ATD2010 Foster Hewitt Semi-Final: Toronto St. Pats (1) vs. McGuire's Monsters (4)

[VanIslander]

The Foster Hewitt Division Semi-Final Round:


Toronto St. Pats

coach Pete Green

Aurel Joliat - Howie Morenz - Vaclav Nedomansky
Alf Smith - Pavel Datsyuk - Babe Dye
Craig Ramsay - Joel Otto - Blair Russel
Tommy Smith - Buddy O'Connor - Billy Boucher
Billy Hay, Reggie Fleming

Mark Howe - Art Ross
Joe Hall - Pat Egan
Phil Housley - Don Awrey
Hamby Shore

Glenn Hall
Curtis Joseph


vs.



McGuire's Monsters

coach Jack Adams

Cy Denneny - Marcel Dionne - Bill Cook
George Hay - Mickey MacKay - Marian Hossa
Jack Walker - Guy Carbonneau - Mario Trembay
Rick Nash - Jack Adams - Cully Wilson
Alf Skinner, Billy Taylor

Nicklas Lidstrom - Ken Reardon
Taffy Abel - Flash Hollett
Craig Ludwig - Dickie Boon
Bobby Rowe

Georges Vezina
Chuck Rayner

​

Click to read more...

 

[VanIslander]

Toronto St. Pats

PP1: Joliat-Morenz-Dye-Howe-Housley
PP2: Smith-O'Connor-Nedomansky-Egan-Housley

PK1: Ramsay-Otto-Howe-Awrey
PK2: Morenz-Russel-Ross-Hall

vs.

McGuire's Monsters

PP1: Denneny-Dionne-Cook-Lidstrom-Reardon
PP2: Nash-MacKay-Adams-Hollett-Boon

PK1: Carbonneau-Walker-Lidstrom-Ludwig
PK2: MacKay-Hay-Reardon-Abel

 

[Leafs Forever]

The matchup with the most human interest thus far.

The GM pairing that, whilst together, made an ATD Finals (over at LeafsCentral), and won an MLD, now broken a part and facing off. I'm going up against the guy I give a lot of credit to helping me become the ATD GM I am today. A master vs former pupil kind of match, in a sense.

This should be a good one. Unfortunately, I have a lot of schoolwork to do that will hinder my ability to debate to my fullest, but I shall do my best to overcome that.

 

[jarek]

LF, you're up against Dreakmur. Dreakmur! Forget school!

 

[Leafs Forever]

LF, you're up against Dreakmur. Dreakmur! Forget school!

My history teacher that I have to right an essay for is scarier than Dreakmur

 

[Leafs Forever]

For convenience:

Toronto St.Pats

(1919-1927)
GM:Leafs Forever13
Head Coach: Pete Green
Captain: Alf Smith
Assistant Captains: Howie Morenz, Craig Ramsay

Aurel Joliat-Howie Morenz(A)-Vaclav Nedomansky
Alf Smith(C) -Pavel Datsyuk-Babe Dye
Craig Ramsay(A)-Joel Otto-Blair Russel
Tommy Smith-Buddy O'Connor-Billy Boucher

Mark Howe-Art Ross
Joe Hall-Pat Egan
Phil Housley-Don Awrey

Glenn Hall
Curtis Joseph

Spares: D/W Hamby Shore, C Billy Hay, LW/D Reggie Fleming

PP1: Aurel Joliat-Howie Morenz-Babe Dye-Mark Howe-Phil Housley
PP2: Tommy Smith-Buddy O'Connor-Vaclav Nedomansky-Pat Egan-Phil Housley

PK1: Craig Ramsay-Joel Otto-Mark Howe-Don Awrey
PK2: Howie Morenz-Blair Russel-Art Ross-Joe Hall​

 

[Leafs Forever]

First Lines

Aurel Joliat-Howie Morenz-Vaclav Nedomansky vs Cy Denneny-Marcel Dionne-Bill Cook

Talk about clash of the titans.

This is an interesting one in a number of ways. I have the best player on either line (Morenz), but I also have the worse (Nedomansky).

Breaking it down position by position:

Aurel Joliat vs Cy Denneny
An easy matchup to look at; Denneny has a better offensive resume, Joliat the much better intangible player (and faster too)- Joliat was known as an excellent defensive player, while I think there was a quote out there on Denneny being a lazy backchecker (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't see either of these guys as particularly far behind the other.

Howie Morenz vs Marcel Dionne
Another easy matchuop- Morenz far better defensively, likely tougher, better playoff resume, and fairly comprable regular season offensive production. Morenz has a very distinct edge at centre.

Vaclav Nedomansky vs Bill Cook
Bill Cook wins. Not much I can say here.

Personnel wise, it's relatively close- though you may well have an edge there due to Cook vs Nedomansky. However, I think I have the better built line.

Your top line certainly doesn't lack toughness with Cook and Denneny, and some from Dioone- mine doesn't either of course, with all three of my players having at least some grit. However, it does lack defense. I am unaware of any quotes praising any of these player's defensive ability- at best, it's average defensively, and likely less than that. My line, on the other hand, has two of the best two-way players of their day in Morenz and Joliat (just look at their bios)- and in a head to head matchup, much better equipped to defend against your line than the vice-versa.

Your line also lacks a player bias towards playmaking. Both Cook and Denneny are shoot-first players, while Dionne is fairly balanced. Joliat's more of a playmaker, Morenz balanced, and Nedomansky a goalscorer. Dionne's goalscoring could suffer somewhat as a result of him having two guys like Cook and Denneny on his line.

Of course, my line also have the chemistry advantage of Morenz and Joliat.

All that considered, I think these two lines are fairly equal.

 

[Dreakmur]

First Lines:
- Morenz and Dionne are basically a wash in terms of offensive production. Dionne's better in the regular season, but his production does dip a little in the play-offs, so that evens out. Morenz is a better defensive player, so he gets the edge, but really, it's not very big.
- Denneny is quite a bit better offensively than Joliat, and he's much tougher too. Joliat does have a good defensive advantage. Despite Joliat being the primary playmaker and Denneny is said to be a shoot-first player, Denneny has the much stronger playmaking numbers.
- Bill Cook is completely out of Nedomasnky's league.
- Overall, McQuire's Monsters has a very solid offensive advantage on their first line. Defensively, Toronto's line is solid, but it doesn't make up for the offensive gap.

In terms of top player between either line, I think Cook gives Morenz a good run for his money. Despite being in his 30s, Cook was just as good as Morenz offensively. If Cook past his prime is as good as Morenz, the Cook in is prime.....

Second Lines:
- Babe Dye is definately the best offensive player between the 2nd lines. He could easily handle first line duty. He gets to go head to head with my weakest 2nd liner; Marian Hossa. Hossa's got the clear speed and defensive edge, but Dye's offense is just too much to overcome.
- Datsyuk and MacKay, to me, are very similar players. Both guys are very strong offensive contributors while being elite defensively at the same time. Perhaps when Datsyuk's career is done, he'll be as good as MacKay. As of right now, MacKay has many more years under his belt, so he has to get the clear edge.
- Hay is better offensively and defensively than Smith. Smith, however, is a huge physical presence and well-rounded player.
- Overall, these lines are pretty even.

 

[seventieslord]

I'd like to see more justification for Hay being better than Smith offensively and defensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In terms of top player between either line, I think Cook gives Morenz a good run for his money. Despite being in his 30s, Cook was just as good as Morenz offensively. If Cook past his prime is as good as Morenz, the Cook in is prime.....

Cook's actual prime was his 30s. Maybe he "could have been better" if he had gotten started in the big league earlier, but he did not, so we'll never know, and can't use the projection. Projecting what he "could have done" if he had gotten started earlier is no better than projecting what another player "could have done" if he had no retired early.

 

[Leafs Forever]

- Morenz and Dionne are basically a wash in terms of offensive production. Dionne's better in the regular season, but his production does dip a little in the play-offs, so that evens out. Morenz is a better defensive player, so he gets the edge, but really, it's not very big.

The only thing that's likely close between the two would be regular season offense. Morenz is much better defensively, likely tougher, and a better playoff performer.

- Denneny is quite a bit better offensively than Joliat, and he's much tougher too. Joliat does have a good defensive advantage. Despite Joliat being the primary playmaker and Denneny is said to be a shoot-first player, Denneny has the much stronger playmaking numbers.

Much tougher? Can't say I'm sure about that. Denneny was known was a physical enforcer, but Joliat was quite tough in his own right, A "feisty adversary who frustrated larger opponents" and a man who "earned the respect of many of the toughest players in the NHL because of his fearless refusal to back down in on-ice confrontation" according to loh.

"Much stronger playmaking numbers"? Where'd that come from? I'll bring in seventies consistency in playmaking studies here, as it makes it easy to compare as Denneny spent all of his good years pre-merger while Joliat played both pre-merger and post.

Top 2's-Top 5's-Top 10's-Top 15's-Top 20's

Denneny- 2-3-5-6-6
Joliat: 0-4-6-7-8

Denneny is the better peak playmaker, but Joliat beats him in every other category by at least 1 and is clearly the better playmaker (remember, the two top-2 seasons from Denneny contribute 2 finishes to every single category).

And I wager Joliat may well have more than a "good" defensive edge- considering he was said to be an oustanding checker and relentless backcherk, while I have heard of Denneny being a liability defensively (though someone should confirm that), but he'd be average in his time at best most likely.

- Bill Cook is completely out of Nedomasnky's league.
- Overall, McQuire's Monsters has a very solid offensive advantage on their first line. Defensively, Toronto's line is solid, but it doesn't make up for the offensive gap.

"Solid?" It's much more than solid- Morenz and Joliat were both outstanding defensive players. Make no mistake about that.

You looked at personnel only as well- the offensive avdantage may be mitigated somewhat with no one devoted to playmaking, and my line's defensive advantage is quite large against a line that doesn't really have any particularly good defense on it- and it makes my line much better equipped to go head to head.

In terms of top player between either line, I think Cook gives Morenz a good run for his money. Despite being in his 30s, Cook was just as good as Morenz offensively. If Cook past his prime is as good as Morenz, the Cook in is prime.....

Do you really think that? Morenz was the better playmaker, Cook the better goalscorer- but Morenz was much better defensively, had a somewhat better playoff resume (1st, 1st, 8th, 8th in playoff points vs 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th)- was evidently considered much more valuable to his team (3 hart trophies win when Cook was playing, while Cook has two 2nd's), and though Cook was very tough, Morenz was as well. You note in his bio that Cook was 3rd in points from 1927-1935 (his prime years)- you don't note (naturally), that Morenz is 1st during this time, and although the margin was rather close, for the first part of the time period points were much more bias towards goalscorers (though it later changed in the time period to goals and assists being awared fairly equally).

I think TDMM may be right when talking about 30s being his prime. I mean, look at the season Sedin just put up at age 29- almost certainly his peak. Some players just peak later than average, or have peaks that last longer into their 30s.

- Babe Dye is definately the best offensive player between the 2nd lines. He could easily handle first line duty. He gets to go head to head with my weakest 2nd liner; Marian Hossa. Hossa's got the clear speed and defensive edge, but Dye's offense is just too much to overcome.

Agreed. I reckon Dye is tougher as well.

- Datsyuk and MacKay, to me, are very similar players. Both guys are very strong offensive contributors while being elite defensively at the same time. Perhaps when Datsyuk's career is done, he'll be as good as MacKay. As of right now, MacKay has many more years under his belt, so he has to get the clear edge.

I thought they were quite similar too when I first looked at the matchup. But you're right in that Mackay does have a clear edge.

- Hay is better offensively and defensively than Smith. Smith, however, is a huge physical presence and well-rounded player.
- Overall, these lines are pretty even.

I too would like to see more justification for that. He doesn't really have anything specifically noting him as good defensively. He has one quote by Jack Adams noting "he could do everything", but it has problems- Adams notes he was in a class with Joliat Walker, Bun Cook, and Busher Jackson in the same quote (which we really know isn't true, on a whole- though you show he was comparable offensively to Cook and Joliat during his prime, I doubt his intangibles being nearly as strong, and it was only in a four year stretch he seems to compare well). Adams notes he is willing to play any position later in the quote too- which may well contribute or motivate him saying "Hay could do everything". And Adams, being his coach who really seemed like how easy it was ot handle and coach Hay, is a rather bias source. And it's also really his only source coming close to noting his intangibles (unless you count Sam Green calling him aggressive). As such, I can't say I buy him much defensively.

Your second line also has an intangible flaw like your first- who is going to carry the toughness here? None of these guys really has the evidence to note them being able to handle the rought stuff well. Who's going to stand up to Alf Smith if these lines go head to head? Or Joel Otto if my third line goes up against it? Or the fearsome pairing of Joe Hall and Pat Egan? It's a concern, I think.

I think my line is a better intangibles wise, considering toughness. Datsyuk and Hossa are fairly comparable offensively to this point, but Dye is definetly the best player offfensively here as you noted. Is Hay's offense really going to mitigate these considerations? I think my second line has a bit of an edge here.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Third Lines
I wanted to try and build my third line to match yours as best as possible once you made your moves.

Craig Ramsay and Jack Walker, two of the elite defensive LW's, are pretty much a wash. Guy Carbonneau has a decided offensive and overall edge over Otto (though Otto was mucher tougher), there is RW's to consider here.

Blair Russel is undoubtedly better offensively and defensively than Mario Tremblay, considered a rather lacking thirdliner. Blair Russel is considered the best defensive player of his day, Tremblay can't really come close to that (his defensive quotes don't seem very good looking at your bio), and though Russel's offensive numbers have been brought down a bit by seventies, they are still quite a bit better than Tremblay, who doesn't seem to provide any offense. Tremblay was tougher, but it doesn't nrealy make up the above considerations.

This being considered, the gap between our RW's really helps to bridge the gap to C's to the point where I'd argue that neither of us has a particularly good third line advantage. I also intend to use hom ice to my advantage here- certainly keep your third line away from my top one as much as possible (though Joliat vs Tremblay is favourable), and as I am very confident in my top line's defensive ability against yours, and am not particularly intimidates by your second line's offense outside of Mackay (and Datsyuk is going to be on him), I expect our third line's to see a fair amount of time against eachother- and with all the excellence defence but rather lacking offence, I expect a head to head matchup to be a wash.

Though I admit this isn't always going to happen considering you'll have home games too, if you break the head to head matchup, my line will be free to go up against your top line as well-and unlike your line, my line doesn't have a guy really dragging it down and can check very effectively against all the forwards it goes up against, while your line will likely leave Joliat fairly free to do as he please, as I don't think Tremblay can really shut him down.

All of these factors considered, I don't see third lines as playing a particularly large factor in this series considering how great both of them are as well as the line matching.

 

[Dreakmur]

Cook's actual prime was his 30s. Maybe he "could have been better" if he had gotten started in the big league earlier, but he did not, so we'll never know, and can't use the projection. Projecting what he "could have done" if he had gotten started earlier is no better than projecting what another player "could have done" if he had no retired early.

Perhaps he would have started in the big league earlier if not for serving in the First World War. Also, he did play his late 20s in the WCHL and WHL.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'd like to see more justification for Hay being better than Smith offensively and defensively.

Smith put up 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 9th, 9th in various pro leagues before the NHA formed. Hay put up 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 9th out west, and 3rd, 10th, 13th, 18th in the NHL. Smith had 2, maybe 3, meaningful offensive seasons. Hay had 7 meaningful ones.

We know Hay was a great back-checker, but I have never seen evidence of Smith's defensive ability.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Perhaps he would have started in the big league earlier if not for serving in the First World War. Also, he did play his late 20s in the WCHL and WHL.

Well, we can't value what-ifs, of coruse.

Smith put up 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 9th, 9th in various pro leagues before the NHA formed. Hay put up 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 9th out west, and 3rd, 10th, 13th, 18th in the NHL. Smith had 2, maybe 3, meaningful offensive seasons. Hay had 7 meaningful ones.

We know Hay was a great back-checker, but I have never seen evidence of Smith's defensive ability.

What were the pro leagues in question before he played in the western league?

Do we know he was a great backchecker? Is there a quote besides the Adams one out thwere that even suggests good defensive ability?

 

[Dreakmur]

The only thing that's likely close between the two would be regular season offense. Morenz is much better defensively, likely tougher, and a better playoff performer.

Actually, Dionne has a clear advantage in regular season scoring. It's not a big agvantage, but it's obvious. Morenz was a good play-off performer, and Dionne was a decent one, but not as good as Morenz. I really wish Dionne actually played for a real hockey team - then we would actually know how good he was in the play-offs.

Why was Morenz tougher? He was gritty, just like Dionne. He played in the high traffic areas, just like Dionne. He wasn't a physical presence, just like Dionne.

Much tougher? Can't say I'm sure about that. Denneny was known was a physical enforcer, but Joliat was quite tough in his own right, A "feisty adversary who frustrated larger opponents" and a man who "earned the respect of many of the toughest players in the NHL because of his fearless refusal to back down in on-ice confrontation" according to loh.

Yes, much tougher. Denneny is a tank and a heavyweight fighter. Joliat, while feisty and fearless, is not a major physical presence.

"Much stronger playmaking numbers"? Where'd that come from? I'll bring in seventies consistency in playmaking studies here, as it makes it easy to compare as Denneny spent all of his good years pre-merger while Joliat played both pre-merger and post.

Top 2's-Top 5's-Top 10's-Top 15's-Top 20's

Denneny- 2-3-5-6-6
Joliat: 0-4-6-7-8

Denneny is the better peak playmaker, but Joliat beats him in every other category by at least 1 and is clearly the better playmaker (remember, the two top-2 seasons from Denneny contribute 2 finishes to every single category).

As seventies has convinced me, a large sample size is always better. Here's the larger sample....

Between 1925 and 1937, Joliat was 5th in assists, but 17th in assists per game. Only one play ahead of him in per game average played less than 150 games.

Between 1918 and 1927, Denneny was 2nd in assists but 7th in assists per game. Only 2 players ahead of him in per game average have more than 100 games played.

You looked at personnel only as well- the offensive avdantage may be mitigated somewhat with no one devoted to playmaking, and my line's defensive advantage is quite large against a line that doesn't really have any particularly good defense on it- and it makes my line much better equipped to go head to head.

Since when is predictability an advantage? I have 3 guys who can all shoot and pass very effectively. Yes, Denneny is a shoot-first player, but his numbers prove he was a very strong playmaker. Same for Bill Cook.

Do you really think that? Morenz was the better playmaker, Cook the better goalscorer- but Morenz was much better defensively, had a somewhat better playoff resume (1st, 1st, 8th, 8th in playoff points vs 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th)- was evidently considered much more valuable to his team (3 hart trophies win when Cook was playing, while Cook has two 2nd's), and though Cook was very tough, Morenz was as well. You note in his bio that Cook was 3rd in points from 1927-1935 (his prime years)- you don't note (naturally), that Morenz is 1st during this time, and although the margin was rather close, for the first part of the time period points were much more bias towards goalscorers (though it later changed in the time period to goals and assists being awared fairly equally).

I really do believe that Cook give Morenz a good run for best forward in the series. While I will agree that Morenz was better, the gap is narrow. They went head to head, and the numbers pove they are almost equal in terms of offense. During Cook's prime, he was 2nd in play-off scoring (ahead of Morenz).

 

[Dreakmur]

Well, we can't value what-ifs, of coruse.

We seem to do it just fine with WW2....

What were the pro leagues in question before he played in the western league?

Do we know he was a great backchecker? Is there a quote besides the Adams one out thwere that even suggests good defensive ability?

To be honest, I am partially going on what other GMs have said. When I made the pick, seventies and VanI jumped in and say he was a great back-checker.

Either way, Hay has 1 quote supporting his defensive play, and Smith has none.

 

[Dreakmur]

Third Lines
I wanted to try and build my third line to match yours as best as possible once you made your moves.

Craig Ramsay and Jack Walker, two of the elite defensive LW's, are pretty much a wash. Guy Carbonneau has a decided offensive and overall edge over Otto (though Otto was mucher tougher), there is RW's to consider here.

Blair Russel is undoubtedly better offensively and defensively than Mario Tremblay, considered a rather lacking thirdliner. Blair Russel is considered the best defensive player of his day, Tremblay can't really come close to that (his defensive quotes don't seem very good looking at your bio), and though Russel's offensive numbers have been brought down a bit by seventies, they are still quite a bit better than Tremblay, who doesn't seem to provide any offense. Tremblay was tougher, but it doesn't nrealy make up the above considerations.

This being considered, the gap between our RW's really helps to bridge the gap to C's to the point where I'd argue that neither of us has a particularly good third line advantage. I also intend to use hom ice to my advantage here- certainly keep your third line away from my top one as much as possible (though Joliat vs Tremblay is favourable), and as I am very confident in my top line's defensive ability against yours, and am not particularly intimidates by your second line's offense outside of Mackay (and Datsyuk is going to be on him), I expect our third line's to see a fair amount of time against eachother- and with all the excellence defence but rather lacking offence, I expect a head to head matchup to be a wash.

Though I admit this isn't always going to happen considering you'll have home games too, if you break the head to head matchup, my line will be free to go up against your top line as well-and unlike your line, my line doesn't have a guy really dragging it down and can check very effectively against all the forwards it goes up against, while your line will likely leave Joliat fairly free to do as he please, as I don't think Tremblay can really shut him down.

All of these factors considered, I don't see third lines as playing a particularly large factor in this series considering how great both of them are as well as the line matching.

So you put together that checking line, and you're not even going to use it?

For this series, by 3rd line wingers will be flipping sides. Walker gets to go head to head with Joliat, Carbonneay gets to go head to head with Morenz, and Tremblay gets to go head to head with Nedomansky. I really like the look of that!

 

[seventieslord]

Smith put up 1st, 4th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 9th, 9th in various pro leagues before the NHA formed. Hay put up 2nd, 3rd, 4th 5th, 9th out west, and 3rd, 10th, 13th, 18th in the NHL. Smith had 2, maybe 3, meaningful offensive seasons. Hay had 7 meaningful ones.

We know Hay was a great back-checker, but I have never seen evidence of Smith's defensive ability.

I thought there were quotes about Alf Smith's defensive ability. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I've never done a bio on him.

As for Hay, yes, 2 or 3 quotes were provided last draft that helped make a case for him as a legit 3rd liner as opposed to the highly skilled 4th liner or spare he had been in the past.

As seventies has convinced me, a large sample size is always better. Here's the larger sample....

Between 1925 and 1937, Joliat was 5th in assists, but 17th in assists per game. Only one play ahead of him in per game average played less than 150 games.

Between 1918 and 1927, Denneny was 2nd in assists but 7th in assists per game. Only 2 players ahead of him in per game average have more than 100 games played.

Careful... 1925-1937 is almost entirely post-merger and 1918-1927 is almost entirely pre-merger.

Also, unfortunately, wild swings in the league GPG averages during these times make comparisons of blocks of years a little more difficult. A player having a really good year when scoring is low can hurt his case, as can having a bad year when scoring is high.

In this case I would almost just rather look at their rankings. Or do what you did and break the blocks down into smaller sections based on when scoring fluctuated, just to be sure it's not skewed.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think most would agree that our forward units are fairly close. I think my 1st and 3rd lines are better, while your 2nd and 4th lines are better. Either way, it's close.

I suppose it's time to compare the bluelines....

Obviously, Nicklas Lidstrom gives me a huge advantage here. He is by far the best defenseman on either team, and he can play any situation.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Why was Morenz tougher? He was gritty, just like Dionne. He played in the high traffic areas, just like Dionne. He wasn't a physical presence, just like Dionne.

"I steered Howie into a pocket and Hitch took care of the rest. At least we thought he was taking care of the rest. The first time Morenz fairly flew into Hitch, and bounced straight back as though he'd run into a brick wall. Hitch and I exchanged looks of regret over the body, mentally dusted it off our hands and prepared for an evening of relative peace and quiet."

Five minutes later Morenz was back, and at full speed.

"If I hadn't known better I'd have sworn it was a mirage," Shore said. "But I moved up again and drove him over into the same pocket. Hitchman did the clean up job even more ernestly this time. I'm still wondering why the rink didn't fall in right there.

"Five minutes after that, here he came again. If he'd been travelling on an express schedule before, he was carrying a special delivery tag this trip. We were lucky enough to steer him over to Hitchman's beat again. Hitch caught him square . Howie gasped like the air going out of a punctured tire, did a reverse jackknife and landed on the back of his neck several yards from the scene of the accident.

He was the best. He could stop on a dime and leave you nine cents change. He was in a class by himself. And when he couldn't skate around you, he'd go right through you.-King Clancy

The latter quote suggests some physical ability, the former shows how he withstood real killers.

Yes, much tougher. Denneny is a tank and a heavyweight fighter. Joliat, while feisty and fearless, is not a major physical presence.

Despite not a lot of physicality, I still don't think Denneny is "much tougher"- tougher, certainly, but not to the degree implied by "much". But, I'll let others call that one themselves.

As seventies has convinced me, a large sample size is always better. Here's the larger sample....

Between 1925 and 1937, Joliat was 5th in assists, but 17th in assists per game. Only one play ahead of him in per game average played less than 150 games.

Between 1918 and 1927, Denneny was 2nd in assists but 7th in assists per game. Only 2 players ahead of him in per game average have more than 100 games played.

Obvious problem- one time range is almost entirely comprised of pre-merger with many great playmakers in other leagues (it's Denney's), the other time period is almost entirely post-merger with all the best playmakers in once place. Which effeictvely debunks this method of comparison since it does not at all adjust for this.

As for Joliat's per game asssits, he played 100+, 200+, sometiems even 300+ more games than most of the guys ahead of him- as such, it won't smile too kindly. Assists rates were also quite lower for the first part of Joliat's time period as opposed to later, also hurting him in that some of the guys had to suffer through less or none of that lower-assist era, while Joliat had all.

Your time range also features a number of years where Joliat was past his prime and done as an elite playmaker, though still able to play, hurting his per game assist even more unfairly. You also hack off an extra half season for Denneny where he wasn't contributing that you don't do for Joliat, for whati t's worth.

This is a heavily bias metric that does not at all work for a direct comparison.

I like seventies consistency studies here, because they adjust for the multi-league factor and, as these two players played in two times where the number of professional teams were fairly similar (to my knowledge), it isn't bias in that sense either.

Since when is predictability an advantage? I have 3 guys who can all shoot and pass very effectively. Yes, Denneny is a shoot-first player, but his numbers prove he was a very strong playmaker. Same for Bill Cook.

It's not predictability, it's bias. Denneny and Cook don't want to pass nearly as much as they want to shoot, evidently. The lines they played on were more geared towards getting them the puck to fire it. Both can dish it out fairly well, but they expect and should be firing more than that. Dionne's goalscoring is a thirdwheel as a result, as he's the only guy on the line not heavily bias towards goalscoring.

I really do believe that Cook give Morenz a good run for best forward in the series. While I will agree that Morenz was better, the gap is narrow. They went head to head, and the numbers pove they are almost equal in terms of offense. During Cook's prime, he was 2nd in play-off scoring (ahead of Morenz).

Play-off scoring doesn't really account for stanley cup series Morenz excelled in though, does it? Hart records and defense sway it fairly definitvely in Morenz's favour, I feel.

 

[seventieslord]

I like seventies consistency studies here, because they adjust for the multi-league factor and, as these two players played in two times where the number of professional teams were fairly similar (to my knowledge), it isn't bias in that sense either.

Correct. There was a relatively constant league size (and by league size, I mean the sum of the size of all top leagues at any given time) from 1918 to 1937.

 

[Dreakmur]

I thought there were quotes about Alf Smith's defensive ability. Correct me if I'm wrong, because I've never done a bio on him.

As for Hay, yes, 2 or 3 quotes were provided last draft that helped make a case for him as a legit 3rd liner as opposed to the highly skilled 4th liner or spare he had been in the past.

I've never seen quotes about Smith's defensive play.

Careful... 1925-1937 is almost entirely post-merger and 1918-1927 is almost entirely pre-merger.

Also, unfortunately, wild swings in the league GPG averages during these times make comparisons of blocks of years a little more difficult. A player having a really good year when scoring is low can hurt his case, as can having a bad year when scoring is high.

In this case I would almost just rather look at their rankings. Or do what you did and break the blocks down into smaller sections based on when scoring fluctuated, just to be sure it's not skewed.

I suppose I'll just cut their blocks in half.

Denneny:
1918-1922, Denneny was 5th in assists, but has 91% of the 2nd place guy.
1923-1927, Denneny was 1st in assists, with 118% of the 2nd place guy.

Joliat:
1925-1930, Joliat was 4th in assists, but has 88% of the 2nd place guy.
1931-1937, Joliat was 10th in assists, with 75% of the 2nd place guy.

 

[Leafs Forever]

So you put together that checking line, and you're not even going to use it?

For this series, by 3rd line wingers will be flipping sides. Walker gets to go head to head with Joliat, Carbonneay gets to go head to head with Morenz, and Tremblay gets to go head to head with Nedomansky. I really like the look of that!

Considering it pretty much renders Walker and Carbs ineffective, and my top line is much better defensively than yours, I don't really mind.

Obvious problem with that would be now both are out of position, in positions neither has any quotes noting they excel in. You're a GM that's lose about this. I'm not, and some voters likely aren't, and rightfully so. Reasons for both, I let voters make call on that.

I think most would agree that our forward units are fairly close. I think my 1st and 3rd lines are better, while your 2nd and 4th lines are better. Either way, it's close.

I suppose it's time to compare the bluelines....

Obviously, Nicklas Lidstrom gives me a huge advantage here. He is by far the best defenseman on either team, and he can play any situation.

Not large gaps, if any, between 1st and 3rd lines (granted, my 2nd line edge isn't large either), so yes, our forward units are fairly close.

Yes, your top pairing has a large advantage. I'd be worried, but then I smile at Glenn hall vs Georges Vezina.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I suppose I'll just cut their blocks in half.

Denneny:
1918-1922, Denneny was 5th in assists, but has 91% of the 2nd place guy.
1923-1927, Denneny was 1st in assists, with 118% of the 2nd place guy.

Joliat:
1925-1930, Joliat was 4th in assists, but has 88% of the 2nd place guy.
1931-1937, Joliat was 10th in assists, with 75% of the 2nd place guy.

Still don't like it since it's still not going to account for the split-league factor.

Anyways, I have an essay I need to start writing 2 hours ago. So, I really shouldn't post more on the debate tonight (back ends and such I can talk about tomorrow). So adios. (Please don't post too much while I'm away )