MLD 2010 Mickey Ion Semi Final: #2 Brooklyn Americans vs. Regina Capitals

[Dreakmur]

Mickey Ion Sem Final Round


Brooklyn Americans

coaches Rudy Pilous & Larry Robinson

Dennis Hextall (A) - Vladimir Zabrodsky - Eddie Wiseman
Dubbie Kerr - Dutch Reibel - Todd Bertuzzi
Jay Pandolfo - Ron Sutter (C) - Rich Preston
Steamer Maxwell - Charlie Sands - Keith Crowder
Sergei Brylin, Jimmy Herberts

Normand Rochefort - Dick Redmond
Rick Green (A) - Fredrick Olausson
Dave Lewis - Walter Smaill

Miikka Kiprusoff
Dan Bouchard


vs.


Regina Capitals

coach Viktor Tikhonov

Chris Drury (A) - Herb Jordan - Leo Labine
Slava Kozlov - Cal Gardner - Wally Hergesheimer
Jaroslav Jirik - Ted Hampson (A) - Bob MacMillan
Andre Boudrias - Jason Arnott - Grant Warwick
Frank Rankin, George Richardson

Robyn Regehr - Wade Redden
Al Arbour (C) - Bryan McCabe
Larry Hillman - Hugh Bolton
Lou Fontinato

Don Edwards
Billy Nicholson

​

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Another grueling 2nd round matchup with 70s. Just what I was hoping for! I do have the Boy Wonder on my side this time, so I can't lose.

I'll get to analyzing things later, but for now, I'll just say that Rochefort > Regehr. Proof = the All-Star teams.

 

[Dreakmur]

Another grueling 2nd round matchup with 70s. Just what I was hoping for! I do have the Boy Wonder on my side this time, so I can't lose.

Robin joins The Joker and comes back to kill Batman?

 

[markrander87]

Another grueling 2nd round matchup with 70s. Just what I was hoping for! I do have the Boy Wonder on my side this time, so I can't lose.

I'll get to analyzing things later, but for now, I'll just say that Rochefort > Regehr. Proof = the All-Star teams.

YES!!!!!

 

[Leafs Forever]

All kinds of human interest in this one

I think TDMM is more like the Penguin

 

[BillyShoe1721]

My two previous playoff opponents, another clash of the titans.

 

[jarek]

Ugh.. I feel so bad. I barely have time right now to even peep into these forums from time to time. I'll try my best to get some comments in this time. -.-

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's Brooklyn's detailed roster:

GMS: jareklajkosz & TheDevilMadeMe
Head Coach: Rudy Pilous
Assistant Coach: Larry Robinson

Dennis Hextall (A) - Vladimir Zabrodsky - Eddie Wiseman
Dubbie Kerr - Dutch Reibel - Todd Bertuzzi
Jay Pandolfo - Ron Sutter (C) - Rich Preston
Steamer Maxwell - Charlie Sands - Keith Crowder

Normand Rochefort - Dick Redmond
Rick Green (A) - Fredrick Olausson
Dave Lewis - Walter Smaill

Miikka Kiprusoff
Dan Bouchard
​

Spares: Sergei Brylin, Jimmy Herberts (Steamer Maxwell is a rover who switch to D in case of injuries)

PP1: Dubbie Kerr - Vladimir Zabrodsky - Todd Bertuzzi - Dick Redmond - Fredrick Olausson
PP2: Keith Crowder - Dutch Reibel - Eddie Wiseman - Steamer Maxwell - Walter Smaill

PK1: Ron Sutter - Jay Pandolfo - Normand Rochefort - Rick Green
PK2: Charlie Sands - Rich Preston - Dave Lewis - Walter Smaill

 

[seventieslord]

Here is Regina's detailed roster with bios, for your ease in voting and for our ease in arguing.

Regina Capitals

GM: Seventieslord
Coach: Viktor Tikhonov

Chris Drury (A) - Herb Jordan - Leo Labine
Slava Kozlov - Cal Gardner - Wally Hergesheimer
Jaroslav Jirik - Ted Hampson (A) - Bob MacMillan
Andre Boudrias - Jason Arnott - Grant Warwick

Robyn Regehr - Wade Redden
Al Arbour (C) - Bryan McCabe
Larry Hillman - Hugh Bolton

Don Edwards
Billy Nicholson

Spares:
Frank Rankin (F)
George Richardson (LW)
Lou Fontinato (D)

PP1:
Kozlov-Jordan-Hergesheimer
McCabe-Redden

PP2:
Jirik-Gardner-Warwick
McCabe-Arnott

PK1:
Hampson-MacMillan
Regehr-Arbour

PK2:
Drury-Boudrias
Redden-Hillman​

Minutes chart:

Jordan 17
Drury 16
Kozlov 16
Hergesheimer 16
MacMillan 15
Gardner 15
Hampson 15
Jirik 14
Labine 13
Boudrias 13
Warwick 13
Arnott 13

Redden 25
McCabe 22
Regehr 22
Arbour 19
Hillman 16
Bolton 13

 

[seventieslord]

Human interest story, indeed. Boy Wonder, you're going to find out that "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" doesn't always end happy. You're going to feel like Marian Hossa did in 2009!

Not sure how much time I'll have in the next 48 hours to discuss this series - you guys will probably have all kinds of time to get your licks in before I can serve some of my own.

 

[jarek]

o_o

It was more like, "seventies can't win a damn thing, so screw him!".

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Don Edwards vs. Miikka Kiprusoff

Edwards vs. Kiprusoff

In my opinion, these are the best two modern goalies in the MLD, as well as the best two goalies left in the playoffs. But who was better?

Summary of their careers

Edwards played 25 games in 76-77 with very good stats, but he didn’t play enough games to qualify for the Calder or receive any All Star votes. Then he had a 5 season stretch in Buffalo, when he was Top 5 in All-Star votes every season. He was traded and basically fell off the face of the earth statistically and in terms of award voting. Basically, Edwards had a 5 consecutive seasons as a top goalie (plus 25 games before he was officially a rookie), before several mediocre seasons to end his career.

Kiprusoff had an amazing 3 year stretch:

Kiprusoff might have the best peak of any goalie in the MLD - a Vezina finalist 3 straight seasons including 1 win, 3rd and 4th in Hart voting, and a trip to the Cup finals.

-In 03-04, he was 2nd in Vezina voting and 4th in Hart voting, despite playing only 38 games. He led the league in save % (.933) and GAA (1.69), and had a 24-10-4 record. The 1.69 GAA is a modern-day NHL record. The other goalies on the team combined for an 18-23-3 record, before Kiprusoff took over the starting job. Overall, the team's save % was .919 and team GAA was 2.04, a far cry from Kiprusoff’s personal statistics.

(lockout year)

-In 05-06, he was 1st in Vezina voting in a landslide (25 first place votes, 140 points. 2nd place Brodeur had 2 first place votes, 48 points.). He was also a solid 3rd in Hart voting.

-06-07: 3rd (tied) in Vezina voting behind what I think were the best seasons of Brodeur and Luongo's careers

He followed it up with 3 more solid years. Overall, he was Top 6 in All-Star voting and received Vezina votes in all 6 seasons since he established himself as Calgary’s starter.
So we are talking about similar lengths of times at or near the top of the league.

Basic comparison of All Star and Vezina voting

(The Vezina trophy was voted on for the first time in 81-82, Edward’s last good season).

Don Edwards:
Vezina record: NA, NA, NA, NA, 7th
All Star Record: 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th

Mikka Kiprusoff:
Vezina record: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 8th
All Star record: 1st, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 6th

Comparing Edwards All-Star record to Kipper’s Vezina record, removing duplicate finishes, and you have:
Edwards: 2nd, 4th
Kipper: 1st, 8th, 8th

Comparing Edwards All-Star record to Kipper’s All-Star record, removing duplicate finishes, and you have:
Edwards: 2nd, 2nd, 3rd
Kipper: 1st, 4th, 6th, 6th

Conclusion: I think this is too close to call, without looking at the competition each goalie faced.

Hart Record:
Edwards: 4th, 10th
Kiprusoff: 3rd, 4th
Advantage Kiprusoff

Detailed comparison of awards voting

Don Edwards All-Star voting:
Edwards had good stats in 25 games in 76-77, but didn’t receive any All-Star votes.

77-78:
1) Ken Dryden 210
2) Don Edwards 126
3) Tony Esposito 48
4) Rogie Vachon 41
5) Bernie Parent 34
He was also 4th in Hart voting. This was Edwards’ rookie year (he was 3rd in Calder voting behind Bossy and Barry Beck). This is probably the best season of Edwards’ career, as he finished 2nd behind a peak Dryden and blew away the competition.

78-79:
1) Ken Dryden, Mtl 165;
2) Glenn Resch, NYI 142;
3) Mike Palmateer, Tor 62;
4) Don Edwards, Buf 50;
5) Tony Esposito, Chi 22
Edwards was 10th in Hart voting this season for what it’s worth (Palmateer was 5th).

79-80:
1) Tony Esposito 221
2) Don Edwards 167
3) Mike Liut 59
4) Pete Peeters 39
5) Bob Sauve 20
This year impresses me a lot less than 77-78 because Esposito was likely past his prime and the rest of the competition is terrible. Also, Edwards didn't get any Hart votes.

80-81:
1) Mike Liut 306
2) Mario Lessard 114
3) Don Edwards 64
4) Don Beaupre 30
5) Pete Peeters 18

81-82:
1) Billy Smith 236 (40-10-5)
2) Grant Fuhr 98 (6-17-17)
3) Rick Wamsley 70 (5-12-9)
4) Chico Resch 41 (2-9-4)
5) Don Edwards 40 (5-2-9)
Note that 81-82 is the first year that the Vezina was voted on by GMs (rather than just going to the guy with the best GAA). Edwards was 7th in Vezina voting vs the 5th he was in All-Star voting.

That’s it. Those are Edwards only significant 5 seasons.
After 81-82, Buffalo traded him to Calgary, and his GAA ballooned.
After 81-82, he never received a vote for a postseason all-star team or for the Vezina trophy again.

Miikka Kiprusoff:
In 2003-04, Kipper played 38 games and basically saved Calgary’s season. He also had the best stats in the league by far, other than stats based on games played. GMs (the Vezina voters) were apparently more impressed than writers (the All-Star voters). Then the lockout year (would Kipper have gotten another Vezina finalist giving him 4 total?), then the overwhelming Vezina win, then tied with Lundqvist for a distant 3rd in Vezina voting, then 3 more solid seasons.

2003-04 Vezina:
1) Martin Brodeur, NJD 89 (15-4-2)
2) Miikka Kiprusoff, CGY 55 (5-9-3)
3) Roberto Luongo, FLA 45 (6-3-6);
4) Marty Turco, DAL 43 (2-10-3)
5) Andrew Raycroft, BOS 14 (1-1-6)

2003-04 All Star:
1) MARTIN BRODEUR, N.J. 307 (39-33-13)
2) Roberto Luongo, FLA 232 (32-19-15)
3) Marty Turco, DAL 153 (14-20-23)
4) Miikka Kiprusoff, CGY 148 (13-21-20)
5) Ed Belfour, TOR 43 (3-5-13)

Despite voting Kipper only 4th in All-Star votes, the writers had him 4th in Hart voting, for basically saving Calgary’s season.

2005-06 Vezina
1. Miikka Kiprusoff, CGY 140 (25-5-0)
2. Martin Brodeur, NJD 48 (2-10-8)
3. Henrik Lundqvist, NYR 41 (2-9-4)
4. Tomas Vokoun, NAS 15 (1-1-7)
5. Manny Legace, DET 6 (0-1-3)

2005-06 All Star Teams
1) Kiprusoff - 599 (113-11-1)
2) Brodeur - 232 (6-59-25)
3) Lundqvist - 128 (5-27-22)
4) Turco - 47 (1-7-21)
5) Vokoun - 44 (2-5-19)
Note: I’m not sure this year is much better than Edward’s 77-78. Edwards was a solid 2nd to peak Dryden. 05-06 was a down year for Marty Brodeur. Or more specifically, Brodeur had a terrible first month of the season, as he shook of the cobwebs from sitting on his butt during the year-long lockout. This is the year Kipper was a Hart finalist (finishing 3rd to Thornton and Jagr).

2006-07 Vezina
1. Martin Brodeur, N.J. 122 (16-14-0)
2. Roberto Luongo, VAN 116 (14-15-1)
3. Miikka Kiprusoff, CGY 7 (0-0-7)
Henrik Lundqvist, NYR 7 (0-0-7)
5. Dominik Hasek, DET 5 (0-0-5)

2006-07 All Star Teams
1. MARTIN BRODEUR, N.J. 607 (91-50-2) 3 First Team, 3 Second Team
2. Roberto Luongo, VAN 521 (52-86-3) 0 First Team, 2 Second Team
3. Dominik Hasek, DET 58 (0-3-49)
4. Miikka Kiprusoff, CGY 25 (0-2-19)
5. Niklas Backstrom, MIN 23 (0-0-23)

Absolutely brutal competition this year. Brodeur and Luongo had the best seasons of their career IMO and both were Hart finalists (losing to Crosby in his Art Ross year).
2007-08 Vezina voting

1. Martin Brodeur, N.J. 113 {15-12-2}
2. Evgeni Nabokov, S.J. 106 {13-13-2}
3. Henrik Lundqvist. NYR 13 {1-0-8)
4. J.S. Giguere, ANA 11 {0-1-8)
5. Miikka Kiprusoff, CGY 7 {1-0-2)

2007-08 All-Star voting
1. EVGENI NABOKOV, S.J. 523 (71-55-3)
2. Martin Brodeur, N.J. 475 (56-61-12)
3. J.S. Giguere, ANA 82 (3-8-43)
4. Henrik Lundqvist, NYR 74 (1-6-51)
5. Roberto Luongo, VAN 12 (1-1-4)
6. Miikka Kiprusoff, CGY 11 (0-1-8)

Kiprusoff followed up these 4 seasons of top 5 Vezina finishes with 2 seasons where he finished 8th in Vezina voting. He finished 6th and 5th in All Star voting these two years.

Conclusion:
-I think their best seasons (77-78 and 05-06) are pretty close, given the competition.

-I think Kipper’s best 3 season stretch (03-04, 05-06, 07-08) is slightly better than Edward’s best 3 season stretch. So I would say that Kipper has the better short peak. I’ll also give Kipper slight bonus points for losing a full season in the midst of his peak to the lockout.

-I think Edwards has marginally the better 5 season stretch, as he was considered a top 5 goalie in all 5 years by the writers.

-Kiprusoff has the better 6 year stretch, as he was considered top 6 (by All-Star voting) or Top 8 (by Vezina voting) all 6 seasons. Edwards fell off the map after he was traded from Buffalo.

-Kiprusoff hasn't yet passed Edwards in career regular season value, but I think he's equaled him at this point.

Save percentage top 10s:
I’m not going to spend much time on save % because, frankly, I don’t think it says that much without context. But if you’re into save percentage, here you go:

Edwards: Top-10 in sv% Five Times (4th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 10th)
Kiprusoff: Top-10 in sv$ Four Times (1st, 3rd, 9th, 10th)

This simplistic comparison supports the idea that the two goalies have similar career value in the regular season, but Kiprusoff has the better peak seasons.

Playoffs:
I don’t have save % in the playoffs for Edwards’ career. But it’s notable that he has a pedestrian 16-21 W/L record, never having been past the 2nd round. In an age where GAA usually went down in the playoffs, Edwards’ career GAA increased from 3.32* in the regular season to 3.44 in the playoffs.

*this looks bad by today’s standards but was actually quite good in the late 70s/early 80s

Edwards was also never past the second round. In fact, he never won more than 4 games in any given playoff year
.
Kiprusoff on the other hand:

While Kiprusoff doesn't have a Cup, he's been a good playoff performer:

-In the 03-04 playoffs, Kiprusoff sported a .928 save % and a 1.85 GAA along with 5 shutouts in taking his team to within 1 game of winning the Stanley Cup.

-Kiprusoff’s career save % rises from .914 in the regular season to .921 in the playoffs and his career GAA decreases from 2.44 to 2.32 in the playoffs.

Overall, Kiprusoff has a 25-28 record in the playoffs. The only time he was out of the first round, he went to Game 7 of the finals.

-Kipruosff has a slightly better winning % in the playoffs, the best single playoff run by far, and significantly better personal stats (GAA and save % compared to his regular season marks).

Conclusion: Not the largest sample sizes, but Kiprusoff has a clear edge in playoff performance.

Overall conclusion:
I think their regular season value is too close to call, unless you put a lot of stock in Kipper’s better Hart record. (I don’t, because I think Hart voting for goalies in particular is largely situational).

Neither team won the Cup, but Kiprusoff appears to have been the better playoff performer, so I’ll give him a slight overall edge here.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't have much to add to that goalie comparison. It is rather thorough and fair. When I get home I will see if I can illuminate the picture any better.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Coaching and linematching

I think Tikhonov is the best hockey mind in the MLD. I'm one of the majority who gave him my top vote for best coach in the MLD.

There is a good argument that Pilous is the second best coach in the MLD. With Larry Robinson as his assistant, I don't think he'll be outcoached.

I'm not going to get into details of the records of each man; their records are in their bios.

I don't think either team has an advantage in terms of the coaching staff getting the most out the players.

I'm going to go into Tikhonov a little bit more. If Tarasov was the founder of the Soviet system, Tikhonov was the man who was able to improve upon that system by bringing in elements of North American hockey, including more offense from the defensemen.

But Tikhonov was a Soviet coach, immersed in Communist philosophy. He didn't line match, instead having a defensive presence on every line. In Tikhonov's system, the center was generally the defensive presence. Regina does appear to have a defensive presence on each line, though not always the center; I don't think it matters much.

But the main point is that Tikhonov appeared to be philosophically opposed to line-matching, and North American observers thought this hurt his team. From The Canada Cup of Hockey Fact and Stat Book by H.J. Anderson:

The series also proved a battle of styles between the two coaches. Team Canada Coach Mike Keenan mixed and matched his lines, partly due to injuries to Claude Lemieux, Kevin Dineen, and Rick Tocchet, while Soviet coach Viktor Tikhonov monotonously ran his four lines unless injuries forced him to do otherwise. From Game 2 Canada matched the line of Mark Messier, Mike Gartner, and Glenn Anderson linked with defensemen Rochefort and Crossman against the Soviets' main threat, the KLM line, to attempt to shut them down, while Tikhonov never matched lines, which would ultimately cost his team on Canada's series winning goal.

...With one minute thirty-six seconds left, there was a face-off in the Canadian end. As Gretzky looked up on the Soviet blueline instead of 29 year old captain Vyacheslav Fetisov, who had covered him the entire series, for some unexplained reason was 21 year old Igor Kravchuck. Dale Hawerchuk won the draw from Valeri Kamensky and tied up the Soviet forward, while Lemieux got the puck and just pushed it ahead to Gretzky, breaking across centre ice. With Lemieux and Murphy trailing, Gretzky faced Kravchuk, not the veteran Fetisov. Gretzky waited and then sent a perfect pass back to Lemieux, who sent all of Canada into a frenzy with just 1:26 remaining
...
It was a lead Canada wasn't going to give up, especially with Tikhonov sticking to his system of rolling four lines. After the deciding goal, Tikhonov responded with his fourth line, rather than the dangerous Krutov-Larionov-Makarov line, which only hit the ice with forty-eight seconds remaining...

http://books.google.com/books?id=Pp...ed=0CDUQ6AEwCTgK#v=snippet&q=tikhonov&f=false

Conclusion:
Tikhonov is the best hockey mind in the MLD and will likely run the best system of any coach in this thing. Pilous has a good case for being the best North American coach in this, and the addition of Larry Robinson as assistant gives Brooklyn a coaching duo that should hopefully get as much out of our players as Tikhonov does.

However, Tikhonov's weakness is his lack of interest in line matching. Brooklyn will attempt to exploit this weakness.

Brooklyn's game plan will be to match the Panfolfo-Sutter-Preston line against Herb Jordan, no matter who his linemates end up being. Given Tikhonov's philosophy of rolling 4 balanced lines, I expect to get this matchup most of the time.

 

[VMBM]

I don't know, maybe Tikhonov was "rolling 4 lines" in the 1987 Canada Cup too much for some reason, but overall, I don't really agree with what was said there. He definitely used Petrov's line during critical moments in the late 70s and - maybe unfortunately - still in the early 80s (the closing moments of MOI game in Lake Placid). The same goes with the KLM line in the 80s; they definitely got more icetime than other lines.

But as far as the linematching thing goes, that part is probably right.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't know, maybe Tikhonov was "rolling 4 lines" in the 1987 Canada Cup too much for some reason, but overall, I don't really agree with what was said there. He definitely used Petrov's line during critical moments in the late 70s and - maybe unfortunately - still in the early 80s (the closing moments of MOI game in Lake Placid). The same goes with the KLM line in the 80s; they definitely got more icetime than other lines.

But as far as the linematching thing goes, that's probably true.

Oh yes, Tikhonov did break the rotation of 4 lines to bring out KLM at key moments in games (as I would expect him to do with Herb Jordan). But it was more about giving them more ice time (like getting them out for one last shift before the period ended) or making sure they had one of the PP shifts than it was about matchups, correct? Everything I've read about Tikhonov has indicated that he didn't care about matchups and that Canada could match pretty much whoever they wanted against KLM.

 

[seventieslord]

[Save percentage top 10s:
I’m not going to spend much time on save % because, frankly, I don’t think it says that much without context. But if you’re into save percentage, here you go:

Edwards: Top-10 in sv% Five Times (4th, 6th, 7th, 10th, 10th)
Kiprusoff: Top-10 in sv$ Four Times (1st, 3rd, 9th, 10th)

This simplistic comparison supports the idea that the two goalies have similar career value in the regular season, but Kiprusoff has the better peak seasons. p

I told you I wouldn't have much to add...

I did a bit of number crunching from spreadsheets to look at their aggregate save percentages over similar time spans. I agree Edwards did nothing to help his resume post-1982, and Kipper has the similarly short first year and five workhorse seasons with four playoffs at this point, so it's a good span to compare.

top sv% in NHL, 1977-1982, min. 130 total GP:

Name|GP|sv%
Ken Dryden* | 155 | 0.917
Bernie Parent* | 146 | 0.902
Denis Herron | 236 | 0.901
Billy Smith* | 239 | 0.900
Glenn Resch | 280 | 0.899
Don Edwards | 307 | 0.897
Mike Palmateer | 269 | 0.897

Top sv% in NHL, 2004-2010, min. 150 total GP:

Name|GP|sv%
Roberto Luongo | 418 | 0.920
Tomas Vokoun | 369 | 0.919
Niklas Backstrom | 230 | 0.918
Henrik Lundqvist | 338 | 0.918
Tim Thomas | 258 | 0.918
Martin Brodeur | 411 | 0.917
Craig Anderson | 174 | 0.915
Miikka Kiprusoff | 411 | 0.915
Ryan Miller | 318 | 0.915

When taken over the larger sample size, it's definitely debatable who was the more impressive regular season goalie based on save percentage.

Kiprusoff was essentially in a 3-way tie for 7th, and edwards was tied for 6th. Kipper was 5 points behind the leader, Luongo. Edwards was 5 points behind Parent, and Dryden of course paced everyone else. In Edwards' case, you could definitely say the large GP advantage over this period makes his numbers stronger than anyone but Dryden. The same could be said for Kipper over Backstrom, Thomas, and Anderson.

If you like sv%, I think the slight edge in that regard has to go to Edwards.

Playoffs:
I don’t have save % in the playoffs for Edwards’ career. But it’s notable that he has a pedestrian 16-21 W/L record, never having been past the 2nd round. In an age where GAA usually went down in the playoffs, Edwards’ career GAA increased from 3.32* in the regular season to 3.44 in the playoffs.

*this looks bad by today’s standards but was actually quite good in the late 70s/early 80s

Edwards was also never past the second round. In fact, he never won more than 4 games in any given playoff year

.

- Let's not pretend that 25-28 is anything sterling, either!

- I could say, "Kipper only ever won 3+ games in a playoff twice, and Edwards did three times!"

- I put together sv% stats and did a weighted sv% +/- for each over the comparable periods. (essentially, goalie's sv% minus league average, times minutes played = score for that season, then summed up all 5 scores and divided by total minutes)

Edwards' weighted sv% +/-: -0019 (he had .8856 compared to a weigted league average of .8875)
Kiprusoff's weighted sv% +/-: +.0025 (he had .9201 compared to a weighted league average of .9176)

I agree that Kipper is the slightly better playoff goalie and therefore overall better goalie. You got good value on him, taking him after Karakas, Edwards, Peeters and McLean. I definitely considered him but I had him in MLD10 and left feeling like he wasn't as good as I originally thought (I think the voting placements may overrate him in the past 4 seasons) But looking at his established body of work now, it's definitely top MLD starter level... if not better.

There is a good argument that Pilous is the second best coach in the MLD. With Larry Robinson as his assistant, I don't think he'll be outcoached.

I'm also of the opinion that Tikhonov is the best coach in the MLD and Pilous second-best. I think those rankings are as good as definitive. And Robinson is an excellent spare who got a vote from me; he certainly bridges some of that gap. It is arguable that they can keep up with Tikhonov, but ultimately Robinson is a player's coach, a guy who can act as a buffer and smooth over any problems that may arise. Will he add much to the strategic power of Brooklyn's coaching? Not enough, I say.

I don't think either team has an advantage in terms of the coaching staff getting the most out the players.

I think in terms of getting the most out of the players, Tikhonov is definitely one of the best of all-time. His "win at all costs" mentality in Riga was critical to the re-emergence of that team.

However, Tikhonov's weakness is his lack of interest in line matching. Brooklyn will attempt to exploit this weakness.

Brooklyn's game plan will be to match the Panfolfo-Sutter-Preston line against Herb Jordan, no matter who his linemates end up being. Given Tikhonov's philosophy of rolling 4 balanced lines, I expect to get this matchup most of the time.

This is a Tikhonov team, with four balanced lines, so I believe it works in his favour that I got him that kind of team. I would only worry about line matching if I had spent a lot of picks on pure shutdown players of the Sutter/Pandolfo variety; my third line is a two-way line, though, so it's not a must that it faces anyone in particular.

A note about the Canada Cup: Despite Tikhonov's apparent "weakness", it took last minute heroics by two of the top-4 players of all-time just to win that series. A look up and down the lineups leaves little doubt as to who the favoured team was, or the better team on paper. But Tikhonov kept them in it right until the end, and with a bit of luck or a better line change, maybe they'd have won. If he should have been linematching the whole time and wasn't, and still got this result, against a better team, with a coach that is more or less his equal, imagine how strong the rest of his coaching skills are.

 

[jarek]

Edwards: 307 to 234 (no Dryden) (~32% difference)
Kipper: 411 to 314 (~31% difference)

I took the average number of games from each goaltender's competition and turned their amount of games played compared to that average into a percentage difference. Kipper actually looks better than Edwards by a hair looking at it this way, AND against MORE competition. (Since you were talking about games played making Edwards look better than the rest)

As far as Robinson, I definitely think he helps bridge the gap and makes any potential coaching advantage negated, and that is because of an x-factor. Robinson is going to help keep the bench loose. When I started reading The Red Machine, the first chapter talks about Tikhonov. It describes how his players were completely emotionless, even when they scored, they did not smile or celebrate. They were just machines. Emotions were outlawed. How will your team handle this? I have extra special concerns about this with your more modern guys. You REALLY could have used a player's coach to help out with that. We'll see how the voters feel about this.

And back to Edwards, I think the fact that we need to take Dryden out of the picture to make him look better is a clear detriment to him. I have no doubt that Kipper is the better goalie in just about every way, although not by much.

 

[VMBM]

Oh yes, Tikhonov did break the rotation of 4 lines to bring out KLM at key moments in games (as I would expect him to do with Herb Jordan). But it was more about giving them more ice time (like getting them out for one last shift before the period ended) or making sure they had one of the PP shifts than it was about matchups, correct? Everything I've read about Tikhonov has indicated that he didn't care about matchups and that Canada could match pretty much whoever they wanted against KLM.

Sure, he let the other teams' coach[es] worry about those things. I was just arguing against any suggestions that he played every line equally (that piece about the 1987 CC).

I remember him double-shifting Makarov occasionally, but yeah, he usually mixed lines only if someone got injured, or maybe sometimes on PP.

 

[seventieslord]

Edwards: 307 to 234 (no Dryden) (~32% difference)
Kipper: 411 to 314 (~31% difference)

I took the average number of games from each goaltender's competition and turned their amount of games played compared to that average into a percentage difference. Kipper actually looks better than Edwards by a hair looking at it this way, AND against MORE competition. (Since you were talking about games played making Edwards look better than the rest)

I don't think this makes any sense. First, why remove Dryden? Second, why is Kiprusoff "better than Edwards by a hair" when they both played 31-32% more than their competition (the upper echelon of goalies in a six-year period) Last, the fact that it was "MORE" competition is meaningless. I cut off the Edwards list two names sooner because it's a lot of work to reconstruct those totals, as opposed to the Kipper list which is from hockey-reference. I could have added two more names, and those two more names would have also had less games played, and Edwards still would have had 30-35% more GP than the rest of the list

As far as Robinson, I definitely think he helps bridge the gap and makes any potential coaching advantage negated, and that is because of an x-factor. Robinson is going to help keep the bench loose. When I started reading The Red Machine, the first chapter talks about Tikhonov. It describes how his players were completely emotionless, even when they scored, they did not smile or celebrate. They were just machines. Emotions were outlawed. How will your team handle this? I have extra special concerns about this with your more modern guys. You REALLY could have used a player's coach to help out with that. We'll see how the voters feel about this.

That has nothing to do with Tikhonov, or Tarasov, or any other single coach. This was a function of communism and the lack of individualism that went along with it. You know this better than anyone. I know how sick you got of hearing "Tarasov can't coach an ATD team, he's a communist taskmaster!!!"

And back to Edwards, I think the fact that we need to take Dryden out of the picture to make him look better is a clear detriment to him. I have no doubt that Kipper is the better goalie in just about every way, although not by much.

We don't need to remove Dryden from anything. But it is clear that he is a massive outlier. No other goalie on any of these lists had a prime like he had, not even close. Not Brodeur, not Smith, not Parent (at least not based on raw sv% that ignore special teams discrepancies)

 

[jarek]

To be honest, as far as Tikhonov himself is concerned, I do not believe it was a product of the communist system. That is how he coached. Go read the Red Machine.

 

[seventieslord]

To be honest, as far as Tikhonov himself is concerned, I do not believe it was a product of the communist system. That is how he coached. Go read the Red Machine.

I have read the red machine... cover to cover. Have you? I've also re-read many parts for atd and mld research.

Don't be obtuse and act like it's a coincidence that this communist country had communist-leaning coaches.

 

[jarek]

I have read the red machine... cover to cover. Have you? I've also re-read many parts for atd and mld research.

Don't be obtuse and act like it's a coincidence that this communist country had communist-leaning coaches.

Maybe it's not so much a coincidence, but at least in Tarasov's case, there are definitely quotes that talk about how he coached above and beyond the communist style. I'd like to see some of that regarding Tikhonov.

 

[seventieslord]

Maybe it's not so much a coincidence, but at least in Tarasov's case, there are definitely quotes that talk about how he coached above and beyond the communist style. I'd like to see some of that regarding Tikhonov.

That is the difference between Tarasov and Tikhonov. Tarasov is arguably the greatest coach of all-time. Tikhonov is 15th-30th, mainly because he's not the player's coach that Tarasov was, and that his coaching style, though it can be explained by the communist contry he was a product of, did not transcend it either.

Does that bother me? No. Just like it doesn't bother me that Drury isn't as clutch as Joe Sakic, and Boudrias doesn't agitate as well as Tony Leswick, and Herb Jordan isn't as great a goalscorer as Mario Lemieux.

 

[seventieslord]

Seventieslord's Random Notes

1. Backup Goaltending

Why is this potentially important? Well, we both have goalies with less than stellar playoff records. Kiprusoff has a slightly better playoff record (based both on W/L and sv%) than Edwards, so if one considers Edwards a possibility to falter, then so is Kiprusoff, only a little less likely.

So if that is to happen, what is waiting on the bench in relief?

Billy Nicholson and Dan Bouchard.

First, a pat on the back to my opponents for taking Bouchard. He's an excellent MLD regular season backup who used to be a AAA player but was proven to deserve more respect than that. I personally think I did the same thing for Nicholson, another goalie who was previously thought to be a AAA player.

However, their playoff records are definitely different.

Nicholson was 4-2-2 in Stanley Cup play, with 2 Stanley Cups and a 1.88 GAA. His best contemporaries Riley Hern, Percy Lesueur and Paddy Moran had a combined Stanley Cup GAA of 3.78 - twice as high.

Dan Bouchard did not play on powerhouse teams so his 13-30 playoff record isn't exactly his fault. But his teams weren't THAT bad, ther did make the playoffs in 12 of his 14 seasons. Sv% is at least a more personal number so let's look at what his weighted career playoff sv% was:

-.0104. So his career average of .8798 was actually well below the weighted league average of .8902.

He goes from a .542 with a 3.26 GAA in the regular season, to .302 and 3.46 in the playoffs.

Bouchard is definitely a strong backup, but his playoff record precludes him from being a good fill-in option here. That is not something that can be said about Nicholson, whose win% and GAA both got significantly stronger with the cup on the line.

2. Vladamir Zabrodsky

My opponents want to live and die by Zabrodsky and put him on their first line. So be it.

I completely agree with TDMM that Zabrodsky is a superior choice to Josef Malecek. However, that doesn't necessarily say much about him in an all-time sense. I did a year-by-year analysis of Malecek's international achievements last MLD just to put his place in history into perspective, (because outscoring nameless Czechs domestically in the 1940s is meaningless; we want to know how he did against his toughest foes) and it's time I do the same for Zabrodsky:

1947, WEC-A: Zabrodsky had what appears to have been an outstanding tournament, with 29 goals. Drobny and Konopasek, the only other two players I have heard of on this team, had 15 and 14 goals, respectively. Other teams in this tournament: Sweden, Austria, Switzerland, USA, Poland, Romania, Belgium (in order of placement). Recognized names on other teams: none. Assumed best competition: Sweden (because of historical canon and the fact that they had the next-best record and by far the next-best goal differential). Score in the TCH/SWE game: 2-1 Sweden. Czechoslovakia had 84 goals in 6 other round robin games, but just one against Sweden. Zabrodsky had 28-29 goals in 6 other games but 0-1 against Sweden. No stats exist on SIHR for the other teams. Conclusion: Zabrodsky was almost certainly the best player in this tournament. But, compared to whom?

1948, Olympics: Zabrodsky had 27 points to lead the Czechs. Again, closest competition on his team was Konopasek and Drobny with 11 and 10 (goals only available for these two). The Czechs earned Silver in this tournament, with Canada taking home the Gold. Canada and the Czechs played to a 0-0 tie. On Canada, a guy named Walter Edwin Halder scored 29 points and a guy named George Mara had 26. Canada had no players who would go on to the NHL or ex-NHLers although Halder earned an NHL tryout with the NYR in 1946 (a rather easy time to make the NHL) Conclusion: Zabrodsky was surely the best player on the Czechs but may or may not have been better than Canadian amateurs with little to no hope of an NHL career.

1949, WEC-A: Zabrodsky had 10 goals, 2nd on the Czechs to Konopasek, who had 12. Canada's Jim Russell (who got into 47 AHL games during the war) and Don Munro (who must have played in rather obscure leagues due to lack of info) had 12 and 10 goals for Canada. No player on team Canada had any hope of an NHL career. Bruce Mather had 24 points for USA, and Jack Riley had 13. Neither appeared to have any designs on an NHL career, although both got into the USHHOF. A Swede named Ake Andersson won the "best player" award but no stats exist for other countries. Conclusion: Zabrodsky was one of the two best players on the Czechs but was outshone by amateur Americans few have heard of, and amateur Canadians scored at his pace as well.

1951, WEC-A: Zabrodsky is listed as having 2 goals in 7 games. I believe this is a mistake as the International Ice Hockey Encyclopedia does not list the Czechs as having been in this tournament, and no other Czechs are listed on the team sheet on SIHR.

1954, WEC-A: Zabrodsky had 4 goals for the Czechs. Vlastimil Bubnik had 11, and a guy named Bronislav Danda had 8. The Soviets made their first appearance at the worlds this year, and smoked the more experienced Czechs, 5-2. Bobrov, Shuvalov, and Guryshev (8, 7, 5) all outscored Zabrodsky despite their hockey program being in its relative infancy. Conclusion: Not impressive. Zabrodsky was well behind the leading scorers on his own team.

1955, WEC-A: Zabrodsky had 13 points for 2nd on the Czechs. Vlastimil Bubnik had 20. This was the year that Canada sent the Penticton Vees and the Warwicks (see Grant Warwick's bio) and a 33-year old Grant Warwick, who had had a very strong NHL career, scored 17 points. Bill Warwick, who only managed a wartime NHL cup of coffee, but was younger, scored 22 points. John McIntyre, a decent, but far from dominant PCHL scorer from 19946-1952, had 17 points. Two others with a combined 145 games of top north american minor league experience had 12 points apiece. Conclusion: Zabrodsky at 31 was a good player for the Czechs, but not at the level of a 33-year old Grant Warwick. Warwick is a good reference point because he had a long and solid NHL career with six top-20s in goals.

1956, WEC-A: Zabrodsky had 2 goals in 7 games. This was a six-way tie for sixth on the Czechs. No need to go further into this one. Conclusion: Unimpressive tournament.

The best case for Zabrodsky can probably made based on his domestic results in the following three seasons. Czech league stats are spotty but the league was starting to produce some name players, and he fared well against them as a 33-35-year old.

1957: 33 goals, apparently led league, but four players with complete assist stats have more points. Bubnik had 35, Danda 34.

1958: 24 goals, apparently good for 2nd in league, but over half the league's stats are missing. Danda, Pantucek, Barton and Bubnik are known to have at least topped him. This was the first season for Jaroslav Jirik, who started the season as a 17-year old, and Josef Golonka, who was 19. Future scoring champ Josef Cerny also made his debut at 18.

1959: 23 goals, apparently good for the league lead (1.04/GP), although three players with complete assist totals topped him in points - Danda, Vanek, Scheuer. 18-year old Jirik had begun approaching his goals-per-game level (0.73), and 19-year old Cerny and 20-year old Golonka wasn't far behind (0.64, 0.59). Three years later, Golonka and Jirik averaged a goal per game in a league filled with many more name players.

Conclusion: The MLD is filled with players who starred in the NHL, or gave enough of an indication that they could star in the NHL. There is little evidence that Zabrodsky could play in the NHL, much less be a star.

3. Dutch Reibel

I believe Dutch Reibel is a very, very weak second line center for two reasons:

A) The Howe Factor. Reibel got to play with Gordie Howe for all of his second and third seasons, and almost all of his first. He had one excellent year individually, in which he outscored Howe (Howe had more per-game, but this is still impressive). But what about without Howe?

I checked the HSP in about 25 games for Reibel's even strength points and I was only able to find one (of about 25) that did not include Howe or Lindsay on it (also had an unassisted goal in a game where Lindsay and Howe had points on two other goals with him, so he was with them for that goal) - so for all intents and purposes, Reibel was with Howe for the whole season. Keep in mind that if we were to divide this season up into with Howe and without Howe, I'd be able to illustrate my point even better, but there should be no need.

I wasn't sure about whether the 1957 season should count as a season with Howe or without, so I went looking for all his points that year, and it's pretty clear based on this that he played with McNeil and Dea at even strength but got a lot of PP time with Howe and Lindsay too. So technically this does not count as a season with Howe.

So, with Howe: 207 GP, 170 Pts, 0.82 PPG
Without Howe: 202 GP, 75 Pts, 0.37 PPG

more specifically, with Howe: 207 GP, 108 ESP, 0.52 PPG
without Howe: 207 GP, 49 ESP, 0.24 PPG

Reibel was just 26-28 years old in these three Howe-less seasons, years that tend to be the very best of a forward's career, yet his overall and even strength production declined by at least 50%.

You may say "well, no kidding! Howe is the man!" and he is. But Howe's other centers Sid Abel, Alex Delvecchio and Norm Ullman had very long and consistent careers that included many productive years without Howe. This isn't a case of Reibel being, for a very short time, like an Ullman, Abel or Delvecchio. He was a stopgap player who was able to fill in next to the greatest player of all-time momentarily (and even had one excellent year) before falling back down to earth.

B) His Head Wasn't Into It.

Reibel seemed right from the start, to be an inconsistent player. He started off his rookie season incredibly strong, but by the end of the season was in the doghouse:

Dutch Reibel, a rookie flash who faded, was out of the doghouse Monday after shooting the Red Wings to victory in the opening game of the finals... Benched earlier because of ineffective, lacklustre play, Reibel set up one goal and scored the winner... it was no secret that Detroit management was dissatisfied with Reibel's showing in the second half of the season, after he performed brilliantly in the first half. He was yanked from his usual role as center for Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay and was relegated to the bench, where he saw only spot duty...

"Once I left Detroit, things just went downhill," he remembers. "It just wasn't the same. I enjoyed Detroit... you play with an organization for so long."

C) Playoffs. (or, the Howe Factor, continued)

All indications are that Reibel continued to play with Howe and Lindsay in the playoffs in his first three seasons, yet, in those three playoffs Howe had 41 points, Lindsay 33, and Reibel just 18.

D) Longevity. I have not read anywhere that Reibel suffered any major injury and GP totals don't indicate this, either. Reibel played six NHL seasons, and four more in a good minor league.

How many players in this MLD have a shorter career at the top level than that? If you were to count non-NHL senior seasons as half-seasons, giving Reibel a total score of 8, who had a shorter career than Reibel?

4. Adjusted +/-

We have a remarkable similarity between our two teams: We have 11 post-expansion players. These are guys with complete GF/GA and adjusted +/- data available. In addition to this, we have the exact same breakdown of such players: 2 top-6 forwards, 4 bottom-6 forwards, and 5 defensemen.

Adjusted +/- is best described here: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=591548 , but in a nutshell it measures a team's goal differential with the player on the ice, versus when they are off the ice. The top-20 all-time leaders in career rating are Orr, Bourque, Jagr, Robinson, Gretzky, Mark Howe, Clarke, MacInnis, Lindros, Selanne, Salming, Taylor, Forsberg, Lemieux, Lidstrom, Trottier, Bossy, Lafleur, Dionne and LeClair. Top-100 all-time players like Potvin, Francis, Park, Stevens, Fedorov, Pronger, Chelios and Sakic make appearances shortly after that as well.

Now there is no perfect stat, but adjusted +/- does remove a ton of the bias involved with unadjusted +/-. Under this metric, a player will not just have a good/bad +/- just because they are on a good/bad team. What's more, the longer time period you analyze, the more accurate your results will be, because the player will be more likely to have played in more situations - In his prime, pre-prime, post-prime, on the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd line/pairing, with a good team, with an average team, with a bad team, with superior linemates, with inferior linemates, healthy, and injured. We're talking about massive sample sizes here: 8357 post-expansion games for Regina's players and 9023 for Brooklyn's.

So let's look at the career adjusted +/- ratings of the 22 modern players in this series:

Regina

Arnott +169
Kozlov +161
Redden +143
McCabe +101
MacMillan +64
Boudrias +58
Hillman 0*
Arbour -3**
Hampson -4***
Regehr -17
Drury -19
Total: +653 (+59 per player)

* Does not include 406 NHL games played between ages 18 and 29
** Does not include 395 NHL games played between ages 21 and 34
*** Does not count 297 NHL games played between age 23 and 30

Brooklyn

Crowder +111
Olausson +104
Rochefort +36
Redmond +6
Lewis +1
Bertuzzi -6
Hextall -16
Preston -20
Sutter -32
Pandolfo -80
Green -118
Total: -14 (-1 per player)

I wouldn't get too excited about a small gap in adjusted +/-, but this is a gap of 60 points, on average, per player. Adjusted +/- measures a player's even strength efficiency, and our modern players were much more efficient/effective at even strength, a situation that the game is played in 75% of the time - and that doesn't even include Zabrodsky, who should be a non-factor, and Reibel, whose spot as a 2nd line MLD center is tenuous at best.

5. Involvement in Offense. A little tidbit I noticed - make of it what you wish. I divided each of our forwards' adjusted even strength points by their adjusted even strength goals on ice for just to see what percentage of goals a player tends to be involved in. Four tiers emerged:

Drury: 79%

Bertuzzi: 74%
Boudrias: 74%
Hextall: 73%
Hampson: 72%
Arnott: 71%
Sutter: 71%
Kozlov: 70%
MacMillan: 70%

Pandolfo: 66%
Crowder: 64%

Preston: 55%

I don't know what we should make of this, but it's rather interesting that Chris Drury, a target for being a "mediocre modern player", is actually the one in this series who had a lot more to do with the even strength goals generated when he was on the ice, than anyone else.

First Defense Pairings - aRRRR!!!

We can go more in-depth on the defense pairings if we want, but for now let me just say that Regina has a sizeable edge on the first pairing.

The two are rather similar in terms of composition - a no-nonsense defender with a puck carrying offensive guy. But both Regina players are better.

I did an extensive comparison of Rochefort and Regehr earlier on in the draft. If you take the time to read this: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26384718&postcount=268 , I am sure you will agree that Rochefort and Regehr were practically the exact same player, only that Regehr could stay healthy and Rochefort could not. Rochefort would have been Regehr... if he could have played about 280 more games during the 1980s.

Redden and Redmond are no contest as well. Redmond was mostly an offensive specialist who was only about as prolific as Redden in that department, while being nowhere near the minute muncher and all-around player Redden was. These are their six best offensive seasons, as percentages of the #2 scoring defenseman:

Redden: 80, 70, 67, 66, 61, 58
Redmond: 81, 75, 72, 66, 62

The similarities end there. Redmond can't touch Redden's adjusted +/-, he didn't kill as many penalties, and he wasn't consistently a #1 defenseman, or even consistently a top-pairing defenseman. His rankings in icetime on his team are as follows:

5th, 2nd (Seals!), 6th, 2nd, 1st, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 1st, 5th.

Literally all over the map. In fact, Redmond has occupied all spots on the depth chart. His average ranking in TOI among defensemen was 3.7. Redden has averaged 2.1 in his career.

Redmond was 10th and 14th in All-Star voting and never showed up in Norris voting. Redden was 5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, and 12th in Norris voting.

Scouting reports on Redmond love to mention his hard, accurate shot. They mention that he is good on the PP. they say nothing of his defense. But they do say, in three separate years, that he sometimes plays LW too. This explains some of his offensive totals, most likely.

With Regehr enjoying a minor edge thanks to durability and Redden enjoying a major edge thanks to defense, reliablility, consistency and recognition among the elite, this defense pairing is decidedly better than Brooklyn's.

With McCabe being just a much tougher Olausson, and Arbour being a much more solid Green, it is difficult to see a well-constructed case that Brooklyn's second pairing can compete with ours, either, but they are free to try!