ATD 2010 Jim Coleman Conference Final: Inglewood Jacks vs. N.J. Swamp Devils
- Thread starter TheDevilMadeMe
- Start date
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Inglewood Jacks
PP1: Gadsby - Geoffrion - Moore - Stastny - Maltsev
PP2: Stapleton - Chara - Thompson - H. Sedin - Mikhailov
PK1: Provost - Mosdell - Gadsby - Chara
PK2: Thompson - Mikhailov - Watson - Dutton
vs.
New Jersey Swamp Devils
PP1: Jackson-Abel-Howe-Salming-Blake
PP2: Tkachuk-Savard-Martinec-Siebert-Leduc
PK1: Lepine-Marshall-Siebert-Green
PK2: Abel-Howe-Salming-Blake
PK3: Oliver-Graham-Siebert-Green
PP1: Gadsby - Geoffrion - Moore - Stastny - Maltsev
PP2: Stapleton - Chara - Thompson - H. Sedin - Mikhailov
PK1: Provost - Mosdell - Gadsby - Chara
PK2: Thompson - Mikhailov - Watson - Dutton
vs.
New Jersey Swamp Devils
PP1: Jackson-Abel-Howe-Salming-Blake
PP2: Tkachuk-Savard-Martinec-Siebert-Leduc
PK1: Lepine-Marshall-Siebert-Green
PK2: Abel-Howe-Salming-Blake
PK3: Oliver-Graham-Siebert-Green
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Congratulations for reaching the Conference finals, arrbez. Once again, you have one of my favorite teams in this thing.
This series gives me an opportunity to compare Vladimir Martinec to Boris Mikhailov and Alexander Maltsev. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have box scores from the 1970s World Championships and Olympics, so the comparison won't be as thorough as I would like.
This series gives me an opportunity to compare Vladimir Martinec to Boris Mikhailov and Alexander Maltsev. Unfortunately, nobody seems to have box scores from the 1970s World Championships and Olympics, so the comparison won't be as thorough as I would like.
Last edited:
raleh
Registered User
As much as I like the other teams left in the other conference, this is the ATD final. Has been all along.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Mikhailov vs. Martinec vs. Maltsev
I. Martinec likely has a better offensive peak than Mikhailov or Maltsev
A. Martinec was the All-Star RW at the World Championships in the middle of the prime of all three (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977)
-Mikhailov was only an All-Star at the WCs twice (1973, 1979)
-Maltsev was an All-Star at the WC in 70, 71, 72, 78, 81 - The gap in the middle is Martinec's prime.
B. Martinec was the best player in the WCs in 1976, competing against prime Mikhailov, Maltsev, and all the 70s Soviet greats
1) Martinec was the top scorer in at the 1976 World Championships, with 20 points in 10 games.
2) He was voted the best forward at the 1976 World Championships
C. The Soviets feard Martinec so much that they felt the need to take him out in the 1974 WCs, similar to what Clarke did to Kharlamov in the Summit Series.
From a thread on Clarke's attack on Kharlamov: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=315349
http://forums.internationalhockey.net/showthread.php?t=4201
D. Czechoslovakia was almost as good as the USSR during Martinec's prime and he was the best Czech skater at the time.
1) During the course of Martinec's international career (71-77), the Czechs won 3/7 World Championships (72, 76, 77), and were 5-7-3 against the Soviets overall.
Even before then, the Czechs were apparently right up there with the Soviets:
From 66-72, the Czechs were 12-11-2 against the USSR and 5-5-2 in "meaningful games." Source.
2) Martinec was considered the best Czech player at the time.
a) He won 3 of 4 "Golden Stick" awards for best Czechoslovakian player during this time (73, 75, 76). Goalie Jiri Holocek won in 74.
b) Overall, Martinec won 4 Golden Stick awards (73, 75, 76, 79) - the most ever until Jagr and Hasek.
3. Martinec is the All-Time leading Czechoslovakian scorer in "major international" tournaments by a wide margin.
■135 pts – 69 g – 66 a – 15 appearances — Vladimir MARTINEC
■113 pts – 60 g – 53 a – 17 appearances — Jiri HOLIK
■110 pts – 78 g – 32 a – 11 appearances — Vaclav NEDOMANSKY (all before '74)
■104 pts – 53 g – 51 a – 14 appearances— Ivan HLINKA
4) Nedomansky defected after the 74 WCs. Martinec was undisputed star forward for the Czech National Team afterwards.
II. Maltsev and Mikhailov have slight longevity advantages.
A. Martinec seems to have been a star player from 1971 (when he first joined the national team) to 1979 (his last golden stick win. I believe he led the Czech league in goals that year for the first time, finally playing on a good team).
B. Mikhailov seems to have been a star from 69-80 and Maltsev seems to have been a star from from 69-81.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=565254
C. Maltsev might have been at his best from 70-72 and Mikhailov might have been at his best from 78-80.
D. This isn’t a huge longevity advantage, but it’s enough to probably make the three players about even in offensive value.
E. First conclusion: Martinec = Mikhailov = Maltsev in pure offensive value
III. Intangibles and other considerations
A. Mikhailov oozes intangibles in a way that perhaps no other non-NHL Euro ever did.
B. Martinec and Maltsev are not known for much besides offense.
C. Martinec and Maltsev were both likely above average defensively, but I haven’t seen anything definitive.
D. The big difference between Maltsev and Martinec is that Maltsev has shown that he didn’t handle physical play very well. Whereas Martinec always bounced right back when physically abused (except when deliberately injured in 1974, but he can hardly be faulted for that. This actually ties into NJ’s gameplan for the series, so I’ll save the details for another post.
Conclusion and All-Time rankings:
Martinec = Mikhailov = Maltsev in terms of offensive value. But Mikhailov definitely beats them in intangibles. So where should they all be ranked on an All-Time list?
-The last HOH Top 100 list ranked Mikhailov as the 68th best player of all time. I think some Soviet greats were underrated on the list (mostly Makarov and Firsov), but I think Mikhailov’s ranking is essentially correct.
-If Mikhailov is the 68th best player of all time, what does that make Martinec and Maltsev, who are essentially his equals offensively, but don’t have his intangibles?
-Martinec should be ranked a bit ahead of Maltsev because his performance doesn’t weaken when physically challenged (more later).
I. Martinec likely has a better offensive peak than Mikhailov or Maltsev
A. Martinec was the All-Star RW at the World Championships in the middle of the prime of all three (1974, 1975, 1976, 1977)
-Mikhailov was only an All-Star at the WCs twice (1973, 1979)
-Maltsev was an All-Star at the WC in 70, 71, 72, 78, 81 - The gap in the middle is Martinec's prime.
B. Martinec was the best player in the WCs in 1976, competing against prime Mikhailov, Maltsev, and all the 70s Soviet greats
1) Martinec was the top scorer in at the 1976 World Championships, with 20 points in 10 games.
2) He was voted the best forward at the 1976 World Championships
C. The Soviets feard Martinec so much that they felt the need to take him out in the 1974 WCs, similar to what Clarke did to Kharlamov in the Summit Series.
From a thread on Clarke's attack on Kharlamov: http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=315349
http://forums.internationalhockey.net/showthread.php?t=4201
D. Czechoslovakia was almost as good as the USSR during Martinec's prime and he was the best Czech skater at the time.
1) During the course of Martinec's international career (71-77), the Czechs won 3/7 World Championships (72, 76, 77), and were 5-7-3 against the Soviets overall.
Even before then, the Czechs were apparently right up there with the Soviets:
From 66-72, the Czechs were 12-11-2 against the USSR and 5-5-2 in "meaningful games." Source.
2) Martinec was considered the best Czech player at the time.
a) He won 3 of 4 "Golden Stick" awards for best Czechoslovakian player during this time (73, 75, 76). Goalie Jiri Holocek won in 74.
b) Overall, Martinec won 4 Golden Stick awards (73, 75, 76, 79) - the most ever until Jagr and Hasek.
3. Martinec is the All-Time leading Czechoslovakian scorer in "major international" tournaments by a wide margin.
■135 pts – 69 g – 66 a – 15 appearances — Vladimir MARTINEC
■113 pts – 60 g – 53 a – 17 appearances — Jiri HOLIK
■110 pts – 78 g – 32 a – 11 appearances — Vaclav NEDOMANSKY (all before '74)
■104 pts – 53 g – 51 a – 14 appearances— Ivan HLINKA
4) Nedomansky defected after the 74 WCs. Martinec was undisputed star forward for the Czech National Team afterwards.
II. Maltsev and Mikhailov have slight longevity advantages.
A. Martinec seems to have been a star player from 1971 (when he first joined the national team) to 1979 (his last golden stick win. I believe he led the Czech league in goals that year for the first time, finally playing on a good team).
B. Mikhailov seems to have been a star from 69-80 and Maltsev seems to have been a star from from 69-81.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=565254
C. Maltsev might have been at his best from 70-72 and Mikhailov might have been at his best from 78-80.
D. This isn’t a huge longevity advantage, but it’s enough to probably make the three players about even in offensive value.
E. First conclusion: Martinec = Mikhailov = Maltsev in pure offensive value
III. Intangibles and other considerations
A. Mikhailov oozes intangibles in a way that perhaps no other non-NHL Euro ever did.
B. Martinec and Maltsev are not known for much besides offense.
C. Martinec and Maltsev were both likely above average defensively, but I haven’t seen anything definitive.
D. The big difference between Maltsev and Martinec is that Maltsev has shown that he didn’t handle physical play very well. Whereas Martinec always bounced right back when physically abused (except when deliberately injured in 1974, but he can hardly be faulted for that. This actually ties into NJ’s gameplan for the series, so I’ll save the details for another post.
Conclusion and All-Time rankings:
Martinec = Mikhailov = Maltsev in terms of offensive value. But Mikhailov definitely beats them in intangibles. So where should they all be ranked on an All-Time list?
-The last HOH Top 100 list ranked Mikhailov as the 68th best player of all time. I think some Soviet greats were underrated on the list (mostly Makarov and Firsov), but I think Mikhailov’s ranking is essentially correct.
-If Mikhailov is the 68th best player of all time, what does that make Martinec and Maltsev, who are essentially his equals offensively, but don’t have his intangibles?
-Martinec should be ranked a bit ahead of Maltsev because his performance doesn’t weaken when physically challenged (more later).
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Maltsev and Martinec and physical play
A) Maltsev appeared to fade as the Summit Series went along, due to the physical play by Canada:
http://www.1972summitseries.com/maltsev.html
The stats support his conclusion. Maltsev had primary assist on both of Kharlamov's second period goals in Game 1 as the USSR shocked Canada.
But after that, he faded. He would only have 1 even strength point for the next 7 games in the Summit Series, a secondary assist in Game 4. He had a primary assist on the PP in game 7 and a secondary assist on the PP in game 8. Zero goals in the Summit Series.
B) Here's a thread about the performances of Soviet stars against Canada and Czechoslovakia.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=684925&highlight=maltsev
Assists weren't record for USSR vs. CSSR games, so perhaps Maltsev performed better in that area.
C) Compare to Vladimir Martinec:
Short of blatant attempts to injure like the 74 WCs (which I don't think he can be faulted for), it seems like Martinec did not back down from physical play.
A) Maltsev appeared to fade as the Summit Series went along, due to the physical play by Canada:
http://www.1972summitseries.com/maltsev.html
The stats support his conclusion. Maltsev had primary assist on both of Kharlamov's second period goals in Game 1 as the USSR shocked Canada.
But after that, he faded. He would only have 1 even strength point for the next 7 games in the Summit Series, a secondary assist in Game 4. He had a primary assist on the PP in game 7 and a secondary assist on the PP in game 8. Zero goals in the Summit Series.
B) Here's a thread about the performances of Soviet stars against Canada and Czechoslovakia.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=684925&highlight=maltsev
VMBM said:
Assists weren't record for USSR vs. CSSR games, so perhaps Maltsev performed better in that area.
C) Compare to Vladimir Martinec:
Joe Pelletier said:
Short of blatant attempts to injure like the 74 WCs (which I don't think he can be faulted for), it seems like Martinec did not back down from physical play.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It sounds a bit dismissive to say that, but I have to agree 100%. I'm glad you spoke up!
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Good stuff so far. i agree on Mikhailov. I'm curious as to where you would rank the other two. In ranking forwards on the HOH list from 61-120 and looking at the players beyond, intangibles start to mean a ton. Guys like Ted Kennedy, Sid Abel, Alex Delvecchio, Ron Francis, and Frank Nighbor weren't THAT dominant offensively, but had so much in other areas. Guys like Babe Dye, Gord Drillon, Sweeney Schriner, Luc Robitaille, Roy Conacher, Joe Thornton, and many others were just as dominant offensively but brought comparitively little in other areas and many are ranked in the 200 range overall. It makes a big difference. So where would you rank Maltsev and Martinec?
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
Sturminator
Love is a duel
My two favorite teams in the draft by far. I foresaw this as the conference final before the draft was over, and I concur that the victor here is the clear favorite over the winner of the other series. Picking the winner of this one, however, is anything but easy. Two fantastic teams.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Kennedy and Nighbor are definitely a class above the rest of the guys listed, including Maltsev and Martinec.
On the other end, Maltsev and Martinec almost certainly had better peaks than Francis or Delvecchio. Does that mean they should be ranked higher? Personally, I'd put them in the same class as Delvecchio, which is a bit ahead of Francis.
Gilbert Perreault might be a good comparison - he played a very flashy almost European style and excelled on the big ice. Though Maltsev and Martinec were likely better than Perreault defensively. Perreault was ranked 85 on the 2008 list, but will probably go down a little bit if we ever finish the 2009 list.
I think I agree with Nayld that Maltsev, Martinec, and Nedomansky should be 90-125 or so. As for my own personal rankings, for now I would guess Martinec around 90, Maltsev around 100, Nedomansky around 115. But that's just an estimation. I do hope we get to resubmit lists for the 71-120 if the 2009 version of the HOH list ever restarts.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Series overview
I guess I should actually say something about the series then.
I'll go into a bit more detail later, but this is how I see this series shaping up:
Advantages NJ:
-Slightly better first line. You are one of the few teams in this where my first line’s advantage is only slight
-Better goaltending. Average goalie vs. a lower tier goalie
-Better coaching. Second tier coach vs. double-headed monster of below average coaches
Advantage Inglewood:
-Better second line. Definitely one of the best second lines in the ATD. NJ's second line is very good offensively, but this is still a fairly substantial advantage for Inglewood.
Even:
-Defense (NJ has a slightly better 2nd pair, Inglewood a better third pair)
-Lower lines
Overall:
-NJ’s 1st line should outscore Inglewood’s first line. How much it outscores Inglewood’s first line is increased by the differing quality of the goaltenders.
-NJ’s gameplan will then be to limit the damage caused by Inglewood’s second line and increase opportunities for our own second line to score.
I guess I should actually say something about the series then.
I'll go into a bit more detail later, but this is how I see this series shaping up:
Advantages NJ:
-Slightly better first line. You are one of the few teams in this where my first line’s advantage is only slight
-Better goaltending. Average goalie vs. a lower tier goalie
-Better coaching. Second tier coach vs. double-headed monster of below average coaches
Advantage Inglewood:
-Better second line. Definitely one of the best second lines in the ATD. NJ's second line is very good offensively, but this is still a fairly substantial advantage for Inglewood.
Even:
-Defense (NJ has a slightly better 2nd pair, Inglewood a better third pair)
-Lower lines
Overall:
-NJ’s 1st line should outscore Inglewood’s first line. How much it outscores Inglewood’s first line is increased by the differing quality of the goaltenders.
-NJ’s gameplan will then be to limit the damage caused by Inglewood’s second line and increase opportunities for our own second line to score.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Coaching and Goaltending
Coaching = Advantage NJ
I think I figured out how the two-headed monster of Quinn and Hitchcock works in-game. Quinn handles the forwards, Hitchcock the defensemen.
Pat Quinn was a guy who liked balanced lines, which he has here for the most part.
Quinn was also philosophically opposed to matching lines from what I could tell. He would roll out his lines without regards to what the other team was doing. I think it really hurt the Maple Leafs against the Devils, because it allowed Bobby Holik to molest Mats Sundin on basically every shift, even in Toronto.
On the other hand, Hitchcock was a firm believer in the matchup game.
What does it mean for this series? I’ll assume that Inglewood will get the defensemen they want out there just as often as NJ - Hitchcock is inferior to Ivan, but if he’s just specializing in changing the defensemen, he should be just as good. However, NJ should be able to get the matchups we want most of the time against Inglewood’s forwards.
Goaltending = Advantage NJ
After overcoming the excellent goaltending of the Lecavalier division, it’s a breath of fresh air to say that NJ finally has better goaltending than our opponent.
Lumley seems like a guy who was as good as many other ATD starters on his best days, but he was unable to maintain his high level as constantly.
Gardiner: 3 First Team All Stars, 1 Second Team All Star
Lumley: 2 First Team All Stars, 0 Second Teams
How big is the gap? Strictly from a ranking perspective, the difference between Gardiner and Lumley is probably the same as between Dryden and Gardiner. It's a substantial advantage for NJ, but it isn't the mismatch of Roy vs. Esposito in the other Conference final.
Coaching = Advantage NJ
I think I figured out how the two-headed monster of Quinn and Hitchcock works in-game. Quinn handles the forwards, Hitchcock the defensemen.
Pat Quinn was a guy who liked balanced lines, which he has here for the most part.
Quinn was also philosophically opposed to matching lines from what I could tell. He would roll out his lines without regards to what the other team was doing. I think it really hurt the Maple Leafs against the Devils, because it allowed Bobby Holik to molest Mats Sundin on basically every shift, even in Toronto.
On the other hand, Hitchcock was a firm believer in the matchup game.
What does it mean for this series? I’ll assume that Inglewood will get the defensemen they want out there just as often as NJ - Hitchcock is inferior to Ivan, but if he’s just specializing in changing the defensemen, he should be just as good. However, NJ should be able to get the matchups we want most of the time against Inglewood’s forwards.
Goaltending = Advantage NJ
After overcoming the excellent goaltending of the Lecavalier division, it’s a breath of fresh air to say that NJ finally has better goaltending than our opponent.
Lumley seems like a guy who was as good as many other ATD starters on his best days, but he was unable to maintain his high level as constantly.
Gardiner: 3 First Team All Stars, 1 Second Team All Star
Lumley: 2 First Team All Stars, 0 Second Teams
How big is the gap? Strictly from a ranking perspective, the difference between Gardiner and Lumley is probably the same as between Dryden and Gardiner. It's a substantial advantage for NJ, but it isn't the mismatch of Roy vs. Esposito in the other Conference final.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Scoring lines
First line = Slight Advantage NJ
Offense = Slight Advantage NJ
-Jackson = Moore, Stastny > Abel, Howe >> Geoffrion.
Defense = Very Small Advantage NJ
-Howe (NJ), Abel (NJ), and Moore (I) are all very good defensively but not elite.
-Stastny (I)and Geoffrion (I) are nothing special, but do show up (which is half the battle for a star forward). Jackson (NJ) is unknown.
Physical Play: Moderate Advantage NJ
-Howe (NJ) is the most physical player and Abel (NJ) is second most.
-Moore (I) is a beast in corners and Jackson (NJ) is a beast in front of the net. Geoffrion (I) played with a chip on his shoulder. I don't think any of the three was considered that intimidating though.
-Stastny (I), the least physical player on either line still played fairly chippy.
Second line = Moderate Advantage Inglewood
Offense = Slight Advantage Inglewood
-Martinec = Mikhailov. Martinec likely has the better offensive peak but the Mikhailov has slightly more longevity.
-Maltsev =/> Savard. Savard definitely has a slightly better peak (best non Gretzky/Lemieux forward in the NHL twice) but Maltsev has more longevity than any other Soviet forward. Very close, but Maltsev may have a slight edge due to probably being better at goalscoring.
-Thompson >> Tkachuk. Thompson has the two best seasons (2nd and 3rd in points). Otherwise they are pretty equal. The playoffs turn this from a small edge to a bigger one for Inglewood.
Defense and Intangibles = Substantial Advantage Inglewood.
-Mikhailov brings more intangibles than probably any other non-NHL European. He’s also solid defensively and a leader. Paul Thompson was quite good defensively.
-I suspect Maltsev and Martinec were both better than average defensively, but have no definitive proof. Regardless, it cancels out.
-Neither Savard nor Tkachuk was an outright liability defensively, but neither was particularly good.
Physical play = Slight Advantage NJ (but neither is all that physical).
-Tkachuk is the most physical forward on either second line.
-Mikhailov was great in corners and in front of the net, but he wasn't really physically intimidating
-Maltsev, Savard, and Martinec bring nothing physically. I don't think Paul Thompson does either.
First line = Slight Advantage NJ
Offense = Slight Advantage NJ
-Jackson = Moore, Stastny > Abel, Howe >> Geoffrion.
Defense = Very Small Advantage NJ
-Howe (NJ), Abel (NJ), and Moore (I) are all very good defensively but not elite.
-Stastny (I)and Geoffrion (I) are nothing special, but do show up (which is half the battle for a star forward). Jackson (NJ) is unknown.
Physical Play: Moderate Advantage NJ
-Howe (NJ) is the most physical player and Abel (NJ) is second most.
-Moore (I) is a beast in corners and Jackson (NJ) is a beast in front of the net. Geoffrion (I) played with a chip on his shoulder. I don't think any of the three was considered that intimidating though.
-Stastny (I), the least physical player on either line still played fairly chippy.
Second line = Moderate Advantage Inglewood
Offense = Slight Advantage Inglewood
-Martinec = Mikhailov. Martinec likely has the better offensive peak but the Mikhailov has slightly more longevity.
-Maltsev =/> Savard. Savard definitely has a slightly better peak (best non Gretzky/Lemieux forward in the NHL twice) but Maltsev has more longevity than any other Soviet forward. Very close, but Maltsev may have a slight edge due to probably being better at goalscoring.
-Thompson >> Tkachuk. Thompson has the two best seasons (2nd and 3rd in points). Otherwise they are pretty equal. The playoffs turn this from a small edge to a bigger one for Inglewood.
Defense and Intangibles = Substantial Advantage Inglewood.
-Mikhailov brings more intangibles than probably any other non-NHL European. He’s also solid defensively and a leader. Paul Thompson was quite good defensively.
-I suspect Maltsev and Martinec were both better than average defensively, but have no definitive proof. Regardless, it cancels out.
-Neither Savard nor Tkachuk was an outright liability defensively, but neither was particularly good.
Physical play = Slight Advantage NJ (but neither is all that physical).
-Tkachuk is the most physical forward on either second line.
-Mikhailov was great in corners and in front of the net, but he wasn't really physically intimidating
-Maltsev, Savard, and Martinec bring nothing physically. I don't think Paul Thompson does either.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Eh?! You seem to be ignoring Inglewood's obvious advantage on the top pairing, where the Jacks' players at both positions are a clear notch better than their New Jersey counterparts. I'm surprised you don't acknowledge this.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Seriously? A clear notch? I don't know if I've ever seen two defense pairings so similar. Good cases could be made for Salming or Gadsby being the best of the four, and for Blake or Chara being the worst of the four. Why do you see these as so clear cut?
hungryhungryhippy
Registered User
- Feb 7, 2010
- 739
- 1
Really, guys... ?
I was scolded a bit earlier for coming into the Falcons/Chief de Laval series and saying I thought the Falcons were a much better team. "We all listen to the arguments, we try and be open-minded, we keep our judgments to ourselves, etc..." and then I see 3 reputable guys picking the winners of a potential series before the matchups have even been set or a single argument has been made.
Should Stalberg or I even bother making an effort in our series? Those comments are pretty disheartening.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
This is basically how I saw it, as well.
The way I saw it is that Gadsby is a bit better than Salming offensively, a bit worse defensively, and likely marginally better overall. Both were excellent skaters and very physical.
But then Chara is a bit worse than Blake offensively, a bit better defensively, and marginally worse overall, at least in the playoffs.
So I thought the top pairs balanced out perfectly.
Salming vs. Gadsby
I'm willing to see a convincing case that Gadsby is a clear step better, but I just don't see it. For most of his career, Gadsby was competing with Kelly and Harvey (who didn't quite peak at the same time) and nobody else who anyone would consider even a borderline #1 in this. Horton had a single 2nd Team All-Star in the 50s and wasn't a real threat until the 60s I don't think. The other competition was mainly Fern Flaman and Marcel Pronovost.
Salming was competing with prime Potvin, Robinson, Park, Lapointe, Savard, a couple years of Orr, and young Bourque, and still has an All-Star record that's only a bit behind Gadsby's.
Gadsby definitely has a bit of an offensive edge. But I think Salming has a defensive edge. He finished 2nd in a coach's poll for "best defensive defenseman" to Bill White in 1974, his 2nd season in the league. He finished 3rd in a similar poll in 1979 to Larry Robinson and Serge Savard. (Source = HOH board). That's pretty elite company.
This isn't exactly fair to Gadsby, as I don't think we have any of these polls from his prime. Gadsby played well before I was born, but everything I've read about him raves about his physical game and offense and then something like "oh and he took care of own end too."
Blake vs. Chara
There is no way you are going to convince me that Chara has had a better career to date than Rob Blake. I've seen both of these defenseman and their peaks were of similar length and quality, with Blake a slightly better playoff performer to date. Blake had some great and some disappointing playoffs, but Chara has had mostly disapointing ones so far. Both were prone to moments of stupidity.
They have almost identical Norris records, with both winning a Norris during a relatively weak year for defensemen (ironically, you can argue that Lidstrom should have won the Norris during both Blake and Chara's big years):
Blake: 1, 3, 3, 4, 5, 8
Chara: 1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Chara might get another Top 10 after this seaosn, but he definately won't get another Top 6. (There's no way he was ahead of Pronger, Lidstrom, or Boyle). Another 7-10 nomination for Chara would put him almost exactly even with Blake, which confirms what my eyes have seen - they are dead even in the regular season. But as I said before, Blake has the slight playoff edge for now.
Chara is/was definitely the better PKer (it's his biggest strength), but that's about it. I understand drafting Chara over Blake if you want more of stay-at-hone guy to pair with someone like Gadsby, but I think Blake has had a slightly better career overall, due to a better playoff resume and equal regular season resume. Either way, I don't buy that either is a significant step away from the other.
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
A bit? He has a very clear offensive edge, and was arguably the 2nd most productive offensive defenseman of his era (ahead of Harvey) in spite of spending almost his whole career on bottom-feeder teams. Salming's offensive credentials make him below average for a #1 in this thing.
You're right, it is not fair to Gadsby, and amounts to pure conjecture.
In terms of career value, Blake and Chara are nearly identical, and I am a big fan of both men. In the context of this series, however, Chara vs. the Swamp Devils' top line (specifically Gordie Howe) is clearly a more favorable matchup than Blake vs. any of Inglewood's units. Actually, if I were you, I'd try to get that 2nd line out against Chara. Savard and Martinec are exactly the kind of players Z is least effective in defending.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
Don't worry, I certainly hope most people don't have everything thought up in front - even if it often looks so (just as often it looks votes get cast based on reputation).
As far as I'm concerned, it should be a close fight between the winner of your series and New Jersey (which I think is far better team than Inglewood).
raleh
Registered User
Sorry man. You're absolutely right. And in a playoff series anything can happen. Being the underdog can help too sometimes!
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I still don't see why Gadsby has such a large offensive edge on Salming.
During Gadsby's best 10-year offensive period (1954-1963) he was 1st in points among defensemen (once you remove Red Kelly's time as a forward) and in a virtual tie for points per game with a post-prime red Kelly, Doug Harvey, and just a bit ahead of a not-yet-peaked Pierre Pilote. Next on the list would be Allan Stanley.
During Salming's best 10-year offensive period (1974-1983) he was 2nd in points among defensemen) and 3rd in points per game among 400+ game players, well behind Potvin, but just behind Park and ahead of Larson, Robinson, Wilson, and Lapointe.
I don't think one is more impressive than the other.
As for defense, if one can't provide some sort of evidence then their position becomes weaker than a position that can be substantiated. There is tons of information supporting Salming's defense (coach's polls, +/- in relation to teammates, we saw him play) and very little supporting Gadsby's at this time. We can assume he was pretty good, but can we assume he was great? Or Salming level? I would prefer not to.
I also can't believe TDMM has conceded equal career value to Chara vs. Blake.
- Blake is now 40 and playing very well, and for pretty big minutes too. Chara is just 32.
- You can "add up" their norris finishes and say they look even (and based on those, they might, but Blake faced some tougher competition during some of his best years but I don't want to get into that) but it completely ignores that Blake has had 11 other seasons as a (at least) very good NHL defenseman. Chara simply has not accumulated that career value yet, plus he had a few seasons at the start where he was clumsy and feeling his way around the NHL. Those seasons add nothing to his case. A young Blake was rather impressive, and was touted as a future Norris winner.
Just match up their best seasons to eachother, and 2nd-best, and 3rd-best, and so on, and they may look almost even, but whose 7th-best season is better? and 8th? And 13th?
During Gadsby's best 10-year offensive period (1954-1963) he was 1st in points among defensemen (once you remove Red Kelly's time as a forward) and in a virtual tie for points per game with a post-prime red Kelly, Doug Harvey, and just a bit ahead of a not-yet-peaked Pierre Pilote. Next on the list would be Allan Stanley.
During Salming's best 10-year offensive period (1974-1983) he was 2nd in points among defensemen) and 3rd in points per game among 400+ game players, well behind Potvin, but just behind Park and ahead of Larson, Robinson, Wilson, and Lapointe.
I don't think one is more impressive than the other.
As for defense, if one can't provide some sort of evidence then their position becomes weaker than a position that can be substantiated. There is tons of information supporting Salming's defense (coach's polls, +/- in relation to teammates, we saw him play) and very little supporting Gadsby's at this time. We can assume he was pretty good, but can we assume he was great? Or Salming level? I would prefer not to.
I also can't believe TDMM has conceded equal career value to Chara vs. Blake.
- Blake is now 40 and playing very well, and for pretty big minutes too. Chara is just 32.
- You can "add up" their norris finishes and say they look even (and based on those, they might, but Blake faced some tougher competition during some of his best years but I don't want to get into that) but it completely ignores that Blake has had 11 other seasons as a (at least) very good NHL defenseman. Chara simply has not accumulated that career value yet, plus he had a few seasons at the start where he was clumsy and feeling his way around the NHL. Those seasons add nothing to his case. A young Blake was rather impressive, and was touted as a future Norris winner.
Just match up their best seasons to eachother, and 2nd-best, and 3rd-best, and so on, and they may look almost even, but whose 7th-best season is better? and 8th? And 13th?
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
By the way, TDMM, try this site for box scores of games involving Russians:
http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_player_info.asp?p_id=m018
Russia and the Czechs would almost certainly have met in just about every tournament they both played in, so you should probably be able to find what you're looking for.
http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_player_info.asp?p_id=m018
Russia and the Czechs would almost certainly have met in just about every tournament they both played in, so you should probably be able to find what you're looking for.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Don't think about it. GBC called the winner of the other semifinal the eventual champ when I first won the ATD. Obviously, I didn't get his vote, but won anyway. I'm not even a voter in this thing anymore, so don't worry about my opinion.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 17Staked: $19,742.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 10Staked: $17,327.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $2,309.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
