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

[jarek]

OK, who were the truly bad defensive defensemen of the 1940s? That information must be just everywhere.

No one must have stuck out as truly horrendous. I was talking about the guys like Phil Housley.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Howie Morenz was by far the best offensive player. Bill Cook and Frank Boucher were pretty even in 2nd/3rd

From 1927-1933, Bill Cook's first 7 years in the NHL, Bit looks like:

1. Howie Morenz- 295 pts
2. Bill Cook- 283 pts
3. Frank Boucher- 260 pts.

That's not "by far the best"; the gap between Cook and Morenz is fairly small. Adding 3 years out west, I'd argue Bill Cook is probably about equal.

As such, I don't really buy Bathgate>Cook offensively with the evidence you have provided.

 

[Dreakmur]

From 1927-1933, Bill Cook's first 7 years in the NHL, Bit looks like:

1. Howie Morenz- 295 pts
2. Bill Cook- 283 pts
3. Frank Boucher- 260 pts.

That's not "by far the best"; the gap between Cook and Morenz is fairly small. Adding 3 years out west, I'd argue Bill Cook is probably about equal.

As such, I don't really buy Bathgate>Cook offensively with the evidence you have provided.

Considering the fact that Cook's center was as good offensively as he was and his other winger was also a top end scorer, he had a lot more help.

Wether the gap was large or small, Cook definatley was not the best offensive player in the world. Bathgate likely was, and he face stronger competition to do so. Bathgate definately was the better offensive player.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Considering the fact that Cook's center was as good offensively as he was and his other winger was also a top end scorer, he had a lot more help.

Wether the gap was large or small, Cook definatley was not the best offensive player in the world. Bathgate likely was, and he face stronger competition to do so. Bathgate definately was the better offensive player.

Cook didn't have that during his powerful years out west which is a good chunk, and Morenz had Jolait who is no slouch.

From 1956-1965 (ten years) for Bathgate (to match Cook), which encompasses all his top-10 in points it looks like:

1. Gordie Howe- 780
2. Andy Bathgate- 747
3. Jean Beliveau- 715

That doesn't look like Bathgate "likely" was the best offensive player of the world. True, it is Gordie Howe, but this is after Gordie Howe's big prime period, and Cook seems closer to Morenz to make up for it.

 

[Sturminator]

From 1956-1965 (ten years) for Bathgate (to match Cook), which encompasses all his top-10 in points it looks like:

1. Gordie Howe- 780
2. Andy Bathgate- 747
3. Jean Beliveau- 715

This is somewhat unfair to Bathgate, as his peak was really eight seasons, or nine if you count his first sort of pre-peak year. Over Andy's best eight consecutive seasons, I'm pretty sure he led all scorers. Yeah, eight is not ten, but we're really getting into marginal differences looking this deep into a player's longevity.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The most impressive part of those numbers is that Gordie Howe was likely past his prime. He truly obliterated the league in the early 50s.

 

[Leafs Forever]

This is somewhat unfair to Bathgate, as his peak was really eight seasons, or nine if you count his first sort of pre-peak year. Over Andy's best eight consecutive seasons, I'm pretty sure he led all scorers. Yeah, eight is not ten, but we're really getting into marginal differences looking this deep into a player's longevity.

Well Dreakmur did say Bathgate was best over his 10-year peak, so I used that for that reason andCook had a similar peak.

Alright, 1957-1964. (Chopping off a 5th):

1. Bathgate- 639
2. Howe- 625
3. Beliveau- 594.

Bathgate was the best for a shorter period of time; but I am still doubting Bathgate's superiority offensivel due to the fact that it is shorter.

 

[Dreakmur]

Cook didn't have that during his powerful years out west which is a good chunk, and Morenz had Jolait who is no slouch.

From 1956-1965 (ten years) for Bathgate (to match Cook), which encompasses all his top-10 in points it looks like:

1. Gordie Howe- 780
2. Andy Bathgate- 747
3. Jean Beliveau- 715

That doesn't look like Bathgate "likely" was the best offensive player of the world. True, it is Gordie Howe, but this is after Gordie Howe's big prime period, and Cook seems closer to Morenz to make up for it.

I hate being on my phone for this stuff. I already made my arguments for Bathgate being the best offensive, and I can't repost them here...

I'm going to look for a computer...

 

[Dreakmur]

Cook didn't have that during his powerful years out west which is a good chunk, and Morenz had Jolait who is no slouch.

Cooks year out west are slightly better than Morenz's same years in the NHL.

Joliat is not a slouch, but he's nowhere near the offensive force that Frank Boucher was. Of course, over the period of time we're looking at, Bun Cook, the so called 3rd wheel of the Bread Line, scored at the same exact same rate as Joliat.

If you look at the raw numbers, Morenz is slightly better than Cook. If you account for the team situations, that gap gets bigger.

From 1956-1965 (ten years) for Bathgate (to match Cook), which encompasses all his top-10 in points it looks like:

1. Gordie Howe- 780
2. Andy Bathgate- 747
3. Jean Beliveau- 715

That doesn't look like Bathgate "likely" was the best offensive player of the world. True, it is Gordie Howe, but this is after Gordie Howe's big prime period, and Cook seems closer to Morenz to make up for it.

Bathgate scored 96% as much as Howe. As I've said before, the fact that Bathgate had far less offensive support more than makes up for that 4%.

The fact that he was the league's premier playmaker, while passing to dregs, is extremely impressive. He didn't just grab the puck and score himself, he used his linemates, and they weren't good.

Over that same time, Howe had 2 teammates fill out the top 6, so Detroit had 3 of the top 6. Beliveau had 3 in the top 9, so that's 4 of the top 9 for Montreal. Bathgate was the lone Ranger in the top 10. Bobby Hull was the lone Blackhawk.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'll have a computer tomorrow night, so I'll have to make my arguments whether HHH has his line-up posted or not.

 

[Dreakmur]

First Lines:
Alf Smith - Norm Ullman - Andy Bathgate vs. Pavol Demitra - Joe Sakic - Bill Cook​

Bathgate vs Cook
- has already been discussed. I beleive they are about equal.

Ullman vs. Sakic
- Obviously Sakic is better offensively. He had better scoring placements as well as better scoring percentages. If you want to guage the numbers yourself, Ullman has 9 seasons of 69% of higher, and 16 seasons of 59% o higher. Sakic has 15 seasons of 69% or higher, and 16 seasons of 59% or higher.

- Ullman is better in every area outside offense. Though Sakic is a responsible two-way player, he doesn't possess the same level of defensive ability. Ullman is also a stronger physical presence.

- Those intangibles don't make up for the ofensive gap, however, so Sakic gets the nod as the better overall player.

Smith vs. Demitra
- Offensively, this is a very tough comparison. Their careers are separated by over 75 years! The comparison is made even tougher by the fact that assists were not recorded duing Smith's era, which, according to research at SIHR, really hurts him. He was not among the elite scorers of his era, but he was probably among the best secondary guys. Demitra was nothing spectacular during his era, but he put up 5 or 6 decent seasons. Since an in-depth comparison would basically be impossible, I think it's pretty reasonable to call these two about equal in terms of offense.

- Intangibles is where Smith really shines. He was a top-notch puck-winner, a solid all-around player, a dominant physical presence, and a team leader. I see Smith as a cross between Bert Olmstead and Clark Gillias - I feel he is like the ultimate complimentary player in an ATD. Asside from being a decent 2-way player, Demitra doesn't bring much in the way of intangibles. Smith has a very sunstantial edge here.

- Overall, with the offense being about equal, Smith gets a pretty solid edge based on intangibles.

Overall Lines
- Offensively, the Vancouver line has the edge. The wingers are about eqaul, but Sakic has a solid edge over Ullman.

- Defensively, the Monsters have an edge. Vancouver is a responsible line, but Ullman is better than Sakic, and I think Smith is better than Demitra too.

- Physically, the Monsters have an edge. Cook and Smith are pretty similar. I might give Smith a slight edge, but it's pretty close. Ullman is more physical than Sakic. Neither Demitra nor Bathgate will do much hitting, but Demitra is much more likely to get pushed around.

- A first line's main job is to score goals, so despite the Mosters edge in other areas, I give a small edge to the Vancouver first line. If they went head to head, it would be about equal, but I'm making this call based on how tough they would be to shut down by a checking line.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I really want more substantiation for this supposed defensive advantage Ullman has over Sakic.

 

[Dreakmur]

I really want more substantiation for this supposed defensive advantage Ullman has over Sakic.

Read Ullman's bio

Ullman was, for at least one season, viewed as #1 best checker in the league. Asside from that, he was always viewed as one of the best ones. Joe Sakic was an offensive guy who was responsible defensively.

 

[Dreakmur]

First Defense Pairs:​

​

Ray Bourque - Ted Green vs. J.C. Tremblay - Bob Goldham​

Bourque vs. Tremblay
- obviously this one isn't even close. Ray Bourque is one of the absolute elite players in the draft. J.C. Tremblay would probably fall into the 30 range for defenseman, which makes him a bellow average starter, but not a weak on. Bourque trumps Tremblay in every aspect of the game. This is a very big advantage for the Monsters.

Green vs. Goldham
- Goldham was a very good defensive defenseman, but that's pretty much all he does. Green, on the other hand, actually does everything rather well. He's good defensively, but not as good as Goldham. He's also a good shot-blocker, but Goldham might be the best one of all-time. Physically, Green has the edge - Goldham was a solid checker, but Green was pretty much a beast, and he could fight as well. Offensively, Green was surprisingly good, and he's certainly much better than Goldham in that regard.

- They are pretty close here. While I would agree that Green would be better suited as a 2nd unit PKer, he certainly isn't out of place on a PK unit. Goldham is obviouosly better there, but Goldham would absolutely be out of place on a PP. Green is perfectly able to play 2nd PP time - he just doesn't get to do it on the Monsters. I think Green is a little better just because he is much more well-rounded, and he can do a lot more different things.

Overall Pairs
- Basically, with Goldham and Green being pretty even, it just comes down to the gap between Bourque and Tremblay. Obviously, the Monsters have a substantial edge here.

 

[Dreakmur]

Second Lines:
Fred Stanfield - Tom Dunderdale - Jack Marshall vs. Patrick Marleau - Brad Richards - Frank Finnigan​

Dunderdale vs. Richards
- again, we have two players that are tough to compare. Not only are their careers separated by 75% years, but they are different kinds of offensive players. Dunderdale has the elite offensive peak that Richards doesn't. I think Dunderdale is a little bit better than Richards offensively.

- Richards brings a little more defensive play, and Dunderdale brings a little more physicality. Their intangible are about equal.

- overall, I would give Dunderdale a slight edge due to an elite offensive peak.

Stanfield vs. Marleau
- Stanfield has better scoring placements, and his percantages are about equal. Based on that, Stanfield is slightly better offensively.

- defensively, they both seem to be decent two-way guys, so it's about even.

- despite being pretty big, Marleau doesn't provide any physical play. Stanfield wasn't a crushing hitter, but he did play a physical game, so he's better than Marealu there.

- overall, Stanfield has a small edge.

Marshall vs. Finnigan
- offensively, Finnigan is very weak. He had just 2 decent scoring finishes and 2 mediocre ones. As I posted a while ago, Marshall's scoring translates to something like the following in modernt terms:
2 x Top-5 (1902 and 1905)
1 x Top-10 (1903)
2 x Top-15 (1907 and 1908)
1 x Top-20 (1909)
That is definately better than Finnigan, and it's by a good margin.

- defensively, Marshall is actually pretty good, but Finnigan is better.

- physically, both guys are about equal.

- overall, Marshall's big offensive edge more than makes up for Finnigan's small defensive edge, so a decent edge to Mashall here.

Overall Lines:
- offensively, the LWs and Cs are pretty close, but the Monsters have a good edge on RW. Monsters are definately better offensively.

- defensively, vancouver has the edge at C and RW

- physically, there is a tie at RW, but the Monsters have an edge at LW and C, so they are better there.

- overall, the edge in offense and phsycal play gives the Monsters the edge

 

[Dreakmur]

I wish I had more time for this round, but I'm paying 1000 bucks to take a couse this week, so I figured I should spend some time and pass the damn thing! I'll just give my closing points before I get back to studying....


McGuire's Monsters have a small, but clear, edge in goaltending.

McGuire's Monstes have a large and distinct edge in the blueline. After Ray Bourque vs JC Tremblay, the rest of the bluelines look pretty even from top to bottom.

Both teams have about equal top-6 forwards. Vancouver has a slightly better 1st line, and McGuire's Monsters had a better 2nd line.

McGuire's Monsters have a small edge in 3rd lines. Tony Leswick and Doug Riseborough rely on their aggitating ability, but both guys are matched up against very disciplined players, so their effectiveness will be limited. Edgar Laprade, who I see as an old-school John Madden, matches up well against Sakic. The Monsters also have better offensive ability coming from this line.

McGuire's Monsters definately have a stronger power play - with Bathgate and Bourque running things, we'll have an exceptionally effective power play. The penalty kill units are both decent, but not spectacular, and they're pretty close. Special teams edge goes to McGuire's Monsters.

Coaching, as discussed earlier, is about even.



Thanks for reading!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Game 1. It's a goalie dual, won in OT by Joe Sakic. Vancouver wins 1-0 in OT.

Game 2. Ray Bourque and Norm Ullman are forces at both ends of the ice. The Monsters win 3-1.

Game 3. Flat out dominating performance by Ray Bourque. 2 goals, 2 assists, holds Sakic and Cook scoreless. Monsters win 5-0.

Game 4. Sakic, Cook, Ullman, and Mahovlich score in regulation. Vancouver Outshoots the Monsters in OT, but Tretiak is a wall. Bathgate scores the winning goal in OT off a pass from Ullman. Monsters win 3-2 in OT.

Game 5. Joe Sakic has a goal and an assist, but it isn't enough. Ray Bourque is unstoppable on the PP with a goal and 2 assists. Monsters win 3-2.

Monsters win the series in 5 games, with 2 of them going to OT.

Stars:

1. Ray Bourque
2. Joe Sakic
3. Norm Ullman

Tretiak is an unofficial 4th star, as he was stellar when things got tight. Brimsek and Cook shined brightly at times, but Dakic really had to do too much by himself.

 

[Dreakmur]

Monsters win the series in 5 games, with 2 of them going to OT.

I'm happy to move on, but I wish HHH was around to argue a little bit. I was quite nervous going into this series - he build a real solid team.

Thanks to those who voted for the Monsters.

 

[Reds4Life]

In 5? Damn, I thought this would be a lot closer. 2 pretty good teams.