MLD11 Mickey Ion Final: Regina Capitals (1) vs. Amherst Ramblers (2)
- Thread starter seventieslord
- Start date
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Pasting in my roster post since it is linked to my bios. Makes it easier for comparisons.... and for voting, hopefully...
Regina Capitals
GM: seventieslord
Coach:Eddie Gerard
Ryan Smyth-Craig Janney-Bill Goldsworthy
Simon Gagne-Normie Himes-Cully Wilson
Fred Scanlan (A)-Cal Gardner-Leroy Goldsworthy
Walter Smaill-Josef Golonka (C)-Konstantin Loktev
Hamby Shore (A)-Fred Lake
Moose Dupont-Ron Stackhouse
Wade Redden-Dunc Munro (A)
Tom Barrasso
Wilf Cude
spares:
Slim Halderson (D/RW)
Steamer Maxwell (F)
Art Farrell (RW)
GM: seventieslord
Coach:Eddie Gerard
Ryan Smyth-Craig Janney-Bill Goldsworthy
Simon Gagne-Normie Himes-Cully Wilson
Fred Scanlan (A)-Cal Gardner-Leroy Goldsworthy
Walter Smaill-Josef Golonka (C)-Konstantin Loktev
Hamby Shore (A)-Fred Lake
Moose Dupont-Ron Stackhouse
Wade Redden-Dunc Munro (A)
Tom Barrasso
Wilf Cude
spares:
Slim Halderson (D/RW)
Steamer Maxwell (F)
Art Farrell (RW)
This is going to be a very good series. I had a really tough time deciding which of you to place aove the other in regular season voting. Will likely com down to the debat for me.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I got the impression pretty early in the draft, that Amherst would be the team I'd need to beat if I wanted to win the division. Sure enough, here we are.
Rzeznik
Registered User
Just the same as you said seventies, it was clear early on that you would have one of the teams to beat for the division, so I'm very happy to get the chance in the division finals. As a rookie I'm very surprised to have made it this far, but we can just call it beginners luck for now.
Early Impressions:
Amherst Advantages - Top-6, Coaching
Regina Advantages - Bottom-6, Goaltending
Defense in a wash, with debate playing a big part here. Were are very even all around though, and it should be a well fought series. I'll elaborate a lot more soon.
Early Impressions:
Amherst Advantages - Top-6, Coaching
Regina Advantages - Bottom-6, Goaltending
Defense in a wash, with debate playing a big part here. Were are very even all around though, and it should be a well fought series. I'll elaborate a lot more soon.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Our goalie can carry us through this series, but he won't have to. Defense is not a wash! More on that later.
Not nearly enough discussion yet...I must change that!
Amherst has a better defence an better goaltending!
*Runs away*
Amherst has a better defence an better goaltending!
*Runs away*
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
OMFG. I had an entire defense corps review written up. I was done 5 of the 6 and was just a couple of sentences into the 6th.
I even had the whole thing saved (copied in the clipboard) from about halfway through the 4th comparison just in case there was a crash or something.
Then it happened: "Internet explorer has experienced a problem with an add-on and needs to close".
it hasn't opened since. And you guessed it, it erased the clipboard, too, even though the clipboard is a windows utility that allows the pasting of data from one program to another.
So here I am on firefox, rewriting everything...
I even had the whole thing saved (copied in the clipboard) from about halfway through the 4th comparison just in case there was a crash or something.
Then it happened: "Internet explorer has experienced a problem with an add-on and needs to close".
it hasn't opened since. And you guessed it, it erased the clipboard, too, even though the clipboard is a windows utility that allows the pasting of data from one program to another.
So here I am on firefox, rewriting everything...
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Let's compare our defensemen from #1-6:
Shore vs. Jonsson:
Shore was a highly significant player to his era. He was the #1 defenseman on two Stanley Cup champions. Jonsson played 19 playoff games in 10 NHL seasons. Don't get me wrong, I like Jonsson a lot. I think he performed with great poise as a Leafs rookie and sophomore; I appreciate his performance on a mostly poor Isles team after that, and of course he has been great in international play. But he's no Shore. Offensively, there is a major gap. Shore was 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 6th among NHA defensemen. Keeping in mind that the NHA was like a half-league, that still translates into 7 times in the top-12. Jonsson peaked at 40 points, which was good for 24th among all NHL defensemen. Defensively, Jonsson is known as the steady guy but Shore was no slouch there either. He was considered untouchable by Ottawa management for a reason and a couple of the quotes I posted show that he was known as a good defender. In toughness, they are not even close. Shore was a tough guy who was frequently laying out big hits and made the PIM leaders. Jonsson was, comparatively, docile. In the grand scheme of things, Shore was one of the more significant players of his time, and relatively, Jonsson was just a face in the crowd.Major Edge: Shore.
Lake vs. Baker:
By virtue of being in the HHOF, Baker is almost surely a better player than Lake. But is he a better defenseman? Baker is listed as a rover in his bios, but for some reason keeps getting used on MLD bluelines even though the convention is to consider rovers as forwards. Offensively, little is known about Baker's stats except that he led a college league in points one year (presumably as a forward). Of course, the anecdotes about his speed and stickhandling capabilities tells me that he will be quite the offensive force from the blueline regardless. Defensively, Lake, a natural defenseman, has to have the edge. He was the solid, steady half of the Lakeshore pairing and seemed to have a calming influence on Shore. He's a forward-turned defenseman and was a decent scorer in a few leagues prior to his switch. He placed 3rd and 5th among defensemen in scoring afterwards, so he was not offensively inept. Physically, it's not even close. Lake was calmer than shore, but according to the stories, could lay the body. Based on PIM totals, I don't think he was a major force, but Baker is perhaps the biggest gentleman in hockey history. Edge: Baker.
Dupont vs. Rochefort:
Two players who were almost contemporaries, their careers overlapped by three years, when they were teammates in Quebec. Still, comparisons are fairly easy between these two players who played in similar NHLs. Offensively, Dupont has the edge. He was never among the higher-scoring defensemen, but he did four times have more points than Rochefort ever had in a season. (goals were easier to come by for everyone in the 80s, and he actually has the best five seasons of the two in adjusted points). Defensively, they are fairly even. both were relied upon equally for their penalty killing skills (0.35 and 0.36 PPGA/GP in their career) - Dupont finished his career with a very nice +94 relative to his Philadelphia Flyer teammates; Rochefort came out with a respectable +32. physically, we don't need to go to deep into. Dupont is Dupont. An original Broad Street Bully. Rochefort was adequate physically, but no bully. In the playoffs, Dupont had a wealth of experience. He played 140 points and scored 32 points, and was a valued member of two Cup winners and two more finalists. Rochefort got into half as many games, 69, scoring 12 points. Lastly, let's look at their legacies and how they were perceived by people at the time. Dumont was 10th and 12th in Norris voting so he was at least considered in the league of the best for a short time. He also got into one All-Star Game. Rochefort never showed up in Norris or All-Star voting and never made the all-star game. As solid as he was, he wasn't special. His claim to fame, however, is playing for canada in the 1987 Canada Cup. Major edge: Dupont.
Stackhouse vs. Maloney:
Two players who were both very valuable for very different reasons. they are contemporaries and easily comparable. First, offensively. Stackhouse takes this one. he was 3rd, 6th, 12th, 12th, 15th, 15th in scoring by defensemen. Maloney did put up 47-50 points in three straight years during the 1980s, but goals were much easier to come by and this was good for 20th, 21st, and 30th, among NHL defensemen. Defensively, I am going to call them even. Both were valued penalty killers, with Stackhouse facing 0.38 PPGA/GP and Maloney allowing 0.35. Maloney has an excellent career adjusted +/- of +80, but Stackhouse has one of the best ratings of all-time: +186. Stackhouse is unfairly remembered as an offensive specialist, but the numbers just don't support this. This comes from the mistake-prone reputation he earned as a 21-year old rookie on the California Golden Seals. After that, I see little evidence that he had problems in his own end, both from stats, and from quotes about his play. Maloney, too, was solid. Physically, it's not close. Maloney is a Maloney; obviously he is tough. Stackhouse had great size, but didn't use it enough. This may have had something to do with why he earned the "offense only" tag even though he appeared to be positionally solid despite the lack of hitting and fighting. Maloney did get into a good number more playoff games than Stackhouse, and put up more points. He earned his warrior reputation honestly. As for how they were regarded at the time, Stackhouse was in the top-15 in All-Star voting four times and Norris voting twice. Maloney's name never shows up. I think he was one of those guys who was always a good #2 guy but never broke that glass ceiling into the elite realm, like Stackhouse briefly did. Still, there is something to be said for physical intimidation, and Maloney brings that. Even.
Redden vs. Ellett:
Two somewhat similar players as they were mostly known for their offensive skills, while ranging from average to solid (not spectacular) defensively in their careers. Offensively, Redden has the edge, having finished 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th among NHL defensemen in points. Ellett was not too far behind, finishing 15th, 15th, and 20th in his three best seasons. Defensively, I also give Redden the edge, and here's why: They were similar offensively, but Redden was able to turn this into five seasons in the top-12 in Norris voting (5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th), by playing a simple, solid game in his own zone. Although Ellett was never a liability, he was known as more of a specialist early on. Later in the career we saw two drastic changes. Redden was average in 2008 and brutal in 2009, but this represents a small portion of his career. Ellett after 1994 saw his offense mostly dry up and he began to focus more on his own zone and was still good at lugging the puck out of his end. Still, he was never able to do both at a high level at the same time, and Redden was, and this is why one guy was top-12 in Norris voting 5 times, and one was never in the top-15. Physically, it is a wash. both guys were adequate physically but it was from their strong point. Overall, Redden has left a much larger mark on hockey history.Major edge: Redden.
Munro vs. Fogolin:
Two very similar players considering they played 50 years apart. Both were stocky stay-at-home guys who weren't known for offense or great skating, and they had excellent leadership qualities. Fogolin was more of a traditional stay at home guy which was obviously very important for the 1980s Oilers. As a result, Munro was a more significant offensive player in his time. He was not a big point producer but placed 9th and 11th among defensemen in points, and there are anecdotes about his ability to rush the puck through a team. That's not really Fogolin's game. According to this, Fogolin was the 59th-highest scoring defenseman of his time, or roughly 3rd on most teams: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
Munro was 13th in his time: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
Fogolin is more fresh in our memories as a solid defender, but Munro had the same things said about him 50 years before. In toughness, they are more or less equal, both playing physically in their own zone. Fogolin never showed up in Norris or All-Star voting and though there is no detailed voting existing from Munro's time, I suspect that he was frequently among the top-10 defensemen in the game. I understand this is conjecture, though. I will say that I think Munro was, overall, a more significant player in his time than Fogolin was. Edge: Munro.
Conclusion: With three major edges, one edge, and a draw, with the lone edge going to the dazzling Baker, Regina's defense corps is decidedly better. A little more research of earlier eras would have gone a long way for Amherst, as ultimately they rounded out their corps with 5 modern players who were all above-average players but not hugely significant to their time. Jonsson's 12th-place finish in Norris voting is the sole elite season had by any of these modern players, compared to 9 between Regina's three modern defensemen: Stackhouse, Redden, and Dupont.
This is what I mean when I say defense is not a wash.
Tomorrow, or perhaps later tonight, I'm going to try to get to the bottom of Amherst's supposed advantage in the top-6 forwards.
Shore vs. Jonsson:
Shore was a highly significant player to his era. He was the #1 defenseman on two Stanley Cup champions. Jonsson played 19 playoff games in 10 NHL seasons. Don't get me wrong, I like Jonsson a lot. I think he performed with great poise as a Leafs rookie and sophomore; I appreciate his performance on a mostly poor Isles team after that, and of course he has been great in international play. But he's no Shore. Offensively, there is a major gap. Shore was 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 6th among NHA defensemen. Keeping in mind that the NHA was like a half-league, that still translates into 7 times in the top-12. Jonsson peaked at 40 points, which was good for 24th among all NHL defensemen. Defensively, Jonsson is known as the steady guy but Shore was no slouch there either. He was considered untouchable by Ottawa management for a reason and a couple of the quotes I posted show that he was known as a good defender. In toughness, they are not even close. Shore was a tough guy who was frequently laying out big hits and made the PIM leaders. Jonsson was, comparatively, docile. In the grand scheme of things, Shore was one of the more significant players of his time, and relatively, Jonsson was just a face in the crowd.Major Edge: Shore.
Lake vs. Baker:
By virtue of being in the HHOF, Baker is almost surely a better player than Lake. But is he a better defenseman? Baker is listed as a rover in his bios, but for some reason keeps getting used on MLD bluelines even though the convention is to consider rovers as forwards. Offensively, little is known about Baker's stats except that he led a college league in points one year (presumably as a forward). Of course, the anecdotes about his speed and stickhandling capabilities tells me that he will be quite the offensive force from the blueline regardless. Defensively, Lake, a natural defenseman, has to have the edge. He was the solid, steady half of the Lakeshore pairing and seemed to have a calming influence on Shore. He's a forward-turned defenseman and was a decent scorer in a few leagues prior to his switch. He placed 3rd and 5th among defensemen in scoring afterwards, so he was not offensively inept. Physically, it's not even close. Lake was calmer than shore, but according to the stories, could lay the body. Based on PIM totals, I don't think he was a major force, but Baker is perhaps the biggest gentleman in hockey history. Edge: Baker.
Dupont vs. Rochefort:
Two players who were almost contemporaries, their careers overlapped by three years, when they were teammates in Quebec. Still, comparisons are fairly easy between these two players who played in similar NHLs. Offensively, Dupont has the edge. He was never among the higher-scoring defensemen, but he did four times have more points than Rochefort ever had in a season. (goals were easier to come by for everyone in the 80s, and he actually has the best five seasons of the two in adjusted points). Defensively, they are fairly even. both were relied upon equally for their penalty killing skills (0.35 and 0.36 PPGA/GP in their career) - Dupont finished his career with a very nice +94 relative to his Philadelphia Flyer teammates; Rochefort came out with a respectable +32. physically, we don't need to go to deep into. Dupont is Dupont. An original Broad Street Bully. Rochefort was adequate physically, but no bully. In the playoffs, Dupont had a wealth of experience. He played 140 points and scored 32 points, and was a valued member of two Cup winners and two more finalists. Rochefort got into half as many games, 69, scoring 12 points. Lastly, let's look at their legacies and how they were perceived by people at the time. Dumont was 10th and 12th in Norris voting so he was at least considered in the league of the best for a short time. He also got into one All-Star Game. Rochefort never showed up in Norris or All-Star voting and never made the all-star game. As solid as he was, he wasn't special. His claim to fame, however, is playing for canada in the 1987 Canada Cup. Major edge: Dupont.
Stackhouse vs. Maloney:
Two players who were both very valuable for very different reasons. they are contemporaries and easily comparable. First, offensively. Stackhouse takes this one. he was 3rd, 6th, 12th, 12th, 15th, 15th in scoring by defensemen. Maloney did put up 47-50 points in three straight years during the 1980s, but goals were much easier to come by and this was good for 20th, 21st, and 30th, among NHL defensemen. Defensively, I am going to call them even. Both were valued penalty killers, with Stackhouse facing 0.38 PPGA/GP and Maloney allowing 0.35. Maloney has an excellent career adjusted +/- of +80, but Stackhouse has one of the best ratings of all-time: +186. Stackhouse is unfairly remembered as an offensive specialist, but the numbers just don't support this. This comes from the mistake-prone reputation he earned as a 21-year old rookie on the California Golden Seals. After that, I see little evidence that he had problems in his own end, both from stats, and from quotes about his play. Maloney, too, was solid. Physically, it's not close. Maloney is a Maloney; obviously he is tough. Stackhouse had great size, but didn't use it enough. This may have had something to do with why he earned the "offense only" tag even though he appeared to be positionally solid despite the lack of hitting and fighting. Maloney did get into a good number more playoff games than Stackhouse, and put up more points. He earned his warrior reputation honestly. As for how they were regarded at the time, Stackhouse was in the top-15 in All-Star voting four times and Norris voting twice. Maloney's name never shows up. I think he was one of those guys who was always a good #2 guy but never broke that glass ceiling into the elite realm, like Stackhouse briefly did. Still, there is something to be said for physical intimidation, and Maloney brings that. Even.
Redden vs. Ellett:
Two somewhat similar players as they were mostly known for their offensive skills, while ranging from average to solid (not spectacular) defensively in their careers. Offensively, Redden has the edge, having finished 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th among NHL defensemen in points. Ellett was not too far behind, finishing 15th, 15th, and 20th in his three best seasons. Defensively, I also give Redden the edge, and here's why: They were similar offensively, but Redden was able to turn this into five seasons in the top-12 in Norris voting (5th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th), by playing a simple, solid game in his own zone. Although Ellett was never a liability, he was known as more of a specialist early on. Later in the career we saw two drastic changes. Redden was average in 2008 and brutal in 2009, but this represents a small portion of his career. Ellett after 1994 saw his offense mostly dry up and he began to focus more on his own zone and was still good at lugging the puck out of his end. Still, he was never able to do both at a high level at the same time, and Redden was, and this is why one guy was top-12 in Norris voting 5 times, and one was never in the top-15. Physically, it is a wash. both guys were adequate physically but it was from their strong point. Overall, Redden has left a much larger mark on hockey history.Major edge: Redden.
Munro vs. Fogolin:
Two very similar players considering they played 50 years apart. Both were stocky stay-at-home guys who weren't known for offense or great skating, and they had excellent leadership qualities. Fogolin was more of a traditional stay at home guy which was obviously very important for the 1980s Oilers. As a result, Munro was a more significant offensive player in his time. He was not a big point producer but placed 9th and 11th among defensemen in points, and there are anecdotes about his ability to rush the puck through a team. That's not really Fogolin's game. According to this, Fogolin was the 59th-highest scoring defenseman of his time, or roughly 3rd on most teams: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
Munro was 13th in his time: http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
Fogolin is more fresh in our memories as a solid defender, but Munro had the same things said about him 50 years before. In toughness, they are more or less equal, both playing physically in their own zone. Fogolin never showed up in Norris or All-Star voting and though there is no detailed voting existing from Munro's time, I suspect that he was frequently among the top-10 defensemen in the game. I understand this is conjecture, though. I will say that I think Munro was, overall, a more significant player in his time than Fogolin was. Edge: Munro.
Conclusion: With three major edges, one edge, and a draw, with the lone edge going to the dazzling Baker, Regina's defense corps is decidedly better. A little more research of earlier eras would have gone a long way for Amherst, as ultimately they rounded out their corps with 5 modern players who were all above-average players but not hugely significant to their time. Jonsson's 12th-place finish in Norris voting is the sole elite season had by any of these modern players, compared to 9 between Regina's three modern defensemen: Stackhouse, Redden, and Dupont.
This is what I mean when I say defense is not a wash.
Tomorrow, or perhaps later tonight, I'm going to try to get to the bottom of Amherst's supposed advantage in the top-6 forwards.
Last edited:
Rzeznik
Registered User
Not nearly enough discussion yet...I must change that!
Amherst has a better defence an better goaltending!
*Runs away*
*peaks out from around corner*
Well, I will strongly disagree about the goaltending. Barrasso, IMO, is the clear number 1 goaltender in this draft. McLean is a pretty good starter, Burke is a pretty good back-up, and Wilf Cude is a pretty good back-up. Overall, I think Regina has an edge there.
As for defense, after comparing and reading your outstanding bios, I think your defence may be better, although still not by much. Better offensively all-around, and just as good defensively as my group. I believe you have the top defenseman in the series in Hamby Shore, mind you Baker and Lake are not too far behind. After this, I think that both Stackhouse and Dupont are as good as my number 2 in Jonsson, with Stackhouse being a bit better because of his offensive ability. Dave Maloney and Normand Rochefort are a very, very solid pairing, but they aren't Dupont and Stackhouse. As for bottom-pairing defenseman, I think this may be a wash. Redden > Ellet, Fogolin > Munro, at least IMO. Overall, yes, you have a better defense and goaltending, but mine are not too far behind, and I believe my forwards more than make up for that.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all agree on Barrasso! LF was probably just trying to get me to come out of hiding and actually say something on this series.
Also, just to point out an edit I'll be making. I said "I will say that I think Munro was, overall, a more significant player in his time than Fogolin was. Edge: Fogolin." but did mean to say Munro, as noted just below when I said "three major edges and one edge". Sorry. But I do agree they are close, which is why I didn't list it as a major edge.
Rzeznik
Registered User
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all agree on Barrasso! LF was probably just trying to get me to come out of hiding and actually say something on this series.
Also, just to point out an edit I'll be making. I said "I will say that I think Munro was, overall, a more significant player in his time than Fogolin was. Edge: Fogolin." but did mean to say Munro, as noted just below when I said "three major edges and one edge". Sorry. But I do agree they are close, which is why I didn't list it as a major edge.
Yeah that's what I thought, just wanted to touch on the goaltending.
I was confused by that as well, as you seemed to have come to a conclusion that Munro was better. I would have called that one even, if not an edge for Fogolin, just because I have yet to see anything on Munro's defensive ability. He was a great offensive defenseman, yes, but Fogolin was applauded for his great defensive play and shot-blocking. Even after looking through your bio on Munro, it doesn't say any specifics on him defensively, and on a third pairing with Wade Redden as your partner, you really want to be at least above-average in that respect. Thanks for letting me know, though
Yeah, I'm pretty sure we all agree on Barrasso! LF was probably just trying to get me to come out of hiding and actually say something on this series.
Also, just to point out an edit I'll be making. I said "I will say that I think Munro was, overall, a more significant player in his time than Fogolin was. Edge: Fogolin." but did mean to say Munro, as noted just below when I said "three major edges and one edge". Sorry. But I do agree they are close, which is why I didn't list it as a major edge.
Yup-yup!
Of course I agree that Barrasso is the best goalie in the MLD; I voted him that way. And seventies swayed me to giving him a defensive edge as well.
Best to try and find advantages at forward if you want to win this Rzeznik.
Rzeznik
Registered User
This is my key in the series, and should carry me a long way.
Smyth-Janney-Goldsworthy vs. Kapustin-Richards-Vikulov
I think this may be the big factor for us in the series, as we have one of the top first lines in the entire draft. Richards vs. Janney is close, but the edge obviously goes to the Conn Smyth winner. Very close offensively, with maybe Janney having the edge, but Richards more than makes up for this gap through playoff play (where Janney was no slouch) and great two-way skill. Vikulov vs. Goldsworthy is closer than Janney and Richards, but I would still have to give the edge to Vikulov. Goldsworthy is a great goal scorer and gritty player in his own right, but Vikulov is a Soviet legend. 283 goals in 520 club games, 109 goals in 191 with the National team, and goal-scoring wasn't even his forte! He was a three-time Soviet League first all-star and three-time second all-star against stiff competition as well as garnishing plenty of MVP votes, and had also led the Soviet League in goal-scoring once and had two game winning goals in the Summit Series. I think I have a major edge here. On the left side, I see Smyth matched up against another Russian great, Kapustin. As we all know, Smyth is a very consistant scorer, although never topping 40 goals and never reaching top-10 in anything (top-20 in goals 3 times I believe). Along with this, he brings unquestionable leadership and a team-first attitude. A great guy to have on the powerplay as well, as he is one of the best at playing in front of the net, as everyone is aware. Kapustin, as I said, is a Soviet great, a great mix of skill, speed and physicality. 277 goals in 517 Soviet League games, to go along with 118 goals in 208 National team games as well as finishing 2nd and 4th in Soviet League scoring and earning a first all-star selection in 1981, it is very obvious he has the game-breaking ability that Smyth does not have. He may not totally bring the hard-work Smyth brings to the ice, but few players do, so I don't see this gap making up for the rest. For this reason, I believe Kapustion has the edge here as well.
That is my break-down of our first lines. Will get to the rest of the lines later in the day. Have at 'er!
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
You are right that Richards vs. Janney is very close. Offensively, there are a few ways to compare them. In the regular season, Janney has one more top-10 season than Richards (in assists, obviously, as neither were big goalscorers) and three more top-20 seasons. However, they are virtually even when looking at their top seasons for adjusted points. Richards' are 91, 88, 82, 71, and 71. Janney's are 85, 82, 78, 76, and 76. Janney gets the regular season edge by having more elite finishes, BUT Richards has plenty of time to fix that before his career is done. As for the playoffs, Janney, as you said, is no slouch in the playoffs, and Richards has been better... on a per-game basis. 62 points in 63 games is outstanding and a better PPG ratio than 110 in 120, especially after era is taken into consideration. But, there's something to be said for experience and a lengthy track record. Let's see how many playoff points he has after 120 games. My guess is he ends up with about 100, which would translate to about 110 in Janney's time. (Janney had 73 points in his first 69 playoff games, pretty close to the same production after adjustments for era) Their playoff records are pretty similar at this point; one with an excellent resume (so far) and the other with a very good one over twice as long a period. I wouldn't say Richards' two-way skills are "great", but they are adequate. Physically, Richards is one guy who would be fairly close to the pacifist Janney. I think the two-way play can even out the lack of extra years of track record that Richards has. If you ask me, these two are dead even.
What is Vikulov's forte? Because he's pretty good at scoring goals! I looked over his career at SIHR and it looks like his goals finishes in the Russian league are 1, 3, 4, 6, 6, 8, 9, 9, 10. The 8th-10ths don't mean much, but any time you're top-6 in the Russian league in the late 60s-70s, I'd say you're a good bet to come over and be a top-20 scorer in the NHL. Did you know that Vikulov was a three-time 2nd team all-star and once on the 3rd team before making the 1st team 3 times? He had a pretty consistent career. He's highly skilled, and the better player, no doubt, but don't sell Goldie short either. The guy was top-20 in goals 5 times and led the NHL playoffs in goals and points once. There's no what-if involved with him. He's a legitimate MLD 1st liner.
Not sure about this one. He seems a lot like Smyth to me. A good goalscorer (2nd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 6th, 7th in the Russian league), not much of a playmaker (6th, 7th, 10th) and has some physicality. But does he have the notorious puckwinning ability that Smith has? Basically I think you have a first line with the potential to be dazzling when it has the puck. It's the classic "a pure goalscorer on each wing with a pure playmaker in the middle" line. Which is basically what I have. But I've got Goldsworthy and Smyth to win battles for the puck which is an important aspect of any line, and I'm not sure that your guys can quite keep up in this regard. All three of your players are arguably better ( I think they are all close either way) but the cohesiveness as a unit might not be up to par.
Last edited:
Rzeznik
Registered User
Over his last 3 or 4 years with the Lightning, Richards was a main-cog on their penalty kill. He may not be a "great" defensive player, but he was better than "adequate" for sure, especially in an MLD context.
Yes, Vikulov was a great goal-scorer, but its been stated in numerous places that he was first and foremost a playmaker. As I said, Goldsworthy is a great player, but he's just not Vladimir Vikulov, who is very passable as an ATD 2nd-liner, IMO at least. I am aware of Vlad's 2nd and 3rd team Soviet selections as well, I edited my post right after, but you must have gotten there before that. He was also twice a World Championship all-star, leading the tournament in goals in 1972.
Just a quote from chidlovski.net, a very reliable source on Soviet players as I'm sure you are aware.
I'm not trying to say he's a Smyth or a Goldsworthy when it comes to battles in the trenches, but he isn't a guy who will back down from checkers, and is more than capable of coming out with the puck.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Simon Gagne - Normie Himes - Cully Wilson
vs.
Rick Nash - Paul Haynes - Tom Hooper
vs.
Rick Nash - Paul Haynes - Tom Hooper
I'll start with the centers. Haynes and Himes are two highly underappreciated 1930s centers. They were both small, speedy, rarely played on good teams, and ended up with a pretty good array of leaderboard placements. I did extensive searches for accounts of their play in the NY times archives, and found that Haynes truly was a dazzling playmaker, and Himes a great all-around talent who played with pluck and guile. It appears that Haynes was able to really use his teammates while Himes didn't really have teammates he could use, aside from Rabbit McVeigh, who was no all-star. I think Himes is the better goalscorer (made the top-10, plus two more top-20s than Haynes) and Haynes is the better playmaker (one more top-10, placed higher within the top-10, one more top-20, also confirmed anecdotally) and Himes the better two-way player (I found accounts of Himes ragging the puck to waste time, stealing the puck from good players, and standing up to Ching Johnson; Haynes seemed to be a purely offensive guy). Honestly, these guys are as even as you can get, with all things considered.
Nash vs. Gagne. I like this one. Easy to compare, since they are contemporaries. Offensively, they're basically a wash. Nash has the higher goalscoring finishes but fewer elite seasons overall (1st, 5th, top-15 vs. 7th, 9th, 16th, 17th) and Gagne is a marginally better playmaker, though neither will threaten the league leaders anytime soon. Their per-game numbers throughout their careers are actually remarkably similar: Nash has .44 GPG and .37 APG; Gagne has .40 GPG and .40 APG. A higher proportion of Gagne's career came in the dead puck era (5 of his 9 seasons versus 2 of 6 for Nash) but Nash played a season as an 18-year old. Without that season his career averages go to .48 and .38. His best four seasons for adjusted goals are 48, 42, 42, and 31. Gagne's are 47, 43, 38, and 36. Extremely similar best-4 seasons, with Gagne's next-four best trumping anything else Nash did, mainly because Nash's career is so short so far. In points, same story. Nash: 82, 76, 65, 58. Gagne: 78, 77, 75, 70. Nash does bring better size and marginally better physicality. In the playoffs, Gagne has far from an excellent record of production, but he has played well for three conference finalists now. Nash has only 4 games to judge him by. Not really his fault, but that's where he's at. For two-way play it is not even close. Gagne is one of the best two-way forwards in the game. Nash is developing in this area and has started to kill some penalties in recent years, but he's no Gagne. He's got a career adjusted +6 compared to his mediocre Columbus teammates while Gagne is a career +193 versus many excellent Philadelphia teammates. I went all over the place here, so in conclusion: For regular season offense, these two are neck in neck. Peak for Nash, consistency/establishedness (?) for Gagne. Gagne takes this one mainly by having an excellent two-way game and at least a lengthy playoff record to speak of.
Wilson vs. Hooper. I like this one too, because they are both pre-merger guys. Hooper is a hall of famer and an ok scoring line glue guy (he appears to have been a bit of a rough player and was clearly a complementary guy like Billy Gilmour, Cecil Blachford, and Jimmy Gardner) Don't count on him for any offense. He finished 4th, 7th, 15th and 17th in senior league scoring in Manitoba before coming over to the big league (ECAHA) and finishing 12th in the 1908 season. I think he is a good complement for Nash and Haynes, because he probably had some toughness and/or two-way play (quotes would be appreciated) but his offensive contribution will be negligible. I'm going to paste what I said about Wilson in the last series to save some time. Rest assured, the guy is a little terror, a wrecking ball.
seventieslord said:
Hall of fame or not, I don't see how Hooper compares to Wilson. Based on who we have at center and LW, both our second lines needed a tough guy or "glue guy" on the right side. Regina grabbed the better one. I like that our line really works as a two-way line as all three playes provide something significant aside from offense. It will be interesting to see what Himes does now that he doesn't have to be a one-man show.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I took a look into this, and yes, it seems that he was Tampa's top penalty killing forward over the last three years.
Ahh, ok. His career totals are deceptive on SIHR. It makes him look like he had fewer assists per game than Kapustin, which is mainly because some of his career was from the "spotty assists" era. Post-1973 he was 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 7th, 8th in russian league assists, so yeah, he was a good playmaker. Based on where his rankings in goals and assists shook out, I wouldn't say he's heavily biased towards one or the other. He's a pretty balanced player. Which is good news becuase your other two guys are a pure playmaker and a pure goalscorer.
Pfft. What does chidlovski know about Russian hockey? He's a 14-year old japanese stats junkie with a web site!
Seriously though... yeah, we agree then. Kapustin is certainly no shrinking violet but he's not Smyth. If he's your line's primary puckwinner then that is a minor concern.
Rzeznik
Registered User
I totally agree with your analysis on the first two match-ups. In a few years, Nash should be well-rounded enough to be a main-stay in the ATD, with his offense determining how high he makes it up the chart exactly. However, he isn't quite there yet.
I wouldn't sell Hooper short though. He may be a glue-guy, but he was said to be an excellent checker, and as far as I know, when the games mattered, he was scoring goals. A few quotes I've found.
He was also said to be very loyal to his team in Kenora, turning down many prestigious offers to stay and win the Cup their.
Although he still may not match up with Wilson offensively, I don't think you can count out his physical or defensive play either, as well as his clutch goal-scoring. A closer comparison than it seems at first glance, IMO.
Last edited:
Rzeznik
Registered User
Ahh, ok. His career totals are deceptive on SIHR. It makes him look like he had fewer assists per game than Kapustin, which is mainly because some of his career was from the "spotty assists" era. Post-1973 he was 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 7th, 8th in russian league assists, so yeah, he was a good playmaker. Based on where his rankings in goals and assists shook out, I wouldn't say he's heavily biased towards one or the other. He's a pretty balanced player. Which is good news becuase your other two guys are a pure playmaker and a pure goalscorer.
Pfft. What does chidlovski know about Russian hockey? He's a 14-year old japanese stats junkie with a web site!
Seriously though... yeah, we agree then. Kapustin is certainly no shrinking violet but he's not Smyth. If he's your line's primary puckwinner then that is a minor concern.
That's what I've been saying all along about Vlad, he's not a one-trick pony, although like you said, the era he played in was pretty hard to read playmaking ability through stats alone. Great, balanced, offensive player though, as you said.
And we can agree on Kapustin then. He's not Goldie or Smyth, but he's adequate at the job. This line will rely mostly on puck possession though, rather than mucking it in the corners, for this reason. The Soviets were pretty good at this type of game at one point, weren't they?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Very good job getting quotes!
I'd have also done you the courtesy of looking for them myself, but it's a little different when I'm at work! (the LOH site won't even load here)So your second line truly has players with complementary skillsets
And we can agree on Kapustin then. He's not Goldie or Smyth, but he's adequate at the job. This line will rely mostly on puck possession though, rather than mucking it in the corners, for this reason. The Soviets were pretty good at this type of game at one point, weren't they?
Yeah... they weren't bad at it.... I guess....
Rzeznik
Registered User
Very good job getting quotes!
So your second line truly has players with complementary skillsets
Well I wouldn't want you pimping my team for me. This is a competition isn't it?
Thought I should do some of the work..Not to mention, we do have the strategy master Viktor Tikhonov, who seems to be overlooked in these discussions, to orchestrate this plan as well. He knows what he's doing, dealing with these Soviets
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
The Regina Capitals defeat The Amherst Ramblers in 4 games.
3 Stars:
1. Tom Barrasso
2. Vladimir Vikulov
3. Bill Goldsworthy
3 Stars:
1. Tom Barrasso
2. Vladimir Vikulov
3. Bill Goldsworthy
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Really surprised to see it end in 4. I've seen the odd sweep here and there, but I've never been involved with one.
I battled hard but at the same time I gave your guys some credit so I'm surprised you didn't get some votes.
Biggest player that I came to appreciate thanks to this series: Vladimir Vikulov.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 16Staked: $17,242.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 9Staked: $14,827.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $2,309.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-