Okay, this one was written after an 18 hour day. I'm sure good portions of it are not coherent...
Mosienko
There’s no justification for writing off 1947 as a “war year†(when Mosienko finished in the top ten in goals, assists and points). The top ten scorers that season included Maurice Richard, Milt Schmidt, Max Bentley, Doug Bentley, Ted Kennedy, Roy Conacher and Bobby Bauer. Out of the top ten scorers that year, eight of them were Hall of Famers. Only Conacher had missed the majority of the 1946 season, so it’s not like these players were out of practice. This doesn’t even count players outside of the top ten (Toe Blake, Syl Apps and Sid Abel) who Mosienko also outscored. Mosienko finished 5-5-7-8-9-11-13-18 in scoring during his career.
You’re significantly underrating Mosienko’s competiton for all-star spots, as well. Between 1944 and 1952 (his nine-year prime), Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe earned a spot on 13 (of a possible 18) all-star berths. In fact, Mosienko was the only other RW with more than one all-star nod during that era.
Irvin/McKenney
I like McKenney; he was a two-way forward with a second-line scoring touch. However, there’s no comparison between him and Irvin, offensively, who was a dominant scorer in every league he played in. I think his legacy as a coach has overshadowed his legacy as a player.
Irvin’s first professional season was 1917. He played in the PCHA and finished one goal & three points behind San Francisco’s second-line LW Frank Foyston (both of whom were born a year apart, so it’s not like I’m comparing a prime Irvin to an aged Foyston). Irvin joined the Army, then tried out different leagues for a few years before returning to the pros (finishing 6th in scoring in 1922 and 7th in scoring in 1924 in the WCHL).
Irvin’s peak was in 1926 and 1927. He dominated two leagues (the WHL and NHL); he finished second in scoring both years, and was stuck behind Bill Cook both times. He led the WHL in goals, and led the NHL in assists the next year. Keep in mind that 1927 was the NHL’s first post-consolidation year which means he beat out every North American pro hockey player (ie Morenz, Boucher, Dye, Denneny, etc), aside from Cook.
Irvin was consistently recognized by the sportswriters of his era as a great player. In his first (and only healthy) NHL season, he finished 4th in Hart tropy voting. He was also a four-time year-end all-star (in the PCHA and WCHL/WHL). Stylistically, Irvin had “exceptional stickhandling abilityâ€. I’ll concede that his playoff record is minimal and that McKenney was a better defensive player but Irvin was clearly the more dominant scorer and was a routine all-star in every league he played in.
It’s also worth mentioning that Irvin and Foyston played in the same league for five years (1917 PCHA, 1925-26 WCHL, 1928-29 NHL). Keep in mind that these players were born one year apart, so it’s not like I’m comparing one in their prime to one past their prime. Anyway, Irvin scored 102 goals & 144 points in 136 games; Foyston scored 65 goals & 92 points in 127. Head-to-head, Irvin consistently outscored Foyston (though I concede Foyston’s peak was earlier in the PCHA). I'm not saying Irvin was definitely the better scorer -- I'm just showing that they were close when they played in the same seasons (and Hay, who we'll get to soon, was even better than Irvin), which provides tremendous scoring depth on the third line.
Hay
I should mention that George Hay is both an excellent scorer and a complete, two-way player. He stands out as the best player on the third line – he clearly tops McKenney’s offense and was praised for his defensive play. Offensively, Hay finished in the top five in scoring in the WCHL in 1922, 1923, 1924 and 1926. As soon as he transitioned to the NHL, he finished in the top ten in assists three consecutive seasons and peaked at 3rd in scoring 1928 (behind only the Morenz/Joliat duo, and ahead of Boucher, Stewart, Cook, etc). This clearly tops the offensive ability of Prentice (who cracked the top ten in scoring just once despite playing most of his career on Bathgate’s wing), Ellis, and McKenney (who had fewer years as a top scorer, and never cracked the top five).
Coach Jack Adams described him as a player who “could do everything†and was “always in condition, always on the job, always willing to play any positionâ€. Defensively, Hay was known for “combining speed and poise, aggressiveness and finesse, with unsurpassed mechanical ability†and was described as an “exceptional stickhandlerâ€. In terms of accolades, Hay was named to the WCHL first all-star team four times and was Hart finalist in 1928.
The presence of two consistent top-five scorers and perennial all-star/Hart candidates on my third line provides an advantage in depth. The comments above indicate that Irvin and (especially) Hay were disciplined two-way players. This means that they can receive ice time in critical situations without hurting the team defensively, and their game-breaking offensive ability could be the difference in a close game.
Irvin and Hay have the potential to be game-breakers offensively. Corbeau and Russell were solid skaters but would have a tough time containing this duo’s speed. Given that they both were top-ten scorers and Hart candidates as soon as the WCHL was consolidated in 1926, it would be impossible to dismiss them due to quality of competition concerns. The advantage in depth scoring will help my team obtain a lead that, as I've demonstrated earlier, will be very difficult to take back.
Hart/Gilmour
I posted those comments before I did my most recent analysis of
Hart trophy voting, which places emphasis on high-performing players. Gilmour received 0.70 Hart shares during his career while Savard received 0.30. Only once did Savard earn more than 10% of the maximum votes (1983); Gilmour did that three times (1987, 1993, 1994).
Chara
I disagree that Wentworth and Chara are “a washâ€. Outside of 1935, Wentworth accomplished little to suggest he’s a second-pair ATD defenseman. Chara was routinely considered an elite defenseman (finishing 7-2-4-NR-3 in Norris voting) while Wentworth has a single post-season all-star berth. Wentworth is described as an excellent defensive player; similarly, since they started keeping tracking of TOI, only Lidstrom and Pronger have logged more PK minutes than Chara.
Physical play
I don’t think I’ve emphasized my team’s advantage in physical play yet. The Spiders mostly have smaller forwards, some of whom will worn down by my team’s intense physical presence. Indeed, the biggest matchup in this series might be Vasiliev vs Maltsev. It’s evident that during the Summit Series, Maltsev was contained, especially at even strength, as he couldn’t find time or space due to the Canadians’ intense checking. Russian journalists noted that he as “disappointing†and was “intimidated by the strong bodychecks†(
source). Vasiliev was described as a “the most physical defenseman in Russian hockey history†and a “punishing hitter who loved the physical playâ€. Maltsev and Vasiliev were both terrific skaters with great acceleration, so Maltsev will not be able to consistently outscore my #1 defenseman. Vasiliev, a defensemen with toughness, speed, and a real mean streak, is a very difficult matchup for Maltsev.
More generally, my top defensive players (Marcotte, Sanderson, Vasiliev) will be able to use their tenacity and strength to wear down the Spiders smaller forwards. Sturminator himself has admitted that his team is not “physically dominant†and listed physical play as a “potential problem†(
source). Vasilev provides “seemingly effortless bodychecking†(
source) and was a "punishing hitter who loved the physical play". He was also described as "the toughest and most physical defenseman in Russian hockey history (
source)". Marcotte was “hard-hitting†(
source) and could “dish out bone-jarring hits†(
source). Sanderson was
“as tough as nails, a tremendous forechecker†(
source) and was “a tough guy who wouldn't back down from any fisticuffs and was likely the best two-way player in the game†(
source). I don’t think it’s necessary to elaborate on how tough and tenacious Tiikanen, Gilmour and Trottier were (or Chara could be, at times).
Although increasing physical play increases the propensity to take penalties, I've already established that I have an outstanding penalty killing unit (and besides most of my key defensive players are tough and clean - Marcotte, Howe & Hay averaged only 30 PIM per 82 games, Westfall averaged around 40, and Vasiliev averaged around 60 in the Soviet league).
More strategy
As I’ve mentioned before I will try to match the Trottier line against the Savard line. Sturm seems to want his forward to focus on the defensive deficiency of the right-hand side (Bure/Chara). However, focusing the attack on one side leaves the Spiders vulnerable to the Habs’ transitional offense. Chara’s partner Howe was one of the best rushing defensemen of is era; he had excellent acceleration and was a great playmaker. If the Spiders forwards are too deep in the offensive zone, a turnover could easily result in Howe setting up Bure or Trottier on a breakaway. Of course, Howe was a great rusher and could use his excellent speed to start an odd-man rush against the Spiders (Savard is the only player on the Spiders’ second line who could keep up with Howe and Bure’s speed, and he was indifferent defensively).
Although I’ve conceded that Bure is poor defensively, Sturminator has admitted that his second line is “below average defensively†(
source). I’ll concede that the trio of Trottier, Smith and Bure would also average out to below average defensively. Still, the benefits of letting Bure play wide-open hockey far exceeds the cost (Bure could very well lead this series in goals, especially since he’s being set up by a great playmaking centre and rushing defensemen… and although he will cause a few odd-man rushes against, Hasek was perhaps the greatest goalie in history at turning aside odd-man rushes. After all, he didn’t win consecutive Hart trophies playing behind Alexei Zhitnik as his #1 defenseman for nothing).
As I discussed at length earlier, I will use Vasiliev to contain Maltsev, which historical precedent suggests is the most plausible way to shut him down. They have the necessary combination of speed and aggressiveness that rendered Maltsev ineffective at the Summit Series. I’d expect the Sanderson/Westfall line to receive around 10 minutes of ice time per game, probably 4 on the PK and 6 at ES. Those six minutes will be used against the Sakic/Maltsev line. Using clearly the best defensive line in the series will help contain the Spiders’ strong top line.
For the remainder of the night, I will go for a Sakic/Gilmour matchup. This will provide continuous punishment for Maltsev (who will be checked by Tikkanen and Vasiliev). Although I stand corrected by Sturminator’s comments about Bucyk, I would still rate Mosienko as a fairly unfavourable matchup for him, as Mosienko was one of the speediest players of his generation and should be able to use his speed to jump on the turnovers that Tiikanen and Gilmour’s relentless forechecking will eventually produce. Keeping Lidstrom & Gadsby on the ice with Sakic, will result in a mis-use of this duo’s defensive abilities (as they will face a mix of my second line and checking line). I don’t deny that the Spiders’ top line, on paper, is superior to the Gilmour line; however I think the specific matchups (Mosienko’s speed advantage and Maltsev’s vulnerability to Tiik’s aggressive style) is problematic for San Francisco.
Summary
The Canadiens have a significant advantage in goal (as discussed extensively in previous posts). Sturminator has conceded that we have the better coach, and the best defensive forward line. I’ve argued extensively here that Irvin & Hay provide excellent scoring depth and two-way ability on the third line; I’ve also argued that the Canadiens have the superior 2nd defense pair; and are the more physical team. My strategy provides a credible way of containing Maltsev and maximizing the use of Trottier & Bure’s abilities. I show how & why several specific, key matchups are unfavourable to the Spiders. I concede that San Francisco has the best defense pair, more skill on the LW, and the superior powerplay.
In the playoffs, the Canadiens will get better goaltending, better coaching, better defensive performances from their forwards, while having seven consistent high-end scorers. This provides enough of an edge that the Canadiens will prevail in seven games.
Unfortunately I won't get a chance to respond before voting is over. Sturm, like usual, it's been a good discussion. Thanks to anybody who read this far.
