ATD2011 Sam Pollock Semi: (2) Gwinnett Gladiators vs. (3) Chicago Steelers

Rick Middleton

Registered User
May 14, 2002
72,016
17
Ottawa, ON
Chiming in on a couple of items

  • If we're comparing apples to apples, then we're comparing Fedorov to Boucher, and Boucher has a better playoff pedigree than Fedorov
  • As much as I love Recchi, the combination of Frederickson and Hooley Smith are far and away better than Roenick and Recchi, with Heatley and Thompson being a wash. Our 2nd line is leaps and bounds better than Chicago's 2nd line. If we're matching up line by line, I would expect Gwinnett's line to outproduce Chicago's line by a significant amount (not an absurd amount, but at the end of the day, Gwinnett's line will come out on top)
  • The 3rd lines are a wash in my opinion. I like John MacLean and Sturm and I had him on our radar before he was picked. Having watched Thomas Steen play, I can definitively say that he was a consistently under-rated player. He went out and did his job, and did it well, with little to no fanfare.
  • Tarasov and Hart are two highly regarded coaches, both of whom fit their respective teams well. I don't see coaching as being a tipping point either way. Both have their plusses and minuses given the teams they're coaching.
  • Gregg is a weak 6th defensemen for an ATD. Were I in Chicago's shoes I would start McSorley
  • No one player could stop Coffey. This was proven time and again in the 1980's and into the 90's. I witnessed first hand his horrible season with Boston, but that notwithstanding he had an amazing career and is legitimately the 2nd best offensive defenceman of all-time
  • Having a scorer like Viktor Shalimov on a 4th line is problematic. If you're matching up line by line, the 4th line forwards on Gwinnett will neutralize him, they have the speed and checking ability to do so. If you're using Chicago's 4th line against Gwinnett's 2nd line (in a traditional checking type of role), Shalimov will prove to be a defensive liability. Speaking as a GM who lined up offensive stars on a 4th line (see my 1st entry), it rarely works and usually comes back to bite you.
 
Last edited:

Reds4Life

Registered User
Dec 24, 2007
3,896
223
Chiming in on a couple of items
If we're comparing apples to apples, then we're comparing Fedorov to Boucher, and Boucher has a better playoff pedigree than Fedorov

This only your opinion, not a fact. IMHO Fedorov has a better playoff record, and is well-known for bringing his very best when it matters (playoffs).

In any case, our first line is better than yours. And that is without counting the defensemen that are behind the forwards. Savard - Vasiliev is one of the best first pairing in the ATD. If our first lines played against each other, we would win that match-up IMHO.

[*]As much as I love Recchi, the combination of Frederickson and Hooley Smith are far and away better than Roenick and Recchi, with Heatley and Thompson being a wash. Our 2nd line is leaps and bounds better than Chicago's 2nd line. If we're matching up line by line, I would expect Gwinnett's line to outproduce Chicago's line by a significant amount (not an absurd amount, but at the end of the day, Gwinnett's line will come

I agree, your 2nd line is quite a bit better than ours.

[*]The 3rd lines are a wash in my opinion. I like John MacLean and Sturm and I had him on our radar before he was picked. Having watched Thomas Steen play, I can definitively say that he was a consistently under-rated player. He went out and did his job, and did it well, with little to no fanfare.

I think we have slightly better 3rd line, especially thanks to our center.

[*]Tarasov and Hart are two highly regarded coaches, both of whom fit their respective teams well. I don't see coaching as being a tipping point either way. Both have their plusses and minuses given the teams they're coaching.

Why not? Coach is very important, and Hart is no match for Tarasov. We also have actual assistant coach, while all you have is a faceless "yes man". We have the edge here.

No one player could stop Coffey. This was proven time and again in the 1980's and into the 90's. I witnessed first hand his horrible season with Boston, but that notwithstanding he had an amazing career and is legitimately the 2nd best offensive defenceman of all-time

Coffey is 2nd best offensive defensemen, but it comes with a price. His defensive ability is not very good, and he was traded a few times because of that. His parter has to cover for him, which is another disadvantage.

Having a scorer like Viktor Shalimov on a 4th line is problematic. If you're matching up line by line, the 4th line forwards on Gwinnett will neutralize him, they have the speed and checking ability to do so. If you're using Chicago's 4th line against Gwinnett's 2nd line (in a traditional checking type of role), Shalimov will prove to be a defensive liability. Speaking as a GM who lined up offensive stars on a 4th line (see my 1st entry), it rarely works and usually comes back to bite you.

Bykov-Shalimov actually played together, and Sorrel adds extra scoring ability. Don't forget our 4th line will be backed up by Vasiliev-Savard more often than not. Their scoring ability is exceptional considering they are 4th liners.

Our third line is the shutdown line.


===

We have posted our strategy already. It is not our job to find the right match-ups, we have Anatoli Tarasov (and Frank Patrick) for that.

Chicago Steelers Summary

Our 1st line is the best overall line of this match-up (Ovechkin-Fedorov-Alfredsson). IMO Ovechkin-Fedorov>Foyston-Boucher, but for those that think it's close we have an edge at the RW position with Alfredsson>Guerin. This line has Fedorov as an elite defensive presence with Alfredsson as a solid 2nd man. It has an elite goalscorer in Ovechkin complimented by two players that can be playmakers for him, but are also threats to score themselves. The speed of Ovechkin-Fedorov will be extremely difficult for defenses to handle, and Alfredsson is a good enough skater to not be left in their dust when he should join them, and responsible enough to hang back when it is appropriate. Ovechkin brings brings a physical presence which will an advantage when fore-checking and Alfredsson will also help with the "dirty work" along the boards.

Our 2nd line is also a balanced group that will provide good secondary scoring. Thompson is a higher end 2nd line LW that can do it all. Recchi is an above average 2nd line RW and is the primary playmaker playing with 2 guys that can put the puck in the net. Roenick and Recchi have proven chemistry and are both hard workers with a physical edge that should serve well doing work along the boards and in the corners. None of these guys are exceptional defensive players, but are all defensively responsible and should be fine with capable defensemen backing them up.

Our 3rd line is our best defensive line overall. McKenney is one of the best 3rd line centers in the ATD and plays a great two-way game. Lonsberry and McKenney are both very good defensive players. Lonsberry has plenty of experience in a shut down role, while McKenney is more of an anticipation/positioning type of defender which should work well against Gwinnett's offensive system. John MacLean is a plus player defensively and can even be more than that if asked to, as he became a defensive specialist later in his career (this change would no doubt sacrifice some of his offense). MacLean and Lonsberry provide a good physical presence on this line, with MacLean in particular being a punishing forechecker. MacLean's big shot and nose for the net along with McKenney's offensive skills is enough to make this line more than a pure defensive line and give it a threat offensively as well. It should be noted that McKenney and Lonsberry are both players who are known for elevating their game in the playoffs, which should make this a very good 3rd line.

Our 4th line is an offensive line, which has one of the best 4th line scorers in the ATD in Viktor Shalimov. Shalimov has 7 Top 10's in Soviet League scoring and has two Top 4 finishes in MVP voting to go along with his 2 All-Star Team appearances. He is supported by Slava Bykov, who is the typical Soviet center that plays a good two-way game. Bykov is on the small side, but still said to be able to play physical hockey, and has proven it by being one of the top performers in the 87' Canada Cup and out dueling a young Eric Lindros in the 92' Olympics. They are joined by John Sorrell, who is another goal scoring threat.

Forward Summary: We have three lines that can play in any situation and the best line overall of the match-up. Our 1st and 3rd lines are definitely above average defensively while our 2nd line is at least a plus defensively and will be able to handle themselves just fine with capable defensemen backing them up. Our 4th line cannot be used in defensive situations, but is definitely good enough to occasionally contribute on the scoresheet. Shalimov is good enough to take the occasional shift on one of the other lines to provide a fresh player with speed and goal scoring ability when needed.


D-Pair 1: Vasiliev-Savard is one of the best pairings defensively in the ATD. Both are large men that can play physically. Vasiliev in particular will punish Gwinnett's forwards with his crushing body checks. This pair will not create/add much offense, but is more than capable enough to get the puck up to our forwards in the transition. These guys should be able to play a lot minutes as a pair.

D-Pair 2: Another pair that is very good defensively, and can play physically (Tsygankov in particular). Talbot is an above average #3 and will be the main puck-mover of this pair, a role in which he is nothing overly special, but certainly adequate.

D-Pair 3: This pair is a lesser version of our 2nd pair. They are good defensively and can play physically. IMO Bubla is one of the better #5's and underrated in the ATD. The research presented in his bio says that he was known as a tough physical player with good mobility, sharp outlet passes, and a hard shot. He was named to consecutive WC All-Star Teams with competition like Vasiliev, Fetisov, and Kasatonov, being named Top Defenseman in one of those. Gregg is an average #6 that is a defensive player who will be fine supporting Bubla.

Defensemen Summary: We are very good defensively in the first two pairs and average to above average in the 3rd pair. We will not be physically intimidated by large opponents, in fact we will be the ones dishing out the punishment. Outside of being able to adequately move the puck up to our forwards, our defensemen in general will not contribute to the offense very much.

Special Teams: Not too much to say here. I feel we have great PKing and an average PP. If a larger net presence is needed on a PP unit Tarasov has the option of putting John MacLean out there who is particularly good in front of the net. These extra minutes can be compensated for by giving MacLean less ES time (Shalimov) and/or less PK time (Lonsberry to 1st PK unit).



Vs. Gwinnett

I want to start off saying that I will not talk about specific line match-ups or strategy, because that is our coach's job. Tarasov is one of the greatest coaches of all time...he will find the match-ups and strategy that works and out-coach Cecil Hart. Instead I will tell you what some of Tarasov's options are. Gwinnett's offense is a one-two punch with its top two lines and D-pairings. Tarasov has 2 forward lines that are very good defensively and can play against those top two units. He also has two D-pairs that are very good defensively and can play against those lines, and a solid 3rd pair that should be fine against one of Gwinnett's top 2 as long as it is supported by one of the the afformentioned two "defensively good" forward lines. The top D-pair is elite defensively, and should be more than ok facing either of Gwinnett's top 2 lines with our 2nd line, which is still a plus defensively, but not in the category of "very good." This gives Tarasov the option of playing pretty much any of the top 3 lines or 3 D-pairs against Gwinnett's top 2 lines given the right combination is in place. Tarasov should be able to use this to take advantage of our depth and exploit Gwinnett's 3rd line, whom I don't think can handle any of our Top 3 lines. An offensive system like Gwinnett's risks some defense to get extra offense. We have shown that Tarasov has the defensive tools/players to combat the offense of Gwinnett, but he also has what is needed to expose the risks that will be taken, which are two-way players and speed. The advantage of having two-way players is that when they break up plays defensively they have the skill to transition quickly to the counter-attack whether it's skating the puck themselves or passing up to a teammate. Our top line is one of the fastest in the draft and Ovechkin is the perfect weapon for the quick counter-attack role, and Fedorov, Alfredsson, and our D have the skills to create those opportunities for him. Our 2nd line is not in the same league as the first speed wise, but has good speed (Thompson in particular) and is dangerous offensively. The 3rd line as it stands will not be as fast as the first two on the counter-attack, but Tarasov has the option of giving Viktor Shalimov shifts on that line. Shalimov is another speedy winger that is a natural goal scorer, and Lonsberry and McKenney are good enough to handle the defensive responsibilities when Shalimov is out there.

Final Thoughts: Gwinnett is a well put together team, but the Chicago Steelers are the type of team that can beat them. We have a deep team with 3 very capable lines all filled with two-way players backed up by physical defensemen that have very strong defensive games. Gwinnett's lack of elite goal scoring will be an issue for them against a team as strong as Chicago is defensively. The combination of two-way players and speed up front will allow Chicago to score on Gwinnett. The top line belongs to Chicago and will be a handful for any of Gwinnett's lines. The Steelers have the advantage in net in this series with one of the best clutch goaltenders of all time. They also have the advantage on the bench where the legendary Anatoli Tarasov will out coach Cecil Hart leading Chicago to victory.
 
Last edited:

Rick Middleton

Registered User
May 14, 2002
72,016
17
Ottawa, ON
Valeri Vasiliev C - Serge Savard A
Jean-Guy Talbot - Gennady Tsygankov
Randy Gregg - Jiri Bubla

Jacques Laperriere // George Boucher
Dave Burrows // Paul Coffey
Mark Tinordi // Kimmo Timonen


OK, if we are including the defensive pairings as a component of the line by line comparison, how will you line up your pairings? Which line plays with whom? If you're putting Vasiliev and Savard back with the 4th line, and in all likelihood they're also playing with the 1st line, that means that you're either putting Talbot-Tsygankov with the 2nd line. That makes the 2nd line comparisons even worse. Gwinnett will run roughshod over Chicago's 2nd line. If not, then who will be the primary defensive pairing for your 2nd line?
 

Rick Middleton

Registered User
May 14, 2002
72,016
17
Ottawa, ON
We have posted our strategy already. It is not our job to find the right match-ups, we have Anatoli Tarasov (and Frank Patrick) for that.

Seriously? You can't trump out a line like

Don't forget our 4th line will be backed up by Vasiliev-Savard more often than not

And then say that you're not doing line match-ups. It's one or the other, not both.
 

Reds4Life

Registered User
Dec 24, 2007
3,896
223
Seriously? You can't trump out a line like

And then say that you're not doing line match-ups. It's one or the other, not both.

The fourth line (forwards) will not play much, and considering the other three lines (forwards) correspond with the three d-pairs, I think it is safe to say our first d-pair will play behind the fourth line forwards more often than the other d-pairs, especially since neither Vasiliev nor Savard play on any PP units. What I mean by match-ups is that it is not our responsibility to determine which of our lines will work best against your lines.
 

jarek

Registered User
Aug 15, 2009
10,004
238
I definitely think Tarasov is a good bit ahead of Hart, having owned both of them in different ATDs.
 

Rick Middleton

Registered User
May 14, 2002
72,016
17
Ottawa, ON
The fourth line (forwards) will not play much, and considering the other three lines (forwards) correspond with the three d-pairs, I think it is safe to say our first d-pair will play behind the fourth line forwards more often than the other d-pairs, especially since neither Vasiliev nor Savard play on any PP units. What I mean by match-ups is that it is not our responsibility to determine which of our lines will work best against your lines.

Again, stating that Tarasov will solve any line-up matching issues completely ignores the existence of line-up matching issues. You're issuing a blanket statement that Tarasov will fix all. If it's a significant enough weakness it doesn't matter how good your coach is, it's still a weakness.

Your co-GM made the following statement about your 2nd line:

None of these guys are exceptional defensive players, but are all defensively responsible and should be fine with capable defensemen backing them up

and then stated the following about your 4th line:

Our 4th line cannot be used in defensive situations, but is definitely good enough to occasionally contribute on the scoresheet

By your own admission you have one average/below average defensive line in your 2nd line and one significantly below average/poor defensive line in your 4th line. That then makes it extremely difficult for you to negate our scoring when we're at home, where we'll have the luxury of keeping our 1st line away from your 3rd line and can put our 1st or 2nd line against either your 2nd line or your 4th line. Thus giving Gwinnett a significant advantage. And we're the home team in this match-up, so we have the luxury of exploiting this weakness.

Line-up matching does matter, and in this case, you're on the wrong end of the stick.
 

Reds4Life

Registered User
Dec 24, 2007
3,896
223
Again, stating that Tarasov will solve any line-up matching issues completely ignores the existence of line-up matching issues. You're issuing a blanket statement that Tarasov will fix all. If it's a significant enough weakness it doesn't matter how good your coach is, it's still a weakness.

What are you talking about? Whether or not Tarasov matches our first against your second/first/whatever is not my problem to solve. That is Tarasov's job. And since he is clearly the superior coach in this series, I am not worried about that.

By your own admission you have one average/below average defensive line in your 2nd line and one significantly below average/poor defensive line in your 4th line. That then makes it extremely difficult for you to negate our scoring when we're at home, where we'll have the luxury of keeping our 1st line away from your 3rd line and can put our 1st or 2nd line against either your 2nd line or your 4th line. Thus giving Gwinnett a significant advantage.

That only means our 4th line is not shutdown/energy line. That is not a disadvantage, we wanted it that way.

They (4th line) are there to score goals in their limited ice-time.
Our other lines are all two-way lines.
And yes, our third line is the primary checking line, but our 1st and 2nd lines are good enough defensively and offensively to handle whatever is needed.

And we're the home team in this match-up, so we have the luxury of exploiting this weakness.

Line-up matching does matter, and in this case, you're on the wrong end of the stick.

Because you are the home team, you get one extra home game (at best), but we have a better coach anyway, so I am not worried about disadvantageous match-ups against us.
 

Rick Middleton

Registered User
May 14, 2002
72,016
17
Ottawa, ON
The point that I'm making is that coach won't make your players defensive liabilities go away.

Coaches coach, players play, and if your player is weak defensively, he will continue to be weak defensively regardless of the coach. And because you have 2 weak defensive lines, this will be a problem against a balanced scoring attack, especially when one line, our 2nd line, is markedly better than it's counterpart.

We simply have more offensive threats than what your team can handle, and because of that, there will be defensive mis-matches.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
What the series comes down to is basically this:

- Chicago has a small advantage on the first unit. The defensive pairings are similar in quality, and Gwinnett has the best forward in the series in Frank Boucher, while Chicago has the next two best in Ovechkin / Fedorov. Gwinnett also has an outstanding clutch all-around performer on Boucher's wing in Foyston. The last matchup of Alfredsson vs. Guerin is a lot closer than Chicago would like it to be.

- Gwinnett has an enormous advantage on the second unit. Paul Coffey is far and away the best player on either second unit, and Smith and Fredrickson are the second and third best, also by margins. Burrows is a better #4 than Tsygankov, being a good deal more proven defensively. Heatley vs. Thompson is the single matchup of the units where Chicago can claim rough equality. This matchup is murder for the Steelers, who do not have the goods to handle the players coming at them.

- Gwinnett has the better special teams units, with a substantial advantage on the powerplay and a smaller one on the penalty kill.

- Third lines are roughly equal.

- Gwinnett has a quite strong third pairing in Tinordi / Timonen, and while Bubla is a good #5, Gregg is a career depth defenseman who is among the worst blueliners in the draft.

- 4th lines are a wash / it doesn't much matter.

Basically, the only significant advantage Chicago has is the Ovechkin vs. Foyston comparison, and that advantage narrows a good deal in the postseason, where Foyston was the dominant scorer of his generation. Gwinnett's three huge comparative advantages on the second unit (Coffey vs. Talbot, Fredrickson vs Roenick, Smith vs Recchi) are sufficient to simply dominate, and there's nothing Chicago can do about it.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
Tarasov depended on all his lines to be working as 5 man units, they were meant to be responsible in all zones of the ice.

Again, I'd like to know if Cecil Hart was a line matcher.

Given the style of hockey played at the time, it is highly probable that none of those coaches could be called "line matchers" in the modern sense. Much as we handle skaters who played before the era of the forward pass or the power play, the only way to handle coaches from this period is to assume that they are neither particularly good nor bad (relative to their overall quality as coaches) at executing strategies outside the scope of their era.
 

jarek

Registered User
Aug 15, 2009
10,004
238
If Cecil Hart wasn't a line matcher in real life, and you want him to be a line matcher here, then his overall impact will be lessened, in my mind.
 

Rick Middleton

Registered User
May 14, 2002
72,016
17
Ottawa, ON
If Cecil Hart wasn't a line matcher in real life, and you want him to be a line matcher here, then his overall impact will be lessened, in my mind.

Until someone provides evidence that he wasn't, the lack of evidence either way does not prove anything. And I would think that a coach that won four divisional titles; led his team to six straight Stanley Cup final four appearances; and two consecutive Stanley Cups in 1930 and 1931 might be able to recognize a mismatch.

Just saying.
 

jarek

Registered User
Aug 15, 2009
10,004
238
Until someone provides evidence that he wasn't, the lack of evidence either way does not prove anything. And I would think that a coach that won four divisional titles; led his team to six straight Stanley Cup final four appearances; and two consecutive Stanley Cups in 1930 and 1931 might be able to recognize a mismatch.

Just saying.

This is a very fallible way of thinking. It is no better than cup counting.

The reality of the times will have dictated how Hart coached. He very well may have sent out the Morenz line against the opposition's best simply because that line would outskate the other team's best line. No conclusive proof one way or another tells me that you cannot reliably say that Hart would be a master line matcher.. therefore, not as effective.
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,676
3,538
This is a very fallible way of thinking. It is no better than cup counting.

The reality of the times will have dictated how Hart coached. He very well may have sent out the Morenz line against the opposition's best simply because that line would outskate the other team's best line. No conclusive proof one way or another tells me that you cannot reliably say that Hart would be a master line matcher.. therefore, not as effective.

For the purposes of the ATD though.. don't we have to assume that a great coach is a great coach in any era just like a player is?

If not then we have a horrible can of worms. Like I said in the other thread where you brought up how players used to play the whole game so scoring finishes were distorted by having so few players with opportunity.

That is the same with all the smaller leagues to larger size leagues and playoff sample sizes.

Either we are evaluating players and coaches on some sort of fantasy time machine equal training/equipment/coaching equivalent or this whole thing collapses very quickly.
 

jarek

Registered User
Aug 15, 2009
10,004
238
For the purposes of the ATD though.. don't we have to assume that a great coach is a great coach in any era just like a player is?

If not then we have a horrible can of worms. Like I said in the other thread where you brought up how players used to play the whole game so scoring finishes were distorted by having so few players with opportunity.

That is the same with all the smaller leagues to larger size leagues and playoff sample sizes.

Either we are evaluating players and coaches on some sort of fantasy time machine equal training/equipment/coaching equivalent or this whole thing collapses very quickly.

I think it gives older coaches a large advantage when compared to more modern coaches if we just assume they can adapt to any coaching strategy. Pat Quinn never line matched.. you could put a gun to his head, and he would still roll all 4 lines. Why should we give special treatment to older coaches?
 

Rick Middleton

Registered User
May 14, 2002
72,016
17
Ottawa, ON
This is a very fallible way of thinking. It is no better than cup counting.

The reality of the times will have dictated how Hart coached. He very well may have sent out the Morenz line against the opposition's best simply because that line would outskate the other team's best line. No conclusive proof one way or another tells me that you cannot reliably say that Hart would be a master line matcher.. therefore, not as effective.

You're talking to me about fallacies? You're committing a huge logical fallacy here.

You're saying Hart may have line matched, or he may not have. We have no real conclusive proof either way. Therefore, we can conclude that he would be an ineffective line matcher.

What?

Who's to say he wasn't the best damned line-matcher there was? No one to my knowledge.

The fact of the matter is that there are 2 lines on Chicago that can be exploited defensively. Their GM's even admitted as much. As such, a balanced offense like Gwinnett's will be able to exploit that weakness. All that's left to say is how much they will be able to exploit it.

If Hart was masterful in line-matching, then by a substantial amount.

If he simply rolled 4 lines, eventually he's going to have a favorable outcome and his good offensive lines will come up against Chicago's poor offensive lines.

Either way, I cannot fathom how a good coach would NOT be able to spot a weakness regardless of whether his forte was line matching or not. His Canadiens finished 1st or 2nd in his first 7 seasons. That to me indicates that he knows something about hockey, and might pick up on the fact that Chicago has a couple of weaknesses in their lines.
 

Sturminator

Love is a duel
Feb 27, 2002
9,894
1,070
West Egg, New York
This is a very fallible way of thinking. It is no better than cup counting.

The reality of the times will have dictated how Hart coached. He very well may have sent out the Morenz line against the opposition's best simply because that line would outskate the other team's best line. No conclusive proof one way or another tells me that you cannot reliably say that Hart would be a master line matcher.. therefore, not as effective.

Heh...well, I see no reason to believe that Hart will be as good as a coach who is a known great line matcher. I expect Hart to be average in that department relative to his overall level of skill, just like Cy Denneny executing forward passes in the offensive zone. Don't get cut on your own sword, jarek.

But there is no need for line matching in the matchup, anyway, as all of Gwinnett's forward lines are strong defensively. The only strategically important element for Hart (and this will be true throughout the playoffs) is to use Paul Coffey as much as possible to attack Chicago's lower units, which isn't hard to do.
 

jarek

Registered User
Aug 15, 2009
10,004
238
Heh...well, I see no reason to believe that Hart will be as good as a coach who is a known great line matcher. I expect Hart to be average in that department relative to his overall level of skill, just like Cy Denneny executing forward passes in the offensive zone. Don't get cut on your own sword, jarek.

But there is no need for line matching in the matchup, anyway, as all of Gwinnett's forward lines are strong defensively. The only strategically important element for Hart (and this will be true throughout the playoffs) is to use Paul Coffey as much as possible to attack Chicago's lower units, which isn't hard to do.

Players can adapt to new ways of playing. Even some coaches are able to adapt to new coaching styles. Some coaches, and hell, even some players.. they just can't adapt to anything new. Jacques Lemaire and Pat Quinn strike me as two obvious examples. All I know about Hart is that he liked to have fast forwards and big, tough, mean defensemen. This is what he strived to have on his team. What I would like to know is, how did he manage his team?

I can accept that he'd be average, but I would very much like to know more, if possible.
 

jarek

Registered User
Aug 15, 2009
10,004
238
You're talking to me about fallacies? You're committing a huge logical fallacy here.

You're saying Hart may have line matched, or he may not have. We have no real conclusive proof either way. Therefore, we can conclude that he would be an ineffective line matcher.

What?

Who's to say he wasn't the best damned line-matcher there was? No one to my knowledge.

The fact of the matter is that there are 2 lines on Chicago that can be exploited defensively. Their GM's even admitted as much. As such, a balanced offense like Gwinnett's will be able to exploit that weakness. All that's left to say is how much they will be able to exploit it.

If Hart was masterful in line-matching, then by a substantial amount.

If he simply rolled 4 lines, eventually he's going to have a favorable outcome and his good offensive lines will come up against Chicago's poor offensive lines.

Either way, I cannot fathom how a good coach would NOT be able to spot a weakness regardless of whether his forte was line matching or not. His Canadiens finished 1st or 2nd in his first 7 seasons. That to me indicates that he knows something about hockey, and might pick up on the fact that Chicago has a couple of weaknesses in their lines.

Again.. Pat Quinn never, ever got away from his line rolling game, regardless of who the other team was. Claude Julien has been an inept power play coach, and he still does things the same way he has always done..
 

BraveCanadian

Registered User
Jun 30, 2010
14,676
3,538
I think it gives older coaches a large advantage when compared to more modern coaches if we just assume they can adapt to any coaching strategy. Pat Quinn never line matched.. you could put a gun to his head, and he would still roll all 4 lines. Why should we give special treatment to older coaches?

First, I know that is the popular groupthink around here but Quinn did certainly go for particular matchups/shadows at times. Just not ALL the time or by his preference.

Second, if we decide that coaches from yesteryear can't linematch because during those times players played the whole game and line matching wasn't even done.. then what do we decide about the players of that time who scored in the top 5 because they happened to play all the time?

Where do you draw the line?

If we are going to try and determine which team would win with players and coaches from all eras.. we have to assume one context or another to evaluate them in.. and if we're thinking about linematching then obviously it is a more modern context.

Or are we going to say that guys like Morenz (just an example!) etc. who played the most of or the entire game every game and were one of what.. 10 players who had a chance at being top 10 should be less effective if we're changing lines in our fantasy exercise here?
 

Reds4Life

Registered User
Dec 24, 2007
3,896
223
Basically, the only significant advantage Chicago has is the Ovechkin vs. Foyston comparison, and that advantage narrows a good deal in the postseason, where Foyston was the dominant scorer of his generation. Gwinnett's three huge comparative advantages on the second unit (Coffey vs. Talbot, Fredrickson vs Roenick, Smith vs Recchi) are sufficient to simply dominate, and there's nothing Chicago can do about it.

Oh really? I am sure we can. Tarasov can simply use our first line against your second. You'd be lucky to throw a shot at Fuhr when you play against Savard-Vasiliev. If that's the case, then our second or third line against your first is something I would not mind at all. Our lines are well built, with clear roles for every player.

We have a clear edge in goal and behind the bench.
These two advantages will be present for the whole series, in all games.
We trust Tarasov to make necessary changes on the fly, which is why we actually picked him as our head coach. Now, THIS is something you can't do anything about.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad