MLD11 Mickey Ion Semifinal: Regina Pats (1) vs. Tidewater Sharks (4)
- Thread starter seventieslord
- Start date
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Wow, what a matchup. It should come as no surprise to you that I like my own team the best in this division, but I actually liked Tidewater second best. A few position-by-position analyses:
1. Janney vs. Savard. I like Janney better, and here's why: Both these guys are extremely one-dimensional. Their regular season careers run almost like carbon copies of eachother, except that last season Savard was credited with finally adding a two-way game to his repertoire. Of course, this doesn't erase the ten years before that, in which he was essentially a Janney. So this comparison really boils down to their offensive resumes: Janney and Savard have both been top-10 in assists four times. Savard placed a bit higher, but Janney did it against better competition - the two wash out. Janney also has two more years in the top-15 that Savard doesn't have. In the playoffs, Janney has been on the leaderboard twice when making the finals, and has great career averages. Savard is still in the process of building a playoff resume, though the early returns are good.
2. Smyth vs. Kerr. Kerr is a better player. He is one of the best offensive players in this draft. If it wasn't for Patrick, Harris, Denneny, Clint Smith, and Kamensky, Kerr would have had my vote for top scoring winger. However, he does not bring the grit, determination, and demonstrated board ability that Smyth does. Overall, yes, the edge still goes to Dubbie Kerr.
3. Goldsworthy vs. Redmond: Interesting comparison here. Both RWs, much better at scoring than playmaking, born three years apart, whose careers really started after expansion.
- Redmond appears to have the better peak. 1st, 2nd, 3rd in RW All-Star voting. But Goldsworthy is right behind him with a 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th.
- Redmond was done by age 28. Goldsworthy played in the NHL until age 33 and then had pieces two more short WHA seasons.
- Redmond's best four seasons in goals finishes are 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 23rd, and 61st. For Goldsworthy, it's 5th, 6th, 13th, 15th, and 17th. Seems like Redmond had a slightly better peak and then fell off considerably.
- For Redmond's career, he had 0.43 GPG, 0.36 APG, and 0.80 PPG. Goldsworthy was right behind at 0.37, 0.33, and 0.70. If you take off the last three seasons, in which he played at an age Redmond never made it to, he's at 0.40, 0.36, and 0.76. Almost exact. Slightly lesser peak; much more consistent.
- I don't have the anecdotes at the moment to back this up, but it appears Goldsworthy brought somewhat more to the table than just goals. Redmond was more of an "offense-only"- kind of player.
- Goldsworthy was much better in the playoffs. He led the NHL playoffs in goals in 1968, and finished with 37 points in 40 games. Redmond managed two cups with the stacked habs, scoring 5 points in 16 games and never making the playoffs again.
- Linemates. Redmond had Marcel Dionne for years, and this obviously made him better. Did anyone make Goldsworthy better? Not from what I can tell. In his two best seasons, he doubled the point output of the team's top-scoring center and almost did it again. For a few years, Jude Drouin was a good player but he's hardly a "star maker".
Personally, I like Goldsworthy better.
I like the cohesiveness of the first line, too. It's a simple setup - pure playmaker between two pure goalscorers. Two of the three have a lot of grit to offset the center's lack thereof. Two of the three have been exellent in the playoffs and one, Smyth, has usually been good. The line has scoring, playmaking, and puckwinning ability. Tidewater has definite offensive potential there, better than most lines, but I think they will have trouble with consistency, and in the corners.
Obviously I took far too long on this, and now my lunch break is over. Until later, Hedberg
1. Janney vs. Savard. I like Janney better, and here's why: Both these guys are extremely one-dimensional. Their regular season careers run almost like carbon copies of eachother, except that last season Savard was credited with finally adding a two-way game to his repertoire. Of course, this doesn't erase the ten years before that, in which he was essentially a Janney. So this comparison really boils down to their offensive resumes: Janney and Savard have both been top-10 in assists four times. Savard placed a bit higher, but Janney did it against better competition - the two wash out. Janney also has two more years in the top-15 that Savard doesn't have. In the playoffs, Janney has been on the leaderboard twice when making the finals, and has great career averages. Savard is still in the process of building a playoff resume, though the early returns are good.
2. Smyth vs. Kerr. Kerr is a better player. He is one of the best offensive players in this draft. If it wasn't for Patrick, Harris, Denneny, Clint Smith, and Kamensky, Kerr would have had my vote for top scoring winger. However, he does not bring the grit, determination, and demonstrated board ability that Smyth does. Overall, yes, the edge still goes to Dubbie Kerr.
3. Goldsworthy vs. Redmond: Interesting comparison here. Both RWs, much better at scoring than playmaking, born three years apart, whose careers really started after expansion.
- Redmond appears to have the better peak. 1st, 2nd, 3rd in RW All-Star voting. But Goldsworthy is right behind him with a 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th.
- Redmond was done by age 28. Goldsworthy played in the NHL until age 33 and then had pieces two more short WHA seasons.
- Redmond's best four seasons in goals finishes are 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 23rd, and 61st. For Goldsworthy, it's 5th, 6th, 13th, 15th, and 17th. Seems like Redmond had a slightly better peak and then fell off considerably.
- For Redmond's career, he had 0.43 GPG, 0.36 APG, and 0.80 PPG. Goldsworthy was right behind at 0.37, 0.33, and 0.70. If you take off the last three seasons, in which he played at an age Redmond never made it to, he's at 0.40, 0.36, and 0.76. Almost exact. Slightly lesser peak; much more consistent.
- I don't have the anecdotes at the moment to back this up, but it appears Goldsworthy brought somewhat more to the table than just goals. Redmond was more of an "offense-only"- kind of player.
- Goldsworthy was much better in the playoffs. He led the NHL playoffs in goals in 1968, and finished with 37 points in 40 games. Redmond managed two cups with the stacked habs, scoring 5 points in 16 games and never making the playoffs again.
- Linemates. Redmond had Marcel Dionne for years, and this obviously made him better. Did anyone make Goldsworthy better? Not from what I can tell. In his two best seasons, he doubled the point output of the team's top-scoring center and almost did it again. For a few years, Jude Drouin was a good player but he's hardly a "star maker".
Personally, I like Goldsworthy better.
I like the cohesiveness of the first line, too. It's a simple setup - pure playmaker between two pure goalscorers. Two of the three have a lot of grit to offset the center's lack thereof. Two of the three have been exellent in the playoffs and one, Smyth, has usually been good. The line has scoring, playmaking, and puckwinning ability. Tidewater has definite offensive potential there, better than most lines, but I think they will have trouble with consistency, and in the corners.
Obviously I took far too long on this, and now my lunch break is over. Until later, Hedberg
Obviously I took far too long on this, and now my lunch break is over. Until later, Hedberg
I'm nervous
I am working on my analysis of this series...
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
4. Himes vs. Thoms: Thoms has the better resume, but not as much better as some of you may think. And I'm not sure he was a better player. He was primarily a playmaker, evidenced by his three top-10s in assists and a total of five times in the top-20. However, he exploded one season to tie for the league lead in goals, too, clinging to the top-20 one more time. Himes, on the other hand, has a more balanced offensive record, with a top-10 and three top-20s in goals, and three top-10s and four top-20s in assists. I'd give Himes the edge in goalscoring, but I'd give Thoms a slightly bigger edge in playmaking. Thoms' playoff resume isn't great, but at least he has a playoff record to speak of.
The bigger thing to consider, though, is their linemates. The reason Himes has no playoff record to speak of, is his teams were brutal. He was a one-man show out there most nights, according to newspaper accounts. In his best seasons, he outscored the next-best forward on the Americans by 58% (Burch), 72% (Sheppard), 9% (Burch), 4% (McVeigh), and 19% (Sheppard). There are a few pretty impressive margins in there.
Look at the point leaders for the NYA during Himes' career. It's pretty comical!
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
Thoms, by comparison, was surrounded by good Leafs teammates throughout his prime.
Both are small (5'7"), but Thoms has 25 pounds on the slim Himes. Neither is known for physical play, but I did provide a couple quotes showing Himes' guile and ability to respond to intimidation. Both were remarkably durable considering their size. The praise for Himes is absolutely glowing; what can you tell me about Thoms?
The bigger thing to consider, though, is their linemates. The reason Himes has no playoff record to speak of, is his teams were brutal. He was a one-man show out there most nights, according to newspaper accounts. In his best seasons, he outscored the next-best forward on the Americans by 58% (Burch), 72% (Sheppard), 9% (Burch), 4% (McVeigh), and 19% (Sheppard). There are a few pretty impressive margins in there.
Look at the point leaders for the NYA during Himes' career. It's pretty comical!
http://www.hockey-reference.com/pp/...val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=points
Thoms, by comparison, was surrounded by good Leafs teammates throughout his prime.
Both are small (5'7"), but Thoms has 25 pounds on the slim Himes. Neither is known for physical play, but I did provide a couple quotes showing Himes' guile and ability to respond to intimidation. Both were remarkably durable considering their size. The praise for Himes is absolutely glowing; what can you tell me about Thoms?
Last edited:
Well, I do have this epic picture of him riding on a horse about to crush a bear:
Judging by your NY Times quotes, you have access to their archives. I however do not, only the previews. The previews alas provide no solid info on Thoms.
However my complaint with the press clippings is they seem fairly generic
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
5. Gagne vs. Hamill: Two very different players; but what they both do best is score goals. I like Hamill a lot. He's tough but clean, and he's a heart and soul guy. Gagne is no shrinking violet but he's no Hamill in toughness. He's speedy, gritty, and a smart two-way player. I would give Hamill the edge in goalscoring except that his 2nd, 3rd, and 9th in goals came in 1942, 43, and 46. Still, it is impressive for an MLD 2nd line LW. With all attributes considered, I call this even.
6. Wilson vs. Blachford: This one, on the surface, is tough to call. Let's dig a little deeper. I'll start by comparing offensive numbers. Wilson played almost his entire career in leagues that contained roughly half of the world's best players, and so did Blachford, so this makes it easier to compare. Wilson placed 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 8th in goals, and 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 10th, 10th in assists. Blachford played 7 seasons at the top level and managed to place in the top-10 twice: 5th and 10th. Assists were not recorded in his leagues. His value is really as a support player on a dynasty team. He's credited as beng a cup winner in 1906 and 1910, though he didn't play any of the Wanderers' three playoff games those seasons. In 1907 he played in three of their six games, scoring no goals. in 1908 he came to life, playing 4 of their 5 games, scoring 5 times to place 5th on the team behind Johnson (11), Russell (11), Glass (7), and Stuart (7). He played three other playoff games in 1903 and 1904, scoring a goal, but was technically not a cup finalist those seasons. Overall, he has a very pedestrian six goals in 10 playoff games.
Wilson's playoff history is extensive. He won two cups in the NHA/PCHA era (leading one cup winner in goals and another in asists), and was a finalist twice in the NHL/PCHA/WCHL era. His 20 points in 29 playoff games in the 1914-1926 era is quite impressive.
Wilson's toughness and scrappiness is legendary. My bio is full of quotes showing that he played well in important games, dishing out solid checks, taking punishment, and scrapping with anyone who'd come near him. I haven't found anything about Blachford having any sort of a physical game. Blachford was evidently an important player (I see him as a better, although perhaps less physical version of Billy Gilmour) but I don't see what he's got on Wilson in any area except winning more cups. Wilson's a clever and underrated skilled forward. He was a PCHA and WCHL all-star and made the leaderboards more than anyone probably realized, and his contribution to two cup winners and two finalists was very real.
I like the cohesiveness of this unit as well. Himes and Wilson are both fairly balanced offensive players and the scrappy Wilson should be able to serve the role of puckwinner just fine. He will also be tough enough to stick up for the smaller Himes, while Gagne buries their passes and covers up defensively. Anecdotes about Himes show that he was very skilled in both ends, too.
6. Wilson vs. Blachford: This one, on the surface, is tough to call. Let's dig a little deeper. I'll start by comparing offensive numbers. Wilson played almost his entire career in leagues that contained roughly half of the world's best players, and so did Blachford, so this makes it easier to compare. Wilson placed 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 8th in goals, and 6th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 10th, 10th in assists. Blachford played 7 seasons at the top level and managed to place in the top-10 twice: 5th and 10th. Assists were not recorded in his leagues. His value is really as a support player on a dynasty team. He's credited as beng a cup winner in 1906 and 1910, though he didn't play any of the Wanderers' three playoff games those seasons. In 1907 he played in three of their six games, scoring no goals. in 1908 he came to life, playing 4 of their 5 games, scoring 5 times to place 5th on the team behind Johnson (11), Russell (11), Glass (7), and Stuart (7). He played three other playoff games in 1903 and 1904, scoring a goal, but was technically not a cup finalist those seasons. Overall, he has a very pedestrian six goals in 10 playoff games.
Wilson's playoff history is extensive. He won two cups in the NHA/PCHA era (leading one cup winner in goals and another in asists), and was a finalist twice in the NHL/PCHA/WCHL era. His 20 points in 29 playoff games in the 1914-1926 era is quite impressive.
Wilson's toughness and scrappiness is legendary. My bio is full of quotes showing that he played well in important games, dishing out solid checks, taking punishment, and scrapping with anyone who'd come near him. I haven't found anything about Blachford having any sort of a physical game. Blachford was evidently an important player (I see him as a better, although perhaps less physical version of Billy Gilmour) but I don't see what he's got on Wilson in any area except winning more cups. Wilson's a clever and underrated skilled forward. He was a PCHA and WCHL all-star and made the leaderboards more than anyone probably realized, and his contribution to two cup winners and two finalists was very real.
I like the cohesiveness of this unit as well. Himes and Wilson are both fairly balanced offensive players and the scrappy Wilson should be able to serve the role of puckwinner just fine. He will also be tough enough to stick up for the smaller Himes, while Gagne buries their passes and covers up defensively. Anecdotes about Himes show that he was very skilled in both ends, too.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Well, I do have this epic picture of him riding on a horse about to crush a bear:
Judging by your NY Times quotes, you have access to their archives. I however do not, only the previews. The previews alas provide no solid info on Thoms.
That picture is awesome! I saw that just a few weeks ago in a King Clanc biography. Classic!
They are not all eye-popping, no.
But I would not say that things like:
"stole the faceoff from Cooney Weiland and drifted through the senator defense at his leisure", "staged several thrilling rushes, sometimes with other teammates, sometimes alone", "stealing the puck often and ragging it to waste time", "pierced the cage with a long shot delivered while he was flat on the ice", and "pulling the opponents in the way from one side to the other " are generic.
Himes was definitely a dazzling player, and he was the best forward on the worst team for years. I'd call him a one-man show if not for Roy Worters, whose clippings are even more dramatic. Himes easily outscored HHOFer Billy Burch, who spent a lot of time in New York with him, and in fact outscored him by 21 more points in only 12 more games throughout his career. I'd like to know what Burch did to get to the Hall over Himes, honestly.
As for clippings of Thoms, check your inbox.
Last edited:
As for Bill Thoms:
Legends of Hockey states Thoms was
Andrew Podnieks, in "Players, The Ultimate A-Z guide" concurs, stating:
Nov.11, 1938
Feb. 24, 1937
Jan. 9, 1939
Dec.27, 1937
These quotes would seem to support Legends of Hockey's statement about Thom. While the quotes provide nothing on his defensive play, we can extrapolate a bit based on his linemates.
In Toronto he played with at various times Nick Metz, Bob Davidson, and **** **** (January 4, 1938, New York Times), all players noted for their defensive abilities.
As a supporting player in Chicago, he was on a line with Gracie and March, two player who were also noted for their defensive game.
While his linemates are no guarentee Thoms was great defensively, it seems unlikely two defensive wingers would be paired with a defensive liability at the most important defensive position. The line combinations strongly suggest to me that Thoms could handle his own on the defensive side of the game.
Legends of Hockey states Thoms was
Andrew Podnieks, in "Players, The Ultimate A-Z guide" concurs, stating:
Nov.11, 1938
Feb. 24, 1937
Jan. 9, 1939
Dec.27, 1937
These quotes would seem to support Legends of Hockey's statement about Thom. While the quotes provide nothing on his defensive play, we can extrapolate a bit based on his linemates.
In Toronto he played with at various times Nick Metz, Bob Davidson, and **** **** (January 4, 1938, New York Times), all players noted for their defensive abilities.
As a supporting player in Chicago, he was on a line with Gracie and March, two player who were also noted for their defensive game.
While his linemates are no guarentee Thoms was great defensively, it seems unlikely two defensive wingers would be paired with a defensive liability at the most important defensive position. The line combinations strongly suggest to me that Thoms could handle his own on the defensive side of the game.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I think he probably could. I agree that the wingers he played with are no guarantee, but in the absence of other information, it would be only fair to consider him at least average.
I really like this one. I can just see this play taking place:
For older players like this where we will never get the chance to see them play, first hand accounts of them playing should be treasured.
Hmm..I didn't know Bob Gracie and Mush March played together..more chemistry on my team! Hooray! 
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
7. Scanlan vs. Lever: So similar, yet so different. Lever has been the quintessential "glue guy" on MLD scoring lines for a few drafts now. I never thought he had the talent to play up there, and now he's down to where he belongs: in a bottom-six role for an MLD team. I see him as a more talented sort of Doug Brown. Scanlan, similarly, was a first liner for an MLD finalist just three drafts ago. How far we've all come! Scanlan was the glue guy of a dynasty, and it got him into the HHOF. Not much of an offensive resume - if I did some sort of adjusted formula, he was probably only as talented as Lever offensively. Like guys like Billy Gilmour, he must have done more than just score to be useful and HHOF-worthy, and what little biographical info there is certainly confirms this. Based on what we know, I don't see how either of us can claim to have the better 3rd line LW.
8. Gardner vs. Gee: This one's not so hard. I wanted to build a 3rd line this time that wasn't just about shutting down the opposition. I tended to take guys like Conroy and Skrudland but I wanted something with some offensive skills too, since my recent offensive research revealed to me that at this point, there was still lots of that left, so why not have both. I was ready to take Gee, because GBC pimped up his defensive abilities so much last draft, and I was impressed with his offensive resume. (After a whole ATD and 14 more teams picking their scoring lines, two top-15s in goals and a top-10 and four top-20s in assists is actually pretty good). Unfortunately, I went looking for information on his defensive play and found nothing. I'm sure there was some truth in what GBC was saying, plus by association (Prystai, for example, was a linemate of his) it is safe to say that Gee had a two-way game. But how much? No one seems to know. I even checked the NY Times archives.
With Gardner I was able to get slightly better offensive credentials (a top-10, two top-20s in goals, a top-10 and five top-20s in assists), robust, rugged physical play, and at least a quote stating that he was good defensively and that his job included checking Maurice Richard. I prefer Gardner for playmaking and physical play, and they are probably about even for goalscoring and defense. So overall I like Gardner, but I definitely respect Gee.
8. Gardner vs. Gee: This one's not so hard. I wanted to build a 3rd line this time that wasn't just about shutting down the opposition. I tended to take guys like Conroy and Skrudland but I wanted something with some offensive skills too, since my recent offensive research revealed to me that at this point, there was still lots of that left, so why not have both. I was ready to take Gee, because GBC pimped up his defensive abilities so much last draft, and I was impressed with his offensive resume. (After a whole ATD and 14 more teams picking their scoring lines, two top-15s in goals and a top-10 and four top-20s in assists is actually pretty good). Unfortunately, I went looking for information on his defensive play and found nothing. I'm sure there was some truth in what GBC was saying, plus by association (Prystai, for example, was a linemate of his) it is safe to say that Gee had a two-way game. But how much? No one seems to know. I even checked the NY Times archives.
With Gardner I was able to get slightly better offensive credentials (a top-10, two top-20s in goals, a top-10 and five top-20s in assists), robust, rugged physical play, and at least a quote stating that he was good defensively and that his job included checking Maurice Richard. I prefer Gardner for playmaking and physical play, and they are probably about even for goalscoring and defense. So overall I like Gardner, but I definitely respect Gee.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
9. Goldsworthy vs. Larose: Offensively, it's a bit of a Redmond/Goldsworthy comparison. Goldsworthy placed 8th and 11th in goals in his two best seasons; Larose placed 16th and 21st in his two best. Neither were good playmakers. Leroy has the higher peak for sure, but dropped off considerably otherwise. His two good seasons of 29 and 26 points far exceed his next three-best of 19, 14, and 14. Larose is more difficult to compare in this way, because raw numbers say his most impressive seasons were post-expansion, but based on his rankings within the league his pre-expansion numbers were the best. Just to use a metric that is somewhat universal, he did have 9 seasons of at least 30 adjusted points. Any way you slice it, he was a more consistent offensive player with great longevity. How was he as a checker? I can't find much on him other than he was tough. Leroy's bio is careful to state three times that he was valuable defensively.
There's not much to choose from between these lines. I like my center better and each winger is more or less a wash. I think they were built very similarly, staying away from "pure" defensive players and going with two-way guys.
There's not much to choose from between these lines. I like my center better and each winger is more or less a wash. I think they were built very similarly, staying away from "pure" defensive players and going with two-way guys.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
10. Smaill vs. Trottier: Smaill is really tough to gauge, and I researched him as intensely as time would allow. He was quite the transient, and his frequent switches from forward to defense put him right in the same category as contemporaries Ken Randall and Goldie Prodger. Other than the fact that more anecdotal evidence exists on the latter two (which, yes, probably means they're better) I don't see what makes these two much better than him aside from longevity. The Trail stresses that, although he was not a superstar scorer, he was well above average and a great team player. I think he was also tough, as he once gooned up Lester Patrick. His real value is in his versatility. He played 12 seasons of top-level hockey, and played exactly 4 at LW, 4 at RW, and 4 on D. But like Skene Ronan, it wouldn't do him justice to make him merely a spare. In his years as a D-man, he was 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th in defense scoring (in splinter leagues, mind you) - with Cyclone Taylor and the Patricks as his prime competition at the position when he was top-3. As a forward, he was named a PCHA All-Star and made the ECHA leaderboards twice. Not a special, era-defining player by any stretch, but a very significant player to his era and a valuable, versatile all-around guy. Trottier was a pretty good scorer. I really considered taking him because he was a top-10 goalscorer once and top-20 another time, and was top-20 in assists 3 times... not bad at all for an MLD 4th liner. But I just couldn't see any evidence that he provided a 4th line-type of game. Which is fine. You don't have to have all tough guys, defensive guys, and energy guys down there. As for being offensively established as a forward, I would put him even with Smaill, with Smaill getting the edge in other areas.
Trottier was apparently
(http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=14574).
Montreal Maroons Greatest Players agrees with this:
Trottier also was tough as he was a:
http://montrealmaroons.blogspot.com/
To me, Trottier sounds like an ideal fourth liner- can chip in offensively, was a clutch scorer, a great defensive player, and provided toughness.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Well, consider me educated on that one.
I own "The Montreal Maroons", a fantastic book that I have not yet read but have skimmed for info on coaches Gorman and Gerard, as well as for players Munro and Conacher. From what I can see, it is going to come in handy the day I finally get to select Reg Noble or Hooley Smith. It gets quite detailed about in-game events and styles of players and unfortunately didn't mention anything like this about Trottier. It painted him as a secondary offensive player. I kinda figured "if it's not in there, it's not anywhere" because that's how useful it's been in the past. Not this time.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
11. Golonka vs. Zezel: Zezel is recent enough that we should mostly all remember him. He was a decent offensive player and became a respected defensive specialist later on. He was one of the best in the business on faceoffs, thanks to being built like a fire hydrant, and though he was known for his two-way game, peaked at 15th in Selke voting. An all-around good guy, he performed well for the Flyers en route to the 1985 and 1987 Finals, and for the Leafs to the 1993 and 1994 Semis. With a ton of big game experience, it's hard to top him for an MLD 4th line.... unless you're Josef Golonka. Golonka played in a ton of international games and besides being a very good scorer, I don't know of anyone from that time who was considered as fiery a competitor as he was. "Kings of the Ice" says he was known as "Razor Blade" and describes him as a "holy terror" for his opponents. He was an enthusiastic heart and soul player, and an inspirational leader. That alone tells me he is an ideal 4th liner. But he had oodles of talent too. In 8 of 10 years from 1960-1969 he was in the top-10 in Czech league scoring. Projecting that to the NHL is impossible, but during the 1960s many of the best Czechs were NHL-caliber, and he was among the very best of them. He led the Czechs in points in 4 of 8 international tournaments. And he placed top-6 among all nations four times, leading once. Relative to era, I think he trumps Zezel in scoring talent, big game experience, and intensity. This is not to take away from Zezel, but Golonka is a beast!
If I'm going to war and I have to pick one of these guys to come with me, it's Golonka for sure.
If I'm going to war and I have to pick one of these guys to come with me, it's Golonka for sure.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
12. Loktev vs. MacAdam: Both guys have tons written about them in terms of their all-around, 4th-line style of play. MacAdam was an all-around good guy who was good at both ends of the ice and a solid team player. Loktev was fearless, courageous, a hard worker, and chippy. He would not be intimidated, and was the toughest of the Almetov-Alexandrov-Loktev trio, however tough that makes him. He is about as talented as Golonka - 5 times top-6 in scoring in a more competitive Russian league, and led two international tournaments in points. Just based on the wording of each bio, I'd say he wasn't quite as fiery as Golonka but was nonetheless a rough player with a 4th-line mentality that has a wealth of talent as far as an MLD 4th-liner goes. Is MacAdam's one top-15 in goals better than Loktev's bevy of Russian and international offensive achievements? Impossible to say conclusively, because MacAdam was in the NHL and Loktev wasn't.
At the very least, Loktev would have to be MacAdam's equal. My gut tells me, though, that as far as judging who was a more significant player to the game of hockey goes, Loktev would win that one.
At the very least, Loktev would have to be MacAdam's equal. My gut tells me, though, that as far as judging who was a more significant player to the game of hockey goes, Loktev would win that one.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
So I guess I only ended up comparing all our forwards. Oh well, it was fun. And I always wanted to have a series with Hedberg, so I can scratch that off my list now.
Very briefly: I like Tidewater's defense but Samuelsson is a bit run of the mill, and I'm still pretty sure Swift was a forward. I don't see anyone that was run of the mill on our defense corps. Lake and Shore were the defense pairing for two cup winners. Dupont, Stackhouse, and Redden all received semi-serious norris and all-star consideration 2-4 times. Munro played when all-star team voting results are not available but based on what I've read and his decent stats, I do think he would have been in that 6th-10th range for a few years too.
Barrasso is the best goalie in this draft, easily.
Gerard and Bauer are two of my favourite coaches in this thing. Gerard did better in all-star voting but Bauer wasn't far behind.
So vote Regina because we've got better players!
But good luck to you too, Hedberg
Very briefly: I like Tidewater's defense but Samuelsson is a bit run of the mill, and I'm still pretty sure Swift was a forward. I don't see anyone that was run of the mill on our defense corps. Lake and Shore were the defense pairing for two cup winners. Dupont, Stackhouse, and Redden all received semi-serious norris and all-star consideration 2-4 times. Munro played when all-star team voting results are not available but based on what I've read and his decent stats, I do think he would have been in that 6th-10th range for a few years too.
Barrasso is the best goalie in this draft, easily.
Gerard and Bauer are two of my favourite coaches in this thing. Gerard did better in all-star voting but Bauer wasn't far behind.
So vote Regina because we've got better players!
But good luck to you too, Hedberg
Hockey Notes claims:
Also, Shore was a forward as well for some time:
I think while Regina probably has slightly better depth on defence, it should be evened out by the top pairings. No disrespect to Lake and Shore, who have great chemistry, but they're not at the level of Goheen and Machac.
Goheen was called "the best all-round player of his time" (http://www.vintagemnhockey.com/MooseGoheen.html) and is a member of the Hall of Fame. Machac and Lake were both physical defenders and it's hard to compare an early 1900's player and a 1970's Czech amateur, I think Machac proved himself against tougher competition, beating the very impressive Soviet teams of 1970's several times and playing a key role in shutting their stars down.
After seventies' detailed forward analysis, the forward groups seem very similar. The defense units as a whole as quite similar. The goaltending, unfortunately for my team, is where Regina has an edge. While it is possible Giguere could perform at his Conn Smythe level the odds favour Barrasso here. However Tidewater's goaltending is definitely good enough to keep the series close. Based on the similarities of both teams, I'd expect most of the games to only be decided by a goal.
Good luck to seventieslord.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
The only forward position I would concede an advantage at, is LW1.
All things considered, we are pretty even at LW2, C2, LW3, RW3, and LW4.
I think Regina has an edge at C1, RW1, and C3, with major advantages at RW2, C4, and RW4, both in the talent and competitiveness departments. The ferociousness of Wilson, Golonka, and Loktev won't allow this series to be lost, even if the games are close.
All things considered, we are pretty even at LW2, C2, LW3, RW3, and LW4.
I think Regina has an edge at C1, RW1, and C3, with major advantages at RW2, C4, and RW4, both in the talent and competitiveness departments. The ferociousness of Wilson, Golonka, and Loktev won't allow this series to be lost, even if the games are close.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Just to add one more thing: I'm definitely aware Shore was a forward for a while. Lake, too. But the overwhelming majority of their careers was played on defense.
For the record, Shore's bio is not saying he played 180-some games at forward. He was a forward from 1906-1909. Lake was a forward from 1902-1908.
I think Swift's bio is making it clear he was a natural rover (forward) who made appearances on D. To me, that makes him a more suitable forward, or a versatile spare. It would be like playing Barney Stanley on defense when he just played his last year on the blueline.
For the record, Shore's bio is not saying he played 180-some games at forward. He was a forward from 1906-1909. Lake was a forward from 1902-1908.
I think Swift's bio is making it clear he was a natural rover (forward) who made appearances on D. To me, that makes him a more suitable forward, or a versatile spare. It would be like playing Barney Stanley on defense when he just played his last year on the blueline.
Yes, I was just pointing out it was not uncommon for players in the early days of hockey to move around in position. Hockey Notes says he would often play on defense, which suggests his defensive experience was more than a year. Considering his career lasted 15 seasons, I'm betting he played more than 1 of them on defense. I would have to do more research of Swift, but it would probably be more like if you wanted to play Hamby Shore at forward.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Ad
Latest posts
-
Useless Thread MDCCCLXXXVVIII - The Cancun Capitals Appreciation Thread- Latest: PanthersPens62
-
Do any of the salary cap champs beat any of the pre-cap champs (90-04)- Latest: Michael Farkas
-
Upcoming events
-
TO ADVANCE SEMIFINAL - Borussia Dortmund @ Paris Saint-Germain - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: Borussia Dortmund1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $1,429.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 18Staked: $20,242.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 10Staked: $17,327.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 5Staked: $2,459.00Event closes
- Updated:
-