ATD2011 Jim Robson Semi: (2) Philadelphia Firebirds vs. (3) Cleveland Barons

[Stoneberg]

Philadelphia Firebirds
Coach: Viktor Tikhonov
Assistant Coach: Father David Bauer
Captain: Jean Beliveau
Assistant Captain: Rod Langway
Assistant Captain: Brian Sutter

Dick Duff-Jean Beliveau(C)-Jari Kurri
Fred "Smokey" Harris-Frank McGee-Ken Hodge
Brian Sutter(A)-Pit Lepine-Johnny Peirson
Don Maloney-Bill Thoms-Goldie Prodgers
Herb Jordan, Murray Balfour

Rod Langway(A)-Eduard Ivanov
Harry Howell-Sergei Gonchar
Frantisek Tikal-George Owen
Jay Bouwmeester

Jiri Holecek
Charlie Hodge

PP1

Duff-Beliveau-Kurri
Gonchar-Ivanov

PP2

Harris-McGee-Hodge
Owen-Howell

PK1

Lepine-Kurri
Langway-Howell

PK2

Duff-Beliveau
Ivanov-Tikal

PK3

Maloney-Thoms
Langway-Howell


Cleveland Barons
Head Coach: Mike Keenan
Captain: Sprague Cleghorn
Assistant Captains: Bob Pulford, Alexander Ragulin

ROSTER

Vic Hadfield - Phil Esposito - HÃ¥kan Loob
Luc Robitaille - Alexander Maltsev - Cam Neely
Brenden Morrow - Bob Pulford - Bill Goldsworthy
Cully Dahlstrom - Ryan Walter - Duane Sutter

Spares: C Dennis Maruk, RW Patrick Kane

Alexander Ragulin - Sprague Cleghorn
Barclay Plager - Barry Beck
Ian Turnbull - Barry Ashbee

Spares: Niklas Kronwall, Oleg Tverdosvky

Tiny Thompson
Pete Peeters

POWERPLAY

PP1: Alexander Maltsev - Phil Esposito - Cam Neely - Ian Turnbull - Bill Goldsworthy

PP2: Luc Robitaille - Dennis Maruk - Hakan Loob - Barry Beck - Sprague Cleghorn

*Sprague Cleghorn will occasionally get time on the first unit, his time on the short-handed unit will decrease in these situations.

PENALTY KILL

PK1: Bob Pulford - Cam Neely - Barclay Plager - Sprague Cleghorn

PK2: Ryan Walter - Brenden Morrow - Alexander Ragulin - Barry Beck

PK3: Phil Esposito - Duane Sutter - Barclay Plager - Sprague Cleghorn
​

Click to read more...

 

[Velociraptor]

I'd appreciate if someone could post my bios, I'm on my iPhone.

Best of luck to you Billy, you drafted a good team and you usually post a good argument.

Few quick points before my flight leaves:

- I don't buy the Firebirds first pairing as a prime shutdown pair. Yes Langway was one of the best at what he did, but just don't see Ivanov as a very responsible defensive defenseman. I had Langway- Talbot last year. And they couldn't contain Syd Howe - Nels Stewart - Rod Gilbert. I don't think my offense will have too much trouble getting past. Ivanov is certainly not a #2 defenseman.

- I think I have a top 5 second line in this draft. I treat my top 2 lines more of a "1A" and "1B" than 1 and 2. My first line has a proven puck-winner in Vic Hadfield, a strong net presence in Esposito and a shooter/playmaker in Hakan Loob. My second line has all the essentials to score goals, set up plays and win battles in the corner. I think goaltending is pretty comparable giving Holocek a slight edge.

That's aLl from me for now, I'll do my best to get on and try to discuss some more.

 

[Stoneberg]

Here are VR's bios. If they were linked to the roster I'd have put them in the op.

Draft Picks:
Round 1: Phil Esposito, C, 25th overall
Round 2: Sprague Cleghorn, D, 56th overall
Round 4: Cam Neely, RW, 125th overall
Round 4: Alexander Maltsev, C/RW, 136th overall
Round 5: Alexander Ragulin, D, 181st overall (traded from Inglewood)
Round 5: Luc Robitaille, LW, 185th overall
Round 6: Tiny Thompson, G, 216th overall
Round 8: Bob Pulford, C/LW, 285th overall
Round 10: Barclay Plager, D, 376th overall
Round 11: Vic Hadfield, LW, 425th overall
Round 12: Barry Beck, D, 456th overall
Round 13: Brenden Morrow, LW, 505th overall
Round 14: Ian Turnbull, D, 536th overall
Round 15: HÃ¥kan Loob, RW, 585th overall
Round 16: Ryan Walter, C/LW, 616th overall
Round 16: Duane Sutter, RW, 622nd overall (traded from Inglewood)
Round 17: Mike Keenan, Coach, 665th overall
Round 18: Bill Goldsworthy, RW, 696th overall
Round 19: Barry Ashbee, D, 745th overall
Round 20: Dennis Maruk, C, 776th overall
Round 21: Pete Peeters, G, 825th overall
Round 22: Cully Dahlstrom, C/LW, 856th overall
Round 23: Niklas Kronwall, D, 905th overall
Round 24: Patrick Kane, RW, 936th overall
Round 25: Oleg Tverdovsky, D, 985th overall
-----------------------------------------------------
Round 7: Nikolai Sologubov, D, 265th overall (traded to Inglewood)
Round 8: Jack Darragh, RW, 296th overall (traded to Inglewood)
-----------------------------------------------------

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Our 2nd and 3rd PKs should read:

Sutter-Thoms
Ivanov-Tikal

Maloney-Beliveau
Langway-Howell

I've been toying around with them, and this is what I'm going to go with.

I'll be doing comparisons piece by piece, and hopefully Velociraptor will be able to get internet access to offer some responses to my comparisons. I'll start with Special Teams.

PP

Duff-Beliveau-Kurri
Gonchar-Ivanov

vs.

Maltsev-Esposito-Neely
Turnbull-Goldsworthy

First thing that jumps out, did Goldsworthy ever play point on the power play? I don't have any recollection of reading that anywhere. Both follow essentially the same format. In terms of puck winners, Neely has Duff outclassed. Maltsev vs. Kurri is a win for Kurri, and Beliveau and Esposito are basically washes. Looking at the defense is where I see a big advantage. Gonchar blows the other two out of the water. Five times in the top two in points among defensemen, and I don't think Turnbull was ever close to a top 2. As I noted, Goldsworthy looks out of place, and Ivanov was at least a defenseman that we know had some offensive instincts. I think Philadelphia's PP pointmen are significantly better. I'd say first PPs are advantage Philadelphia.

I'm going to refrain from doing the 2nd PP units because there's a problem with Cleveland's roster. Maruk is listed as the center for the 2nd PP, but is not in their starting lineup. I'll wait until later and debate it when Velociraptor has fixed it, or if he doesn't, I'll comment near the end.

PK

Lepine-Kurri
Langway-Howell

vs.

Pulford-Neely
Cleghorn-Plager

For my money, I'd take Lepine over Pulford on a PK, and I'd certainly take Kurri over Neely. Cleveland's pair brings more physicality, but is rather slow and could be troubled with some of my strong skating forwards. Lepine and Kurri are both faster, Kurri is better than Neely offensively and defensively. I have to ask, what is Cam Neely doing on a #1 PK? He's got one career shorthanded goal, and I don't see anything saying he's ever been a PKer. Cleghorn is better than Langway, but the gap defensively isn't that far. Langway is an elite PK defenseman, one of the best ever. Howell is better than Plager, period. Is the gap between Langway and Cleghorn enough to make up for the larger gap between Howell and Plager? I say certainly not. Advantage Philadelphia in terms of offensive ability, defensive ability, and skating. The only thing Cleveland has is an advantage in physicality.

Sutter-Thoms
Ivanov-Tikal

vs.

Morrow-Walter
Ragulin-Beck

Sutter and Morrow are basically the same style player, but I think Sutter is slightly better in most facets of the game. I'd say Walter and Thoms are about equal defensively, but Thoms is definitely ahead offensively. Ivanov is about equal to Beck, maybe a slight advantage to beck, and Ragulin blows Tikal out of the water. An advantage to Cleveland due to the gap in terms of defensemen that couldn't be made up for a slight advantage to Philadelphia in terms of the forwards.

Maloney-Beliveau
Langway-Howell

Esposito-Sutter
Cleghorn-Plager

Beliveau and Esposito are both there mostly as shorthanded threats, and these units won't see much time. Maloney has 15 career shorthanded goals to Sutter's 0, so I'm not convinced Sutter is a good PKer. It would be difficult to gauge who is better defensively, Esposito or Beliveau. As of now, I'll call them a wash. As I said about the first PK units, Cleghorn is better than Langway, but the gap between them isn't enough to make up for the larger gap between Howell and Plager. I'd say a slight advantage to Philadelphia, but not a major one.

 

[seventieslord]

It would be difficult to gauge who is better defensively, Esposito or Beliveau. As of now, I'll call them a wash. .

I think Beliveau's defensive reputation is much stronger, just from things I've picked up in reading and in the ATD and HOH sections.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I think Beliveau's defensive reputation is much stronger, just from things I've picked up in reading and in the ATD and HOH sections.

Agree, Beliveau is much better defensively than Esposito.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

While I was very tempted to write that, I could not find anything definitive saying he was good defensively. He has the reputation of being a "complete player", and "was good at everything", but I wanted some tangible evidence before I made such an assertion. Combined with the fact that Chidlovski called Espo a good two-way forward(really?), I didn't want to make a statement without having something to back it up. Have either of you found anything that cites his good defensive play, or is it just his great overall reputation?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Just something that I came up with. I decided to do an analysis of Sprague Cleghorn's point finishes among defensemen, and Sergei Gonchar's. Here is Cleghorn's:

Goals : 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th,, 5th 8th, 9th, 10th
Assists : 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 6th
Points : 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th

Season # of Defensemen G A P

18-19: 10 recorded defensemen 3rd, 1st, 3rd
19-20: 13 recorded defensemen 1st, 6th, 1st
20-21: 14 recorded defensemen 8th, 3rd, 8th
21-22: 17 recorded defensemen 2nd, 5th, 7th
22-23: 14 recorded defensemen 4th, 3rd, 3rd
23-24: 16 recorded defensemen 3rd, 6th, 6th
24-25: 29 recorded defensemen 5th, 1st, 3rd
25-26: 31 recorded defensemen 10th, 4th, 7th
26-27: 44 recorded defensemen 9th

Here is Gonchar's(in fairness, I'm counting guys that played at least 50 games in the recorded defensemen, I think this is more than fair...):

Goals: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 7, 8
Assists: 1, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 11
Points: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

I don't want to do all his years, here is a few of them, just so you get the point I'm trying to make.

01-02: 179 recorded defensemen 1st, 11th, 1st
02-03: 180 recorded defensemen 1st, 2nd, 2nd
03-04: 173 recorded defensemen 21st, 1st, 1st
05-06: 184 recorded defensemen 23rd, 7th, 8th
06-07: 177 recorded defensemen 15th, 1st, 2nd
07-08: 177 recorded defensemen 14th, 3rd, 2nd

I think you see what I'm getting at. I think Sergei Gonchar's offensive ability is being seriously underrated here. So, with significantly less competition, Gonchar has significantly better point finishes than Cleghorn.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Coaching

Probably two coaches that are as similar as you can get. They have the exact same style, and get the most out of their players. Taken in close proximity, Keenan is probably a little bit better due to being an NHL coach, but Father Bauer brings a dimension that Keenan doesn't have, and Cleveland doesn't have any assistants. Tikhonov had Vladimir Yurzinov that was the sort of players coach to the dictator Tikhonov. Bauer fits that role perfectly. Overall, I see coaching as no distinct advantage to either team.

 

[seventieslord]

Just something that I came up with. I decided to do an analysis of Sprague Cleghorn's point finishes among defensemen, and Sergei Gonchar's. Here is Cleghorn's:

Goals : 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th,, 5th 8th, 9th, 10th
Assists : 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 6th
Points : 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th

Season # of Defensemen G A P

18-19: 10 recorded defensemen 3rd, 1st, 3rd
19-20: 13 recorded defensemen 1st, 6th, 1st
20-21: 14 recorded defensemen 8th, 3rd, 8th
21-22: 17 recorded defensemen 2nd, 5th, 7th
22-23: 14 recorded defensemen 4th, 3rd, 3rd
23-24: 16 recorded defensemen 3rd, 6th, 6th
24-25: 29 recorded defensemen 5th, 1st, 3rd
25-26: 31 recorded defensemen 10th, 4th, 7th
26-27: 44 recorded defensemen 9th

Here is Gonchar's(in fairness, I'm counting guys that played at least 50 games in the recorded defensemen, I think this is more than fair...):

Goals: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 7, 8
Assists: 1, 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 11, 11
Points: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8

I don't want to do all his years, here is a few of them, just so you get the point I'm trying to make.

01-02: 179 recorded defensemen 1st, 11th, 1st
02-03: 180 recorded defensemen 1st, 2nd, 2nd
03-04: 173 recorded defensemen 21st, 1st, 1st
05-06: 184 recorded defensemen 23rd, 7th, 8th
06-07: 177 recorded defensemen 15th, 1st, 2nd
07-08: 177 recorded defensemen 14th, 3rd, 2nd

I think you see what I'm getting at. I think Sergei Gonchar's offensive ability is being seriously underrated here. So, with significantly less competition, Gonchar has significantly better point finishes than Cleghorn.

You're cutting off a lot of Cleghorn's good years and if you're using hockey-reference.com lazily, you're bound to get a few player positions wrong. This is the correct list of Cleghorn's point finishes, from my last bio (I don't care about goals and assists separately for defensemen):

- Top-8 in points by defensemen every season from 1911-1926, 13 of these 16 times in the top-4 (1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th)

The 5th, 6th, and 8th are not worth much, but he was top-4 13 times. (evidently one of these points finishes was missed and it's not worth my time to determine which one)

You are right that Gonchar faced tougher competition as a modern player in a larger, post-euro league. But your numbers of 10-44 recorded defensemen for Cleghorn and 173-184 for Gonchar seems to imply that the competition he faced for high scoring placements was about 10-12 times better. Not even I would make such a claim!

A percentage-based comparison would probably be the most accurate thing I could do. It would also be the most time-consuming. What I will do is try to "smooth out" Cleghorn's finishes to put them into a post-merger, pre-expansion context and then into a post-expansion context.

Cleghorn was in the league (the East) that we all seem to agree was just a little bit better than the west. Most likely a 1st in this league meant a 1st among all leagues. So his 13 best seasons in pre-merger leagues might translate to this:

1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9

This is what his scoring finishes might have looked like had his career been in the 1927-1967 range. Translating from this to post-expansion (or post-euro) is something that not all of us agree on, but the general consensus at this point is to at least double the finishes. Of course a 1st can be either a 1st or a 2nd, and so on. So here's what we might have:

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18

vs. 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 6, 8 for Gonchar.

I would say Gonchar has been marginally better offensively than Cleghorn.

 

[Dreakmur]

While I was very tempted to write that, I could not find anything definitive saying he was good defensively. He has the reputation of being a "complete player", and "was good at everything", but I wanted some tangible evidence before I made such an assertion. Combined with the fact that Chidlovski called Espo a good two-way forward(really?), I didn't want to make a statement without having something to back it up. Have either of you found anything that cites his good defensive play, or is it just his great overall reputation?

When I picked Bourque, I was also looking at Beliveau. The main reason I didn't pick Beliveau was because I couldn't find much evidence for his defensive play.

The only quote I found was this:

Jean Beliveau, whose offensive skills often overshadowed his defensive abilities, forechecks....

 

[Sturminator]

Combined with the fact that Chidlovski called Espo a good two-way forward(really?), I didn't want to make a statement without having something to back it up.

Eh? He did?! If so, chidlovski should not comment on north american players. Phil Esposito was not Nels Stewart, but calling him a good two-way forward is crazy talk. Good two-way forwards don't skate three minute shifts.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Eh? He did?! If so, chidlovski should not comment on north american players. Phil Esposito was not Nels Stewart, but calling him a good two-way forward is crazy talk. Good two-way forwards don't skate three minute shifts.

Indeed. It was in the bio Velociraptor wrote. Here is the quote:

Phil Esposito is one of the top ranking scorers in the NHL history. Although he wasn’t a gracious skater and never showcased 1-on-1 mastery, his scoring talent was simply unprecedented. Most of his goals came from his work in front of the net and on the rebounds. Besides his scoring skills, he was a sound 2-way player contributing immensely into his team defense work. The Summit 1972 was a great example of Esposito’s team leadership.

You're cutting off a lot of Cleghorn's good years and if you're using hockey-reference.com lazily, you're bound to get a few player positions wrong. This is the correct list of Cleghorn's point finishes, from my last bio (I don't care about goals and assists separately for defensemen):

- Top-8 in points by defensemen every season from 1911-1926, 13 of these 16 times in the top-4 (1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th)

The 5th, 6th, and 8th are not worth much, but he was top-4 13 times. (evidently one of these points finishes was missed and it's not worth my time to determine which one)

You are right that Gonchar faced tougher competition as a modern player in a larger, post-euro league. But your numbers of 10-44 recorded defensemen for Cleghorn and 173-184 for Gonchar seems to imply that the competition he faced for high scoring placements was about 10-12 times better. Not even I would make such a claim!

A percentage-based comparison would probably be the most accurate thing I could do. It would also be the most time-consuming. What I will do is try to "smooth out" Cleghorn's finishes to put them into a post-merger, pre-expansion context and then into a post-expansion context.

Cleghorn was in the league (the East) that we all seem to agree was just a little bit better than the west. Most likely a 1st in this league meant a 1st among all leagues. So his 13 best seasons in pre-merger leagues might translate to this:

1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9

This is what his scoring finishes might have looked like had his career been in the 1927-1967 range. Translating from this to post-expansion (or post-euro) is something that not all of us agree on, but the general consensus at this point is to at least double the finishes. Of course a 1st can be either a 1st or a 2nd, and so on. So here's what we might have:

1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6, 7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18

vs. 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 6, 8 for Gonchar.

I would say Gonchar has been marginally better offensively than Cleghorn.

That's the point I was trying to make. I didn't know where I could find stats from pre-1918 days, or a list of defensemen and their finishes. I wasn't trying to suggest Gonchar's competition was that much higher, just that the talent pool was significantly deeper and more competitive. Hockeyreference is the only source I know of to find this information, where can I find more accurate info?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's pretty obvious that chidlovski based his Espo profile entirely on his international play, possibly even just on the Summit Series.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Goaltending

I don't think anyone could conceivably argue that Tiny Thompson is a better goalie than Jiri Holecek. Holecek is in the lower tier of good goaltenders in this draft, somewhere in the 15-18 range IMO. Thompson falls more in the middle of the pack, average starters. Somewhere like 20-23. Not a massive advantage to Philadelphia, but certainly an advantage to Philadelphia nonetheless. Discussing backups pretty much has no point, as it's very likely neither will see time in this series. Overall, goaltending is an advantage to Philadelphia.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I'm going to take a look at the top 6 forwards for each team. I think Cleveland's 2nd line is better than their first line, personally. Esposito is definitely their best forward, but #2, #3, and #4 are all on the 2nd line. So, I'm going to attack this what I think is my best versus his best.

Duff-Beliveau-Kurri

vs.

Robitaille-Maltsev-Neely

Offensively, Robitaille has Duff outclassed. Robitaille is a better goalscorer, playmaker, and overall point producer. But, in terms of intangibles I'd say Duff is better. Duff is better defensively, more physical, and faster. Duff is also better in the playoffs. He was a renowned clutch player in the playoffs, five times top 10 in playoff points. In comparison, Robitaille has one top 10 in playoff points, a 5th place finish when he was playing with Gretzky. While Robitaille was playing on not so great teams and Duff won 6 Stanley Cups, Duff still has the reputation as a quality playoff performer. Robitaille doesn't. Duff has a 3rd and 4th in points that beat out Robitaille. Robitaille is still a superior player, but Duff's advantage in skating, physicality, two-way play, and playoff performance closes the gap. Beliveau versus Maltsev would be a waste of my time. Beliveau is better in every facet of the game as far as I'm concerned. That brings us to Cam Neely and Jarri Kurri. Neely is certainly more physical, but I think that's the only thing he has an advantage in. Kurri is easily a superior two-way player and skater. Here's a comparison of top 10 goals, assists, and point finishes. They played as basically the same time period give or take a year or two, so the comparison should be fairly sound.

Goals

Kurri: 1, 2, 3, 5
Neely: 2, 3, 8, 9

People will be quick to point out that Kurri played with Gretzky, and that it gives him an advantage. Yes, it did. But at the same time, here he'll be playing with Jean Beliveau, the 3rd best center of all time. A downgrade? Yes. A huge one? Certainly not. Let's look at percentages instead, with no outliers removed:

Kurri: 100, 97, 87, 59
Neely: 83, 79*, 76, 59

*-Strike shortened year, which makes everyone at the top a lot closer

My point stands. Kurri is better than Neely at everything except being physical.

Comparing the two best lines, there is a significant advantage to Philadelphia. Philadelphia's line is better offensively, defensively, and is a much better skating group. Robitaille is slow, and Neely isn't a great skater either. Meanwhile, all 3 of my guys are known for being good skaters. On top of all of that, my group blows Cleveland's out of the water in terms of playoff performances. I wanted to draft clutch players that elevate their game in the playoffs, and I think I've done that. Duff has 5 top 10 finishes in playoff points, Beliveau has 12 top 10 playoff point finishes, and Kurri has 6 top 10 playoff point finishes(in addition to leading the league in playoff goals four times). Between the 3, they have won a collective 21 Stanley Cups. To put this staggering number into perspective, the entire staring Cleveland roster has 17 Stanley Cups to its credit. I don't think there's ever been a 1st line in the ATD with this many Stanley Cups on it. I'd like to see one that has more.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Here's a look at what I really consider to be the "second lines".

Harris-McGee-Hodge

vs.

Hadfield-Esposito-Loob

Esposito is far and away the best player on either line. That is not debatable. The wings, on the other hand, are a much different story. let's look at Smokey Harris versus Vic Hadfield. Both are somewhat similar. They bring a physical presence, but I believe Harris brings a definitive advantage offensively. Hadfield has one great season where he was 2nd in goals, 4th in assists, and 4th in points. In order to compare, I'm going to use LF's old numbers that he calculated for Smokey Harris, here they are:

To illustrate this, I will turn to seventies Consistency in Goalscoring and playmaking studies. The reason being is that these studies DO account for the split-league era Harris played in. If you place 4th in PCHA assists, for example, it will likely show up as a top-10 under the playmaking category in seventies studies, and not a top-5. It allows for a rather level playing field when comparing players like Harris to more modern players.

Now, Harris's numbers in these studies:

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

Playmaking- 2-3-4-6-7

Goal Scoring-0-0-1-3-7

Total: 2-3-5-9-14

Looking at goal scoring, here are Hadfield's top 20 finishes:

4

So, what is more impressive? One fourth place finish, or 7 Top 20 finishes? I'd venture to say that Harris is a better goalscorer than Hadfield. I won't even bother with playmaking, because it's obvious that that is a massive advantage to Harris. So overall, I think it's safe to conclude that Harris was a better player offensively than Vic Hadfield. In terms of speed, anecdotal evidence gives an advantage to Harris as well. Despite very little information being available on him, 3 different sources cite him as being a good skater. I don't see any that say that about Hadfield. Harris also has one good defensive quote and one vague one. It's not much, but by my count it's two more than Hadfield has. I'm not saying either is good defensively, but available evidence suggests Harris was better. That brings us to physicality, where these two guys are the closest. I'm not really sure how to properly judge how physical a player was. Hadfield led the league in penalty minutes one year, and was 5th in penalty minutes in another. Harris was noted for his hard body checking, and was called "the roughest and toughest boy the league." Would anyone else care to shed some light on this matter? I call them about even. All things considered, Harris is easily a better player than Hadfield, offensively and defensively.

That brings us to Frank McGee and Phil Esposito. Phil is a better goal scorer, playmaker, and overall point producer offensively. The advantage here for Phil is large. But, I'd venture to say that McGee was a better skater than Esposito, and was a better stickhandler as well. What about physicality? I'm not really sure. Esposito could certainly take a beating in front of the net, but was he one to initiate physicality like McGee was willing to? It might seem odd, but I think McGee was a better hitter than Phil Esposito, despite the large size difference. Defensively, I'd say they are probably about even, McGee has one quote that suggested he backchecked furiously, but I don't take it with much seriousness.

That brings us to Hakan Loob and Ken Hodge. I think Ken Hodge is a much better player than Loob is. Let's take a look at raw top finishes, cutting it off at top 25.

Goals

Hodge: 4, 4, 4, 16
Loob: 6

Assists

Hodge: 4, 8, 12, 24
Loob: 15, 18

Points

Hodge: 3, 4, 5, 20
Loob: 9, 25

Safe to say that there is a large advantage to Ken Hodge here. Hodge is a better goalscorer, playmaker, and overall point producer compared to Hakan Loob. In terms of physicality, I'd say that Ken Hodge has an advantage as well. Who was a better skater? I don't think either were known for being a good skater. Could one of the vets shed some light on this? My inclination says Loob was faster, but Hodge much more powerful. In terms of defensive play, Loob probably holds the advantage here. Overall, I'd say Hodge is still a much better player.

How to call these lines? I'm not positive. I'm having a hard time weighing how good Phil Esposito is with the fact that Harris and Hodge are both superior to Hadfield and Loob. Is the advantage in both wing positions enough to make up the gap between Esposito and McGee? Loob and Hadfield are both out of place as top 6ers in an ATD in my mind. Even if they were playing with Wayne Gretzky, they would still be out of place. I'm not sure how to call this. Seventies, TDMM, Dreak, Sturm, what say you?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Now to take a look at the 3rd lines:

Brian Sutter-Lepine-Peirson

vs.

Morrow-Pulford-Goldsworthy

Brenden Morrow and Brian Sutter are pretty much the same player, but Morrow is basically Sutter-lite. Sutter is definitely a more physical presence, and a better leader than Morrow. I think Sutter is a little better defensively as well, making him a better option in a shutdown role. He also has the ability to play physically with pretty much anyone out there. Let's look at their four best offensive seasons in terms of finishes.

Goals

Sutter: 9, 12, 16, 23
Morrow: 12, 20, 33, 83

Safe to say, a large advantage to Brian Sutter.

Assists

Sutter: 26, 46, 70, 81
Morrow: 42, 56, 142, 146

Safe to say, a large advantage to Brian Sutter.

Points

Sutter: 18, 32, 36, 54
Morrow: 26, 64, 65, 83

Safe to say, a large advantage to Brian Sutter.

In conclusion, Brian Sutter is better in every facet of the game compared to Sutter. I fail to see a thing Morrow does better than Sutter.

Moving on to Pit Lepine vs. Bob Pulford. Both played in the pre-Selke era, so we can't use Selke finishes to judge them. But, Pit Lepine was awarded 3 retro Selke trophies. Pulford was not rewarded any. I'd say this is pretty obvious evidence that Pit Lepine is a much better player defensively than Pulford. In terms of physicality, Pulford holds the edge. In terms of speed, I'd give an advantage to Lepine as well. Pit relied more upon a finesse game compared to the gritty style of Pulford. Let's look at offense. Both played in the O6 era, and I don't think percentages would be a very fair comparison because of the relatively low scoring era Lepine played in. It would make him look better than he actually is. Here are the top four finishes for each guy.

Goals

Lepine: 10, 10, 10, 15
Pulford: 10, 10, 12, 25

Advantage Lepine.

Assists

Lepine: 18, 36, 37, 46
Pulford: 19, 21, 22, 25

Advantage Pulford.

Points

Lepine: 18, 18, 19, 29
Pulford: 12, 14, 20, 31

Slight advantage to Pulford.

Overall, I think there is still a very slight advantage to Lepine because of his superior defensive play. Pulford holds the advantage in offensive production overall, but Lepine was the better goal scorer. Combined with his 3 Retro Selkes, his defensive superiority makes up for the small advantage Pulford has offensively. Lepine fits better into a 3rd line center role IMO.

That brings us to Johnny Peirson and Bill Goldsworthy. Defensively, I'd say Peirson probably holds a slight advantage, not very big. Both were above average, but nothing special. In terms of physicality and skating, I don't think either holds any great advantage. That brings us to offense. Once again, here are their four best seasons' finishes:

Goals

Peirson: 5, 7, 9, 16
Goldsworthy: 5, 6, 12, 15

This is tough to call. When added up, Peirson's total is one less, but he played in the O6 era. So, Goldsworthy is better, right? Not so fast. Goldsworthy's totals were padded by poor competition in the newly formed NHL's Western Division. It was by far the inferior division, and poor competition made Goldsworthy's totals look better than they really should have been. Is it a coincidence that Goldsworthy couldn't get a regular NHL job in Boston for 3 years before going to Minnesota and taking off? Granted, it wasn't easy to crack those Bruins teams, but when Goldsworthy left that awful division, he managed just 10 goals in 68 games in parts of two seasons in a stronger division with the Rangers. All of these things considered, I say that they are about even in goalscoring, all things considered.

Assists

Peirson: 11, 15, 16, 18
Goldsworthy: 42, 46, 46, 60

Unlike goalscoring, this is no contest. Peirson easily holds a large advantage over Goldsworthy.

Points

Peirson: 8, 10, 10, 17
Goldsworthy: 18, 21, 22, 34

Easily a large advantage to Peirson in terms of overall point production. All of his top 4 finishes are better than Goldworthy's best point finish. Overall, I think it's safe to conclude that Peirson is definitely a superior player to Goldsworthy.

Overall, the 3rd lines are an advantage for the Philadelphia Firebirds. Brian Sutter is a better player than Morrow in all facets of the game, offensively and defensively. Lepine is better defensively than Pulford, but Pulford holds an advantage in playmaking and overall point production, but Lepine is probably a slightly better goalscorer. Peirson is a much better point producer and overall offensive player compared to Goldsworthy, and is a little bit better defensively as well. Overall, Philadelphia's 3rd line is better offensively and defensively compared to Cleveland's.

 

[Leafs Forever]

But, Pit Lepine was awarded 3 retro Selke trophies. Pulford was not rewarded any. I'd say this is pretty obvious evidence that Pit Lepine is a much better player defensively than Pulford

Bad, bad, bad arguement. Retro selke's should in no way ever be used to decide which of two old defensive aces are better defensively, let alone as the sole evidence for calling a guy "much better" defensively. Especially when one was having Provost as competition for the selke's and one wasn't. Retro Selke's are extremely questionable, lack depth (1st, 2nd, 3rd, so on in voting), and I don't think they're worth anything other than showing a guy was "good" defensively.

I'm not sure which is better defensively; I kind of like Pulford for the whole Howe quote thing (and I've had him bias), but it's not going to be a big edge to Lepine by any stretch (nor a big edge for Pulford; we're looking at slight-moderate edge), and considering Pulford's added toughness and offense, I don't see how Pulford can be a lesser checking line centre than Lepine.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Since nobody has offered up any comments on my comparisons I assume they are fair and sound. Moving on to the fourth lines:

Maloney-Thoms-Prodgers

vs.

Dahlstrom-Walter-Sutter

Looking at Don Maloney and Cully Dahlstrom, I think percentages is the best way to evaluate their play. Maloney played in the highest scoring era in history, and Dahlstrom played almost exclusively during the war years, and I think the scoring was high enough to get a true indication of where players are. I don't feel like doing goals and assists yet again, so I'm just going to do points. I removed the 1st place man from Maloney's comparison because, well, it's flat out unfair to compare Don Maloney and Wayne Gretzky offensively.

Maloney: 58, 55, 53, 52
Dahlstrom: 57, 51, 48, 40

Advantage to Don Maloney offensively. That doesn't even take into account the fact that Dahlstrom played in the war years. In terms of physicality, I'd say Maloney definitely has an advantage as well. In terms of defensive play, I'd say they're about even. Overall, Maloney is a better player than Dahlstrom.

That brings us to Bill Thoms and Ryan Walter. In terms of physicality, Walter has an edge. I don't think either has an advantage in skating. In terms of offense, Thoms holds a large advantage over Walter. I don't think it's necessary to post the top 4 seasons for Walter. Thoms' top 4 point finishes are 4, 6*, 7, and 19*. The * means during a war year. He was also first in the league in goals in 1935-36, a non war year. Walter's top point finish was when he finished 30th. Thoms holds a large advantage offensively. In terms of defense, I think Thoms holds an advantage here as well. He was called an excellent two way player, and one of the NHL's best two-way centers. Walter's decent defensively, but not that good. Walter is better than Thoms in terms of physicality, but Thoms holds an edge in offense, and defense. Thoms is a better player overall.

Goldie Prodgers blows Duane Sutter out of the water in terms of offense. Four times top 13 in points, and two times top 10 in goals. Sutter has a career high of 53 points, and his best finish is 123rd. He's a better skater than Sutter, and is just as physical. He's also better defensively. Really no contest here, Prodgers is a far superior player to Duane Sutter.

Overall, the 4th lines are a large advantage to Philadelphia. Maloney is better than Dahlstrom, Thoms better than Walter, and Prodgers better than Sutter. Philadelphia's is far superior offensively, and boasts three two-way players compared to Cleveland's two, making it better defensively as well.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Bad, bad, bad arguement. Retro selke's should in no way ever be used to decide which of two old defensive aces are better defensively, let alone as the sole evidence for calling a guy "much better" defensively. Especially when one was having Provost as competition for the selke's and one wasn't. Retro Selke's are extremely questionable, lack depth (1st, 2nd, 3rd, so on in voting), and I don't think they're worth anything other than showing a guy was "good" defensively.

I'm not sure which is better defensively; I kind of like Pulford for the whole Howe quote thing (and I've had him bias), but it's not going to be a big edge to Lepine by any stretch (nor a big edge for Pulford; we're looking at slight-moderate edge), and considering Pulford's added toughness and offense, I don't see how Pulford can be a lesser checking line centre than Lepine.

Does Pulford have any quotes like this?

Frank Finnigan rated Lepine as one of the greatest defensive forward of all-time.

Early on, sportwritters were comparing his style to that of former Ottawa Senators great Frank Nighbor.

A honey-smooth skater and playmaker, Lepine was the head-coach's go-to guy when it came to shadowing or penalty-killing.

Capable of playing the game defensively, Lepine was fast enough to cover opposing forwards, and despite weighting 170 pounds, physically strong enough to win most battles along the boards and all over the ice.

Wonderful player, smooth, gifted with a great shot. His superb all-around abilities wooed Canadiens fans almost from the first moment he stepped on the ice. A marvelous two-way pokecheck ... the embodiment of grace on the ice, a man whose skill and dexterity only became tremendously apparent after Morenz had left

The hook check has been made of late years by players on their knees. It rather tends to slow up the game. Nighbor is though (sic) as an active player, so is Jack Walker who is credited with its invention. "Hooley" Smith is adept at the sweeping check, but the best in the business today is "Pit" Lepine of the Canadiens. When he sets himself out to play a straight defensive game, Lepine is almost impossible to pass.

Editor's Note: Pete Lepine ranks with the most powerful centers in big-time hockey. Defensively Lepine is the last word in hockey class.

I think it's safe to say Lepine is better defensively than Pulford. How much? It's difficult to quantify. Are Retro Selkes the end all be all of judging? No, but they certainly offer an indication that one is better than the other. I was saying that Lepine appears to be more ideal for a checking 3rd line because of what I believe is an advantage defensively, whereas Pulford's edge offensively and strong ability to forecheck could probably be better utilized as a glue guy on a 2nd line, especially considering the fact that he could play LW. Do you believe Retro Selkes have no weight?

 

[Leafs Forever]

Pulford was promoted to the Leafs for the 1956-57 season and proved to be a hard- working, two-way player who excelled at checking the game's top scorers. "Pulford is one of my private headaches," said Gordie Howe, "because he has to be classed as one of hockey's greatest forecheckers. There's a deep knowledge of the game in his forechecking, hook, poke check, strength of arms, quickness, the whole bundle of wax."

"He is one of the most complete hockey players the game has produced in recent years and one of the hardest-working," claimed Larry Regan, the general manager of the Los Angeles Kings in 1970. "He plays all facets of the game at both ends of the ice and he never lets up. He gives his best at all times. He is good and he is inspirational."

He was also (if I'm not mistaken) a prolific PKer on a dynasty. And yeah, he has quotes like this.

Pulford is an everything kind of checking line centre, and I don't think that's any worse than a pure two-way specialist. In terms of complete intangible package, I don't think he is worse than Lepine at all.

Do I think retro selke's hold no weight? I think they hold no weight if you want to compare two quality guy's defensively. A handful of writers claiming one player was the best defensively in a very specific year when giving absolutely no evidence of such, having unlikely watched these guys, and only voting for the best player and not offering a bigger extension, isn't worth much at all, and certainly not as the sole proof of one player being better defensively than the other. They can be used as a proof for a player being good defensively; that's about it. I don't think I'm alone in that (in fact I think a number of people consider them below that).

 

[Dreakmur]

Pulford is an everything kind of checking line centre, and I don't think that's any worse than a pure two-way specialist. In terms of complete intangible package, I don't think he is worse than Lepine at all.

I'd take Pulford over Lepine every single time.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

After looking at it, I can concede that Pulford is a better 3rd line center. I stand by my statement that Lepine is better defensively, but Pulford brings other things to the table that Lepine does not. Still, the 3rd lines are an advantage for Philadelphia even with an advantage at center for Cleveland. Sutter is better than Morrow, and Peirson better than Goldsworthy.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Time for our last comparison, the defensemen. First, I'm going to discuss a little strategy. I don't think there is a top 6 in this draft that Langway-Ivanov will be more effective against. Langway and Ivanov both play a physical, in your face, stay at home game. Out of Cleveland's top 6 forwards, Maltsev is the only one that is a good skater. Esposito, Neely, Robitaille, and Hadfield are not fast at all, and Loob is about average. So, the lack of speed on my top pairing will not be nearly as much of a problem as some people would believe. I'm not afraid to have my top pairing out against either of Cleveland's top 2 lines, because my strengths of my top pairing fit well against Cleveland's. Now to look at the top pairings themselves:

Langway-Ivanov

vs.

Cleghorn-Ragulin

The two best defensemen here are definitely Cleghorn and Langway. In terms of offense, there is no contest. Cleghorn is a superior offensive player. But what about defense? As a comparison(just throwing it out there LF), Cleghorn has 2 retro Norrises, and Langway has 2 real Norrises. The one statistical metric that we can compare the two with is Hart Trophy voting. Here are their Hart trophy finishes:

Langway-2, 4, 4
Cleghorn-2, 2

But, there is a note about the 1924 finish saying:

1924 Hart trophy
- The top three vote-getters are Frank Nighbor, Sprague Cleghorn and John Ross Roach. There's no information about the vote totals. There are two sportswriters from each city. The Toronto Star apparently dissaproves of these selections, saying, "What a fine bunch of hams they selected". (Source: Toronto Star, Wednesday, March 12, 1924).

While this doesn't discredit the voting, it made me go back and look at scoring totals that year, and noticed Nighbor was 8th in points that year, which I found odd. Another thing was that John Ross Roach, who was 3rd, had the worse GAA of the 4 regular starters that year(the others were Vezina, Forbes, and Benedict). To top it all off, Cleghorn was only 6th in points among defensemen, 11 points behind the leader Georges Boucher, despite playing 2 more games. My 4th line RW, Goldie Prodgers, even outscored Cleghorn that year in the same amount of games when Prodgers played as a defenseman. This makes me think that where there's smoke, there's fire and that the Toronto Star may have been onto something because the Hart Trophy voting that year doesn't make much sense at all. So, what is more impressive? A 2nd place finish that is in question, or two 4th place finishes? I'll leave it for the masses to decide. I'd venture to say that Langway is a little bit better defensively than Cleghorn. In terms of physicality, an edge probably goes to Cleghorn, but that's at the expense of time in the box. Cleghorn was known for taking dumb, undisciplined penalties and I want to know who is going to take his place on the 1st and 3rd PK units when he inevitably spends a few minutes in the box. I assume Ragulin will move up to play with Plager, but then who will play with Beck? Turnbull or Ashbee? Both would be sub-par PKers.

That brings us to two guys that played together to form one of the best pairings in Soviet history, Alexander Ragulin and Eduard Ivanov. They play a very similar physical, stay at home style with a little bit of offensive ability, but not much. Defensively, I'd concede an advantage to Ragulin. Ragulin was known to be a slow skater, but I haven't seen anything on Ivanov that would indicate this. In terms of national team performances, Ivanov actually has a higher goals/game ratio (.203 to Ragulin's .125, a pretty large advantage). Domestically, Ragulin has a better goal/game ratio (.140 to Ivanov's .133). The gap here is not nearly as large as the gap in international scoring, which makes me think that Ivanov was a litte bit of a better player offensively, and here is why. We don't know what Ivanov could have accomplished because Tarasov didn't let him. For 5 years, he kept him off the national team because of a personal dislike of him, and then kicked him off the national team(and I believe CSKA, where he was banished to Kalinin, a team Pelletier calls a farm team) in 1968 at the age of 30 when he likely still had 2-3 good seasons of production left in him. I think the larger gap in international scoring more than makes up for the smaller gap in domestic scoring. Overall, Ragulin is still a better overall defenseman.

Overall, the first pairing is an advantage to Cleveland. Cleghorn is a better overall player than Langway(but Langway may have a slight defensive edge), and Ragulin is a better overall player compared to Ivanov(but Ivanov may have a slight offensive edge).