ATD 12 Bob Cole Quater-Finals: 4 Cairo Desert Dogs vs. 5 Syracuse Bulldogs

[Hedberg]

4

GM: Leafs Forever
Head Coach: Hector "Toe" Blake

Toe Blake(C) - Cyclone Taylor - Teemu Selanne
Smokey Harris - Cooney Weiland - Theo Fleury
Jack Walker - Edgar Laprade - Ken Wharram
Gaye Stewart - Pit Martin - Jimmy Peters
Herb Cain - Billy Taylor

Ebbie Goodfellow(A) - Doug Wilson
Harvey Pulford(A) - Gus Mortson
Ken Randall - Albert Leduc
Sandis Ozolinsh

Glenn Hall
Normie Smith

PP1: Toe Blake-Cyclone Taylor-Teemu Selanne-Ebbie Goodfellow-Doug Wilson
PP2: Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Sandis Ozolinsh-Gus Mortson

PK1: Jack Walker-Edgar Laprade-Harvey Pulford-Gus Mortson
PK2: Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Albert Leduc-Doug Wilson

Callups:
F: Don Grosso, Cal Gardner, Bill Fairbairn
D: Gord Fraser, Howard Mcnamara
G: Roland Melanson

vs.

5

GM: CanadiensFan
Coach: Scotty Bowman
Sweeney Shriner - Frank Boucher - Gordie Howe (C)
Steve Shutt - Frank Frederickson - Mike Gartner
George Hay - Tommy Dunderdale - Lorne Carr
Al Secord - Dale Hunter - Mike Keane
Andre Lacroix - Jim Roberts

Zdeno Chara - "Ching" Johnson
Lloyd Cook - Kevin Hatcher
Dave Burrows - Mathieu Schneider
Larry Hillman

Vladislav Tretiak
Mike Vernon

PP 1: Sweeney Shriner - Frank Boucher - Gordie Howe - Lloyd Cook - Mathieu Schneider
PP 2: Zdeno Chara - Frank Frederickson - Mike Gartner - Kevin Hatcher - Mathieu Schneider

PK 1: Frank Boucher - Gordie Howe - Zdeno Chara - Dave Burrows
PK 2: Frank Frederickson - Mike Keane - Ching Johnson - Dave Burrows

Callups:
F: Claude Larose, Danny Grant, Lowell MacDonald
D: Al Arbour, Kent Douglas
G: Don Edwards
​

Click to read more...

 

[Leafs Forever]

Let's kick off the ATD#12 Playoffs!

You built a good team CanadiensFan. Looking forward to a good series.

To start:

First off, with some of the Bulldog's weapons, I will be replacing Sandis Ozolinsh on the blueline with the very tough, well-rounded Ken Randall. Albert Leduc will take Ozolinsh's place on the 2nd PP, and I think he can do just a good a job there in the playoffs.

I'll start off at the head;coaching- it's virtually a wash. With two such great coaches in Bowman and Blake, virtually the consensus 1 and 2, it's not going to play much of a factor in this series, if any factor at all. (unless you give bonus marks for having flawless communication between coach and captain )

Toe Blake-Cyclone Taylor-Teemu Selanne vs Sweeney Schriner-Frank Boucher-Gordie Howe

The main question on this one is; do the edges the Dogs have on LW and C make up for that RW gap?

Of course you have expressed your desire to play line on line, but I have home-ice advantage. However, even when you do get home-ice, I feel fairly confident with Blake and Howe, Taylor on Boucher (That is to say, I think Taylor's offense can get past Boucher's defensive ability). Schriner isn't known as much of an intagible guy (correct me if I'm wrong) which will be a good matchup for Selanne, as it becomes a
"who scores more" kind of thing, which I think Selanne can come ahead in for a number of reasons.

As for Selanne's questionable playoff record, let's look at some facts; Selanne led the Olympics in points two-times. Personally, I feel the pressure there is just as much if not more than a playoff game,b and it is legit best on best competition. Now, these don't necessarily equate to leading the playoffs in scorings, but would it be a stretch to equate these to top-5's in the playoffs? Those in addition to his pretty solid run with the Ducks, the fact he is playing with a pair of wonderful playoff producers (as shown by Blake's retro conn smythe and most playoff points in thye 1940s, and Taylor's 20 points in 11 Stanley cup challenge games) and I think he'll be just fine.

Now, key point, in which I will quote GBC review of your team:
　

*Biggest concern is the lack of a No. 1 defenceman. Your top pairing is, well, slow. Yeah, they're big and tough and physical, but a line like LF's Blake-Taylor-Selanne line could be a source of problems. (That would be an interesting match-up). Regardless, that first pairing will administer a lot of hits, and they're tough, but are they mobile enough to keep up with the opposition in a best-of-seven?

And I agree; they are going to cause problems for you. Chara's playoff record isn't particularly good either. I, on the other hand, am not too worried about my D-core facing your top-line; all are tough, all are at least good defensively, and all (except Pulford; but the fact that he is likely the best defenceman defensively in this matchup makes up for this- name another defencemancommonly known as the best defensively of his era) well rounded.

As for what my matchup strategy is for their big line, well ideally I will play the aboslutely desctruive and great defensive Pulford-mortson pairing against them, and they will see a fair amount of icetime agaisnt them. But I am certainly comfortable using the other pairings against that big line, who also feature some more offense. Pulford-Mortson will likely get the largest amount of work, but my other pairings will get a fair amount as well.

As for which lines to matchuping up against that top line; likely my first and third lines. Blake, an all-around force, and Walker, who I feel is the third best defensive LW behind Gainey and Ramsay (and he brings more offence to them), will work well (as well as possible against Howe) against Howe.

As for who is going to come out the better of this matchup? Considering D-Pairings, superiority at 2/3 of the positions, having two real lines to take on their top line as opposed to the one they can use againt mine (their other lines, I think, don't have the defense for an ideal matchup against my top line), and somewhat better goaltending (my top line will, I think, have a larger % of their shots go in than the opponents top line due to our better goaltending, but more on that later) I think that my 1st line will emerge to score the better of the two.

 

[Leafs Forever]

For convenience, my team bios; click on a name to find out more about that player.

Cairo Desert Dogs

GM: Leafs Forever
Head Coach: Hector "Toe" Blake
Captain: Hector "Toe" Blake
Assistant Captain: Ebbie Goodfellow
Assistant Captain: Harvey Pulford

Toe Blake(C)-Cyclone Taylor-Teemu Selanne
Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury
Jack Walker-Edgar Laprade-Ken Wharram
Gaye Stewart-Pit Martin-Jimmy Peters

Ebbie Goodfellow(A)-Doug Wilson
Harvey Pulford(A)-Gus Mortson
Ken Randall-Albert Leduc

Glenn Hall
Normie Smith

Spares: D Sandis Ozolinsh LW Herb Cain, C Billy Taylor

PP1: Toe Blake-Cyclone Taylor-Teemu Selanne-Ebbie Goodfellow-Doug Wilson
PP2: Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Albert Leduc-Gus Mortson

PK1: Jack Walker-Edgar Laprade-Harvey Pulford-Gus Mortson
PK2: Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury-Albert Leduc-Doug Wilson

Cairo Desert Devils (Minor League Team):

Don Grosso-Cal Gardner-Bill Fairbairn
Gord Fraser-Howard Mcnamara

Roland Melanson​

 

[Canadiens Fan]

Kudo's Leafs Forever on picking such a good team. May the best man win the series.

I look forward to getting more into the details of our matchup when I have more time but I will make just a couple of quick points.

Let's kick off the ATD#12 Playoffs!

Schriner isn't known as much of an intagible guy (correct me if I'm wrong) which will be a good matchup for Selanne, as it becomes a
"who scores more" kind of thing, which I think Selanne can come ahead in for a number of reasons.

Of the six players on our respective first lines, five are considered to be amongst the top 100 players in the history of the game. I don't need to tell you that Selanne is that sixth player.

I'm curious as to how Selanne is going to come ahead of Shriner in a "who scores more" kind of thing, especially when Shriner will be centred by Frank Boucher.

Joe Pelletier
Feathering pucks masterfully to the Cooks in a Gretzky-like fashion, "Raffles" led the league in assists three times. While it is tough for a modern fan to comprehend just how impressive Boucher's statistics were, Total Hockey once did an interesting study to translate old scoring totals into modern times. The study really puts Boucher's brilliance into perspective. In his first 5 seasons Boucher would have scored 100 assists! In fact, Boucher's league leading 16 assists in the assist-rare 1928-29 season would translate into 151 assists today! And in Boucher's first 4 seasons Boucher would have averaged about 175 adjusted point! In total, Boucher's adjusted career totals would have been 401 goals, 1000 assists and 1401 points!

With Boucher centring a left-winger who finished in the top 5 for goals on four ocassions (Shriner) and a right-winger who finished in the top 5 for goals on fourteen occasions (Howe), I'm curious as to how your first line is going to score more.

Also in doing a quick once over I also saw that you plan on playing Albert Leduc for the full two minutes on the penalty kill. I'm sure that after having to face Shriner-Boucher-Howe on the first unit that he's going to be thrilled to see Zdeno Chara coming off the bench to park himself in front of the net for the rest of the power-play.

The chances of Leduc, whose already been on the ice, playing a man down against Shriner-Boucher-Howe, versus a fresh Chara, parked in front of the net ???

Zdeno Chara 6'9" 255 pounds
Albert Leduc 5'9" 180 pounds

Not good.

 

[seventieslord]

Now, these don't necessarily equate to leading the playoffs in scorings, but would it be a stretch to equate these to top-5's in the playoffs?

Well, no, not at all. They don't equate, like you said. But they are worth something. It's a matter of personal preference just what they are worth, though.

As for which lines to matchuping up against that top line; likely my first and third lines. Blake, an all-around force, and Walker, who I feel is the third best defensive LW behind Gainey and Ramsay (and he brings more offence to them), will work well (as well as possible against Howe) against Howe.

Walker is not a great offensive player. He may bring more offense than Gainey, but he should not outscore Ramsay.

A few weeks ago I added up all the offensive numbers of all forwards in PCHA history versus games played, and looked at the overall PCHA per-game average. An average PCHA forward would have had more goals and assists than Walker. He probably came out ahead of the median because of some of the gaudy totals at the top driving the average up, but he was not special offensively. His finishes were rarely elite and really were, for the most part, the result of a small league. As I showed in my Morris bio, Walker always trailed his linemates Foyston and Morris significantly.

 

[seventieslord]

Oh, and Leduc was average-sized for his era, not the midget he's being portrayed as. Still, anyway you slice it, he is not Chara. but no one is.

 

[God Bless Canada]

How will Cairo's first line do against this Syracuse team? And how will Cairo's defence hold up against Syracuse's first line?

The speed on Cairo's first line is as good as any team in the draft. It's a potent, highly-skilled line that can change the complexion of a game, and generate comebacks in quick order. Will Syracuse's top pairing - the tandem that will play a lot against Taylor's line - be able to contain the speed? (I don't think you want Kevin Hatcher out there against the Taylor line). If Chara-Johnson can contain the speed with their size, reach, and overwhelming physical play, then Cairo's in trouble. And if they wear down the first line as the series progresses, then Cairo's in trouble. Cairo could have really used a power forward for that line. Blake has good grit, but he's not the space opener that Taylor and Selanne need. Fleury might be a good fit for the first line, but do you want a 5'6" guy matched up in a physical role against Syracuse's Redwoods? So often, the game is won and lost in the trenches. But if Chara and Johnson are overmatched by Cairo's speed - not just on the first line, but on the second line - then Syracuse will be in trouble.

(I do have visions of 2006, when Buffalo used their incredible team speed to cause fits for Chara throughout the series).

At the same time, Cairo has built a defence that needs to be better than the sum of its parts. There's a strong No. 2 posing as a No. 1 (Goodfellow), a solid No. 2 (Wilson and a bottom-tier No. 2 playing as a No. 3 (Mortson). As I said in my review, while he isn't their best defenceman, Mortson's their MVD (Most Valuable Defenceman). He's probably the guy Cairo should want out there against Gordie Howe. Schriner-Boucher-Howe is one of the best top lines in the draft. While they're aren't as fast as Cairo's top line, they're just as capable of breaking open a game with their offence, and they are better-built line.

Also worth noting is that this match-up involves my picks as the two best coaches ever: Bowman (No. 1) and Blake (No. 2). Why are the best coaches always in my division?

 

[Leafs Forever]

Kudo's Leafs Forever on picking such a good team. May the best man win the series.

Thanks, and agreed on last portion.

Of the six players on our respective first lines, five are considered to be amongst the top 100 players in the history of the game. I don't need to tell you that Selanne is that sixth player.

I'm curious as to how Selanne is going to come ahead of Shriner in a "who scores more" kind of thing, especially when Shriner will be centred by Frank Boucher.

Aaa yes, the old "this guy is considered top 100, this guy isn't arguement". The problem with that one is, perceptions of players change over time. Where did most people rank, say Frank Nighbor a few years ago? And I don't see Schriner on the last HOH top 100 completed lists either. (correct me if I am wrong).

With Boucher centring a left-winger who finished in the top 5 for goals on four ocassions (Shriner) and a right-winger who finished in the top 5 for goals on fourteen occasions (Howe), I'm curious as to how your first line is going to score more.

Except Taylor is an exceptional playmaker as well. Just a comparison from seventies studies that adjust for the split league era Taylor played in:

Playmaking:
Top 2's-Top 5's- top 10's- top 15's-top20's

Boucher- 7-9-10-12-13
Taylor- 6-7-7-8-8

Not a wide gap at the top. Of course, gap here made up by Taylor's much better goalscoring (5 top 5's to Boucher's 1). Your quote notes Boucher led 3 times; I am fairly confident Taylor led the combined leaderboard more, but I'd need seventies to confirm.

Selanne is also the better trigger man for Taylor; Schriner has a 2, 4, 4, 4, 7 in top-10 goals; Selanne has a 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 10. Schriner brings more to the playmaking table (not that Selanne is lacking in that department). Points wise, quite close: Schriner has a 1,1,2,7,8, 10. in top-10 points, Selanne a 2, 2, 5, 5, 7, 8. Selanne, though, was facing some tougher competition; Selanne was beaten out by Jagr and Lemieux in his point runner up years for example, while in one year beating out Gretzky, and Jagr in one year and Forsberg and Sakic the other. Schriner was beating out Paul thompson, Marty Barry who came runner-ups one year, and Apps who came runner-up the next, followed by Barry in 3rd. Good players, but not Jagr and Lemieux.

In addition to this stuff, I have got the better goaltending (as mentioned) and my blueline is a lot better suited to facing your top line than the vice-versa, which will have an effect on how much each line scores, and effect going in my favor. You also really have only one line to play with much confidence against my top line (your 1st), while I have two I can play with confidence against yours.

Also in doing a quick once over I also saw that you plan on playing Albert Leduc for the full two minutes on the penalty kill. I'm sure that after having to face Shriner-Boucher-Howe on the first unit that he's going to be thrilled to see Zdeno Chara coming off the bench to park himself in front of the net for the rest of the power-play.

The chances of Leduc, whose already been on the ice, playing a man down against Shriner-Boucher-Howe, versus a fresh Chara, parked in front of the net ???

Zdeno Chara 6'9" 255 pounds
Albert Leduc 5'9" 180 pounds

Not good.

Ermm..where did I say I was playing Leduc for the full two minutes on the PK? I will retract that statement if you point out where. He's on my second unit..Pulford and Mortson will be playing the most on the PK. As seventies mentioned, Leduc was not undersized in his era. Pulford, again likely the best defenceman defensively in this, was the biggest man of his day, so I am not concerned.

How is Leduc going to get very tired? Sure, he's playing both special teams, but he's on the third pairing and on the 2nd unit for both special teams.

 

[seventieslord]

Also worth noting is that this match-up involves my picks as the two best coaches ever: Bowman (No. 1) and Blake (No. 2). Why are the best coaches always in my division?

Just be glad that one of the two best coaches will be eliminated in a few days.

 

[Leafs Forever]

How will Cairo's first line do against this Syracuse team? And how will Cairo's defence hold up against Syracuse's first line?

The speed on Cairo's first line is as good as any team in the draft. It's a potent, highly-skilled line that can change the complexion of a game, and generate comebacks in quick order. Will Syracuse's top pairing - the tandem that will play a lot against Taylor's line - be able to contain the speed? (I don't think you want Kevin Hatcher out there against the Taylor line). If Chara-Johnson can contain the speed with their size, reach, and overwhelming physical play, then Cairo's in trouble. And if they wear down the first line as the series progresses, then Cairo's in trouble. Cairo could have really used a power forward for that line. Blake has good grit, but he's not the space opener that Taylor and Selanne need. Fleury might be a good fit for the first line, but do you want a 5'6" guy matched up in a physical role against Syracuse's Redwoods? So often, the game is won and lost in the trenches. But if Chara and Johnson are overmatched by Cairo's speed - not just on the first line, but on the second line - then Syracuse will be in trouble.

(I do have visions of 2006, when Buffalo used their incredible team speed to cause fits for Chara throughout the series).

At the same time, Cairo has built a defence that needs to be better than the sum of its parts. There's a strong No. 2 posing as a No. 1 (Goodfellow), a solid No. 2 (Wilson and a bottom-tier No. 2 playing as a No. 3 (Mortson). As I said in my review, while he isn't their best defenceman, Mortson's their MVD (Most Valuable Defenceman). He's probably the guy Cairo should want out there against Gordie Howe. Schriner-Boucher-Howe is one of the best top lines in the draft. While they're aren't as fast as Cairo's top line, they're just as capable of breaking open a game with their offence, and they are better-built line.

Also worth noting is that this match-up involves my picks as the two best coaches ever: Bowman (No. 1) and Blake (No. 2). Why are the best coaches always in my division?

I think Blake is good enough to do most of the work in the trenches and bring the physicality element. He is perhaps the best first line "glue-guy" out there I think, although his role is certainly not limited to that. I am confident in my team speed to overcome that top pairing.

Yes, I mentioned the Pulford-mortson pairing will take most of the work against the Howe line; and I think they have all the tools necessary to do so. Mortson will work well against them, I think, but do not forget Pulford who will certainly be able to contribute just as much to reducing the effctiveness of that line as Mortson will, and I feel likely more so.

 

[seventieslord]

Aaa yes, the old "this guy is considered top 100, this guy isn't arguement". The problem with that one is, perceptions of players change over time. Where did most people rank, say Frank Nighbor a few years ago? And I don't see Schriner on the last HOH top 100 completed lists either. (correct me if I am wrong).

He's on the THN list, but that's a big boo-boo even if you consider that it was done in 1998 and didn't include overseas and pre-NHL players. Schriner is a guy I would rank about 170th if I had to. I think Selanne, a three-time goalscoring leader in a competitive era, is better.

Except Taylor is an exception playmaker as well. Just a comparison from seventies studies that adjust for the split league era Taylor played in:

Playmaking:
Top 2's-Top 5's- top 10's- top 15's-top20's

Boucher- 7-9-10-12-13
Taylor- 6-7-7-8-8

Not a wide gap at the top. Of course, gap here made up by Taylor's much better goalscoring (5 top 5's to Boucher's 1). Your quote notes Boucher led 3 times; I am fairly confident Taylor led the combined leaderboard more, but I'd need seventies to confirm.

Don't know. I didn't do top-1s. I did top-2s. And I didn't break the top-2s into firsts and seconds. The combining of the leaderboards to facilitate comparisons is not an exact science and I had no interest in making it one.

Both guys are pretty equal when it comes to top-end playmaking, and Boucher pulls away with longevity considered. Taylor is also hurt by the year the establishment forced him to sit out, and the three seasons he spent as a defensemen in an NHA that kept assists rather sparsely, and his time in the IHL which is outside the scope of my study. With all that considered I would probably call them about equal as far as playmaking is concerned.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm not sure why it's a no-brainer that Schriner is a top 100 All-Time player and Selanne isn't, just because the Hockey News listed Schriner as #91 in 1998.

 

[Leafs Forever]

He's on the THN list, but that's a big boo-boo even if you consider that it was done in 1998 and didn't include overseas and pre-NHL players. Schriner is a guy I would rank about 170th if I had to. I think Selanne, a three-time goalscoring leader in a competitive era, is better.

Oh, that list. That one had Gartner at 87th too, right?..ya, I don't put stock into that one either.

No arguements from me on that last part

Don't know. I didn't do top-1s. I did top-2s. And I didn't break the top-2s into firsts and seconds. The combining of the leaderboards to facilitate comparisons is not an exact science and I had no interest in making it one.

Both guys are pretty equal when it comes to top-end playmaking, and Boucher pulls away with longevity considered. Taylor is also hurt by the year the establishment forced him to sit out, and the three seasons he spent as a defensemen in an NHA that kept assists rather sparsely, and his time in the IHL which is outside the scope of my study. With all that considered I would probably call them about equal as far as playmaking is concerned.

Aaa, I see. I thought maybe you could tell if Taylor was pulling far away of everyone else (the PCHA was the lower scoring league right? If Taylor has the most assists out of guys from both leagues then..) but yes, all the problems that people seem to have as soon as you try to make precise leaderboards for that era.

No arguements from me on the last part either.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury vs Steve Shutt-Frank Fredrickson-Mike Gartner

These two lines will be seeing a lot of each of each other; as you will be playing line on line and I will be aiming to play my second against your 2nd and third lines.

Let's start with my favorite, Fleury vs Shutt. Shutt is described as well-rounded, but Fleury, I think, brings a lot more to the intangible game, and made a lot more of an impact to the other parts of the game than Shutt did from what I read. Intangibles were focal point for Fleury; not for Shutt.

Shutt had the pleasure of playing with Guy Lafeur of course; Fleury played with some good players for a period of time, but none nearly as good as Lafeur.

Shutt has a superb three year peak of placing 4-6 in playoff points; but I think Fleury has the better playoff record, with his 2 1sts in playoff PPG and a 3rd as well. He would also show later he could place high in more exteneded playoff runs (5th in 1999). To put how good these years first, Fleury came ahead of guys like Gretzky, Gilmour, and Lemieux in PPG in 1993, Messier and Lemieux in 1994 (Lemieux played on less game than Fleury with 3 less points). Pretty impressive. From his peak playoff years, 1993-95, Fleury scored at a higher PPG than anybody, including Gretzky. (Gretzky played 4 more games than Fleury in this stretch and had only 4 more points). Steve's Shutt playoff peak, 1976-78, Shutt was 4th in PPG, pretty impressive, but not as good as Fleury nor besting guys of the class that Fleury bested.

Fleury also brings, I think, some more offence overall in the regular season. Shutt's lone top-10 finish in points was a 3rd, while Fleury is more balanced with a 6th, a 7th, and an 8th in points. Shutt was the better goalscorer, but Fleury was better at playmaking. In addition to these offensive numbers, Fleury also brings an agitating and defensive prescence that will certainly throw Shutt off his game somewhat;
Shutt brings a well-rounded game, but I don't see it was the intangible game Fleury brings from what I read, both defensively where Fleury peaked at a 6th in selke voting and Shutt, to my knowledge, never recieved Selke consideration, and in the toughness and grit area, where Fleury excels and Shutt is not know for (to my knowledge.). All of these combined, and I think Fleury will get the best off this matchup.

Next up, Weiland vs Fredrickson

Now, I suppose I'll play it the fair way when dealing with players from that time
(the consistency studies), as I will use it to make my case as well. and I don't have anything close to go by for leaderboards in that time period.
Playmaking:

Fredrickson: 1-5-6-6-7
Weiland: 0-1-3-4-5

Goalscoring:
Weiland: 1-2-2-4-5
Fredrickson: 1-3-6-6-7

Fredrickson appears to have the offensive edge in the regular season. As for the playoffs, I am unsure; Weiland led the playoffs in points twice, and also has a 4th in playoff points before then. Fredrickson matches the 4th as he has a 4th in playoff points in the NHL, but I am unsure if his PCHA playoff recrod equates or bests Weiland twice leading the NHL in playoff points, as I don't have those leaderboards.

One thing I aim confident in is Weiland having the defensive edge. I recall Dreak mentioning Fredrickson being good defensively, but I am going to need to see quoted evidence of that, and I believe the quote in question has another quote contradicting it somewhat.

Weiland, on the other hand:

And his offensive totals might have been even greater than they were had he not also been such an adept penalty killer.

Sounds like he even sacrificed his offence to excel in a defensive role. I am confident he will be be able to impede Fredrickson's game more than Fredrickson can impede Weiland's. Overall, I think it's fairly close matchup.
　
Smokey Harris vs Mike Gartner

Goalscoring:
Harris-0-0-1-3-7
Gartner- 0-1-5-7-9
　
Playmaking:

Harris- 2-3-4-6-7
Gartner-does not earn mention (the worst guy in the study has 4 top 20's)

Total:
Harris-2-3-5-9-14
Gartner- 0-1-5-7-9

Harris certainly seems to be the better offensively of the two in the regular season. He may have come from an era where it would be easier to excel in these studies, but I don't think it bridges the overall gap here.. Harris lead the PCHA in post-season scoring twice so he is a good post-season scorer, but Gartner also has some good playoff PPG finishes.

Now, although it also wasn't the focal point of his game, I will concede Gartner the defensive edge, as he has more to prove he could play good defensively than Harris does (at the moment), and will likely do more to impede the quick Harris
than Harris the vice-versa. Still, I am unsure if it overcomes that offensive gap.

As far as just comparing LW to LW, RW to RW, well, you can read the Harris bio to easier to see comparison for Harris and Shutt.. overall, I think Harris challenges Shutt quite nicely. Fleury is clearly better than Gartner, with a combined 1-1-5-8-10 in seventies studies and the playoff record in addition to more intangibles.

All in all, these are two second lines that, when examined closely, are fairly close, I think, but I think my second line could take the edge.

 

[seventieslord]

Oh, that list. That one had Gartner at 87th too, right?..ya, I don't put stock into that one either.

No arguements from me on that last part



Aaa, I see. I thought maybe you could tell if Taylor was pulling far away of everyone else (the PCHA was the lower scoring league right? If Taylor has the most assists out of guys from both leagues then..) but yes, all the problems that people seem to have as soon as you try to make precise leaderboards for that era.

No arguements from me on the last part either.

It's kind of irrelevant exactly how many assists Taylor had, because the PCHA was awarding more assists per goal than the NHA at the time.

 

[Leafs Forever]

It's kind of irrelevant exactly how many assists Taylor had, because the PCHA was awarding more assists per goal than the NHA at the time.

Oh, didn't know that.

 

[seventieslord]

Smokey Harris-Cooney Weiland-Theo Fleury vs Steve Shutt-Frank Fredrickson-Mike Gartner

These two lines will be seeing a lot of each of each other; as you will be playing line on line and I will be aiming to play my second against your 2nd and third lines.

Let's start with my favorite, Fleury vs Shutt. Shutt is described as well-rounded, but Fleury, I think, brings a lot more to the intangible game, and made a lot more of an impact to the other parts of the game than Shutt did from what I read. Intangibles were focal point for Fleury; not for Shutt.

Shutt had the pleasure of playing with Guy Lafeur of course; Fleury played with some good players for a period of time, but none nearly as good as Lafeur.

Shutt has a superb three year peak of placing 4-6 in playoff points; but I think Fleury has the better playoff record, with his 2 1sts in playoff PPG and a 3rd as well. He would also show later he could place high in more exteneded playoff runs (5th in 1999). To put how good these years first, Fleury came ahead of guys like Gretzky, Gilmour, and Lemieux in PPG in 1993, Messier and Lemieux in 1994 (Lemieux played on less game than Fleury with 3 less points). Pretty impressive. From his peak playoff years, 1993-95, Fleury scored at a higher PPG than anybody, including Gretzky. (Gretzky played 4 more games than Fleury in this stretch and had only 4 more points). Steve's Shutt playoff peak, 1976-78, Shutt was 4th in PPG, pretty impressive, but not as good as Fleury nor besting guys of the class that Fleury bested.

Fleury also brings, I think, some more offence overall in the regular season. Shutt's lone top-10 finish in points was a 3rd, while Fleury is more balanced with a 6th, a 7th, and an 8th in points. Shutt was the better goalscorer, but Fleury was better at playmaking. In addition to these offensive numbers, Fleury also brings an agitating and defensive prescence that will certainly throw Shutt off his game somewhat;
Shutt brings a well-rounded game, but I don't see it was the intangible game Fleury brings from what I read, both defensively where Fleury peaked at a 6th in selke voting and Shutt, to my knowledge, never recieved Selke consideration, and in the toughness and grit area, where Fleury excels and Shutt is not know for (to my knowledge.). All of these combined, and I think Fleury will get the best off this matchup.

Next up, Weiland vs Fredrickson

Now, I suppose I'll play it the fair way when dealing with players from that time
(the consistency studies), as I will use it to make my case as well. and I don't have anything close to go by for leaderboards in that time period.
Playmaking:

Fredrickson: 1-5-6-6-7
Weiland: 0-1-3-4-5

Goalscoring:
Weiland: 1-2-2-4-5
Fredrickson: 1-3-6-6-7

Fredrickson appears to have the offensive edge in the regular season. As for the playoffs, I am unsure; Weiland led the playoffs in points twice, and also has a 4th in playoff points before then. Fredrickson matches the 4th as he has a 4th in playoff points in the NHL, but I am unsure if his PCHA playoff recrod equates or bests Weiland twice leading the NHL in playoff points, as I don't have those leaderboards.

One thing I aim confident in is Weiland having the defensive edge. I recall Dreak mentioning Fredrickson being good defensively, but I am going to need to see quoted evidence of that, and I believe the quote in question has another quote contradicting it somewhat.

Weiland, on the other hand:



Sounds like he even sacrificed his offence to excel in a defensive role. I am confident he will be be able to impede Fredrickson's game more than Fredrickson can impede Weiland's. Overall, I think it's fairly close matchup.
　
Smokey Harris vs Mike Gartner

Goalscoring:
Harris-0-0-1-3-7
Gartner- 0-1-5-7-9
　
Playmaking:

Harris- 2-3-4-6-7
Gartner-does not earn mention (the worst guy in the study has 4 top 20's)

Total:
Harris-2-3-5-9-14
Gartner- 0-1-5-7-9

Harris certainly seems to be the better offensively of the two in the regular season. He may have come from an era where it would be easier to excel in these studies, but I don't think it bridges the overall gap here.. Harris lead the PCHA in post-season scoring twice so he is a good post-season scorer, but Gartner also has some good playoff PPG finishes.

Now, although it also wasn't the focal point of his game, I will concede Gartner the defensive edge, as he has more to prove he could play good defensively than Harris does (at the moment), and will likely do more to impede the quick Harris
than Harris the vice-versa. Still, I am unsure if it overcomes that offensive gap.

As far as just comparing LW to LW, RW to RW, well, you can read the Harris bio to easier to see comparison for Harris and Shutt.. overall, I think Harris challenges Shutt quite nicely. Fleury is clearly better than Gartner, with a combined 1-1-5-8-10 in seventies studies and the playoff record in addition to more intangibles.

All in all, these are two second lines that, when examined closely, are fairly close, I think, but I think my second line could take the edge.

A few comments:

- Fredrickson is definitely a better offensive player and Weiland is definitely better defensively. I think Weiland misses that imaginary cutoff for the type of resume it takes to be a good 2nd line center in this thing. I think his game translates well to being an elite 3rd line center, almost a Don McKenney but not quite. Fredrickson has to be the better 2nd liner.

- Gartner has no defensive reputation to speak of. Even if you take the lack of knowledge about Harris as him being below-average, that still puts him on par with Gartner in his own end.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I think Gartner gets underrated around here. It's amazing he scored as much as he did considering the talent he had around him. He had good players (Maruk, Ridley, Broten), but few high-end players. And he's definitely a guy who would have benefitted from the top-notch playmaker; he's not the gifted puck-carrier that other members of the 700 goal club are. Great sniper. Great scorer. But not a guy who dominates by carrying the mail.

His playoff record is not good for a player of his calibre, but that might be because opponents keyed on him. If you stop Gartner, you'll stop the Caps offence. There wasn't much of an offensive supporting cast in Washington. The one year he had a great centre feeding him the puck (the Rangers in 92), he had eight goals in 13 games.

He's not good defensively. Outside of goal-scoring, he doesn't bring a lot to the table. But he is a sniper. He's maybe the fastest forward in the draft. And he has a dangerous playmaker in Fredrickson feeding him the puck.

 

[Leafs Forever]

A few comments:

- Fredrickson is definitely a better offensive player and Weiland is definitely better defensively. I think Weiland misses that imaginary cutoff for the type of resume it takes to be a good 2nd line center in this thing. I think his game translates well to being an elite 3rd line center, almost a Don McKenney but not quite. Fredrickson has to be the better 2nd liner.

I think Weiland is definetly a top-64 centre overall and has the offensive ability to play on a second line. Sure, he's more ideal as an elite third line centre, but that does not mean he shouldn't play a second line role. Is Weiland top-64 centre offensively? I think he could be, but there would be some work involved to find out.

I think Gartner gets underrated around here. It's amazing he scored as much as he did considering the talent he had around him. He had good players (Maruk, Ridley, Broten), but few high-end players. And he's definitely a guy who would have benefitted from the top-notch playmaker; he's not the gifted puck-carrier that other members of the 700 goal club are. Great sniper. Great scorer. But not a guy who dominates by carrying the mail.

His playoff record is not good for a player of his calibre, but that might be because opponents keyed on him. If you stop Gartner, you'll stop the Caps offence. There wasn't much of an offensive supporting cast in Washington. The one year he had a great centre feeding him the puck (the Rangers in 92), he had eight goals in 13 games.

He's not good defensively. Outside of goal-scoring, he doesn't bring a lot to the table. But he is a sniper. He's maybe the fastest forward in the draft. And he has a dangerous playmaker in Fredrickson feeding him the puck.

Alright, perhaps I was off with that defensive bit.

I don't see Gartner as too underrated personally; he certainly didn't have great supporting casts, but that isn't a complete exuse for his lack of ability to place more elite in goalscoring. Other players were able to with weaker supporting casts.

Wouldn't call him the fastest forward in the draft personally, but that is one difficult to tell.

Your last bit made me realise something; there is an imbalance in goalscoring and playmaking on the Syracuse second line:

Shutt-Fredrickson-Gartner:

Combined Goalscoring: 1-2-4-5-5
1-3-6-6-7
0-1-5-7-9
----------------------------------
2-6-15-18-21

Combined playmaking: 1-5-6-6-7 (only Fredrickson earns mention in the playmaking study)

Shutt and Gartner likely don't have the playmaking ability to utilize Fredrickson's goalscoring skills, and if Fredrickson is busy feeding pucks to Shutt and Gartner he won't have time to use and fire the puck himself much, which isn't good considering he may be the best goalscorer on the line, and certainly the second best goalscorer. (by these studies at least). I think that's a factor in my favor in the Fredrickson vs Weiland matchup, with Harris being a superb playmaker and Fleury providing some playmaking as well. (Harris is a primary playmaker; Weiland and Fleury primary goalscorers, but all Harris does ok in goalscoring and Weiland and Fleury do good in playmaking)

Just to emphasize better balance on my second line:

Harris-Weiland-Fleury

Combined goalscoring: 0-0-1-3-7
1-2-2-4-5
1-1-3-4-6
---------------------------------
2-3-5-11-18

Combined playmaking:
2-3-4-6-7
0-1-3-4-5
0-0-2-4-4
---------------------------------
2-4-10-14-16

 

[arrbez]

I think Weiland is definetly a top-64 centre overall and has the offensive ability to play on a second line. Sure, he's more ideal as an elite third line centre, but that does not mean he shouldn't play a second line role. Is Weiland top-64 centre offensively? I think he could be, but there would be some work involved to find out.

Weiland is certainly at the bottom end for second line centres. But if Marty St. Louis is a legit second liner, then why not Weiland? Very similar careers (to this point), when you look at it.

What was Weiland like without the puck? I don't imagine he was too physical with his low PIM totals and smallish size. But defensively?

 

[overpass]

It's kind of irrelevant exactly how many assists Taylor had, because the PCHA was awarding more assists per goal than the NHA at the time.

From what I've read, the PCHA played a more passing-oriented game, due to the more liberal passing rules. Taylor and the rest of the PCHA may have come by those assists honestly, not just because of more generous scorers.

But I do have a bit of a problem equating playmaking to goalscoring for early era players. The game was played differently. Different rules and worse ice conditions and equipment meant that rushing and stickhandling were the main offensive weapons, not passing. Even translating to the ATD, I can't put as much stock in high assist finishes as in high goal finishes for that era.

For this series, I'm not really sold on Smokey Harris based on lots of high assists finishes. If he has high point finishes, that speaks more to his value as an offensive player in my view.

 

[seventieslord]

For this series, I'm not really sold on Smokey Harris based on lots of high assists finishes. If he has high point finishes, that speaks more to his value as an offensive player in my view.

Well, he does, but that's mostly driven by goals and not assists. (much like the NHL scoring charts up to about 1940) - If the assist rate was tripled to a rate more like today, Harris is one player who would benefit in the points race.

The PCHA also had artificial ice, so ice quality wasn't an issue. Passing would have been just as important in the PCHA as anywhere else.

 

[Leafs Forever]

From what I've read, the PCHA played a more passing-oriented game, due to the more liberal passing rules. Taylor and the rest of the PCHA may have come by those assists honestly, not just because of more generous scorers.

But I do have a bit of a problem equating playmaking to goalscoring for early era players. The game was played differently. Different rules and worse ice conditions and equipment meant that rushing and stickhandling were the main offensive weapons, not passing. Even translating to the ATD, I can't put as much stock in high assist finishes as in high goal finishes for that era.

For this series, I'm not really sold on Smokey Harris based on lots of high assists finishes. If he has high point finishes, that speaks more to his value as an offensive player in my view.

Still though, everyone in the PCHA would have dealt with these problems, and Harris was still the best playmaker in the PCHA twice (if I am not mistaken). That has to count for something, and it goes back to the rule of relativitiy here, I think; perhaps the playmakers weren't as good, but they still dominated and that gets value.

Well, he does, but that's mostly driven by goals and not assists. (much like the NHL scoring charts up to about 1940) - If the assist rate was tripled to a rate more like today, Harris is one player who would benefit in the points race.

The PCHA also had artificial ice, so ice quality wasn't an issue. Passing would have been just as important in the PCHA as anywhere else.

Ironic that his point finishes were driven by goals. And good to hear on both parts.

 

[seventieslord]

Weiland is certainly at the bottom end for second line centres. But if Marty St. Louis is a legit second liner, then why not Weiland? Very similar careers (to this point), when you look at it.

What was Weiland like without the puck? I don't imagine he was too physical with his low PIM totals and smallish size. But defensively?

His loh bio says he was good defensively and as a penalty killer. His bio in The Trail says he was small, slick, an outstanding stickhandler, could dodge bodychecks but not always crosschecks and in consequence had his nose broken a few times. It mentions that he was a good "utility" player later in his career.

 

[arrbez]

His loh bio says he was good defensively and as a penalty killer. His bio in The Trail says he was small, slick, an outstanding stickhandler, could dodge bodychecks but not always crosschecks and in consequence had his nose broken a few times. It mentions that he was a good "utility" player later in his career.

Well, that's a reasonable second liner then, I think.