ATD2011 Red Fisher Semi: Regina Pats vs. Hartford Whalers

[seventieslord]

OK, let's not get carried away here, guys. Suddenly scoring 59 points in 51 playoff games is a bad thing? Let me start out by pointing out that Otto often played on very tight defensive teams. All players, including Messier, should be expected to see a drop in production compared to "other" games. So let's account for that. I don't doubt that Otto had some effect on Messier, as that is what the anecdotes say, but let's not overstate it. (thank you for the research, MA, I'm going to expand on it now)

This is an absolute monster of a chart - I'll try to explain it to you.

I started by tracking Messier's regular season and playoff GP and pts by season. Like MadArcand, I ignored 1994 and 1995 as there is just one game in both seasons combined. I also used the HSP to go back to 1986.

I then compiled Messier's GP and points vs. Otto in the regular season and playoffs.

the "ottofactor" columns are Messier's PPG vs. Otto divided by his PPG in other games that season.

the two "weighted" columns are to avoid just making a simple average, as the years in which Messier played more games against Otto should count for more. The totals of these columns represent the raw, weighted Otto factors in the regular season and the playoffs. Note that Messier saw an 18% reduction vs. Otto in the season, but a 5% increase in the playoffs.

To get a simplified final answer, I took it a step further while accounting for Otto's team defense. I added up the regular season and playoffs each year and determined the total "ottofactor", then divided by "ottoteamdef" to account for the natural drop Messier should have been expected to have. The total result in this column is the important number: 0.876. Meaning that with as much considered as possible, You could claim Otto had a 12.4% negative impact on Messier's offensive numbers throughout their careers.

It's worth noting that this number represents mostly regular season numbers. But Messier actually outperformed expectations vs. Otto in the playoffs on the aggregate. Not surprising considering what a playoff beast the guy was.

Year | GP | Pts | POGP | POPts | vs. otto GP | vs. otto Pts | vs. Otto POGP | vs. otto POPts | ottofactorReg | ottofactorPO | weighted | weightedPO | ottoteamdef | weighted | total | weighted PO/reg w/ottoteamdef
1986 | 63 | 84 | 10 | 10 | 8 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 0.724 | 0.286 | 5.789 | 1.143 | 0.99 | 14.85 | 0.566 | 8.574
1987 | 77 | 107 | 21 | 28 | 7 | 9 | | | 0.918 | #DIV/0! | 6.429 | #DIV/0! | 0.98 | 6.86 | 0.929 | 6.633
1988 | 77 | 111 | 19 | 34 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 0.823 | 0.972 | 4.114 | 6.806 | 1.03 | 9.27 | 0.952 | 8.319
1989 | 72 | 94 | 7 | 12 | 8 | 5 | | | 0.449 | #DIV/0! | 3.596 | #DIV/0! | 0.76 | 6.08 | 0.439 | 4.625
1990 | 79 | 129 | 22 | 31 | 7 | 9 | | | 0.771 | #DIV/0! | 5.400 | #DIV/0! | 0.9 | 6.3 | 0.800 | 6.225
1991 | 53 | 64 | 18 | 15 | 4 | 5 | 7 | 7 | 1.038 | 1.375 | 4.153 | 9.625 | 0.95 | 10.45 | 0.977 | 11.312
1992 | 79 | 107 | 11 | 14 | 3 | 4 | | | 0.984 | #DIV/0! | 2.951 | #DIV/0! | 1.1 | 3.3 | 0.991 | 2.704
1993 | 75 | 91 | | | 2 | 1 | | | 0.406 | #DIV/0! | 0.811 | #DIV/0! | 0.92 | 1.84 | 0.406 | 0.882
1996 | 74 | 99 | 11 | 11 | 4 | 9 | | | 1.750 | #DIV/0! | 7.000 | #DIV/0! | 0.81 | 3.24 | 1.804 | 8.911
1997 | 71 | 84 | 15 | 12 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 0.553 | 1.375 | 1.659 | 5.500 | 0.91 | 6.37 | 0.752 | 5.788
career | | | | | | | | | | | 0.821 | 1.049 | | 0.939 | | 0.876

So...

You can have your 12.4% reduction in Messier's offensive capabilities when Otto is on the ice at the same time, but:

- Messier is our best player but he is not "by far" the most potent offensive player on his line, like he was in real life. Reducing Messier 12% doesn't necessarily reduce the line by that percentage.
- You don't have home ice advantage so you won't get the last change as often as we will.
- You have a far inferior coach so your likelihood of getting your desired matchup is reduced.

 

[seventieslord]

Although it's not the worst thing in the world, it will be our desire to have Messier not up against Otto. They want their 2v1 matchups, they can have them. We come out ahead big time. The Messier line against the Nieuwendyk line is a laugher, so much that Laviolette in the real world would be making some big changes after the first two games.

When we get the matchups we want (which will be a lot more often than not, considering home ice and coaching), we are fine with the 1v2 tradeoff and 3v3 and 4v4 (in which case Bridgman would of course go up against Otto). I'd have no problem demonstrating we have the superior units there. Do I really need to?

In any case, there is more to this series than just the forward units and how they match up.

The biggest edge for either team in the series, is for Regina and on defense. You can say Gardiner and Day are pretty much equal. But Clancy over Salming is a big edge. Both Neilson and Reise are significantly better than both Heller and Reinhart. Because I respect Wesley's longevity so much, he's close to Redden but not as good. Russell and Watson are about as valuable, just for different reasons. There's really no slot on defense where Hartford can claim to have an advantage.

Belfour is 3-4 notches ahead of Esposito on a reasonable list, and better in the playoffs. No argument there.

Shero is a top-10 coach (I say top-6) - what is Laviolette? Is he even top-40, honestly?

 

[MadArcand]

A few things:
- it would be extremely interesting to see the effect on ES points. It seems to me that Messier found a way to produce on PP reasonably enough against Otto, but was much more stymied on ES - he's friggin' +1 in the 51 games!
- Messier may have better linemates, but so does Otto, and I believe the Selanne-Trottier matchup in particular will reduce your top line's efficiency further. Few checkers have the wheels to keep up with Selanne, but Trottier does.
- You do obviously have the better coach, but 'far inferior'? Lavi is the second-best coach after Babcock in recent years. If he's 'far inferior', then what are the likes of Sinden, Cherry or Ruff, who are beyond abysmal in comparison?

EDIT: one more thing, actually even if you got your 1v2 (which my team will do everything in its power that you won't), it wouldn't be in your favor - Nieuwendyk vs. Messier is a much closer matchup than Turgeon vs. Clarke, which is a bloody massacre.

 

[MadArcand]

As for D:
- there were exactly three D-men picked between Clancy and Salming, and I don't think either was picked way out of place. The difference is there, but it's in no way 'big edge'.
- I'd actually say Heller > Neilson > Reise > Reinhart
- in no way, shape or form is Redden better than Wesley

 

[seventieslord]

- Messier may have better linemates, but so does Otto, and I believe the Selanne-Trottier matchup in particular will reduce your top line's efficiency further. Few checkers have the wheels to keep up with Selanne, but Trottier does.

Let's be realistic here. Selanne is a top half 1st line RW. Trottier is a career MLDer who got a job thanks to expansion. Wheels alone won't neutralize Selanne.

- You do obviously have the better coach, but 'far inferior'? Lavi is the second-best coach after Babcock in recent years. If he's 'far inferior', then what are the likes of Sinden, Cherry or Ruff, who are beyond abysmal in comparison?

Ruff belongs, easily.

Yes, Sinden and Cherry are worse. Who else?

EDIT: one more thing, actually even if you got your 1v2 (which my team will do everything in its power that you won't), it wouldn't be in your favor - Nieuwendyk vs. Messier is a much closer matchup than Turgeon vs. Clarke, which is a bloody massacre.

Then you are overrating Nieuwendyk (don't worry, this probably means there is a job at THN or TSN in your future!)

Their careers overlapped the exact same seasons. Turgeon scored 79+ points ten times (including 1995 projected). Nieuwendyk did it 5 times. He also took 49 more playoff games to score 19 more playoff points than Turgeon. Yeah, he's better defensively, but he was by no means a shutdown player, penalty killer, or selke vote-getter, so how much of an advantage does he really have?

As for D:
- there were exactly three D-men picked between Clancy and Salming, and I don't think either was picked way out of place. The difference is there, but it's in no way 'big edge'.

Clancy is roughly the 50th-best player of all-time and is potentially the #10 defenseman. Salming is closer to 20th, and 100th overall. Yes, it's big.

- I'd actually say Heller > Neilson > Reise > Reinhart

What on earth would make Heller better than Neilson or Reise?

in no way, shape or form is Redden better than Wesley

What would make you say that?

Wesley ranked 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 7, 7, 7 on his team in icetime, the bolded as ray Bourque's partner, and the other two bolds are the years his team was the most successful. He was never a factor in Norris voting. Both times a team used Wesley as their #1, they missed the playoffs (.448, .457)

Redden ranked 4, 4, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 5 in icetime on his team. The bolded are the two years his team was the most successful. He was 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th in Norris voting. In his six seasons as a #1, with OTL removed, his team never had less than 87 points and topped 100 twice.

Come on, we aren't that young. Redden was frequently called a top-10 defenseman in the NHL for five years. Wesley was never once in that category; in fact, THN never listed him in their top-20 by position once.

But I respect longevity, and that's why Wesley is close.

 

[MadArcand]

Let's be realistic here. Selanne is a top half 1st line RW. Trottier is a career MLDer who got a job thanks to expansion. Wheels alone won't neutralize Selanne.

Wheels, elite checking and extremely physical play however...

Ruff belongs, easily.

NO. I don't know what some people see in that moron. The likes of Trotz, Tortorella or Quenneville are better coaches than that whiny, incredibly stupid walrus who never achieved anything of note in the playoffs.

Yes, Sinden and Cherry are worse. Who else?

Quite a few, but what's the point of singling out every single coach I feel inferior? Bottom line Laviolette is the second-best of his generation after Babcock. He's no Shero, but hardly a scrub, especially if assisted by Alf Smith, who is on the level of Pete Green himself.

Then you are overrating Nieuwendyk (don't worry, this probably means there is a job at THN or TSN in your future!)

Their careers overlapped the exact same seasons. Turgeon scored 79+ points ten times (including 1995 projected). Nieuwendyk did it 5 times. He also took 49 more playoff games to score 19 more playoff points than Turgeon. Yeah, he's better defensively, but he was by no means a shutdown player, penalty killer, or selke vote-getter, so how much of an advantage does he really have?

A big, two-way center vs. Messier or a super-soft no-defense center vs. Clarke? I know who'll do better.

Clancy is roughly the 50th-best player of all-time and is potentially the #10 defenseman. Salming is closer to 20th, and 100th overall. Yes, it's big.

That's a stretch both ways, Clancy top 10? The real difference is about 3-5 spots, hardly a big edge. Yes, Clancy has an edge, but don't try to paint it as some Bourque vs. Tinordi matchup.

What on earth would make Heller better than Neilson or Reise?

Being a better all-around player? He's better offensively than both, and on same level of defense at worst.

What would make you say that?

Wesley ranked 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 3, 4, 7, 7, 7 on his team in icetime, the bolded as ray Bourque's partner, and the other two bolds are the years his team was the most successful. He was never a factor in Norris voting. Both times a team used Wesley as their #1, they missed the playoffs (.448, .457)

Redden ranked 4, 4, 3, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, 5 in icetime on his team. The bolded are the two years his team was the most successful. He was 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th in Norris voting. In his six seasons as a #1, with OTL removed, his team never had less than 87 points and topped 100 twice.

Come on, we aren't that young. Redden was frequently called a top-10 defenseman in the NHL for five years. Wesley was never once in that category; in fact, THN never listed him in their top-20 by position once.

But I respect longevity, and that's why Wesley is close.

I've seen then both most of their careers. Redden was clearly worse player. Yeah Redden got more Norris recognition - but against what competition? All Redden has in his favor that he was better offensive D-man at his peak - but a player is not only offense and not only peak, and Redden was never great defensively and was outright atrocious outside his peak.

 

[seventieslord]

Being a better all-around player? He's better offensively than both, and on same level of defense at worst.

So how come he was only ever recognized as one of the league's best defenseman once, and it was 1941?

Yeah, he was better offensively... top-6 in defense scoring 5 times (3, 3, 4, 6, 6) - if he was as good as either of those guys defensively (or even close), then why was he a 2nd team all-star just once?

I've seen then both most of their careers. Redden was clearly worse player. Yeah Redden got more Norris recognition - but against what competition? All Redden has in his favor that he was better offensive D-man at his peak - but a player is not only offense and not only peak, and Redden was never great defensively and was outright atrocious outside his peak.

LOL @ using competition to explain away 5 times in the top-12 versus one 14th and no recognition as a top-20 d-man aside from that... right. it was all the difference in eras.

 

[MadArcand]

So how come he was only ever recognized as one of the league's best defenseman once, and it was 1941?

Yeah, he was better offensively... top-6 in defense scoring 5 times (3, 3, 4, 6, 6) - if he was as good as either of those guys defensively (or even close), then why was he a 2nd team all-star just once?

So you're saying the man covering for Pratt was not as good defensively as Neilson and Reise? Furthermore, are you saying he was so bad defensively that it cancels out the significant offensive edge he has on those two? All because he has one AST? C'mon.

LOL @ using competition to explain away 5 times in the top-12 versus one 14th and no recognition as a top-20 d-man aside from that... right. it was all the difference in eras.

Eras, market and offensive peak.

I think you look too much at awards and too little at accounts of play from the eyewitnesses. Awards and votes aren't the be-all-end-all of player evaluation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do you have a source indicating that Heller "covered for" Pratt? Because LOH seems to indicate that their insane defensive year was an effort by both of them.

 

[Dreakmur]

That's a stretch both ways, Clancy top 10? The real difference is about 3-5 spots, hardly a big edge. Yes, Clancy has an edge, but don't try to paint it as some Bourque vs. Tinordi matchup.

Have to agree there. Clancy is definately not a top-10 defenseman. You have the big 9. Park, Coffey, and Chelios are 10-12. Then Clancy is in a group with Pilote and Cleghorn in the 13-15 range. Then Salming is in the next group. There is not a big gap between the two.

 

[MadArcand]

Do you have a source indicating that Heller "covered for" Pratt? Because LOH seems to indicate that their insane defensive year was an effort by both of them.

I didn't mean to imply anything about Pratt, but with Pratt being the more offensive of them, it seems logical to assume that Heller would take more of the defensive responsibility on that pairing.

 

[seventieslord]

Have to agree there. Clancy is definately not a top-10 defenseman. You have the big 9. Park, Coffey, and Chelios are 10-12. Then Clancy is in a group with Pilote and Cleghorn in the 13-15 range. Then Salming is in the next group. There is not a big gap between the two.

I keep finding players that make me wonder why I have Salming ahead of them. Stevens, Howe, Moose Johnson, for example.

On the other hand I find it hard to keep justifying Clancy so much behind Coffey, Chelios and Park. He might be, but he's more comparable to them, than he is to Cleghorn, Pilote, Seibert, and Horton.

edit: Cleghorn can hang with them too.

 

[seventieslord]

So you're saying the man covering for Pratt was not as good defensively as Neilson and Reise? Furthermore, are you saying he was so bad defensively that it cancels out the significant offensive edge he has on those two? All because he has one AST? C'mon.

What does it tell you when he was top-4 in defense scoring and not an all-star? It is a little bit of a head-scratcher, don't you think?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I wonder why you have Salming ahead of Stevens too . But that says more about my opinion of Stevens than of Salming...

 

[seventieslord]

I think you look too much at awards and too little at accounts of play from the eyewitnesses. Awards and votes aren't the be-all-end-all of player evaluation.

OK, let's get back to reality for a second here. A player would have to be his team's #1 defenseman to really be in contention for the Norris or in the conversation for the "next best" after the elite - unless you're talking about an extremely otherworldly #2, which Wesley never was - so there are really only two seasons Wesley even would qualify and he couldn't get his team to the playoffs. Redden was the #1 defenseman on a team that had 87-102 non-OTL points 6 times. Two things are indisputable: 1) his coach, who knows a lot more than either of us do, put him on the ice more than anyone else. 2) his teams did really well with him playing more than anyone else. What am I missing here? No one is "making up" Redden being a semi-elite player for a good 5-6 season period.

I competed with you in the MLD, AAA, and AA just last year. I know you value icetime a lot, and I know you value team success in conjunction with icetime. There is no leg for you to stand on here.

Like I said, Wesley has a longevity edge which helps. I readily admit that his 9th-best season and beyond, are better than those of Redden. (for the record, Redden was almost a 1000-gamer so let's not act like he was a five-year wonder or something)

 

[MadArcand]

OK, let's get back to reality for a second here. A player would have to be his team's #1 defenseman to really be in contention for the Norris or in the conversation for the "next best" after the elite - unless you're talking about an extremely otherworldly #2, which Wesley never was - so there are really only two seasons Wesley even would qualify and he couldn't get his team to the playoffs. Redden was the #1 defenseman on a team that had 87-102 non-OTL points 6 times. Two things are indisputable: 1) his coach, who knows a lot more than either of us do, put him on the ice more than anyone else. 2) his teams did really well with him playing more than anyone else. What am I missing here? No one is "making up" Redden being a semi-elite player for a good 5-6 season period.

I agree that Redden was very good at his peak. But he declined very sharply. Wesley has the edge in longetivity, defensive play, playoffs, leadership and physical game. All Redden really has is his peak (and that is largely offense based too).

 

[MadArcand]

I competed with you in the MLD, AAA, and AA just last year. I know you value icetime a lot, and I know you value team success in conjunction with icetime. There is no leg for you to stand on here.

Redden made it out of round 1 5 times, Wesley 8. Redden made it out of round 2 twice, Wesley 7. Redden made finals once, Wesley four. And Redden never won, unlike Wesley.

Redden's team success comes from playing on strong regular season team - one that always choked in the playoffs, and Redden was clearly a part of the choking. Hard not to get eliminated in 1st round when your #1 posts glorious -5s and -4s all around.

Like I said, Wesley has a longevity edge which helps. I readily admit that his 9th-best season and beyond, are better than those of Redden. (for the record, Redden was almost a 1000-gamer so let's not act like he was a five-year wonder or something)

9th?! Now that's a distortion. Or you went just by points...

 

[seventieslord]

Redden made it out of round 1 5 times, Wesley 8. Redden made it out of round 2 twice, Wesley 7. Redden made finals once, Wesley four. And Redden never won, unlike Wesley.

That's a major distortion. It was impossible not to get out of round 1 with Ray Bourque.

Redden's team success comes from playing on strong regular season team - one that always choked in the playoffs, and Redden was clearly a part of the choking. Hard not to get eliminated in 1st round when your #1 posts glorious -5s and -4s all around.

Absolutely they choked, and absolutely Redden played his part in that. Fact remains that Wesley was never a major part of a team that went anywhere. I respect that he was a #2 in Boston but at the same time, that was a non-playoff team with him in place of Bourque as the #1.

9th?! Now that's a distortion. Or you went just by points...

Nope, didn't look at points at all.

Redden's 6 seasons as a #1 for 87-102-point teams > Wesley's 2 seasons as the #1 for a non-playoff team and whatever 4 seasons you want to choose as his next-best 4 (let's say 1992, 1993, 1994, 1996, maybe?)

Redden's 7th-8th best seasons would be 2006 (likely better than 7th, as he was behind Chara in his coming out party) and 2008 in which he started to slip but was a legit #2 on a playoff team. Those are better than Wesley's 7th-8th best seasons (if I had to guess, one of his early-90s seasons where he was not yet polished defensively and got a lot of points partially by playing with Bourque)

Redden's 9th-best year would be when he was a #2 for the Rangers. He was still a good NHL defenseman but the whole world knew he was in a steep decline from what he once was. Wesley's 9th-best year would be better than this.

 

[MadArcand]

Absolutely they choked, and absolutely Redden played his part in that. Fact remains that Wesley was never a major part of a team that went anywhere. I respect that he was a #2 in Boston but at the same time, that was a non-playoff team with him in place of Bourque as the #1.

2002 Canes finals team? Wesley led that team in SHTOI, and also saw lot of use on ES. His leadership also played an important part in the 2006 Cup win.

 

[raleh]

I'm enjoying the arguments in this thread, but Clancy as a top ten Dman? Of all time? That's silly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm enjoying the arguments in this thread, but Clancy as a top ten Dman? Of all time? That's silly.

I don't think it's entirely silly to rank the 2nd best defenseman to play the game before 1950 as #10 (I may have been the one to stir the **** earlier in the draft and claim this... heh). But yeah, the Chelios/Park/Coffey trio (the "standard" picks for #10) is a tough group to crack.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think I can help a little bit with Ott Heller here, since I've been reading a lot about the late 30s Rangers, as I have several members of the team on mine.

Basically these were their defense pairings:

Muzz Patrick - Art Coulter
Babe Pratt - Ott Heller

When this group of 4 was together, it was considered the best group of shutdown defensemen in the league and the key to the continuing success of the Rangers after the Bread Line retired.

For the last shift of a game, the Rangers would put Ott Heller with Art Coulter to really shut things down, and this pair was considered especially difficult to score on.

My theory as to why Ott Heller received so little All-Star consideration? Eddie Shore owned one of the First-Team spots when this group was in their prime, and Earl Seibert was a permanent fixture on one of the other spots. So there were only 2 spots available for everyone else in the league. And when one of the nods went to a Ranger, it went to Art Coulter, as he was better than Heller.

Basically, Heller never had a shot at getting one of the four All-Star nods as the second best defenseman on his team in an extremely tough era for competition in general. I don't think it's necessarily a coincidence that Heller's one 2nd Team nod was the season after Coulter stopped getting his nods.

Not sure how this affects Heller vs. Neilson vs. Reise, but I think Heller had it particularly tough to get All-Star recognition during his prime.

 

[BM67]

Even then, Heller still has a all-star voting record comparable to that of Neilson. Heller has a 2nd team spot, a close 5th place and at least one more year of multiple votes. Neilson has a 2nd team spot, a 6th place and several years with some votes. Considering that we have more of the voting record for Neilson and there were more votes cast during his time, I don't see any advantage for Neilson.

 

[overpass]

How did LD vs RD affect Heller's Allstar voting?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How did LD vs RD affect Heller's Allstar voting?

Has anyone ever figured out which D were considered RD and LD? I briefly tried to figure it out for Coulter, but decided it would be too much work.