ATD #9 Foster Hewitt Semifinal: #2 Minnesota Fighting Saints vs. #3 Ottawa RCAF Flyer

[Sturminator]

Pavelmania?!

Although I think you're justified in defending Bure against what are largely personal and not performance-based criticisms, the claim that he makes all the players around him better is a bridge too far. Pavelmania on a bad team in a dreary Florida hockey market? Ok, maybe, sure. Pavelmania in an all-time league? Uhmmm...no.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

On Schmidt's offense, it's worth noting that his scoring title and one of his other top ten finishes came prior to the Original Six era. And it is foolish to say that the depression and war didn't start effecting competition until after players like Schmidt and Metz left for the war.

Again, you really show you don't have a clue about Milt Schmidt. Schmidt didn't take bad penalties. He played a tough, physical game, but he played a clean game. You're more likely to see Beliveau take a bad penalty than Schmidt. Schmidt's career high PIM total was 57. There goes one strategy out the window.

The thing with Schmidt is, he was very good at controlling his temper, but he also played a very tough and physical game. It takes some finesse to take him off his game and make him take a bad penalty. I admit that. That's why we have a specific strategy in play. That's why we have a player like Red Sullivan. And if we used Sullivan all the time, Schmidt would adapt, tune him out. But we won't, no. Sullivan and Schmidt will only meet after bad line changes, icings and late in the game when the Flyers are desperate. When Schmidt is vulnerable, and only then, Schmidt will be face to face with the best shift disturber in the series. It's also worth noting, Schmidt only had a PIM total higher than his GP total in his final season, but did it three times in the playoffs.

You talk about Ottawa taking more penalties. Prove it. You have guys who play a tough but clean game? So do we. And one of our guys did it while winning two Lady Byng Trophies. This is not the GBC/raleh entry of the last draft. But here's the beautiful thing: we can trot out five effective PK duos up front, with guys like Larmer, Lemaire, Russell, McPhee, Merrick and Corson, and every one of our defencemen can kill penalties very effectively.

FissionFire has already covered this point. (Although he missed that Hap Day's ability to play disciplined hockey was VERY inconsistant. And that Brad Maxwell was a thug.) But, here are players on your roster with significant increase in penalties come post-season:
Jacques Lemaire
Steve Larmer
Mike McPhee
Bobby Rousseau
Larry Robinson
Doug Mohns
Ted Harris (Who was far from discipline in the regular season.)

Your team isn't as disciplined as you would lead people to believe.

And you really underestimate Lemaire. Lemaire was not just Lafleur's lackey. He isn't just a complimentary offensive player. With his speed, his shot and his smarts, he can generate offence in this thing. You leave Lemaire alone, he will burn you. And he's got a pretty good gunner on his right wing.

I'm not saying he isn't good. But he never didn't have a good supporting cast. He was always either a secondary player on his line or on a secondary line. That kind of protection helps a player a lot. And we won't give him that space. We want to force him to play defense. Force him to play Beliveau. Lemaire simply isn't good enough to play a shutdown role and a scoring role. Neither is Larmer.

Pavelmania?!

Although I think you're justified in defending Bure against what are largely personal and not performance-based criticisms, the claim that he makes all the players around him better is a bridge too far. Pavelmania on a bad team in a dreary Florida hockey market? Ok, maybe, sure. Pavelmania in an all-time league? Uhmmm...no.

You are right that he won't be an inspirational leader. But, these quotes say two important things:
1) Bure got along well with his team. He may not play a complete game, but he is no cancer, he is simply a specialist who dominates at his specialty.
2)That Bure is one of those few one of a kind talents that can blow anyone away, players and observers alike.

 

[FissionFire]

Did you pick Seibert first? It's a pretty good 1A 1B anyway. I think Robinson is going to have a distinct advantage over either guy... but that's no slight on them. Robinson is one of the best in the draft. Langway and Seibert are a great pairing.

I agree Robinson is better in some facets of the game than Seibert (and all facets except one than Langway) but I don't think the gap between him and Seibert is as large as you imply.

Larry Robinson had an incredible peak on the dynasty Canadiens. However, to compare the players on an even basis you have to throw his two Norris Trophies out the window since the award didn't exist when Seibert played. Using postseason all-star balloting results, Seibert is actually better. Robinson had 6 total postseason all-star berths (3 first, 3 second). Seibert had 10 consecutive postseason all-star berths (4 first, 6 second) and was narrowly edged out of a spot in at the start of that run by Eddie Shore when they tied in voting but Shore was given the nod due to LD verses RD breakdowns (Source). To put into perspective the type of extended dominance that represents, consider that only Doug Harvey amongst defenseman can claim this accomplishment and if you include all players only Gordie Howe, Maurice Richard, and Bobby Hull get added to that list. His level of competition wasn't low either with players such as Eddie Shore, King Clancy, Babe Siebert, Ebbie Goodfellow, Red Horner, Hap Day, Ott Heller and Lionel Conacher as just a few notable names in competition. Both have similar Hart voting records with Seibert twice finishing 4th but Robinson with more top 10 finishes (although a few of those were single-digit point totals so I'm not sure how much credence to place in that).

Larry Robinson and Earl Seibert played very different styles. Robinson was a rushing defenseman and his style occasionally led to scoring chances against on odd-man rushes. Seibert was a guy who was defense-first and didn't take chances pinching deep. He's a much safer defensive player than Robinson is. He's also a more physical player and more of a hitter. Robinson could play the physical game when he had to, but it wasn't where his strengths were. Seibert's game was built around hard-nosed bruising hockey so he doesn't have to sacrifice any of his game to play that way.

Seibert can't be intimidated or physically outmatched. His Legends bio states "Seibert was generally regarded as second only to Eddie Shore in terms of skill and rugged play, and Shore once confessed that Seibert was the only man he was afraid to fight. Defensively, Seibert was one of the best shot-blockers in the game, and he could move the puck just as quickly as anyone.". Larry Robinson is called a giant at 6'4" and 225lbs so imagine how big a 6'2" 220lb Earl Seibert must have seemed in the 30s and 40s. Joe Pelletier echos the Legends bio calling Seibert "a no-nonsense defender with a reputation as among the toughest in the game." and that "Some old timers insist only Eddie Shore was better.". Earl's defense partner in New York Ching Johnson (no shrinking violet himself) said "Let’s put it this way, no one wanted any part of ‘Si’ in a fight. Even Eddie Shore (Boston) and Red Horner (Toronto) steered clear of him, and Shore and Horner were considered the toughest guys in the League at the time.". That level of physical intimidation is something that no player, even in the ATD context, will come out and dominate and something Larry Robinson could only dream of achieving.

That last part is the most interesting. Few people realize that Seibert was also a top offensive talent from the blueline in his time. I'm kicking myself for losing the link but in the board archives there was a table showing the Seibert was actually the 3rd highest scoring defenseman in the 30s and 40s. In 2005 our own Hockey Outsider placed Earl Seibert on the All-Decade team from both the 30s and 40s (Link). His low point numbers were actually sterling for a defenseman of his time. So he was a defense-first, physical, rock-solid tough defenseman who scored at a high clip in his era. Is he as fast as Robinson, no. Is he the scorer Robinson is, no. Is he more physical than Robinson, yes. Is he a better defensive player in his own zone, yes. Is Robinson better? Yes, but not by much. Seibert is a top 20, probably top 15 all-time defenseman and there are only a very select few players at his position who can claim to have a distinct advantage over him.

 

[Pwnasaurus]

imagine how big a 6'2" 220lb Earl Seibert must have seemed in the 30s and 40s.

Hockey Reference has him at 198lbs.

 

[FissionFire]

Hockey Reference has him at 198lbs.

Are we certain that's completely accurate? Hockeydb lists him at 200lbs and their data has been questioned in the past on player heights and weights, especially older players.

Hockey historian Joe Pelletier calls him 6'2" 220lbs here.

Another hockey historian John Halligan says "He stood 6-2 and weighed 220, one of the biggest defensemen of his era." on the official New York Rangers website here.

I guess it comes down to which sources you feel are more credible. I know of the work and effort Mr. Pelletier does in researching players and Mr. Halligan's data is posted on the NHL teams official website. By contrast, I have no idea how hockeyreference or hockeydb research all the height/weight numbers for players or how much time is put into it. It comes down to which sources do you think are more credible, hockeyreference/hockeydb or Joe Pelletier/John Halligan.

It's also very possible that both numbers are correct. Maybe he broke into the league at 200 but his playing weight bulked up to 220 once he physically filled out. If you use height/weight data on players from early in their career I'd suspect they wouldn't match data from their primes or end of the career.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

A couple of quick points

- From 1932 to 1945 (ie every full season of Seibert's career) he ranked second in scoring among defensemen, and was 9th in points per game (min 100 gp). He was third in playoff scoring during the same span.

- During the span of Schmidt's career (1937-1955) he ranked 1st in games played but just 19th in PIM, taking penalties at a rate roughly comparable to Lach, Pavelich and Abel. Even in the playoffs, Schmidt's PIM rate doesn't rise too much (he's still roughly comparble to Abel and Pavelich) and ranked 20th in PM versus 6th in games played. I know Schmidt had a reputation as a tough player but the numbers just don't show that he was especially undisciplined.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I really don't care how heavy Seibert was. I care about how good he was. I don't care that half of his first-team all-star spots were during the war years. He was an eight-time all-star before the game's best went to war. He was terrific. He's a rock defensively. He's tough as nails. He doesn't have the mobility or the offensive dimension of a Larry Robinson, but he has talent and quickness. He starred for the Miracle Hawks of 38. We know it's going to be six or seven games of tough sledding going against him.

Seibert's a credible No. 1 defenceman in this thing, a top 20 defenceman of all-time. Robinson's a No. 6 or 7 defenceman of all-time. Robinson was so dominant against Philly in 76 that Philly went looking for a Robinson of their own. Just think about it: the meanest, toughest team in the history of the league had no answer to Larry Robinson.

Here's a few comments from Ken Dryden's The Game on Larry Robinson:

On the Dornhoefer hit: "He had delivered a message- to the Flyers, to the rest of the league, to himself. A series that had been moving our way found its irrevocable direction, and we won in four straight games."

On the importance of the 1976 Canada Cup and Stanley Cup wins: "He had found a game. Not Orr's, not Salming's or Savards. A game of strength and agility, a commanding mix of offense and defense, his size a lingering reminder of violence."

On Roinson's game:

"In the next few years, more than just an outstanding player, Robinson became a presence. It had to do with being so big, so strong, so tough, so agile, that no one knew how good he was, and no one wanted to find out."

"He had a numbing reputation, an imperial manner, and the goods to back them up, a game rooted in defense, opportunistic on offense, limited, economic and dominant."

"What set him apart from other players was his size and strength, his implicit toughness and chilling manner; what set him apart from other big men was his agaility and puck-handling skill; what made him unique was the mix. What made it all work was a game rooted in defense - strong, limited and commanding."

I'm not a big fan of plus-minus to evaluate defensive play, but it is worth noting that he has the best plus-minus since it's been tracked. A plus-120 one year. Never a negative in his career. A single-digit plus player three times. I don't think a guy who put his team at a risk from jumping up into the play so much could do that.

FF, I watched pretty much every Bure playoff game during those four years in Vancouver. Outside of the final three games in 1992 against Winnipeg, he was a non-factor. I think eight of his points came in those three games. In 1993, he was a 110-point player. A lot of people were disappointed with his playoff performance. Alexei Zhitnik was terrific playing against Bure that year. And well, you don't even want to know why Bure suddenly turned it up a notch against Calgary in Game 7, after six games of being a non-factor.

Incidentally, FF, your co-GM has said several times that Bure didn't make the players around him better. And he's right.

I really can't believe you guys are still drawing on Bucyk's playoff record in his first two years. What was his role? He wasn't a scorer. He was a minor league call-up the first year. He didn't put up points. In Bure's first two years, he was a Calder winner, and a 110-point player. World of difference in roles. If Bucyk was playing the same role as Bure, and playing post-expansion (boy, that's a huge difference-maker right there) then you might have a case. Instead, you're arguing in circles with an apples and oranges comparison.

I don't FF realizes just how tough it was to put up points in the post-season when Schmidt was playing.

I find it interesting that you called into question Schmidt's Art Ross because it came pre-O6. If that's your stance, then you're also calling into question Seibert's accomplishments.

The thing about post-season PIM totals is they often get scewered. Were the higher PIM totals for Larmer and Lemaire a reflection of an inability to keep up with the opposition? No. In most cases, it's a reflection of a misconduct from the late-game skirmishes that were more prevalent in the 70s and 80s.

 

[God Bless Canada]

One other edge that I think we have is offence from the third and fourth lines. I think we would both agree that Bobby Rousseau is the top offensive threat for either team on a third or fourth line. Former assists king. Had some very, very productive playoffs while not sacrificing his defensive game. And I'd say Blair Russell is probably the second-best offensive player. Series like this often come down to who can get that goal from a third or fourth line in a close contest. That's definitely an edge for us. And we also have the edge in offence from our blue-line, with Robinson, Mohns, Day and Maxwell. (That "thug" had 61 points in 79 post-season games. When he was healthy, he was productive. He was usually healthy for the playoffs).

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think Barilko has enough in his short run to warrant No. 4 status. We know he was a two-time PIM leader. But his offence is pretty underrated. He led the Leafs defence in goal in three of his four seasons. And he was fourth in goals for defencemen in 1950. (Behind star defencemen Red Kelly, Bill Gadsby and Bill Quackenbush). He was definitely a difference-maker in the time he played.

 

[raleh]

I love how FF will talk about the huge gap between Beliveau and Schmidt and then have the guts to say that the gap between Robinson and Seibert is huge. You guys have the best forward in the series, but not by as much as we have the best Dman. Beliveau is the third best centre of all time. Schmidt might be the fourth. He's in the crapshoot that also includes Clarke, Trottier, Esposito, Morenz, Mikita, and Dionne. I'd take Clarke over him, but I have him as the fifth best centre of all time. GBC already mentioned that Robinson is the #6 or 7 Dman. He was the #1 guy on the best defensive corps of all time. Seibert is fighting for a spot in the top 15. Robinson did everything, just like Schmidt. They are two of the three most complete players in this series.

The overvaluing of Bure in this thread is getting absolutely ridiculous. The guy could put the puck in the net. Everyone acknowledges this. But he does NOT make the guys around him better. He's not going to win any games by himself. He is containable. If he was absolutely unstoppable in an ATD context he would be a far more sought after player.

 

[raleh]

You talk about the Beliveau line as if it's the most intimidating line in the draft. The team we just beat was lead by a line far superior to your top line with a superior offensive post season player leading the way. Lemaire will not shut down Beliveau. Nobody can do that, including strictly defensive centres. But we're comfortable with the matchup. The other two guys on the line are Martin and Gare. Good little players, but not overwhelming by any means. Larmer is more than capable of handling Gare and putting up points at the same time. We don't need Lemaire's line to do the bulk of the scoring; you won't be shutting down the BBB line, but whether they're matched up against Beliveau or not they're going to score timely goals. Remember Lemaire has three playoff OT goals. He'll score. So will Larmer. Not to mention the points we'll get from Mohns, Robinson, and Blair Russel who can put the puck in the net as well.

 

[FissionFire]

Oh ****. I just lost 2 hours worth of typing. I'm going to bed.

 

[Sturminator]

Schmidt might be the fourth. He's in the crapshoot that also includes Clarke, Trottier, Esposito, Morenz, Mikita, and Dionne. I'd take Clarke over him, but I have him as the fifth best centre of all time.

Although I am a fan of his, placing Milt Schmidt above Stan Mikita and Howie Morenz strains credibility. Depending on how you evaluate the eras in which they played, Schmidt can be at least credibly compared to Trottier and Clarke. Esposito is so different that comparison in a vacuum is very difficult. Mikita and Morenz are unambiguously better, though, and I don't think you help the argument for Schmidt by pushing it past the point of reason.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I may not get another chance to write on the series, so, here's another novel...

Seibert's a credible No. 1 defenceman in this thing, a top 20 defenceman of all-time. Robinson's a No. 6 or 7 defenceman of all-time. Robinson was so dominant against Philly in 76 that Philly went looking for a Robinson of their own. Just think about it: the meanest, toughest team in the history of the league had no answer to Larry Robinson.

We're not saying Seibert is better than Robinson, just that the difference is not what you are saying it is.

FF, I watched pretty much every Bure playoff game during those four years in Vancouver. Outside of the final three games in 1992 against Winnipeg, he was a non-factor. I think eight of his points came in those three games. In 1993, he was a 110-point player. A lot of people were disappointed with his playoff performance. Alexei Zhitnik was terrific playing against Bure that year. And well, you don't even want to know why Bure suddenly turned it up a notch against Calgary in Game 7, after six games of being a non-factor.

Thank you for proving my point. 8 points in 3 games is exactly what I'm talking about. Bure may be streaky, but one or two games at that level, which he absolutly will provide, will turn the series in the Fighting Saints favour.

I really can't believe you guys are still drawing on Bucyk's playoff record in his first two years. What was his role? He wasn't a scorer. He was a minor league call-up the first year. He didn't put up points. In Bure's first two years, he was a Calder winner, and a 110-point player. World of difference in roles. If Bucyk was playing the same role as Bure, and playing post-expansion (boy, that's a huge difference-maker right there) then you might have a case. Instead, you're arguing in circles with an apples and oranges comparison.

Actually, it's first four years, which include two years as a scorer in Boston. It is a shame that Bucyk missed the playoffs 8 straight years because it eliminates samples of his prime as an on ice leader. But given what we have, there are question marks and you know it.

I don't FF realizes just how tough it was to put up points in the post-season when Schmidt was playing.

From 1937-1948
Milt Schmidt playoff PPG: 0.654
Nick Metz playoff PPG: 0.528
Difference: 0.166

Milt Schmidt regular season PPG: 0.824
Nick Metz regular season PPG: 0.489
Difference: 0.335

I find it interesting that you called into question Schmidt's Art Ross because it came pre-O6. If that's your stance, then you're also calling into question Seibert's accomplishments.

Most of Seibert's accomplishments were pre-1940, and I'm not calling into question the quality of 1930's hockey, which I believe to be one of the most competitive decades. It is up to the voters to decide whether 1940-42 was high quality or not, but I have suspicions.

One other edge that I think we have is offence from the third and fourth lines. I think we would both agree that Bobby Rousseau is the top offensive threat for either team on a third or fourth line. Former assists king. Had some very, very productive playoffs while not sacrificing his defensive game. And I'd say Blair Russell is probably the second-best offensive player. Series like this often come down to who can get that goal from a third or fourth line in a close contest. That's definitely an edge for us. And we also have the edge in offence from our blue-line, with Robinson, Mohns, Day and Maxwell. (That "thug" had 61 points in 79 post-season games. When he was healthy, he was productive. He was usually healthy for the playoffs).

Please, provide some evidence on Russell, the Hall of Fame barely has any stats.

Rousseau was good, and your probably right, he is the best scoring bottom 6 player, but, may I remind you who's wing he was productive on?

But I think you significantly underrate the offense from our bottom 6.
Metz and Ezinicki were 20 goal scorers adjusted for era.
Sullivan had a couple of top 10 appearances in assists and points.
Kallur was an offensive star in Sweden and an SEL Player of the Year. He was very productive early in his NHL tenure, but had the character to adapt to team needs.
Bobby Holik is a three time 60 point player playing on the most defensive team in the league during the dead puck era.

And don't underrate the offense from Seibert, Ragulin, Ivanov and Vadnais.

Also, DO NOT TWIST MY WORDS. You said your team was disciplined, in that context, I said Maxwell was a thug. I was not implying he was a bad player, just that he racked up very high PIM totals. Which is the truth.

I think Barilko has enough in his short run to warrant No. 4 status. We know he was a two-time PIM leader. But his offence is pretty underrated. He led the Leafs defence in goal in three of his four seasons. And he was fourth in goals for defencemen in 1950. (Behind star defencemen Red Kelly, Bill Gadsby and Bill Quackenbush). He was definitely a difference-maker in the time he played.

What separates Barilko from Doug Barkley asside from the song "Fifty Mission Cap"? Yes, Barilko had a solid four year career. But, when push comes to shove, HE HAD A FOUR YEAR CAREER! He coulda been a contendah. But, alas, twas not to be. Tell, me, what exactly separates Barilko from Dion Phaneuf?

I love how FF will talk about the huge gap between Beliveau and Schmidt and then have the guts to say that the gap between Robinson and Seibert is huge. You guys have the best forward in the series, but not by as much as we have the best Dman. Beliveau is the third best centre of all time. Schmidt might be the fourth. He's in the crapshoot that also includes Clarke, Trottier, Esposito, Morenz, Mikita, and Dionne. I'd take Clarke over him, but I have him as the fifth best centre of all time. GBC already mentioned that Robinson is the #6 or 7 Dman. He was the #1 guy on the best defensive corps of all time. Seibert is fighting for a spot in the top 15. Robinson did everything, just like Schmidt. They are two of the three most complete players in this series.

Hi, I'm on planet Earth, what planet are you on? Schmidt better than Mikita? You're kidding right? The only edge Schmidt has is size. They were equal defensively, equally tough, but, Mikita was a SIGNIFICANTLY better stickhandler, skater, shooter, passer and just about everything than Schmidt. If you think we're exaggerating, you need a lot of perspective. He may be equal to Messier and Trottier, but, honestly, I'm wondering what makes those two better than Yzerman, Sakic and Lalonde. Schmidt is a good upper-mid-tier center, but he's not one of the elite few like Beliveau is. Not even close. Defense is the only area where Schmidt may be better, but other than that, not even close. Beliveau is bigger, tougher, a better leader, shooter, passer, puck carrier, away from the puck player, playoff performer and emissary of the sport.

Now, Robinson vs Seibert. Lets look at this little stat.

All-Star Selections:
Robinson:
1st Team: 3, 77, 79, 80
2nd Team: 3, 78, 81, 86

Seibert:
1st Team: 4, 35, 42, 43, 44
2nd Team: 6, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41

What was that about a huge gap between Robinson and Seibert? What about consistency? What about career value?

What Larry Robinson are you going to get? 1977 Robinson? Or 1984 Robinson? And you can't scream that he was past his peak, he was 32, that is a defenseman's peak. He was past his peak before he finished his peak.

When Earl Seibert was that age he was a 2nd team all-star and had 2 more still to come. There is no question of consistency with Earl Seibert. You know exactly what you get. One of the best combinations of size, mobility, defense, offense and physical play ever seen.

I'd rather not have question marks in a role as important as #1 defenseman. Robinson has question marks, Seibert has no such question marks. Larry Robinson's peak may blow Seibert out of the water. But four years of that peak versus Seibert's 10+ year peak tells a whole different story.

And even though Robinson is the best defenseman in the series, the Fighting Saints have the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best d-men in the series. Because you'd be seriously grasping at straws if you argue that Hap Day is better than the Secretary of Defense or the Russian Bear.

The overvaluing of Bure in this thread is getting absolutely ridiculous. The guy could put the puck in the net. Everyone acknowledges this. But he does NOT make the guys around him better. He's not going to win any games by himself. He is containable. If he was absolutely unstoppable in an ATD context he would be a far more sought after player.

The only references to Bure making teammates better are quotes from teammates and coaches. And even then, we aren't trying to say he's some great leader, just that his teammates and coaches respect what he brings to the team and wish to work with him and what he offers.

As for why Bure doesn't go higher, I have no idea. People are blindsided by injuries and innuendo and forget that he's the 2nd best goal scorer of the last 20 years. (And by goal scorer I am combining the act of finishing and creating the opportunity into one overall attribute.) If Bure was taken based on what he is capable of when happy and healthy he'd go close to 30th, slipping to the 5th round is really sad and well, awesome for us because the Fighting Saints get a steal and the best goal scorer of the series.

You talk about the Beliveau line as if it's the most intimidating line in the draft. The team we just beat was lead by a line far superior to your top line with a superior offensive post season player leading the way. Lemaire will not shut down Beliveau. Nobody can do that, including strictly defensive centres. But we're comfortable with the matchup. The other two guys on the line are Martin and Gare. Good little players, but not overwhelming by any means. Larmer is more than capable of handling Gare and putting up points at the same time. We don't need Lemaire's line to do the bulk of the scoring; you won't be shutting down the BBB line, but whether they're matched up against Beliveau or not they're going to score timely goals. Remember Lemaire has three playoff OT goals. He'll score. So will Larmer. Not to mention the points we'll get from Mohns, Robinson, and Blair Russel who can put the puck in the net as well.

The reason you beat the Eagles has nothing to do with Maurice Richard not cutting it and everything to do with the Eagles top defensemen not being suited to stopping a physical scoring line. With Langway and Seibert facing off against the Big Bad Bruins, you get no such advantage. In fact, I'd say no defense pairing will hurt the BBBs as much as the Joint Chiefs of Defense. They're bigger, tougher and more mobile that the BBBs. They may not completely shut down the BBBs, but the JCoD will severely limit them, to the point where secondary scoring will be your only chance of victory. And while Lemaire and Larmer may be able to offer a few clutch goals here and there while checking Beliveau, you're delusional if you think they can carry the offensive load while preventing the Beliveau line from scoring.

Oh, and Larmer would be up against Martin, who's speed will often undress Larmer.

As for why we are so high on the Beliveau line. Here are some charts compairing the Big Bad Bruins to Jean Beliveau.

Goals:

|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th|10th|Total
Jean Beliveau|2|1|2|1|1||1|1|1||10
Big Bad Bruins||3|1|||1|1|1|5||12

Assists:

|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th|10th|Total
Jean Beliveau|2|3|1|1||1|1||1|1|11
Big Bad Bruins|1||2|2|||1|1|1|1|9

Points:

|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th|10th|Total
Jean Beliveau|1|3|3|1||1||2|1||12
Big Bad Bruins|1||1|2|||2|1|2|2|11

Yes. That is correct. Our 1st line center is singlehandedly more offensively accomplished than your first line. Feel free to do the math comparing top 5 finishes. (It's 7/4, 7/5, 8/4)

 

[Sturminator]

What separates Barilko from Doug Barkley asside from the song "Fifty Mission Cap"? Yes, Barilko had a solid four year career. But, when push comes to shove, HE HAD A FOUR YEAR CAREER! He coulda been a contendah. But, alas, twas not to be. Tell, me, what exactly separates Barilko from Dion Phaneuf?

You mean besides the fact that Phaneuf is already an all-star? I have no idea. Your flippant attitude about Barilko's tragedy is a little off-color, though. Both sides of this debate are taking some pretty wild swings.

I'd rather not have question marks in a role as important as #1 defenseman. Robinson has question marks, Seibert has no such question marks. Larry Robinson's peak may blow Seibert out of the water. But four years of that peak versus Seibert's 10+ year peak tells a whole different story.

Insofar as you're implying that Larry Robinson had a short peak, I think it's pretty unfair. Larry Robinson's peak was really six years: 76-77 to 81-82, and he had two more good ones from 85-87. Many great players have had peaks no longer than that. Although I consider the claim that Robinson is underrated and better than Lidstrom silly, I also don't think he is overrated. For all the time we've wasted on Larry Robinson, I don't see how anything has changed.

The only references to Bure making teammates better are quotes from teammates and coaches.

And Larry Wigge. Booooooooo!!! Let's just drop the Pavelmania business; it's a joke.

And even though Robinson is the best defenseman in the series, the Fighting Saints have the 2nd, 3rd and 4th best d-men in the series. Because you'd be seriously grasping at straws if you argue that Hap Day is better than the Secretary of Defense or the Russian Bear.

Perhaps I am alone in thinking this, but I consider both Day and Mohns better than Ragulin. The Joint Chiefs of Defense is a good name for your top pairing, though. Bonus points for that.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

You mean besides the fact that Phaneuf is already an all-star? I have no idea. Your flippant attitude about Barilko's tragedy is a little off-color, though. Both sides of this debate are taking some pretty wild swings.

Hey, if AIDS is officially funny...

 

[Sturminator]

Hey, if AIDS is officially funny...

Forgive my prudishness. I've been watching a lot of Aaliyah videos lately.

 

[FissionFire]

Here's a few comments from Ken Dryden's The Game on Larry Robinson:

On the Dornhoefer hit: "He had delivered a message- to the Flyers, to the rest of the league, to himself. A series that had been moving our way found its irrevocable direction, and we won in four straight games."

On the importance of the 1976 Canada Cup and Stanley Cup wins: "He had found a game. Not Orr's, not Salming's or Savards. A game of strength and agility, a commanding mix of offense and defense, his size a lingering reminder of violence."

On Roinson's game:

"In the next few years, more than just an outstanding player, Robinson became a presence. It had to do with being so big, so strong, so tough, so agile, that no one knew how good he was, and no one wanted to find out."

"He had a numbing reputation, an imperial manner, and the goods to back them up, a game rooted in defense, opportunistic on offense, limited, economic and dominant."

"What set him apart from other players was his size and strength, his implicit toughness and chilling manner; what set him apart from other big men was his agaility and puck-handling skill; what made him unique was the mix. What made it all work was a game rooted in defense - strong, limited and commanding."

Just out of curiosity, but aren't those Dryden quotes from the same book he was quoted as saying his backup would have won all the Cups he did behind that defense if they swapped places? How much credibility do we give that statement? Probably about as much as we should give all the others he makes. I think it's pretty clear that Dryden exaggerates alot in his quotes.

I'm not a big fan of plus-minus to evaluate defensive play, but it is worth noting that he has the best plus-minus since it's been tracked. A plus-120 one year. Never a negative in his career. A single-digit plus player three times. I don't think a guy who put his team at a risk from jumping up into the play so much could do that.

Really GBC, plus/minus? Have things become that desperate in the Ottawa camp that you are trying to use the most flawed statistic at evaluating a player? At the very least provide some context to see how he rates on his own team.

However, since you've opened the +/- door I'll toss a little something out there for you to consider. In his three full seasons as a Canadien, Rod Langway twice finished above Robinson in +/- and once finished barely behind. Also consider that this was a young Langway (22-24) versus an in-his-prime Robinson (28-30). You've been critical of the defensive reputation of Rod Langway but it appears before he hit his prime he was outperforming Robinson during Larry's peak years. Are you underrating Langway's defense or overrating Robinson's? I mean, since you're throwing plus/minus out there and all.....

1979-80: Robinson (+38, age 28), Langway (+36, age 22)
1980-81: Robinson (+46, age 29), Langway (+53, age 23)
1981-82: Robinson (+57, age 30), Langway (+66, age 24)

Oh, and Dallas Smith led the NHL in +/- just as many times as Larry Robinson did, for what it's worth.

FF, I watched pretty much every Bure playoff game during those four years in Vancouver. Outside of the final three games in 1992 against Winnipeg, he was a non-factor. I think eight of his points came in those three games. In 1993, he was a 110-point player. A lot of people were disappointed with his playoff performance. Alexei Zhitnik was terrific playing against Bure that year. And well, you don't even want to know why Bure suddenly turned it up a notch against Calgary in Game 7, after six games of being a non-factor.

So your saying even if he's getting contained in a series he'll still break out and get his points? That he's a clutch Game 7 performer? You've just helped prove our point. You can't shut him down because eventually he'll get his no matter what. He's proven that in every single playoff year.

I don't FF realizes just how tough it was to put up points in the post-season when Schmidt was playing.

Is this a reference to Beliveau versus Schmidt? I compared both using Top 10 and Top 5 finishes against their peers so I'm not sure how different scoring rates is relevant. Beliveau was the far more dominant player against his peers, and I'd argue he had a far strong cast of peers to compete against. I didn't add playoff numbers to that analysis but if I did Beliveau again wins that comparison. Both players led the playoffs in points once, but Beliveau led in goals once and assists three times, things Schmidt never did. Two of Beliveau's playoff assist titles were at ages 38 and 39.

If this is a reference to my comment about Schmidt having a few playoff duds, then I think you should look over his playoff record again and you'll see I'm not off-base. I don't care how hard it is to score in an era, you can't say his 1939-40 playoffs (0 points in 6 games after scoring 6 points in 12 games the previous season) or his 1950-51 playoffs (1 assist in 6 games after winning the Hart) weren't duds.

The thing about post-season PIM totals is they often get scewered. Were the higher PIM totals for Larmer and Lemaire a reflection of an inability to keep up with the opposition? No. In most cases, it's a reflection of a misconduct from the late-game skirmishes that were more prevalent in the 70s and 80s.

Prove it. It's easy to dismiss a high PIM number as "late game misconducts" but seriously prove it. Show me something to back that up.

One other edge that I think we have is offence from the third and fourth lines. I think we would both agree that Bobby Rousseau is the top offensive threat for either team on a third or fourth line. Former assists king. Had some very, very productive playoffs while not sacrificing his defensive game. And I'd say Blair Russell is probably the second-best offensive player. Series like this often come down to who can get that goal from a third or fourth line in a close contest. That's definitely an edge for us. And we also have the edge in offence from our blue-line, with Robinson, Mohns, Day and Maxwell. (That "thug" had 61 points in 79 post-season games. When he was healthy, he was productive. He was usually healthy for the playoffs).

I think you're underrating our teams scoring abilities. Nick Metz scored some big goals and was an instrumental part of the first 3-0 comeback in history. Red Sullivan was a great scorer who produced in the only playoff season we played in that role. Anders Kallur proved he could score and had at least one shorthanded goal in 5 consecutive playoff years. Holik produced. Ezinicki produced. Our defense is being vastly underrated offensively I feel. Seibert was an offensive force from the blueline during his career as HO pointed out. Carol Vadnais was an offensive player who by al accounts excelled when paired with a defensive rock (which he is with Dallas Smith), Ivanov's 6 goals and 7 points in 8 games at the 1964 Olympics earned him the Top Forward award there - the only defenseman to ever win that honor proving he certainly was a scorer when called upon. If there's an injury to our forwards in the series we've got arguably one of the most dominant players of his era offensively on the bench in Hobey Baker. Our team isn't filled with players who had one or two dominating playoff runs, but simply guys who were consistently good and who consistently produced. You probably won't see many of them dominating a series, but you certainly won't see any of them lay an egg either and that's something Ottawa can't claim.

I think Barilko has enough in his short run to warrant No. 4 status. We know he was a two-time PIM leader. But his offence is pretty underrated. He led the Leafs defence in goal in three of his four seasons. And he was fourth in goals for defencemen in 1950. (Behind star defencemen Red Kelly, Bill Gadsby and Bill Quackenbush). He was definitely a difference-maker in the time he played.

Barilko is a fine player and what happened to him is tragic, but he's a weak #4 in an ATD context and arguably the weakest link on your team and in the entire series. MXD and I really went at it over the Hy Buller pick but really Buller has the better career with an All-Star berth and I don't think he's a credible top 4 defenseman in the ATD either. Barilko's claim to fame was being 4th in defenseman goals in the NHL one season. That's not exactly a dominating peak and he doesn't have any career value to offset this. He's the weakest defenseman in this entire series and he's in your top 4. I'd LOVE to have him out there against Bure's line because in an ATD context Barilko doesn't measure up in that spot.

I love how FF will talk about the huge gap between Beliveau and Schmidt and then have the guts to say that the gap between Robinson and Seibert is huge.

The gap between Beliveau and Schmidt is significant, and I've provided the evidence to prove that.

Robinson's peak was dominating but Seibert's career value was actually better. Not enough to overcome Robinson's peak but it does close the gap a bit. 10 All-Star berths for Seibert versus only 6 for Robinson is a pretty significant edge for Seibert. You can't discount peak vs. career in the ATD. Sure, peak vs. peak Robinson blows Seibert away. Factoring in career it's not quite as lopsided as you portray it to be. You also seem to underrate Seibert's offensive abilities. He was the 2nd best scoring defenseman in the NHL behind Eddie Shore in his career. That's not something a player with limited or no offensive abilities accomplishes. He was and elite offensive blueliner in his era, and you can't really deny that. He was also the more physical and punishing defender and was considered one of the best shot-blockers in the league during his time. Was he a better offensive player than Robinson? No. Was he a better defensive player than Robinson? I think so, but at worst they are even. Was he a more physical player than Robinson? Unquestionably. Even Eddie Shore, maybe the toughest player ever to lace up skates, wanted no part of Big Earl. Did players ever feel that way about Robinson? No.

You guys have the best forward in the series, but not by as much as we have the best Dman. Beliveau is the third best centre of all time. Schmidt might be the fourth. He's in the crapshoot that also includes Clarke, Trottier, Esposito, Morenz, Mikita, and Dionne. I'd take Clarke over him, but I have him as the fifth best centre of all time.

Oh please. 4th or 5th best center ever? Let's be realistic. Schmidt is a better player than those players mentioned? Better than Messier? He's a guy on par with players like Yzerman or Sakic or Lalonde. Let's not turn him into something he's not.

The overvaluing of Bure in this thread is getting absolutely ridiculous. The guy could put the puck in the net. Everyone acknowledges this. But he does NOT make the guys around him better. He's not going to win any games by himself. He is containable. If he was absolutely unstoppable in an ATD context he would be a far more sought after player.

Actually, Bure IS going to win games by himself. He made a career out of moments like that. Remember his 5-goal game in the Olympics? 2 goals, 3 points (including the triple OT winner) in a 3-2 Game 7 win to cap a comeback from a 3-1 series deficit? Do you really need more examples of Bure winning games by himself on big stages of pressure situations?

Remember Lemaire has three playoff OT goals.

You have one guy. We have a team littered with players who were key parts of some of the biggest clutch playoff efforts in history. Bure was a key in recovering from a 3-1 series deficit in 1994. Metz a key part of coming back from down 3-0 in a series. Seibert's '38 Hawks. You certainly don't have the corner in clutch playoff play or performance under pressure.

You mean besides the fact that Phaneuf is already an all-star? I have no idea. Your flippant attitude about Barilko's tragedy is a little off-color, though. Both sides of this debate are taking some pretty wild swings.

Exactly. I used Hy Buller as an example, but Dion Phaneuf is another good one. Would either of those guys we considered strong ATD #4's? Why should Barilko be seen as such when he accomplished less than either Buller or Phanuef has.

Perhaps I am alone in thinking this, but I consider both Day and Mohns better than Ragulin. The Joint Chiefs of Defense is a good name for your top pairing, though. Bonus points for that.

I'm not sure why you feel that way. Ragulin was an IIHF All-Star 5 straight seasons and was the IIHF Best Defenseman in 1965. His scoring rate was actually better in games against Canada and the United States than it was against Sweden or Finland. The only knock on him was skating, but he was an exceptional positional player and the leader of the Soviet defense. Then Tarasov instituted his crazy 2-2-1 system, it was Ragulin who was the lone defenseman back to cover his own zone. He was named the World Championship's Best Defenseman in 1966 and 1967. Arthur Chidlovski says of Ragulin that "He was an established organizer of both defensive and offensive team efforts and had excellent tactical and puck handling skills. Due to his amazing sense of hockey, he was famous for a quick and accurate one-timer from the defense zone sending his teammates into a counter-attack. His powerful slapshot also led to numerous goals and assists on his scoring list.". He was on his last legs when asked to contain Phil Esposito (who was at his peak) in the '72 Summit Series and he wasn't dominated.

 

[Sturminator]

He was named the World Championship's Best Defenseman in 1966 and 1967.

As long as we're checking facts, this is also not true.

 

[shawnmullin]

Intense stuff!

 

[FissionFire]

As long as we're checking facts, this is also not true.

It might be. I've had a ton of conflicting data on this.

Arthur Chidlovski mentions he was the IIHF Best Defenseman in 1965 here, and says he was an IIHF All-Star in 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, and 1967. He makes no mention of any World Cup accomplishments.

Later, however, during his Summit Series profile here Arthur states he was the World Cup Best Defenseman in 1966 but makes no mention of him ever being an IIHF Best Defenseman. To make matter worse, he conflicts his own data by listing Ragulin as an IIHF All-Star in 1963, 1965, 1966, and 1967 but not 1964 as the other profile stated.

Then to add to the craziness, the HHOF here states "He won nine consecutive World Championships in the 1960s and into the '70s, being named best defenceman in both 1966 and '67.".

Finding a straight-up list of award winners for the IIHF or Olympics hasn't been easy either.

Near as I can tell, the general consensus I've found so far is Ragulin was a 5-time All-Star, was once IIHF Best Defenseman (Source), and shares the record for most Most IIHF World Championship (including Olympics) titles wins at 10 with Tretiak (Source). I'm pretty sure that's right but heck if I can find any two sources in complete agreement yet.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Time to diffuse some more arguments...

*You'll never hear me say a bad thing about Beliveau. He's No. 3 on my all-time centre list. He was magnificent in the playoffs. Schmidt was No. 10 on my list for centres, I think he's a mirror image of Bryan Trottier. I wouldn't put Schmidt on par with a Mikita or Morenz. That being said, I don't think there's a lot of difference between Beliveau and Schmidt. I want an actual "how he played the game" argument for a big gap between Beliveau and Schmidt. And the linemates for Schmidt work a lot better than the linemates for Beliveau. The Big...Bad...Bruins Line has been lauded by several teams as the best in the draft, the ultimate combination of size, skill, toughness and styles that mesh well together.
*I would say that the gap between Beliveau and Schmidt isn't as great as the gap between Robinson and Seibert. That being said, you'll never hear me question Seibert.
*Schmidt might have had a couple disappointing playoffs, but so did Beliveau. Beliveau actually did face criticism in the early 60s for his playoff efforts; people wondered if he could get the job done without Richard.
*As I've said before, I don't think you've done a good job of surrounding Beliveau with playoff performers. Martin and Gare were good playoff performers, but not great. Didn't consistently step up their play in the post-season. Didn't have that post-season that defined a career.
*We all know why Bure had the big Game 7 against Calgary in 1994. It's not good. It's one of the biggest black marks for a star player in the history of the game. And in 1992, Winnipeg rolled over. Period. A lot of the Canucks put up a lot of points in those three games. The Canucks outscored the Jets 21-5 in those three games. It wasn't a reflection of how well Bure played; it was a reflection of a total choke job by Winnipeg.
*And again, if you think Bure's going to be able to get it done against Mohns (Mohns, he of the great smarts and speed), you're in for a big surprise. And if you try to get Bure out there against another pairing, you could also be in for a surprise.
*There are no questions about Bucyk's playoff career. Not from those who take a deeper (a second?) look. In those first four years, he had one playoff in which you could say he didn't perform to expectations. In his first two years, he wasn't a scorer. In his third year, he struggled. You just don't get that six points in seven games in the playoffs in the O6 era was impressive. Love those apples and oranges arguments.
*The quality of hockey from 40-42 was not suspicious. Look at the players in the game. The Great Depression was over. The war stimulated the economy. It created jobs. Schmidt was actually one of the first prominent players to go to war in 1941.
*Legends of Hockey has a good scouting report on Russell. Most of their write-ups for early players are more stats-based, but they encapsulate Russell's style pretty well. I have my concerns about Russell's ability to be a primo offensive player (he played before goalies could leave their feet), but as a fourth line two-way player, who can get an occasional goal, I think he fits the role well. And I think he's the second-best offensive player among the bottom six from either team.
*Rousseau played with Beliveau. And he put up points. He also put up points with other players. He was over a point-per-game in the playoffs with the Rangers in 72.
*What separates Barilko from Doug Barkley, Dion Phaneuf, Hy Buller and others? Barilko was good enough to play a fairly important role on a dynasty. He played a tough, physical game, but he had skill, leading Leaf blue-liners in goals three times, and finishing fourth among goals by defencemen. He played four years; he played pretty well in those four years.
*Nalyd, you still haven't grasped how much hockey Robinson played early in his career. When you look at the guys who played on the dynasties of the 70s and 80s, most of them peaked in the 26-30 range. Other guys who were in their 30s tailed off after the dynasty years ended. In 1980, Robinson was 28 or 29, but he had the mileage of a player in his mid-30s. And Robinson was outstanding in the playoffs. Won a Conn Smythe in 78, and could have won it in 76, too. I don't think Robinson has any question marks; I've seen a lot more reports to believe that there aren't question marks.
*FF, have you ever read "The Game?" There's a reason it's widely considered the greatest hockey book ever assembled, and one of the greatest sports books ever. If you think there's lots of exaggeration, and it shouldn't be taken seriously, that's fine. But geez, there's a lot of hockey people who disagree. If you read The Game, you'd also read that players wanted no part of Robinson, especially after the Dornhoefer hit.
*No desperation in citing plus-minus. It's not a be-all and end-all stat, but there's a reason hockey players make a very big deal out of it. Bottom line is Robinson was never a minus player. You can count on one hand the number of times his plus total was a single digit total. And he has the best plus-minus since they kept tracking the stat. Robinson usually played against the opponent's best players; that likely explains why Langway had a better plus-minus in those two years in Montreal.
*You'll never hear me say a bad word about Dallas Smith, either. He's a rock-solid, third pairing defenceman. He could run into trouble against some of our guys who have that great combination of speed and hockey sense (like Lemaire, and please note, Lemaire is not our only clutch player, if you're inferring we don't have clutch players, then you're in big trouble), but Smith is simply solid.
*If you watched the game in the 70s and 80s, you would have seen how common the late-game scrum was. It was a pretty common occurence. A lot of players had their PIM/game total increase in the 70s and 80s. It happened.
*Ivanov can play forward? So can Mohns. And we saw Mohns dominate against a high-level of competition. 1964 Olympics? I'm not impressed. Olympic competition doesn't mean much in terms of an evaluating point pre 1998, and it definitely doesn't mean much for the 60s.
*Which one of our defencemen will lay an egg, FF? Please, tell me. We're all waiting for an answer. Robinson? The six-time Cup champion, Conn Smythe winner who motivated the Broad Street Bullies to find a player who could match Robinson? Day? The two-way toughie who scored an end-to-end goal in a Stanley Cup final in the 30s (unheard of for a defenceman back then) and was a great leader? Mohns? The turbo-skating, intelligent, two-way defenceman who could beat you with skill, smarts and toughness? Barilko? He sure didn't hurt the Leafs in their years. Career value? I think I showed his career value already. An excellent combination of talent and toughness. Harris? A feared, tough player who didn't spend an abnormal amount of time in the penalty box? Very rugged, very smart defensive defenceman. (The only defenceman on our team who doesn't get involved offensively). Maxwell? The big, talented, mobile, two-way defenceman who was a force when he was healthy? Well, he was healthy in the playoffs. And he got 61 points in 79 games. And then there's the ultimate No. 7 defenceman: Joe Watson. He's good enough to play a top six role. But you want to talk about character, leadership, a team-first attitude and work ethic? Joe Watson had all of it. A prototypical steady defenceman. So who's it going to be, FF? Who will lay an egg?
*I really like Metz. I'm a big fan of his. He never faced anyone like Cam Neely, but Metz is excellent defensively. I'm a big fan of Ezinicki from the perspective of a fourth line toughie (think Murray Balfour), but not so much as a defensive line player. He could be in trouble against a guy like Bucyk, and he could prove to be a weak link defensively. And I don't know if Kallur's Swedish success is exactly the best argument for him.

 

[raleh]

Hey, if AIDS is officially funny...

22.3 years!

Holy ****! We're not even half way to the amount of posts from the Kingston-Toronto series of the last round!

 

[vancityluongo]

Holy ****! We're not even half way to the amount of posts from the Kingston-Toronto series of the last round!

That's because none of you have used 30 posts to count the number of goals on your team.

 

[FissionFire]

Lotta stuff

I really want to respond to some of that, but I got done with 5 straight hours of baking and I'm toast. With the Wings playing tomorrow night and it being the deadline, I don't think I'll have the time (or the focus) to do it tomorrow either. Just in case I don't get another chance to, I just want to post up the discussions with yourself and raleh in this thread have been a lot of fun and I wanted to thank you both for helping make my first ATD experience absolutely fabulous. Win or lose (hopefully win), just want you both to know there are never any hard feelings and I hope our paths cross in future drafts. Best of luck to you both!