ATD2011 Sam Pollock Semi: (1) McGuire's Monsters vs. (4) Vancouver Maroons

[Stoneberg]

McGuire's Monsters

Arkady Chernyshev
Rudy Pilous

Alf Smith “A” - Norm Ullman - Andy Bathgate
Fred Stanfeild - Tom Dunderdale - Jack Marshall
Pete Mahovlich - Edgar Laprade - Andy Hebenton
Red Hamill - Paul Haynes - Peter McNab

Ray Bourque “C” - Ted Green “A”
Hod Stuart - Pat Egan
Hy Buller - Ken Randall

Vladislav Tretiak
Mike Richter


Eddie Wiseman, Victor Shuvalov, Kent Douglas


Approximate Ice Time (in minutes)

Forwards

Name|ES|PP|SH|Total
Norm Ullman|15|4|1|20
Andy Bathgate|15|5|0|20
Alf Smith|15|2|0|17
Tom Dunderdale|12|5|0|17
Fred Stanfield|12|2|2|16
Jack Marshall|12|0|2|14
Edgar Laprade|12|0|3|15
Pete Mahovlich|12|0|3|15
Andy Hebenton|12|0|2|14
Peter McNab|7|3|0|10
Paul Haynes|7|0|1|8
Red Hamill|7|0|0|7

Defensemen

Name|ES|PP|SH|Total
Ray Bourque|20|4|4|28
Ted Green|18|0|4|22
Hod Stuart|18|3|3|24
Pat Egan|16|4|0|20
Hy Buller|10|3|0|13
Ken Randall|10|0|3|13

Vancouver Maroons

Coach: Billy Reay
Assistant: Roger Neilson

Pavol Demitra - Joe Sakic [C] - Bill Cook
Patrick Marleau - Brad Richards - Frank Finnigan
Bruce MacGregor - Doug Risebrough - Tony Leswick
Alex Tanguay - Tumba Johansson - Chico Maki

J.C. Tremblay [A] - Bob Goldham
Jimmy Thomson [A] - Gus Mortson
('the Gold Dust Twins)
Teppo Numminen - Brad Maxwell

Frank Brimsek
Normie Smith

Lee Fogolin Sr. (D), Alex Shibicky (W), Rudy Migay (C)

Powerplay

Forward Unit A: Richards - Sakic - Cook
Forward Unit B: Marleau - Johansson - Demitra

Pointmen:
Numminen (RH) – Tremblay (LH)
Maxwell (RH) – Tremblay
Thomson (RH) – Mortson (LH)

Tremblay – 75% - 5:00 minutes
Numminen – 40% - 3:00
Maxwell – 35% - 2:30
Thomson – 25% - 1:45
Morston – 25% - 1:45

Penalty Kill

Risebrough - Finnigan
Thomson – Mortson

MacGregor – Leswick
Tremblay – Goldham

Sakic - Marleau
Thomson - Mortson​

Click to read more...

 

[Dreakmur]

I look forward to this match-up. You built a real nice team HHH, and this looks like it will be a tough series for both of us. Our teams are quite similar. This should be good fun.

My line-up is likely going to stay the same, but I'm pretty sure you're going to make a few swictes from what you've got in the OP. I'll just do some minor comparisons before you make your changes official.

Good luck, sir!

 

[Dreakmur]

Coaching:
Arkady Chernyshev and Rudy Pilous vs. Billy Reay and Roger Neilson​

At first glance, we both have similar coaching duos - mediocre head coaches with excellent assistants. If there's an edge, I think it would go to my guys only because they have a much better championship record, but that could probably be explained by different coaching situations.

Neither team has impact coaching, nor do we have weak coaching. Both teams have coaching that fits their team make-up.

This looks like a wash to me. Would you agree we are basically even in this department?

 

[Dreakmur]

Goaltending:
Vladislav Tretiak and Mike Richter vs. Frank Brimsek and Norm Smith​

It looks like we both have good, but not elite goaltending. Both guys are outside the big 7. I've got Tretiak in either 8th or 9th, depending on how I feel about Benedict at the moment. I've got Brimsek as one of the few guys who could be 10th - him, Bower, or Durnan would have that battle.

In terms of back-ups, I think Richter is one of the elite back-ups. Smith is a solid one, but on Richter's level.

Basically, even though Vancouver does have a strong starting goaltender, I feel that we have a stronger one. We also have stronger back-up. I doubt either back-up sees any action, so we're basically just looking at the starters.

This looks like a small edge to McGuire's Monsters. Would you agree?

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I doubt either back-up sees any action, so we're basically just looking at the starters.

Agree, a real case will have to be made for me to even consider back-ups in the playoffs. It would probably take a goalie that is known to have injury problems combined with a coach that is known for overplaying his goalies in the regular season.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Congratulations on winning the division Dreak. Good luck to you in this series.

I think it's a testament to the parity of the ATD, that two teams who are so similar in both composition and quality, rank on opposite sides of the spectrum in regular season voting. I started comparing our teams a few days ago when I found out we would potentially be facing each other, and I was surprised at how remarkably similar our teams were. We both have high-end goaltending, a similar C-RW punch on the top line, and our 2nd and 3rd lines were drafted in the same rounds, are basically the same caliber, and the lines are tailored to suit the same team concepts - speedy, skilled, multi-purpose two-way players.

At first glance, the 2nd and 3rd lines seemed to be close to identical, but a grittier comparison (and some lineup changes) might yield slight advantages (genuinely not sure for which side yet). I have a feeling this series is just going to come down to ideological differences: you trying over-emphasize Bourque's impact vs. me trying to hyperbolize Sakic and Cook over Ullman and Bathgate.

But I've got a few tricks up my sleeve too, that might throw the dynamic of the series off and make things more interesting, expect some lineup changes later one (we have a week, right?). One thing that I know for sure at this point is that Tony Leswick will be playing on the first line with Sakic and Cook. This makes for an easy stylistic comparison to the Monster's top line (a comparison in which Vancouver's top line easily comes out as more dominant), and allows me to match the lines power vs power where possible, which is advantageous to Vancouver because Leswick vs the oft-stigmatized Bathgate is a nightmare for the Monsters, whereas Cook can more than handle his own, physically, against Smith, and then some.

I'm not sure how the other two lines will be formed, but Demitra will probably be with Johansson, and maybe even Shibicky for a more offensively orientated third line.

And again, I can't emphasize Vancouver's depth on defense enough. Thomson-Mortson is an incredible second pairing that gives Vancouver a lot of leverage in match ups, I don't feel like Stuart-Egan can safely match up against other top opposing forwards, both of Vancouver's top pairings can. Also, the Monster's have one of the absolute worst third pairings in the draft, injuries on the blueline are a fact of reality in the playoffs, so any team's 5/6 dmen will probably be expected to take on a bigger role in the playoffs then in the regular season. Vancouver's Teppo Numminen would easily be able to log big minutes in the top-4 and not be a liability... on the other hand, McGuire's Hy Buller playing 18+ minutes a game in the playoffs is just asking for trouble.

 

[Dreakmur]

At first glance, the 2nd and 3rd lines seemed to be close to identical, but a grittier comparison (and some lineup changes) might yield slight advantages (genuinely not sure for which side yet). I have a feeling this series is just going to come down to ideological differences: you trying over-emphasize Bourque's impact vs. me trying to hyperbolize Sakic and Cook over Ullman and Bathgate.

I'll try to be fair when emphazing Bourque's impact. He's clearly the best player in the series, and he's able to play a lot of minutes in all situations. He will definately have a big impact.

I would agree that Sakic and Cook are better than Ullman and Bathgate. Cook and Bathgate are basically equal, but Sakic is solidly better than Ullman. I'm sure we'll discuss both in the coming days.

But I've got a few tricks up my sleeve too, that might throw the dynamic of the series off and make things more interesting, expect some lineup changes later one (we have a week, right?). One thing that I know for sure at this point is that Tony Leswick will be playing on the first line with Sakic and Cook. This makes for an easy stylistic comparison to the Monster's top line (a comparison in which Vancouver's top line easily comes out as more dominant), and allows me to match the lines power vs power where possible, which is advantageous to Vancouver because Leswick vs the oft-stigmatized Bathgate is a nightmare for the Monsters, whereas Cook can more than handle his own, physically, against Smith, and then some.

I knew you'd use Leswick against Bathgate. Obviously, that's the best match-up you can do. I don't Leswick matches up against Bathgate as well as he does other players. As an aggitator, a lot of his effectiveness comes from his ability to draw retaliatory panalties, and that's a game Bathgate won't get sucked into.

Having him on the top line is pretty odd if you ask me. It makes it extremely easy for the Monsters to manipulate the match-up game, especially at home. You put out your Leswick-Sakic-Cook line, and I just use last change to avoid it. Not only do I get Bathgate away from Leswick, but I get my checking line out against your top line with one change.

And again, I can't emphasize Vancouver's depth on defense enough. Thomson-Mortson is an incredible second pairing that gives Vancouver a lot of leverage in match ups, I don't feel like Stuart-Egan can safely match up against other top opposing forwards, both of Vancouver's top pairings can. Also, the Monster's have one of the absolute worst third pairings in the draft, injuries on the blueline are a fact of reality in the playoffs, so any team's 5/6 dmen will probably be expected to take on a bigger role in the playoffs then in the regular season. Vancouver's Teppo Numminen would easily be able to log big minutes in the top-4 and not be a liability... on the other hand, McGuire's Hy Buller playing 18+ minutes a game in the playoffs is just asking for trouble.

As I said in your last series, you are over-rating Mortson. He's a tough player and good bodychecker. He's also a solid, though not spectacular offensive player. I have never seen evidence that he was good defensively.

Unless you show some evidence that he's good defensively, he looks a lot like a poor-man's version of Pat Egan. Egan plays the same physical style, but he's quite a bit better offensively.

Calling my 3rd pairing one of the worst in the draft is quite unfair. Numminen is better both Randall and Buller, but, on the other hand, Maxwell is weaker than both. Regardless, this series won't be won or lost by our 3rd pairings. The top 4 will be the difference makers, and here's how I see them breaking down.

Bourque vs Tremblay - even you'd agree this isn't even close
Green vs. Goldham - close, but Green definately has the edge
Stuart vs. Thomson - it's real tough comparison.... I'll give Thomson an edge untill I can look into it more
Egan vs. Mortson - similar players, Egan just does it better

 

[seventieslord]

As an aggitator, a lot of his effectiveness comes from his ability to draw retaliatory panalties, and that's a game Bathgate won't get sucked into.

That is exactly what I thought.

Unless you show some evidence that he's good defensively, he looks a lot like a poor-man's version of Pat Egan. Egan plays the same physical style, but he's quite a bit better offensively.

There was that part about how they tracked their goals against: "Thomson and I, we kept track of all the goals against because that was your only arguing point when you had to go see Smythe for a contract. All the years we played in Toronto, we had less than a one goals-against-average." - Yeah, it's ambiguous and it's from Morton's mouth, but I think it's something, at least. I agree that I never read anything else saying he was elite defensively. Canon certainly has him a long way ahead of Egan, maybe that's not fair.

As for the physicality piece, though, Mortson was not just physical like Egan, he was tough, dirty, and mean. He was on a whole other level of physical from most players. He was a 4-time PIM leader. I think of him as Lou Fontinato with much, much better hockey skills.

Depending on how you value physicality/toughness, that can bridge the offensive gap, or even more.

Calling my 3rd pairing one of the worst in the draft is quite unfair. Numminen is better both Randall and Buller, but, on the other hand, Maxwell is weaker than both.

I haven't seen a shred of unfair posturing in this series so far, and this statement is a good example.

 

[Dreakmur]

There was that part about how they tracked their goals against: "Thomson and I, we kept track of all the goals against because that was your only arguing point when you had to go see Smythe for a contract. All the years we played in Toronto, we had less than a one goals-against-average." - Yeah, it's ambiguous and it's from Morton's mouth, but I think it's something, at least. I agree that I never read anything else saying he was elite defensively. Canon certainly has him a long way ahead of Egan, maybe that's not fair.

As I said in another thread, I beleive Jimmy Thomson carried the Gold Dust Twins, especially defensively. Even if that quote is accurate, how much was actually the result of Mortson?

As for the physicality piece, though, Mortson was not just physical like Egan, he was tough, dirty, and mean. He was on a whole other level of physical from most players. He was a 4-time PIM leader. I think of him as Lou Fontinato with much, much better hockey skills.

Yeah, that's probably fair. I guess I under-rated Mortson's physical presence.

Depending on how you value physicality/toughness, that can bridge the offensive gap, or even more.

It definately closes the gap some.

I'm not sure that aspect of the game is as important as offensive skill though, especially when the less physical guy was still a beast.

I haven't seen a shred of unfair posturing in this series so far, and this statement is a good example.

You looking for some?

 

[seventieslord]

You looking for some?

Well, it is something I zero in on, when scanning other peoples' series.

 

[Sturminator]

As I said in your last series, you are over-rating Mortson. He's a tough player and good bodychecker. He's also a solid, though not spectacular offensive player. I have never seen evidence that he was good defensively.

Unless you show some evidence that he's good defensively, he looks a lot like a poor-man's version of Pat Egan. Egan plays the same physical style, but he's quite a bit better offensively.

Yes, but Egan was a very questionable player in his own zone. I did a bit of research on Egan, myself, whilst putting together an attacking defense, and wasn't entirely pleased with what I found. From the Milwaukee Journal - December 21, 1943:

The transfer of defenseman Pat Egan to forward for the Detroit Red Wings' National Hockey League game at Chicago Wednesday night is manager Jack Adams' latest shuffle of his lineup.

The manuever was believed to stem from lack a of protection given goalie Harry Lumley in the New York Rangers' 6-2 victory over the Red Wings. The 17 year old goalie, playing his first big league game, had six goals scored him, but he made thirty saves. Adams said he "played a good game. Most of those goals weren't his fault at all. He didn't have a chance when those guys came in all alone.

Egan and Stuart are a rather odd pairing, and somewhat less than the sum of their parts, in my opinion. Egan really needs someone to cover for him defensively, but putting Stuart in that role would seem to be a bit of a waste offensively. Of course, I'm not entirely sure how much it matters in this series, as Vancouver's second line is one of the weaker units in the league.

 

[Dreakmur]

Yes, but Egan was a very questionable player in his own zone. I did a bit of research on Egan, myself, whilst putting together an attacking defense, and wasn't entirely pleased with what I found. From the Milwaukee Journal - December 21, 1943:

You're basing that on one ambiguous article. I found that article too, but it's the only one I've seen that even hints at his defensive play being less than average. If you notice, the article actually describes the whole defense core as playing poorly, not Egan in particular.

I have two articles, and they're much less ambiguous, that talk about him being a good defensive player. Do we just ignore those ones?

Egan and Stuart are a rather odd pairing, and somewhat less than the sum of their parts, in my opinion. Egan really needs someone to cover for him defensively, but putting Stuart in that role would seem to be a bit of a waste offensively. Of course, I'm not entirely sure how much it matters in this series, as Vancouver's second line is one of the weaker units in the league.

Not sure what the problem is there. Stuart played his whole career as a defenseman who could provide great offensive skill while also providing flawless.

Stuart is a defenseaman who has no holes in his game. He can play any style and perform any role required. He can cover for Egan as much as you want him too, but he can also chip in of offense as much as you want too.

 

[Sturminator]

I have two articles, and they're much less ambiguous, that talk about him being a good defensive player. Do we just ignore those ones?

You mean the business about Egan being a "solid blocker"? Hardly glowing praise. Much like Flash Hollett, the man for whom he was traded, Egan's lack of all-star credentials as compared to his scoring is strongly suggestive of questionable defensive skills. Also, I'm not sure how ambiguous it is for the coach to move one specific defenseman to forward as a means of remedying poor play from the defense. No other personnel moves were made by Adams; just the removal of Egan from the blueline.

Not sure what the problem is there. Stuart played his whole career as a defenseman who could provide great offensive skill while also providing flawless.

I assume you wanted to add the word "defense" there at the end, but at any rate, using such obvious hyperbole as "flawless" anything is unlikely to get you anywhere.

 

[Sturminator]

A couple of comments on the special teams matchup here:

- triple H, why aren't you using Brad Richards on the point of your powerplay? It's probably his single greatest skill as a hockey player. If you really want to preserve your RH/LH point tandems, put Richards on the point of your second unit next to Thompson, move Demitra up to the half boards on the first unit and slot Tanguay in on the second unit. I think this would make your powerplay better overall.

- dreak, the powerplay icetime breakdown for your forwards doesn't seem terribly coherent. The last time I saw your powerplay teams, you had Ullman and Dunderdale both playing the "goalscorer in the middle" role on the powerplay, but that doesn't jive assuming 7 minutes of man advantage when they are playing a combined 9 minutes per game. I consider 5 minutes of powerplay icetime to be really pushing it for any forward outside of the truly elite. Dunderdale simply isn't elite and Bathgate is out of position. Neither player seems an appropriate candidate for this level of workload in his role. According to the table, you're playing them more on the powerplay than Ray Bourque, which kind of boggles my mind.

- Ted Green was not a regular first unit penalty killer in Boston during the period over which we have data for him, which includes his best years. Going by icetime, Dallas Smith was the clear #2 PK defenseman in Boston behind the obvious. I'm not sure of the wisdom of using Green as an ATD 1st unit PKer when he wasn't one in real life.

edit: Green was Boston's #1 PK defenseman by minutes in 1967-68, and the #3 for the next three seasons before jumping to the WHA. Given the makeup of the Bruins at the time, there's also a good chance that Green was on Boston's top PK unit (with Boivin) in 1964-65, although he was likely not a top unit PKer in any other year pre-67.

 

[Dreakmur]

QUOTE=Sturminator;32764871]You mean the business about Egan being a "solid blocker"? Hardly glowing praise. Much like Flash Hollett, the man for whom he was traded, Egan's lack of all-star credentials as compared to his scoring is strongly suggestive of questionable defensive skills. Also, I'm not sure how ambiguous it is for the coach to move one specific defenseman to forward as a means of remedying poor play from the defense. No other personnel moves were made by Adams; just the removal of Egan from the blueline.



I assume you wanted to add the word "defense" there at the end, but at any rate, using such obvious hyperbole as "flawless" anything is unlikely to get you anywhere.[/QUOTE]

Yeah the quote him being a good blocker. In that era, the ability to stop players in open ice was known as blocking, so that's likely what the article was talking about.

Regardless, its clear that you have made up your mind based on limited evidence, so there's no point trying to argue with you.

As for Stuart, I was exagerating when I said flawless, but that does not change the fact that he was arguably the best defensive defenseman of his era while still being one of the best oFfensive guys too.

 

[Sturminator]

Yeah the quote him being a good blocker. In that era, the ability to stop players in open ice was known as blocking, so that's likely what the article was talking about.

I'm aware of what the terminology means. The specific adjective used here was "solid" rather than "good", and the cited article is from 1944. Being known as a "solid blocker" in 1944 is not really saying much.

Regardless, its clear that you have made up your mind based on limited evidence, so there's no point trying to argue with you.

Heh. I've probably researched Egan as much as you have. For now, I'll spare the bits about his predilection for punching out referees.

 

[Dreakmur]

Heh. I've probably researched Egan as much as you have. For now, I'll spare the bits about his predilection for punching out referees.

Post that all you want. It actually hurts your asrgument that he must be poor defensively.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sturm, 1968-69 is when Green almost died after he decided to fence with hockey sticks and lost. He came back eventually with the famous metal plate in his head, but was a shell of himself. I wouldn't extrapolate what he did from this season on back over the rest of his career.

 

[Sturminator]

Sturm, 1968-69 is when Green almost died after he decided to fence with hockey sticks and lost. He came back eventually with the famous metal plate in his head, but was a shell of himself. I wouldn't extrapolate what he did from this season on back over the rest of his career.

Eh? A shell of himself?! That's not the case, at all. People actually marvelled at Green's recovery in 1970-71, and couldn't believe that he'd come all the way back. And the stick swinging incident with Wayne Maki happened in the 1969-70 preseason, after Green had already been removed from the first unit PK in favor of Smith. Terrible Ted remained a good player for Boston until jumping to the WHA. I'm not sure where you got that bit about Green being ruined a-la Kevin Stevens by the stick-swinging incident, but that's not how it happened. His comeback season was one of his best years in the NHL, but he was already in his 30's at the time, and declined shortly thereafter.

Green was beat up from 1965 - 1967, and couldn't possibly have played a great role on those teams. We can safely assume that he wasn't a first team PKer during his rookie season, as he wasn't good enough to get that kind of duty as a rookie, and at any rate, those Boston teams were strong on the blueline, with Mohns and Boivin being the top pairing until 1964-65, when Mohns was traded to Chicago. It is possible that a still young Ted Green was a top unit penalty killer while Mohns was still in town, but I really doubt it. Green's reputation is that of a thug who developed into a good hockey player, rather like Mark Tinordi, though Green developed a lot more offensively than Tinordi ever did.

It's a shame we don't have the TOI numbers for Green's whole career, because I'm pretty positive I'm right about this, but without the data fthere can be no certainty.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He was a good player after the stick incident, but no longer really a star. You are correct my timeframe was a bit off - that's what happens when you forget a specific detail and then use Pelletier for it....

Edit: I do agree that he was basically a thug early in his career before developing into an excellent hockey player for a few seasons.

 

[Sturminator]

Post that all you want. It actually hurts your asrgument that he must be poor defensively.

You mean because slugging a couple of refs might have cost him all-star votes? Heh...yeah, I guess that's a theory.

 

[Dreakmur]

You mean because slugging a couple of refs might have cost him all-star votes?

Exactly.

You seem to think the only reason that he would lose all-star votes is because of poor defensive play, but that's obviously not the case - just more baseless assumptions. You have no evidence that he was bda defensively, so you're jus making stuff up.

 

[jarek]

Exactly.

You seem to think the only reason that he would lose all-star votes is because of poor defensive play, but that's obviously not the case - just more baseless assumptions. You have no evidence that he was bda defensively, so you're jus making stuff up.

I tried to argue the same thing with Liapkin, and I'm more and more believing the same for Hollett as well. The truly bad defensive players were called out as such, and the information is well documented.

 

[Dreakmur]

His comeback season was one of his best years in the NHL

His comeback season was, at best, his 6th best season.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I tried to argue the same thing with Liapkin, and I'm more and more believing the same for Hollett as well. The truly bad defensive players were called out as such, and the information is well documented.

So we should just draft our defensemen based on points an forget about the rest? Yandle for Norris, right?

Oh, and Hollett was called out for being poor defensively... In a quote in the Egan bio