ATD2011 Red Fisher Semi: McGuire's Monsters vs. Philadelphia Firebirds

[BillyShoe1721]

Getting off the playoff topic, let's get an overall look at the first lines.

Duff-Beliveau-Kurri

vs.

Smith-Ullman-Bathgate

Dick Duff and Alf Smith both serve the exact same function on this line. Grind for their two superior teammates, work in the corners, and provide defense. In terms of defensive ability, I'd say they are about equal. In terms of toughness, Smith is a little tougher for sure. In terms of skating, I'd say they are too close to call. Both are above average. In terms of offense, here are their 5 best goal finishes:

Smith: 1st(1897), 4th(1905), 6th(1896), 7th(1907), 8th(1904)
Duff: (8, 9, 11, 16, 20)

For fairness, Smith's totals should at least be doubled considering it was pre-consolidation and the multitude of other leagues. So,

Smith: 2nd, 8th, 12th, 14th, 16th
Duff: 8th, 9th, 11th, 16th, 20th

Smith definitely has the best season of them, but does being 1st(it was a tie with McKerrow) in 1897 really hold that much weight? Here are the top guys in terms of goals that season: Clare McKerrow, Alf Smith, Billy Barlow, Ernie McLea, John Dobby, Arthur Swift, Harry Westwick, Cam Davidson, Pat Doyle, and Herbert Horsfall. So, three bottom 6 ATDers(McKerrow, Swift, and Westwick), a AAA guy(Barlow), and five guys that have never been taken in any ATD level draft, not even a Beer League draft! What about being 6th in 1896? He was behind an MLDer(McDougall), 3 ATD bottom sixers(McKerrow, Swift, Westwick), an AA pick(Shirley Davidson), and a 2nd pairing ATD defenseman(Drinkwater). So, 2 of Smith's 3 best seasons came against god awful competition. Meanwhile, Duff was playing in the O6 era that had many more good players. Yes, Duff was playing on good teams. But, so was Smith in 03-07. For those other seasons(04, 05, 07), here is the list of players he was behind:

04(I'm going to do GPG because Smith only played 4 games)-Bowie, Jordan, B. Russell, Cavey Howard(never picked in any ATD draft), and McGee.
05-McGee, Jack Marshall, and Westwick. Hamby Shore also had a higher GPG.
07-E. Russell, Bowie, B. Russell, Harry Smith, Grover Sargent(a Beer League pick), and Chandler Hale(never picked in any ATD draft). Then there was a mystery man that played for Quebec named "Constantine" who had a higher GPG.

After looking at all this, I'm not so sure I'm willing to concede an advantage in offense to Smith. His competition overall was poor, and finished lower than some pretty crappy guys. I'll need convincing that Smith is a better goal scorer player than Duff. Chances are Smith is a better playmaker than Duff because Duff wasn't much of one at all. That SIHR research indicates Smith was a good playmaker, but we don't have anything concrete. All we have to go by is goals, and I don't see how Smith is a better goalscorer than Duff. For now, I'm calling these guys pretty damn even.

That brings us to the biggest mismatch of this comparison, Norm Ullman and Jean Beliveau. Here's an analysis. Considering they played during the same era, this should be fair comparison of top 10s(exact finishes removed).

Goals

Beliveau-(1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9)
Ullman-1st(1965), 3rd(1966), 4th(1968), 6th(1967), 7th(1961), 7th(1969), 8th(1962), 10th(1960), 10th(1963), 12th(1971), 13th(1958), 14th(1959), 18th(1964)

Easily an advantage to Beliveau, and a decent sized one as well.

Assists

Beliveau-(1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10)
Ullman-4th(1967), 5th(1965), 7th(1966), 8th(1957), 8th(1961), 8th(1962), 9th(1959), 10th(1970), 10th(1971), 11th(1972), 13th(1974), 14th(1960), 15th(1968), 15th(1969), 17th(1963), 19th(1964), 20th(1958)

Again, a large advantage goes to Beliveau here.

Points

Beliveau-(1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9)
Ullman-2nd(1965), 3rd(1967), 6th(1961), 6th(1966), 6th(1971), 7th(1968), 8th(1962), 10th(1957), 12th(1960), 12th(1969), 13th(1959), 15th(1958), 16th(1963), 17th(1972), 19th(1964)

Once again, a large advantage to Beliveau. I didn't even look at 10-20 finishes for Beliveau, but I did for Ullman. Both provide some toughness and two-way ability. Ullman gets a slight advantage in both of those areas because of forechecking ability, and more substantiated quotes about defense. But, Beliveau is still the far superior player, in both the regular season and playoffs.

That brings us to what I think is the closest comparison of the lines, Andy Bathgate and Jari Kurri. In the draft, they were taken just 5 spots apart. Offense is really the key pivotal aspect that will determine who is better. Kurri is eons ahead defensively compared to Bathgate, who could never be confused for being good defensively whereas Kurri was 3x the best defensive RW in terms of Selke voting, second twice and 3rd another time. Both are extremely good skaters. In terms of playmaking, an advantage definitely goes to Bathgate. I don't need to look at the stats to know that. Goalscoring is a different story. Here it is:

Kurri-1, 2, 3, 5, 14, 15, 17
Bathgate-3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13

Kurri's 4 best finishes beat out Bathgate's 4 best finishes. After that, an advantage would appear to go to Bathgate, but era must be considered. The talent pool in Kurri's time was much larger than Bathgate's. Kurri is a better goalscorer than Bathgate. Let's look at overall point production.

Kurri-2, 2, 4, 7, 8, 9, 13, 19, 32, 35, 35
Bathgate-1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 17th, 19th, 19th

Again, first glance would indicate an advantage to Bathgate. But, you have to take era into consideration, and also the fact that Kurri played for the Oilers. Overall, Bathgate is a slightly better player offensively than Kurri.

Let's look at some other comparables. Both played in 8 All Star Games, but Kurri's were all merit based, whereas one of Bathgate's was because he was on a Cup winning team. Bathgate was twice a 1st team all star, and twice a 2nd team all star. Kurri was twice a 1st team all star, and three times a 2nd team all star. Advantage Kurri. Bathgate has an advantage in Hart voting with his one victory. This can be explained by the fact that Kurri was on a team of stars and Bathgate was the only star on his team. Let's look at twelve year peak adjusted PPG.

Kurri(81-82 to 93-94): 1.0284PPG
Bathgate(54-55 to 65-66): 1.071PPG

Career Adjusted PPG

Kurri-.9128
Bathgate-.9588

Career Adjusted GPG

Kurri-.3885
Bathgate-.3489

Career Adjusted APG

Kurri-.5244
Bathgate-.6099

My conclusion? Bathgate is better offensively overall and at playmaking, but Kurri is a better goalscorer. In terms of overall play as an entire package, I'll still take Jari Kurri. In my opinion, the gap between offense isn't enough to bridge the much larger gap between defensive ability.

Overall, first lines are an advantage to Philadelphia. Philadelphia's 1st line is better offensively, and better defensively as well. Kurri is easily the best defensively of the group, Smith and Duff are very close, Ullman is slightly better than Beliveau, but the fact that Bathgate is in a distant last tips it in favor of Philadelphia.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Doubling finishes "at least" between the late 50s/early 60s and the 1980s??

I do agree with what you say about Alf Smith's competition, especially in the 1890s....

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Doubling finishes "at least" between the late 50s/early 60s and the 1980s??

I do agree with what you say about Alf Smith's competition, especially in the 1890s....

Now that I read what I wrote, it doesn't make much sense. You're right. I fixed that part to just say the talent pool was deeper. Would 1.5 be accurate?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Now moving along to 2nd lines

Harris-McGee-Hodge

vs.

Stanfield-Dunderdale-Marshall

Harris and Stanfield are also quite close. They are pretty similar in the sense that both are pretty biased towards playmaking. Both provide some toughness, and are not a liability in their own zone. Here's a look at their forte, playmaking:

Stanfield-4, 6, 7, 7
Harris:

To illustrate this, I will turn to seventies Consistency in Goalscoring and playmaking studies. The reason being is that these studies DO account for the split-league era Harris played in. If you place 4th in PCHA assists, for example, it will likely show up as a top-10 under the playmaking category in seventies studies, and not a top-5. It allows for a rather level playing field when comparing players like Harris to more modern players.

Now, Harris's numbers in these studies:

Top 2's-Top 5's-Top 10's- Top 15's- Top 20's

Playmaking- 2-3-4-6-7

Goal Scoring-0-0-1-3-7

Total: 2-3-5-9-14

Initial indications would say that Harris has an advantage here. He was twice first in his league in assists, and four times top 5. Double that, and he was "2nd twice, and top 10 4 times". That would indicate Harris might have had a better peak, but in top 10s it's even. Then, looking at top 20s Harris has 7 total, but Stanfield has only 4, with his next best finishes being 24th and 42nd. How do we quantify the difference between assist finishes in the NHL right after the first expansion where the Western division was extremely weak, but Stanfield's was strong, and the PCHL? It's a tough one, but I'd say Harris has a slight advantage here. Here's a look at goal scoring:

Harris:

Top 2's-Top 5's-Top 10's- Top 15's- Top 20's

Goal Scoring-0-0-1-3-7

Stanfield: 30, 35, 36, 39

Again, I'd say Harris has the better top finishes, and is slightly better longevity because I don't think the difference in era makes up for all of this. In terms of offense overall, I'd give an advantage to Harris. Both played on very good teams, Harris with Vancouver and Stanfield with Boston, and this probably helped their stats. I don't think either holds a decisive edge in physicality, but I'd give a slight edge to Stanfield in defensive ability because it's more proven. Overall, I think Harris is a better player.

That brings us to McGee and Dunderdale. McGee's goal finishes are:

1st, 2nd, 3rd*, 5th**

*-1st in goals/game
**3rd in goals/game

His goals/game are: 1, 1, 2, 3

Here is a table seventies made that has both guys in it:

Name | DOB | GP | G | PIM | G/GP | PIM/GP | GP w/PIM* | Top-2s in Goals
Ernie Russell | 1883 | 112 | 215 | 419 | 1.92 | 3.74 | | 3
Bruce Stuart | 1881 | 104 | 111 | 280 | 1.07 | 3.33 | 84 | 0
***** ***** | 1883 | 65 | 150 | 211 | 2.31 | 3.25 | | 2
Newsy Lalonde | 1887 | 254 | 329 | 769 | 1.3 | 3.03 | | 7
Marty Walsh | 1884 | 77 | 174 | 208 | 2.26 | 2.70 | | 3
Tommy Phillips | 1883 | 45 | 71 | 100 | 1.58 | 2.56 | 39 | 0
Pud Glass | 1884 | 103 | 109 | 221 | 1.06 | 2.15 | | 0
Tom Dunderdale | 1887 | 289 | 226 | 527 | 0.78 | 1.82 | | 3
Didier Pitre | 1883 | 239 | 267 | 433 | 1.12 | 1.81 | | 3
Tommy Smith | 1886 | 175 | 274 | 288 | 1.57 | 1.65 | | 5
Cyclone Taylor | 1885 | 228 | 246 | 355 | 1.08 | 1.56 | | 5
Russell Bowie | 1880 | 82 | 249 | 43 | 3.04 | 1.39 | 31 | 9
Frank McGee | 1882 | 41 | 135 | 56 | 3.29 | 1.37 | | 2
Blair Russell | 1881 | 69 | 109 | 68 | 1.58 | 1.36 | 50 | 1
**** ****** | 1884 | 61 | 146 | 19 | 2.39 | 0.31 | | 2

McGee has the much higher goals/game. Dunderdale has 3 top 2s in goals and McGee has 2, but that doesn't factor in when McGee was 1st in goals/game, and a close 3rd in goals/game. I hate to try to use quotes to settle who is better, but McGee has many more impressive quotes about his offensive abilities compared to Dunderdale. Here's a table seventies made:

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

That would indicate Dunderdale is slightly better than Harris(yes, I know he played with Taylor) offensively. Dunderdale's finishes look more impressive at first look, but looking at that study seventies did, his offense doesn't look as impressive considering how it stacks up to Harris. Dunderdale has better longevity, but I'd say McGee has better peak and supporting quotes. Overall, I'd say McGee has a slight advantage.

That brings us to Ken Hodge and Jack Marshall.

Marshall's point finishes(doubled): 2, 2, 4, 10, 12
Hodge's point finishes: 3, 3, 7, 12, 22

I think we can agree that 3rd in the early 70s in the competitive East division is more impressive than 2nd in the early 20th century. Looking at these finishes, I'd be inclined to say that Hodge was a better player offensively. Both provide some physical ability. Marshall is better defensively almost by default.

Overall, I'd say 2nd lines are a slight advantage to Philadelphia. These lines are close, but I think Philadelphia holds a small offensive edge. Defensively, a slight edge goes to the Monsters though. Neither line is good defensively, but neither is a liability.

 

[Dreakmur]

Yeah, maybe because I actually watched them play, unlike the majority here.

Good to know there are still some 50+ year olds hanging around the draft.

Just curious, which international team did you cheer for in the 70s? Which international team did you despise more than any other?

 

[Dreakmur]

Dick Duff and Alf Smith both serve the exact same function on this line. Grind for their two superior teammates, work in the corners, and provide defense. In terms of defensive ability, I'd say they are about equal. In terms of toughness, Smith is a little tougher for sure. In terms of skating, I'd say they are too close to call. Both are above average. In terms of offense, here are their 5 best goal finishes:

Smith: 1st(1897), 4th(1905), 6th(1896), 7th(1907), 8th(1904)
Duff: (8, 9, 11, 16, 20)

After looking at all this, I'm not so sure I'm willing to concede an advantage in offense to Smith. His competition overall was poor, and finished lower than some pretty crappy guys. I'll need convincing that Smith is a better goal scorer player than Duff. Chances are Smith is a better playmaker than Duff because Duff wasn't much of one at all. That SIHR research indicates Smith was a good playmaker, but we don't have anything concrete. All we have to go by is goals, and I don't see how Smith is a better goalscorer than Duff. For now, I'm calling these guys pretty damn even.

The first thing people need to understand about Alf Smith is that scoring goals was the weakest part of his game.

According to the reconstructed assist totals at SIHR, Smith was the best playmaker of his era by a substantial margin. He had 50% more assists per game than the second best guy, who was Russell Bowie. Obviously, Smith's playmaking skills are far superior to Duff's.

Smith was also a dominant physical presence - much more physically imposing than Duff, who was just a solid grinder. Smith ruled the tough areas of the ice, and owned battles for the puck.

I would agree that Duff and Smith have simiar looking goal scoring accomplishments, but Smith is significantly better in playmaking and toughness.


The second thing peole need to remember when talking about Alf Smith is that he missed his entire prime. From age 24 to 31, he was banned from playing hockey in Canada. He played one of those seasons in the WPHL, where he was one of the best offensive players.

He didn't rejoin the Silver Seven untill he was an age when most players were long retired. His play-off scoring accomplishments are those of a player who was in his mid-30s, which is well past his prime years.

I'm sure everyone will view those missed years differently. For me the ATD is about trying to judging how good the player was. Statiistics and accomplishmets are a good measure of that, which is why I use them. In some cases, those measures don't fairly evaluate a players true ability. Guys like Milt Schmidt missed significant parts of their prime years, so he was actually a better player than his statistics and list of accomlishments shows. That is no different that Alf Smith, who actually missed twice as many years during his prime. Unlike injuries, a war has nothing to do with hockey, so it's not fair to punish a player.

Alf Smith was a better player than his scoring finishes and accomplishments indicates. How you evaluate that is up to you. Some people don't give "credit" for war years, so I wouldn't expect them to do the same here. The people that do account for war years should at least consider doing the same for Alf Smith's missed years.

Once again, a large advantage to Beliveau. I didn't even look at 10-20 finishes for Beliveau, but I did for Ullman. Both provide some toughness and two-way ability. Ullman gets a slight advantage in both of those areas because of forechecking ability, and more substantiated quotes about defense. But, Beliveau is still the far superior player, in both the regular season and playoffs.

Agreed that Beliveau is much better than Ullman - that's what happens when you use your 1st pick on a center and I wait for my 4th.

Beliveau's offensive game carries him in this match-up. Ullman is better in all areas outside offense, but it's not nearly enough to make up for the offensive gap.

Both guys are about the same in the play-offs as they are in the regular season, so the gap remains the same in the play-offs.

My conclusion? Bathgate is better offensively overall and at playmaking, but Kurri is a better goalscorer. In terms of overall play as an entire package, I'll still take Jari Kurri. In my opinion, the gap between offense isn't enough to bridge the much larger gap between defensive ability.

Bathgate's edge in offense is very large. The fact that their numbers look similar on paper is very deceiving.

First, Bathgate spent a significant part of his career as the best offensive player in the world. Even if you ignore Gretzky and Lemieux, Kurri was never even in the mix for top offensive player.

Andy Bathgate created his team's offense. Kurri benefited from other guys, mainly Gretzky and Coffey, creating the offense for him.

Kurri is better defensively, but Bathgate is better physically. The intangible edge still goes to Kurri.

Overall, Kurri's defensive play cannot overcome Bathgate's substantial edge in offense. Bathagte is definately the better overall player.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Choosing between the two is really up to how your team is built and personal preference. Given a choice of the two for my top line, I'd still take Kurri because of the direction my team is going. If I was in your situation, I'd pick Bathgate for your team because your 1st line needs a pure offensive type, compared to mine that could use a more two-way type because I had Beliveau to build around. Does that sound fair?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm surprised you're letting him get away with saying Beliveau was better at offense, Ullman better at everything else.

 

[Dreakmur]

Choosing between the two is really up to how your team is built and personal preference. Given a choice of the two for my top line, I'd still take Kurri because of the direction my team is going. If I was in your situation, I'd pick Bathgate for your team because your 1st line needs a pure offensive type, compared to mine that could use a more two-way type because I had Beliveau to build around. Does that sound fair?

If I had Beliveau, I would have take a defensemen or a goalie, but if I had to pick between Bathgate and Kurri, I'd definately take Bathgate. Bathgate and Beliveau would be an absolutely unstoppable combination.

The only reason to take Kurri over Bathgate is if you are going to use your 1st line as a checking line. Bathgate is clearly a much better offensive player, so unless you're going to put Kurri's defense to maximum use, it doesn't make that big a difference. Of course, even if you are making a checking 1st line, you're still passing on the best overall player to take a better fit.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I'm surprised you're letting him get away with saying Beliveau was better at offense, Ullman better at everything else.

I wasn't going to say anything because he admitted Beliveau is the far superior player, but I'll discuss it anyway. Leadership is a large advantage to Beliveau. He was captain of a dynasty for ten years, winning 5 cups in the process. I don't think Ullman was ever a captain. I'm going to revise my statement of Ullman being tougher. Ullman maybe went out of the way to be physical in the sense of forechecking, but Beliveau still used his size a lot, just in a different sense. He was a huge forward for his time, and used his size to fight for pucks and battle in front of the net. Beliveau also has higher PIM totals, with 3 years in the top 10 in penalty minutes. I still believe, head to head, Beliveau was better than Ullman in the playoffs. In terms of skating, it's difficult to call. I think Beliveau might hold a small advantage considering his size and deceptive speed that he had. He was built like an oak tree according to Wild Bill Ezinicki.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

If I had Beliveau, I would have take a defensemen or a goalie, but if I had to pick between Bathgate and Kurri, I'd definately take Bathgate. Bathgate and Beliveau would be an absolutely unstoppable combination.

The only reason to take Kurri over Bathgate is if you are going to use your 1st line as a checking line. Bathgate is clearly a much better offensive player, so unless you're going to put Kurri's defense to maximum use, it doesn't make that big a difference. Of course, even if you are making a checking 1st line, you're still passing on the best overall player to take a better fit.

Not trying to derail the thread with draft talk so this will be the last of my comments on it, but I thought Kurri and Makarov were far and away the BPA when I picked, and I couldn't justify picking a defenseman or goalie at that point over Kurri or Makarov(the other guy I was seriously considering). I find Tretiak overrated, and Vasiliev wasn't a good enough value pick at that point, and I wanted to profile someone else because I had him last draft. My plan before the draft was to take Beliveau with my first pick, and take Chris Pronger as my #1 with that pick, thinking he would still be there. My 1st line is one I planned on building to be able to play in all situations, and it can. I also wanted to pick players that had strong playoff resumes. Because of the defensive strength of my 1st line, it allows me to get away with what is admittedly a sub-par 1st pairing. It's served me well so far, and looking back I still would've taken Kurri at that pick.

 

[Dreakmur]

Harris and Stanfield are also quite close. They are pretty similar in the sense that both are pretty biased towards playmaking. Both provide some toughness, and are not a liability in their own zone. Here's a look at their forte, playmaking:

Stanfield-4, 6, 7, 7
Harris:

I'm sure you'd like to know the results of my league consolidation project.... Harris was 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 6th in assists. Harris was definately the better offensive player. Both guys benefitted similarly from high scoring teams.

Stanfield brings more defense, physicallity, and puck-winning, but not enough to make up for the offensive gap.

You did a real nice bio on Harris, and he it not as one-dimensional as I though when I passed on him to pick Stanfield. Though I do think these two are very comparable players, but Harris is better.

McGee has the much higher goals/game. Dunderdale has 3 top 2s in goals and McGee has 2, but that doesn't factor in when McGee was 1st in goals/game, and a close 3rd in goals/game. I hate to try to use quotes to settle who is better, but McGee has many more impressive quotes about his offensive abilities compared to Dunderdale. Here's a table seventies made:

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

That would indicate Dunderdale is slightly better than Harris(yes, I know he played with Taylor) offensively. Dunderdale's finishes look more impressive at first look, but looking at that study seventies did, his offense doesn't look as impressive considering how it stacks up to Harris. Dunderdale has better longevity, but I'd say McGee has better peak and supporting quotes. Overall, I'd say McGee has a slight advantage.

Both McGee and Dunderdale have similar offensive peaks. McGee just has no longevity. Dunderdale is defiantely the better offensive player, and it's a distinctive edge.

McGee raises his game in the play-offs, so the gap closes, but Dunderdale still holds a small edge here.

That brings us to Ken Hodge and Jack Marshall.

Marshall's point finishes(doubled): 2, 2, 4, 10, 12
Hodge's point finishes: 3, 3, 7, 12, 22

I think we can agree that 3rd in the early 70s in the competitive East division is more impressive than 2nd in the early 20th century. Looking at these finishes, I'd be inclined to say that Hodge was a better player offensively. Both provide some physical ability. Marshall is better defensively almost by default.

Hodge played for offensive powerhouse Bruins. His offensive finishes are inflated. Jack Marshall was hit team's offensive catalyst. That more than makes up for the era difference.

Agreed both play a similar physical game. Marshall is actually pretty good defensively, so he's not just better by default.

Marshall definately has the edge here.

Overall, I'd say 2nd lines are a slight advantage to Philadelphia. These lines are close, but I think Philadelphia holds a small offensive edge. Defensively, a slight edge goes to the Monsters though. Neither line is good defensively, but neither is a liability.

These lines are close enough that I think we could call them even. If you insist on calling a slight edge one way or another, that edge would go to the Monsters.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd pick Kurri 10 times out of 10 over Bathgate for a Tikhonov team.

(that is no judgement as to the better overall player)

 

[Dreakmur]

I'd pick Kurri 10 times out of 10 over Bathgate for a Tikhonov team.

(that is no judgement as to the better overall player)

Unless you already have a coach picked, why does that matter?


Bathgate on a Chernyshev team is better than Kurri on a Tikhanov team

 

[Dreakmur]

Not trying to derail the thread with draft talk so this will be the last of my comments on it, but I thought Kurri and Makarov were far and away the BPA when I picked, and I couldn't justify picking a defenseman or goalie at that point over Kurri or Makarov(the other guy I was seriously considering). I find Tretiak overrated, and Vasiliev wasn't a good enough value pick at that point, and I wanted to profile someone else because I had him last draft. My plan before the draft was to take Beliveau with my first pick, and take Chris Pronger as my #1 with that pick, thinking he would still be there. My 1st line is one I planned on building to be able to play in all situations, and it can. I also wanted to pick players that had strong playoff resumes. Because of the defensive strength of my 1st line, it allows me to get away with what is admittedly a sub-par 1st pairing. It's served me well so far, and looking back I still would've taken Kurri at that pick.

Looking back at the draft thread, I agree. You only had 3 options - Kurri, Makarov, and Mikhailov. I probably would have gone with Mikhailov, but any of the 3 are good picks.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Back to comparisons, here is a look at the 3rd lines.

Sutter-Lepine-Peirson

vs.

P. Mahovlich-Laprade-Hebenton

Sutter and Mahovlich are close. In the draft, they were taken 14 spots apart, both falling a bit compared to previous drafts to points where they probably should be taken. IIRC, Mahovlich was the guy I wanted with that pick all along, and I would've taken him if he made it to me. But, I'm happy with Sutter. To the actual comparison...

Goals

Sutter-9, 12, 16, 23
Mahovlich-10, 11, 13

This appears close, but I think the advantage goes to Sutter. He played on some pretty bad St. Louis teams, and did not have the same supporting cast that Mahovlich had. Take into account that Sutter's best years were in a deeper talent pool than Mahovlich's, I think the advantage goes to Sutter. Another thing of note is that that 10th place finish was when Mahovlich was riding shotgun with Guy Lafleur and Steve Shutt. The 11th and 13th are legit though.

Playmaking

Sutter-26, 46, 70, 81
Mahovlich-2, 3, 21, 23, 30, 40,

Mahovlich is better. But, the important thing to note here is that during those 2nd and 3rd place finishes, Mahovlich was riding shotgun with Lafleur and Shutt. Still, Mahovlich is better, but those 2nd and 3rd place finishes are misleading. The real Mahovlich is definitely more in the 20-40 range.

Points

Sutter-18, 32, 36, 54
Mahovlich-5, 6, 22, 24, 30, 34

I included 6 finishes for Mahovlich because it gives us a look at 4 of his real seasons where he wasn't leeching off his linemates. An advantage goes to Mahovlich here, but it's not a large one considering era, team quality, and linemates.

In terms of toughness, Sutter is much tougher than Mahovlich. Defensively, I'll concede an advantage to Mahovlich. He's got some very impressive quotes about his checking ability and PKing. Leadership is definitely an advantage to Sutter, he was a long time captain and lauded for his heart, leadership, and work ethic. Here are a couple other metrics by which to analyze them.

All Star Games: 3 to 2 in favor of Sutter, all were merit based for both.
Hart voting: 6th for Sutter compared to a 7th for Mahovlich(just barely makes the cut for my relevance quotient of 10 points).
All Star voting: Sutter has 4, 5, 5, 6. Mahovlich has 3rd, 5th, both at center.

How to call them? I'd say Mahovlich has a slight advantage here. He's a better playmaker and better overall offensively, and better defensively whereas Sutter is better in the intangibles department with toughness and leadership.

That bring us to Pit Lepine and Edgar Laprade. Both played in the pre-Selke days, so we can't analyze them that way. For what it's worth, Lepine has 3 Retro Selkes, and Laprade has none. Weigh those as you see fit. Offensively...

Goals

Lepine-10, 10, 10, 15
Laprade-12, 19

I don't need to do other years for Laprade to know that Lepine was a better goal scorer.

Playmaking

Lepine-18, 36, 37, 46
Laprade-3, 12, 13, 14

Advantage Laprade, definitely.

Points

Lepine-18, 18, 19, 29
Laprade-12, 17, 19, 20

It's close, but a slight advantage goes to Laprade. But, note that Laprade played in one of the weakest eras in terms of offense right after WWII where the depth was depleted and talent not as great. The advantage offensively still goes to Laprade, but not as large as the finishes indicate.

Defensively, I think Lepine is better. Both are good skaters. Laprade doesn't bring much toughness, Lepine brings a little bit. Overall, I think Lepine is a little bit better considering his defensive edge being a little bigger than the offensive edge.

That brings us to Johnny Peirson, and Andy Hebenton. They were taken just one pick apart, and IIRC Dreak, you were deciding between Peirson and Hebenton when you picked. A look at offense:

Goals

Peirson-5, 7, 9, 16, 17
Hebenton-4, 8, 10, 12, 15

Advantage goes to Hebenton there.

Assists

Peirson-11, 15, 16, 18
Hebenton-23, 25, 25, 25

Definitely an advantage to Peirson. His 4 best finishes are better than Hebenton's 4 best.

Points

Peirson-8, 10, 10, 17
Hebenton-8, 14, 16, 20

Again, an advantage goes to Peirson. Their top finishes are identical, but Peirson's next best 3 are better than Hebenton's. Both provide some physicality and hard work ethic, and defensive play. I don't think either holds a significant advantage in either. Overall, I think Peirson is the better player because of the better offense, and them being pretty much equal in other areas.

Overall, the 3rd lines are quote close. The Monsters' 3rd line is a little better offensively, but I think my line provides more physicality. Defensive play is tough to call, I think it's about even. Overall, I think these lines are very, very close and I don't think there is a significant advantage either way.

 

[Dreakmur]

Overall, the 3rd lines are quote close. The Monsters' 3rd line is a little better offensively, but I think my line provides more physicality. Defensive play is tough to call, I think it's about even. Overall, I think these lines are very, very close and I don't think there is a significant advantage either way.

Agreed. These lines are basically equal at even strength. Both lines are balanced and well-rounded.

When the players take their roles on the PK, Laprade and Mahovlich are the best of the bunch, but we'll look at special teams later.

I included 6 finishes for Mahovlich because it gives us a look at 4 of his real seasons where he wasn't leeching off his linemates. An advantage goes to Mahovlich here, but it's not a large one considering era, team quality, and linemates.

First of all, I agree. Mahovlich's best years were in large part due to him having the best offensive player in the world on his wing.

Since you do agree that linemates and team quality make in impact on offensive accomplishments, you must also beleive that Beliveau, Kurri, and Hodge were similarly effected. I left out Duff and Smith because they would both be similarly effected, so it cancels out. Same with Harris and Stanfied.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Yes, they did benefit from playing with quality teammates. The problem is, we don't know how much linemates impacted their production.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Moving along to the 4th lines, my final comparison of the night:

Maloney-Thoms-Prodgers

vs.

Hamill-Haynes-McNab

Maloney and Hamill both provide some physicality. I don't see either being better in terms of physicality. Maloney is a better two-way player. Hamill is a better goal scorer, but note that Hamill only has one ATD-relevant year(41-42 just before guys started leaving) that did not have some guys leaving, or was in the immediate aftermath of the war. I personally don't put very much stock into accomplishments during and after WWII. Hamill was the better goalscorer(better career adjusted goals/game), Maloney the better playmaker(better career adjusted points/game), and I think points overall is about a wash(both at .93 adjusted points/game) because, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hockey Reference factored in the depleted talent pool after WWII, where the bulk of Hamill's career was. Considering the advantage in two-way play and relative even-ness of offense, I'd say a slight advantage goes to Maloney.

Next, Bill Thoms and Paul Haynes. I'd say Thoms is a better two-way player, being called one of the best in the league. Offensively, Thoms is the better goalscorer, Haynes is a better playmaker, and Thoms is a slightly better point producer overall.

Thoms' top 5 point finishes: 4, 6, 7, 19, 22
Haynes' top 5 point finishes: 4, 9, 12, 29, 30

Overall, I'd say Thoms is the better player due to better offense overall, and better defensive play.

That brings us to Goldie Prodgers and Peter McNab. Prodgers provides more physicality, and two-way play. McNab doesn't provide much of either of those. Offensively, let's see:

Goals

Prodgers-8, 10, 11, 12
McNab-7, 8, 17, 18

Assists

Prodgers-4, 13
McNab-18

Points

Prodgers-6, 13, 13, 13
McNab-11, 16, 18

Considering era and depth of talent pool, McNab is a better overall offensive player. But, I don't think that's enough to make up for the gap in defensive ability and physicality that Prodgers brings. I still think Prodgers is a better overall player.

Overall, I think the 4th lines are an advantage to Philadelphia. The 4th lines are close offensively, but Philadelphia's 4th line is much better defensively. Our 4th line also provides more physicality. It could be a problem if the Monsters' 4th line got caught out against one of my top lines, as none of their guys is good defensively. My 4th line was designed to be able to play a regular shift and be good defensively while being decent offensively, and I think I've done that.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm sure you'd like to know the results of my league consolidation project.... Harris was 1st, 1st, 5th, and 6th in assists.

I have to ask - you have refused to get an SIHR membership, and your initial attempt at putting together Dunderdale's offensive finishes was awful... so how on earth do you have a league consolidation project?

 

[Dreakmur]

Maloney and Hamill both provide some physicality. I don't see either being better in terms of physicality. Maloney is a better two-way player. Hamill is a better goal scorer, but note that Hamill only has one ATD-relevant year(41-42 just before guys started leaving) that did not have some guys leaving, or was in the immediate aftermath of the war. I personally don't put very much stock into accomplishments during and after WWII. Hamill was the better goalscorer(better career adjusted goals/game), Maloney the better playmaker(better career adjusted points/game), and I think points overall is about a wash(both at .93 adjusted points/game) because, correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Hockey Reference factored in the depleted talent pool after WWII, where the bulk of Hamill's career was. Considering the advantage in two-way play and relative even-ness of offense, I'd say a slight advantage goes to Maloney.

Red Hamil served in WWII during the two big war years. His scoring accompishments are not nearly as tainted as you are implying. His best scoring years were 1942, 1943, 1946, and 1947.
-1942 was pretty much a normal year.
-1943 saw a few good NHLers go, but not very many. The Krauts and Ken Reardon are the only ones I can think of. The league was not at full strength, but it was pretty close.
-1946 saw a few good NHLers miss significant time. I'm not sure of the reason, but some really good guys didn't play.
-1947 was pretty much a normal year.

Red Hamill's offensive abilities are defiantely much stronger than Maloney's. The gap is closed in the play-offs, where Hamill didn't perform very well, but it is still a pretty big gap.

Next, Bill Thoms and Paul Haynes. I'd say Thoms is a better two-way player, being called one of the best in the league. Offensively, Thoms is the better goalscorer, Haynes is a better playmaker, and Thoms is a slightly better point producer overall.

Thoms' top 5 point finishes: 4, 6, 7, 19, 22
Haynes' top 5 point finishes: 4, 9, 12, 29, 30

Overall, I'd say Thoms is the better player due to better offense overall, and better defensive play.

Agreed that Thoms is a slighly better offensive player.

Their defensive play looks to be equal. They both have a few quotes about that aspect of their game, but nothing major.

That brings us to Goldie Prodgers and Peter McNab. Prodgers provides more physicality, and two-way play. McNab doesn't provide much of either of those. Offensively, let's see:

Goals

Prodgers-8, 10, 11, 12
McNab-7, 8, 17, 18

Assists

Prodgers-4, 13
McNab-18

Points

Prodgers-6, 13, 13, 13
McNab-11, 16, 18

Considering era and depth of talent pool, McNab is a better overall offensive player. But, I don't think that's enough to make up for the gap in defensive ability and physicality that Prodgers brings. I still think Prodgers is a better overall player.

Agreed.

McNabb is here to be a PP specialist.

Overall, I think the 4th lines are an advantage to Philadelphia. The 4th lines are close offensively, but Philadelphia's 4th line is much better defensively. Our 4th line also provides more physicality. It could be a problem if the Monsters' 4th line got caught out against one of my top lines, as none of their guys is good defensively. My 4th line was designed to be able to play a regular shift and be good defensively while being decent offensively, and I think I've done that.

I like your 4th line - I think it's one of the better ones of the draft. I do give it a slight edge over mine. They are relatively close, and they are just 4th lines. The difference is basically negligible.

 

[Dreakmur]

I have to ask - you have refused to get an SIHR membership, and your initial attempt at putting together Dunderdale's offensive finishes was awful... so how on earth do you have a league consolidation project?

You know what the study is, and you've seen it. You've even added to it.

 

[seventieslord]

You know what the study is, and you've seen it. You've even added to it.

I remember adding to a retro all-star team project, not a league consolidation project. You'll have to refresh my memory.

How were you so bloody wrong about Dunderdale's finishes when you chose him if you had the information to make a league consolidation study? That's what I am asking.

 

[Dreakmur]

I remember adding to a retro all-star team project, not a league consolidation project. You'll have to refresh my memory.

You PMed me the scoring finishes of some of the players I asked for. Eddie Oatman and a few other guys. I think Don Smith and Ran MacDonald as well.

How were you so bloody wrong about Dunderdale's finishes when you chose him if you had the information to make a league consolidation study? That's what I am asking.

I emailed a file so I could work on Dunderdale's bio at work. Apparently I saved my updated study under a different name and worked off the out of date one without realizing.



Don't need SIHR. Found another site with non NHL stats on it

 

[BillyShoe1721]

That brings us to the defense. A look at the first pairings:

Langway-Ivanov

vs.

Bourque-Green

Bourque is solidly the 4th best defenseman of all time. He's easily superior to Langway overall. Offensively, a large advantage goes to Bourque. Defensively, again, I'd give an advantage to Bourque. The only advantage I think Langway has over Bourque is physicality. Ray could be physical when he needed to be, but was at his best playing his puck control game. I think they're about equal in terms of leadership, both being long time captains of their teams. Bourque on your pairing pretty much guarantees yours is better than mine. But, let's take a look at Ivanov and Green.

We took a similar approach to our top pairings, I put my #1 with my #4, and you put your #1 with your #4(I think you have two #4s, and no real definitive #3). This is a difficult comparison. Green started his career as a defensive defenseman, developed offense, got hurt, and went to the WHA. They are pretty similar players, good and physical in their own zone while providing some offensive upside. Both of their careers were also cut short, not allowing to live up to their full potential. Overall, I think Green is just a little bit better in all aspects due to doing it against proven competition and it being more substantiated. One parallel we can try to make is all star voting.

Ivanov: 3x Soviet 1st-Team All Star (1963, 1964, 1965)
1x Soviet 2nd-Team All Star (1966)
1x Soviet 3rd-Team All Star (1967)

Green: 3rd(1969), 6th(1965), 6th(1968), 10th(1966)

So, is being a top 6 defenseman in the Soviet Union in the 60s(3 times first or second with competition being Ragulin, Davydov, Kuzkin) more impressive than being top 10 4 times in the NHL with a deeper talent pool? Probably not. As I concluded, Ivanov was better than Ragulin offensively, and now that I look at it, I believe Eduard Ivanov was the best offensive defenseman in the Soviet Union in the 1960s. Here is international goals/game for the 4 guys I mentioned above, easily the 4 best Soviet defensemen at the time:

Ivanov-.2025
Kuzkin-.1098
Ragulin-.1213
Davydov-.045

But, that's probably not enough to overcome Green's short but good peak. Overall, Green is slightly better in most areas, and that gives him the advantage. Overall, I think Ivanov should be drafted more around 350 rather than in the late 300s.

Overall, 1st pairings are definitely an advantage to the Monsters. Both of their guys are better than my counterparts.