Advantage at D: Slight Advantage to Pittsburgh
1st Pair:
Clutch. That's Pittsburgh's top pair. It's also superior to San Jose's for a couple of reasons.
First, I think Fetisov is very close to Shore all time. Shore gets a lot of mileage from a bit weaker 1930's era, especially when you consider contemporary competition among D. Would late 70's and early 80's domestic/international Russian hockey stick with 1930's NHL'ers? I'd have to think so by that period in Soviet hockey development and what they were doing best on best against the best NHL'ers.
Fetisov was more or less a legend for the USSR during much of his prime, going up against folks like Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque, etc and holding his own and sometimes even being the best player on the ice head to head. Gretzky himself called Fetisov the best Dman he ever played against and that would have included Bourque and Potvin.
The pendulum swings the most when it comes to Horton vs Gerard where Horton enjoys a solid advantage. Horton is comfortably a #2 in a 12 team draft whereas Gerard would be a much better #3 here. I think Gerard-Shore is a very good fit it's just a bit weaker overall and I think Pittsburgh's top pair is a good bit better defensively an as potent if not more so offensively to boot mainly because Horton could actually play some offensive brand of hockey when called upon.
Consider just how good Fetisov and Horton are all time on the international stage, best on best, and in the NHL playoffs.
Fetisov, of any international player who didn't get to play in the NHL (or did so in the post prime portion of their careere) playoff, is very likely the best big game player in history when it comes to playoffs/international head to heads. I think if you were to insert him in the NHL top 40 list done 2 years ago in a relative sense, he'd certainly be in the top 10, and can be argued top 5, IMHO.
USSR won 10 gold medals in 17 tournaments, and won a medal in 6 of the other 7.
Fetisov had 146 points in 143 senior games. Was a tournament AS defender 9 times. 5 times he was the Best Dman.
Fetisov and teammate Igor Larionov, along with Scott Niedermayer, Corey Perry, Joe Sakic, Patrice Bergeron, Sidney Crosby (another one of my players), and Jonathan Toews are the only players to win the "Grand Slam of Ice Hockey", winning the Stanley Cup, World Ice Hockey Champions, Ice Hockey at the Winter Olympics, World Ice Hockey Junior Championship, and Canada/World Cup Championship.
The man just dominates head to head against the best and delivers.
Horton was arguably the linchpin of the Leafs dynasty. Their coach thinks so.
According to Punch Imlach, "I think Horton, more than any other one player, was the key to those glory days."
He was on 4 Cup winners in 6 years (with 3 consecutive), where he scored 32 points in 48 games, was a +6.
I personally like Fetisov more in this environment. I think Fetisov was underrated (like most euro's) in the top 100 project. I absolutely believe he's in the Potvin/Kelly class and you can argue he's better than both, legitimately.
Eddie Shore played in an era that was pretty weak for contemporary competition at D. But more importantly Shore routinely fell short of his lofty regular season reputation. Boston as whole is thought by many to have underachieved given the talent they possessed.
Consider:
1927:
Boston loses in the Cup finals. Shore has 0 points in those 4 games and a ridiculous 24 penalty minutes.
1928:
Boston out in the semis. Once again, Shore 0 points in 2 games. 8 PIMs.
1929:
Boston wins the Cup, but in the finals, but Shore doesn't register a point and spends 8 minutes in the box. How valuable was he in this series if he spent nearly half a period not playing over 2 games?
1930 :
Boston a team that went 38-5-1, got swept in 2 games vs the underdog Montreal Canadians. Eddie Shore scored 1 goal in those 2 games but the number you want to focus on is 8. PIMs. Shore spent 8 minutes of valuable time in the box.
1931:
Repeating theme. Shore and Bruins are knocked out in the semi's by Montreal. Shore gets 3 points in the 5 game tilt but spends 22 minutes in the box. That's another 4 minutes per game average.
1932:
Missed the postseason.
1933:
Boston gets knocked out by Maple Leafs in 5. Shore posts 2 in 5 but when it comes to the sin bin, he's back in there a lot with 14 minutes.
1934:
Didn't make postseason
1935:
Boston again bounced in the semi's. Shore with 1 point in 4 games, but the opposing top line for Toronto goes off for 12 points in 4 games, a big amount for that time period. Shore manages to stay on the ice with just 2 PIMS.
1936
Boston bounced in the 1st round. Shore back to his bad ways with 12 minutes served in just 2 games. He did get 2 points in those 2 games but again, his lack of presence is clearly a pattern that doesn't help.
1937:
Didn't play.
1938
Boston out in the semi's. Shore with 1 assist in 3 games. Not to bad with 4 penalty minutes. But the opposing top players did well (Drillon, Apps).
1939
Boston finally wins a title over Toronto. Shore has 3 in 5 and from what little I've read had a strong finals. 6 Pims.
Totals:
In 34 eliminating series games, Shore put put 13 points which is not a bad number for a player at that time period. It's quite good. The problem is in those same 34 games, Shore spent 108 minutes in the box. During the 1 of the 2 Cup final series they did win Shore seemed to be little to no factor and was in the box a lot. He did finally post a strong run in 1939 but the overwhelming book on Shore is his temper and poor discipline led to being off the ice and not helping his team.
Overall, my top pairing is a tremendous fit, possess combined great offense and certainly elite defense. It's a nasty pair, without the lunatic who will be spending a lot of time sitting in the penalty box (Shore). I think it comes out on top both because there is a larger gap between Horton and Gerard than there is Shore/Fetisov (I really don't have one but most likely do have a small gap).
2nd pair:
Wash.
MacInnis could pass for a legit #2 with the right partner and here he's a 2nd pair guy for Pitt. He won a Smythe with an all time great run for the Flames in 89 when he led the playoffs in assists, points, and game winning goals.
He is more offensive oriented certainly but as he aged he developed into a pretty strong player in his own end, especially in St Louis where he had a late career resurgence winning a Norris and coming runner up another time. He's a player that adapted his game to the changing style of hockey from the late 80's/early 90's to the mid 90's and beyond. He's the best player on either pair.
I thought it was crazy to see at age 35, in 99 when they first started tracking on ice time, MacInnis was averaging 35 minutes a night over 13 games. He can take a few shifts with Fetisov certainly on the top pair, giving the heavy working Horton a slight breather now and then (not that he needed it given his legendary endurance).
I think Vasiliev is better than better overall player than Ching Johnson all things considered. Both are elite in their own end. Neither brings much offensive value although Johnson is even less. Salming makes for a very nice 3 in my book but he's pretty much non existent in the postseason (to be fair he played on some pretty meh Leaf teams). Both pairs fit well. Both pairs are physical. No glaring weaknesses that I can see.
For transparency sake, Ching Johnson wasn't quite as savage and was thought of as much less dirty next to Shore but he still racked up a good many PIM's in his time. The difference being Ching is my #4 so if he goes off the ice a few times it's less of an issue than losing a #1 (Shore).
3rd pair:
San Jose wins this because Coulter looks good anchoring a bottom pairing. He's a poor man's Ching Johnson with more offense and less defensive ability/impact. I think Zubov is the 2nd best player on either pair but a click below Coulter. Zubs certainly provides a nice offensive jolt and had a quiet yet very strong postseason career. Plus he's a stud on the PP. I think Wentworth and Schoenfeld are run of the mill #6's. Schoenfeld is a pure stay at home guy but was one of the very best at that when he played. He's an elite PK'er and actually played A TON of hockey at even strength in Buffalo. Like the 4th lines, these players aren't going to have big impacts but it's important to show objectivity.
Conclusion:
I think Pittsburgh edges out here again, as they do at F, mainly because of the top 4 who are going to be playing most of the game for both teams. Pittsburgh has one of the greatest big game players as their #1 (Fetisov), whereas San Jose is much further towards the opposite end of the spectrum with Shore. Even if you have Shore a touch above Fetisov, in a condensed, playoff environment the needle has to go Slava's way easily.
While I think Shore obviously holds an advantage in the regular season (Fetisov was a 2 time Soviet league MVP when I'd wager 1980's Soviet hockey could have easily ran toe to toe with 1930's NHL hockey) the gap between the 2 as postseason/best on best players is much more massive. I'd peg Fetisov a top 10 player all time in that regard, across all time hockey.
Horton was a very strong playoff performer. MacInnis didn't have many opportunities to go deep(er) but when he did, his performances were generally strong (84, 86) to elite (89). He was just under a point per game player for his career in the postseason. He'll generate offense certainly without being a black mark in the defensive zone.
As any TDMM team, San Jose's pairs are well thought out and good fits (2nd pair might be a touch light offensively). I simply think, like the F group, Pittsburgh is slightly ahead and has a collection of better big game players. A theme that I believe should push Blake's Professionals over the top.
