O'Brien Division semi-finals: #1 Regina Pat Canadians vs. #4 HC Košice
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
MadArcand
Whaletarded
This might be an uphill battle, as seventies is more eloquent arguer and all, but let's skim through the accomplishments of our 1st lines here:
Cups and Awards:
Cup winners: Satan
1st All-rookie team: Renberg, Havlat
Top 10s - rank and percentage of 2nd place finisher:
Points:
Allison 4th (81%)
Renberg 8th (81%)
Allison 9th (91%)
Stumpel 10th (87%)
Goals:
Satan 7th (91%)
Satan 9th (90%)
Renberg 10th (81%)
Allison 10th (63%)
Assists:
Allison 2nd (100%)
Stumpel 4th (91%)
Stumpel 5th (87%)
Allison 6th (79%)
Allison 7th (86%)
Allison 8th (75%)
All-star games:
Satan - 2x
Havlat, Allison, Mellanby - 1x each
ES Productivity: - PP/SH productivity should be discussed in comparison of PP/PK units
Havlat 0.71
Renberg 0.65
Stumpel 0.61
Allison 0.61
Satan 0.57
Mellanby 0.45
Career adjusted +/-:
Stumpel +123
Renberg +115
Allison +86
Satan +85
Havlat +80
Mellanby +22
Career icetime rankings among team forwards:
Overall:
Satan - 7th, 10th, 9th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th
Stumpel - 10th, 8th, 7th, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th
Renberg - 5th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 6th, 10th, 8th, 9th, 10th
Havlat - 10th, 8th, 7th, 6th, inj, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 3rd
Allison - 12th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd
Mellanby - 11th, 7th, 10th, 10th, 8th, 9th, 8th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 4th, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 5th, 7th, 7th, 9th, 6th
ES:
Satan - 5th, 9th, 11th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 1st, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A
Stumpel - 11th, 9th, 6th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 4th, 3rd, 10th, 5th, N/A, N/A
Renberg - 4th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 6th, 11th, 7th, 9th, 5th
Havlat - 10th, 8th, 8th, 4th, inj, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A
Allison - 13th, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Mellanby - 10th, 8th, 8th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 7th, 2nd, 1st, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 5th, 7th, 7th, 11th, N/A
Playoff production:
PPG:
Allison 1.00
Havlat 0.73
Satan 0.63
Renberg 0.57
Stumpel 0.55
Mellanby 0.39
Significant PO runs (over 0.75 PPG runs with 10+ games, PPG+ runs with <10 games):
Satan 3
Renberg 2
Havlat 2
Allison 2
Mellanby 1
Stumpel 0
International experience:
Olympics PPG:
Stumpel - 0.75 (8/12)
Havlat - 0.67 (6/9)
Satan - 0.64 (14/22)
Renberg - 0.5 (4/8)
Canada/World Cup:
Havlat 1.2 (6/5)
Satan 0.0 (0/7)
Stumpel 0.0 (0/7)
World Champs:
Satan 1.02 (58/57)
Stumpel 0.8 (32/40)
Renberg 0.78 (28/36)
Havlat 0.25 (3/12)
Observations on the 1st lines:
- both lines have similar composition, of swift scorer on LW, big playmaking center and physical presence on RW
- I think my line has more defensive ability, but it's not a big edge
- Allison is the best overall offensive producer here, and the best playmaker
- Satan is clearly the best goalscorer
- Stumpel is second-best playmaker here
- Renberg has a good peak, and overall comparable production rate with Havlat
- Mellanby is far and away the least offensively skilled player on both lines
- overall Regina has clear edge at center, but is behind on both wings
- the playoff accomplishments of both lines are roughly equal, Allison is the most productive postseason player here, but also has the smallest sample size to his credit
- international accomplishments favor my line, but it's harder to crack Canada NT than others, so Allison gets a pass from me here
- Satan and Allison are the guys the coaches trusted the most over their careers, with Stumpel and Havlat forming a second tier in that regard, and finally Renberg and Mellanby the third
Conclusion:
I'd say a slight edge to HC Kosice, as while Allison > Stumpel, the gap is smaller than between Satan and Havlat and Renberg and Mellanby, especially if combined.
Cups and Awards:
Cup winners: Satan
1st All-rookie team: Renberg, Havlat
Top 10s - rank and percentage of 2nd place finisher:
Points:
Allison 4th (81%)
Renberg 8th (81%)
Allison 9th (91%)
Stumpel 10th (87%)
Goals:
Satan 7th (91%)
Satan 9th (90%)
Renberg 10th (81%)
Allison 10th (63%)
Assists:
Allison 2nd (100%)
Stumpel 4th (91%)
Stumpel 5th (87%)
Allison 6th (79%)
Allison 7th (86%)
Allison 8th (75%)
All-star games:
Satan - 2x
Havlat, Allison, Mellanby - 1x each
ES Productivity: - PP/SH productivity should be discussed in comparison of PP/PK units
Havlat 0.71
Renberg 0.65
Stumpel 0.61
Allison 0.61
Satan 0.57
Mellanby 0.45
Career adjusted +/-:
Stumpel +123
Renberg +115
Allison +86
Satan +85
Havlat +80
Mellanby +22
Career icetime rankings among team forwards:
Overall:
Satan - 7th, 10th, 9th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th
Stumpel - 10th, 8th, 7th, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 6th, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th
Renberg - 5th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 6th, 10th, 8th, 9th, 10th
Havlat - 10th, 8th, 7th, 6th, inj, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 3rd
Allison - 12th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd
Mellanby - 11th, 7th, 10th, 10th, 8th, 9th, 8th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 4th, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 5th, 7th, 7th, 9th, 6th
ES:
Satan - 5th, 9th, 11th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 1st, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A
Stumpel - 11th, 9th, 6th, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 4th, 3rd, 10th, 5th, N/A, N/A
Renberg - 4th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 6th, 11th, 7th, 9th, 5th
Havlat - 10th, 8th, 8th, 4th, inj, N/A, N/A, N/A, N/A
Allison - 13th, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 3rd
Mellanby - 10th, 8th, 8th, 9th, 8th, 7th, 7th, 2nd, 1st, 4th, 4th, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 7th, 5th, 7th, 7th, 11th, N/A
Playoff production:
PPG:
Allison 1.00
Havlat 0.73
Satan 0.63
Renberg 0.57
Stumpel 0.55
Mellanby 0.39
Significant PO runs (over 0.75 PPG runs with 10+ games, PPG+ runs with <10 games):
Satan 3
Renberg 2
Havlat 2
Allison 2
Mellanby 1
Stumpel 0
International experience:
Olympics PPG:
Stumpel - 0.75 (8/12)
Havlat - 0.67 (6/9)
Satan - 0.64 (14/22)
Renberg - 0.5 (4/8)
Canada/World Cup:
Havlat 1.2 (6/5)
Satan 0.0 (0/7)
Stumpel 0.0 (0/7)
World Champs:
Satan 1.02 (58/57)
Stumpel 0.8 (32/40)
Renberg 0.78 (28/36)
Havlat 0.25 (3/12)
Observations on the 1st lines:
- both lines have similar composition, of swift scorer on LW, big playmaking center and physical presence on RW
- I think my line has more defensive ability, but it's not a big edge
- Allison is the best overall offensive producer here, and the best playmaker
- Satan is clearly the best goalscorer
- Stumpel is second-best playmaker here
- Renberg has a good peak, and overall comparable production rate with Havlat
- Mellanby is far and away the least offensively skilled player on both lines
- overall Regina has clear edge at center, but is behind on both wings
- the playoff accomplishments of both lines are roughly equal, Allison is the most productive postseason player here, but also has the smallest sample size to his credit
- international accomplishments favor my line, but it's harder to crack Canada NT than others, so Allison gets a pass from me here
- Satan and Allison are the guys the coaches trusted the most over their careers, with Stumpel and Havlat forming a second tier in that regard, and finally Renberg and Mellanby the third
Conclusion:
I'd say a slight edge to HC Kosice, as while Allison > Stumpel, the gap is smaller than between Satan and Havlat and Renberg and Mellanby, especially if combined.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
The simplest that I can break down the first lines is as follows:
- Allison is the best first line center here. Stumpel is merely passable. You could pretty much call Stumpel a poor man's Allison.
- Satan might be the best first line LW here. Havlat is merely passable. I realize Havlat's career average production is looking much better right now, but a twice as long career will do that to a guy, and Satan was much more often "the man" on his team offensively. Satan is what Havlat could be if he stayed healthy from here on, and played 7 more years.
- renberg's a big, strong guy, and outstanding in the corners, but his physicality is overrated. Mellanby is by comparison a wrecking ball. Offensively, again, it's career length and linemates that are going to make them look different. Renberg was always with guys like Lindros and Sundin, rarely carrying the load for any line. Mellanby clearly had limited talent but turned that into a 1400 game, 850-point career. As a scorer, with career lengths taken into consideration, I take Mellanby. As a glue guy, I definitely take Mellanby. As an overall player, I take Mellanby.
- Allison is the best first line center here. Stumpel is merely passable. You could pretty much call Stumpel a poor man's Allison.
- Satan might be the best first line LW here. Havlat is merely passable. I realize Havlat's career average production is looking much better right now, but a twice as long career will do that to a guy, and Satan was much more often "the man" on his team offensively. Satan is what Havlat could be if he stayed healthy from here on, and played 7 more years.
- renberg's a big, strong guy, and outstanding in the corners, but his physicality is overrated. Mellanby is by comparison a wrecking ball. Offensively, again, it's career length and linemates that are going to make them look different. Renberg was always with guys like Lindros and Sundin, rarely carrying the load for any line. Mellanby clearly had limited talent but turned that into a 1400 game, 850-point career. As a scorer, with career lengths taken into consideration, I take Mellanby. As a glue guy, I definitely take Mellanby. As an overall player, I take Mellanby.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
As someone who loves to get on 70s on those occasions that he produces stats without the proper context (in my opinion of course), it's only fair that I do the same to you.
2 things:
1) I think it's pretty obvious why Renberg's adjusted +/- is so high, and that Renberg himself is the 3rd most important reason (#1 and #2 both start with the letter L).
2) Mellanby probably is the worst offensive player on either first line (though I'd want to see what Renberg did without the Legion of Doom before saying it's certain), but not by the margin that career "per game" offensive stats show, considering the guy played for 20 years!
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Not to mention that even if his best 8 years or whatever lag behind, the longevity of decent offense that he demonstrated is still useful in the judgment of his AAA offensive ability.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
1) So? I just posted all comparison metrics that came to my mind at work. I didn't even use it as argument - the 'better defensively' comes from the fact that Renberg was renowned for being the defensive conscience of Legion of Doom, and that Satan and Stumpel were both solid and played PK (and even more in NT than in NHL). On Regina's line, only Allison played PK (at same rate as Satan and Stumpel), and neither Mellanby nor Havlat have any defensive reputation to speak of.As someone who loves to get on 70s on those occasions that he produces stats without the proper context (in my opinion of course), it's only fair that I do the same to you.
2 things:
1) I think it's pretty obvious why Renberg's adjusted +/- is so high, and that Renberg himself is the 3rd most important reason (#1 and #2 both start with the letter L).
2) Mellanby probably is the worst offensive player on either first line (though I'd want to see what Renberg did without the Legion of Doom before saying it's certain), but not by the margin that career "per game" offensive stats show, considering the guy played for 20 years!
2) Mellanby also saw the least icetime. He's not comparable offensively to Allison, Satan and Stumpel. Renberg playing wing to two star centers helps his totals, but it shows something that he got that role while Mellanby only ever played 1st line on Florida.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Just pointing out the flaw in using career adjusted/plus minus as a meaningful metric. Especially now that we are at a level of drafting lots of guys who spent their careers on the ice with more impactful players.
Everything else you say here is true, as far as I know.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Yes, I noticed this all throughout the draft. There were very few players who drove their own adjusted +/- totals available - Allison being a prime example of one of them. Nylander too, to an extent, but you could call him a 2nd-line winger version of Allison.
I'm still finding adjusted +/- very useful for defensemen in conjunction with their ES TOI. the guys who are getting the most minutes are getting the hardest minutes. Lower minutes = weaker minutes. So players who post a strong adjusted +/- while playing top pairing minutes should be a hot commodity in the AAA draft. At the same time, we have guys like Zhitnik who was sometimes a default #1, whose adjusted +/- is terrible but forgivable because he still was a #1 guy (though it shows a stark contrast between him and a guy with similar GP, points, and TOI but far from similar adj+/-, McCabe) and guys like Reekie who played on the 2nd and sometimes 3rd pairing, defensively dominating weaker offensive players. Both are still useful in the right roles. Heck, any defenseman who played 24 minutes a game or had a career adjusted +/- over +100 should be useful.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
Time to dig out the stats for 2nd lines, sans Golikov (could you provide a bio 70s?), and Carson will have lot of incomplete stats too:
Cups and Awards:
Cup winners: Carson
Top 10s - rank and percentage of 2nd place finisher:
Points:
Cullen 5th (84%)
Carson 8th (67%)
Carson 10th (66%)
Goals:
Carson 6th (71%)
Carson 10th (64%)
Assists:
Cullen 7th (79%)
Carson 8th (53%)
All-star games:
Khristich, Cullen - 2x
ES Productivity: - PP/SH productivity should be discussed in comparison of PP/PK units
Nylander 0.64
Khristich 0.57
Cullen 0.56
Craven 0.5
* - Carson has PPG of 0.49, but due to era that's of course absolutely not comparable
Career adjusted +/-:
Khristich +201
Nylander +181
Craven +94
Cullen -84
Career icetime rankings among team forwards:
Overall:
Khristich - 7th, 6th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 8th, 9th
Cullen - 8th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 5th, 5th, 4th
Nylander - 7th, 5th, 3rd, 7th, 4th, 4th, 8th, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 8th
Craven - 14th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 8th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 8th
ES:
Khristich - 5th, 8th, 1st, 3rd, 7th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th, 9th
Cullen - 7th, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 8th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th
Nylander - 8th, 5th, 3rd, 6th, 4th, 4th, 7th, 4th, 2nd, N/A, N/A, N/A
Craven - 13th, 5th, 4th, 9th, 2nd, 7th, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 5th, 5th, 4th, 11th
Playoff production:
PPG:
Nylander 0.72
Cullen 0.64
Craven 0.59
Khristich 0.53
* - Carson has 0.27, but in incomparable era
Significant PO runs (over 0.75 PPG runs with 10+ games, PPG+ runs with <10 games):
Cullen 3
Nylander 3
Craven 2
Khristich 1
International experience:
Olympics PPG:
Khristich - 1.00 (2/2)
Nylander - 0.38 (3/8)
Canada/World Cup:
Nylander 0.75 (3/4)
World Champs:
Nylander 0.85 (62/73)
Khristich 0.39 (7/18)
Observations on the 2nd lines:
- I know next to nothing about Golikov as of now
- Carson is the best offensive player and goalscorer here, in spite of short NHL career
- Cullen has the best peak, but it's really short
- Khristich, Nylander and Craven all had good runs on top lines
- Nylander is the third best offensive player here, and either him or Cullen is the best playmaker
- Craven brings a bit less offense than Khristich but also brings a bit more defense
- everybody but Cullen has exceptional +/-, though Cullen's is as bad as it is also due to Lemieux factor
- postseason numbers look good on my line, but Carson was apparently important factor in a Cup win, which negates that edge
- internationally, Nylander is surprisingly accomplished, but it's a minor boon at best
Conclusion:
If I assume Golikov as Nylander's equal or just a bit worse, it's slight edge Regina. If he'd be his superior, the edge would grow, if he's clearly inferior, it becomes even.
Cups and Awards:
Cup winners: Carson
Top 10s - rank and percentage of 2nd place finisher:
Points:
Cullen 5th (84%)
Carson 8th (67%)
Carson 10th (66%)
Goals:
Carson 6th (71%)
Carson 10th (64%)
Assists:
Cullen 7th (79%)
Carson 8th (53%)
All-star games:
Khristich, Cullen - 2x
ES Productivity: - PP/SH productivity should be discussed in comparison of PP/PK units
Nylander 0.64
Khristich 0.57
Cullen 0.56
Craven 0.5
* - Carson has PPG of 0.49, but due to era that's of course absolutely not comparable
Career adjusted +/-:
Khristich +201
Nylander +181
Craven +94
Cullen -84
Career icetime rankings among team forwards:
Overall:
Khristich - 7th, 6th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 7th, 8th, 9th
Cullen - 8th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 8th, 5th, 5th, 4th
Nylander - 7th, 5th, 3rd, 7th, 4th, 4th, 8th, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 8th
Craven - 14th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 2nd, 8th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 8th
ES:
Khristich - 5th, 8th, 1st, 3rd, 7th, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th, 9th
Cullen - 7th, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 8th, 5th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th
Nylander - 8th, 5th, 3rd, 6th, 4th, 4th, 7th, 4th, 2nd, N/A, N/A, N/A
Craven - 13th, 5th, 4th, 9th, 2nd, 7th, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 5th, 5th, 4th, 11th
Playoff production:
PPG:
Nylander 0.72
Cullen 0.64
Craven 0.59
Khristich 0.53
* - Carson has 0.27, but in incomparable era
Significant PO runs (over 0.75 PPG runs with 10+ games, PPG+ runs with <10 games):
Cullen 3
Nylander 3
Craven 2
Khristich 1
International experience:
Olympics PPG:
Khristich - 1.00 (2/2)
Nylander - 0.38 (3/8)
Canada/World Cup:
Nylander 0.75 (3/4)
World Champs:
Nylander 0.85 (62/73)
Khristich 0.39 (7/18)
Observations on the 2nd lines:
- I know next to nothing about Golikov as of now
- Carson is the best offensive player and goalscorer here, in spite of short NHL career
- Cullen has the best peak, but it's really short
- Khristich, Nylander and Craven all had good runs on top lines
- Nylander is the third best offensive player here, and either him or Cullen is the best playmaker
- Craven brings a bit less offense than Khristich but also brings a bit more defense
- everybody but Cullen has exceptional +/-, though Cullen's is as bad as it is also due to Lemieux factor
- postseason numbers look good on my line, but Carson was apparently important factor in a Cup win, which negates that edge
- internationally, Nylander is surprisingly accomplished, but it's a minor boon at best
Conclusion:
If I assume Golikov as Nylander's equal or just a bit worse, it's slight edge Regina. If he'd be his superior, the edge would grow, if he's clearly inferior, it becomes even.
Last edited:
MadArcand
Whaletarded
3rd line time. Easier to compare this time:
- no awards, Cups or top 10s in scoring among the whole lot
All-star games:
Kapanen - 2x
Murphy - 1x
ES Productivity: - PP/SH productivity should be discussed in comparison of PP/PK units
Arvedson 0.59
Rucchin 0.53
Kapanen 0.47
Murphy 0.46
Zezel 0.46
Tippett 0.3
Career adjusted +/-:
Rucchin +96
Arvedson +95
Kapanen +38
Zezel +32
Murphy -1
Tippett -99
Career icetime rankings among team forwards:
Overall:
Arvedson - 5th, 5th, 4th, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th
Rucchin - 12th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 6th, 4th
Kapanen - 11th, 7th, 2nd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 5th, 6th, 9th
Tippett - 7th, 8th, 9th, 6th, 3rd, 8th, 8th, 10th, 8th, 9th
Zezel - 7th, 8th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, 6th, 8th, 8th, 10th, 4th, 11th
Murphy - 2nd, 6th, 8th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th
ES:
Arvedson - 5th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 9th
Rucchin - 10th, 6th, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 6th, N/A
Kapanen - 10th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 5th, N/A, N/A
Tippett - 10th, 11th, 9th, 5th, 4th, 10th, 9th, 12th, 9th, 11th
Zezel - 10th, 8th, 6th, 9th, 1st, 4th, 5th, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 10th, 5th, 13th
Murphy - 2nd, 6th, 8th, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 8th, 12th
Playoff production:
PPG:
Murphy 0.55
Zezel 0.49
Rucchin 0.46
Kapanen 0.40
Tippett 0.35
Arvedson 0.21
Significant PO runs (over 0.75 PPG runs with 10+ games, PPG+ runs with <10 games):
Zezel 2
Murphy 2
International experience:
Olympics PPG:
Tippet - 0.35 (5/14)
Kapanen - 0.28 (5/18)
Arvedson - 0.00 (0/4)
Canada/World Cup:
Kapanen 0.00 (0/3)
World Champs:
Kapanen 0.74 (40/54)
Rucchin 0.50 (3/6)
Arvedson 0.30 (3/10)
Observations on the 3nd lines:
- both lines consist of quality defensive players all around, and all of them will play PK
- my line has clear edge in offensive ability
- Regina's line has more playoff pedigree
- my line has better international experience
- Rucchin, Kapanen and Murphy saw most icetime, Tippett saw very little
- Tippett's +/- is also rather atrocious
Conclusion:
Not looking at how the players will perform on PK, I think my line has a solid edge here, courtesy of being superior in every metric sans playoff accomplishments. Edge HC Kosice
- no awards, Cups or top 10s in scoring among the whole lot
All-star games:
Kapanen - 2x
Murphy - 1x
ES Productivity: - PP/SH productivity should be discussed in comparison of PP/PK units
Arvedson 0.59
Rucchin 0.53
Kapanen 0.47
Murphy 0.46
Zezel 0.46
Tippett 0.3
Career adjusted +/-:
Rucchin +96
Arvedson +95
Kapanen +38
Zezel +32
Murphy -1
Tippett -99
Career icetime rankings among team forwards:
Overall:
Arvedson - 5th, 5th, 4th, 7th, 5th, 5th, 7th
Rucchin - 12th, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 6th, 4th
Kapanen - 11th, 7th, 2nd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 5th, 6th, 9th
Tippett - 7th, 8th, 9th, 6th, 3rd, 8th, 8th, 10th, 8th, 9th
Zezel - 7th, 8th, 4th, 4th, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 11th, 6th, 8th, 8th, 10th, 4th, 11th
Murphy - 2nd, 6th, 8th, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 9th, 11th
ES:
Arvedson - 5th, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 3rd, 2nd, 9th
Rucchin - 10th, 6th, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 5th, 6th, N/A
Kapanen - 10th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 2nd, 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 5th, N/A, N/A
Tippett - 10th, 11th, 9th, 5th, 4th, 10th, 9th, 12th, 9th, 11th
Zezel - 10th, 8th, 6th, 9th, 1st, 4th, 5th, 3rd, 7th, 8th, 9th, 12th, 10th, 5th, 13th
Murphy - 2nd, 6th, 8th, 3rd, 2nd, 4th, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 8th, 12th
Playoff production:
PPG:
Murphy 0.55
Zezel 0.49
Rucchin 0.46
Kapanen 0.40
Tippett 0.35
Arvedson 0.21
Significant PO runs (over 0.75 PPG runs with 10+ games, PPG+ runs with <10 games):
Zezel 2
Murphy 2
International experience:
Olympics PPG:
Tippet - 0.35 (5/14)
Kapanen - 0.28 (5/18)
Arvedson - 0.00 (0/4)
Canada/World Cup:
Kapanen 0.00 (0/3)
World Champs:
Kapanen 0.74 (40/54)
Rucchin 0.50 (3/6)
Arvedson 0.30 (3/10)
Observations on the 3nd lines:
- both lines consist of quality defensive players all around, and all of them will play PK
- my line has clear edge in offensive ability
- Regina's line has more playoff pedigree
- my line has better international experience
- Rucchin, Kapanen and Murphy saw most icetime, Tippett saw very little
- Tippett's +/- is also rather atrocious
Conclusion:
Not looking at how the players will perform on PK, I think my line has a solid edge here, courtesy of being superior in every metric sans playoff accomplishments. Edge HC Kosice
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I'll see what I can do. I'm still working on Zezel. that bio was put on hold for 3 days as I fought major computer issues... which I think are finally over now. We'll see when I get home.
You will be surprised at how much Golikov scored domestically and compared to whom. Over a PPG internationally is never easy, either.
this can be simplified a lot. Carson is easily the best player on either 2nd line. Even when you use just his short NHL career. Thing is, that's not his whole relevant career. Senior hockey was big at the time, and Carson was one of many players of a known value to compete in that league. Moose Watson was so good in senior hockey that he got into the HHOF, and in the MLD I did an analysis that suggested Watson could have been one of the NHL's all-time leading scorers circa 1926. Carson's scoring stats are almost identical to his in senior hockey.
The only thing these numbers tell us:
- Khristich was a pretty good and underrated two-way player
- Nylander has made a career out of being a dominant 2nd liner
- Craven was a very good two-way player
- Cullen was absolutely awful defensively, there's no excuse for a scoring center to have results like these
very eye-opening regarding craven.
Playoff game sample sizes matter too. Craven has a wealth of playoff experience.
Not particularly relevant, but I appreciate the info and analysis.
Considering Cullen was riding shotgun with two players known to be better, and Carson was his team's catalyst, Carson still has the better peak.
Full careers considered, Craven is just as good. And Carson's playmaking isn't bad just because of the lack of top-10s. He ranked very highly in the league while he was there.
Even after I post what Golikov has accomplished, it's going to be a very difficult comparison. Let's just call it a clear edge for Regina since Nylander is out of position.
My main concern about this is that Arvedson had a very short career that included what should have been his best seasons as a player, Rucchin spent his best seasons with two incredibly productive players, and Zezel, Tippett and Murphy will all be underrated by these adjusted numbers by about 10% (for reasons that have been difficult to quantify or fix but you can intuitively tell this is true)
Call me crazy, but I think Murphy's the best/most established offensive player on either line, and Tippett's clearly the worst.
- Rucchin's adjusted +/- from 1997-2001: +113. 1995, 1996, 2002-2007: -17. "nuff said.
- Tippett's adjusted +/- can be explained by the fact that he was a defensive player. Only the best ones can do that job and stay positive. Look at Libett! Even Jay Pandolfo is a massive career minus.
Career icetime rankings among team forwards:
With linemates taken into consideration, this is even more pronounced.
Again, this unfortunately doesn't tell us much.
Yet, Tippett is the player among all these six that received the most selke recognition (9th, 11th, 13th) - why do you think that is?
Definitely don't agree. You focused a lot on stats but too often the context of these stats reveals more.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
You're going to have terrible adjusted +/- when Lemieux centers the other scoring line. He wasn't good defensively until his last few seasons, true, likely sub-par but not as bad as the +/- makes it seem.
Carson's percentages are far worse, and the claim that Cullen rode shotgun is untrue:
1989-90 Pens top 6 (it seems that Lemieux and Cullen played with a rotation of the top 4 wingers):
Mario Lemieux C 59 45 78 123 -18
John Cullen C 72 32 60 92 -13
Rob Brown RW 80 33 47 80 -10
Kevin Stevens LW 76 29 41 70 -13
Mark Recchi RW 74 30 37 67 6
Phil Bourque LW 76 22 17 39 -7
Lemieux only played 59 games that season. Cullen outscored everyone else, unless you mean he played shotgun to Coffey's 103 points in addition to Lemieux, even if they played together only sometimes on PP and Cullen was 2nd in ES icetime? Doesn't look like riding shotgun to me.
In 1990-91, Lemieux played only 26 games. Recchi led the team in scoring with 113 pts in 78 games (1.45 PPG), Cullen had 94 pts in 65 games (also 1.45 PPG). Both were even in +/-. We know with hindsight that Recchi turned out the better player, but back then, with Cullen and Recchi both in their 3rd seasons, it's hard to say who pulled who. I'd say they benefited eachother.
And once in Hartford, Cullen finished season with 16 points in 13 games, then added 9 points in 6 playoff games, leading the team. Who did he rode shotgun to there? Verbeek and his 5 points?
Never said it's bad.
He also was rookie, sophmore and old battered guy on horrible teams for most of those 'bad' (hardly) seasons. Played much more defensive role late on, too.
That's not true. Arvedson has 2nd, 10th and 16th, a lot better.
Keep in mind that I'm comparing ES only here. Anyway, I stand by my conclusion - Kapanen is at Murphy's level at worst, Rucchin surpasses Zezel, and Arvedson is better than Tippett in everything but longetivity.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Re: John Cullen - Agree with MadArcand (if he's right that Cullen and Lemieux played on seperate lines at even strength, which I think they did).
If he rarely played with Lemieux at even strength, he should be expected to have a negative adjusted plus/minus, with Lemieux as his off-ice comparable. And he does. Doesn't tell us anything, one way or the other.
Also, if he rarely played with Lemieux at even strength, his even strength scoring would have only been very indirectly influenced by Lemieux - basically, Lemieux would only help Cullen's ES scoring by taking away the best checkers.
Re: Steve Rucchin - Definitely agree with 70s.
He centered Selanne and Kariya, with 3 garbage lines behind them as off-ice comparables. His positive adjusted plus/minus is likely entirely driven by that.
Of course a defensive presence on a scoring line will have a better adjusted plus/minus than a guy on a dedicated checking line!
Plus, I watched the line play a lot (as did everyone who watched a lot of hockey in the late 90s). Rucchin was very good as the defense conscience of the line, as well as it's muscle (the guy is huge). But his offense was almost non-existent. I'd guess the majority of his offense consisted of chipping the puck up to Selanne and Kariya and letting them do their magic, or standing in front of the net and letting them bounce the puck in off of him.
The one interesting thing to me about Rucchin is the year he lead his team in ice time. When was that? I don't think Selanne and Kariya were ever injured for an extended time at the same time.
If he rarely played with Lemieux at even strength, he should be expected to have a negative adjusted plus/minus, with Lemieux as his off-ice comparable. And he does. Doesn't tell us anything, one way or the other.
Also, if he rarely played with Lemieux at even strength, his even strength scoring would have only been very indirectly influenced by Lemieux - basically, Lemieux would only help Cullen's ES scoring by taking away the best checkers.
Re: Steve Rucchin - Definitely agree with 70s.
He centered Selanne and Kariya, with 3 garbage lines behind them as off-ice comparables. His positive adjusted plus/minus is likely entirely driven by that.
Of course a defensive presence on a scoring line will have a better adjusted plus/minus than a guy on a dedicated checking line!
Plus, I watched the line play a lot (as did everyone who watched a lot of hockey in the late 90s). Rucchin was very good as the defense conscience of the line, as well as it's muscle (the guy is huge). But his offense was almost non-existent. I'd guess the majority of his offense consisted of chipping the puck up to Selanne and Kariya and letting them do their magic, or standing in front of the net and letting them bounce the puck in off of him.
The one interesting thing to me about Rucchin is the year he lead his team in ice time. When was that? I don't think Selanne and Kariya were ever injured for an extended time at the same time.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I'm not just talking about adjusted +/- here, though. His $ESGA/GP is huge. 0.90 to be exact.
By comparison:
Cullen 0.90
Renberg 0.77
Allison 0.75
Rucchin 0.73
Stumpel 0.73
Stemkowski 0.73
Murphy 0.72
Nylander 0.71
Satan 0.71
Kapanen 0.68
Khristich 0.67
Havlat 0.67
Mellanby 0.63
Arvedson 0.62
Craven was 0.61
Zezel 0.60
Pellerin 0.57
Tippett 0.56
You can only take that so far though. If Carson was in the top-13 in points in the newly-merged NHL, then he's better. It shouldn't be close. And that's when you completely ignore his SOHA years and the fact that he was his line's catalyst and best player, not a shotgun rider.
Actually, the fact that Recchi proved he could do it all over the NHL and Cullen couldn't, should serve as compelling evidence who was carrying the unit.
He clearly had a very good 13 games to finish his season in Hartford.
Yes, exactly. But how much can we really use his adjusted +/- for anything, when he's one of the biggest examples in history of a guy who was not the reason for his line's goal differential?
My cutoff is at 16th so I didn't see that one. I guess with the 2nd you can say it's better if you like but 700+ games of being one of the better defensive forwards > 400 games.
Who were Arvedson's linemates?
It's laughable you'd consider Kapanen on Murphy's level. Kapanen was a face in the crowd; Murphy was a highly respected leader and checker in the league. their significance in history is not close.
Almost all of Rucchin's results as a player can be attributed to Kariya and Selanne. His significance in the league was definitely not what Zezel's was. You watched hockey back then; you have to know this.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
So basically, when Rucchin played on a checking line, his adjusted plus minus was a lot worse than when he played on a scoring line? I'm sure that would be true of... most players.
In my opinion, it shows the pratfalls of using career adjusted plus/minus as a meaningful metric when comparing players, especially checkers. Though am I quite amused watching you do it to 70s after he did it to me in the MLD.
Definitely. I have no idea how Arvedson finished 2nd (I honestly don't remember him as a finalist for some reason!), but the fact is that he did.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
Nonexistent compared to them, but compared to Zezel? Hardly.
2002-03
He had 21:05 ATOI in 82 GP. Kariya had 20:17 in 82 GP. Selanne was in San Jose, and 3rd in icetime, Oates, had just 18:38. That team also had 95 points and was 2nd in Pacific...
MadArcand
Whaletarded
Sure, he wasn't good defensively until 95-96 in Tampa, and it shows. It's even more pronounced because he was lousy defensively on poor teams in PIT and HFD early on, where he also accumulated most of his minuses.
But I did state that Carson is clearly the best player there. His absolute peak production was lower, that's it. But as a player, yes he is the best.
Yet both scoring at exact same pace indicates that there was no leech, nor clearly superior unit-carrier back then. I see much more of Kariya-Selanne kind of chemistry that season, than Lemieux-Brown. Plus Recchi obviously didn't carry diddlysquat the earlier season, where Lemieux and Cullen stood head and shoulders above their wingers.
Am I using it for something, aside from claiming him to be good defensively (which, if you saw him, you should know to be true)?
Not exactly. Arvedson saw heavier minutes than Tippett did, plus he suffered career-ending injury - and most would take say Neely for 400 games over Tocchett for 700.
Dackell, Zholtok, Van Allen, Bonk, Juneau, White, Fisher, early Hossa.
That's both rude and untrue - Kapanen was extremely respected in HFD/CAR/PHI, one of the best and fastest skaters in his time, a relentless, all-heart worker and two-way player, and in Carolina, a high-scoring winger.
Hell, look at their best 5 seasons in adjusted points:
Kapanen - 79, 72, 67, 62, 52
Murphy - 59, 59, 54, 51, 49
Kapanen was much better offensive player.
He beats Murphy soundly in +/-, even if both had similar career split between scoring lines and checking lines. Murphy played more PK, and yes was a captain. But as even-strength player here, I don't think he's even a bit better than Kapanen.
Are we going to penalize Rucchin for being ideal fit for Kariya and Selanne that much, that we'll rank him well below a 3rd liner journeyman? They were about the same when it came to skill, and both were great competitors. Rucchin actually played more PK, and both were of similar defensive qualities, really.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
In my opinion, it shows the pratfalls of using career adjusted plus/minus as a meaningful metric when comparing players, especially checkers. Though am I quite amused watching you do it to 70s after he did it to me in the MLD.
Don't be lame. You know it made a ton more sense then, than it did now. The demographics of the players used were practically identical.
We would have to break down his career year by year to prove or disprove that.
But that's exactly what you shouldn't use it for! it's clearly not an indicator of that.
If there is a per-game difference in the performance of the two players, it's not close to the same as what was observed between Neely and Tocchet...
With what center?
And you know that the recent criticisms of adjusted points are valid, so they don't really apply to ther two guys.
Zezel scored 54 points six times and was on pace for seasons with 60+ points two other times, with linemates nowhere near Kariya or Selanne. He's far from a 3rd liner journeyman - that's what he settled into later, but let's not pretend he didn't show the ability to play an offensive game.
Rucchin played more PK - on a terrible PK unit. Zezel was 21% on very strong PK units - you tell me which is more impressive.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
Well, we both know he was a very good defensive player regardless of the +/- anyway.
Yet it wasn't really minute either. The offensive numbers, Selke votings, +/-, icetime - everything points to Arvedson being obviously the better player. 300 extra games matter, but, in my opinion, not to such extent as to cover that gap.
Francis and Primeau. But you do realize that Murphy played with Dionne, Goring and Unger, right?
He most certainly did show the ability. He's pretty comparable in raw skill to Rucchin, it could go either way. Rucchin accomplished more, but yes, linemates did play obvious role. But does having good linemates really bring a player down so much as you seem to imply? You must have very low opinion of Gillies or Taylor...
I'd rather we cross that bridge when we get to special teams.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Agree - so what does adjusted +/- have to do with this, anyway?
I'm so done with adjusted +/- being used for forwards beyond the MLD level. It's told us absolutely nothing about most of them.
Use it for defensemen in conjunction with ice time, sure.
I disagree. In all likelihood his per-game figures drop if he plays more games.
Francis was one of the best centers in his era. Primeau was a highly underrated ES scorer, as overpass showed us before. Dionne is obviously the best of the bunch - how much did Murphy play with him? I don't recall ever reading that. Unger and Goring aren't exactly examples of superstars who propped up lesser players. They're not Kariya or Selanne.
Of their all-time offensive ability? Yeah, I do have a low opinion of them. Of their skills as complementary players to stars? I have a very high opinion of them.
Seriously, one averaged more points per game in a career (yes, their careers only slightly overlapped) that was 135 games longer, without the benefit of Selanne and Kariya. Why are attempting to discern who accomplished more? It should be obvious.
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,271
- 2,808
From 1998-99 to 2002-03, Bonk and Hossa.
By the end of his time there Arvedson was the third best member of the line, but you could argue he started as the best. In 1999, Hossa was a 20 year old rookie straight out of junior and Bonk was a draft bust who was reinventing himself as a defensive centre. Arvedson got his Selke nomination on a line with those two. But after that year they obviously passed him at some point.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I'm very interested in Arvedson's play the year he finished 2nd for the Selke. I honestly don't remember him as anything special in any way, but we he just flying under the radar on a team that most people outside of Canada didn't take seriously yet?
MadArcand
Whaletarded
What do K&S have to do with Murphy vs. Kapanen all of sudden?
And Murphy apparently played with Dionne from 1975 'til 1978.
Even strength, Rucchin scored more. But whatever floats your boat.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
They're just examples of great players who propped up lesser ones. I'm just saying that Unger and Goring are not Kariya and Selanne. that's all.
If you say that I'm not doubting it, but how do you know this?
Yes he did. And we know why.
And being on the ice for 54% of his team's PP goals in his career compared to 34% for Zezel, why didn't he score more overall? Particularly with those two?
(I realize adjusted stats favour him but they favour dead puck scorers for an unknown reason)
If you look at how many points they had at even strength compared to the goals they were on the ice for, Zezel's 71% is a fair bit better than Rucchin's 66%.
On the powerplay, Rucchin contributed to 53.3% of goals scored. Zezel contributed 71%. The figures here and in the above statement are of course not era-dependent at all.
It should be clear by now which player had the offensive ability here.
Ad
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
D Rodwin Dionicio - Niagara IceDogs, OHL (2023, 129th, ANA)- Latest: Dirtyf1ghter
Upcoming events
-
GAME 6 - Saskatoon Blades @ Moose Jaw Warriors - Saskatoon Blades leads series 3-2Wagers: 4Staked: $1,575.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
Game 4 Grand Rapids Griffins @ Rockford Icehogs -Grand Rapids Griffins leads series 2-1Wagers: 2Staked: $276.00Event closes- Updated:
-
