ATD #9 Jim Robson Quarterfinal: #1 Nanaimo Clippers vs. #8 Vancouver Millionaires
- Thread starter FissionFire
- Start date
...Thats the last time I do one of these. I dont recognize half of the name son Nanaimo's roster nad yet im the one sitting in 8th place.
Here are our PP/PK units:
PP1: Noble-Clarke-Makarov-Fetisov-Boucher
PP2: Dumart-Starshinov-Maltsev-Heller-Sjoberg
PK1: Clarke-Dumart
PK2: Boucher-Labine
PK3: Starshinov-McDonald
PK4: Holik-Peirson
EDIT: All of our defensemen except Sjoberg will be rotated through on the PK.
I'll post some thoughts later.
PP1: Noble-Clarke-Makarov-Fetisov-Boucher
PP2: Dumart-Starshinov-Maltsev-Heller-Sjoberg
PK1: Clarke-Dumart
PK2: Boucher-Labine
PK3: Starshinov-McDonald
PK4: Holik-Peirson
EDIT: All of our defensemen except Sjoberg will be rotated through on the PK.
I'll post some thoughts later.
Last edited:
Good luck, mb.
I'll do quick overview:
Goaltending: Roy is one of the best all-time, while I have Benedict in the top-10. The advantage goes to Vancouver.
Defense: Fetisov is by far the best defenseman in the series, and Horner is probably second. The second pairings are pretty close, with Nanaimo having a toughness and defense edge and Vancouver having an offensive edge (with Gonchar being the most dynamic of the bunch). Babych and Svehla is a nondescript third pairing while we have a strong balance with two tough defensemen, Sjoberg brining a strong offensive element and Dutton bringing more of a defensive presence. As for the forwards, while Vancouver has some nice two-way forwards (Forsberg, Richard), our entire forward group consists of strong two-way players, except Makarov. Advantage to Nanaimo.
Offense: I think the first and second lines are close. Forsberg/Richard/Hull and Clarke/Boucher/Makarov are close as the top-3 offensive threats, but I think Maltsev/Noble/Dumart are a stronger combination than Mahovlich/Mullen/Kamensky, with Maltsev being the best offensive player of that bunch by far (IMO). It's tough to compare third lines, but Smyl is definitely the weakest link offensively, and I don't see either Larouche or Kovalev having enough an advantage to make up for it. Vancouver won't get a lot of scoring from their fourth line. Fetisov is also the best offensive defenseman in the series and I'd take a Fetisov/Sjoberg combination over Carlyle/Gonchar offensively. Slight advantage to Nanaimo.
Coaching: I like Quinn as a coach, but Adams is just after the all-time greats on the best coaches list. That said, both teams have coaches that fit their teams. Slight advantage to Nanaimo.
I'll do quick overview:
Goaltending: Roy is one of the best all-time, while I have Benedict in the top-10. The advantage goes to Vancouver.
Defense: Fetisov is by far the best defenseman in the series, and Horner is probably second. The second pairings are pretty close, with Nanaimo having a toughness and defense edge and Vancouver having an offensive edge (with Gonchar being the most dynamic of the bunch). Babych and Svehla is a nondescript third pairing while we have a strong balance with two tough defensemen, Sjoberg brining a strong offensive element and Dutton bringing more of a defensive presence. As for the forwards, while Vancouver has some nice two-way forwards (Forsberg, Richard), our entire forward group consists of strong two-way players, except Makarov. Advantage to Nanaimo.
Offense: I think the first and second lines are close. Forsberg/Richard/Hull and Clarke/Boucher/Makarov are close as the top-3 offensive threats, but I think Maltsev/Noble/Dumart are a stronger combination than Mahovlich/Mullen/Kamensky, with Maltsev being the best offensive player of that bunch by far (IMO). It's tough to compare third lines, but Smyl is definitely the weakest link offensively, and I don't see either Larouche or Kovalev having enough an advantage to make up for it. Vancouver won't get a lot of scoring from their fourth line. Fetisov is also the best offensive defenseman in the series and I'd take a Fetisov/Sjoberg combination over Carlyle/Gonchar offensively. Slight advantage to Nanaimo.
Coaching: I like Quinn as a coach, but Adams is just after the all-time greats on the best coaches list. That said, both teams have coaches that fit their teams. Slight advantage to Nanaimo.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,171
- 14,534
I really wasn’t expecting this matchup. I ranked the Millionaires quite a few spots higher than eighth. This should be a good series. I’ll quickly go over our strengths/weaknesses.
Advantage on the left wing: Valeri Kamensky is a good complementary player, but Reg Noble was oft-overlooker superstar in the NHL’s early years. He was a top-ten scorer seven years in a row, and retired second only to Cy Denneny in scoring (1924). Noble, who spent the second half of his career as a defenseman, was also known as a tough, rugged hitter and is almost certainly better in his own zone. I’ll concede that Mahovlich has more playoff experience than Dumart. Still, Woody has three all-star berths to his name and, while matching Mahovlich’s offensive peak, he was known as one of the best defensive forwards of his era.
Top defensemen: Fetisov is generally consider a top-ten defenseman; he was an efficient, intelligent player who knew when to join the rush. He could throw a big hit, but was rarely caught out of position. The two-time Soviet MVP brings significant championship experience at the NHL and international levels. In contrast, Randy Carlyle frankly never accomplished much, in the regular season or playoffs, outside of one career year when he won the Norris.
Fourth line: Vancouver has a good fourth line, but none of the players are capable of taking on a larger role if needed. In contrast, Vladmir Starshinov was known as the Phil Esposito of 1960s Soviet hockey. He was an eight-time all-star and two-time goal-scoring leader. Like Espo, he scored a lot of his goals attacking the goal crease. Only Mikhailov and Yakushev scored more goals than Starshinov against Canada in international competition (source) and was responsible enough to play on the PK.
Coaching: Jack Adams (three Stanley Cups) brings more experience and consistency to the table than Quinn (1-3 in conference finals, no Cups). Adams was known for finding and developing young stars (including Howe, Lindsay and Delvecchio) and we’ll use his proven track record of excellent talent assessment to help get the most out of our European stars.
Goaltending: Vancouver’s largest advantage is in goal. Roy arguably has a stronger playoff resume than any other goalie. Benedict still has a very good playoff resume (GAA drops by 0.44; won four Stanley Cups), but it’s not as good as Roy’s. Saint Patrick should steal at least one game for Vancouver. (I’ll say that if there are any concerns about Benedict playing in the distant past, he was easily the most innovative goalie of his era. He was the first goalie to wear a mask, and the first goalie to drop down to the ice to make a save. If any pre-1950s goalie can adapt to today’s style, it would be Benedict).
Advantage on the left wing: Valeri Kamensky is a good complementary player, but Reg Noble was oft-overlooker superstar in the NHL’s early years. He was a top-ten scorer seven years in a row, and retired second only to Cy Denneny in scoring (1924). Noble, who spent the second half of his career as a defenseman, was also known as a tough, rugged hitter and is almost certainly better in his own zone. I’ll concede that Mahovlich has more playoff experience than Dumart. Still, Woody has three all-star berths to his name and, while matching Mahovlich’s offensive peak, he was known as one of the best defensive forwards of his era.
Top defensemen: Fetisov is generally consider a top-ten defenseman; he was an efficient, intelligent player who knew when to join the rush. He could throw a big hit, but was rarely caught out of position. The two-time Soviet MVP brings significant championship experience at the NHL and international levels. In contrast, Randy Carlyle frankly never accomplished much, in the regular season or playoffs, outside of one career year when he won the Norris.
Fourth line: Vancouver has a good fourth line, but none of the players are capable of taking on a larger role if needed. In contrast, Vladmir Starshinov was known as the Phil Esposito of 1960s Soviet hockey. He was an eight-time all-star and two-time goal-scoring leader. Like Espo, he scored a lot of his goals attacking the goal crease. Only Mikhailov and Yakushev scored more goals than Starshinov against Canada in international competition (source) and was responsible enough to play on the PK.
Coaching: Jack Adams (three Stanley Cups) brings more experience and consistency to the table than Quinn (1-3 in conference finals, no Cups). Adams was known for finding and developing young stars (including Howe, Lindsay and Delvecchio) and we’ll use his proven track record of excellent talent assessment to help get the most out of our European stars.
Goaltending: Vancouver’s largest advantage is in goal. Roy arguably has a stronger playoff resume than any other goalie. Benedict still has a very good playoff resume (GAA drops by 0.44; won four Stanley Cups), but it’s not as good as Roy’s. Saint Patrick should steal at least one game for Vancouver. (I’ll say that if there are any concerns about Benedict playing in the distant past, he was easily the most innovative goalie of his era. He was the first goalie to wear a mask, and the first goalie to drop down to the ice to make a save. If any pre-1950s goalie can adapt to today’s style, it would be Benedict).
Last edited:
...Thats the last time I do one of these. I dont recognize half of the name son Nanaimo's roster nad yet im the one sitting in 8th place.
That's one of the things I love about this draft.
I've learned about so many new players, particulary pre-NHL and pre-80's European players through this draft.
This is ironic. Probably the first time I've seen a team with an edge offensively, and in net, and be the No. 8 seed vs. a No. 1. But that's the difference team defence makes.
m_b can score. There's no doubt about that. And he has one of the best goalies ever. That's the good news. Now the bad news. Team defence will often be non-existent. He has some good two-way forwards - Forsberg, Mahovlich, Richard, Smyl. But he has only one guy who really fits in on a shutdown line - Kirk Maltby. That's a killer.
You can't argue that you'll be in possession of the puck most of the game. Not in this thing. And not when you're facing Nanaimo. pit's team defence isn't as strong as it was in the last draft. But it's still excellent. When you can roll out a Boucher or a Dumart/Clarke tandem, that's dangerous, from both an offensive and defensive perspective.
pit has definitely taken on a European flavour in this draft. Call them the UN Clippers. But he made it work. Fetisov, Makarov, Maltsev, Holik - Wisent would be proud. Let's see how they mesh with Jack Adams.
pit's defence also isn't what it was last draft, when he had the best corps in the draft. But he still has the clear-cut best defenceman in this series in Fetisov, probably the second best defenceman in Horner, and then a couple others (Hitchman and Heller) who are probably better than m_b's No. 2.
m_b's probably better off combining Ramsey and Morrow for an excellent shut-down pairing, and having Gonchar and Carlyle together.
Roy's terrific, but his edge over Benedict is not significant. Still, any team with Roy, and that much offensive firepower, has a shot in a series.
I think Jack Adams is a better coach than Quinn, and by a fair margin. Quinn suits this team, but he needs a strategist, or he needs to be the good-cop assistant coach
m_b can score. There's no doubt about that. And he has one of the best goalies ever. That's the good news. Now the bad news. Team defence will often be non-existent. He has some good two-way forwards - Forsberg, Mahovlich, Richard, Smyl. But he has only one guy who really fits in on a shutdown line - Kirk Maltby. That's a killer.
You can't argue that you'll be in possession of the puck most of the game. Not in this thing. And not when you're facing Nanaimo. pit's team defence isn't as strong as it was in the last draft. But it's still excellent. When you can roll out a Boucher or a Dumart/Clarke tandem, that's dangerous, from both an offensive and defensive perspective.
pit has definitely taken on a European flavour in this draft. Call them the UN Clippers. But he made it work. Fetisov, Makarov, Maltsev, Holik - Wisent would be proud. Let's see how they mesh with Jack Adams.
pit's defence also isn't what it was last draft, when he had the best corps in the draft. But he still has the clear-cut best defenceman in this series in Fetisov, probably the second best defenceman in Horner, and then a couple others (Hitchman and Heller) who are probably better than m_b's No. 2.
m_b's probably better off combining Ramsey and Morrow for an excellent shut-down pairing, and having Gonchar and Carlyle together.
Roy's terrific, but his edge over Benedict is not significant. Still, any team with Roy, and that much offensive firepower, has a shot in a series.
I think Jack Adams is a better coach than Quinn, and by a fair margin. Quinn suits this team, but he needs a strategist, or he needs to be the good-cop assistant coach
Why is Brett Hull so underrated around here. We're talking about one of the 3 or 4 best goalscorers of all-time, and argueably the best player in the league from 1991-1993.
I was just about to come and type the exact same thing GBC. I think my team is more talented as a whole, and has a significant (IMO) advantage in net. I must not be cut out to be an ATD'er because somehow im sitting in the 8th seed...
i don't think brett hull is top 3 or 4 among goalscorers, but i agree that hull is undervalued, especially in comparison to bossy, who usually goes in the top 20.
both dominant, one-dimensional goal scorers, though bossy is obviously a superior player.
adjusting for the short season, hull had 9 consecutive 40g seasons, 5 consecutive 50g seasons and 3 consecutive 70g seasons.
hull's 86g season might be the best ever for goalscoring.
he needs a great playmaker, but those aren't rare, and forsberg is a great C for hull.
Bossy's a much better playmaker than Hull. That's the difference between the two. Along with Bure, Hull's the epitome of the one-trick pony goal scorer. (Bure was actually a very good playmaker when he wanted to be, but he wasn't very good at using his teammates).
I wouldn't put Hull in the top 3 or 4. Top 10. Maybe. Definite top 15. He has the great two-way playmaking pivot to compliment his skills (and cover up his deficiencies), but Hull's going to have a tough time with those top two pairings in Nanaimo.
m_b, you really underestimate Benedict. There isn't much of a difference between Roy and Benedict. Roy's better, but not that much better that there will be a bigt difference. That's why it's not a good ploy to pick a goalie that early in Round 1. With where you were picking, you could have had a star netminder in Round 2 - Bower, Benedict, Gardiner, Brimsek or Fuhr (who would have been ideal for your team) and landed a guy like Eddie Shore in Round 1.
raleh
Registered User
Roy is probably the best player in the series, but with Vancouver's defense he's going to be seeing 40 shots a game. He can steal a game or two, but I don't know after that...
Dave Babych is also bloody undervalued. A defenceman with over 750 career points...a 70 point defenceman ion his prime and also a 6'4'' frame with good defensive abilities. I dont understand this notion that my defence will be having 40 pucks flying at Roy every game. Everyone is a rock except for Gonchar and possibly Carlyle.
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
Because your forwards as a whole are poor defensively, and there are 6 guys who need to be defending, not just 3.
FissionFire
Registered User
I really think m_b got a raw deal as the 8th seed. His team might have the best offense in the entire draft and with Roy in net I can't believe the voters felt they couldn't finish ahead of any teams. This is a bad matchup for him because pappy has a strong team defense. I hope that if things don't go well for you this round that you don't give up on the ATD m_b because I think with just a few small tweaks your roster would have been a juggernaught.
It has definitely left a bitter taste in my mouth and no you dont need 6 people defending when you will have possesion of the puck 60% of the time.
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I think it basically comes down to the defense, bert. Although I think Gonchar is underrated and a solid puck-moving second pairing guy, the rest of the blueline is quite weak. "Unbalanced" teams that go all-in for either offense or defense often get hammered by the voters in this thing, in spite of the fact that real-world teams have won Cups at various points without any semblance of balance.
I wouldn't let it bother you. I learned last draft that you can also get tooled on for not having enough size. At the end of the day, balance/team cohesion seems to win ATD championships. Well, that and Newsy Lalonde.
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
I think Vancouver is getting a bit of a short stick here. Yes, the first ATD is almost always a learning experience. The joy of this is that it's an interactive journey into the history of hockey.
Vancouver's defense isn't some sort of Greek tragedy, it's simply sub-par. But the real kicker is that Vancouver has some serious big game players like Richard, Forsberg and Mullen. (One of the most underrated clutch scorers ever.) And of course the best money goalie ever.
Vancouver is going to give Nanaimo trouble. Nanaimo does have a big defensive and depth advantage. But, don't right off Vancouver so easily by looking at their defense. Think about how the team will play and how Nanaimo will play and how that conflict will play out and why.
Vancouver's defense isn't some sort of Greek tragedy, it's simply sub-par. But the real kicker is that Vancouver has some serious big game players like Richard, Forsberg and Mullen. (One of the most underrated clutch scorers ever.) And of course the best money goalie ever.
Vancouver is going to give Nanaimo trouble. Nanaimo does have a big defensive and depth advantage. But, don't right off Vancouver so easily by looking at their defense. Think about how the team will play and how Nanaimo will play and how that conflict will play out and why.
FissionFire
Registered User
Exactly NP. Elite goalies (and don't kid yourselves, Roy is definitely a significant edge over Benedict in the playoffs) don't need spectacular teams to win a series. Nanaimo has a deep two-way team for sure, but they don't have the gamebreakers that Vancouver does. The Fetisov-Horner pairing is strong, but does the Hitchman-Heller pairing really have the mobility to keep up with a puck-moving offense that will excel at moving the play around until they get someone of of position. And let's not forget that nobody in NHL history is better than Brett Hull at exploiting those little openings and soft spots. None of the Nanaimo forwards and contend alone with the size and strength of Forsberg, so when the defense has to suck down to help on the boards, guess which sniper will be waiting for that pass? Vancouver's forwards have more speed, more size, and the best playmakers in the series. The question is do the Clippers have enough clutch scorers to take advantage of a pedestrian defensive core. This looks alot like the recent WCF Detroit vs. Dallas series as far as playstyle goes. I expect Vancouver to be the team getting 40 shots on net and Nanaimo the squad that will have to rely on getting enough goals on Patrick Roy with 18-22 shots total. Is that really enough to take down maybe the best playoff goalie ever?
Don't be so quick to rubber-stamp a pitseleh team. This is really a brutal matchup for them.
Don't be so quick to rubber-stamp a pitseleh team. This is really a brutal matchup for them.
While I don't this is a cakewalk by any means, but I do think our offense is getting underrated relative to Vancouver's. Just to address the Hitchman/Heller question, both were know for being quite strong skaters (especially Heller, who was one of the fastest defensemen of his era). I'll post more information after I'm finished class.
And I disagree that we don't have the forwards to contend with Forsberg. Clarke is the perfect forward to matchup against Forsberg's style, IMO, and that line will be the matchup we'll be after against the Forsberg line.
And I disagree that we don't have the forwards to contend with Forsberg. Clarke is the perfect forward to matchup against Forsberg's style, IMO, and that line will be the matchup we'll be after against the Forsberg line.
Last edited:
I would say that Nanaimo has the best playmakers in this series. Frank Boucher led the league in assists three times, and he was second four times. Clarke did it twice, and he was top 10 nine times. I'd say that Boucher is one of the top 10 playmakers ever, and maybe even top five. People let their feelings about Clarke tamper their views of how good he really was.
I do have concerns about Makarov's ability in the playoffs. He nearly played his way out of Calgary thanks to his playoff performance. In 1991, he was terrible. The Flames tried to trade him, but there weren't any takers, he was that bad. Calgary brought in a highly-touted Swedish kid that fall named Thomas Forslund, hoping he could take Makarov's place. When Forslund failed, Makarov got his job back.
I remember in 1992, they did find a taker, Hartford, but the deal was kayboshed by the league office. Makarov didn't play in the 1993 playoffs, and was finally dealt to Hartford, only to be shipped to San Jose, where he reunited with long-time running buddy Igor Larionov, and had a very good 1994 playoff.
I do have concerns about Makarov's ability in the playoffs. He nearly played his way out of Calgary thanks to his playoff performance. In 1991, he was terrible. The Flames tried to trade him, but there weren't any takers, he was that bad. Calgary brought in a highly-touted Swedish kid that fall named Thomas Forslund, hoping he could take Makarov's place. When Forslund failed, Makarov got his job back.
I remember in 1992, they did find a taker, Hartford, but the deal was kayboshed by the league office. Makarov didn't play in the 1993 playoffs, and was finally dealt to Hartford, only to be shipped to San Jose, where he reunited with long-time running buddy Igor Larionov, and had a very good 1994 playoff.
Ok, first, to back up what I said about Hitchman/Heller:
Heller: Ultimate Hockey says he was "a big, strapping German lad from Berlin, Ontario, who skated with the speed of a greyhound and the strength of a Clydesdale" and that his "breathtaking speed and skating, however, also allowed him th eoption of leading the odd rush".
Hitchman: Red MacKenzie (hockey writer) said that Hitchman used his size and strength to contain opponents and Frank Boucher and Nels Stewart both said thought he was one of the toughest defensemen to beat on the rush.
These two aren't two Derian Hatchers out there, they are big, mobile, defensively responsible defensmen.
As for the offensive advantage that Vancouver has, I'll first compare the forwards with NHL careers that can be compared directly:
Forsberg: 1,2,3,4,6,9,10 in assists, 1,2,4,5,9 in points.
Boucher: 4,9 in goals, 1,1,1,2,2,2,2,4,6 in assists, 2,3,3,4,6,6,7,10 in points.
Yes, you can point to the fact that Peter was a playoff monster, and he was, and Boucher's playoff numbers taken out of context don't seem to be the greatest, but Boucher led the playoffs in goals once, assists twice (Forsberg did it once), and scoring twice (as did Forsberg). In terms of their career numbers, Boucher is clearly the better playmaker though.
Richard: 5,7 in goals, 1,1,4,7,8,8,10 in assists, and 2,4,5,9,9,9,10 in points.
Clarke: 1,1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10 in assists, 2,2,5,6,8,8,10 in points.
Once again, in terms of their relative careers, Clarke comes out ahead. Richard also had the benefit of playing on an offensive juggernaut during his era, while Clarke's peak directly coincided with the Bruins offensive machine of the early seventies and the Habs dynasty of the mid-to-late seventies. Clarke led the playoffs in assists twice while Richard led the playoffs in points once.
Mahovlich: 10 in goals, 2,3 in assists, 5,6, in points.
Dumart: 2,8,8 in goals, 6,9 in assists, 2,9 in points.
Both of these players are complimentary players offensively and aren't being relied on only for their scoring. I don't think one has a distinct advantage over the other.
So based on those three players whose careers can be compared directly, I don't think there is a huge advantage for Vancouver. Personally, I think that the comparison of those three favours the Clippers, but either way it is close.
Now for the other components. Hockey Outsider already laid out a solid argument for Noble (top-10 scoring 7 straight years, was second in scoring in NHL from 1917-1924 behind Denneny) and I'll also add he was the fourth highest scoring forward from 1917-1922, behind Lalonde, Pitre, and Malone (who all played together), and ahead of all time greats like Denneny brothers, Babe Dye and Frank Nighbor. Kamensky had an outstanding year in 1990/91 in the Soviet league, but other than both his NHL and Soviet careers were solid albeit unspectacular.
Hull is a bigger offensive threat than Makarov, I'll give you that, but I don't think it's enough of an advantage that it makes Vancouver's offense so much stronger than Nanaimo's. Hull's goal scoring peak from 1991-1994 was outstanding, but Makarov was able to display his talent in best on best competitions and show that he was a world-class talent. His NHL career wasn't outstanding by any measure, but he was 31 when he finally came over, an age where most Soviet stars began to decline anyways.
As for Mullen versus Maltsev, as Nalyd pointed out Mullen was a strong playoff performer and his career was consistent. Maltsev, on the other hand, did have some trouble adapting in the '72 Summit Series. That said, he was 3rd in goals behind Hull and Yakushev in the '74 Summit Series, and was named to the All-Star team in the 1976 Canada Cup. That one series is not reflective of his overall play versus Canada, and he was a star in the Soviet Union, winning an MVP, two scoring titles, and five all-star selections going up against what amounted to an All-Star team in CSKA and the greatest Soviet RW of all time in Mikhailov. Maltsev arguably has the greatest career record of any Soviet forward who didn't play for the Red Army team. Again, I don't see how you can give a big advantage to either player.
Taken together, I don't see Vancouver being a team that can run over Nanaimo offensively, and surely not enough to make up for their defensive short comings. I don't think the Detroit-Dallas comparison is particularly apt either, as Detroit is an outstanding two-way team, not an offensive one-way team. Puck posession relies on solid team defense, and I don't see Vancouver having that type of domination.
Heller: Ultimate Hockey says he was "a big, strapping German lad from Berlin, Ontario, who skated with the speed of a greyhound and the strength of a Clydesdale" and that his "breathtaking speed and skating, however, also allowed him th eoption of leading the odd rush".
Hitchman: Red MacKenzie (hockey writer) said that Hitchman used his size and strength to contain opponents and Frank Boucher and Nels Stewart both said thought he was one of the toughest defensemen to beat on the rush.
These two aren't two Derian Hatchers out there, they are big, mobile, defensively responsible defensmen.
As for the offensive advantage that Vancouver has, I'll first compare the forwards with NHL careers that can be compared directly:
Forsberg: 1,2,3,4,6,9,10 in assists, 1,2,4,5,9 in points.
Boucher: 4,9 in goals, 1,1,1,2,2,2,2,4,6 in assists, 2,3,3,4,6,6,7,10 in points.
Yes, you can point to the fact that Peter was a playoff monster, and he was, and Boucher's playoff numbers taken out of context don't seem to be the greatest, but Boucher led the playoffs in goals once, assists twice (Forsberg did it once), and scoring twice (as did Forsberg). In terms of their career numbers, Boucher is clearly the better playmaker though.
Richard: 5,7 in goals, 1,1,4,7,8,8,10 in assists, and 2,4,5,9,9,9,10 in points.
Clarke: 1,1,3,4,5,6,8,9,10 in assists, 2,2,5,6,8,8,10 in points.
Once again, in terms of their relative careers, Clarke comes out ahead. Richard also had the benefit of playing on an offensive juggernaut during his era, while Clarke's peak directly coincided with the Bruins offensive machine of the early seventies and the Habs dynasty of the mid-to-late seventies. Clarke led the playoffs in assists twice while Richard led the playoffs in points once.
Mahovlich: 10 in goals, 2,3 in assists, 5,6, in points.
Dumart: 2,8,8 in goals, 6,9 in assists, 2,9 in points.
Both of these players are complimentary players offensively and aren't being relied on only for their scoring. I don't think one has a distinct advantage over the other.
So based on those three players whose careers can be compared directly, I don't think there is a huge advantage for Vancouver. Personally, I think that the comparison of those three favours the Clippers, but either way it is close.
Now for the other components. Hockey Outsider already laid out a solid argument for Noble (top-10 scoring 7 straight years, was second in scoring in NHL from 1917-1924 behind Denneny) and I'll also add he was the fourth highest scoring forward from 1917-1922, behind Lalonde, Pitre, and Malone (who all played together), and ahead of all time greats like Denneny brothers, Babe Dye and Frank Nighbor. Kamensky had an outstanding year in 1990/91 in the Soviet league, but other than both his NHL and Soviet careers were solid albeit unspectacular.
Hull is a bigger offensive threat than Makarov, I'll give you that, but I don't think it's enough of an advantage that it makes Vancouver's offense so much stronger than Nanaimo's. Hull's goal scoring peak from 1991-1994 was outstanding, but Makarov was able to display his talent in best on best competitions and show that he was a world-class talent. His NHL career wasn't outstanding by any measure, but he was 31 when he finally came over, an age where most Soviet stars began to decline anyways.
As for Mullen versus Maltsev, as Nalyd pointed out Mullen was a strong playoff performer and his career was consistent. Maltsev, on the other hand, did have some trouble adapting in the '72 Summit Series. That said, he was 3rd in goals behind Hull and Yakushev in the '74 Summit Series, and was named to the All-Star team in the 1976 Canada Cup. That one series is not reflective of his overall play versus Canada, and he was a star in the Soviet Union, winning an MVP, two scoring titles, and five all-star selections going up against what amounted to an All-Star team in CSKA and the greatest Soviet RW of all time in Mikhailov. Maltsev arguably has the greatest career record of any Soviet forward who didn't play for the Red Army team. Again, I don't see how you can give a big advantage to either player.
Taken together, I don't see Vancouver being a team that can run over Nanaimo offensively, and surely not enough to make up for their defensive short comings. I don't think the Detroit-Dallas comparison is particularly apt either, as Detroit is an outstanding two-way team, not an offensive one-way team. Puck posession relies on solid team defense, and I don't see Vancouver having that type of domination.
As for GBC's point about Makarov, I don't doubt that he was bad for that playoff, but I think it's a bit unfair to question his playoff worthiness based on one playoff series (and three games at that). He scored 6 points in 6 games the year before that, good for third on the team in scoring.
I also think I created a line that will work to Makarov succeed, as I see the players essentially comprising a rich man's KLM line. When people talk about the Soviet style of puck control, the Bread line is often cited as the inspiration for that weaving and passing style of play, and Boucher was the catalyst for that and a better player than Larionov. Noble is built like a fire-hydrant, was known for being an exceptional stick handler and rusher and can play the role of Krutov with a bit more of a defensive conscience and toughness.
Oh yeah, sorry for the essay before.
I also think I created a line that will work to Makarov succeed, as I see the players essentially comprising a rich man's KLM line. When people talk about the Soviet style of puck control, the Bread line is often cited as the inspiration for that weaving and passing style of play, and Boucher was the catalyst for that and a better player than Larionov. Noble is built like a fire-hydrant, was known for being an exceptional stick handler and rusher and can play the role of Krutov with a bit more of a defensive conscience and toughness.
Oh yeah, sorry for the essay before.
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,171
- 14,534
In addition to the personnel, we need to consider the specific matchups. Since we have home ice advantage in the series, we'll instruct Adams to try to get these favourable matchups when possible:
- Play the Boucher line against the Larouche line. As Pitseleh mentioned, Boucher was the best playmaker of his generation (leading the league in assists three times to go along with eight top-ten scoring finishes and two playoff scoring titles). This matchup will have Boucher face off against Pierre Larouche, a player who was known for a "lack of interest in playing defense" (source). Having arguably our best offensive talent line up against a weak defensive centre is a big advantage. This will also allow us to play the explosive Makarov against Kovalev, another player generally known for a lack of consistency and defensive play. Kovalev can keep up with Makarov's speed, but the odds of him staying interested in playing defense in a seven-game series are quite low. Finally, this matchup prevents the aggressive Reg Noble from facing off against Tiger Williams. Smyl is tough and better defensively, I give him credit for that, but Noble will be less likely to take stupid penalties since he's not facing off against arguably hockey's all-time great goon. Clearly, it's more beneficial to have a seven-time top-ten scorer on the ice, rather than in the box.
- Play the Clarke line against the Forsberg line. Clarke and Forsberg are very similar in terms of style: both were tough, aggressive, two-way playmakers who were great in the playoffs. Forsberg may have been slightly better at his peak but lacks the health and consistency of Clarke (7 vs 5 top-ten scoring finishes; 9 vs 7 top-ten playmaking finishes). I can't conclusively prove that Clarke was better defensively, but he won a Selke and has another top-five finish, despite the fact that the award wasn't introduced until he was 28 (halfway through his prime). Clarke was also "near-flawess" in the faceoff circle (source), which is an important advantage because Forsberg's puck-carrying ability relies heavily on his ability to quickly obtain possession of the puck.
Woody Dumart will line up against Brett Hull. Clearly it is difficult to shutdown Hull, but the task falls upon an "outstanding defensive left winger" who was a "determined competitor who relished the chance to perform a checking role" (source). Dumart "did the less flashy checking that kept him more in the shadows"; however "duirng the 1953 semi-finals against the first-place Detroit Red Wings... [Dumart] was asked to shadow the inimtable Gordie Howe... Dumart accomplished the task so well that the Bruins upset the Wings in six games and Howe was limited to only two goals" (source). Dumart was also responsible, along with his linemates, fro "checking opponents to a standstill" 14 years earlier in the 1939 Cup finals (source). I won't pretend that Maltsev, our winger, was a great shutdown player, but Kamensky is clearly the weakest scorer on Vancouver's top line.
We will also play the Heller/Hitchman pair against the Forsberg line. Hitchman, Shore's defense partner was "defense-oriented to fault" and "compensated for that deficiency with superb backline hitting, stickchecking and playmaking" (source). Hitchman was more than a role player, he narrowly lost the Hart trophy to Nels Stewart in 1930. Finally, I have a newspaper article from 1933 claiming (Globe & Mail, April 20, 1933) that Hitchman, Ching Johnson and King Clancy were the three best defensive defensemen in the league. Johnson's outstanding defensive play will be instrumental in shutting down Forsberg.
(I too apologize for the esssay
)
- Play the Boucher line against the Larouche line. As Pitseleh mentioned, Boucher was the best playmaker of his generation (leading the league in assists three times to go along with eight top-ten scoring finishes and two playoff scoring titles). This matchup will have Boucher face off against Pierre Larouche, a player who was known for a "lack of interest in playing defense" (source). Having arguably our best offensive talent line up against a weak defensive centre is a big advantage. This will also allow us to play the explosive Makarov against Kovalev, another player generally known for a lack of consistency and defensive play. Kovalev can keep up with Makarov's speed, but the odds of him staying interested in playing defense in a seven-game series are quite low. Finally, this matchup prevents the aggressive Reg Noble from facing off against Tiger Williams. Smyl is tough and better defensively, I give him credit for that, but Noble will be less likely to take stupid penalties since he's not facing off against arguably hockey's all-time great goon. Clearly, it's more beneficial to have a seven-time top-ten scorer on the ice, rather than in the box.
- Play the Clarke line against the Forsberg line. Clarke and Forsberg are very similar in terms of style: both were tough, aggressive, two-way playmakers who were great in the playoffs. Forsberg may have been slightly better at his peak but lacks the health and consistency of Clarke (7 vs 5 top-ten scoring finishes; 9 vs 7 top-ten playmaking finishes). I can't conclusively prove that Clarke was better defensively, but he won a Selke and has another top-five finish, despite the fact that the award wasn't introduced until he was 28 (halfway through his prime). Clarke was also "near-flawess" in the faceoff circle (source), which is an important advantage because Forsberg's puck-carrying ability relies heavily on his ability to quickly obtain possession of the puck.
Woody Dumart will line up against Brett Hull. Clearly it is difficult to shutdown Hull, but the task falls upon an "outstanding defensive left winger" who was a "determined competitor who relished the chance to perform a checking role" (source). Dumart "did the less flashy checking that kept him more in the shadows"; however "duirng the 1953 semi-finals against the first-place Detroit Red Wings... [Dumart] was asked to shadow the inimtable Gordie Howe... Dumart accomplished the task so well that the Bruins upset the Wings in six games and Howe was limited to only two goals" (source). Dumart was also responsible, along with his linemates, fro "checking opponents to a standstill" 14 years earlier in the 1939 Cup finals (source). I won't pretend that Maltsev, our winger, was a great shutdown player, but Kamensky is clearly the weakest scorer on Vancouver's top line.
We will also play the Heller/Hitchman pair against the Forsberg line. Hitchman, Shore's defense partner was "defense-oriented to fault" and "compensated for that deficiency with superb backline hitting, stickchecking and playmaking" (source). Hitchman was more than a role player, he narrowly lost the Hart trophy to Nels Stewart in 1930. Finally, I have a newspaper article from 1933 claiming (Globe & Mail, April 20, 1933) that Hitchman, Ching Johnson and King Clancy were the three best defensive defensemen in the league. Johnson's outstanding defensive play will be instrumental in shutting down Forsberg.
(I too apologize for the esssay
)Ad
Upcoming events
-
TO ADVANCE SEMIFINAL - Borussia Dortmund @ Paris Saint-Germain - 2nd leg. 1st leg result: Borussia Dortmund1-0Wagers: 3Staked: $1,301.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 18Staked: $20,242.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 10Staked: $17,327.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 5Staked: $2,459.00Event closes
- Updated:
-