2018 ATD Finals! Pittsburgh Bankers (1) vs New York Americans (2)
- Thread starter ImporterExporter
- Start date
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Home Arena:
Duquesne Gardens
Pittsburgh Bankers Team:
Head Coach: Tommy Gorman
Captain: Wayne Gretzky
Alternate Captain: Dit Clapper
Alternate Captain: Ted Kennedy
Forwards:
Frank Foyston - Wayne Gretzky (C) - Vladimir Martinec
Claude Giroux - Nels Stewart - Punch Broadbent
Sid Smith - Ted Kennedy (A) - Ed Westfall
Bob Bourne - Ryan Getzlaf - Wilf Paiement
Extras:
Phil Kessel
Nikita Kucherov
Rick Macleish
Defensemen:
Jacques Laperriere (19+0+5=24 min/night) - Dit Clapper (A) (19+4+2=25 min/night)
Pat Stapleton (17+2+2=21 min/night) - Bill White (17+0+5=22 min/night)
Frank Patrick (13+2+0=15 min/night) - Si Griffis (13+0+0 =13 min/night)
Extras:
Craig Hartsburg
Goalies:
Patrick Roy
Jonathan Quick
Penalty Kill:
Ted Kennedy - Ed Westfall
Jacques Lapierriere - Bill White
Bob Bourne/Wayne Gretzky - Vladimir Martinec
Pat Stapleton - Dit Clapper
Power Play:
PP 1:
Gretzky - (floating, will move between left half wall and behind the net, and generally pull defensive boxes in his direction) -Elite at role
Stewart - (net front) - Elite at role
Giroux - (right half wall) - I'd say near elite given his career PP totals and usage
Getzlaf - (QB, right point) - 35% of points on PP, plays the point extensively for Ducks. He's at least good.
Clapper - (Trigger, left point) - Good at role
*4 Players capable of taking draws on the 1st unit.
PP 2:
Kennedy (right half wall)
Martinec (left half wall)
Foyston (Slot, net front)
Patrick (trigger, right point)
Stapleton (QB, left point)
New York AmericansWell, I am sure every GM says it this time of year, but I have to say it- I am really excited about this team.
Coaches: Anatoli Tarasov, Billy Reay
Captain: Boris Mikhailov
Alternate Captains: Sid Abel, Anze Kopitar, Brad Park
Paul Kariya-Stan Mikita-Boris Mikhailov
Sid Abel-Steven Stamkos-Rod Gilbert
Gordon Roberts-Anze Kopitar-Ace Bailey
Dave Balon-Don Luce-Blair Russel
Spare Forwards: Lynn Patrick, LW, Terry O'Reilly, RW
Borje Salming-Brad Park
Babe Siebert-Bob Goldham
Vasili Davydov-Joe Hall
Spare Defense: Lars-Erik Sjoberg
Bernie Parent
Sergei Bobrovsky
PP1
Stamkos-Mikita-Mikhailov
Kariya-Park
PP2
Roberts-Abel-Gilbert
Salming-Hall
PK1
Luce-Bailey
Salming-Goldham
PK2
Kopitar-Dave Balon
Siebert-Park
Coaching and Leadership
This has historically been a weaker part of my teams, but not this year; Tarasov and Reay fit well with my team- an attacking team with a strong defense- with Mikhailov and Abel leading on the ice and in the locker room, I don’t think we have any concerns on that front.
1st Line
This is one of the strongest lines in the draft, in my opinion. Offensively, it has it all- 2 very capable puck carriers that can beat you with a pass or a shot in Kariya and Mikita to go with puck-winning and defensive ability in Mikita and Mikhailov. VsX isn’t the end-all-be-all, but this unit has a 7 year score of 278.7 (if you give Mikhailov an 86, which is roughly the same score as Iginla. I think he should be higher, but I will make that case at another time). As far as negatives- it is not a very physical line. Mikita and Mikhailov are pretty ornery and won’t back down from anyone, but this line wont be a physically punishing unit.
2nd Line
I haven’t run the numbers for all of the teams, but again, this unit has to be one of the more offensively potent 2nd lines out there, with a 7-year VsX of 253.4, with the potential to increase with Stamkos’ current season- it is basically a suped-up GAG line, with Abel playing the ‘driver’/’digger’ role (as he did in real-life) and defensive safety-valve. Stamkos brings top-notch sniping and underrated playmaking, while Gilbert does the same thing he did alongside Ratelle and Hadfield. Everyone can pass (to varying degrees), and everyone can score. I should add that Abel will take the lion’s share of faceoffs. The downside to this line is that I don’t think it is very strong defensively, nor, like the top line, will it be a physically punishing squad. While I don’t think Stamkos and Gilbert are bad defensive players, they don’t seem to be much more than average in that respect. Abel is above average, but still, the unit as a whole is below average in that regard.
3rd Line
Building around Kopitar, my 3rd line is predicated on strong 2-way play. Kopitar has to be one of the upper-tier 2 way 3rd line centers at this point (in terms of total offensive and defensive package), and Roberts and Bailey add additional size and ability to the unit. Getting VsX out of the way (and giving Roberts a 74, as per a number I saw thrown about last year)- 217.7, not including the bump that Kopitar is going to get this year. Each player is well-above average in size, and while maybe not a punishing line, they can each play the body well and effectively.
4th Line
This line is mainly for defensive situations. It could use more physicality, but I think in terms of skill and ability, this line is above average among the other 4th lines in the league.
Spares
It is unfortunate that most people (I assume) pay little attention to spares, because I think I landed 2 players here that could very easily be regulars; Patrick in particular should be a very solid second-liner, but his extreme dislike of the physical game relegates him to spare-status in a draft this size. However, because he is so talented, I have no problems with him taking over for Kariya when Kariya is injured. O’Reilly adds some muscle without being useless offensively. I didn’t draft a center because I have a couple wingers who played center- Abel and Russel can both shift to center.
1st Pairing
While I missed out on one of the elite number 1 defensemen, in a draft this size Park is still an average to above-average one who is very well-rounded. Salming is a low-end number 1/elite number 2 who is also pretty well rounded, so this should be one of the better 1st pairings in the league. Simply put, it is a plus pairing across the board- defensive ability, physicality, skating, passing, and shooting.
2nd Pairing
I follow up my 1st pairing with another strong unit, with Siebert being a high-end number 3/low-end number 2, and Goldham being a solid number 4. Siebert brings the physicality and offensive skills, while Goldham is the stay-at-home shot blocker with a good outlet pass. Stylistically, I really like this pairing.
3rd Pairing
Again, I think I hit on meshing styles, in much the same way as I did on my second pairing- Davydov plays the role of defensive safety-valve (though many people have written about his passing and skating abilities), while Hall plays the role of offensive driver with a (wicked) mean-streak.
Spare
Sjoberg is an undersized defender but brings a physical presence and strong offensive game. He is a spare, but I don’t have a problem with him on my bottom pairing in the event of injury.
Goaltenders
I am below average here, I wont try to argue the point. However, Parent is not weak to the point that I think he puts my team at a significant disadvantage, especially in the playoffs (where Parent shined). Bobrovsky is a bit of a mercurial case, with very high highs and pretty low lows. However, few backups can boast of 2 Vezina’s/1st Team All-Star nods and 2 Top-5 Hart voting finishes in a 30 team league. His playoff record is quite poor… but I (or rather, Tarasov and Reay) wont be starting our backup in the playoffs. Bobrovsky is there to spell Parent in the regular season, and to keep Parent fresh for the playoffs. Bobrovksy certainly has the record for that.
PP
I think my PP units are above average, but not elite. On my top unit, Mikita, Park and Kariya should be able to drive defenses crazy finding the open shooter (ideally Stamkos or Park), with Mikhailov provind screens and getting greasy garbage goals. The second unit is set up in much the same way, with Gilbert, Salming and Siebert (or Hall, I haven’t really decided) distributing the puck to each other or Roberts, and Abel being the net-front presence.
PK
Like my PP units, I think my PK is pretty strong all the way around. Luce is one of the best, and Kopitar is easily a top PK player who I have slumming it on the second unit. The defensemen are all above-average as PKers as well, with Salming, Goldham and Davydov being well-noted shot blockers.
Do I really qualify as a "longtime" GM at this point? 3.5 years? I still feel like a novice half the time!
In any case, I look forward to a good round here. My participation will likely fall off a cliff come the start of the work week, but I should be good to discuss the series for most of the weekend.
In any case, I look forward to a good round here. My participation will likely fall off a cliff come the start of the work week, but I should be good to discuss the series for most of the weekend.
VMBM
And it didn't even bring me down
My two all-time favourite players (Martinec & Mikhailov) against each other! So extra interest for me (a non-ATD participant) there...
I'm honestly not a fan of timetables... I think games are too fluid to say "ok, this guy is playing X amount of minutes in X situations. Players get nicked up. Players go on hot streaks. Penalties happen, or they dont. I think having a rough idea (based on which line/pairing and what special teams a player is on) is better than over-analyzing it to death.
Hopefully the series does them justice.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I just wanted to say what an honor it is to be in the finals. I've learned an unmeasurable amount of hockey history over the last 4 years since I first became involved with the ATD. I've always had a passion for research and history and being a part of the ATD has given me the vehicle to learn so much about hockey, spanning 100+ years. It's been eye opening to say the least and very rewarding.
As for the series at hand, obviously I believe the Bankers to be among the best teams in the ATD this year and certainly filled with talent that would be extremely difficult to beat in a 7 game series. @rmartin65 has a very strong team as well and I look forward to a great match up. Here is how I see things top to bottom:
Home Ice Advantage for Pittsburgh:
-I think this is a fairly important aspect to point out. The Bankers being a 1 seed would have home ice vs a team that finished 2nd (a very strong 2nd place team to be fair) in their division. This gives Gorman and company last change more often and obviously the benefit of more games with the passionate Pittsburgh fans as the "7th" man so to speak helping push the Bankers and possibly getting under the skin of the Americans. It's certainly not a huge deal but something that should be pointed out for the reasons I mentioned and it could swing the pendulum slightly in the favor of the Bankers given the history of teams with home ice in the SCF.
Coaching:
-This is a really interesting matchup. I admit, I have a tough time comparing non NHL Russian coaches to North American ones. Tarasov is arguably the greatest Russian coach of all time. He was a pioneer for that nation and had a profound impact on the game and bringing the USSR to greater heights and at some points on par with Canada. I can't say definitively that he's a top 10 coach of all time for a few reasons.
One, much of his domestic success came in the 50's through the mid 60's when hockey was still in the growth process in Russia. His international success is also void of having to play the best players from North America, at least until the 70's when the Summit series' began and by that point his career was all but finished as a coach. It wasn't really until the mid to late 60's that other European teams (specifically the Czech's) got to a point where they could really keep up so competition is at least, to some degree questionable. As TDMM used to point out, it's still a bit of a challenge to flesh out the balance between his building up the Russian program/GM'ing and actual coaching. I also wonder how North American players would have reacted to his manner of teaching and style. But at the end of the day, he's an all time great. Nobody can deny that. In many ways he's quite similar to Gorman in that both had major successes as builders and coaches in the early stages of hockey in their respective countries.
Tommy Gorman is one of the greatest builders in hockey history, and certainly, IMO at least a borderline top 10 coach ever, which is mighty impressive considering he never played the game at any meaningful level. He took over the managing aspects of Ottawa in 1917 because the owner couldn't recruit players and he asked Gorman to spearhead efforts in changing that fortune. Gorman essentially, in less than 3 years built a dynasty. Why is this important? Because it shows he had a knack for finding the right talent and fit time and time again that was used in a variety of manners on the ice. He's the only coach in NHL history to have won a back to back title with 2 separate teams (Chicago and Montreal Maroons) and those teams had been more or less laughing stocks of the league for some time. He was an innovative coach that used an aggressive forechecking system to mask his teams lack of skill and talent and it worked wonders. Obviously here, with the Bankers he has a much, much superior team to anything he did in real life and I have little doubt that a man who built a dynasty, won multiple Cups as a coach and then built the 1940's Canadians teams which won a pair of titles, would have much trouble having success with the roster he has at his disposal here.
Overall I'd probably call this a wash, but Tarasov has a long resume as a coach, even if much of it came in the more rudimentary times in the USSR with the benefit of not having to face NHL competition on the international circuit. If people want to give a slight leg up to the Americans I probably wouldn't argue to much.
Leadership/Intangibles:
-I think Pittsburgh has a big advantage here. The Bankers have, in the minds of many, 3 of the top 10-15 captains ever to play the game. Gretzky, Clapper, Kennedy. Frank Foyston was arguably the best captains of his generation (along with Eddie Gerard). He spent his entire career (9 years) wearing the C in Seattle and had many successes there. Ed Westfall is another guy who has some stellar things written about his leadership qualities. He was the very first captain in Islander history from 72-77. He'd be a great A here and he doesn't even get one on the Bankers. Getzlaf has long been wearing the C in Anaheim. Even Patrick Roy had strong leadership qualities for a G. Having somebody with his confidence and track record manning the net has an absolutely calming effect on the skater in front of him. And we all know how shaky goal tending can have a trickle down effect on the skaters in front of them. That won't be an issue for Pittsburgh.
Mikhailov and Abel could also be argued as top 10-15 captains of all time but after that I think the Americans are pretty thin on C's/A's compared to Pitt.
And when you look at the absolutely insane amount of elite playoff talent on the Bankers, it's hard not to give them a big leg up in the clutch department. Gretzky, Roy, and Kennedy were 1, 2, 9 in the most recent HoH greatest postseason players of all time project. So you have the greatest skater in postseason history, and on the back end, the greatest netminder (and 2nd overall all time) in tournament history, on one team. Throw in #9 all time on the Bankers 3rd line and nobody can come close to touching that kind of peak postseason performance. Frank Foyston was 2nd in his generation, only to Frank Nighbor and was 40th on the HoH list. The Bankers top pair (Lappy and Clapper) are both battle tested and had numerous playoff successes with their respective teams.
You can see the HoH top 40 playoff performers list below. As i mentioned the Bankers have 1, 2, 9, and 40 on it. Unfortunately for the Americans they clearly lack the top end and even depth of Pittsburgh in this area and I think that has to be a key factor in the series.
Stan Mikita won a single Cup although he was generally a pretty solid playoff performer, just not great/elite. Kariya never won any and had limited playoff experience. Abel, while certainly a great captain was overshadowed in Detroit as a playoff performer IMO by Howe, Lindsay and Sawchuk. But he certainly possesses plenty of experience and won 3 titles and was generally a good playoff guy. Stamkos and Gilbert have zilch in the way of meaningful postseason accolades. I don't know if I've ever seen a top pair in the ATD not have a single Stanley Cup to their name but Salming and Park have that distinction, although to be fair Park was a pretty darn solid playoff guy. Bernie Parent obviously has 2 Smythe's and that is his major claim to fame so at least in peak value he's great but really has nothing else to his name (regular or postseason) beyond 74 and 75 so against Roy he's well behind (which most goalies are to be fair).
To me this is a huge advantage in favor of Pittsburgh.
Goalies:
-To me this is where the series is truly decided. The Bankers have already faced and defeated Ken Dryden and Turk Broda. Both of whom are superior to Bernie Parent in regular and post season accolades (Dryden very much so).
Patrick Roy is the greatest goalie of all time in the minds of most. He combines a very good regular season resume with the greatest postseason career ever by any netminder and only Wayne Gretzky is definitively ahead of him when you bring skaters into the mix (and i personally don't think the gap is very large).
Roy's value (and goalies in general) has been underrated for years around here. In large part because we've never really addressed the fact that goalies are on the ice for 60 (or more) minutes a game. There value (positive or negative) goes well beyond simply stopping shots. No one position is on a bigger island than goalie. No one position can swing the momentum for his team like goalie. And here, Roy swings the pendulum greatly in Pittsburgh's favor. His presence, confidence and resume allows his skaters to be more relaxed in front of him and puts an added burden on the opposing team knowing they're facing an elite goalie, especially in a best of 7 type series.
The Bankers possess a massive advantage in net. That's not a knock on Parent, who was a fine netminder and obviously gets serious points for his 2 Conn Smythe runs but other than 1974 and 1975 his career is void of any real ATD value. That's not being harsh, it's simple reality. Parent in a 24 team draft is at best below average here. And Parent played for the broad street bullies. I don't see the Americans being able to play that style with their roster make up or with Tarasov
Roy blows him away no matter what area you look at. Better Hart record, better AS record, better Vezina record, his adjusted regular season SV% is elite (see graph below thank you Hockey Outsider and Q from HoH for these studies) and shows just how dominant he was beyond the postseason. He has elite longevity, his peak was longer and more sustained. And he carried multiple teams on his back to Stanley Cups in Montreal.
Hockey Outsider's look at adjusted regular season save % which shows Roy to be incredibly elite:
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.
Defense:
1st pairs:
-Your top pair (Salming-Park) is absolutely superior to my top pair (Laperriere-Clapper). You have an advantage no double about it. A few things though. Salming and Park and never won a Cup. Their experience in the biggest moments is lacking compared to Lappy-Clapper. Also, I defeated Orr-Horton, and Kelly-Bouchard already and your pair is certainly weaker than the 1st one listed and not definitively better than the 2nd either.
How much better is Salming compared to Laperriere? Salming faced stiffer competition at D to be fair but he was also an offensively slanted defender while JL was more heavily focused on defense, yet Lappy won a Norris over Pilote, Trembaly and Stapleton, certainly not a bunch of nobodies and had an overall record of 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 8 (vs 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 10) and was a 4 time postseason AS. Again, he didn't put up gaudy point totals yet got plenty of recognition as a defender by the voters. Salming is superior because his regular season resume is better but Lappy makes up a lot of ground with his postseason experience and performances. I don't think this is much of a gap at all in reality because most people don't realize how impressive JL's regular season awards are given he was much more of a defensive dman, and the difference in playoff output and background.
Park is probably 10-12 spots better than Clapper but again Clapper's intangibles are through the roof, he has a peak that, IMO rivals Park on D (Clapper was thought of as every bit as good as Eddie Shore was from 1938 through 1941, and won the equivalent of 2 Norris trophies as determined by TDMM and others and had 2 Hart finalist nods). Obviously Park did it better on D for longer, but that's in large part because Clapper spent the first 2/3 of his career as an AS caliber RW. Either way, you're ahead all together. It's a decided advantage but comes with some caveats IMO.
2nd Pairs
-I think Pittsburgh wins here for 2 reasons.
One, I simply think Stapleton-White is slightly superior to Siebert-Goldham. And two, Staples-White was a stellar real life defensive pairing for quite some time in Chicago, including during the 1972 Summit series where they were flat out amazing and big part of why the Canucks ended up victorious in a monumentally important series both in terms of talent involved but also due to the political and cultural times. The Stapleton-White will be less prone to communication breakdowns.
Also consider how much Stapleton and White were used at ES and the impact they had there (along with Laperriere). See graphs below:
Consider your TOP PAIR wasn't even used near as much at even strength as my 2nd pair or Jacques Laperierre.
Stapleton and White's teams produced a lot of offense with them essentially playing half the game at ES over the course of their careers and neither one of them ever enjoyed having a F like Gretzky or overall scoring ability in the top 6 to get the puck up to. Nor the depth of C talent. And they also have the benefit of having the greatest goalie of all time behind them in Patrick Roy. Remember Glenn Hall was out of Chicago by the time Stapleton and White were a thing.
Bernie Parent is a fine goalie, but which defensive corps is going to be more relaxed? I'd say Pittsburgh's easily.
3rd Pairs
-Pittsburgh is ahead here again for much of the same reasons as the 2nd pairing.
Frank Patrick, to me is the best player on either pairing. He's paired with a longtime teammate in Si Griffis. So again you have a real life chemistry advantage for Pittsburgh. And a pair that's actually going to be on the ice a lot more because Joe Hall is one of the most violent/PIM'd players in the entire ATD.
Look at Patrick's offensive dominance: (taken from RB's bio)
First Lets Look At the PCHA (Source Empire of Ice)
- PCHA defense scoring leader all 4 full PCHA seasons he played (1912, 1913, 1914, 1917)
1912 Season
Frank - 24 Goals (Points) - 4th League Wide
Lester - 10 Goals (Points) - 11th League Wide
Johnson - 9 Goals (Points) -12th League Wide
Notable forwards he outscored: Tommy Phillips, Fred Taylor
1913 Season
Frank - 12 Goals - 20 Points - 4th League Wide
Lester - 14 Goals - 5 Points - 5th League Wide
Johnson - 6 Goals - 10 Points - 13th League Wide
Notable forwards he outscored: Fred Taylor, Eddie Oatman
1914 Season
Frank - 11 Goals - 20 Points - 6th League Wide
Lester - 5 Goals - 10 Points - 16th League Wide (was injured though)
Johnson - 3 Goals - 8 Points - Tied for 17th
Notable forwards he outscored: Didier Pitre, Frank Nighbor, Smokey Harris
1917 Season
Frank - 13 Goals - 26 Points - Tied for 10th
Lester - 10 Goals - 21 Points - Tied for 12th
Cook - 13 Goals - 22 Points - Tied for 11th
Jonhson - 12 Goals - 21 Points - Tied for 12th
Notable forwards he outscored: Jack Walker, Tommy Dunderdale (tie)
Looking at the scoring in these four years and arbitrarily picking the best defenceman each team in the PCHA had that season (L.Patrick, L.Cook and E.Johnson) it's fairly clear that Frank was on a level above them in terms of offensive production. PCHA all-time defense points-per-game leaders, min. 80 GP
Finally to make it as apples to apples as I can, in these 4 seasons Frank played 68 games, so taking those other defencemens ppg over their best seasons as close as I can get to 68 games gives
This is from SIHR
F. Patrick - 1.32 Pts/Game
L. Patrick - 1.10 Pts/Game
L.Cook - 0.97 Pts/Game
The thing that sticks out at me from the above is the "usual" part, which implies that, at the very least, the group that Patrick was a part of normally were very steady defensively.
Frank Patrick beat the shit out of Joe Hall
Patrick again bests Hall in a scrap
Overall:
I think like the series against Kenora, this ends up being a wash.
-The Americans certainly have the advantage on the top pair but the Bankers bridge the gap IMO, with their superior depth and 2 real life pairings that had a ton of success together at the highest levels. Plus throw in the fact that Stapleton-White logged elite ES minutes and were very productive with them, they'll be able to contribute a bit more than your ordinary 2nd pair IMO.
As for the series at hand, obviously I believe the Bankers to be among the best teams in the ATD this year and certainly filled with talent that would be extremely difficult to beat in a 7 game series. @rmartin65 has a very strong team as well and I look forward to a great match up. Here is how I see things top to bottom:
Home Ice Advantage for Pittsburgh:
-I think this is a fairly important aspect to point out. The Bankers being a 1 seed would have home ice vs a team that finished 2nd (a very strong 2nd place team to be fair) in their division. This gives Gorman and company last change more often and obviously the benefit of more games with the passionate Pittsburgh fans as the "7th" man so to speak helping push the Bankers and possibly getting under the skin of the Americans. It's certainly not a huge deal but something that should be pointed out for the reasons I mentioned and it could swing the pendulum slightly in the favor of the Bankers given the history of teams with home ice in the SCF.
Coaching:
-This is a really interesting matchup. I admit, I have a tough time comparing non NHL Russian coaches to North American ones. Tarasov is arguably the greatest Russian coach of all time. He was a pioneer for that nation and had a profound impact on the game and bringing the USSR to greater heights and at some points on par with Canada. I can't say definitively that he's a top 10 coach of all time for a few reasons.
One, much of his domestic success came in the 50's through the mid 60's when hockey was still in the growth process in Russia. His international success is also void of having to play the best players from North America, at least until the 70's when the Summit series' began and by that point his career was all but finished as a coach. It wasn't really until the mid to late 60's that other European teams (specifically the Czech's) got to a point where they could really keep up so competition is at least, to some degree questionable. As TDMM used to point out, it's still a bit of a challenge to flesh out the balance between his building up the Russian program/GM'ing and actual coaching. I also wonder how North American players would have reacted to his manner of teaching and style. But at the end of the day, he's an all time great. Nobody can deny that. In many ways he's quite similar to Gorman in that both had major successes as builders and coaches in the early stages of hockey in their respective countries.
Tommy Gorman is one of the greatest builders in hockey history, and certainly, IMO at least a borderline top 10 coach ever, which is mighty impressive considering he never played the game at any meaningful level. He took over the managing aspects of Ottawa in 1917 because the owner couldn't recruit players and he asked Gorman to spearhead efforts in changing that fortune. Gorman essentially, in less than 3 years built a dynasty. Why is this important? Because it shows he had a knack for finding the right talent and fit time and time again that was used in a variety of manners on the ice. He's the only coach in NHL history to have won a back to back title with 2 separate teams (Chicago and Montreal Maroons) and those teams had been more or less laughing stocks of the league for some time. He was an innovative coach that used an aggressive forechecking system to mask his teams lack of skill and talent and it worked wonders. Obviously here, with the Bankers he has a much, much superior team to anything he did in real life and I have little doubt that a man who built a dynasty, won multiple Cups as a coach and then built the 1940's Canadians teams which won a pair of titles, would have much trouble having success with the roster he has at his disposal here.
Overall I'd probably call this a wash, but Tarasov has a long resume as a coach, even if much of it came in the more rudimentary times in the USSR with the benefit of not having to face NHL competition on the international circuit. If people want to give a slight leg up to the Americans I probably wouldn't argue to much.
Leadership/Intangibles:
-I think Pittsburgh has a big advantage here. The Bankers have, in the minds of many, 3 of the top 10-15 captains ever to play the game. Gretzky, Clapper, Kennedy. Frank Foyston was arguably the best captains of his generation (along with Eddie Gerard). He spent his entire career (9 years) wearing the C in Seattle and had many successes there. Ed Westfall is another guy who has some stellar things written about his leadership qualities. He was the very first captain in Islander history from 72-77. He'd be a great A here and he doesn't even get one on the Bankers. Getzlaf has long been wearing the C in Anaheim. Even Patrick Roy had strong leadership qualities for a G. Having somebody with his confidence and track record manning the net has an absolutely calming effect on the skater in front of him. And we all know how shaky goal tending can have a trickle down effect on the skaters in front of them. That won't be an issue for Pittsburgh.
Mikhailov and Abel could also be argued as top 10-15 captains of all time but after that I think the Americans are pretty thin on C's/A's compared to Pitt.
And when you look at the absolutely insane amount of elite playoff talent on the Bankers, it's hard not to give them a big leg up in the clutch department. Gretzky, Roy, and Kennedy were 1, 2, 9 in the most recent HoH greatest postseason players of all time project. So you have the greatest skater in postseason history, and on the back end, the greatest netminder (and 2nd overall all time) in tournament history, on one team. Throw in #9 all time on the Bankers 3rd line and nobody can come close to touching that kind of peak postseason performance. Frank Foyston was 2nd in his generation, only to Frank Nighbor and was 40th on the HoH list. The Bankers top pair (Lappy and Clapper) are both battle tested and had numerous playoff successes with their respective teams.
You can see the HoH top 40 playoff performers list below. As i mentioned the Bankers have 1, 2, 9, and 40 on it. Unfortunately for the Americans they clearly lack the top end and even depth of Pittsburgh in this area and I think that has to be a key factor in the series.
Stan Mikita won a single Cup although he was generally a pretty solid playoff performer, just not great/elite. Kariya never won any and had limited playoff experience. Abel, while certainly a great captain was overshadowed in Detroit as a playoff performer IMO by Howe, Lindsay and Sawchuk. But he certainly possesses plenty of experience and won 3 titles and was generally a good playoff guy. Stamkos and Gilbert have zilch in the way of meaningful postseason accolades. I don't know if I've ever seen a top pair in the ATD not have a single Stanley Cup to their name but Salming and Park have that distinction, although to be fair Park was a pretty darn solid playoff guy. Bernie Parent obviously has 2 Smythe's and that is his major claim to fame so at least in peak value he's great but really has nothing else to his name (regular or postseason) beyond 74 and 75 so against Roy he's well behind (which most goalies are to be fair).
To me this is a huge advantage in favor of Pittsburgh.
The following is the final list of the top Stanley Cup playoff performers as determined by the History of Hockey community.
Top Stanley Cup Playoff Performers of All-Time
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
Pos. Born Nationality First Playoff Last Playoff St. Cups OT P/W 1 Wayne Gretzky C1 1961 Canada 1980 1997 4 2 Patrick Roy G1 1965 Canada 1986 2003 4 3 Maurice Richard W1 1921 Canada 1944 1960 8 4 Jean Beliveau C2 1931 Canada 1954 1971 10 5 Gordie Howe W2 1928 Canada 1947 1980 4 6 Doug Harvey D1 1924 Canada 1949 1968 6 7 Mark Messier C3 1961 Canada 1980 1997 6 8 Jacques Plante G2 1929 Canada 1953 1973 6 9 Ted Kennedy C4 1925 Canada 1944 1955 5 10 Denis Potvin D2 1953 Canada 1975 1988 4 11 Mario Lemieux C5 1965 Canada 1989 2001 2 12 Joe Sakic C6 1969 Canada 1993 2008 2 13 Bobby Orr D3 1948 Canada 1968 1975 2 14 Red Kelly D4 1927 Canada 1948 1967 8 15 Guy Lafleur W3 1951 Canada 1972 1989 5 16 Frank Nighbor C7 1893 Canada 1915 1928 4 17 Turk Broda G3 1914 Canada 1937 1952 5 18 Peter Forsberg C8 1973 Sweden 1995 2008 2 19 Henri Richard C9 1936 Canada 1956 1975 11 20 Mike Bossy W4 Canada 21 Larry Robinson D5 Canada 22 Ken Dryden G4 Canada 23 Nicklas Lidstrom D6 Sweden 24 Bryan Trottier C10 Canada 25 Bernie Geoffrion W5 Canada 26 Doug Gilmour C11 Canada 27 Serge Savard D7 Canada 28 Sidney Crosby C12 Canada 29 Phil Esposito C13 Canada 30 Frank Boucher C14 Canada 31 Bobby Hull W6 Canada 32 Chris Pronger D8 Canada 33 Jari Kurri W7 Finland 34 Sergei Fedorov C15 Russia 35 Martin Brodeur G5 Canada 36 Scott Stevens D9 Canada 37 Jacques Lemaire W8 Canada 38 Duncan Keith D10 Canada 39 Billy Smith G6 Canada 40 Frank Foyston C16 Canada 
Goalies:
-To me this is where the series is truly decided. The Bankers have already faced and defeated Ken Dryden and Turk Broda. Both of whom are superior to Bernie Parent in regular and post season accolades (Dryden very much so).
Patrick Roy is the greatest goalie of all time in the minds of most. He combines a very good regular season resume with the greatest postseason career ever by any netminder and only Wayne Gretzky is definitively ahead of him when you bring skaters into the mix (and i personally don't think the gap is very large).
Roy's value (and goalies in general) has been underrated for years around here. In large part because we've never really addressed the fact that goalies are on the ice for 60 (or more) minutes a game. There value (positive or negative) goes well beyond simply stopping shots. No one position is on a bigger island than goalie. No one position can swing the momentum for his team like goalie. And here, Roy swings the pendulum greatly in Pittsburgh's favor. His presence, confidence and resume allows his skaters to be more relaxed in front of him and puts an added burden on the opposing team knowing they're facing an elite goalie, especially in a best of 7 type series.
The Bankers possess a massive advantage in net. That's not a knock on Parent, who was a fine netminder and obviously gets serious points for his 2 Conn Smythe runs but other than 1974 and 1975 his career is void of any real ATD value. That's not being harsh, it's simple reality. Parent in a 24 team draft is at best below average here. And Parent played for the broad street bullies. I don't see the Americans being able to play that style with their roster make up or with Tarasov
Roy blows him away no matter what area you look at. Better Hart record, better AS record, better Vezina record, his adjusted regular season SV% is elite (see graph below thank you Hockey Outsider and Q from HoH for these studies) and shows just how dominant he was beyond the postseason. He has elite longevity, his peak was longer and more sustained. And he carried multiple teams on his back to Stanley Cups in Montreal.
Hockey Outsider's look at adjusted regular season save % which shows Roy to be incredibly elite:
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.
Defense:
1st pairs:
-Your top pair (Salming-Park) is absolutely superior to my top pair (Laperriere-Clapper). You have an advantage no double about it. A few things though. Salming and Park and never won a Cup. Their experience in the biggest moments is lacking compared to Lappy-Clapper. Also, I defeated Orr-Horton, and Kelly-Bouchard already and your pair is certainly weaker than the 1st one listed and not definitively better than the 2nd either.
How much better is Salming compared to Laperriere? Salming faced stiffer competition at D to be fair but he was also an offensively slanted defender while JL was more heavily focused on defense, yet Lappy won a Norris over Pilote, Trembaly and Stapleton, certainly not a bunch of nobodies and had an overall record of 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 8 (vs 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 10) and was a 4 time postseason AS. Again, he didn't put up gaudy point totals yet got plenty of recognition as a defender by the voters. Salming is superior because his regular season resume is better but Lappy makes up a lot of ground with his postseason experience and performances. I don't think this is much of a gap at all in reality because most people don't realize how impressive JL's regular season awards are given he was much more of a defensive dman, and the difference in playoff output and background.
Park is probably 10-12 spots better than Clapper but again Clapper's intangibles are through the roof, he has a peak that, IMO rivals Park on D (Clapper was thought of as every bit as good as Eddie Shore was from 1938 through 1941, and won the equivalent of 2 Norris trophies as determined by TDMM and others and had 2 Hart finalist nods). Obviously Park did it better on D for longer, but that's in large part because Clapper spent the first 2/3 of his career as an AS caliber RW. Either way, you're ahead all together. It's a decided advantage but comes with some caveats IMO.
2nd Pairs
-I think Pittsburgh wins here for 2 reasons.
One, I simply think Stapleton-White is slightly superior to Siebert-Goldham. And two, Staples-White was a stellar real life defensive pairing for quite some time in Chicago, including during the 1972 Summit series where they were flat out amazing and big part of why the Canucks ended up victorious in a monumentally important series both in terms of talent involved but also due to the political and cultural times. The Stapleton-White will be less prone to communication breakdowns.
Also consider how much Stapleton and White were used at ES and the impact they had there (along with Laperriere). See graphs below:
Consider your TOP PAIR wasn't even used near as much at even strength as my 2nd pair or Jacques Laperierre.
Stapleton and White's teams produced a lot of offense with them essentially playing half the game at ES over the course of their careers and neither one of them ever enjoyed having a F like Gretzky or overall scoring ability in the top 6 to get the puck up to. Nor the depth of C talent. And they also have the benefit of having the greatest goalie of all time behind them in Patrick Roy. Remember Glenn Hall was out of Chicago by the time Stapleton and White were a thing.
Bernie Parent is a fine goalie, but which defensive corps is going to be more relaxed? I'd say Pittsburgh's easily.
3rd Pairs
-Pittsburgh is ahead here again for much of the same reasons as the 2nd pairing.
Frank Patrick, to me is the best player on either pairing. He's paired with a longtime teammate in Si Griffis. So again you have a real life chemistry advantage for Pittsburgh. And a pair that's actually going to be on the ice a lot more because Joe Hall is one of the most violent/PIM'd players in the entire ATD.
Look at Patrick's offensive dominance: (taken from RB's bio)
First Lets Look At the PCHA (Source Empire of Ice)
- PCHA defense scoring leader all 4 full PCHA seasons he played (1912, 1913, 1914, 1917)
1912 Season
Frank - 24 Goals (Points) - 4th League Wide
Lester - 10 Goals (Points) - 11th League Wide
Johnson - 9 Goals (Points) -12th League Wide
Notable forwards he outscored: Tommy Phillips, Fred Taylor
1913 Season
Frank - 12 Goals - 20 Points - 4th League Wide
Lester - 14 Goals - 5 Points - 5th League Wide
Johnson - 6 Goals - 10 Points - 13th League Wide
Notable forwards he outscored: Fred Taylor, Eddie Oatman
1914 Season
Frank - 11 Goals - 20 Points - 6th League Wide
Lester - 5 Goals - 10 Points - 16th League Wide (was injured though)
Johnson - 3 Goals - 8 Points - Tied for 17th
Notable forwards he outscored: Didier Pitre, Frank Nighbor, Smokey Harris
1917 Season
Frank - 13 Goals - 26 Points - Tied for 10th
Lester - 10 Goals - 21 Points - Tied for 12th
Cook - 13 Goals - 22 Points - Tied for 11th
Jonhson - 12 Goals - 21 Points - Tied for 12th
Notable forwards he outscored: Jack Walker, Tommy Dunderdale (tie)
Looking at the scoring in these four years and arbitrarily picking the best defenceman each team in the PCHA had that season (L.Patrick, L.Cook and E.Johnson) it's fairly clear that Frank was on a level above them in terms of offensive production. PCHA all-time defense points-per-game leaders, min. 80 GP
Finally to make it as apples to apples as I can, in these 4 seasons Frank played 68 games, so taking those other defencemens ppg over their best seasons as close as I can get to 68 games gives
This is from SIHR
F. Patrick - 1.32 Pts/Game
L. Patrick - 1.10 Pts/Game
L.Cook - 0.97 Pts/Game
Frank Patrick beat the shit out of Joe Hall
Patrick again bests Hall in a scrap
I think like the series against Kenora, this ends up being a wash.
-The Americans certainly have the advantage on the top pair but the Bankers bridge the gap IMO, with their superior depth and 2 real life pairings that had a ton of success together at the highest levels. Plus throw in the fact that Stapleton-White logged elite ES minutes and were very productive with them, they'll be able to contribute a bit more than your ordinary 2nd pair IMO.
Last edited:
Dreakmur
Registered User
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
No it can't. But I'm sure that won't stop you from clogging up the thread regardless, so go for it
Tarasov dominated early European landscape which would have been like 1900's North American hockey, and had the benefit of not facing the best players in the world on the international stage ever. He's nowhere near Bowman, Blake, Arbour, Patrick, etc. Top 10? Maybe. Beyond that. Not a chance.Not to mention a bunch of North American hockey players trying to play for Tarasov with his style and iron fisted, robotic like training regime, is far worse than arguing 2-3 players on the Bankers don't fit Gorman's forechecking game, but I'm not going to beat on that drum.
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
No it can't. But I'm sure that won't stop you from clogging up the thread regardless, so go for it
Not to mention a bunch of North American hockey players trying to play for Tarasov with his style and iron fisted, robotic like training regime, is far worse than arguing 2-3 players on the Bankers don't fit Gorman's forechecking game, but I'm not going to beat on that drum.
Coaching dominance is very different from player dominance. Era/talent level/etc. doesn't mean as much. I don't believe coaching gets much easier or harder based on the level you're coaching at. @Dreakmur maybe can add his opinion here.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Get out of here with that lol.
You think Russians winning Olympic gold in say 1964 was a major accomplishment? Or WC's before the late 60's/early 70's when no other European nation had remotely close the level of talent to compete. You think 1950's domestic USSR was quality hockey compared to the 50's NHL? You throw NHL players from that era into the mix and there is absolutely no doubt that Tarasov's coaching record looks mighty different on the international stage.
Sure, your team has home ice. How much that means with inferior coaching, however, is quite debatable.
You might be the only person on Earth that A) has Gorman as a top-10 coach, and B) rates him equally to Tarasov. Tarasov, from a managerial standpoint, was like Gorman on steroids. Gorman built a dynasty? Tarasov built an entire country's hockey program, one that dominated the international scene for decades. And as a coach, in my mind, it is no contest.
1) He has more meaningful years of experience, with a much better record of results. Gorman barely went .500 for his career. Tarasov, on the other hand, racked up the wins, both domestically and internationally.
2) Tarasov's style actually fits the the Americans, unlike Gorman's with the Bankers. Gorman always built teams around forechecking and defense... and I dont see a lot of those aspects on your team.
Finally, nothing about Tarasov's coaching style/methods suggest that he would have a problem with North American players. He strikes me as similar to Bowman, in that he was demanding, but earned the respect of his players. He wasn't hated in the sense that Keenan was. Additionally, I have given him
some former players in Mikhailov and Davydov, as well as an Associate Coach that was known to be a player's coach.
At the end of it all, it is, to me, a hands down advantage for New York. Better coaching, and a better fit to boot.
A big advantage is rather generous. I concede that Pittsburgh has an advantage, but there is not quite the gap that you claim. Abel and Mikhailov are absolutely elite in terms of leadership, and Park, Kopitar, Salming, Davydov, Kariya, Mikita, Gilbert, Luce, and Stamkos all held letters during their career. Additionally, I am uncertain as to how much leadership plays into the game at this level; unless a team has a headcase, of course.
I get that we are in the playoffs, I do. But- and I fully expect people to disagree with me- I don't think we should just take playoff performance as the end-all be-all. As a tie-breaker, such as valuing Crosby over Mikita? Sure. But playoff performance harms players who played on weak teams, or played in eras dominated by dynasties (unless they were on a dynasty). Furthermore, I'll take the large sample size (aka regular season) over the small small one (aka playoffs). I don't know about you, but I would rather have Mario on my team than Kennedy or Messier, regardless of what the HoH Playoff list says. Or, to use another Crosby example- prior to the last two Cups, did you value Toews over Crosby? I should hope not.
Get out of here. Who are the malcontents on the Americans' roster that would have a problem with Tarasov (with the influence of Reay there, as well)? Tarasov is cited as a father figure who demanded a lot, but was trusted by his players. I dont see a problem here.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I don't want to go to this place because I feel like I'm piling on and it will just take away from the rest of the discussion, but Tarasov dominated an incredibly watered down international scene through the late, late 60's. There is no debating that. Period. The competition that the USSR faced would have been like 1890's pro hockey players trying to do battle with consolidated NHL players/06 talent.
And again, how GREAT are his international accomplishments as a head coach really? He never had to face the North Americans head to head. And there is nobody here or anywhere else that can say that Sweden or the Czech's were even in the same universe as Russia during the bulk of Tarasov's reign. I give him all the credit in the world for building up USSR/Russian hockey. He's a legend in that regard, but it's exactly what @TheDevilMadeMe has correctly brought up multiple times. His coaching record revolves around domestic success in the 1950's and 60's which, at best, is the equivalent of early 1900's North American hockey and international wins against no North Americans and other nations that had only just begun forming their own hockey programs and had FAR less talent developed. I'm not being mean, I'm being factual.
And again, how GREAT are his international accomplishments as a head coach really? He never had to face the North Americans head to head. And there is nobody here or anywhere else that can say that Sweden or the Czech's were even in the same universe as Russia during the bulk of Tarasov's reign. I give him all the credit in the world for building up USSR/Russian hockey. He's a legend in that regard, but it's exactly what @TheDevilMadeMe has correctly brought up multiple times. His coaching record revolves around domestic success in the 1950's and 60's which, at best, is the equivalent of early 1900's North American hockey and international wins against no North Americans and other nations that had only just begun forming their own hockey programs and had FAR less talent developed. I'm not being mean, I'm being factual.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Beyond the massive cultural differences? Tarasov was a father figure sure, but his training regime would have made Punch Imlach look like Mother Theresa.
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
Beyond the massive cultural differences? Tarasov was a father figure sure, but his training regime would have made Punch Imlach look like Mother Theresa.
Are we seriously rehashing this argument again? I thought we stopped talking about this circa 2012.
Beyond the massive cultural differences? Tarasov was a father figure sure, but his training regime would have made Punch Imlach look like Mother Theresa.
That dog don't hunt, I'm going to need some examples of why exactly players on the Americans will have problems with Tarasov and Reay. Because, as an American who did a study abroad in Russia while in college, I will say that the cultural differences argument doesn't make sense to me or jive with my experiences.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
You were in Russia in the 1950's and 60's?
We literally almost went to nuclear war with the USSR....during Tarasov's time there was not much the east and west had in common, economically or socially.
Point taken, no, it was much more recent than that. That said, unless you think Tarasov is going to hire people to act like the KGB and threaten his players with prison (and I'll need reasons why you think that is the case), I think you are making a big fuss over nothing, largely to distract from the issues between your own coach and team.
In other words- I need real, concrete examples as to why you think players on the Americans will have issues with Tarasov. If you think cultural differences will be a problem- what specific cultural issues, and why will they be an insurmountable issue. If you think the training styles are the issue- again, what players have a history of chafing or refusing to work hard in practice?
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Fair enough. I do think there would be some "issues" given the vast differences in culture from Tarasov's time but I think it's petty to try and argue back and forth on that aspect as it takes away from the series/players itself. We can move on sir.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
BTW, other ATD members (much longer standing ones than me) think Gorman was a top 10 coach all time. I've found these so far after a quick search.
Tony D:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/84710541/
TDMM: (quoted Tony and didn't have a problem with Gorman at 8)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/84712039/
Tony D:
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/84710541/
TDMM: (quoted Tony and didn't have a problem with Gorman at 8)
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/84712039/
Dreakmur
Registered User
No it can't. But I'm sure that won't stop you from clogging up the thread regardless, so go for it
I've got Tarasov with Patrick in the 3-4 slot, behind Bowman and Blake, and ahead of Arbour.
Aside from winning, one of my key criteria in evaluating coaches is innovation. For me, Tarasov was the most innovative coach of all time, and I don't think it's close.
Tarasov's system was so strict that he developed and implemented 3 distinct systems during his coaching career. Not only did he change with the game, he changed the game.
He was a strict disciplinarian, and particularly selfish or lazy players would not fit well under him. That's about the only coaching negative I see in him.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
@rmartin65 And please don't get me wrong. I absolutely think Tarasov is an all time great coach. I just think it's wrong to view is accomplishments through a vacuum because the leagues and international scene he coached on were, for the bulk of his career not equivilent to the best hockey on the planet which was in the US/Canada. It really wasn't until the late 60's and early 70's that the USSR had built it's program up to the point where they could realistically challenge the Canadians. And by that time Tarasov was nearly done coaching. Hence why I think his building/GM aspect is more impressive than coaching (which is still great mind you). I'd say the same thing about Gorman as well.
I'm fine with giving a slight advantage to you here in all honesty, if for nothing else than Tarasov's longevity, even if the leagues he dominated were quite inferior to the NHL in the 30's.
I'm fine with giving a slight advantage to you here in all honesty, if for nothing else than Tarasov's longevity, even if the leagues he dominated were quite inferior to the NHL in the 30's.
Dreakmur
Registered User
I don't have an issue with Gorman being listed at 8 either. As I said before, there's a handful of elite coaches, and then a whole mess of guys who are so close that fit and style should be the determining factor.
For me, the elite few are Blake, Bowman, Patrick, Tarasov, and maybe Arbour. After that, there's 15 guys who could be a good next pick.
