ATD 2020 Finals - (1) NJ Swamp Devils vs (3) Pittsburgh AC

[ResilientBeast]

NJ Swamp Devils (1)

Coach: Ken Hitchcock
Assistant/PP Coach: Bob Johnson

Vladimir Krutov - Sid Abel (C) - Guy Lafleur
Boris Mayorov (A) - Vyacheslav Starshinov - Bobby Bauer
Tony Leswick - Cooney Weiland - Mush March
Ab McDonald - Mike Ricci - Tim Kerr

Allan Stanley - Earl Seibert (A)
Vladimir Lutchenko - Flash Hollett
Vasili Pervukhin - Doug Young

George Hainsworth
Ben Bishop

PP1:
Tim Kerr
- Vladimir Krutov - Sid Abel - Guy Lafleur
Flash Hollett

PP2:
Boris Mayorov - Vyacheslav Starshinov - Bobby Bauer
Allan Stanley - Earl Seibert

PK1: Cooney Weiland - Tony Leswick - Allan Stanley - Earl Seibert
PK2: Viachelsav Starshinov - Mush Marsh - Vladimir Lutchenko - Doug Young
PK3: Vladimir Krutov - Sid Abel

Spares: Jack Evans (D), Steve Sullivan (F)


Estimated Ice Time

Forwards
Name	ES	PP	PK	Total
Vladimir Krutov	14	4	1	19
Sid Abel	14	4	1	19
Guy Lafleur	16	4*		20
Boris Mayorov	13	3		16
Vladimir Starshinov	13	3	2	18
Bobby Baeur	13	3		16
Tony Leswick	13		4	17
Conney Weiland	13		4	17
Mush March	13		2	15
Ab McDonald	6			6
Mike Ricci	6			6
Tim Kerr	4	4		8
Total	138	26*	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Defensemen	ES	PP	PK	Total
Allan Stanley	16	2	4	22
Earl Seibert	18	2	4	24
Vladimir Lutchenko	16		2	18
Flash Hollett	14	5		19
Vasili Pervukhin	13	1	1	15
Doug Young	13		3	16
Total	92	9	14

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

VS

Pittsburgh AC (3)

Original Red and White colours of the AC

Head Coach:

Pete Green


Assistant Coach:

Larry Robinson


Forwards:

Bert Olmstead - Jean Beliveau (C) - Helmuts Balderis

Smokey Harris - Russell Bowie - Blair Russell

Bob Gainey (A) - Doug Jarvis - Ed Westfall

Chris Kunitz - Harry "Rat" Westwick - Cully Wilson


Spare:

Jason Arnott



Defensemen:

Duncan Keith - Art Coulter (A)

Hamby Shore - Fred Lake

Eduard Ivanov - Dan Girardi


Spare:

Brooks Orpik


Goalies:

Georges Vezina

Corey Crawford





Special Teams:

PP 1:


Bowie - RHS (trigger/half wall into slot) Beliveau - LHS (net front) - Olmstead - LHS (cornerman/facilitator)
Ivanov - RHS (trigger) - Shore- LHS (QB)

PP 2:

Westwick - RHS (half wall) - Harris - LHS (net front/slot) - Balderis - LHS (float)
Ivanov - RHS (trigger) - Keith - LHS (QB)

PK 1:

Jarvis - Westfall
Lake - Coulter

PK 2:

Gainey - Russell
*Keith/Orpik - Girardi

*When playing with 7 Dmen on away ice Orpik will take Keith's spot on the 2nd unit. This frees up Keith to play even more time @ ES which I want out of my #1.


Line Combinations Home/Away:


STANDARD LINE UP @ HOME:

Olmstead - Beliveau - Balderis
Harris - Bowie - Russell
Gainey - Jarvis - Westfall
Kunitz - Westwick - Wilson

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi


BALANCED LINE UP @ HOME

Olmstead - Beliveau - Westfall
Gainey - Bowie - Russell
Harris - Jarvis - Balderis
Kunitz - Westwick - Wilson

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi

*Really like this fit as a change of pace given it spreads the offensive talent around the top 9 more than consolidating it on the scoring lines. Green can role this out to keep teams off balance. Balderis can carry a line offensively here while Jarvis can play a Larionov role between 2 wingers who are much more offensively gifted than the Gainey/Westfall. Beliveau and Bowie have elite checkers who can do heavy lifting in the corners and defensive zone while retaining the ability to get the puck to the C.


PROTECTING LEAD LATE @ HOME:

Olmstead - Beliveau - Balderis
Kunitz - Bowie - Wilson
Gainey - Jarvis - Westfall
Harris - Westwick - Russell

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi

*Lines 3 and 4 will see increased action, with neutral ice clogged up. Force teams to dump and then use the speed and transition ability of our top 4 D to recover puck and move in counter direction.


WHEN TRAILING LATE @ HOME:

Olmstead - Beliveau - Balderis
Harris - Bowie - Wilson
Kunitz - Westwick - Westfall
Gainey - Jarvis - Russell

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi

*Not a big change from standard lineup. Just inserting a bit more offense into top 9 with Kunitz and Wilson and rolling 3 lines late if trailing.



STANDARD LINE UP @ AWAY : (11 F - 7 D)

Olmsted - Beliveau - Balderis
Harris* - Bowie - Russell*
Gainey* - Jarvis - Westfall*
Westwick - Wilson

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi
Oprik (PK specialist)


* Will all take extra shifts to cover 4LW vacancy.

This lineup is to maximize Keith's ES time. I want the #1 out @ ES as much as possible. He's already in the upper echelons of Dmen in terms of logging minutes but having Orpik means Keith only sees time on the 2nd PP unit.

The rest of the lineup can be juggled as outlined above w/ the home variations.​

​

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Congrats on making the finals, IE! I'm not surprised to see you here.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Congrats on making the finals, IE! I'm not surprised to see you here.

Same you my friend. I had my advanced scouts looking at you and Orillia quite a bit the last few days!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

First lines = moderate advantage NJ
'
The Star: Beliveau > Lafleur because of longevity and a better all-round game.

If we're talking best consecutive 6 year period, Lafleur is probably better than any forward not named Howe, Gretzky, or Lemieux. But 7 years is the VsX standard so:

7 year VsX Beliveau: 105.7
7 year VsX Lafleur: 104.5

Both men were dominant scorers in the playoffs. Lafleur for his part averaged 1.5 points per game in the playoffs over a 6 year period, without any teammate coming close.

Offensively, I think they are similar.

But Beliveau has additional advantages: Longevity as an elite player & all-round play.

Beliveau's all-round play can sometimes be overrated - he never had to take the tough defensive assignments for his team because he had Mosdell for a few years, and then Henri Richard for the rest of his career. But his all-round game is still better than Lafleur's

The "glue guy:" Abel > Olmstead. The offensive gap is quite large

Olmstead as an elite glue guy, but Abel is actually something of a scoring star himself

Abel 7 year VsX: 87.3
Olmstead 7 year VsX: 75.9

If you want to take away points from Abel for Gordie Howe breaking the VsX system in the last 2 years of his prime, should we take points away from Olmstead for Believeau breaking it in 1955-56? (Abel also lost some prime years to WW2, but this was probably made up for with the Gordie Howe factor later).

Playoffs? THN gave Sid Abel their "Retroactive Conn Smythe" for 1943 (SIHR/HHOF gave it to Jack Stewart. The two study groups usually agreed, but not always). Abel's leadership (and league-leading goal total) would also be given lots of credit for helping the Red Wings "finally get over the Toronto hump" in 1950, with Gordie Howe out with that nasty season-ending injury.

The Soviet scoring star: Krutov > Balderis

In the Soviet domestic league, the two men actually have similar scoring records, which is big credit to Balderis.

However, Krutov provided more than just offense - he was the closest thing the 1980s Soviets had to a "power forward," and he was also a 1st unit penalty killer in high-pressure international games.

Krutov also kills Balderis in international recognition - and international tournaments were the true reason these guys played. True, Balderis was likely discriminated against at least somewhat, both for not being an ethnic Russian and for not buying totally into the Communist system, but it should still not take away what Krutov accomplished:

Krutov: 2-time WC Best Player, 6-time WC All-Star, Canada Cup All-Star (1987)
Balderis: 1-time WC Best Player, 1-time WC All-Star

Conclusion: When comparing the 1st liners by their roles, NJ has the advantage in 2 of 3 positions, and the largest gap is between Abel and Olmstead.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Enjoy the breakdown by roles, it seems by position was the standard for way too long

 

[ImporterExporter]

Couple of point for this series.

One, Pittsburgh is going with our standard 12 F/6 D. NJ doesn't have near the advantage on D that Baltimore did in the last series or the physicality that Stevens/Blake/Day/Suter brought.

Two, Pittsburgh is the fresher team coming off a 6 game series vs 7 for NJ. Our D in particular will be more rested having played 3 games with 7 D in the last series. Figuring by modern schedules Pitt would have gotten an extra 2 days rest by winning in 6 games vs 7 for NJ.

With that being said, let's get started:

Coaching: Moderate Advantage Pittsburgh

Ken Hitchcock is an average coach in a 40 team league, probably on the higher end of that group but I think he and Johnson are outclassed by a moderate amount here.

With everything we know about Green I can see no sensible way to keep him out of the top 10 all time.

There is an argument to be made he’s the most important and impactful coach pre WWII. His contributions even beyond win/losses are many and so critical given the timeline and plethora of information to choose from. I have him over Dick Irvin certainly, and within striking distance of Lester Patrick, at least until a full scale HoH project can be undertaken.

I love Badger Bob (he's the first coach I remember as a kid and honestly believe had he not died Pittsburgh would have likely hit dynasty status before the Wings/Devils blew up in the mid 90's) but Larry Robinson is a better AC given he actually accomplished a lot as an AC at the NHL level. Both assistants bring quality attributes that fit the respective teams' needs.

Both were huge player’s coaches but Robinson is simply more suited for an assistant's role given he actually did it and did it well at the NHL level. Robinson won 2 Cups as an assist (95 and 03) and was HC when the Devils won in 2000 (lost in finals in 2001).

Hitchock is simply out pointed across the board by Green as far as defensive innovation and win/losses go.

Consider:

Hitchcock has a fantastic regular season record of 849-534-88. But this isn’t the regular season. Many coaches have near/top shelf regular season records, including Green.

Hitchock has 1 title in 22 years coaching.

He’s 86-82 in the playoffs.

Since his back to back Finals appearances in 99/2000, Hitchcock never made it back to the Finals, getting to the conference finals twice, but losing both times.

Since his back to back Finals appearances in 99/2000, Hitchcock was 43-55 in the playoffs, over a timeline that makes up ¾ of his career.

Hitchock was fired, in season, 4 times. Dallas, Philly, Columbus, St Louis. Please correct me if that's not right but I looked at his coaching resume more than a few times recently.

Green’s early era teams were good defensively but blew the doors off folks from a scoring standpoint as no other team came remotely close to Ottawa in goals produced from 1909 through 1913.

Green is specifically cited as creating a system of team play that was unlike anything hockey had seen to that point.

Players not just “winging it” but rather operating in a coordinated system, with roles outlined for everyone. Players were instructed to cover up for a rushing player (More advanced responsibility like you see today with the F3).

Both defensemen were used to move the puck up the ice rather than a single person.

Players were instructed to be in specific positions for rebound chances off the goalie.

The use of a specific substitution system was designed and implemented by Green (pre dates multiple lines) to keep players fresher which was specifically cited as being a reason Ottawa dominated.

17 Jan 1910, Page 12 - The Ottawa Journal at Newspapers.com

Amazing overview of the style of hockey Ottawa plays under Green and how it helped them dominate the league at this time.

17 Feb 1911, 8 - The Ottawa Citizen at Newspapers.com

Green, in 1911 already showing the importance of conditioning. Players adhere to his training rules.

28 Nov 1912, 9 - The Ottawa Citizen at Newspapers.com

According to Percy Leseuer, Green is who all the players consider to be the best coach and the person they look to in a crisis. Speaks volumes about Green's contributions and impact.

In the 1920’s Green developed the most dominant defensive system (kitty bar the door) in hockey history to that point, which was a precursor to the neutral zone trap.

His record on conditioning athletes is elite and significant and noted to be a factor in why Ottawa usually had great teams under Petie. His liberal use of subs and understanding the need for fresh players is a precursor to coaches using 2, 3 and 4 lines.

Highly, highly respected by both players, other coaches and fans.

The peer/player testimonies of him are significant and many, especially considering we’re talking about 100+ years ago.

Developing players such as Cyclone Taylor, King Clancy, Sprague Cleghorn, Jack Darragh, Dubbie Kerr, can all be traced back to Green. In the instances of Clancy and Darragh it was Green who scouted and found them in the first place.

Green using Cy Denenny to cover Reg Noble, then Broadbent and even shifted Darragh over.

Green giving his team a pep talk.

More strategy

Cleghorn with huge praise for Green

Clancy tribute and Green noted as great strategist.

Tommy Gorman's tribute

15 Apr 1961, Page 13 - The Ottawa Journal at Newspapers.com

-One of two articles years later that show it was Pete Green who switched Cyclone Taylor to defensemen in Ottawa with obviously positive results.

Mr. Bate said some of the directors were discouraged when Taylor worked out as a forward in Ottawa...Then the late Petie Green, then coaching, insisted Taylor try the defense...Taylor turned on his amazing speed and wasn't long convincing the club he was at home.

26 Apr 1968, Page 25 - The Ottawa Journal at Newspapers.com

-Really cool interview with an 83 year old Cyclone Taylor who just happens to confirm the bit above about Green being the one who switched him to the back end in Ottawa. (I didn't type out the entire interview but click the link. Should go right to it on page 25)

He (Cyclone Taylor) smiled:

"I guess that was true. The Silver Seven players were playing out their string in Ottawa when I arrived. They put me on the forward line in workouts and I guess they felt I was messing up the attack. I was blessed with skating ability and it didn't work well for a time.

Then Petie Green a noted trainer and coach, suggested I play defence. I was used as a defencemen in the opening game against Montreal Wanderers.

"We scored eight goals against Montreal. I got four of them and I was with the club for two years until I got the invitation to go to Renfrew.

Part of the deal for me to come to Ottawa was to get me a job in the government. They were pretty persuasive and made me feel that I might wind up as prime minister".

Even if you devalued his titles by 50%, which would be excessive, he’d still be worth 2.5 to 3 (depending on how you view 1910). And honestly, I’m much more floored by the detail in which his coaching style and impact are noted. That’s the real treasure with Green IMO.

He has 5 SC titles outright. His regular season winning % is on par w/ Toe Blake all time and as a coach, nobody pre Lester Patrick comes remotely close to Green as an HC.

Green spent a career as the best in the world at what he did and I think he's going to outwit/match Hitchcock head to head.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just how bad is Blair Russell's offense?

Pittsburgh is a generally good team, but Blair Russell in the top 6 is a major weakness.

Compare Blair Russell with his linemate Russell Bowie on offense. With seasons this short, I prefer to combine the stats from consecutive seasons.

1900 CAHL: Russell 9 goals in 7 games, Bowie 15 goals in 7 games
1901 CAHL: Russell 8 in 8, Bowie 24 in 7
1902 CAHL Russell 9 in 8, Bowie 13 in 7
1903 CAHL Russell 7 in 8, Bowie 22 in 7
1904 CAHL Russell 17 in 8, Bowie 27 in 8
1905 CAHL Russell 19 in 8, Bowie 27 in 8
1906 ECAHA Russell 7 in 4, Bowie 30 in 9
1907 ECAHA, Russell 25 in 10, Bowie 38 in 10
1908 ECAHA Russell 8 in 6, Bowie 31 in 10

Total: Russell: 109 in 67 games (1.629 GPG). Bowie: 227 in 73 games (3.110 GPG)]

Blair Russell scored 52.4% of his linemate Russell Bowie.

Compare to Tony Leswick (61.0 even strength VsX) and Mush March (54.4 even strength VsX). Even if you assign Russell Bowie a VsX score of 100 (which I think is outrageously high), Blair Russell is still a worse scorer than either of NJ's 3rd line wingers.

If you assign Bowie a more realistic score (85.5 is Denis Savard), then 52.4% of 85.5 would give Blair Russell an estimated VsX score of 44.8.

Conclusion: Even if you take the most charitable view of amateur-era hockey, Blair Russell looks to be a significant step down from Tony Leswick as a scorer and a very small step down from Mush March. If you take what I think is a more realistic view of amateur-era hockey (Bowie = Denis Savard), then Blair Russell actually looks to be a significantly weaker scorer than Mush March, too.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Just how bad is Blair Russell's offense?

Pittsburgh is a generally good team, but Blair Russell in the top 6 is a major weakness.

Compare Blair Russell with his linemate Russell Bowie on offense. With seasons this short, I prefer to combine the stats from consecutive seasons.

1900 CAHL: Russell 9 goals in 7 games, Bowie 15 goals in 7 games
1901 CAHL: Russell 8 in 8, Bowie 24 in 7
1902 CAHL Russell 9 in 8, Bowie 13 in 7
1903 CAHL Russell 7 in 8, Bowie 22 in 7
1904 CAHL Russell 17 in 8, Bowie 27 in 8
1905 CAHL Russell 19 in 8, Bowie 27 in 8
1906 ECAHA Russell 7 in 4, Bowie 30 in 9
1907 ECAHA, Russell 25 in 10, Bowie 38 in 10
1908 ECAHA Russell 8 in 6, Bowie 31 in 10

Total: Russell: 109 in 67 games (1.629 GPG). Bowie: 227 in 73 games (3.110 GPG)]

Blair Russell scored 52.4% of his linemate Russell Bowie.

Compare to Tony Leswick (61.0 even strength VsX) and Mush March (54.4 even strength VsX). Even if you assign Russell Bowie a VsX score of 100 (which I think is outrageously high), Blair Russell is still a worse scorer than either of NJ's 3rd line wingers.

If you assign Bowie a more realistic score (85.5 is Denis Savard), then 52.4% of 85.5 would give Blair Russell an estimated VsX score of 44.8.

Conclusion: Even if you take the most charitable view of amateur-era hockey, Blair Russell looks to be a significant step down from Tony Leswick as a scorer and a very small step down from Mush March. If you take what I think is a more realistic view of amateur-era hockey (Bowie = Denis Savard), then Blair Russell actually looks to be a significantly weaker scorer than Mush March, too.

That only takes into account goals sir. Once you factor in assists, which Russell was one of the best at accumulating, those figures are underselling BR. Regardless, Russell is there for chemistry and as a 2nd premium checker (behind Westfall) to counter Krutov/Mayorov. If you talk about roles, his is clearly defined and he's got the C he ran with for almost a decade to work with.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That only takes into account goals sir. Once you factor in assists, which Russell was one of the best at accumulating,

Do you have a source for this? The bio you are linked to doesn't mention assists.

A number of years back, SIHR researchers actually poured through newspaper articles to figure out "retroactive assists" for guys from this era and posted them on their website. And you know what? The vast majority of goals were still unassisted, at least in part because the vast majority of goals during the era were scored off individual rushes. Multiple bios of Cyclone Taylor speak of how he was the first hockey player to make an art form out of "playmaking" and how Taylor's at-the-time-unique style helped lead the Patricks to make changes to the rules in the PCHA to open up the passing game for entertainment sake.

I am no longer a member of SIHR, so I can't access their database, but I don't remember Blair Russell being noteworthy in reconstructed assists. The only player who seemed to get noticeably more reconstructed assists than anyone else was Alf Smith, who was passing to Frank McGee, then Marty Walsh. Russell Bowie actually picked up enough "reconstructed assists" where I argued in the past that he could at least dump the puck off to his linemates; not a total "shoot or turn the puck over" player like a stereotype of Brett Hull. But the point is, I don't remember Blair Russell's reconstructed assist totals even being noteworthy.

 

[ImporterExporter]

First lines = moderate advantage NJ
'
The Star: Beliveau > Lafleur because of longevity and a better all-round game.

If we're talking best consecutive 6 year period, Lafleur is probably better than any forward not named Howe, Gretzky, or Lemieux. But 7 years is the VsX standard so:

7 year VsX Beliveau: 105.7
7 year VsX Lafleur: 104.5

Both men were dominant scorers in the playoffs. Lafleur for his part averaged 1.5 points per game in the playoffs over a 6 year period, without any teammate coming close.

Offensively, I think they are similar.

But Beliveau has additional advantages: Longevity as an elite player & all-round play.

Beliveau's all-round play can sometimes be overrated - he never had to take the tough defensive assignments for his team because he had Mosdell for a few years, and then Henri Richard for the rest of his career. But his all-round game is still better than Lafleur's

The "glue guy:" Abel > Olmstead. The offensive gap is quite large

Olmstead as an elite glue guy, but Abel is actually something of a scoring star himself

Abel 7 year VsX: 87.3
Olmstead 7 year VsX: 75.9

If you want to take away points from Abel for Gordie Howe breaking the VsX system in the last 2 years of his prime, should we take points away from Olmstead for Believeau breaking it in 1955-56? (Abel also lost some prime years to WW2, but this was probably made up for with the Gordie Howe factor later).

Playoffs? THN gave Sid Abel their "Retroactive Conn Smythe" for 1943 (SIHR/HHOF gave it to Jack Stewart. The two study groups usually agreed, but not always). Abel's leadership (and league-leading goal total) would also be given lots of credit for helping the Red Wings "finally get over the Toronto hump" in 1950, with Gordie Howe out with that nasty season-ending injury.

The Soviet scoring star: Krutov > Balderis

In the Soviet domestic league, the two men actually have similar scoring records, which is big credit to Balderis.

However, Krutov provided more than just offense - he was the closest thing the 1980s Soviets had to a "power forward," and he was also a 1st unit penalty killer in high-pressure international games.

Krutov also kills Balderis in international recognition - and international tournaments were the true reason these guys played. True, Balderis was likely discriminated against at least somewhat, both for not being an ethnic Russian and for not buying totally into the Communist system, but it should still not take away what Krutov accomplished:

Krutov: 2-time WC Best Player, 6-time WC All-Star, Canada Cup All-Star (1987)
Balderis: 1-time WC Best Player, 1-time WC All-Star

Conclusion: When comparing the 1st liners by their roles, NJ has the advantage in 2 of 3 positions, and the largest gap is between Abel and Olmstead.

Concluding something based on roles is watering down the evaluation process. Is it part of the equation. Absolutely, but it's only a slice of the pie. Judging players based on where they rank all time is the most important factor because that is where you take all the intricate details from to come to a solid conclusion.

The best goal scorer on either line is Beliveau, who's also the best playoff player and leader. Pittsburgh is bigger, more physical, with real life chemistry to fall back on. Olmstead is the best defensive player, and the best pure board player in either direction.

Beliveau in the 50's was dominant goal scorer and as he aged into the 60's turned into a dominant play maker. His adaptability is so critical.

Olmstead is as good a glue guy as Abel for 2 reasons. One, he's playing with JB. That's an inherent advantage just based on knowing where each player will be on the ice. Little tendencies that go into evaluating connection, which favor Pittsburgh. Two, Olmstead was huge, incredibly mean, and is cited by numerous people as being the preeminent cornerman in his day. His role is clearly defined and unlike Krutov or Abel, doesn't have to answer questions about whether he'd work with a linemate.

Balderis is about as good a fit as I could have hoped to have gotten given the restrictions of a 40 team, no trade draft. His skating will play well with Beliveau in transition. On his skates he's every bit talent Lafleur was. In fact Lafleur was a comparison made by certain Soviets in regards to Balderis. Balderis adds a 2nd premium goal scorer to the line and someone who was noted to work in combination well with other forwards, which wasn't always typical of Soviet F's.

I think NJ has a very slight advantage evaluating top lines, but it's not due to roles. It basically comes down to Krutov being better than Olmstead in an all time sense. Both lines are well constructed but I think Beliveau is working with wingers who fit him better than Abel who peaked with Lindsay-Howe. Abel in particular is going to have to shoulder an even bigger burden physically/checking wise than he did in real life.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Do you have a source for this? The bio you are linked to doesn't mention assists.

A number of years back, SIHR researchers actually poured through newspaper articles to figure out "retroactive assists" for guys from this era and posted them on their website. And you know what? The vast majority of goals were still unassisted, at least in part because the vast majority of goals during the era were scored off individual rushes. Multiple bios of Cyclone Taylor speak of how he was the first hockey player to make an art form out of "playmaking" and how Taylor's at-the-time-unique style helped lead the Patricks to make changes to the rules in the PCHA to open up the passing game for entertainment sake.

I am no longer a member of SIHR, so I can't access their database, but I don't remember Blair Russell being noteworthy in reconstructed assists. The only player who seemed to get noticeably more reconstructed assists than anyone else was Alf Smith, who was passing to Frank McGee, then Marty Walsh. Russell Bowie actually picked up enough "reconstructed assists" where I argued in the past that he could at least dump the puck off to his linemates; not a total "shoot or turn the puck over" player like a stereotype of Brett Hull. But the point is, I don't remember Blair Russell's reconstructed assist totals even being noteworthy.

I'll get some clippings posted tonight/tomorrow. You'll never get 100% of assists reconstructed as some game reports either don't exist or are general in nature but I have a decent number across his entire career that show Russell was a pretty slick passer.

Bowie is probably undervalued offensively based on this as well, which is why I have him in the Nels Stewart (lowest) to Bill Cowley (highest) range in terms of overall offensive value.

Like I said from the beginning, I know Russell is a subpar scorer in a top 6 role but his role as it pertains to being a stopper defensively and chemistry next to Bowie were the chief factors for him being drafted. I banked on getting value with my 2LW and was able to accomplish that IMO with Harris, who's own value is much higher today than it was prior to the bio I put out.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bowie is probably undervalued offensively based on this as well, which is why I have him in the Nels Stewart (lowest) to Bill Cowley (highest) range in terms of overall offensive value.

The low end of how good Bowie could have been is much lower than Nels Stewart. It's possible that Bowie was no better than Marty Walsh or Ernie Russell.

Look at who he was competing against in the amateur era.

From 1901-1905, he largely completely dominated the Canadian Amateur Hockey League (CAHL) , but against what competition?

1901:

Russell Bowie	Victorias	7	24
Lorne Campbell	Montreal	7	10
Arthur Farrell	Shamrocks	8	10
Harold Henry	Ottawa	8	8
Blair Russel	Victorias	8	8

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1902:

Archie Hooper	Montreal	8	17
Russell Bowie	Victorias	7	13
Jack Marshall	Montreal	8	11
Rat Westwick	Ottawa	8	11
Bruce Stuart	Ottawa	8	9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1903:

Russell Bowie	Victorias	7	22
Frank McGee	Ottawa	6	14
Herb Jordan	Quebec	7	12
Billy Gilmour	Ottawa	7	10
Archie Hooper	Montreal	6	9

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1904:

Bowie, Russell	Victorias	8	27
Jordan, Herb	Quebec	6	19
Russell, Blair	Victorias	8	17
Howard, Cavey	Victorias	6	16
McGee, Frank	Ottawa	4	12

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1905:

Bowie, Russell	Victorias	8	27
Russel, Blair	Victorias	8	19
Power, Joe	Quebec	9	15
Foulis, C.	Westmount	7	13
Russell, Ernie	Montreal	8	11

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Ernie Russell was only 21 years old in 1905.

When the CAHL more or less became the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), Bowie looks to have fallen a bit back down to earth:

1906:

Smith, Harry	Ottawa	8	31
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	9	30
McGee, Frank	Ottawa	7	28
Power, Joe	Quebec	10	21
Russell, Ernie	Wanderers	6	21

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1907:

Russell, Ernie	Wanderers	9	42
Bowie, Russell	Victorias	10	38
Russell, Blair	Victorias	10	25
Smith, Harry	Ottawa	9	21
Sargent, Grover	Montreal	10	20

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

1908:

Russell Bowie	Victorias	10	31
Marty Walsh	Ottawa	9	28
Tommy Phillips	Ottawa	10	26
Charles Power	Quebec	10	23
Herb Jordan	Quebec	8	22
Ernie Russell	Wanderers	9	21

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Note a few things:

• Bowie won only 1 of 3 scoring titles from 1906-1908, though he was always in the mix.
• 1908 was the only season when either Tommy Phillips or Marty Walsh played in the same league as Bowie, and Walsh scored at a basically the same rate (3.11 GPG for Walsh, 3.10 GPG for Bowie)
• Over the three seasons from 1906-1908, Ernie Russell scored 84 goals in 24 games (3.50 GPG). While Bowie scored 99 goals in 29 games (3.41 GPG).
• The fact that the top scorers tended to be quite a bit closer to each other in the ECAHA days makes one suspect that the overall competition was deeper there.

_________________

So an uncharitable reading of Bowie would be that he racked up 4 CAHL scoring titles in 5 years by huge margins, but did it against really weak competition, so weak that we can't really translate it into more recent years. Then, when competition got a little better, Marty Walsh and Ernie Russell proved to be Russell Bowie's equals.

Now I think that's a little unfair to Bowie - he should get some amount of credit for blowing away the CAHL. There were no better leagues than the CAHL at the time, and Bowie did what you would expect a great scorer to do an an inferior league - he owned it. But translating that to Nels Stewart or Bill Cowley levels of greatness is too far, in my opinion.

Given the wide range of how good Bowie could have been, I don't think it's unfair to him to estimate his offense at Denis Savard level.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The low end of how good Bowie could have been is much lower than Nels Stewart. It's possible that Bowie was no better than Marty Walsh or Ernie Russell.

Look at who he was competing against in the amateur era.

From 1901-1905, he largely completely dominated the Canadian Amateur Hockey League (CAHL) , but against what competition?



Ernie Russell was only 21 years old in 1905.

When the CAHL more or less became the Eastern Canada Amateur Hockey Association (ECAHA), Bowie looks to have fallen a bit back down to earth:



Note a few things:

• Bowie won only 1 of 3 scoring titles from 1906-1908, though he was always in the mix.
• 1908 was the only season when either Tommy Phillips or Marty Walsh played in the same league as Bowie, and Walsh scored at a basically the same rate (3.11 GPG for Walsh, 3.10 GPG for Bowie)
• Over the three seasons from 1906-1908, Ernie Russell scored 84 goals in 24 games (3.50 GPG). While Bowie scored 99 goals in 29 games (3.41 GPG).
• The fact that the top scorers tended to be quite a bit closer to each other in the ECAHA days makes one suspect that the overall competition was deeper there.

_________________

So an uncharitable reading of Bowie would be that he racked up 4 CAHL scoring titles in 5 years by huge margins, but did it against really weak competition, so weak that we can't really translate it into more recent years. Then, when competition got a little better, Marty Walsh and Ernie Russell proved to be Russell Bowie's equals.

Now I think that's a little unfair to Bowie - he should get some amount of credit for blowing away the CAHL. There were no better leagues than the CAHL at the time, and Bowie did what you would expect a great scorer to do an an inferior league - he owned it. But translating that to Nels Stewart or Bill Cowley levels of greatness is too far, in my opinion.

Given the wide range of how good Bowie could have been, I don't think it's unfair to him to estimate his offense at Denis Savard level.

Not at all, but one has to remember that in 1908 Bowie led the entire ECAHA in scoring. He was at the tail end of his "pro" career and still managed to outscore Marty Walsh, Tommy Phillips and Ernie Russell pretty convincingly (the latter 2) despite playing on a very average team with very little help. And he was older than most of the other players by this point as well.

What he was able to do as he aged, on at best, a mediocre team, with every team gunning for him on a nightly basis is very impressive. Even by 05-06 when the league started to see a pretty big uptick in overall talent, Bowie still managed to look fabulous.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Forwards: Slight Advantage Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh has the best overall player and goal scorer in Beliveau who also happens to be the best postseason performer.

• The best defensive player on either line is Olmstead. The least physical player on either line is Lafleur IMO and Olmstead-Beliveau is simply a bigger, and more physically imposing pair than Krutov-Abel IMO. Olmstead/Beliveau simply accomplished more together in crunch time than the other 2 and they did it together. Small details add up.

• I think chemistry favors Pit in the grand scheme.

• Olmstead peaked with Beliveau and vice versa. There is a connection that cannot be denied. Hockey is such a cerebral game and there are many little nuances that get overlooked. Knowing a line mate intimately gives you an inherent advantage. Beliveau flat out said Olmstead was the one who mentored him when he came into the league while also said playing with Olmstead made him a better player and the numbers back it up. Right in Olmsteads bio if anyone cares to look.

• Balderis never skated with anyone close to Beliveau in overall ability/all time standing. If anything, Balderis will have more room to operate given the attention that will need to be focused on JB. And room is something Balderis can exploit with his skating and slick offensive game.

• I’ve already outlined how Balderis is very similar to Cournoyer (putting scouting reports side by side). And his offensive chops are at worst, just a hair behind Geoffrion all time, another player who possessed similar traits to Balderis in the offensive zone.

Lafleur in particular will be, IMO, hampered considerably in this series. Same with Krutov.

• Consider Lafleur be seeing Gainey, Harris, Olmstead, Kunitz at LW. The first two more often than not.

• That’s arguably the greatest defensive winger of all time, a guy who could skate at a high level, for days, and check like a brick shit house. Harris was a large human, had Cyclone Taylor wheels, and was one of the best defensive wingers and checkers in PCHA history. Olmstead isn’t the skater the other 2 are but he’s still well above average defensively and plays a very heavy game.

• No absolutes will be used here but that’s a ridiculous amount of defensive acumen, speed (first 2 players), and physicality to counter Lafleur, who wasn’t physical btw. I’m not saying GL will get blanked, and no one should, but there is no way I can see him having a big series here either.

• A big reason why I picked Gainey and Westfall was due to the meta value chart being used heavily, early (scoop up wings in the opening rounds and wait on C’s) in the draft. I wasn't surprised at the direction of some teams which is why I went strong down the middle (C, #1D, G) with complimentary and more defensive oriented wingers who fit the role/line.

• Once I picked Beliveau, Keith and Vezina as my core, trying to keep pace on the scoring wings would have been an effort in futility.

• Krutov and Lafleur are going to be seeing two guys who are in the legendary class of defensive forwards. NJ’s top wingers simply can’t outskate, outmuscle or claim to be better offensive players than Gainey/Westfall are defensively.

• Westfall was a player who checked a prime Bobby Hull into oblivion in the postseason (1961). Hull had 0 goals, 2 assists and was a -3 in a 4 game sweep. In 4 games Hull had 8 shots on goal. That's it. For my money he’s the greatest PK forward of all time when you factor his ridiculous usage over a long period of time, the teams he played for generally killed a premium % of those penalties. And he’s a very strong producer of points on the PK, averaging 5 per year which for his time period is elite.

• And even if you can get away from those two, you have Harris (LW) and Russell (RW) who were both elite defensive players in their day.

• Jarvis gives Pittsburgh an advantage in the dot and given Abel would have a hard time cracking a top 30 C’s list and is below average offensively for a 1st liner, him having a big series again, seems unlikely.

• Gaining possession is just as much defense as it is offense.

• Beliveau will tangle with Weiland and Ricci most often I’d imagine. Even Abel is nothing special defensively.

• Pittsburgh's top offensive players simply have more advantageous match ups head to head.

• Weiland and Ricci are great and above average, defensively, in an ATD setting, however, that’s a far cry from arguably the greatest defensive forward of all time and another player who was one of the best defensive forwards in a talent rich PCHA, over the overwhelming majority of the entire existence of the league which is 10+ seasons.

• Pittsburgh simply has a team built to wear down and cripple winger dominant squads while still retaining 2 C's who are very strong (Jarvis) and above average (Westwick) defensively to counter Abel/Starshinov who are significantly weaker offensive than Pittsburgh's top 2 C's. Even Beliveau can be counted on to play a solid defensive game.

• Going power on power is also fine by Pittsburgh on NJ ice as well. We’ll gladly throw our 3rd line out against NJ’s 2nd line as it is quite average from a scoring standpoint.

• Our 2nd line against NJ’s 3rd line would be fun given Harris and Russell, cumulatively are as good offensively and certainly better defensively than Leswick/March. And Bowie is an elite 2nd line offensive presence and player who finished just outside the top 100 in the latest HoH project so Weiland would have his hands extremely full.

At the end of the day, looking at the top lines, NJ has a big advantage at RW, and a small advantage at LW. Pittsburgh a big advantage down the middle at C. Factor in chemistry, who the scoring lines will be checked by most often and Beliveau being the great playoff equalizer and leader and this is is a very close match up. Very close.

I already touched on the 2nd lines a bit above, but looking deeper I like Pittsburgh by a good bit here.

• You could already argue Harris over Mayorov before I added significantly to his bio last month, though it would be very close. With the additional AS nods, big bump in defensive standing I have him comfortably above Mayorov now.

• Mayorov peak came when Soviet hockey was roughly 20 years old (Mid 40's to mid 60's). The actual existence of the game at a competitive level. I like him a lot, have drafted him before but Harris simply has a more impressive resume in a slightly more advanced era of hockey IMO. Even if you think the era's are equal Harris is simply a better hockey player top to bottom.

Harris overview:

• League Leader in Assists 2x (1920-21 and 1923-24) – Only winger to ever do this in PCHA history
• League Leader in Points (1920-21) – Only winger to ever do this in PCHA history
  
• League Leader in Penalty Minutes (1913-1914)
• Stanley Cup Playoff Points Leader (1915-1916)
• Stanley Cup Playoff Assists Leader (1915-1916)
• PCHA Playoff Goals Leader (1920-21)
• PCHA Playoff Points Leader (1920-21)
• 4 x PCHA League Champion (1916, 1921, 1922, 1923)
• PCHA First All-Team (1912*, 1913, 1916, 1917**, 1919, 1920, 1921***)

*Only 1 AS team in 1912. Harris was reserve player and made it literally because of his rep as a backchecker.
**Unanimous choice at RW (Played for Portland)
***Utility position

• Harris had the ability to score at a premium rate. That is evident by the above and also by reading the bio I worked up.

• Given Blair Russell is a very strong defensive presence on the line as well, will allow Harris to fore check more and get involved with Bowie. Harris compliments Bowie extremely well (assists-goals). He brings big size and a nasty demeanor. He can check/dig pucks at a high rate. He can clearly skate with anyone based on the many citations in his bio.

Starshinov is definitely a solid 2nd liner but he’s slightly behind Bowie.

From the top 100 project last year.

Bowie was on 13 prelimiary lists and came in at 113th on the aggregate. Starshinov was on 1 list which put him tied for 173rd.

Now one can factor an anti Soviet bias surely but then again Bowie is probably not that well known to the average voter either.

• Bowie simply dominated more than Vlad did. Had there been AS/MVP voting throughout RB's career, Bowie would have almost surely dominated most seasons. Even in the 1920’s, 12-15 years later people still referred to Bowie as one of the greatest of all time.

• The 1925 Maclean’s All time Canadian roster had Bowie on the 2nd team, behind only Frank Nighbor and ahead of Newsy Lalonde on the 3rd team. His reputation was not degraded due to when he played.

• Bowie didn’t have the advantage of skating with the best players of his day (which prevented him from getting more than a sniff at the SC) like VS did, yet his impact on hockey was greater IMO.

• If one talks about Bowie’s era the same can be said of Soviet hockey at not only the domestic level but also on the international stage well into the 1960's when both Mayorov and Starshinov played/peaked.

• I’m not looking to punish either player in that regard. We all know those leagues weren’t 1910/20’s North American hockey or 1970’s Soviet hockey, so on and so forth. At the end of the day Bowie was the most dominant hockey player during the first decade of the 1900’s, certainly offensively. The numbers and peer reviews say as much.

• And given who he has on the wings, and the fact that he's going to likely get favorable match ups due to Beliveau, I like Bowie's chances at having a strong series.

Bauer is a notch better than Russell who was taken a round or 2 early and I knew that when I nabbed him. Bauer is certainly a better offensive player but Russell is quite a bit superior defensively. Difference is Russell has Bowie and Bauer has a pair of Soviets so stylistically I think the actual role/fit favors Russell slightly. I know exactly what Russell is going to be doing each and every shift.

• If we value offense/defense on the same plane of existence, there isn’t much, if anything, separating Bauer/Russell as far as on ice impact.

• The reason I give Bauer the slight edge is he has more to judge in terms of postseason play and being an AS in the NHL during his time is more value certainly. But the advantage Bauer has offensively is wiped out going the other way IMO.

• Like the first line (and really just about any by TDMM) the fit is strong. Chemistry is a wash here as Mayorov/Starshinov was a real life connection and I really like both "3rd wheels" (Harris/Bauer).

At the end of the day though I have Pittsburgh with a better LW and C and edge on 2nd lines.

Harris is the best defensive player on either line IMO and I can argue Russell as #2 given his rep was similar to Harris defensively, he just did it in a slightly more primitive era, like early 60’s Soviet hockey. The only F pre-1910 that I'd clearly put above Russell defensively is Tommy Phillips.

Bowie is the best player overall on either line, the best offensive presence on either line.

Chemistry is fabulous on both lines, I just think Pitt edges out here.


Pittsburgh takes a bigger jump when looking at the 3rd line and really bottom 6 overall IMO. Depth and quality of F’s favors the AC IMO.

• Weiland is certainly a notch above Jarvis but Gainey and Westfall are miles ahead of Leswick/March in an all-time sense IMO. Plus there is the Gainey-Jarvis connection to consider which I outlined in the last series based on observations from @Killion who saw these guys play.

• Weiland isn’t skating with Dit Clapper or the other Boston F’s of the 30’s. I’m already skeptical of CW’s offensive profile as it gets referenced and given he’s not a PP (Dreak mentioned Weiland scored a good bit on the PP) option for NJ his impact offensively seems to be curtailed by the role he’s playing here.

• Gainey-Jarvis is already an overabundance of defensive wealth and chemistry and then give them a RW who’s certainly on most people’s top 5 defensive wingers of all time list in Ed Westfall, a major upgrade over any RW Gainey/Jarvis had during their time together.

Some highlights of Gainey’s career as told by others as I really haven’t illustrated why Gainey has such a grand defensive rep and should be valued as a huge impact player in a bottom 6 role. His presence alone makes Lafleur's life very difficult IMO.

Originally Posted By Legends Of Hockey

Termed the world's best all-around player by Soviet national team coach Viktor Tikhonov, Bob Gainey brought many elements to the Montreal Canadiens during his 16-year NHL career. The burly left winger was a tenacious competitor, relentless checker, respected team leader and capable contributor on the offense. His presence on the Habs' roster helped the team win the Stanley Cup five times in the decade between 1976 and 1986.

Was capable of producing lots of offense in the clutch?

Gainey exploded for 16 points when the Habs won the Cup for the fourth straight time in 1979. In the finals, the Rangers won the first match and started strongly in the second. Gainey's winning goal in game two shifted the momentum in Montreal's favour and sent the Habs on their way to the Cup. For his immense contribution, he was awarded the Conn Smythe Trophy

Not bad, inspiring the league you play for to create a defensive excellence award:

Gainey's style of play and ability to check and skate with the NHL's top forwards inspired the league to create a new post-season award. Beginning in 1978, the NHL presented the Frank J. Selke Trophy to the top defensive forward in the game. Fittingly, Gainey was the recipient in each of the first four years it was awarded.

Prior to the 1981-82 season, Gainey was named Serge Savard's successor as captain of the Canadiens. As one of the few remaining links to the glorious 1970s, he was expected to oversee the passing along of the organization's winning tradition to the younger players. The team remained a top-flight outfit in the regular season but experienced three straight first-round playoff losses from 1981 to 1983. In a reversal of the pattern, the team attained a disappointing 75 points in 1983-84 before embarking on a surprising run to the semifinals. Gainey and linemates Guy Carbonneau and Chris Nilan played a key role in shutting down the top guns on the heavily favored Bruins and Nordiques before giving the defending champion Islanders all they could handle in the semis.

The veteran captain hoisted the Stanley Cup for the fifth time in his career in 1986. Playing with the energy of a rookie, Gainey scored five goals and 10 points while patrolling his wing with customary efficiency. His poise and leadership helped the team register consecutive 100-point seasons in 1987-88 and 1988-89. In the latter of those, the Habs reached the finals, then succumbed to the Calgary Flames in six games. Following the series, Gainey announced his retirement.

Larry Robinson (I knew I drafted him for a reason) said:

Originally Posted By Joe Pelletier

" Bob Gainey is just as important to the Canadiens as Guy Lafleur," teammate Larry Robinson once said.

Bob Gainey was a key member of Team Canada during the 1976 and 1981 Canada Cup tournaments. He also impressed during exhibition games between Montreal and the touring Soviet clubs. Red Army and Soviet National Team coach Viktor Tikhonov described him as technically the world's best player.

When Montreal played a classic against the Red Army team on New Year's Eve in 1975 (3-3) it was Bob who set the tone for the entire evening.

A few seconds after the opening face-off, the puck slid into the Soviet end, where Alexander Gusev picked it up, nonchalantly wheeled, and then waltzed down the right side, his eyes on the puck. Bob came roaring across the ice and smashed Gusev into the boards, rattling his bones. The hit was so hard that both players fell to the ice. It was a typical Bob Gainey play.

Savard says he "can't think of anybody who means more to our team than Bob Gainey.

Originally Posted By The Top 100 Players In NHL History

Bob Gainey was a steward of the game, a game-shaper who could change the flow and the direction of a game without registering a point. Gainey recorded four 20-goal seasons, but it was his ability to neutralize the opposition's top scorers that made him such an identifiable contributor to the Montreal Canadiens four-year Stanley Cup run of the late 1970's." I can't think of anybody who means more to our team than Bob Gainey," Serge Savard said. " A few guys, like Robinson, LaFleur, Lapointe mean as much, but they're not more important than Gainey".

Drdyen illustrates Gainey's impact.

Originally Posted By Ultimate Hockey

"It starts from the moment he gathers the puck in the graceful curve of his stick. Head up, eyes blazing like hot little coals, he gets beyond one man...then another, and now there is no longer a crowd in Montreal Forum, but a noise engulfing it. This is Bob Gainey"-From Ken Dryden's Book "The Game"

Gainey was one of the finest defensive forwards ever to have performed in the NHL. In "The Game", teammate Ken Dryden's book he wrote: " If I could be a forward, I would want to be Bob Gainey".

Tarasov called Gainey the most complete hockey player in the world.

Originally Posted By Top 60 Since 1967

Definitive Defensive Forward, But did the father of Soviet hockey really say Gainey was the best player in the world? Probably not. Over the years, the statement has evolved in Tarasov saying that Gainey was "The Most Complete Hockey Player in the world".

It could be argued that Gainey got more mileage out of less natural skill than any Hall of Fame player in history. Sure, he could skate very, very well, and he was strong, and he seemed to think the game on a higher level than most of his peers. His scoring ability was actually underrated during his career- He scored 20 goals four times in 16 seasons and finished his career with a respectable 501 points in 1,160 games- but no elite forward in history defined himself by his ability to defend more than Gainey did.

"There's a lot of dirty work to be done if you're going to win any hockey game, "and I'm one of the guys who goes out and does it. I'm a defensive forward, and I do my job right, no one scores, so no one notices me."

Gainey did gain plenty of notice by capturing the first four Selke trophies as the league's best defensive forward. On a Canadiens team that was so full of speed and artistry in the forwards ranks, Gainey provided the defensive conscience, and while he was shutting down opponent's star players, the Canadiens stars never had to face anyone as good as Gainey defensively and were able to display all there offensive magic.

Gainey said several times during his career that he was glad he never had to face Guy LaFleur, but he did get a steady of diet of players such as Bobby Clarke, Reggie Leach, Darryl Sittler, Lanny McDonald, Mike Bossy, and Bryan Trottier. And he shut them down using defensive skills that were every bit as sophisticated as the offensive traits possessed by those whom he was trying to prevent from scoring.

Unlike many checkers who relied on tenaciousness and cheating, Gainey relied on attributes such as superior skating, proper positioning, and angling to take quality ice away from his opponents. He combined that with Physical strength, with which he was able to keep scorers to the outside, far away from the danger areas.

Gainey was in consideration for Conn Smythe in 77

The Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey: 1977 said:

A Montreal contender, along with Larry Robinson, for Conn Smythe Trophy last season despite scoring only 4 points in playoffs... Defensive work and hustle were brilliant...

Gainey's skating noted

The Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey: 1979 said:

Probably the finest defensive forward in hockey and a super penalty killer... Even on the fastest skating team he is a standout with his moves... With the kind of chances he creates, Gainey has the potential to be a 25-goal scorer...

Offense noted to pickup considerably in the biggest/high pressure moments

The Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey: 1980 said:

Winner of Conn Smythe Trophy as MVP for playoffs, he handcuffs foes with relentless forechecking assaults... Acknowledged as strongest checker in NHL, he has won first two Selke Trophies as best defensive forward... Has excellent speed and good stickhandling ability but assortment of shots is only slightly above average... Becomes more dangerous offensively in crucial situations, as evidenced by his 16 points in 16 1979 playoffs games...

Already said in 1983 that Gainey would go down "as greatest defensive forward all time"

The Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey: 1983 said:

Mr Defense... A hard-nosed and clean bodychecker who wraps opponents in a tangle of arms and legs... Will go down as greatest defensive forward of all time.

I’ll pull some finer points from an earlier series to illustrate the offensive ceiling of an elite shut down unit like Pittsburgh possesses:

Bob Gainey Playoff Totals 1975-76 through 1979-80: (playing with Jarvis often at ES/PK)

• 35 of 36 points were ES/SH
  

• 
  
• Won 1979 Smythe scoring 16 points in 16 games, all 6 goals at ES.

Ed Westfall Playoff Totals: 1975-76 through 1979-80: (Note these were Westfalls LAST 4 seasons aged 35-38)

• 13 of 14 points were ES/SH

Doug Jarvis Playoff Totals: 1975-76 through 1979-80 (w/ Gainey):

• 28 of 30 points were ES/SH (had 2 PP points go figure haha)

That's a sizable sample of 3 careers that overlapped well and are all working together here in Pitt.

• 80 points

• 28 goals

• 52 assists

• Ridiculous 76 ES/SH points

• 160 games

• +31 while all of these players would have been going up against the creme de la creme of offensive stars of the mid to late 70's in playoff hockey

Gainey-Jarvis-Westfall are used to playing pure checking roles. They have the rep they do because they played their roles better than basically everyone else (certainly in the case of Gainey/Westfall and Jarvis was in the conversation for best defensive C in the league for a while).

Didn’t matter if they occasionally filled in on a top line or 2nd line. They had a role and they did it very, very well. You can see numerous times where these guys raised their games offensively in the postseason.

That line can play any defensive style.

• Trap center ice? Have all the necessary tools in the toolbox to do that.

• Skating way above the bar? Check. Positioning? Check. Physicality? Check. Ability to create turnovers based on all of that? Check.

• Winger(s) fore check heavy w/ Jarvis staying high? Absolutely.

• That’s part of the benefit of putting a premium on a shutdown F line IMO.

• Want to dump and chase? Go north/south?

• OK, all 3 of those guys are well above the bar skaters, and so are 3 of the top 4 D on Pittsburgh who all happen to be quite apt with the puck on their sticks (both Shore and Lake played significant time at F before coming to Ottawa. Lake was an AS winger twice in the IHL and there is an abundance of evidence to show their strength as puck movers in the bio i worked up).

• You have to go all the way down to #6 (Girardi) to find somebody who is subpar w/ the puck on Pitt's D.

• You have to go all the way down to #6 to find a Dman who wasn’t either a good (Coulter/Lake), great (Keith, Ivanov) or an elite (Shore) skater. Heck there are even mentions of Vezina being ahead of his time by handling/moving the puck as a G in an earlier bio. He’s not Brodeur by any stretch but he’s also not a liability.

• And lastly, let’s not forget that Pitt’s 3rd line while not only legendary from a defensive standpoint, don’t take penalties. It’s a unit that has the chops to put the clamps down on anyone while not putting the other team in the box. So when a Harris or say Lake goes to the box, which will happen at some point, my elite PK’ers will still be on the ice in most cases. Small details add up.

Moving to the 4th line, again, I think this is Pittsburgh, comfortably.

• Kunitz is a step above McDonald.

• 4 titles, all of which he was a key complimentary player for, unlike McDonald's 3 rings to begin his career.

• Kunitz has good offense for a 4th liner and there are 2 other players on the line with the same rep offensively. CK is a better checker after reading up on McDonald.

• Kunitz simply has more meat on his resume than McDonald whether you’re looking at peak AS (discounted some for half season/top 6 role) voting in a much bigger league, playoff performances.

• And Kunitz plays a hard, bottom 6 type game. Very smart player. Solid defensively. Will check all night long, all series long. He lasted a long, long time in the NHL by playing in such a manner and he was always a nice depth scorer, regardless of whether he was a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd line guy. Super clutch.

• If you put his career back in the 06 era, he'd get drafted 100-200 spots higher IMO. But we may get there over time as he just finished playing.

• McDonald wasn’t a factor during his 1st title, playing in 2 of 6 games for Montreal, scoring 0 points. The next year he scored 2 points in 11 games. Was tied for 9th on the team in scoring. In 61 he only played 2 of 6 games in the SCF. Didn’t even play 2/3 of the series.

Westwick over Ricci is pretty clear IMO.

• Rat is a HOF’er who has a tremendous reputation as a super gamer. Played extremely well in the SC challenges ( my bio is essentially a complete career reconstruction), against a lot fellow HOF rovers/centers.

• He impacted the game at both ends of the rink unlike Ricci.

• Westwick captained the Sens in 1902 and 03 (title). Was a key member of the undefeated 1901 squad. Outscored Alf Smith. Twice. Bruce Stuart once and nearly tied Walsh in another year. Fantastic defensive reputation. His performances against the slew of HOF rovers he faced off against are fantastic.

• No doubt in my mind after reading his bio he was the biggest pain in the ass to play against or at least in the conversation in a very violent era.

• Skated off with a bone sticking out of his leg, got it set, and watched the rest of the game from the sidelines.

• He beat the crap out of Joe Hall, took on Hod Stuart (dumb dumb dumb) and yet despite the honey badger game, was noted to be among the most respected and least penalized players of the era. Gorman said Rat would have won the Byng trophy every year had it existed and Lalonde backed it up (the coolest find for me person because I think we've all had the impression he was a dirty little shit).

Westwick in SC Challenges:
*did not include Dawson City Challenge as that was incredibly lopsided

Vs Winnipeg - Dec 30 1903, Jan 1 and 4th 1904

Ottawa wins 3 game series 2-1

Bullet Joe Hall opposite at rover

Westwick scores 5 goals

Hall scores 1 goal


Vs Toronto - Feb 23 and 25, 1904

Ottawa wins both games 6-3 and 11-2

Tommy Phillips opposite at rover

Westwick scores 1 goal

Phillips scores 1 goal


Vs Wanderers - Mar 2 , 1904

Game 1 ended in 5-5 tied (Wanderers refused to play a 2nd game and quit challenge)

Westwick scores 2 goals

Ken Mallen scores 1 goal


Vs Brandon - Mar 9 and 11, 1904

Ottawa wins both games 6-3 and 9-3

Westwick scores 1 goal

George Smith scores 1 goal


Vs Rat Portage - Mar 7, 9 and 11th, 1905

Ottawa loses game 1, 9-3.

Wins games 2 and 3, 4-2 and 5-4

Si Griffis opposite at rover

Griffis scores 3 goals in game 1

Westwick scores 1 goal in game 1

Griffis scores 1 in game 2 and 0 in game 3

Westwick with 1 goal in game 2


Vs Queens University - Feb 27 and 28th, 1906

Ottawa wins both games, 16-7 and 12-7

Marty Walsh opposite at rover

Westwick scores 4 goals in game 1
Walsh scores 2 goals in game 1

Westwick scores 2 goals in game 2
Walsh scores 1 goal in game 2


Vs Smith Falls - Mar 6 and 8th, 1906

Ottawa wins both games, 6-5 and 8-2

Westwick scores 2 goals in game 2

Ross (game 1) /Fraser (game 2) score 1 goal


Vs Montreal Wanderers - Mar 14 and 17th, 1906(ECAHA playoff series)

Ottawa looses game 1, 9-1 and win game 2, 9-3 (Wanderers annex title on goal differential)

Lester Patrick opposite at rover

Patrick scores 1 goal in game 1

Westwick scores 0

Patrick scores 3 goals in game 2

Westwick scores 1 goal


Totals:

Ottawa goes 13-3-1

Westwick 20 goals in 17 games

All opposing rovers score 16 goals in 17 games (includes Joe Hall, Tommy Phillips, Si Griffis, Lester Patrick, Marty Walsh, with Patrick being the only one who really gave the Sens consistent trouble)

Cully Wilson or Tim Kerr?

• Wilson as he’s actually valuable at ES and has a better reputation in multiple leagues (AS voting shows this), and had 3 strong playoff runs to his name, contributing greatly to titles in 1914 and 17. He was essentially a PPG player through the NHA and PCHA part of his career which is the bulk.

• Kerr isn’t a good skater. He isn’t going to provide much offense at ES and he’s not a factor defensively. Kerr scored more than half of his playoff goals on the PP.

Wilson overview:

2 x Stanley Cup Champion (1914, 1917)
PCHA Champion (1919)
WCHL Champion (1924)

PCHA First Team All-Star (1919)
WCHL Second Team All-Star (1924)

Scoring:
NHA Points – 6th(1915)
NHA Goals – 4th(1915)
NHA Assists – 4th(1915)

PCHA Points – 6th(1916), 5th(1918)
PCHA Goals – 6th(1916), 5th(1918)
PCHA Assists – 5th(1916), 3rd(1918)

NHL Points – 7th(1920), 9th(1923)
NHL Goals – 8th(1920), 7th(1923)
NHL Assists – 9th(1922)

- Led Toronto with 3 goals in the 1914 Finals
- Led Seattle with 4 assists in the 1917 Finals


Final Thoughts:

• The top 6 is razor tight IMO.

• But the fact is Pittsburgh is much stronger down the middle. Looking at every SC winner throughout history the strength of most championship teams is down the middle. I have NJ ahead at 1LW-1RW-2RW and Pitt ahead at 1C-2LW-2C

• Pittsburgh has the best player, best playoff performer, and has a group of wingers, some in the top 6 btw, that are perfectly positioned IMO to handle another team who built their offensive strength on the wings.

• Pittsburgh has real life connection on the 1st and 2nd lines and each player that fills those lines out fits well (Balderis) and extremely well (Harris).

• I think the bottom 6 clearly favors Pittsburgh and the impact of those player isn't lost on the masses.

• Again, more concrete chemistry with Gainey-Jarvis

• Jarvis gives Pittsburgh an advantage in the dot any time he's on the ice

• Lafleur will be going 4+ games against Gainey, Harris, Olmstead and very rarely Kunitz.

• Krutov will be going 4+ games against Westfall, Russell, Balderis, Wilson.

• Abel gets Jarvis, Westwick, Beliveau and rarely Bowie.

• Pittsburgh simply doesn't have a weak spot defensively anywhere in the F group outside of Balderis who isn't atrocious. Close attention was paid to this as it's something I've been harping on for some time. Not building a team w/ that in mind would be a bit hypocritical haha.

• Depending on how much value you place in the bottom 6 this might be a bit more than a slight advantage for Pittsburgh IMO. I think NJ has a slight advantage on the top line. Pitt rallies on the 2nd, and pulls ahead on both the 3rd and 4th lines.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not at all, but one has to remember that in 1908 Bowie led the entire ECAHA in scoring. He was at the tail end of his "pro" career and still managed to outscore Marty Walsh, Tommy Phillips and Ernie Russell pretty convincingly (the latter 2) despite playing on a very average team with very little help. And he was older than most of the other players by this point as well.

View attachment 349412

What he was able to do as he aged, on at best, a mediocre team, with every team gunning for him on a nightly basis is very impressive. Even by 05-06 when the league started to see a pretty big uptick in overall talent, Bowie still managed to look fabulous.

Pretty convincingly? Walsh actually outscored him in GPG by a tiny franction.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I agree that Bowie was likely a better scorer than Starshinov. Starshinov's two-way game does make things closer, though.

I wouldn't use the HOH Top Centers project to prove anything about Starshinov though - at the time, we had no idea that he was a good two-way player. Regardless, he was an option in the final vote, but he didn't come all that close to make it. I do think that if we had known about his two-way game at the time, we would have considered him more strongly. I know I was fairly dismissive of him being an option for the top 60, but I wouldn't be now. Given what we know about Starshinov's two-way game, I would reconsider comparisons between him and Novy and Nedomansky.

Voters shouldn't underrate Starsinov's goal scoring, either. In the Soviet league, he had 6 Top 3 and 9 Top 5 finishes in the goal scoring race. The great Anatoli Firsov only had 3 and 5. Starshinov also led the World Championships in goals twice, and was close a few more times. He easily has the 2nd best "Player of the Year" voting record after Firsov in the award's first 3 years of existence.

Firsov was much more of a playmaker and well-rounded offensive threat than Starshinov and therefore better overall, but Starshinov was the best goal scorer the first generation of Soviets that started dominating international play. (The Soviet dominance of the international game began quite abruptly in 1962, as the new generation took over. Here's an old thread on the matter - Soviet hockey level before the '72 Summit Series - unfortunately, the tables got destroyed, but you can still read the commentary).

 

[ImporterExporter]

Pretty convincingly? Walsh actually outscored him in GPG by a tiny franction.

I did say latter 2 (meaning Phillips and Russell). Bowie outscored them pretty convincingly. Bowie had 31 in 10. Phillips had 26 in 10 and Russell 21 in 9. Walsh had 28 in 9.

And again, the key is who were Marty Walsh and Ernie Russell playing with relative to Bowie?

The Sens were loaded. The Wanderers were loaded. The Vics were essentially 2 players and Bowie/Russell's careers were ending.

I agree that Bowie was likely a better scorer than Starshinov. Starshinov's two-way game does make things closer, though.

I wouldn't use the HOH Top Centers project to prove anything about Starshinov though - at the time, we had no idea that he was a good two-way player. Regardless, he was an option in the final vote, but he didn't come all that close to make it. I do think that if we had known about his two-way game at the time, we would have considered him more strongly. I know I was fairly dismissive of him being an option for the top 60, but I wouldn't be now. Given what we know about Starshinov's two-way game, I would reconsider comparisons between him and Novy and Nedomansky.

Voters shouldn't underrate Starsinov's goal scoring, either. In the Soviet league, he had 6 Top 3 and 9 Top 5 finishes in the goal scoring race. The great Anatoli Firsov only had 3 and 5. Starshinov also led the World Championships in goals twice, and was close a few more times. He easily has the 2nd best "Player of the Year" voting record after Firsov in the award's first 3 years of existence.

Firsov was much more of a playmaker and well-rounded offensive threat than Starshinov and therefore better overall, but Starshinov was the best goal scorer the first generation of Soviets that started dominating international play. (The Soviet dominance of the international game began quite abruptly in 1962, as the new generation took over. Here's an old thread on the matter - Soviet hockey level before the '72 Summit Series - unfortunately, the tables got destroyed, but you can still read the commentary).

Agreed. I use it as a barometer (the list).

I think both players suffer for similar reasons, be it with voters in a project like a top 100. Bowie played well over 100 years ago. The hardcore historians will know him. The luke warm folks will have heard of him, probably know his goal scoring exploits. The casual passer by, at best probably only recognizes the name. Starshinov suffers from the same issues, like many of the early era Soviets but thanks to the work of some very fine folks, we're getting a better idea on these guys. Starshinov is a great example.

Starshinov (and Mayorov) "suffer" from the same questions Bowie does in an exercise like this. Competition.

When Starshinov came into the fold, Soviet hockey wasn't yet 2 decades old. The international comp wouldn't have been near as tight as you would have seen in the 70's and 80's, so on and so forth. I'd really like to see the rosters of the Soviet leagues from the early to mid 60's. Who were the Soviets competing with directly in best on best tournaments?

So while I certainly don't disagree with anything you said regarding Vlad, one has to also remember that Bowie's offensive value is probably underrated due to lack of assist data at the time (like many players really) and the fact he wasn't on very good teams, basically his entire career. The latter greatly favors Starshinov, inherently he would get a boost offensively from more favorable conditions. And even with that being said, I still don't think he's really THAT close to Bowie as an offensive force. Good for a 2nd liner absolutely but I have Bowie as an elite 2nd line presence offensively, especially in a 40 team draft.

And unlike real life Bowie is going to get a lot more chances at 2nd pairings, and favorable match ups at F due to Beliveau commanding a lot of attention on the top line. He doesn't have to be THE guy.

Not a big gap as I said originally but I personally place Bowie ahead slightly based on that and other things I posted earlier.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Smokey Harris's scoring compared to the PCHA's leader

All these stats are on wikipedia now: Smokey Harris - Wikipedia. Click on the links under "season" for the top 10 scorers from each season, along with their totals.

1913: 69.0% of #1 Tommy Dunderdale (yet he was "3rd" in scoring - this is why it is so much more useful to know how far a player was behind the leader than his overall ranking)
1914: 43.6% of #1 Cyclone Taylor
1915: 37.8% of #1 Cyclone Taylor
1916: 45.7% of #1 Cyclone Taylor
1917: 57.4% of #1 Bernie Morris
1918: 25.6% of #1 Cyclone Taylor - Harris missed a lot of games though, which hurt his score a lot
1919: 69.4% of #1 Cyclone Taylor (yet another "3rd" in scoring)
1920: 75.8% of #1 Tommy Dunderdale (yet another "3rd" in scoring)
1921: 100% - he tied with Frank Fredrickson for the PCHA scoring lead.
1922: 46.7% of #1 Jack Adams
1923: 29.1% of #1 Frank Fredrickson* 40% of #2 Mickey MacKay
1924: 58.1% of #1 Art Duncan

After the PCHA folded in 1924, Harris tried to play in both the WCHL and NHL, but he was no longer good enough and ended up finishing his career in amateurs.

Since the PCHA was only 1 of 2-3 competing professional leagues, it makes a lot more sense to compare a player to the leading scorer of the league, rather than 2nd place. This is especially true of Smokey Harris, who played on the same line and team as the #1 scorer, Cyclone Taylor, in most of these seasons.

But just to be overly generous to Harris:

• I'll compare him to the #2 PCHA scorer Mickey MacKay in 1923, because Fredrickson was so far ahead of everyone that year. Not that it matters, 1923 wasn't one of Harris' top 7 seasons, anyway.
• I'll pretend that Art Duncan is a reasonable standard for 1924, despite the fact that the PCHA was clearly the 3rd best league by 1924 - the WCHL and PCHA played an interlocking schedule for a few years, and in the PCHA's final season, the WCHL dominated. This is actually relevant because 1924 was Harris's 5th "best" season.

Harris's top 7 percentages scores: 100, 75.8, 69.4, 69.0, 58.1, 57.4, 46.7

Harris's 7-year "VsX:" 68.1. Note that this is almost exactly what Dreakmur remembered his system as having Harris: ATD 2020 Assassination Thread - Red Fisher Conference ONLY

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The biggest difference in the series - NJ's secondary scoring KILLS Pittsburgh's

Second lines

Bowie is probably the best scorer on either team's second line, but Blair Russell is so bad, it drags down the whole line.

I'm going to use @Dreakmur's VsX numbers here for my line:

I've done my usual war time adjustment for Bobby Bauer, and he comes away with an 82.7.
Mayorov and Starshinov are a bit trickier. I have Mayorov in the Dave Taylor/Zach Parise range, so I think a score of 70 is fair. I have Starshinov in the Mats Sundin/Mike Modano range, so I have him at 82.5. That gives them a line total of 235.2.

Personally, I think Mayorov and Starshinov were closer to each other than that - in World Championships where assists were tallied (unlike the Soviet domestic league), Mayorov scored similar totals to Starshinov. 75 for Mayorov, 80 for Starshinov "seems" right to me. Sturminator actually had Mayorov a little ahead of Starsh. But that's nitpicking compared to Pittsburgh's second line:

Smokey Harris (68.1) - Russell Bowie (85.5) - Blair Russell (44.8)

Total: 198.4

Even if you want to take crazy pills and pretend Russell Bowie was as good as Bill Cowley:
Smokey Harris (68.1)- Russell Bowie (97.0) - Blair Russell (50.8)
Total: 215.9
This is again giving Russell 52.4% of Bowie's inflated score.
Yes, even in this extreme scenario that makes every assumption in favor of Pittsburgh (using 1924 Art Duncan as the standard for Harris, pretending Russell Bowie was as good as Bill Cowley), Pittsburgh's second line still falls well behind NJ's in scoring.

Basically, Mayorov-Starshinov is close enough to Harris-Bowie, but Blair Russell flat out stinks with the puck on his stick.

Third lines

I don't see any reason to do any complicated math - NJ drafted a two-way third line, while Pittsburgh drafted a line of pure checkers. Excellent checkers, especially Gainey. But still checkers who aren't scoring much even in the best circumstances. I've said before that I would never ever even think of using a guy so offensively inept as Doug Jarvis as a center on my 3rd line in the ATD. He should really be a 4th liner/PK specialist, and he'd be a good one at that. At even strength, he just kills his line's ability to score in the counterattack. And it's not like his wingers are generating any offense on their own, either.

And let's be realistic - Jarvis was a great defensive center, but he wasn't Carbonneau-level dominant, where you can forgive his offensive ineptitude as a top 3 center. Despite playing for one of the NHL's highest profile teams, his Selke record was just 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 8. And yes, the Selke was around since Jarvis' age 22 season.

Here's an example showing just how dominant NJ is at secondary scoring: Cooney Weiland's 7-year VsX score of 78.9 is better than anyone on Pittsburgh not named Beliveau, Bowie, or Balderis.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Smokey Harris's scoring compared to the PCHA's leader

All these stats are on wikipedia now: Smokey Harris - Wikipedia. Click on the links under "season" for the top 10 scorers from each season, along with their totals.

1913: 69.0% of #1 Tommy Dunderdale (yet he was "3rd" in scoring - this is why it is so much more useful to know how far a player was behind the leader than his overall ranking)
1914: 43.6% of #1 Cyclone Taylor
1915: 37.8% of #1 Cyclone Taylor
1916: 45.7% of #1 Cyclone Taylor
1917: 57.4% of #1 Bernie Morris
1918: 25.6% of #1 Cyclone Taylor - Harris missed a lot of games though, which hurt his score a lot
1919: 69.4% of #1 Cyclone Taylor (yet another "3rd" in scoring)
1920: 75.8% of #1 Tommy Dunderdale (yet another "3rd" in scoring)
1921: 100% - he tied with Frank Fredrickson for the PCHA scoring lead.
1922: 46.7% of #1 Jack Adams
1923: 29.1% of #1 Frank Fredrickson* 40% of #2 Mickey MacKay
1924: 58.1% of #1 Art Duncan

After the PCHA folded in 1924, Harris tried to play in both the WCHL and NHL, but he was no longer good enough and ended up finishing his career in amateurs.

Since the PCHA was only 1 of 2-3 competing professional leagues, it makes a lot more sense to compare a player to the leading scorer of the league, rather than 2nd place. This is especially true of Smokey Harris, who played on the same line and team as the #1 scorer, Cyclone Taylor, in most of these seasons.

But just to be overly generous to Harris:

• I'll compare him to the #2 PCHA scorer Mickey MacKay in 1923, because Fredrickson was so far ahead of everyone that year. Not that it matters, 1923 wasn't one of Harris' top 7 seasons, anyway.
• I'll pretend that Art Duncan is a reasonable standard for 1924, despite the fact that the PCHA was clearly the 3rd best league by 1924 - the WCHL and PCHA played an interlocking schedule for a few years, and in the PCHA's final season, the WCHL dominated. This is actually relevant because 1924 was Harris's 5th "best" season.

Harris's top 7 percentages scores: 100, 75.8, 69.4, 69.0, 58.1, 57.4, 46.7

Harris's 7-year "VsX:" 68.1. Note that this is almost exactly what Dreakmur remembered his system as having Harris: ATD 2020 Assassination Thread - Red Fisher Conference ONLY

And Pittsburgh managed to get Harris on a line with the greatest offensive player in the fist decade of the 1900's and the winger who helped get him there.

As I outlined in my F overview above, Harris peaked as a strong offensive player. That's a ceiling and not the benchmark of course, but a few things to consider.

One, as I mentioned above, he's on a line with a very strong offensive C, not terribly different than real life.

Two, Russell being a very strong defensive player himself allows Harris to use his speed, size, uber physicality and play making ability to get in deep with Bowie more than he would normally being the defensive conscious of a line. Russell can play the exact role he did in real life. Defensive wizard who helped cover up for a stud C and worked in some combinations. Harris is the better offensive player anyway and clearly had the skills to excel in that role.

What is the difference between Northcott and Harris at this point? Harris was a big guy. Northcott was a big guy. Harris was elite physically, as was Baldy. Both have very similar offensive value. Both were among the best defensive F's of their day, playing a little over a decade apart. Harris as a sterling AS record across a long period of time. Multiple strong playoffs. And Harris was an elite skater on top of that, something I don't think Northcott was ever cited as. Obviously Baldy gets points for playing in a more advanced age but it wasn't decades apart.

Lastly, Harris/Russell's defensive brilliance really means you look down the middle here and as I said before, Bowie is out front by a little bit. Mayorov isn't better than Harris offensively, not that I can imagine given era and his own scoring finishes and Harris is a step above away from the puck IMO. Offensively NJ is clearly much stronger when looking at RW, but flip the attention to defensive acumen and it's a 180.

Pitt has the best offensive player on either 2nd line IMO and the 2 best defensive players. It's a great combo IMO.

 

[ImporterExporter]

The biggest difference in the series - NJ's secondary scoring KILLS Pittsburgh's

Second lines

Bowie is probably the best scorer on either team's second line, but Blair Russell is so bad, it drags down the whole line.

I'm going to use @Dreakmur's VsX numbers here for my line:



Personally, I think Mayorov and Starshinov were closer to each other than that - in World Championships where assists were tallied (unlike the Soviet domestic league), Mayorov scored similar totals to Starshinov. 75 for Mayorov, 80 for Starshinov "seems" right to me. Sturminator actually had Mayorov a little ahead of Starsh. But that's nitpicking compared to Pittsburgh's second line:

Smokey Harris (68.1) - Russell Bowie (85.5) - Blair Russell (44.8)

Total: 198.4

Even if you want to take crazy pills and pretend Russell Bowie was as good as Bill Cowley:
Smokey Harris (68.1)- Russell Bowie (97.0) - Blair Russell (50.8)
Total: 215.9
This is again giving Russell 52.4% of Bowie's inflated score.
Yes, even in this extreme scenario that makes every assumption in favor of Pittsburgh (using 1924 Art Duncan as the standard for Harris, pretending Russell Bowie was as good as Bill Cowley), Pittsburgh's second line still falls well behind NJ's in scoring.

Basically, Mayorov-Starshinov is close enough to Harris-Bowie, but Blair Russell flat out stinks with the puck on his stick.

Third lines

I don't see any reason to do any complicated math - NJ drafted a two-way third line, while Pittsburgh drafted a line of pure checkers. Excellent checkers, especially Gainey. But still checkers who aren't scoring much even in the best circumstances. I've said before that I would never ever even think of using a guy so offensively inept as Doug Jarvis as a center on my 3rd line in the ATD. He should really be a 4th liner/PK specialist, and he'd be a good one at that. At even strength, he just kills his line's ability to score in the counterattack. And it's not like his wingers are generating any offense on their own, either.

And let's be realistic - Jarvis was a great defensive center, but he wasn't Carbonneau-level dominant, where you can forgive his offensive ineptitude as a top 3 center. Despite playing for one of the NHL's highest profile teams, his Selke record was just 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 8. And yes, the Selke was around since Jarvis' age 22 season.

Here's an example showing just how dominant NJ is at secondary scoring: Cooney Weiland's 7-year VsX score of 78.9 is better than anyone on Pittsburgh not named Beliveau, Bowie, or Balderis.

And Pittsburgh secondary defense KILLS NJ. I put a premium in making an air tight roster defensively.

I think you're inflating 60's era Soviet offensive totals, especially considering the lack of depth in the domestic leagues at the time. I don't believe Starshinov is or should be valued within 5ish points of Bowie. But that's just me.

How can Russell drag down Bowie when he was literally the only other quality player on the Vics for the overwhelming majority of their careers and all they managed to do was dominate offensively? And now they have a much, much better partner in Harris than anything they ever had in real life.

Somebody like Weiland is playing down ,with lesser players. Is he really worth 78.9 here? With Leswick and March? They are not Dit Clapper and company. Plus Weiland relied on the PP a good bit thanks to Dreak and given he's not playing tbe PP in this match up loses some more offensive value IMO.

Again, that's a hidden factor.

Looking down the middle, Abel peaked with Lindsay and Howe. Krutov and Lafleur fit from a "he's a goal scorer" and "he's a playmaker" but Lafleur in particular does nothing physically that Linsdsay or Howe did. Krutov? Absolutely. But the production line was just so good over 200 feet. Lafleur's presence negates that peak out of Abel somewhat IMO.

Zero question about Olmstead fitting with Beliveau. They have Dmen from the back that can all transition the puck outside of the #6. Already pointed out how similar Balderis was to Cournoyer and not all that different from Geo. Offensively Balderis > Cournoyer and just a shade behind Geo. And Balderis is likely going to have more time and space to work considering Belvieau is @ C.

Lafleur gets Gainey-Harris-Olmstead and rarely Kunitz for 4+ games. That is just plain bad for Lafleur IMO. He's going to get no room to breathe. He's not outskating Gainey or Harris. He's not skating by Keith or Shore or Ivanov given their own defined ability on the steel. There is so much speed and physicality down that side of Pittsburgh's lineup we are about as perfectly positioned to slow down/neutralize a player like Lafluer as you can possibly be in a draft his size, IMO.

Krutov gets Westfall-Russell-Balderis-Wilson for 4+ games. And he's running into Coulter, Lake, and Girardi on rare occasions. Wilson pesting Krutov should be interesting to say the least. I'd take that swap to the box.

Pittsburgh was and is built to stifle winger (offensive) dominant teams. This was by design because I had a strong hunch meta value would be used by some. Wait on C's because it's a deep position. Grab wingers and D early. Get an average coach, plus an average goalie. I knew once I had a core of Beliveau, Keith, Vezina, trying to catch a team like you on the wings, offensively, was an effort in madness.

But I could counter with legendary defensive players like Gainey and Westfall and a stable of above average to great defensive players behind them. That was the long game anyway for me.

Historically, championship teams are strong down the middle. It's not often you find a SC winner that didn't have at least one top shelf (relative to the league) C on it.

 

[Theokritos]

I'd really like to see the rosters of the Soviet leagues from the early to mid 60's.

The Soviet league rosters and line-ups from the 1965-1966 season can be found in this thread.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And Pittsburgh managed to get Harris on a line with the greatest offensive player in the fist decade of the 1900's and the winger who helped get him there.

As I outlined in my F overview above, Harris peaked as a strong offensive player. That's a ceiling and not the benchmark of course, but a few things to consider.

A "ceiling" that lasted 1 season - the only season of his career when he scored more than 3/4 of the points of the PCHA leader.

What is the difference between Northcott and Harris at this point? Harris was a big guy. Northcott was a big guy. Harris was elite physically, as was Baldy. Both have very similar offensive value. Both were among the best defensive F's of their day, playing a little over a decade apart. Harris as a sterling AS record across a long period of time. Multiple strong playoffs. And Harris was an elite skater on top of that, something I don't think Northcott was ever cited as. Obviously Baldy gets points for playing in a more advanced age but it wasn't decades apart.

Yes, Harris seems to be quite close to Baldy Northcott offensively, but I wouldn't want Northcott as the 2nd best scorer on an ATD scoring line either.

I don't buy that Smokey Harris was "elite" physically, nor do I buy that he was as good defensively as Northcott, who was given a lot of credit for shutting down Charlie Conacher in 1935 in both the regular season and playoffs.

Your bio does a good job of fleshing out Harris's defense - but one of the best of his era? He's nowhere near on the same level as Frank Nighbor or Jack Walker. Not as celebrated as Rusty Walker. What about Jack Marks, Louis Berlinquette, or Punch Broadbent? Note that I'm only mentioning players for whom Ultimate Hockey felt the need to award a "Retro Selke," but all of them have at least as much info as Harris backing up their defensive play.

That's not saying your bio didn't change things - from now on, I'll always think of Harris as good enough defensively to be the defensive conscience of a scoring line in the ATD (kind of like Sid Abel...) Which is probably what he should be with his so-so offense. But I still don't see anything there to indicate that he was one of the best of his era; words like that should be reserved for guys like Blair Russell, who was excellent defensively (albeit against shaky competition).

Pitt has the best offensive player on either 2nd line IMO and the 2 best defensive players. It's a great combo IMO.

For example, I don't buy that Smokey Harris was better defensively than Starshinov, the top defensive center for the USSR national team for a number of years.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sid Abel

Since this was brought up, I just want to point out that the original Production Line was only together for 4 years, and Abel was widely considered the best member of the line for the first 2 years it was together. Gordie Howe didn't explode until the 3rd year the Production Line was together, and Abel still kept pace with Lindsay then. It wasn't until their 4th and final year together that Abel finished way behind Lindsay too.

This is a little bit of a cut-and-paste job of a post I made during the HOH Top Centers project:

In 1948-49, Sid Abel won the Hart Trophy. He was named "Hockey's Man of the Year" by Sports Magazine. Ted Lindsay won the Art Ross this season, but the well-rounded Abel got all the credit.

In 1949-50, Sid Abel was 4th in Hart voting, 1st on the Red Wings. Dink Carroll reported in 1-20-1951 Montreal Gazette that Sport Magazine's board of experts voted, by a wide margin, Maurice Richard as top player of 1950, with Chuck Rayner (the Hart winner) and Abel also mentioned.

Abel was a 1st Team All Star both these years.

Abel's leadership is widely credited with helping hold Detroit together after Howe's life-threatening injury in the 1950 playoffs as they won Abel's 2nd Cup.

1950-51 is when Howe emerged to shatter NHL records. Abel still kept pace with Lindsay as a scorer though and was a 2nd Team All Star.

1951-52 is when IMO, Abel really started falling off a cliff. 7th in NHL scoring, but way behind Howe and Lindsay and not an All-Star. At this point, they were probably carrying him. He was traded to Chicago the following year to make room for the younger Delvecchio and did very little there.
______

And of course, Howe and Lindsay were 13 and 17 years old in the minor leagues, when Abel was a 2nd Team All-Star in 1942, which he followed with a Smythe-worthy playoffs in 1943.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I love to see that, both GMs seem hungry for victory. Will follow this with interest. Good luck.