MLD2014 Prelminary Round - Montagu Allan - (4) MB Bulldogs vs. (5) Halifax Crescents

[seventieslord]

Mt. Brydges Bulldogs

Coach: Jan Starsi

Alexander Semin-Mike Ribeiro-Tomas Sandstrom
Tom Lysiak-Steve Sullivan-Phil Kessel
Gaetan Duchesne-Michal Handzus-Leo Labine
Bob Probert-Lorne Henning-Pat Flatley
Metro Prystai, Vinny Prospal

Larry Hillman-Bob Murdoch
Ted Graham-Weldy Young
Mark Streit-Bob Trapp
George Owen, Behn Wilson

Olaf Kolzig
Dan Bouchard


PP1

Semin-Ribeiro-Sandstrom
Streit-Young

PP2

Lysiak-Sullivan-Kessel
Hillman-Murdoch

PK1

Duchesne-Henning
Graham-Murdoch

PK2

Handzus-Flatley
Hillman-Wilson

VS

Halifax Crescents
Year 1900 Stanley Cup challengers

coach Ted Nolan

Doc Romnes - Ulf Nilsson - Tony Gingras
Ron Murphy - Billy Reay (A) - Danny Brière
Andre Pronovost - Ron Sutter (A) - Yuri Lebedev
Joe Juneau - Viktor Zhluktov - Slim Halderson
Haviland Routh, Clare McKerrow, Robert McDougall


Alexander Gusev - Doug Young (C)
Alexei Gusarov - Tomas Jonsson
Kjell Samuelsson - Kris Letang
Igor Romishevsky

Pete Peeters
Bert Lindsay​

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

My most anticipated series.

The anti-stats guy versus the one who's going to try to stats him to death. The guy who was here from the start versus Billy-Come-Lately who somehow made a doomed team competitive. An explosive offense and a bad defense versus..... average, middle of the road all around.

 

[VanIslander]

70slord... I think your judgements often are wrong. I'm allowed to put it that way.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Preface: Intangibles and chemistry are important (and considered below), but overall I think statistics are what's most important, especially when talking about first lines that are here to score goals.

First Lines

Semin: 64.63
Ribeiro: 71.94
Sandstrom: 62.77

Romnes: 63.12
Nilsson: 70.04 (using one WHA point equals .7 NHL points, and see below)
Gingras: ?

Nilsson was likely better than his pure score indicates because his first year in the WHA, he managed 120 points. Looking at how he scored in the Swedish league in the two years before that, it looks like his production was pretty good. But before that, I wouldn't call it relevant. I've assigned him theoretical WHA point totals of 95 and 105 for 72-73 and 73-74 (this is me eyeballing and guessing). This takes his VsX score to 70.04.

So, with Gingras as the real unknown in this equation, his theoretical VsX would have to be 66.18 to make the two lines perfectly equal. Do we have stats for Gingras? I can't find anything other than him scoring 8 goals in 12 games in the Stanley Cup. Knowing what I know about him, I don't think his offense is 66.18 good, and here's my thinking.

For some perspective, TDMM lists the top 18 players in the MLD based on VsX here, with 18th Peter McNab having a score of 66.5

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=88765999&postcount=38

So, for Gingras to have a score of 66.18, he would have to be something like the ~20th best offensive player in the draft that can be judged by VsX. That doesn't seem likely to me.

So, offensively I would say that the Bulldogs have the advantage. The size depends upon how you value Gingras.

Chemistry-wise, I would say both lines suffer a bit. Sandstrom is my physical presence, and although he was a real **** disturber and pest, I don't know him as being ultra-physical. Otherwise, Semin as the shooter and Ribeiro the passer works. For Halifax, all three of the forwards were better playmakers than they were shooters. The line may suffer from a lack of a true sniper. I'd say the chemistry for both lines equals out.

Defensively, my unit is admittedly questionable with Ribeiro and Semin. For Halifax, none of them were known for being two-way players, but were not known for being poor defensively.

What it comes down to is whether the Bulldog advantage offensively is enough to offset Halifax having a neutral line defensively compared to a below average one for the Bulldogs. Considering these lines are here to score goals, I would say the Bulldogs have the advantage.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Second Lines

Slight correction, after discovering that Lysiak actually played almost no LW in his career (and Sullivan has some experience at all 3 forward positions), the line will be Sullivan-Lysiak-Kessel.

Sullivan: 68
Lysiak: 63.99
Kessel: 68.55

Murphy: 50.75
Reay: 56.86
Briere: 67.77

This time, the VsX is not close. I'm confused as to why you have Ron Murphy in a top six in the MLD. Even for a glue guy, his offense is very poor. His score likely underrates him because he probably got little PP time, but still, I don't think he really belongs here. Reay also was likely better than his score indicates because he probably didn't get much PP time. But even when you consider that, it's still not close.

I would also not expect that level of offensive production from Briere at RW. As I've mentioned, Briere was significantly less effective when put at RW, and all his best seasons came at center.

Offensively, there's a clear edge to the Bulldogs. Defensively, I would say Halifax holds a pretty big edge. Murphy was a noted checker, and Reay a solid two-way player. The Bulldogs are not slouches in their own zone, as Lysiak was a solid two-way player, and Sullivan received some scattered Selke votes and was solid in his own end. However, I don't think it's big enough to make up for the offensive gap.

The Bulldogs second line wins out here because the gap offensively for the Bulldogs is much larger than the gap defensively for the Crescents.

 

[seventieslord]

Preface: Intangibles and chemistry are important (and considered below), but overall I think statistics are what's most important, especially when talking about first lines that are here to score goals.

First Lines

Semin: 64.63
Ribeiro: 71.94
Sandstrom: 62.77

Romnes: 63.12
Nilsson: 70.04 (using one WHA point equals .7 NHL points, and see below)
Gingras: ?

Nilsson was likely better than his pure score indicates because his first year in the WHA, he managed 120 points. Looking at how he scored in the Swedish league in the two years before that, it looks like his production was pretty good. But before that, I wouldn't call it relevant. I've assigned him theoretical WHA point totals of 95 and 105 for 72-73 and 73-74 (this is me eyeballing and guessing). This takes his VsX score to 70.04.

So, with Gingras as the real unknown in this equation, his theoretical VsX would have to be 66.18 to make the two lines perfectly equal. Do we have stats for Gingras? I can't find anything other than him scoring 8 goals in 12 games in the Stanley Cup. Knowing what I know about him, I don't think his offense is 66.18 good, and here's my thinking.

For some perspective, TDMM lists the top 18 players in the MLD based on VsX here, with 18th Peter McNab having a score of 66.5

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=88765999&postcount=38

So, for Gingras to have a score of 66.18, he would have to be something like the ~20th best offensive player in the draft that can be judged by VsX. That doesn't seem likely to me.

So, offensively I would say that the Bulldogs have the advantage. The size depends upon how you value Gingras.

Chemistry-wise, I would say both lines suffer a bit. Sandstrom is my physical presence, and although he was a real **** disturber and pest, I don't know him as being ultra-physical. Otherwise, Semin as the shooter and Ribeiro the passer works. For Halifax, all three of the forwards were better playmakers than they were shooters. The line may suffer from a lack of a true sniper. I'd say the chemistry for both lines equals out.

Defensively, my unit is admittedly questionable with Ribeiro and Semin. For Halifax, none of them were known for being two-way players, but were not known for being poor defensively.

What it comes down to is whether the Bulldog advantage offensively is enough to offset Halifax having a neutral line defensively compared to a below average one for the Bulldogs. Considering these lines are here to score goals, I would say the Bulldogs have the advantage.

I don't know where you got that score for Nilsson. His best 7 vsx scores (based on my system which may be off from the "new" one here and there) are 73, 72, 72, 68, 51, 46 and 30. His four best were obviously his four WHA seasons. I'm not sure what you did, but you have him only a hair behind Ribeiro as a producer, and he's a great deal behind Ribeiro at this point.

 

[seventieslord]

Second Lines

Slight correction, after discovering that Lysiak actually played almost no LW in his career (and Sullivan has some experience at all 3 forward positions), the line will be Sullivan-Lysiak-Kessel.

Sullivan: 68
Lysiak: 63.99
Kessel: 68.55

Murphy: 50.75
Reay: 56.86
Briere: 67.77

This time, the VsX is not close. I'm confused as to why you have Ron Murphy in a top six in the MLD. Even for a glue guy, his offense is very poor. His score likely underrates him because he probably got little PP time, but still, I don't think he really belongs here. Reay also was likely better than his score indicates because he probably didn't get much PP time. But even when you consider that, it's still not close.

I would also not expect that level of offensive production from Briere at RW. As I've mentioned, Briere was significantly less effective when put at RW, and all his best seasons came at center.

Offensively, there's a clear edge to the Bulldogs. Defensively, I would say Halifax holds a pretty big edge. Murphy was a noted checker, and Reay a solid two-way player. The Bulldogs are not slouches in their own zone, as Lysiak was a solid two-way player, and Sullivan received some scattered Selke votes and was solid in his own end. However, I don't think it's big enough to make up for the offensive gap.

The Bulldogs second line wins out here because the gap offensively for the Bulldogs is much larger than the gap defensively for the Crescents.

I agree about Murphy. Competent glue guy skills. Pretty out of his league offensively as a scoring line player in an MLD. a steal as a AAA spare, certainly an OK bottom sixer in the MLD, but on a scoring line I'm not so sure.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I don't know where you got that score for Nilsson. His best 7 vsx scores (based on my system which may be off from the "new" one here and there) are 73, 72, 72, 68, 51, 46 and 30. His four best were obviously his four WHA seasons. I'm not sure what you did, but you have him only a hair behind Ribeiro as a producer, and he's a great deal behind Ribeiro at this point.

I did one WHA point equals .7 NHL points for his 4 years in the WHA, then added in two seasons of production (I guessed 95 and 105 WHA points, so multiply them by .7 and that's what I put into my VsX spreadsheet calculator) in 72-73 and 73-74 because they should add to his resume. He scored 120 points in the WHA in 74-75, so it's not like his offensive abilities came out of thin air, they were likely productive seasons that he happened to be in Sweden for. I re-did it and without rounding at all I get 69.87. Am I being too generous when trying to account for his non-North American accomplishments?

 

[seventieslord]

I did one WHA point equals .7 NHL points for his 4 years in the WHA, then added in two seasons of production (I guessed 95 and 105 WHA points, so multiply them by .7 and that's what I put into my VsX spreadsheet calculator) in 72-73 and 73-74 because they should add to his resume. He scored 120 points in the WHA in 74-75, so it's not like his offensive abilities came out of thin air, they were likely productive seasons that he happened to be in Sweden for. I re-did it and without rounding at all I get 69.87. Am I being too generous when trying to account for his non-North American accomplishments?

yes, probably. Remember, he was playing with Bobby Hull in the WHA.

if he was earning adjusted scores in the 70 range in the WHA, I could see crediting him with 60 scores for a couple seasons prior, but that would hardly put him up to Ribero's level as a producer.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Billy Reay is exactly the kind of player for whom VsX and other percentage systems are borderline useless - a guy who spent the majority of his career on lower lines. I don't think Reay is a star here by any means, but I think there's an argument he's the best overall center in the series.

 

[VanIslander]

Stop looking at regular season stats when judging playoff performances and start looking at postseason stats and playoff play.

The Bulldogs top-6 come up woefully short in that regard compared to the Crescents (or against any other team in this draft).

 

[Hobnobs]

Stop looking at regular season stats when judging playoff performances and start looking at postseason stats and playoff play.

The Bulldogs top-6 come up woefully short in that regard compared to the Crescents (or against any other team in this draft).

Ok, Billy Reay drops below Handzus if we are speaking strictly playoffs.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Stop looking at regular season stats when judging playoff performances and start looking at postseason stats and playoff play.

The Bulldogs top-6 come up woefully short in that regard compared to the Crescents (or against any other team in this draft).

Playoffs are important and should be considered, but this is the first time I've ever seen somebody say the regular season is completely irrelevant in playoff comparisons.

 

[VanIslander]

this is the first time I've ever seen somebody say the regular season is completely irrelevant in playoff comparisons.

Nasty. I said no such thing. Just move on to playoff considerations and see how the Bulldogs is below average in this draft in playoff experience and performances.

Playoffs are important and should be considered

On this we agree.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Nasty. I said no such thing. Just move on to playoff considerations and see how the Bulldogs is below average in this draft in playoff experience and performances.

You said:

Stop looking at regular season stats when judging playoff performances and start looking at postseason stats and playoff play.

Maybe you didn't word it as you intended, but to me the above says a player's regular season stats in real life have no bearing on how we judge players here in a playoff series.

 

[seventieslord]

If you look at the draft thread, Billy, you'll see that vanislander is fairly ignorant of the concept of regular season prowess being a good predictor of playoff success.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Okay VI, I'll bite. Here are the differences in points-per-game for each top six forward from the regular season to the playoffs. A positive is a good thing, a negative is bad.

Semin: -.183
Ribeiro: -.209
Sandstrom: -.287
Sullivan: -.28
Lysiak: -.091
Kessel: +.175

Avg: -.146

Romnes: +.011
Nilsson: -.125 (sum of difference in NHL and WHA)
Murphy: -.257
Reay: -.10
Briere: +.185 (Briere at RW is nowhere near this)

Avg: -.0572 (if you put Briere at 0, average if -.0742)

Gingras isn't included because I have no idea how his regular season compares to the playoffs. Let's just say he's the average of all your other players. So, over a theoretical seven game series, my forwards would on average score 6.132 fewer points, and yours would score 2.4024 fewer (giving Briere full credit and calling Gingras average) or 3.1164 fewer (calling Briere 0 and calling Gingras average).

So, is this theoretical ~3-4 point advantage in a seven game series that your players scored better when they played better in the playoffs in real life more important than the much larger advantage mine held (over a significantly larger sample size) in the regular season?

My answer is no.

 

[VanIslander]

Does anyone around here think the Halifax team assembled is playoff savvy?
Maybe one GM will take the time to read the write-ups I've linked with the picks and have something other than condescension to shovel.

(Appreciating the history of the game, as we had been doing hereabouts for a long time... )

 

[Hobnobs]

Does anyone around here think the Halifax team assembled is playoff savvy?
Maybe one GM will take the time to read the write-ups I've linked with the picks and have something other than condescension to shovel.

(Appreciating the history of the game, as we had been doing hereabouts for a long time... )

Why dont you argue for your team instead? Seeems like all we are supposed to do is take your word for it and vote for your team because its the only team that represent the ATD in tradition and values. Load of BS if you ask me.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Why dont you argue for your team instead? Seeems like all we are supposed to do is take your word for it and vote for your team because its the only team that represent the ATD in tradition and values. Load of BS if you ask me.

Agreed

 

[VanIslander]

I put a lot of effort into the linked bios and if you have any questions as to the playoff prowess of any of them then click on the bio to read for yourself. I have done more than your average poster who just drops names.

I appreciate hockey history but not reductivist number crunching. Guys like Semin, Ribeiro and Kessel ought to be discounted not pimped in the playoffs given their soft play away from the puck and character issues.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

VI, I think it would help the voters if you re-quoted the relevant passages from your bios here.

 

[seventieslord]

VI, I think it would help the voters if you re-quoted the relevant passages from your bios here.

certainly. And it's not like Ribeiro, Semin and to a lesser extent, Kessel don't have character issues. In fact, that's a lot of flakiness in one top-6.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Phil Kessel has 21 points in 22 career playoff games. What more do you want him to do?

I appreciate hockey history but not reductivist number crunching. Guys like Semin, Ribeiro and Kessel ought to be discounted not pimped in the playoffs given their soft play away from the puck and character issues.

Then provide an argument as to why my forwards don't match up with yours, or how your team has some great physicality that is going to pound my top 6 into submission. You could make plenty of compelling arguments in favor of your team, but nobody is going to think them out and articulate them for you.

 

[seventieslord]

Montreal Canadiens 1945-46 2nd most points by Habs centres (STANLEY CUP)
Montreal Canadiens 1946-47 1st in points by Habs centres (TIED the Rocket for most playoff goals: 6)
Montreal Canadiens 1947-48 2nd in points by Habs centres
Montreal Canadiens 1948-49 1st TOP SCORER most points by a Hab (TIED Habs playoff scoring lead)
Montreal Canadiens 1949-50 2nd in points by Habs centres
Montreal Canadiens 1950-51 3rd in points by Habs centres (TIED for 2nd in Habs playoff points)
Montreal Canadiens 1951-52 2nd in points by Habs centres: PLAYED IN ALL-STAR GAME
Montreal Canadiens 1952-53 3rd in points by Habs centres (STANLEY CUP)

this is just incredibly awkward use of stats. I've never seen anything like it.

Either hate stats and dismiss them as reductionist and never use them, or learn which statistics can really say something and use them appropriately.