MLD 2010 Mickey Ion Semi Final: #1 Toronto Marlies vs. #5 Carolina Hurricanes
- Thread starter Dreakmur
- Start date
Dreakmur
Registered User
Just so everyone has a clear and fair view on how good Vincent Lukac actually is, I've done a quick mini-bio on him. Don't want him to get uderappreciated, but don't want him getting over-hyped either!
Czechoslovakian Extraliga Awards and Accomplishments:
League Championship (1982)
Golden Stick (1983)
Point Leader (1980)
2 x Goal Leader (1980, 1983)
Czech League Scoring Finishes – 1st(1980), 2nd(1977), 4th(1978), 4th(1979), 4th(1981)
International Awards and Accomplishments:
Olympic Silver Medal (1984)
2 x World Championship Gold Medal (1977, 1985)
2 x World Championship Silver Medal (1982, 1983)
International Scoring Finishes – 10th(1984)
Czechoslovakian Extraliga Awards and Accomplishments:
League Championship (1982)
Golden Stick (1983)
Point Leader (1980)
2 x Goal Leader (1980, 1983)
Czech League Scoring Finishes – 1st(1980), 2nd(1977), 4th(1978), 4th(1979), 4th(1981)
International Awards and Accomplishments:
Olympic Silver Medal (1984)
2 x World Championship Gold Medal (1977, 1985)
2 x World Championship Silver Medal (1982, 1983)
International Scoring Finishes – 10th(1984)
Last edited:
Dreakmur
Registered User
Lets start this off with a look at each team's top line 
Carolia Hurricanes
Alexei Yashin is probably the most impressive combination of size, skill, and skating in this draft. Despite his character issues, he is one of the best scorers - 2nd, 10th, 10th, 16th, and 18th is impressive and during his prime he was 11th in the league (ahead of many main draft players).
Russ Courtnall, I have always thought, is over-rated. He brings a lot of speed, but doesn't really accomplish much. He only has one top-20 in a scoring category, and it's a 20th in assists. He was a good forechecker, but asside from that, he doesn't bring much.
Geoff Courtnall, on the other hand, is under-rated. The guy known as "Russ's older brother" has much more impressive offensive totals. 15th and 17th in goals is decent, but if you just look at even strength goals, he's an impressive 10th, 13th, 17th, 19th. In addition to more offense, he plays a better all-around game. I'm not sure he's a true 1st liner here, but he does bring a little bit of scoring.
Overall, this line really lacks a playmaker. Russ Courtnall is probably the best of the group, ad he's very marginal. This line is going to rely heavily on Yashin, and I think most people will agree that is just asking for trouble. As I've said before, Yashin is one of the most talented players here, but he also has a history of disappearing in big games.
Toronto Marlies:
Marc Savard, I think it's safe to say by now, is the best offensive player on either line. With his 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, and 6th in assists, he's a domiant playmaker at the MLD level. Like many offensive players who fall through the ATD, Savard has his issues - for most of his career, he's been a poor defensive player and have a poor attitude. Since the lock-out, though, he has really developed his defensive play, and he's actually become a well-rounded player as well as a leader for the Bruins. He's slowly creeping away from being a negative in terms of intagibles (he not there yet, but he's pretty close to being neutral).
Stephane Richer, while he never became the next Guy Lafleur that the Montreal fans wanted, was a consistenly solid goalscorer. His 6th, 7th, and 14th in goals make him a solid scoring winger. The fact that he scored many game-winners as well as raised his game in the play-offs helps. He wasn't a Selke contender, but he did play a very responsible 2-way game.
Al MacAdam is the glue that holds this lie together. Any questions that may be raised by having Savard ad Richer out there should be answered nicely by MacAdam. He plays a fantastic 2-way game with lots of hustle and grit. He's a great leader and play-off performer. He's also skilled enough to lead Team Canada is scoring as well as put up a 14th in goals. He, in my opinion anyway, is the MLD's version of Syd Howe - the ultimate glue guy!
Overall, this line is kind of boring and generic - playmaker + goalscoere + puckwinner. Maybe boring, but it should be very effective.
Carolia Hurricanes
Alexei Yashin is probably the most impressive combination of size, skill, and skating in this draft. Despite his character issues, he is one of the best scorers - 2nd, 10th, 10th, 16th, and 18th is impressive and during his prime he was 11th in the league (ahead of many main draft players).
Russ Courtnall, I have always thought, is over-rated. He brings a lot of speed, but doesn't really accomplish much. He only has one top-20 in a scoring category, and it's a 20th in assists. He was a good forechecker, but asside from that, he doesn't bring much.
Geoff Courtnall, on the other hand, is under-rated. The guy known as "Russ's older brother" has much more impressive offensive totals. 15th and 17th in goals is decent, but if you just look at even strength goals, he's an impressive 10th, 13th, 17th, 19th. In addition to more offense, he plays a better all-around game. I'm not sure he's a true 1st liner here, but he does bring a little bit of scoring.
Overall, this line really lacks a playmaker. Russ Courtnall is probably the best of the group, ad he's very marginal. This line is going to rely heavily on Yashin, and I think most people will agree that is just asking for trouble. As I've said before, Yashin is one of the most talented players here, but he also has a history of disappearing in big games.
Toronto Marlies:
Marc Savard, I think it's safe to say by now, is the best offensive player on either line. With his 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, and 6th in assists, he's a domiant playmaker at the MLD level. Like many offensive players who fall through the ATD, Savard has his issues - for most of his career, he's been a poor defensive player and have a poor attitude. Since the lock-out, though, he has really developed his defensive play, and he's actually become a well-rounded player as well as a leader for the Bruins. He's slowly creeping away from being a negative in terms of intagibles (he not there yet, but he's pretty close to being neutral).
Stephane Richer, while he never became the next Guy Lafleur that the Montreal fans wanted, was a consistenly solid goalscorer. His 6th, 7th, and 14th in goals make him a solid scoring winger. The fact that he scored many game-winners as well as raised his game in the play-offs helps. He wasn't a Selke contender, but he did play a very responsible 2-way game.
Al MacAdam is the glue that holds this lie together. Any questions that may be raised by having Savard ad Richer out there should be answered nicely by MacAdam. He plays a fantastic 2-way game with lots of hustle and grit. He's a great leader and play-off performer. He's also skilled enough to lead Team Canada is scoring as well as put up a 14th in goals. He, in my opinion anyway, is the MLD's version of Syd Howe - the ultimate glue guy!
Overall, this line is kind of boring and generic - playmaker + goalscoere + puckwinner. Maybe boring, but it should be very effective.
Last edited:
MadArcand
Whaletarded
Dreakmur
Registered User
Whoops. Typo on the Olympic year
I only went up to 1981 because after that season, because after that season there were very few top-end players left. When the Stastnys came over (for the 1981-82 season) that was pretty much it for the Czech league.
I'll have to get back to you on where I got them. I put that file together over a year ago.
Dreakmur
Registered User
I guess I'll do another comparison for each 2nd line now...
Carolina Hurricanes:
Vincent Lukac is definately a strong scoring threat on the second line. His scoring finishes in the Czech league indicate he was a very highly skilled goalscorer. His scoring finishes in the IIHF tournaments suggest he was either a complimentary player on those teams or he had trouble competing against stronger competition. Do we know anything about his style of play? As of right now, he's a very good 2nd line goalscorer, but doesn't bring much else....
Ray Whitney is a solid complimentary player. His 10th and 19th in goals mean he's got some good hands around the net, and his 10th and 12th in assists show he's a pretty good playmaker. He's definately not a go-to guy, but a good compliment to better offensive players.
Mike Ridley, to me, is very unimpressive. His 16th in points and 19th in goals is pretty weak for a 2nd line center. In addition to that, he's soft. Perhaps if he was good defensively, which I don't think he was, then he brings a little bit to this line.
Overall, this line is much like Carolina's first line - it relies heavily on one player (Yashin and Lukac) for offense, and there isn't a whole lot of intangibles supplied by anyone.
Toronto Marlies:
Red Hamill is probably our team's best goal-scorer. His 2nd, 3rd, 9th, and 15th in goals was interrupted whe he served 2 years in World War II. Over those seasons, Hamill was the second best goalscorer in the NHL - behind Max Bentley and ahead of guys like Syl Apps, Toe Blake, and Doug Bentley. He's not a good play-off performer, which is why we moved him down to the second line, where he will be facing less checking pessure as well as get help by from centerman, who was an elite play-off performer. In addition to goals, Hamill brings a devastating physical game, which is going to create a whole lot of room on the ice, especially when going head to head with one of Carolina's top-2 lines.
Doc Romnes, to me anyway, is the perfect 2nd line center in the MLD. He brings strong passing skills, a good 2-way game, and is very good in the play-offs. His 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 14th in assists, despite some questions about his competition, make him one of the best playmaking centers to skate on a second line here. During his prime, he was the best play-off performer in the NHL.
Art Gagne brings a little bit of everything. His solid scoring and playmaking in the Western leagues, which included 1st, 3rd, 7th in points, 3rd, 5th, 8th in goals, and 1st, 5th, 6th in assists, made him a 3-time All-Star. When he joined the NHL, he put up 6th, 11th, and 18th in goals. In addition to his well-rounded offensive game, Gagne brings energy and grit.
Overall, this line is well balanced and gets offensive contributions from all 3 members. Romnes provides the playmaking and defensuve play. Hamill provides the goals and physical play. Gagne bring goals, playmaking, and energy/grit.
Carolina Hurricanes:
Vincent Lukac is definately a strong scoring threat on the second line. His scoring finishes in the Czech league indicate he was a very highly skilled goalscorer. His scoring finishes in the IIHF tournaments suggest he was either a complimentary player on those teams or he had trouble competing against stronger competition. Do we know anything about his style of play? As of right now, he's a very good 2nd line goalscorer, but doesn't bring much else....
Ray Whitney is a solid complimentary player. His 10th and 19th in goals mean he's got some good hands around the net, and his 10th and 12th in assists show he's a pretty good playmaker. He's definately not a go-to guy, but a good compliment to better offensive players.
Mike Ridley, to me, is very unimpressive. His 16th in points and 19th in goals is pretty weak for a 2nd line center. In addition to that, he's soft. Perhaps if he was good defensively, which I don't think he was, then he brings a little bit to this line.
Overall, this line is much like Carolina's first line - it relies heavily on one player (Yashin and Lukac) for offense, and there isn't a whole lot of intangibles supplied by anyone.
Toronto Marlies:
Red Hamill is probably our team's best goal-scorer. His 2nd, 3rd, 9th, and 15th in goals was interrupted whe he served 2 years in World War II. Over those seasons, Hamill was the second best goalscorer in the NHL - behind Max Bentley and ahead of guys like Syl Apps, Toe Blake, and Doug Bentley. He's not a good play-off performer, which is why we moved him down to the second line, where he will be facing less checking pessure as well as get help by from centerman, who was an elite play-off performer. In addition to goals, Hamill brings a devastating physical game, which is going to create a whole lot of room on the ice, especially when going head to head with one of Carolina's top-2 lines.
Doc Romnes, to me anyway, is the perfect 2nd line center in the MLD. He brings strong passing skills, a good 2-way game, and is very good in the play-offs. His 3rd, 4th, 7th, and 14th in assists, despite some questions about his competition, make him one of the best playmaking centers to skate on a second line here. During his prime, he was the best play-off performer in the NHL.
Art Gagne brings a little bit of everything. His solid scoring and playmaking in the Western leagues, which included 1st, 3rd, 7th in points, 3rd, 5th, 8th in goals, and 1st, 5th, 6th in assists, made him a 3-time All-Star. When he joined the NHL, he put up 6th, 11th, and 18th in goals. In addition to his well-rounded offensive game, Gagne brings energy and grit.
Overall, this line is well balanced and gets offensive contributions from all 3 members. Romnes provides the playmaking and defensuve play. Hamill provides the goals and physical play. Gagne bring goals, playmaking, and energy/grit.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Still clinging to the "finishes" method for modern players?
it doesn't work.
At least not at the mld level it doesn't. There are a lot of very good players who put up a lot of points for a lot of years despite not being in the top-20 that often.
Just like we over-restricted ourselves when looking solely at top-10s until I showed how top-20s can better illuminate the picture, relying solely on top-20s for post-european invasion players will cause you to miss a lot too.
"This guy had two top-20s, this guy was never top-20" is simply not a deep enough argument to prove a player is better than another offensively. Whitney is among the best offensive players in this draft and ridley is a good two-way 2nd line center whose numbers are just as impressive as a guy like Tom Lysiak.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Didn't you slam Lysiak last MLD? Ridley was like the 35th best offensive player in the league during his pime. There's nothing special about that.
Ray Whitney is better than his top-20s indicate, but to say he is one of the best offensive players in the draft is pure lunacy.
Ya, I think more backup is needed to accept either statement- and would you really call either better than their counterparts on our team?
Seventies, you evidently want us to convert to the % system, but is that really the holy grail comparison now? What is so impressive about getting a solid % if 30 other guys got an even better one than him? Is it really apples to apples comparing 2nd place scorers in different years, when the quality of these 2nd place players in these drafts will evdeitnyl differentiate by quite a large amount? Are we absolutely sure the % system is completely comprable across era's? Are the 2nd place finishers that impressive is more players can get closer to them than in previous era's?
Seventies, you evidently want us to convert to the % system, but is that really the holy grail comparison now? What is so impressive about getting a solid % if 30 other guys got an even better one than him? Is it really apples to apples comparing 2nd place scorers in different years, when the quality of these 2nd place players in these drafts will evdeitnyl differentiate by quite a large amount? Are we absolutely sure the % system is completely comprable across era's? Are the 2nd place finishers that impressive is more players can get closer to them than in previous era's?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Re: Lysiak, at this time the best evidence I have of his mediocrity is the word of VI, but stats and contemporary opinions contradict him and that evidence has been mounting.
Whitney's been putting up 60-70 points forever. You could say he is somewhat of a compiler but that's why he is here and not in the ATD. He peaked in the dead puck era, yet shows up very strongly on those lists in my arnott bio... so does Ridley, but it was a bit easier for him.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Absolutely not - not without a better analysis. I think we should all be evolving, and a system that assigns value to top-20 seasons and "throws out" other seasons as though they are worthless, is lazy.
No. But I am sure it is better than just counting finishes with little regard for percentages or competition. For a good summary of what kind of offensive analysis I am in favour of now, see my last reply to tdmm in the assassination thread.
Could it not be said, "what is so impressive about being 5th place if you had just 50% of the leader?"
To be honest, aside from 1987-1992, I don't know that there is a greater constant in history than the second-best scorer. The relative quality of this quantity is very similar throughout the years with few noticeable exceptions.
No, we are not sure that a % system is completely comparable. But it does make a great deal more logical sense than raw placements. Modern to modern, that's pretty easy. Old to old, that's easy too. Old to modern comparisons get very tricky (for example, a guy who wscores well using rankings in old times but has crappy percentages vs. A modern guy who is the opposite, how do we determine who was more impressive?) and to attempt to list a few finishes and claim the case is closed, is disingenuous and borders on lazy.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Who said the case was closed?
I posted one set of arguments, and I'm waiting for a reply.....
MadArcand
Whaletarded
OK let's accept your comparisons style and compare the 1st lines.
I disagree that Savard is the best offensive player here, it's Yashin. Yashin led his teams in PPG every single season he's been in the NHL, and flat-out led his teams in scoring 9 times out of 12 (he's been injured for ~1/2 season in the other 3 seasons). Savard is the best playmaker here, sure, but as overall offensive contributor he's not at Yashin's level. In the same number of seasons, he led his teams in scoring just thrice and PPG four times. We can also look at adjusted points - both played 12 seasons, yet Yashin has 929 adjusted points while Savard just 793 - quite a difference. 554 vs. 521 is the adjusted assist edge that Savard has, while he trails 239 to 408 in adjusted goals. His playmaking edge lies more in his peak, but overall he's just a bit better, and far worse goalscorer. Both had attitude issues, yet Yashin still wore a letter for his teams almost every season. Savard is also far smaller and less durable.
The Courtnalls aren't offensive superstars, but their speed will give your defense fits, and they complement Yashin well - Geoff adds grit, physical play and yet more goals, while Russ adds defensive aspect to the line while also providing solid playmaking - he was the playmaker for Modano the one and only season Mike topped 50 goals.
Richer is likely the most talented winger in this matchup. A goalscorer with solid defensive acumen and good speed, he had serious depression issues through his career yet persevered. MacAdam was also a good skater with solid two-way game, though he's likely the least offensively gifted winger here.
Both teams have well-rounded lines with fast wingers and centers with attitude issues here. I think the wingers are pretty much a wash, with Richer being the best and MacAdam the worst of them, with both Courtnalls in the middle. Where I feel we have advantage is that Yashin was more dominant and consistent offensive player than Savard.
Overall, slight edge Carolina
I disagree that Savard is the best offensive player here, it's Yashin. Yashin led his teams in PPG every single season he's been in the NHL, and flat-out led his teams in scoring 9 times out of 12 (he's been injured for ~1/2 season in the other 3 seasons). Savard is the best playmaker here, sure, but as overall offensive contributor he's not at Yashin's level. In the same number of seasons, he led his teams in scoring just thrice and PPG four times. We can also look at adjusted points - both played 12 seasons, yet Yashin has 929 adjusted points while Savard just 793 - quite a difference. 554 vs. 521 is the adjusted assist edge that Savard has, while he trails 239 to 408 in adjusted goals. His playmaking edge lies more in his peak, but overall he's just a bit better, and far worse goalscorer. Both had attitude issues, yet Yashin still wore a letter for his teams almost every season. Savard is also far smaller and less durable.
The Courtnalls aren't offensive superstars, but their speed will give your defense fits, and they complement Yashin well - Geoff adds grit, physical play and yet more goals, while Russ adds defensive aspect to the line while also providing solid playmaking - he was the playmaker for Modano the one and only season Mike topped 50 goals.
Richer is likely the most talented winger in this matchup. A goalscorer with solid defensive acumen and good speed, he had serious depression issues through his career yet persevered. MacAdam was also a good skater with solid two-way game, though he's likely the least offensively gifted winger here.
Both teams have well-rounded lines with fast wingers and centers with attitude issues here. I think the wingers are pretty much a wash, with Richer being the best and MacAdam the worst of them, with both Courtnalls in the middle. Where I feel we have advantage is that Yashin was more dominant and consistent offensive player than Savard.
Overall, slight edge Carolina
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I think this is as fair and strong a comparison as you can make in as short a post, and for the most part I agree. I think you may be overselling Russ Courtnall a bit but your Yashin/Savard portion is spot-on. Savard has a case for best playmaking center in the MLD, and Yashin is almost certainly the 2nd-best goalscoring center in the MLD. Similar team successes, and similar "issues".
MadArcand
Whaletarded
Second lines:
I would like to see sources for Romnes' alleged strong two-way game (not that I don't believe you, but would like to see it for myself - LoH mentions nothing at all about his defensive game). His playmaking finishes are impressive, but he doesn't bring much in the goalscoring department. Ridley was very consistent two-way center for a longer time, and while lacking the playmaking peak of Romnes he makes up for it by being the better goalscorer here.
Hamill brings a lot of hitting to go with a short peak as quality finisher. Good enough. Art Gagne was tiny. His size may be a hindrance here. He brings good offense though.
Lukac was a beast of a goalscorer, one of the best Czechoslovak ones ever, and among Slovak ones, only Bondra beats him in that regard. Like Bondra, he was also very fast skater with very hard slapshot. Unlike Bondra, he provided more rounded offensive game. Lukac also learned to play solid two-way game later in his career. He delivered internationally as well, being over PPG in best-on-best competitions (two OGs and CC).
Ray Whitney is another speedster here, with consistent offensive game - he peaked at 10th in goals and 12th (twice) in assists, but was top 30 numerous times, while playing for no offensive juggernauts of teams:
goals: 10th, 24th
assists: 12th, 12th, 27th, 28th
points: 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 28th, 30th
More of a playmaker, obviously, but that's just as well, since Lukac is the finisher here.
Overall, I think Lukac is the best offensive player on the second lines, with Whitney coming in second. Hamill and Romnes have great peaks in their respective departments, and Gagne rounds out the line well enough. We have a strong two-way center with good playmaking yet still able to score some goals, an elite goalscorer and quality playmaking winger who can also score. One edge we have here is speed - Whitney and Lukac are speed demons, and between them and the Courtnalls on the first line, your defense will run ragged. Your line is the more physical, and depending on Romnes' two-way game similar defensively.
Edge: slightly Carolina
I would like to see sources for Romnes' alleged strong two-way game (not that I don't believe you, but would like to see it for myself - LoH mentions nothing at all about his defensive game). His playmaking finishes are impressive, but he doesn't bring much in the goalscoring department. Ridley was very consistent two-way center for a longer time, and while lacking the playmaking peak of Romnes he makes up for it by being the better goalscorer here.
Hamill brings a lot of hitting to go with a short peak as quality finisher. Good enough. Art Gagne was tiny. His size may be a hindrance here. He brings good offense though.
Lukac was a beast of a goalscorer, one of the best Czechoslovak ones ever, and among Slovak ones, only Bondra beats him in that regard. Like Bondra, he was also very fast skater with very hard slapshot. Unlike Bondra, he provided more rounded offensive game. Lukac also learned to play solid two-way game later in his career. He delivered internationally as well, being over PPG in best-on-best competitions (two OGs and CC).
Ray Whitney is another speedster here, with consistent offensive game - he peaked at 10th in goals and 12th (twice) in assists, but was top 30 numerous times, while playing for no offensive juggernauts of teams:
goals: 10th, 24th
assists: 12th, 12th, 27th, 28th
points: 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 28th, 30th
More of a playmaker, obviously, but that's just as well, since Lukac is the finisher here.
Overall, I think Lukac is the best offensive player on the second lines, with Whitney coming in second. Hamill and Romnes have great peaks in their respective departments, and Gagne rounds out the line well enough. We have a strong two-way center with good playmaking yet still able to score some goals, an elite goalscorer and quality playmaking winger who can also score. One edge we have here is speed - Whitney and Lukac are speed demons, and between them and the Courtnalls on the first line, your defense will run ragged. Your line is the more physical, and depending on Romnes' two-way game similar defensively.
Edge: slightly Carolina
Care to explain what's so impressive about leading the sad-sack Islanders in that department for 5 seasons? Or the sad sack Ottawa Senators for most of his time here? The only good teams he led in PPG in were the 1999 and 2001 Ottawa Senators- the rest were pretty much medocre or worse.
On the other hand, Savard played on pretty medocre teams himself up till the 2006 Thrashers, but his teams never reached the lows of those some of those Senators teams. And of course the Bruins got pretty good soon after he arrived.
And I daresay he had more competition for such metrics. Who was Yashin really competing with in NYI? Alfredsson only came in a couple of seasons after Yashin and hadn't bloomed yet. Hossa only came in around when the Senators got good, and he wasn't as his best yet, and he isn't at the level of Savard's competition. First Marc Savard had Gretzky (38, but still enough to beat em out), then Iginla in prime form, then Heatley and Kovalchuk, all ATD top-6 scoring worthy (Alfredsson is more of a glue-guy/defensive consience in a top-6 role). When Marc Savard got to Boston and the competition dried up, getting the same benefit Yashin did, he started to lead his team in scoring. How is this "fair" exactly? This metric, to me, is poor and bias.
I'm not big on the adjusted points metric, and am not entirely sure how it works. Does it account for games played, since Yashin has played around 70 more games than Savard? Is it really a perfect way to adjust for differences in league scoring rates? How about team scoring rates?
I prefer finishes as well known, and since we are comparing modern-era players with good overlaps, such a comparison does work. Looking at top-10s, 3, 3, 3, 6 in assists impresses me alot more than 2, 10, 10 in goals. An 8, 8, 9 in points impresses me more than a 6th in points (though points are more playmaker bias, granted). If you want to go further to top-20's, Yashin only gets an extra goalscoring finish (a 19th in 2002), and some good added point finishes (11th in 01, 12th in 02, 18th in 98) and Savard gets an added finish (20th in 08) For a line of 6, 11, 12, 18 vs 8, 8, 9, 20. Rather close. However, it seems rather clear to me that Marc Savard is a much better playmaker then Yashin is a goalscorer, and I like the points finishes slightly more myself.
Why doesn't their speed reflect into more offense if it's so deadly? Russ's playmaking is nowhere near the level of Yashin's goalscoring- that isn't a good compliment in my mind. Sure, they make up for some of Yashin's intangible problems, but offensively, with both lacking and a lack of playmaking, I don't see the click. Yes, Courtnall had a nice year being a complimentary players there- what else have they got?
Definitely the most talented winger, by far, and the only one to crack top-10 in a major offensive metric- and he did so twice. (3 times if you look at ES goals).
What makes Russ Courtnall a better offensive player than Al MacAdam? Because he had one solid year with Mike Modano? What makes a player who's only top-20 finish was a 20th in assists better than one who has a 12th in points and 14th in goals? Both were fairly consistent but not impressive scorers outside of those years. Both good two-way players. I see no reason why Russ Courtnall would be considered better than Al Macadam.
I see Al Macadam and Russ Courtnall as fairly close, but Richer is far and away a better winger than any of the other wingers- wingers aren't a wash. Way I see it, any edge Yashin might have (and I don't think he really does have one), the advantage Richer provides makes up for it. In addition, I feel our line clicks a lot better- Yashin is on his own offensively, and Courtnall is not a good enough playmaker to me for a guy of Yashin's goalscoring talent, wheras we have a good duo with Savard and Richer. These two things in particular, gives the Marlies the edge on top lines.
The back of his hockey card calls him one of the best defensive players in the national hockey league.
What makes Ridley at all comparable to Romnes peak? His finishes are unimpressive, and I frankly I don't see how any added bonuses outside of it would come close to beating Romnes 3, 4, 7 in assists, and 4th in points- and those aren't his only finishes in the top-20, either. Reding up on Ridley, he seems like good, but not grear, two-way guy- doesn't seem better than Romnes either. Not to mention Romnes was a strong playoff performer (though Ridley doesn't seem bad in that regard) I think Romnes has at least a good edge here, if not better.
Brings toughness in general too- more than good enough. Art Gagne may have been on the small side, but he was fesity and fierece and won't get pushed around just because of it.
Yes, Lukac is a pretty good scorer here. Art Gagne is no slouch either, also shining very well ina lesser league.
Impressive consitency, but nothing near the peak of Hamill's 2nd, 3rd in goals, and he too has a couple of other decent years (9th and 15th in goals) that would certainly at least compare to if not best Whitney's depth finishes, even on a percentage scale. In addition, Whitney isn't really an intangible guy either, while Red Hamill is the perfect tough guy who doesn't take a lot of penalties, giving him a good intangible edge. This, and peak scoring levels combined, I feel, gives Hamill an edge on Whitney.
Lukac certainly depends quite a bit on how much one values the Czech league scoring in the 80s and late 70s. Art Gagne may not reach the heights of Lukac, but he has some very consistent scoring in various leagues, including the WCHL which I don't see as weaker than the Czech leagues- 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 11th in goals, 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th in assists and 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th in points across 3 leagues (WCHL, a third tier but still good league at the time, WHL, a merger of the two western leagues and certainly equal to if not stronger than the NHL at the time likely, and then the NHL, where he had a nice year in 1928 with no other league around). Certainly these finishes aren't exactly accurate given the other leagues around in a number of these finishes, but that flies for Lukac too, doesn't it? I could see the statement though.
Whitney, however, as the 2nd best offensive player here I don't see. Both Hamill and Romnes crush him in peaks, and have a couple of other solid finishes outside their top-10s to add to their consitency. Whitney may have been a rather consistent and good scorer, but that doesn't make up that gap at the top in my mind.
As far as the speed, again, why doesn't it translate to more offense in the part of Whitney? And our defense may not be particularly fast, but we don't have any slow-foots either.
Lukac likely has an edge on RW, but I don't see it as making up the edges I feel the Marlies have at LW and C, which I have explained. Lukac may be the best player in this comparison, but I think Ridley is likely the worst. In addition, again I feel our line is built better too. Who is providing the toughness for the top line here? Hamill is the perfect player to bring toughness in the line. and Gagne brings some nice complimentary grit. Who exactly is going to stop Hamill when he gets in Lukac's face and knocks him down, as he likely well when these lines do spend time against eachother? I could see the Hurricanes second line getting rather pushes around as a result. The lines are likely defensively similar.
Overall: The edges at C and LW, as well as that toughness factor give the Marlies an edge in this matchup, I feel.
For easier reference-
Bios:
Marc Savard - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762173&postcount=48
Stephane Richer - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762283&postcount=49
Red Hamill - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762460&postcount=50
Hy Buller - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26839899&postcount=60
Doc Romnes - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26858606&postcount=64
Art Gagne - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26862748&postcount=66
Al MacAdam - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26862980&postcount=68
Evgeni Nabokov - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26864809&postcount=69
Cecil Blachford - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867421&postcount=70
Brian Rolston - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867832&postcount=71
Jan Erixon - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867864&postcount=72
John van Boxmeer - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26869286&postcount=74
Gord Fraser - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26893653&postcount=82
Mario Marois - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26896744&postcount=83
Bun Cook - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26874399&postcount=75
Warren Godfrey - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26868809&postcount=73
Carl Liscombe - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26887421&postcount=80
Craig Conroy - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26942650&postcount=84
Bios:
Marc Savard - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762173&postcount=48
Stephane Richer - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762283&postcount=49
Red Hamill - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762460&postcount=50
Hy Buller - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26839899&postcount=60
Doc Romnes - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26858606&postcount=64
Art Gagne - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26862748&postcount=66
Al MacAdam - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26862980&postcount=68
Evgeni Nabokov - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26864809&postcount=69
Cecil Blachford - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867421&postcount=70
Brian Rolston - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867832&postcount=71
Jan Erixon - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867864&postcount=72
John van Boxmeer - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26869286&postcount=74
Gord Fraser - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26893653&postcount=82
Mario Marois - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26896744&postcount=83
Bun Cook - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26874399&postcount=75
Warren Godfrey - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26868809&postcount=73
Carl Liscombe - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26887421&postcount=80
Craig Conroy - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26942650&postcount=84
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I'd say that's a dead heat if all we are doing is looking at the finishes. Savard is definitely a better playmaker than Yashin is a goalscorer, but that's just because Yashin's offense was better balanced. If points are an estimate of overall offensive production, I'd say they are pretty equal. Edge to Yashin as the better goal scorer when the points finishes are that close. Yashin was also more explosive, capable of breaking a game open by himself.
There was a very brief period of time when Yashin was considered one of the league's true superstars, something that was never really said about Savard. Of course, if Savard brings negative intangibles, Yashin brings super negative intangibles.
Well... you can say that Yashin is a guy who if motivated (a big if) can carry a line's offense by himself, but doesn't necessarily make his teammates better. And Savard is a guy who needs finishers to make use of his playmaking. So in that way, each center is a better fit for his line than the other would be.
And yes, I saw both these guys play a decent amount.
tony d
New poll series coming from me on June 3
Time for me to get into the comparisons battle with my look at the forwards:
Line 1:
On Line 1 our opponents have Al Macadam, Marc Savard and Stephane Richer:
Macadam ,to me, was a good player but I'm unsure on if he belongs on a 1st line, his defensive play may have always been good but I'm not sure I want my #1 left winger to be known more for defense than offense.
Savard is a great pick, he's probably one of the best people in this league. Myself and madarcand debated picking him early in the draft before your team picked him. That said Savard's not much of a goal scorer so that may hurt you.
Stephane Richer, on the other hand, was a goal scorer and a good one when he wanted to be. Still as has been said he faced depression issues throughout his career. You feel for the guy but is this Richer you have in this league going to have his head in every game?
Now to our 1st line:
Geoff Courtnall, as madarcand said, was not a superstar but I'd still take him over Macadam. He should prove to be a good goal scorer alongside Yashin.
Alexei Yashin has proved to be quite the controversial pick for us since we picked him. While yes he did get a lot of points on bad teams, I still think averaging near a point per game on some of those hapless Ottawa teams in the mid 90's was quite a feat.
Russ Courtnall is a playmaking right winger who twice got 50 assists, that should prove helpful alongside his brother and yashin.
Line 2:
Hamill, much like Macadam, was a solid player but I'm wondering if he belongs on a 2nd line in this.
Romnes comes across as a solid player but like madarcand said other than hearsay was he just an offensive player? I know he won a Lady Byng but you'd like a player to get down in the trenches on your 2nd line.
Art Gagne comes across as a solid player, a bit small but other than that a good player.
For our team:
Ray Whitney is in his late 30's but continues to be an effective NHL player. He was a wanted commodity at the trade deadline and has a lot left in the tank.
Mike Ridley, as I said in Round 1, was a guy I always liked growing up. 7 seasons of 40+ assists speak volumes for itself and had it not been for an injury he could have been a solid performer well into his late 30's.
Vincent Lukac is a good right winger who possibly should be on the 1st line here ahead of Courtnall. Next to Ridley Lukac's goal scoring ability should be well-utilized.
Line 3:
For our opponents:
Jan Erixon was known more for his defensive ability which is exactly what you want on your bottom 2 lines. Being ranked #81 on a list of the top 100 players in the history of an original 6 team doesn't hurt either.
Brian Rolston should bring a strong 2-way game to this 3rd line, good pickup.
Cecil Blatchford is another defensive player but much like Erixon he won't contribute much offensively.
For us:
Martin Gelinas is one of the better 3rd line left wingers in this league and certainly the better 1 here. He can play defense and also chip in a few goals here and there.
Bob Carpenter is like Brian Rolston in that they both play strong 2 way games. I like Carpenter a bit more than Rolston.
Dave Trottier is probably the offensive star of our 3rd line but he's more than offense, he played a strong defensive game during his career.
Line 4:
Carl Liscombe, from what I read in your post, is a solid player. i'd probably have him higher than the 4th line.
Craig Conroy. Much like Savard Conroy was on our radar, he's someone I've always liked and maybe is the best player either of our teams has on the 4th line, really good pick up.
Bobby Gould is another good player for the 4th line. He never scored more than 50 points in a season but his 2-way game is enough to justify his selection.
For us:
Ted Irvine was not what you would label an offensive star but he had a reputation for being a team guy which will prove valuable on a 4th line.
Mike Fisher is our 4th line centre. He's not an offensive player but rather a defensive specialist which is perfectly fine for a 4th line.
Roxy Beaudro is probably our best player on the 4th line. He should be the offensive star of this line.
Cluing up, here are my thoughts on the line matches in this series:
Line 1: Savard and Richer is a great offensive duo but I think Yashin and the Courtnalls make our 1st line a bit better than the Marlie's 1st line of Macadam, Savard and Richer
Line 2: Our 2nd line is much better than theirs.
Line 3: Erixon-Rolston-Blatchford are 3 excellent 3rd line players but the 2-way games of the 3 guys on our 3rd line give us the edge.
Line 4: It's close but I give a slight edge here to the Marlies. I think that Liscombe and Conroy are good offensive players for the team.
In any event I'll be back either later tonight or tomorrow with the comparisons of the defense, goalies and coaching but a good series is wished to our opponents.
Line 1:
On Line 1 our opponents have Al Macadam, Marc Savard and Stephane Richer:
Macadam ,to me, was a good player but I'm unsure on if he belongs on a 1st line, his defensive play may have always been good but I'm not sure I want my #1 left winger to be known more for defense than offense.
Savard is a great pick, he's probably one of the best people in this league. Myself and madarcand debated picking him early in the draft before your team picked him. That said Savard's not much of a goal scorer so that may hurt you.
Stephane Richer, on the other hand, was a goal scorer and a good one when he wanted to be. Still as has been said he faced depression issues throughout his career. You feel for the guy but is this Richer you have in this league going to have his head in every game?
Now to our 1st line:
Geoff Courtnall, as madarcand said, was not a superstar but I'd still take him over Macadam. He should prove to be a good goal scorer alongside Yashin.
Alexei Yashin has proved to be quite the controversial pick for us since we picked him. While yes he did get a lot of points on bad teams, I still think averaging near a point per game on some of those hapless Ottawa teams in the mid 90's was quite a feat.
Russ Courtnall is a playmaking right winger who twice got 50 assists, that should prove helpful alongside his brother and yashin.
Line 2:
Hamill, much like Macadam, was a solid player but I'm wondering if he belongs on a 2nd line in this.
Romnes comes across as a solid player but like madarcand said other than hearsay was he just an offensive player? I know he won a Lady Byng but you'd like a player to get down in the trenches on your 2nd line.
Art Gagne comes across as a solid player, a bit small but other than that a good player.
For our team:
Ray Whitney is in his late 30's but continues to be an effective NHL player. He was a wanted commodity at the trade deadline and has a lot left in the tank.
Mike Ridley, as I said in Round 1, was a guy I always liked growing up. 7 seasons of 40+ assists speak volumes for itself and had it not been for an injury he could have been a solid performer well into his late 30's.
Vincent Lukac is a good right winger who possibly should be on the 1st line here ahead of Courtnall. Next to Ridley Lukac's goal scoring ability should be well-utilized.
Line 3:
For our opponents:
Jan Erixon was known more for his defensive ability which is exactly what you want on your bottom 2 lines. Being ranked #81 on a list of the top 100 players in the history of an original 6 team doesn't hurt either.
Brian Rolston should bring a strong 2-way game to this 3rd line, good pickup.
Cecil Blatchford is another defensive player but much like Erixon he won't contribute much offensively.
For us:
Martin Gelinas is one of the better 3rd line left wingers in this league and certainly the better 1 here. He can play defense and also chip in a few goals here and there.
Bob Carpenter is like Brian Rolston in that they both play strong 2 way games. I like Carpenter a bit more than Rolston.
Dave Trottier is probably the offensive star of our 3rd line but he's more than offense, he played a strong defensive game during his career.
Line 4:
Carl Liscombe, from what I read in your post, is a solid player. i'd probably have him higher than the 4th line.
Craig Conroy. Much like Savard Conroy was on our radar, he's someone I've always liked and maybe is the best player either of our teams has on the 4th line, really good pick up.
Bobby Gould is another good player for the 4th line. He never scored more than 50 points in a season but his 2-way game is enough to justify his selection.
For us:
Ted Irvine was not what you would label an offensive star but he had a reputation for being a team guy which will prove valuable on a 4th line.
Mike Fisher is our 4th line centre. He's not an offensive player but rather a defensive specialist which is perfectly fine for a 4th line.
Roxy Beaudro is probably our best player on the 4th line. He should be the offensive star of this line.
Cluing up, here are my thoughts on the line matches in this series:
Line 1: Savard and Richer is a great offensive duo but I think Yashin and the Courtnalls make our 1st line a bit better than the Marlie's 1st line of Macadam, Savard and Richer
Line 2: Our 2nd line is much better than theirs.
Line 3: Erixon-Rolston-Blatchford are 3 excellent 3rd line players but the 2-way games of the 3 guys on our 3rd line give us the edge.
Line 4: It's close but I give a slight edge here to the Marlies. I think that Liscombe and Conroy are good offensive players for the team.
In any event I'll be back either later tonight or tomorrow with the comparisons of the defense, goalies and coaching but a good series is wished to our opponents.
The sames goes for Russ Courtnall though. I see no reason why Macadam is any worse than Courtnall. He's there to be the glue, and he has better peak finishes than Courtnall.
And Yashin isn't exactly much of a playmaker (though more balanced than Savard)- but both macAdam and Richer are quite bias towards goalscoring.
He usually was- he just wasn't Guy Lafeur so he got roasted. I don't think his character issues are really bad (or compare to Yashin's...) but that's why MacAdam is there- he's Mr. glue guy, great character
Now to our 1st line:
Sure, he's the primary winger triggerman. Would you take him over Richer though? I don't think anyone would. And I think Geoff vs Richer and Russ vs MacAdam are probably better comparisons.
Yes, he was good on those Ottawa teams. (though being the best on those is not as impressive, as MacArdand would have us believe)
His peak finish is a 20th in assists- that is not a 1st line guy who can carry the playmaking load. Helpful perhaps, but not overly. He doesn't belong on a first line if MacAdam doesn't.
Line 2:
What the heck? I'm sorry, but don't make statements like this without actually reading about or looking at the player.
This guy has a 2nd and a 3rd in goals- a much better peak than ANY of your team's wingers. This guy was also tough, tough, tough, and hitting, as you can read in most bios about him. Despite this, he doesn't take a lot of penalties, which is great. He also has some good depth finishes, including another 9th and 15th in goals. He is more than "solid", especially in the role he's in. If he doesn't belong on a 2nd line, I don't know who does.
Both Hamill and Gagne are tough and gritty. We don't have a problem with "going down in the trnches"- if any line does, that'd be your 2nd. Who is providing the toughness there?
Lady Byng doesn't really mean anything, but Romnes is more than offense- the back of his card calls him one of the best defensive players in the NHL. And he has more than solid offense two- a very strong playoff producer, and a 3rd, 4th, and 7th in assists- A better peak (beyond one-year peak) than any of your centres, likely.
More than good in my mind, but I'm bias.
For our team:
That's nice, but I don't think anyone drafts him much on his performance lately. Being desirable traid bait isn't really a good trade, and it doesn't matter if he has fuel to produce more and add to his resume- what matters is what he's done.
40+assists is not impressive to me, unless you can show us why it's impressive. Why should I be impressed at say, 1989 when he had 48 assists, when 35 guys did better than him in that regard?
"Ifs" don't count for anything in the MLD sense.
What is there to suggest Ridley has anywhere close to the playaking ability as Lukac's goalscoring ability? Fortunately, you also have Whitney there's who's a good playmaker. Yes, Lukac is probably better than Russ, but that gives you no playmaking at all on the top line and even less intangibles.
Line 3:
For our opponents:
I'll just respond with Selke voting- 7th(1987), 3rd(1988), 9th(1989), 6th(1990), 8th(1991)
Can't say much on that, other than Selke voting to reference- 10th(1999), 5th(2002), 10th(2003), 14th(2004), 10th(2006), 16th(2007)
Blatchford has had some decent finishes,but you're right, doesn't bring much offense, nor does Erixon- not what the line is for, as you know.
For us:
What makes Gelinas better than Erixon exactly? What selke consideration does he have? I am fairly certain it doesn't compare to Erixon's and that Erixon is likely the better defensively. How much will he really contribute here? What do you have to prove his offensive worth?
Neither are really that good offensively to my knowledge, and it's really a battle of defense in this one. If Pelletier's bio is to be believed, it was only reall in New Jersey he became that shutdown defensive centre. What is there to belive Carpenter is better than Rolston? What's his selke voting? Can you show his offense better?
Yes, Trottier has the best offensive season out of any of the 6 forwards- though I question his offensive ability when neither of his linemates (to my knowledge) are particularly good offensively. His playoffs are also seem rather poor with 7 points in 31 games (though we have a couple of playoff question marks ourselves in Savard and Hamill, I think those are more about lack of opportunity than failing when given an opportunity). He's also tough and good defensively indeed- I dunno that he's better than Blanchford's retro selke's, but he's likely tougher than him.
Line 4:
Indeed he is a very solid player and scorer. He isn't as good a scorer as Hamill and doesn't bring quite the intangibles to be higher on the depth chart, so he's down on the thrid line. He can certainly fill in when necessary in case of injury of otherwise, and willget powerplay time.
Can't argue with that. I'll just post the selke record- 2nd(2002), 3rd(1998), 5th(1999), 12th(2004), 16th(2000), 17th(2003), 20th(2006), 26th(2001). And a nice 9th in assists once.
Yes, he's only there for his intangible game.
For us:
Irvine's a solid player. Good tough guy, but indeed, he doesn't bring much else. I don't htink that's really better than Liscomb'es offense, especially in the playoffs.
True, he's really more of a defensive guy, but is he better in tha tsense than Craig Conroy? I don't think he has near the selke record.
I dunno much about his offense, but he seems rather good defensively, and looks like a good old star. Probably better than Bould. Though I wonder if he can shine offensively with the linemates he has.
Cluing up, here are my thoughts on the line matches in this series:
Here I stand strong and disagree. Savard and Yashin are fairly close, as are Macadam and Russ, but the large gap between the primary offensive wingers (Richer and Geoff), as well as the fact that I think our line is a better fit (As TDMM said, Yashin can carry the offense, which he really has to here, if he's motivated- which is a large IF. Savard doesn't have to do that with Richer)
What have you shown to substantiate that? Our line has better intangibles, and much better peak production, a peak I think gives it the offensive advantage as well.
You've done nothing to substantie the offense of your line (though you don't have to worry with Trottier)- but what makes Gelinas and Carpenter good scorers? (please don't use raw stats here). And I am fairly confident our line is quite a bit better defensively, by virtue of Erixon and Rolston vs Gelinas and Carpenter.
I can generally agree with that, though I think it's probably more than slight unless I see more.
Looking forward to it
Dreakmur
Registered User
Savard has a better peak than Yashin, and he has better dominance versus his peers... and he accomplished it all despite his size. As for durability, Yashin, not including the season he chose to sit out, missed large parts of 3 other seasons, so he's hardly an iron man.
The Courtnalls are abolsutely not 1st line players - not even close. Geoff peaked as about the 35th best offesive player in the league, and Russ peaked at about 45th. That is completely unimpressive, and not 1st line material.
MacAdam, for the sake of comparison, peaked at 30th. He also led Team Canada in scoring in a World Championship.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
We are talking about two dead puck era players (this is still an extension of that) - yes, it is a good way to account for differences in league scoring rates. The only bias in adjusted scoring stats that I've seen is the possible underrating of 80s players due to a couple of factors. We're talking about players whose careers overlap by ten years. Any era adjustment is just a formality, really.
As for team scoring rates, once a compelling argument is given as to why team scoring rates should be factored into adjusted stats, we can start considering that. To date, no one has given us a good reason.
Why do you like the points finishes more? There are 1.7 times more assists "out there" than there are goals, so any raw points finish will be biased towards assists by that factor on average. Yashin was a goalscoring center and Savard the opposite. No wonder you like the points finishes!
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Those other two years at 9th and 15th were 70% and 65% of 2nd place. That's just in goals, mind you, he was not a good playmaker at all. Whitney has had great seasons in both areas. You should also be sure to mention that Hamill's best goalscoring seasons were 1943 (a war year), 1942 (a slightly lesser year for competition, whether due to war or not), and 1946 & 1947 (two war-recovery years). He falls drastically off the map beyond that - 44% is his best goalscoring year aside from those.
Whitney has had goalscoring years of 66, 64, 64, 59, 52, and 50%. And goalscoring isn't even his strength. I am not going to go into his playmaking numbers compared to Hamill as there is little point.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
TO ADVANCE SEMIFINAL - Borussia Dortmund @ Paris Saint-Germain - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: Borussia Dortmund1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $1,429.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 18Staked: $20,242.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 11Staked: $56,709.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 6Staked: $17,459.00Event closes
- Updated:
-