ATD #11, Bob Cole Quarterfinals. Trail Smoke Eaters (4) vs. Killarney Country Bear(5)

[Hockey Outsider]

Scoring went down 9% in the playoffs for Sawchuk and 11% for Smith. Practically even.

Sawchuk's career GAA goes up 1%, Smith's goes down 14%.

There's little doubt that Sawchuk is the better goalie overall. But Smith had a better playoff career. How much the voters consider that is up to them.

Seventies, I think shawnmullin objected to your comment because it doesn't necessarily mean that Smith had a better playoff career simply because his GAA decreased more in the playoffs.

Let's pretend for a minute that GAA is the perfect measure of goalie performance (obviously it's not), and let's compare two hypothetical peers (so no adjustments for era are needed).

- Goalie A posts a 2.50 GAA in the regular season and a 2.00 GAA in the playoffs
- Goalie B posts a 2.10 GAA in the regular season and a 1.90 GAA in the playoffs

Clearly Goalie A improved a lot more in the playoffs, compared to Goalie B. From the way your comments was worded it sounds like you were automatically concluding Goalie A was the better playoff goalie on the basis that he improved more, but that's not necessarily true. In the (obviously simplified) example above, Goalie B was the better playoff performer even though he improved less.

Sawchuk (at least when he was in his prime) was an elite goalie and really had very little room to improve his performance in the playoffs. The fact that he was able to virtually maintain his excellent GAA in the playoffs is, in itself, a huge accomplishment. Smith could improve his numbers significantly in the playoffs because he arguably has the worst regular season credentials of any ATD starting goalie. I don't dispute that Smith improved tremendously in the playoffs, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was better than Sawchuk.

(* For the record I'm actually undecided about Sawchuk vs Smith in the playoffs so I'd like to see where that argument goes).

 

[shawnmullin]

That's exactly what I meant.

 

[shawnmullin]

I guess my main issue is that strong goaltenders on great teams are likely going to have great numbers in those situations. Am I saying Smith isn't a clutch playoff goalie? No, but I'm saying it's pretty natural he would put up great numbers on a dynasty team that plays lights out in the playoffs.

It would be fair to say the same thing about Sawchuk except that he didn't ONLY put his unbelievable numbers up in the playoffs over a 5 year stretch with a dynasty-like team. He put up unbelievable numbers throughout an entire hall of fame career in the regular season and in the playoffs. He was Terry Sawchuk for two decades night in, night out. Billy Smith was "BILLY SMITH" for five years in the playoffs in front of a dynasty.

Grant Fuhr's GAA also falls dramatically in the playoffs during the Oilers dynasty. The team played fast and loose in the regular season and tightened up a lot in the playoffs. Fuhr was clutch, but does he get full credit for his dramatic drops in GAA from regular season to the playoffs? Should he?

Chris Osgood's GAA and save percentage were dramatically better in the playoffs this year and last. This year could easily be his third Stanley Cup as a starter... should we put him head to head with Sawchuk?

Mike Vernon's GAA dropped significantly in all four years he went deep in the playoffs too. In 86 he went from 3.39 to 2.93. In 89 he went from 2.65 to 2.26. In 95 it was 2.52 to to 2.31. In 97 it went from 2.43 to 1.76. Those are Billy Smith like numbers. Is Mike Vernon just that good of a pressure goaltender or did his teams tighten up? Perhaps a combination of the two? I would say so.

Billy Smith won four straight cups and made the finals in five straight years. That's a better record than Vernon or Osgood... it's even better than Fuhr too. However, how much better were his teams than Vernon or Osgood's?

Smith got the job done and no one can argue that. He was an impressive foe. But he did it in a box, he did it for a relatively brief period (only in the playoffs and only over a five year span) and he did it in ideal circumstances... the rest of that time and the rest of his career he was an average NHL goaltender.

Sawchuk did it for two decades and he did it all year long.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

********,

Colville

45-46 9pts
46-47 20pts
47-48 16pts

Heller

42-43 18pts
43-44 35pts
44-45 19pts

paps, you not only try to make it look like Heller was some sort of wartime exploiter, which he wasn't (he was a consistent performer for a solid decade), you also neglected to add Heller's 23 point season in '38-'39. Heller got his 2nd AS Team vote in '40-'41 before the war took its toll on player quality, and his best productive years outside of the war:

'38-'39 - 23 points
'39-'40 - 19 points
'40-'41 - 18 points
'36-'37 - 17 points

...are still better than NC's, which is a pretty significant blow considering Colville's biggest advantage is supposedly his "all-around play".

Their best 3 were pretty close except for the 35pt war year for Heller, In fact all of Heller's best seasons were during the war years when colville was in the service along with many NHL stars.

That's not the case at all, outside of one 35 point season, which hasn't been a focal point of my arguments in the slightest.

no question in my mind that Colville was the better player irregardless of the position. The competition was much tougher when Colville played D.

Eddie Shore, Earl Seibert, and Dit Clapper were AS mainstays over Heller's career, to say nothing of Babe Siebert, Art Coulter, Lionel Conacher, and Ebbie Goodfellow. Are you seriously trying to convince me that the competition was better in the late '40s, with Stewart, Quackenbush, and Reardon?

I'll try to address shawn and 70s later on today, but if I don't have time between work and the Pens game tonight, I'll do it Wednesday.

 

[pappyline]

paps, you not only try to make it look like Heller was some sort of wartime exploiter, which he wasn't (he was a consistent performer for a solid decade), you also neglected to add Heller's 23 point season in '38-'39. Heller got his 2nd AS Team vote in '40-'41 before the war took its toll on player quality, and his best productive years outside of the war:

'38-'39 - 23 points
'39-'40 - 19 points
'40-'41 - 18 points
'36-'37 - 17 points

...are still better than NC's, which is a pretty significant blow considering Colville's biggest advantage is supposedly his "all-around play".



That's not the case at all, outside of one 35 point season, which hasn't been a focal point of my arguments in the slightest.



Eddie Shore, Earl Seibert, and Dit Clapper were AS mainstays over Heller's career, to say nothing of Babe Siebert, Art Coulter, Lionel Conacher, and Ebbie Goodfellow. Are you seriously trying to convince me that the competition was better in the late '40s, with Stewart, Quackenbush, and Reardon?

I'll try to address shawn and 70s later on today, but if I don't have time between work and the Pens game tonight, I'll do it Wednesday.

We can go back and forth on this forever but I really don't think a long discussion as to who has the best #4 Dman has much relevance to the voters.

I still think Colville is the better choice but the discussion has given me a better appreciation of Heller. I will definitely look more closely at him in future drafts.

The whole thing has brought up an interesting question though. Colville played 7 seasons at centre and 4 on D. He performed well at both positions & made AS at both positions. Now I chose him based on his entire career but chose to play him on D because there are many great centres out there but not as many great D. Now by chosing him as a D, are only his last 4 years as a D relevent in assessing Trail or is his whole career relevant. CW seems to be saying only the 4 years of D are relevant. Whereas I say his whole career is relevent even though I am playing him on defense.Any other thoughts on this?

 

[nik jr]

d-corps are very close, but i like KCBJ's a bit more. savard and langway were excellent defensive players, but savard had a lot more offensive ability. i think mantha was better than vasko. cameron and wilson are pretty similar.


KCBJ's 2nd line is not overwhelming offensively, but it is an incredible combination of toughness and defensive ability.


keon does not strike me as a good fit with gillies and bossy.

keon was not really a great playmaker, and finished closer to the lead in goals than in assists.

bossy scored as much as usual with brent sutter and tonelli in '85, but playing with a great playmaker would be an advantage.
surely, that was why bossy usually played with trottier instead of with brent sutter.

but i think keon is the perfect player to go against morenz.

It appears I'm the only one who's not worried about providing the traditional big, strapping corner man on a line that was built around a player who never required one to be successful, and had his greatest successes with speedy playmakers on both his flanks. They're lightning fast, play superb defense (backchecking, takeaways) and create off the rush - that was Howie's strength when he tore up the league, that's their strength as a unit.

Maybe it's just me, but I think sometimes GMs can get a little idiomatic when it comes to balancing a line, especially when history has, in this case, without a doubt proven otherwise.

It'll probably hurt me in the votes, but I simply don't see much reason to alter a formula that was proven on the ice for a more aesthetically acceptable line configuration.

i think you are right about us often being too rigid.

as a DRW fan, i have heard many times that my team is too soft and not "built for the playoffs."
lack of size and grit has usually been the criticism of european teams in international play, but they have still been able to be very competitive with the best of the NHL, even on smaller ice.


i do not think your 1st line would be ineffective, but i think having more size on the line would be good. i just think it would give the line more versatility.
in ATD, even most of the gritty diggers were skilled players.

Thanks man, I wasn't aware of that.

In any case, it shows how well Northcott had played that year (but we know Datsyuk can't finish any worse than 3rd in Hart voting this year, either). Baldy is also awarded a retro Selke for '38 in UH.

i am a big fan of northcott.

northcott was a good playoff scorer, and was given the '35 retro smythe.

pitseleh posted a '35 article in the last draft in which bill cook gave his all star team.

cook mentioned that northcott was the best checker he played against.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=16227508&postcount=68


your 2nd line would be hell to play against.

Isn't that the whole ATD?

actually, yes.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

We can go back and forth on this forever but I really don't think a long discussion as to who has the best #4 Dman has much relevance to the voters.

I still think Colville is the better choice but the discussion has given me a better appreciation of Heller. I will definitely look more closely at him in future drafts.

Probably not, but this thing's as much about learning about players as it is winning (it usually has to be for me, haha), and I think Heller's being given short shrift.

The whole thing has brought up an interesting question though. Colville played 7 seasons at centre and 4 on D. He performed well at both positions & made AS at both positions. Now I chose him based on his entire career but chose to play him on D because there are many great centres out there but not as many great D. Now by chosing him as a D, are only his last 4 years as a D relevent in assessing Trail or is his whole career relevant. CW seems to be saying only the 4 years of D are relevant. Whereas I say his whole career is relevent even though I am playing him on defense.Any other thoughts on this?

It's a compelling question. Personally, I feel that when someone's played most of his years - including his best years - at a completely different position and only had 6 total games of playoff experience in that role, he can't simply be treated as a 3-time 2nd Team All-Star on defense when he earned 2 of those selections as a center.

To me it's like selecting Dit Clapper, putting him at RW, and treating him like a 7-time post-season All-Star at the position. Not kosher in my book.

Colville's whole career is relevant, as his talent at forward no doubt aided his offense and transition game from the blueline, and his experience will help cool his nerves in big situations...I'm not only evaluating him as a 4 year veteran. But the truth of the matter is that he had 4 years experience and played just 6 playoff games as a defenseman. That can't be overlooked.

 

[shawnmullin]

I trust pappy's judgement as someone who watched Dave Keon play that Keon was a strong playmaker and passer and someone who would've thrived when paired up with the likes of Mike Bossy and Clark Gillies... Bossy especially the kind of sniper Keon could only dream about playing with.

But a quote about Keon maybe will help there too...

http://www.internetbytes.com/davekeon/aboutdave.html

While showing promise as a goal scorer and playmaker, Keon was never the strongest or biggest player on the ice. Keon worked on developing his skating, puck handling, and checking skills and would soon develop into one of the NHL's best defensive forwards.

Dave Keon could be a dazzling offensive player, utilizing bursts of speed and deft moves around the net.

http://mapleleafslegends.blogspot.com/2006/05/dave-keon.html

He combined skating and stick handling gifts with superior hockey sense in all zones of the rink, both offensively and defensively. He became so good that he was the pre-eminent checking center while remaining a top offensive force.

Keon did it all and that's why he'll be a tremendous part of a line that will go head to head with their top line. I often read about how good a stick handler he was. He can control the puck and make plays happen... Gillies will battle for pucks in the corners with him and Bossy gets set to unleash that ridiculous shot of his.

 

[pappyline]

Probably not, but this thing's as much about learning about players as it is winning (it usually has to be for me, haha), and I think Heller's being given short shrift.



It's a compelling question. Personally, I feel that when someone's played most of his years - including his best years - at a completely different position and only had 6 total games of playoff experience in that role, he can't simply be treated as a 3-time 2nd Team All-Star on defense when he earned 2 of those selections as a center.

To me it's like selecting Dit Clapper, putting him at RW, and treating him like a 7-time post-season All-Star at the position. Not kosher in my book.

Colville's whole career is relevant, as his talent at forward no doubt aided his offense and transition game from the blueline, and his experience will help cool his nerves in big situations...I'm not only evaluating him as a 4 year veteran. But the truth of the matter is that he had 4 years experience and played just 6 playoff games as a defenseman. That can't be overlooked.

Unless you can make some reasonable assumptions about how Colville would have done as a D for his entire career than you aren't judging him on is entire career and it is pointless to select him as a Dman.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Unless you can make some reasonable assumptions about how Colville would have done as a D for his entire career than you aren't judging him on is entire career and it is pointless to select him as a Dman.

I don't think it's pointless, but I do think it's a miscue.

He won double the hardware, spent double the time, and had tons more playoff games at a completely different position. Unless injury or lack of comparable talent at his position in the draft forces a slash player to take on his less-esteemed role, I wouldn't put him there.

 

[pappyline]

I don't think it's pointless, but I do think it's a miscue.

He won double the hardware, spent double the time, and had tons more playoff games at a completely different position. Unless injury or lack of comparable talent at his position in the draft forces a slash player to take on his less-esteemed role, I wouldn't put him there.

I was going to let this go but not when you come back & critize what I maintain was a very good pick.


I was being sarcastic when I said it was pointless and I don't think it is a miscue at all. Centres were a dime a dozen at that stage of the draft but AS centres that were also an AS on defence late in their career are rare. To say that a 15 season journeyman Dman who only made one AS team early in his career was a better pick doesn't make much sense to me. Colville was a skilful centre in his prime and was a skilful D at the end of his career. Any reasonable person can conclude that he would have been a skiful D in his prime.


Anyway, I am off to Greece in 2 days so this is my final volley for the next 3 weeks. Good luck to you CW.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

To say that a 15 season journeyman Dman who only made one AS team early in his career was a better pick doesn't make much sense to me.

Haha, okay pappy.

Anyway, I am off to Greece in 2 days so this is my final volley for the next 3 weeks. Good luck to you CW.

Always a pleasure. Enjoy your trip.

 

[seventieslord]

Who's the journeyman? Heller?

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Who's the journeyman? Heller?

He couldn't even manage 16 years with one team. Must've been a locker room cancer/easily replaceable plugger.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

- Mantha >>> Vasko. I like Moose and everything he brings but there's no way he's in Mantha's league.

It was looking like Moose-a-mania here for awhile.

- I am concerned about Datsyuk there too. It's arguable that he can be just as good on the wing, but hard to really prove. I think there's a bit of a double standard being applied regarding him and Keon.

Well really. Keon's undeniably a stellar defensive player, but in terms of scoring, he's basically Mats Sundin...and that's being a little generous, considering Keon has fewer top 10s in points (barely squeaking in both times at 9th place), and never finished as high in his best year (Mats was 6th).

But we're supposed to believe he can maximize Bossy's scoring on pappy's word concerning his playmaking skills...and yet still be convinced that Datsyuk, who's twice finished top 5 in points and has 4 top ten finishes in assists (not to mention his incredibly responsible play and defensive prowess), would get eaten alive in the ATD. pappy's word doesn't override the hard data in this case.

- I'm interested to see if GBC responds to CW's claim that there's little doubt Broadbent is a 1st line player. I didn't have much trouble showing that Odie Cleghorn was a better offensive player than Broadbent (yes, toughness and defensive play are another story) and Cleghorn took a bit of heat as being possibly miscast on a 2nd line.

Odie was the more consistent scorer, but Punch had the higher peak by a fair margin, more team success, and was the more well-rounded player. I certainly don't have any problems with Cleghorn as a 2nd liner, and we know how GBC feels about pre-unified NHL players in general.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

It would be fair to say the same thing about Sawchuk except that he didn't ONLY put his unbelievable numbers up in the playoffs over a 5 year stretch with a dynasty-like team. He put up unbelievable numbers throughout an entire hall of fame career in the regular season and in the playoffs. He was Terry Sawchuk for two decades night in, night out. Billy Smith was "BILLY SMITH" for five years in the playoffs in front of a dynasty.

Pretty ironic coming from someone with Clark Gillies on his first line. Where's his Conn Smythe? When did he ever finish higher than 6th in Isles playoff scoring during the dynasty years...apart from a one-year anomaly when he led the team?

Grant Fuhr's GAA also falls dramatically in the playoffs during the Oilers dynasty. The team played fast and loose in the regular season and tightened up a lot in the playoffs. Fuhr was clutch, but does he get full credit for his dramatic drops in GAA from regular season to the playoffs? Should he?

Sure he should.

Chris Osgood's GAA and save percentage were dramatically better in the playoffs this year and last. This year could easily be his third Stanley Cup as a starter... should we put him head to head with Sawchuk?

He hasn't won a Smythe, and has only won half of Smith's Cups thus far. Never mind that in general, Osgood hasn't ever been seen as a crucial player for his Cup teams like Smith was.

So that would be a resounding "no".

Mike Vernon's GAA dropped significantly in all four years he went deep in the playoffs too. In 86 he went from 3.39 to 2.93. In 89 he went from 2.65 to 2.26. In 95 it was 2.52 to to 2.31. In 97 it went from 2.43 to 1.76. Those are Billy Smith like numbers. Is Mike Vernon just that good of a pressure goaltender or did his teams tighten up? Perhaps a combination of the two? I would say so.

Now we're comparing Billy Smith and Mike Vernon? That's a mighty hefty dose of "shoulda coulda woulda".

Smith got the job done and no one can argue that. He was an impressive foe. But he did it in a box, he did it for a relatively brief period (only in the playoffs and only over a five year span) and he did it in ideal circumstances... the rest of that time and the rest of his career he was an average NHL goaltender.

Smith had very good playoff numbers from '75-'76 to '78-'79 as well. So yeah, 8 years of great goaltending and wins by the bucketload.

Sawchuk did it for two decades and he did it all year long.

Whoa whoa whoa, as great as his peak was, Sawchuk had his share of mediocre seasons in his career (as soon as he left Detroit the first time, Mr.BillySmithwasaproductofhisenvironment!).

And the regular season is why I went out of my way to select a fantastic regular season goalie to complement Smith.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

We do have a third line with Balon/Murray/Provost that is more of a shut down line, but they can also provide scoring. And if Carb is the best third line Cs in the draft, Provost is the best third line RW in the draft. He's also way more of a scoring threat than Carb is.

Provost scores about as well as Keon. And a little better than Frank Finnigan.

And you underrate Westwick and Stuart's offensive prowess. "The Rat" was a very productive player, as was Bruce Stuart, who once led the playoffs in scoring. Just because they're early two-way players doesn't mean they couldn't put the puck in the net.

GBC mentions how good Keon was defensively to the point that an argument could be made that he's the best defensive C of all time. He's on our top line. So is Clark Gillies who is a very good two way player.

Their offense, though, is underwhelming.

The point I'm getting at here is that we're not focusing our energy on having scoring on one line and defensive players on one line. We've created a line-up that will have scoring from the first to the fourth line... and that has shut down players on all those lines as well.

I don't think you have anyone that could be qualified as "shut-down" on your 2nd or 4th lines. "Responsible" is not synonymous with "shut-down".

I'd say we'd have Keon's line match up comfortably with their top line while Provost's line would likely match up with the second line. That means both their offensive lines have to contend with one of the best all time defensive players at their position. Except in addition to that, the lines matching with them have the ability to burn you with elite scoring talent... well especially the top line with Bossy.

I don't have any problem going power on power with Keon's line. When I'm at home I'd match up Carbo's line with them, but on the road, having a mediocre 1st line ATD scorer like Keon preoccupied with Morenz (who's going to get his share of points anyway, even if he doesn't run roughshod) ensures that Bossy sees less of the puck, and the odd time he does, he'll have a speedy 2-time Selke winner draped all over him.

And it leaves Milt Schmidt and Co. to trample the rest.

Bossy is a key player in this series as well. A guy who can score from anywhere at anytime and was a key player on a dynasty while playing alongside Gillies.

I hope he can score from his own end.

I don't really like trying to target and pick on team's weaknesses, but I agree with concerns about Datsyuk as a first line LW. I'd even accept him reasonbly as a second line C, but I think he'd get eaten up pretty badly in the spot he's in.

Has a prime Datsyuk ever been "eaten up"? He scores better than Keon or Gillies ever have, and is as fast, crafty, and responsible as they come. With experience in the show.

Never mind that I've got a 2nd line that could double as a 1st line and will tenderize whatever pairing's unlucky enough to draw them.

Coaching and goaltending.

We've got the advantage in both. Sawchuk is one of the few who can be considered the best of all time while almost nobody has more playoff coaching experience and success than Dick Irvin.

Both advantages are marginal, though.

Mine:

Game-breaking skaters (Morenz, Schmidt, Cameron)
Strength down the middle
The 2nd line (on offense and defense)
Top-to-bottom defensive play

...are pronounced.

 

[seventieslord]

Odie was the more consistent scorer, but Punch had the higher peak by a fair margin, more team success, and was the more well-rounded player. I certainly don't have any problems with Cleghorn as a 2nd liner, and we know how GBC feels about pre-unified NHL players in general.

Higher peak? Broadbent and Odie led the pre-unified NHL in points once each. You could say Broadbent's scoring title was more impressive because he wasn't just tied for 1st, but I wouldn't call that a "wide margin". Besides, it gets outweighed by Odie's other season as a top-5 scorer, something Broadbent never had again.

Let's save it for our series, if the stars align and we get to have one.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Higher peak? Broadbent and Odie led the pre-unified NHL in points once each. You could say Broadbent's scoring title was more impressive because he wasn't just tied for 1st, but I wouldn't call that a "wide margin". Besides, it gets outweighed by Odie's other season as a top-5 scorer, something Broadbent never had again.

Let's save it for our series, if the stars align and we get to have one.

Keep in mind that Broadbent also led the league in playoff goals and points the year after his regular season scoring title.

But you're right, that's an argument for another time.

 

[shawnmullin]

This goaltending thing really bugs me I have to say. So because Billy Smith had some very good playoffs on a dynasty I have no goaltending advantage on you? Well why the hell even draft an elite goaltender than. Sawchuk was consistently fantastic in his career and Smith had a great run of playoffs... and there's legitimate debate among some of you really over who has the better goaltending? I've always found the "step it up in the playoffs" thing to be overrated in this draft as it is. I give some credence to it but not to this absurd level.

Of course Champagne you say that Osgood isn't a fair comparison because people don't talk about him being important to the team... that only comes up now when before it was all about the numbers. Osgood's numbers and improvement in them in the playoffs seem to show similar trends but nah, it's Billy Smith! We decide Smith is great and clutch and a reason for his team winning. He's not just an average regular season goaltender who played well in the playoffs with a great, great team that stepped up their play enormously when the games got tigher and more important.

Osgood is just that because he doesn't have the reputation, but Smith no no...

And you say Fuhr could reasonably be Sawchuk's equal in the playoff series too because he "steps up" in the playoffs as well? But Vernon can't because he doesn't have the reputation or quite as many rings even if the statistics seem relatively similar.

It's convenient that some goalies like Smith and Cheevers and Fuhr get that boost while others don't.

I believe Smith and Fuhr are better than Osgood and Vernon don't get me wrong. However, they are not Terry Sawchuk, Glenn Hall, Dominik Hasek, Jacques Plante... they're just not. There are a million reasons who that group factors into the argument for the greatest goaltenders of all time and Smith doesn't. But hey, why don't we all just draft guys with great playoff reps and screw the rest of the information.

But fine if you want to go there, how about Morenz??

-1927, 28 and 29 playoffs he has a total of 1 point in 9 games. Held scoreless in two straight playoffs.
-1930 playoffs he's only fourth on his own team with 3 points in 6 games after running away with the team points lead in the regular season
-1931 playoffs he's only fifth on his own team with 1 goal and 4 assists in 10 games after finishing first on the team by a mile in regular season scoring.
-1932 playoffs he's only seventh on his own team with a single point in 4 games again after dominating the team scoring reace

Over that six year span? 10 points in 25 games.

Is that Howie Morenz or Keith Tkachuk!?

How stupid does that sound? Very.

 

[seventieslord]

Deadly series, guys. I love it.

 

[shawnmullin]

I don't have any problem going power on power with Keon's line. When I'm at home I'd match up Carbo's line with them, but on the road, having a mediocre 1st line ATD scorer like Keon preoccupied with Morenz (who's going to get his share of points anyway, even if he doesn't run roughshod) ensures that Bossy sees less of the puck, and the odd time he does, he'll have a speedy 2-time Selke winner draped all over him.

And it leaves Milt Schmidt and Co. to trample the rest.

So while your second line "tramples the rest" what are you going to do to cover off my offensive depth? Your checking line is not going to entirely shut down Bossy, and going up against your skilled by soft top line isn't going to stop Bossy from scornig his goals.

You also seem to think if you match up someone tough against my top line that all of a sudden I'm going to have trouble scoring goals. I've got a first all star LW on my fourth line with one of the better playmakers of his time at C and a hard nosed goal scoring RW. We have one of the best LWs of the 80s with one of the best Cs of his time and a scoring winger who can do it all on our second line. We have scoring on our two-way third line.

There's elite goal scoring talent on all four of our lines. You won't stop us from scoring goals.

Both advantages are marginal, though.

Mine:

Game-breaking skaters (Morenz, Schmidt, Cameron)
Strength down the middle

Wait, the same Howie Morenz that chokes in the playoffs? Nah. I mean the way Morenz's numbers regress in the post season I'd say he's marginally better than Troy Murray in the playoffs. 10 points in 25 games over a six year stretch when he was one of the best players in the league? Finishing 5th or 6th or 7th on his team in playoff scoring when he was clearly the team leader in the regular season? Clearly a choker!

I mean if performance in the playoffs is such a big advantage for Billy Smith, clearly Morenz isn't even worthy of being in the top 6 based on his playoff numbers...





I'll admit that Morenz and Schmidt are a better 1-2 punch up the middle than we have, but we have significantly better scoring depth. We also have Bossy who is a better goal scorer than anyone on your team. Krutov was one of the best wingers in the world during his peak. Keon is one of the top 100 players of all time.

We're as much ahead of you at wing as you are of us at C. We also absolutely have more scoring depth.

Doug Wilson can match the production of Cameron and isn't a complete flake and malcontent. Instead he's a great leader.

We have a defenceman who can move the puck and score on each pairing with Wilson, Colville and Ruostalainan.

The 2nd line (on offense and defense)

Your second line C is an advantage and I wouldn't even call it significant because Duke Keats is highly underrated. Your second line period is not. Krutov and Litzenberger match up very well with your guys. Krutov is the best scorer among all the wingers there.

As for Duke Keats, he is being overlooked in my view. Am I going to bash Schmidt? No way I'd love to have him. That being said, Keats was one of the best players of his era too.

http://redwings.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_wol_wol-dukekeats

Among hockey's all-time greats, Duke Keats is often overlooked because he spent so little of his career - a paltry 82 games - performing in the NHL. But his contemporaries knew that Keats was a name which should be mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Gordie Howe, Wayne Gretzky and Howie Morenz.

"Gordon (Duke) Keats was the best player of all time," stated Lloyd McIntyre, a teammate of Keats with Edmonton of the Western Hockey League, where Keats once scored eight goals in a single game. "You would have thought he had a nail in the end of his stick, the way he could carry that puck around. He was that good."

He had 55 points in 25 games one year. He was tough too as he had over 100 PIMs a couple of times in an era where they didn't even play over 30 games.

Combine him with a guy like Krutov who was a dominant performer against the best of the best in world competition and Litzenberger who is as good an all around performer as any 2nd line winger and you're not by any stretch away ahead when you match up second lines.

And don't forget my first all star LW on the fourth line with one of the top playmaking Cs of his era.

As for your other advantage...

Top-to-bottom defensive play

...are pronounced.

How do you figure!?

-Dave Keon one of the best if not the best defensive Cs ever
-Claude Provost one of the best if not the best defensive RWs ever
-Rod Langway one of the better stay at home blue liners of his time
-rock solid Moose Vasko and Gary Bergman
-Strong defensive forwards like Selke winner Troy Murray and Dave Balon
-Two way players like Clark Gillies, Ed Litzenberger, Rene Robert and Neil Colville

You really believe you have a pronouced top to bottom defensive play advantage over that? Hogwash I say! Hogwash!

Plus you know we have one of the best goalies of all time

Sawchuk over Smith and Irvin over Green are significant advantages at key positions. Scoring depth is an advantage for me. Top end snipers on the wing like Bossy, Krutov and Simmer are an advantage.

To wrap up though, I've enjoyed the discussion. You got me riled up so that's fun. Good luck to you in the voting.

 

[seventieslord]

Really good discussion, guys. As an unbiased observer in the same division, I'd like to do some crack analysis and give my opinion of who has the better defensive squad.

I'll start with the defensemen. Trail guys in bold:

Langway
Savard
Mantha
Vasko
Colville
Burrows
Cameron
Heller
Wilson
Sjoberg
Bergman
Ruotsalainen

I admit it got tougher to call near the end. But you guys know your d-men better than I do. Feel free to correct me.

As for forwards:




Guy Carbonneau
Milt Schmidt
RW Claude Provost
C Dave Keon
Perk Galbraith
C Troy Murray
Pavel Datsyuk
Baldy Northcott
Punch Broadbent
Frank Finnigan
Howie Morenz
LW Dave Balon
Glen Skov
Larry Aurie
LW Clark Gillies
RW Rene Robert
Harry Westwick
Bruce Stuart
C Duke Keats
RW Ed Litzenberger
LW Charlie Simmer
C Ulf Nilsson
RW Mike Bossy
LW Vladimir Krutov

I must admit, my division rival in Killarney has amassed quite the collection of responsible forwards. This could not have been an accident; it must have been intentional.

On defense I would call it even, but at forward I would have to begrudgingly agree that the difference is significant.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Your checking line is not going to entirely shut down Bossy

I don't think you stop Bossy entirely, but you can severely limit him when he's on an island on the 1st line with two guys who barely cracked the top 10 in scoring 3 times combined, and you have 3 defensive forwards on your checking line who are each arguably the best of their generation.

going up against your skilled by soft top line isn't going to stop Bossy from scornig his goals.

They're small, but soft? Please, shawn! Not only is that pretty ironic coming from someone with Bossy on their team, but...

On Morenz:

"He could stop on a dime and leave you nine cents change. He was in a class by himself. And when he couldn't skate around you, he'd go right over you." - King Clancy

"I don't think from end to end I ever saw a guy like Morenz. He was small, stocky, with the most powerful legs you've ever seen. He'd make rush after rush - at least 20 a game - and it never mattered how hard he got hit. Most players, after they were hit, you'd think 'Oh, he can't take that again,' but it didn't matter with him. Shot up into the seats in one rush, by killers like Eddie Shore and Taffy Abel and the like, and he'd come right back as if they didn't exist." - Toe Blake

"(Morenz) had a heart that was unsurpassed in athletic history and no one ever came close to him in the colour department." - Eddie Shore

On Aurie:

He was nicknamed "Little Dempsey" after the heavyweight boxing champion Jack Dempsey. Like modern day Theoren Fleury, Aurie was a fiesty, scrappy right winger who played with full out heart and desire.

http://redwingslegends.blogspot.com/2007/01/larry-aurie.html

"Aurie would fight a tiger to win and was a damn good hockey player. He was very small, only 145 pounds, but very strong. He would stand in front of the net and take on players 50 to 60 pounds heavier and handled it well. Much like (Dino) Ciccarelli, only Larry could fight. He would drop his stick at the drop of a hat." - former teammate Cummy Burton

Although one of the smallest men ever to play, he was one of the toughest of the era as well.

http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=11886

And anyone who's watched Datsyuk can testify that he's not "soft". I sure can, seeing how he rocked my team's supposed power forward last year.

You also seem to think if you match up someone tough against my top line that all of a sudden I'm going to have trouble scoring goals. I've got a first all star LW on my fourth line with one of the better playmakers of his time at C and a hard nosed goal scoring RW. We have one of the best LWs of the 80s with one of the best Cs of his time and a scoring winger who can do it all on our second line. We have scoring on our two-way third line.

There's depth, but like 70s suggested, I've got outstanding defensive forwards from top to bottom and it was no accident. That's how they have to play in Killarney. Simmer can score, but he wouldn't play in my bottom 6 because he doesn't have a bottom 6 skillset, and Nilsson's borderline.

Not to mention, you continue to undervalue the likes of Bruce Stuart and Rat Westwick. They were both consistently good scorers and had top 3 offensive seasons in their respective leagues, in addition to their other less glamorous abilities.

I mean if performance in the playoffs is such a big advantage for Billy Smith, clearly Morenz isn't even worthy of being in the top 6 based on his playoff numbers...

Clearly, context is required here, both in terms of era and Morenz' injury history. Which I'll get to during the portion when you break his numbers down.

I'll admit that Morenz and Schmidt are a better 1-2 punch up the middle than we have, but we have significantly better scoring depth. We also have Bossy who is a better goal scorer than anyone on your team. Krutov was one of the best wingers in the world during his peak. Keon is one of the top 100 players of all time.

Bossy's a better goal-scorer, but he doesn't manufacture his own chances like Morenz does, nor does he have the linemates necessary to get him the biscuit enough in an ATD context against a trio like my 3rd line.

Aurie and Broadbent could also both lay claim to being the best wingers in the world during their peaks.

Doug Wilson can match the production of Cameron and isn't a complete flake and malcontent. Instead he's a great leader.

Wilson wasn't the player Cameron was. Cameron was the pre-eminent puck-rusher of his time and had 4 top 10 finishes (6,7,6,5). As a defenseman. Never mind Wilson, he scores better than Keon.

Cameron was a grump, but he was also the linchpin of 3 Cup wins and played very well in them at both ends of the ice, so though was a jerk, it certainly didn't hamper his ability to get the job done when it mattered.

We have a defenceman who can move the puck and score on each pairing with Wilson, Colville and Ruostalainan.

Erm, Cameron, Mantha/Heller, Sjoberg?

Your second line C is an advantage and I wouldn't even call it significant because Duke Keats is highly underrated. Your second line period is not. Krutov and Litzenberger match up very well with your guys. Krutov is the best scorer among all the wingers there.

Krutov and Litzenberger match up pretty well. Schmidt throttles Keats though.

As for Duke Keats, he is being overlooked in my view. Am I going to bash Schmidt? No way I'd love to have him. That being said, Keats was one of the best players of his era too.

http://redwings.nhl.com/team/app?service=page&page=NHLPage&bcid=his_wol_wol-dukekeats

Forgive me if I don't take his teammate's word that he was the best player of all-time. Especially over so many glowing objective accounts of Schmidt's talent.

And don't forget my first all star LW on the fourth line with one of the top playmaking Cs of his era.

Westwick and Stuart likely would've been First Team All-Stars at their positions.

As for your other advantage...



How do you figure!?

-Dave Keon one of the best if not the best defensive Cs ever
-Claude Provost one of the best if not the best defensive RWs ever
-Rod Langway one of the better stay at home blue liners of his time
-rock solid Moose Vasko and Gary Bergman
-Strong defensive forwards like Selke winner Troy Murray and Dave Balon
-Two way players like Clark Gillies, Ed Litzenberger, Rene Robert and Neil Colville

You really believe you have a pronouced top to bottom defensive play advantage over that? Hogwash I say! Hogwash!

Your defense at center isn't in the same league. Keon's great, but Schmidt's in the same boat, and let's not pretend that Murray can match up with Carbonneau, or Keats to Morenz, or Nilsson to Skov/Broten.

Provost and Finnigan virtually cancel one another out, AFAIC.

Langway was one of the better stay-at-homes of his day. But so were Savard, Mantha, and Burrows.

Again, Murray and Balon don't stack up well with Carbo or Galbraith in their own end. Feel free to pimp their two-way, but you can't have it both ways.

The defense of wingers like Clark Gillies, Ed Litzenberger, and Rene Robert, while responsible, simply isn't up to par with Datsyuk, Aurie, Broadbent, Northcott, etc., etc.

Plus you know we have one of the best goalies of all time

No doubt. I've maintained that Sawchuk has an advantage, just not much of one in the playoffs. Smith always came up huge when it counted.

To wrap up though, I've enjoyed the discussion. You got me riled up so that's fun. Good luck to you in the voting.

Oh yeah. Gotta have a little animosity.

 

[Dipsy Doodle]

Of course Champagne you say that Osgood isn't a fair comparison because people don't talk about him being important to the team... that only comes up now when before it was all about the numbers. Osgood's numbers and improvement in them in the playoffs seem to show similar trends but nah, it's Billy Smith! We decide Smith is great and clutch and a reason for his team winning. He's not just an average regular season goaltender who played well in the playoffs with a great, great team that stepped up their play enormously when the games got tigher and more important.

It was never all about the numbers. I always take pertinent quotes heavily into consideration.

But more to the point, Smith has a Conn Smythe, twice the Cups, and never had a half-decade run so bad that he basically became a journeyman. That's why he's much more highly regarded. Shouldn't be hard to see. [/QUOTE]

But hey, why don't we all just draft guys with great playoff reps and screw the rest of the information.

Because you need a great regular season goalie to complement him, which usually takes an earlier pick than one would normally use for a back-up goalie.

But fine if you want to go there, how about Morenz??

Well first of all, he led the NHL in playoff scoring twice, which is twice as many times as any of your players.

-1927, 28 and 29 playoffs he has a total of 1 point in 9 games. Held scoreless in two straight playoffs.

It's the nature of playoff hockey under that wonky format. Over the same period, Aurel Joliat had a measly 3 points, and Bill Cook had a 10 playoff game span in '29-'30 when he had only one point. So we can either conclude that the best scorers from that era were all chokers, and all the legends who gave universal praise to Morenz were all lying/didn't care about winning, or something else must be affecting the totals.

-1930 playoffs he's only fourth on his own team with 3 points in 6 games after running away with the team points lead in the regular season
-1931 playoffs he's only fifth on his own team with 1 goal and 4 assists in 10 games after finishing first on the team by a mile in regular season scoring.
-1932 playoffs he's only seventh on his own team with a single point in 4 games again after dominating the team scoring reace

From '30 on (when he had a broken shoulder, again), injuries played a huge part in Morenz' playoff performances. The library book I had chronicling them has since been returned, but he had a litany of broken bones hampering his play over that period. His health problems didn't start with Earl Seibert.

Over that six year span? 10 points in 25 games.

Is that Howie Morenz or Keith Tkachuk!?

How stupid does that sound? Very.

Lots of statements sound stupid when you take them out of context.