2018 franchise draft Quarterfinal series: Chicago Cougars vs. Ottawa Senators

VanIslander

A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sep 4, 2004
35,134
6,429
images


Coach: Fred Shero

Ted Lindsay - Sidney Crosby (C) - Teemu Selanne
Joe Malone - Milt Schmidt (A) - Vladimir Martinec
Daniel Sedin - Max Bentley - Punch Broadbent
Craig Ramsay - Mike Modano - Joe Mullen


Valeri Vasiliev (A) - Tim Horton
Lionel Conacher - Paul Coffey
Brad McCrimmon - Art Coulter


Patrick Roy
Mike Liut

vs.

Ottawa_Senators_poster.jpg


Head Coach:
Blakecoachhabs.jpg

Toe Blake

FORWARDS:

images

Busher Jackson
upload_2018-7-31_9-46-36-jpeg.132735

Stan Mikita
upload_2018-8-2_14-30-48-jpeg.133029

Brett Hull
upload_2018-8-6_12-57-45-jpeg.133521

Michel Goulet
ryangetzlaf.jpg

Ryan Getzlaf
upload_2018-8-1_9-6-25-jpeg.132899

Bill Cook (Captain)
ny_islanders_09-11.jpg

John Tonelli
upload_2018-8-3_12-44-30-jpeg.133215

Anze Kopitar
images

Steven Stamkos
images

Joe Pavelksi
upload_2018-8-9_9-33-58-jpeg.133913

Dave Poulin (Alternate)
97391-14345428Fr.jpg

Jimmy Ward
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
DEFENSE:

upload_2018-8-13_9-14-22-jpeg.134417

Bill Quackenbush
Bobby-Orr-200x300.jpg

Bobby Orr
s-l300.jpg

Doug Harvey (Alternate)
8880266_109059458920.jpg

Georges "Buck" Boucher
220px-Frank_Patrick%2C_Vancouver_Millionaires.jpg

Lester Patrick
5497-1242326Fr.jpg

Teppo Numminen
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
GOALIES:

ROU2127fb_tretiSPH.jpg

Vladislav Tretiak
[TBODY] [/TBODY]
holecek_03.jpg

Jiri Holecek
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
Posting special teams from the Roster Thread...

Chicago Cougars

PP1
Lindsay - Crosby - Selanne
Bentley - Coffey


PP2
Malone - Schmidt - Martinec
Horton - Vasiliev


PK1
Ramsay - Modano
Vasiliev - Horton
Roy


PK2
Schmidt - Broadbent
Conacher - Coulter
Roy


Extra PK F: Crosby - Martinec
Extra PK D: McCrimmon


vs.

Ottawa Senators

PP 1:

Stan Mikita
Brett Hull
Bill Cook
Bobby Orr
Georges Boucher


PP 2:


Ryan Getzlaf
Busher Jackson
Steven Stamkos
Doug Harvey
Lester Patrick


PK 1:

Dave Poulin
Jimmy Ward
Doug Harvey
Bill Quackenbush


PK 2:

Anze Kopitar
John Tonelli
Bobby Orr
Teppo Numminen
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Bobby Orr and Doug Harvey effect:

-Orr at RD and Harvey at LD (2nd pair) allows Ottawa the ability to suppress the top wingers for Chicago a great deal.
-They will take numerous shifts together in certain defensive zone draws
-Both can play upwards of 30 minutes meaning other Dmen are fresh and we can rely on our top 2 pairings more than normal
-Ability to control the pace of the game at an elite level from the backend (Orr and Harvey are the 2 best at doing this)
-Ottawa owns a big advantage on the top 2 pairs, largely because of BO and DH


Where is the shut down C on Chicago?

-Schmidt's a good defensive C. Crosby and Modano are solid. Bentley is a one way offensive only C. Kopitar and Poulin give Ottawa the ability to use their bottom 6 units more so to defend freeing up their scoring lines to potentially do more damage against other units on Chicago. Chicago certainly has more scoring punch down the middle but they also lack much in the way of defensive accumen in a draft this size and have to contend with Orr and Harvey when they are in Ottawa's end of the rink. I personally think using players like Bentley and Modano in bottom 6 roles really suppresses their offensive value because they simply aren't on the ice enough to be a factor as in a more normalized role. Players like Kopitar and Poulin can impact the game defensively at a greater rate IMO playing a bottom 6 role.


Offense from the back end:

-Any advantage Chicago enjoys in offensive firepower at F is canceled out by Ottawa's Dmen and their ability to transition and generate a ton of O. Bobby Orr is like having a Jagr on the blue line. Except Orr can obviously defend at a high level. Doug Harvey was extremely underrated as a QB and transition player while also being the greatest defensive defensemen ever. Georges Boucher was very likely the best offensive Dman of the 1920's and Patrick was one of the best rushing Dmen of the 1910-1920 range. We often forget to look at what the blue line brings in terms of offensive value and I think this is an area where Ottawa takes the cake. And not to take anything away defensively as Quackenbush-Orr, Harvey-Boucher is the best top 4 in the draft overall regardless of which zone they're in. Paul Coffey is obviously a horse offensively for Chicago but unlike Orr, Coffey gives up a lot defensively.

Other than Coffey I don't see a lot of transition coming from Chicago's blue line.


Ottawa won't be in the box much:

-Plenty of grit for the HC but we don't have many players who were big PIM getters. Staying out of the box is important. Really, the only player on Ottawa that took more than the none to average amount (range) of penalties was Georges Boucher.

Mikita
Cook
Hull
Orr
Harvey/Boucher

Multiple elite goal scorers. Multiple elite play makers on the PP for Ottawa. Elite power forward for crease. I'd put that unit up against anyone on pure ability and fit.

Tonelli-Poulin
Quackenbush-Harvey

Kopitar-Ward
Orr-Numminen

I think those PK units are superior to anything Chicago can throw out.


Coaching advantage:

-Blake is widely regarded as the 2nd best coach ever. He won 8 Cups with all sorts of lineups and styles. Shero won 2 Cups with pure brutality and tactics that would make the clutch and grab era coaches blush. Outside of 74 and 75 Shero doesn't have much of a record to go off of. I think this is a pretty big advantage for Ottawa.


Big game advantage:

Harvey and Orr are elite all time playoff performers. Stan Mikita was well above average, even with the single Cup. Brett Hull is the all time leading goal scorer in postseason history (of anyone who wasn't an 80's Oiler) and big game player by and large. Kopitar has had multiple Smythe worthy runs. Boucher was a big player for the Ottawa dynasty of the 20's. Obviously Patrick Roy is the best overall postseason player here, but I think Ottawa enjoys a bit more depth when it comes to postseason performers.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Can passersby comment? Because I just want to say...

WTF do you do with Orr and Harvey on the ice effectively the entire game?

I didn't set out to use my top 2 picks on Boston/Montreal but your thought process was exactly where I went when pick 19 came and Harvey was still available. The sheer control of the game they bring to the table is, in some ways, hard to quantify (more so in Harvey's case). But make no mistake I think having one or the other out there for the overwheling majority of the game is a factor I hope people consider. Plus I think I was able to find a pair of players that fit them as close to perfectly as you can get.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
These two teams aren't the easiest to compare. A clear advantage at forward and goaltender for Chicago and a clear advantage on the blueline and behind the bench for Ottawa. I don't see any coach/team chemistry issues from either, which is the most important part of evaluating a coach. Ottawa still has an advantage here, but I'd say coaching is pretty easily the least impactful of the 4 areas mentioned above.

Coffey vs. Orr in a series is interesting, it should be wide open when those two are both on the ice.

There's a full minutes chart posted in the roster thread, but the most important thing to note is that despite being on the second pairing, Coffey will play the most minutes of any Dman on Chicago taking several of McCrimmon's shifts next to Coulter. The team is specifically set up for Coffey to be able to play a lot of minutes, but also not have to play on the top shutdown pairing.


Some critique of Ottawa...

Ottawa is weak at Center, a very important position. Chicago's 4th line center, Modano, is better than Ottawa's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line Centers (Getzlaf, Kopitar, Poulin).

I don't like Bill Quackenbush as a partner for Orr, he's too soft, Orr needs a big tough partner. While in a vacuum Quackenbush is slightly better than his real life partner Jack Stewart, I think Stewart would've been a better choice to have next to Orr. Chicago will be sending guys like Lindsay, Schmidt, Broadbent, and Ramsay hard on the forecheck when Orr is out there.

Something seems out of place on Ottawa's 3rd line, Kopitar is a two-way guy, Tonelli is a defense-only player (and not even an elite one), and Stamkos is an offense-only player. In a draft this size I don't see Kopitar-Stamkos as enough to be any kind of consistent offensive threat, and the line's shutdown ability is compromised by Stamkos.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
These two teams aren't the easiest to compare. A clear advantage at forward and goaltender for Chicago and a clear advantage on the blueline and behind the bench for Ottawa. I don't see any coach/team chemistry issues from either, which is the most important part of evaluating a coach. Ottawa still has an advantage here, but I'd say coaching is pretty easily the least impactful of the 4 areas mentioned above.

Coffey vs. Orr in a series is interesting, it should be wide open when those two are both on the ice.

There's a full minutes chart posted in the roster thread, but the most important thing to note is that despite being on the second pairing, Coffey will play the most minutes of any Dman on Chicago taking several of McCrimmon's shifts next to Coulter. The team is specifically set up for Coffey to be able to play a lot of minutes, but also not have to play on the top shutdown pairing.


Some critique of Ottawa...

Ottawa is weak at Center, a very important position. Chicago's 4th line center, Modano, is better than Ottawa's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th line Centers (Getzlaf, Kopitar, Poulin).

I don't like Bill Quackenbush as a partner for Orr, he's too soft, Orr needs a big tough partner. While in a vacuum Quackenbush is slightly better than his real life partner Jack Stewart, I think Stewart would've been a better choice to have next to Orr. Chicago will be sending guys like Lindsay, Schmidt, Broadbent, and Ramsay hard on the forecheck when Orr is out there.

Something seems out of place on Ottawa's 3rd line, Kopitar is a two-way guy, Tonelli is a defense-only player (and not even an elite one), and Stamkos is an offense-only player. In a draft this size I don't see Kopitar-Stamkos as enough to be any kind of consistent offensive threat, and the line's shutdown ability is compromised by Stamkos.


Quackenbush is a great fit for Orr because Orr needs somebody who will be in the right position at every turn. Which is what Quackenbush brings. Read the great bio's on him (links below). While he certainly isn't going to go out of his way to bang, he's not soft. He prefers Lidstrom like tactics on D, which is stick work, and elite positioning. I think the ATD has long over stated the need to pair up rough and tumble players with "soft" players and are to liberal in labling players "soft". Jack Stewart is a poor mans Scott Stevens IMO. Yeah, he'll throw big hits and probably be a bit better down low but he also screams "guy who will roam out of position to make a big hit". I don't want that next to Orr. Orr needs somebody who understands his role and where to be on the ice when Orr does his thing. I think Quackenbush is one of the very best Dmen in that regard.

I think Chicago sending guys barrling in on the forecheck won't go well given each pairing has elite puck movers on it. Orr is the greatest ever, by a wide margin. Quack was also underrated in that regard, very good decision maker and first pass defender (actually broke into the league as a rushing Dman). Harvey's ability to move the puck is well documented. He was the engine of all those great Habs teams of the 50's. The ability of Ottawa's D to get the puck out of the D zone will be paramount to our success and I think it's pretty easy to establish that the guys moving the puck (Orr, Harvey, Quack, Boucher) are better collectively than most of the F's coming in on the forecheck. Just my .02 and humble opinion.


https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/30679412/
https://hfboards.mandatory.com/posts/24227954/


I don't think Modano is better than Getzlaf or Kopitar. At least not by any meaningful margin.

Take Getzlaf for example. Doesn't give up anything really in AS or Hart voting. Both have a Cup to their name. Both are above average postseason performers.

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/adjusted-even-strength-plus-minus-1960-2017.591548/

Getzlaf is 42nd all time in adjusted +/- (Modano not ranked)

https://hfboards.mandatory.com/threads/special-teams-roles-1960-2017.767772/

Getzlaf is used more on the PP (can run the point btw) and has above average output whereas Modano is below average.

Take a look at even strength usage and output. Getzlaf and Modano are both on the ice 36% of the time at ES, but Getzlaf produces a good chunk more offense there while also showing able to suppress the other team better than Modano.

Even Strength - Forwards

PlayerGP$ESP/82$ESGF/82$ESGA/82R-ONR-OFFEV%
Wayne Gretzky148786104821.271.0447%
Mario Lemieux9158098791.240.8446%
Eric Lindros7607091611.490.9542%
Sidney Crosby7827589631.410.9641%
Bobby Hull9237089651.381.1840%
Jaromir Jagr17116786641.350.9340%
Pavel Bure7026275711.050.9639%
Alex Ovechkin9216279631.271.0339%
Ilya Kovalchuk8165670750.930.8439%
Joe Sakic13786176661.151.0038%
Paul Kariya9895469621.120.9138%
Rick Martin6855072661.081.2038%
Adam Oates13375372671.070.9938%
Patrick Kane7406177641.211.1638%
Evgeni Malkin7066579621.271.0838%
Brett Hull12695571641.101.1238%
John Tavares5875372730.990.8538%
Peter Forsberg7087086501.711.0738%
Norm Ullman11425974721.030.9938%
Steven Stamkos5865775671.110.9237%
Phil Esposito12826183651.281.2537%
Doug Mohns6493878880.890.8637%
Anze Kopitar8404866581.140.9337%
Eric Staal10115069690.990.9237%
Pat Lafontaine8655267631.070.9537%
Zigmund Palffy6845974601.230.8037%
Dany Heatley8695272631.130.9037%
Gilbert Perreault11915167621.081.1336%
Martin St. Louis11345571681.050.8636%
Steve Yzerman15145673621.181.0936%
Peter Stastny9775269641.070.9736%
Alexei Yashin8505166670.980.9136%
Jarome Iginla15545165601.080.9136%
Gordie Howe9216082641.270.8536%
Alex Delvecchio10175275701.080.9236%
Theoren Fleury10845371601.191.0036%
Mike Modano14995064571.131.0636%
Mike Bossy7526480441.801.1736%
Ryan Getzlaf8615370521.350.9836%
Keith Tkachuk12015168611.110.8736%
Tyler Bozak5133963730.860.9236%
Matt Duchene5724963700.900.8636%
Teemu Selanne14515370571.230.8735%
[TBODY] [/TBODY]


Kopitar gives up a slight bit in offensive value to Modano but he's miles better defensively (MM wasn't bad, Kopi is just that much superior). And Anze has a pair of Cups, both times he could have easily won the Smythe, leading the entire playoffs in scoring.

Either way, Chicago is better at C, no question about that. At least offensively speaking. Part of that is Chicago going offensive only at 3C and more 2 way at the 4 spot whereas I went 2 way at 3 and defensive only at 4. Mikita-Getzlaf produce just as much offensive value as Crosby-Schmidt if comparing 7 year VsX scores. Obviously Schmidt is the superior overall player though to Getzlaf.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
Soft may have been the wrong word for Quackenbush, I agree that he has good defensive positioning as you have stated, but he will bring absolutely nothing in terms of protection for Orr, which I feel is something Orr needs from his partner, that was my point. Stewart would have done this. Guys like Lindsay, Schmidt, and Broadbent will be taking shots at Orr.

The statistics you're using above for the Modano comparison are career stats. Of course he's at a large disadvantage as a player who played well past his prime when comparing to 2 players whose careers have not yet passed their primes and have over 600 fewer games played each.

Modano has proved himself a big game performer as well. In the same light as Kopitar and playing a similar role, Modano could have easily won the Smythe in 99 (Belfour also), and had another great run the following year when they lost to NJ in the Finals.

Let's also not forget that Milt Schmidt is almost surely underrated by his vs.X score as he missed time for WWII right in the middle of his prime, and was among the league's best both before and after the War.
 
Last edited:

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Soft may have been the wrong word for Quackenbush, I agree that he has good defensive positioning as you have stated, but he will bring absolutely nothing in terms of protection for Orr, which I feel is something Orr needs from his partner, that was my point. Stewart would have done this.

The statistics you're using above for the Modano comparison are career stats. Of course he's at a large disadvantage as a player who played well past his prime when comparing to 2 players whose careers have not yet passed their primes and have over 600 fewer games played.

Modano has proved himself a big game performer as well. In the same light as Kopitar and playing a similar role, Modano could have easily won the Smythe in 99 (Belfour also), and had another great run the following year when they lost to NJ in the Finals.

Let's also not forget that Milt Schmidt is almost surely underrated by his vs.X score as he missed time for WWII right in the middle of his prime, and was among the league's best both before and after the War.


Why does the defensive partner need to be the one to protect Orr? There are 3 F's on the ice with them. Busher Jackson was an aggressive player who dropped the gloves more than a few times. Bill Cook was one of the more feared physical players of his day. Boucher could certainly be counted on to come to the aid of a teammate.

I think in a best of 7 game format teams are going to be far less inclined to cross over into the major penalty territory. I actually don't see many players on either roster that will be spending a ton of time in the box anyway.

I think Modano is a fine player. Good in the postseason, solid 2 way ability. I just happen to think when you put him next to Getzlaf and Kopitar there isn't much separating them in terms of career value. But we're talking about your 4th C and my 2nd and 3rd line guys. It's obvious you have the edge at C on the whole.

And you are right about Schmidt. He probably would be a few points higher in terms of offensive value had WWII not occurred or players not missed significant time. But just based on offensive output I still don't think there is any gap at all with Mikita-Getzlaf vs Crosby-Schmidt. Both of our top 2 C's have excellent W's to ride with. Hull and Selanne are equals all time IMO (i prefer Hull slightly because he was much better in the postseason and his 7 and 10 year goal scoring VsX is actually quite a bit higher than Selanne which is saying something), Lindsay is superior to Jackson, Cook beats Martinec pretty handedly and given Joe Malone is playing his secondary position at LW (only played 1 full year there IIRC) I don't see a whole lot of difference between he and Michel Goulet. Malone gives you more scoring punch but he's also a one way player as far as i can tell.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
I don't at all agree with your statement that there is no gap between Crosby-Schmidt and Mikita-Getzlaf offensively. After making the necessary adjustments it is clear that Crosby- Schmidt are better. 7yr scores as they stand are:

Mikita: 107.8
Crosby: 102.4
Schmidt: 86.9
Getzlaf: 83.7

C-S: 189.3
M-G: 191.5

Only 2 points apart and that is before the following is factored in:

1. The previously mentioned underrating of Schimdt's vs.X score due to WWII

2. Crosby's offense is underrated by the vs.X metric due to his injury history. Looking at per game vs.X Crosby is ahead of Mikita in 3, 5, 7, and 10 yr scores.

3. Because Bobby Hull played on a separate line, Mikita was usually not facing top D pairings/checkers, which likely inflated his scoring somewhat.

Does anyone really think Mikita was a better offensive player than Crosby? I sure don't.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Add the fact that the Chicago stars of the 60s saw more ice time than stars on the other good teams, and that 60s Chicago was the closest thing to a run-and-gun team that the Original 6 era saw.

I think the statement that Mikita/Getzlaf is equal to Crosby/Schmidt offensively is indeed a ridiculous claim. Even though I think Schmidt does tend to get overrated around here at times.*

*I really see very little case that Schmidt was as good or even better than Henri Richard, but that's an argument for the HOH Top Centers project, not here.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
Add the fact that the Chicago stars of the 60s saw more ice time than stars on the other good teams, and that 60s Chicago was the closest thing to a run-and-gun team that the Original 6 era saw.

I think the statement that Mikita/Getzlaf is equal to Crosby/Schmidt offensively is indeed a ridiculous claim. Even though I think Schmidt does tend to get overrated around here at times.*

*I really see very little case that Schmidt was as good or even better than Henri Richard, but that's an argument for the HOH Top Centers project, not here.

I have no problem with this statement, in fact, Schmidt finished 1 spot behind Richard in that project, but maybe you're saying he should've been lower? Or maybe that this particular one spot gap is larger than a lot of the other one spot gaps between other centers, which I would also agree with. IMO the next candidates are Dionne/Malkin/Forsberg.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
I don't at all agree with your statement that there is no gap between Crosby-Schmidt and Mikita-Getzlaf offensively. After making the necessary adjustments it is clear that Crosby- Schmidt are better. 7yr scores as they stand are:

Mikita: 107.8
Crosby: 102.4
Schmidt: 86.9
Getzlaf: 83.7

C-S: 189.3
M-G: 191.5

Only 2 points apart and that is before the following is factored in:

1. The previously mentioned underrating of Schimdt's vs.X score due to WWII

2. Crosby's offense is underrated by the vs.X metric due to his injury history. Looking at per game vs.X Crosby is ahead of Mikita in 3, 5, 7, and 10 yr scores.

3. Because Bobby Hull played on a separate line, Mikita was usually not facing top D pairings/checkers, which likely inflated his scoring somewhat.

Does anyone really think Mikita was a better offensive player than Crosby? I sure don't.



1. That is a hypothetical. Even if I agree with you somewhat, Schmidt can't be given credit for seasons he never had.

2. Again, hypothetical. I'm as big a Crosby fan as you'll ever find, but like Mario Lemieux, we can't give a boost to maybes and what ifs.

3. Mikita also produced with what I'd call sub par wingers most of his career (like Crosby btw) relative to what other star C's of the time period were skating with. He was also going up against 06 defenses the first half of his career which would have presented more consistent obstruction to scoring unlike today when the league features numerous bottom feeding teams to beat up on IMO. League scoring averages were pretty similar as well from the 60's compared to today.

I think Mikita was every bit the offensive power Crosby was.

Scoring finishings

Mikita - 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4
Crosby - 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 6, 10

-Mikita comes out on top IMO, although yes, that would be a different story if Sid hadn't lost 2010 and the 2012 seasons. He'd easily have 4 Art Ross's to tie Mikita. But again, that is what if.

Assists:

Mikita - 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8
Crosby - 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9

-Mikita pretty much owns Sid here. Even if you were to transfer one or two of those low hanging fruit years from Sid into a top 3, he's not really THAT close to Mikita as a play maker.

Goals:

Mikita - 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Crosby - 1, 1, 7, 7,

-Crosby wins on peak, but depth goes to Mikita.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Add the fact that the Chicago stars of the 60s saw more ice time than stars on the other good teams, and that 60s Chicago was the closest thing to a run-and-gun team that the Original 6 era saw.

I think the statement that Mikita/Getzlaf is equal to Crosby/Schmidt offensively is indeed a ridiculous claim. Even though I think Schmidt does tend to get overrated around here at times.*

*I really see very little case that Schmidt was as good or even better than Henri Richard, but that's an argument for the HOH Top Centers project, not here.


Using VsX as a barometer, why is that ridiculous?

Mikita 107.8
Crosby 102.4

Schmidt 86.9
Getzlaf 83.7

-Even if we were to bump Schmidt up into the mid 90's (which is pure speculation) that would be a very minor difference in favor of Chicago. Chicago has an advantage at C if comparing these pairs, but it's not in large part because of offense. Unless of course you don't believe Mikita that good and/or Getzlaf overrated.

How domiant offensively was Schmidt? One Art Ross. 4 times in the top 10 in scoring. Getzlaf 3 times in the top 10 (with a 2nd place). Yes, Schmidt missed time due to WWII. So did many other stars of the era. Schmidt was the better player because I think he was an all around force, whereas somebody like Getzlaf, while not far off offensively is further behind in terms of defensive play, face offs, and ruggedness.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
I can't believe experienced GMs still make arguments like this.

Missing time due to the breakout of a world war is a lot different than missing time due to injuries.

Are you serious?

Missing time is missing time. :laugh: So now we're back to picking and choosing which time missed is eligible to be theoretically corrected. Yeah, I'm experienced and I find trying to make the argument you're making is absurd. Like, very absurd.

You're telling me Milt Schmidt should get more credit for entire seasons he missed, rather than Crosby who in 2010 (half a season) was on pace for 132 points and 64 goals? Injury vs war. We actually have data for Crosby that year, 41 games worth. We have no bleeping idea about Schmidt other than to look at his time before and after the war and say, "well he probably would have been a top 3 scorer those years". Crosby would have surely won the Art Ross and Richard in 2010-11 but guess what? We don't give him credit for those awards. And why? Well that's been answered time and time again around here.

You're only argument to this line of thinking would be to say that Schmidt had no choice to miss time because of the war. But then again, why can't I say the same thing about somebody like Crosby? Do you think players set out to be injured or want to miss time due to legit/freak injuries? Was Crosby injured those seasons because he was brittle? Um, nope. Very borderline hit by Steckel coupled with a massive boarding a few days later by Victor Hedman and Sid misses a year. Then in 2012-13 he gets taken out by a slap shot to the face by his own guy. Neither of those situations have anything to do with a player missing time other than abnormal occurances. Same thing with world war. Abnormal occurance.

We simply cannot project one and not the other. IMO.

Edit: Which is precisely why we don't project seasons (whole or otherwise) here.
 
Last edited:

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
And lastly, I honestly don't care to make much more about the injury/war time issue. This is a mini draft. And I've already been quite clear that Chicago enjoys a strong advantage at C. My only contention was the offensive "gap" that allegedly exists (comparing top 2 C's), when looking at the raw numbers or something like VsX, doesn't really exist IMO. If it does, it requires projection for Schmidt and even then there wouldn't be much of a points gap anyway....
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
A few things:

1) Durability is a physical quality of a hockey player and getting injured has something to do with that quality. Having a world war break out has nothing to do with a player's quality as a hockey player.
2) The Kraut Line were the first NHL players to volunteer to join the war effort (Did they feel they had something to prove as men of German heritage?). How does that make them worse offensive players?
3) Injuries happen in the fantasy realm of the ATD and players must be evaluated accordingly. Should we also assume that a World War will break out and that only players who actually played in the 1940s will volunteer (or be drafted) to fight in that war? You're putting 1940s players at a severe disadvantage with that assumption.
4) The HOH Top Players lists, ATD, and basically every historical canon CLEARLY give players who missed PRIME years due to WW2 at least some benefit of the doubt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
A few things:

1) Durability is a physical quality of a hockey player and getting injured has something to do with that quality. Having a world war break out has nothing to do with a player's quality as a hockey player.
2) The Kraut Line were the first NHL players to volunteer to join the war effort (Did they feel they had something to prove as men of German heritage?). How does that make them worse offensive players?
3) Injuries happen in the fantasy realm of the ATD and players must be evaluated accordingly. Should we also assume that a World War will break out and that only players who actually played in the 1940s will volunteer (or be drafted) to fight in that war? You're putting 1940s players at a severe disadvantage with that assumption.
4) The HOH Top Players lists, ATD, and basically every historical canon CLEARLY give players who missed PRIME years due to WW2 at least some benefit of the doubt.



1. Yeah, no. That is completely subjective and you know it. Especially somebody like you. Pulling hamstrings or tearing a knee up is not the same thing as being taken out of a game by a predatory hit or taking a slap shot to the jaw. There IS a difference. If we're going to project entire bleeping seasons for war time missed, then we sure as hell better give Crosby the Hart and Art Ross for 2010-2011 given he surely would have hit 120-130 points and 55-60 goals at a minimum given we have half a season worth of data to go off of, which is more than 1943-45 when guys missed multiple seasons in their entirity. Crosby was averaging 1.61 points per game at 41 games in 2010-11. Even IF he fell off the map to the tune of 1 point per the rest of the season he would have still won the Art Ross. And the Richard as well given Perry scored 50 and Sid already had 32 in 41 games. I personally think if projecting, Crosby would get more credit for that half season than any Schmidt missed during WWII. But that's me and based on actual data for the season in question. We're not talking 5-10 game samples here.

2. That has absolutely nothing to do with the argument. Nothing. It's trivia. Schmidt's VsX is what it is. Where would it be had he played those years? Please by all means, bump it up to where you think it should be. As I said above, unless you're putting 10-15 or more VsC points on Schmidt the difference in overall offensive output between the top 2 C's is next to nil. That's all I argued. Not that my C's were anywhere near Chicago's in terms of ability or class (at least 2-4 anyway).

3. Not really. How often are people voting based on injury history? I mean why draft somebody like Forsberg who missed time at every turn seemingly. How often are people going into the series threads and saying, "well Forsberg missed x number of games so he'll have to sit out 2 of the 7 in this series"....it's nonsense. And again, injuries don't always mean a player was fragile. Some guys played like lunatics (Forsberg) and paid for it. Some guys (Crosby) have largely missed their time due to predatory hits or freak occurances.

4. OK. I don't agree with that mindset. Because, again, time missed is time missed. I've already destroyed the narrative that injuries are all one in the same. Unless you are going to break down every injury that every player ever had and how he got it, I don't see quality control in projecting totals for them, just as I don't see projecting totals for WWII. It's literally fantasy, regardless of the scenario.


Either way, I think this comes down to whether people think Chicago's advantage at F and G is enough to overcome the advantage at D and behind the bench for Ottawa. I think positionally the biggest gaps are at C (Chicago favored) and on D, especially the top 2 pair (favor Ottawa). Roy is a solid win over Tretiak but certainly not something we saw this past ATD when Bernie Parent bested Roy head to head. And Tretiak is far better than the 2 year wonder Parent...IMO.

Ottawa won't be in the box much ever based on historical evidence of the roster, so this series comes down to even strength more than anything and I like the ability of Ottawa to control the pace and overall flow of the game with Orr/Harvey on the back end. Basically most of the game you'll have one (or both) or the other on the ice. As Macho Man said earlier, Orr and Harvey on the same team and seperate pairings (with partners that fit well) creates multiple serious challenges for any team. I said before, offensively Chicago is better at F. I think Ottawa is much superior in defensive play down the middle of the lineup and on the blue line. And given the big advantage Ottawa has in offensive ability from the back end that gap that does exist at F is minimized. Plus where is the transition coming from for Chicago when Coffey isn't playing? A draft this size doesn't bode well for Vasiliev, Horton and Conacher as far as puck moving ability goes. Ottawa doesn't have this problem to worry about with Orr, Harvey, Quack and Boucher + Patrick on the 3rd pair.

It's a good series. Interesting contrast in teams. And I'm always glad to go up against quality folk like HT.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
We've been over this...vs.X is a season length metric, if a player blows away the competition for half a season and then gets injured vs.X gives him little to no credit for being the best offensive player for half a season, which is a substantial achievement. I never said Crosby should get credit for a full season, but he surely should get something, therefore, vs.X is underrating Crosby. This is illustrated by looking at the per game metric I previously mentioned for which he outperforms Mikita.

Losing games to injury (especially chronic injury) is a result of one or a combination of the following:
1. A playing style that puts a player in more injury prone situations
2. A physical limitation/weakness/defect in their body. This could be naturally occurring, could be because the player isn't taking care of their body as they should, or a combination of the two.

Both of the above are things which we regularly judge/rank players on. Playing style is a huge factor on what makes some players better than other. Physical abilities are another huge factor.


Losing games to fight for your country is a result of a player's duty to do so, whether that be caused by morals, patriotism, or legal requirement. This is a unique situation that most players throughout hockey history were not faced with. The above causes are not the same factors in which we regularly judge/rank players.


You are correct that we don't know how Milt Schmidt and the Kraut line would have done if they hadn't gone to War. We also don't know what would happen if Howie Morenz played at the same time as Jean Beliveau (it's hypothetical), most of the ATD is trying to make as accurate assessments/educated guesses as possible based on the information we have. You seem to have taken the attitude that if we can’t know exactly how Schmidt would have done then he shouldn’t get anything at all. Do you really think that giving Milt Schmidt zero credit for those War years is the most accurate assessment of what would have actually happened? I do not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
We've been over this...vs.X is a season length metric, if a player blows away the competition for half a season and then gets injured vs.X gives him little to no credit for being the best offensive player for half a season, which is a substantial achievement. I never said Crosby should get credit for a full season, but he surely should get something, therefore, vs.X is underrating Crosby. This is illustrated by looking at the per game metric I previously mentioned for which he outperforms Mikita.

Losing games to injury (especially chronic injury) is a result of one or a combination of the following:
1. A playing style that puts a player in more injury prone situations
2. A physical limitation/weakness/defect in their body. This could be naturally occurring, could be because the player isn't taking care of their body as they should, or a combination of the two.

Both of the above are things which we regularly judge/rank players on. Playing style is a huge factor on what makes some players better than other. Physical abilities are another huge factor.


Losing games to fight for your country is a result of a player's duty to do so, whether that be caused by morals, patriotism, or legal requirement. This is a unique situation that most players throughout hockey history were not faced with. The above causes are not the same factors in which we regularly judge/rank players.


You are correct that we don't know how Milt Schmidt and the Kraut line would have done if they hadn't gone to War. We also don't know what would happen if Howie Morenz played at the same time as Jean Beliveau (it's hypothetical), most of the ATD is trying to make as accurate assessments/educated guesses as possible based on the information we have. You seem to have taken the attitude that if we can’t know exactly how Schmidt would have done then he shouldn’t get anything at all. Do you really think that giving Milt Schmidt zero credit for those War years is the most accurate assessment of what would have actually happened? I do not.

1. Even if you give some credit to Crosby for his time missed, he doesn't really get out ahead of Mikita. Mikita's scoring finishes are elite all time. Even if you gave Sid 2 more Art Ross's he still only matches Mikita there and both have quality in terms of depth. Even Mikita bests Sid in goal scoring when looking at VsX although there I would give Sid a bump because he probably lost a 60 goal season in 2011. Certainly well into the 50's IMO. And again, I'm a Pens/Crosby diehard. I think he's the undisputed best player of the post lockout generation. I just don't subscribe to him being better than Mikita as an offensive player. I have Crosby ahead of Mikita by a few spots all time, but that is largely based on Sid's postseason resume being stronger both individually and team wise (not that Mikita was lacking there, just simply wasn't as impressive as 87).

2. I disagree with you somewhat on how players get injured. Playing style or limitations literally had nothing to do with Crosby getting hit with a Brooks Orpik slap shot 8 feet wide of the net and about 5 and half foot off the ice. Literally nothing you mentioned played a part in Sid losing an Art Ross and Hart. Sid's work ethic is legendary. He simply was in the exact wrong place at the exact wrong time. These types of injuries do happen and it sucks. I bring that scenario up because we can clearly see that injuries are not black and white and do not always mean a player is soft or brittle or even injury prone.

3. You (and TDMM) are right going to war is not literally the same thing as breaking a leg in the course of a game. BUT, projecting numbers is speculation. And speculation can be dangerous. Unless somebody can clearly show that Schmidt would be say a 97-100 in the 7 year VsX then there is literally nothing to argue about in terms of offensive ability between our scoring line C's. We know Mikita and Crosby bring. We know what Getzlaf brings. We know what MS brings. With what we know, there is literally no difference. You have to project MS significantly for there to be any substantial difference in historical output. That doesn't mean I'm saying that the 2 pairs are equal in terms of class. Clearly Schmidt is superior to Getzlaf.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
A 7 year standard for VsX is relatively arbitrary. 7 years was chosen as a proxy for the average length prime in the pre-expansion era.

But if 7 years is the average lengthed prime, and 2-4 of those years for THE MAJORITY OF THAT GENERATION'S PLAYERS are taken by a war that takes precedence over hockey, it isn't always fair to hold the players of that generation to a 7 year standard.

It's hard to know what to do with players like Ken Reardon who were nobodies on one side of the war and stars on the other side.

But guys like Milt Schmidt, Syl Apps, Sid Abel, and Jack Stewart who were stars both before and after the war - the safest assumption is to assume they would have likely been stars during the war years, had they been allowed to play.
 
Last edited:

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
Plus where is the transition coming from for Chicago when Coffey isn't playing? A draft this size doesn't bode well for Vasiliev, Horton and Conacher as far as puck moving ability goes. Ottawa doesn't have this problem to worry about with Orr, Harvey, Quack and Boucher + Patrick on the 3rd pair.

Horton had the reputation of being a defensive defenseman around here for a while, perhaps because he had such a strong reputation of being difficult to play against, but during the HOH Top Dman Project, it was uncovered that he actually had quite the offensive game. Sprague Cleghorn's 2017 bio has some good info on this: ATD 2017

Horton was not simply a stay at home defenseman. Two-way D would be the more appropriate term

Joe Pelletier said:
An excellent skater, Tim had good rushing ability
Legends of Hockey said:
Horton was paired with Allan Stanley on defense through the sixties. In the case of Stanley and Horton, Stanley was the more defensive-minded of the duo, while Tim had more offensive prowess.

Legends of Hockey said:
Stanley's solid play allowed Horton to take a few more chances carrying the puck, knowing he had the speed to recover should he lose possession and that Stanley would be there to back him up.​

NHL.com said:
Not only could Horton stop opponents, he could also lead the rush, something unusual for a defenseman at that time.​

Legends of Hockey said:
Coach Punch Imlach moved Horton to the right wing on a line with George Armstron and Red Kelly, another defenseman turned forward.​

Frank Mahovlich said:
He was a great defensive defenceman but he could also carry the puck up the ice.​

NHL.com said:
With three goals and 13 assists in 12 postseason games, he led the Maple Leafs in scoring and set a record for most points by a defenseman in one playoff year.


Top-10 Scoring finishes among defensemen in the regular season:
3rd (1962), 3rd (1965), 4th (1954), 4th (1960), 5th (1964), 6th (1959), 6th (1966), 6th (1969), 7th (1957), 7th (1958), 7th (1963), 8th (1967), 10th (1961)



Vasiliev is a similar type of player to Horton in that he has the reputation of being very difficult to play against, tough, physical, but I don't think he has the rushing game Horton does. He does seem to be known as a good passer though.

Soviet League Scoring:
Among Soviet Defensemen: 1st(1974), 1st(1976), 2nd(1970), 3rd(1975), 3rd(1977), 3rd(1979), 4th(1973), 4th(1980), 4th(1969), 4th(1971), 4th(1982), 5th(1972), 5th(1978), 5th(1983), 5th(1984), 6th(1968), 7th(1981)

*When viewing these scoring finishes remember that Vasiliev did not play for the powerhouse Red Army Team, he played for Dynamo.

“He was a slick skater and passer, but also known for his physical play†– A September to Remember

“He is acknowledged as one of the major pillars of the Soviet National Team. Vasiliev is said to be one of the strongest players in hockey, which obviously helps him out in the close checking, but he’s also quite good at starting the attack with a quick pass, or even the occasional rush.†-- YouTube video

Summitseries1972.com said:
Valeri Vasiliev was a slick skater and passer, but also known for his physical play, which was sometimes frowned upon back in the Russian leagues. That opinion seemed to change after 1972.


Final Thoughts
To be clear, these guys aren't going to drive offense like an Orr or Coffey or even a Leetch, but I really see no problem with them being able to transition the puck up to Chicago's forwards, and they're going to be absolutely miserable to play against for opposing forwards (and rushing defensemen;)).​
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,807
Oblivion Express
Agree with the above on Horton and Vasi. They're capable puck movers, but I think would be more prone to getting hemmed in if we're comparing our top units. I've got some very aggressive players in the top 6 (Cook, Jackson, Mikita with really only Hull not fitting that mold at all). Obviously Tonelli is one of the all time greater corner men as well.

As I said earlier to counter your position of aggresively forechecking Ottawa, I think when you have Orr, Harvey and Boucher (and Patrick) as your puck movers, you're going to outclass, more often than not, a team trying to dump and chase. No F group is going to outskate my Dmen on the whole. I think that's just pure ability and historically accurate.

I think Ottawa is better equipped to slow down an offense when you look at us defensively down the middle at C and then on the blue line. Chicago is superior offensively at F but Ottawa much more so from the blue line and I think we have a clear advantage defensively at both F and D. While your C's are stronger offensively than mine, I also have multiple high end defensive C's that can counter some of that gap IMO. Kopi and Poulin are better equipped to slow down C's than anyone on Chicago's roster IMO.

And to be honest I'm not a fan of Fred Shero. His career more or less is based on 2 years and a very violent style of hockey (ironically including the art of the dive) that was sort of a one way street and short lived on the whole. I think Blake and his ability to adapt styles to his oppenents is a big factor that I hope voters will consider.
 

Hawkey Town 18

Registered User
Jun 29, 2009
8,244
1,631
Chicago, IL
And to be honest I'm not a fan of Fred Shero. His career more or less is based on 2 years and a very violent style of hockey (ironically including the art of the dive) that was sort of a one way street and short lived on the whole. I think Blake and his ability to adapt styles to his oppenents is a big factor that I hope voters will consider.

I'm surprised to see this from an experienced GM about a coach who regularly gets drafted as a top 10-ish coach in the ATD. Shero coached in the NHL for 10 years, went to 4 Cup Finals with 2 different teams, won his division in the regular season 4 times, won a Jack Adams trophy, finished runner-up for the Jack Adams with a different team (this was his first year with the Rangers, they had an 18 point improvement from the previous year). And on top of all of that, he was a great innovator, there are several examples in the following bio...Fred Shero - ATD 2011


Here's one innovation that's particularly relevant to this series...

It wasn’t the first time that Shero had done the unconventional. In 1974, when the Flyers won their first Cup by defeating Boston, Shero told his players to allow Bobby Orr to have the puck in his own end. It was risky. “No one had ever used that approach before,” Clarke recalled. “It wasn’t so much let Orr have the puck, as every time you had it, throw it into his corner and make Orr skate back hard for it. Freddy knew it was going to be a long series and Orr would play 30-35 minutes a game. Every time we got it, we throw it into his corner, make him skate back hard, and if you got there in time, hit him. I don’t know if it took a toll on him. The fifth game, they beat us and he was by far the best player on the ice. But the sixth game here, he wasn’t quite the factor he was in some other games. And we had Bernie [Parent], too.”​
Guess we'll have to settle for Patrick Roy instead :sarcasm:
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->