Oh man. I think this is the longest post in the history of the drafts.
Worters? Sure, but I've got Al Rollins. You know the guy who won the Vezina and Stanley Cup in 51, was the runner-up for the Hart and got the hapless, he faced 38 shots a night, Hawks to the playoffs and took the Canadiens to 7 games in 53, and won the Hart with the last place Hawks in 54. When he left the Hawks, and they added Glenn Hall, Ted Lindsay and Bobby Hull the team only improved 8 points in the standings. He might not have played 20 years, but he is a more than capable backup.
The problem with Rollins is that he has virtually no playoff experience. He didn’t win the Stanley Cup as a starter in 1951, Turk Broda was the #1 goalie. Broda started more games, had more wins, a better win percentage, more shutouts and a better goals-against average. Rollins only played 13 playoff games in his entire career. He was the sole starter for just one playoff series in his career (and he lost in the first round). Clearly Rollins played for some bad teams, but the lack of playoff experience is a huge negative, especially when going up against a team of proven playoff vets like Howe, Gilmour, Cleghorn, etc. Also, even though Rollins won the Hart in 1954, he didn’t even make the first or second all-star team. Clearly, the Hart voters liked Rollins a lot, but the all-star voters didn’t even think he was one of the top two goalies.
On the other hand, Gump Worsley is a very strong backup. He was the starting goalie on three Stanley Cup champions (and was a backup for one more). Worsley led the playoffs in goals against average and save percentage in each of his three Stanley Cup victories, so he was a huge contributor.
Also with Marty in nets, my D is saved a lot of wear with his dumping pucks out or directing them to defenders for the quick clear.
What if injuries strike? I have Doug Mohns and Lester Patrick waiting in the wings. Montreal has Ted Harris and Hooley Smith. That's quite a sizable edge for me.
Injuries and wear-and-tear shouldn’t be a huge factor for my team. I had a bye in the first round and have only played 15 games so far. None of the series have gone to seven games. My players should be reasonably healthy. Besides, my Big Three are among the most durable players in NHL history. Chelios was averaging close to 30 minutes per game in his mid-30’s. Now he’s in his mid-40’s, has played over 1,500 games, and is still going strong. Cleghorn came from an era when top players were on the ice for over 40 minutes per game. Park played over 1,100 games at the NHL level and averaged close to 30 minutes per game. These guys, in their prime, can certainly handle 30 minutes per game over four rounds.
You mention Ramsay-Luce, but what about my second PK unit of Richard and Westfall. I'd rate that equal to anything Montreal can put on the ice. I would also have no problem throwing my #2 line against Howe and company. Olmstead was the regular shadow for Howe during the 50s for Montreal.
Olmstead shadowed Howe, but was he effective? Howe played against Olmstead’s team in the playoffs 1951, 1952, 1954, 1955, 1956, 1958, 1960 and 1961. During those years, Howe scored 78 points in 68 games. That puts him first in the league in that span, outscoring players like Geoffrion, Beliveau, Delvecchio, Richard and Lindsay. Howe set the single-season record for playoff points in 1955 and led the playoffs in scoring in 1955 and 1961. Clearly Howe was playing against more players than just Olmstead, but at the same time it doesn’t seem like Olmstead was really able to shut down Howe.
Luce/Ramsay were two of the top penalty killers of their era and I’ve already said they’re arguably the top PK pair in the draft. However, Smith, Prentice, Gilmour, Rousseau and Smyl were all excellent penalty-killers as well. You have the top pair, but I still have excellent top-end talent on the PK.
As for the advantage of the 3rd line, I don't see it. They might be a bit better but that's about it. Holik's size is unmatched in the series, and he's probably second only to Oates in the faceoff circle. Hextall is the best player of the 6, and Mohns is probably the fastest.
I wouldn’t mind a Prentice vs Hextall matchup. Prentice was one of the top defensive players of his day and used his speed, backchecking and smart positioning to shut down the top players in the league. Offensively, Prentice outscored Hextall (points per game and total points) in the playoffs, whether you use unadjusted numbers or Pnep’s adjusted numbers. Also, Prentice is far more likely to shutdown Hextall than vice-versa.
Smith vs Holik is a big advantage for me. Smith was a 2-time all-star and a 2-time Hart finalist. He was also a top-ten scorer four times, and finished as high as 4th in points (1933, 1936). Both Holik and Smith were excellent defensively (especially on the PK) and were tough, aggressive players. Holik is bigger, but Smith was more physical. I’ll admit that Smith’s production declined in the postseason (as he concentrated more on his defensive duties), but the same can be said about Holik’s offense. I see this as quite a big advantage for the Canadiens overall.
Mohns vs Rousseau is an interesting match-up. Mohns is extremely versatile and consistent, but Rousseau had the higher peak value. Mohns was never a year-end all-star and was a top ten scorer once (9th place, 1967). Rousseau was a year-end all-star in 1966, a top ten scorer three times (1964, 1966, 1967) and finished as high as second in scoring (to Bobby Hull). Rousseau was a top defensive/PK forward and Mohns was a natural defenseman, so I don’t see a big defensive edge going to either player. Overall I think my third line matches up quite favourable.
Howe may be the best forward by a fair margin, but based on best 3 year NHL production Hextall and Sakic are #2 & #3, and there's the wildcard of Nedomansky.
I’d argue that Gilmour is the third-best forward in the series, based on peak value. The only thing that prevented him from being MVP in 1993 was the best season of Lemieux’s career. Gilmour was the consensus #2 forward in the league (only after Lemieux) for a few years and matched great regular season performance with excellent playoff performance. Gilmour finished top five in Hart voting three times (more than any other forward in this series) and he led the playoffs in scoring in 1986 and was second only to Gretzky in 1993.
Hextall had great offensive numbers, but the best he ever finished in Hart voting was 5th place (accomplished only once). Since he had good offensive numbers but no support for the Hart, it implies that there were serious deficiencies elsewhere in his game. Also, Hextall may have won the Art Ross in 1942, but it looks like one of the least impressive victories ever. He won by just 2 points, and his closest competitors were Lynn Patrick, Don Grosso and Phil Watson, Sid Abel and Bill Thoms. Aside from Abel, that’s very weak competition compared to what Gilmour contended with. Also, Hextall’s numbers dropped significantly in the playoffs. 17 points in 37 games is not good enough for a top three forward in this series (especially in comparison to Bucyk or Gilmour). Hextall’s drop in production in playoff production is almost Dionne-esque.
Also, I’m not convinced that Nedomansky would be able to score nearly as much in the NHL/North American style of game our teams will play. Nedomansky played three seasons in the WHA, starting at age 30, so he still should be in his prime. However, he never made the top ten in scoring in any of those years. His best season at the NHL level was 74 points in the early 80’s. His numbers were solid, but that’s far from elite production (and far from being the #3 all-around forward in the series). I know Nedomansky would score more if he entered the NHL earlier, but this would be balanced out by the fact that he'd score significantly less in any era other than the early 80's.
Finally, let’s not underrate Johnny Bucyk. He was selected as one of the top 50 players by the Hockey News. The only higher-ranked left-wingers were Hull, Lindsay, Mahovlich and Moore. He was already a second-team all-star and a three-time top-ten scorer before Orr reached his prime.
I'll admit that Park/Cleghorn will out produce Shore/Stewart offensively, but I'd say I'll get more out of Kasatonov/White, than Montreal will of Chelios/Schoenfeld. My 3rd pairing might not have the numbers to dazzle you, but I'll point out that Lutchenko holds the single game record for Soviet defensemen with 4 goals against Sweden, and look at the stats for defensemen of the 30s & 40s HERE and Ott Heller rates pretty well. With Mohns in the lineup already I do have the instant offense option available without any roster tampering, and of course MacKay and Patrick do offer some pop of their own if needed.
Chelios’s best seasons were 73, 73 and 72 points and Schoenfeld’s best seasons were 36, 33 and 32 pts. White’s best seasons were 47, 38 and 38 points. Kasatanov came to the NHL at age 31 (presumably slightly past his prime) and peaked with 41 points. Even if we give Kasatanov a 50% premium, my #3/4 defensemen should still out-score yours.
I agree that Heller will score more than either of Persson or Huddy, but my top four, accounting for probably 90% of the ice time, will outscore yours, and are roughly as good defensively.
I'll point out that Persson in 102 career NHL playoff games scored only 1 non-PP goal, and I don't think Montreal can count on much PP production in this series, and his roster as a whole is more reliant on the PP for their points. Based the +/- raw stats of the years I have available Montreal has in 211 seasons had 58 players be on for over 40% PPGF/TGF, and 14 with over 50%, and an average of 31.9%. While NJ has in 132 seasons had 21 over 40%, and 5 over 50%, with an average of 25.2%.
First, Persson was an excellent playmaker and scored very few goals anyway. (7 playoff goals vs 50 assists). How many of his assists were on the powerplay?
Second, the PP stats you’re talking about have only been tracked since 1967-68. Howe played almost every year of his career before ‘68. Cleghorn retired by ‘68. Bucyk played most of his career by ‘68. Smith retired by ‘68. Rousseau retired by ‘68. Since the stats simply don’t exist for so many years for so many of my best players, the results are meaningless at best.
As I said I like my #2 against the Howe line as well. Olmstead has a good track record vs Howe. Richard can be relied on to give Oates a good workout. While Nedomansky might not be the guy you want to contain Kariya, but that probably goes double the other way. All in all it is a matchup that works for me, and might cause Ivan some trouble line matching.
I wouldn’t mind that matchup either. I’ve already shown earlier in this post that Howe put up monstrous numbers in the years he played against Olmstead. Howe is vastly superior offensively, a much more physical player, and they’re about even defensively.
Kariya/Nedomansky works in my favour. Kariya routinely contended for the Art Ross and scored over 100 points per season in the dead puck era. Nedomansky was unable to contend for the scoring title, or break 80 points, in the watered-down WHA or in the high-scoring NHL of the 1980’s. Obviously Nedomansky would score more if he played in North America when he was younger, but he’d have to overcome a huge deficit to catch up to Kariya.
I’ll agree that Richard is better than Oates, though. Both are excellent playmakers with good defensive games, but Richard gets the small advantage. Overall my advantage on both wings negates your advantage at centre.
Having the grit edge, while also taking a few less penalties I might add. Using pnep's adjusted playoff numbers from HERE I have the two lowest PIM/GP forward lines in my #2 & #4, while Montreal's #4 is the highest, while the rest of the teams are pretty even.
I disagree. I’m using the same numbers (PIM per GP from Pnep’s adjusted file). Your top line takes far more penalties than mine. Neely (1.80), Tonelli (1.25) and Sakic (0.48) average of 1.18 PIM per game, while Howe (1.21), Oates (0.38) and Kariya (0.24) average 0.61. That means my top line is half as likely to talk a penalty as yours.
Your second line has Olmstead (0.75), Richard (0.94) and Nedomansky (0.00 in just nine games). If we do a weighted average (because Olmstead and Richard have played hundreds more games than Nedomansky, it’s not reasonable to just average them), your line gets 0.84 PIM/game. A weighted average with Bucyk (0.35), Gilmour (1.26) and Bondra (0.76) results in 0.81 PIM/game, which is slightly better (ie less penalized) than your second line (though they’re so close they’re basically tied).
Let’s look at the defense, though, using those same numbers. The defenseman that takes the most penalties (PIM per GP) in the series is, by far, Eddie Shore. That’s bad news since he’s your top skater (forward or defense). In fact, Shore is the most penalized defender in the series by a 20% margin (2.16 PIM per game). Next closest is, surprisingly, Jim Schoenfeld at 1.80 PIM per game. Clearly, losing Shore is a far bigger blow than losing Schoenfeld.
Surprisingly (and I regret not noticing this earlier), Cleghorn almost never takes a penalty during the playoffs! His 0.34 PIM per game is actually the LOWEST of any defenseman in this series. All this talk about being him undisciplined is completely unfounded. It looks like Cleghorn actually does play smart, disciplined hockey when his team needs it.
Also, if we compare the top three, Chelios (1.74) takes less PIM than Shore (2.16), Park (1.26) takes less than Stewart (1.40) and Cleghorn (0.34) takes less than Kasatnov (1.03). Huddy, Persson and Cleghorn are the three least-penalized defensemen in the series.
The difference on D is that in the other series Montreal had the best defenseman as well as 3 of the top 4. Fetisov, Horton and Lapointe were the only challengers. In this case they can't match Shore, and are also challenged for #4 by Stewart and Kasatonov & White are well ahead of the rest for 6 & 7. The Big 3 isn't the clear edge it was against other teams.
First, there’s still quite a large gap between Stewart and my top three. Cleghorn is probably the weakest of my three, and he matches up favourably to Stewart. Cleghorn was runner-up for the Hart in 1924 and 1926 (something Stewart has never done) and would surely have won the Norris those two years if they existed. Stewart is violent and physical, and the same holds true for Cleghorn.
Second, in the previous series, GBC’s forwards were closer to mine. Howe was still the top forward in the series, but Lafleur was close at #2 and GBC clearly had the 3rd best forward with Mahovlich. In this series, Howe is the #1 forward by a wide margin and Gilmour in his prime, or Bucyk, gives me the #3 forward.
