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

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for the commentary Dreakmur. Just want to address one thing:

I think Balderis is probably a little better offensively than Krutov, but less well-rounded. I'd say they are probably equal.

I guess it depends on how much emphasis you place on international tournaments vs Soviet domestic league play. In the domestic league, you are absolutely right.

Krutov was more decorated internationally, though I know at least some of that was a function of opportunity.

In the World Championships, Krutov scored 78 points in 68 games. Balderis scored 54 in 47 games. Ice Hockey World Championships ‑ All-Time Points Leaders. Both round to 1.15 PPG. Tiny advantage Krutov for doing it over more games...

However, Krutov was named All-Star at 4 WCs (1983, 1985, 1986, 1987) - (Earlier this series, I copied "6 WC All-Stars" from his old profile, but I think the first two were probably "2nd Team WC All-Stars," which didn't exist every year, so they are probably best ignored in a comparison like this). He was also named best forward at 2 of them (1986, 1987).

Balderis was just named All-Star and Best Forward at just one WC - 1977.

So while their stats look equal at first glance, the voters seem to have been more impressed by Krutov. These are two different sets of voters BTW. The WC All-Star teams were voted on by a subset of the international hockey media, while the "best forward" award was voted on by the directorate.

In the Canada Cups, Krutov scored 30 points in 22 games (1.36 PPG - his scoring actually improves over the WCs, despite the competition being higher on average in the Canada Cups).

Krutov's 30 points rank him 4th all-time in Canada Cup/World Cup scoring, behind only Gretzky, Makarov, and Coffey. And Coffey took 33 games to score his 31 points. World Cup ‑ All-Time Points Leaders.

Krutov was the only Soviet forward named an All-Star at the 1987 Canada Cup - the other two forwards were Gretzky and Lemieux, but noteworthy that Krutov was named over his linemate Makarov.

Balderis didn't play in any Canada Cups - his prime was at an awkward time to play in them (no Canada Cups between 1976 and 1984). But still, Krutov should get some credit for performing at such a high level against the best competition the Soviets would play against.

_____________________

Also, it's just one season, but Krutov was voted the best player in all of Europe in 1987. International & European Hockey Research and Information Thread

The Izvestia Golden Stick for best player in Europe was first awarded in 1978-79, so it misses Balderis' great 1977 season, so maybe this isn't worth mentioning in a comparison.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm actually going to look at Gainey's and Westfall's ES scoring. I have a feeling it's a lot better than their overall scoring rates.

Based on @overpass's spreadsheet, these are the career adjusted even strength points per 82 games records of the bottom 6ers on these teams. Overpass's spreadsheet includes the years from 1960-2020.

Gainey: 25 over 1160 games
Jarvis: 24 over 964 games
Westfall: 30 over 1226 games (there's probably a little bit of Bobby Orr influence in there - they were teammates about half of Westfall's career)

Kunitz: 40 over 1022 games

McDonald: 35 over 693 games (encompasses most of his career, but not all of it)
Ricci: 29 over 1099 games (worse than I thought; good thing he's only on my 4th line!)
Kerr: 43 over 655 games

Compare to some other typical ATD bottom 6ers:

Bergeron: 45 over 1089 games (what an elite 3rd liner. Or maybe he should be a 2nd liner, even when the draft gets smaller again?)
Luce: 37 over 894 games
Ramsay: 36 over 1070 games
Houle: 35 over 635 games
Peca: 34 over 864 games
Carbonneau: 32 over 1318 games
Madden: 32 over 898 games
Kasper: 31 over 821 games
Otto: 27 over 943
Draper: 26 over 1157 games
Pandolfo: 23 over 899 games
Burns: 22 over 679 games
Maltby: 20 over 1072 games

Westfall's linemates in Boston:

Sanderson: 43 over 598 games
Marcotte: 34 over 868 games

Important note: obviously it's more impressive to maintain an average over a larger number of games.

Looks like Pittsburgh's 3rd line is weak offensively at even strength too. Though apparently, so is Mike Ricci.

Seriously, GMs who don't have overpass's updated 2020 spreadsheet really should get it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

So basically, Jarvis was a little bit better than Charlie Burns as an even strength scorer, but a little bit worse than Kris Draper.

When I drafted Burns for my other team, I thought of him as a total black hole with the puck on his stick, but that team was absolutely desperate for his penalty killing.

Now, Jarvis is a flat out better player than Burns in every way, but there really is no sugarcoating just how weak his offensive production was, especially for a center.

 

[VanIslander]

Herald non-NHLers!

Never before have we had so many CORE skaters (top-6 forwards, top-2 pairings) be non-NHLers in the draft final.

The championship core will include either...

Krutov, Mayorov, Starshinov, Lutchenko

Or

Bowie, Russel, Lake, Shore, Harris, Balderis

That's 10 of the top 20 skaters in the series. Wow.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Rat Westwick not only raised his offensive game in the Challenge games but he also did so against a lot of very strong rovers opposite of him. Walsh, Hall, Griffis, Ronan, Patrick, etc. He outscored Walsh and Hall convincingly.

His defensive profile seems to quite strong as well. Not Harris or Russell level as those 2 would be in the conversation as best at what they did in their respective leagues but Westwick has more than enough to put him in an above average category at least and given how he/Sens locked down a lot of HOF'ers head to head, makes him a very powerful 4th line player IMO.

Like I said, I think Pittsburgh is about as well positioned to cripple a team like NJ as possible. I am putting my money where my mouth is as far as defensive importance goes and I hope the voters judge the series with offense/defense on an equal plane of value.

• Pittsburgh can shadow/check hard and cleanly/ Lafleur with Gainey, Harris, Olmstead.

• Harris was a unanimous AS by 3 voters at RW while having many nods at LW including over a HOF like Foyston. He can shift over to RW to keep NJ off balance while impacting Krutov in a big manner.

• Krutov is up against Westfall (guy who shut down completely a prime Bobby Hull in the playoffs) and Russell, who was an elite defensive player in the first decade of the 1900's.

• Cully Wilson will be in Krutov's grill when they are on the ice together in rare instances. All time great pest/goon should impact a fellow rough player like Krutov. It's trade off Pittsburgh is fine with.

• NJ simply can't double shift, or move up and down, their scoring wingers away from legendary to strong defensive wingers.

• Beliveau, who Ted Lindsay called the hardest man in hockey to check in the 50's, has a very favorable match up against a tiny and not particularly physical player in Weiland. Abel was very physical but again, is smaller and will have a real tough go of it against somebody with the size, strength, length, stick handling ability and premium offensive profile that Beliveau brings to the table. Dave Keon and company these guys are not.

• Bowie, a guy who I have on Nels Stewart's level offensively against a Ricci? Or Star? Ricci is a nice 4th line defensive C but you can count on a few fingers the number of relative ATD seasons to his name and they are basically the 3 seasons where he finished in the top 4 in Selke voting. I think he's fine as 4th line player but he's way over his head against he premium C's Pittsburgh posses in the top 6.

Bowie > Starshinov. Both all time and scoring wise.

• If people are going to poke at early early Canadian hockey one can do the exact same thing with 1960's Soviet hockey. @Dreakmur himself has said that body checking didn't become a thing in all 3 zones until after Mayorov and Starshinov would have been at the ass end of their careers. I think even @Namba 17 confirmed this. The international comp in the 1960's was very weak so I am certainly pushing the pause button on scoring feats in that decade especially the first half of the decade.

• Soviet hockey at the national level wasn't even a thing until the mid 40's, so by the early portion of the 60's it wasn't even 2 decades old.

• Domestically there was little depth, no different than the first half of the 1900's in Canada.

• And Canadian players didn't have the luxury of joining a national team and then going up against other European teams that were in large part as primitive or even more so than the Soviet program.

There is no way you're going to convince me that Mayorov is better than Harris for a few reasons.

• One, Harris starred in a more advanced era of hockey. He was still grabbing AS nods into the 1920's, 3 decades after the start of competitive hockey in Canada/US. The teams in the NHA/NHL and PCHA were deeper and not as lopsided as you saw in Soviet era hockey in the 60's and the Soviets were so much better than anyone they were facing in the Euro circuit in the 60's.

• Two, Mayorov's (and Starshinov) offense from the 60's should be reduced just as one reduces Bowie/Russell. The timeline of existence of each sport in their relative country is very similar. In fact, hockey actually began in the mid 1870's in Canada but wasn't what I'd call competitive until the early to mid 1880's.

• Neither Mayorov/Starhisnov came anywhere close to dominating their respective league the way Bowie did. TDMM's own bio from back in the day spells out clearly the dominance of Bowie. And he's got the RW he accomplished those video game numbers with, and a LW that is not only vastly better than anything the Victorias had but a LW who compliments Bowie about as perfectly as you could hope for, IMO.

• Bowie was generally on average teams with little support and still dominated, despite being hounded every time he stepped on the ice.

• Bowie made the Macleans 1925 All time Canadian 2nd team roster. Over Newsy Lalonde who wound up on the 3rd team. Taylor was #1 rover.

• Bowie finished much higher than Starshinov on the aggregate list from the top 100 project last year. Bowie was on 13 people's original list. Starshinov 1 time.

• I don't think Mayorov's offense is near what is being thrown out if we're being consistent regarding era/comp.

• He isn't the defensive player Harris is by any stretch. Harris is an elite skater, at the very least a great physical presence and I'd argue elite. Harris's performance in the 1916 SCF against Vezina, Lalonde, Pitre and company is more impressive than anything Mayorov did in teh 1960's international circuit IMHO.

• Montreal's own George Kennedy called Harris the best all around hockey player he had seen all winter (east or west). Right in the bio.

• Mayorov, looking at hockey reference had 1 assist between 2 Olympic finals in 64 and 68 against Canada. And I don't think I should have to post who was playing on those Canadian teams vs who the Russians were sending out.

• Harris starred and played at a Smythe level in a best of 5 series against a team with multiple high end HOF'ers (Lalonde/Vezina) and Pitre, Laviolette, McNamara brothers, Prodgers, Corbeau, etc.

Mayrov's resume:

Soviet League Champion (1962, 1967, 1969)

Soviet National Team Captain (1963-1968)
Olympic/World Championship Gold (1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1968)

Awards
Soviet League All-Star (1959, 1962, 1966*, 1967, 1968*, 1969*) *-2nd/3rd team
World Championship All-Star (1961)
World Championship Top Forward (1961)
IIHF's choice for Olympics Top Forward (1964)

Scoring Accomplishments
Top-5 in Soviet League Scoring 7 Times (2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 5th, 5th)
Top-5 in World Championship Scoring 2 Times (1st (1961), 2nd (1964))

• I'm sorry but Top F in 1964 is worth what Ivanov's best Dman is worth in the same tournament.

• Difference is Ivanov is on my 3rd pairing and not 2nd line.

• WC AS and top F in 1961? Worth even less in the ATD than his 1964 highlight.

• Mayorov's scoring finishes in 1960's domestic hockey are nothing special.

• Mayorov, in 2 Olympic finals against Canada (64 and 68) had 1 assist. That's it. And Canada wasn't sending NHL level players AFAIK.

• Bowie dominated the league he played in. The timeline of hockey in each country matches up well and the reality is Bowie is simply a much better and more dominant player than either Mayorov or Starshinov, offensively speaking.

• Harris led the PCHA in scoring, he led the league in assists twice. No winger even did that in the league's history. And given the time line of hockey, Harris' feats are more impressive IMO.

• Harris did that while carrying the rep of being without equal as a back checker over a decade long period of hockey in a talent rich league.

• With Russell's own defensive brilliance on the right side, Harris, with Bowie should maximize his offensive potential.

The biggest gap on 2nd line's is the defensive ability of both Pittsburgh's wings. We have the best offensive player by a good bit in Bowie, IMO, and 2 wingers that both can clamp down on any opposite they face.

And if you actually adjust scoring for 1960's Soviets in the manner we do for Bowie/Russell then I don't think Mayorov is in any way better than Harris offensively. If a gap exists it's a small one IMO and Harris brings so much beyond offense, has a vastly better AS record, best peak postseason performance, etc.

I think you could argue Harris over Mayorov before I even worked up the bio. Now? Don't think it's particularly close. I have Harris a full notch over Mayorov for reasons listed above.

Pittsburgh is stronger at LW/C on the 2nd line IMO, has the best offensive player by a good bit, and the strongest defensive players. Harris certainly and I'd argue Russell as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

• If people are going to poke at early early Canadian hockey one can do the exact same thing with 1960's Soviet hockey. @Dreakmur himself has said that body checking didn't become a thing in all 3 zones until after Mayorov and Starshinov would have been at the ass end of their careers. I think even @Namba 17 confirmed this. The international comp in the 1960's was very weak so I am certainly pushing the pause button on scoring feats in that decade especially the first half of the decade.

Cool, that makes Ivanov, who apparently is Pittsburgh's best PP pointman, look even worse. Also, it's not like he isn't seeing any even strength time; how the heck is he going to defend against any of NJ's scoring depth without knowing what a bodycheck is? Doesn't lack of bodychecking hurt a defenseman more than a forward? Anyway, Starshinov and Mayorov were the most physical star players of their era, so I think they'd adjust to the rules as well or better than anyone.

By the way, Ivanov and Mayorov have almost identical career overlaps. Starshinov was a little later, and more proven against prime Firsov and the first few years of Kharlamov and Maltsev.

________

You're somewhat right about 1900s Canada being similar to 1960s USSR in terms of timing of hockey development, but one key difference was where the talent was coming from.

1900s Canadian hockey was basically just the sons of rich parents, who could afford to play hockey, rather than work for a living. It was a purely amateur sport in a capitalist country. Every notable hockey player from the time came from just a few cities in eastern Canada. In the later part of the decade, it was a novelty that Tommy Phillips became a "hockey mercenary" and guys like Russell Bowie looked down on getting paid to play sports.

Whereas hockey was a national priority for the communist government of the USSR, because it was one of the most prestigious Olympic sports. And winning at sports was supposed to show that Communism was superior (what is it with totalitarian regimes and sports? Hitler was obsessed with winning the Olympics too). Starting in the 1950s, the USSR central government started diverting many of its best athletes towards hockey. Bobrov was a superstar soccer player who was converted to hockey in his 20s. That was the 1950s.

By the 1960s, you had the first generation of Soviet players who had played the game as children come of age and the results were almost immediate. Prior to 1962, the best Soviet players were basically 50/50 with the Canadian amateurs who played in international tournaments. After 1962, the Soviets began dominating Canada so badly that Canada pulled its amateurs from international tournaments for a spell, as they were basically playing against professionals.

I think that 1900s Canadian hockey was similar to 1960s Soviet hockey in that it was the first generation of players who grew up playing competitive hockey. Which is a really big deal! It's really hard to pick up a sport at an elite level when you didn't play it as a kid! But it was different, because the talent pool was larger in the 1960s USSR because hockey was a national priority, rather than the preferred sport among kids rich enough

_____

All this said, I think the very best players of 1900s Canadian hockey absolutely do deserve credit - they were the best of the world at the time. That's why I'm perfectly fine with the idea that Bowie was a better goal scorer than Starshinov. But I think the talent pool was very thin past the guys at the top. This is illustrated by Blair Russell who finished "top 10" in scoring in seasons when he scored less than 50% of his linemate

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

• Bowie made the Macleans 1925 All time Canadian 2nd team roster. Over Newsy Lalonde who wound up on the 3rd team. Taylor was #1 rover.

• Bowie finished much higher than Starshinov on the aggregate list from the top 100 project last year. Bowie was on 13 people's original list. Starshinov 1 time.

You know, you've done a lot of fantastic research in this draft, but a few of your arguments really give the appearance of "throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks." I'll focus on these two:

1) The 1925 Maclean's list treated pre-WW1 players (Bowie's generation) as equal to post-WW1 players (Lalonde's generation). Whereas I don't think many people here actually believe this to be true. All that list says is that Bowie was the best center of his generation, which we already knew. Lalonde was behind Nighbor among players of his generation. You've been around the ATD long enough to be well aware of this.

2) I was a member of the hockey top 100 project. I had Bowie on my list (I believe between 101st and 120th) because I think historical significance matters on a Top 100 list in a way that it probably doesn't in the ATD. But yes, I've already said that Bowie is probably a little better than Starshinov here.

 

[ImporterExporter]

So basically, Jarvis was a little bit better than Charlie Burns as an even strength scorer, but a little bit worse than Kris Draper.

When I drafted Burns for my other team, I thought of him as a total black hole with the puck on his stick, but that team was absolutely desperate for his penalty killing.

Now, Jarvis is a flat out better player than Burns in every way, but there really is no sugarcoating just how weak his offensive production was, especially for a center.

Except when we talk about proven chemistry I can point to the fact that when Jarvis played with Bob Gainey, on a line with either Jim Roberts, or Rejean Houle, etc, they did this:


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

So when they played together, in the postseason, Gainey and Jarvis put up 66 points in 132 games playing together, with RW's who are nowhere close to an Ed Westfall.

• 63 of those 66 points came at ES

• And they did that playing a pure checking role, against the best of the best in the 70s.

• These aren't some run of the mill bottom 6 players.

• Gainey and Westfall are 2 of the 3 greatest defensive wingers ever IMO. All time. 120 years worth of hockey.

• If we value defense and offense as one in the same, then Gainey/Westfall can be argued as better at what they do than Lafleur/Krutov.

• Jarvis is a better pure defensive C than Abel is offensively in a 40 team draft. Anyone can look at the scoring numbers and see this.

• Jarvis gives Pittsburgh an inherent advantage in gaining possession out of the dot which is so huge in a close series.

Pittsburgh has 3 premium offensive players in the top 6. The other 3 players compliment those offensive stars very well, namely defensively and play making but also bring a lot of speed and physicality. I'm thinking well beyond simple offensive figures and have maintained that from day 1.

Hockey is not won and lost in 1 zone.

We have a bottom 6 that can check better than any unit in the draft, don't take penalties (outside of Wilson).

And as I've said from the beginning of this series, Pittsburgh has the more favorable match ups when it comes to our offensive stars vs NJ's.

Pittsburgh is clamping down the best offensive players on NJ with legendary defensive players (Gainey/Westfall) and then a cadre of guys who range from above average to great, Westwick, Olmstead, Jarvis, Harris, Russell.

Pittsburgh's blue line has no weak spot defensively, outside of maybe Ivanov who was noted to make an occasional blunder. And he's a bottom pairing player and by no means a big liability. I personally have him as average but won't scream if someone says he's a below average defensive presence.

Pittsburgh's blue line can transition the puck well with any one of our #1 through #5.

Vezina was noted to move the puck, uncommon in those days and I even found a retro assist which is super cool.

Pittsburgh isn't built to win games 5-4. Don't need to IMO. We can score 2 and 3 goals throughout this series and win games IMO.

We are built to stifle winger dominant squads (offensively) and win with superior defense, which means the entire group, F, D and G.

Pittsburgh has the best player/playoff performer at every level in this series. Beliveau in the top 6, Gainey in the bottom 6, Keith (best in playoffs) on the blue line, and Vezina in net.

Pete Green won 2 SC titles in deciding game 5's. He is used to winning in the biggest spots, in critical moments.

Larry Robinson's SC win in 2000 came vs NJ's own Ken Hitchcock.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Except when we talk about proven chemistry I can point to the fact that when Jarvis played with Bob Gainey, on a line with either Jim Roberts, or Rejean Houle, etc, they did this:

Yes, and playing together, it looks like Houle badly outscored the other two at even strength, right?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Pittsburgh has the best player/playoff performer at every level in this series. Beliveau in the top 6, Gainey in the bottom 6, Keith (best in playoffs) on the blue line, and Vezina in net.

Pittsburgh has 3 all-time great playoff performers on their roster: Beliveau, Keith, and Gainey. And yes, those three are really good at what they do. I guess Westwick is pretty good too.

You're vastly overstating Vezina's playoff record - basically did about what you'd expect a goalie of his calibre to do, nothing more. Hainsworth was at least as impressive in his team's Cup wins.

 

[ImporterExporter]

You know, you've done a lot of fantastic research in this draft, but a few of your arguments really give the appearance of "throwing crap against the wall and seeing what sticks." I'll focus on these two:

1) The 1925 Maclean's list treated pre-WW1 players (Bowie's generation) as equal to post-WW1 players (Lalonde's generation). Whereas I don't think many people here actually believe this to be true. All that list says is that Bowie was the best center of his generation, which we already knew. Lalonde was behind Nighbor among players of his generation. You've been around the ATD long enough to be well aware of this.

2) I was a member of the hockey top 100 project. I had Bowie on my list (I believe between 101st and 120th) because I think historical significance matters on a Top 100 list in a way that it probably doesn't in the ATD. But yes, I've already said that Bowie is probably a little better than Starshinov here.

It's not crap on the wall sir. I'm not making up anything. These are legit pieces of historical information that go into evaluating players.

There are many other instances of Bowie being called best in the world, among the best, etc. I can throw those up as well if need be but you've done a thorough bio on Bowie so I don't think it prudent. Most people are aware of Bowie's exploits around here.

The Maclean's list is only 1 small piece of the pie and it does illustrate that even 15 years post Bowie, he was still considered among the best of the best. Does it make him a super player? No. Does it add significant value? No. But it's something. Just like game reports, just like peer reviews, etc.

The aggregate list is a barometer. It's not concrete. I've made that clear and don't expect people to use it as some magic wand. It's a small piece of information that show people value Bowie more than Starshinov.

 

[ImporterExporter]

What a load of nonsense. Pittsburgh has 3 all-time great playoff performers on their roster: Beliveau, Keith, and Gainey. And yes, those three are really good at what they do. I guess Westwick is pretty good too.

You're vastly overstating Vezina's playoff record - basically did about what you'd expect a goalie of his calibre to do, nothing more. Hainsworth was at least as impressive in his team's Cup wins.

And yet those are the best players at each level of the series.

Harris was very strong in 1916.

The entire 3rd and 4th lines of Pittsburgh are all better than average in the postseason. Westwick and Wilson both have very strong playoff resumes btw.

Lake/Shore anchored the back end of a dynasty.

I've already provide the reconstruction of Vezina's playoff record. I'll let the voters decide but I can point to a pair of SC wins that he was the best player on, one in particular in 1924. Vezina had less talent around him than Hainsworth and Hainsworth played in the lowest scoring era ever.

Vezina had numerous playoffs where the GAA dropped significantly from the regular season.

His legendary performance against Ottawa in 1923 was not simply "what you'd expect a goalie of his caliber to do".

He was cited by Montreal and Calgary papers as being the reason Montreal won in 1924.

He gave up 13 goals in 5 games in the 1916 SCF's in an era where the GAA averages in both leagues were over 3.

There is literally nothing you can point to in Hainsworth's career that matches or exceeds Vezina outside of longevity and durability. Vezina was a stud in the playoffs and even when Montreal lost he was rarely cited as playing poorly.

Again, up to the voters but trying to equate Hainsworth, in almost any manner, to Vezina, is the nonsense IMO.

Yes, and playing together, it looks like Houle badly outscored the other two at even strength, right?

And Houle isn't a legendary defensive player is he?

Pittsburgh's 3rd line will chip in a few points this series IMO, while greatly limiting NJ's top line IMO.

Defense matters just as much as offense IMO.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Defense matters just as much as offense IMO.

Of course it does. Both side of hockey matter.

I just think the Swamp Devils are a better balance between offense and defense: all the lines are responsible defensively, all can chip in offensively (well, except Mike Ricci I guess? I guess he scored a lot as a PP net presence in real life, that would explain his low even strength scoring compared to his overall totals which are decent).

I would be a lot more forgiving about your third line being a defense-only line if your second line was better. A team with a top 6 that is stacked offensively could use a pure checking third line, but your secondary scoring is basically Russell Bowie and not much else.

Somewhat related to the ATD: My experience as a fan of the real life NJ Devils during their "golden era": The team was always strong defensively. When their offense worked, they tended to win Stanley Cups or at least get close. When their offense didn't work, they tended to lose in the first round against lower seeds. Very all-or-nothing team in the playoffs. But their defense was always good.

You built a strong defensive club, but secondary scoring is a big weakness.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Based on @overpass's spreadsheet, these are the career adjusted even strength points per 82 games records of the bottom 6ers on these teams. Overpass's spreadsheet includes the years from 1960-2020.
Jarvis: 24 over 964 games
Otto: 27 over 943 games

Just added Joel Otto to the list. Probably the best comparable for Jarvis's even strength offense, as they played a very similar number of games.

For GMs not actively reading this thread, this will seem redundant, but I just thought of him.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Of course it does. Both side of hockey matter.

I just think the Swamp Devils are a better balance between offense and defense: all the lines are responsible defensively, all can chip in offensively (well, except Mike Ricci I guess? I guess he scored a lot as a PP net presence in real life, that would explain his low even strength scoring compared to his overall totals which are decent).

I would be a lot more forgiving about your third line being a defense-only line if your second line was better. A team with a top 6 that is stacked offensively could use a pure checking third line, but your secondary scoring is basically Russell Bowie and not much else.

Somewhat related to the ATD: My experience as a fan of the real life NJ Devils during their "golden era": The team was always strong defensively. When their offense worked, they tended to win Stanley Cups or at least get close. When their offense didn't work, they tended to lose in the first round against lower seeds. Very all-or-nothing team in the playoffs. But their defense was always good.

You built a strong defensive club, but secondary scoring is a big weakness.

Beliveau/Bowie/Balderis is stronger than Lafleur/Krutov/Abel offensively IMO. Just barely but the Killer B's ensure that Pittsburgh can produce well in the top 6 IMO.

Then consider in the top 6 the best defensive players on each units are Harris, Rusell, Olmstead, Beliveau which I think is seriously better than....I honestly don't know how to rank NJ's top 6 forwards defensively. Starshinov, Mayorov, Abel, Krutov? Lalfuer brings very little and I don't think Bauer gives NJ much.

So yes, depth scoring favors NJ, but Pittsburgh has far more depth defense (peak as well) among the F's. Top to bottom. And Pittsburgh's best defensive players are in position to clamp down on NJ's best offensive players.

Then factor in proven chemistry vs likely chemistry which favors Pitt IMO.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Just to illustrate Pittsburgh's strategy further:

NJ can't really move Lafleur away from extremely tough match ups.

NJ can't really move Krutov away from extremely tough match ups.

Certainly not over the majority of the series, home or away. That's the benefit of having invested so heavily in strong defensive players, especially on the flanks.

The other big factor of having a Gainey, Westfall, Harris, Olmstead, Kunitz, Wilson, is they all range from above average to legendary when it comes to fore checking. Even Beliveau in the 50's was noted to be a strong forechecker himself.

Gainey in particular was talked about how dominant he was at checking a Dman and having the speed to still recover and join the rest of the team. Gainey and Westfall are going to seriously impact NJ's top pairing more than any set of wingers they've experienced so far. They won't be able to lollygag w/ the puck or take their sweet time making decisions.

And Jarvis is the perfect C to play that high position when the wingers do go in deep. He was a great skater himself and noted as an exception positional defender. As Killion talked about, his mental connection with Gainey was incredible and that trust on a 3rd line, in this stage of the game, is so critical.

Our late friend Canadiens1958 who would have seen all of Jarvis's career talked about him in a comparison with Provost. Notes the skating, appreciation for on ice geometry, especially defensively.

Gainey, Westfall and Harris in particular are all great to elite skaters. Two of them are on Seibert's side. Seibert simply can't skate by or through Gainey/Harris, not to mention Keith and Shore are great and elite on their blades.

Most of Pittsburgh's wingers are not the types you can try and go through without remembering.

Where are the soft players among the F's for Pittsburgh? Closest thing I'd say would be Russell or Balderis and there is nothing to suggest they were actually soft. In fact, Balderis was said to have been a strong and muscular SOB. Just don't think he was the type to mix it up in the corners or high traffic area.

Where are the soft players on the blue line for Pittsburgh? There isn't one.

The closest thing you could maybe call a below average player defensively is Ivanov. He's a #5. Hollet, IMO, is pretty easily the weakest defensive player of either group and he's on the 2nd pairing and all by his lonesome on the 1st PP.

And I even found and showed that Seibert, in 1936, wasn't exactly thought of as an air tight player in his own end. I'm NOT saying he's a bum or even average but I certainly think he's a notch below Coulter who not only has sterling things written about him but the performances of the teams he played on, defensively, speaks volumes, especially how those teams fared after he left.

Pittsburgh sees their #1 through #5 able to transition the puck. This should please Pete Green considerably beyond the fact he has Shore/Lake at his disposal.

Pittsburgh's depth at F, especially on that 4th line is so important. Everyone has a role to play and in each role most of these guys are very, very good at what they do.

As I said from the beginning I think NJ has a slight edge on the top line, Pittsburgh counters with a slight edge on the 2nd line and then the gap grows more and more when looking at the 3rd and 4th lines.

Beliveau's faceoff prowess btw, as noted by C58 who watched Beliveau later in his career.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Where are the soft players among the F's for Pittsburgh? Closest thing I'd say would be Russell or Balderis and there is nothing to suggest they were actually soft. In fact, Balderis was said to have been a strong and muscular SOB. Just don't think he was the type to mix it up in the corners or high traffic area.

Where are the soft players on the blue line for Pittsburgh? There isn't one.

Russell Bowie leads Pittsburgh's list of soft players. Balderis might have been big but he played at least something of a soft game.

That's fine - every team can have some soft players, you just don't want too many of them. On NJ, Bobby Bauer was pretty soft. Lafleur wasn't a tough guy, though he did fearlessly skate through traffic.

The closest thing you could maybe call a below average player defensively is Ivanov. He's a #5. Hollet, IMO, is pretty easily the weakest defensive player of either group and he's on the 2nd pairing and all by his lonesome on the 1st PP.

There was never any hard evidence that Hollett was a bad defensive player. In the past, we assumed he probably was, because he barely got any all-star consideration at the beginning of his career. But now we know the real reason - he played a lot of the time at forward during that time. Suddenly all the quotes that make him look not terrible in his own end make sense. In fact, there are a fair number of quotes in his profile indicating that he was halfway decent for an offensive defenseman:

I was Hollett’s defense partner that night when Apps, coming full tilt, evidently thought we were spread a little too wide. He faked a pass; then tried to knife between us.

Hollett and I closed up, and it was the younger and more nimble Flash who got the big piece of Apps. The Leaf Star went down, and so did Hollett. But Syl didn’t get up. He knelt on the ice, shook off his right glove and covered his mouth with his hand"

"He impressed everyone with a destructive body check that sent King Clancy to the ice"

Since joining the Bruins, Hollett has been used both as a defenceman and forward. A free skater with plenty of weight to back it up, and a fine shot, Hollett is a tireless performer."​

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...fQtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BNwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2358,4474981

"The hard working Hollett enabled his closely checked force to break a 1-1 deadlock...."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...hAvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-tsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4255,2791246

"And in addition to sparking hockey, Flash Hollett of Boston, and Sweeney Schriner of the Leafs, mixed in some fisticuffs"....

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...=a_0tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8NsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4169,92643

Earl Siebert was badly cut after a collision with Flash Hollet behind Detroits net..."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...3otAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vpgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3878,3722760

George Mantha, who's job it was to stick to Bobby Bauer like a leetch Saturday, came out of the game with one side of his face and forehead scratched as a result of being sent headfirst into the boards by Flash Hollett..."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...I8uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sZgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3563,2921692

The second period fights brought major penalties to Bill Hollett and Bill Benson for one scrap...."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...5Y0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=h2gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1087,4906956

King Clancy only played half the game for the Leafs as he was feeling unwell but the Red Horner, Day and Hollett held up the defensive end of the Leafs play in competent style...."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...30uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gJgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6418,2391876

Bill Hollett played a hard, aggressive game and is a prime favorite with the fans. "Headline" made a good play for the first Ottawa goal, putting Syd Howe in scoring position...."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...-wuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=H9sFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2644,2816832

Hollett and Starr were each given five minutes in the first period when they traded punches

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...EswAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bKgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4224,2447404

 

[ImporterExporter]

Cool, that makes Ivanov, who apparently is Pittsburgh's best PP pointman, look even worse. Also, it's not like he isn't seeing any even strength time; how the heck is he going to defend against any of NJ's scoring depth without knowing what a bodycheck is? Doesn't lack of bodychecking hurt a defenseman more than a forward? Anyway, Starshinov and Mayorov were the most physical star players of their era, so I think they'd adjust to the rules as well or better than anyone.

By the way, Ivanov and Mayorov have almost identical career overlaps. Starshinov was a little later, and more proven against prime Firsov and the first few years of Kharlamov and Maltsev.

________

You're somewhat right about 1900s Canada being similar to 1960s USSR in terms of timing of hockey development, but one key difference was where the talent was coming from.

1900s Canadian hockey was basically just the sons of rich parents, who could afford to play hockey, rather than work for a living. It was a purely amateur sport in a capitalist country. Every notable hockey player from the time came from just a few cities in eastern Canada. In the later part of the decade, it was a novelty that Tommy Phillips became a "hockey mercenary" and guys like Russell Bowie looked down on getting paid to play sports.

Whereas hockey was a national priority for the communist government of the USSR, because it was one of the most prestigious Olympic sports. And winning at sports was supposed to show that Communism was superior (what is it with totalitarian regimes and sports? Hitler was obsessed with winning the Olympics too). Starting in the 1950s, the USSR central government started diverting many of its best athletes towards hockey. Bobrov was a superstar soccer player who was converted to hockey in his 20s. That was the 1950s.

By the 1960s, you had the first generation of Soviet players who had played the game as children come of age and the results were almost immediate. Prior to 1962, the best Soviet players were basically 50/50 with the Canadian amateurs who played in international tournaments. After 1962, the Soviets began dominating Canada so badly that Canada pulled its amateurs from international tournaments for a spell, as they were basically playing against professionals.

I think that 1900s Canadian hockey was similar to 1960s Soviet hockey in that it was the first generation of players who grew up playing competitive hockey. Which is a really big deal! It's really hard to pick up a sport at an elite level when you didn't play it as a kid! But it was different, because the talent pool was larger in the 1960s USSR because hockey was a national priority, rather than the preferred sport among kids rich enough

_____

All this said, I think the very best players of 1900s Canadian hockey absolutely do deserve credit - they were the best of the world at the time. That's why I'm perfectly fine with the idea that Bowie was a better goal scorer than Starshinov. But I think the talent pool was very thin past the guys at the top. This is illustrated by Blair Russell who finished "top 10" in scoring in seasons when he scored less than 50% of his linemate

Ivanov should not have any issue adjusting either:

And I'm not adverse to pointing out flaws either as shown below. But that last quote further illustrates Ivanov was an extremely physical player, in the same league/era as Mayorov/Starshinov.

Again, difference being, 3rd pairing player vs 2 second line players.

More instances of his offensive abilities, both physically and mentally:

I've maintained early on that Pittsburgh doesn't have much to talk about on the PP points. Ivanov is probably a below average PP guy and I'd put Shore in the average category given he actually played well into the 1910's and has a strong offensive resume throughout the duration of his career. You can see what Ivanov brings to the table above. Shore had a elite wheels and was cited often as being an incredible stick handler and he put up good scoring numbers from the blue line.

The biggest difference that I can tell apart between the 1900's North American hockey and the 60's Soviet version was that, as you said, there was a very, very hard drive to push the Soviets forward in the sport. Obviously there are some political factors but also a lot of national pride from a very, very tough group of people (Soviets) who came through some horrific times in the 1940's and post WWII.

So I think on one hand the Soviets had an advantage with national push, investing money, resources, etc, etc, into rapidly building a strong program. National players would have been afforded the best of everything, including teammates.

This is why I really hesitate on the mid 1960's and earlier International comps/results. I'd rather focus on the domestic results as then you can directly compare a Bowie/Russell vs Mayorov/Starshinov against 2 primitive leagues that didn't have a lot of depth to them, certainly not in the earlier portions of their respective decades.

I think if you had taken the best hockey players in Canada (citizens) between 1900 and 1910 and put them up against anyone from any other country, it would be very lopsided, favoring Canada. You saw a lot of the same things happening in Europe in the 60's with the Soviets vs everyone else.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Russell Bowie leads Pittsburgh's list of soft players. Balderis might have been big but he played at least something of a soft game.

That's fine - every team can have some soft players, you just don't want too many of them. On NJ, Bobby Bauer was pretty soft. Lafleur wasn't a tough guy, though he did fearlessly skate through traffic.



There was never any hard evidence that Hollett was a bad defensive player. In the past, we assumed he probably was, because he barely got any all-star consideration at the beginning of his career. But now we know the real reason - he played a lot of the time at forward during that time. Suddenly all the quotes that make him look not terrible in his own end make sense. In fact, there are a fair number of quotes in his profile indicating that he was halfway decent for an offensive defenseman:

Since joining the Bruins, Hollett has been used both as a defenceman and forward. A free skater with plenty of weight to back it up, and a fine shot, Hollett is a tireless performer."​

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...fQtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=BNwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2358,4474981

"The hard working Hollett enabled his closely checked force to break a 1-1 deadlock...."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...hAvAAAAIBAJ&sjid=-tsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4255,2791246

"And in addition to sparking hockey, Flash Hollett of Boston, and Sweeney Schriner of the Leafs, mixed in some fisticuffs"....

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...=a_0tAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8NsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4169,92643

Earl Siebert was badly cut after a collision with Flash Hollet behind Detroits net..."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...3otAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vpgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3878,3722760

George Mantha, who's job it was to stick to Bobby Bauer like a leetch Saturday, came out of the game with one side of his face and forehead scratched as a result of being sent headfirst into the boards by Flash Hollett..."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...I8uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sZgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=3563,2921692

The second period fights brought major penalties to Bill Hollett and Bill Benson for one scrap...."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...5Y0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=h2gFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1087,4906956

King Clancy only played half the game for the Leafs as he was feeling unwell but the Red Horner, Day and Hollett held up the defensive end of the Leafs play in competent style...."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...30uAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gJgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=6418,2391876

Bill Hollett played a hard, aggressive game and is a prime favorite with the fans. "Headline" made a good play for the first Ottawa goal, putting Syd Howe in scoring position...."

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...-wuAAAAIBAJ&sjid=H9sFAAAAIBAJ&pg=2644,2816832

Hollett and Starr were each given five minutes in the first period when they traded punches

http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...EswAAAAIBAJ&sjid=bKgFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4224,2447404

Bowie was small, not soft to be clear.

He was a scrappy player who played a long time in a very violent era, with the biggest target on his back of likely any player who set foot on the ice. And he dominated despite all the things working against him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bowie was small, not soft to be clear.

He was a scrappy player who played a long time in a very violent era, with the biggest target on his back of likely any player who set foot on the ice. And he dominated despite all the things working against him.

"he played in a violent era" is a really poor justification for him not being soft. Does that mean every player who plays in 2020 is fast and soft because the modern era is fast but not violent?

I'll just repost what Sturminator said when I was the one who had drafted Bowie

. And that brings us to Bowie...a somewhat controversial figure. There is no doubt that Bowie had a lot of offensive skill and was a great goalscorer. That being said, I think he is one of the old-time players who most likely hides in the fog of ignorance that he have surrounding his career and era. It is easy to see the positives in a guy like Bowie (they are recorded in the boxscore), but very hard to clearly identify the negatives...and so I think these players often get overrated. There is a lot of smoke with Bowie, and I think there is fire when it comes to his intangibles. He was tiny and obviously soft, liked to dive, and seems to have been a puckhog on otherwise uninteresting offensive teams. If Bowie played in the modern era, I think there's a good chance we would have as many flattering things to say about his all-around game as we have to say about Ilya Kovalchuk's. Live by the sword...
...
Bowie is possibly the worst defensive center in the draft in his own zone,

ATD 2012 Line-up Assassination Thread

Has anything been found on Bowie's play without the puck since ATD 2012?

If it has, I missed it.

I just re-skimmed the Bowie profile you have linked, and it does have instances of him battling in traffic to score. Thats... something I guess. I mean, guys like Bure and Kovalchuk fought through traffic to score goals too, but it's something. The absence of anything else in the record is fairly telling though.

 

[ImporterExporter]

"he played in a violent era" is a really poor justification for him not being soft. Does that mean every player who plays in 2020 is fast and soft because the modern era is fast but not violent?

I'll just repost what Sturminator said when I was the one who had drafted Bowie


ATD 2012 Line-up Assassination Thread

Has anything been found on Bowie's play without the puck since ATD 2012?

If it has, I missed it.

I just re-skimmed the Bowie profile you have linked, and it does have instances of him battling in traffic to score. Thats... something I guess. I mean, guys like Bure and Kovalchuk fought through traffic to score goals too, but it's something. The absence of anything else in the record is fairly telling though.

LOL, I'm not sure where exactly he got all that information to post such a thorough review but it's not what I have saved.

That report by Sturm can be thrown in the trash for anyone who's keeping score:

This is what I have saved now and will gladly do a quick search if you want more but this is pretty telling.


11 Feb 1901, 5 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1901

This is against the undefeated 1901 Ottawa Senators (Westwick on that team btw)

"The game now grew steadily more rough......."It was rough, and the Vics were coming along strong. This put Bowie in the proper nerve, and amidst tremendous excitement he scored"

13 Feb 1902, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1902

The rought horse play commenced in the second half, when Bowie was sent off for getting gay with his stick on Brennen.

Shamocks roughing Bowie repeatedly and he didn't back down.

4 Jan 1904, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1904

Bowie played a HARD, effective game.

19 Jan 1905, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1905

Bowie playing some good D.

15 Jan 1906, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1906

"Moran was off for scrapping with Bowie.

Few games pass in which Moran is goal tend and Bowie forward without a mix up of some sort between the two.

Moran wants no one to bother him in the nets, and Bowie accepts ALL chances and goes in to score when the opportunity offers

Bowie and Moran go off together later."

5 Feb 1906, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1906

Bowie scored 3 goals in 6-2 win despite getting checked hard:

"Vics attack, as usual, revolved around Bowie, and the winners success was largely due to his clever work.

At that he was watched at every move by Quebec and checked HARD and close.

He was the especial object of attention from Hogan and Leclerc."

18 Feb 1907, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1907

This is against Ottawa and Harvey Pulford.

Bowie scored 4 goals in this game a blowout loss against a much, much better team.

"All through the match Pulford shadowed Bowie whenever the Vic man came in, and Bowie was taken off his feet time and again before he could near the disc.

But NOTHING could keep him out of the danger zone."

As I said, he's not soft.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

LOL, I'm not sure where exactly he got all that information to post such a thorough review but it's not what I have saved.

That report by Sturm can be thrown in the trash for anyone who's keeping score:

This is what I have saved now and will gladly do a quick search if you want more but this is pretty telling.


11 Feb 1901, 5 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1901

This is against the undefeated 1901 Ottawa Senators (Westwick on that team btw)

"The game now grew steadily more rough......."It was rough, and the Vics were coming along strong. This put Bowie in the proper nerve, and amidst tremendous excitement he scored"

13 Feb 1902, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1902

The rought horse play commenced in the second half, when Bowie was sent off for getting gay with his stick on Brennen.

Shamocks roughing Bowie repeatedly and he didn't back down.

4 Jan 1904, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1904

Bowie played a HARD, effective game.

19 Jan 1905, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1905

Bowie playing some good D.

15 Jan 1906, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1906

"Moran was off for scrapping with Bowie.

Few games pass in which Moran is goal tend and Bowie forward without a mix up of some sort between the two.

Moran wants no one to bother him in the nets, and Bowie accepts ALL chances and goes in to score when the opportunity offers

Bowie and Moran go off together later."

5 Feb 1906, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1906

Bowie scored 3 goals in 6-2 win despite getting checked hard:

"Vics attack, as usual, revolved around Bowie, and the winners success was largely due to his clever work.

At that he was watched at every move by Quebec and checked HARD and close.

He was the especial object of attention from Hogan and Leclerc."

18 Feb 1907, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1907

This is against Ottawa and Harvey Pulford.

Bowie scored 4 goals in this game a blowout loss against a much, much better team.

"All through the match Pulford shadowed Bowie whenever the Vic man came in, and Bowie was taken off his feet time and again before he could near the disc.

But NOTHING could keep him out of the danger zone."

As I said, he's not soft.

Do those excerpts say anything except that Bowie scored lots of goals under all conditions, something we already know?

Compared to other players of his era who actually initiated physical contact, he's soft. And that's ok.

Ilya Kovalchuk scored a lot of goals in physical games too.

 

[Dreakmur]

LOL, I'm not sure where exactly he got all that information to post such a thorough review but it's not what I have saved.

That report by Sturm can be thrown in the trash for anyone who's keeping score:

This is what I have saved now and will gladly do a quick search if you want more but this is pretty telling.


11 Feb 1901, 5 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1901

This is against the undefeated 1901 Ottawa Senators (Westwick on that team btw)

"The game now grew steadily more rough......."It was rough, and the Vics were coming along strong. This put Bowie in the proper nerve, and amidst tremendous excitement he scored"

13 Feb 1902, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1902

The rought horse play commenced in the second half, when Bowie was sent off for getting gay with his stick on Brennen.

Shamocks roughing Bowie repeatedly and he didn't back down.

4 Jan 1904, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1904

Bowie played a HARD, effective game.

19 Jan 1905, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1905

Bowie playing some good D.

15 Jan 1906, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1906

"Moran was off for scrapping with Bowie.

Few games pass in which Moran is goal tend and Bowie forward without a mix up of some sort between the two.

Moran wants no one to bother him in the nets, and Bowie accepts ALL chances and goes in to score when the opportunity offers

Bowie and Moran go off together later."

5 Feb 1906, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1906

Bowie scored 3 goals in 6-2 win despite getting checked hard:

"Vics attack, as usual, revolved around Bowie, and the winners success was largely due to his clever work.

At that he was watched at every move by Quebec and checked HARD and close.

He was the especial object of attention from Hogan and Leclerc."

18 Feb 1907, 2 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

1907

This is against Ottawa and Harvey Pulford.

Bowie scored 4 goals in this game a blowout loss against a much, much better team.

"All through the match Pulford shadowed Bowie whenever the Vic man came in, and Bowie was taken off his feet time and again before he could near the disc.

But NOTHING could keep him out of the danger zone."

As I said, he's not soft.

Honestly, there's nothing really telling there. He got pushed around, but didn't puss out. How many ATD calibre players did?

Ok, let's put this into the context of the ATD. 40 teams with 480 starting forwards total, how many are softer than Bowie? A dozen maybe?

 

[ImporterExporter]

From 1909-10 through 1917-18


Hamby Shore (NHA/NHL)

• 63 goals in 154 games = 0.40 (Hockey Reference)
• No Wiki stats

Moose Johnson (NHA/PCHA)

• 59 goals in 147 games = 0.40 (Wiki)
• 59 goals in 147 games = 04.0 (Hockey Reference)

Joe Hall (NHA/NHL)

• 62 goals in 157 games = 0.39 (Wiki)
• 60 goals in 158 games = 0.38 (Hockey Reference)

• I think Shore is an average 1st team PP QB. Nothing more, nothing less.

• He's got a bio filled with exploits of brilliant rushes, stick handling, offensive flair, obviously has the elite speed.

• He and Ivanov's speed alone protect against counters going the other way as none of the NJ PK forwards are going to out skate those 2 long distance IMO. Ivanov was noted to have a big shot and precision passing. Firsov talked about how well he worked with the F's. Make the easy, simple pass out top, get pucks towards the net, and worst case put it down the boards behind the net and let Olmstead and Beliveau do what they do which is dominate physically in the corners/boards/net front. As I just showed above, Bowie is not at all soft and very willing to go to all the battle areas on the ice in order to score.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Honestly, there's nothing really telling there. He got pushed around, but didn't puss out. How many ATD calibre players did?

Ok, let's put this into the context of the ATD. 40 teams with 480 starting forwards total, how many are softer than Bowie? A dozen maybe?

Where is the info to indicate he's soft?

Because as far as I can tell, there is nothing. Without that being put forth, calling him soft is rather extreme.

I'm not claiming he's a physical beast. Never have, but i absolutely object to the term soft because there is nothing that indicates he was. At all. Soft implies he's going to get pushed around all game and wimp out. It's an overreaching term IMO.

The man bagged a ton of goals getting the piss beat out of him just about every game.

Guess the voters will have the ultimate say.