ATD #11, Bob Cole Semifinals. Regina Pats (2) vs. Lada Togliatti (3)

[seventieslord]

Post lineups to begin the series. Good luck to all.

Click to read more...

 

[seventieslord]

The Regina Pats

GM: seventiesvancitylordluongo
Coach: Tommy Gorman​

Aurel Joliat - Darryl Sittler (A) - Guy Lafleur
Tommy Phillips - Norm Ullman - Odie Cleghorn
Craig Ramsay - Don Luce - Danny Gare (A)
Harry P. Watson - Jack Adams - Bobby Schmautz

Sprague Cleghorn (A) - Red Horner
Lionel Conacher - Joe Simpson
Jack Marshall - Art Coulter (C)


Clint Benedict
Roberto Luongo

Extras:
C Doug Weight
RW/D Ron Stewart
D/C/LW Goldie Prodger

PP1
Joliat-Ullman-Lafleur
S.Cleghorn-Horner

PP2
Watson-Sittler-O.Cleghorn
Conacher-Simpson

PK1
Ramsay-Luce
Conacher-Coulter

PK2
Phillips-Ullman
S.Cleghorn-Marshall

 

[nik jr]

Jacques Lemaire

Brian Propp - Stan Mikita (A) - Charlie Conacher
Brian Sutter (A) - Jean Ratelle - Cecil Dillon
Gilles Tremblay - Dave Poulin - Jere Lehtinen
Georges Mantha - Garry Unger - Jim Peplinski
Camille Henry, Peter McNab

Eddie Gerard (C) - Earl Seibert
Alexei Kasatonov - Frank Patrick (A)
Jack Crawford - James Patrick
Phil Russell

Ed Belfour
John Vanbiesbrouck


PP1
Propp - Mikita - Conacher
Patrick - Seibert

PP2
Unger - Ratelle - Dillon
Kasatonov - Gerard


PK1
Tremblay - Mikita
Gerard Seibert

PK2
Propp - Poulin
Crawford - Kastonov

PK3
Ratelle - Lehtinen
Patrick - Patrick

 

[seventieslord]

I guess I will start us off in this excellent series against a squad I very much respect.

Offense:

I think the first lines are really close. The best players match up well, with Mikita being a tad better than Lafleur. Conacher is also a tad better than Joliat. Regina has the edge in the 3rd-best players, though, as Sittler is significantly better than Propp. it's too close to call.

The second line comparison shows Regina to have an edge. Ullman is better than Ratelle, and Dillon is and Cleghorn are a wash. But Phillips is significantly better than Sutter. I love Brian Sutter, I have always said he is the best of the Sutters, yes, even offensively. But he's not a credible 2nd-liner, having been a top-10 goalscorer once and top-20 one more time. I understand he's also here for his toughness and puckwinning abilities but ideally Lada should have looked for a guy with better offensive credentials to go there. He's a bit out of his league.

The third line for Lada features two average 3rd line players and Lehtinen, an elite RW, one of the top-5 you can get. I would argue that individually speaking, Ramsay and Lehtinen are at best a wash, Luce tops Poulin and Gare tops Tremblay. Not by much mind you, but considering the real-life chemistry this line is known to have the advantage has to go to Regina.

On the fourth line, I also like what Regina has a lot better than Lada. Did Unger bring much to the game other than offense and durability? He had a few brutal years for +/- relative to his teammates, and I haven't heard much about his two-way play. Adams was a better scorer, tougher than Unger, enjoyed better team success, and was a noted digger and battler. Georges Mantha is a good, versatile player who can check and score. He's just not as good as Hall Of Famer Harry Watson. Peplinski is tough and provides some offense. The same could be said of Bobby Schmautz, just as tough, though not nearly as large, but he was considerably better offensively, both in the regular season and playoffs. This line is gritty and talented all the way through, and each guy has scored a lot of big goals in big games.

The defensive units are very, very close. Obviously we love our defense corps in Regina, but what Lada has managed to put together is a very formidable unit. matching them up 1-6, I see some give and take on both sides.

Cleghorn-Seibert:

Cleghorn has the offensive edge but the defensive edge goes to Seibert. Cleghorn is tough as rocks but Seibert's underrated toughness is probably at the same level. Didn't he beat the crap out of Shore once? Minor edge to Seibert.

Conacher-Kasatonov:

A very, very close comparison. Both are guys who some have in the top-100 lists, and some don't. Conacher has a nice array of AST selections and was twice a hart Runner-up. Kasatonov was second fiddle to Fetisov to a decade. I call this even.

Coulter-Gerard:

Both are the consumate leader. Both were decent offensively but not star offensive players. Both were known for being defensive rocks. I am higher on Gerard than most but still wouldn't take him 117th. That said, he's the better player. Edge to Gerard.

Horner-Crawford:

At the 4th spot, Regina's depth really starts to show. Crawford is a great 4th defensemen, one of the best in the draft. I had him as a 4th last time. But he's no Horner. Horner has the major edge in offensive ability and in toughness. More is said of Crawford's solidity as a defender so I give him the edge in that regard. Still, edge to Horner.

Simpson-F.Patrick:

I think Patrick has the toughness edge. I've read that he can handle the toughies. Simpson and Patrick were both offensive Western stars, with the edge going to Simpson thanks to his sick WCHL totals. Both are underappreciated HHOFers but I give a slight edge to Simpson.

Marshall-J.Patrick:

I don't think there is much of a contest at the 6th D spot. Patrick was for a short time possibly a top-15 defenseman in the NHL. He is not at all out of his league and is actually a great #6. But Marshall was one of the top players of his day and had a major part in six cup winners, as a winger, defenseman, and center. Anecdotal evidence exists praising his speed, toughness, defensive ability, and leadership. The guy's a real gamer and we are very pleased to have him as a #6. Major edge to Marshall.

So, Regina comes out 3-2-1 in this partisan comparison, which would look like a minor victory except that Lada's edges are at the #1 and #3 spots, with the #1 edge being minor. All things considered I must say that these units are equal.

Not much to say about goaltending. Benedict has a considerable edge on Belfour. I have Benedict in my top-10, Belfour just outside of my top-20. I think overall I have Belfour higher than most do. He's underappreciated. Twice the top goalie in the league, once a cup winner, and a careers worth of good/great playoffs. Benedict is a suped-up Belfour.

We are also pleased to have a coaching edge. Lemaire is a good coach in the top half of the league but he's no Gorman. Lemaire is known for one thing - a good defensive system. With guys like Sutter, the 3rd line, and Peplinski, he has some guys who will play his way, and of course he has the solid D-corps to go along with it. Gorman has actually won the cup a couple of times, and has his fingerprints and influence all over five more cup winners as a manager. He greatly improved teams that he joined, and he loved to ride those big workhorse style defensemen like Coulter and Conacher. This is really his kind of team. He's not as serious as Lemaire and his bluster has the ability to take the pressure off his team. (check the bio for some good examples) Does that factor in itself make him better? Not necessarily. But his results speak for themselves.

In conclusion, Regina should take this series thanks to a decided edge in net and at forward. The D-corps will perform admirably for both teams but Regina has more of the guys who will get through and pot some clutch goals, even from the 4th line. Wouldn't be surprised if it took 6-7 games, or if a lot of them were 2-1, or if a couple games got to a 2nd OT. Benedict and Belfour are tireless competitiors who will see a long, defensive struggle to the bitter end.

Interesting side story, LaFleur was sure getting annoyed at his old friend and linemate Lemaire after the latter had retired and instilled a defensive system for the Habs in 1983-1985, having a part in Lafleur's lack of production and early retirement. Lafleur will sure be eager to show what he's capable of in a system that doesn't restrict its top line from having free reign.

 

[VanIslander]

two teams amazingly even matched

flip a coin

lada x-factor: 4th line production from Mantha - Unger - Peplinski
pats x-factor: Tommy Phillips as a 2nd liner, overplayed or truly great in an all-time context (i think the latter)

lemaire's lada is built to shut the door; can the pats open it? that's the question of the series

 

[nik jr]

crap, forgot about ATD.



i actually agree with much of seventieslord's assessment.


i think my 1st line is slightly better, due to greater physicality and defensive play.


i think my F's have better defensive awareness. D-corps are more or less equal, and both teams have coaches known for D, so i think the greater defensive awareness of my F's and lemaire's greater focus on D should mean i have an advantage in team D.

lada's defensive game is based on clogging the neutral zone, discipline and keeping the opponent to the perimeter.

i am a firm believer that D usually beats offense, and team D is always 1 of the most important factors.


i think that since lemaire's teams have always provided great protection to the goalies, regina's advantage in net is not as big as it looks on paper. belfour's ability to clear dump ins with his puckhandling is also a good complement to the trap.


i want my scoring lines to avoid regina's 3rd line, but other matchups are OK.


we will target the cleghorns whenever they are on the ice. each retaliated against those who hit the other, often in an undisciplined way. this may also have the effect of tiring them.


joliat will also be a target. he was very chippy, and also took many penalties. i just hope he is unwilling to wear a helmet so someone can grab his funny hat.


red horner was a very heavily penalized player. he was the career leader in PIM until ted lindsay.
from '29-'40, horner had nearly twice the PIM of the next most penalized players, hooley smith and eddie shore, even though both were known for discipline problems.
obviously, much of horner's PIM came from fights, but i do not think in the box for 5 minutes is useful.



we will try to take advantage of the relatively small size of regina's F's. the only regina F's who i know to be above average in size are watson and luce. (phillips may have been, but i do not know.)

i think lada's standard practice of slowing progress through the neutral zone and keeping play to the perimeter will reduce the efficacy of regina's advantage in speed and skill, and will force them into a slower, grinding game along the boards.



i think i have an advantage in the slot. regina has an abundance of skilled and speedy F's, but lacks scorers who played in the slot or at the front of the net, while i have conacher, sutter and unger to score the dirty goals that are so important against a strong team like regina.

 

[seventieslord]

i actually agree with much of seventieslord's assessment.

I figured I may as well be fair. I don't want to make any crazy assessments that are too easy to challenge. Before you know it you'll have another series like the last one, and you are probably worn out

i think my F's have better defensive awareness.

On that I must definitely disagree. I've done this comparison for another series, so I may as well do it for my own. Here's my assessment of the defensive abilities of our forwards from top to bottom. Feel free to disagree and explain why:

Craig Ramsay
Jere Lehtinen
Tommy Phillips
Don Luce
Aurel Joliat
Stan Mikita
Gilles Tremblay
Dave Poulin -
Danny Gare
Norm Ullman
Brian Sutter
Harry P. Watson
Jean Ratelle
Georges Mantha
Jim Peplinski
Bobby Schmautz
Jack Adams
Darryl Sittler
Cecil Dillon
Brian Propp
Odie Cleghorn
Charlie Conacher
Garry Unger
Guy Lafleur

Overall it looks like a back and forth mix but I'd give Regina the decided advantage since we have four of the top-5 and Lada has four of the bottom-6.

i am a firm believer that D usually beats offense, and team D is always 1 of the most important factors.

D is a very important factor, obviously, and with the defensemen being nearly equal, our offensive depth and edge in goal should allow us to prevail.

i think that since lemaire's teams have always provided great protection to the goalies, regina's advantage in net is not as big as it looks on paper.

I wish I could go back and find quotes that say my 1930s coach emphasized protecting the goalie too. It would be quite the task! Rest assured that Gorman understands the importance of the position and with Conacher, Horner, Coulter, and Cleghorn patrolling the crease, there will be no liberties taken by Lada's forwards.

we will target the cleghorns whenever they are on the ice. each retaliated against those who hit the other, often in an undisciplined way. this may also have the effect of tiring them.

Do so at your own peril. Sprague, possibly the scariest player of his time, was far from the most penalized, and Odie actually posted very low PIM totals despite being a rough customer. Get one of them upset and you may find yourself injured, and these sly foxes might not even get a penalty out of it. If they do, we have one of the best PK tandems of all-time to clean up the mess.

red horner was a very heavily penalized player. he was the career leader in PIM until ted lindsay.
from '29-'40, horner had nearly twice the PIM of the next most penalized players, hooley smith and eddie shore, even though both were known for discipline problems.
obviously, much of horner's PIM came from fights, but i do not think in the box for 5 minutes is useful.

Well, 66% isn't "nearly twice" as much but yeah, Horner got a lot of PIMs, no doubt about it.

In response:

- As you said, a lot of this had to have come from fights. There's no way a guy who was a critical minor penalty risk to this degree would stick around that long. I wish the Hockey Summary Project was completed for these seasons so we could take a closer look but I suspect that with fights removed from the totals you would see he was taking minor penalties at only an above-average rate.

- Being in the box for 5 minutes is rarely useful per se, but if you just pummelled someone who took liberties with Lafleur or Joliat, then it is well worth it. We are very pleased to have Horner as our team's true policeman as opposed to a Ferguson or Williams who would otherwise be useless when not fighting. If Horner was our best or 2nd best defenseman then this would absolutely be a concern but to occasionally lose our 4th-best defenseman, who is not on our PK units, for 5 minutes, is acceptable collateral damage.

- Any minors he does take should be sufficiently killed off by Ramsay and Luce, who drove Buffalo to a better PK% than the mighty Gainey/Robinson/Dryden-led Habs of the late 70s.

we will try to take advantage of the relatively small size of regina's F's. the only regina F's who i know to be above average in size are watson and luce. (phillips may have been, but i do not know.)

Lafleur and Sittler both had good size. Lafleur was closer to average though. Cleghorn had average height but was quite stocky and solidly built.

To answer your question, Phillips was about average. Adams was also average sized.

In total we have 4 big guys, 3 average, and 5 small guys in the top-12. It's not our strength, but we're not a team of midgets either.

Looking closer, I don't think this is a strength of Lada's either. I see just three big players - Ratelle, Peplinski, and Conacher. Tremblay and Dillon are average, the rest are small. It's not something I intend to pick apart or exploit, but I can't see how our slightly small size can be exploited by a team just as small as us or smaller.

i think lada's standard practice of slowing progress through the neutral zone and keeping play to the perimeter will reduce the efficacy of regina's advantage in speed and skill, and will force them into a slower, grinding game along the boards.

Having some big bodies to really clog up the neutral zone would help. I'm not sure you have enough. Your biggest threat from a size perspective, Conacher, is not a defensive player.

If the game goes into the trenches I have no doubt Regina can get it done. Joliat and Ullman will be monsters along the boards and our whole 3rd and 4th lines will win a lot of puck battles. Our 4th in particular could turn out to be a major difference. Adams was a hell of a battler and Watson had intimidating corner presence. Combine that with Schmautz' all out forechecking and you have a recipe for some 4th line heroics. It's a good thing Lada has a blueline that can take a pounding but by the end of games 5 & 6, they're really going to be feeling it.

Lada's fourth line can win some battles too, but once they do they don't have a major scoring threat. Unger is going to have to be the catalyst for the line - big time. Mantha was a one-year wonder as far as offense is concerned, and Peplinski is no threat to score. The differences in their scoring records becomes even more pronounced when looking at the playoffs. Regina has as clutch a fourth line as you'll ever see.

i think i have an advantage in the slot. regina has an abundance of skilled and speedy F's, but lacks scorers who played in the slot or at the front of the net, while i have conacher, sutter and unger to score the dirty goals that are so important against a strong team like regina.

Don't underestimate Sittler in front. He can bang in the rebounds. The whole second and fourth lines will be really good at this too. Definitely the best slot presence in this series will be Conacher though. Big Brother Lionel will show him a thing or two in there, and Horner won't back down. It's a good thing Regina has an answer for The Big Bomber because he can be tough to contain.

For our part, we are putting Watson up to the 2nd PP unit so we can take advantage of his size and grit in the crease.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

On that I must definitely disagree. I've done this comparison for another series, so I may as well do it for my own. Here's my assessment of the defensive abilities of our forwards from top to bottom. Feel free to disagree and explain why:

Craig Ramsay
Jere Lehtinen
Tommy Phillips
Don Luce
Aurel Joliat
Stan Mikita
Gilles Tremblay
Dave Poulin -
Danny Gare
Norm Ullman
Brian Sutter
Harry P. Watson
Jean Ratelle
Georges Mantha
Jim Peplinski
Bobby Schmautz
Jack Adams
Darryl Sittler
Cecil Dillon
Brian Propp
Odie Cleghorn
Charlie Conacher
Garry Unger
Guy Lafleur

Overall it looks like a back and forth mix but I'd give Regina the decided advantage since we have four of the top-5 and Lada has four of the bottom-6.

Disagree about Brian Propp. He was a very good defensive player -- he was solid on the PK and great at ES due his smart positioning, hockey sense, and speed.

I'll concede he didn't get a lot of Selke votes but I think this was the case of voters ignoring him due to his offense being too good (same with Danny Gare).

We're all aware of the limitations of plus/minus but Propp had the highest plus/minus rating of every Flyer between 1980 and 1989. On a per-game basis he also had a higher plus/minus rating than every other forward (+34 per 82 games vs +32 per 82 games for (an admittedly past his prime) Bobby Clarke).

I would put Propp below Mikita and above Tremblay & Poulin.

 

[seventieslord]

Disagree about Brian Propp. He was a very good defensive player -- he was solid on the PK and great at ES due his smart positioning, hockey sense, and speed.

I'll concede he didn't get a lot of Selke votes but I think this was the case of voters ignoring him due to his offense being too good (same with Danny Gare).

We're all aware of the limitations of plus/minus but Propp had the highest plus/minus rating of every Flyer between 1980 and 1989. On a per-game basis he also had a higher plus/minus rating than every other forward (+34 per 82 games vs +32 per 82 games for (an admittedly past his prime) Bobby Clarke).

I would put Propp below Mikita and above Tremblay & Poulin.

True enough. I see that now. Propp would deserve a boost on that list. He has the +/- and the PPGA to prove it. I always saw him as a good scorer with some grit and some two-way ability, but not that much, sort of like a Fleury or Goulet.

Anything else on the list that you'd drastically change? I can't be an expert on everyone and like I said in the other series, I have to intuitively judge based on what I know of some players.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've always seen Mikita listed along with Keon and Provost as the best defensive forwards of the 60's. I'd put him between Lehtinen and Phillips. And I've never read anything on Joliat that makes him seem elite. I struggle to have him above Poulin...

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Anything else on the list that you'd drastically change? I can't be an expert on everyone and like I said in the other series, I have to intuitively judge based on what I know of some players.

Aside from Propp, the list appears reasonable. You can always argue about a player being 1-2 spots too high/low but nothing looks seriously out of place.

I like the idea of ranking the forwards' defensive play though I wonder if it would be more informative to show them in tiers (maybe something like "elite", "very good", "good", "average", "below average", "liability"). This way there's no need to try to rank/differentiate players who are nearly identical defensively.

 

[Sturminator]

And I've never read anything on Joliat that makes him seem elite. I struggle to have him above Poulin...

I've never seen anything to suggest that Joliat was elite defensively, either, nevermind the fact that I'm still having a hard time swallowing the suggestion that he'll be a "monster along the boards". Aurel's a great enough player with hyperbole. What do you have to back up your high opinion of Joliat's defensive game, 70's?

 

[seventieslord]

Right from legends of hockey:

a prolific scorer and relentless backchecker

His ability to break up plays defensively and quickly lead the counterattack provided the Canadiens with a feared transitional game

Morenz said:

If it wasn't for Joliat, you guys wouldn't be writing about me so much.

Yeah, I know, typical self-deprecating remark by a teammate, but it does hint that Joliat's doing the little things on the ice that get less fanfare. My impression has been for the past year, that in the time of Morenz and Joliat, they were the class of star forwards, as far as backchecking was concerned. They weren't just the flying frechman when going towards the opposition's net. It had a lot to do with the success of that team.

Just a couple random NY Times quotes from old scans:

McKinnon carried it back, but was pinned to the rail by Joliat inside the Canadiens' blue line

Twice Joliat raced back to rob March before the winger could shoot from close in.

Joliat broke up two rushes...

Lepine was banished for slashing. Morenz and Joliat worked like Trojans until Lepine returned, turning back the best efforts of Cook and Gottselig.

With an advantage of one man, the Rangers attacked vigorously, leaving only Seibert in the defensive zone. The plan, however, was foiled by Joliat, who took the puck out of a scramble and advanced it all the way to the New York goal, where he beat Roach at 2:31.

Burke went off for spilling Sheppard, but fast skating by Morenz and Joliat kept the Canadiens in the battle until they were back at strength.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Yeah. That all shows Joliat was good defensively. But you have him on that list as elite. You have him above a 2 time retro Selke winner in Mikita, who was losing to 3 different 3 time winners. IMO, for 1st round forwards, Clarke is the only one better defensively than Mikita.

Joliat belongs with names like Gare and Propp...

 

[Sturminator]

I tend to agree with Nalyd here. There seems to be no more evidence in favor of Joliat's 2-way game than there is for guys like Ullman and Sutter - and that's the category in which I'd place Aurel at this point. Also, you run into something of a problem with these great defensive little guys sometimes - especially the left wingers (Doug Bentley also comes to mind here). ATD 1st lines are populated by a lot of power right wingers. It's really hard to get through an ATD tournament and win without running into one of Howe, Cook or Conacher, at the very least, and there are plenty of somewhat less physical guys like Geoffrion and Mikahilov out there, as well.

Guys like Joliat and Doug Bentley on a 1st line are nice to have, but how effective are they going to be against ATD power wingers? A guy like Joliat against Conacher is at a real disadvantage. He might defend his mark effectively in transition, but I have a hard time believing that Aurel Joliat would have a lot of success against the Big Bomber in battles down low. Although I'm not a fan of Propp's skill level at the 1st line ATD level, Lada's top line is really a well-oiled cycling machine, and I don't think Regina's 1st line has the gear to break them up when they get on the cycle. Regina should probably try to keep the Sittler line away from the Mikita line for exactly this reason, which is do-able, but has it's downsides, as well. Line-matching almost always involves some form of sacrifice, be it risky changes or not having your best players out on the ice for the longest time possible.

 

[seventieslord]

-There is definitely more information in favour of Joliat's defensive game than there is for Ullman or Sittler. Ullman's a "hard-working, good two-way guy, who can dig", Sittler's got a decent two-way game. But their profiles don't say things like how they were relentless backcheckers, or that their abilities to break up plays defensively were key to their teams.

-I definitely agree now that Mikita should be ahead. That was a faux pas on my part. But I don't know that I'd drop Joliat even one more spot.

-If only it were as simple as comparing size and giving one team the disadvantage for having the smaller player. There's a lot more to hockey than size. Joliat is a lot faster than Conacher. He's a better playmaker. He's far better defensively. He's just as tough, only smaller. I am not concerned that on the occasions where they bump into eachother Joliat is likely to be the one on his ass - he'll get right back up. When the first lines are matched up, Conacher, when skating up the right side, will always have Joliat on his jock making things difficult. Will Conacher be coming back as hard? I'll gladly take that trade off for the size discrepancy.

-Besides, we have the Ramsay line so that we can effectively contain any first line. Gorman is a noted line-matcher. He worked the strategy to perfection to defeat Conacher and the Leafs in three straight games in the 1935 finals. I have the articles that show this; I'll post the quotes later on. We have home ice more often than not and will take full advantage.

 

[nik jr]

On that I must definitely disagree. I've done this comparison for another series, so I may as well do it for my own. Here's my assessment of the defensive abilities of our forwards from top to bottom. Feel free to disagree and explain why:

Craig Ramsay
Jere Lehtinen
Tommy Phillips
Don Luce
Aurel Joliat
Stan Mikita
Gilles Tremblay
Dave Poulin -
Danny Gare
Norm Ullman
Brian Sutter
Harry P. Watson
Jean Ratelle
Georges Mantha
Jim Peplinski
Bobby Schmautz
Jack Adams
Darryl Sittler
Cecil Dillon
Brian Propp
Odie Cleghorn
Charlie Conacher
Garry Unger
Guy Lafleur

Overall it looks like a back and forth mix but I'd give Regina the decided advantage since we have four of the top-5 and Lada has four of the bottom-6.

how can you compare the defensive play of those who played 90 years apart?

how is jack adams or bobby schmautz a better defensive player than dillon? dillon sometimes played on a checking line, and was apparently key in shutting down the kid line in the '33 playoffs.

how is watson a better defensive player than mantha? mantha was a checker and a d-man.

there is no chance sittler or peplinski were better defensive players than propp. propp is far too low.



but i will say that regina's scoring F's are not as good defensively as mine.

i would say that of the worst 4 defensive players in our top 6's, 3 are on regina (lafleur, sittler, cleghorn).

Having some big bodies to really clog up the neutral zone would help. I'm not sure you have enough. Your biggest threat from a size perspective, Conacher, is not a defensive player.

big bodies are on the blueline.

clogging the neutral zone is not about big bodies. it is about positioning.

If the game goes into the trenches I have no doubt Regina can get it done. Joliat and Ullman will be monsters along the boards and our whole 3rd and 4th lines will win a lot of puck battles. Our 4th in particular could turn out to be a major difference. Adams was a hell of a battler and Watson had intimidating corner presence. Combine that with Schmautz' all out forechecking and you have a recipe for some 4th line heroics. It's a good thing Lada has a blueline that can take a pounding but by the end of games 5 & 6, they're really going to be feeling it.

joliat was feisty as hell, but how is a player who weighed <140 lbs a monster on the boards?

i have seen a few games of ullman, and he did not seem to be anything like a monster on the boards. he was good with his stick, but certainly not a monster.

I tend to agree with Nalyd here. There seems to be no more evidence in favor of Joliat's 2-way game than there is for guys like Ullman and Sutter - and that's the category in which I'd place Aurel at this point. Also, you run into something of a problem with these great defensive little guys sometimes - especially the left wingers (Doug Bentley also comes to mind here). ATD 1st lines are populated by a lot of power right wingers. It's really hard to get through an ATD tournament and win without running into one of Howe, Cook or Conacher, at the very least, and there are plenty of somewhat less physical guys like Geoffrion and Mikahilov out there, as well.

Guys like Joliat and Doug Bentley on a 1st line are nice to have, but how effective are they going to be against ATD power wingers? A guy like Joliat against Conacher is at a real disadvantage. He might defend his mark effectively in transition, but I have a hard time believing that Aurel Joliat would have a lot of success against the Big Bomber in battles down low. Although I'm not a fan of Propp's skill level at the 1st line ATD level, Lada's top line is really a well-oiled cycling machine, and I don't think Regina's 1st line has the gear to break them up when they get on the cycle. Regina should probably try to keep the Sittler line away from the Mikita line for exactly this reason, which is do-able, but has it's downsides, as well. Line-matching almost always involves some form of sacrifice, be it risky changes or not having your best players out on the ice for the longest time possible.

i was about to post about that.



i mentioned earlier that i think i have an advantage in play in the slot and front of the net, and that i want to reduce regina's speed through the neutral zone and make them play a slower game along the boards by not allowing them open ice.

lada plays a conservative game, and none of my d-men were weak defensively, so i think regina's opportunities in transition will be limited.

regina has many players who were great in transition (lafleur, joliat, phillips, ullman, s cleghorn, simpson), and i think their offense will depend on speed and transition offense.
of course, regina will be able to score in the usual ways, but i think speed and transition offense is very important to their game, and i want to restrict it.


sittler would be good on the cycle, but joliat is tiny and play on the boards was not lafleur's forte. joliat and lafleur were both at their best when they could use their speed in open ice.



i think steering the play to the boards is also wise b/c my F's will be better on the cycle.

the strength of my F's is not transition offense (though they are capable in transition). my lines are designed to keep pressure in the offensive zone, rather than to score in quick strikes.

i posted a lot of stuff in my 1st round series about how mikita and conacher played, and why i think they would play well together.
propp was a very versatile player who did a bit of everything. he was good on the cycle.
each of my 1st liners was strong on the boards, willing to drive to the net, and capable of both scoring goals and setting up plays.


i assembled my 2nd line based on ratelle's famous lines. those lines created offense through coordination in the offensive zone more than through quick strikes in transition.

unger and peplinski should be able to cycle effectively. unger is of course the main scoring threat. peplinski can dominate the boards and near the crease.


i think our D-corps are basically equal, but i think my F's are better defensively, so lada will be better able to defend the cycle.

 

[Sturminator]

-There is definitely more information in favour of Joliat's defensive game than there is for Ullman or Sittler. Ullman's a "hard-working, good two-way guy, who can dig", Sittler's got a decent two-way game. But their profiles don't say things like how they were relentless backcheckers, or that their abilities to break up plays defensively were key to their teams.

I said "Ullman and Sutter", and I'm not going to justify my assessment of Brian Sutter's defensive abilities, because you've seen him play. From Pelletier's profile of Norm Ullman:

Norm Ullman was an incredibly underrated star for 22 years in pro hockey, maybe the most underrated superstar ever. A hard worker who took immense pride in his defensive play, Norm, much like Ron Francis, quietly amassed one of the greatest careers in National Hockey League history.

He truly a complete player, as good in his own zone as he was offensively.

Also anecdotally, Punch Imlach called Ullman the greatest center who ever played for him, and that's including several other Hall of Famers. Given what we know about Imlach and the kind of hockey he valued, it says a lot about Ullman's complete game, especially when you consider that Ullman was past his scoring prime when he came to Toronto.

If only it were as simple as comparing size and giving one team the disadvantage for having the smaller player. There's a lot more to hockey than size.

Of course I am aware of that. But when you get down low on the cycle, size has quite a lot to do with who ends up with the puck. Simple as that. Defensive ability without size is of limited value against big players down low. In that situation it often is "as simple as comparing size". Have you ever tried to strip the puck along the boards from a guy who was a lot bigger and/or stronger than you? It's not a pleasant experience. Lada's 1st line is built to cycle the puck, which specifically works against Joliat's one true area of weakness. That's just how it is. It's a good thing for you that Regina's top pairing is so physical.

You seemed to have missed the part where I said that Joliat may check Conacher effectively in transition. I think he'll do fine in that regard, although Mikita is the primary puckcarrier on the line, so harrassing Conacher in transition is of somewhat limited value. At any rate, you seem to be underestimating Conacher's speed. I forget the source (I think pit provided it once), but there is some good evidence out there that Charlie Conacher was actually a very good skater. Maybe not quite on Roy's level, but good, all the same.

 

[seventieslord]

how can you compare the defensive play of those who played 90 years apart?

How can't I? Either you were the best of your era, one of the best, average, or a liability. Someone who was the best of his time, is better than someone else who was good or average. It's not that hard.

how is jack adams or bobby schmautz a better defensive player than dillon? dillon sometimes played on a checking line, and was apparently key in shutting down the kid line in the '33 playoffs.

Not necessarily that much better, but on the same tier. The only thing I know about Dillon defensively is that he was better than Drillon. That doesn't say much. I gave him some benefit of the doubt. But some quotes would be welcomed.

how is watson a better defensive player than mantha? mantha was a checker and a d-man.

In addition to being a good scorer, Watson was also used to check the opposition's top scorers. The greater team success he enjoyed put him ahead. I thought I was quite generous to Mantha. The fact that Mantha played some defense was a testament to his versatility. But he wasn't a defenseman for that long. What can you tell me about his defensive play?

there is no chance sittler or peplinski were better defensive players than propp. propp is far too low.

You got me on Propp. It was already mentioned.

but i will say that regina's scoring F's are not as good defensively as mine.

i would say that of the worst 4 defensive players in our top 6's, 3 are on regina (lafleur, sittler, cleghorn).

I don't disagree. But scoring lines are for scoring. I'm fine with that.

big bodies are on the blueline.

clogging the neutral zone is not about big bodies. it is about positioning.

Big bodies help.

joliat was feisty as hell, but how is a player who weighed <140 lbs a monster on the boards?

i have seen a few games of ullman, and he did not seem to be anything like a monster on the boards. he was good with his stick, but certainly not a monster.

OK, I guess I am guilty of hyperbole. Ullman was one of the best board guys in the league, a hard worker, great in his own zone, and good with his stick. Joliat was a fierce battler and relentless backchecker, he also had to be good on the boards. I am sorry I used the word monster.

i mentioned earlier that i think i have an advantage in play in the slot and front of the net, and that i want to reduce regina's speed through the neutral zone and make them play a slower game along the boards by not allowing them open ice.

lada plays a conservative game, and none of my d-men were weak defensively, so i think regina's opportunities in transition will be limited.

The same thing could be said for Regina. We don't have any D-men who were weak defensively. And the Ramsay line is going to severely limit your open ice.

sittler would be good on the cycle, but joliat is tiny and play on the boards was not lafleur's forte. joliat and lafleur were both at their best when they could use their speed in open ice.

i think steering the play to the boards is also wise b/c my F's will be better on the cycle.

the strength of my F's is not transition offense (though they are capable in transition). my lines are designed to keep pressure in the offensive zone, rather than to score in quick strikes.

i posted a lot of stuff in my 1st round series about how mikita and conacher played, and why i think they would play well together.
propp was a very versatile player who did a bit of everything. he was good on the cycle.
each of my 1st liners was strong on the boards, willing to drive to the net, and capable of both scoring goals and setting up plays.

We've got a blueline that not only can handle the offensive zone pressure, but they can make the offensive transition particularly more potent and difficult to stop.

Absolutely Joliat and Lafleur will look to score off the rush more often than they score dirty goals. That's OK. I think they will score more pretty goals than Lada's first line will put in, clean or otherwise.

i assembled my 2nd line based on ratelle's famous lines. those lines created offense through coordination in the offensive zone more than through quick strikes in transition.

unger and peplinski should be able to cycle effectively. unger is of course the main scoring threat. peplinski can dominate the boards and near the crease.


i think our D-corps are basically equal, but i think my F's are better defensively, so lada will be better able to defend the cycle.[/QUOTE]

I said "Ullman and Sutter", and I'm not going to justify my assessment of Brian Sutter's defensive abilities, because you've seen him play. From Pelletier's profile of Norm Ullman:

Also anecdotally, Punch Imlach called Ullman the greatest center who ever played for him, and that's including several other Hall of Famers. Given what we know about Imlach and the kind of hockey he valued, it says a lot about Ullman's complete game, especially when you consider that Ullman was past his scoring prime when he came to Toronto.

Sorry, I don't know why I read Sittler. From the sounds of this, perhaps I have even underrated Ullman.

Of course I am aware of that. But when you get down low on the cycle, size has quite a lot to do with who ends up with the puck. Simple as that. Defensive ability without size is of limited value against big players down low. In that situation it often is "as simple as comparing size". Have you ever tried to strip the puck along the boards from a guy who was a lot bigger and/or stronger than you? It's not a pleasant experience. Lada's 1st line is built to cycle the puck, which specifically works against Joliat's one true area of weakness. That's just how it is. It's a good thing for you that Regina's top pairing is so physical.

No doubt I expect the defensive and physical burden to be carried by my blueline whenthe top line is on the ice. And again, don't expect to see the first lines matched up too often.

You seemed to have missed the part where I said that Joliat may check Conacher effectively in transition. I think he'll do fine in that regard, although Mikita is the primary puckcarrier on the line, so harrassing Conacher in transition is of somewhat limited value. At any rate, you seem to be underestimating Conacher's speed. I forget the source (I think pit provided it once), but there is some good evidence out there that Charlie Conacher was actually a very good skater. Maybe not quite on Roy's level, but good, all the same.

Harrassing Conacher in transition will limit his ability to receive passes though. That is important, too. He's not the line's puck carrier but he is the shooter. And Joliat's speed will really come in handy there. Have you ever tried to get away from a guy who was a lot faster than you? It's not a pleasant experience.

From what I gather, Conacher's speed was in the average range. I wouldn't call him slow. But obviously Joliat has a large advantage in that area.

 

[arrbez]

OK, I guess I am guilty of hyperbole. I am sorry I used the word monster.

 

[seventieslord]

The Dirty Goals

Where this series can really take a turn in Regina's favour, is when the fourth lines are on the ice. Lada's fourth line can't match Regina's offensively, and we certainly won't give an inch physically or defensively, either.

Peplinski and Mantha are just not going to be producers at the ATD level.

Mantha was a good, versatile player but the only time he resembled an elite player was in 1938, when he came 2nd in goals and 4th in points. He also made the top-15 in assists that year. He never scratched the top-20 in goals or assists before or after that.

Peplinski's apex came in 1982 when he had 30 goals and 67 points. The 30 goals was still 10 short of 20th place in the league. He was 4th on his own team in points, tied with Lanny McDonald, who played 19 fewer games. His next best was 24 goals in the mid-80s. In other words, he never threatened to be an elite scorer. While I can certainly appreciate everything else Peplinski brings to a team, he just won't contribute offensively.

Why have a Peplinski when you can get players who can do both? Bobby Schmautz doesn't have Jim's intimidating size, but he is just as gritty and significantly more talented. Schmautzie was never a top-10 goalscorer but he was in the top-15 twice. (funny, the same thing can actually be said for Brian Propp, who is on Lada's 1st line)

Then there is Harry Watson, who was great along the boards and had intimidating size. To go along with this, he was a top-10 goalscorer twice (once 2nd) and in the top-20 a total of seven times. That is in stark contrast to Mantha, who peaked at 2nd, like Watson, but doesn't have the six other good seasons to back it up.

At center there are two guys who are close to equal in goal-scoring but worlds apart everywhere else. Garry Unger was a fine goal scorer. He peaked at 2nd in the league in goals, had two top-10s and six top-20s. Jack Adams also peaked at 2nd in goals, (based on being 1st in the PCHA in 1922) was top-10 four times, and top-20 six times. (quick note, I am using my figures from my goalscoring study that simulates a consolidated league so as not to unfairly overrate a pre-merger player like Adams) Adams was a leader, a digger, and a fighter. He did it all. Unger, from what I can see, was a bad two-way player. He had a few seasons where his +/- was really bad compared to his team, and he was rarely used on the PK (he had a PPG scored on him about once every 13 games) He was not noted for being tough, but he did occasionally fight (30 fights according to www.dropyourgloves.com)

On Regina's 4th line, we have a guy who has proven to be a good setup man. Adams was a top-10 assist man once, and top-20 four times in total (using same study as above). He was noted as being a good setup man for Babe Dye, too. Watson and Schmautz aren't noted for their playmaking skills. Lada's 4th line features no instance of a top-20 finish in assists, aside from Mantha's big year, and he was only in the top-15 that year.

Regina has three guys who can score, and the one player on either 4th line who can dish the puck with regularity. Lada has one who can score, and the other two are mostly inept offensively. What I am proud to say is that there is no give-and-take here; there isn't a defensive or physical advantage for Lada to offset this huge offensive gap.

And why does every player on Lada's 4th line see their PIM per game totals more than double in the playoffs while their PPG averages all drop by 20-56%? For Regina, only Watson sees any kind of drop in his playoff numbers (though he scored some big goals) and no one sees a PIM increase either. Adams, in fact, the roughest player on either line, sees a significant drop in PIMs during the playoffs.

Lada's 4th line is going to be in tough. They should be outscored by 4 goals in this series.

 

[seventieslord]

Gorman's Line Matching and advantage over Conacher

Gorman's genius in line matching was instrumental in the Maroons' 1935 Cup sweep of the Leafs, featuring Charlie Conacher. Some NY Times quotes from during that series, capture the tactics well:

Gorman's team knew when to keep it tight and when to turn it on. In the 3rd period of game 1, it turned out that the best defense was a good offense, something ew have plenty of.

In contrast to the steady, close-checking game they staged in the first two sessions, Tommy Gorman's charges swept into the aggressive. They kept the play in Toronto's ice, and gave the Leafs' famed sharpshooters few chances to find their way toward Alex Connell in goal.

Classic Gorman enthusiasm and bluster: He clearly had a coaching advantage on Dick Irvin. He had the Maroons controlling that game.

Manager Gorman was characteristically enthusiastic today as he reviewd his team's successful performance in the initial encounter with the Leafs. "We made them play the way we wanted them to", explained Gorman. "They waited for us to make the breaks, but we showed them that we were patient. I am being blamed for what most of the fans thought was a dull first period in last night's game, but I cannot see where it was my fault. The Leafs had the opportunity to rush the play if they wanted, but they preferred to have us do it. With our defense as solid as it is I thought it would be poor strategy to go ahead until the real opportunity persented itself, and, in view of what happened, I think I had the right dope." Gorman went on to say that he plans to play the same style of game when the series is resumed tomorrow night.

A note about his linematching: Note that we would of course match up our top defensive line (the 3rd) against the Conacher line, just like Gorman did with the Northcott line, only the Ramsay line is our 3rd and not our 1st.

Gorman will pursue the same strategy that proved so successful in the first two games, namely: sending out his first line to check the high-scoring combination of Harvey Jackson, Joe Primeau, and Charlie Conacher and using his second and third lines for the attack.

This game shows that despite his light and happy attitude, Gorman was able to give his team the killer instinct to put the series away authoritatively. It was considered a huge upset. Note where it says they rose to "Splendid heights", no doubt thanks in large part to Gorman's motivation, that players praised for years afterwards.

Tommy Gorman's close-checking crew, showing little respect for the vaunted Toronto sextet it had beaten twice before, tore into the Ontario visitors vigorously to register a convincing 4-1 triumph. The manner in which the Maroons swept through the series, in three straight games, constitutes one of the most amazing upsets in the long history of Stanley Cup competition. Against one of the most powerful and sturdiest teams ever organized in the NHL, the Montreal stickwielders rose to splendid heights, and gave every evidence of being thorough champions.

The Maroons outscored the Leafs, a much better regular season team with better individual personnel, 10-4 during this series. Conacher was held pointless in three games after scoring 1.21 GPG throughout the season and 5 points in the first 4 playoff games.

 

[seventieslord]

Playoff Scoring

I took a quick look at the playoff scoring histories of each of our top-12 forwards. I could have done this for defensemen, too, but a quick glance tells me that we would get painfully similar results that wouldn't be worth the effort.

All I did was take a look at all the top-10 finishes in the playoffs in goals, assists, and points for each player.

(Tommy Phillips, the sole "very early" player in the series was given two firsts for the two SCF series he dominated; he was also credited with two firsts in points for this, the flipside is that instead of assuming he was just as dominant at playmaking I assumed all assists to be zero as they are currently recorded by history)

It's too late at night for me to be typing out the individual per-player results, but if I have to back this up, I certainly will tomorrow.

Regina comes out like this:

Goals: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 5 7 8 9 9 10 (7 time leader, 11 top-2, 22 top-5, 27 top-10)
Assists: 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 9 (4 time leader, 7 top-2, 11 top-5, 13 top-10)
Points: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 6 6 7 8 (7 time leader, 11 top-2, 16 top-5, 20 top-10)

Lada's score looks like this:

Goals: 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 (3 time leader, 8 top-2, 13 top-5, 20 top-10)
Assists: 1 1 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 8 9 (2 time leader, 2 top-2, 12 top-5, 19 top-10)
Points: 1 1 1 2 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 8 8 8 8 (3 time leader, 5 top-2, 11 top-5, 22 top-10)

Regina is full of forwards who come through in the clutch. That's 18 times leading the playoffs in goals, assists, and points, combined to 8 times for Lada. 29 times in the top-2 for Regina, 13 times for Lada. That's more than double in both cases!

Lada does have a couple of minor victories here. Though they lack the top-end proven playoff playmaking, they do come out ahead on top-5s (12-11) and top-10s (19-13). And thanks to a Lada (get it?) 7ths and 8ths in points they lead in top-10s in points (22-20)

I have the regular season numbers for all 12 of our forwards too. Not sure how relevant it is in a playoff series, but they say the same thing the playoff numbers say.

I just don't know if Lada has the firepower to win here. Especially in the face of significantly greater firepower coming the other way.

 

[Sturminator]

Harrassing Conacher in transition will limit his ability to receive passes though. That is important, too. He's not the line's puck carrier but he is the shooter. And Joliat's speed will really come in handy there. Have you ever tried to get away from a guy who was a lot faster than you? It's not a pleasant experience.

I was usually the best skater on the ice in my younger days (not that I was playing at such a high level), but generally I agree, and I do think Joliat will make life difficult for Conacher in transition.

From what I gather, Conacher's speed was in the average range. I wouldn't call him slow. But obviously Joliat has a large advantage in that area.

pit, are you out there? I swear pitseleh has a newspaper clipping that describes Conacher is a very good skater.

 

[seventieslord]

Conacher's skating was a mystery to me for the longest time. I never saw a thing about it and had to basically come to educated conclusions. He's a big power forward type, which hints he wasn't fast, but then he was pretty agile with his feet and stick based on the wide repertoire of moves he had. The two kind of evened out in my head and I considered him average. I just finished reading Selke's book and he liked Conacher a lot. There were a couple of lines in there about how he "drove fast to the net" or something like that. I forget the exact wording but it was enough to give me some evidence that he was a fast skater. Blazing speed, no. But anyway, that's where I get "somewhere between average and above average" from. Hopefully pit's around and has more info. The more we know, the better.