ATD2021 Jim Robson Divisional Semi-Final: Pittsburgh AC vs. Ottawa Senators

[overpass]

That's fine sir. I don't object to that. I object to it being called "a joke" or "stupid low" in Larionov's case. Especially if people aren't going to even attempt to come up with a number. I hate just saying "that's BS" without offering a sensible counter.

I mean I did highlight, in bold in my overview, that Larionov is out of position and with far less talent than Makarov/Krutov. So, one, I don't think 70 is at all low for him, and two, even IF it is a bit low, he's not playing remotely the same way or in the same position he did in real life. So....

Kapustin is the wild card. I'm certainly open to seeing that number jump. It just takes discussion which I'm all for! Been doing this too long and have reformed myself well the past few years I think and in no way am trying to short anyone. It's simply a case of a rough guess that MAY be off more than I thought.

But even if you want to bump Sergei to a 75, +25 points still doesn't create a gap in collective VsX. Ottawa is already behind by 30 odd points in the top 6 with the 70 and 50 for the 2 Soviets. You can give them another 30 points and it only evens up the top 6's.

And if there is relative equal between the 2 forward groups, who do you think is going to have more success generating scoring chances when you consider who each team is rolling over the bench on the blueline? Pittsburgh has no liability back there. How well do Gonch and Carlson hold up playing 30+ minutes a night? We can essentially play 2 pairings 95% of the series. There are no easy matchups to exploit and frankly Ottawa doesn't have the horses to consistently threaten Pittsburgh's citadel. Bossy and Hossa especially are up against about as tough a series as you'll ever see. Again, because they get no easy shifts or exploitable matchups.

Sure, the Senators have wonderful defensive C's but that doesn't really help them considering Pittsburgh is built, in this matchup, to make their C's beat us, and I don't think Savard, Fedorov, Toews, and Sanderson is capable of doing that. That is, a very weak collection of scorers in a draft this size.

Again, Ottawa’s forwards are clearly superior to Pittsburgh’s both defensively and offensively.

You can’t just throw VsX numbers out there as an argument. For many of these players those numbers were compiled in a completely different context from the current series. Remember that:

• Bucyk is playing on a first line here instead of a second line, and he didn’t score well against top teams even when playing with Bobby Orr
• Bun Cook isn’t playing with two of the very greatest pre-WWII players.
• Lemaire isn’t playing with Guy Lafleur

• Hawerchuk isn’t going to be double shifting and playing the whole power play to get his stats, like he did in his prime
• Anderson isn’t playing with Mark Messier

When I built the Ottawa forward lines, I focused on drafting players who had a track record of outscoring their opponents. Not just drafting the highest VsX.

Fedorov and Toews in particular are much stronger and more accurately rated when viewed through this lens.

• Dickie Moore - 1.68 R-ON in 4 post-peak seasons (59–60 through 62-63), R-OFF of 1.27.
• Denis Savard - one of the better 80s scoring centres at outscoring, was 1.14 R-ON / 0.99 R-OFF for his career (compare to Hawerchuk’s 1.01/0.92).
• Mike Bossy - 1.80 R-ON for his career (R-OFF of 1.19)!
• Sergei Fedorov - 1.53 R-ON (1.18 R-OFF) for the 90s was behind only the Lindros-Leclair duo. #2 in playoff plus-minus in the 90s despite drawing the hard matchups. R-ON for the two seasons he played with the Russian Five was 2.11!
• Igor Larionov - it’s a waste of time to look at what he did when asked to play a North American style in Vancouver. Look at what he did when he played the Russian possession style. He played like an MVP candidate in San Jose with Makarov, Garpenlov, Ozolinsh and Norton in 93-94. Then he was one of the keys to the success of the Russian Five in Detroit. And he spent his prime as a key player on the Green Unit. Known for his vision and his ability to think two passes ahead, Larionov was an amazing player whose game made other great players even better and facilitated dominant units. To look at his individual scoring numbers and estimate his VsX misses his real impact on the ice. R-ON of 1.60 in San Jose in 93-94 and 2.16 in Detroit for 95-96 and 96-97.
• Jonathan Toews - regular season R-ON of 1.46 (R-OFF of 1.09) over the decade from 08 to 17. Scored relatively better at even strength and on the road. One of the best playoff and international players of his generation and very highly regarded by his peers and decisions makers around the league.
• Marian Hossa - +245 over his career with an R-ON of 1.35 over 1300 games (R-OFF 1.12). Proven chemistry and success with Toews.
• Pavol Demitra - had an R-ON of 1.37 over the decade from 99 to 08. (R-OFF 0.98). Great international player.

Pittsburgh has several forwards with very little track record of playing on outscoring units.

• John Bucyk - R-ON of 1.04 and R-OFF of 1.01 over 1299 GP from 59-60 on.
• Yvan Cournoyer and Jacques Lemaire had career R-ON / R-OFF of 1.56 / 1.48 and 1.67 / 1.52 respectively. Very impressive R-ON numbers, and credit to them to being a big part of dominant teams, but a lot of that dominance was from the D and G positions and their R-ON numbers are only a little better than their R-OFF numbers.
• Dale Hawerchuk. R-ON / R-OFF was 0.95 / 0.89 in Winnipeg and 1.01 / 0.92 for his career. Relied on either double shifting and / or not playing defence to post big scoring numbers.
• Glenn Anderson - career 1.23 R-ON and 1.20 R-OFF. To be fair he was better in the playoffs but on the other hand he was never really the best player on his line.

I should say these numbers aren't really negatives for Cournoyer, Lemaire, or Anderson. I do think a bit less of Bucyk and Hawerchuk though.

 

[tabness]

As sort of discussed in the Philadelphia/Orillia series, yes, there are those of us who aren't really on the VsX tip; it's a nice refinement to the scoring finishes method but I don't see how it fundamentally in itself makes any sort of argument against alternative methods like adjusting for league scoring level (and don't get me wrong, I think there are significant enough issues with that method as well, I've been working on an alternative, but I'm ever the skeptic about comparing stats across eras and generally fall back on talent evaluation anyway).

I would point out that the R-ON/OFF method also is incredibly contextual, probably more so than scoring finishes/VsX.

To take the example of Hawerchuk and Savard, it should be noted that while Hawerchuk in his prime was generally seen as a man on an island, with some of the weakest linemates compared to his peers (LaFontaine with the Islanders would almost certainly be worse yes, also probably add Lemieux before Coffey and Yzerman for much of his prime, but aside from that?), whereas Savard centered what was considered one of the best lines in hockey for some time, with Wilson on the backend (who was very highly regarded at the time even if not so much now given how his career went with injuries and no Cup and finishing off on the expansion Sharks). Just as a case study, in 1987-1988, Savard in the early part of the year kept pace with Gretzky and Lemieux, Wilson got injured a third of the season in, and Savard's scoring dropped significantly, and the team sort of changed their style to be a little less attack focused.

Also, I'd imagine that correlating score effects (game score of when a point was scored) for both Hawerchuk and Savard would bear out at least some of the discrepancy in how much their respective units were outscoring/outscoring, as I'd imagine that Hawerchuk would be scoring more when coming back from behind than Savard, and obviously units deploy and play differently when trailing as compared to with the lead.

It would also be interesting to compare their involvement on goals for (IPP).

With Anderson, while I do think Messier and his north-south power and speed game is better suited for Anderson, it isn't like Messier is on another level than Hawerchuk offensively, better at even strength but worse on the powerplay due to the different playstyles.

For Bucyk, it is pretty reasonable that his even strength scoring isn't very high, after all, he was getting time with Esposito mostly on the powerplay, even Orr more to a lesser extent, and Bucyk isn't generally being promoted as a cornerstone level of player. I think the fact that Pittsburgh has Orr is a strong argument in not discounting Bucyk's scoring to the degree that would usually be done.

 

[ImporterExporter]

And the problem with just throwing out R-ON and R-OFF is context. It's odd to bash VsX and then go and use another metric that is largely based on surroundings, who a player played with, how good/bad the team they were on were. If anything, R-ON/OFF is more contextual than VsX.

I haven't just thrown VsX out there. I've gone in detail, as I always try to do, to make it clear, that the players you have targeted (Bucyk, Cook, Anderson) are NOT being asked to shoulder more than they did in real life. None are the best players on the line. Hell, 2 of the 3 are the 3rd wheel of the line w/Anderson being the Robin to Hawerchuk's Batman.

What do those guys above bring beyond VsX?

Bucyk? Leadership/intangibles, chemistry with Orr, fit/familiarity with dominant goal scoring C, elite forechecking/hitting. Good and consistent scoring at ES and on the PP (special teams roles thread)

Cook? Great defensively at ES or PK elite wheels, clearly had strong hockey IQ and was innovative, even driving the Bread Line at times. Good but not great checker. Good play maker from a wing position. Willing fighter.

Anderson? Elite wheels and forechecker. Great pest. Money player who scored a ton of points/goals (I broke this down earlier) at ES and was right at home next to a superior C in real life. As he is here.

I've clearly outlined how none of those so called overrated VsX players are being asked to do anything more than they did in real life. Your argument would hold water if those players you speak of were being asked to shoulder a heavier burden. They aren't.

Ottawa is superior offensively? The literal numbers do not back this up.

Top line 7 year VsX:

Bucyk = 88.7
Malone = 95*
Martinec = 82.5*

Pittsburgh = 266.2

vs

Moore = 85.4
Savard = 85.5
Bossy = 94.8

Ottawa = 265.7

How about Even Strength Scoring?

Bucyk = 60
Malone = 62 (took his VsX of 95 and multiplied by .33 to represent PP scoring)
Martinec = 55 (took his VsX of 82.5 and x by .33)

Pittsburgh = 177

vs

Moore (scored 30% of his points, on the PP) = 60 (i rounded up)
Savard = 57
Bossy = 67

Ottawa = 183

Offensively speaking, these top lines are essentially a straight wash.


2nd line 7 year VsX:

Cook = 76.4
Lemaire = 77.9
Cournoyer = 77.1

Pittsburgh = 231.4

vs

Kapustin = 75 (bump him up higher than I think anyone would go or could argue, I'm using Martinec as a baseline here, someone who is far better than SK)
Fedorov = 80.8
Larionov = 70 (and that's not even factoring in him being at an unfamilir position. I reality this should be lower but for sake of not being a hardass, I'll keep him at 70).

Ottawa = 225.8


How about Even Strength Scoring?

Cook = 51 (same format as above for scoring line player)
Lemaire = 55
Cournoyer = 48

Pittsburgh = 154

Fedorov = 57
Kapustin = 50* (75 x .33)
Larionov = 47 * (70 x .33)

Ottawa = 154


So let me get this straight. You want to harp on Cook not having his 2 HOF linemates? You keep bringing up Bucyk as if he's needed to drive a line or even be the 2nd best player on it. OK, fine.

• My 2nd line players are all in their correct positions.

• My "subpar" 2nd line STILL garners a smidge more offensive value even after bumping Kap up to 75 and letting Larionov keep his 70 being in a tactically strange position at RW.

• As I clearly pointed out your forwards, against mine, are not superior offensively. No metric gets you there. VsX doesn't do it. ESVsX doesn't do it. Do you have more talent on the top line? Sure, because of the wingers. But collectively, it's not better than Pittsburgh's top unit at actual offensive production. No fudging or moving the goalposts gets you there.

• Dickie Moore isn't playing with Henri Richard. Fact. Moore CANNOT play the same offensive, Art Ross style with Denis Savard. It ignores simple reality and understanding of how Richard played and what he did for that Montreal unit. Moore will have to forecheck on that line for it to work well, and if he does that, I love Pittsburgh's chances of countering with the speed and skill coming out of the back end and the F's that link up extremely well with Orr/Seibert. Even IF you think Savard and Bossy will always be in position to cover up, they're very beatable skating backwards, trying to defend.

• Dickie Moore isn't playing with Maurice Richard. Another fact.

• Bossy isn't too far down the list from the Rocket, but Bossy didn't play like Richard.

• Bucyk is, as he should be, still the 3rd wheel on a scoring line. You know. Like real life. He has a goal dominant, 1st line C. He has a much better RW than he did in real life in Martinec and Bobby Orr/Earl Seibert driving possession all game from the back end. Bucyk's 10 year score is literally just barely below Moore's 7 year version. And you can't claim Moore didn't benefit from superior players around him. It's just not a sensible argument.

• You downgraded the C for Moore, especially important because Savard and Henri Richard couldn't be more different.

• My downgrade from Phil Espo to Malone still fits, as a minimum, stylistically as Malone clearly played a similar game and his best attribute, like Espo, is putting the rubber in the net.

• You went from Henri and Maurice Richard to Denis Savard and Mike Bossy. There is no way to conclude that Moore is in the same familiar environment he enjoyed in the 1950's.

• Mike Bossy will almost surely never see a tougher matchup in the ATD. Ever. Crawford, Metz, Cook, rolling into Stevens, Laperriere? All series. All but a few shifts. Good luck. If Bossy ends up as a star in this series it's an odd conclusion IMO. It's not like Pittsburgh built one specific/great checking LW who fills up 11, 12 minutes. You have 3 legitimately great defensive wingers that are going to be on the ice almost every time Bossy is. There is no Gonchar or Carlson to walk by. Pittsburgh doesn't have to line match against Bossy. 3 of the 4 lines have a shutdown caliber defensive winger on them with defensive elites behind them at LD.

• Nobody to protect Bossy from getting plastered in the series. Doesn't have the physical, puck dominant C in Trottier. Dickie Moore is certainly a big upgrade over Gillies or Tonelli, but again, is he going to step up for Mike when the big boys from Pittsburgh do their thing? Doubtful.

• Pittsburgh's brightest star (Orr) is very well protected by Stevens and Seibert.

• Larionov is literally playing out of position so your bullet points in regards to him largely go out the window considering that fact. He's a defensive first C who's offensive totals in the Soviet Union are absolutely inflated. But he can keep that 70.

• Larionov doesn't have Makarov or Krutov here. But he can keep the 70.

• Lemaire and Cournoyer posted their best career numbers together. Without Lafluer. Lemaire's best overall year being 1973 when he scored 44 goals and 95 points. Cournoyer's career high in goals (47) came with Lemaire at C.

• C1958 put to rest the myth of Lafluer, as did BenchBrawl. Those 2 drove a line for multiple seasons and won a Cup doing so in 73 and were very important in 71. Numbers are easily available to confirm this. I'll gladly link you the conversations where C1958 broke these year down if anyone doubts they exist. They were literally joined at the hip during the 71 and 73 Cup runs, the latter of which Cournoyer took home the Smythe after leading the entire postseason in scoring.

• As much chemistry as you boast regarding Toews/Hossa, they aren't superior hockey players in postseason hockey compared to the chemistry/results of Lemaire/Cournoyer.

• Hawerchuk drove a line his entire career. You want context? He played in the same division at Gretzky for years. He managed to score a lot of points despite being on a joke of a team, stuck in the same division with some insanely good players and teams. Is there any reason to think he won't find some success at least being supported by Anderson and especially Orr/Seibert? He accepted and played a depth role for Canada and here he's being deployed in an offensive slant, which plays to his best attributes and he's covered up well on both flanks.

• You keep saying Anderson "wasn't the best player on his line". You're right, he wasn't in Edmonton. Then again, he isn't being asked to be that here. That's Hawerchuk's job.

The positions at F that Ottawa definitely are better at?

• Moore over Bucyk
• Bossy over Martinec
• Fedorov over Lemaire
• Hossa over Anderson

That's it. Those are the ONLY F's anyone can clearly argue as superior to Pittsburgh's IMO.

• Malone over Savard
• Cournoyer over Larionov
• Crawford over Demitra
• Metz over Clark

I spy those 4 Pittsburgh F's that are clearly superior to Ottawa's counterpart.

• Kapustin = Cook
• Hawerchuk = Toews (see the top 200 project as an easy reference)
• Goyette = Sanderson (Goyette is better at ES and Sanderson better on ST's)
  
• Guerin = Ellis

And the last 4 players who are very close in an all time sense IMO.

So yeah, I object to the notion that Ottawa's forwards are clearly superior. Certainly aren't offensively or collectively in an all time light.


Then consider who is behind those skaters:

Stevens-Orr
Laperriere-Seibert
Bower

vs

Kelly-Goldham (#4 playing top pair drags down the overall effectiveness)
Kasatonov-Gonchar (an average 2nd pairing that is going to have a lot of trouble w/Pittsburgh's skaters and forecheck)
Reise-Carlson (exploitable 3rd pairing which Pittsburgh doesn't really have to worry about)
Durnan

The fact of the matter is you're relying on winning puck battles, by and large based on a Soviet style of pressure, which again, doesn't jive against a team that has the pure fire from the back end like Pittsburgh does.

Every line has someone who was used to carrying the puck and driving a line (Martinec, Lemaire, Hawerchuk, even Goyette clearly did this in NY).

The idea around creating 4 capable offensive lines was that you can't simply say "oh, well we're just going to jump up in the zone and take away Orr and Seibert's time and space, we'll take away the angles and passing lanes". Doesn't work that easily and certainly not against a team that is tailor made to beat teams by skating, passing, or the dump and chase game because of the attention I paid to forechecking if teams do try and clog up neutral ice. You need speed and relentless pressure to beat that. Pittsburgh has those attributes at F for a reason.

Stick around the neutral zone and trap? Good luck with that given the speed coming from the deep 3rd and skating F's that support the breakout, or as I said just above, the speed and tenacity to forecheck and win puck battles behind the opposing teams at the board level.

This isn't Kasa-Gonchar and Reise-Carlson who need to play more than half the game collectively. I can needle and pick apart that large chunk of time frome much easier than I can 2 vastly superior pairs that eat up 90% of the game, if not more, every night.

You can't outskate Orr and Siebert. Even players like Stevens were good skaters. Not Orr level, obviously, but they moved well for big guys. Stevens was a strong offensive player in Washington/first half of his career. He's no stranger to skating with or without the puck. Laperriere used passing more than skating as his weapon, but again, he's very good positionally, was incredibly smart, was used in real life as THE GUY and even played 50% of Montreal's PP over his career. Going D to D to relieve pressure is not an issue for this team. Moving the puck by skating or passing is not an issue for this team. East to West, North to South. Doesn't really matter.

 

[overpass]

As sort of discussed in the Philadelphia/Orillia series, yes, there are those of us who aren't really on the VsX tip; it's a nice refinement to the scoring finishes method but I don't see how it fundamentally in itself makes any sort of argument against alternative methods like adjusting for league scoring level (and don't get me wrong, I think there are significant enough issues with that method as well, I've been working on an alternative, but I'm ever the skeptic about comparing stats across eras and generally fall back on talent evaluation anyway).

I would point out that the R-ON/OFF method also is incredibly contextual, probably more so than scoring finishes/VsX.

To take the example of Hawerchuk and Savard, it should be noted that while Hawerchuk in his prime was generally seen as a man on an island, with some of the weakest linemates compared to his peers (LaFontaine with the Islanders would almost certainly be worse yes, also probably add Lemieux before Coffey and Yzerman for much of his prime, but aside from that?), whereas Savard centered what was considered one of the best lines in hockey for some time, with Wilson on the backend (who was very highly regarded at the time even if not so much now given how his career went with injuries and no Cup and finishing off on the expansion Sharks). Just as a case study, in 1987-1988, Savard in the early part of the year kept pace with Gretzky and Lemieux, Wilson got injured a third of the season in, and Savard's scoring dropped significantly, and the team sort of changed their style to be a little less attack focused.

Also, I'd imagine that correlating score effects (game score of when a point was scored) for both Hawerchuk and Savard would bear out at least some of the discrepancy in how much their respective units were outscoring/outscoring, as I'd imagine that Hawerchuk would be scoring more when coming back from behind than Savard, and obviously units deploy and play differently when trailing as compared to with the lead.

It would also be interesting to compare their involvement on goals for (IPP).

With Anderson, while I do think Messier and his north-south power and speed game is better suited for Anderson, it isn't like Messier is on another level than Hawerchuk offensively, better at even strength but worse on the powerplay due to the different playstyles.

For Bucyk, it is pretty reasonable that his even strength scoring isn't very high, after all, he was getting time with Esposito mostly on the powerplay, even Orr more to a lesser extent, and Bucyk isn't generally being promoted as a cornerstone level of player. I think the fact that Pittsburgh has Orr is a strong argument in not discounting Bucyk's scoring to the degree that would usually be done.

Yeah for sure a lot of context is needed for the R-ON / R-OFF approach and you've provided some good context here. I think the R-ON / R-OFF lens is still valuable even though it needs context because there's not really any other way to show the impact of players like Fedorov and Toews statistically. The eye test always works but it's not really something that seems to carry a lot of weight in these arguments. I do appreciate your eye test evaluations btw.

You mentioned looking at the IPP for Hawerchuk and Savard. Sure, let's do that. We'll look at their numbers from 1981-82 through 1987-88, which covers their scoring primes as 100+ point players.

Player	GP	$ESG/80	$ESP/80	$ESGF/80	$ESGA/80	EV IPP	R-ON	R-OFF	EV%	$PPG/80	$PPP/80	PP%	PP IPP
Denis Savard	542	22.8	55.3	68.6	60	80.6%	1.15	0.92	35%	9	36	74%	78.4%
Dale Hawerchuk	559	23.5	54.6	69.3	69	78.7%	1.00	0.88	37%	11	30	73%	67.6%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Their scoring numbers (The $ means they are adjusted for scoring level by season) at even strength were almost identical. I've gone to one decimal point instead of rounding as I usually do just because their ESG/80, ESP/80, and ESGF/80 were all identical when rounded.

Savard had the higher IPP at even strength (80.6 to 78.7). Not a big difference but it's an edge.

On the power play, Savard was clearly the better power play scorer during this time (Hawerchuk might look better if you include his Buffalo years). And he had a much higher IPP than Hawerchuk. But did Hawerchuk play the point during these years? Because primary playmakers will always have a higher IPP % than players playing the point.

Season	Winnipeg PPGF (D)	Winnipeg PPGF (Total)	Winnipeg PPGF D %	DH PPG	DH PPA	DH PPP	DH PGF	DH PP IPP	Winnipeg PGF	DH PP%
1981-82	87	369	24%	12	22	34	55	62%	74	74%
1982-83	105	377	28%	13	20	33	60	55%	78	77%
1983-84	131	405	32%	10	17	27	46	59%	80	58%
1984-85	127	374	34%	17	26	43	57	75%	75	76%
1985-86	123	361	34%	18	24	42	53	79%	72	74%
1986-87	98	259	38%	10	17	27	41	66%	52	79%
1987-88	221	550	40%	20	39	59	80	74%	110	73%

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

I'm going to say Hawerchuk definitely didn't play the point in 1986-87 or 1987-88, because Winnipeg had 40% or almost 40% of their on-ice PP goals for by defencemen, meaning they were running 3F2D the whole time. For earlier seasons, they definitely had a forward on the point at least some of the time, in fact most of the time they were running 4F1D in 81-82 and 82-83. We know this because they had fewer than 30% of their on-ice PP goals from defencemen in those seasons.

Hawerchuk's IPP was between 55-62% in his first 3 seasons which is consistent with playing the point.

But even if we look just at 1987-88, where we are pretty sure Hawerchuk didn't play the point, his power play IPP was only 73.8%. His power play IPP for the four seasons from 1984-85 through 1987-88 was 74.0%. And Savard's power play IPP was 78.4% for this entire time period. So I'm going to say Savard had the higher power play IPP when they played as forwards only.

 

[ImporterExporter]

As sort of discussed in the Philadelphia/Orillia series, yes, there are those of us who aren't really on the VsX tip; it's a nice refinement to the scoring finishes method but I don't see how it fundamentally in itself makes any sort of argument against alternative methods like adjusting for league scoring level (and don't get me wrong, I think there are significant enough issues with that method as well, I've been working on an alternative, but I'm ever the skeptic about comparing stats across eras and generally fall back on talent evaluation anyway).

I would point out that the R-ON/OFF method also is incredibly contextual, probably more so than scoring finishes/VsX.

To take the example of Hawerchuk and Savard, it should be noted that while Hawerchuk in his prime was generally seen as a man on an island, with some of the weakest linemates compared to his peers (LaFontaine with the Islanders would almost certainly be worse yes, also probably add Lemieux before Coffey and Yzerman for much of his prime, but aside from that?), whereas Savard centered what was considered one of the best lines in hockey for some time, with Wilson on the backend (who was very highly regarded at the time even if not so much now given how his career went with injuries and no Cup and finishing off on the expansion Sharks). Just as a case study, in 1987-1988, Savard in the early part of the year kept pace with Gretzky and Lemieux, Wilson got injured a third of the season in, and Savard's scoring dropped significantly, and the team sort of changed their style to be a little less attack focused.

Also, I'd imagine that correlating score effects (game score of when a point was scored) for both Hawerchuk and Savard would bear out at least some of the discrepancy in how much their respective units were outscoring/outscoring, as I'd imagine that Hawerchuk would be scoring more when coming back from behind than Savard, and obviously units deploy and play differently when trailing as compared to with the lead.

It would also be interesting to compare their involvement on goals for (IPP).

With Anderson, while I do think Messier and his north-south power and speed game is better suited for Anderson, it isn't like Messier is on another level than Hawerchuk offensively, better at even strength but worse on the powerplay due to the different playstyles.

For Bucyk, it is pretty reasonable that his even strength scoring isn't very high, after all, he was getting time with Esposito mostly on the powerplay, even Orr more to a lesser extent, and Bucyk isn't generally being promoted as a cornerstone level of player. I think the fact that Pittsburgh has Orr is a strong argument in not discounting Bucyk's scoring to the degree that would usually be done.

Absolutely more contextual than VsX, which I brought up right off the bat above.

I also hate the like button, especially when voters are only hitting it for one GM as if the other person (me) didn't make one single valid point. It gives off the impression of favoritism. Either hit it when you see something you agree with or knock it off. It's no different than saying "team x is going to win the series in x amount of games".

I highlighted how different the fit is for Dickie Moore on that top line. Very accurately. I highlighted that going from Richard to Savard is a complete non starter for me if you're going to cite the Moore-Richard-Richard line as his peak and expect that out of him here. Context.

Savard brings nothing away from the puck that Richard does. Mike Bossy isn't Maurice Richard either. And he's absolutely up against the rolling 3 great defensive LW'ers and elite LD of Pittsburgh. All series, like 98% of his shifts.

Red Kelly is neutered somewhat because of Orr and the insane skating ability of the Pittsburgh F's. Especially playing next to a #4 Dman in Bob Goldham. Go for it. Fly up into Pittsburgh's zone and see what happens across a best of 7.

Larionov is out of position and doesn't have the same talent he did for the Soviets in the 80's. So if you want to talk context, there you go.

I'm looking at Pavol bleeping Demitra on a 3rd line, in a 24 team draft. I've got a HOF in Rusty Crawford. Demitra with scoring finishes of 6, 7, 10. No real accolades in the regular or postseason to fall back on unless you count a Byng win. Decent defensively but nothing special by any means. He's not a physical difference maker. Has zero playoff record. Hell, Alex Tanguay, my bench stash can be argued as having a similar NHL career. At least he has a great playoff run to his name. Better at ES. Of course playing for the Avs was a bit better than the Blues over the same period of time but St Louis was hardly a doormat void of talent.

Context is everywhere.

 

[tabness]

Thank you so much for getting the IPP for both, very interesting! A cursory glance at total involvement favored Savard, but I thought it was due to the powerplay and playing on the point, but Savard even has the edge at even strength!

Savard and Hawerchuk are two of the most interesting players to compare, watching them, you'd say Savard is a slightly better talent, even a better lateral skater than the already incredible Hawerchuk, but then looking at their numbers and contexts, you think, Hawerchuk did about the same with less, but then you also see these numbers...

I will try and run the score effect points report for both guys as well (had it working but now it seems XCode has lost the reference to the JSON files and I can't for the life of me get them to link properly lol)

 

[overpass]

Last post for me as well and I'll say good luck.

The positions at F that Ottawa definitely are better at?

• Moore over Bucyk
• Bossy over Martinec
• Fedorov over Lemaire
• Hossa over Anderson

That's it. Those are the ONLY F's anyone can clearly argue as superior to Pittsburgh's IMO.

• Malone over Savard
• Cournoyer over Larionov
• Crawford over Demitra
• Metz over Clark

I spy those 4 Pittsburgh F's that are clearly superior to Ottawa's counterpart.

• Kapustin = Cook
• Hawerchuk = Toews (see the top 200 project as an easy reference)
• Goyette = Sanderson (Goyette is better at ES and Sanderson better on ST's)
  
• Guerin = Ellis

And the last 4 players who are very close in an all time sense IMO.

So yeah, I object to the notion that Ottawa's forwards are clearly superior. Certainly aren't offensively or collectively in an all time light.

I'll argue Pavol Demitra over Rusty Crawford. Rusty was a fast skater and good checker but Demitra was just a much better offensive and all-around player. Rusty is over his head on a third line and doesn't have the offensive skill to keep the play going that you want to see.

Metz and Clark are really bringing different skillsets to the table. Hard to compare. Metz brings value on the PK but I don't know that he's better than Clark at ES. Clark won't be on the ice a lot but he can change a game while he is. He might just take Bobby Orr's head off if Orr doesn't watch out. But if you want to say Metz is better, OK.

I would rate Kapustin over Cook. They're hard to compare but Kapustin was the best goal scorer on the USSR second line for a decade. Common lines he was on were first Kapustin-Zhluktov-Balderis and then Kapustin-Shalimov-Shepelev. Only Balderis was clearly better offensively.

Toews over Hawerchuk for sure. 100%. Consider that Toews always played matchup C for Team Canada and won best forward in 2010 while Hawerchuk had to move to LW to make Team Canada. Toews is the Messier of the past decade, not the Hawerchuk. Comparables to Hawerchuk from the last decade would be C's who had to move to wing like Mike Richards in 2010, Patrice Bergeron and Jeff Carter in 2014, Patrice Bergeron, John Tavares, and Steven Stamkos in 2016.

Then consider who is behind those skaters:

Stevens-Orr
Laperriere-Seibert
Bower

vs

Kelly-Goldham (#4 playing top pair drags down the overall effectiveness)
Kasatonov-Gonchar (an average 2nd pairing that is going to have a lot of trouble w/Pittsburgh's skaters and forecheck)
Reise-Carlson (exploitable 3rd pairing which Pittsburgh doesn't really have to worry about)
Durnan

Kasatonov-Gonchar had the skating and hockey IQ to skate with anyone. Kasatonov was just a first class defender, right up there with the best of the 80s IMO. He passes the eye test with flying colours for me. Gonchar could have some trouble with the physicality of Bucyk and Crawford, but this pairing will have Kasatonov going into the corners when possible and Gonchar using his positioning and stick in front of the net, where he was very effective during his NHL career.

Carlson is a great puck mover, one of the very best and maybe the best in today's game. That goes a long way. Nothing special defensively in an all time sense but that's where Leo Reise, a hard rock defenceman and part of the core of a dynasty, comes in. Reise played mobile, physical, and mistake-free defence for Detroit's dominant squad. When Lloyd Percival did player tracking he found that Reise did the most skating during a game of any player in the league. His career was a little short but he was in the military during the war which delayed the start of his career.

The fact of the matter is you're relying on winning puck battles, by and large based on a Soviet style of pressure, which again, doesn't jive against a team that has the pure fire from the back end like Pittsburgh does.

Soviet style pressure played very well against the best in the world for two decades. They humiliated Canada in 1979 and 1981. It took peak Gretzky and Mario Lemieux to beat them in 1987.

You can't outskate Orr and Siebert. Even players like Stevens were good skaters. Not Orr level, obviously, but they moved well for big guys. Stevens was a strong offensive player in Washington/first half of his career. He's no stranger to skating with or without the puck. Laperriere used passing more than skating as his weapon, but again, he's very good positionally, was incredibly smart, was used in real life as THE GUY and even played 50% of Montreal's PP over his career. Going D to D to relieve pressure is not an issue for this team. Moving the puck by skating or passing is not an issue for this team. East to West, North to South. Doesn't really matter.

One last post for me and then I'll say good luck.

You can beat any defenceman, including Orr and Seibert, by moving east-west and passing to a north-south skater to create speed differentials. You can also beat any defenceman by having multiple attackers skate at one defender to create small-area 2 on 1s and break down the defence with short passing. Soviet five man units made top NA defencemen look like pylons time and time again, especially in the late 70s through the late 80s, using these tactics.

 

[tabness]

got the score effect numbers for both guys

the definitions are:
• blowout: goal scored means leading by 4 or more
• insurance: goal scored means leading by 2 or 3
• go ahead: goal scored means leading by 1
• tie: goal scored means game tied
• comeback: goal scored means trailing by 1
• rally: goal scored means trailing by 2 or more

Given their careers overlapped almost exactly, not many caveats needed with the definitions as is.

Spoiler: Savard

select option:
• points together
• score points
• points timing
• iafrate points
• goalie points

score points

player name:
denis savard

start season:
1981

end season:
1997

1981 72 total
blowout:  8 11.11%
insurance:  17 23.61%
go ahead:  18  25%
tie:  12 16.67%
comeback:  12 16.67%
rally:  5  6.94%

1982 119 total
blowout:  12 10.08%
insurance:  24 20.17%
go ahead:  40 33.61%
tie:  23 19.33%
comeback:  11  9.24%
rally:  9  7.56%

1983 117 total
blowout:  16 13.68%
insurance:  26 22.22%
go ahead:  40 34.19%
tie:  25 21.37%
comeback:  4  3.42%
rally:  6  5.13%

1984 89 total
blowout:  8  8.99%
insurance:  26 29.21%
go ahead:  24 26.97%
tie:  13 14.61%
comeback:  8  8.99%
rally:  10 11.24%

1985 104 total
blowout:  8  7.69%
insurance:  20 19.23%
go ahead:  26  25%
tie:  30 28.85%
comeback:  11 10.58%
rally:  9  8.65%

1986 114 total
blowout:  3  2.63%
insurance:  30 26.32%
go ahead:  35  30.7%
tie:  24 21.05%
comeback:  12 10.53%
rally:  10  8.77%

1987 85 total
blowout:  7  8.24%
insurance:  32 37.65%
go ahead:  22 25.88%
tie:  13 15.29%
comeback:  4  4.71%
rally:  7  8.24%

1988 131 total
blowout:  0  0%
insurance:  35 26.72%
go ahead:  47 35.88%
tie:  20 15.27%
comeback:  14 10.69%
rally:  15 11.45%

1989 82 total
blowout:  5  6.1%
insurance:  11 13.41%
go ahead:  27 32.93%
tie:  17 20.73%
comeback:  14 17.07%
rally:  8  9.76%

1990 79 total
blowout:  3  3.8%
insurance:  23 29.11%
go ahead:  23 29.11%
tie:  15 18.99%
comeback:  10 12.66%
rally:  5  6.33%

1991 58 total
blowout:  4  6.9%
insurance:  13 22.41%
go ahead:  18 31.03%
tie:  12 20.69%
comeback:  5  8.62%
rally:  6 10.34%

1992 68 total
blowout:  6  8.82%
insurance:  18 26.47%
go ahead:  27 39.71%
tie:  10 14.71%
comeback:  4  5.88%
rally:  3  4.41%

1993 50 total
blowout:  5  10%
insurance:  14  28%
go ahead:  9  18%
tie:  10  20%
comeback:  9  18%
rally:  3  6%

1994 45 total
blowout:  1  2.22%
insurance:  13 28.89%
go ahead:  14 31.11%
tie:  9  20%
comeback:  5 11.11%
rally:  3  6.67%

1995 25 total
blowout:  1  4%
insurance:  8  32%
go ahead:  7  28%
tie:  5  20%
comeback:  1  4%
rally:  3  12%

1996 44 total
blowout:  6 13.64%
insurance:  13 29.55%
go ahead:  9 20.45%
tie:  7 15.91%
comeback:  6 13.64%
rally:  3  6.82%

1997 27 total
blowout:  0  0%
insurance:  5 18.52%
go ahead:  15 55.56%
tie:  3 11.11%
comeback:  2  7.41%
rally:  2  7.41%

Spoiler: Hawerchuk

player name:
dale hawerchuk

start season:
1982

end season:
1997

1982 101 total
blowout:  11 10.89%
insurance:  29 28.71%
go ahead:  31 30.69%
tie:  13 12.87%
comeback:  10  9.9%
rally:  7  6.93%

1983 91 total
blowout:  9  9.89%
insurance:  23 25.27%
go ahead:  22 24.18%
tie:  18 19.78%
comeback:  12 13.19%
rally:  7  7.69%

1984 100 total
blowout:  10  10%
insurance:  23  23%
go ahead:  31  31%
tie:  15  15%
comeback:  12  12%
rally:  9  9%

1985 129 total
blowout:  12  9.3%
insurance:  32 24.81%
go ahead:  39 30.23%
tie:  27 20.93%
comeback:  12  9.3%
rally:  7  5.43%

1986 99 total
blowout:  8  8.08%
insurance:  30  30.3%
go ahead:  24 24.24%
tie:  17 17.17%
comeback:  11 11.11%
rally:  9  9.09%

1987 98 total
blowout:  5  5.1%
insurance:  14 14.29%
go ahead:  37 37.76%
tie:  25 25.51%
comeback:  9  9.18%
rally:  8  8.16%

1988 113 total
blowout:  7  6.19%
insurance:  35 30.97%
go ahead:  33  29.2%
tie:  17 15.04%
comeback:  14 12.39%
rally:  7  6.19%

1989 94 total
blowout:  11  11.7%
insurance:  22  23.4%
go ahead:  19 20.21%
tie:  18 19.15%
comeback:  8  8.51%
rally:  16 17.02%

1990 81 total
blowout:  4  4.94%
insurance:  20 24.69%
go ahead:  32 39.51%
tie:  14 17.28%
comeback:  8  9.88%
rally:  3  3.7%

1991 89 total
blowout:  7  7.87%
insurance:  18 20.22%
go ahead:  28 31.46%
tie:  17  19.1%
comeback:  8  8.99%
rally:  11 12.36%

1992 96 total
blowout:  5  5.21%
insurance:  19 19.79%
go ahead:  24  25%
tie:  25 26.04%
comeback:  15 15.62%
rally:  8  8.33%

1993 95 total
blowout:  16 16.84%
insurance:  20 21.05%
go ahead:  32 33.68%
tie:  16 16.84%
comeback:  3  3.16%
rally:  8  8.42%

1994 83 total
blowout:  7  8.43%
insurance:  33 39.76%
go ahead:  27 32.53%
tie:  11 13.25%
comeback:  5  6.02%
rally:  0  0%

1995 16 total
blowout:  0  0%
insurance:  5 31.25%
go ahead:  6  37.5%
tie:  2  12.5%
comeback:  1  6.25%
rally:  2  12.5%

1996 60 total
blowout:  4  6.67%
insurance:  25 41.67%
go ahead:  16 26.67%
tie:  9  15%
comeback:  2  3.33%
rally:  4  6.67%

1997 32 total
blowout:  5 15.62%
insurance:  7 21.88%
go ahead:  11 34.38%
tie:  7 21.88%
comeback:  0  0%
rally:  2  6.25%

Generally looks fairly similar. Hawerchuk a little more on the trailing end, but not by as much as I thought it would be. Seems like the only thing that really differentiates them stats wise is who is in on their points together.

 

[ImporterExporter]

got the score effect numbers for both guys

the definitions are:
• blowout: goal scored means leading by 4 or more
• insurance: goal scored means leading by 2 or 3
• go ahead: goal scored means leading by 1
• tie: goal scored means game tied
• comeback: goal scored means trailing by 1
• rally: goal scored means trailing by 2 or more

Given their careers overlapped almost exactly, not many caveats needed with the definitions as is.

Spoiler: Savard

select option:
• points together
• score points
• points timing
• iafrate points
• goalie points

score points

player name:
denis savard

start season:
1981

end season:
1997

1981 72 total
blowout:  8 11.11%
insurance:  17 23.61%
go ahead:  18  25%
tie:  12 16.67%
comeback:  12 16.67%
rally:  5  6.94%

1982 119 total
blowout:  12 10.08%
insurance:  24 20.17%
go ahead:  40 33.61%
tie:  23 19.33%
comeback:  11  9.24%
rally:  9  7.56%

1983 117 total
blowout:  16 13.68%
insurance:  26 22.22%
go ahead:  40 34.19%
tie:  25 21.37%
comeback:  4  3.42%
rally:  6  5.13%

1984 89 total
blowout:  8  8.99%
insurance:  26 29.21%
go ahead:  24 26.97%
tie:  13 14.61%
comeback:  8  8.99%
rally:  10 11.24%

1985 104 total
blowout:  8  7.69%
insurance:  20 19.23%
go ahead:  26  25%
tie:  30 28.85%
comeback:  11 10.58%
rally:  9  8.65%

1986 114 total
blowout:  3  2.63%
insurance:  30 26.32%
go ahead:  35  30.7%
tie:  24 21.05%
comeback:  12 10.53%
rally:  10  8.77%

1987 85 total
blowout:  7  8.24%
insurance:  32 37.65%
go ahead:  22 25.88%
tie:  13 15.29%
comeback:  4  4.71%
rally:  7  8.24%

1988 131 total
blowout:  0  0%
insurance:  35 26.72%
go ahead:  47 35.88%
tie:  20 15.27%
comeback:  14 10.69%
rally:  15 11.45%

1989 82 total
blowout:  5  6.1%
insurance:  11 13.41%
go ahead:  27 32.93%
tie:  17 20.73%
comeback:  14 17.07%
rally:  8  9.76%

1990 79 total
blowout:  3  3.8%
insurance:  23 29.11%
go ahead:  23 29.11%
tie:  15 18.99%
comeback:  10 12.66%
rally:  5  6.33%

1991 58 total
blowout:  4  6.9%
insurance:  13 22.41%
go ahead:  18 31.03%
tie:  12 20.69%
comeback:  5  8.62%
rally:  6 10.34%

1992 68 total
blowout:  6  8.82%
insurance:  18 26.47%
go ahead:  27 39.71%
tie:  10 14.71%
comeback:  4  5.88%
rally:  3  4.41%

1993 50 total
blowout:  5  10%
insurance:  14  28%
go ahead:  9  18%
tie:  10  20%
comeback:  9  18%
rally:  3  6%

1994 45 total
blowout:  1  2.22%
insurance:  13 28.89%
go ahead:  14 31.11%
tie:  9  20%
comeback:  5 11.11%
rally:  3  6.67%

1995 25 total
blowout:  1  4%
insurance:  8  32%
go ahead:  7  28%
tie:  5  20%
comeback:  1  4%
rally:  3  12%

1996 44 total
blowout:  6 13.64%
insurance:  13 29.55%
go ahead:  9 20.45%
tie:  7 15.91%
comeback:  6 13.64%
rally:  3  6.82%

1997 27 total
blowout:  0  0%
insurance:  5 18.52%
go ahead:  15 55.56%
tie:  3 11.11%
comeback:  2  7.41%
rally:  2  7.41%

Spoiler: Hawerchuk

player name:
dale hawerchuk

start season:
1982

end season:
1997

1982 101 total
blowout:  11 10.89%
insurance:  29 28.71%
go ahead:  31 30.69%
tie:  13 12.87%
comeback:  10  9.9%
rally:  7  6.93%

1983 91 total
blowout:  9  9.89%
insurance:  23 25.27%
go ahead:  22 24.18%
tie:  18 19.78%
comeback:  12 13.19%
rally:  7  7.69%

1984 100 total
blowout:  10  10%
insurance:  23  23%
go ahead:  31  31%
tie:  15  15%
comeback:  12  12%
rally:  9  9%

1985 129 total
blowout:  12  9.3%
insurance:  32 24.81%
go ahead:  39 30.23%
tie:  27 20.93%
comeback:  12  9.3%
rally:  7  5.43%

1986 99 total
blowout:  8  8.08%
insurance:  30  30.3%
go ahead:  24 24.24%
tie:  17 17.17%
comeback:  11 11.11%
rally:  9  9.09%

1987 98 total
blowout:  5  5.1%
insurance:  14 14.29%
go ahead:  37 37.76%
tie:  25 25.51%
comeback:  9  9.18%
rally:  8  8.16%

1988 113 total
blowout:  7  6.19%
insurance:  35 30.97%
go ahead:  33  29.2%
tie:  17 15.04%
comeback:  14 12.39%
rally:  7  6.19%

1989 94 total
blowout:  11  11.7%
insurance:  22  23.4%
go ahead:  19 20.21%
tie:  18 19.15%
comeback:  8  8.51%
rally:  16 17.02%

1990 81 total
blowout:  4  4.94%
insurance:  20 24.69%
go ahead:  32 39.51%
tie:  14 17.28%
comeback:  8  9.88%
rally:  3  3.7%

1991 89 total
blowout:  7  7.87%
insurance:  18 20.22%
go ahead:  28 31.46%
tie:  17  19.1%
comeback:  8  8.99%
rally:  11 12.36%

1992 96 total
blowout:  5  5.21%
insurance:  19 19.79%
go ahead:  24  25%
tie:  25 26.04%
comeback:  15 15.62%
rally:  8  8.33%

1993 95 total
blowout:  16 16.84%
insurance:  20 21.05%
go ahead:  32 33.68%
tie:  16 16.84%
comeback:  3  3.16%
rally:  8  8.42%

1994 83 total
blowout:  7  8.43%
insurance:  33 39.76%
go ahead:  27 32.53%
tie:  11 13.25%
comeback:  5  6.02%
rally:  0  0%

1995 16 total
blowout:  0  0%
insurance:  5 31.25%
go ahead:  6  37.5%
tie:  2  12.5%
comeback:  1  6.25%
rally:  2  12.5%

1996 60 total
blowout:  4  6.67%
insurance:  25 41.67%
go ahead:  16 26.67%
tie:  9  15%
comeback:  2  3.33%
rally:  4  6.67%

1997 32 total
blowout:  5 15.62%
insurance:  7 21.88%
go ahead:  11 34.38%
tie:  7 21.88%
comeback:  0  0%
rally:  2  6.25%

Generally looks fairly similar. Hawerchuk a little more on the trailing end, but not by as much as I thought it would be. Seems like the only thing that really differentiates them stats wise is who is in on their points together.

The difference being Savard is skating on a top line and Hawerchuk is a premium depth scorer for Pittsburgh. Even IF you think the Senators can slow the F's down with their own F's their team still has to penetrate the back end of Pittsburgh more than vice versa and that is a much, much bigger obstacle than comparing defensive talent of the F's considering the F's do need to score at some point to win.

Pittsburgh, with this set up, has 4 lines that can score relative to their role and despite that, you can't point to a single line that is a liability going back the other way.

Is there a Toews/Fedorov level player for Pittsburgh? Not quite, though Metz was a Selke caliber winger for basically his entire career and mentored Joe Klukay and Cook was clearly shown to be a fantastic defensive winger, again basically his entire career, certainly in NY. Crawford, again, in the same boat, defensive ability being his best attribute, along with physicality.

These guys have great defensive reputations, can all skate, are varying degrees of physical, from decent to elite. And one last time, you then contend with Scott Stevens and Laperriere 95% of your shifts over the series on the rear guard. Opposing RW's are going to have a hellova time maxing out their values IMO and in his series Bossy and Hossa are critical components.

I absolutely realize that Toews is also a good check for Malone, but I think Martinec can absolutely take advantage of Demitra (weak 3rd liner in a draft this size) at this level. You're talking one of the great puck wizards/scorers of 70's Euro hockey, especially on the international stage. Dude was another money player.

And with home ice advantage Pittsburgh will still have more chances to get advantageous match ups.

Again, this is a critical part to Pittsburgh's hopeful success. We'll be able to get our top 3 lines out against those 2nd and 3 parings and they are nothing special for a draft this size. Gonch and Carlson are absolutely exploitable players here. And that's 30+ minutes of ice time.

No matter what Scotty Bowman does he can't get his scoring lines off a top pairing, outside a very rare shift. And as pointed out can't manufacture shifts for Bossy, away from tough checking LW'ers. Short of trying to switch him to LW, which of course, would be dumb.

 

[ImporterExporter]

@overpass

The Soviets never faced a prime Bobby Orr,

In fact, the one tournament Orr DID play in against the Soviets IIRC, was the 76 Canada Cup. By 1976 Orr wasn't remotely close to what he was 5-6 years prior.

He literally played that series on one leg and tied for the tournament lead in scoring, was best Dman and MVP.

Canada won Gold btw.

The Soviets also had an extremely fine tuned team that was used to playing an extremely specific style of hockey, coached by a very specific set of people. Expecting to replicate that, especially with a key player in the wrong damn spot (Larionov) is quite the take.

You keep referring to "you can beat any defenseman" (singular) by passing east-west, and then to a north south skater with speed".

And realize that a defensive pairing has 2 players on it? And defensive hockey includes the presence of back checking F's. The notion you're going to beat, with any regularity Orr and Seibert in a skating match is quite a strech IMO. They're the greatest skater ever and one who was among the best of his era, at a Chris Pronger relative size btw. And neither one of them was even poor, or average defensively. I've never heard anything below good for either. I know Seibert was one of the very best shot blockers of his era. Orr obviously used his speed and stick ability to get pucks off people and drive possession.

And despite neither of them being any real concern defensively, they're joined by Stevens and Laperriere! Stevens is rather easily on the Mount Rushmore of defensive Dmen all time, no? Laperriere isn't quite THAT good but again, another elite shot blocker, very sound positionally, could deliver heavy checks but wasn't extravagant about it. His best attribute was defensive hockey and he did it at a high level as a #1 for multiple years.

It's the 1st, 15ish, 20ish, 40ish best defensmen ever.

Pittsburgh has the defensive chops on every line, be it 1 or 2 plus players (Martinec, Cook, Lemaire, Crawford, Metz, Goyette) and all the rest minus Corunoyer can be labeled responsible (Malone, Bucyk, Hawerchuk, Anderson, Guerin).

Many of the F's for Pitt are elite skaters, which plays well and enhances defensive response and posture, again. Winning puck battles and defensive battles is about time and space. It's about hockey IQ and having players in the right positions. Having the better skating team top to bottom can only help Pittsburgh in this area.

Where are the low IQ hockey players on Pitt?

It's kind of hard to play an east west (slowing up, allowing trailing F's to recover) then north south game when you have people harassing you consistently from behind and in front. Again, skating and defensive depth of Pittsburgh validates my counter. IMO.

Ottawa is certainly not built to wage a physical war either.

I simply think the Sens best offensive weapon from the F group is well locked down and the one major threat from the back end is not in the greatest position to play an aggressive offensive game which is what you want/need from Kelly. Not against the Pittsburgh skaters and leaving the fort to a #4 level player in the league this year. Orr basically does everything Kelly does, only better. Then the drop off along the blue line is staggering beyond those 2.

Anyway, I need to get my votes in but I seriously appreciate the dialogue sir! We always seem to square off in these things and it's always a great back and forth.

Good luck bud!

 

[ImporterExporter]

@overpass

Once again, tight match up and great debates sir. Appreciate you keeping me on my toes. And most of all thanks for coming back. Great to have you here.

 

[overpass]

@overpass

Once again, tight match up and great debates sir. Appreciate you keeping me on my toes. And most of all thanks for coming back. Great to have you here.

Thanks for the debate and matchup! Congrats on the win and good luck going forward.