MLD 2012 Mickey Ion Finals: Medicine Hat Tricks vs Winston-Salem Polar Twins
- Thread starter DaveG
- Start date
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Looking forward to a great series, Mike.
Please use the following for my lineup.
Fred Scanlan - Ulf Nilsson - Rick Kehoe
Joe Juneau - Bronco Horvath - Gary Dornhoefer
Jim Riley - Serge Bernier - Buzz Boll
Lorne Henning - Charlie Burns (A) - Dustin Brown (A)
Arnie Brown - Brad Maxwell
Albert Langlois - Jocelyn Guevremont
Dave Ellett - Garth Butcher (C)
Mike Karakas
Arturs Irbe
Spares
Dolly Swift
Udo Kiessling
Stephane Yelle
Power Play 1
Horvath - Nilsson - Kehoe
Ellett - Maxwell
Power Play 2
D. Brown - Juneau - Bernier
Langlois - Guevremont
Penalty Kill 1
Burns - Henning
A. Brown - Butcher
Penalty Kill 2
Juneau - D. Brown
Langlois - Maxwell
Please use the following for my lineup.
Fred Scanlan - Ulf Nilsson - Rick Kehoe
Joe Juneau - Bronco Horvath - Gary Dornhoefer
Jim Riley - Serge Bernier - Buzz Boll
Lorne Henning - Charlie Burns (A) - Dustin Brown (A)
Arnie Brown - Brad Maxwell
Albert Langlois - Jocelyn Guevremont
Dave Ellett - Garth Butcher (C)
Mike Karakas
Arturs Irbe
Spares
Dolly Swift
Udo Kiessling
Stephane Yelle
Power Play 1
Horvath - Nilsson - Kehoe
Ellett - Maxwell
Power Play 2
D. Brown - Juneau - Bernier
Langlois - Guevremont
Penalty Kill 1
Burns - Henning
A. Brown - Butcher
Penalty Kill 2
Juneau - D. Brown
Langlois - Maxwell
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
We're guaranteed to have a new GM in the finals this year. Nice to see the talent pool of ATD GMs hasn't dried up yet.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Guess it's about time to get this thing kicked off.
The way I read these forward lineups, Medicine Hat is a team that will rely heavily on its top line to put points on the board, and then use its lower lines to defend the lead. Winston-Salem has more scoring depth and less of a defensive inclination.
I'm sure we'll get to the lower lines eventually, but Medicine Hat's top line is so important to its gameplan that I'd like to start there.
Center: Ulf Nilsson vs Gus Bodnar
Happily, the first-line centers are fairly easy to compare as they share a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses. Both play a well-rounded offensive game, inclining toward playmaking/assists but still capable of putting the puck in the net. Both played their best seasons against a reduced caliber of competition. Both had injury issues and finished around age 30.
Since neither center was known for his defense, and neither won a significant award, we should do fine by simply comparing their scoring ability. Nilsson is a little tough to pin down because of his WHA seasons. Using Behind the Net's equivalency ratios (found here) to convert his WHA totals to NHL equivalents, and then adjusting them for era, we get the numbers you see below. Needless to say, this isn't a perfectly scientific method -- for example, the equivalency adjustment causes a dubious reduction in 1976-77 -- but this seems like a fair method which actually advantages my opponent. Nilsson is being double-adjusted for competition level and scoring rate, whereas Bodnar is only being single-adjusted for scoring rate. I will leave the quality of WWII-era hockey alone for now.
Nilsson's 5 best adjusted seasons: 87, 74, 73, 56, 56
Bodnar's 5 best adjusted seasons: 70, 61, 58, 55, 53
Pretty clear-cut advantage for Nilsson there. He was our 1st All Star for a reason.
The advantage gets even larger when you consider Bodnar's paltry 7 points in 32 playoff games. Nilsson had only one outstanding run his limited NHL playoff duty, but Bodnar was just... not good at all.
The one place Bodnar might have made up ground on Nilsson would be durability, except that Bodnar was just as frequently out of action. He missed 25% of his games compared to Nilsson's 27%, meaning both teams are going to be tested in their center depth.
Conclusion: Pretty clear and significant advantage for Nilsson over Bodnar, and I have always been of the philosophy that a big advantage at 1C is a significant edge for the team as a whole.
Right Wing: Rick Kehoe vs Alexander Kozhevnikov
The first thing that jumps out about Kozhevnikov is that he appears to be playing out of position. Every source I can find lists him as a center. There was a RW by the same name drafted by the Blackhawks in 2002, but I can't imagine it's the same guy. Much like my opponent in the previous round, Medicine Hat has an important player slotted outside his natural position, which has to be taken into account when thinking about his "ATD value".
Even setting aside the obvious questions about comparisons between NHL and CCCP players, this is a case of two players who are different in almost every way. Kozhevnikov was loud, unorthodox, rough, and had a brief but high prime. Kehoe was understated, cerebral, team-minded, elusive, and had a lower but extremely consistent prime. Kozhevnikov basically had 3 consecutive strong seasons of note plus a "comeback" year, but inexplicably was a non-factor in every other season; Kehoe had 10 seasons over 20 adjusted goals and 45 adjusted points, peaking at 42 and 69 respectively. Both were achieved from a position of team weakness.
So how do we separate them? Kozhevnikov is definitely the grittier player, and at his best the more dynamic generator of offense. Kehoe is a safer pick, both in terms of consistency and team play.
Conclusion: In the imaginary MLD universe, Kozhevnikov is going to run hot and cold, whereas Kehoe is going to give you the same performance every night with the exception of maybe 1 big game somewhere in the series.
Left Wing: Fred Scanlan vs Dubbie Kerr
Interesting comparison here between two old-timers. Both were part of very significant forward lines around the turn of the century, both played well-rounded games that included board work and defense (something that isn't always obvious from players of their period) and both have a fair bit of toughness.
One thing that is quite obvious is that Kerr was the better goal-scorer. Kerr's teams scored goals at such a silly rate (ie, Marty Walsh with 10 goals in a game) that it's hard to say how much better of a goal scorer he was, but there's no doubt he was better. Scanlan was less of a shooter and more of a setup man and glue guy, which is where the lack of assists in the old leagues really works against him.
Conclusion: These seem like pretty much the same guy, except Kerr is the better goal scorer by a noteworthy margin.
Overall Conclusions: Winston-Salem has a very significant advantage down the middle, Medicine Hat has a goal-scoring advantage on the left wing, and the right wing is a case of streakiness vs consistency. Neither team has a clear advantage on the whole, but I'll take strength down the middle over strength down the wing, and 7-game consistency over streakiness. Medicine Hat relies on their top line much more than Winston-Salem, so the lack of a clear advantage here is a concern for them.
The way I read these forward lineups, Medicine Hat is a team that will rely heavily on its top line to put points on the board, and then use its lower lines to defend the lead. Winston-Salem has more scoring depth and less of a defensive inclination.
I'm sure we'll get to the lower lines eventually, but Medicine Hat's top line is so important to its gameplan that I'd like to start there.
Center: Ulf Nilsson vs Gus Bodnar
Happily, the first-line centers are fairly easy to compare as they share a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses. Both play a well-rounded offensive game, inclining toward playmaking/assists but still capable of putting the puck in the net. Both played their best seasons against a reduced caliber of competition. Both had injury issues and finished around age 30.
Since neither center was known for his defense, and neither won a significant award, we should do fine by simply comparing their scoring ability. Nilsson is a little tough to pin down because of his WHA seasons. Using Behind the Net's equivalency ratios (found here) to convert his WHA totals to NHL equivalents, and then adjusting them for era, we get the numbers you see below. Needless to say, this isn't a perfectly scientific method -- for example, the equivalency adjustment causes a dubious reduction in 1976-77 -- but this seems like a fair method which actually advantages my opponent. Nilsson is being double-adjusted for competition level and scoring rate, whereas Bodnar is only being single-adjusted for scoring rate. I will leave the quality of WWII-era hockey alone for now.
Nilsson's 5 best adjusted seasons: 87, 74, 73, 56, 56
Bodnar's 5 best adjusted seasons: 70, 61, 58, 55, 53
Pretty clear-cut advantage for Nilsson there. He was our 1st All Star for a reason.
The advantage gets even larger when you consider Bodnar's paltry 7 points in 32 playoff games. Nilsson had only one outstanding run his limited NHL playoff duty, but Bodnar was just... not good at all.
The one place Bodnar might have made up ground on Nilsson would be durability, except that Bodnar was just as frequently out of action. He missed 25% of his games compared to Nilsson's 27%, meaning both teams are going to be tested in their center depth.
Conclusion: Pretty clear and significant advantage for Nilsson over Bodnar, and I have always been of the philosophy that a big advantage at 1C is a significant edge for the team as a whole.
Right Wing: Rick Kehoe vs Alexander Kozhevnikov
The first thing that jumps out about Kozhevnikov is that he appears to be playing out of position. Every source I can find lists him as a center. There was a RW by the same name drafted by the Blackhawks in 2002, but I can't imagine it's the same guy. Much like my opponent in the previous round, Medicine Hat has an important player slotted outside his natural position, which has to be taken into account when thinking about his "ATD value".
Even setting aside the obvious questions about comparisons between NHL and CCCP players, this is a case of two players who are different in almost every way. Kozhevnikov was loud, unorthodox, rough, and had a brief but high prime. Kehoe was understated, cerebral, team-minded, elusive, and had a lower but extremely consistent prime. Kozhevnikov basically had 3 consecutive strong seasons of note plus a "comeback" year, but inexplicably was a non-factor in every other season; Kehoe had 10 seasons over 20 adjusted goals and 45 adjusted points, peaking at 42 and 69 respectively. Both were achieved from a position of team weakness.
So how do we separate them? Kozhevnikov is definitely the grittier player, and at his best the more dynamic generator of offense. Kehoe is a safer pick, both in terms of consistency and team play.
Conclusion: In the imaginary MLD universe, Kozhevnikov is going to run hot and cold, whereas Kehoe is going to give you the same performance every night with the exception of maybe 1 big game somewhere in the series.
Left Wing: Fred Scanlan vs Dubbie Kerr
Interesting comparison here between two old-timers. Both were part of very significant forward lines around the turn of the century, both played well-rounded games that included board work and defense (something that isn't always obvious from players of their period) and both have a fair bit of toughness.
One thing that is quite obvious is that Kerr was the better goal-scorer. Kerr's teams scored goals at such a silly rate (ie, Marty Walsh with 10 goals in a game) that it's hard to say how much better of a goal scorer he was, but there's no doubt he was better. Scanlan was less of a shooter and more of a setup man and glue guy, which is where the lack of assists in the old leagues really works against him.
Conclusion: These seem like pretty much the same guy, except Kerr is the better goal scorer by a noteworthy margin.
Overall Conclusions: Winston-Salem has a very significant advantage down the middle, Medicine Hat has a goal-scoring advantage on the left wing, and the right wing is a case of streakiness vs consistency. Neither team has a clear advantage on the whole, but I'll take strength down the middle over strength down the wing, and 7-game consistency over streakiness. Medicine Hat relies on their top line much more than Winston-Salem, so the lack of a clear advantage here is a concern for them.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I definitely want to see more about whether and how much Kozhevnikov played wing and how mike thinks he'll perform there
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
I've seen him referred to as a wing a few occasions...here's an instance that I have handy: http://www.goironpigs.com/?cat=64
Here he is (29) in the 1984 Olympics, early in the video you can see him coming down the right wing boards. In Europe, it's not uncommon to have shooters playing their off-wing, so they have more access to the net. With a playmaker like Bodnar, this will be great for a sniper like Kozhevnikov. Additionally, with Bodnar being a right-handed puck carrier, the ability to carry deep into the offensive zone, and leave a drop pass for Kozhevnikov while Bodnar crosses and "picks" a defenseman off on the cross will allow AK to emerge and shoot from the middle of the slot...a tough shot to stop in any language.
Executing that kind of a switch in short order on the backline will be difficult to accomodate considering I don't see a tremendously mobile blueline on the opponent's side...am I incorrect? Besides Ellett can anyone really skate terrifically? Guevremont, I guess, but he's not exactly a defensive mastermind in his own right. That will be a lot of hardship for that group of blueliners.
Sidenote: I'm trying to think, how many of those USSR right wingers were right-handed at all? Mikhailov, Makarov, Drozdetsky, Maltsev...they were on all lefties,
Regarding some of the quality analysis above:
- It seems that when Nilsson came into the NHL he missed significantly more time than he did in the softer WHA. Nilsson strikes me as a guy that couldn't swing with the big trees and given the amount of redwoods on the Medicine Hat blueline and the truculence at forward, I'd ensure there's a doctor in the house for Nilsson. Not that Bodnar will ever be confused with Doug Jarvis, but Nilsson wasn't going to cruise to 700 NHL games with or without signing in the WHA...
Poor Ulf, all of his memories are of injuries...
http://www.thehockeynews.com/articles/27338-Getting-To-Know-Ulf-Nilsson.html
I wonder how many times he bit his tongue during the interview...
Bill Brydge and Percy Traub will tear him limb from limb.
As a Penguins fan, I'm fairly well-versed in Rick Kehoe's playoff exploits...and when it came down to the crunch time, Kehoe seemed to slink out of the way...
In fact, few regular NHLers are so prolific in playoff disappearances than Kehoe...
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=334791
Down there with Keith Tkachuk, Geoff Sanderson, Kent Nilsson, etc.
In the spirit of sportsmanship, Bodnar isn't exactly Mr. Conn Smythe himself...but Kehoe seemed to have a longer time to turn it around and was relied upon more by his teams for offense than Bodnar was. (Additionally, given the varied playoff formats of the era, Kehoe would have been able to face some far weaker competition than Bodnar had to face in the O6 era...)* In the early prime that Bodnar had (combined with the limited competition he faced during the War) he laid an egg as a rookie in the playoffs (vs. Bill Durnan)...then was a major part of a Cup winner, scoring the second most playoff goals on the club behind Ted Kennedy. Then the only other significant playoff action he saw anywhere near his prime was with the '53 Blackhawks, he was 7th in regular season points on that team, then 5th in playoff points...
* - Back to Kehoe...he was a member of the '75 Pens team that surrendered a 3-0 lead to the expansion Isles...2nd on the team in goals during the regular season, but couldn't find a single one in 9 playoffs games...couldn't score at all against the opening round opponent St. Louis and was a non-factor in stopping the Islander deluge from game 4 on...
1979 against Boston...a single secondary assist, in game 2, in the final six seconds of a 2-goal game...one assist against the Sabres in the prelim round...
Even in his last year of juniors for Hamilton...1.38 ppg in the regular season, .57 in the playoffs and a first round ousting...
I think my top unit will be just fine (even if Bodnar is felled, Skene Ronan played center at a high level in the NHA), aided from the backline by transitional d-man Brian Campbell...Winston-Salem will need the use of its depth if Nilsson can't survive the series, leaving the vulnerable Kehoe as the man to carry the offensive bacon of the team and a glue guy in Scanlan with nothing to stick to...
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
That clip shows him playing LW, does it not?
This reminds me of an argument earlier in this playoff about which defensemen qualify as good skaters. I'll spare us all a lot of pain and broad-based argumentation: my defensemen were good enough to skate big minutes against top NHL forwards effectively unless proven otherwise.
I'm guessing you're not familiar with the insane amount of abuse Nilsson dealt with in the WHA. See the bio linked above. "One night a guy from the Birmingham Bulls broke a stick over my back -- in the warm-ups." If you're going to go after one of my players for softness, you're picking the wrong one.
The fact of the matter is that Nilsson and Bodnar missed nearly identical amounts of time with injury. Claiming that Nilsson will miss more time in this series doesn't hold water.
True, but one of those few is Bodnar.
This is going extremely soft on Bodnar's playoff vanishing acts.
He was a rookie in his first playoff, sure. A rookie coming off 50 NHL games where he scored 62 points, then got shut out in 5 straight playoff games. George Boothman, in his only season outside the minors, managed 3 points.
You say he was a "major part" of the Leafs' Cup run in 1945 by focusing on his goals (by the way, he was tied for second on the team with two teammates including defenseman Moe Morris) but I wouldn't call 4 points in 13 games a sparkling run. Regular season he was third on the team and nearly a point per game. Playoffs he was in a three-way tie for fourth on the team and only had 1 assist. What happened?
After that he had 3 points in 14 playoff games. I guess we can agree that those runs were "outside his prime", but that's largely a reflection on how badly he declined in his late-20s.
I get the comparison of Bodnar and Kehoe in the playoffs. Kehoe can at least hang his hat on decent production in 1980 and 1982. And in the big picture, I'd rather get a choke job from a scoring winger than from my first-line center. Medicine Hat is going to be in tough to take advantage of Kerr and Kozhevnikov's talent if Bodnar scores 2 points in this series.
Center depth. Interesting issue.
Here are the Winston-Salem players who are listed as centers:
Ulf Nilsson
Bronco Horvath
Charlie Burns
Joe Juneau
Serge Bernier
Buzz Boll
Lorne Henning
Stephane Yelle
Dolly Swift (rover)
Medicine Hat centers:
Gus Bodnar
Patrice Bergeron
Alexander Kozhevnikov
Terry Crisp
Rob Zamuner
Skene Ronan (rover)
Not hard to figure out which of these teams is better prepared to lose its top-line centerman for a couple of games. Never mind that Crisp and Zamuner both dealt with consistent injuries -- your team is going to be hard-pressed to ice 4 centers if all of these guys go down at once, never mind what happens if Kozhevnikov has to be pulled off the wing (though granted, that would at least put him back in his correct position).
Center depth was an area of focus for this team's draft strategy and I'm extremely confident that Winston-Salem has an advantage in this area.
tarheelhockey
Offside Review Specialist
Speaking of depth, let's look at precisely why it will be such an issue if the Tricks don't get an outstanding performance from their top line.
Top 10 adjusted seasons among second-line players in this series:
Team|Player|Season|G|A|P
WS |Bronco Horvath|1959-60|44|46|90
WS |Joe Juneau|1992-93|26|56|82
WS |Bronco Horvath|1957-58|35|43|78
WS |Joe Juneau|1993-94|18|60|78
WS |Joe Juneau|1994-95|9|66|75
MH|Wayne Babych|1980-81|41|33|74
WS |Gary Dornhoefer|1972-73|26|46|73
MH|Patrice Bergeron|2005-06|31|40|71
MH|Patrice Bergeron|2006-07|23|48|71
MH|Patrice Bergeron|2011-12|25|46|71
And that's without giving Horvath a 15% pre-expansion correction.
The secondary scoring edge is clear, and it would be even clearer if I could do the same for the third line. Unfortunately two of my players (Bernier and Riley) had their best seasons outside the NHL. Suffice it to say, your Scott Young is the top third-line scorer but all three of mine are better than Crisp and Pronovost.
If that first line doesn't get it done for Medicine Hat, this series could get out of hand for them in a hurry. They don't have anything close to the depth that the Polar Twins enjoy.
Top 10 adjusted seasons among second-line players in this series:
WS |Bronco Horvath|1959-60|44|46|90
WS |Joe Juneau|1992-93|26|56|82
WS |Bronco Horvath|1957-58|35|43|78
WS |Joe Juneau|1993-94|18|60|78
WS |Joe Juneau|1994-95|9|66|75
MH|Wayne Babych|1980-81|41|33|74
WS |Gary Dornhoefer|1972-73|26|46|73
MH|Patrice Bergeron|2005-06|31|40|71
MH|Patrice Bergeron|2006-07|23|48|71
MH|Patrice Bergeron|2011-12|25|46|71
And that's without giving Horvath a 15% pre-expansion correction.
The secondary scoring edge is clear, and it would be even clearer if I could do the same for the third line. Unfortunately two of my players (Bernier and Riley) had their best seasons outside the NHL. Suffice it to say, your Scott Young is the top third-line scorer but all three of mine are better than Crisp and Pronovost.
If that first line doesn't get it done for Medicine Hat, this series could get out of hand for them in a hurry. They don't have anything close to the depth that the Polar Twins enjoy.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
With a very small number of exceptions, the Soviet team was all lefties. The story is that it helped them with their precision passing game to have everyone play their stick the same.
The story also goes that it is one reason the Czechs developed the left wing lock - the Soviets preferred to take the puck up the left side of the ice, which is covered more strongly than the right side of the ice by the left wing lock.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Handedness
Small part of the handedness consideration.
International hockey rinks are larger,wider by app: 13.5 feet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_rink
Traditionally wingers are LHS on the LW, RHS on the RW. One the wider international rink this creates weaker shooting angles for the wingers.Flipping sides would create the best shooting angles for each wing but this creates other problems - sacrificing board work on each wing while cluttering sticks to the middle and making the defensive back check harder.
LHS on RW is a compromise. The LW lock protects the advantaged side - the LHS Soviet winger playing the RW. See the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_wing_lock
the LW converting to defense creates a zone defense with the left defenseman, protecting against the advantage of a LHS that the opposition may be using on their offensive RW. The center and RW forecheck.
Small part of the handedness consideration.
International hockey rinks are larger,wider by app: 13.5 feet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_rink
Traditionally wingers are LHS on the LW, RHS on the RW. One the wider international rink this creates weaker shooting angles for the wingers.Flipping sides would create the best shooting angles for each wing but this creates other problems - sacrificing board work on each wing while cluttering sticks to the middle and making the defensive back check harder.
LHS on RW is a compromise. The LW lock protects the advantaged side - the LHS Soviet winger playing the RW. See the link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_wing_lock
the LW converting to defense creates a zone defense with the left defenseman, protecting against the advantage of a LHS that the opposition may be using on their offensive RW. The center and RW forecheck.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
- In the beginning of the clip, he's carrying the puck down the right side and then lines up on the left side for the faceoff. In any event, it's not terribly worrisome to have a left wing move to the other wing, especially when it provides a shooting advantage. It's not like taking a natural wing and stuffing him at center. The only outstanding reason why a C/LW in the NHL today couldn't also play the right side is because of his handedness and the disadvantage in board play which is so prominent in the North American game. It's not that the two wings are so wholly different in their responsibilities.
- I'm sure they were good enough to skate against largely depth players for most of their careers. It will be a challenge for them to take on this top line. Ellett wasn't very good defensively, Maxwell - in his injury riddled career - was not known as anything more than "solid" defensively, Guevremont can't, Butcher is a bottom-pair guy. That's going to be a lot of pressure on Langlois and Brown (described in his profile as a "spare" defender) - who are on separate pairings. That D is capable, but I'm not sure they were challenged by elite players for most of their respective careers, I didn't get that inclination at least.
- Not attacking Nilsson's softness, just his uncanny ability to get hurt playing against men. There's some very tough customers on this side, a number of which came from a very rugged era in NHL history. He might not be "soft" but he is brittle.
- Personally, I'm a tiny bit confused as to where your numbers on Bodnar missing so much time are from...
Bodnar:
missed 0 of 50
1 of 50
1 of 50
21 of 60
14 of 60
1 of 60
0 of 70
26 of 70
1 of 70
4 of 70
11 of 70
3 of 70
I have it as playing 667 out of 750 (including losing every game in a trade scenario, so give or take a game or two possibly). That's 89% of regular season tilts.
Nilsson (NHL):
missed 21 of 80
30 of 80
29 of 80
80 of 80
and I won't count 1983 for anything...
So Nilsson played in 50% (at best) of the games he could have played in at the NHL level...granted, he stayed healthier in a lesser, less physical league...but that's to be somewhat expected.
- I mentioned Bodnar's postseason failings already. If Bodnar can't handle it, the line will still survive. Kerr is a supreme winger in this league, Kozhevnikov is probably even better than we even know about him...but even at face value, looks to be "very good" or better at this level. Your first line will certainly see Nilsson miss time (I believe that's how it works here, no?) leaving a glue guy, as I said, with nothing to stick to because Kehoe would have head for the hills by now...Bodnar is probably the third best player on the line. Your line is centered, literally around Nilsson.
- I never attacked your center depth. It's better than mine. My team is largely a board play/defensive team. I needed quality wingers and versatility for my gameplan to be successful. The depth lines score off the cycle, not from free-wheeling rushes. The playmaking ability of the center doesn't really carry a lot weight for me because it's not part of our tactics. That's part of the reason Bergeron was selected, he's not afraid to shoot (plus he's elite defensively). You might have more offensively gifted center depth (you do) and that's by your design, I don't, and that's by my design. There's capable, versatile replacements all over my lineup. I should note, that since your listing center depth, Dale Tallon also played center in his career.
- Again, elite scoring depth was not something I was really after. My team didn't get to this point by scoring 20 goals per game, it got here by preventing 20 goals per game. It made sense to me that in a Minor League Draft, that I wouldn't be able to get elite offensive talent...how could you? So, I got some the finest offensive players I could find (and have gotten credit for doing a credible job with my first unit, including having the best transitional and best overall d-man in the league) and then went in search of players whose job it was to shutdown ATD players because then I knew they would have no trouble with any caliber MLD players. Including the incredibly short-peak, surrounded by copious amounts of time in the minors, of Bronco Horvath or the Adam Oates-product, Joe Juneau.
- With two terrific shutdown lines (neither of which include Selke-winner Patrice Bergeron, so you'll have another elite defensive conscience on line 2), my team has a built-in mechanism for this purported scoring depth. At no time will this team be caught off-guard defensively, no point. And given the overall lack of defense on the other side, my first line will run roughshod through those top three lines and should line-matching be used by getting Henning and Burns out there on Kerr and Kozhevnikov (if they can handle them), then a plenty capable second line will go out there and generate plenty of offense while being responsible defensively. We aren't going to need a lot of goals to win games. I'm not sure how the box scores read in the mind's of the voters for my previous series...but we didn't need more than 2.5 goals per game in these playoffs to get to this point. I'm very confident in the defensive ability of this group as a whole and I think the voters are as well. I can't stress the point enough, Andre Pronovost was assigned to shutdown Gordie Howe...there's going to come a time in this series when he lines up next to Joe Juneau and then he's going to whisper to Terry Crisp, "who is this?"
- I'm sure they were good enough to skate against largely depth players for most of their careers. It will be a challenge for them to take on this top line. Ellett wasn't very good defensively, Maxwell - in his injury riddled career - was not known as anything more than "solid" defensively, Guevremont can't, Butcher is a bottom-pair guy. That's going to be a lot of pressure on Langlois and Brown (described in his profile as a "spare" defender) - who are on separate pairings. That D is capable, but I'm not sure they were challenged by elite players for most of their respective careers, I didn't get that inclination at least.
- Not attacking Nilsson's softness, just his uncanny ability to get hurt playing against men. There's some very tough customers on this side, a number of which came from a very rugged era in NHL history. He might not be "soft" but he is brittle.
- Personally, I'm a tiny bit confused as to where your numbers on Bodnar missing so much time are from...
Bodnar:
missed 0 of 50
1 of 50
1 of 50
21 of 60
14 of 60
1 of 60
0 of 70
26 of 70
1 of 70
4 of 70
11 of 70
3 of 70
I have it as playing 667 out of 750 (including losing every game in a trade scenario, so give or take a game or two possibly). That's 89% of regular season tilts.
Nilsson (NHL):
missed 21 of 80
30 of 80
29 of 80
80 of 80
and I won't count 1983 for anything...
So Nilsson played in 50% (at best) of the games he could have played in at the NHL level...granted, he stayed healthier in a lesser, less physical league...but that's to be somewhat expected.
- I mentioned Bodnar's postseason failings already. If Bodnar can't handle it, the line will still survive. Kerr is a supreme winger in this league, Kozhevnikov is probably even better than we even know about him...but even at face value, looks to be "very good" or better at this level. Your first line will certainly see Nilsson miss time (I believe that's how it works here, no?) leaving a glue guy, as I said, with nothing to stick to because Kehoe would have head for the hills by now...Bodnar is probably the third best player on the line. Your line is centered, literally around Nilsson.
- I never attacked your center depth. It's better than mine. My team is largely a board play/defensive team. I needed quality wingers and versatility for my gameplan to be successful. The depth lines score off the cycle, not from free-wheeling rushes. The playmaking ability of the center doesn't really carry a lot weight for me because it's not part of our tactics. That's part of the reason Bergeron was selected, he's not afraid to shoot (plus he's elite defensively). You might have more offensively gifted center depth (you do) and that's by your design, I don't, and that's by my design. There's capable, versatile replacements all over my lineup. I should note, that since your listing center depth, Dale Tallon also played center in his career.
- Again, elite scoring depth was not something I was really after. My team didn't get to this point by scoring 20 goals per game, it got here by preventing 20 goals per game. It made sense to me that in a Minor League Draft, that I wouldn't be able to get elite offensive talent...how could you? So, I got some the finest offensive players I could find (and have gotten credit for doing a credible job with my first unit, including having the best transitional and best overall d-man in the league) and then went in search of players whose job it was to shutdown ATD players because then I knew they would have no trouble with any caliber MLD players. Including the incredibly short-peak, surrounded by copious amounts of time in the minors, of Bronco Horvath or the Adam Oates-product, Joe Juneau.
- With two terrific shutdown lines (neither of which include Selke-winner Patrice Bergeron, so you'll have another elite defensive conscience on line 2), my team has a built-in mechanism for this purported scoring depth. At no time will this team be caught off-guard defensively, no point. And given the overall lack of defense on the other side, my first line will run roughshod through those top three lines and should line-matching be used by getting Henning and Burns out there on Kerr and Kozhevnikov (if they can handle them), then a plenty capable second line will go out there and generate plenty of offense while being responsible defensively. We aren't going to need a lot of goals to win games. I'm not sure how the box scores read in the mind's of the voters for my previous series...but we didn't need more than 2.5 goals per game in these playoffs to get to this point. I'm very confident in the defensive ability of this group as a whole and I think the voters are as well. I can't stress the point enough, Andre Pronovost was assigned to shutdown Gordie Howe...there's going to come a time in this series when he lines up next to Joe Juneau and then he's going to whisper to Terry Crisp, "who is this?"
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
If I were you I would be pushing this point too, but let me just say that this opinion is definitely not universal.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
It should be. This is the last time Campbell will be subject to toiling in the MLD.
Special teams for Medicine Hat...
PP1: B.Campbell-S.Young | D.Kerr-G.Bodnar-A.Kozhevnikov
PP2: D.Tallon-T.Graham | T.McKegney-P.Bergeron-W.Babych
(any d-man could sub-in for Graham virtually, as they have similar offensive resumes, if and when Siltanen dresses he'll move up to the 1st unit probably and slide Scott Young down to the second with Tallon; Shorty Green could aptly fill in at forward as well on either unit)
PK1: B.Brydge-P.Traub | T.Crisp-R.Zamuner
PK2: B.Campbell-T.Graham | P.Bergeron-D.Tippett
(again, any d-man can slip in and penalty kill adequately. If and when Bryan Watson dresses he could play anywhere on the PK units, especially on the backline; Andre Pronovost and Shorty Green would be capable of killing off penalties effectively as well)
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Well, let's play devil's advocate and compare him to Bryan McCabe, who should also be in his last MLD:
offensively: both peaked around the same time, McCabe with seasons of 68, 57, 53, 43, and 43 points. Campbell's best 5 are 62, 53, 52, 48, 44. Is there really a difference there?
defensively: no one ever claimed McCabe was a defensive gem, but i doubt anyone would try to say Campbell was his equal, either. McCabe also played against top lines for almost his entire career; Campbell has been relegated to mostly offensive situations for the most part.
ice time: Campbell has averaged just 21.5 minutes per game for 708 games, which is actually a really low average for an MLD top pairing defenseman and for any ATD defenseman. McCabe averaged over 24 minutes a game for over 1100 games. Plenty of defensemen who averaged more ice time than Campbell for more games for similar teams are still available.
if he fails this much in comparison to one MLD defenseman, how many others could I do the same thing with?
I'll be honest, it has really surprised me the last two drafts how in love with Campbell some people are.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Just briefly:
- Campbell wasn't really used regularly in the "old NHL", the small-ish, smooth skating transitional defensemen weren't "allowed" to play until after the lockout. So dragging down his ice time and accomplishments by using pre-lockout figures will make this look closer than it ought to be. I know that probably comes across as cherry picking, but that's just how the league was. He never really got a shot before the lockout. If you look, his ice time doesn't even really change much from 2004 to 2006, but the production certainly does...then the ice time follows...
Without doing the math, it looks like Campbell may be averaging about 23 minutes per game on this side of the lockout (?)...and that includes having to play under a Norris winning d-man on a championship team at one point (I'm not sure what McCabe would know about that)
- Campbell was on a near contender (well, they had Hasek) when he first came into the league. There was no room for him. McCabe was allowed to play on those brutal Islanders teams right off the hop because they were brutal and it didn't matter. Despite being thrown into the mix early and being a lead d-man on his teams early, they were all failures...it took his fourth team and his sixth year in the league before he set foot in the postseason, right?
- In comparison, Campbell didn't become an every day player for a little bit...once he became a big part of a team, they became a contender. He's played more playoff games since the lockout than Lidstrom even...and that's on multiple teams...helped a Buffalo team that got unlucky in 2006 to suffer a number of injuries and lose to Carolina, was sought after by the Sharks to put them over the top, was sought after by the Blackhawks when they had Keith and Seabrook already, and then to top it all off was the ice time leader on a perennial loser (Florida) and won a division with them and was a whisker from the second round again...
- McCabe had a similar opportunity in a similar place (Florida), to be their #1 d-man and help turn them around...he didn't, of course. In fact, what kind of success has he had outside of being paired with Tomas Kaberle? It looks like a good number of teams, a good amount of ice time and a heaping helping of losing. It seems that when Brian Campbell plays a lot (on a number of teams, not dependent on a partner for his success (or so it seems, I'm sure that's a bone you're going to pick), good things happen. Winning and other fun stuff. He even set up his last partner with a nice little retirement fund (defensive defenseman Jason Garrison).
- To top it all off, Campbell (late start and all) is still trending upwards or at least isn't going down yet. McCabe is finished and fell off hard (right around the time him and Kaberle split up it would appear), Campbell is not only a #1 d-man on a playoff team (did McCabe ever do this? Yushkevich and Kaberle got in the way of that, no?), but he led the entire league in ice time. He can legitimately can add 2 - 4 quality years to his resume which would accelerate him even further away from McCabe...
- Legitimate question: why was McCabe never an all-star (the game, that is)?
- Campbell wasn't really used regularly in the "old NHL", the small-ish, smooth skating transitional defensemen weren't "allowed" to play until after the lockout. So dragging down his ice time and accomplishments by using pre-lockout figures will make this look closer than it ought to be. I know that probably comes across as cherry picking, but that's just how the league was. He never really got a shot before the lockout. If you look, his ice time doesn't even really change much from 2004 to 2006, but the production certainly does...then the ice time follows...
Without doing the math, it looks like Campbell may be averaging about 23 minutes per game on this side of the lockout (?)...and that includes having to play under a Norris winning d-man on a championship team at one point (I'm not sure what McCabe would know about that)
- Campbell was on a near contender (well, they had Hasek) when he first came into the league. There was no room for him. McCabe was allowed to play on those brutal Islanders teams right off the hop because they were brutal and it didn't matter. Despite being thrown into the mix early and being a lead d-man on his teams early, they were all failures...it took his fourth team and his sixth year in the league before he set foot in the postseason, right?
- In comparison, Campbell didn't become an every day player for a little bit...once he became a big part of a team, they became a contender. He's played more playoff games since the lockout than Lidstrom even...and that's on multiple teams...helped a Buffalo team that got unlucky in 2006 to suffer a number of injuries and lose to Carolina, was sought after by the Sharks to put them over the top, was sought after by the Blackhawks when they had Keith and Seabrook already, and then to top it all off was the ice time leader on a perennial loser (Florida) and won a division with them and was a whisker from the second round again...
- McCabe had a similar opportunity in a similar place (Florida), to be their #1 d-man and help turn them around...he didn't, of course. In fact, what kind of success has he had outside of being paired with Tomas Kaberle? It looks like a good number of teams, a good amount of ice time and a heaping helping of losing. It seems that when Brian Campbell plays a lot (on a number of teams, not dependent on a partner for his success (or so it seems, I'm sure that's a bone you're going to pick), good things happen. Winning and other fun stuff. He even set up his last partner with a nice little retirement fund (defensive defenseman Jason Garrison).
- To top it all off, Campbell (late start and all) is still trending upwards or at least isn't going down yet. McCabe is finished and fell off hard (right around the time him and Kaberle split up it would appear), Campbell is not only a #1 d-man on a playoff team (did McCabe ever do this? Yushkevich and Kaberle got in the way of that, no?), but he led the entire league in ice time. He can legitimately can add 2 - 4 quality years to his resume which would accelerate him even further away from McCabe...
- Legitimate question: why was McCabe never an all-star (the game, that is)?
Dreakmur
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
You're right, it is cherrypicking. the actual number is 22.93 minutes per game since the lockout, based on 541 games played. That's still less than the absolutely un-cherrypicked number I quoted for McCabe, that was based on 1100 games played at ages younger and older than Campbell was and has been an NHL regular at.
If I go by his best 7-year stretch, he averaged 25.5 minutes per game, and then there are still 600 more NHL games on his record, most of which were played at a pretty high level.
Campbell only got into 20 games in two seasons when the Sabres still had Hasek. that could be an excuse for him not getting into more games early on, except:
1. They didn't have a "name" defense... far from it.
2. When Hasek was traded and the team weakened and still didn't have a name defense and sunk from playoff contention, for three years he was still their #6 at best.
Yeah, obviously McCabe started out on bad teams, but it shouldn't take a rocket scientist to see that being the #1-2 defenseman on teams with 54, 70, 71, 58, and 76 points at ages 20-24 is more impressive than being the #6-8 for teams with 81, 74 and 81 points (all OT points removed) at ages 22-24.
No room? Come on... Rory Fitzpatrick?? Henrik Tallinder? 40-year old James Patrick?
And the criticism of McCabe not being a key defenseman on a playoff team until his 6th season applies to Campbell too, except he was two years older by the time he finally earned that distinction.
That's a really strange way to put it. Almost makes it sound like as soon as they started giving Campbell more ice time, they became better, as though all they had needed all along was to play him more.
It is true that in 07, 08, and 09 he was every bit as key to a long playoff run as McCabe ever was from 01-04, or even slightly more. But it's easy to forget that there was a time when McCabe was a true warrior and beast. From 01-04, he logged 27.86 minutes per game for a strong Leafs team that won 4 playoff series and went 26-25, mostly against the Flyers and Sens. Offense is the main reason one would prefer Campbell, but McCabe was also just as much as an offensive factor in his playoff prime, with 24 points in 51 games (compared to 24 in 46 for Campbell from 07-09)
Florida was a fraud last season. We all know it.
First - Florida hasn't really turned around. They were the beneficiaries of almost every kind of luck imaginable last season. Note that in McCabe's first season with the Panthers, they only had one fewer point than last year's edition, despite having three more wins and a +3 goal differential as opposed to -24. It was all about the 18 OT and shootout wins they put up last year, and those are almost entirely a crapshoot. I'll say it, the 2009 Panthers were definitely a better team that met a worse fate.
Does it say a whole hell of a lot about either of them though? I don't know.
McCabe's best years were mostly with the Leafs, and he wasn't with Kaberle the entire time. It's the post-lockout, joined-at-the-hip McKaberle that people remember though, I understand. I had to make sure my memory wasn't failing me so I checked a bunch of game summaries and in 2001 they were mostly apart, in 2002 mostly together, in 2003 almost entirely apart - it looked like Kaberle and Svehla formed the top pairing and PP unit even though McCabe had the most ES ice time (tougher matchups most likely). the summaries in 2004 (the year McCabe was a 2nd team all-star) definitely also indicate that they were not regular ES partners, though it looks like they played together about 20% of the time.
Last, it appears you're being way too fast to dismiss all the other times McCabe was a heavily relied on player by his coach. They all know a hell of a lot more than us (assuming Mike Farkas is your real name, not Scotty Bowman) and on a very regular basis considered him one of their top-2 defensemen. "The team missed the playoffs? Then the fact that he was a #1 defenseman for them is meaningless!" Sounds like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I realize that if we're in the game of judging the value defensemen to a large degree by ice time, then we also need to consider team strength, but when a guy is on the top pairing year after year after year, that means something. I mean, come on, Buffalo was not a playoff team in 02-04 and Campbell couldn't get higher than 6th on their depth chart, and you're grilling McCabe for being a #1-2 defenseman on teams (like the 97, 98 Isles, 00 Hawks, 06, 07, 08 Leafs, and 09 and 10 Panthers) who were just as strong or stronger.
First of all, where Campbell is headed is irrelevant; there's no projection in these things.
Campbell isn't trending upwards, but you're right that he's not in decline. He was also just 32 the last time he was on the ice. McCabe played until he was 35, so let's see what Campbell does for the next three years before we start making conclusions in this regard. At age 32, McCabe was playing 25:55 a game for a team that was just as strong as the 2012 panthers from a goal differential perspective but weaker in the standings.
Incorrect; he had two pretty strong seasons at age 33 and 34 without Kaberle. He fell off hard, but at 35 and even still was a sought-after deadline acquisition.
He was the #1 in 2004, and by no small margin, either: Two and a half minutes. And that was a beast of a team. Not a lucky team benefitting from a poor division. Furthermore, he was the playoff #1 for the 2002 Leafs that got to round 3, and actually played a bit more than Leetch in the 2004 playoffs.
If we’re playing that game, McCabe led the NHL in icetime in 2006, and with 1.5 more minutes per game than Campbell did this year (with a better but less lucky team than these 2012 Panthers, and he also finished 6th, 7th, and 9th other years. (Campbell’s next best was 14th)
Yes. It’s possible that he could still come from behind…
He had a legitimate shot in his first attention-grabbing (read: high points) season, 2002, but there was no all-star game. In 2003 he was no worse, but was off the first PP unit (and let me be clear, I’m not selling him as a “consistently top 6 in his conference and therefore should have been in the all-star game every year” player). In 2004 the question of why he wasn’t in the ASG is moot, since he was a postseason all-star which is infinitely more important. In 2006 he was a shoo-in but there was no ASG. In 2007 his strong 2006 should have carried him there (plus he did have a 57 point season) but I’m not sure what stopped him. In 2008 he was injured in mid-december through the ASG but probably didn’t have a great shot anyway.
The over-under for ASG appearances for both of these players’ careers is probably about 4, but as you can see, other factors get in the way sometimes. I doubt McCabe is sitting at home lamenting that he never played in one.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
by the way, this is way too good a conversation to be wasted in a MLD semifinal that barely anybody is reading.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I like Campbell better than McCabe, mainly because he has more elite seasons. 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2011-12 were all elite seasons by Campbell. I also think Campbell should be given credit for his role in Chicago's 2010 Cup, rather than actually be docked points for it because he wasn't getting as many minutes. Bascially, I think Campbell hit a sustained level of play that McCabe didn't quite hit, even if McCabe was a legit first pairing defenseman for a lot longer.
Regardless, I look at someone like Jerry Korab, who is historically considered a good #5 in the ATD, and who I faced in the last two ATDs. And I really have trouble figuring out why Korab is considered a #5 in the main draft and Campbell and McCabe fall this far.
Regardless, I look at someone like Jerry Korab, who is historically considered a good #5 in the ATD, and who I faced in the last two ATDs. And I really have trouble figuring out why Korab is considered a #5 in the main draft and Campbell and McCabe fall this far.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
As for this series, in some ways these teams are polar opposites.
Medicine Hat has a first line that is very potent offensively (despite the Russian with the long name not playing his natural position), backed by Brian Campbell. They have good defensive defensemen throughout the lineup and basically three checking lines. Their major weakness is scoring depth.
Winston-Salem has Ulf Nilsson, but other than him, their first unit is unimpressive. But they have far more scoring depth than Medicine Hat. Their defense is much more offensive and less defensive than Medicine Hat's.
The key question of the series: Will Medicine Hat's better first unit help them create more scoring than Winston-Salem's greater scoring depth?
Medicine Hat has a first line that is very potent offensively (despite the Russian with the long name not playing his natural position), backed by Brian Campbell. They have good defensive defensemen throughout the lineup and basically three checking lines. Their major weakness is scoring depth.
Winston-Salem has Ulf Nilsson, but other than him, their first unit is unimpressive. But they have far more scoring depth than Medicine Hat. Their defense is much more offensive and less defensive than Medicine Hat's.
The key question of the series: Will Medicine Hat's better first unit help them create more scoring than Winston-Salem's greater scoring depth?
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
Ah, forget the series, this is good conversation and it's in my wheelhouse...unlike some of this stuff, which is still kind of over my head...(I downloaded some things from that Yahoo group last night and couldn't get past the headings of the columns before I got tired and went to sleep...I'm not a stat-o-saurus yet)
I'll try to multi-quote along here, though normally I just respond with bulleted points...
If it is cherrypicking, it's contextual cherry-picking. The game opened up for the type of d-man that Campbell is on the other side of the lockout. It's evident in his success-followed-by-ice-time history. I'm sure ice time and production increases occured for players like Rafalski, Mark Streit, even Marc-Andre Bergeron because of the rule changes as well. Without it, who knows, maybe Streit is still a swingman or a #6, but now he's a #1 d-man...Bergeron is riding buses probably...it had an impact. We can't all be brutish, rip-the-big-shot, chase-the-big-hit-around-the-rink d-men - ones that populated the C&G era. Someone has to start the play or carry it up the ice without getting distracted.
While McCabe has been getting more minutes for longer, that can be circumstantial...as I've noted, McCabe gets these minutes on poor teams a lot...presumably, he's not beating out very good players for this ice time. It's not a knock on McCabe, per se, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for ice time almost...McCabe has to play more because he's much better than his replacements...because his replacements are the only guys that responded to the ad in the paper...
I mean, he got big minutes on the '98 Islanders? Ok great. Bryan Berard, Kenny Jonsson, Scott Lachance, Rich Pilon, Doug Houda...
The 1999 Canucks have a better defense in retrospect given that young Ohlund and young Jovanovski were on the squad...that's a solid D core...fair is fair. They were 25th out of 27 in goals against that year, but that's probably more attributable to goaltending...
2000 Hawks? Anders Eriksson, Jamie Allison, Boris Mironov, Brad Brown, Sylvain Cote, Doug Zmolek. It's a wonder they didn't do better...
Now for those pre-lockout Leafs teams, the meat of the McCabe career sandwich...Kaberle, Yushkevich, Dave Manson, Danny Markov, Cory Cross, Nathan Dempsey, Wade Belak, Jyrki Lumme (at the end of his run), Anders Eriksson, Svehla, Aki-Petteri Berg, Ric Jackman, the impenetrable Klee-fense, Karel Pilar, Marchment...
Obviously, players come and go from that group...there's some solid guys in there, sure. But when you're talking about legit top-four d-men...what have you? Kaberle, Yushkevich, Svehla...? Am I missing anyone? I'd say Lumme, but this was the very end for him...I don't recall him aging as well as say a Numminen, for instance. Anyway, that's over a four year stretch...
On the other side of the lockout...Kaberle, Klee, Alex Khavanov, Aki Berg, Belak, Staffan Kronwall/Luke Richardson/Andy Wozniewski/Carlo Colaiacovo.
The fact that he was limited to 26, 27, 28 minutes every night is beyond me...that means those other guys were out there for 30+ minutes per night...who else could go out there in a relatively close game? Of course McCabe is going to get these tough matchups...what else could they do? Belak could drop his gloves and hope the scorer trips over them or maybe Aki Berg could jump out from behind the net with a scary mask on....ooooo...
Before the lockout...Campbell was going against (well, with) Dmitri Kalinin, Henrik Tallinder, Alexei Zhitnik, James Patrick, Rory Fitzpatrick and Jay McKee. You have one fringe NHLer at the time - Fitzpatrick. Kalinin was good on Buffalo and then when he left, he turned south and left for more money back home...Patrick was old, sure. Zhitnik ends up looking worse in retrospect, but he was a big part of those Sabres teams, as you know.
The next year, Patrick out, Numminen in...Zhitnik out, Toni Lydman in...and that's it. I'd say the competition probably got slightly harder...Campbell penetrated the lineup and thrived. Next year, more of the same, Fitzpatrick out, another fringe NHLer in (Nathan Paetsch)...Jaroslav Spacek in for Jay McKee. So, no change. Same basic lineup in 2008 as well. Real NHLers. Good ones. Tallinder and Lydman were really good defensive players there.
With Chicago...you're talking Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Brent Sopel, Dustin Byfuglien, Cam Barker...you have two #1 d-men, and if you consider Byfuglien one also (I can't stand him, but it helps my argument to say 3, but I won't...) that's 3...Hammer is a very good 2nd pairing guy in this league...Barker is garbage, that's it...
Florida has a younger defense, so we'll let history sort that out for us...Kulikov and Gudbranson are studs though. If we're still doing this in 15 years, we'll be drafting them in one of these things...
Basically, if we're splitting hairs about 2.5 minutes because McCabe's coach had the choice of putting out Nathan Dempsey and Cory Cross in the last 3 minutes of a game or McCabe and anything...while Campbell's coaches had the choice of real top-4 d-men (Tallinder, Lydman, Zhitnik at the time, McKee) or real Norris candidates (Keith, Seabrook, Byfuglien) all this time...well, then, I guess I'm looking at this wrong.
You keep your two extra shifts in 11th place, I'll keep my copious amounts of playoff games on four different teams since the lockout...
Sure seems that way, doesn't it? You reference "luck" later on in your post. Maybe Campbell is just lucky that everywhere he goes, massive amounts of success happen. One's an accident, two's a trend, three's an epidemic...what's four? I'll say an ATD-worthy d-man at the least...
Fraud? I don't want to steal away from the conversation at hand, but can I get the cliff's notes on these fraud charges? Unless you mean, the Panthers defrauded the Blackhawks in the Brian Campbell trade which propelled the Panthers to the playoffs for the first time in more than a decade...then I understand just fine. /intentionally obtuse
I'll defer to you on this point then if you did the leg work. I was incorrect, point retracted. Any determination on McCabe's regular partners (outside of Kaberle) in that pre-lockout stretch?
I don't want that to be my point at all (that it's worthless to be a #1 d-man on a bad team...*glancing up at the Jay Bouwmeester jersey hanging on my wall* no not at all...) it's that you throw the two and a half minutes (or whatever it is) around and, as I said above, it's just not worth what it looks like. One guy is a top pairing d-man on bad teams for most of his career, playing ahead of bad competition. One guy is a top pairing d-man on a few teams and played like a hundred playoff games in 7 years...and I think was top-10 for the Norris 3 times, was a 4x all-star...the way it seems to work here, Campbell might have been better off being drafted in 2004 (without moving his age) so people could go "well, in 7 years, he was top-10 for the Norris 3 times, and a 4x all-star and a Cup winner..." I think he'd be in the ATD already...but because the same coaches that know better than us held him out of that clutch and grab garbage because it didn't suit him, he's penalized. And maybe that's fair, maybe...but it seems like some other players get a free pass for not being good enough for a long time and then getting to the show (Tim Thomas, for instance) and then Campbell emerges and it's like luck and fraud and fruity coco puffs and the whole thing...but really, it just so happened that two of his crucial developmental years saw the league played in a quagmire of slush and a size 14 skates and 76" wingspans...what did we want to happen?
2004 ES ATOI leaders among D (top 10):
- Willie Mitchell - 6'3/210 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Sergei Gonchar - 6'2/210 / just below HHOF caliber
- Scott Hannan - 6'1/225 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Scott Niedermayer - HHOF d-man
- Ruslan Salei - 6'2/215 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Roman Hamrlik - 6'2/210 - big, physical two-way d-man
- Mattias Ohlund - 6'4/230 - big, physical defensive-minded d-man
- Scott Stevens - 6'2/220 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Nicklas Lidstrom - HHOF d-man
- Adrian Aucion - 6'2/215 - McCabe-ish
So basically...you were either a big, physical d-man...or you were a HHOFer (or both, in the case of Stevens).
Now look at where we're at (same criteria as above):
- Brian Campbell - I think you know him now, smooth-skating offensive d-man
- Duncan Keith - Smooth-skating offensive d-man
- Dan Girardi - Defensive d-man, but not very big. He'd be the smallest defensive d-man on that list above
- Ryan McDonagh - Not a monster like Stevens or anything...he wouldn't look out of place on the list above to be fair...not right in line, but not far off...
- Erik Karlsson - smooth-skating offensive d-man
- Marc-Edouard Vlasic - smooth skating, defensive d-man, maybe like 6', 6'1, 200
- Jay Bouwmeester - smooth skating, defensive-minded d-man - big guy, but doesn't use it...
- Ryan Suter - defensive d-man, 6'/195
- Shea Weber - Ok, McCabe-ish...big guy, chases the big hit, takes the big shot.
- Dustin Byfuglien - McCabe-ish...offensive d-man, horrid defensively
- Dan Boyle - smooth-skating offensive d-man
Well...you can read...it's not what it used to be.
In closing - on the other side of the great divide, when it opened up, Campbell wasn't handed anything. He rose through the ranks and became more prominent than McCabe ever was and had more success than McCabe ever had...
I'll try to multi-quote along here, though normally I just respond with bulleted points...
If it is cherrypicking, it's contextual cherry-picking. The game opened up for the type of d-man that Campbell is on the other side of the lockout. It's evident in his success-followed-by-ice-time history. I'm sure ice time and production increases occured for players like Rafalski, Mark Streit, even Marc-Andre Bergeron because of the rule changes as well. Without it, who knows, maybe Streit is still a swingman or a #6, but now he's a #1 d-man...Bergeron is riding buses probably...it had an impact. We can't all be brutish, rip-the-big-shot, chase-the-big-hit-around-the-rink d-men - ones that populated the C&G era. Someone has to start the play or carry it up the ice without getting distracted.
While McCabe has been getting more minutes for longer, that can be circumstantial...as I've noted, McCabe gets these minutes on poor teams a lot...presumably, he's not beating out very good players for this ice time. It's not a knock on McCabe, per se, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for ice time almost...McCabe has to play more because he's much better than his replacements...because his replacements are the only guys that responded to the ad in the paper...
I mean, he got big minutes on the '98 Islanders? Ok great. Bryan Berard, Kenny Jonsson, Scott Lachance, Rich Pilon, Doug Houda...
The 1999 Canucks have a better defense in retrospect given that young Ohlund and young Jovanovski were on the squad...that's a solid D core...fair is fair. They were 25th out of 27 in goals against that year, but that's probably more attributable to goaltending...
2000 Hawks? Anders Eriksson, Jamie Allison, Boris Mironov, Brad Brown, Sylvain Cote, Doug Zmolek. It's a wonder they didn't do better...
Now for those pre-lockout Leafs teams, the meat of the McCabe career sandwich...Kaberle, Yushkevich, Dave Manson, Danny Markov, Cory Cross, Nathan Dempsey, Wade Belak, Jyrki Lumme (at the end of his run), Anders Eriksson, Svehla, Aki-Petteri Berg, Ric Jackman, the impenetrable Klee-fense, Karel Pilar, Marchment...
Obviously, players come and go from that group...there's some solid guys in there, sure. But when you're talking about legit top-four d-men...what have you? Kaberle, Yushkevich, Svehla...? Am I missing anyone? I'd say Lumme, but this was the very end for him...I don't recall him aging as well as say a Numminen, for instance. Anyway, that's over a four year stretch...
On the other side of the lockout...Kaberle, Klee, Alex Khavanov, Aki Berg, Belak, Staffan Kronwall/Luke Richardson/Andy Wozniewski/Carlo Colaiacovo.
The fact that he was limited to 26, 27, 28 minutes every night is beyond me...that means those other guys were out there for 30+ minutes per night...who else could go out there in a relatively close game? Of course McCabe is going to get these tough matchups...what else could they do? Belak could drop his gloves and hope the scorer trips over them or maybe Aki Berg could jump out from behind the net with a scary mask on....ooooo...
Before the lockout...Campbell was going against (well, with) Dmitri Kalinin, Henrik Tallinder, Alexei Zhitnik, James Patrick, Rory Fitzpatrick and Jay McKee. You have one fringe NHLer at the time - Fitzpatrick. Kalinin was good on Buffalo and then when he left, he turned south and left for more money back home...Patrick was old, sure. Zhitnik ends up looking worse in retrospect, but he was a big part of those Sabres teams, as you know.
The next year, Patrick out, Numminen in...Zhitnik out, Toni Lydman in...and that's it. I'd say the competition probably got slightly harder...Campbell penetrated the lineup and thrived. Next year, more of the same, Fitzpatrick out, another fringe NHLer in (Nathan Paetsch)...Jaroslav Spacek in for Jay McKee. So, no change. Same basic lineup in 2008 as well. Real NHLers. Good ones. Tallinder and Lydman were really good defensive players there.
With Chicago...you're talking Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Brent Sopel, Dustin Byfuglien, Cam Barker...you have two #1 d-men, and if you consider Byfuglien one also (I can't stand him, but it helps my argument to say 3, but I won't...) that's 3...Hammer is a very good 2nd pairing guy in this league...Barker is garbage, that's it...
Florida has a younger defense, so we'll let history sort that out for us...Kulikov and Gudbranson are studs though. If we're still doing this in 15 years, we'll be drafting them in one of these things...
Basically, if we're splitting hairs about 2.5 minutes because McCabe's coach had the choice of putting out Nathan Dempsey and Cory Cross in the last 3 minutes of a game or McCabe and anything...while Campbell's coaches had the choice of real top-4 d-men (Tallinder, Lydman, Zhitnik at the time, McKee) or real Norris candidates (Keith, Seabrook, Byfuglien) all this time...well, then, I guess I'm looking at this wrong.
You keep your two extra shifts in 11th place, I'll keep my copious amounts of playoff games on four different teams since the lockout...
Sure seems that way, doesn't it? You reference "luck" later on in your post. Maybe Campbell is just lucky that everywhere he goes, massive amounts of success happen. One's an accident, two's a trend, three's an epidemic...what's four? I'll say an ATD-worthy d-man at the least...
Fraud? I don't want to steal away from the conversation at hand, but can I get the cliff's notes on these fraud charges? Unless you mean, the Panthers defrauded the Blackhawks in the Brian Campbell trade which propelled the Panthers to the playoffs for the first time in more than a decade...then I understand just fine. /intentionally obtuse
I'll defer to you on this point then if you did the leg work. I was incorrect, point retracted. Any determination on McCabe's regular partners (outside of Kaberle) in that pre-lockout stretch?
I don't want that to be my point at all (that it's worthless to be a #1 d-man on a bad team...*glancing up at the Jay Bouwmeester jersey hanging on my wall* no not at all...) it's that you throw the two and a half minutes (or whatever it is) around and, as I said above, it's just not worth what it looks like. One guy is a top pairing d-man on bad teams for most of his career, playing ahead of bad competition. One guy is a top pairing d-man on a few teams and played like a hundred playoff games in 7 years...and I think was top-10 for the Norris 3 times, was a 4x all-star...the way it seems to work here, Campbell might have been better off being drafted in 2004 (without moving his age) so people could go "well, in 7 years, he was top-10 for the Norris 3 times, and a 4x all-star and a Cup winner..." I think he'd be in the ATD already...but because the same coaches that know better than us held him out of that clutch and grab garbage because it didn't suit him, he's penalized. And maybe that's fair, maybe...but it seems like some other players get a free pass for not being good enough for a long time and then getting to the show (Tim Thomas, for instance) and then Campbell emerges and it's like luck and fraud and fruity coco puffs and the whole thing...but really, it just so happened that two of his crucial developmental years saw the league played in a quagmire of slush and a size 14 skates and 76" wingspans...what did we want to happen?
2004 ES ATOI leaders among D (top 10):
- Willie Mitchell - 6'3/210 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Sergei Gonchar - 6'2/210 / just below HHOF caliber
- Scott Hannan - 6'1/225 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Scott Niedermayer - HHOF d-man
- Ruslan Salei - 6'2/215 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Roman Hamrlik - 6'2/210 - big, physical two-way d-man
- Mattias Ohlund - 6'4/230 - big, physical defensive-minded d-man
- Scott Stevens - 6'2/220 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Nicklas Lidstrom - HHOF d-man
- Adrian Aucion - 6'2/215 - McCabe-ish
So basically...you were either a big, physical d-man...or you were a HHOFer (or both, in the case of Stevens).
Now look at where we're at (same criteria as above):
- Brian Campbell - I think you know him now, smooth-skating offensive d-man
- Duncan Keith - Smooth-skating offensive d-man
- Dan Girardi - Defensive d-man, but not very big. He'd be the smallest defensive d-man on that list above
- Ryan McDonagh - Not a monster like Stevens or anything...he wouldn't look out of place on the list above to be fair...not right in line, but not far off...
- Erik Karlsson - smooth-skating offensive d-man
- Marc-Edouard Vlasic - smooth skating, defensive d-man, maybe like 6', 6'1, 200
- Jay Bouwmeester - smooth skating, defensive-minded d-man - big guy, but doesn't use it...
- Ryan Suter - defensive d-man, 6'/195
- Shea Weber - Ok, McCabe-ish...big guy, chases the big hit, takes the big shot.
- Dustin Byfuglien - McCabe-ish...offensive d-man, horrid defensively
- Dan Boyle - smooth-skating offensive d-man
Well...you can read...it's not what it used to be.
In closing - on the other side of the great divide, when it opened up, Campbell wasn't handed anything. He rose through the ranks and became more prominent than McCabe ever was and had more success than McCabe ever had...
vecens24
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2009
- 5,002
- 1
Yeah I'm going to tend to agree with Mike Farkas about Campbell. I think he's been underrated for a while. I honestly feel he was a top 4 defenseman in the NHL last year (right behind the three Norris finalists, ahead of Girardi and Pietrangelo). So, so, so valuable to that Florida team (that by no means is a "fraud").
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Florida didn't look like a fraud in the playoffs.
IMO, Jason Garrison can thank Campbell for his big contract, but we'll see if I'm right.
IMO, Jason Garrison can thank Campbell for his big contract, but we'll see if I'm right.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
can't those all realistically be cancelled out by McCabe's best seasons, though?
2008 is more or less McCabe's 2004. Both 2nd team all-stars. McCabe as a two-way player; Campbell more offensive-geared.
2012 is more or less McCabe's 2006. Not a postseason all-star, but reasonably close, very close to the league lead in D-man points, led the league in ice time (McCabe with 1.5 minutes more). one made the playoffs but wasn't on any better a team.
2007 is more or less McCabe's 2002 or 2007 (take your pick). In 2007, Campbell was the #1 D-man on a president's trophy winner, but it was with the lowest TOI I've ever seen for a #1 aside from probably the Shero-era Flyers. #4 was within a minute and a half of him. McCabe in 2002 was the Leafs' close #2 (and #1 in the playoffs), with three more minutes per game, the same amount of adjusted points, you'd be hard pressed to convince me 2007 Campbell was better defensively than 2002 McCabe, and they had essentially the same team success - a 3rd round loss. 2007 McCabe was a better player by then, but on a worse (but still underrated) team. He played more than Campbell that year, outscored him fairly significantly, and again, I'd find it hard to believe he wasn't at least as good defensively.
You may still disagree Campbell has three seasons better than McCabe's best three, because based on the above it is obviously arguable, but.... you can't possibly believe they were significantly better, can you? Significantly enough that they outweigh the other 850 or so games in which McCabe was clearly better and more useful?
Yes, of course he should get credit for doing what he did... which was to be the #3 (#4 in the playoffs) defenseman of a cup winner.
But... why does he go from playing 3.5 more minutes per game than #4 Hjalmarsson in the regular season, to 1.5 fewer in the playoffs? That kind of thing never happened with McCabe.... the opposite was more likely to happen.
Yes, and the same can be said for a number of defensemen in that list I posted. And not just Calle Johansson-types who were excellent defensively and not conducive to easy comparisons, but Korab-types who had a McCabeish style.
When you look at that list based on empirical evidence, McCabe comes out pretty darn close to the top and Campbell quite close to the bottom, and that is based just on prime years. It's almost like with Campbell you have to "believe" there's something more than the empirical evidence, but with players of his type it's usually the opposite.
Ad
Latest posts
-
G Damian Clara - Brynäs IF, HockeyAllsvenskan (2023, 60th, ANA)- Latest: Jersey Fan 12
-
