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

[overpass]

There's been some discussion about Beliveau's scoring splits vs team and vs the Leafs in particular. I think Bert Olmstead's scoring splits may be a bigger concern on Pittsburgh.

In Olmstead's peak seasons of 54-55 and 55-56 when he led the league in assists, he performed much better against the bottom 2 teams (Chicago and New York) than against the the better defensive teams (Boston, Detroit, and Toronto). In those 2 seasons combined, Olmstead's scoring broke down as follows:

Regular season vs Bos/Det/TO: 84 GP, 13 G, 46 A, 59 P
Regular season vs Chi/NYR: 56 GP, 11 G, 58 A, 69 P

Playoffs vs Boston and Detroit: 17 GP, 0 G, 12 A, 12 P
Playoffs vs NYR: 5 GP, 4 G, 2 A, 6 P

Olmstead put up most of his league-leading assist totals against Chicago and New York. Dutch Reibel had more assists than him you you look only at games against Boston/Detroit/Montreal/Toronto. And Olmstead scored zero goals in the playoffs against the tougher opponents--all of his goals came against the Rangers.

This split may have been because Boston, Detroit, and Toronto had all-star right-handed right defencemen (Fern Flaman and Bob Armstrong on Boston, Bob Goldham on Detroit, Tim Horton and Jimmy Thomson on Toronto) who could compete with Olmstead physically. Chicago and New York had some all star defencemen too (including Allan Stanley on Chicago) but they were all left handed shots.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Good discussion thus far. A couple questions/comments for @ImporterExporter ...


1. It appears that when you're comparing regular season production to playoff production you are including non-playoff regular season years, which is not a fair comparison.

Using Duncan Keith as an example (a player I'm very familiar with), the seasons the Hawks did not make the playoffs during his career (05-06 to 07-08 and 17-18 to 19-20) his regular season production was much lower than the seasons the Hawks did make the playoffs, which isn't surprising because those playoff seasons coincide nearly perfectly with his prime years.

I would like to see Keith's regular season production during playoff years only compared to his playoff production, this would give a much more accurate picture of how much his play changes in the playoffs.


2. I like that you are showing how Art Coulter's teams did when he joined them, but you should also be providing the context of how those teams were doing before he joined them. There's a big difference if the team goes from 3rd without him to 2nd with him compared to 6th without him to 2nd with him (these are not actual stats, just illustrating my point).

Keith still looks good doing it that way.

PLAYOFF YEARS ONLY

Keith had the following PPG numbers entering the playoffs:

• 08-09 = 0.57
• 09-10 = 0.84
• 10-11 = 0.55
• 11-12 = 0.54
• 12-13 = 0.57
• 13-14 = 0.77
• 14-15 = 0.56
• 15-16 = 0.64
• 16-17 = 0.66

= 5.7 divided by 9 (# of playoff runs) = 0.63

Keith had 81 in 126 = 0.64


Seibert still drops significantly

Seibert had the following PPG numbers entering the playoffs:

• 31-32 = 0.22
• 32-33 = 0.11
• 33-34 = 0.48
• 34-35 = 0.52
• 35-36 = 0.33
• 37-38 = 0.44
• 39-40 = 0.27
• 40-41 = 0.43
• 41-42 = 0.46
• 43-44 = 0.66
• 44-45 = 0.62

= 4.54 divided by 11 (# of playoff runs) = 0.41

Seibert had 19 in 66 = 0.28

As you can see, Keith still has a very slight uptick (+1) in offensive production when looking at just playoff seasons.

Seibert's offensive output still drops significantly by 13%


Coulter's overview:

• 1933: First full year in Chicago, the Hawks are 3rd (out of 9) in GA.

• 1934: Chicago is #1 in league in GA (Won SC teaming with Lionel Conacher)

• 1935: Chicago is #1 in league in GA (Conacher gone, Coulter is 3rd in Hart Voting, 2nd team AS,)

• 1936: Chicago is #2 in the league in GA (Coulter traded midseason to NY who finished 3rd in league in GA)

• 1937: NYR are 2nd out of 8 (Coulter's first full season with NY)

• 1938: NYR are 2nd out of 8 (Takes over Captain, 2nd team AS)

• 1939: NYR are 2nd out of 8 (2nd team AS)

• 1940: NYR are 1st out of 7 (Won SC, 2nd team AS)

• 1941: NYR are 4th out of 7

• 1942: NYR are 3rd out of 7

• Coulter's teams were almost all elite/great in preventing goals and he had a big hand in that.

• 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd 4th is a pretty convincing picture I'd say.

• Coulter is a 4 time 2nd team AS vs 3 for Stanley and never played on a dynasty surrounded by numerous better players.

• Coulter was the man in Chicago when he finished 3rd in the Hart voting. He was the ace defender for the Rangers over players like Pratt and Ott Heller.

• Both played in in talent rich environments as far as blue liners go.

• Coulter was a Hart finalist in 1936 (3rd) and was voted 1st team AS my managers (writers picked Seibert). Given he finished above Seibert in Hart voting and was 1st team picked by managers I think he can be credited with a 1st team nod this year or certainly more valuable than Seibert.

• Coulter took over the captaincy from Bill Cook, not a small order and won a title in 1940 wearing the C.

Chicago was already a strong defensive team that had zero offensive ability when Coulter joined but the team still maintained that status through Coulter's time there to include a title in 1934.

This was the same time that Lester Patrick called Coulter the ideal NHL defensemen

NY's team improved in GA after Coulter arrived and was the anchor there until he retired.

In 1940, NY had the best GA in the NHL, Coulter was an AS and the Rangers won the title with Coulter

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Keith still looks good doing it that way.

PLAYOFF YEARS ONLY

Keith had the following PPG numbers entering the playoffs:

• 08-09 = 0.57
• 09-10 = 0.84
• 10-11 = 0.55
• 11-12 = 0.54
• 12-13 = 0.57
• 13-14 = 0.77
• 14-15 = 0.56
• 15-16 = 0.64
• 16-17 = 0.66

= 5.7 divided by 9 (# of playoff runs) = 0.63

Keith had 81 in 126 = 0.64


Seibert still drops significantly

Seibert had the following PPG numbers entering the playoffs:

• 31-32 = 0.22
• 32-33 = 0.11
• 33-34 = 0.48
• 34-35 = 0.52
• 35-36 = 0.33
• 37-38 = 0.44
• 39-40 = 0.27
• 40-41 = 0.43
• 41-42 = 0.46
• 43-44 = 0.66
• 44-45 = 0.62

= 4.54 divided by 11 (# of playoff runs) = 0.41

Seibert had 19 in 66 = 0.28

As you can see, Keith still has a very slight uptick (+1) in offensive production when looking at just playoff seasons.

Seibert's offensive output still drops significantly by 13%

Thanks, not surprised Keith still looks good, but you're using 2 different methods for regular season and playoffs, which doesn't make any sense.

For regular season you are dividing the sum of the ppg by the no. of playoff runs. I understand why you're doing this, it gives an equal weight to each season despite a difference in no. of games played, but you're not doing this for the playoffs, you're just taking the sum of all playoff games and sum of all points scored, which does not give an equal weight to each season.

I'm fine with either method really, but you have to use the same one for both.

Coulter's overview:

• 1933: First full year in Chicago, the Hawks are 3rd (out of 9) in GA.

• 1934: Chicago is #1 in league in GA (Won SC teaming with Lionel Conacher)

• 1935: Chicago is #1 in league in GA (Conacher gone, Coulter is 3rd in Hart Voting, 2nd team AS,)

• 1936: Chicago is #2 in the league in GA (Coulter traded midseason to NY who finished 3rd in league in GA)

• 1937: NYR are 2nd out of 8 (Coulter's first full season with NY)

• 1938: NYR are 2nd out of 8 (Takes over Captain, 2nd team AS)

• 1939: NYR are 2nd out of 8 (2nd team AS)

• 1940: NYR are 1st out of 7 (Won SC, 2nd team AS)

• 1941: NYR are 4th out of 7

• 1942: NYR are 3rd out of 7

• Coulter's teams were almost all elite/great in preventing goals and he had a big hand in that.

• 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd 4th is a pretty convincing picture I'd say.

• Coulter is a 4 time 2nd team AS vs 3 for Stanley and never played on a dynasty surrounded by numerous better players.

• Coulter was the man in Chicago when he finished 3rd in the Hart voting. He was the ace defender for the Rangers over players like Pratt and Ott Heller.

• Both played in in talent rich environments as far as blue liners go.

• Coulter was a Hart finalist in 1936 (3rd) and was voted 1st team AS my managers (writers picked Seibert). Given he finished above Seibert in Hart voting and was 1st team picked by managers I think he can be credited with a 1st team nod this year or certainly more valuable than Seibert.

• Coulter took over the captaincy from Bill Cook, not a small order and won a title in 1940 wearing the C.

Chicago was already a strong defensive team that had zero offensive ability when Coulter joined but the team still maintained that status through Coulter's time there to include a title in 1934.

This was the same time that Lester Patrick called Coulter the ideal NHL defensemen

NY's team improved in GA after Coulter arrived and was the anchor there until he retired.

In 1940, NY had the best GA in the NHL, Coulter was an AS and the Rangers won the title with Coulter

Good info, but still missing what I was asking for, how did his teams do BEFORE he showed up. I have some time, so I'll check...

1932: Hawks were #1 in GA. So, they actually got worse in this stat in Coulter's first year. I don't think he should be faulted too much for this though, the drop wasn't very far, Coulter was young, and they quickly got right back to #1.

We should also see how his teams did AFTER he left...

1937: First full year without Coulter, Hawks drop to #7 of 8 in GA


Looking at the Rangers now...

1935: Rangers were #6 of 9 in GA before Coulter arrived

1943: First year without Coulter, Rangers drop to last in GA, #6 of 6

 

[ImporterExporter]

There's been some discussion about Beliveau's scoring splits vs team and vs the Leafs in particular. I think Bert Olmstead's scoring splits may be a bigger concern on Pittsburgh.

In Olmstead's peak seasons of 54-55 and 55-56 when he led the league in assists, he performed much better against the bottom 2 teams (Chicago and New York) than against the the better defensive teams (Boston, Detroit, and Toronto). In those 2 seasons combined, Olmstead's scoring broke down as follows:

Regular season vs Bos/Det/TO: 84 GP, 13 G, 46 A, 59 P
Regular season vs Chi/NYR: 56 GP, 11 G, 58 A, 69 P

Playoffs vs Boston and Detroit: 17 GP, 0 G, 12 A, 12 P
Playoffs vs NYR: 5 GP, 4 G, 2 A, 6 P

Olmstead put up most of his league-leading assist totals against Chicago and New York. Dutch Reibel had more assists than him you you look only at games against Boston/Detroit/Montreal/Toronto. And Olmstead scored zero goals in the playoffs against the tougher opponents--all of his goals came against the Rangers.

This split may have been because Boston, Detroit, and Toronto had all-star right-handed right defencemen (Fern Flaman and Bob Armstrong on Boston, Bob Goldham on Detroit, Tim Horton and Jimmy Thomson on Toronto) who could compete with Olmstead physically. Chicago and New York had some all star defencemen too (including Allan Stanley on Chicago) but they were all left handed shots.

And Olmstead isn't a goal scorer. Everyone knows that. But his point production DID increase in the playoffs with Beliveau over their 3 straight title runs.

Olmstead however, have the C he won 3 consecutive titles with and the best goal scorer in the series in Beliveau.

You're also not pointing out the monster 1956 SC playoffs/finals Olmstead and Beliveau put up against Detroit specifically:


That's the SCF vs a prime Gordie Howe, Red Kelly, Lindsay, Sawchuk, etc, etc

• Beliveau and Olmstead combined 18 points in 10 games.

• Beliveau scored 7 of 10 points at ES

• Olmstead scored 7 of 8 points at ES/SH

• Olmstead over their 3 straight Cup wins from 55-56 through 57-58 scored 26 points in 29 games (4+22)

• He led the postseason in assists, in both 56 and 57

• Olmstead average 0.8 PPG over these 3 seasons heading into the playoffs

• He scored at 0.90 clip during these 3 playoff runs

• Beliveau had 43 points in 30 games (21+22) over this same stretch.

• Beliveau averaged 1.18 PPG over these 3 seasons heading into the playoffs

• He socred at a 1.43 clip during these 3 playoff runs

• Boston WITHOUT Stanley clamped down on these 2 in the 1957 Finals

• In 1958 WITH Stanley, Beliveau had 6 points in 6 games in a win against Boston.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Thanks, not surprised Keith still looks good, but you're using 2 different methods for regular season and playoffs, which doesn't make any sense.

For regular season you are dividing the sum of the ppg by the no. of playoff runs. I understand why you're doing this, it gives an equal weight to each season despite a difference in no. of games played, but you're not doing this for the playoffs, you're just taking the sum of all playoff games and sum of all points scored, which does not give an equal weight to each season.

I'm fine with either method really, but you have to use the same one for both.




Good info, but still missing what I was asking for, how did his teams do BEFORE he showed up. I have some time, so I'll check...

1932: Hawks were #1 in GA. So, they actually got worse in this stat in Coulter's first year. I don't think he should be faulted too much for this though, the drop wasn't very far, Coulter was young, and they quickly got right back to #1.

We should also see how his teams did AFTER he left...

1937: First full year without Coulter, Hawks drop to #7 of 8 in GA


Looking at the Rangers now...

1935: Rangers were #6 of 9 in GA before Coulter arrived

1943: First year without Coulter, Rangers drop to last in GA, #6 of 6

Yeah I think Coulter can be shown to have a pretty positive impact, especially looking at his time with the Rangers. He did a fabulous job in NY especially taking over a team that Bill Cook led for years and a lot of talent fell off over the 30's with Cook, Boucher, Bun Cook.

The 1940 title winning team he captained had Bryan Hextall, Neil Colville and Phil Watson as it's top 3 offensive players. Coulter was the #1 anchor over Heller and Pratt.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Keith's playoff ppg using your divide by no. of seasons method: 0.59

Regular season using same method: 0.63

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Keith's regular season total sum ppg for playoff years only: 0.64

Playoffs using same method: 0.64

 

[ImporterExporter]

So while Olmstead is heavily slanted towards play making he has the best goal scorer in this series at C, a player he peaked with, and at RW a very strong goal scorer as well in Balderis.

So Pittsburgh's top line certainly shouldn't have issues getting chances and Beliveau over the 2nd half of is own career was a dominant play maker. Balderis being solid in that area as well, though certainly on the goal scoring side of the equation.

You have 2 players that are elite (Beliveau) and good/great (Balderis) at putting the puck in the net.

You have 2 players are are both good/great at setting others up (Olmstead/Beliveau) with a RW who's not allergic to playing combination hockey.

Olmstead has the peak assist finishes that stand out, and he did that with Beliveau.

JB just has a sterling, balanced offensive record. One of the many things I love about Beliveau is he's so damn rounded and easy to build around.


Olmstead's assist/PP goal finishes:

Beliveau's goals/assists/PP goals finishes:

 

[ImporterExporter]

@Hawkey Town 18

Thanks sir regarding Keith's points, I was just about to do that as I was finishing up the above post.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Using either of the above methods you get a very different result than your original claim of 0.54 reg season and 0.64 playoffs.

It should be noted that maintaining regular season scoring pace in the playoffs is still very good.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Using either of the above methods you get a very different result than your original claim of 0.54 reg season and 0.64 playoffs.

It should be noted that maintaining regular season scoring pace in the playoffs is still very good.

Agreed, and thank you for the oversight on the #'s!

As I've said all playoffs, Keith is a guy that I feel really good about in situations like these. His record in the postseason is not bested by many blue liners all time.

How many defensemen have multiple Norris trophies, multiple Cups, and a Conn Smythe to their name? Orr, Lidstrom, Robinson and Duncan Keith.

If you look at playoff performers, Pittsburgh has the greatest overall player/playoff performer in Beliveau by a small bit over Lafleur

Pittsburgh has the best playoff performer on the blue line in Keith by a decent margin.

Pittsburgh has the best overall and playoff goalie in Vezina.

And Pitt has the better coaching staff to make it all work. A staff that has a rich history in winning Cups.

 

[kruezer]

I still have a SIHR membership a buddy of mine got as a gift a while back. If you are interested in any SIHR data lemme know. Here are the ECAHA scoring leaders, sorted by assists, for 05/06, 06/07, 07/08. I included anyone with 2 or more assists listed. I saw it brought up earlier so thought I'd post.

 

[overpass]

A

You're also not pointing out the monster 1956 SC playoffs/finals Olmstead and Beliveau put up against Detroit specifically:

We may as well lay out all his playoff series scoring on Montreal from 1951 to 1958.

1951: 2 G, 2 A, 4 P in 6 GP against Detroit (win)
1951: 0 G, 2 A, 2 P in 5 GP against Toronto (loss)
1952: 0 G, 0 A, 0 P in 7 GP against Boston (win)
1952: 0 G, 1 A, 1 P in 4 GP against Detroit (loss)
1953: 1 G, 1 A, 2 P in 7 GP against Chicago (win)
1953: 1 G, 1 A, 2 P in 5 GP against Boston (win)
1954: 0 G, 0 A, 0 P in 4 GP against Boston (win)
1954: 0 G, 1 A, 1 P in 7 GP against Detroit (loss)
1955: 0 G, 3 A, 3 P in 5 GP against Boston (win)
1955: 0 G, 1 A, 1 P in 7 GP against Detroit (loss)
1956: 4 G, 2 A, 6 P in 5 GP against Rangers (win)
1956: 0 G, 8 A, 8 P in 5 GP against Detroit (win)
1957: 0 G, 7 A, 7 P in 5 GP against Rangers (win)
1957: 0 G, 2 A, 2 P in 5 GP against Boston (win)
1958: 0 G, 2 A, 2 P in 4 GP against Detroit (win)
1958: 0 G, 1 A, 1 P in 6 GP against Boston (win)

As a Hab, Olmstead scored:

• A total of 8 goals and 34 assists in 86 playoff games.
• 0 goals in 12 of 16 playoff series.
• 0-2 points in 11 of 16 playoff series
• 0 goals and 5 assists in 23 GP in the 4 playoff series (all finals) that they lost
• 1 goal and 17 assists in 44 GP in the Stanley Cup finals. 8 of those 18 points came in 1956, in the other 7 finals he scored either 1 or 2 points in each.
• 1 goal and 4 assists in 34 GP in the 5 series that went to 6 or 7 games
• 2 goals and 15 assists in 33 GP against Detroit (half of those assists came in the 1956 series)
• 1 goal and 7 assists in 32 GP against Boston
• 0 goals and 2 assists in 5 GP against Toronto
• 1 goal and 1 assists in 7 GP against Chicago
• 4 goals and 9 assists in 10 GP against the Rangers

I know Olmstead is an established first line LW in the ATD, and he has all the intangibles, but I don't see it. It's basically punting on scoring from one of your three first line forwards and leaves your other two first liners trying to score enough to cover three positions.

 

[ImporterExporter]

We may as well lay out all his playoff series scoring on Montreal from 1951 to 1958.

1951: 2 G, 2 A, 4 P in 6 GP against Detroit (win)
1951: 0 G, 2 A, 2 P in 5 GP against Toronto (loss)
1952: 0 G, 0 A, 0 P in 7 GP against Boston (win)
1952: 0 G, 1 A, 1 P in 4 GP against Detroit (loss)
1953: 1 G, 1 A, 2 P in 7 GP against Chicago (win)
1953: 1 G, 1 A, 2 P in 5 GP against Boston (win)
1954: 0 G, 0 A, 0 P in 4 GP against Boston (win)
1954: 0 G, 1 A, 1 P in 7 GP against Detroit (loss)
1955: 0 G, 3 A, 3 P in 5 GP against Boston (win)
1955: 0 G, 1 A, 1 P in 7 GP against Detroit (loss)
1956: 4 G, 2 A, 6 P in 5 GP against Rangers (win)
1956: 0 G, 8 A, 8 P in 5 GP against Detroit (win)
1957: 0 G, 7 A, 7 P in 5 GP against Rangers (win)
1957: 0 G, 2 A, 2 P in 5 GP against Boston (win)
1958: 0 G, 2 A, 2 P in 4 GP against Detroit (win)
1958: 0 G, 1 A, 1 P in 6 GP against Boston (win)

As a Hab, Olmstead scored:

• A total of 8 goals and 34 assists in 86 playoff games.
• 0 goals in 12 of 16 playoff series.
• 0-2 points in 11 of 16 playoff series
• 0 goals and 5 assists in 23 GP in the 4 playoff series (all finals) that they lost
• 1 goal and 17 assists in 44 GP in the Stanley Cup finals. 8 of those 18 points came in 1956, in the other 7 finals he scored either 1 or 2 points in each.
• 1 goal and 4 assists in 34 GP in the 5 series that went to 6 or 7 games
• 2 goals and 15 assists in 33 GP against Detroit (half of those assists came in the 1956 series)
• 1 goal and 7 assists in 32 GP against Boston
• 0 goals and 2 assists in 5 GP against Toronto
• 1 goal and 1 assists in 7 GP against Chicago
• 4 goals and 9 assists in 10 GP against the Rangers

I know Olmstead is an established first line LW in the ATD, and he has all the intangibles, but I don't see it. It's basically punting on scoring from one of your three first line forwards and leaves your other two first liners trying to score enough to cover three positions.

And the easy and obvious counter to that is Pittsburgh has far more defensive ability than NJ up and down the line up, including on the blue line where Hollet is certainly some level of a liability in his own end and Seibert was at least shown for one year to be caught out of position to often.

You're starting to go down the road that happened in the first series you filled in with for Corpus Christi.

I'm not upset at all because I expected this throughout but it's fair to point out again, I think one of the major downfalls to VsX and a mathematical game is you (we/group) start looking at the exercise through a black and white lens. Once you continue to do it year after year after year it's desensitizes the group, over time. You start looking less at the intricate details, certainly less towards defensive impact. People scoff at chemistry and intangibles like face off ability, skating, big game performances, etc.

Punting is another way of saying that a player won't score. There aren't absolute's in life or hockey.

• I sacrificed some scoring on the wings for proven chemistry, intangibles, and other attributes that complimented the dominant scoring C's on the 1st and 2nd lines of Pitt.

• Balderis is plenty capable of producing great secondary offense on a 1st line.

• Harris produces average offense for a 2nd liner in this year's ATD (40 teams).

• He and Russell provide elite defensive ability which, IMO, completely counters the difference of Bauer to Russell offensively.

• Bowie is a better offensive player than Starshinov and the best on either 2nd line IMO

• I absolutely think Harris is as good or better than Mayorov offensively who peaked as a player before national level hockey in Soviet union was 20 years old.

• If we're going to treat early early hockey with harsher gloves in terms of numbers than 1962, 63, 64 Soviet era hockey, especially domestically isn't on the same level as 1910 and 20's North American hockey IMO.

• Harris is the only winger in PCHA history to lead the league in scoring. He's the only winger to lead the entire league in assists, twice.

• Olmstead, w/Beliveau put up his best numbers. And vice versa. No point in going round and round on that as it's pretty obvious just looking at the numbers.

• And the other key factor is NJ's top offensive players on each of their scoring lines are up against it severely.

• Lafleur/Bauer is going to spend almost every shift going against Gainey or Harris and to a lesser degree Olmstead/Kunitz

• Lafluer is going to be impacted physcailly in a big way by Gainey, Harris and Olmstead.

• He certainly can't out skate Gainey or Harris and Gainey's defensive reputation all time covers up or actually bests Lafleur's offensive impact. Westfall does the same thing to a Krutov below.

• Krutov/Mayorov is going to spend almost every shift going against Westfall and Russell and to a lesser degree Baldiers/Wilson

• That is so much peak and depth defensive acumen for anyone to gloss over in a critical match up.

• I'm not saying to punt their offensive abilities but Pittsburgh is very well structured to make life difficult for wingers.

• NJ coming off a grueling 7 game series against a more rested team w/the near perfect set of wingers to counter NJ's best offensive weapons seems like a pretty decent advantage for Pitt

• Even Sid Abel is a below average 1st line C, both overall and offensively speaking.

• Going against Jarvis, on of the best pure defensive stoppers in the NHL from the mid 70's through the mid 80's?

• With legendary face off ability which means Pittsburgh is probably going to win possession more from the dot.

• Westwick reads like a strong defensive player given I reconstructed basically his entire career and he has elite performances against many HOF players in SC challenges. You can see that in the bio if one desires. He's easily the best 4th liner on either squad and brings a wealth of two way play and big game output.

• Would Starshinov whip him head to head? I don't think so.

• Weiland as I pointed out several times this series, is playing down on a 3rd line, w/ reduced minutes, with little to no PP time which he needed in real life and his wings are Leswick/March who aren't going to provide near what a Dit Clapper or the other Boston F's did when Weiland had an outlier scoring season and then fell back to being just an average offensive player.

• Even Beliveau can be counted on to play a solid defensive game. He's not going to shut anyone down but he's also not getting abused either by anyone in NJ's line up.

• Pittsburgh is built extremely strong down the middle with an inordinate amount of defensive ability on the wings, relative to other teams.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Defensemen: NJ has small to moderate advantages on all three pairings

(Small but clear advantages on pairings 1 and 3, moderate advantage on pairing 2)

First pairing: Seibert (NJ) > Keith (Pittsburgh) by more than Coulter (Pitt) > Stanley (NJ), and #1 D is more important

• Seibert All-Star record: 1, 2, 2, 2*, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 7, 7*, 10 (*war year)
• Keith Norris record: 1, 1, 4, 6, 6, 7, 9, 11, 11

Now I happen to think Keith was somewhat underrated in Norris voting early in his career, and he also needs some kind of playoff boost. But still, this isn't all that close. Seibert was strong in the playoffs too, especially in 1938, when he was easily the best player on Chicago's shocking Stanley Cup win with a 14-25-9 record in the regular season.

On the recent HOH Top 100 list, Seibert finished 17th all-time among defensemen and Keith finished 25th all-time among defensemen, which seems about right.

• Stanley Norris record: 2, 3, 7, 8, 8, 8, 10, 12
• Stanley All-Star record: 3, 3, 3, 6, 10, 10 (incomplete all-star records for much of his prime, so he might have had a few more low finishes)
• Coulter All-Star record: 3, 3, 3, 3, 7, 8, 8, 8

Biggest difference? 4-3 edge to Coulter in 2nd Team All-Star nods.

Re: competition, it was a little weaker when Seibert and Coulter played than when Stanley and Keith played.

Both men were important playoff performers; Stanley had more great playoffs, but he also had more help.

Coulter finished 54th on the HOH Top defensemen list, and Stanley finished 59th, which seems about right. And of course the farther you go down the list the smaller the gaps become.

Second pairing: Lutchenko is a strong 3rd pairing anchor, which Pittsburgh doesn't really have. Hollett is a classic "Hall of Very Good Player," which is probably about where Lake and Shore fall.

Lutchenko was a 1st Team All-Star in the Soviet league for 7 straight years in the 1970s, when the USSR was in its golden age. He was a contender to make the bottom end of the HOH Top 60 defensemen, but didn't make it, as we rightfully decided there needed to be a gap between Pospisil and him.

Obviously, ranking Soviets vs NHLers isn't an exact science, but I really don't think it's that crazy to think that Lutchenko would be approximately the 75th best defenseman if Vasiliev is 25th and Pospisil is 58th (IMO, 58th underrates Pospisil by a little). Lutchenko is clearly the next most decorated European defenseman after Pospisil.

As I posted in my previous series, @Sturminator had Lutchenko in his 72nd to 77th range (along with Art Ross, Sergei Gonchar, Ryan Suter, Jack Crawford, and Alexander Ragulin) and when he posted his list of defensemen back in 2017. All the usual caveats about this just being the opinion of one man apply.

Orr = 1

+ Harvey, Bourque = 3

+ Lidstrom, Potvin, Kelly, Shore = 7

+ Robinson, Fetisov = 9

+ Chelios, Park = 11

+ Pilote, Clancy, Coffey = 14

+ MacInnis, Pronger, Cleghorn, Seibert, Stevens, Horton = 20

+ Clapper, Gadsby, Salming, Leetch, Chara = 25

----------------------- #1 D ^^

+ Howe, Quackenbush, Vasiliev = 28

+ Lapointe, Savard, Gerard = 31

+ Langway, Stewart, Tremblay, Weber, Keith, Blake, Goodfellow = 38

+ Niedermayer, L. Conacher, Pronovost, Laperriere, C. Johnson = 43

+ G. Boucher, E. Johnson, Kasatonov, Stuart = 47

+ Murphy, Siebert, Brewer, Coulter = 51

----------------------- #2 D ^^

+ Cameron, Reardon, Pospisil, Suchy, Doughty = 56

+ T. Johnson, Mantha, Bouchard, Thomson = 60

+ Stanley, Wilson, L. Patrick, Howell, Flaman, White, Karlsson = 67

+ Zubov, Stapleton, Desjardins, Gardiner = 71

+ Ross, Lutchenko, Gonchar, R. Suter, Crawford, Ragulin = 77

----------------------- #3 D ^^

+ Pulford, Hitchman, McCrimmon, Hall, Wentworth, Goldham, G. Suter, D. Hatcher, Mohns = 86

+ Neilson, Mortson, Day, Baun, Grant, Horner, Schoenfeld, Vasko, Beck, Duncan = 96

+ Heller, Cook, Boyle, Pratt = 100

----------------------- #4 D ^^

+ F. Patrick, Ramsey, Svedberg, Lowe, Boivin, Simpson, Green, Burns, Reise Jr., Dutton = 110

+ Foote, Rowe, Davydov, Harper, Konstantinov, Housley = 116

+ Sologubov, Harris, Harmon, Kuzkin, Burrows, Numminen, Bergman = 123

+ Watson, K. Hatcher, Griffis, Carlyle, Hollett, Seiling= 129

----------------------- #5 D ^^

...and so on.

For his part, based on awards voting, after adjustments, I have Flash Hollett as the equivalent of a 3-time 2nd Team All-Star in the NHL.

Hollett’s adjusted All-Star ranks: 3, 4*, 4**, 10*
*adjusted war year downwards
**adjusted 1942 upwards - Hollett played 1/4 of the season as a F and finished between 4th and 8th in Hart voting

Remember, 3rd and 4th in All-Star voting for D means 2nd Team All-Star. In real life, Hollett has a 1st Team during the worst war years, a 2nd Team before all that many players had left, and a 4th-8th place finish in Hart voting as a D/F when the NHL was almost still at full strength.

Details:

Hollett is hard to get a read on, because he was a utility player the first half of his career, starting about half the games at forward, and half at D. So he has basically no all-star record the first half of his career, since the all-star records are by position.

He did finish somewhere between 4th and 8th in Hart voting in 1942, however, his final year as a utility player. See - Award & All-Star Voting (1912-present) - we know the 4th-8th place finishes, but not what order they finished in.

Hollett’s unadjusted All-Star ranks: 2*, 3, 5*, 11**

*1944/1945 war years
**1942 played almost half the year as a forward, top 8 in Hart voting

For a quick fudge, I think it’s fair to double the war-year rankings (from 2nd and 5th to 4th and 10th). As for 1942, who the hell knows? Top 8 in Hart voting = Top 4 in All-Star voting if he were a defenseman the whole season? It’s a mega-fudge, but let’s go with it:

Hollett’s adjusted All-Star ranks: 3, 4*, 4**, 10*
*adjusted war year downwards
**adjusted 1942 upwards

3-time 2nd Team All-Star without really coming close again = classic Hall of Very Good Player, which is what I think Hollett was. Supposedly Jack Adams said he'd ruin Hollett's chances of making the HHOF because he was mad at Hollett from a contract dispute, a threat that would only be valid if Hollett was a borderline player to begin with.

You know who else look like classic HOVG players? Fred Lake and Hamby Shore. They may be in a similar range to Hollett, which is already a HUGE boost to them from where we thought of them in the past. See Sturm's list and remember Sturm said he'd have Hollett a couple of tiers higher today.

So overall, Lutchenko - who is usually used as a #3 in a 30ish team draft and who could easily be a low-end #2 in a 40 team draft - is the best defenseman on either team's second pairing, and is far enough ahead of the other three to give NJ the advantage. How far ahead depends on what you think of Lake and Shore. As I said earlier, I think they are definitely below than their contemporary Joe Hall, but how much worse is hard to determine.

Bottom pairing: Young (NJ) > Girardi (Pitt) at even strength. Frankly, I prefer Pervukhin between the 2 Soviets, but its hard to say for certain.

• Ivanov: 1st Team Soviet league All-Star twice (1964, 1965), 2nd Team Soviet league All-Star once (1966)
• Pervukhin: 1st Team Soviet League All-Star (1979). 2nd Team didn't exist when he played. 5th in Player of the Year voting twice (1977, 1985)

Hard to compare, but I don't see any advantage for Ivanov, especially when you consider how much stronger the Soviet league was in the late 1970s/early 1980s. (For comparison sake, if 1960s Soviets = 1970s Soviets, then Starshinov was a similar scorer to Petrov while also being better defensively than Petrov, and I don't think anyone thinks he was actually a better player than Petrov).

Just based off awards voting and era, I prefer Pervukhin to Ivanov, though I'm not going to say that definitively, because I know Ivanov had a lot of historical significance.

• Doug Young All-Star record: 7, 8, 9
• Girardi Norris record: 6
• Girardi All-Star record: 8, 19

Yes, Girardi faced tougher competition, but there's a big difference between getting recognized three times vs only once.

I was skeptical when IE drafted Girardi, until I saw the profile which shows Girardi was statistically among the best PKer of his generation. So call him a PK-specialist, but at even strength I'm pretty sure Young was better. Young also should get at least some sort of boost for winning 2 Stanley Cups as captain (albeit from the bench with injuries for the 2nd Cup).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Clearly, I need to post more on Boris Mayorov (the best playmaker of the 1960s Soviets). Unfortunately, @Rob Scuderi's study on playmaking from the 1960s Soviets involved tables... meaning it was destroyed during the poorly performed hfboards server migration.

Basically, the Soviet league didn't officially record assists at all in the 1960s, but if we extrapolate assist totals from the limited games for which we do have assist data (including the World Championships), Mayorov looked to score similar point totals to Starshinov, just more of them were assists than goals.

• NJ coming off a grueling 7 game series against a more rested team w/the near perfect set of wingers to counter NJ's best offensive weapons seems like a pretty decent advantage for Pitt

I wasn't going to go there, but if you want to play this meta-game:

NJ has played fewer games than Pittsburgh to reach this point, so we should be in slightly better shape from an injury perspective

• Pittburgh = 6+6+7+6 = 25 games. Pittsburgh's 7 game win against Ottawa also involved a fair amount of OT, according to theo's post.
• NJ = 5+6+6+7 = 24 games

NJ also has home-ice in this series, as we did last series, so slightly less travel time. Pittsburgh is starting their 2nd consecutive series on the road.

 

[Dreakmur]

Harris' VsX (or whatever you want to call it) suffers for 2 reasons. One, he played a very strong defensive/physically minded game.

Unless you think he's going to not play that style here, I'm not sure how that's relevant.

Two, Taylor is like Gretzky of the 80's. His peak totals artificially drive down the rest of the league's offensive "scores".

There's a reason we went to the VS.X rather than V1 or V2.

Also, Harris played with Taylor for a few of those dominant seasons, so he benefited while others suffered.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Unless you think he's going to not play that style here, I'm not sure how that's relevant.

There's a reason we went to the VS.X rather than V1 or V2.

Also, Harris played with Taylor for a few of those dominant seasons, so he benefited while others suffered.

With Blair Russell, Harris doesn't have to play the defensive cog. He's got an elite scoring C to work with, like real life if we're going to ignore his time in Portland when he was the man and produced at a high level in 1916-17. One that fits extremely well given each players style, especially in their offensive leanings.

Harris can take more chances given Russell's presence.

And again, I don't think for one second 1960's (especially teh first half of the decade) is on par with the hockey that Harris was playing in. Hockey in Canada started in the mid 1870's and was already competitive by the early 1880's. Harris played into the early 1920's.

That's the reason I think Mayorov and Starshinov are being overrated offensively. Domestic and foreign comp for the Soviets even well into the 60's was not strong. By the end of hte decade and into the 70's they had reached the NHL/NA hockey level and by the mid to late 70's were able to actually beat Canada's best more than just a few times. But those periods are well after Mayorov and Starshinov stopped playing.

Just trying to be equal for all hockey era's, both early era hockey on either side of the globe.

Harris was a 7 time AS, unanimous choice at both LW and RW. Was voted over the likes of Foyston head to head.

He didn't have the benefit of playing an entire career on a stacked domestic or national roster, in a primitive era, especially for European hockey.

Harris took on Vezina and the Habs in the 1916 SCF and could be argued as the Smythe in a losing cause if you read the reports from that series. Montreal's own George Kennedy said that Harris was the best all around hockey player he had seen all winter. Seems very impressive to me. Harris wasn't just some 2nd tier guy in the West. People knew his name back east and his resume is littered with a lot of really big bullet points IMO, across a very log period of time, especially for that era.

He's got elite wheels, defensive ability (with specific examples of him locking down superstars like Taylor and Foyston and Morris) and plays a very heavy game. Even IF you think Mayorov is worth more offensively the rest of the equation is tilted in Harris' favor and again, 1912-1224 if a more advance era of hockey than late 50's to late 60's Soviet hockey IMHO.

I still have a SIHR membership a buddy of mine got as a gift a while back. If you are interested in any SIHR data lemme know. Here are the ECAHA scoring leaders, sorted by assists, for 05/06, 06/07, 07/08. I included anyone with 2 or more assists listed. I saw it brought up earlier so thought I'd post.

View attachment 349630

View attachment 349631

View attachment 349632

Thanks @kruezer !

 

[ImporterExporter]

Clearly, I need to post more on Boris Mayorov (the best playmaker of the 1960s Soviets). Unfortunately, @Rob Scuderi's study on playmaking from the 1960s Soviets involved tables... meaning it was destroyed during the poorly performed hfboards server migration.

Basically, the Soviet league didn't officially record assists at all in the 1960s, but if we extrapolate assist totals from the limited games for which we do have assist data (including the World Championships), Mayorov looked to score similar point totals to Starshinov, just more of them were assists than goals.


I wasn't going to go there, but if you want to play this meta-game:

NJ has played fewer games than Pittsburgh to reach this point, so we should be in slightly better shape from an injury perspective

• Pittburgh = 6+6+7+6 = 25 games. Pittsburgh's 7 game win against Ottawa also involved a fair amount of OT, according to theo's post.
• NJ = 5+6+6+7 = 24 games

NJ also has home-ice in this series, as we did last series, so slightly less travel time. Pittsburgh is starting their 2nd consecutive series on the road.

• Don't disagree r/Mayorov but we can also surmise the same thing with the early era hockey stars, some of which are on Pittsburgh's roster.

• Bowie (as shown by kruezer) was a strong assist guy so his offensive value is only enhanced IMO.

• I think Bowie is at least Nels Stewart level (90)

• Russell was near the top most seasons. And again, that's only based on what's available. There are many games that simply aren't accounted for due to missing reports all together or general overviews that don't have the goal by goal accounts. This is one reason why I love the Ottawa papers vs Montreal. Much more thorough reporting.

• Conventional wisdom says Russell and Bowie racked up a decent amount of assists together given their careers overlap 100% and their goal scoring totals blow everyone else out of the water between 1900 and 1908. I'm NOT saying that we should artificially raise their scores but I don't thin for one second that Russell is a 44/45. IIRC @Dreakmur has him at either a 52 or 62. Please correct that Dreak if I'm wrong in remembering. If people want to peg him at a mid 40's level offensive player, ok but I think that's rather harsh.

• Pittsburgh is battle tested on the road.

• Pittsburgh is coming off the latest and longer break and Keith played less than he normally would have in the Conference Finals. Really all the D on Pittsburgh should be fresher than NJ's by any measure.

• Pittsburgh to NJ could be driven by bus. It's a few hundred miles. Travel is a non factor as Pittsburgh can prepare at home and still make the destination w/ ease.

 

[Dreakmur]

Harris was a 7 time AS, unanimous choice at both LW and RW.

Weren't all those PCHA all-star teams selected by Mickey Ion? That means they were all unanimous, with 1 vote each.

 

[Dreakmur]

Conventional wisdom says Russell and Bowie racked up a decent amount of assists together given their careers overlap 100% and their goal scoring totals blow everyone else out of the water between 1900 and 1908. I'm NOT saying that we should artificially raise their scores but I don't thin for one second that Russell is a 44/45. IIRC @Dreakmur has him at either a 52 or 62. Please correct that Dreak if I'm wrong in remembering. If people want to peg him at a mid 40's level offensive player, ok but I think that's rather harsh.

Off the top of my head, it was a 54.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Weren't all those PCHA all-star teams selected by Mickey Ion? That means they were all unanimous, with 1 vote each.

No, if you go back and read the Harris bio his unanimous choice at RW when he was on Portland was picked by 3 officials. Not just Ion.In fact IIRC Harris was only 1 of 2 players who were unanimous.

There were also instances where he made "unofficial" AS nods by other notable hockey folks out west. Again, in the bio.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Special Teams: Wash


One big update:

• Pittsburgh will be taking Keith off the 2nd team PP and putting him on the 1st team PK.

• He's rested after an extra 2 days off and lighter workload against Baltimore and I want the best Pitt defender, who is strong on the kill btw, to help anchor the 1st unit with Coulter. Biggest clutch performers need to be put in the biggest spots.

• Keith is also a strong shot blocker which is huge on the kill especially.

• Changing up a look is always a good thing when talking about keeping the other team on their toes

• Pittsburgh has a stronger PK, as usual, due to the elite F's top to bottom, which is critical in this particular series.

• Weiland/Leswick is a strong pair but it's simply on the outside looking in when comparing to Jarvis/Westfall

• NJ's top PP unit has a weaker defensive player in Hollet as the only D man on the 1st squad. Jarvis/Westfall/Gainey/Harris/Russell/Westwick etc is ready to feast on that set up.

Westfall's posteason #'s

• Led the playoffs in SH goals 4 different times

• 8 shorties in 95 games is a great scoring rate and given how NJ is structured and who Pitt has on the kill, Westfall should get a few breaks going the other way.

That list is the top 15 F's of all time in terms of PK usage (since 1960)

• Westfall is the greatest PK forward of all time IMO.

• He played over 1200 games, had a ridiculous 60% usage and his teams killed penalties at 16% above the league average

• And he averaged 5 SHP/82 games an elite figure

• Jarvis is just barely below Westfall in usage with even better success rate at 21% above the league average

• Pittsburgh has a pair of F's that are legendary PK'ers. They can skate very well, log impressive minutes, play an elite positional game and Westfall in particular is quite dangerous going on the other way. This was also an added benefit of having such elite PK forwards. Pitt knew it would likely be trailing most playoff matchups when it came to PP Dmen. Having an elite stable of forwards puts an awful lot of pressure on the blueliners of NJ.

• Jarvis is arguably the greatest man in the dot ever.

• Gaining possession in crucial moments favors Pittsburgh

Pittsburgh has a clear advantage on the 2nd unit as well with Gainey-Westwick/Harris/Russell/Olmstead etc.

• Starshinov is a stong PK'er but again, behind Gainey easily and March doesn't read like a Harris or Russell level defensive player.

• Pittsburgh can roll out 3 or 4 different combinations. We've got at least 7 capable PK F's so the unit can remain fresh.

The PK defensemen are a wash IMO.

• Keith-Coulter is every bit as strong as Stanley-Seibert and IMO better.

• Consider:

• Duncan Keith has killed a larger % of penalties than Stanley did.

• Now these figures cut off stats before 1960 so I'm not sure how much more or less Stanley would have moved on this chart (his peak started in 1960) but as it stands there is a 5% gap and 9% gap favoring Keith in terms of effectiveness. Do the 1950's bridge that gap?

Regular Season Usage

Playoff usage

• I think Art Coulter is an elite defensive player in his own end. He possesses all the traits to be elite in this role and most of the teams he anchored were dominant defensive units.

• There are scouting reports that literally compare he and Seibert head to head and it is pretty evident that Coulter, at least in 1936 was thought of as a superior player defensively.

• Coulter is a large man, very strong/rough so Mr Tim Kerr is going to have his hands full IMO. I like Coulter's chances of keeping Vezina clear given he's a lot better player all time than Kerr.

• Lynn Patrick talking about Coulter protecting the netminder

As I've said from the beginning I think Girardi is easily one of the best (top 10) defensemen on the PK in the last 10+ seasons which should make him a very strong 2nd unit presence with a clear ability to play up on the top unit if need be.

• The usage is there. The kill rate is there. And he wasn't just a 18 minute a night guy either. For years he was playing top pairing minutes with McDonagh.

• He's playing #6 minutes so he'll be fresher for these turns on the kill.

• He's an elite shocker blocker all time considering one can argue him the best (volume or per game) over the last 10+ seasons.

• Girardi's killed 52% of his team’s penalties over his career at 16% above the league average. Girardi is 7th in the past decade in terms of SHTOI

• DG is 2nd all time in shot blocks since it started being traced in 05-06 with his blocks per game better than Seabrook even though BS is just ahead of him in raw total

• Anyone else notice that 3 of the top shot blockers of the cap era are on Pittsburgh's roster here? (Keith, Girardi, Orpik)

• That's coupled with Ivanov who was noted as strong in this area for the Soviets

• Vezina is going to be pleased with so much rubber not finding its way to the net

I'd wager Lutchenko the 2nd best PK'er on either unit just behind Girardi.

Fred Lake will jump on the 2nd unit with Girardi and I think he and Doug Young are probably washes in this role. Lake was a really strong defensive player as a F and then D and Young had a reputation as a strong stay at home player himself. Nothing really to judge them on as far as actual presence on a kill so I think it best to just make them even.

I think NJ comes out a little bit ahead on the PP but their top unit could be in trouble with only Hollet up to and him facing the likes of Gainey, Jarvis, Westfall, Harris, etc.

• Beliveau is the best PP presence here.

• Beliveau is the best goal scorer

• Lafleur the best play maker

• Bowie is on the level of Krutov, Kerr or Abel here and is IMO neck and neck with Krutov/Kerr as the 2nd best goal scorer on either unit

• Olmstead's peak PP numbers came with Beliveau

• I think NJ has an advantage at F given they are going with 4 but Pittsburgh has a stronger presence on the blue line given we actually have 2 long term defensemen who possess strong offensive abilities both passing and shooting.

• Ivanov was noted to have a very heavy shot with pin point and crisp passes

• I also like that both of Pittsburgh's top blue liners are very strong skaters (Ivanov/Shore)

• Less chances of pucks going the other way without intervention

• NJ has a stronger group of 2nd PP players though Balderis is the best offensive player of anyone on either unit

• I think Pittsburgh has a better overall PK group and NJ the better PP collection. Very close all things considered IMO.

 

[Dreakmur]

No, if you go back and read the Harris bio his unanimous choice at RW when he was on Portland was picked by 3 officials. Not just Ion.In fact IIRC Harris was only 1 of 2 players who were unanimous.

There were also instances where he made "unofficial" AS nods by other notable hockey folks out west. Again, in the bio.

Still, 3 votes isn’t much of a sample. Those Pcha all star teams are a mess most years.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Still, 3 votes isn’t much of a sample. Those Pcha all star teams are a mess most years.

No of course not.

There is a reason why I'd say Harris is on a Northcott level and not above. If we treated the AS nods from those split leagues similarly to post consolidation AS nods, he'd get ranked/drafted even higher as would numerous other pre con players. Same rings true of the NHA or like leagues.

Now, with that being said, Harris does have a lot more to go off of now compared to many others of the same period. So we can get a better gauge on him vs someone who only has a few clippings or a piece in LOH/Trail of the Cup, ect.