ATD #12, René Lecavalier Quarterfinals. Nanaimo Clippers(2) vs. Hamilton Bettmans(7)

[Leafs Forever]

Nanaimo Clippers

GM: pitseleh
Coach: Art Ross

Bobby Hull - Ted Kennedy (C) - Gordie Drillon
Baldy Northcott - Milan Novy - Charlie Conacher
Joe Klukay - Michael Peca (A) - Ed Westfall
Jack Adams - Doug Weight - Jean Pronovost
Milan Hejduk

Harry Howell (A) - Buck Boucher
Pat Stapleton - Bill White
Barry Ashbee - Steve Duchesne
Brian Engblom
Ron Stackhouse

Roy Worters
Dave Kerr

Minors
Nikolai Drozdetsky - Josef Malecek - Vincent Lukac
John Van Boxmeer - Bryan McCabe
Wilf Cude

PP1: Bobby Hull - Ted Kennedy - Gordie Drillon - Buck Boucher - Steve Duchense
PP2: Baldy Northcott - Milan Novy - Charlie Conacher - Pat Stapleton - Doug Weight

PK1: Ted Kennedy - Ed Westfall - Harry Howell - Buck Boucher
PK2: Michael Peca - Joe Klukay - Pat Stapleton - Bill White

vs

GMs: Dreakmur and Johnny Engine
Coach: Don Cherry
Assistant Coach: Roger Neilson

Vladimir Krutov - Mario Lemieux - Hooley Smith
Tommy Smith - Darryl Sittler - Billy Boucher
Tommy Phillips - Art Chapman - Blair Russell
Percy Galbraith - Red Berenson - Mush Marsh

Valeri Vasiliev - Moose Johnson
Jan Suchy - Red Dutton
Bert Corbeau - Dunc Munro

Clint Benedict
Tom Paton

Extras: Corb Denenny, Jack Campbell

Powerplay
Unit #1: Vladimir Krutov - Mario Lemieux - Hooley Smith - Jan Suchy - Bert Corbeau
Unit #2: Tommy Smith - Darryl Sittler - Tommy Phillips - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson

Penalty Kill
Unit #1: Hooley Smith - Tommy Phillips - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson
Unit #2: Art Chapman - Blair Russel - Dunc Munro - Red Dutton
Unit #3: Red Berenson - Percy Galbraith

Shut-down Unit: Tommy Phillips - Art Chapman - Blair Russel - Valery Vasiliev - Moose Johnson

Minor League Team:

Clare McKerrow - Cully Wilson
Jim Riley - Niklas Backstrom
Bobby Trapp - Jim McKenny​

Click to read more...

 

[pitseleh]

Best of luck guys. I was surprised to see your team finish in seventh, I had you in the top half of the division.

 

[Johnny Engine]

^^best of luck to you too! You're team looks good!

What's actually remarkable here, looking at it, is how similar the makeup of these teams are. Both have a superstar up front with some big bodies, a checking line that will probably play a lot, and a depth-oriented defense.

But the Bettmans have a gaping advantage in net. Benedict is the generally higher-regarded goalie, has 3 Stanley Cups in 8 seasons, and in the playoffs, his GAA drops by 24%. Worters, though probably not at fault for never winning a cup, doesn't have such a dramatic drop, and would actually have a higher GAA in the playoffs if not for what appears to be one really long overtime game in 1929 (which he lost, btw).

I'll do a line by line analysis later.

 

[seventieslord]

- I love Worters. I'm higher on him than probably anyone. But his lack of playoff games makes him a playoff question mark. If I was taking Worters as a starter (which is a really smart move, considering you can get him in the 400s) I would probably use my very next pick to take the best possible playoff goalie to back him up.

- One thing that really stands out to me about the Bettmans, and the biggest reason that I just didn't see them as a 7th-place team, was their 3rd line. It's tremendous. Phillips and Russell are early offensive stars who were also noted for being the best backcheckers of their days. Chapman led the NHL in assists twice and was chided for playing too defensively (it's a shame that that's the only quote existing on his defensive ability, but still, it's a good one). In terms of ability to stop the opposition and score like a second line, there are very few 3rd lines that compare.

 

[Dreakmur]

What do people think of us using Hooley Smith on the point for powerplays? He's a good playmaker, so he'll add some skill, and he's a very responsible defensive player, so he won't be a liability.

Any thoughts? Will it even matter?

PP1
Krutov - Lemieux - Sittler - Suchy - H. Smith

PP2
T.Smith - Chapman - Phillios - Vasiliev - Corbeau

 

[seventieslord]

What do people think of us using Hooley Smith on the point for powerplays? He's a good playmaker, so he'll add some skill, and he's a very responsible defensive player, so he won't be a liability.

Any thoughts? Will it even matter?

PP1
Krutov - Lemieux - Sittler - Suchy - H. Smith

PP2
T.Smith - Chapman - Phillios - Vasiliev - Corbeau

If your goal is just to load up the first unit with as much offense as you can, that's probably a good move.

 

[Dreakmur]

Great job assembling your team! Having Bobby Hull and Charlie Conacher on separate lines makes them very difficult to check

Clearly, Bobby Hull is the first priority, so the Phillips-Chapman-Russel-Vasileiv-Johnson unit will be matched up against the Hull-Kennedy-Drillon line whenever possible.

Depending on how the series goes, I may try to match Galbraith-Berenson-March against Northcott-Novy-Conacher. I think Galbraith is one of the more under-rated shadows in the draft. He's not an elite checker, but he should be considered a quality 3rd line checker. To start, though, I will likely try to go power on power.

Our 1st lines are kind of similar. Both lines have one of the absolute elite offensive weapons (Lemieux and Hull). Both lines also have one of the best "character guys" in the draft (Smith and Kennedy). Both lines finally have a secondary scoring threat (Krutov and Drillon).

Lemieux vs. Hull - I must admit that we briefly considered Hull (or at least I did) before deciding on Lemieux. While Hull is a better goal-scorer, Mario Lemieux is a complete offensive package - he can score on his own or set up his linemates with equal mastery. That's the reason we chose Lemieux, and that's the reason he's the better overall player.

Smith vs. Kennedy - I love both these players! Smith has a better regular season record, but Kennedy has an amazing play-off record. Overall, I'd say their offense evens out.... but we're in the play-offs now, so Kennedy has to be given the slight edge. Nobody will ever accuse Kennedy of being soft or bad defensively, but Smith actually trumps him in both of these areas. Smith was one of the elite defensive players, as well as one of the most physically imposing. In terms of overall play, Smith should get the slight edge.

Krutov vs. Drillon - Drillon is a solid scorer, and presence in the slot, but he provides no physical presence and even less defensive conscience. Krutov, it seems pretty clear, is very underappreciated here. He brings scoring and grit... and despite his one bad year in the NHL, he was one of the very elite LWs of the 80s. I have Krutov higher in the LW chart than Drillon on the RW chart.... but it's mostly because the RW chart is so much deeper. Overall, I'd say they are about equal, but Drillon's strong play-off gives him the slight edge here.

 

[Dreakmur]

If your goal is just to load up the first unit with as much offense as you can, that's probably a good move.

Do you think that works better?

The second unit still gets Art Chapman, who is a very strong playmaker.

 

[nik jr]

i think hamilton has a large advantage in net. worters was tiny, and had nearly no playoff experience.

in contrast, benedict was the dominant goalie of his time, and won a cup even outside of ottawa.


nanaimo has a good D corps, but, imo, it does not make up the difference.


i doubt nanaimo has the ability to stop lemieux, but i like nanaimo's scoring depth better. nanaimo has better offensive ability from the blueline.


i do not like nanaimo's 1st line very much. great talent, and they have much scoring ability, but it does not seem like a line that would mesh well.
hull and drillon were fast, but kennedy was slow. kennedy seems to have been the main puckhandler on his lines, but hull liked to have the puck. drillon was a slot man, which seems like an odd fit with hull.

What do people think of us using Hooley Smith on the point for powerplays? He's a good playmaker, so he'll add some skill, and he's a very responsible defensive player, so he won't be a liability.

Any thoughts? Will it even matter?

PP1
Krutov - Lemieux - Sittler - Suchy - H. Smith

PP2
T.Smith - Chapman - Phillips - Vasiliev - Corbeau

lemieux was usually PP QB from the half-boards, so i don't think it matters too much. it would help if hooley had a big shot, but i don't know anything about that.

 

[Dreakmur]

i think hamilton has a large advantage in net. worters was tiny, and had nearly no playoff experience.

in contrast, benedict was the dominant goalie of his time, and won a cup even outside of ottawa.

That Cup in Montreal is the biggest reason I think he belongs in the same category as Hall, Sawchuk, and Brodeur. While he did benefit from playing on an excellent defensive squad in Ottawa, he did prove that he could carry a marginal team to Stanley Cup glory.

nanaimo has a good D corps, but, imo, it does not make up the difference.

I like his defense too. In retrospect, we probably would have been better off by taking George Boucher with our #3 pick. We avoided him because of his lack of speed - I really didn't want a #1 defenseman that could be exposed by any match-up. While Boucher is a better overall defenseman than Vasiliev, I like that Vasiliev can be matched agaisnt any type of line - he's got the speed to keep up to anybody, the physical play to hang in with anybody, and the skill to avoid being completely outclassed.

I like the reunion of Stapleton and White. That is a solid, and well-balance, 2nd pair!

i doubt nanaimo has the ability to stop lemieux, but i like nanaimo's scoring depth better. nanaimo has better offensive ability from the blueline.

With Conacher on the 2nd line, that gives him probably the best offensive 2nd liner inthe entire draft!

Keep in mind though, that our 3rd line can probably outscore a lot of 2nd lines. Wtih Chapman feeding Phillips, and Russel chipping in on the ither side, I think that really helps our scoring depth. Nanaimo's 3rd line will do a very nice job defensively, but they provide almost no offense. So, if you look past the top-6, I think our scoring depth may be pretty even.

Nanaimo does have more offensive punch from the blueline. I build by blueline almost purely for defense and physical punishment (which should help if this series goes more than a 4 game sweep )

i do not like nanaimo's 1st line very much. great talent, and they have much scoring ability, but it does not seem like a line that would mesh well.
hull and drillon were fast, but kennedy was slow. kennedy seems to have been the main puckhandler on his lines, but hull liked to have the puck. drillon was a slot man, which seems like an odd fit with hull.

I don't believe Kennedy is a good 1st line center, but Bobby Hull never played with a good center anyway. He proved that he could produce without the aid of an elite playmaker.

I know I wouldn't stand in the slot with Hull firing over my head

lemieux was usually PP QB from the half-boards, so i don't think it matters too much. it would help if hooley had a big shot, but i don't know anything about that.

Hooley Smith doesn't have a big shot to my knowledge....

Tommy Phillips has a big shot. Maybe have him on the point for the 1st PP unit?

PP1
Krutov - Lemieux - Smith - Suchy - Phillips

PP2
Smith - Sittler - Chapman - Vasiliev - Corbeau

 

[overpass]

i do not like nanaimo's 1st line very much. great talent, and they have much scoring ability, but it does not seem like a line that would mesh well.
hull and drillon were fast, but kennedy was slow. kennedy seems to have been the main puckhandler on his lines, but hull liked to have the puck. drillon was a slot man, which seems like an odd fit with hull.

I don't believe Kennedy is a good 1st line center, but Bobby Hull never played with a good center anyway. He proved that he could produce without the aid of an elite playmaker.

I know I wouldn't stand in the slot with Hull firing over my head

Hull had a lot of success with Phil Esposito centering him. Espo may not have played in the slot in Chicago as much as he did in Boston, but he's still a slot man.

Also, Esposito was a good centre when he played with Hull. He was among the league leaders in even strength points there, but didn't get much power play time as he was stuck behind Mikita.

 

[Johnny Engine]

i doubt nanaimo has the ability to stop lemieux, but i like nanaimo's scoring depth better. nanaimo has better offensive ability from the blueline.

Better scoring depth? All 4 of our lines can score, and Nanaimo doesn't have a single top ten in anything on their third line. Also, I'm not terribly sold on Conacher being the straw that stirs the second line's drink (and he is, he's the best player on the line by a mile). I remember Conn Smythe being on record as saying that Conacher was ineffective without Joe Primeau feeding him, and I don't see anyone of that caliber on his line.

I'm not sure having a more offensively focussed defense here is much of an advantage for Nanaimo (and do they really? I don't see a guy who would be a 50 point stud in an 82 game ATD season here.) Hamilton's forwards are set up so that any line can score, so you'd probably want a shut down pair for Lemieux's line (check), and two other pairings that are solid enough to take on second lines (no, I wouldn't send out Ashbee/Duchesne to do that).

 

[seventieslord]

I think Boucher would be a "50 point stud" if the ATD was played out in an 82-game season.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think Boucher would be a "50 point stud" if the ATD was played out in an 82-game season.

Probably.

It appears, though, that he'll be used with Howell in a shut-down role. I'm not sure he'll be able to play strong defense AND put up points - his speed just won't allow him to play both ends effectively.

 

[nik jr]

philips seems fine on the point. hooley smith seems best used near the net.

Better scoring depth? All 4 of our lines can score, and Nanaimo doesn't have a single top ten in anything on their third line. Also, I'm not terribly sold on Conacher being the straw that stirs the second line's drink (and he is, he's the best player on the line by a mile). I remember Conn Smythe being on record as saying that Conacher was ineffective without Joe Primeau feeding him, and I don't see anyone of that caliber on his line.

I'm not sure having a more offensively focussed defense here is much of an advantage for Nanaimo (and do they really? I don't see a guy who would be a 50 point stud in an 82 game ATD season here.) Hamilton's forwards are set up so that any line can score, so you'd probably want a shut down pair for Lemieux's line (check), and two other pairings that are solid enough to take on second lines (no, I wouldn't send out Ashbee/Duchesne to do that).

i think he said that primeau's playmaking was the key to the line, not that conacher was ineffective.

in '36, conacher led the NHL in goals and was 4th in scoring when primeau only had 17p. primeau seems to have been 2nd C for TML that season.

conacher also had a great playoff in '39 with DRW.



but you may be right about nanaimo's 2nd line. northcott was not a great playmaker, and novy was probably more a goalscorer than a playmaker. 4 times led the czechoslovakian league in goals.
i think novy scored more goals than anyone in the history of the czechoslovakian league.

as far as i can tell, novy won the scoring title in '81 while leading the league in assists.

Hull had a lot of success with Phil Esposito centering him. Espo may not have played in the slot in Chicago as much as he did in Boston, but he's still a slot man.

Also, Esposito was a good centre when he played with Hull. He was among the league leaders in even strength points there, but didn't get much power play time as he was stuck behind Mikita.

from what i have read, chicago had trouble finding the right C for hull. hull preferred someone with size who could take hits while maintaining possession (like bill hay and phil esposito). he liked to his C to give him the puck in the neutral zone. that does not seem like ted kennedy's game. apparently, mikita and hull were not very compatible as linemates, b/c both liked to control the puck.

andre lacroix was tried as hull's C, but was too small and not fast enough. based on what i have read, kennedy may be one of the slowest F's in ATD.


esposito was a much more versatile player than drillon. apparently, the only reason drillon's one dimensional play was tolerated is that he had great chemistry with apps.

esposito led the NHL in assists twice immediately after being traded to boston, but before orr was a dominant scorer.

 

[Johnny Engine]

i think he said that primeau's playmaking was the key to the line, not that conacher was ineffective.

in '36, conacher led the NHL in goals and was 4th in scoring when primeau only had 17p. primeau seems to have been 2nd C for TML that season.

conacher also had a great playoff in '39 with DRW.

Actually, the Smythe quote I heard was pretty pejorative toward Conacher's play, and not just praise for Primeau. Trouble is, I wish I had been organized enough to source that quote. To be fair, whatever it was, may have been said before the two seasons you mentioned as being examples of Conacher shining by himself. Who knows.

 

[seventieslord]

The book "Putting a Roof On Winter" has a hilarious anecdote in it regarding Charlie Conacher's... unit, which was apparently notorious. I should try to find it later as it just may make the difference in this series.

 

[pitseleh]

Sorry for not being more active, free time is pretty much non-existant for me at the moment. I'll try and respond to some of the points in this thread.

i do not like nanaimo's 1st line very much. great talent, and they have much scoring ability, but it does not seem like a line that would mesh well.
hull and drillon were fast, but kennedy was slow. kennedy seems to have been the main puckhandler on his lines, but hull liked to have the puck. drillon was a slot man, which seems like an odd fit with hull.

There is a quote from Kennedy (I believe in Ultimate Hockey) that the reason he was able to be successful is because he always had fast wingers that made up for his speed problems. If that was the case I have a hard time imagining him being the guy who got the play going up the ice.

The reason Drillon is on the line is because Hull will get a ton of pucks on net and he'll be there to clean up the garbage.

Better scoring depth? All 4 of our lines can score, and Nanaimo doesn't have a single top ten in anything on their third line.

For what it's worth, and maybe people will disagree with me, but I do think that top-10s on a third line are a bit overrated - players don't get top-10s if they don't get power play time. The players with top tens may very well be better offensively, but the gap looks a lot bigger because they were able to rack up points on the power play. The differences when the two are getting third line ice time are even smaller. Plus my players put up their point totals playing a shutdown role while scoring line players weren't in the same situation.

Hamilton's forwards are set up so that any line can score, so you'd probably want a shut down pair for Lemieux's line (check), and two other pairings that are solid enough to take on second lines (no, I wouldn't send out Ashbee/Duchesne to do that).

Ashbee and Duchesne will barely play at even strength (Duchense less than Ashbee). I think I have two pairings capable of eating up 47-50 mins per game between them if needed.

esposito was a much more versatile player than drillon. apparently, the only reason drillon's one dimensional play was tolerated is that he had great chemistry with apps.

Drillon was not a good defensive player (though from what I've read he wasn't as Ultimate Hockey makes him out to be - I wish I had time to dig up some quotes for you guys) but I'll concede that given the lack of evidence to the contrary. However, Kennedy is one of the best defensive first liners in the draft and Hull's speed meant that opposing teams often wouldn't take chances offensively because if they made a mistake the puck was going back up the ice in a hurry, so I think Drillon is put into a position where he can succeed. All that will really be required of him will be to get the puck out when it comes up the boards.

 

[Johnny Engine]

The book "Putting a Roof On Winter" has a hilarious anecdote in it regarding Charlie Conacher's... unit, which was apparently notorious. I should try to find it later as it just may make the difference in this series.

"Before they built the CN Tower, Conacher's weapon was the thing to see in Toronto" - King Clancy

For what it's worth, and maybe people will disagree with me, but I do think that top-10s on a third line are a bit overrated - players don't get top-10s if they don't get power play time. The players with top tens may very well be better offensively, but the gap looks a lot bigger because they were able to rack up points on the power play. The differences when the two are getting third line ice time are even smaller. Plus my players put up their point totals playing a shutdown role while scoring line players weren't in the same situation.

Right off the top of my head, an inconsistency jumps out there. We have a guy, Art Chapman, who put up fantastic numbers despite apparently playing "too defensively" (see his bio), while you have Mike Peca, who was a first line center for Buffalo for quite a few years and still didn't put up anything that would qualify him as more than an good second liner in a 30 team league.

Looking at Westfall, interestingly, he received a spike in his powerplay numbers after he went from the powerhouse Bruins to the expansion Islanders, but his overall numbers stayed mostly the same. In 1971, he put up a career high 59 points, but was 8th in team scoring and didn't score a single powerplay goal. Looking at the (non)effect that powerplay time had on his numbers, I'm guessing that with Westfall, what you see is what you get.

Klukay, I don't see any powerplay stats for on hockey-reference, but his offensive numbers are more negligible than Westfalls are.

Anyway, since this is the ATD, yeah, we'll count offensive top 10s as assets for third liners, because many of the third liners we're picking weren't strictly checking forwards in the NHL, just players who were excellent defensively. Don't we want the best overall players for each role?
Your thoughts on what makes a good third line notwithstanding, my post was in response to someone who (erroneously) thought that Nanaimo had better scoring depth. You may not care that your scoring line isn't going to be an offensive threat whatsoever, but it's still one advantage your team can't claim!

Ashbee and Duchesne will barely play at even strength (Duchense less than Ashbee). I think I have two pairings capable of eating up 47-50 mins per game between them if needed.

In my ATD experience, this kind of statement is usually taken as "yeah, they're not very good, can we ignore them please?" Maybe that's not fair, but I've seen lots of GMs have a really hard time making the "they won't play" defense.

 

[seventieslord]

"Before they built the CN Tower, Conacher's weapon was the thing to see in Toronto" - King Clancy

You can't be serious!

I wouldn't be surprised if you were.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I'm completely serious. That King Clancy was an interesting gentleman.

 

[pitseleh]

Right off the top of my head, an inconsistency jumps out there. We have a guy, Art Chapman, who put up fantastic numbers despite apparently playing "too defensively" (see his bio), while you have Mike Peca, who was a first line center for Buffalo for quite a few years and still didn't put up anything that would qualify him as more than an good second liner in a 30 team league.

Playing too defensively and playing great defensively are two different things. Peca is elite defensively while there is no such evidence for Chapman, at least as far as I've seen.

And if need be our fourth line can pick up minutes if the team is trailing.

Anyway, since this is the ATD, yeah, we'll count offensive top 10s as assets for third liners, because many of the third liners we're picking weren't strictly checking forwards in the NHL, just players who were excellent defensively. Don't we want the best overall players for each role?

Right, but carrying on what I was saying above, the total value of a player is based on his offensive and defensive contributions. Your third line will provide more of the former, my third line more of the latter.

Your thoughts on what makes a good third line notwithstanding, my post was in response to someone who (erroneously) thought that Nanaimo had better scoring depth. You may not care that your scoring line isn't going to be an offensive threat whatsoever, but it's still one advantage your team can't claim!

You guys have the advantage on the third line but our second and fourth lines should outscore yours. We also have better offensive weapons on the blueline.

In my ATD experience, this kind of statement is usually taken as "yeah, they're not very good, can we ignore them please?" Maybe that's not fair, but I've seen lots of GMs have a really hard time making the "they won't play" defense.

I'm not saying ignore them but that their ice time will be almost exclusively against your fourth line at even strength and on special teams. They aren't going to be required to be taking on enough even strength minutes to really get exposed by your second line.

 

[MXD]

Damn, I had the Clippers best overall, and the Betteman 4th in our div ... (but including my team, which means I'd have voted them 3rd). The Bettemans are, like, a Top-10 team in this draft. A shame for the 7th.

....

And that's inspite of three picks that I considered pretty bad at the time they were made. But they look great as it is now.

It feels so much like '67 Expansion.

 

[Dreakmur]

three picks that I considered pretty bad at the time they were made. But they look great as it is now.

Blair Russel, Art Chapman, and who?

 

[Dreakmur]

Playing too defensively and playing great defensively are two different things. Peca is elite defensively while there is no such evidence for Chapman, at least as far as I've seen.

Was Peca really elite defensively? He was good, there's not question, but I'm not even sure he was considered elite in his own era, let alone in an all time context.

Right, but carrying on what I was saying above, the total value of a player is based on his offensive and defensive contributions. Your third line will provide more of the former, my third line more of the latter.

Our line will provide way more offense, and your line will provide alittle bit more defense.

Both Tommy Phillips and Blair Russel were considered the top defensive players in their era. They both accomplished that while proving offense at the same time.

Russel, who was named "Best Shadow" by Ultimate Hockey, and who has phenominal speed, should be a nice match against Bobby Hull.