I think you would agree that Roy is in the top tier of goalies. He is at best #1 and at worst #3. Though, I think it would be pretty hard to make an argument that he is clearly any place within that tier.
I would say he's clearly "not 3rd". My days of putting Plante with Roy and Hasek ended probably 2-3 years ago.
However, in the playoffs he's a clear #1 and I'm not aware of a case in which it would be particularly close.
Would you disagree that Brodeur is in the next teir with Sawchuk and Hall? That's where I see him. Much like the top tier, this one is pretty murky as well - I can see an argument for any of the three to land any place within this tier.
Assuming Plante is his own tier, yes.
How much of an advantage do you think you have? When I say moderate, I mean an advantage that is undeniable, but not a wide margin.
I see the word "wide" as so subjective! We could perfectly agree on the quantitative difference but disagree on what word to describe it. For the record, I'd say Roy over Brodeur is wide, and any post I've ever made comparing the two will confirm that is indeed my stance
anyway, what I'm trying to say is it's semantics. I think Roy is significantly better, in a "Gretzky vs. Morenz" kind of way, but ultimately it's up to the voters how significant it really is.
Guys like Savard and Johnson were good puck-movers in the NHL, but this is a whole different level. They certainly don't stack up with Tremblay and Keith.
I agree that not everyone here is above average at everything. They can't be.
Maybe this will help. I know that puck movement and offensive production are not the exact same thing, but they are at least linked. There are very few point producers who weren't good at moving the puck, and though there are guys who moved it well without scoring points, they're not that common. The 7 year VsXD score for our guys are as follows:
Pratt: 710
Seibert: 620
Vadnais: 587 (or 610 if it's correct that he only scored 6 points as a forward in 1969 as the evidence suggests; currently this season is omitted)
Hall: 580 (details described earlier in the draft thread)
Johnson: 472
Savard: 466
Tremblay: 701 (includes WHA)
Robinson: 644
Keith: 614 (includes this season's 95 score, 4th place shattenkirk is the benchmark, the top 3 are clear outliers)
Larson: 611
Harper: 294
Ramsey: 286
Pratt and Seibert stand up well to Tremblay and Robinson, both statistically and in the accounts of their play. Vadnais and Hall are very good mid-level ATD puck movers but Keith and Larson probably have them by a small margin. It's actually Johnson and Savard, the supposed weak links, that show up as the strengths here. Star ATD puckmovers they are not, but my that measure I don't see what would make them more exploitable than Harper or Ramsey.
In addition to a defenseman's general efficiency in moving the puck, their size contributes a lot to their durability in standing up to the forecheck over the course of a series. Duncan Keith and J.C. Tremblay, for example, have been pretty unflappable in real life against NHL/WHA level competition, but in an ATD environment they're a bit shrimpy and stand out as guys who the likes of Tocchet, Hunter, Nolan and Tkachuk can really wear down. Here are the adjusted sizes of our blueliners:
Pratt: 6'6", 242
Savard: 6'5", 230
Seibert: 6'5", 228
Hall: 6'3", 215
Johnson: 6'3", 210
Vadnais: 6'3", 205
Robinson: 6'5", 235
Ramsey: 6'4", 205
Harper: 6'3", 220
Larson: 6'1", 205
Keith: 6'1", 192
Tremblay: 6'1", 190
Regina's blueliners have an average of 1.7" and 14 pounds on Orillia's guys. In addition, let's look at who the four biggest forechecking threats are on each team:
Tkachuk
Tocchet
Nolan
Hunter
Lindsay
Mackell
Ramsay
Walker
I'm just guessing on the last two for Orillia. Because Lindsay and Mackell are the only two Orillia wingers with a real appreciable physical game that can cause trouble. Ramsay and Walker would be the next most effective due to their smarts, but the ones who really have a shot at forcing turnovers through intimidation are Lindsay and Mackell. The problem is, Regina has four guys like that and they are going up against a much smaller defense corps with a lower overall puck moving ability. What was originally brought up as an area of concern for Regina is something I think Orillia actually needs to worry about more.
In my head, I actually gave him a downgrade of 10 points, putting him at about 95. I think 90 is too harsh.
It might be or it might not. But I think logically it makes sense to use one's outlier teammate as the benchmark. I can't think of anything better, personally.
There was a lot said of Lindsay's defensive game. The read I got on him was that he was near-elite in every aspect of the game. Fosyton, less so, though he was a well-rounded guy, wasn't he?
You find this stuff and then don't put it in bios? Sounds very unlike you.
As for Foyston, the general impression seems to be he was not deficient. Put it this way, we question his all-around mettle a lot less than we do Bernie Morris. I think the biggest reason is because he was awarded that trophy once as the best "all-round" player in the league. But I don' actually know if we have much else on him.
Offensively, the numbers are clear, aren't they? Even if you treat Lindsay as harshly as you did, it's still a small edge for Orillia.
Let's be careful not to treat VsX as anything more than it is - a useful shorthand. Let's say that 10 is actually the correct amount to knock down Lindsay - that puts the total prime offensive production of the two lines within 2% of eachother. There's a point where you just have to call something within the margin of error.
It's great that you put three pretty good VsX scores together. But if the two lines are close enough talent-wise, I think it's important to note that one has the ingredients to be more useful in more situations - it has the defense, it has the size, it has the clutch gamebreaker.
Maybe more importantly, Regina's line relies more heavily on one player to carry the line, which makes it a bit easier to shut down.
I don't know if that is more important, actually. Is that really how it works in real life? I think you want that game breaker on your line because he's the one who will actually make something happen in the crucial minutes when everything tightens up and the best defensive players are determined to stop you.
Frank Foyston was a damn good play-off performer. Lindsay and Cowley pretty much stay the same. Lafleur was about the same in the play-offs as he was I the regular season too.
Foyston was very good. He made my top-60 list in the project. He was always there, often went deep and scored as expected, if not better. I don't mean to downplay him. But he's not Gilmour and he's not Lafleur. Lafleur was "about the same" in the playoffs? I'm not sure what to say to that. Lafleur was so good in the regular season that his numbers approached "impossible to duplicate in the playoffs" levels - like we all know Lemieux, Gretzky, Jagr and Crosby did. The fact that he led the playoffs in points three times and the cartoonish margins he outscored his teammates over four years should tell you all you need to know about his playoff ability. He didn't just "meet expectations".
So, you're suggesting that Balderis and Ted Lindsey are essentially offensive equals? 86 v. 90. Sorry, I don't buy it. Not even close actually.
Well I'm open to the possibility that those numbers can be inaccurate, after all, it's all subjective. However, there is quite the difference between 86 and 90, is there not? Don't forget that Lindsay ranks as high as he does as an all-time player not only on the basis of offensive talent, and also note that Balderis' record of sustained regular season production remains highly underrated.
Malkin is slightly better than Recchi (90.7 vs. 88.3), and that's ignoring longevity and teammates.
You know what the above statement really ignores?
games played. Malkin is quite the injury case and I freely admit he will miss one game in this series with some sort of ailment. But he'll be replaced by Bernie Nicholls (VsX 77.4 after Gretzky adjustment), not a Malkin-sized pocket of air. His VsX may say 90.7 but that doesn't mean that in the other 5-6 games he will merely play at a 90.7 level. In his best 7 seasons he played at a level that would have earned him a VsX score of 102.7 (yes, significantly ahead of Orillia 1st line center Bill Cowley) and that is what you can expect from Malkin when he plays. Recchi, of course, never missed games in his prime. And good for him, he's a hell of a guy and I love him to bits, but no one seriously thinks he's a Malkin-level talent, or close to it.
Yeah, Lewis is probably the best defensive player on either line, but let's not exaggerate what he is. He's a good back-checker, not a defensive ace.
You sure? Lewis scored at a level that would have made him an ATD 2nd line caliber player even if he was one-dimensional; yet, he was more known for his defense than his offense.
I don't see what makes Malkin's play-off performances particularly great. Yeah, he scored a lot, but no more than he did in the regular season.
Not every single one of his performances has been great. But he has a Smythe trophy (I'm on record saying he didn't deserve it but the dude was 2nd at worst and scored an incredible 36 points) and already has one of the highest playoff VsX scores of all-time, a symptom of consistently being an important player to a team that goes deep in the playoffs.
I left the top defensive players for my 3rd line. Though, I'm still not seeing the defensive miss-match you are.
The two best defensive players out of our 12 top-6 forwards are Gilmour and Lewis, with the lesser of the two, Lewis, being 1-2 tiers ahead of anyone else. I'd say the defensive mismatch is clear.
