MLD2011 Finals - Eden Hall Warriors vs Regina Capitals

[jarek]

That explains his lower than expected playoff ice time. He had 2 outlier low games: his first game back from the long term injury (4/22), and 5/29, when I'm not sure what happened.

Don't pretend like some of those other low ice time games didn't happen. He was under 20 minutes more than he was over 20 minutes.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think what this shows is that we perhaps take all star voting and trophy voting of players that we haven't seen play far too literally. We have the data for Campbell, but some of us don't agree with it. I wonder how often this would be the case for older players if we had actually been able to watch them? Despite all his fancy voting, I'm sure that Doug Harvey had his fair share of horrible games and bad seasons (for his standards). Perhaps he didn't deserve some of his individual recognition either.

I have no doubt that the older players benefit in our rankings from what you have described.

Especially with the newer/current players their flaws are exposed more than ever by video coverage etc.

 

[markrander87]

Originally Posted by jarek
Point 2: Don't you? If we only want to look at the good seasons that players played, then why do we count the seasons that players played poorly and use it against them when it comes time to arguing? Specifically, poor playoffs. How do we even determine what "prime" is? When they get good? So in other words, when it's convenient. The awful seasons that players had don't just disappear, and they should certainly count for something.. otherwise, what's the point of continuing the draft after Bobby Orr gets taken? Nobody could stop Orr in his prime.

You were pretty quick to point out that the data we had for Golonka was after his "Prime", Shoes on the other foot now.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Here's another way to look at Campbell. Here are his QUALCOMP finishes among defensemen on his team since 07-08 and who he was in front of or behind, in the regular season.

07-08: 6th behind Ehrhoff, McLaren, Vlaisc, Murray, and Rivet.
08-09: 7th behind Seabrook, Keith, Byfuglien, Hjalmarsson, Barker, and Walker.
09-10: 7th behind Seabrook, Keith, Johnsson, Boynton, Hjalmarsson, and Sopel.
10-11: 4th behind Seabrook, Keith, and Hjalmarsson.

That looks absolutely brutal. But when you look at the playoffs, it's different.

07-08: 3rd behind Semenov, and McLaren.(those two guys only played 2 and 5 games respectively so Campbell was more or less #1).
08-09: 7th behind Seabrook, Keith, Byfuglien, Walker, Barker, and Hjalmarsson.
09-10: 3rd behind Hjalmarsson, and Sopel.
10-11: 4th behind Keith, Leddy, and Campoli.

Those just look odd to me.

 

[overpass]

Here's another way to look at Campbell. Here are his QUALCOMP finishes among defensemen on his team since 07-08 and who he was in front of or behind, in the regular season.

07-08: 6th behind Ehrhoff, McLaren, Vlaisc, Murray, and Rivet.
08-09: 7th behind Seabrook, Keith, Byfuglien, Hjalmarsson, Barker, and Walker.
09-10: 7th behind Seabrook, Keith, Johnsson, Boynton, Hjalmarsson, and Sopel.
10-11: 4th behind Seabrook, Keith, and Hjalmarsson.

That looks absolutely brutal. But when you look at the playoffs, it's different.

07-08: 3rd behind Semenov, and McLaren.(those two guys only played 2 and 5 games respectively so Campbell was more or less #1).
08-09: 7th behind Seabrook, Keith, Byfuglien, Walker, Barker, and Hjalmarsson.
09-10: 3rd behind Hjalmarsson, and Sopel.
10-11: 4th behind Keith, Leddy, and Campoli.

Those just look odd to me.

I'm not sure playoff Qualcomp is meaningful. The fact that it's a single iteration is a big problem in the strict matchup environment of the playoffs, especially in so few games.

Single iteration means that players like Duncan Keith who faced the Sedins in the 2011 playoffs would get a low qualcomp for that matchup, because the Sedins were minus players. Keith's qualcomp doesn't consider the fact that the Sedins faced tough competition.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

First off Billy, why are you ignoring Campbell's 06-07 and the Buffalo part of his 07-08 seasons?

Anyway, I don't know why it's a surprise to anyone that an offensive defenseman would have low QUALCOMP numbers. Campbell's an offensive defenseman - you need a good mix of players including offensive defensemen to win - something that Regina has neglected.

I'm just going to look at 08-09 specifically:

Seabrook-Keith were the shutdown pair.

Byfuglien was a forward, as indicated by his 14:52 of ice time per game! IIRC, he played on Chicago's checking line that season, but I'm not completely sure. That would be consistent with his high QUALCOMP.

Campbell saw 22:34, 3rd on the team behind Keith and Seabrook.

Hjalmarsson saw 14:59 of ice time per game in only 21 games , Barker 18:20 in 69 games, and Walker 16:38 in 65.

Pretty sloppy to include Byfugilien (a forward) and Hjalmarsson (who barely played) in the metric. Edit: Though I just checked the behindthenet interface, which is quite poor, and I can see why you would have done so.

I'm not going to bother with the other seasons. Looks like Campbell's QUALCOMP was below average but not terribly low, which is exactly what I'd expect from someone who played on the 2nd pairing when the top pairing (Keith-Seabrook) took the toughest matchups.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Oh, I see what you did. QUALCOMP stats don't exist before 2007-08. Unfortunate.

And the BehindTheNet site only lists players with the last team they played on, so Campbell, who played most of the season in Buffalo, gets all 83 games he played (1 extra because of the trade) credited to San Jose, where he ended the season.

They need to work on the filter - it makes comparisons of players traded mid season fairly useless.

Check our Christian Ehrhoff: Highest QUALCOMP of any defenseman on San Jose in 2007-08

Edit: Either Ehrhoff had more than the 3 noteworthy seasons we've talked about, or Qualcomp has its issues.

Double Edit: Actually, Ehrhoff's ice time numbers would suggest that he's had 4 noteworthy seasons: His first 3 seasons were all under 19 minutes per game, but his last 4 were all over 21 minutes per game.

 

[vecens24]

I tend to go with qualcomp having it's issues. I don't think there is really an accurate sabermetric measurement for hockey. They've made advancements but it's still just not there yet. Soon though I hope.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Top 6 forwards

First line

Centers = McGimsie vs. Golonka

Golonka's competition has already been discussed in this thread. The second half of This post contains information about McGimsie's goal scoring. Since there's no way to conclusively compare the goal scoring of an era era forward with a relatively early Czech league forward, I'm not going to make a conclusion about who was the better goal scorer.

What we do know is that McGimsie was the more celebrated playmaker, while Golonka has more celebrated intangibles.

LWs = Mickoski vs. Gracie

Offense = slight advantage Gracie
Defense = close (both good not great)
Grit/Toughness/Puckwinning = large advantage Mickoski

Overall, I think these two are fairly equal players.

RWs = Drozdetsky vs. Gingras

Gingras is tougher, but Drozdetsky's offense is so much better established, I think it's clear he's a much better player.

When seventieslord drafted Golonka, he fell into the same trap I fell into in the last ATD when I drafted Starshinov. He very well may have been the best offensive center left, but as a goal-scoring center, he's incredibly hard to build around. Like me in the past ATD with Starsh, seventies was forced to draft inferior wingers for Golonka to have good chemistry. And it's what he had to do - someone like Drozdetsky would have awful chemistry with Golonka, who is known for scoring goals but not really passing very much. But it means his first line wingers are of inferior quality - he just don't have a standout offensive winger on the first line.

Mickoski (Eden Hall) is the complimentary winger every line needs. But due to Golonka's unique skillset, Regina was forced to draft him two complimentary wingers, while Eden Hall has a winger in Drozdetsky who can accurately be called a superstar at this level.

This is a fairly substantial advantage to Eden Hall because no matter what you think of the centers, Drozdetsky is by far the best winger on either top line.

Second lines

Center = Mike Ribeiro vs. Jozef Stumpel
Two offense-only guys.

Ribeiro percentages: 78, 75, 72, 71, 52, 49, 48
Stumpel percentages: 87, 77, 64, 62, 57, 50, 49, 47

Doesn't seem like either guy has an advantage to me to be honest.

Scoring winger = Marian Stastny vs. George Richardson

How can you even begin to compare these guys?

"Glue Guy winger" = Ulf Dahlen vs. Grant Warwick

In short, Warwick has a considerable offensive advantage. It's not huge, but it's fairly large. I'd still rather have Dahlen.

Both teams have soft second line centers and scoring wingers who don't appear to be tough at all either. So I really do think that Dahlen's elite boardwork is a necessity, considering the quality of the defensemen on both of these teams.

Warwick is okay as a puck winner, but as pointed out earlier, he's quite small and the quotes about his battling are on the weaker side.

I think Regina's top line can get away with puck winning by committee, as all 3 guys seem to have some amount of battle in them, despite a lack of size. But Regina's second line has a center who is known to be soft (Stumpel) and a winger (Richardson) who doesn't have anything written about his play away from the puck. So they are relying entirely on the smallish Warwick to win battles against Eden Hall's defensemen.

Don't get me wrong, Eden Hall's second line relies entirely on Ulf Dahlen to win puck battles, but I think he's much better equipped to do so on his own than Grant Warwick.

Stastny/Ribeiro and Richardson/Stumpel cancel out. Warwick provides more offense than Dahlen, but I think Eden Hall's line functions better because Dahlen is better equipped to carry the puck winning duties on his own than Warwick.

 

[jarek]

You were pretty quick to point out that the data we had for Golonka was after his "Prime", Shoes on the other foot now.

Out of context. I mentioned that to show why it was impressive that he did what he did. Golonka, as far as I know, never really had any bad offensive seasons, or any truly bad seasons.

And just to clarify my position on ice time per game: I'm not too concerned with how high a guy placed on his team in ice time, mainly because of what Dreakmur said. It is noteworthy, but not terribly important compared to what he did with said ice time. From what I can tell about Gibbs, he played an awful lot on the PK (how good were his teams' PKs?), but I don't know much more. Is there ANYWHERE listed a nice list of what these guys did? I'll check seventies' bios, but I'd prefer if everything was consolidated somewhere.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Golonka, as far as I know, never really had any bad offensive seasons, or any truly bad seasons.

From seventieslord's own profile:

Golonka didn't play very well in the 1969 World Championships (his last tournament); his meniscus injury was still bothering him. The team didn't win a medal, even though they beat the Soviets 2-0 and 4-3. Still, those two victories in such difficult times for his country warmed Golonka's heart more than a Gold medal would have.

According the the profile, Golonka retired as a player in 1975, though his last relevant season was in 1968-69.

So by your definition, he had 6 "bad" seasons to end his career. Personally, I don't think it's any more relevant than what Campbell did before the lockout, but there it is.

 

[markrander87]

From seventieslord's own profile:


According the the profile, Golonka retired as a player in 1975, though his last relevant season was in 1968-69.

So by your definition, he had 6 "bad" seasons to end his career. Personally, I don't think it's any more relevant than what Campbell did before the lockout, but there it is.

 

[jarek]

From seventieslord's own profile:


According the the profile, Golonka retired as a player in 1975, though his last relevant season was in 1968-69.

So by your definition, he had 6 "bad" seasons to end his career. Personally, I don't think it's any more relevant than what Campbell did before the lockout, but there it is.

According to SIHR, Golonka started playing in Germany after 1968-1969, probably because he didn't want to retire yet. Take that as you will. His stats for those seasons are not available.

 

[jarek]

Can you go troll somewhere else?

 

[markrander87]

Can you go troll somewhere else?

By the looks of your recent parade here in the MLD, you're the only troll around here. I am actually a voting GM, and believe it or not I am not a biased voter and am still up in the air with whom I am voting for.

 

[vecens24]

Please tell me you posted this because of the boom goes the dynamite quote because my Friends and I always say that.

 

[markrander87]

Please tell me you posted this because of the boom goes the dynamite quote because my Friends and I always say that.

Of course haha, one of the best sport phrases of all-time. Sorry to throw this series off track, carry on.

 

[jarek]

By the looks of your recent parade here in the MLD, you're the only troll around here. I am actually a voting GM, and believe it or not I am not a biased voter and am still up in the air with whom I am voting for.

How am I trolling? I'm saying my opinion. Why is that whenever someone posts something that others disagree with, it HAS to be trolling?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bottom 6 forwards

I honestly don't think a player by player comparison would be very productive, as our bottom 6s are constructed completely differently. So I'll try to compare them as a whole:

Third lines

• Eden Hall's third line is a speedy two-way line
• I'm honestly not sure what the purpose of Regina's 3rd line is supposed to be. The Harrises aren't really shutdown players, so their presence on the line makes it appear like it should be a two-way line like Eden Hall's third. But then you have Jan Erixon, a pure shutdown guy who never scored more than 8 goals, while playing in the highest scoring era in NHL history.
• Erixon is the kind of guy who kills his own team's offense whenever the puck is on his stick, so I really don't think Regina's third line will be that effective in a two-way game. And while Erixon is the best defensive player here, he's playing with two guys who aren't really shut down guys.

Fourth lines:

• Eden Hall's 4th line is a pure shutdown line - a huge asset at the end of periods and the end of close games.
• Regina's 4th line is composed of a bunch of gritty guys who are good, but not great defensively. They have more offensive upside than Eden Hall's 4th line, but not all that much more.

Shutdown ability

• Eden Hall's 4th line is the best shut-down line in the series, and it isn't particularly close.
• Tippett is almost as good defensively as Erixon (and isn't any worse offensively), and Patey/McKay are much better defensive players than the Harrises
• All 3 members of Eden Hall's 4th line are better defensively than anyone on Regina's 4th line, with the difference between Larry Patey and Darcy Tucker the biggest difference.
• Regina's 3rd line is a bit better defensively than Eden Hall's with Erixon's advantage over Kapanen the main difference. Frankly though, I think Kapanen may be a better overall player than Erixon.
• How much is Erixon's advantage in pure defense over Kapanen going to help when he isn't playing with a shutdown center?
  [*]I'll take the ability of Eden Hall's 4th line to close out close games over anything Regina can put together

Offense

• Eden Hall's 3rd line is a bit better offensively than Regina's 3rd line, because Kapanen doesn't kill an offense like Erixon does
• Regina's 4th line has more offensive upside than Eden Hall's pure shutdown 4th line, but how much more? Boutette has 1 good offensive season, Tucker has 1 good and 2 more significant offensive seasons, and Grier has 0 significant offensive seasons.

 

[seventieslord]

Your top 6 group of forwards is the one weakness on your team, especially the wings. I was actually surprised at how much better Halifax's offense was than Regina's in the last series when I looked at things closely (Regina obviously had the better defense).

I'd be interested to know where this weakness lies. Certainly not in Warwick. Gracie, I demonstrated with little difficulty, is average in his role. Gingras and Richardson are EXTREMELY tough to get an actual relative read on, but I see no reason to believe that they are poor in any way, with their production compared to guys like Walsh, Gilmour and Bain being reasonable.

When Sargent was healthy. And those two seasons were better than any season Sargent ever had, if you go by Norris and All Star voting.

except for seasons this fresh in our minds, we don't necessarily need to.

I know that the average icetimes in the 70s and 80s were higher... not sure that it explains such a difference.

Ranking high in the league in TOI isn't some golden goose of greatness, but if you go through the years and look at the top-10, there is a reasonably strong connection between the very best defensemen and the very highest TOI totals.

Lots of players have had "some success" on the PP. McKay did for a couple of years, himself. Tucker played on the PP more than McKay of course, but I don't think he's all that much better out there.

no, not "all that much", but better. Actually, the two are a great little case study in PP time versus PP points for players of this caliber. McKay had 18% PP usage and averaged 7 adj. PP points per season. Tucker was 13 in 32%. Practically the same on a "per unit of usage" level. Wonder how much this holds true for other ATD forwards? I bet the variance is more than for defenseman, but I wonder how much.

I'm sure even you realize how terrible those point men are for the PP.

Honestly, you might have the worst PP I've seen of any team that's made a finals in this thing since I've been in, which says a lot about the other strengths of your team. Maybe EB's championship team in ATD12 had a worse relative PP, I donno.

Terrible, no. But they sure aren't ideal. As I've said many times, I'm relying on the overall ability of my defensemen and not their PP ability specifically to carry me through.

jarek mentioned Julien has some trouble with powerplays. I can't confirm or deny this myself, but you probably can. Sell me on why we should believe Julien will run a powerplay effective enough to outshine ours.

A "country mile?" That's a laugh and a half. What makes Erixon all that much better than Dave Tippett?

IMO, drafting Erixon in the third round (before drafting any of your first liners) is the biggest strategic blunder you made, and no different than when Bob Gainey used to go in the third round of the ATD. Sure, you got the best defensive winger in the MLD, but really how much better is he than Tippett?

I'm going to go with "his reputation was considerably better throughout his career" if you don't mind. Despite missing as many games as he did, Erixon placed 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th in selke voting, being named on between 5 and 18 ballots each time, for a total of 48. Tippett was 9th, 12th, and 14th, with 2-5 ballots each time for a total of 11. Tippett's also one of the few forwards here who might be a weaker offensive threat than Erixon. (24 adjESPPS vs. 27)

I'm surprised you asked this, honestly.

I certainly don't think your defense is "clearly better," not when you have the clearcut worst defenseman in either team's top 4 (Gibbs). Not that Gibbs is bad, but he's definitely a step below the rest of each team's top 4.

If you won't engage in discussion regarding the relative worth of Gibbs' 7 seasons in which he led his team in TOI but was not in all-star voting, (in 3 of which the team was above .500, 4 of which were below), then how can we ever come to a consensus? You and I are both smarter (and usually more flexible) than to just "agree to disagree". We are both pretty certain he was his team's best defenseman for 9 years and we can place him in the top-15 overall in two of them. It's the other 7 that become tougher but you don't seem willing to work with me (and I certainly don't think that being top in TOI on your team "automatically" makes you good - thanks jarek and dreak)

I doubt Portland was as important as Milt Schmidt, Woody Dumart, Bobby Baeur, Roy Conacher, Bill Cowley, Eddie Shore, Dit Clapper, or Frank Brimsek. That's what I mean by "secondary player." He wasn't a key player but was likely more than a role player.

ok, fair enough. Just one note - As for guys like Bauer and Dumart and Conacher, just because they were better all-time players, they weren't necessarily better or more valuable in that particular season. That was his apex, it appears.

Votes for the 2007-08 Norris:

5. Brian Campbell, S.J. 333 (1-18-16-31-24)
8. Chris Pronger, ANA 56 (0-2-5-5-2)

You might have a case if it were close, but it wasn't.

Just because Pronger had a better career doesn't mean he had a better season. I'm sure the 10 games he missed and the excessive penalties he took that year affected the vote totals.

Pronger was the better player, it's obviously very arguable that he didn't have the better season.

Of course finishing 5th in voting for the Norris and 4th for the AS Teams only means that that's what the hockey writers who vote on the awards thought. But it's the same for every season and every award.

I understand. I would just rather not be a slave to them for seasons fresh in our memory.

He was good enough defensively to lead the best team in the league in ice time.

That is definitely to his credit.

Barry Gibbs would have been the #3 if he were in Campbell's place too.

I don't necessarily agree with that. I think Seabrook has arguably peaked higher than Gibbs, but not definitely. drop Gibbs onto Chicago and he very well might be the #2.

Comparing the careers of guys who finished theirs and retired with guys who are still playing and still have much to add to their legacy? Awesome. The 2009 ASG roster would look a lot better if guys like Lidstrom and Pronger didn't skip it and the fans didn't vote Komisarek a starter. Campbell was one of a selection of guys picked by General Managers to play.

I had a feeling you would say that, but really which of those guys are going to make themselves ATD regulars when all is said and done?

Lidstrom and Pronger not skipping it would mean two names would be dropped off.... Campbell could have been one of them.

You are right about Komisarek, forgot about that.

When there's no proof that Gibbs was any better than Campbell defensively at even strength, yeah, I'll look at points.

Do you actually think this?

#1 of a great team > ( #3 of a great team / #1 of a mediocre team) > #5/PP specialist

absolutely.

Basically, you have no basis for claiming that Campbell's seasons in Chicago were any worse than Gibbs' best seasons. Gibbs would have been the #3 in Chicago too.

If you would actually partake in that side-discussion, we might get somewhere.

I don't really care where he ranked in terms of value to his team - I care how good he was. Guy Lapointe was probably less valuable to his team than Gibbs was to his, but even Gibbs' mother would pick Lapointe if she wanted to win a hockey game.

I agree, and I'm sorry but that isn't what I meant. I just meant overall value as a player, with team context removed.

What's with all the Dreakmur references? Some would consider that flaming.

A, he can't see them. B, I see people saying all the time "you're being like ushvinder" or "that's very bilros of you" and it's used in a negative context so no I don't consider it flaming... dreakmur himself would admit that he's probably the user most likely to judge a defenseman by his hockey card stats, and in this series as it applies to Campbell, you've appeared very dreak-like. I only mean it negatively in that I highly and strongly disagree with such a position and it is not meant to be taken personally.

4 writers gave Brian Campbell votes in that "superfluous" season. That's more writers than gave Bob Armstrong votes in all but his best season, and you certainly don't see to think Armstrong's 2nd and 3rd best finishes in voting are "superfluous."

No, definitely not, and such a statement could apply to Portland, Kampman Evans and Buswell too. I agree with your philosophy with these older players, of throwing out the seasons with one vote. But I think that in modern times when there are - what, 5 times as many voters? - that our standard for what constitutes significant should be adjusted and I don't consider that 16th significant. Without looking, I am pretty sure that it represents a smaller percentage of ballots than these other players were present on in the years that we both see as significant.

Of course he didn't deserve to be ahead of Seabrook - they provided similar value to Chicago that regular season, but the Norris votes have been biased towards more offensive guys since at least the mid 80s.

you nailed it.

Defensive stalwarts don't finish 1st, 2nd,* 7th in goals scored against their teams when they are on the ice.

*to a historical outlier

I don't think he was ever abysmal. I just don't think he's as good as you think he is. Gibbs clearly shouldn't have been a #1 defenseman in the seasons he had such high goals-against numbers - that is pretty clearcut evidence he was playing over his head!

I agree he was playing over his head. Totally! It doesn't make him a worse player. But what did that make him? I don't think he was top-14 just by being a #1 in a 14-team league. I also don't think that the best defenseman of any team over .400 could be as bad as 40th in the league. Surely we can come to some sort of agreement on what those seasons mean!

I assume you mean 2007-08. Awards voting tends to take a little while to catch up to what a player actually did. IMO, Campbell could have finished higher than the 10th he finished in 2006-07 and lower than the 5th he finished in 2007-08.

yes, I meant 2008, sorry.

And I fear your blinders are on, my friend. I just don't see how you can think Gibbs would see any more ice time than Campbell on the Chicago Blackhawks. And we both agree that Campbell's 2 seasons before he joined Chicago are much better than anything Gibbs did, right?

correct, we do, but we also agree that Gibbs had 9 of the next-best 12 seasons among them. It's simply the order that we can't figure out, though I am trying.

Are we forgetting now how much higher average ice times in the early 80s were than today?

How did Sargent rank among his peers in ice time? I honestly don't know the answer to this one?

Did Sargent ever play on top 4s as good as Ehrhoff did in San Jose and Vancouver? I'm pretty sure he didn't.

no, not forgetting, but the differences are huge, I don't think era transcends it considering Sargent was 4th, 5th, and 7th in those three years. Ehrhoff was 58th, 42nd and 23rd in his best three years. As I touched on earlier, this does not mean anything conclusively, but a quick perusal of the leaders over the years does provide a very strong indication that Sargent was something special for three years, as we know other guys with similar credentials were.

If Ehrhoff having the worst plus minus on a team that almost won the Cup is bad, surely Campbell have the best plus minus on a Cup winner is good, right?

it's some degree of good, yes. Obviously he was kept away from heavy situations, but so was Ehrhoff and considering they were separated by over 20 +/- points in similar roles, that says something about both of them in those years.

Yup, Ehrhoff has only had 3 noteworthy seasons in his career.

Of course, Sargent only had 3.5 noteworthy seasons himself.

And while Ehrhoff's time as a specialist doesn't add that much to his legacy, I'll take it over what Sargent was doing when not having noteworthy seasons: sitting out injured.

well, none of this is really untrue, so all it comes down to now is, are Sargent's 3.5 years better enough to overcome Ehrhoff's specialist years? Let me know your thoughts on the icetime piece.

The All Star and Norris records just show what the professional writers who watch the games think about the players. You definitely need to account for the biases involved, such as the bias against defensive defensemen in the voting since the mid 1980s.

I agree. But do note that bias against defensive defensemen also means bias for offensive defensemen. Which makes it understandable why I'm not sure Campbell's norris votes reflect his true value in 2007 and 2008, although he was obviously very good.

I do take All Star and Norris voting more seriously before expansion, as every team played each other 14 times in the original 6 period, so writers got to watch everyone quite often.

agree

So we should just ignore those years?

good question.

0 PP points, despite 2:21 per game on the PP..

wow...

he had better have been AWFULLY good defensively to say that this post season of his was worthy of all time greatness. And didn't you say he was 3rd in TOI/G for the cup winning Hawks among D? He was 4th.. and a distant 4th.

Keith - 28:11
Seabrook - 24:10
Hjalmarsson - 21:00
Campbell - 19:34

I've just lost even more respect for Campbell. He didn't do anything of note in this cup run. Nothing to display all time greatness.

my assumption was that he was 3rd as well... interesting.

Just one more thing.. Campbell's ice time distribution in the cup year:

2010-04-22|14:04

2010-04-24|19:11

2010-04-26|19:08

2010-05-01|23:19

2010-05-03|21:22

2010-05-05|18:52

2010-05-07|16:26

2010-05-09|24:49

2010-05-11|19:24

2010-05-16|17:48

2010-05-18|18:24

2010-05-21|23:30

2010-05-23|18:45

2010-05-29|13:07

2010-05-31|16:31

2010-06-02|19:07

2010-06-04|22:30

2010-06-06|23:39

2010-06-09|22:07

Sometimes he was a #2-3.. and other times, he wasn't even a #4. Take this as you will. Now I'm done.

I'm not sure this tells us anything, really. I'm sure that most players see fluctuations nightly in their total, and in where that ranks on their team. The averages that emerge are much more meaningful.

anyway, at this point the campbell bashing is off-topic and I don't want this epic final to be about that.

 

[seventieslord]

Double Edit: Actually, Ehrhoff's ice time numbers would suggest that he's had 4 noteworthy seasons: His first 3 seasons were all under 19 minutes per game, but his last 4 were all over 21 minutes per game.

he was the #4/5 in 2009 though, so unless QUALCOMP also takes "QUANTCOMP" into consideration before spitting out that number, I wouldn't say it was all that significant.

First line

Centers = McGimsie vs. Golonka

Golonka's competition has already been discussed in this thread. The second half of This post contains information about McGimsie's goal scoring. Since there's no way to conclusively compare the goal scoring of an era era forward with a relatively early Czech league forward, I'm not going to make a conclusion about who was the better goal scorer.

What we do know is that McGimsie was the more celebrated playmaker, while Golonka has more celebrated intangibles.

LWs = Mickoski vs. Gracie

Offense = slight advantage Gracie
Defense = close (both good not great)
Grit/Toughness/Puckwinning = large advantage Mickoski

Overall, I think these two are fairly equal players.

RWs = Drozdetsky vs. Gingras

Gingras is tougher, but Drozdetsky's offense is so much better established, I think it's clear he's a much better player.

When seventieslord drafted Golonka, he fell into the same trap I fell into in the last ATD when I drafted Starshinov. He very well may have been the best offensive center left, but as a goal-scoring center, he's incredibly hard to build around. Like me in the past ATD with Starsh, seventies was forced to draft inferior wingers for Golonka to have good chemistry. And it's what he had to do - someone like Drozdetsky would have awful chemistry with Golonka, who is known for scoring goals but not really passing very much. But it means his first line wingers are of inferior quality - he just don't have a standout offensive winger on the first line.

Mickoski (Eden Hall) is the complimentary winger every line needs. But due to Golonka's unique skillset, Regina was forced to draft him two complimentary wingers, while Eden Hall has a winger in Drozdetsky who can accurately be called a superstar at this level.

This is a fairly substantial advantage to Eden Hall because no matter what you think of the centers, Drozdetsky is by far the best winger on either top line.

Second lines

Center = Mike Ribeiro vs. Jozef Stumpel
Two offense-only guys.

Ribeiro percentages: 78, 75, 72, 71, 52, 49, 48
Stumpel percentages: 87, 77, 64, 62, 57, 50, 49, 47

Doesn't seem like either guy has an advantage to me to be honest.

Scoring winger = Marian Stastny vs. George Richardson

How can you even begin to compare these guys?

"Glue Guy winger" = Ulf Dahlen vs. Grant Warwick

In short, Warwick has a considerable offensive advantage. It's not huge, but it's fairly large. I'd still rather have Dahlen.

Both teams have soft second line centers and scoring wingers who don't appear to be tough at all either. So I really do think that Dahlen's elite boardwork is a necessity, considering the quality of the defensemen on both of these teams.

Warwick is okay as a puck winner, but as pointed out earlier, he's quite small and the quotes about his battling are on the weaker side.

I think Regina's top line can get away with puck winning by committee, as all 3 guys seem to have some amount of battle in them, despite a lack of size. But Regina's second line has a center who is known to be soft (Stumpel) and a winger (Richardson) who doesn't have anything written about his play away from the puck. So they are relying entirely on the smallish Warwick to win battles against Eden Hall's defensemen.

Don't get me wrong, Eden Hall's second line relies entirely on Ulf Dahlen to win puck battles, but I think he's much better equipped to do so on his own than Grant Warwick.

Stastny/Ribeiro and Richardson/Stumpel cancel out. Warwick provides more offense than Dahlen, but I think Eden Hall's line functions better because Dahlen is better equipped to carry the puck winning duties on his own than Warwick.

None of this is considerably unfair. A couple points:

- I know I said that Golonka was more of a goal scorer earlier in the draft, but upon further research compared to his contemporaries, it appears he was actually very balanced offensively.

- You can give Dahlen a big advantage in the board battles department if you like, but let's be honest about Warwick's scoring ability in comparison. That's a huge difference.

- Why does Warwick get grouped in with Richardson, Stastny and Dahlen as "don't appear to be tough at all"? a low centre of gravity he was tough as nails to knock around.... tough little fire hydrant... cagey... played a robust and efficient brand of offensive hockey... the Canadians brought a boisterous, gashouse-gang style of hockey to the championships... he established the standards of on-ice deportment, which was rather physical, to say the least... on the ice, they hit everything that moved... rugged... tough, sometimes rowdy, but singlemindedly dedicated to winning, at all costs... ... and then of course there is this:

yeah, he's tough. An elite puckwinner, not with his size, no. but that was poor terminology on your part, to be sure.

According to SIHR, Golonka started playing in Germany after 1968-1969, probably because he didn't want to retire yet. Take that as you will. His stats for those seasons are not available.

he was a defenseman.

I honestly don't think a player by player comparison would be very productive, as our bottom 6s are constructed completely differently. So I'll try to compare them as a whole:

Third lines

• Eden Hall's third line is a speedy two-way line
• I'm honestly not sure what the purpose of Regina's 3rd line is supposed to be. The Harrises aren't really shutdown players, so their presence on the line makes it appear like it should be a two-way line like Eden Hall's third. But then you have Jan Erixon, a pure shutdown guy who never scored more than 8 goals, while playing in the highest scoring era in NHL history.
• Erixon is the kind of guy who kills his own team's offense whenever the puck is on his stick, so I really don't think Regina's third line will be that effective in a two-way game. And while Erixon is the best defensive player here, he's playing with two guys who aren't really shut down guys.

have you read all the scouting reports on Erixon? He was not some talentless defensive waterbug. He had legitimate stick and puck skills. He was just an awful finisher. That's it. He doesn not kill his team's offensive ability - he just won't score goals. And those two things are not one and the same.

Harris of the 1970s placed 8th in Selke voting once... that makes him as much of a "shutdown" player as a lot of MLDers, doesn't it?

Fourth lines:

• Eden Hall's 4th line is a pure shutdown line - a huge asset at the end of periods and the end of close games.
• Regina's 4th line is composed of a bunch of gritty guys who are good, but not great defensively. They have more offensive upside than Eden Hall's 4th line, but not all that much more.

Shutdown ability

• Eden Hall's 4th line is the best shut-down line in the series, and it isn't particularly close.
• Tippett is almost as good defensively as Erixon (and isn't any worse offensively), and Patey/McKay are much better defensive players than the Harrises
• All 3 members of Eden Hall's 4th line are better defensively than anyone on Regina's 4th line, with the difference between Larry Patey and Darcy Tucker the biggest difference.
• Regina's 3rd line is a bit better defensively than Eden Hall's with Erixon's advantage over Kapanen the main difference. Frankly though, I think Kapanen may be a better overall player than Erixon.
• How much is Erixon's advantage in pure defense over Kapanen going to help when he isn't playing with a shutdown center?
  [*]I'll take the ability of Eden Hall's 4th line to close out close games over anything Regina can put together

Our 3rd line A BIT better defensively? There's only very modest defensive ability throughout your 3rd line (mainly because Kapanen actually played some D and because Sullivan is a shorthanded threat) but Erixon and Harris of the 70s are the two best defensive players on either 3rd line. And Harris of the 60s at least played a defensive role at times.

What makes McKay a better defensive player than Harris of the 70s? And what makes him conclusively any better than Grier defensively? (FWIW, Grier, in 130 more games, has the same ES production rate as well, and I think he did it with lesser linemates, too)

Tippett is not "almost" as good as Erixon, as much as you'd like to think so. (addressed above)

Erixon, to my knowledge, didn't ever play with a "shutdown" center in real life. He even did some cleanup work for Pierre Larouche IIRC.

Offense

• Eden Hall's 3rd line is a bit better offensively than Regina's 3rd line, because Kapanen doesn't kill an offense like Erixon does
• Regina's 4th line has more offensive upside than Eden Hall's pure shutdown 4th line, but how much more? Boutette has 1 good offensive season, Tucker has 1 good and 2 more significant offensive seasons, and Grier has 0 significant offensive seasons.

looking back, it might have made sense to compare 3rd to 4th and vice versa, but anyways...

- Yes, your 4th line has less offensive ability than any in the draft, I determined this when adding up the offensive values earlier on, but I don't think that particularly makes a difference, as I said - it's how they play that counts. Which brings me to the next point.

- Your 4th line is a defensive line and it's a good one... where is the energy? Where is the intimidation? Where is the agitation? Obviously McKay was a real swashbuckler, but Patey and Tippett were pretty passive pure defensive players. Which line is going to go out there and cause a ruckus and get the momentum going in your team's direction when you need it? To be honest, I don't see three players in your starting lineup who can really be that kind of guy for you. I see McKay, and I see Cooke on the bench. This is a major gap in the makeup of Edan Hall, one that can be critical as the playoffs wear on... which they already have, considering this is the finals.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

jarek mentioned Julien has some trouble with powerplays. I can't confirm or deny this myself, but you probably can. Sell me on why we should believe Julien will run a powerplay effective enough to outshine ours.

Because Eden Hall has much better personnel on the PP than Regina. Coaches coach, players play, and the advantage Eden Hall has in PP players is enormous. Believe me, I'm going to emphasize this again before the series is up.

In one of the few seasons Julien actually had decent powerplay personnel (2008-09), his team finished 4th in the league on the PP. Of course, that's besides the point, as I already indicated that John Muckler will be just as involved in team strategy as Claude Julien, and will likely take the role on the PP.

I'm going to go with "his reputation was considerably better throughout his career" if you don't mind. Despite missing as many games as he did, Erixon placed 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th in selke voting, being named on between 5 and 18 ballots each time, for a total of 48. Tippett was 9th, 12th, and 14th, with 2-5 ballots each time for a total of 11. Tippett's also one of the few forwards here who might be a weaker offensive threat than Erixon. (24 adjESPPS vs. 27)

I'm surprised you asked this, honestly.

Serious question: How much better is the 3rd best defensive forward (as determined by the media) than the 9th best defensive forward (as determined by the media)? I really don't think the gap between the top checking forwards is that high - certainly not as high as the gap between the top scorers, which is why I never draft 3rd liners before 1st liners.

Once in awhile, there will be a generational defensive forward like Bob Gainey, but Erixon clearly isn't that. If he was, ATD canon would have him go in the main draft, considering the ATD was started by a group of GMs who grew up watching 80s (and 70s) hockey.

no, not forgetting, but the differences are huge, I don't think era transcends it considering Sargent was 4th, 5th, and 7th in those three years. Ehrhoff was 58th, 42nd and 23rd in his best three years. As I touched on earlier, this does not mean anything conclusively, but a quick perusal of the leaders over the years does provide a very strong indication that Sargent was something special for three years, as we know other guys with similar credentials were

.

Maybe it just means that Sargent was the big fish in a small pond - those North Stars teams weren't exactly stacked - certainly not like the recent San Jose Sharks or the President's Trophy winning Canucks.

well, none of this is really untrue, so all it comes down to now is, are Sargent's 3.5 years better enough to overcome Ehrhoff's specialist years? Let me know your thoughts on the icetime piece.

Sargent certainly didn't have any years better than Ehrhoff's last 2 when he finished top 10 in Norris voting over a much larger talent pool and deserved it. I mean, you can claim that Sargent's 3.5 seasons are better than Ehrhoff's next 2 and that's possible; I don't know. Ehrhoff has been a 21 minute+ defenseman for the last 4 seasons and was a specialist for several before.

I agree. But do note that bias against defensive defensemen also means bias for offensive defensemen. Which makes it understandable why I'm not sure Campbell's norris votes reflect his true value in 2007 and 2008, although he was obviously very good.

If Brian Campbell had a full career (10 years or so) of seasons like he had in 2006-07 and 2007-08, he would have a career as good or better than Sergei Zubov, who most think is a rock solid offensive minded #3 in the main draft. Of course Campbell didn't have a career of seasons like that, so he falls to the MLD, but let's be realistic about just how good those seasons were.

Anyway, the Gibbs/Campbell thing has become a mess, so I'll make a new post on just that in a bit.

 

[jarek]

The discussion of is the 9th best defensive forward really better than the 3rd best is a horrible argument, IMO. First of all, it's purely subjective, and second of all, other than Selke votes and using your eyes, there's no way to quantify this. Erixon got top-10 Selke votes in what, 5 seasons? Despite injuries? Maybe he's not a generational defensive forward, but I would put him right at the top of that "next best" tier.

C'mon TDMM, this is a very weak argument, and you know it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The discussion of is the 9th best defensive forward really better than the 3rd best is a horrible argument, IMO. First of all, it's purely subjective, and second of all, other than Selke votes and using your eyes, there's no way to quantify this. Erixon got top-10 Selke votes in what, 5 seasons? Despite injuries? Maybe he's not a generational defensive forward, but I would put him right at the top of that "next best" tier.

C'mon TDMM, this is a very weak argument, and you know it.

I have used my eyes in watching hockey, thank you very much. For about 18 years. And from what I've seen, the gap between the top defensive forwards is not that big - certainly much smaller than the gap between the top scoring forwards and top defensemen.

Now to get away from "I saw it so it must be true:" There's a reason defense-only forwards get paid less than top forwards and top defensemen, right? Because it's a lot easier to get a defensive forward who's almost as good.

Since you obviously need something to do, look at who finished top 10 in Selke voting the last few seasons and try to argue with a straight face that the guys who finished 3-5 were significantly better defensively than the guys who finished 6-10.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think generally after the two front runners get decided on, the votes go all over the place.

There are exceptions of course but I agree that there isn't a world of difference 3-10 unless like in some years the 8 9 10 are just single homer votes. In some years when a bunch of players have good seasons there is a solid top 5 though.