ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Forwards:
-I think Pittsburgh has a decided advantage here.
First Lines:
Looking at the first lines Pittsburgh comes out on top for me whether looking collectively or individually. We'll start off with scoring acumen and go from there.
Gretzky - 155.6
Foyston - 78.4 (Consolidated NHA/PCHA 7 year score via Dreakmur)
Martinec - ?
vs
Mikita - 107.8
Kariya - 84.9
Mikhailov - ?
-As in any series Gretzky's going to give the Bankers a big leg up as a scoring unit. He's flat out the most dominant offensive player in history by a wide margin be it regular or postseason. Consider if he doesn't score a single goal in his career he's still the all time points leader. That's mind boggling. And in the postseason he's got almost 100 more points than 2nd place (Messier) and more than 150 that of 3rd (Kurri). Mikita is actually one of the better scoring C's of all time but even he can't come close to matching the pace of Gretzky and is nowhere remotely close in terms of postseason production or peak play.
Kariya obviously gives the Americans a slight edge at LW in terms of scoring (regular season) but that's about the only advantage he has. Foyston is an all time great playoff performer, Kariya is not. Kariya offers no value defensively or in the way of checking/physical play. Foyston does. If you're looking at the overall package and for a player that is going to rise to the occasion this really isn't a contest. But for all intents and purposes we'll call this a wash as both players are generally drafted close to one another and I'm inclined to say Kariya was superior in the regular season while Foyston much more so in the postseason.
Now we get to the fun part. Mikhailov and Martinec. I think this is quite close in all reality. Martinec, to me is one of the most underrated players in the ATD, and I've thought that since did an incredible bio on him, and Batis (along with a few other European HoH members) really shined a light on his defensive and PK abilities. I'm not going to sell Martinec as Mikhailov's equal but it IS c fairly close match up especially when you factor in the international stage and Martinec's dominance there. This is another comparison where I think you have to say Mikhailov was the better domestic player but Martinec was every bit as good, if not better (especially considering he didn't play for a loaded USSR team) than Mikhailov in major tournaments.
At the end of the day Mikhailov gets the advantage here but it's not a big one IMO.
Thanks to TDMM's thorough breakdown of Martinec we have more than enough to make this battle come out much closer than people might think on the surface: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/round-2-vote-8-hoh-top-wingers.1775699/page-2#post-92733299
Here's a great quote from VMBM on Martinec
At the end of the day, both 1st lines are loaded with offensive firepower, the Bankers more so thanks to Gretzky. Neither line will play great defense as the only plus defensive players on them are Foyston and maybe Mikita. Neither line is particularly heavy and certainly relies more on finesse but Foyston was very aggressive and Martinec, while not a big checker was arguably the most abused European of his time and handled it exceptionally well. Mikita and Mikhailov were "ornery". Gretzky, Foyston and Martinec is thoroughly dominant in the postseason/international realm vs the Americans top line.
2nd Lines:
-Another interesting match up. This one is tighter, let's take a look. Starting off with the scoring:
Stewart - 90.3
Giroux - 88.0 (100 this past full season at LW)
Broadbent - ?
vs
Stamkos - 88.4
Abel - 87.3
Gilbert - 83.1
From a scoring standpoint you have to give the Americans the advantage here because Gilbert is probably about 20-25 points superior to Broadbent, who doesn't have an official score because his career was prior to the consolidation point but I've guesstimated it to be roughly 55-60.
An interesting thing to note is both lines have a player in their secondary position. Giroux is coming off an elite 100 point season which was his first, full time at LW for the Flyers. Sid Abel's best years and most dominant period was at C on the production line between Lindsay and Howe (has any C ever had better wingers? I can't imagine so). Abel did manage 1 2nd team AS at left wing earlier in his career and I'd wager Giroux deserves/gets one for his elite season, as long as the voters don't just automatically toss him at C, which he didn't play (that'd be Coutourier). Both lines are well balanced, have a dominant goal getter (Stewart and Stamkos) and able facilitators (Giroux, Abel, Gilbert). The Bankers do possess a great deal more grit and physicality on their line. I do think the Americans top 6 can be pushed around some and you better believe that Gorman will have his checking lines doing a great deal of smart hitting when available.
Stewart was a 2 time Hart winner at C and had an elite all time season in 1925-26 all the way through being thoroughly dominant in the Cup finals. It's also important to note there is some real life chemistry here with Stewart and Broadbent who played 25-26 and 26-27 together on the same line for the Maroons so there is an added bonus in terms of cohesion.
Overall, I want to call this is a wash, but the Americans do possess a fairly large advantage in terms of pure scoring thank to RW, although the Bankers do have real life chemistry and more Cup winning experience on it. I absolutely rate Stewart above Stamkos all time, even before I unearthed the treasure trove of information regarding his defensive play and speed. Each line has 1 plus defensive player (Broadbent and Abel) although the advantage here overall is with the Bankers IMO. Giroux is at least average and Stewart as well after all the information I dug up on him was presented. But the Americans have the advantage on both wings in my estimation and that gives them a slight advantage overall.
3rd lines:
-I think we're back to seeing the Bankers on top here. Ted Kennedy is by far the best player on either line. We're talking about a borderline top 20 C ever. One of the all time great postseason performers. The only thing he really wasn't elite/great at was scoring and skating. He's one of the greatest players in the dot of all time. An elite checker, great defensive forward who also routinely killed penalties and obviously an elite leader with elite intangibles. I think he's about as perfect as you can get as a two way, checking line C to go up against Mikita. Mikita for the first portion of his career was prone to taking stupid penalties and Kennedy is exactly the type of guy who could draw those with his relentless checking and physical play. Plus he's got plenty of offense for a 3rd line C on the counter attack. I'm one of Kopitar's biggest fans and even with this years elite season is still a ways off from Kennedy all time. I think Kopitar has a chance to get to Kennedy's level if things go right but he's not there yet. Offensively they're almost dead even and I'd say defensively they are as well. But Kennedy's regular and postseason resume's are simply better. Better Hart finishes, AS finishes, and Kennedy was essentially an elite player on 5 SC winning teams vs 2 for Kopitar. He has simply done more but that's partially because Kopitar is still playing. Either way, it's an advantage for Pitt.
Ed Westfall is one of the all time great pure defensive wingers and PK'ers. He was so good he completely owned the likes of Bobby Hull in the playoffs and you better believe he'll be keeping a close eye on Mikhailov/Kariya. Ace Bailey provides a touch more offense and he's certainly a good to great defensive player (namely on the PK) but he's not on the level of Westfall who's routinely mentioned as the best ever in his own end, at ES or on the PK. Consider Westfall tied/led the playoffs in short handed goals 4 times and has a big advantage in terms of longevity, which is due to Bailey suffering a horrible career ending injury which is unfortunate because he would likely be ranked a good bit higher had he not been hurt so badly by Eddie Shore. Advantage Pittsburgh.
Sid Smith is a fairly underrated player all time IMO. He was a 3 time postseason AS (one 1st and two 2nds) and was there around the same time as guys like Ted Lindsay, Bert Olmstead, and Dickie Moore. Not shabby competition at LW. Rarely took penalties, was a decent scorer and all around player and like the 2nd line for the Bankers (Stewart/Broadbent) played the better part of a decade with or on the same line as Ted Kennedy (they won 3 titles together) so again Pittsburgh has some real life chemistry brewing. I do think Gordon Roberts is a touch better though simply because he was a bit more highly thought of during his days vs his peers in the PCHA and was a better overall scorer.
All in all I think this is a decent advantage for Pittsburgh, namely due to the depth at C and having a player like Ted Kennedy here. Westfall>Bailey and Roberts>Smith. Both lines are built to be two way units as far as i can see but both can absolutely handle a more pure checking role if needed.
4th lines:
-Like other series, this boils down to C depth. Getzlaf is miles better than Luce. I don't think there is much separating the wingers (Bourne and Paiement vs Balon and Russell). The Bankers have more of a two way checking line vs a pure defensive line from the Amerks. Because of Getzlaf >>Luce I see this as a decided advantage for Pittsburgh.
Overall:
-I think the Banker possess an advantage to one degree or another on the 1st, 3rd and 4th lines, while the Americans have a slight advantage on the 2nd.
-I think Pittsburgh has a decided advantage here.
First Lines:
Looking at the first lines Pittsburgh comes out on top for me whether looking collectively or individually. We'll start off with scoring acumen and go from there.
Gretzky - 155.6
Foyston - 78.4 (Consolidated NHA/PCHA 7 year score via Dreakmur)
Martinec - ?
vs
Mikita - 107.8
Kariya - 84.9
Mikhailov - ?
-As in any series Gretzky's going to give the Bankers a big leg up as a scoring unit. He's flat out the most dominant offensive player in history by a wide margin be it regular or postseason. Consider if he doesn't score a single goal in his career he's still the all time points leader. That's mind boggling. And in the postseason he's got almost 100 more points than 2nd place (Messier) and more than 150 that of 3rd (Kurri). Mikita is actually one of the better scoring C's of all time but even he can't come close to matching the pace of Gretzky and is nowhere remotely close in terms of postseason production or peak play.
Kariya obviously gives the Americans a slight edge at LW in terms of scoring (regular season) but that's about the only advantage he has. Foyston is an all time great playoff performer, Kariya is not. Kariya offers no value defensively or in the way of checking/physical play. Foyston does. If you're looking at the overall package and for a player that is going to rise to the occasion this really isn't a contest. But for all intents and purposes we'll call this a wash as both players are generally drafted close to one another and I'm inclined to say Kariya was superior in the regular season while Foyston much more so in the postseason.
Now we get to the fun part. Mikhailov and Martinec. I think this is quite close in all reality. Martinec, to me is one of the most underrated players in the ATD, and I've thought that since did an incredible bio on him, and Batis (along with a few other European HoH members) really shined a light on his defensive and PK abilities. I'm not going to sell Martinec as Mikhailov's equal but it IS c fairly close match up especially when you factor in the international stage and Martinec's dominance there. This is another comparison where I think you have to say Mikhailov was the better domestic player but Martinec was every bit as good, if not better (especially considering he didn't play for a loaded USSR team) than Mikhailov in major tournaments.
At the end of the day Mikhailov gets the advantage here but it's not a big one IMO.
Thanks to TDMM's thorough breakdown of Martinec we have more than enough to make this battle come out much closer than people might think on the surface: http://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/round-2-vote-8-hoh-top-wingers.1775699/page-2#post-92733299
I. Martinec looks to have peaked higher in international play than Boris Mikhailov or Alexander Maltsev
A. Martinec was the All-Star RW at the World Championships 4 straight years in the middle of the primes of all three (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977)
-Mikhailov was only an All-Star at the WCs twice (1973, 1979)
-Maltsev was an All-Star at the WC in 70, 71, 72, 78, 81 - The gap in the middle is Martinec's prime.
B. Martinec was the best player in the WCs in 1976, competing against prime Mikhailov, Maltsev, and all the 70s Soviet greats
1) Martinec was the top scorer in at the 1976 World Championships, with 20 points in 10 games.
2) He was voted the best forward at the 1976 World Championships
C. The Soviets feared Martinec so much that they felt the need to take him out in the 1974 WCs, similar to what Clarke did to Kharlamov in the Summit Series.
D. Czechoslovakia was almost as good as the USSR during Martinec's prime and he was the best Czech skater at the time.
1) During the course of Martinec's international career (71-77), the Czechs won 3/7 World Championships (72, 76, 77), and were 5-7-3 against the Soviets overall.
Even before then, the Czechs were apparently right up there with the Soviets:
From 66-72, the Czechs were 12-11-2 against the USSR and 5-5-2 in "meaningful games." Source.
2) Martinec was considered the best Czech player at the time.
a) He won 3 of 4 "Golden Stick" awards for best Czechoslovakian player during this time (73, 75, 76). Goalie Jiri Holocek won in 74.
b) Overall, Martinec won 4 Golden Stick awards (73, 75, 76, 79) - the most ever until Jagr and Hasek.
3. Martinec is the All-Time leading Czechoslovakian scorer in "major international" tournaments by a wide margin.
■135 pts 69 goals 66 assists 115 appearances Vladimir MARTINEC
■113 pts – 60 g – 53 a – 117 appearances — Jiri HOLIK
■110 pts – 78 g – 32 a – 111 appearances — Vaclav NEDOMANSKY (all before '74)
■104 pts – 53 g – 51 a – 114 appearances— Ivan HLINKA
4) Nedomansky defected after the 74 WCs. Martinec was undisputed star forward for the Czech National Team afterwards.
II. Maltsev and Mikhailov have slight longevity advantages.
A. Martinec seems to have been a star player from 1971 (when he first joined the national team) to 1979 (his last golden stick win. I believe he led the Czech league in goals that year for the first time, finally playing on a good team).
B. Mikhailov seems to have been a star from 69-80 and Maltsev seems to have been a star from from 69-81.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=565254
C. Maltsev might have been at his best from 70-72 and Mikhailov might have been at his best from 78-80.
D. This isn’t a huge longevity advantage, but its enough to probably make the three players about even in offensive value.
III. Intangibles and other considerations
A. Mikhailov oozes intangibles in a way that perhaps no other non-NHL Euro ever did.
B. Martinec and Maltsev are not known for much besides offense.
C. Martinec and Maltsev were both likely above average defensively, but I haven’t seen anything definitive.
D. One big difference between Maltsev and Martinec is that Maltsev has shown that he didn’t handle physical play very well. Whereas Martinec always bounced right back when physically abused (except when deliberately injured in 1974, but he can hardly be faulted for that:
Conclusion and All-Time rankings:
Martinec looks to have peaked higher internationally while Maltsev and Mikahilov had greater longevity as top scorers.
Mikhailov definitely beats the other two in intangibles. Martinec and Maltsev are about the same.
If Mikhailov is the 20th best winger of all-time, what does that make Martinec, who looks to have been better in his peak/prime in the international arena, but doesn't quite have the longevity, and definitely doesn't have the grit?
Where should Martinec be ranked in relation to Alexander Maltsev, considering again, Martinec looks to have been better in his peak/prime in the international arena, without quite having the longevity? Martinec wasn't known as gritty, but he seems to have handled physical play quite well.
By the way, Mikhailov and Maltsev were the two players with unusually good longevity as top scorers for the Soviets, so having less longevity than them isn't necessarily a bad thing (Martinec's prime looks at first glance to have been slightly longer than Kharlamov's).
Here's a great quote from VMBM on Martinec
I reckon his defensive play was one of those "areas" that "everyone" talked about?
Vladimír Martinec. He is one of our most wittiest hockey players. By two assists on goals he contributed a great deal to the victory over USSR. He attacks and defends very well, has an intuition for the game, he is a constructive player. If he gains better conditioning and experience yet, he can become the backbone of CSSR team
This (bolded) passage is also notable, and I remeber that poster Robert Gordon Orr already mentioned during the Non-NHL Europeans project that Martinec hated physical training (and was not maybe always in great condition). However, Martinec did become the backbone of Team CSSR, at least in 1974-77 (and good years beyond that too), even though I don't think his conditioning necessarily improved awfully lot in later years. This could also explain a little bit why his domestic numbers aren't as great as one might think.
At the end of the day, both 1st lines are loaded with offensive firepower, the Bankers more so thanks to Gretzky. Neither line will play great defense as the only plus defensive players on them are Foyston and maybe Mikita. Neither line is particularly heavy and certainly relies more on finesse but Foyston was very aggressive and Martinec, while not a big checker was arguably the most abused European of his time and handled it exceptionally well. Mikita and Mikhailov were "ornery". Gretzky, Foyston and Martinec is thoroughly dominant in the postseason/international realm vs the Americans top line.
2nd Lines:
-Another interesting match up. This one is tighter, let's take a look. Starting off with the scoring:
Stewart - 90.3
Giroux - 88.0 (100 this past full season at LW)
Broadbent - ?
vs
Stamkos - 88.4
Abel - 87.3
Gilbert - 83.1
From a scoring standpoint you have to give the Americans the advantage here because Gilbert is probably about 20-25 points superior to Broadbent, who doesn't have an official score because his career was prior to the consolidation point but I've guesstimated it to be roughly 55-60.
An interesting thing to note is both lines have a player in their secondary position. Giroux is coming off an elite 100 point season which was his first, full time at LW for the Flyers. Sid Abel's best years and most dominant period was at C on the production line between Lindsay and Howe (has any C ever had better wingers? I can't imagine so). Abel did manage 1 2nd team AS at left wing earlier in his career and I'd wager Giroux deserves/gets one for his elite season, as long as the voters don't just automatically toss him at C, which he didn't play (that'd be Coutourier). Both lines are well balanced, have a dominant goal getter (Stewart and Stamkos) and able facilitators (Giroux, Abel, Gilbert). The Bankers do possess a great deal more grit and physicality on their line. I do think the Americans top 6 can be pushed around some and you better believe that Gorman will have his checking lines doing a great deal of smart hitting when available.
Stewart was a 2 time Hart winner at C and had an elite all time season in 1925-26 all the way through being thoroughly dominant in the Cup finals. It's also important to note there is some real life chemistry here with Stewart and Broadbent who played 25-26 and 26-27 together on the same line for the Maroons so there is an added bonus in terms of cohesion.
Overall, I want to call this is a wash, but the Americans do possess a fairly large advantage in terms of pure scoring thank to RW, although the Bankers do have real life chemistry and more Cup winning experience on it. I absolutely rate Stewart above Stamkos all time, even before I unearthed the treasure trove of information regarding his defensive play and speed. Each line has 1 plus defensive player (Broadbent and Abel) although the advantage here overall is with the Bankers IMO. Giroux is at least average and Stewart as well after all the information I dug up on him was presented. But the Americans have the advantage on both wings in my estimation and that gives them a slight advantage overall.
3rd lines:
-I think we're back to seeing the Bankers on top here. Ted Kennedy is by far the best player on either line. We're talking about a borderline top 20 C ever. One of the all time great postseason performers. The only thing he really wasn't elite/great at was scoring and skating. He's one of the greatest players in the dot of all time. An elite checker, great defensive forward who also routinely killed penalties and obviously an elite leader with elite intangibles. I think he's about as perfect as you can get as a two way, checking line C to go up against Mikita. Mikita for the first portion of his career was prone to taking stupid penalties and Kennedy is exactly the type of guy who could draw those with his relentless checking and physical play. Plus he's got plenty of offense for a 3rd line C on the counter attack. I'm one of Kopitar's biggest fans and even with this years elite season is still a ways off from Kennedy all time. I think Kopitar has a chance to get to Kennedy's level if things go right but he's not there yet. Offensively they're almost dead even and I'd say defensively they are as well. But Kennedy's regular and postseason resume's are simply better. Better Hart finishes, AS finishes, and Kennedy was essentially an elite player on 5 SC winning teams vs 2 for Kopitar. He has simply done more but that's partially because Kopitar is still playing. Either way, it's an advantage for Pitt.
Ed Westfall is one of the all time great pure defensive wingers and PK'ers. He was so good he completely owned the likes of Bobby Hull in the playoffs and you better believe he'll be keeping a close eye on Mikhailov/Kariya. Ace Bailey provides a touch more offense and he's certainly a good to great defensive player (namely on the PK) but he's not on the level of Westfall who's routinely mentioned as the best ever in his own end, at ES or on the PK. Consider Westfall tied/led the playoffs in short handed goals 4 times and has a big advantage in terms of longevity, which is due to Bailey suffering a horrible career ending injury which is unfortunate because he would likely be ranked a good bit higher had he not been hurt so badly by Eddie Shore. Advantage Pittsburgh.
Sid Smith is a fairly underrated player all time IMO. He was a 3 time postseason AS (one 1st and two 2nds) and was there around the same time as guys like Ted Lindsay, Bert Olmstead, and Dickie Moore. Not shabby competition at LW. Rarely took penalties, was a decent scorer and all around player and like the 2nd line for the Bankers (Stewart/Broadbent) played the better part of a decade with or on the same line as Ted Kennedy (they won 3 titles together) so again Pittsburgh has some real life chemistry brewing. I do think Gordon Roberts is a touch better though simply because he was a bit more highly thought of during his days vs his peers in the PCHA and was a better overall scorer.
All in all I think this is a decent advantage for Pittsburgh, namely due to the depth at C and having a player like Ted Kennedy here. Westfall>Bailey and Roberts>Smith. Both lines are built to be two way units as far as i can see but both can absolutely handle a more pure checking role if needed.
4th lines:
-Like other series, this boils down to C depth. Getzlaf is miles better than Luce. I don't think there is much separating the wingers (Bourne and Paiement vs Balon and Russell). The Bankers have more of a two way checking line vs a pure defensive line from the Amerks. Because of Getzlaf >>Luce I see this as a decided advantage for Pittsburgh.
Overall:
-I think the Banker possess an advantage to one degree or another on the 1st, 3rd and 4th lines, while the Americans have a slight advantage on the 2nd.