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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If Ivanov should be drafted around 350, then when should Davydov (clearly his superior) be drafted?

Not surprised to see Ivanov score so much more than other defensemen in the 60s. Wasn't he the "midfielder" or whatever it was called when Tarasov experimented with only using one true defenseman?

I dunno. For me Ivanov is an incredibly difficult guy to place.

 

[Dreakmur]

Bourque is solidly the 4th best defenseman of all time.

That's the lowest you could possibly rank him. There's a good case to be made that Bourque is actually the #2 defenseman. I was hoping to face Doug Harvey in a play-off match-up so I could show that Bourque is better.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Now we'll take a look at the 2nd pairings

Howell-Gonchar

vs.

Stuart-Egan

Howell and Stuart are clearly the #2 for each team. I don't think I'm out of line to say Howell is easily the best defenseman on either pairing. Stuart has some great, impressive quotes that indicate he was good at pretty much everything. You have his goal finishes among defensemen that look impressive, but I can't help but question how much they really mean. 4 of the 1st place finishes occurred in the IPHL(3 of them), and the other in the WPHL. I know very little about either of these leagues. Dreak, could you inform us about Stuart's competition for these finishes? I don't know anything about defensemen from any of those leagues, and as far as I know they were not very good compared to the better leagues of the day. That 2nd place finish was also when he had just 2 goals. I can't help but think that Stuart's competition for these finishes was quite poor, but I know little about defensemen or "cover points" from that era, so I'll let Dreak inform us. Harry Howell on the other hand has a tangible record of Norris finishes and was a complete iron man. When he retired, no defenseman had played more games than him. I don't think his Norris record or All Star record does him justice because Doug Harvey, Bill Gadsby, and Pierre Pilote all getting a good amount of votes. Either way, I think Howell is the better player defensively, and offensively I'll wait until Dreak informs us about his competition to make a call. Overall, I'd call Howell the better defenseman.

That brings us to Gonchar and Egan. Offensively, Gonchar is definitely better. Even without factoring in depth of talent pool and era. A raw finishes of their top 10(which massively favors Egan) shows that Gonchar is still significantly better.

Points

Gonchar-1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8
Egan-1, 1, 2, 3, 4

Gonchar is significantly better offensively, and I'd say he's a better skater as well. Egan provides more physicality. Both are sub-par defensively. Gonchar gets hated on here because he's a modern player and we've seen him play. Egan has just one mention in all star voting, being on the 2nd team all star once. That suggests that although his offensive finishes were good, he played poorly in his own zone, causing the lack of good all star finishes besides that one. Also keep in mind Egan played during the worst war years, and missed only 42-43 when only a few guys had left. In addition to being a 2nd team all star twice, here are Gonchar's other all star finishes: 5, 5, 6, 7, 9. People love to put asterisks all over everything Gonchar has done. Discount them as you wish. My point is that overall, Gonchar is a more valuable player because the gap in offense is larger than the gap in defense(which both were bad at).

Overall, the 2nd pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. Philadelphia's 2 defensemen are better than their counterparts. Philadelphia's pairing provides better, more established offense, and defense is probably about equal.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

If Ivanov should be drafted around 350, then when should Davydov (clearly his superior) be drafted?

Not surprised to see Ivanov score so much more than other defensemen in the 60s. Wasn't he the "midfielder" or whatever it was called when Tarasov experimented with only using one true defenseman?

I dunno. For me Ivanov is an incredibly difficult guy to place.

I think Davydov belongs in the very early 300s compared to the 320-330 where he is usually picked. Yes, Ivanov was the sort of rover or mid-fielder in that Soviet system with Ragulin at the back and Vikulov and Firsov up front. That may have padded his stats a bit, but it says something that Tarasov put Ivanov in that position instead of Ragulin, Kuzkin, or Davydov.

 

[Dreakmur]

Howell and Stuart are clearly the #2 for each team. I don't think I'm out of line to say Howell is easily the best defenseman on either pairing. Stuart has some great, impressive quotes that indicate he was good at pretty much everything. You have his goal finishes among defensemen that look impressive, but I can't help but question how much they really mean. 4 of the 1st place finishes occurred in the IPHL(3 of them), and the other in the WPHL. I know very little about either of these leagues. Dreak, could you inform us about Stuart's competition for these finishes? I don't know anything about defensemen from any of those leagues, and as far as I know they were not very good compared to the better leagues of the day. That 2nd place finish was also when he had just 2 goals. I can't help but think that Stuart's competition for these finishes was quite poor, but I know little about defensemen or "cover points" from that era, so I'll let Dreak inform us. Harry Howell on the other hand has a tangible record of Norris finishes and was a complete iron man. When he retired, no defenseman had played more games than him. I don't think his Norris record or All Star record does him justice because Doug Harvey, Bill Gadsby, and Pierre Pilote all getting a good amount of votes. Either way, I think Howell is the better player defensively, and offensively I'll wait until Dreak informs us about his competition to make a call. Overall, I'd call Howell the better defenseman.

Cyclone Taylor and Jack Laviolette played defense in the American pro leagues. The top defensemen from the Canadian teams would be Harvey Pulford, Dickie Boon, and Mike Grant.


The goal totals might not mean anything to you, but all you really need to know s that Hod Stuart was the best offensive defenseman of his era. Howell was just a decent first pass kind of guy. Stuart's offense is definately better.

Defensively, both guys were among the best in the era. Howell's era is stronger, so the edge should go to him.

Physically, Stuart was a dominant force. Howell wasn't soft, but he didn't dish anything out.

Hod Stuart was arguably the best player in the world during his prime. How much can you possibly punish a guy for playing in n early era?

That brings us to Gonchar and Egan. Offensively, Gonchar is definitely better. Even without factoring in depth of talent pool and era. A raw finishes of their top 10(which massively favors Egan) shows that Gonchar is still significantly better.

Points

Gonchar-1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8
Egan-1, 1, 2, 3, 4

Gonchar is significantly better offensively, and I'd say he's a better skater as well. Egan provides more physicality. Both are sub-par defensively. Gonchar gets hated on here because he's a modern player and we've seen him play. Egan has just one mention in all star voting, being on the 2nd team all star once. That suggests that although his offensive finishes were good, he played poorly in his own zone, causing the lack of good all star finishes besides that one. Also keep in mind Egan played during the worst war years, and missed only 42-43 when only a few guys had left. In addition to being a 2nd team all star twice, here are Gonchar's other all star finishes: 5, 5, 6, 7, 9. People love to put asterisks all over everything Gonchar has done. Discount them as you wish. My point is that overall, Gonchar is a more valuable player because the gap in offense is larger than the gap in defense(which both were bad at).

Agreed that Gonchar is better offensively. Agreed that they are similar defensively, and Egan is much more physical.

Overall, the 2nd pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. Philadelphia's 2 defensemen are better than their counterparts. Philadelphia's pairing provides better, more established offense, and defense is probably about equal.

I'm not sold on Howell being better than Stuart. I think they're pretty close.

Your pair is better due to Gnnchar being better than Egan.

 

[seventieslord]

People don't just like to put asterisks all over Gonchar for no reason. For example, he once received some Norris votes based purely on his point total, when he was actually 5th on his team in ESTOI/GP. Essentially meaning he was their #5 defenseman and #1 PP specialist. I forget the season but I'm sure someone could figure it out pretty quick.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

People don't just like to put asterisks all over Gonchar for no reason. For example, he once received some Norris votes based purely on his point total, when he was actually 5th on his team in ESTOI/GP. Essentially meaning he was their #5 defenseman and #1 PP specialist. I forget the season but I'm sure someone could figure it out pretty quick.

I'm not saying his all star finishes or Norris finishes reflect his overall play as a defenseman. I never said that. I said discount them as you wish. I think he gets hated on more than he deserved, but others can interpret as they wish.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Cyclone Taylor and Jack Laviolette played defense in the American pro leagues. The top defensemen from the Canadian teams would be Harvey Pulford, Dickie Boon, and Mike Grant.


The goal totals might not mean anything to you, but all you really need to know s that Hod Stuart was the best offensive defenseman of his era. Howell was just a decent first pass kind of guy. Stuart's offense is definately better.

Defensively, both guys were among the best in the era. Howell's era is stronger, so the edge should go to him.

Physically, Stuart was a dominant force. Howell wasn't soft, but he didn't dish anything out.

Hod Stuart was arguably the best player in the world during his prime. How much can you possibly punish a guy for playing in n early era?

Okay, just wanted to get some perspective into who he was competing against. Not the greatest competition, but definitely not as bad as Alf Smith's. I don't want to punish him for playing in an early era with weak depth, just that in comparison to Howell's era, the talent pool was definitely more shallow. Howell also has much better longevity. Considering the time he played, Stuart's career was about the average length, but Howell was a famous iron-man who played 21 NHL seasons and 3 more in the WHA. His longevity is very strong, and is something that Stuart doesn't have. Not that Stuart had a short career, it's just that Howell had a very long career. The gap between them isn't large, but I think the edge is definitely to Howell, who was called underrated in multiple quotes because of his non-flashy, steady play compared to what sounds like a flamboyant, flashy style that Stuart played.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

To wrap up the defense, a look at 3rd pairings:

Tikal-Owen

vs.

Buller-Randall

I think Buller did suffer from a bit of antisemitism personally, but I follow the school of thought that we can't assume he would have replicated what he did in the AHL in the NHL, and what he did in his few years in the NHL over an entire career. Buller had that one great year, but I think Tikals 2 best defensemen at WC awards, and a long national team career make him a little bit better. Tikal is probably better defensively, and Buller probably a little better offensively just because we know very little about Tikal's offense except how he compared in WC to guys like Ivanov(not as good) and Ragulin(better). Tikal bested Eduard Ivanov, Alexander Ragulin, Karel Gut, Lennart Svedberg(in 1965), Vitaly Davydov, Viktor Kuzkin, and Jan Suchy(in 1965) for his best defenseman awards. Overall, I think Tikal is the better player because of Buller's extremely short career at the highest level and Tikal's lower peak but much higher longevity against his country's best competition and performance at WCs.

That brings us to George Owen and Ken Randall, two puck movers. They played in pretty close proximity to each other.

Goals

Owen-1, 2, 5, 5, 7
Randall-2, 3, 5, 6, 7

Assists

Owen-2, 3, 3
Randall-1, 1, 2, 3, 3

Points

Owen-1, 2, 5, 8
Randall-1, 3, 3, 4, 7

So, Owen was a better goalscorer, Randall a better playmaker, and Randall a slightly better offensive defenseman overall. But as you said, in 1919, 1920, and 1921 Randall played some forward, but not very much. Unfortunately, we don't know how that may have impacted his finishes because it was so long ago. Considering this, as overall offensive players I think they're about even. People try to use the argument of "Owen didn't get all star votes and he was good offensively, so it must mean he wasn't good defensively." I call BS on that. We don't have voting records for that far back because all stars were only recorded for the last 3 years of Owen's career. For the first 4 years of all star voting, Eddie Shore, Lionel Conacher, King Clancy, Ching Johnson, and Sylvio Mantha had a monopoly on those spots. Those guys are all either legit #1s or legit #2s. Combined with the fact that there is nothing that says Owen was bad defensively, I think he is average. Randall provides more physicality, Owen was the better skater. Overall, I think they are very close to a wash.

Overall, 3rd pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. Owen and Randall are more or less a wash, but I think Tikal is definitely better than Buller, tipping it in favor of Philadelphia.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think Buller did suffer from a bit of antisemitism personally, but I follow the school of thought that we can't assume he would have replicated what he did in the AHL in the NHL, and what he did in his few years in the NHL over an entire career. Buller had that one great year, but I think Tikals 2 best defensemen at WC awards, and a long national team career make him a little bit better. Tikal is probably better defensively, and Buller probably a little better offensively just because we know very little about Tikal's offense except how he compared in WC to guys like Ivanov(not as good) and Ragulin(better). Tikal bested Eduard Ivanov, Alexander Ragulin, Karel Gut, Lennart Svedberg(in 1965), Vitaly Davydov, Viktor Kuzkin, and Jan Suchy(in 1965) for his best defenseman awards. Overall, I think Tikal is the better player because of Buller's extremely short career at the highest level and Tikal's lower peak but much higher longevity against his country's best competition and performance at WCs.

The AHL in Buller's time was the second best league in the world. The Czech league in Tikal's time was the third or fourth best league. Buller's AHL accomplishments mean at least as much as Tikal's domestic accimplshments.

When Buller did make the NHL, he was an elite offensive defenseman. Over his career, only Doug Harvey and Red Kelly outscored him. That's a damn impressive peak.

So, Owen was a better goalscorer, Randall a better playmaker, and Randall a slightly better offensive defenseman overall. But as you said, in 1919, 1920, and 1921 Randall played some forward, but not very much. Unfortunately, we don't know how that may have impacted his finishes because it was so long ago. Considering this, as overall offensive players I think they're about even. People try to use the argument of "Owen didn't get all star votes and he was good offensively, so it must mean he wasn't good defensively." I call BS on that. We don't have voting records for that far back because all stars were only recorded for the last 3 years of Owen's career. For the first 4 years of all star voting, Eddie Shore, Lionel Conacher, King Clancy, Ching Johnson, and Sylvio Mantha had a monopoly on those spots. Those guys are all either legit #1s or legit #2s. Combined with the fact that there is nothing that says Owen was bad defensively, I think he is average. Randall provides more physicality, Owen was the better skater. Overall, I think they are very close to a wash.

There is no evidence that Owen was above average defensively, so you can't just make it up. He was a good offensive defenseman who didn't bring much else to the game.

If longevity makes Howell better than Stuart, why does longevity get ignored in this comparison? Randall, like Howell, played one of the longest careers of his time.

Overall, 3rd pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. Owen and Randall are more or less a wash, but I think Tikal is definitely better than Buller, tipping it in favor of Philadelphia.

Disagree. Both of my defensemen have the edge over yours, which would give my pair the difinitive edge. This is just the third pair though, so it won't make a huge difference.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'd like to hear each team's plans on what to do against the top line of the opponent.

I also just re-read Norm Ullman's profile, and their are two quotes about how he developed into an excellent two-way center. Is their any indication as to when or where he developed into one?

 

[seventieslord]

I'd like to hear each team's plans on what to do against the top line of the opponent.

I also just re-read Norm Ullman's profile, and their are two quotes about how he developed into an excellent two-way center. Is their any indication as to when or where he developed into one?

Not 100% sure, but C1958 has alluded to it before, saying Ullman wasn't always as good defensively as he would later become.

The quotes about him are absolutely glowing, and he's one of my favourite players ever (still convinced he's better than Abel) - but the possibility that he was sort of a "half career" defensive guy keeps him from being one of the elites in the ATD in that regard. Comparing him to Yzerman, as opposed to Henri Richard, is probably more fitting.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not 100% sure, but C1958 has alluded to it before, saying Ullman wasn't always as good defensively as he would later become.

The quotes about him are absolutely glowing, and he's one of my favourite players ever (still convinced he's better than Abel) - but the possibility that he was sort of a "half career" defensive guy keeps him from being one of the elites in the ATD in that regard. Comparing him to Yzerman, as opposed to Henri Richard, is probably more fitting.

There's definitely enough in the profile to consider Ullman an elite forechecker for his career, but I do want to know when he developed the top-notch two-way ability.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

The AHL in Buller's time was the second best league in the world. The Czech league in Tikal's time was the third or fourth best league. Buller's AHL accomplishments mean at least as much as Tikal's domestic accimplshments.

When Buller did make the NHL, he was an elite offensive defenseman. Over his career, only Doug Harvey and Red Kelly outscored him. That's a damn impressive peak.

There is a big difference. That league was the best league Tikal could play in, it was his best option. Buller played in the 2nd best league in his country. I'll still take Tikal.

If longevity makes Howell better than Stuart, why does longevity get ignored in this comparison? Randall, like Howell, played one of the longest careers of his time.

I'll give Randall the edge over Owen.

Disagree. Both of my defensemen have the edge over yours, which would give my pair the difinitive edge. This is just the third pair though, so it won't make a huge difference.

I still would take Tikal over Buller. Buller's career in the best league in his country is just not long enough. I think these are more or less a wash.

 

[Dreakmur]

There is a big difference. That league was the best league Tikal could play in, it was his best option. Buller played in the 2nd best league in his country. I'll still take Tikal.

Just because it was the best league in his county doesn't mean it was a good league. We're trying to evauate the meaning of their accomplishments, and understanding how good their leagues were is important in that process. A lot of Buller's accomplishments were against a second tier of players, and all of Tikal's were against lesser competition. How do we evaluate that porperly?

Buller's accomlishments in the NHL mean more than anything Tikal did, so in order for Tikal to be better than Buller, his domestic accomlishments need to really outweight Buller's AHL ones.

In the 1940s, the AHL was the second best league in the world. In the 1960s, the Czech league was either the 3rd or 4th best league. The Czechs were definately behind the NHL and the Soviet league, and they may have been behind the AHL as well.

Was Tikal ever a Czech league All-Star?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Just because it was the best league in his county doesn't mean it was a good league. We're trying to evauate the meaning of their accomplishments, and understanding how good their leagues were is important in that process. A lot of Buller's accomplishments were against a second tier of players, and all of Tikal's were against lesser competition. How do we evaluate that porperly?

Buller's accomlishments in the NHL mean more than anything Tikal did, so in order for Tikal to be better than Buller, his domestic accomlishments need to really outweight Buller's AHL ones.

In the 1940s, the AHL was the second best league in the world. In the 1960s, the Czech league was either the 3rd or 4th best league. The Czechs were definately behind the NHL and the Soviet league, and they may have been behind the AHL as well.

Was Tikal ever a Czech league All-Star?

I don't think those distinctions existed when Tikal was a defenseman. If they did, Tikal and Karel Gut would have won all of the ones for defensemen. Considering they were the top pair for the National team, I think it's safe to say they were the 2 best in the country at the time.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Goaltending is where I think there is the most controversy. Reds said he believes Holecek was the better goaltender compared to Tretiak. Personally, I think they are quite close. In terms of ATD canon, I think it's just wrong. I think canon has Tretiak taken higher than he deserves to be, and Holecek drafted too low. Holecek had just one chance to prove himself against North American competition in the 1976 Canada Cup, and admittedly wasn't great. But, we surely can't judge him on just one performance alone. The World Championships were where Holecek was a star, winning 5 Best Goalie awards(the most ever, more than Tretiak's 4), and being named to the WC All Star team 5 times(the most ever among goalies, two more than Tretiak's 3). Incidentally, Holecek was notably at his best whenever he played the Soviets, and Tretiak is his opposition in net. I've got a couple good quotes too:

But many consider him being a better goaltender than Tretiak. In his homeland (Czech Republic) Holecek was called "Kouzelnik" (The Magician), for his acrobatic style of play. He was equally good and fast with his blocker as he was with his glove hand. He also had very quick feet and tried to emulate the style of his childhood idol, xxx. Another strength was that Holecek always used to be cool under pressure. Many say that if Holecek had got the same exposure as Tretiak did when he faced the NHLers then he would be regarded as the best European goalie ever.

“Holecek is the best goalie in the world – better than (Vladislav) Tretiak, (Ken) Dryden or (Bernie) Parent.” — BOBBY HULL at the 1976 Canada Cup

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.

In head to head World Championships and Olympics(all the WC and Olympics from 1971 to 1978), here are their stats(taken from A Century of Hockey Heroes):

Holecek: 63GM, 3763MIN, 126GA, 2.00GAA
Tretiak: 67GM, 3999MIN, 142GA, 2.12GAA

http://www.angelfire.com/id/goalienicknames/gaa.html

I used that to calculate GAA. A Century of Hockey Heroes(I'm sure someone else here owns it), lists minutes played, so I added up the minutes they played those years and divided it by 60 to represent one game since the games played part of it is just appearances, not necessarily games they played completely in. Holecek ended up being ~62.7 and Tretiak ~66.7. Since they were both .7 and I can't put decimals into there, I figured rounding up would be fine. So, in head to head competition in the World Championships and Olympics, Holecek was better. That doesn't even consider the fact that Tretiak was playing in front of superior teams. The only thing Tretiak has on Holecek is the fact that he won so many Gold Medals because of the team playing in front of him. Color me unconvinced that you've got a significant advantage.

 

[Dreakmur]

The only thing Tretiak has on Holecek is the fact that he won so many Gold Medals because of the team playing in front of him.

Actually, thw biggest thing Tretiek has going for him is his play vs NHLers. He was absolutely dominant when playing the best.

Holecek never finoshed a game vs the best.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Actually, thw biggest thing Tretiek has going for him is his play vs NHLers. He was absolutely dominant when playing the best.

Holecek never finoshed a game vs the best.

I was speaking in terms of places on which they were on an even playing field. Tretiak had multiple opportunities against NHL competition, Holecek had just one. In Game 1 of the '76 Canada Cup final, Dzurilla let up 4 goals in the first period, and Holecek came in and let up 2 goals in the final 2 periods. So yes, he did finish a game. Not great, but not nearly as awful as you paint it out to be. Then in Game 2, he let up 2 goals early and got yanked. He had a grand total of 1 opportunityto prove himself against Canada, and he was admittedly wasn't good in that one opportunity, but that certainly doesn't discount the other metrics by which they were actually equal in opportunity. And Holecek was better in those metrics. That Canada team was ridiculously stacked. You also didn't mention in that tournament Tretiak had a rather pedestrian 2.80GAA and .912SV%.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Since Dreak has no actual PP units, it's rather difficult to do a comparison of power play units. In general, I think my first unit of forwards will beat any combination of his except for Dunderdale-Ullman-Bathgate. So, I'd say 1st unit PP forwards are an advantage to me. I'd assume Bourque will be on his 1st unit, and he's better than anything I've got. Overall, your defenseman on your 1st PP will probably be slightly better than mine. Overall, I don't think either has a significant advantage on the 1st PP units. 2nd units are pretty much the same deal. I'd really prefer of Dreak would just post some real PP units instead of this rotation stuff, but to each his own.

The first PK units are an advantage to Philadelphia. Lepine is the best defensive forward on either team, and I'd take Kurri over Mahovlich on a PK. Bourque is the better defenseman than Langway(I'm assuming Ray would be on the 1st unit), but Howell is better than any of your next best defensemen. That's 3-1, an advantage to Philadelphia.

As I said before in my previous series, my 2nd PK unit will be Maloney-Thoms with Tikal and Ivanov on defense. I'm assuming Stanfield-Hebenton will be a common combination for the Monsters. Stanfield has just 3 career SHG, which suggests he was not on the PK that much. Maloney on the other hand has 15 career SHG. Give me Maloney. Neither Hebenton or Thoms has a specific track record as a PKer, but I think Thoms is a little better defensively. The defensemen for the Monsters will likely be some combination of Stuart/Randall/Green. Unless it is Buller-Randall, an edge probably goes to the Monsters on defense. Overall, it's a wash.

3rd PK units for Philadelphia are Duff-Beliveau and Langway and Howell on defense. For the Monsters, it's likely Ullman and somebody else, with Bourque and whichever of Stuart/Randall/Green plays with Bourque on the 1st unit. Whatever they are, I don't see a big advantage either way.

Overall, special teams are a slight advantage to Philadelphia. Dreak's rotating PP and PK systems don't allow for a real comparison, but I don't see any advantage either way on the PPs, but I think Philadelphia's PK units overall are better because of an advantage in the 1st unit.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Just something to throw out, is Ray Bourque being overused a bit here? He's one of the best defensemen of all time, and if anyone can handle it it's him, but can he handle 1st pairing minutes, 1st PP minutes, 1st PK minutes, 3rd PK minutes, and maybe some short 3rd PP units? He's one of the best of all time, but it gets to a point where it's too much for any player. He could probably do that in the real life NHL, but in an ATD setting I think it might be a little too much, and Bourque might get gassed by the end of the games, and if the series goes to 6-7 games.

 

[Dreakmur]

Since Dreak has no actual PP units, it's rather difficult to do a comparison of power play units. In general, I think my first unit of forwards will beat any combination of his except for Dunderdale-Ullman-Bathgate. So, I'd say 1st unit PP forwards are an advantage to me. I'd assume Bourque will be on his 1st unit, and he's better than anything I've got. Overall, your defenseman on your 1st PP will probably be slightly better than mine. Overall, I don't think either has a significant advantage on the 1st PP units. 2nd units are pretty much the same deal. I'd really prefer of Dreak would just post some real PP units instead of this rotation stuff, but to each his own.

The first PK units are an advantage to Philadelphia. Lepine is the best defensive forward on either team, and I'd take Kurri over Mahovlich on a PK. Bourque is the better defenseman than Langway(I'm assuming Ray would be on the 1st unit), but Howell is better than any of your next best defensemen. That's 3-1, an advantage to Philadelphia.

As I said before in my previous series, my 2nd PK unit will be Maloney-Thoms with Tikal and Ivanov on defense. I'm assuming Stanfield-Hebenton will be a common combination for the Monsters. Stanfield has just 3 career SHG, which suggests he was not on the PK that much. Maloney on the other hand has 15 career SHG. Give me Maloney. Neither Hebenton or Thoms has a specific track record as a PKer, but I think Thoms is a little better defensively. The defensemen for the Monsters will likely be some combination of Stuart/Randall/Green. Unless it is Buller-Randall, an edge probably goes to the Monsters on defense. Overall, it's a wash.

3rd PK units for Philadelphia are Duff-Beliveau and Langway and Howell on defense. For the Monsters, it's likely Ullman and somebody else, with Bourque and whichever of Stuart/Randall/Green plays with Bourque on the 1st unit. Whatever they are, I don't see a big advantage either way.

Overall, special teams are a slight advantage to Philadelphia. Dreak's rotating PP and PK systems don't allow for a real comparison, but I don't see any advantage either way on the PPs, but I think Philadelphia's PK units overall are better because of an advantage in the 1st unit.

Your pp forward are better than mine, but my pp defensemen blow yours out of the water.

At even strength, Lepine and Laprade are about even. On the PK, Laprade has the edge beacause there he was especially good in that role. Same with Mahovlich - he was considered the best PKer in the NHL suring his peak. After that, my PKers do fall to mediocrity, but I so have the best 2 pkers in the series. Also, just like the PP, my pk defensemen are superior.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

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.

Just saw this, I think Harris brings more physicality than Stanfield. He was renowned for his hitting and being one of the toughest guys in the league. Stanfield brings some phsyicality, but not that much

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.

I disagree. Hodge's stats are inflated, yes, but we don't know by how much. I definitely don't think that the era difference is made up by that fact. What makes Marshall pretty good defensively? He was called a "jack of all trades", and a fine all around player. Nothing specific there, and the fine all around player comment very likely came from his ability to play wing, center, and defense considering that part is very next in the quote. I still think Hodge is a better player than Marshall, and that the edge in 2nd lines goes to Philadelphia.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Your pp forward are better than mine, but my pp defensemen blow yours out of the water.

At even strength, Lepine and Laprade are about even. On the PK, Laprade has the edge beacause there he was especially good in that role. Same with Mahovlich - he was considered the best PKer in the NHL suring his peak. After that, my PKers do fall to mediocrity, but I so have the best 2 pkers in the series. Also, just like the PP, my pk defensemen are superior.

At even strength, calling Lepine and Laprade equal is being extremely generous to Laprade. Lepine is better defensively at even strength. On the PK, I'll give a slight edge to Laprade because of quotes that likely exist because he was a more recent player. Kurri is a better shorthanded threat than Mahovlich. He was 3 times voted the best defensive RW in the NHL, 2nd twice, and 3rd once. Mahovlich doesn't have the benefit of Selke votes, but I seriously doubt if he was ever top 3 defensively at his position for 6 years. You definitely don't have the 2 best PK forwards.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Reasons to vote for the Firebirds:

-Better first line, both offensively and defensively.
-Slightly better second line offensively.
-Better 4th line overall, especially defensively.
-Better 2nd pairing by a decent margin.
-Slightly better special teams overall due to even PP units and slightly better PK units.
-Better two-way play from forwards. We have 3 lines that we would be happy to put out against any of the Monsters' lines. Our 1st line, 3rd line, and 4th line could all take a regular shift against any of the Monsters' lines. On the other hand, the Monsters' 2nd and 4th line would be in serious trouble if they are caught out against Duff-Beliveau-Kurri. The Monsters' 1st line could handle themselves against my top line, but would still be giving up a decent sized matchup advantage.
-3rd lines are basically even, as are the 3rd pairings. Goaltending is up for debate. See my posts and interpret for yourself. The only definitive advantage the Monsters have is on the 1st pairing.

Matchups:

-We will try to get the Duff-Beliveau-Kurri line out against the Monsters' 2nd, and 4th lines whenever possible. We'll also try to avoid matching the Beliveau line with Bourque whenever possible. The Monsters have home ice advantage in a 7 game series, but we feel that we still have the advantage in matching our forwards against the Monsters' defensemen.
-In terms of trying to get matchups, our biggest goal will be to get the Langway-Ivanov pairing out against the Monsters' 1st line. We feel that Ivanov and Langway will be particularly effective against Alf Smith and Norm Ullman. We also think that our physical LWs will be effective against Andy Bathgate. Duff, Sutter, and Maloney were all physical and should be decent at checking Bathgate. In terms of forward matchups, the only one we will try to avoid is having our 2nd line out against the Monsters' 1st line. Besides that, we will allow our 1st, 3rd, and 4th lines to go out against any of the Monsters' lines. In general, the matchup we're trying to avoid is our 2nd line and 3rd pairing, and we feel that we should be able to keep that from happening. We're confident throwing out any combination of our 1st, 3rd, and 4th forward lines and 1st and 2nd pairings against any of the Monsters' lines.