TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Tucker was definitely infamous himself...
I definitely think Cooke has better defensive credentials than Tucker, for whatever that is worth.
MLD2011 Finals - Eden Hall Warriors vs Regina Capitals
- Thread starter DaveG
- Start date
Tucker was definitely infamous himself...
I definitely think Cooke has better defensive credentials than Tucker, for whatever that is worth.
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
Tucker also has the beneficiary of playing in an age where there is the most available information about players. Quotes about current players are everywhere. It's not like quotes don't exist about late 70s, early 80s players, but they are certainly less plentiful than for a guy that just retired.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Garth Butcher
About what I expected. A guy who was 2nd or 3rd in ice time on his teams through his prime. Teams no worse than Gibbs' teams.
I don't see why this is any worse than any of Gibbs' non all-star seasons to be honest. Butcher was a defense-only defenseman, and guys like that just never lead their teams in ice time.
Just like I said with Colin White - ice time is a poor way to measure the value of a defense-only guy when compared to more well-rounded defensemen.
Gibbs is definitely more well-rounded than Butcher - his coaches played him in all situations. Butcher had hands of cement - he'd be useless in an offensive situation.
Honestly, being #2 or 3 in overall ice time is excellent for a defense-only defenseman. And that's all we're counting on Butcher for.
Here is some information on how highly regarded Butcher was in his prime:
Anyway, I don't think Butcher was as good overall as Gibbs, but I like him better for the role he is playing here than I do for Gibbs.
For me, Butcher is the ideal defensive-minded #6. Gibbs would probably be best served as a well-rounded #5 but he's not awful as a #4. He's just not great, either.
About what I expected. A guy who was 2nd or 3rd in ice time on his teams through his prime. Teams no worse than Gibbs' teams.
I don't see why this is any worse than any of Gibbs' non all-star seasons to be honest. Butcher was a defense-only defenseman, and guys like that just never lead their teams in ice time.
Just like I said with Colin White - ice time is a poor way to measure the value of a defense-only guy when compared to more well-rounded defensemen.
Gibbs is definitely more well-rounded than Butcher - his coaches played him in all situations. Butcher had hands of cement - he'd be useless in an offensive situation.
Honestly, being #2 or 3 in overall ice time is excellent for a defense-only defenseman. And that's all we're counting on Butcher for.
Here is some information on how highly regarded Butcher was in his prime:
- Defensemen on Brett Hull's "St. Louis Blues Dream Team:" Scott Stevens, Garth Butcher, Steve Duchesne, Al MacInnis, Phil Housley, Jeff Brown, Chris Pronger
- At the 1991 trade deadline, the Blues thought so highly of Butcher that they effectively gave up their entire second line to secure his services:
source
This trade ended up being one of the worst in NHL history as St. Louis lost in second round due to lack of secondary scoring, and Ronning and Courtnall became key players for a long time. But it's evidence as to how highly regarded Butcher was at the time.
Anyway, I don't think Butcher was as good overall as Gibbs, but I like him better for the role he is playing here than I do for Gibbs.
For me, Butcher is the ideal defensive-minded #6. Gibbs would probably be best served as a well-rounded #5 but he's not awful as a #4. He's just not great, either.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Since I think voting starts tomorrow night, I plan on making 2 main posts tomorrow - one on special teams and one summarizing why our team should win.
Those are the only "new" posts I plan on making, though obviously I'll respond to yours.
Just so we don't have to argue about it later in a long post - I assume you have evidence that either Grier or Erixon can take faceoffs, seventies? (they are your first PK duo)
Those are the only "new" posts I plan on making, though obviously I'll respond to yours.
Just so we don't have to argue about it later in a long post - I assume you have evidence that either Grier or Erixon can take faceoffs, seventies? (they are your first PK duo)
Last edited:
vecens24
Registered User
- Jun 1, 2009
- 5,002
- 1
During his time yes he was infamous...but he's been largely forgotten. Cooke will not be forgotten because he was a major part of the new headshot rule, which I think is actually a major part of history, for better or worse. But I think Cooke is similar to a less offensive version of Bourdias, who seventies drafted in the main draft. He will be remembered for being one of the best pests of his generation in 10 years.
By the way, within history i consider being the part of the new headshot rule a good thing. Many different NHLers that were drafted in the main draft pulled the same **** Cooke did.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
If a guy from the 1930s did what Cooke did, it would be celebrated as "proof of toughness."
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Wow, Tucker really is forgotten, isn't he? haha... lately I get the idea that it doesn't matter how physical you are if you're small.
At his best, Tucker threw everything he had at everybody. He wasn't intimidating like a bigger player might be. But he was annoying and effective, and it wasn't just because of shenanigans, either.
No, I don't need for him to scare them, of course. A player like Tucker just needs to forecheck hard and cause the occasional rushed pass or loose puck. Big hits along the end boards inspire the team and change momentum. That's what energy lines do. This trio provides an element Eden Hall just doesn't have enough of.
that's something, I guess.
ok, I said I was going to check, so I finally got the time to, but I can't post it now (please don't make me). I checked 10 McKeen's and Sports Forecaster guides, and just one even said one word about defensive ability: 2000, a year after he got selke votes. the words "crash" and "grind" come up a lot, as do notes about his physicality and timely goals. Defense doesn't appear to have been what made him valuable. At best, it appears to have been 3rd, maybe 4th after leadership and being a good teammate.
Kampman actually appears to be a pretty good rusher according to Pelletier. He is probably my 4th-best guy followed by Gibbs and Sargent, yes.
Sargent, Ehrhoff and Butcher are the only starting defensemen here who actually belong in the MLD following a 40-team ATD if all players were actually drafted in order of how good/valuable they were. (Of course, there will be major corrections done on many of our defensemen following the new info and the attention we called to it)
here are the icetimes by year as per above:
15.008
16.037
18.659
14.801
18.817
19.839
21.244
21.462
21.139
21.451
20.781
21.249
19.708
career average: 19.56
I disagree strongly, but what will really solve that aside from a quote pissing match? Tucker could have contributed to a winner if he was just ever on one. Good on Cooke for his contributions, but he didn't make Pittsburgh win, did he?
Cooke's a bigger POS but I don't think he was more effective overall. The cup doesn't prove he was, of course.
Yeah, but Tucker was hugely notorious around the league. It's not just that he's more modern. That's a lofty claim to say that a guy like Patey is on his level as far as "4th line skills" go. If he was, it would be a lot easier to prove. For example, I wouldn't have a problem proving it for JP Parise, Eddie Shack, Leo Labine or Dennis Hextall.
why are you making me do this? sigh...
1971: #1, .462
1972: #1, .551
1973: #1, .545
1974: #1, .404
1975: #1 on .365 (that went to .302 after he left), #1 on .524 (up from .513)
1976: #1, .513
1977: #1, .500
1978: #1, .482, #1, .366 (both teams got 100 % points better after trade)
1979: #1, .300
Butcher was only ever a clearcut #2 for halves of two seasons. The better of those two teams had a win% of .506, Gibbs was #1 of three teams better than that. Butcher was a #3 four times, for .519, .497 (avg), .463, .400. In Gibbs' 3rd-6th-best years he was higher on the depth chart and for slightly better teams, too: .513, .500, .462, .444 (avg). Yes, that leaves three seasons in which he was #1 for stinkers (.405 avg, .404, .300), but I'm pretty sure that's better than #3 on teams that were only marginally better.
They do sometimes, actually (for one who is MLD-caliber, look at Ragnarsson). But I'm not going to go all hard line on you. I realize Butcher is a niche player and can't be perfectly described by icetime. Call him a lesser version of Jason Smith (who I originally wanted) or Bob Rouse. Regardless, Gibbs was a similar type of player and got more responsibility for better teams (and the difference was not just offensive usage, either)
Not sure if it's deliberate, but you are perhaps dismissing the large difference that exists between the average #1, 2, and 3 defenseman. It's certainly not as simple as saying 2 is just behind 1.
I wonder if you speak of our teams in a bubble because of the relative quality of our defenses, or of the MLD as a whole. I can't see any team (other than yours) that shouldn't be tickled pink to get Gibbs as a #4, and in most cases much higher than that.
..........................hmmm... let's say for now that I don't. I know I read somewhere "Erixon played lots of center last year" or something to that effect. But I can't find it now. If I don't locate it (and I don't really care to) I will just move Harris up and let Boutette take faceoffs for the 2nd unit.
A. I don't think you know Boudrias very well. He was a very honorable and gentlemanly player, and a leader who wore the C for two teams (VAN and WHA Nords). He was the most honest "pest" I can think of. He's nothing like Cooke.
B. If you are saying Tucker won't be remembered for being one of the best pests of his generation, you're either nuts or not old enough to remember 1998-2004 clearly. If you are indeed 21, it is probably the latter. You were 8-14 and in the USA when Tucker was at his most rambunctious. I actually posted three separate lists that named him as one of the top pests.
-------------------------------
toying with a couple of lineup changes.
- Gibbs goes to the 3rd pairing in favour of Kampman. Kampman was able to rush the puck so this doesn't hurt the transition game much.
- Tobin joins the 3rd line as the RW, where he played 40% of his career. He has some defensive ability, having spent 22% of his career at defense. Harris of the 70s was able to play center, so he moves there. Harris of the 60s is out of the starting lineup and goes to the role he was best at - "hockey's ultimate pinch hitter". The option is there to keep him in the lineup on the 4th line but I don't want to disrupt the bang and crash system that they will have going.
- Tobin becomes a legitimate option for the point on the PP, either to relieve Sargent (who I don't think really needs it) or to replace Gibbs (who is not the best pointman and is only there by necessity). Weinrich, Roberts, Tobin, Gibbs would play the PP with Sargent out.
---------------------------------
interested to hear why Regina's PP is so terrible. It's definitely not as good as Eden Hall's, mainly because we don't have the specialists Campbell and Ehrhoff there (though we expect that to pay off, and then some, at even strength). That's where the major differences exist. TDMM already went over the top-6 forwards (who, aside from our Tucker/Richardson swap, comprise our PPs) and only really declared an advantage for Drozdetsky. Gracie is slightly better offensively than Mickoski and Warwick is significantly better than Dahlen. Though the Eden Hall players above are puckwinning specialists, that becomes much less important on the PP as opposed to pure offense. This is where it stops apparently mattering that our top-6 forwards are "so small".
At forward, I see PP1 units being fairly similar, with Warwick's edge over Dahlen similar to Droz' over Gingras. On PP2, although Gracie edges Mickoski, Stastny trumps Tucker, giving Eden Hall the edge.
On the points, we each have matchups that cancel out, with Eden Hall getting the advantage on the other. Campbell trumps Sargent on PP1, and Sullivan (probably) trumps Gibbs on PP2. (would he trump Tobin?)
Overall, that doesn't look like our PP warrants the tag TDMM has attempted to give it. Theirs is definitely better, and ours is not our strength, but better team defense at even strength can offset that quite easily. They have about 7 times as much time to bridge the gap.
considering our PKs are practically identical with a slight advantage going our way (I really only see an advantage for Gibbs over Butcher on PK1 and Harris/Grier over Pettersson on PK2), I think that is a fair assessment.
Our PK is better, but their PP is better by a larger degree. Expect them to score a couple more goals this series on special teams. Can Regina get those goals back in 40 minutes of even strength time over 6-7 games? I have no doubt they can.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
You really think Gibbs belongs in the main draft? You even admitted that he's a worse version of Alexei Zhitnik. Zhitnik was a fringe player in the main draft; what on Earth did Gibbs do to deserve to be there?
Could have, but didn't.
What is a "4th line skill?" Eden Hall's 4th line is a shut down line that can grind. And at that role, it's much better than anything Regina could put together.
Regina's 4th line is composed of "energy line specialists," but that doesn't mean it's better overall.
I don't know why you bothered. We all know by now Gibbs was first in ice time on his team 9 times. It's his biggest claim to fame.
I think I'm going to start purposely using the phrase "1st in overall ice time" rather than #1, because calling Gibbs a #1 means he was necessarily the best defenseman on his team, and I'm not sure he was (the ice time is evidence, but not conclusive).
I'm not sure how Butcher was lesser than Bob Rouse, but yes, he is a lesser version of Jason Smith, a niche player as you said.
How was Gibbs a similar type player? He hit guys but there's no evidence that he was a physical beast, a great leader, an agitator, or a big time fighter. He was just a well-rounded guy.
Your own profile mentions Gibbs' offense more than his defense.
I'm dismissing the idea that just being first in overall ice time doesn't necessarily mean very much. It doesn't mean you are necessarily your team's best defenseman.
You have to realize this is problematic...
Tucker got way more media attention than he deserved because of the market he played in. That said, he was definitely one of the more memorable pests of the era. I think he's basically Matt Cooke with less defensive ability.
I'm not sure how I feel about this. Kampman is definitely better than Gibbs, but I need more selling on his transition ability.
I don't see evidence that Harris of the 70s can play center. Can you provide some?
You're already using Tucker, a natural winger, as center of your 4th line because he sometimes played there. Kind of dangerous to use 2 natural wingers as your bottom line centers, do you think?
I would much rather have Campbell at even strength than Gibbs. And Ehrhoff vs. Sargent, well... I donno. I can at least count on Ehrhoff to be healthy, right?
I think the lack of size is actually worse on the PP. You have nobody to effectively screen the goalie on the first unit and the second unit has to rely on Tucker of all people because of the lack of anyone better.
I'll go over special teams tomorrow, but I find it interesting that 70s claims an advantage on the PK without being sure who is taking faceoffs on the unit.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Powerplays
Powerplay
Having a strong PP is important for two reasons:
Forwards first unit:
Let's pretend centers wash out, since it's impossible to compare them.
Drozdetsky is simply a much better offensive player than Gingras.
70s claims an advantage with Warwick over Dahlen, but I don't see it. Dahlen was an excellent PP player, indeed a large % of his offense comes on the PP:
I don't buy Grant Warwick as an effective net presence on the PP. The guy was 5'6" - he'll be splattered like a bug by the likes of Jack Evans and Garth Butcher if he stands in front of the net on the PP. Warwick is definitely better offensively overall than Dahlen, but I like Dahlen better as the net presence on the PP.
Forwards second unit:
Ribeiro = Stumpel
Tucker looks bad to me on the PP, but I guess he's not statistically worse than Mickoski, so whatever. Both are obviously the net guys.
As 70s pointed out, the big difference is that Stastny is the most talented offensive winger on either unit.
Pointmen are a huge advantage to Eden Hall
I have no idea how to assess Toobin if you insert him into the lineup.
I normally don't like to claim every advantage in my favor, but it's pretty clear to me in this case that every Eden Hall pointman is better for his role than every counterpart on Regina. And that's before we get into the fact that Gibbs appears to be the only right handed shot that Regina has who is even competent on the PP.
Regina didn't take offense from the defense into account when drafting, and it shows.
I expect Eden Hall's PP to be much more effective.
Powerplay
Having a strong PP is important for two reasons:
- The goals actually scored on the PP - goals are tough to come by in the playoffs, which makes each PP that much more important
- What you can "get away with" at even strength - if your opponent's PP is weak, you can play much more aggressively at even strength
Forwards first unit:
Let's pretend centers wash out, since it's impossible to compare them.
Drozdetsky is simply a much better offensive player than Gingras.
70s claims an advantage with Warwick over Dahlen, but I don't see it. Dahlen was an excellent PP player, indeed a large % of his offense comes on the PP:
- 120 career PP goals (91st All-Time and close to the top among MLD players). This is obviously effected by era, but still.
- 11+ PP goals 5 times
- Dahlen got the goals he did score by driving the net, screening the goalie, etc.
- Dahlen was also famous for holding the puck along the boards behind the net, drawing defensemen to him, and creating 4 on 3s for his teammates.
I don't buy Grant Warwick as an effective net presence on the PP. The guy was 5'6" - he'll be splattered like a bug by the likes of Jack Evans and Garth Butcher if he stands in front of the net on the PP. Warwick is definitely better offensively overall than Dahlen, but I like Dahlen better as the net presence on the PP.
Forwards second unit:
Ribeiro = Stumpel
Tucker looks bad to me on the PP, but I guess he's not statistically worse than Mickoski, so whatever. Both are obviously the net guys.
As 70s pointed out, the big difference is that Stastny is the most talented offensive winger on either unit.
Pointmen are a huge advantage to Eden Hall
- Eden Hall has a RH shot and a LH shot on both units for favorable shooting angles. Sargent and Roberts are LH shots, so they are already at a disadvantage before we get into talent.
- Roberts is clearly worse offensively than either O'Donnell or Campbell
- Sargent might be as good on a per-game basis, but he has a shorter track record, so I think he'll be less effective than either O'Donnell or Campbell on the first unit.
- Ehrhoff is Sargent's equal on the PP in a vacuum, which means a fresh Ehrhoff will be more effective than a tired Sargent on the 2nd unit.
- Steve Sullivan, who has experience playing the point, has to be a better option than Gibbs, who never put up impressive numbers. Both are RH shots.
I have no idea how to assess Toobin if you insert him into the lineup.
I normally don't like to claim every advantage in my favor, but it's pretty clear to me in this case that every Eden Hall pointman is better for his role than every counterpart on Regina. And that's before we get into the fact that Gibbs appears to be the only right handed shot that Regina has who is even competent on the PP.
Regina didn't take offense from the defense into account when drafting, and it shows.
I expect Eden Hall's PP to be much more effective.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Penalty Kills
70s seems to have changed his PK units around, but I'm not sure what they are.
Either way, his units are hurt by the fact that the only top PKer he has who can take faceoffs appears to be Billy Harris.
Obviously, Erixon and Grier cannot be the top pairing if one can't take faceoffs.
I have no idea why 70s thinks Gibbs is better than Butcher on the PK. Butcher is a "niche" player - and this is his niche, right?
The only difference I see among defensemen is that Roberts is slightly better than O'Connell for the PK. So Regina does have the slight edge on the 2nd pair.
Forwards:
70s seems to have changed his PK units around, but I'm not sure what they are.
Either way, his units are hurt by the fact that the only top PKer he has who can take faceoffs appears to be Billy Harris.
Obviously, Erixon and Grier cannot be the top pairing if one can't take faceoffs.
I have no idea why 70s thinks Gibbs is better than Butcher on the PK. Butcher is a "niche" player - and this is his niche, right?
The only difference I see among defensemen is that Roberts is slightly better than O'Connell for the PK. So Regina does have the slight edge on the 2nd pair.
Forwards:
- First pair forwards are an advantage to Eden Hall partially due to Patey's proven faceoff ability, pending more info from 70s.
- Dave Tippett actually has better PK stats than Jan Erixon if you believe in such things (Tippett = killed 51% for PKs 12% above league average; Erixon = killed 38% for PKs 3% above league average)
- Second pair forwards are probably advantage to Regina because Grier/Harris has more proven defensive ability than Pettersson.
- Third pair forwards are probably an advantage to Eden Hall. I definitely like Steve Sullivan's ability to take advantage of a tired Sargent at the end of the PP. Sullivan led the league in SHGs once and was top 10 3 times.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I just remembered why I thought Tippett was almost as good as Erixon when I drafted him - he has much better PK stats than Erixon, and I draft checkers to kill penalties as much as provide even strength defense.
So I think maybe we can say that Erixon has a fairly substantial advantage defensively at even strength, but it goes away on the PK and possibly then some.
So I think maybe we can say that Erixon has a fairly substantial advantage defensively at even strength, but it goes away on the PK and possibly then some.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,271
- 2,808
A note on the PK stats - they are designed to be on a per-game level. Because they use the full-year stats from the team, not just the stats from the games in which the player played, they would tend to slightly underrate the per-game contribution of good PKers who missed time.
If the Rangers were a better penalty killing team with Erixon in the lineup than without, the stat wouldn't pick up on that.
This also comes back to the issue of the value of a player who missed time, of course...
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Oh good point. I thought Erixon's PKing stats were shockingly unimpressive, considering his overall defensive reputation. That explains why - they are actually the PK statistics of his teams, which inherently include the effect of his injuries on his team's PK.
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
Comparing Cooke to Boudrias is borderline offensive to Boudrias. Boudrias' offense blows Cooke's out of the water.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
vecens did say Cooke was a less offensive version of Boudrias. Pretty sure he was just using it as an example of antics, not skill. I don't know enough about Boudrias to know if he was really that type of player, but there are certainly other examples.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,672
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I could give an extensive list of middling players who lacked any sort of norris/AS recognition from the ATD, that Gibbs could usurp. Zhitnik too. Our draft lists are a good representation of a top-1000 list, but good isn't great. I don't think Zhitnik was a "fringe player". You're a great GM who made the semis and could have easily won; you don't think your #7 could have been a #5 or 6 on a more average team? Most teams that are top-4 in the league can make that claim, and I don't think yours was an exception.
and I could have included Gibbs in that list, yes, but then I'd include Campbell too :p
toughness, hustle, grinding ability, agitation, heart, etc.
never said it was. The two lines are so different that comparing them would be an exercise in futility. What IS true, however, is that Eden Hall doesn't have a line that can do what this line does.
sure, what is really conclusive evidence of anything?
you can do what you like, that's your prerogative. The correlation between being the best and being #1 in icetime is strong enough for my liking, if it's not strong enough for yours, fair enough.
(Gibbs' TOI lead on his team over the #2 was always at least one full minute, and seven of these times it was at least two minutes, FYI)
Similar type of player. Rouse occupied slightly lower spots on the depth chart, but also for much better teams behind some very good players. That one can go either way.
Another guy would be Luke Richardson.
He was a tough defensive defenseman who did everything Butcher did and more, for equally inept teams, for many more minutes.
I don't follow.
There were isolated quotes here and there in google news, but I didn't anticipate needing to demonstrate a lot of puck carrying ability for him. I was looking for physicality and toughness. Plus I'm really not a big fan of posting "Kampman rushed the puck down the ice and..." like others often do.
Originally Posted by Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1979
size, strength and determination... steady two-way RW... durable player... has also played center.
Originally Posted by Complete Handbook Of Pro Hockey 1982
...has played all three forward positions for the Kings...
I guess that would be dangerous, if that's what I was doing
Tucker is a natural center. He was drafted as a center (confirmed in 1993-94 NHL guide and record book), was a junior and memorial cup star as a center and played center in Montreal.Seriously? Yeah, there are occasional Kerrs and Holmstroms who feast on the PP thanks to their size, but it's usually the other way around - small player has trouble with traffic and physicality, and benefits from the open ice on the PP. Generally speaking, what I am pushing is more often correct than what you are pushing.
It doesn't matter if this is the PP. Warwick was so significantly better that no amount of specializing or puckwinning would make Dahlen better.
From 1946-1949 (it's tough to take a bigger piece due to 1945 and the fact that warwick missed 1944 due to war) Warwick was 5th in the NHL in goals. He had 80% as many as 2nd place Max Bentley.
I'm not 100% sure which 4, 5, or 6 year period might benefor Dahlen the most, so be my guest and correct me if you must. But from 1991-1994, he was 45th in goals, with 60% of 2nd place Robitaille's total. On the PP, he was 18th, with 51% of 2nd place Andreychuk and 56% of 3rd-place Robitaille. Yeah, in the grand scheme of things, considering we are in the MLD, that's pretty good. But that's not like what Warwick did.
We have no situational stats to prove that Warwick scored some of his goals on the PP, which is no different from anyone else in that era. It is clear that Warwick is a considerably better scorer, PP or otherwise.
The two are so similar offensively that I'm surprised you wouldn't just call them a wash and be done with it.
yes, Campbell over Sargent is clearly a PP advantage.
time spent on the point on the PP won't make Sargent tired, though, so I'm fine with this one being a wash, too.
it's too bad there aren't some numbers to prove what he actually did as a pointman. I don't feel right automatically declaring that a forward who "sometimes" played the point is better than a defenseman who was on the ice for 32% of his team's PP goals in an 800-game career.
131 points in 174 PCHA games. Jim Riley had 120 in 164 and was not on defense for 22% of his games.
I edited the units just now. Harris is center for the 1st unit. Tucker takes faceoffs for the 2nd.
(on the PP, a revolving cast of Sargent, Gibbs, Tobin takes 2nd unit duties - Sargent being injured 2-3 games simplifies that equation)
No, his "niche" is as a tough, crease-clearing defenseman, and the agitation is a nice extra. As a PKer, he seems pretty mediocre. 39% usage for teams 3% worse than average. Gibbs was at 51% for teams 10% worse. Considering his coaches kept going back to him considerably more it looks clear to me. Plus Gibbs was just plain better, he was a #1 every year and earned real all-star votes, it would be counterintuitive to suggest Butcher would kill penalties better.
yes, but I don't think it's considerable either.
To keep it simple, my PK advantages come down to Gibbs over Butcher, and Grier over Pettersson. Most everything else washes out. On the PP it's Drozdetzky, Stastny, and Campbell for you. (maybe Sullivan if it can be proven he's more useful than an actual defenseman)
this is why I say I think you could expect your PP to outscore ours by 2 goals. I think that is fair.
Grier's PK stats are phenomenal. 39%, 9% better than average, maintained over 1000+ games.
Thank you for covering this. I was going to do that myself.
I believe these two metrics can be very useful but they unfortunately break down when dealing with a player who missed a lot of games. When in the lineup, Erixon was a big part of their PK and its success, which should mean that his usage and team success numbers are both better than they appear. how much better? We'll never know.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
since this has never been about the competition for me, I'd like to work on getting Gibbs' place in the MLD more respect. I'm going to compare him to the other defensemen here who played most of their careers in the 1970s:
Gary Sargent
Arnie Brown
Bob Murdoch
Dale Tallon
Rick Smith
Dave Lewis
Randy Manery
Dave Hutchison
Bob Plager
Tom Bladon
Bert Marshall
Jocelyn Guevremont
Gibbs is, at worst, the 2nd best defenseman from the 1970s in this draft. Unless the 1970s were incredibly badly picked over heading into this draft, he is worthy of being a top pairing player here.
more on this later.
Gary Sargent
Arnie Brown
Bob Murdoch
Dale Tallon
Rick Smith
Dave Lewis
Randy Manery
Dave Hutchison
Bob Plager
Tom Bladon
Bert Marshall
Jocelyn Guevremont
Gibbs is, at worst, the 2nd best defenseman from the 1970s in this draft. Unless the 1970s were incredibly badly picked over heading into this draft, he is worthy of being a top pairing player here.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Off the top of my head, Sergei Babinov and Al Hamilton also played in the 70s and were probably better than Gibbs.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Zhitnik was definitely better than Gibbs. I guess Zhitnik could have been a #5 or 6 on a worse team in the main draft, but he would probably be below average for that
If Gibbs was a "defensive defenseman," why are most of the quotes in your profile about his puck rushing? Can you point me to a quote that indicates he was thought of primarily as a defensive guy?
Problematic if you don't have a guy who can take faceoffs on each PK pairing.
Yes, seriously. Generally speaking, most successful modern powerplays have a guy who can screen the goalie and get dirty goals in front of the net. Why do you think guys like Randy McKay ever got time on the PP?
Warwick obviously has better offensive stats than Dahlen overall. But it's about roles on the ice. Who is going to screen the goalie and get dirty goals on Regina's first PP unit? Dahlen is definitely better for that role than Warwick.
Why would I call it a wash when Campbell and O'Donnell are both clearly better offensively than Roberts? I'm a nice guy, but not that nice.
He's not going to be quite as effective at the end of a 2 minute shift as at the beginning, especially if you get back to back powerplays.
How about just being a lot more talented offensively than Gibbs? I mean, it's not conclusive, but I would definitely rather have Sullivan on the point of the PP than Gibbs.
Huh, that's pretty good on the face of it.
You have Tucker on the 3rd unit now. Who can take faceoffs on the 2nd unit?
That's better.
Maybe Gibbs' coaches went back to him more because there was no better option? 10% worse than league average is terrible and really shows how imbalanced things were in the 1970s (and why we should question whether simply being first in overall ice time on a mediocre team in the 70s is actually impressive). I don't see anything here to indicate that Gibbs was better on the PK than Butcher. He got a small number of all star votes twice (never Norris votes) in the watered-down 1970s because of his overall game, not his defensive game.
Disagree with Gibbs over Butcher on the PK. Agree with Grier over Pettersson, provided someone on your second PK unit can actually take faceoffs. Otherwise, it's obviously an advantage to Eden Hall.
Eden Hall has a very effective 3rd PK unit. Sullivan is actually a better PKer than Pettersson, but he's on the 3rd unit to take faceoffs and score SHGs against tired powerplay players. Sullivan-Mickoski is definitely better than Tucker-Tobin.
Drozdetsky, Stastny, and all 4 point men. Or all the pointmen but Sullivan if anyone disagrees with that. Also, if anyone thinks a good PP needs someone to muck things up in front of the net, then Regina lacks that on the first unit.
I would think the difference is more than that...
That's very good (though not great) for this level definitely. Can he take faceoffs?
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
This line just looks weird to me. As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that Tobin had any defensive game as a forward (there isn't any evidence in his profile), so you have Jan Erixon, who can't score, playing on the same line as Tobin, who is only known for his offense.
I understand the desire to get Tobin into the lineup for help playing the point on the PP, but I really don't see him and Erixon meshing well at all.
You'd probably be better off with Grier on the 3rd line and then pushing Tobin to the 4th, but you do place more importance on traditional "4th line skills" than I do.
DaveG
Noted Jerk
Results will be announced in the morning, so if anyone has yet to send in their votes but was intending to do so, please send them in now.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Well lookie here...
Normally I search the "players intangibles" thread whenever I make a profile; pretty careless on my part that I missed this.
Normally I search the "players intangibles" thread whenever I make a profile; pretty careless on my part that I missed this.
DaveG
Noted Jerk
After a 7 game series, your MLD2011 champions are:
The Eden Hall Warriors
This series actually had 4 stars (2 tied for 3rd in voting), they are:
G Billy Nicholson
D Jack Evans
G Johnny Mowers
RW Nikolai Drozdetsky
The Eden Hall Warriors
This series actually had 4 stars (2 tied for 3rd in voting), they are:
G Billy Nicholson
D Jack Evans
G Johnny Mowers
RW Nikolai Drozdetsky
