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

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
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.

Is scoring the same as Moose Johnson and Joe Hall supposed to be impressive? Weren't those guys better known for their defense than offense? We're talking 1st unit PP here - not second unit.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
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.

It's the lack of information as to any physical game. For the early era players especially, it's much much easier to find information about what they are good at than what they are bad at. Sources that early usually just focus on a player's strengths. The fact that multiple GMs who enjoy doing research (you, me, Dreakmur, ResilientBeast, etc) who have had Bowie have found basically nothing about him playing physically is a pretty strong indication that he didn't. Basically, if a historical player is well researched and nobody has found evidence that he is good at something, it's pretty safe to assume that he is fairly bad at that thing. This is why Sturminator said what he did when I had Bowie, and why I found it hard to argue with him.

Evidence as to Frank McGee's physical game is much stronger than it is for Bowie, and Frank McGee STILL had Alf Smith as a protector.

Bowie was the best goal scorer of his era, and nobody scores a lot of goals by crying to his mommy when the game gets rough. But compared to other players of his era, he seems to have brought very little without the puck on his stick.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
The main reason NJ should win

Two words: Secondary scoring

As long as NJ's top line keeps it even remotely close with Pittsburgh's top line, NJ should prevail, as our secondary scoring is better than Pittsburgh's by leaps and bounds.

(Earlier post on secondary scoring)

I just can't see Pittsburgh shutting down NJ's top line by that much. Nobody shut down prime Guy Lafleur in the playoffs. Nobody even slowed him down:

From a recent HOH thread:

vadim sharifijanov said:
other than gretzky and mario, nobody has had a five year offensive playoff run like lafleur from '75 to '79. 69 games (three round era), 48 goals, 58 assists, 106 points. over an 80 game schedule that's a 123 point pace. trottier, bossy, anyone that played with gretzky in edmonton, none of them had a five year run of deep runs and scored like that. and if we're going to be real about it, neither did mario, because only two of his runs were deep and he never even made the playoffs five years in a row.

four cups, led his team in scoring five straight times and was injured the six years, led the playoffs in scoring three straight years and was top three all five years

vadim sharifijanov said:
in the four dynasty years montreal always got the first round bye so they didn’t play bottom feeders. they did face the islanders a few times, and of course that was a very strong expansion team, and the two time defending champ flyers in the finals but other than that a steady diet of O6 peers.

Over Lafleur's 6 year prime (1975-1980), he scored 1.53 points per game in the playoffs. His linemates Lemaire and Shutt? 1.07 points per game: Player Season Finder | Hockey-Reference.com

Of course, Lafleur never played against his teammate Gainey except in practice, but even if Gainey slows him down, that's not enough. NJ's top line just has to keep it close.

Krutov's prime wasn't all that long, but at his best, nobody shut him down,either. 1987 Canada gave up on even trying and just played their fastest skaters against him and Makarov (source) , and Krutov was the best player of the tournament not named Gretzky or Lemieux (as evidenced by Canada Cup All-Star voting or just watching the damn games)
____

Of course, there's a non-trivial chance NJ's top line outscores Pittsburgh's, as Stanley-Seibert match up very well with Beliveau, who did a lot of his damage in tight to the net.
 
Last edited:

Theokritos

Global Moderator
Apr 6, 2010
12,538
4,911
Since the question of bodychecking in all three zones in international hockey has been brought up: prior to 1969-1970, the IIHF did indeed restrict bodychecking to the defensive zone. That means two things:
  • Defencemen like Eduard Ivanov knew bodychecks and used them. It wasn't alien to them. (Though I wouldn't call any European defencemen from that era "extremely physical" in a comparison with contemporary NHL players.)
  • On the flipside, they didn't have experience in dealing with physically aggressive forechecking since the opposing forwards were not allowed to bodycheck them.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,805
Oblivion Express
Is scoring the same as Moose Johnson and Joe Hall supposed to be impressive? Weren't those guys better known for their defense than offense? We're talking 1st unit PP here - not second unit.

Not at all.
  • As I said, Pittsburgh biggest weakness are the points on the PP. Moose Johnson was a strong 2 way player who early in his career built up a reputation as a good rusher and scorer but as his career went along it feels like he became more involved defensively given his size/reach.
  • But like I said, I think Pittsburgh has very strong F's on the top PP unit and Shore/Ivanov were both very experienced as puck carriers, passers, scorers in their day. I expect Larry Robinson to iron out any details on the back end and instilling a simple, safe game from the points.
  • Get the puck safely around the top, always make the smart, safe pass and get pucks on the net, and worst case, put it down into a corner and let Beliveau/Olmsted go to work. Pittsburgh's top PP F's are elite at putting the puck in the net (Beliveau/Bowie), Olmstead made a living off setting up Beliveau for years and both of the Pittsburgh point men are incredible skaters so that helps in mobility with/without the puck and protecting against counters going the other way.
I don't think secondary scoring is as big an issue because Pittsburgh simply has the better match ups at even strength, which is where 95% of the series is going to be played.
  • This to me, along with the larger gap w/ coaching (especially 2 coaches that practice a defensive style of hockey), and goal tending is where Pittsburgh really comes out ahead and should prevail based on.
  • NJ's best offensive players in the top 6 (Lafleur, Krutov, Bauer, Mayorov) are simply up against incredible resistance at ES.
  • I simply think Pittsburgh is almost perfectly positioned to really limit Lafleur w/ Gainey, Harris, Olmstead. The odds of Lafleur having a big or even above average series is quite low IMO.
  • His skating is nullified greatly this series (Gainey, Harris, Keith, Shore, Ivanov) are all great to elite skaters. The physical punishment he will take (Gainey, Harris, Olmstead) will be significant.
  • Krutov is in the same boat. Westfall/Russell will see him often. That's a legendary and great defensive winger, both of whom can skate very well. Cully Wilson will pest and lean on Krutov heavily the handful of times they share the ice.
  • Pittsburgh's best C's which are elite scorers for each line they play on, have much more favorable match ups. Weiland while a great defensive player, is very small, and not much of a physical presence. That's not a good combination physically against a man of Beliveau's size, strength, length, and overall offensive ability. Abel (power on power) isn't anything special defensively so while he's certainly a very abrasive player, he isn't exactly the type of C who should be counted on to shut down/limit Beliveau.
  • Bowie vs Ricci or Starshinov favors Pittsburgh, rather easily IMO.
 

Dreakmur

Registered User
Mar 25, 2008
18,552
6,730
Orillia, Ontario
Is scoring the same as Moose Johnson and Joe Hall supposed to be impressive? Weren't those guys better known for their defense than offense? We're talking 1st unit PP here - not second unit.

Not sure about Hall, but Moose Johnson is not a strong offensive threat at all. If I remember right, his vs.D score was about 54.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
  • NJ's best offensive players in the top 6 (Lafleur, Krutov, Bauer, Mayorov) are simply up against incredible resistance at ES

The Lake-Shore 2nd pairing is not incredible resistance. Defensemen are at least as important as forwards at shutting down the opposition, probably moreso.

(And of course, Abel and Starshinov are great offensive players too, as is Cooney Weiland to a lesser extent)
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Anyway, really fun series, IE! Feels just like the intense playoffs of the "old days" of the ATD. Right down to being on the verge of hitting the "arguing in circles" stage about a week in, haha!

May the best team win!
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,805
Oblivion Express
The Lake-Shore 2nd pairing is not incredible resistance. Defensemen are at least as important as forwards at shutting down the opposition, probably moreso.

(And of course, Abel and Starshinov are great offensive players too, as is Cooney Weiland to a lesser extent)

I'll highlight some of the offensive stars Jarvis slowed/shut down in the playoffs w/ Gainey after I run some errands this afternoon. Clarke and Esposito come to mind right away.

Will also expand upon Lake/Shore but they were clearly shown to put the clamps down on Cyclone Taylor and Newsy Lalonde, 2 C's with better offensive resumes than any C in NJ's line up. Their exploits against some really powerful offensive players are there for anyone to see in the bio.

Abel is not a great offensive C. Even if one takes his 7 year VsX as face value, which most don't, he's not a strong offensive minded player in a 40 team draft.

There are 30 C above Abel on the 7 year VsX chart. He is comfortably in the below average range as a top line scoring C. More so if you adjust for Howe/Lindsay. I have Bowie slightly above him for reference sake.


upload_2020-6-14_14-26-38.png



Cooney Weiland is NOT a great offensive C here. His 78.9 7 year score can be taken with a grain of salt in this particular match up IMO.

One, he's playing a 3rd line role, with reduced minutes relative to what he played with on a scoring line role in real life.

Two, his wingers at ES are Leswick/March. They are less impactful than Clapper and company (Boston F's of the 30's) offensively.

Three, against a Beliveau or Bowie he is going to be playing a lot of more defensive hockey IMO.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Three, against a Beliveau or Bowie he is going to be playing a lot of more defensive hockey IMO.

Head to head, Abel vs Bowie is a matchup I'd love. Abel would destroy Bowie - he's in the same range as Bowie offensively (IMO, Abel is slightly ahead, but either way it's close), while being miles ahead of him in all other aspects of the game. :yo:

Ugh, I couldn't resist just one more post. Heh.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Is scoring the same as Moose Johnson and Joe Hall supposed to be impressive? Weren't those guys better known for their defense than offense? We're talking 1st unit PP here - not second unit.

Joe Hall was an OK offensive guy. I don't see him as defensively or offensively minded.

I don't base that on the numbers but on reading game reports.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,805
Oblivion Express
Head to head, Abel vs Bowie is a matchup I'd love. Abel would destroy Bowie - he's in the same range as Bowie offensively (IMO, Abel is slightly ahead, but either way it's close), while being miles ahead of him in all other aspects of the game. :yo:

Ugh, I couldn't resist just one more post. Heh.

Haha, i hear you. However,

How are you getting that matchup?

Doing that then puts Lafleur and Krutov against Harris and Russell. So again, your top scoring wingers are up against 2 players who were both in the conversation for best defensive F's of their time periods. This is precisely why Pittsburgh invested so heavily in defensive ability on the flanks. It is the perfect counter to a team that built their offensive focus on the flanks.

Then of course that gives Pittsburgh a juicy match up with Beliveau's line going against either Starshinov or Weiland.

Pete Green was obviously adept at moving players around to get the match ups he wanted (one of the coolest coaching intricacies on Green I found given the time period), like using multiple wingers, even on their off side to shadow opposing stars.

Pittsburgh's bottom 6 is such a big advantage in this series IMO.

The 3rd line does what it does at about the highest level you can get. Not only defensively but Gainey/Westfall are world class fore checkers and have all the attributes to make life miserable for the top 4 of NJ. Harris, Olmstead, Kunitz, Wilson, Westwick, Beliveau all have the same ability, to varying degrees.

Jarvis is such a critical advantage in terms of puck possession. Scotty Bowman spoke on this specifically in regards to Jarvis. Not just on the PK when we're in the Pitt zone, but in crucial moments, late in games, defensive/neutral ice. More often that not the puck is going back to Pitt D and 1 through 5 can move the puck via skating or passing.

Pitt's 4th line is such a key depth unit to point to.

Kunitz has multiple OT winners, including one of the greatest/most important goals in Pittsburgh hockey history. Being on 4 Cup winners in the modern era is extremely rare and Kunitz was an important depth player on each team. He has long had a rep as a gamer, he brings all the things you want in a 4th liner. Super smart, physical. He peaked as a postseason AS, though it was in the shortened 2012-13 season and he played w/ Sid until Sid got his jaw busted by Orpik (you cost Sid the Hart/Ross!! haha) with a month to go.

Westwick's HOF career was reconstructed by me and the biggest things to point to were his rep as the toughest/gamest pound for pound player in that era. He was as tough as Wolverine. He was good enough offensively to outscore Alf Smith twice and get within striking distance of Walsh one season. He was strong defensively. In the playoffs though, is where Westwick really shone. What he did in the SC challenges was very strong, and to do it against the likes of Phillips, Walsh, Hall, Griffis, Patrick, is even more impressive. Westwick outscored that group, over 17 games, cumulatively, 20-16. Ottawa going 13-3-1 in that span.

Cully Wilson literally led 2 major offensive categories in SCF's. Led Toronto with 3 goals in the 1914 Finals. Led Seattle with 4 assists in the 1917 Finals, both wins. And of course he brings legendary pest/goon abilities as well.

They are going to check the living heck out of NJ when they get the ice time and given their respective resumes, should be counted on to chip in some very timely offense, in likely crucial moments.

Throw in the proven chemistry on lines 1-3 and this is where Pittsburgh pulls out ahead of NJ at F IMO.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,805
Oblivion Express
Joe Hall was an OK offensive guy. I don't see him as defensively or offensively minded.

I don't base that on the numbers but on reading game reports.

You can see what style Shore/Lake played and even Pete Green speaks on what he wanted out of his Dmen (bios). 2 way players who were good going forward and backwards. Both blue liners had to be able to transition the puck and given Shore/Lake were star forwards before they transitioned back to the blue line probably helped them excel in the offensive portions of the game from the back end.

Shore especially was quite the offensive player. Sure he's not Harry Cameron, and I certainly have not advocated him in such a manner.

But in his bio and the 2010 reconstruction you can literally see the papers citing Shore as playing a game that even Cyclone Taylor couldn't have bested. That was Shore's ceiling. Of course that is rare and why he's the player he is but having the puck on his stick was not at all foreign to him having played a decade long career as a secondary star behind the biggest names like Taylor/Patrick, etc. He has solid offensive totals, even leading the NHA in scoring among Dmen in 1 season according to his old bio.

You can even see in the 2010 season, where Shore outplayed Taylor and Fred Lake was said to have equaled Frank Patrick, being better on the defensive when Ottawa beat Renfrew. There is an instance where both outplayed Lalonde/shut him down.

The way I look at the Shore/Lake pairing is exactly how they played in real life. 2 way hockey, Shore being more of the rusher but Lake (as shown in this thread and bio) plenty capable of moving the puck and scoring/passing. Lake especially was very physical and players respected his physicality (noted more than once in bio). Shore was an incredible skater and Lake wasn't far being, again these things are cited numerous times. It's a very mobile pairing that to me, is just a solid duo in both directions. They aren't going to blow the doors of you offensively or defensively but they aren't poor either. Throw in the chemistry which is so important on the blue line and I think they are an average overall pairing this year.

Certainly below NJ's 2nd pairing to be sure!
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,805
Oblivion Express
Doug Jarvis vs Stars - 1976 through 1979


76 Quarter Finals vs Chicago (Montreal wins 4-0)
  • Mikita: 4 games, 0 points, -2
  • Jarvis: 4 games, 2 points (2 ES goals) +3

76 Finals vs Philly (Montreal wins 4-0)
  • Clarke: 4 games, 3 points (2 PP assists, 1 ES assist) -1
  • Jarvis: 4 games, 0 points, -1
  • This was the series where Jarvis waxed Clarke 14-4 in the dot in game 2 though, not that Clarke had a good series anyway.

77 Quarter Finals vs St Louis (Montreal wins 4-0)
  • Federko: 4 games, 2 points (1 ES goal/assist) - 2
  • Jarvis: 4 games. 2 points (1 ES assist/1 SH assist) +3

77 Semi Finals vs Islanders (Montreal wins 4-2)
  • Trottier: 6 games, 4 points (1 ES goal, 2 ES assists, 1 PP assist), -3
  • Jarvis: 6 games, 4 points (4 ES strength assists), EVEN

77 Finals vs Boston (Montreal wins 4-0)

  • Ratelle: 4 games, 1 point (1 ES assist), +1
  • Jarvis: 4 games, 0 points, -1

78 Finals vs Boston (Montreal wins 4-2)
  • Ratelle: 6 games, 3 points (2 ES assists/1 PP assist), EVEN
  • Jarivs: 6 games, 3 points (3 ES assists), EVEN

79 Semi Finals vs Boston (Montreal wins 4-3)
  • Ratelle: 7 games, 9 points (8 ES points, 1 PP point) +3
  • Jarvis: 7 games, 2 points (2 ES points) -3
  • This is the one time you see Jarvis abused

79 Finals vs Rangers (Montreal wins 4-1)

  • Esposito: 5 games, 3 points (1 ES goal/assist, 1 PP goal), -5
  • Jarvis: 5 games, 2 points (2 ES assists) +3

Totals:

All Stars (Mikita, Clarke, Espo, Trotts, Ratelle) = 25 points in 40 games and a -9 overall

*And that's with Ratelle bagging 9 points in a single series.

Jarvis = 15 points in 40 games and a +4

  • Now consider the names on that list and compare them to Abel.
  • As I said, I think Pittsburgh's 3rd line has been a big factor throughout the playoffs and is going to give NJ a load of trouble.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
How are you getting that matchup?

Home ice advantage helps.

Doing that then puts Lafleur and Krutov against Harris and Russell. So again, your top scoring wingers are up against 2 players who were both in the conversation for best defensive F's of their time periods. This is precisely why Pittsburgh invested so heavily in defensive ability on the flanks. It is the perfect counter to a team that built their offensive focus on the flanks.

Meh, Lafleur regularly chewed up and spit out guys the quality of Harris.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Doug Jarvis vs Stars - 1976 through 1979


76 Quarter Finals vs Chicago (Montreal wins 4-0)
  • Mikita: 4 games, 0 points, -2
  • Jarvis: 4 games, 2 points (2 ES goals) +3
76 Finals vs Philly (Montreal wins 4-0)
  • Clarke: 4 games, 3 points (2 PP assists, 1 ES assist) -1
  • Jarvis: 4 games, 0 points, -1
  • This was the series where Jarvis waxed Clarke 14-4 in the dot in game 2 though, not that Clarke had a good series anyway.
77 Quarter Finals vs St Louis (Montreal wins 4-0)
  • Federko: 4 games, 2 points (1 ES goal/assist) - 2
  • Jarvis: 4 games. 2 points (1 ES assist/1 SH assist) +3
77 Semi Finals vs Islanders (Montreal wins 4-2)
  • Trottier: 6 games, 4 points (1 ES goal, 2 ES assists, 1 PP assist), -3
  • Jarvis: 6 games, 4 points (4 ES strength assists), EVEN
77 Finals vs Boston (Montreal wins 4-0)
  • Ratelle: 4 games, 1 point (1 ES assist), +1
  • Jarvis: 4 games, 0 points, -1
78 Finals vs Boston (Montreal wins 4-2)
  • Ratelle: 6 games, 3 points (2 ES assists/1 PP assist), EVEN
  • Jarivs: 6 games, 3 points (3 ES assists), EVEN
79 Semi Finals vs Boston (Montreal wins 4-3)
  • Ratelle: 7 games, 9 points (8 ES points, 1 PP point) +3
  • Jarvis: 7 games, 2 points (2 ES points) -3
  • This is the one time you see Jarvis abused
79 Finals vs Rangers (Montreal wins 4-1)
  • Esposito: 5 games, 3 points (1 ES goal/assist, 1 PP goal), -5
  • Jarvis: 5 games, 2 points (2 ES assists) +3
Totals:

All Stars (Mikita, Clarke, Espo, Trotts, Ratelle) = 25 points in 40 games and a -9 overall

*And that's with Ratelle bagging 9 points in a single series.

Jarvis = 15 points in 40 games and a +4

  • Now consider the names on that list and compare them to Abel.
  • As I said, I think Pittsburgh's 3rd line has been a big factor throughout the playoffs and is going to give NJ a load of trouble.

Right, I'm sure it was all Jarvis and not Robinson, Savard, Lapointe, Gainey, Dryden, etc.

Jarvis wasn't even Montreal's only good defensive center. Bowman didn't really match up Jarvis that much - he moved Gainey around the lineup to play with a variety of centers.

Plus most of those guys weren't even in their primes anymore.

Giving Doug freaking Jarvis primary credit for the defensive performance of the 70s Habs dynasty is insane.
 
Last edited:

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
As if Sid Abel didn't regularly face the best checkers of the O6 day-in-day out.

Ted Kennedy, Ken Mosdell, etc.

If you're a star in the ATD, chances are you faced the best checkers of your era.

Jarvis isn't some uniquely all time elite checker.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,805
Oblivion Express
Just illustrating my points with as much detail as possible. Lots of potential voters out there I'd wager.

I'm not saying that Jarvis is Frank Nighbor. Not even close. He's a really good defensive C who was legendary in the dot and against a C who's below average offensively this year, isn't exactly a slam dunk for Abel. And I'm pretty certain Jarvis is not a below average defensive C here, 40 teams or otherwise. Especially when you factor in taking draws and his impact against proven big names.

Home Ice doesn't really help that much when Pittsburgh can roll out numerous top flight defensive wingers on any line. We don't even really have to move them all that much but Green proved he did that to win games in the 20's. Best case you can move somebody to Bowie head to head and that line still has stellar defensive guys on both flanks. Gainey can really go anywhere up or down w/Lafleur. Harris can go to the right side for match ups.

And Pittsburgh has just won back to back series on the road, so traveling is something Green and the boys are battled hardened in. Plus this series is a stones throw away in NJ and we had the latest extended break of the 2 squads.
 

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,797
754
Helsinki, Finland
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.

No biggie, but Balderis did play at the 1976 Canada Cup; he scored 2 goals and 3 assists in 5 games, no accolades. It was his second appearence in a big international tournament (the first was the 1976 World Championship). And I guess he could've easily played at the 1981 CC, but, for some reason, was not selected to the team.
 
Last edited:

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,805
Oblivion Express
No biggie, but Balderis did play at the 1976 Canada Cup; he scored 2 goals and 3 assists in 5 games, no accolades. It was his second appearence in a big international tournament (the first was the 1976 World Championship). And I guess he could've easily played at the 1981 CC, but, for some reason, was not selected to the team.

I was always under the impression from Sturm, Theo and folks like yourself that Balderis was thought of a pretty strong international player. He simply didn't get near the exposure that some of the more popular Soviets did. He barely has 50% of the games played that a Krutov had.

68 points in 59 games isn't shabby at all for that period.

A couple of questions if you know the answer...

Who were Balderis' regular linemates over the years?

Do you get the feeling that Balderis would have suffered at all from being Latvian as it pertained to getting votes for AS nods and the like?
 

VMBM

And it didn't even bring me down
Sep 24, 2008
3,797
754
Helsinki, Finland
I was always under the impression from Sturm, Theo and folks like yourself that Balderis was thought of a pretty strong international player. He simply didn't get near the exposure that some of the more popular Soviets did. He barely has 50% of the games played that a Krutov had.

Pretty strong, yes, but maybe slightly disappointing. I mean, he was generally considered a better player than, say, Sergei Kapustin, but you could say that Kapustin had the better international career.

A couple of questions if you know the answer...

Who were Balderis' regular linemates over the years?

Off the top of my head, I think the only regular linemates he ever had were Kapustin and Zhluktov (=played together more than for one season), and they were Team USSR's second line in 1977-79. IIRC, at the 1980 Olympics, Balderis played with Zhluktov and Skvortsov, and at the 1983 World Championship he played with Shepelev and Kapustin. So, Kapustin and Zhluktov were arguably his most regular linemates over the years.

Do you get the feeling that Balderis would have suffered at all from being Latvian as it pertained to getting votes for AS nods and the like?

Hmm, not really, no. Outside the 1977 World Championship, I don't think he ever performed so brilliantly that he should have absolutely gotten an All-Star nod over somebody else. And as far as I can remember, he did generally pretty well in the Soviet Player Of The Year voting.

I believe his relationship with Tikhonov was, er, problematic, and that probably had some effect on things, i.e. he didn't play on the national team as much as he maybe would have deserved. But some other people might know more about that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,805
Oblivion Express
Just wanted to post an updated overview for anyone still mulling this one over......


Reasons Why Pittsburgh Should Win:


Moderate Advantage At Coach


-Pittsburgh has a more versatile head coach, one with a much stronger overall resume, win/losses/innovation/peer/player review.

Green won 2 SCF's that went the distance (5 games). His tactical innovations and roster he has at his disposal is key here and w/ the big game winning experience Green should be looked at a moderate advantage.

Larry Robinson's SC win in 2000 came against Hitchcock head to head.


Moderate Advantage In Goal

-Vezina is simply 10-13 spots ahead of Hainsworth all time and Vezina was far more important to the Canadiens in the 1910's/20's than Hainsworth was on a team with Morenz and Cleghorn. His reputation as cool and unflappable in crucial moments is HUGE in a title match. His playoff peak/longevity is stronger than Hainsworth.


Small Advantage At F

-NJ has the slight edge on the top line but Pittsburgh answers with a slight advantage on the 2nd line IMO (Harris and Bowie are better than Mayorov/Starshinov) and has a much stronger overall bottom 6 with advantages at 5 of the 6 positions (Gainey, Westfall, entire 4th line), IMO.


Match Ups At Even Strength:


-This is the critical nuance that I really think helps Pittsburgh go over the top. NJ's best offensive players are simply tied up against very strong defensive wingers, some legendary. Pittsburgh/Green are well versed at moving players around to fit match ups but in all reality don't really need to w/ so much defensive ability on the flanks to clamp down on Lalfuer, Krutov, Mayorov and Bauer.

Even on home ice NJ can't really move away from the tough match ups. If they start mixing up lines you're now greatly impacting chemistry. In Pittsburgh Lafleur and Krutov will almost never be checked by anyone but Gainey w/ some shifts against a Harris/Olmstead. Krutov gets the same treatment from on the other side.

Jarvis was clearly shown to have many strong showings against some of the biggest stars of the 70's in the playoffs. He clamped down on folks like Clarke, Espo, Trottier, etc. He's the NHL's literal iron man, and plays a fantastic and near perfect style in between 2 legendary stoppers on the flanks, who played a very physical and hard checking defensive game while Jarvis was the positional master and smooth skating C. His ability on draws is so huge this series.

Pittsburgh best offensive players have much better match ups head to head with Beliveau/Bowie against a C group that outside of Weiland (who is small, not physical, and a poor match up with Beliveau) is nothing special defensively.

My best offensive winger (Balderis) has a more advantageous match up against a Leswick or any of the LW's on NJ. I don't see anyone on the RW that will really hinder Harris or Olmstead significantly. Nobody comes close to a Westfall or Russell in terms of defensive acumen. 3 of the 4 RW's on NJ are not defensive presences at all. Lalfuer, Bauer, Kerr bring little and March is only above average in the ATD.


Puck Possession Out Of The Dot:

-Another big factor in Pitt's favor.

Jarvis is going to win more face offs than anyone in this series and given he's a staple on the PK and 3rd line, in a shutdown role will be taking a lot of defensive zone and neutral ice draws.

How often will NJ win crucial face offs? Historically it will be in the minority.


Proven Chemistry vs Likely Chemistry:


-As I've said numerous times, NJ is a well built team. I don't recall ever seeing TDMM put together anything but solid to great fits. This years version is very strong without a doubt top bottom.

But Pittsburgh has just as strong a build, with a roster that really jives with what Green did in real life.

With a real life duo on lines 1-3 and the 2nd pairing that means 44% of Pittsburgh's skaters are proven chemistry and I don't see anything but strong fits with Balderis, Harris, Westfall to complete those top 3 lines. Harris and Westfall being close to perfect IMO and Balderis is at least above average from a stylistic standpoint.

When you hear players talk about all the little nuances that go into the game and making a line work, and just watching the games yourselves, having so much chemistry can only help Pittsburgh over the course of a series.

Beliveau-Olmstead had their most dominant offensive years together.
Bowie-Russell is well documented and career spanning
Gainey-Jarvis is one of the most dominant and intuitive defensive duo's of all time

Obviously Shore/Lake was very highly thought of when they played together and chemistry on the blue line is even more important IMO.


Playoff Performers

-Pittsburgh has the strongest playoff performer at every level (Top 6, Bottom 6, D, G)

Jean Beliveau is the greatest leader ever and top 5 playoff performer of all time. Won a Smythe in 65, would have won in 56, had the award existed, with numerous other very strong performances up and down his career.

Keith (Smythe) is the best playoff performer by a good margin on the blue line. He raised the bar in the postseason more than Seibert who also saw his scoring averages plunge vs Keith who maintained his offensive prowess which is not easy to do going from the regular to postseasons, especially on the blue line.

Keith is an ES monster who is coming off a series in which he would have had a lighter workload due to Pitt using 7 D on the road and the latest extended break of the 2 squads.

His 2015 Smythe winning run was a 23 game, 31 minute a night masterpiece. 21 points in 23 games, lead the postseason in assists and +/-

Over the 3 Cup wins, Keith scored 51 points in 67 games was a +28 while averaging over 29 minutes a game.

Between Vezina's legendary calmness in net and his Smythe worthy performances at the 1916 and 1924 SCF's, Pittsburgh is well positioned in net.

Not only did he play exceptionally well at those Finals, he had a legendary performance against Ottawa in 1923 in a game that saw him save 64 of 65 shots in regulation, a 2-1 win for Montreal. He was almost never cited as playing poorly, even in losses and his impact on the 1910's and early 1920's Montreal Canadiens was far bigger than Hainsworth when Montreal had Morenz, Cleghorn, Joliet, etc.

Gainey has a very strong playoff resume, including a Smythe in 79, while being in the running in 77 according to the Hockey Handbook.

Jarvis and Westfall combined to be on 6 Cup winners and were key defensive cogs on all those teams.

The entire 4th line of Pittsburgh all have strong playoff resumes, especially for 4th line players.

Coulter captained the leagues best defensive team (Rangers) to the 1940 title. Was a key player on the 34 Blackhawks winner as well.

PS

Thank you to everyone who has stuck this one out over 6 months, whether you advanced or not! Regardless of who you pick here in this series, I want to personally thank you for the contributions and time. You guys made my admin work easier with timely picks and almost zero drama.

Thank you Theo for continuing to tally votes.

Thank you TDMM for a great finals and wonderful discussion.

This year especially turned out to be such a success!
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->