I think you are really trying to over-simplify this. You don’t just send a guy at Shore and he immediately takes a stupid penalty. Then, when he gets out of the box, you just do it again.
I’m not saying you can’t goad Shore into penalties - you clearly can. It’s just not something done as easily as you seem to think. Since you don’t have anyone on your who could naturally do this, it’s going to take a team effort and a game plan.
This as a game plan is going to take a significant amount of time and attention to execute. Your coach is going to have to alter his game plan to really make a target out of Shore. Your players are going to have to focus on Shore to an extent where they omit other aspects of the game.
In the 1930, Shore was good enough that this game plan was well worth it. On the ice, he was nearly unstoppable... so the best way to win was to take him off the ice.
Is he so good, in the context of this series, that you want to sacrifice large portions of your normal game to dedicate the time and focus necessary for this plan to work?
The first bolded part:
-And I think you're trying to, conversely, make a mountain out of a mole hill in terms of getting Shore to do stupid crap. We don't know exactly why or how he took so many penalties, especially in the playoffs (i posted this breakdown earlier in the thread).
What we do know for certain is he was prone to not being on the ice for large amounts of time, both regular and postseason. It doesn't get addressed enough when it comes to his all time standing.
And why? Because you still have people who think being a big bad ass, even if it's stupidly so, is a net positive. If that were the case, the Bruins would have had a lot more success. They didn't. He is one of the dirtiest, most penalized players, per game in the league's history. Certainly so among all time greats. And it cost Boston time and time again.
2nd bolded part:
-Saying I don't have a single player who was a physical beast in their time period is, well, outlandish. It's no different than BB, who hasn't been around in 2 weeks, finding 1/2 things that I got carried away with or glossed over from our series, which I readily admit, and then at the same time manufacturing crap I never said (like Fetisov being nearly as good as Harvey).
This is precisely why I call people out for wading into series that they aren't a part of, especially when the poster(s) are universally liking and siding with one GM. This happens often here, and generally speaking, with a select few people.
I don't think you're "targeting" me per say but what is happening is deflection away from
the simple reality and that is Shore is a very dirty player who is, by historical evidence, going to spend time in the box. More than my guys, certainly my impact players. And him being in the box hurts San Jose for obvious reasons. Who in my top 6 is going to be there as much? Is my #1 D going to be getting game misconducts? Horton? That's a likely no, and hell no.
Last bolded:
No. He's not worth the trouble. Why? One, because I have comparable #1 D (who's at worst 10 spots below Shore all time and that's a stretch), who I think is going to have a better series, because, quite frankly, he is miles better as a big game player. That really isn't an opinion, that's just reality based on pretty much every single opinion ever levied by anyone worth a darn around the HoH/ATD section.
BUT, if Toe Blake, again, who outclasses Ivan by a pretty big margin, wants to go that route, Tkachuk fits the bill perfectly. A true heavyweight, playing on a 4th line, who had a reputation for taking on anyone, anywhere, any time. He was a beast on the boards and in the slot, net front, etc. Post whistle scrum? Schoenfeld can bang and a #6 Dman is certainly worth losing if it means Shore goes off there or down the line.
As dumb as Shore was in this regard it could be simple speed and/pr fore checking up and down the 4 lines, which my team can certainly accomplish (Syd Howe, Forsberg, Madden, Alfredsson, Bourne, Tkachuk).
Either way, gooning it up and worrying about having a bunch of guys who can punch and act like neanderthals has never been my cup of tea as a GM. I'd much rather build a team with skill and discipline. And if I am going to target those types, they're going to be in roles like a 4th line LW or #6 Dman.
And, as I pointed out, I like my F group better. Because, in large part it fits what Blake did in real life, extremely well, is extremely versatile and poses many different looks, both game to game but shift to shift. I'm not shoehorned into running with stagnant lines where guys can only move up and down within their position (LW to LW, C to C). Not only that but I have 4 lines who can legitimately score, relative to their roles. Its wave attacks. How many 3rd lines have guys who are on the plus side of 80 in the Vsx? Same thing with the 4th line (actually Tkhacuk is a 79 but that's still fantastic).
Every line has at least one plus defensive player, the 3rd line you can say that across the board with Madden, Bentley, and Alfredsson. And the 4th line has Bourne with only Tkachuk being below average.
I think there should be no doubt that Richard, Crosby, Forsberg, Hull, Howe, Bourne is a better group of playoff F's than Howe, Kane, Kopitar, Anderson, and say Morenz/Taylor?
Richard>Howe,
Crosby>Kane,
Forsberg>>Kopitar,
Hull>Anderson.
I mean take away 1924 (which was pre consolidation btw) and where did Morenz play like a legend in the postseason? The back to back Cup years he had 1 point in 7 games. One damn point.
Shit, does Morenz even have a run outside of 1924 that is better than 1983 Bob Bourne?
Bourne had 28 points in 20 games, which led the Islanders, again on a team that featured Potvin, Trottier, and Bossy. In 20 games he was a +19 which was 2nd on the team (Potvin was a +20). 7 of his 8 goals came at even strength and the 8th was short handed. I'm guessing the majority of his 20 assists did as well given he wasn't a PP regular (more of a 2nd unit guy). And they swept the Oilers with Bourne having a pair of game winners in that series.
And then of course, as far as playoffs go among D, you have:
Fetisov>>>Shore.
Horton=Gerard.
MacInnis>>Salming.
I'll absolutely give you Vasiliev over Ching but it's not like Ching wasn't on multiple Cup winners and seemingly was a stalwart those years.
The only advantage he has is in net, and it's not like Brimsek wasn't good to fantastic more than he wasn't for Boston while losing 2 prime years to WWII. That's as evidenced by TDMM, you, and a few others who did bio's on Mr. Zero.
There is a lot of deflection against this particular narrative (playoff edge), and I'm not surprised. It has nothing to do with me being outlandish or trying to falsify history.
The first pair in an overall sense tilts to Pittsburgh favor for 2 prime reasons. One, the gap between Horton and Gerard is bigger than Shore to Fetisov. And secondly, my top pair is, on the whole a more steady defensive duo. Shore played stronger defense as his career progressed but he is not as good defensively as Fetisov, on the whole, IMO. Horton is an elite as was Gerard, but then again, Horton is the superior player.
MacInnis is the best player on either 2nd pairing but each team washes out because I think Vasi is a notch better than Ching Johnson overall.
His 3rd pair is superior but again, being superior there is less of a factor then being inferior on the top pairing. And again, I have to hammer this point, Shore is a liability in big games. He's the 2nd best San Jose player. Fetisov, my 3rd best player (behind Rocket and Sid) is not a liabilty. Literally the complete opposite.
So maybe Brodeur over Brimsek is enough to counter what I believe to be a solid edge behind the bench and slight advantages both at F/D for Pittsburgh.
I'm happy to have gotten this far. If i move on, great. If not, oh well, I lost to a great GM, a great roster and I must say a pretty damn good original team name.
If what I did is a "version of racism", then what are you? A version of snowflake?
