MLD2011 - Sir Montagu Allan SF - (2) Philadelphia Quakers vs. (3) Montreal Bad Habits

[Velociraptor]

Philadelphia Quakers
Coach: Red Berenson

Red Green-Robbie Ftorek(A)-Bob McDougall
Tony Tanti-Nicklas Backstrom-Charlie Sands
Mike Krushelnyski-Michal Pivonka-Anders Kallur
Rick Dudley-Stephane Yelle-Mark Johnson(A)
Yevgeny Zimin, Alexander Uvarov, Alexander Bodunov


Phat Wilson(C)-Alex Smith
Bill Juzda-Kim Johnsson
Drew Doughty-Jim Dorey
Hal Laycoe

Daren Puppa
Joe Daley


PP1: Green-Ftorek-McDougall
Wilson-Doughty

PP2: Tanti-Backstrom-Johnson
Smith-Dorey

PK1: Yelle-Kallur
Johnsson-Juzda

PK2: Krushelnyski-Pivonka
Smith-Wilson

PK3: Ftorek-Johnson
Juzda-Johnsson
​

vs.

MONTREAL BAD HABITS​

GM: ReenMachine
Coach: Emile Francis & Bob Hartley
Captain: Jason Smith
Assistant: Dave Maloney
Assistant: Brian Gionta

Eric Vail - Jason Spezza - Mud Bruneteau
Carl Liscombe - Alex Zhamnov - Petr Sykora
Bob Kelly - George Gee - Brian Gionta(A)
Stan Jonathan - Daymond Langkow - Ian Laperriere
Spare: Tomas Plekanec , Mike Knuble


Dave Maloney(A) - Jason Smith(C)
Dale Tallon - Bob Rouse
Brad Stuart - Vladimir Malakhov
Spare:Baldy Spittal

Sean Burke
Hec Fowler

PP1: Spezza-Sykora-Vail-Malakhov-Tallon
PP2: Zhamnov-Bruneteau-Liscombe-Maloney-Stuart
PK1: Zhamnov-Gionta-Maloney-Smith
PK2: Gee-Laperriere-Rouse-Stuart
PK3: Langkow-Kelly
( If Plekanec is in the line-up I put him on the first wave )​

Click to read more...

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Bonne chance Reen, I look forward to the debate.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Good Luck

 

[BillyShoe1721]

1st Lines

Green-Ftorek-McDougall

vs.

Vail-Spezza-Bruneteau

I'm going to be borrowing from Dreak's statistics he gathered last round, and it should save a lot of time. Here are Vail's best goal and point finishes:


Points – 17th(1979), 28th(1977)
Goals – 11th(1975), 17th(1979), 20th(1977)

Points % - *68(1977), 64(1979), *50(1975)
Goals % - 74(1975), 67(1977), 59(1979), 50(1980)

And here are Green's:

Points-5, 13, 16
Goals-7, 10, 16

Points %-81, 56, 47
Goals %-69, 63, 46

In terms of NHL careers, I'd say Vail is the better offensive player. I adjusted Red Green's number of games to an 82 game schedule, and his adjusted PPG comes out to .5831(remove his last season and it's .6464), and Vail's is .6802. That's pretty close. Red Green does have a strong Senior League resume that closes that gap. I made up a chart of notable players in the NOHA and their offensive exploits.

Player|Games|Goals|Assists|Points|PPG|Draft Position
Red Green|21|43|18|61|2.905|1,094
Bun Cook|19|7|7|14|.7368|210
Bill Cook|17|19|12|31|1.8235|45
Shorty Green|26|35|11|46|1.7692|1,204

They both bring some physicality to the table. I'd say Green brings a little more. Vail was big, but was he physical? Green was twice top 9 in PIM and was a scrappy little player. Vail wasn't much of a defensive player, and neither was Green. I don't see a big advantage there either way. Overall, I'll give a slight advantage to Vail because of more established offense in a better quality NHL.

That brings us to Ftorek and Spezza. Spezza would never be confused for having intangibles like Ftorek has. Ftorek has a definitive edge in physicality, leadership, and two-way play over Spezza. I'd say Spezza is definitely a negative in the defensive zone, whereas Ftorek is a definitive plus. Offensively, I'll concede Spezza is a superior player. In terms of goalscoring, I think they are pretty close, but Spezza is the superior playmaker due to proven offense in the established NHL. Overall, I'd probably give a slight advantage to Spezza because of an offensive edge, but a good amount of it is made up by Ftorek's advantages in basically every area except offense.

That takes us to Mud Bruneteau and Bob McDougall. As with my last matchup, I believe this is the largest mismatch in the entire comparison of the 1st lines. Bruneteau's top goalscoring finishes are 5, 10, and 11. McDougall's are 1, 3, 3, and 7(and in the 7th he was 1st in goals/game). I'd call that a pretty significant advantage. Add on the fact that Bruneteau's best years were war years, I think that only widens the offensive gap between them. Neither brings any intangibles to the table. Here are %s of goals:

Bruneteau: 97, 77, 72, 58
McDougall: 125, 92, 91, 58*

*Played only 2 games, and led the league in goals/game by .5 goals.

Definitely a big advantage to McDougall here. Overall, McDougall is a far superior player to Bruneteau.

Overall, the 1st lines are very difficult to call. Montreal's 1st line is probably a little more talented offensively, but I see problems with it. Is Vail a good enough corner guy to get the puck to Spezza to pass it to Bruneteau? I haven't seen anything other than him being "big". I don't see Bruneteau being physical at all. I could see this line being easily pushed around by a physical group, like Alex Smith, Jim Dorey, and especially Bill Juzda. I don't see the chemistry of Montreal's 1st line clicking very well, and I think that could limit their effectiveness considering how much offensive talent they have. The Montreal line is also pretty bad defensively. Spezza is a negative, and I'd call Vail and Bruneteau average. If this line were to get caught out against one of my top 2 lines and one of Montreal's worse pairings, then I could see them having real problems. On the other hand, Philadelphia's group has wingers that aren't good or bad defensively, but a center in the middle who was known as a good two-way player. Green was known for being a gritty player while having some offensive ability, Ftorek was a strong playmaker, and I think Bob McDougall might be the best goalscorer in this draft. Philadelphia's line works chemistry wise. Montreal's doesn't.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

2nd Lines

Tony Tanti-Nicklas Backstrom-Charlie Sands

vs.

Carl Liscombe-Alexei Zhamnov-Petr Sykora

Liscombe:

Points – 4th(1944)
Goals – 2nd(1944), 10th(1945), 17th(1943), 20th(1938)

Points % - 95(1944), 58(1943), 56(1942)
Goals % - 100(1944), 72(1945), 63(1943) 61(1938), 54(1942)

Tanti:

Goals-11, 13, 23, 24, 24

Points%-73, 68, 52, 51
Goals%-75, 72, 64, 59, 50

Considering the fact that Liscombe's best years came during the war when the talent pool was watered down, he was playing with another MLDer in Bruneteau and an ATD 1st liner in Syd Howe, Tanti was playing in an extremely difficult era, and was playing on awful teams, I think Tanti might be better offensively.

That takes us to Backstrom and Zhamnov. Backstrom's career adjusted PPG is 1.0557. Zhamnov's is .98141. An edge to Backstrom, but not a massive one. Let's look at some other metrics:

Selke

Backstrom: 10, 28
Zhamnov: none

All Star Voting

Backstrom: 4, 11
Zhamnov: 2

Hart

Backstrom: 11
Zhamnov: none

That's another advantage to Backstrom. When looking at who is better offensively, I think it's important to look at era. Zhamnov's career was smack in the middle of the dead puck era, one of the lowest scoring eras in hockey. As a result, I don't think percentages portray an accurate picture of how good a player's offense was. Zhamnov's percentages look pretty good, but when you consider the fact that everyone was so close and clumped together in the dead puck era, his playmaking abilities don't seem nearly as impressive. To illustrate my point, let's look at Zhamnov's assist and point finishes compared to assist and point percentages.

Ranks

Assists-10, 14, 28, 31, 32, 42, 47, 74
Points-3, 30, 37, 51, 55, 61, 106

Percentages

Assists-82, 80, 67, 66, 66, 61, 54, 52
Points-93, 74, 64, 59, 57, 57, 56, 54, 51

I don't count anything past top 40 in points or top 30 in assists as being significant. It adds some longevity to his resume, but isn't anything special as far as I'm concerned.

Let's look at Backstrom then:

Ranks

Assists-3, 3, 11, 17
Points-4, 9, 34, 40

Percentages

Assists-99, 94, 83, 69
Points-93, 80, 66, 65

I'll give Zhamnov the edge in goalscoring because Backstrom isn't much of a goalscorer. Backstrom has the superior peak offense, but Zhamnov has the longevity on his side. Each of Backstrom's four seasons in percentages in assists and points are superior to Zhamnov's. If you ask me, I'll take Backstrom considering his stronger adjusted PPG, peak offense, and advantages in award voting.

Then we've got Charlie Sands and Petr Sykora. Sands is definitely a better player defensively, and it's not very close. Sykora is the superior offensive player. Sands has 3 relevant goalscoring seasons, with percentages of 81(Vs3, there was a tie for 1st), 74, and 60. That actually gives Sands the two best goalscoring seasons among them. Overall, I'll give an advantage to Petr Sykora due to better offense.

Overall, I'll give the advantages in 2nd lines to Philadelphia. I think Tanti and Backstrom are superior players compared to their contemporaries on the Montreal unit. Philadelphia's unit is definitely superior defensively. Backstrom and Sands are both very good two-way players, and this line can play in all situations.

 

[vecens24]

I think you absolutely have to consider Backstrom playing with an ATD first liner in Ovechkin if youre going to consider it as a downside with Liscombe.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm goign to work right away so I don't have the time to throw some numbers this morning , but I find laughable your attempt to put Backstrom ahead of Zhamnov by leaving all the category Zhamnov has over Backstrom , not to mention in my opinion I already proved Zhamnov had a better career value in one of the draft thread changing opinions of multiple GMs.

Zhamnov's impressive consistency has to count for something.Something bigger than your willing to give it credit.

Zhamnov is just a better 2nd line center than Backstrom but I'll provide some more thoughts and proofs on this later.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I think you absolutely have to consider Backstrom playing with an ATD first liner in Ovechkin if youre going to consider it as a downside with Liscombe.

Certainly.

I'm goign to work right away so I don't have the time to throw some numbers this morning , but I find laughable your attempt to put Backstrom ahead of Zhamnov by leaving all the category Zhamnov has over Backstrom , not to mention in my opinion I already proved Zhamnov had a better career value in one of the draft thread changing opinions of multiple GMs.

Zhamnov's impressive consistency has to count for something.Something bigger than your willing to give it credit.

Zhamnov is just a better 2nd line center than Backstrom but I'll provide some more thoughts and proofs on this later.

Laughable? I find you overuse that word quite a bit. I said Zhamnov has better longevity and is a better goalscorer, which are the two statistical metrics by which Zhamnov is ahead of Backstrom. What exactly did I leave out? Neither is physical at all. In all other things(peak offense, adjusted PPG, adjusted APG, Selke voting, all star voting, and Hart voting), Backstrom is better. I said I didn't think Zhamnov's other finishes were that relevant because scoring was so low, and everyone was lumped together, so they are sort of smoke and mirrors, making him seem better than he really was.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

3rd Lines

Krushelnyski-Pivonka-Kallur

vs.

Kelly-Gee-Gionta

I'm not sure exactly what you were going for with this line Reen. It certainly isn't a traditional 3rd line. Either way...

Krushelnyski is a superior player to Kelly, and it isn't close. Krushelnyski's career adjusted PPG is .5229 to Kelly's .3775. Even if you consider linemates and whatnot, Krushelnyski is still definitely the better offensive player. Defensively, Krushelnyski holds a big advantage as well. Kelly's on your 3rd PK unit, which is not good considering the fact that he was out for a grand total of 3 power play goals against in his entire career. He's average at best defensively, whereas Krushelnyski was a strong two-way player. The only advantage Kelly has is in physicality, and it's far from enough to make up for Krushelnyski's large advantages in other areas.

That takes us to Pivonka and Gee. We don't really know anything about Gee as a player. He has no proven track record of intangibles, whereas Pivonka was known as a very solid two-way player, who had some physicality as well. In terms of who was better offensively, Pivonka's adjusted career PPG is .6787. Gee's is .6216(after his games played was adjusted, coming out to 695 games). Considering the fact that Gee played in one of the weakest eras in hockey right after WWII, his lower adjusted PPG, and a lack of intangibles, Pivonka is superior in every sense. Gee has one 8th place in assists, but Pivonka is still the superior offensive player. Why is Gee on your 2nd PK unit? What exactly has he proven to be on even a Beer League PK unit, let alone an MLD one? He has no proven track record of defensive play or PKing. To be honest, he's awful on a PK.

That brings us to Anders Kallur and Brian Gionta. Defensively and on a PK, Kallur is way ahead. Gionta is on your 1st PK unit, which is just bad. His SH TOI/G ranks: 8, 7, 8, 4, 7, 7, 7, 4, and 5. I can see Bob McDougall licking his lips from here. My 1st PP unit will feast on Brian Gionta alive with him on your 1st unit. Offensively, Gionta is the superior player(Kallur's adjusted PPG is .4308[.5755 if you look at his 3 best seasons] to Gionta's .6931). One thing to take into consideration when looking at offense is how the player was used. Gionta was almost always a top 6 forward, being relied upon to score goals. Kallur on the other hand was on the 3rd and 4th lines on a stacked NYI dynasty team, where he wasn't given nearly as many opportunities to score points. Instead, he was used more as a shutdown forward. I don't think Gionta's offensive advantage is enough to make up for Kallur's advantage in defense, and speed after considering the context in which each player got ice time. Also, considering they are both on the 1st PK units, the advantage that Kallur has over Gionta here only widens the gap.

Overall, 3rd lines are an obvious advantage to Philadelphia. Each player on Philadelphia's line is superior to his counterpart on the Montreal line. Philadelphia's line is better both offensively, and defensively. After looking at this comparison, I'm still not sure what the point of Montreal's 3rd line is. It's not good enough defensively to be a shutdown line, it's not physical enough to be an energy line, and it's not offensively talented enough to be a 3rd scoring line. The way it's built is in the mold of a scoring line with a puck winner, playmaker, and shooter, but it fails because the players just aren't good enough offensively for this group to pass as being good offensively.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Dudley-Yelle-Johnson

vs.

Jonathan-Langkow-Laperriere

Dudley and Jonathan are pretty similar players, but Dudley is better. Both are tough, with Jonathan being tougher. That's Stan's only advantage. Dudley has a superior adjusted PPG in the NHL(.4790 to .4086), and that's even before considering his strong years in the WHA. Neither had very long careers, but Dudley has longevity on his side, and was better during that time as well. Dudley has better peak offense. Dudley has a 2nd team WHA All Star, whereas Jonathan doesn't have any relevant voting finishes that I know of. Neither is a factor defensively. Overall, Dudley's the better player because of his advantage in offense.

That brings us to Langkow and Yelle. Offensively, Langkow is the better player. But, one thing to take into account with Lagnkow's offense is that he was almost always the 2nd or 3rd best player on his line, benefiting from his linemates being better offensive players than he was. I'm not even going to attempt to say Yelle is good offensively, because that's not why he's here. Langkow is a decent two-way player, whereas Yelle was an elite faceoff specialist, PKer, and defensive player. Just like last series with Sillinger and Yelle, in a vacuum, Langkow is the better player. But given a choice between Yelle and Langkow to center my 4th line, I'll take Yelle. Langkow is on your 3rd PK unit, seeing sparse time. Yelle is on my 1st PK unit, where he is an elite player at the MLD. Considering the roles that they are playing on their respective teams and how good they are at playing that role, I'll take Yelle on my team.

That takes us to Mark Johnson and Ian Laperriere. You won't find a bigger fan of Ian Laperriere the person than me. I love him, and he only played one season for the Flyers. He defines team player and is a great leader and locker room presence. But, Johnson was a good leader as well, being the captain of the Hartford Whalers from 83-85. But the hockey historian in me doesn't like him as much as Mark Johnson. Lappy isn't the fastest player in the world, and in terms of hands Johnson is eons ahead. Johnson's career adjusted PPG is almost triple of Lappy's(.6069 to .2188). In all aspects of offense Johnson is significantly ahead. But, Lappy isn't here for his offense. He's here for his toughness and PK ability. Lappy has an edge in toughness for sure. Looking at PK ability(since both are being used on PK), Lappy holds an advantage here. But, it's not like Laperriere is an elite PKer like Yelle was. He was good(1, 3, 7, 4, 5, 2, 4, 2, 5, 2, 1, 2 were his finishes), but not enough to make up for the large gap in offense, speed, and skill. If Laperriere had elite finishes in PKing like Yelle did, the argument could be made that it would make him the more valuable player because of situational play, but he's not that elite.

Overall, 4th lines are an advantage to Philadelphia. Dudley>Jonathan, and Johnson>Laperriere. Offensively, Philadelphia's group is better. Montreal's is a tougher. Defensively, they are about the same with the difference between Yelle and Langkow being more or less equaled out by the difference between Johnson and Laperriere.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Final thoughts on the forward matchups

-Who on Montreal is going to contain Bob McDougall? All four of Montreal's LWers are average at best defensively. Meanwhile, McDougall is still one of, if not the, best goalscorers in this draft. Montreal's inability to match up a player against McDougall and the vastly inferior PK units that I'll get to later will create matchup hell.

-Who is going to match against my 1st line? It sure as he'll won't be the first line, the second and 3rd lines boast one decent two-way player each, leaving your 4th line as your best defensive line with Langkow and Laperriere. You're caught in a vicious circle. You can't win. Put out average defensive players against my 1st line(your 1st, 2nd ,or 3rd line), or take away ice time from your skill players and play your 4th line against my 1st line and watch Bob McDougall run circles around Stan Jonathan. This aspect of the series cannot be ignored. Montreal's literally in matchup hell. In any forward line matchup, Philadelphia will have an advantage.

-All four of Philadelphia's lines can match up against Montreal's lines. Far and away, Jason Spezza is Montreal's best offensive player. All four of my centers are strong two-way players that will be able to be effective against Spezza. My 1st line has one strong two-way player and two average guys, my 2nd line has two strong two-way players and one below average, my 3rd line has 3 strong two-way guys, and my 4th has two strong two-way guys and an average guy. I've got no problem matching up any of my lines against any of Montreal's. On the other hand, Montreal can't win in any defensive matchup.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

1st Pairings

Wilson-Smith

vs.

Maloney-Smith

Dave Maloney and Phat Wilson is going to be a difficult comparison. Really, any comparison involving Phat Wilson is going to be difficult. From what I can gather, Wilson is definitely better offensively, and Maloney is probably better defensively. Maloney brings more physicality to the table. But, I think we need to look at Dave Maloney a little bit closer. I don't think he's anything close to a 1st round pick. Here are his TOI finishes: 3, 3, 4, 5, 3, 2*, 2, 4

*3rd, but Greschner only played 29 games

Most of those were behind some combination of Vadnais, Greschner, Beck, Marois, and some other guys. It's certainly not a crime to be behind those guys, but one has to think, is Dave Maloney really worthy of being a #1 defenseman in the MLD when he was never even a #1 defenseman in real life??? And he was only a #2 twice!! We can't punish him for being behind quality defensemen, but I still think that the fact that he was never a #1 defenseman and only a #2 twice makes him not worthy of being a #1 defenseman. Meanwhile, Phat Wilson was the star of his team basically his entire career, nine times leading defensemen in his league in scoring(yes, it was an inferior league to the NHL). Personally, I think Phat Wilson is the superior player considering his edge in offense, and Maloney's lack of high TOI finishes.

That takes us to Jason Smith and Alex Smith. Offensively, it's no contest that Alex Smith is far superior. Jason Smith is very bad offensively, even for the MLD. And he's on the 1st pairing. Jason Smith has the same problems with him that Maloney has. He was never an elite defenseman on his own team. He was only ever a specialist 2nd-3rd pairing guy. Here is a look at his TOI finishes on his team:

Total: 3, 5, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 4, 3, 6, 8(avg. 4.18)
ES: 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 1, 2, 4, 1, 5, 8(avg. 3.09)
Shorthanded: 1, 6, 1, 2, 3, 2, 1, 2, 1, 3, 3(avg. 2.27)

Add in the fact that most of the time he was behind Janne Niinimaa and Eric Brewer(MLD picks that are 2nd and 3rd pairing guys and Smith is on the top pairing), I think Alex Smith is the better overall defenseman. Jason Smith brings a lot of toughness and might be a little better defensively, but Alex Smith brings some toughness(not as much) as well, and isn't that far behind defensively, while being way ahead offensively.

Overall, I think the 1st pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. Philadelphia's group is pretty far ahead offensively, while not being far behind defensively. Alex Smith is a better overall player than Jason Smith, and I think Wilson's offensive advantage over Maloney, combined with Maloney's unimpressive TOI finishes makes Wilson the better overall player. Montreal's group is more physical overall though.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

2nd Pairing

Juzda-Johnsson

vs.

Tallon-Rouse

I think it makes the most sense to compare Juzda with Rouse because they are very similar. Both are the stay at home presence on their lines. In terms of what they do best, physicality, Juzda is better. He is simply one of the hardest hitters of all time. Rouse was more of just a physical stay at home defenseman. Neither one brings a relevant amount of offense to the table. Rouse played for longer, but Juzda had 3 years taken away by WWII. I think Juzda is the better player because he was better at what these two are best known for, being physical, stay at home defensemen.

Dale Tallon is a difficult nut to crack. We know he played forward for part of his career. But, when comparing him to Kim Johnsson it's not that difficult. Johnsson is just a better player. Tallon has an advantage in offense(.4751 adjusted PPG to .4127), but once you consider that Tallon played forward throughout his career, that difference doesn't mean much at all. Johnsson was 6 times the #1 defenseman on strong Flyers playoff teams. Johnsson was an 11th(7 points) and 16th(4 points) in all star voting, Tallon was 16th(3 points), 20th(2 points), 20th(1 point, likely a homer vote, doesn't mean anything), and 23rd(2 voting points). Defensively, I think Johnsson was the superior player. Overall, I think Johnsson's track record as the #1 defenseman on a very good team gives him the edge.

Overall, 2nd pairings are an advantage to Philadelphia. I think Juzda is better than Rouse due to an advantage in physicality, and Johnsson over Tallon due to similar offense considering Tallon's time as a forward, and Johnsson's superior defense.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

3rd Pairings

Doughty-Dorey

vs.

Stuart-Malakhov

Doughty is better offensively than Brad Stuart. .5523 adjusted PPG to Stuart's .3811. No matter how much you value longevity, Doughty is better. Doughty has a much better voting resume. He was 12th and 17th in all star voting in addition to his 2nd team All Star. Stuart never even received a single vote in all star voting. Stuart was a #1 defenseman on his team once, and that team was awful. Doughty was the #1 defenseman 3 times(his 3 professional seasons), and went to the playoffs twice. They were bounced in the 1st round both times, but it certainly wasn't his fault. Doughty has been great in the two playoff series he played in, putting up 11 points in 12 games. In fact, he is 2nd in PPG among defensemen in those last 2 playoffs(guys with at least 10 games), behind his teammate JJ. I know Reen(if he ever responds) is going to play the "unheralded and "underrated" card with Stuart. Okay, he was behind 2 great players in Chara and Lidstrom, but that's just a couple seasons out of his career. Then why did undrafted players get picked for more ice time by coaches than Stuart? I don't buy it. Stuart has longevity, but Doughty has been so much better in the 3 years he's played that I think Doughty is better.

That takes us to Jim Dorey and Vladimir Malakhov. Malakhov was a big player, but didn't use his size. Dorey was smaller, but was a tenacious physical player. Offensively, Dorey is better as well. He has an NHL adjusted PPG of .4138 to Malakhov's .3834. That's even before considering the fact that that was only when he was 21-24, and when likely his best years were spent in the WHA where we don't have adjusted stats. Dorey wasn't known as being bad in his own zone like Malakhov was. Malakhov had to play sheltered minutes in order for him to succeed. When he was put up against strong guys and given a lot of minutes, he struggled. I don't think there's any question Dorey is the better player.

Overall, 3rd pairings are a definite advantage for Philadelphia. Philadelphia's unit is easily superior offensively, and is even at worst defensively.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Goaltenders

Puppa vs. Burke

I personally hate Sean Burke. Never liked him, never will, and don't understand why he gets drafted so high in this. I see a career of above averageness. Maybe I hate him just from his two separate stints in Philadelphia where he sucked a fat one, I don't know. Either way, here's a breakdown of their voting records and statistical finishes:

Wins

Puppa-1, 9
Burke-6, 8, 8

GAA

Puppa-5, 7, 8, 9
Burke-10

SV%

Puppa-2, 3, 6
Burke-3, 6, 8, 9

Shutouts

Puppa-3, 6, 9, 9, 10
Burke-5, 6, 10

All Star Voting

Puppa-2, 5(136+44=180 voting points)
Burke-3, 4, 5(5+20+55=80 voting points)

Vezina

Puppa-2, 3(59+34=93 voting points)
Burke-3, 6, 9(7+12+27=46 voting points)

I think the voting totals really say something. At face value, Burke's finishes might look better, but when you look at how many points he actually got in voting, it really isn't that impressive. In his case, there was an elite group of goalies ahead of him that got the lion's share of the votes, and he was really far behind in the voting, something that just looking at their finishes doesn't show. Puppa on the other hand was a part of that elite group of goalies, evidenced by the high amounts of voting points he has, despite having one fewer finish in Vezina and All Star Voting, he has over double the amounts of points Burke has. Puppa is better in terms of shutouts, GAA, and I believe SV% as well. Wins is close. Overall, I don't see why Burke is seen as one of the best starters in this while Puppa is seen as middle of the road. Oh, and don't try to play the "his team sucked so he didn't get recognition" card. That applies to both goalies.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

PP1

Green-Ftorek-McDougall
Wilson-Doughty

vs.

Spezza-Sykora-Vail
Malakhov-Tallon

First thing I notice is the weird setup of Montreal's PP. When did Spezza ever play LW? I've never seen him play anything but center. I think Sykora has played some center, but not nearly as much as he has RW. When did Vail play RW? I honestly don't know the answer. I'm guessing this might have something to do with the roles that Reen wants them to play on the power play, thus changing their positions. But, I'll leave it to him to explain himself. Moving along...

Spezza(listed as a LW) is a better offensive player than Red Green. No argument here. But, Green does bring more grit that will be useful in working in the corners with the cycle and in front of the net. Ftorek and Sykora are both strong PP players, I think they are about even. Bob McDougall is vastly superior to Eric Vail. Phat Wilson is a better offensive defenseman than anyone on Montreal's roster, especially Vladimir Malakhov. Doughty and Tallon is a closer comparison. Doughty has the superior adjusted career PPG(.5523 to Tallon's .4751). But, Tallon has longevity on his side like every other comparison involving Drew Doughty. Tallon's best 2 finishes are 3 and 5, Doughty's are 3 and 24. Longevity probably gives Tallon the edge here. But, Drew is still a good complimentary PP pointman next to an elite PPQB in Wilson.

Overall, 1st PP units are pretty close to even. There are large gaps between Spezza and Green and Vail and McDougall. The gap between Vail and McDougall is probably a bit bigger. I believe McDougall might be the best goalscorer in the draft. The centers are pretty even. Wilson is the best pointman, and the gap between he and Malakhov is larger than the gap between Tallon and Doughty. They might be a slight advantage to Philadelphia due to us having the best forward and pointman on either PP, but it's not a large gap.

 

[vecens24]

I think it would be a lot more beneficial to compare your power play to the other teams PK Billy. I mean saying your PP is better than the other guys or vice versa is somewhat beneficial yeah, but I think it makes sense to do it the other way if you can and say how you think your team will take advantage of the other's strengths/weaknesses on the PK.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That takes us to Mud Bruneteau and Bob McDougall. As with my last matchup, I believe this is the largest mismatch in the entire comparison of the 1st lines. Bruneteau's top goalscoring finishes are 5, 10, and 11. McDougall's are 1, 3, 3, and 7(and in the 7th he was 1st in goals/game). I'd call that a pretty significant advantage. Add on the fact that Bruneteau's best years were war years, I think that only widens the offensive gap between them. Neither brings any intangibles to the table. Here are %s of goals:

Bruneteau: 97, 77, 72, 58
McDougall: 125, 92, 91, 58*

I really don't think it's wise to compare vs #2 for players who played before consolidation.

These are MacDougall's vs 1 numbers: 100, 86, 53, 39*

*The injury season.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I think it would be a lot more beneficial to compare your power play to the other teams PK Billy. I mean saying your PP is better than the other guys or vice versa is somewhat beneficial yeah, but I think it makes sense to do it the other way if you can and say how you think your team will take advantage of the other's strengths/weaknesses on the PK.

Fair enough. Let's look at how good Montreal's 1st PK unit is. Here are Brian Gionta's SH TOI/G finishes on his team: 8, 7, 8, 4, 7, 7, 7, 4, and 5. That's brutal. Looking at the rosters, Gionta is easily the worst 1st unit PK forward remaining in the draft. The best he ever was was a 2nd unit PKer in real life. In an MLD setting, he is going to struggle mightily. He's got a small reach and wingspan, which means that his stick is not going to be able to cut off passing lanes very well. Our focal point is going to be attacking him and using his weakness to our advantage. Here are Zhamnov's: 3, 2, 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 14*

*played only 24 games

Better. He could pass for a 1st unit PK guy if he was next to a strong PK guy as well, but Gionta simply isn't that guy. Zhamnov himself was only a top unit PKer 3 times since the stat was recorded from 97-98 on, and it doesn't look like he killed a significant amount of penalties before then, except for 96-97. My 1st PP unit is better than his 1st PK unit. I can't envision a tandem of Gionta and Zhamnov being effective against the likes of Bob McDougall and Phat Wilson. Maloney and Smith is a solid shutdown pair to have on the back end of the PK, but it doesn't make up for the awfulness that is Brian Gionta on a 1st PK unit.

 

[seventieslord]

Goaltenders

Puppa vs. Burke

I personally hate Sean Burke. Never liked him, never will, and don't understand why he gets drafted so high in this. I see a career of above averageness. Maybe I hate him just from his two separate stints in Philadelphia where he sucked a fat one, I don't know. Either way, here's a breakdown of their voting records and statistical finishes:

Wins

Puppa-1, 9
Burke-6, 8, 8

GAA

Puppa-5, 7, 8, 9
Burke-10

SV%

Puppa-2, 3, 6
Burke-3, 6, 8, 9

Shutouts

Puppa-3, 6, 9, 9, 10
Burke-5, 6, 10

All Star Voting

Puppa-2, 5(136+44=180 voting points)
Burke-3, 4, 5(5+20+55=80 voting points)

Vezina

Puppa-2, 3(59+34=93 voting points)
Burke-3, 6, 9(7+12+27=46 voting points)

I think the voting totals really say something. At face value, Burke's finishes might look better, but when you look at how many points he actually got in voting, it really isn't that impressive. In his case, there was an elite group of goalies ahead of him that got the lion's share of the votes, and he was really far behind in the voting, something that just looking at their finishes doesn't show. Puppa on the other hand was a part of that elite group of goalies, evidenced by the high amounts of voting points he has, despite having one fewer finish in Vezina and All Star Voting, he has over double the amounts of points Burke has. Puppa is better in terms of shutouts, GAA, and I believe SV% as well. Wins is close. Overall, I don't see why Burke is seen as one of the best starters in this while Puppa is seen as middle of the road. Oh, and don't try to play the "his team sucked so he didn't get recognition" card. That applies to both goalies.

The bolded is hilarious. of course he got recognition. Just curious, did you leave out hart voting deliberately or accidentally?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

The bolded is hilarious. of course he got recognition. Just curious, did you leave out hart voting deliberately or accidentally?

I just had a feeling someone would try to play that card, covering myself more than anything there. I didn't think either had a significant Hart record so I didn't go looking for it. Turns out I was wrong.

Burke-4, 8*, 12(1+17+172=190 points)
Puppa-15(5 points)

*one voting point

Definitely a big advantage to Burke there. Enough to make up for Puppa's advantages in other areas? I don't think so.

 

[MadArcand]

I really think your Flyers' colored glasses have skewed your view of Burke. He's easily better than Puppa, he was incredible for years on Whalers and Coyotes.

 

[seventieslord]

Burke and Puppa delivered probably about the same average level of performance in their careers, IMO. Burke just did it for twice as many games.

playoffs are a big difference as well. Puppa never won a playoff series. Burke won two as a rookie, taking a cinderella team to game 7 of round 3. I remember those playoffs still, and he was considered their MVP.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Why the Philadelphia Quakers are a superior team

-We have the best forward on either team, Bob McDougall
-We have the best defenseman on either team, Phat Wilson
-We have significant advantages in special teams. Montreal's PK units are easily the worst of any remaining team.
-Superior 2nd, 3rd, and 4th lines.
-Superior 1st, 2nd, and 3rd pairings, and a vastly superior defensive group overall.
-Significantly better two-way play throughout forward corps. Philadelphia boasts what I would call 8 good two-way players, while I'd say Montreal has 3, and they are all in the bottom 6.
-Defense wins championships. We have superior defensive play from both our forwards and defensemen.
-Montreal cannot win a matchup battle. Add on the fact that Philadelphia has home ice, there will be significant matchup problems that the Bad Habits have to face. Here's what I posted earlier:

-Who on Montreal is going to contain Bob McDougall? All four of Montreal's LWers are average at best defensively. Meanwhile, McDougall is still one of, if not the, best goalscorers in this draft. Montreal's inability to match up a player against McDougall and the vastly inferior PK units that I'll get to later will create matchup hell.

-Who is going to match against my 1st line? It sure as he'll won't be the first line, the second and 3rd lines boast one decent two-way player each, leaving your 4th line as your best defensive line with Langkow and Laperriere. You're caught in a vicious circle. You can't win. Put out average defensive players against my 1st line(your 1st, 2nd ,or 3rd line), or take away ice time from your skill players and play your 4th line against my 1st line and watch Bob McDougall run circles around Stan Jonathan. This aspect of the series cannot be ignored. Montreal's literally in matchup hell. In any forward line matchup, Philadelphia will have an advantage.

-All four of Philadelphia's lines can match up against Montreal's lines. Far and away, Jason Spezza is Montreal's best offensive player. All four of my centers are strong two-way players that will be able to be effective against Spezza. My 1st line has one strong two-way player and two average guys, my 2nd line has two strong two-way players and one below average, my 3rd line has 3 strong two-way guys, and my 4th has two strong two-way guys and an average guy. I've got no problem matching up any of my lines against any of Montreal's. On the other hand, Montreal can't win in any defensive matchup.

 

[seventieslord]

Philadelphia triumphs in 5 games... 3 stars: mcdougall, spezza, wilson