final on their artificial ice, as it's a little late in the season to play in Ottawa and Regina.
Yeah, let's say no one has home ice. I don't think there is a fair way to do this. (I could say that since I was 1st in my conference and you were 2nd in yours, that home ice is Regina's, but that wouldn't be necessarily true)
Let's meet in Thunder Bay. 1300km from Regina, 1400km from Ottawa.
So obviously you value him much more than I do. I think him a marginal MLD pick and decent AAA pick given his offensive abilities relative to alternatives available in the AAA. You think him better than many defensemen who will go in this year's MLD. Why? Because YOU are the one who saw a couple of highlights and read his ice time totals?
