MLD2011 - Mickey Ion SF - (1) Regina Capitals vs. (5) New New York Awesome Express

[seventieslord]

Kindrachuk himself would say otherwise.



I'll take his word for it over yours, thank you.

OK, dubiosity of a player's claims about himself aside, "a lot of times" can mean many things. it can mean 500 times, or ten times, or anything in between. it can mean a few games a season, every single game, or anything in between. He can also be talking about a period half a season long, or ten seasons long, or anything in between.

Anyway, Bobby Clarke didn't earn the reputation as one of the best defensive players of his time, and all-time, by playing against mediocre 2nd and 3rd lines.

What's really telling about Orest's quote, though, is that he says "in road games"... which means that was not what Shero wanted, it was what the other coach wanted. Why was that?

Erixon top 5 seasons: 30,29,26,26,25
Salesk top 5 seasonsi: 47,45,40,38,28.

Erixon career high goals: 8
Saleski career high goals: 27

Erixon career high assists: 25
Saleski career high assists: 26

I know you keep going with per game rates trying to prop up a guy who was so brittle he couldn't finish a single season, but come on.. give it up. He missed so many games that doing per game rates is pretty disingenuous.

Erixon is pretty much a non-factor offensively.

not sure what the problem with per-game rates is, for a guy who was so often injured. The point is deterining "how good he was", wasn't it? "how many games he played" is another thing altogether.

Ironically enough, Saleski is one of the few post-expansion forwards here who didn't play as many games as Erixon's 556.

In any given game that either of them played, adjusted for era, Saleski was 15% more likely to participate in an even strength goal. Can I attribute that all to Kindrachuk? Hell yeah, Kindrachuk was an excellent ES producer in his role. Can I hold that against Saleski here? No, because he has Kindracuk centering him.

Based on descriptions of both players, I don't find it obscene at all to suggest that Erixon was actually a more skilled player. Not sure why you and others are focusing so hard on finishing in particular - which Erixon was obviously brutal at.

Well still if Riley isn't as good as a playmaker as he could've been (no harm in suggesting he's possibly effective in an era where assists weren't recorded accordingly, the PCHA seems to be the one league in which assists were recorded officially (according to you) 39 assists for 100 goals just doesn't seem right, I just don't see how you can conclude or justify that Riley is missing assists that were recorded when there isn't even 50% assists than there were goals.

He's still a pretty lethal goal scorer to have on a first line.

I'm not telling you I'm moving him to defense or telling you he was the original power forward? I'm just saying they were comfortable with having a guy of his stature and potential defensive ability. Unfortunately there's extremely scarce information on Riley. I don't know what more maybe SIHR has to say about him, but we know Riley is at the very least an average first line goal scorer, and I'm willing to say he's above average. We don't know he's even an average playmaker, but there's legitimate reason to believe perhaps he isn't getting all the playmaking credit he possibly had, you can't excuse the fact that because the assists aren't there makes him an inept playmaker, the fact that it's from the 1920's and close to no providing evidence on the matter.

- No, I am sure Riley is missing assists, but I'm sure that everyone else is too, and I'm sure that there's no evidence to suggest this phenomenon affects him significantly more than anyone else. Foyston and Morris were awesome and plenty is written to support this (nothing about Riley). It's possible that all the "missing assists" were theirs and none were Riley's - right? But the most logical solution (with the greatest probability of being as close to the truth as possible) is that assists were "missed" to about an equal degree for everyone. Conclusion - Riley was as poor a playmaker compared to his contemporaries as his numbers indicate.

He's an above average 1st line goal scorer, well below average playmaker, slightly below average overall offensive producer, and no real proven intangibles. I only ever claimed Gracie to be average for a 1st line, and Riley is less than that.

Well it's a quote that provides evidence that Sutter had some degree of toughness. Clearly Magnuson wasn't going to beat him senseless right there and then, but wanted to see if he had any toughness at all, which Magnuson and the coaching staff claimed they were impressed by. Sure he wasn't as two-way as some of his siblings, but it's not a long shot to say he had some defensive ability. He was renowned as a very hard-working player, who gave it his all for the Blackhawks.

come on, you still have to know that's pretty weak. What about something that describes his play in NHL games?

Besides your percentage theory how is Stumpel is more productive than McCourt? Stumpel played on half-decent teams contrary to his contemporary, McCourt was a strong offensive player on a bottom-feeding team, he was very consistent, it's not that I don't like the term, I just don't think McCourt deserves to be classified under it, especially where he was a strong first line center and put up good numbers.

well, for one thing, Stumpel was top-13 in points twice. McCourt peaked at 21st.

Or this: Stumpel averaged 72 adjusted points per 80 games compared to 69 for McCourt, and this includes games played well into his 30s, nearly twice as many as McCourt. If I was to just take Stumpel's best 8-year period, 1996-2002, his per-80 average was 82, significantly higher than McCourt's, and that still ignores a couple of decent 50-point seasons.

McCourt being on a bad team is significant to note, yes, but it is significant because it helped his production! The guy got copious minutes in all situtions because there was no one else to take them. It translated into higher scoring stats than he'd have anywhere else in the NHL at that time.

Warwick's best season in goals: 22
Sinisalo's best season in goals: 39

Huh?

Sinisalo had a career GPG of 0.48, Warwick had a career GPG of 0.51. That's not far off, nor does it imply Sinisalo is "not even remotely close" to Warwick, that's a pretty brutal and unfair statement to make.

Sinisalo has some great finishes on the power play, including 19 goals one year, respectable percentages like 55%, 50%. What evidence do we have that Warwick is "even remotely close" to that?

OK, from now on let's stick to saing things that we actually believe, ok? The fact that you're in an MLD series doesn't mean your sense-making abilities need to vanish.

Warwick was 7th in the NHL in goals when he had 22. (his highest was actually 23). Sinisalo's 39 goals were 24th in the NHL and he was nowhere near that again. Warwick had six seasons where he ranked better than that. Percentages would make it closer, yes, but you threw that out as an acceptable comparison method apparently. It's true, Sinisalo is not remotely close as an offensive producer, that is not an unfair statement, at all.

as for the PP, good for him, but you do realize, of course, that there are no available PP stats for Warwick's career, right? Considering he was top-20 in goals with percentages over 50% six times, it's probably safe to say he was getting PP time and PP goals (and if not, hey, better for him anyway!) so I'm not sure what the point of that was, or if you have one, really.

My reasoning for my third line is in response to Stoneberg's comment, and your comment about Erixon being superior defensively than my entire line is still grossly absurd and laughable, your overrating of him is sick.

OK, but what I said is "he has more defensive skill than your whole third line" - obviously no one player can actually be better defensively than any three. but the funny thing is, I don't regret saying it at all. Erixon received selke votes in five seasons and his scouting reports rave about his defensive abilities, consistently calling him the best, or one of the best, and namedropping Bossy and Lemieux as guys he's stifled. Your trio has no selke votes between them, Is there anything, anywhere, that states they are teh best, or among the best at something?

Pelletier's bio of Ruuttu explains he has intangibles? did you ignore that? He is not lacking in that department. And the fact Bubnik is on the line, he will produce offense, not much because of his limited minutes, you can't ignore his offense prowess. He stilled played against players like Sologubov, Bobrov and Tregubov who definitely aren't pushovers, so it's not like he was competing against total amateurs, Golonka had better competition, but 10 points difference in one game is a little flattering.

1. Pelletier is just a blogger with a lot of books who does research - like me or a lot of ATD GMs. He's no more credible than an ATD GM; he should be the "seasoning" to an argument for a player, definitely not the "main course".

2. Grier is active, Tucker just retired. Therefore Pelletier didn't profile them, or Boutette. If he did, what do you suppose he'd write about them? Do you think he'd speak in any less exemplary terms about Tucker's exuberance, Boutette's combativeness or Grier's intimidation? Regardless, refer to point #1. It doesn't really matter. Multiple sources (see bios) are quite clear about what types of players these are. I've only seen a quote from a blogger from your end.

I don't know where to find those records, if you could supply me with the source I'll probably pay attention to them.

They're called "bios"...

Second Pairings:

Jack Portland - Barry Gibbs vs. Sheldon Souray - Brent Seabrook

Seventies may disagree, but I see Barry Gibbs and Brent Seabrook as pretty similar players. Both are defenseman with a little better defensive ability than offensive ability, making them solid two-way defensemen. Gibbs has a pretty displeasing on-ice goals against total, as well as power play goals against total. Seabrook had one bad season of on-ice goals against total, but he plays in a slightly lower scoring era. He's great at controlling play in his end and is a pretty solid defenseman. Gibbs was much rougher, and had some pretty high PIM totals. Seabrook is occasionally rough and hits hard, but Gibbs is the more aggressive, rougher of the two. Jack Portland is a stay-at-home defenseman, who like Armstrong will contribute close to no offense, albeit he is a solid defensive defenseman who can cover for Gibbs if he decides to rush with the puck. Sheldon Souray had a very high peak, and is a big-bodied defenseman, he can protect his teammates and clear any players from the front of the net. He isn't complete defensively, but he is fairly good offensively, and his big shot from the point will be useful.

The Capitals hold a slight advantage on the second pairing, Gibbs and Seabrook are solid #3 defenseman. But Portland's defensive ability outweighs Souray's offensive contribution.

Yes, Gibbs and Seabrook are pretty similar. Seabrook has arguably peaked higher, being the #2 defenseman for a cup winner. He's probably well on his way to being a better player than Gibbs, but I don't think he's there yet. Gibbs was a #1 defenseman for nine straight years, Seabrook has only played for six and he's never been a His career progression looks like this:

- #5 on a brutal team
- #3 on an improving, but still bad team
- #2 on a decent, non-playoff team
- #2 on a conference finalist
- #2 on a cup winner
- #2 on a playoff team.

the whole time he has been a #2, he was paired with a player whom most would agree is significantly better - Duncan Keith.

Seabrook did receive a couple scattered all-star votes the last two seasons, placing 10th and 15th, but the 15th was based on just one vote.

Gibbs placed 11th and 13th in all-star voting himself, with 11 and 5 voting points. His GA totals are not really relevant considering he was the guy getting the most (and toughest) minutes on teams that were below average. Yeah, being a #1 on a below-average team isn't as great as doing it on a good team, that's why he's in the MLD. PPGA totals say nothing more than "he spent a ton of time on the PK".

not sure if missing the AS/Norris voting was deliberate or not, but let me just point out that the Regina pairing has the better voting results between the two: 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 13th, vs. 8th, 10th, 12th, 13th (three of those four the results of Souray being overrated by his offense which was all his shot, not passing/skill/mobility)

Third Pairings:

Gary Sargent - Bingo Kampman vs. Bret Hedican - Pat Quinn

I like the idea of your defensive corps, one two-way defenseman paired with a defensive defenseman. Sargent was injury prone, but when he was healthy he was a decent two-way defenseman, I think he's good offensively, but not great. Bret Hedican may be the fastest of all defenseman in the series, he'll be relied on to get back and prevent scoring chances with his quickness. Pat Quinn is a two-way defenseman who was an intimidating, punishing hitter who will be an effective player when it comes to stopping players one-on-one, or crossing the blue line. Bingo Kampman is a solid bottom pairing defenseman who played great defense in his very short career.

I believe the pairings are even in effectiveness. Someone may beg to differ due to some accolades, but I think a fast defensive defenseman, and a mean-spirited defenseman are just as effective as the Capitals third pairing.

Sargent was much better than Hedican ever was. Hedican never received a norris or AS vote in his career and was never in the running for a best on best roster. Sargent finished 9th/12th in 1978, was named to the 1980 ASG, and was USA's 2nd best player in the 1976 CC. He was also top-7 in the NHL in minutes three times. Hedican was a decent #2-5 defenseman for 1000 games but didn't do anything even close to that. We saw enough of both to know Sargent was better.

Kampman was just as tough, strong and physical as Quinn, but he actually earned all-star votes for it. 5th, 7th, and 9th, to be exact.

These two pairings are so far off that you probably should have just skipped them.

Goaltending:

Billy Nicholson and Earl Robertson vs. Eddie Johnston and Jose Theodore

I don't know what to say about Nicholson, he seems to be a very slow goaltender, although he had a lot of success in his day. His win/loss record is fine at this level. I'll need to see what kind of team played in front of him before making a final judgement. Johnston played on some pretty miserable Bruins teams in the 60's which took a toll on his W/L percentage, but he elevated his play when the team improved, and was a top goaltender in the league and was part of two Stanley Cups, one of which he played the entire way through, and played a key role in the teams championship. Minus a cup championship, Jose Theodore's resume is just as impressive and possibly more impressive than Robertson's. Robertson had one winning seasons, while Theodore has received a point in 315 of 580 games, has won a Vezina, and has a SAST. As well as several top 10's in wins, shutouts, save percentage and goals-against-average. I'll wait to see what Nicholson's team was like to finalize my verdict.

sorry, I don't understand, what exactly do you need to know avout Nicholson's teams? He won two Stanley Cups and was a finalist for another at the turn of the century. the team he won with had Dickie Boon on defense; I can't recall him playing with any other HHOF defensemen offhand but I could be wrong.

"slow"? based on what, his weight? That's pretty lame, man.

"minus a cup championship"? nice. yeah, except for that, they're about the same.

I'm curious, where would you rank Ed Johnston in terms of importance to Boston's cup win?

Coaching:

I know college hockey and the AHL are much different leagues, but when we drafted Red Berenson his college coaching record wasn't very enticing, nor do I find Cook's AHL resume as enticing. He coached a step-below the NHL, and coached far inferior players (Darren Haydar/Jason Krog like players), only a few ATD/MLD caliber players who had very short AHL careers, besides the help of Johnny Bower, which Cook wouldn't have had any influence on his play as he wasn't a goaltending coach. He's far and away the best AHL coach of all time, but I'm not sure how that will translate to dealing with much higher caliber players. While Randy Carlyle has had good success in his fairly short career, missing the playoffs once and winning the Stanley Cup in his second year, he has been known to get the most out of his bottom-line players (Pahlsson, Marchant, Moen, R.Niedermayer) he's a tactical and smart coach who has the ability to match lines well.

I think the Express hoist the coaching advantage because Cook is not a proven winner at the highest level, he's proven at a "B" level, but so were a lot of coaches who could never be successful after an AHL career, and why was he never given an opportunity from an NHL team?

what a joke. Darran Haydar/Jason Krog-type players? Where is Iain when I need him?

Cook coached in a league that contained the next-best 100 or so players in the world. Are you really going to punish him for the NHL being just 6 teams? Even extrapolating for talent pool and stuff, the players he coached were relavitely as good as average NHL players today. I don't know why he didn't get a chance in the NHL, or even if he was never offered one. He might have been. There were quite a few coaches who came and went in the O6 era that Cook was clearly better than, though.

Line matching won't help Carlyle a lick if there are no advantages for him to take advantage of.

I think there's a very good argument Theodore had a better career than Nicholson.

Based on one hart season (should have been 3rd) and a career of being an average/mediocre and very inconsistent goalie?

 

[jkrx]

Cook coached in a league that contained the next-best 100 or so players in the world. Are you really going to punish him for the NHL being just 6 teams? Even extrapolating for talent pool and stuff, the players he coached were relavitely as good as average NHL players today. I don't know why he didn't get a chance in the NHL, or even if he was never offered one. He might have been. There were quite a few coaches who came and went in the O6 era that Cook was clearly better than, though.

I've always thought an average AHL team back then would beat an average NHL now. I never done the proper research on it though. Could be intresting to see what one would come up with.

 

[seventieslord]

won't have much time to say more than this, so this is sort of a "closing argument".

Looking at my team, although it stands up well in all areas (Cook and Erixon were top vote getters at their positions and Nicholson was 3rd) and the team as a whole was defended well from some of the less-than-fair comparisons made here, it's not really goaltending, forwards, or coaching that makes this a Regina victory. It's the defense. Let's review the norris/all-star finishes earned by all the defensemen in each top-6 (top-15 only, must be more than one vote, in years where norris/AS were both earned, only higher placement counts)

5th
5th
5th
7th
7th
8th
8th
8th
8th
9th
9th
9th
10th
11th
12th
13th
13th

red = New New York.
black = Regina.

it's not really close.

And Regina didn't just grab a bunch of "stars" without the skills to back it up. This is a big, strong, tough, physical and defensive corps of defensemen. I think it does lack in PP ability. But with that said, it's not horrible offensively, either. Here are the instances of 50% or more versus the league's #2 scoring defenseman, with Orr and Coffey removed as obvious outliers:

* = WHA converted at 0.67 exchange rate

Roberts: 66, 62, 58, 55, 52*, 52*, 51
Sargent: 68, 60, 52
Gibbs: 64, 64, 53
Kampman: 54
Portland: N/A
Armstrong: N/A

Guevremont: 89, 79, 72, 66
Souray: 96, 83, 65, 55
Seabrook: 76
Godfrey: 54
Hedican: N/A
Quinn: N/A

They may give way to some other defense corps in offense, but not this one. And they don't give way to any of them in overall ability.

Defense FTW!

 

[Velociraptor]

OK, dubiosity of a player's claims about himself aside, "a lot of times" can mean many things. it can mean 500 times, or ten times, or anything in between. it can mean a few games a season, every single game, or anything in between. He can also be talking about a period half a season long, or ten seasons long, or anything in between.

Anyway, Bobby Clarke didn't earn the reputation as one of the best defensive players of his time, and all-time, by playing against mediocre 2nd and 3rd lines.

What's really telling about Orest's quote, though, is that he says "in road games"... which means that was not what Shero wanted, it was what the other coach wanted. Why was that?

Coming from Kindrachuk, that line did play against the other teams top lines, who cares if it was on the road, they did it and they did it effectively.

not sure what the problem with per-game rates is, for a guy who was so often injured. The point is deterining "how good he was", wasn't it? "how many games he played" is another thing altogether.

Ironically enough, Saleski is one of the few post-expansion forwards here who didn't play as many games as Erixon's 556.

In any given game that either of them played, adjusted for era, Saleski was 15% more likely to participate in an even strength goal. Can I attribute that all to Kindrachuk? Hell yeah, Kindrachuk was an excellent ES producer in his role. Can I hold that against Saleski here? No, because he has Kindracuk centering him.

Based on descriptions of both players, I don't find it obscene at all to suggest that Erixon was actually a more skilled player. Not sure why you and others are focusing so hard on finishing in particular - which Erixon was obviously brutal at.

Not playing a lot of games is one thing, still not being effective offensively in those games is another thing. Erixon proved zero offensively in his career, he's renowned for his strong defensive play. If he's not good offensively that's something I'm going to point out.

- No, I am sure Riley is missing assists, but I'm sure that everyone else is too, and I'm sure that there's no evidence to suggest this phenomenon affects him significantly more than anyone else. Foyston and Morris were awesome and plenty is written to support this (nothing about Riley). It's possible that all the "missing assists" were theirs and none were Riley's - right? But the most logical solution (with the greatest probability of being as close to the truth as possible) is that assists were "missed" to about an equal degree for everyone. Conclusion - Riley was as poor a playmaker compared to his contemporaries as his numbers indicate.

He's an above average 1st line goal scorer, well below average playmaker, slightly below average overall offensive producer, and no real proven intangibles. I only ever claimed Gracie to be average for a 1st line, and Riley is less than that.

Well below? Not really, there's no reason to believe that besides looking at early 1920's stats, where assists are obviously missing.

Bob Gracie is not a better first liner than Riley, I am sorry. You could pair me with Bernie Morris and Frank Foyston and I'd get injured, or maybe get 4 goals a season, you have to be a good first line player to score 23 goals in 24 and 29 games respectively, if he couldn't keep up with that line with chipping in assists, I'd think Pete Muldoon would find a place for him on the second line, at least.

come on, you still have to know that's pretty weak. What about something that describes his play in NHL games?

Honestly there's very scarce information on Sutter, at least that quote provides some evidence.

well, for one thing, Stumpel was top-13 in points twice. McCourt peaked at 21st.

Or this: Stumpel averaged 72 adjusted points per 80 games compared to 69 for McCourt, and this includes games played well into his 30s, nearly twice as many as McCourt. If I was to just take Stumpel's best 8-year period, 1996-2002, his per-80 average was 82, significantly higher than McCourt's, and that still ignores a couple of decent 50-point seasons.

McCourt being on a bad team is significant to note, yes, but it is significant because it helped his production! The guy got copious minutes in all situtions because there was no one else to take them. It translated into higher scoring stats than he'd have anywhere else in the NHL at that time.

Stumpel's top-13 came in the dead puck era. McCourt's came in the early 80's of which the avalanche of offensive production began. If McCourt played in the dead puck era in his prime, I have no doubt he'd project better offensively than Stumpel. Instead he competed against Gretzky, Bossy, Dionne and several others.

OK, from now on let's stick to saing things that we actually believe, ok? The fact that you're in an MLD series doesn't mean your sense-making abilities need to vanish.

Warwick was 7th in the NHL in goals when he had 22. (his highest was actually 23). Sinisalo's 39 goals were 24th in the NHL and he was nowhere near that again. Warwick had six seasons where he ranked better than that. Percentages would make it closer, yes, but you threw that out as an acceptable comparison method apparently. It's true, Sinisalo is not remotely close as an offensive producer, that is not an unfair statement, at all.

as for the PP, good for him, but you do realize, of course, that there are no available PP stats for Warwick's career, right? Considering he was top-20 in goals with percentages over 50% six times, it's probably safe to say he was getting PP time and PP goals (and if not, hey, better for him anyway!) so I'm not sure what the point of that was, or if you have one, really.

How didn't that make sense? That's clearly an offensive rundown of goals-per-game? That's as simple as a statistic as it gets... You clearly missed my point completely. Not remotely close? I'll let some of the comments slide, but this is foolish. Sinisalo has some undeniable goal-scoring seasons, just as impressive or even more than Warwick's. There's honestly nothing that convinces me he is a better goal-scorer, who also played in the NHL when there was much less scoring competition.

OK, but what I said is "he has more defensive skill than your whole third line" - obviously no one player can actually be better defensively than any three. but the funny thing is, I don't regret saying it at all. Erixon received selke votes in five seasons and his scouting reports rave about his defensive abilities, consistently calling him the best, or one of the best, and namedropping Bossy and Lemieux as guys he's stifled. Your trio has no selke votes between them, Is there anything, anywhere, that states they are teh best, or among the best at something?

It's just a bush league comment to claim someone has more defensive ability than 3 players who have all played in prominent defensive roles. That can't even be justified slightly, it's just gross embellishment. We get it, he's good defensively, the five or six pages of Libett/Erixon debate showed us continuously how good he was defensively, but he clearly isn't better than even two of the three players together defensively. Also in the process we learned how bad Erixon was offensively.

1. Pelletier is just a blogger with a lot of books who does research - like me or a lot of ATD GMs. He's no more credible than an ATD GM; he should be the "seasoning" to an argument for a player, definitely not the "main course".

2. Grier is active, Tucker just retired. Therefore Pelletier didn't profile them, or Boutette. If he did, what do you suppose he'd write about them? Do you think he'd speak in any less exemplary terms about Tucker's exuberance, Boutette's combativeness or Grier's intimidation? Regardless, refer to point #1. It doesn't really matter. Multiple sources (see bios) are quite clear about what types of players these are. I've only seen a quote from a blogger from your end.

His information is still credible though isn't it? I know he hasn't watched every player he's documented, but his information is clearly credible.

They're called "bios"...

I'm looking for the actual records themselves, I don't know where to get access to them.

Yes, Gibbs and Seabrook are pretty similar. Seabrook has arguably peaked higher, being the #2 defenseman for a cup winner. He's probably well on his way to being a better player than Gibbs, but I don't think he's there yet. Gibbs was a #1 defenseman for nine straight years, Seabrook has only played for six and he's never been a His career progression looks like this:

- #5 on a brutal team
- #3 on an improving, but still bad team
- #2 on a decent, non-playoff team
- #2 on a conference finalist
- #2 on a cup winner
- #2 on a playoff team.

the whole time he has been a #2, he was paired with a player whom most would agree is significantly better - Duncan Keith.

Seabrook did receive a couple scattered all-star votes the last two seasons, placing 10th and 15th, but the 15th was based on just one vote.

Gibbs placed 11th and 13th in all-star voting himself, with 11 and 5 voting points. His GA totals are not really relevant considering he was the guy getting the most (and toughest) minutes on teams that were below average. Yeah, being a #1 on a below-average team isn't as great as doing it on a good team, that's why he's in the MLD. PPGA totals say nothing more than "he spent a ton of time on the PK".

not sure if missing the AS/Norris voting was deliberate or not, but let me just point out that the Regina pairing has the better voting results between the two: 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 13th, vs. 8th, 10th, 12th, 13th (three of those four the results of Souray being overrated by his offense which was all his shot, not passing/skill/mobility)

Gibbs was the best defenseman on his team in all of those situations, hence being a #1 defenseman. Currently I think Seabrook is a #1 on many NHL teams, he's just playing with a defenseman who is simply better than him, which shows that he hasn't been given the opportunity to be a #1 defenseman.

Sargent was much better than Hedican ever was. Hedican never received a norris or AS vote in his career and was never in the running for a best on best roster. Sargent finished 9th/12th in 1978, was named to the 1980 ASG, and was USA's 2nd best player in the 1976 CC. He was also top-7 in the NHL in minutes three times. Hedican was a decent #2-5 defenseman for 1000 games but didn't do anything even close to that. We saw enough of both to know Sargent was better.

Kampman was just as tough, strong and physical as Quinn, but he actually earned all-star votes for it. 5th, 7th, and 9th, to be exact.

These two pairings are so far off that you probably should have just skipped them.

Kampman played in a six-team era, yes that's my argument because I think Quinn makes a similar impact in a six-team league as well.

They are not far off by much, both include a tough defensive defenseman, you have the advantage because you have a two-way defenseman who is capable of both aspects, while Hedican is a serviceable defensive defenseman that has speed as an advantage.

sorry, I don't understand, what exactly do you need to know avout Nicholson's teams? He won two Stanley Cups and was a finalist for another at the turn of the century. the team he won with had Dickie Boon on defense; I can't recall him playing with any other HHOF defensemen offhand but I could be wrong.

"slow"? based on what, his weight? That's pretty lame, man.

"minus a cup championship"? nice. yeah, except for that, they're about the same.

I'm curious, where would you rank Ed Johnston in terms of importance to Boston's cup win?

A team in front of the goaltender can contribute to his success can it not? He played on a good team which is a reason for his success, much like Johnston. Clearly he was a factor with a 1.86 GAA, yes he had a good team in front of him, but you aren't going to win with a bad goaltender in net. Much like Nicholson's success.

Well sure, it can be argued Theodore was better than Robertson, without a doubt. You even praised Theodore in the draft thread slightly after he was selected.

what a joke. Darran Haydar/Jason Krog-type players? Where is Iain when I need him?

Cook coached in a league that contained the next-best 100 or so players in the world. Are you really going to punish him for the NHL being just 6 teams? Even extrapolating for talent pool and stuff, the players he coached were relavitely as good as average NHL players today. I don't know why he didn't get a chance in the NHL, or even if he was never offered one. He might have been. There were quite a few coaches who came and went in the O6 era that Cook was clearly better than, though.

Line matching won't help Carlyle a lick if there are no advantages for him to take advantage of.

If he was that good, some team would want him to coach for them. Louis.

There's an advantage for us offensively...

 

[seventieslord]

Coming from Kindrachuk, that line did play against the other teams top lines, who cares if it was on the road, they did it and they did it effectively.

of course it matters that it was on the road, that strongly indicates that it was not Shero's decision, since he didn't have the last line change, it may have been the other coach saying "let's get the top line away from XXXXX (probably clarke) and get them against kindrachuk's line instead" - that's not complementary that it was a road thing, in all likelihood.

Not playing a lot of games is one thing, still not being effective offensively in those games is another thing. Erixon proved zero offensively in his career, he's renowned for his strong defensive play. If he's not good offensively that's something I'm going to point out.

that's ok, I'm thrilled that you spent so much time on it. And hey, Saleski provided just 15% more offense than zero per game, just remember that

Well below? Not really, there's no reason to believe that besides looking at early 1920's stats, where assists are obviously missing.

mmm hmm. And you did nothing to answer what I said. Missed assists apply to everyone equally, Riley is not special in this regard.

Bob Gracie is not a better first liner than Riley, I am sorry. You could pair me with Bernie Morris and Frank Foyston and I'd get injured, or maybe get 4 goals a season, you have to be a good first line player to score 23 goals in 24 and 29 games respectively, if he couldn't keep up with that line with chipping in assists, I'd think Pete Muldoon would find a place for him on the second line, at least.

there was no such thing as a second line.... you have to know this....

4 goals, great. what about if your linemates were Herb Cain and Gus Marker? Or Andy Blair and Frank Finnigan?

Gracie scored points (which matter more than goals, sorry) at a much better rate than Riley, and he did it with far inferior linemates, and guess what - he usually was the line's leading scorer. Riley was outscored by his linemates by embarrassing amounts most seasons. Do the math!

Honestly there's very scarce information on Sutter, at least that quote provides some evidence.

just as long as you know it's weak.

Stumpel's top-13 came in the dead puck era. McCourt's came in the early 80's of which the avalanche of offensive production began. If McCourt played in the dead puck era in his prime, I have no doubt he'd project better offensively than Stumpel. Instead he competed against Gretzky, Bossy, Dionne and several others.

hmmm, so the talent pool feeding the NHL nearly doubled in size thanks to the European invasion, BUT there were so many top-level players in the early 1980s that a 21st in the early 80s is better than a 10th-13th in 1997 or 1998? Good luck with that one! (You do know that the percentages Stumpel earned were versus Jagr and Forsberg, who peaked as high as all but a few 80s players, right? and in McCourt's best year his #2 non-outlier comparable is Kent Nilsson)

I mean, come on! McCourt scored 86 and 81 points in his best year. You would probably not want to do any sort of adjusting in this comparison, but you know damn well that 79 and 76 points in the DPE is better than 86 and 81 points 17 years earlier. Like really, now you're just being..... I don't know what you're being, but it's not honest.

How didn't that make sense? That's clearly an offensive rundown of goals-per-game? That's as simple as a statistic as it gets... You clearly missed my point completely. Not remotely close? I'll let some of the comments slide, but this is foolish. Sinisalo has some undeniable goal-scoring seasons, just as impressive or even more than Warwick's. There's honestly nothing that convinces me he is a better goal-scorer, who also played in the NHL when there was much less scoring competition.

Sinisalo has TWO impressive goal scoring seasons. He scored 36 goals, good for 32nd in the NHL and 65% of the #2 non-outlier. He feasted on the PP the next year and scored 39, which was 24th in the NHL, 67%, and 67th in ESG. His 29 and 25-goal seasons were 51st and 76th in the NHL with 54% and 45%, so where's this great goalscoring resume? There are numerous players remaining who have goalscoring and point production resumes much better than this. Tony Tanti, for example, was an add/drop pick and he has four seasons as good as Sinisalo's best. There are more where that came from.

Warwick's best goalscoring seasons?

7th, 85%
12th, 77%
13th, 61%
15th, 67%
17th, 63%
19th, 67%

GPG? compared between players 40 years apart? I didn't realize you were one of "those people". now GMAFB already.

It's just a bush league comment to claim someone has more defensive ability than 3 players who have all played in prominent defensive roles. That can't even be justified slightly, it's just gross embellishment. We get it, he's good defensively, the five or six pages of Libett/Erixon debate showed us continuously how good he was defensively, but he clearly isn't better than even two of the three players together defensively. Also in the process we learned how bad Erixon was offensively.

His information is still credible though isn't it? I know he hasn't watched every player he's documented, but his information is clearly credible.

sure, but he's just a blogger. If I start a blog with everything I have learned in the ATDs, do you quote me as a primary source?

I'm looking for the actual records themselves, I don't know where to get access to them.

as always, stickied at the top of the HOH section.

Gibbs was the best defenseman on his team in all of those situations, hence being a #1 defenseman. Currently I think Seabrook is a #1 on many NHL teams, he's just playing with a defenseman who is simply better than him, which shows that he hasn't been given the opportunity to be a #1 defenseman.

I agree, he is definitely a top-30 defenseman in the NHL. (so was Gibbs twice, probably more as well)

I said he's arguably peaked higher than Gibbs already. he just needs to keep it up now.

Kampman played in a six-team era, yes that's my argument because I think Quinn makes a similar impact in a six-team league as well.

so the NHL goes to six teams, and Quinn is suddenly recognized three times as one of its ten best defensemen? Hmm, I guess you are one of "those people".

A team in front of the goaltender can contribute to his success can it not?

Well yeah, I beat that drum daily. No goalie should ever get all the blame or all the credit for their team's successes. If you look at the lineups of the respective teams, I'm sure most would agree Nicholson deserves a higher percentage of the credit for his wins (plus there are two of them)

Well sure, it can be argued Theodore was better than Robertson, without a doubt. You even praised Theodore in the draft thread slightly after he was selected.

yes, "it can be argued"... all you have to do is take away that one cup and then have at 'er!

If he was that good, some team would want him to coach for them. Louis.

like I said, we don't know that they didn't. Who's Louis?

There's an advantage for us offensively...

hmm, well you've done an awful job demonstrating that.

Chouinard arguably has an offensive edge. Riley, McCourt and Sinisalo clearly don't. Havlat and Gingras are impossible to compare and I'm willing to call that a push. Richardson and Sutter are a tough comparison too, except Sutter is a horribly mediocre offensive performer and Richardson a HOFer, so I'm safe on that one too. Kindrachuk anchors a 3rd line that might provide more pizzazz than ours, but it certainly won't score all the goals that your 2nd line isn't.

 

[Velociraptor]

of course it matters that it was on the road, that strongly indicates that it was not Shero's decision, since he didn't have the last line change, it may have been the other coach saying "let's get the top line away from XXXXX (probably clarke) and get them against kindrachuk's line instead" - that's not complementary that it was a road thing, in all likelihood.



that's ok, I'm thrilled that you spent so much time on it. And hey, Saleski provided just 15% more offense than zero per game, just remember that



mmm hmm. And you did nothing to answer what I said. Missed assists apply to everyone equally, Riley is not special in this regard.



there was no such thing as a second line.... you have to know this....

4 goals, great. what about if your linemates were Herb Cain and Gus Marker? Or Andy Blair and Frank Finnigan?

Gracie scored points (which matter more than goals, sorry) at a much better rate than Riley, and he did it with far inferior linemates, and guess what - he usually was the line's leading scorer. Riley was outscored by his linemates by embarrassing amounts most seasons. Do the math!




just as long as you know it's weak.



hmmm, so the talent pool feeding the NHL nearly doubled in size thanks to the European invasion, BUT there were so many top-level players in the early 1980s that a 21st in the early 80s is better than a 10th-13th in 1997 or 1998? Good luck with that one! (You do know that the percentages Stumpel earned were versus Jagr and Forsberg, who peaked as high as all but a few 80s players, right? and in McCourt's best year his #2 non-outlier comparable is Kent Nilsson)

I mean, come on! McCourt scored 86 and 81 points in his best year. You would probably not want to do any sort of adjusting in this comparison, but you know damn well that 79 and 76 points in the DPE is better than 86 and 81 points 17 years earlier. Like really, now you're just being..... I don't know what you're being, but it's not honest.



Sinisalo has TWO impressive goal scoring seasons. He scored 36 goals, good for 32nd in the NHL and 65% of the #2 non-outlier. He feasted on the PP the next year and scored 39, which was 24th in the NHL, 67%, and 67th in ESG. His 29 and 25-goal seasons were 51st and 76th in the NHL with 54% and 45%, so where's this great goalscoring resume? There are numerous players remaining who have goalscoring and point production resumes much better than this. Tony Tanti, for example, was an add/drop pick and he has four seasons as good as Sinisalo's best. There are more where that came from.

Warwick's best goalscoring seasons?

7th, 85%
12th, 77%
13th, 61%
15th, 67%
17th, 63%
19th, 67%

GPG? compared between players 40 years apart? I didn't realize you were one of "those people". now GMAFB already.

It's just a bush league comment to claim someone has more defensive ability than 3 players who have all played in prominent defensive roles. That can't even be justified slightly, it's just gross embellishment. We get it, he's good defensively, the five or six pages of Libett/Erixon debate showed us continuously how good he was defensively, but he clearly isn't better than even two of the three players together defensively. Also in the process we learned how bad Erixon was offensively.



sure, but he's just a blogger. If I start a blog with everything I have learned in the ATDs, do you quote me as a primary source?



as always, stickied at the top of the HOH section.



I agree, he is definitely a top-30 defenseman in the NHL. (so was Gibbs twice, probably more as well)

I said he's arguably peaked higher than Gibbs already. he just needs to keep it up now.



so the NHL goes to six teams, and Quinn is suddenly recognized three times as one of its ten best defensemen? Hmm, I guess you are one of "those people".



Well yeah, I beat that drum daily. No goalie should ever get all the blame or all the credit for their team's successes. If you look at the lineups of the respective teams, I'm sure most would agree Nicholson deserves a higher percentage of the credit for his wins (plus there are two of them)



yes, "it can be argued"... all you have to do is take away that one cup and then have at 'er!



like I said, we don't know that they didn't. Who's Louis?



hmm, well you've done an awful job demonstrating that.

Chouinard arguably has an offensive edge. Riley, McCourt and Sinisalo clearly don't. Havlat and Gingras are impossible to compare and I'm willing to call that a push. Richardson and Sutter are a tough comparison too, except Sutter is a horribly mediocre offensive performer and Richardson a HOFer, so I'm safe on that one too. Kindrachuk anchors a 3rd line that might provide more pizzazz than ours, but it certainly won't score all the goals that your 2nd line isn't.

Re: Saleski: It's better than zero bro.

Re: Assists: Oh sure it applies to everyone, but Riley deserves more credit than the god awful play maker you're making him out to be. If he was as bad as you will die trying to prove, there would have to be something to prove that, almost as sure as there'd be something that proves he was above average. Riley is slightly not well below average as a playmaker.

Re: Weak: Not necessarily, just a rare tidbit of information on Sutter.



There's some degree of toughness to go up against Joe Kocur in a fight.

Re: Honesty: I'm being honest, McCourt is more consistent than Stumpel is. Stumpel played on a better team, and had Luc Robitaille on his wing for half a year... John Ogrodnick benefited quite a lot from having McCourt on the wing. Stumpel's team/linemates >>>>>>> McCourt's team/linemates.

Re: GYAFB? Give me one, you're not giving half the players credit that they deserve. 29, 25, 23 and 21 are also fantastic finishes for a guy who never played a full season. I know comparing eras is a no-no and that's not entirely what I'm trying to do. But Sinisalo is MUCH better than what you're trying to project him as, and I don't understand the apparent gap between Sinisalo and Warwick when Sinisalo was in a much more high-scoring era, but not so much that Warwick is clearly better in any way.

It's just a bush league comment to claim someone has more defensive ability than 3 players who have all played in prominent defensive roles. That can't even be justified slightly, it's just gross embellishment. We get it, he's good defensively, the five or six pages of Libett/Erixon debate showed us continuously how good he was defensively, but he clearly isn't better than even two of the three players together defensively. Also in the process we learned how bad Erixon was offensively.

I value your opinion for the most part, but he has an equal bias on the players he details.

Re: Gibbs/Seabrook: Gibbs has most definitely scaled more in his career. And the fact Seabrook has a short resume is the only thing holding him back from superiority.

Re: Quinn: Pat Quinn is just as defensive as Kampman is? Kampman played in a smaller league, that's the only argument, I'm sure Quinn would get recognition if he played in a 6-team NHL in the 70's.

Re: Nicholson: Not quite, despite having a good team in front of him, Johnston maintained a 3.25 GAA in a pretty high-scoring era.

Re: Robertson: wasn't even the better goaltender in his Cup win, Normie Smith was. Being fronted by a strong team. Theodore played for very mediocre teams and remained fairly consistent throughout those years.

Re: Cook: He's not proven at the top level.

Re: An awful job? hahahahahaha not quite. I've pretty much explained the forward corps, and how they bring an obviously more dynamic offensive game than yours. Riley is better than Gracie, and his goal totals will most likely be higher than his assists, but he's not a bad point producer, neither is Gracie, but Riley is better. Richardson was a a goal scorer like Sutter in his day, and gained fame for being prolific in an early era. It's proper to say him and Sutter are similar. I've explained my reasoning on McCourt, it's hard to deny given the era and linemates. Sinisalo and Warwick is not as complex or as far off as you claim, it's actually very close, and McCourt is a good play maker for Sinisalo, raising his effectiveness as a goal-scorer. Might provide more? I think we've established it will provide more. Fourth line offense can be taken with a grain of salt, but not only do we hold the advantage, Bubnik is a weapon on the second power play and you cannot deny that advantage (that isn't for you, )

One of "those people"? I'll agree I probably have 25% of your knowledge in hockey, but I'm just pointing out what's obvious.

I'm finished debating in the series, as I hope I have accomplished what I had set out to do, I will add some key points before voting begins tomorrow. Best of luck, seventies.

 

[Velociraptor]

Some closing points as tomorrow is voting day, I hope I have influenced your decision to vote for us, and that you have read and can agree with my argumentative debate on why the Express should defeat the Capitals.

Here are a few factors as to why I think me and Dwight's team should win:

- Four lines all with good chemistry and potent offensive ability, that match up well with opponents.
- Designated line to shutdown the oppositions first line.
- Solid defensive pairings that can maintain offense.
- Good goaltending offense with playoff experience.
- Coach with winning pedigree.

Good luck seventies.

 

[seventieslord]

Re: Assists: Oh sure it applies to everyone, but Riley deserves more credit than the god awful play maker you're making him out to be. If he was as bad as you will die trying to prove, there would have to be something to prove that, almost as sure as there'd be something that proves he was above average. Riley is slightly not well below average as a playmaker.

so, extremely low assist totals compared to his contemporaries isn't enough, you actually need a quote that says "Riley can score a goal here and there but has proven to be very ineffective at creating chances for his linemates"?

There's some degree of toughness to go up against Joe Kocur in a fight.

Yep, and he even had a whole seven more fights than that!

Re: Honesty: I'm being honest, McCourt is more consistent than Stumpel is. Stumpel played on a better team, and had Luc Robitaille on his wing for half a year... John Ogrodnick benefited quite a lot from having McCourt on the wing. Stumpel's team/linemates >>>>>>> McCourt's team/linemates.

You're completely ignoring the fact that McCourt was overplayed on a brutal team - that worked to his favour, it didn't hurt his stats.

Stumpel badly outscored Robitaille when they were together in LA. But yeah, I bet Robitaille explains Stumpel's career-long history of ourproducing levels attained by McCourt.

Re: GYAFB? Give me one, you're not giving half the players credit that they deserve. 29, 25, 23 and 21 are also fantastic finishes for a guy who never played a full season. I know comparing eras is a no-no and that's not entirely what I'm trying to do. But Sinisalo is MUCH better than what you're trying to project him as, and I don't understand the apparent gap between Sinisalo and Warwick when Sinisalo was in a much more high-scoring era, but not so much that Warwick is clearly better in any way.

those would be fantastic finishes for an MLD player, but those are totals.

so now games missed is an excuse? ok, try this. from 1983-1988, Sinisalo was 45th in the NHL in goals and also 45th in goals per game among the top-100. I'm really not sure why you are so convinced the guy is an MLD player. two 30-goal seasons in the 80s and a few more with 20+, that is AA material.

The case has been clearly laid out for you that Warwick is the infinitely better goalscorer and offensive producer. You are just being obtuse now.

Re: Quinn: Pat Quinn is just as defensive as Kampman is? Kampman played in a smaller league, that's the only argument, I'm sure Quinn would get recognition if he played in a 6-team NHL in the 70's.

Quinn was usually the #3-4 on his own team, and these weren't great teams, either. So what makes you think he'd be recognized as one of the best overall defensemen in a 6-team league?

Re: Robertson: wasn't even the better goaltender in his Cup win, Normie Smith was. Being fronted by a strong team. Theodore played for very mediocre teams and remained fairly consistent throughout those years.

you're ignoring actual eyewitness accounts for both players when you say that. Read Robertson's bio, he was the hero of his cup win. And many people would use the word "inconsistent" when asked to give a few words that describe Theodore.

Re: An awful job? hahahahahaha not quite. I've pretty much explained the forward corps, and how they bring an obviously more dynamic offensive game than yours. Riley is better than Gracie, and his goal totals will most likely be higher than his assists, but he's not a bad point producer, neither is Gracie, but Riley is better.

if that were true, it would have been easy to demonstrate.

Richardson was a a goal scorer like Sutter in his day, and gained fame for being prolific in an early era. It's proper to say him and Sutter are similar.

Why? Sutter was not prolific.

I've explained my reasoning on McCourt, it's hard to deny given the era and linemates. Sinisalo and Warwick is not as complex or as far off as you claim, it's actually very close, and McCourt is a good play maker for Sinisalo, raising his effectiveness as a goal-scorer.

so can't I just say "Stumpel is a good playmaker for Warwick" too then? And since Stumpel and Warwick are both clearly better...

One of "those people"? I'll agree I probably have 25% of your knowledge in hockey, but I'm just pointing out what's obvious.

"one of those people" in this case is someone who is so absolutely dismissive of past eras of hockey that they can claim that a #3-4 defenseman from the 70s would be one of the best in the league just 30-40 years prior, that a face in the crowd from the 1980s is as good as a guy top-20 in goals six times just 40 years earlier, and that AHL players of the 40s and 50s were just Jason Krog/Darren Haydar types. Of course, you weren't "one of those people" when comparing a 90s player to an 80s player. In that case, and only that case, it was the earlier generation that was so significantly better, that it outweighed the later player finishing twice as high up on the leaderboards.

 

[jkrx]

I like this... This is how a debate should be.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Regina defeats New New York in 5 games

Stars:

1. Jozef Golonka
2. Billy Nicholson
3. Guy Chouinard, Jan Erixon, Gordie Roberts, Grant Warwick

 

[Velociraptor]

5 games? Think we deserved a better result than that, thanks for the series seventies!