MLD 2016 Finals: Regina Capitals vs. Winnipeg Fighting Fish

[seventieslord]

Regina Capitals

Coach: Jack Adams

Scott Hartnell - Andre Lacroix - Viktor Shalimov
Andre Boudrias - Garry Unger - Eddie Wiseman
Hec Kilrea - Bill Hay (A) - Jason Pominville
Nick Mickoski - Pete Stemkowski - Scott Mellanby (A)

Dunc Munro (C) - Charlie Huddy
Dave Babych - Jack Evans
Marty Burke - Doug Bodger

Seth Martin
Andy Moog

Spares: Bob Murray (D), Martin Straka (F), Bob Turner (D/W), Bob McDougall (RW)

PP1: Hartnell - Lacroix - Shalimov - Babych - Bodger
PP2: Boudrias - Unger - Wiseman - Huddy - Pominville
PK1: Hay - Mickoski - Munro - Burke
PK2: Stemkowski - Pominville - Huddy - Evans

VS

Winnipeg Fighting Fish

Herb Cain - Marc Savard - Bill Goldsworthy
Thomas Vanek - David Krejci - Steve Sullivan
Murph Chamberlain - Mikko Koivu - Charlie Sands
Doc Romnes - Saku Koivu - Mush March
Dennis Maruk - Rabbit McVeigh

Paul Shmyr- Ed Jovanovski
Rick Ley - Mike Green
Kenny Jonsson - Ron Greschner
Haldor Halderson - Weldy Young

Normie Smith
Jean-Sebastien Giguere

Coach: Bruce Boudreau

PP1: Herb Cain - Marc Savard - Bill Goldsworthy - Ron Greschner - Mike Green
PP2: Thomas Vanek - David Krejci - Steve Sullivan - Kenny Jonsson - Ed Jovanovski
PK1: Mikko Koivu - Murphy Chamberlain - Paul Shmyr - Ed Jovanovski
PK2: David Krecji - Steve Sullivan - Rick Ley - Kenny Jonsson
PK3: Saku Koivu - Charlie Sands - The most rested defence pairing
​

Click to read more...

 

[jarek]

I vote for Winnipeg because seventies has won too many times.

 

[Hedberg]

I vote for Winnipeg because seventies has won too many times.

If the Golden State Warriors can lose, why not seventies?

 

[seventieslord]

Superficial comparisons:

At scoring line center, I think Regina has the marginal edge. Lacroix and Unger both have VsX edges over their Winnipeg counterparts. In Lacroix's case, he is also the better two-way player to some degree, and though his playoff record is thoroughly weak, it's no worse than Savard's on the whole. Unger has a sizeable edge as an offensive producer on Krejci, but the latter does bridge the gap with a MacLeish-like offensive playoff peak.

At scoring line wings:

Shalimov 506
Wiseman 496
Vanek 481
Sullivan 474
Goldsworthy 463
Cain 456
Boudrias 454
Hartnell 407

It's an interesting one. Regina has the two guys who are quite clearly the best offensively (assuming you are cool with the USSR equivalencies) but also the one who's clearly the worst. If you were to add up the six scores, Winnipeg has a 0.6% edge in offensive production. That is well within the margin of error, meaning that this is even talent-wise. It's probably a question of which lines have players who are going to help out in areas other than scoring, to better balance out the lines. From what I can tell, Regina has Boudrias and Hartnell (both loaded with intangibles) and Winnipeg has Goldsworthy (a somewhat robust, quasi-power forward type player) and the other five bring no intangibles worth writing home about. I would have to conclude that Regina's lines bring a more diverse and complete set of skills and are therefore better equipped for this series.

 

[seventieslord]

Bottom sixes

I think Hay and Koivu are fairly even. In terms of defensive reputation, both are in the same range. Offensively, they have almost the exact same VsX over 7 years. Hay's looks better on the basis that his points were just 26% PP (compared to 36% PP for Koivu), but he also had more linemate help. They are too close to call. Sands and Pominville are a couple of "just gritty enough to play down in the lineup" scoring ringers. Pominville has a sizeable offensive edge, however. On the left, Kilrea is the better scorer but Chamberlain is an intangibles beast. As a result, it's Winnipeg's line that brings better overall checking, but Regina's is far stronger on the counterattack.

Winnipeg's Mush March is the creme de la creme of 4th line MLD wingers. Mellanby is a tough SOB with underrated offense but he's no March. On the other hand, Stemkowski is a big upgrade on Koivu. Offensively, they are equal in prime offense, but then consider Stemmer only scored 10% of his points on the PP as opposed to 34% for Saku, and he's well equipped for this role, while also being a better all-around player for this kind of role. If they were scoring line players with PP roles then Saku might win this comparison. On the left side, Romnes has a good 24% edge on Mickoski in offensive production, but:

- Mickoski is very goal heavy, Romnes very assist heavy,
- Mickoski was definitely a LW, but Romnes' best offensive years seem to have been at center; can we give him full credit for this as a LW?
- Mickoski seems to be a better suited 4th liner with his size, robust checking and defensive game.

March certainly helps, but I think Regina's line will do a better job here.

 

[seventieslord]

Defense

Regina has three guys who can be compared in a preliminary fashion to four guys on Winnipeg:

Babych 81-88 26.02 0.93 25.40
Bodger 87-94 24.95 1.05 25.35
Huddy 83-90 23.06 1.31 25.21
Murray 78-85 24.60 1.02 24.76
Green 08-15 23.49 1.15 24.60
Jovanovski 00-08 24.01 1.05 24.40
Greschner 75-82 24.23 0.98 24.07
Jonsson 97-04 24.12 0.93 23.5

I think it's fair to say that Regina's three (and Murray, for that matter) were typically more relied on by better teams than the guys on Winnipeg. However, it's worth noting that Regina has no one who's particularly earth shattering in this regard (look on the leaguewide list) and Winnipeg has no one terrible either. It does seem to tilt in our favour, however.

Looking at the guys who can't be fairly compared using NHL TOI, Winnipeg has Shmyr (who'd probably fit right in with Babych if he had a full NHL career) and Ley (who'd probably fit around Huddy). So we're talking about a team with a formidable corps here.

On Regina, we have three of the same exemplary defensive players we somehow keep finding ourselves able to draft year after year - Munro (who is basically equal to Paul Shmyr), Evans (who can't be below anyone but Munro/Shmyr/Bodger) and Burke (who could arguably be "only" at a Jovanovski level I suppose). If I had to rank these 12 guys, and keeping in mind it's fairly tight from top to bottom, I'd have to say:

Munro/Shmyr
Babych
Evans
Bodger/Huddy/Ley
Green/Jovanovski/Burke
Greschner/Jonsson

As solid as Winnipeg's defense is (perhaps 2nd best in this draft), I think Regina has assembled a group of guys that trumps any in this draft. (did I just use "trump" in a sentence that wasn't political? wow, it's been a while...)

However, that's only looking at "overall" value and usefulness. Perhaps we should check their offense, just to make sure we've both taken care of that end of things. Here are the best 7 year VsXD scores for our defensemen:

Green 601
Babych 555
Greschner 530
Jovanovski 469
Bodger 413
Huddy 392
Shmyr 381
Jonsson 352
Ley 296
Munro 259
Burke 233
Evans 193

it's a pattern: one winnipeg, one regina. two winnipeg, two regina. three winnipeg, three regina. Clearly there is a greater history of offensive production on Winnipeg's blueline. Even if they are not as great an "overall" corps, it should be noted that they have better production potential in this series, particularly on the PP. (Greschner's number may be inflated due to time at forward, but not likely enough that the pattern changes).

 

[seventieslord]

- I personally think Seth Martin is better than Normie Smith, but I can't prove it, and I doubt anyone can prove me wrong, either. Like most goalie comparisons in this MLD, it seems it will have to end in a stalemate. However, Moog is definitely better than Giguere, isn't he? Giguere has that playoff peak but Moog has a whole career of being considered a top-end goalie.

- Would anyone disagree that Jack Adams is definitely superior to Bruce Boudreau at this point in history?

 

[VanIslander]

- I personally think Seth Martin is better than Normie Smith

Your goalie is better than the other team's? Maybe.

But Normie is a two-time back-to-back Stanley Cup champion, 1st in NHL wins both of those regular seasons, Vezina and 1st team all-star in his 2nd cup victory regular season, pretty much equivalent to Bernie Parent in terms of NHL accomplishments.

Seth Martin, in contrast, is a question mark: He has 8 wins in 30 NHL games played (granted, for an expansion club), and while he was pulled in both of his two only NHL playoff games, he is renowned for his amateur play with the Trail Smoke Eaters in international play.

I don't call that even, I call that a clear advantage to Normie Smith, especially in the playoffs!

 

[seventieslord]

Your goalie is better than the other team's? Maybe.

But Normie is a two-time back-to-back Stanley Cup champion, 1st in NHL wins both of those regular seasons, Vezina and 1st team all-star in his 2nd cup victory regular season, pretty much equivalent to Bernie Parent in terms of NHL accomplishments.

So let me get this straight:

- one narrowly-won first team all-star (at a time when data indicates it was nearly synonymous with the GAA-based Vezina) at a time when that is widely acknowledged as being weak for top-end goaltenders, is "pretty much" equivalent to two modern day Vezinas over Dryden, Esposito and Vachon (one by a landslide)?
- one (retro) playoff mvp is "pretty much" equivalent to two actual ones?

does that about sum up your position?

Seth Martin, in contrast, is a question mark: He has 8 wins in 30 NHL games played (granted, for an expansion club), and while he was pulled in both of his two only NHL playoff games, he is renowned for his amateur play with the Trail Smoke Eaters in international play.

I don't call that even, I call that a clear advantage to Normie Smith, especially in the playoffs!

That's really strange that you would choose now as the time to somehow forget that most/all people in this section, when dealing with players with extensive careers but little to no nhl games, treat their international records as somewhat of a playoff resume. Or that Seth Martin was voted the best goalie at the world championships four times by people who watched him, including at least one time unanimously by over 200 international writers. If you wish to remain sharp on the history side of things, you'll need to hit the books, man. Do some bio reading. Give JM's keeper league, donut's fantasy draft and the night witch supplement draft a break, and start here: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=120406971&postcount=20

(Seth Martin was a 34 year old nhl rookie who posted better numbers than Glenn hall did for the same team, I'm sure you were aware. What I'm sure you weren't aware of is that Martin was never pulled from a playoff game - he relieved Hall twice when the former was having a bad outing. Classic case of not wanting to let facts get in the way of a good story. If the truth matters to you at all, I expect you'll edit your post)

See:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?O19680017

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/poboxscore.cgi?O19680035

 

[seventieslord]

Your goalie is better than the other team's? Maybe.

But Normie is a two-time back-to-back Stanley Cup champion, 1st in NHL wins both of those regular seasons, Vezina and 1st team all-star in his 2nd cup victory regular season, pretty much equivalent to Bernie Parent in terms of NHL accomplishments.

Seth Martin, in contrast, is a question mark: He has 8 wins in 30 NHL games played (granted, for an expansion club), and while he was pulled in both of his two only NHL playoff games, he is renowned for his amateur play with the Trail Smoke Eaters in international play.

I don't call that even, I call that a clear advantage to Normie Smith, especially in the playoffs!

and don't think I didn't see what you did there when you claimed Martin had "8 wins in 30 NHL games played" - while technically true, he only had 25 decisions including an uncommonly high 7 ties for a win% of .460, far different from the .267 you attempt to paint it as. What's truly laughable about all this is how every year when you shine up the ol' Ernie Wakely turd, you do the exact opposite for him:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=29151376&postcount=100
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=41669825&postcount=218
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=74393085&postcount=667
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=111299865&postcount=138

every single time you say he "lost only 14 games in 51 starts" in 1970, never correcting it yourself in subsequent drafts, relying on me to do the fact checking for you. In both cases it's super convenient for you that the goalies' number of decisions and GP are quite different figures, and that they played for a tie-heavy team. Wakely's .567 win% in 1970, while still good, was not the .725 you attempted to slip past us. I just think it's funny that you'll employ such blatant partisanship when judging these goalies - you could have also said Martin "only lost 10 of 30 games" or that Wakely "only won 21 of 51 games, but it's really all about the narrative you want to present, isn't it?

 

[Hedberg]

For the most part a fair analysis as usual seventies. I will add some more detailed thoughts a bit later.

 

[seventieslord]

For the most part a fair analysis as usual seventies. I will add some more detailed thoughts a bit later.

If you've got anything to say, you should take a moment and say it. I don't mind the series being long, as long as there's back and forth going on. But if it's just days of silence we should vote and be done with it. Hopefully we can discuss some more.

 

[Hedberg]

- I endorse the forward comparisons

I think it's fair to say that Regina's three (and Murray, for that matter) were typically more relied on by better teams than the guys on Winnipeg.

At this level, quality of team is a plus, but also seems unfair to hold it against guys that may or may not have been equally relied upon if they'd been on a different situation (like late 90s Jonsson probably could've played high minutes on a good team)

As solid as Winnipeg's defense is (perhaps 2nd best in this draft), I think Regina has assembled a group of guys that trumps any in this draft. (did I just use "trump" in a sentence that wasn't political? wow, it's been a while...)

Yeah, this is Winnipeg's issue on defence. Unless you believe in a moneyball approach that offensive product will outweigh defensive liabilities (it's up in the air how well this applies to hockey. I think it definitely applies to Mike Green, but I don't know about a guy like Jovanovski), it's hard to make a case that Winnipeg has the traditional defensive skills of Regina

So the series probably boils down to run-and-gun offense versus "intangibles", an admittedly difficult position for the road team to take.

 

[seventieslord]

- I endorse the forward comparisons


At this level, quality of team is a plus, but also seems unfair to hold it against guys that may or may not have been equally relied upon if they'd been on a different situation (like late 90s Jonsson probably could've played high minutes on a good team)

I think we could say any player may or may not have had different TOI stats on a different team, and it's all speculation. What we do know is that a player's TOI will tend to go up on a worse team, and down if they move to a better/deeper team. We've seen many examples.

So by factoring in team quality, I'm attempting to "normalize" everyone's minutes to a similar team situation. I think generally speaking, a guy who played 26 minutes but for horrible teams would have played less than that on an average team, and a guy who played 21 minutes for excellent teams would have played more on an average team.

It's certainly not an exact science, but it does go in the direction the data leads us, at least.

Yeah, this is Winnipeg's issue on defence. Unless you believe in a moneyball approach that offensive product will outweigh defensive liabilities (it's up in the air how well this applies to hockey. I think it definitely applies to Mike Green, but I don't know about a guy like Jovanovski), it's hard to make a case that Winnipeg has the traditional defensive skills of Regina

So the series probably boils down to run-and-gun offense versus "intangibles", an admittedly difficult position for the road team to take.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't moneyball more about looking deeper than just the surface statistics and focusing on advanced numbers to get an edge? If that's the case, I don't think any team in this series could claim they're more of a moneyball team, because it's impossible to prove to any extent. Your guys were typically higher scorers, yes, but my guys (particularly the three from the pre-TOI era) were more highly regarded as all-around, or at least defensive players, and if advanced stats existed, there's no telling what it might have said about them. maybe they were possession driving players who did little things that led to winning hockey games. Perhaps they were plugs who blocked so many shots and cleared the crease so often because they spent so much time in their own ends (to quote a common way that advanced stats have betrayed some modern defensemen previously seen as heroes). I don't know if that all makes sense...

 

[jarek]

I read about Moneyball before (we're referring to the movie, right?). It was about Billy Beane's attempt to evaluate baseball players using advanced metrics as opposed to the traditional eye test, superficial numbers approach. The point was to help low budget teams (in this case, his) identify potentially undervalued talent in order to maximize the value of drafting and developing players. Interestingly, at least according to the movie, the 2004 Boston Red Sox used that model to win the World Series.

In short, I don't think Moneyball has really anything to do in this series.

 

[Hedberg]

I read about Moneyball before (we're referring to the movie, right?). It was about Billy Beane's attempt to evaluate baseball players using advanced metrics as opposed to the traditional eye test, superficial numbers approach. The point was to help low budget teams (in this case, his) identify potentially undervalued talent in order to maximize the value of drafting and developing players. Interestingly, at least according to the movie, the 2004 Boston Red Sox used that model to win the World Series.

In short, I don't think Moneyball has really anything to do in this series.

Yes, this is correct, I'm not meaning in the overall construction of the team, just that part of their philosophy early on was to ignore defense metrics and worry only about scoring runs (partially because their metrics made it far easier to identify undervalued hiters). Now, I think defence is probably more important in hockey than baseball with it being a transitional game. The comment was more of an aside than a serious argument.

 

[seventieslord]

It's probably time we vote and put this MLD out of its misery, eh?

 

[Hedberg]

It's probably time we vote and put this MLD out of its misery, eh?

I hope there's voters left

 

[seventieslord]

I hope there's voters left

Someone's winning 2-1.

 

[VanIslander]

Just voted.

Considering playoff accomplishments,... the decision was easier.

 

[seventieslord]

Just voted.

Considering playoff accomplishments,... the decision was easier.

The notable (from an ATD standpoint) playoff performers in this series are Adams, Shalimov, Stemkowski, Huddy and Martin for Regina, and Krejci and Smith for Winnipeg.

As for players/coaches who disappointed in the playoffs, The obvious are Regina's Lacroix and Winnipeg's Boudreau, Vanek, Sullivan and Green.

Everyone else has a playoff record pretty close to expectations based on their ability and the degree of opportunity they received, at least within one standard deviation, anyway.

Do you agree? Have I missed anyone?

18-12 in Stanley Cups for Regina, among the starters and coaches, in case you think that matters. (it doesn't matter very much)

Hedberg - Vanislander will never reply to this so you might want to weigh in. I want to make sure that's a fair assessment.

 

[Iceman]

I'll vote tonight (my time)

 

[tony d]

Just voted.

 

[Hedberg]

The notable (from an ATD standpoint) playoff performers in this series are Adams, Shalimov, Stemkowski, Huddy and Martin for Regina, and Krejci and Smith for Winnipeg.

As for players/coaches who disappointed in the playoffs, The obvious are Regina's Lacroix and Winnipeg's Boudreau, Vanek, Sullivan and Green.

Everyone else has a playoff record pretty close to expectations based on their ability and the degree of opportunity they received, at least within one standard deviation, anyway.

Do you agree? Have I missed anyone?

18-12 in Stanley Cups for Regina, among the starters and coaches, in case you think that matters. (it doesn't matter very much)

Hedberg - Vanislander will never reply to this so you might want to weigh in. I want to make sure that's a fair assessment.

It's not an argument I value too much due to dependence on sample size and supporting cast, but that seems fair. I guess Sullivan is a bit of a disappointment, but he was often in the situation where he was the guy for a better team to focus on shutting down and clearly wasn't that level of player. But that's only a minor issue.

 

[seventieslord]

It's not an argument I value too much due to dependence on sample size and supporting cast, but that seems fair. I guess Sullivan is a bit of a disappointment, but he was often in the situation where he was the guy for a better team to focus on shutting down and clearly wasn't that level of player. But that's only a minor issue.

I was thinking about it more, and though Adams looks good as a playoff coach in this draft, I don't think I could list him as an outlier. He did about as well as expected, and that's all.