ATD2021 FINAL - Orillia Terriers vs. Guelph Platers

[ChiTownPhilly]

I don't want to get too bogged down on this Cooney Weiland thing- because (when I look at it) Weiland-Tavares, Tavares-Weiland... series isn't going to hinge on how I view these two. I have a few more observations, though-

1. @Dirt 101 IS relatively consistent in disregarding outlier seasons in a very unforgiving manner. In fact, he cites Fedorov's top Regular Season as an uncharacteristic fluke and justifies not considering him as a top-120 player by dismissing that campaign. In the case of Weiland, most of the rest of us consider his top season to be 9% of his career- (not 0%), and has been put on-the-board and is not going away.

2. The voter-reaction to Weiland's 1929-1930 NHL-year is one of those puzzlers (like Charlie Conacher's lack of Hart support) where I might want to have a go at fitting the pieces together. [Spoiler alert- in the case of Conacher, I've satisfied myself that it WASN'T lack of defense that made it a problem. I could link my HoH top-100 posts on this matter... but I digress.]

3. Cooney Weiland was the top scorer on a offensive juggernaut team that applied buri buri whipping torture to the Regular Season. Yet, when it came time to vote on the Hart, the leading Bruin was Lionel Hitchman. Yes, Hitch- who garnered more votes than Weiland AND Eddie Shore- (and Shore was the number two scorer among Defensemen that year). Perspectives change- the things that hockey fans value change... I don't think it's controversial to say that, given how we view seasonal performance these days, there's no way moderns would look at Hitchman's performance and think 'Hart Finalist.' We probably wouldn't even consider him a Norris Finalist(!) One of the things I discovered while unpacking the Conacher issue is that voters of that time really, really placed a premium on playing every game, or (at least) almost every game. So maybe Hitch played more games than Weiland? No- just the opposite[!?!]

So here you have the leading scorer of the league, playing in a year that Boston lapped the field in goals scored, who had a "perfect attendance" campaign, buttressed by all kinds of contemporary (if preponderantly home-town) quotes saying how fine we was, defensively, and he's not considered the most valuable player on his own team{?!?} That's one heck of a riddle.

I might try to solve it, the way I solved Conacher. Thank G_d I'm under no obligation to solve it, though.

 

[tinyzombies]

Love all this commentary- great stuff.

 

[Professor What]

This part is a lot more fun when watching other people do it. And I don't think any series has driven that home more than this one.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I don't want to get too bogged down on this Cooney Weiland thing- because (when I look at it) Weiland-Tavares, Tavares-Weiland... series isn't going to hinge on how I view these two.

Agree, would love to see the discussion move on to other topics. Perhaps I can help...

There are some big guns on each team (Gretzky/Ovechkin). What is each team's plan for these players?

 

[Dreakmur]

There are some big guns on each team (Gretzky/Ovechkin). What is each team's plan for these players?

With Ovechkin coming down the left wing, he happens to match up against Orillia's two best defensive defensemen - Drew Doughty and Bill White.

Orillia also has the excellent option of using Claude Provost in that match-up.

 

[Dreakmur]

First Lines: Phillips-Gretzky-Conacher vs. Ovechkin-Oates-Hextall
-Orillia's line has a combined ES vs.X score of 337.
-Guelph has a combined score of 259.2

-Defensively, I think they're pretty close. Phillips is elite, which Oates and Hextall are both good.
-Physically, Guelph has an edge. Conacher is likely the baddest guy on either line, but Ovechkin and Hextall combine for more.

-In the play-offs Orillia has true big-game players. Gretzky is the best play-off performer ever, and Phillips was a Cup Challenge ringer. None of Guelph's guys are bad in the play-offs, but none are particularly good either.

This is a significant advantage for Orillia.


Second Lines: Marchand-Barry-Bauer vs. Thompson-Apps-Smith
-Orillia's line combines for an ES vs.X score of 254.7.
-Guelph has a combines score of 239.6.

-Defensively, Guelph has a better array of defensively capable players.
-Physically, Guelph's Alf Smith isn't matched on the Orillia side.

-Both teams have good play-offs performers, and seems to be a wash.

This looks like to be pretty close to even.


Third Lines: Panarin-Weiland-Provost vs. Stevens-Tavares-Rousseau
-Orillia's line combines for an ES vs.X score of 244.6.
-Guelph has a score of 221.5.

-Defensively, Orillia has a very large advantage. Provost is among the super-elite defensive wingers, and Weiland is a strong defensive contributor. Rousseau is good. Tavares and Panarin are not bad.

-Physically, Guelph has the edge, even with Rousseau likely being the softest of the 6.

This is a significant advantage for Orillia.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Agree, would love to see the discussion move on to other topics. Perhaps I can help...

There are some big guns on each team (Gretzky/Ovechkin). What is each team's plan for these players?

My plan is to let Al Arbour do his thing. If I'm not mistaken we're the higher seed here and have home ice so we'll get more of the matchups we would like.

We have the type of team Arbour would have liked with a bit of everything. Talented enough to compete with talent teams, fast enough to compete with speed teams, and rugged enough to compete with tough teams. Each of our lines are at least sound defensively (I think it is fair to say 2-3 them are plus as a line), feature some strong physical play that I don't think Orilla can match, and can still score. Our top 4 on defense are very solid as whole too. There are no weak links to exploit.

Arbour faced the dynasty Oilers with Gretzky twice in the finals. The first time in '83 the Isles schooled the Oilers. The second time around the Isles finally had nothing left in the tank after playing 20 straight playoff series and the Oilers were ascendent. Both times Arbour's game planning significantly slowed down Gretzky.

In '83 Gretzky scored 196 points in 80 regular season games for 2.45PPG. In the series with the Islanders he had 4 assists in their 4 games = 1.0 PPG. A difference of 1.45PPG.

In '84 Gretzky scored 205 points in 74 regular season games for 2.77PPG. In the win against the Islanders he had 7 points in 5 games = 1.4PPG. A difference of 1.37PPG.

Small sample sizes to be sure but it is something.

 

[BraveCanadian]

First Lines: Phillips-Gretzky-Conacher vs. Ovechkin-Oates-Hextall
Gretzky is the best play-off performer ever, and Phillips was a Cup Challenge ringer. None of Guelph's guys are bad in the play-offs, but none are particularly good either.

I hope to have more time later this weekend to go more in depth on this stuff. Gretzky is definitely one of the best big game players ever but I think some of our players are probably ok in the playoffs.

Ovechkin easy winner in Conn Smythe Trophy voting

 

[Dreakmur]

I hope to have more time later this weekend to go more in depth on this stuff. Gretzky is definitely one of the best big game players ever but I think some of our players are probably ok in the playoffs.

View attachment 431192

Ovechkin easy winner in Conn Smythe Trophy voting

All three are fine.... just not great.

Ovechkin didn’t deserve that Conn Smythe, but he was also a good playoff scorer for most of his career.

 

[Dreakmur]

My plan is to let Al Arbour do his thing. If I'm not mistaken we're the higher seed here and have home ice so we'll get more of the matchups we would like.

Yes, I believe Guelph has home ice advantage.

We have the type of team Arbour would have liked with a bit of everything. Talented enough to compete with talent teams, fast enough to compete with speed teams, and rugged enough to compete with tough teams. Each of our lines are at least sound defensively (I think it is fair to say 2-3 them are plus as a line), feature some strong physical play that I don't think Orilla can match, and can still score.

There are many reasons that your team has made it this far. It is a well balanced group with few major weaknesses.

That did come at the cost of also having no major strengths.

Our top 4 on defense are very solid as whole too. There are no weak links to exploit.

All 4 are strong defensively, but a lack of puck-moving ability is certainly a weakness that Orillia will plan to exploit.

Arbour faced the dynasty Oilers with Gretzky twice in the finals. The first time in '83 the Isles schooled the Oilers. The second time around the Isles finally had nothing left in the tank after playing 20 straight playoff series and the Oilers were ascendent. Both times Arbour's game planning significantly slowed down Gretzky.

In '83 Gretzky scored 196 points in 80 regular season games for 2.45PPG. In the series with the Islanders he had 4 assists in their 4 games = 1.0 PPG. A difference of 1.45PPG.

In '84 Gretzky scored 205 points in 74 regular season games for 2.77PPG. In the win against the Islanders he had 7 points in 5 games = 1.4PPG. A difference of 1.37PPG.

Small sample sizes to be sure but it is something.

Two big parts of Al Arbour's game plan are not present in this series. Bryan Trottier was an elite two-way centre, which Guelph does not have. Dennis Potvin was an elite two-way defenseman, which Guelph does not have.

In those series against Edmonton, Al Arbour was easily the better coach. In this series, I think he's the weaker coach. Lester Patrick is not Glenn Sather.

 

[BraveCanadian]

First Lines: Phillips-Gretzky-Conacher vs. Ovechkin-Oates-Hextall
-Orillia's line has a combined ES vs.X score of 337.
-Guelph has a combined score of 259.2

-Defensively, I think they're pretty close. Phillips is elite, which Oates and Hextall are both good.
-Physically, Guelph has an edge. Conacher is likely the baddest guy on either line, but Ovechkin and Hextall combine for more.

-In the play-offs Orillia has true big-game players. Gretzky is the best play-off performer ever, and Phillips was a Cup Challenge ringer. None of Guelph's guys are bad in the play-offs, but none are particularly good either.

This is a significant advantage for Orillia.

It is easy to see that Orillia's first line is a step up offensively from our own -- how could they not be with Gretzky!

However I do think that our line is better defensively and physically. Fixating on ES makes things look worse than they actually are for us because one of our best offensive players makes hay on the PP (Ovechkin). We're counting on our PP again in this series because we have a large physical advantage up front and I think we're going to generate a lot of PPs when Orillia retaliates.

Second Lines: Marchand-Barry-Bauer vs. Thompson-Apps-Smith
-Orillia's line combines for an ES vs.X score of 254.7.
-Guelph has a combines score of 239.6.

-Defensively, Guelph has a better array of defensively capable players.
-Physically, Guelph's Alf Smith isn't matched on the Orillia side.

-Both teams have good play-offs performers, and seems to be a wash.

This looks like to be pretty close to even.

Disagree here. Once you consider their complete offense (because all these players do in fact play on the powerplay outside of Smith for me), our second line is better offensively, defensively, and physically. It also features the best player in Apps.

2nd lines are an advantage for Guelph in every aspect.

Third Lines: Panarin-Weiland-Provost vs. Stevens-Tavares-Rousseau
-Orillia's line combines for an ES vs.X score of 244.6.
-Guelph has a score of 221.5.

-Defensively, Orillia has a very large advantage. Provost is among the super-elite defensive wingers, and Weiland is a strong defensive contributor. Rousseau is good. Tavares and Panarin are not bad.

-Physically, Guelph has the edge, even with Rousseau likely being the softest of the 6.

This is a significant advantage for Orillia.

Disagree again. Focusing on ES as the only metric again punishes our line because two of them (Stevens and Rousseau) play PP minutes as they did in real life. They will produce some offense there as well. Offensively imo Tavares > Weiland, Rousseau >> Provost, and while Panarin will end up being better than Stevens due to his injuries and problems, he doesn't even have enough mileage to reach the 7 year career benchmark we normally like to see here to compare across time. Physically, Stevens gives Guelph the edge again.

Similar to the last series, if it is defense you're looking for from your 3rd line I can see the case being made for Orillia's third line. Offensively and physically Guelph's 3rd line is better imo, and still decent defensively.


Fourth Lines: Sutter - Henry - Floyd Curry vs. Tremblay - Luce - Pronovost

Here is where Orillia has stashed some specialists whereas I tried to find rounded players to still fill in some special team roles. At ES Guelph's 4th line is as good or better than Orillia's at every position. Henry has to get a boost for the time he's on the PP so he will close some of that gap. However Luce is better defensively by a wide margin. The wingers on both lines are all good defensively as well.

Guelph's 4th line is better offensively, defensively and physically.


In summary, as soon as you get past Orillia's superstar first line, Guelph's forward depth takes over and the advantage gets more extreme the farther down the lineup you go. In addition, Guelph's forwards enjoy a physical edge in each matchup. How is Orillia going to deal with the punishment of being outmatched physically for 60 minutes of every game?

Add in the fact that our top 4 defense is better than Orillia's and their 1st line begins to look like an island.

 

[Dreakmur]

It is easy to see that Orillia's first line is a step up offensively from our own -- how could they not be with Gretzky!

However I do think that our line is better defensively and physically. Fixating on ES makes things look worse than they actually are for us because one of our best offensive players makes hay on the PP (Ovechkin). We're counting on our PP again in this series because we have a large physical advantage up front and I think we're going to generate a lot of PPs when Orillia retaliates.

Fixating on ES scoring may make it look worse, but the important thing is that it makes it more accurate. Being good on the PP means nothing when we're playing at ES.

Trying to intimidate leads to PKs. Trying to agitate leads to PPs. Brad Marchand alone will pretty much ensure Orillia winds up with more PP opportunities.

Disagree here. Once you consider their complete offense (because all these players do in fact play on the powerplay outside of Smith for me), our second line is better offensively, defensively, and physically. It also features the best player in Apps.

2nd lines are an advantage for Guelph in every aspect.

Again, PP scoring means nothing at ES.

Apps is the best player, but Smith is by far the worst.

Disagree again. Focusing on ES as the only metric again punishes our line because two of them (Stevens and Rousseau) play PP minutes as they did in real life. They will produce some offense there as well. Offensively imo Tavares > Weiland, Rousseau >> Provost, and while Panarin will end up being better than Stevens due to his injuries and problems, he doesn't even have enough mileage to reach the 7 year career benchmark we normally like to see here to compare across time. Physically, Stevens gives Guelph the edge again.

Similar to the last series, if it is defense you're looking for from your 3rd line I can see the case being made for Orillia's third line. Offensively and physically Guelph's 3rd line is better imo, and still decent defensively.

Focusing on ES has nothing to do with punishing. It's about truly measuring contributions. Yes, Stevens and Rousseau will play on the PP, and they'll score there. Panarin and Provost are elite scorers at ES, and they won't be playing on the PP.

How decent defensively is Guelph's line really? Stevens has no defensive game. Tavares is barely a plus, just like Panarin. Rousseau is easily the best of the three, and he's more of a special teams specialist who contributes very little of anything at ES.

Fourth Lines: Sutter - Henry - Floyd Curry vs. Tremblay - Luce - Pronovost

Here is where Orillia has stashed some specialists whereas I tried to find rounded players to still fill in some special team roles. At ES Guelph's 4th line is as good or better than Orillia's at every position. Henry has to get a boost for the time he's on the PP so he will close some of that gap. However Luce is better defensively by a wide margin. The wingers on both lines are all good defensively as well.

Guelph's 4th line is better offensively, defensively and physically.

Yes, Guelph's 4th line is a much better line at ES.

Orillia did stash specialists here. That allowed me to take ES monsters like Marchand, Provost, and Panarin in the top 9. I use the ES specialists at ES, and then use the PP specialists on the PP.

In summary, as soon as you get past Orillia's superstar first line, Guelph's forward depth takes over and the advantage gets more extreme the farther down the lineup you go. In addition, Guelph's forwards enjoy a physical edge in each matchup. How is Orillia going to deal with the punishment of being outmatched physically for 60 minutes of every game?

My first retort would be a question. How exactly does Gueph plan to inflict that punishment? The most intimidating physical players are all lined up on the wing. Those players are most able to inflict punishment on the forecheck. Jacques Plante's best-all-time puck-handling ability will seriously reduce Guelph's ability to engage in any kind of serious forechecking. In addition to the goaltender, Orillia's defensemen are much more adept at moving the puck up ice than Guelph's. Our forward lines are build upon speed and skill, which makes it tricky to intimidate within the guildelines of the rulebook. I think Guelph is going to struggle to actually inflict much punishment.

Outside of that, Orillia plans to balance out the tough physical play by relaxing with the inevitable PP minutes, which are much easier than ES.

Add in the fact that our top 4 defense is better than Orillia's and their 1st line begins to look like an island.

Brad Park is the best defenseman in the series. After that, I'm not seeing any advantage for Guelph on the blueline.

Scott Niedermeyer is significantly better than Moose Johnson.

I think Orillia's second pair is better than Guelph's, and I think Orillia's third pair is much better.

 

[Dreakmur]

Guelph's Puck-Moving Trouble

Defense: Beyond Brad Park, Guelph's top-4 defensemen lack much offensive ability. Bill White is Orillia's weakest puck mover, and he has a 7 season ES vs.X score of 69.9. To compare, Hap Day has 74.6, Sylvio Mantha has 69.7, and Moose Johnson has a 52.7.

Park is a very good puck-mover. Moose Johnson is very bad. Day and Mantha are pretty mediocre.

First Line: Neither Ovechkin nor Hextall are particularly good puck-carriers, they are much more likely to be forced into a dump-and-chase game. That plays right into Jacques Plante's puck-handling strengths. If that line wants to enter the zone with puck control, they'll have to rely heavily on Adam Oates, who isn't particularly good through the neural zone. While he was an elite set-up man, he specialized in stationary offensive zone schemes. His lack of speed hurts him through the neutral zone.

When Guelph's first line is teamed up with their second pairing, they are really going to struggle to get the puck into the offensive zone.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Guelph's Puck-Moving Trouble

Defense: Beyond Brad Park, Guelph's top-4 defensemen lack much offensive ability. Bill White is Orillia's weakest puck mover, and he has a 7 season ES vs.X score of 69.9. To compare, Hap Day has 74.6, Sylvio Mantha has 69.7, and Moose Johnson has a 52.7.

Park is a very good puck-mover. Moose Johnson is very bad. Day and Mantha are pretty mediocre.

Comparing modern era defensemen to pre-expansion is pretty rough with how few points they scored at that time. A few points would make a big difference back then especially with the shorter schedules as well. I think we'll be just fine moving the puck out.

From the bios that you did here are Stapleton's finishes:
2nd(1969), 3rd(1966), 4th(1968), 4th(1970), 4th(1971), 6th(1967), 9th(1972)

Here are Day's:
1st(1928), 4th(1929), 4th(1930), 4th(1931), 4th(1933), 5th(1934), 6th(1932), 7th(1936)

Here are Doughty's placings:
3rd(2010), 6th(2021), 7th(2018), 9th(2016), 14th(2015), 16th(2017), 18th(2019)

and Mantha's:
3rd(1927), 3rd(1929), 3rd(1930), 5th(1928), 8th(1931), 9th(1935)

I think we'll be fine.

Pretty sure we all know Johnson isn't fantastic, but he's great defensively and allows Park some more leeway. Our third pairing also has two players who can move the puck very smartly.

First Line: Neither Ovechkin nor Hextall are particularly good puck-carriers, they are much more likely to be forced into a dump-and-chase game. That plays right into Jacques Plante's puck-handling strengths. If that line wants to enter the zone with puck control, they'll have to rely heavily on Adam Oates, who isn't particularly good through the neural zone. While he was an elite set-up man, he specialized in stationary offensive zone schemes. His lack of speed hurts him through the neutral zone.

When Guelph's first line is teamed up with their second pairing, they are really going to struggle to get the puck into the offensive zone.

Half career Ovechkin is a super dynamic player. He didn't just rely on his shot his whole career.

You have some information on Hextall that I haven't seen? While he is a superb cornerman, I haven't seen much to say that he couldn't handle the puck.

I'll have to see the evidence about Oates relying on a stationary offensive scheme. Don't recall that from watching him play. Giving one of the best passers ever two strong scoring wingers seems like a pretty good setup for getting through the neutral zone. After all, you can't outrun the puck.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Why Guelph should win this series:

1) We have home ice advantage and a coach in Al Arbour who has some proven success slowing down Gretzky in playoff situations. Our team is built with the Bill Torrey/Isles blueprint of having enough talent to compete with finesse teams, enough physicality to compete with tough teams, and enough speed to compete with speed teams -- all while having no exploitable weakness.

2) In this series we enjoy a tremendous physical advantage throughout the lineup and a defensive one throughout the vast majority of it. We are going to wear them down and cause retaliatory penalties.

3) Outside of Orillia's first line, the advantage that they appear to have offensively at ES disappears once you consider PP time. While more minutes are played at ES, PP time is a higher event time and our PP is very strong. When you more comprehensively compare the offense of the players that play both sets of minutes, I think that Guelph has superior offense throughout all the rest of the forward lines while maintaining an edge physically, and defensively overall.

4) Guelph has the top defenseman in the series with Brad Park. Our top 4 is strong defensively as a group with no weak links and can still move the puck.

5) While Plante is an edge for the Orillia team, in keeping with Guelph's philosophy of having no exploitable weaknesses, Dryden is also a top 10 goaltender of all time and has a strong playoff pedigree of his own.

Had a great time in the ATD this year, everyone. Looking forward to seeing how it turns out!

 

[Dreakmur]

Comparing modern era defensemen to pre-expansion is pretty rough with how few points they scored at that time. A few points would make a big difference back then especially with the shorter schedules as well. I think we'll be just fine moving the puck out.

The entire reason we stopped using raw point finishes is because they don't transfer between eras. With fewer players competing for spots on the leader board, it becomes so much easier to land there. How close you were to the leaders is something that doesn't depend on how large the league was, and transfers much better.

The vs.x system is far superior when determining how defensemen produced.

Half career Ovechkin is a super dynamic player. He didn't just rely on his shot his whole career.

Yeah, he might be a bit better through the neutral zone than I initially thought.. but what happens when he gets into the zone? A shot from whatever angle he can get, right?

You have some information on Hextall that I haven't seen? While he is a superb cornerman, I haven't seen much to say that he couldn't handle the puck.

It's not about his ability to handle a puck. It's about navigating the neutral zone - reading defensive patterns and finding the best way to enter the zone. His heavy leaning towards shooting instead of passing would indicate that he probably didn't see the ice very well.

I'll have to see the evidence about Oates relying on a stationary offensive scheme. Don't recall that from watching him play. Giving one of the best passers ever two strong scoring wingers seems like a pretty good setup for getting through the neutral zone. After all, you can't outrun the puck.

Honestly, that's just my opinion based on watching him. He had good vision through the neutral zone, but he lacked the speed to truly take advantage of that. Once he got set up, and the defence became much more stationary, he truly excelled.

Yes, puck movement is key, but this line relies to heavily on Oates to make it move. Neither Ovechkin nor Hextall have much playmaking skills, so the play will usually end once it gets to them. They'll either shoot it, dump it, or lose it. Passing it back isn't really in their arsenal.[/quote]

 

[Dreakmur]

Why Guelph should win this series:

1) We have home ice advantage and a coach in Al Arbour who has some proven success slowing down Gretzky in playoff situations. Our team is built with the Bill Torrey/Isles blueprint of having enough talent to compete with finesse teams, enough physicality to compete with tough teams, and enough speed to compete with speed teams -- all while having no exploitable weakness.

With home ice, Guelph's minor coaching disadvantage should be mitigated. Lester Patrick is a better coach, but the gap isn't particularly wide.

2) In this series we enjoy a tremendous physical advantage throughout the lineup and a defensive one throughout the vast majority of it. We are going to wear them down and cause retaliatory penalties.

Guelph does have an advantage in the physical play. That's a double-edged sword - you might be able to intimidate Orillia, but you might also run into penalty trouble.

Defensively, I'm not sure. Claude Provost and Tommy Phillips are easily the two best defensive forwards on either team. The only really good defensive players on the Guelph roster are on the 4th line, and won't make much of an impact with that little amount of ice time.

3) Outside of Orillia's first line, the advantage that they appear to have offensively at ES disappears once you consider PP time. While more minutes are played at ES, PP time is a higher event time and our PP is very strong. When you more comprehensively compare the offense of the players that play both sets of minutes, I think that Guelph has superior offense throughout all the rest of the forward lines while maintaining an edge physically, and defensively overall.

You can consider the PP scoring on the PP. Despite Orillia having Gretzky, I think Guelph actually has a better PP, mostly on the strength of Brad Park being much better than anything Orilla has on the blueline. How much time will Guelph have to play with the man advantage? Looking at each team's roster, Guelph looks like they'll be taking a lot more penalties than Orillia.

At ES, where the vast majority of the game is played, Orillia has a significant scoring advantage. Even beyond their high skill forwards, Orillia has much more puck-moving ability on the blueline.

Even if the PP opportunities are equal, that's just going to be 5-7 minutes per game per team. That leaves 45-50 minutes of ES strength play.

4) Guelphs top 4 is strong defensively as a group with no weak links and can still move the puck.

It's tough to say exactly how good or bad they'll be at moving the puck. It's safe to say, though, that Orillia will be significantly better in that regard.[/quote]