ATD #11, Rene Lecavalier Semis. Glace Bay Miners (2) vs. New Westminster Bruins (3)

[God Bless Canada]

Absolutely. It's as big of a mismatch as we'll ever see in the 2nd round or beyond.

A strange twist to this mismatch, is that Richard actually highly respected Bobrov, once saying he was a top-5 player ever. How he came to that conclusion, I'll never know. But it's interesting nonetheless.

As I've said several times, the hockey sense, speed and defensive presence of Glace Bay's third line is as good as it gets for a line in this ATD. But if Glace Bay wants to line match against our first line, then there are problems. It means less ice time for the first and second line, it means that a third line with very, very limited offensive capabilities will get a lot of ice time, and it means that there's a real risk of being caught in a too many men situation. And it means they're going to lean too much on a line, and that could wear them down as the series progresses.



27 games against Pavelich, 11 goals. 0.41 GPG.
106 other games, 71 goals. 0.67 GPG.

It's a 35% decrease, not the 50% I quoted earlier, sorry.

Was it Pavelich he always matched up with? I think that he usually was. Jack Adams certainly wanted it that way. The Trail of the Stanley Cup mentions that Richard had trouble shaking his shadow Pavelich, and that Dick Irvin kept juggling lines to get Richard away from Pavelich. Pavelich, in the book "what it means to be a Red Wing" talks about how shadowing Richard was his job for years. So honestly, yes, I think Richard faced Pavelich for the bulk of that time.

Absolutely it was against a stacked Detroit team, not that the Habs were slouches either, mind you. There's not much said about Lindsay's defense; I assume it was average. Pavelich was possibly the game's top checker at the time. Ultimate Hockey thought so, giving him 5 retro selkes. He was definitely a factor. How big a factor he'll be here, is up to the other GMs, I suppose, and of course up to TC, who hasn't specified who he'll put up against Richard.



No argument there. As I said, if I was Glace Bay, I'd look to get Marty out there vs. The Rocket. That's their best way to partially contain Richard. Probably the only way.

I was wondering how long it would take for the Richard quote about Bobrov to find its way into the series. I believe that Richard said Bobrov was a top 10 player ever, not top five, but it's a moot point. Bottom line is that Richard thought the world of Bobrov. And I think that's great for us, because you know that the Rocket will be jacked up for that match-up.

I do want to make it clear that I think highly of Bobrov. I don't think highly of his competiton (that "C" word that I always make a big deal of). But there's no question in my mind that Bobrov can play at this level. Better off as a second line scorer, but as I said before, no doubt he can play. Wouldn't want him out there against the Rocket.

I'll be honest: I think that Detroit's dynasty of the 50s is, along with the 47-51 Leafs, the most underrated dynasty in NHL history. It's amazing how little credit the Red Wings of the 50s get among the game's great teams. You had four top-25 players of all-time - Gordie, Lindsay, Kelly and Sawchuk - and then you had the great depth with guys like Abel and Delvecchio, and then the checkers. Prystai, Leswick and Pavelich on one checking line; Glen Skov to anchor the other. They could beat you playing run-and-gun hockey, they could beat you with a physical onslaught, they could beat you with smart defensive hockey.

Richard and Lindsay legitimately did not like each other, so I would think they matched up against each other a lot. I love the quote from Lindsay, I believe it was last year, when he said that (paraphrase) "I was sad that Rocket Richard died when he did. I would have liked to have become friends with him." I'm sure that the Rocket played a lot against Pavelich, but I know he was matched up a lot against Terrible Ted. If he didn't, there wouldn't have been that dislike between the Rocket and Lindsay that spilled off of the ice. And was Pavelich matched up with Richard every year, or did he have trouble dodging that shadow just once?

But the biggest reason that the Rocket would have struggled to put up points against Detroit isn't Terrible Ted or Pavelich. It's that Sawchuk guy. I think the vast majority of players would see a 35 per cent drop in scoring playing against Sawchuk, with that Detroit team in front of him.

Not trying to take anything away from Pavelich. He's a heck of a defensive player. But I think the Rocket saw a lot of Lindsay, too. And I know he saw a lot of Sawchuk.

And, as I said before, while that's an excellent defensive line in Glace Bay, it's not going to score much at all. If TC wants to match up that line against our first line, that third line will see more ice time than any other line in Glace Bay. It means they won't be able to score enough goals to win a best-of-seven. We have the edge on offence as it is. If their third line plays more than any other line, it means they won't score enough to win this best-of-seven. As much as I respect and admire the speed smarts and defensive play of their third line wingers, those guys aren't going to score goals. Pavelich and Curry aren't Dumart and Tikkanen, or Provost and Armstrong in the offensive zone. And if they want that match-up, then it means a lot of changes on the fly, and a risk for too many men penalties.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

27 games against Pavelich, 11 goals. 0.41 GPG.
106 other games, 71 goals. 0.67 GPG.

It's a 35% decrease, not the 50% I quoted earlier, sorry.

Was it Pavelich he always matched up with? I think that he usually was. Jack Adams certainly wanted it that way. The Trail of the Stanley Cup mentions that Richard had trouble shaking his shadow Pavelich, and that Dick Irvin kept juggling lines to get Richard away from Pavelich. Pavelich, in the book "what it means to be a Red Wing" talks about how shadowing Richard was his job for years. So honestly, yes, I think Richard faced Pavelich for the bulk of that time.

Interesting research, but I think it can be fine-tuned a little.
- Those 133 games (27 vs Pavelich, 106 vs others) covers Richard's entire career. This means that the two World War Two seasons when Richard destroyed (largely) minor-league talent is included in his "other" games. (Pavelich didn't enter the league until 1948, after the league returned to full strength). The comparison isn't fair to Richard as it exaggerates the effect of Pavelich shadowing him.
- Also, Richard really slowed down in 1959 (he finished in the top ten in goal-scoring every year from 1950 to 1957 and was great despite missing time to injury in 1958) so these games should probably be excluded as well.

Here's how I'd break it down:

Situation|Goals|Game|Goals per 82
World War Two years|15|18|98
Non-WWII, non-old, non-Pavelich|79|52|54
Against Pavelich|27|11|33
Old|12|1|7
Total|133|82|51

- Richard scored at an inhuman pace during the World War Two years (just under a 100 goal pace in the playoffs!) though quality of competition renders this number nearly meaningless.
- Richard in his last two years completely lost his scoring touch (1 goal in 12 playoff games).

Assuming seventieslord's research is right, Pavelich helped turn Richard from a player who scored at a 54-goal pace (in a low-scoring era), to a 33-goal pace. Honestly, that's a big drop than I expected. Pavelich is likely one of the top ten defensive forwards of all-time... though I'd imagine there were other factors at play (namely, prime Red Kelly & prime Terry Sawchuk). Glace Bay's Potvin likely matches Kelly defensively, but Worsley clearly isn't as good as prime Sawchuk.

(Sidenote: it would be a really interesting research project to see how effective some elite defensive forwards were at containing a few key, star opponents).

(Edit: so it looks like GBC said something pretty similar to me, except I used more stats, which is quite common)

 

[Sturminator]

Assuming seventieslord's research is right, Pavelich helped turn Richard from a player who scored at a 54-goal pace (in a low-scoring era), to a 33-goal pace. Honestly, that's a big drop than I expected. Pavelich is likely one of the top ten defensive forwards of all-time... though I'd imagine there were other factors at play (namely, prime Red Kelly & prime Terry Sawchuk). Glace Bay's Potvin likely matches Kelly defensively, but Worsley clearly isn't as good as prime Sawchuk.

Well done, and quite enlightening.

(Sidenote: it would be a really interesting research project to see how effective some elite defensive forwards were at containing a few key, star opponents).

Yes, it absolutely would, though Pavelich vs. Richard is likely one of the clearest data sets available because it was O6 era and they both played for great teams, meaning they saw each other in the playoffs constantly. For matchups outside of this narrow band, however, the sample sizes may not be large enough to be statistically significant, with the possible exception of Divisional Playoff Era (1982 - 1993) rivals, but very few of these matchups will be ATD relevant, as the era in question was not one known for its great defensive forwards.

Nevertheless, crunching what data is available could be very interesting.

 

[seventieslord]

HO: Thanks for taking my "research" on Pavelich and Richard a step further. You're right that the war years inflate his totals and the "old" years deflate them. I didn't actually think that removing both would have that much of an impact.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

Looking forward to seeing how this series plays out. I like the balance of my squad. In goal, I'm happy to have Gump Worsely on board. With a strong and balanced defense in front of him, and a very solid bottom 6, goal tending becomes a wash in this series IMO.


One advantage I think I have is on the 2nd line. I like its balance. It's better defensively than New West's unit, and matches up well offensively as well. Primeau was the centre on arguably the greatest line in Maple Leafs history. We know he can dish the puck, and he will to a hard nosed Dave Taylor and the gifted George Hay. Lafontaine is a slick playmaker, but I don't know about his wingers. Take Fleury, can he handle the playoffs in this thing? For all he did early on, he was a complete train wreck in the 2nd half of his career. I will give them a big edge behind the bench. Blake is the best, and will have to work our ass off to beat a Toe Blake coached team.

I like the 3rd lines, but I like mine more. I always like to have a pure checking unit, a hard, grind it out line that's incredibly difficult to score against. Mix in guys like Lach,Geoffrion,Taylor,Primeau, Bobrov to score timely goals, and its how I like to win series (okay how I ENVISION winning series...I'll take it anyway I can get...also, that's what she said)

 

[God Bless Canada]

Fleury wasn't a mess for the second half of his career. The personal problems really only manifested themselves on the ice once he hit New York. And there were a variety of reasons for that. For one, New York was not the type of market that Theo should have been in. For another, the team was a mess. And he was given a fat contract, and thrust into the saviour role. If you're saying that he was a train wreck for the second half of his career, then you're saying he was a train wreck in 98-99, when he was nearly single-handedly keeping that Flames team in the playoff race prior to a trade to Colorado. If train-wreck Theo can do what he did in 1998-99, then non-train-wreck Theo must have been incredible.

Can Theo thrive in this thing? Absolutely. He was a terrific playoff scorer. I've pointed to it many times, not just when I've had Theo: he was leading the post-season in scoring in 93, 94 and 95 when his teams were eliminated. He's over a point-per-game for the playoffs in his career, even though his average is dragged down by the Cup-winning run in 89, when he was a rookie playing a lesser role. (Not that it's a bad thing he won a Cup, but 11 points in 22 games as a 20-year-old rookie will hurt numbers). Let's give the guy some credit.

I said from the outset that Glace Bay's second line is a better defensive unit. It's a very good line. Joe Primeau is an ideal second line centre at this level. Excellent playmaking centre with a strong two-way presence.

But I think we have the edge offensively, and we definitely have the edge come playoff time. Fleury's a better player than Taylor. Period. Anyone who watched both play would know that. I love Taylor's all-round game, but Theo's skill and gumption give him the edge. Theo's playoff production is significantly better than Taylor's. Half of Taylor's post-season games came after 88-89, when his production really declined. But even with that factored in, he has 38 points in 46 games. A player with Taylor's skill level and regular season resume, I'd expect better than 38 in 46. And he scored only 16 goals in those 46 games.

George Hay's playoff record is incomplete. Eight playoff game. Kevin Stevens is a two-time Cup champion who scored over a point-per-game in the playoffs. He had one suspect playoff (1994) before his production tailed off following the 95 lockout.

Joe Primeau's playoff track record is pretty good for the time he played in. 23 points in 38 games is impressive. But his one winger (Taylor) has an underwhelming playoff record. His other (Hay) who has an incomplete playoff record. Lafontaine - another guy whose playoff pace is dragged down by playing a limited role early in his career on an excellent team - has Stevens and Fleury as his wingers. Stevens and Fleury are the top two playoff performers from the second line in this series.

Glace Bay's third line is better defensively; ours is better offensively, especially in the playoffs with Goring's Conn Smythe and Linden's history of big game performances. (This thing should go seven, in which case, the presence of Richard and Linden is a nice intangible edge). Glace Bay's third line is a defensive line. Ours is a two-way line. When our best defensive forward is our first line centre, we didn't have to put as much emphasis on our two-way line. And we don't have to worry about line-matching as much as Glace Bay.

I'll agree that goaltending is fairly close. Gardiner's the better goalie. It's not a big edge - you won't find many big edges in goal in the ATD. It won't be the kingmaker.

Coaching will be. Two pretty closely-matched teams. And that's where the massive coaching edge for New West shines through. We have Toe Blake. Glace Bay has Herb Brooks and Rudy Pilous. Good to see Pilous find his way to the ATD. He belongs more than some of the other coaches, and he's good enough to be a bottom-tier coach. Brooks is also a bottom-tier coach. Brooks and Pilous combined to win five series and one Cup. Blake won eight Stanley Cups. The biggest advantage in this series comes behind the bench. New West has the biggest advantage. And it should be the difference in this series.

 

[seventieslord]

George Hay's playoff record is incomplete. Eight playoff game.

Kinda silly and not that relevant, but he actually had 8 playoff games in the WCHL so his playoff experience level is almost par for the course for that time.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Kinda silly and not that relevant, but he actually had 8 playoff games in the WCHL so his playoff experience level is almost par for the course for that time.

Ah yes, there it is. Missed it last night. And it wasn't very impressive. Three points in eight games. So that's eight points in 16 playoff games between the two leagues. I'd still lean towards incomplete for his playoff record, but I would have expected more production in the WCHL for a player of his skill level.

Bottom line is that the top two playoff performers, among the second liners, are Stevens and Fleury.

 

[seventieslord]

It seems every time I'm looking at the stats for a player who played in the WCHL/WHL, their playoff stats look bad. I'm thinking the playoffs there were really low-scoring. I have the scores in The Trail, but I'm at work now.

Either way, no, the playoffs aren't the best part of Hay's resume.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

Wish I had been able to comment more. Had some personal stuff crop up this week that superceded the ATD.

 

[seventieslord]

The Glace Bay Miners (2) vs. The New Westminster Bruins
(3)

Game Results:
Glace Bay Miners: 3 - New Westminster Bruins: 0
Glace Bay Miners: 2 - New Westminster Bruins: 1
New Westminster Bruins: 4 - Glace Bay Miners: 1
New Westminster Bruins: 6 - Glace Bay Miners: 4
Glace Bay Miners: 2 - New Westminster Bruins: 3
New Westminster Bruins: 5 - Glace Bay Miners: 2


The New Westminster Bruins (3) defeats The Glace Bay Miners (3) in 6 games.

Series Three Stars

1: Maurice Richard - New Westminster Bruins
Co-2: Charlie Gardiner - New Westminster Bruins
Co-2: Denis Potvin - Glace Bay Miners

 

[God Bless Canada]

Thanks to TC for the series. I've already jotted you down for a match-up in MLD 11.

Surprised that we won the series? No. I thought from the outset that we had the best team in the division. So I fully expect to win this series.

But I'm surprised that it went six. I thought it would go seven, and at that point, it would be advantage for us. Even though Glace Bay had home ice, I thought Game 7 would favour us with the sheer competitiveness that we have on our roster. We have a lot of guys who hate to lose.

I do think it is downright silly to think that anybody could win four straight games against that Glace Bay team.

 

[Transplanted Caper]

Congrats to GBC and raleh. You guys always seem to get the upper hand on me. Need to start looking more and more at getting a playoff ready team put together. Good luck in the next round guys.

 

[God Bless Canada]

By the way, if anyone wants to get a good look at hockey in Cape Breton, I highly recommend Bill Boyd's book Hockey Towns. It mentions Glace Bay in there a fair amount. (There are also chapters on Estevan and our neighbouring community, Bienfait). Boyd toured the country, visiting communities like Estevan, Trail, Peterborough, Yorkton, and many others that play such an important part in the grassroots of the game.