OK, onto the 3rd lines. I really like both 3rd lines. Greg Gilbert was a defensive specialist who, like Tom Fitzgerald, went largely unappreciated as he played a long and responsible career. Hampson is a wonderful discovery, and Flatley, while not really a shutdown kind of player, will give the line some hustle, leadership, grit, and the potential for some offense. Obviously I like Regina's 3rd line too. Craig Conroy has been recognized as one of the better defensive forwards of his time, placing in the top-15 in Selke voting five times. Sundstrom also did it twice, and these two can provide some real offense as far as third lines are concerned. Especially Sundstrom. Carveth is not a real shutdown player either, just a guy who will add some hustle and some offense (four times top-20 goalscorer), particularly in the playoffs (three times in the top-5 in playoff goals) I think our line has the potential to provide more offense and a little more shutdown ability.
Not much to say about the fourth lines - they will serve their purpose. Ours is about having some big bodies out there to make life difficult for opposing defensemen, and yours looks like a 3rd scoring line. On Japan's, Jackson and Brysdon are solid citizens, but whether you want your 4th line to be a shutdown line, energy line, or another scoring line, one thing is for sure - you need effort from them - always. I'm thinking Satan is not the answer there. He's better there, than on the 3rd, but you should have moved him to the 2nd and dropped Sullivan down to 4th line LW. Sullivan would provide the hustle you need there, and Satan, who is much more talented, gets the better ice time and has a couple good playmakers on the 2nd line with him. As it is, you've got a 4th liner who will take nights off, and I don't see that as a good thing.
OK, defense corps. Well, there is Allan Cameron, and I think he's the best defenseman in the series, even when you discount his value due to era. Alex Smith is our captain and #1, and he's the 2nd-best defenseman here. After that, we each have an offensive specialist who is suspect defensively - McKenny and Guevremont. McKenny is the far more offensively accomplished of the two, having been top-15 among defensemen seven times. But Guevremont isn't bad - he's one of the best ones in the draft for this role.
I think Huber and Roberts match up similarly to Langlois and Krupp - guys who were good at a few things, not necessarily great at anything. Then we each have two defense-only guys. You've got Lane and Rivet, we've got Reekie and Phillips. Phillips has been known as one of the few best shutdown defensemen in the NHL for a few years now, and at times would have made many analysts' top-10 overall lists. Rivet has always been solid but he just hasn't ever been one of the best at what he does. I know you have me quoted as saying he could be a MLD 5 or 6 guy... but that was over a year ago. A lot has changed. We have all become a lot better at finding the best players and like I alluded to in the AA draft, some mediocre players' stock have dropped due to this and he's one of them, IMO. Lane is interesting because on one hand, he was never able to play a full season with the dynasty Isles - they were that deep. On the other hand his bio credits him for his shutdown work in the playoffs. Is he a scrub, or a hero? Reekie was practically forgotten by the time I selected him but he's a similar player - couldn't stick in the NHL for a while, then proved his worth. Since both players have similar offensive capabilities (NIL) it is fair to look at their defensive work as a comparison. Anecdotal evidence has them both as great defensive players. But over Reekie's career he is a +195 compared to his teammates, and Lane is a -48 compared to his.
In goal, Japan has a guy who was most likely the best of his era. After considering that the era was before there was a cup to play for and seasons were 5-8 games long, it's still feasible that he's the best. I say above average. Much like Richard Brodeur. We got Brodeur for his big game experience. He carried the 1982 Canucks to the finals, stopping 91.7% of his shots while the rest of the league was only stopping 88.3%. He went to two Avco cup finals and won once, and he won a memorial cup. Paton has a cup, but he didn't have to win a playoff game to get it. This isn't his fault, but it does call into question whether he would have won the big games if he had to, and is part of why it's so tricky going so far back to get your starting goalie.
Coaching's even. A Sutter combo would have been mighty interesting. But Sutter/MacNeil works too. I did get the better of the two Sutters - the one who went to game 7 of the finals, and has the innate ability to improve every roster he's on, each season.
I like Regina better in all areas, but Defense, goaltending, and coaching aren't going to swing the series drastically in our favour. It is the forwards that will do that. The scoring depth is just too much for Japan to overcome.... far too much.
Regina's top-12 forwards have been top-5, top-10, top-15, and top-20 in goals
5, 10, 24, and 33 times, respectively. Japan's forwards have done it
2, 7, 8, and 13 times, in total. (Also add in that we each have a guy who do not apply to this metric - Japan has a guy who twice led the CAHA in goals in the 1890's and we have a guy who led the Soviet league in goals four times in the 1950's)
Top-10 and top-20 finishes aren't the only thing in the world, but it clearly points to a far more established lineup in terms of generating offense. The two best playmakers in the series (by far) are also on Regina's top two lines - with eight top-10 finishes in assists between them, they have five more than all of Japan's forwards combined. (Boudrias 2, Jackson 1)
That depth could partially be overcome with a better lineup configuration (no great playmaker on line 1, no great goalscorer on line 2, and a possible malcontent on line 4) but even if adjustments were made, it would not be enough.
Tied. This series is tied? Seriously. Come on.