This is an excellent matchup between a couple of teams that would surely produce some attractive hockey if they ever met in real life. It is a somewhat "imbalanced" matchup, meaning that each team enjoys a few obvious advantages, and there are relatively few areas of approximate equality. I guess we'll talk about the imbalances, then:
Inglewood's Advantages:
- #3 defenseman: There's not really much to say about Chelios vs. Suchy, other than that it is an obvious win for Inglewood. Jan Suchy is quite possibly a top-50 all-time defenseman and a high-end #3, himself, but Chelios is borderline top-10 and really doesn't belong on a 2nd pairing.
- 2nd line RW: Again, Boston's player at that position (in this case Vlad Martinec) is strong for his role, but because arrbez has chosen not to ice his A team on the top unit, Sergei Makarov on a 2nd line creates a matchup imbalance.
- 3rd line RW: Nick Metz and J.P. Parise are similar players, but Metz is simply the better of the two.
Boston's Advantages:
- top defensive pairing: As good as Slava Fetisov was, Doug Harvey is another level, entirely, and Hap Day is rather easily better than Desjardins. I don't think this requires much explanation.
- #4 defenseman: Jimmy Watson was a solid, steady, defensive-defenseman, but a Jim Neilson level player he was not. Watson was never really a "true #1 defenseman", meaning that he may have briefly been the best blueliner in Philadelphia, but he was never a top blueliner in the NHL, which Neilson absolutely was during his prime. All-star and Norris voting as well as defenseman scoring finishes bear this out - not to mention the large difference in physicality. Although Watson was a tough, aggressive player, he wasn't a mammoth like The Chief.
- #5 defenseman: I think Dutton over Reise Jr. should be fairly uncontroversial by now. Reise has those two 2nd team all star nods in a very soft era for defensemen, but they don't really compare well to Dutton's two top-5 Hart finishes, his physical dominance or his place in the hall of fame.
- 1st line: the entire unit. Cook vs. Smith is a no-brainer, but Boston holds smaller edges at both center and left wing, as well. Comparing only offensive ability, the Denneny - Malone tandem is somewhat better than Delvecchio - Nighbor, but Boston's forward pair destroys Inglewood's in other aspects of the game - by a considerably wider margin than the offensive difference. Malone vs. Nighbor should be fairly clear; head-to-head, Nighbor is simply the better player. I consider Joe Malone still somewhat underrated in the ATD and don't think he's as far behind the level of the best of his era (Lalonde, Nighbor and Taylor) as his draft position would indicate, but he is definitely a notch below Frank Nighbor. Denneny's scoring record is marginally better than Delvecchio's (which is also excellent), but Delvecchio destroys his counterpart in terms of skating and 2-way play, both areas where Delvecchio is quite strong and Denneny quite weak. With Inglewood deployed as they are, Boston is better at every single position on the 1st units.
- 2nd line RW: This should be uncontroversial. Leclair is better in all facets of the game - from a not enormous goal-scoring advantage, to a substantial defensive advantage and a fairly large physicality advantage. In terms of pure scoring, Heatley is not so far behind Leclair, but he brings a lot less to the ice outside of scoring.
- 2nd line center: Stastny vs. Savard should again be unanimous. As much respect as I have for Denis Savard, he is no Peter Stastny. Again, the difference here is not huge when you only compare the scoring, but Savard was more or less an empty socket outside of his scoring abilities, while Peter Stastny brought a lot more to the ice, including size and a willingness to play chippy and fight for the puck which Inglewood is sorely lacking on the 2nd line. Stastny, although no great defensive player, himself, was also a dependable two way player, and easily better in that facet of the game than Savard, who was a floater. The teams are ultimately close on the 2nd lines from a talent perspective, but Inglewood's 2nd line has serious defensive and puckwinning problems. Dany Heatley is being asked to do too much as Inglewood's 2nd line "physical presence" next to a couple of cupcakes like Savard and Makarov. I don't see what the Jacks' 2nd line will do to break up either of Boston's top units when they get set up on the cycle in the offensive zone, or to establish a cycle of their own (though the McKenney line is less physically robust).
- #3 center: Although I respect Ken Mosdell's career and understand that he could have quite possibly been a Don McKenney level player if given the chance outside of Montreal, the simple fact is that he was only on McKenney's level for two seasons - and was never even so much as a top-20 scorer outside of his brief peak.
- goal: not much sense in beating this point into the ground. Grant Fuhr is the better goalie in this matchup.
- coaching: again, an obvious win for Boston. Arbour is a top-3 all-time NHL coach (I think there is some disagreement about where he and Blake should go after Bowman, but they're both clearly better than the next tier), and honestly I've never thought that much of Harry Sinden, though arrbez seems to go with him a lot.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the end, Inglewood's advantages are few, but fairly profound. If the Jacks win the series, that victory will likely be spearheaded by the 2nd unit, where Chris Chelios and Sergei Makarov represent dominant forces at their positions, although the unit as a whole has potentially serious puckwinning issues.
Boston only enjoys one area of imbalance on the level of Chelios/Makarov vs. their counterparts - that being Bill Cook vs. Hooley Smith - but the Bruins enjoy widespread superiority in many areas of the matchup. Whether or not this is enough to overcome Inglewood's areas of strength is up to the voters to decide.
