Bob Cole Division Finals New Jersey Swamp Devils (1) vs New York Americans (3)

[ResilientBeast]

New Jersey Swamp Devils

Coach: Toe Blake

Sid Abel (A) - Jean Beliveau (C) - Bernie Geoffrion
Smokey Harris - Russell Bowie - Alexander Maltsev
Marty Pavelich - Anze Kopitar - Tony Amonte
Patrick Marleau - Phil Watson - Ed Westfall
Spares: Todd Bertuzzi, Jack Adams

*3rd and 4th lines swap wingers when playing against Bobby Hull

Serge Savard (A) - Pierre Pilote
Art Ross - Fern Flaman
Barry Beck - Si Griffis
spare: Nikolai Sologubov

Georges Vezina
Alec Connell

PP1: Sid Abel - Jean Beliveau - Alexander Maltsev - Bernie Geoffrion - Pierre Pilote
PP2: Patrick Marleau - Russell Bowie - Phil Watson - Art Ross - Si Griffis

PK1: Marty Pavelich* - Ed Westfall - Serge Savard - Fern Flaman
PK2: Anze Kopitar - Phil Watson - Barry Beck - Art Ross
PK spare: Alexander Maltsev - Patrick Marleau, Pierre Pilote

*See Pavelich's profile - he was shifted to C to shadow Jean Beliveau at one point. So he should be able to take faceoffs on penalties - in fact using an even strength winger at C on the PK is exactly something Toe Blake would do​

New York Americans

Coach: Tommy Ivan
Toe Blake - Steven Stamkos - Gordie Howe (A)
Dany Heatley - Elmer Lach - Larry Aurie
Bob Pulford - Walt Tkaczuk - Tony Leswick
Vic Stasiuk - Eric Staal - Alexei Kovalev
Ryan O'Reilly - Ron Stewart

Zdeno Chara (C)- Tim Horton
Harvey Pulford (A)- Brent Burns
Vitali Davydov - Joe Hall
Reed Larson

Clint Benedict
Mar-Andre Fleury

PP
Gordie Howe - Elmer Lach
Steven Stamkos - Dany Heatley
Brent Burns

Toe Blake - Eric Staal - Alexei Kovalev
Joe Hall - Zdeno Chara

PK
Bob Pulford - Tony Leswick
Zdeno Chara - Tim Horton

Walt Tkaczuk - Larry Aurie
Harvey Pulford - Vitali Davydov

PK3
Toe Blake - Elmer Lach​

Click to read more...

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

IN HOME GAMES ONLY,

Toe Blake has the option to put Savard-Flaman together as a pairing to contain the Gordie Howe line.

This would make NJ's top 4:

Savard-Flaman (two big and strong defensive defensemen with good first passes)
Ross-Pilote

Ross was a very smart defensive player who created the earliest known version of what we would now call a "trapping defense" (called kitty-bar-the-door) while still a player, so I think he'd be perfectly fine sitting back for Pilote in the context of a matchup-driven playoff series. Both Pilote and Ross were tough for their sizes. The biggest disadvantage of a Ross-Pilote pairing would be lack of size, but luckily, NY doesn't really have any high scoring true tough guys past their 1st line.

These pairings would receive near-equal minutes, with Pilote getting a little bit extra time in offensive situations (and of course playing most of the PP).

This is only something Blake would attempt in home games with last change, as I definitely wouldn't want Ross-Pilote against the Gordie Howe line!

But with a better coach and home ice advantage in 4 of 7 games, Blake should be able to get the matchups he wants in these games.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Congrats on squeaking by an excellent Montreal team, @rmartin65. I actually have time to post in this series today, so I'll post a little more later.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Matching up against the Gordie Howe line:

Option 1: The Kopitar/Pavelich combo.

A few tidbits on Marty Pavelich from Sprague Cleghorn's excellent profile: ATD 2018 Bio Thread

• One of only five players to be on all four of Detroit’s Cup winning teams of the 1950’s (Howe, Lindsay, Kelly, and Pronovost).
• Five Consecutive Retro Selkes awarded by Ulitmate Hockey: 1952-53 to 1956-57
• Held Rocket Richard Pointless for an Entire Playoff Series!
• Went an entire Cup Winning playoff year without being on the ice for a single ES goal against
• Jack Adams on Pavelich: Pavelich has been a key player for the Red Wings. He is one of the four men (Lindsay, Howe and Kelly are the others)... Jack Adams calls the quartet “my winning nucleus - I built around them and started the winning cycle”. He never fails to mention Pavelich as an important part.
  
  “Pavelich is the best defensive forward in the league and the best penalty killer - it’s a shame there isn’t an award for those talents” Adams points out with vigor. (Detroit Free Press, Feb 2 1955)

Option 2: Power-on-Power (to take advantage of the Beliveau vs Stamkos mismatch at C)

Basically, I'm comfortable facing off 1st line vs 1st line. I'm higher on Stamkos than BenchBrawl was last round, but I still think Stamkos vs Beliveau in the playoffs is an enormous mismatch in NJ's favor. A big and strong superstar like Jean Beliveau is a really tough assignment for the opposing center. As for Abel vs Howe, wings don't face each other directly as much as centers do, but when they do face each other, Abel is a strong two-way player who was fearless in corners - not Gordie Howe tough, but he won't be totally dominated.

On defense:

Briefly speaking, I think either Serge Savard or Fern Flaman has the combo of size and defensive acumen to avoid being completely dominated down low by Howe.

In home games (when Blake gets last change), the two of them will likely play together, at least for defensive zone draws against Howe.

______________________

Overall, NJ is more offensive than defensive. The Sid Abel - Jean Beliveau - Bernie Geoffrion - Pierre Pilote group will hopefully terrify Clint Benedict.

NJ isn't going to stop Gordie Howe. But we don't need to. We just need to limit the damage, then wait for our own horses to take over.

 

[rmartin65]

Here's to a good series, @TheDevilMadeMe !

I'll post a rebuttal when I find the time, but just a quick correction- my goalie is Clint Benedict, not Bernie Parent.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Here's to a good series, @TheDevilMadeMe !

I'll post a rebuttal when I find the time, but just a quick correction- my goalie is Clint Benedict, not Bernie Parent.

to me because I was even thinking of doing a quick comparison of Benedict and Vezina...

(edited).

 

[rmartin65]

to me because I was even thinking of doing a quick comparison of Benedict and Vezina...

(edited).

I’d definitely be interested in seeing that comparison. I have Vezina ahead of Benedict in my personal rankings, but they are in the same tier. Advantage to your team, but not something that breaks open the series, IMO.

 

[rmartin65]

IN HOME GAMES ONLY,

Toe Blake has the option to put Savard-Flaman together as a pairing to contain the Gordie Howe line.

This would make NJ's top 4:

Savard-Flaman (two big and strong defensive defensemen with good first passes)
Ross-Pilote

Ross was a very smart defensive player who created the earliest known version of what we would now call a "trapping defense" (called kitty-bar-the-door) while still a player, so I think he'd be perfectly fine sitting back for Pilote in the context of a matchup-driven playoff series. Both Pilote and Ross were tough for their sizes. The biggest disadvantage of a Ross-Pilote pairing would be lack of size, but luckily, NY doesn't really have any high scoring true tough guys past their 1st line.

These pairings would receive near-equal minutes, with Pilote getting a little bit extra time in offensive situations (and of course playing most of the PP).

This is only something Blake would attempt in home games with last change, as I definitely wouldn't want Ross-Pilote against the Gordie Howe line!

But with a better coach and home ice advantage in 4 of 7 games, Blake should be able to get the matchups he wants in these games.

I have real concerns with Ross being billed as the defensive-minded partner in a top-4 paring. A player can understand a theory or aspect of the game, but not actually play that way- and I think that is Ross. If Ross can be a defense-first partner, he should go much higher considering his offense.

The Ross-Pilote pairing is physically weak and lacks shutdown ability. Yes, the Americans dont have another Howe to send out against them, but the roster has large and/or physical players throughout the lineup. Line two has Heatley (6'3" 210 lbs) who, while not the power-forward everyone wanted, certainly used his size and strength to create and finish. It also has Aurie, who, while small, was tenacious. Line 3 has 3 physical players in Pulford/Tkaczuk/Leswick. Yes, Leswick is small, but like Aurie, tenacious and physical. Line four has Stasiuk... and Staal and Kovalev were/are large men who may not have been punishers, but certainly used their frame and strength to their advantage offensively.

 

[rmartin65]

Matching up against the Gordie Howe line:

Option 1: The Kopitar/Pavelich combo.

A few tidbits on Marty Pavelich from Sprague Cleghorn's excellent profile: ATD 2018 Bio Thread

• One of only five players to be on all four of Detroit’s Cup winning teams of the 1950’s (Howe, Lindsay, Kelly, and Pronovost).
• Five Consecutive Retro Selkes awarded by Ulitmate Hockey: 1952-53 to 1956-57
• Held Rocket Richard Pointless for an Entire Playoff Series!
• Went an entire Cup Winning playoff year without being on the ice for a single ES goal against
• Jack Adams on Pavelich: Pavelich has been a key player for the Red Wings. He is one of the four men (Lindsay, Howe and Kelly are the others)... Jack Adams calls the quartet “my winning nucleus - I built around them and started the winning cycle”. He never fails to mention Pavelich as an important part.
  
  “Pavelich is the best defensive forward in the league and the best penalty killer - it’s a shame there isn’t an award for those talents” Adams points out with vigor. (Detroit Free Press, Feb 2 1955)

Option 2: Power-on-Power (to take advantage of the Beliveau vs Stamkos mismatch at C)

Basically, I'm comfortable facing off 1st line vs 1st line. I'm higher on Stamkos than BenchBrawl was last round, but I still think Stamkos vs Beliveau in the playoffs is an enormous mismatch in NJ's favor. A big and strong superstar like Jean Beliveau is a really tough assignment for the opposing center. As for Abel vs Howe, wings don't face each other directly as much as centers do, but when they do face each other, Abel is a strong two-way player who was fearless in corners - not Gordie Howe tough, but he won't be totally dominated.

On defense:

Briefly speaking, I think either Serge Savard or Fern Flaman has the combo of size and defensive acumen to avoid being completely dominated down low by Howe.

In home games (when Blake gets last change), the two of them will likely play together, at least for defensive zone draws against Howe.

______________________

Overall, NJ is more offensive than defensive. The Sid Abel - Jean Beliveau - Bernie Geoffrion - Pierre Pilote group will hopefully terrify Clint Benedict.

NJ isn't going to stop Gordie Howe. But we don't need to. We just need to limit the damage, then wait for our own horses to take over.

I won't even try to argue that Stamkos is overmatched against Beliveau- most centers would be. But what most centers dont have is a pairing like Chara-Horton, which I constructed with Beliveau in mind. As @overpass (I believe) noted last year, the Stanley-Horton pairing did well against Beliveau. Chara brings all of what Stanley brought and more.

And while I like Abel, I don't know how much of a defensive guy he was- yeah, he battled and won't back down from Howe, but was he a shut-down guy? Someone who could really slow Howe? I'm not sold on that.

In the end, in a power on power matchup, I trust Chara-Horton and Stamkos to slow Beliveau more than I trust Savard-Flaman and Abel to slow Howe. Neither player will get shut down, but I think New York has the advantage.

Another way the Americans are set up to deal with Beliveau is the third line. Tkaczuk was a big bodied, well-skating center, and Pulford has experience playing against Beliveau. Lewick is an all-time great pest.

I do concede that New Jersey has the advantage in coaching (and home ice). Blake won't be dictating every matchup, but he will have the upper hand more than Ivan.

 

[VanIslander]

It sticks in my craw that Stamkos is 1C and Heatley 2W in a smaller ATD.

Every fiber in my being says coach Tommy Ivan tells GM rmartin65 go **** yourself, Elmer Lach is going to center that top line. Blake - Lach - Howe. (Let the coach coach.)

And isn't Heatley with Aurie the weakest 2nd line wing duo in this draft?

Ugh. It must be a weak division, doesn't it?

 

[rmartin65]

It sticks in my craw that Stamkos is 1C and Heatley 2W in a smaller ATD.

Every fiber in my being says coach Tommy Ivan tells GM rmartin65 go **** yourself, Elmer Lach is going to center that top line. Blake - Lach - Howe. (Let the coach coach.)

If you feel that the coach would change the lines around, by all means, take that into consideration. I made the lines how they make the most sense to me, but I am just the GM in this exercise. You decide who plays with whom. I do hope that Ivan would be a little politer, though; to the best of my knowledge, Ivan and I have a pretty solid working relationship.

And isn't Heatley with Aurie the weakest 2nd line wing duo in this draft?

Care to explain why? Heatley has a short peak, but he was a dominant winger for a spell there. Not an imposing physical player, but used the body to his advantage. Finished in the top 10 in goals several times. Not a zero defensively. Aurie was a phenomenal two-way player. I won't try to sell him as a shut-down guy or anything, but certainly a plus defensively. Chipped in offensively as well, even leading the league in goals once. And if my memory serves, he did well in some of the coaches' all star teams during his prime.

Ugh. It must be a weak division, doesn't it?

You may look down on the other teams in my division, but I sure don't; in my opinion, the Bob Cole division is littered with strong entries, top to bottom. I was/am particularly impressed with @TheDevilMadeMe 's team and @BenchBrawl 's team, both of which I would put up against any team in this draft.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I’d definitely be interested in seeing that comparison. I have Vezina ahead of Benedict in my personal rankings, but they are in the same tier. Advantage to your team, but not something that breaks open the series, IMO.

I hope you weren't expecting anything groundbreaking. Just that I always place a high emphasis on what I would call the opinions of people who watched these guys play, especially hockey insiders. Something of a "collective eye test." And there really is no debate that Vezina was generally held in higher regard than Benedict, by a pretty clear margin.

Contemporary Opinion: The 1925 MacLean's All-Time All-Star list

Voted on by a long list of hockey insiders at the time.

Vezina was voted 1st Team All-Time All-Star. Benedict was tied with Hugh Lehman for 3rd on a list that was sometimes criticized as being biased against Westerners.

Note Percy LeSueur was 2nd Team, but there are good reasons not to use the list to compare players of different generations - in fact, many voters intentionally included "modern" players like Vezina/Benedict/Lehman and "old timers" on the same level. This list came out before Vezina got sick, so there was no sympathy vote involved. Benedict did have a few good seasons after the list, which may or may not have influenced his ranking if the list would have been conducted a few years later.

All-Star, All-Time Canadian Hockey Team | Maclean's | March 15, 1925

Pre-WW2 Individual All-Time All-Star teams, mostly voted on after the fact:

The HOH thread has a comprehensive list of every all-time all-star team we've found for the pre-WW2 era. Theokritos tallied up the number of mentions.

Vezina leads all goalies with 10 mentions, Charlie Gardiner is second with 9 mentions. Next is actually George Hainsworth with 6 mentions. Clint Benedict ties Percy LeSueur and Tiny Thompson with 4 mentions. Hugh Lehman and Roy Worters have 2 mentions each. No other goalie had more than 1.

All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries

_____________

I'll answer your other points later tonight or tomorrow

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I have real concerns with Ross being billed as the defensive-minded partner in a top-4 paring. A player can understand a theory or aspect of the game, but not actually play that way- and I think that is Ross. If Ross can be a defense-first partner, he should go much higher considering his offense.

Well, obviously he'd have to sacrifice some offense in that situation.

It's not like Pilote is a Coffey-type defenseman - by all accounts, he was very smart (that one old NHL beat writer said Pilote's hockey smarts were his biggest asset) and pretty good defensively. A cross between Lidstrom and Leetch, not just an upgraded version of Leetch. So it's more like each man could take turns covering for the other - if a player is going to modify his role for a playoffs matchup, I trust a pair of hockey smart guys to do it.

The Ross-Pilote pairing is physically weak and lacks shutdown ability. Yes, the Americans dont have another Howe to send out against them, but the roster has large and/or physical players throughout the lineup. Line two has Heatley (6'3" 210 lbs) who, while not the power-forward everyone wanted, certainly used his size and strength to create and finish. It also has Aurie, who, while small, was tenacious. Line 3 has 3 physical players in Pulford/Tkaczuk/Leswick. Yes, Leswick is small, but like Aurie, tenacious and physical. Line four has Stasiuk... and Staal and Kovalev were/are large men who may not have been punishers, but certainly used their frame and strength to their advantage offensively.

I just remember Heatley as a big wussy, who relied on guys like Alfredsson to do the dirty work. Really, the best physical guy on your second line is probably Lach, but with all his injuries you don't really want him to play that way if he can help it.

Regardless, I wouldn't see this as an every shift thing, necessarily. For specific defensive situations, yes, I am fine with the defensemen matched up like that.

It's not like this is unprecedented - the most extreme real life example I can think of was Dallas winning the Cup with a defensive duo of Matvichuk-Hatcher and an offensive duo of Sydor - Zubov.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I hope you weren't expecting anything groundbreaking. Just that I always place a high emphasis on what I would call the opinions of people who watched these guys play, especially hockey insiders. Something of a "collective eye test." And there really is no debate that Vezina was generally held in higher regard than Benedict, by a pretty clear margin.

Contemporary Opinion: The 1925 MacLean's All-Time All-Star list

Voted on by a long list of hockey insiders at the time.

Vezina was voted 1st Team All-Time All-Star. Benedict was tied with Hugh Lehman for 3rd on a list that was sometimes criticized as being biased against Westerners.

Note Percy LeSueur was 2nd Team, but there are good reasons not to use the list to compare players of different generations - in fact, many voters intentionally included "modern" players like Vezina/Benedict/Lehman and "old timers" on the same level. This list came out before Vezina got sick, so there was no sympathy vote involved. Benedict did have a few good seasons after the list, which may or may not have influenced his ranking if the list would have been conducted a few years later.

All-Star, All-Time Canadian Hockey Team | Maclean's | March 15, 1925

Pre-WW2 Individual All-Time All-Star teams, mostly voted on after the fact:

The HOH thread has a comprehensive list of every all-time all-star team we've found for the pre-WW2 era. Theokritos tallied up the number of mentions.

Vezina leads all goalies with 10 mentions, Charlie Gardiner is second with 9 mentions. Next is actually George Hainsworth with 6 mentions. Clint Benedict ties Percy LeSueur and Tiny Thompson with 4 mentions. Hugh Lehman and Roy Worters have 2 mentions each. No other goalie had more than 1.

All Time Best Players - Lists by their contemporaries

_____________

I'll answer your other points later tonight or tomorrow

How much of Benedict's lack of contemporary praise could be attributed to distaste towards 'praying Benny' when he would 'accidentally' drop to his knees to make a save?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I won't even try to argue that Stamkos is overmatched against Beliveau- most centers would be. But what most centers dont have is a pairing like Chara-Horton, which I constructed with Beliveau in mind.

This really goes to a philosophical difference in the construction of our teams - my team is built primarily to bring out the best in its star players, while countering your team is secondary. You put a higher emphasis on countering other teams in our division (like mine) and less on building around Howe. So it's not surprising that each team is at least a little better at doing what we prioritized.

I spent the early part of the draft focusing on bringing the best out of my star player - Jean Beliveau. Beliveau actually had a few down years in the middle of his career when he didn't have a top puck moving defenseman behind him - after Doug Harvey but before JC Tremblay had really emerged. So here, I have Pierre Pilote, an even better even strength puck mover than Harvey, though obviously not as elite overall. I also have Believeau's actual long-term RW in Geoffrion, and a grindy LW in Sid Abel. Abel isn't as tough as Olmstead, but he is a lot better overall I think. I think my top PP unit is somewhat reminiscent of the 1950s Montreal's unit that was so dominant that the NHL changed the rules to, for the first time, end a 2 minute penalty when the team with the PP scores. (Well, no Maurice Richard on my PP of course, but I did it as close as I could!).

And while I lucked into getting Serge Savard later than he ever went before, it wasn't until the middle of the draft, after I had already built my core, that I focused on picking guys specifically to counter the Hulls and Howes of our division - Flaman, Pavelich (for Howe), Westfall (for Hull).

You spent the early part of the draft constructing a defensive pair that is build to go against someone like Beliveau. And yes, they are very good at that. But the downside is that they don't compliment Gordie Howe as well. Gordie Howe's absolute peak was a 4 year stretch in the early 1950s when he won 4 straight Art Rosses by dominant fashions. Outside those 4 years, he was a great player, but I don't think he truly transcended the game (20 straight years of top 5 scoring is awesome of course, but outside that 4 year stretch, he was always among the leaders of "the pack," not way ahead of it). And based on everything I've read about that Detroit team, and supported by Hart voting, the second most important player on the team was Red Kelly, the "4th forward" (meant as a compliment) who opposing coaches really had no idea how to counter. Your team has nobody like that to really help push Gordie Howe's speed game. I guess Brent Burns is the most similar, but I would not want to give him big minutes at this level.

Less important than the lack of anyone remotely resembling Red Kelly is the construction of your first line, but it is still noteworthy. At his best, Howe played opposite Ted Lindsay, the two of them playing a high-speed aggressive dump-and-chase game, while the center stayed back and covered defensively. (I've drafted Howe, Lindsay, Abel, Kelly, and Delvecchio before, some of them multiple times, so I've read more about 1950s Detroit than any other historical team, and I don't think it's close). Anyway, I guess Toe Blake is something of a lesser Lindsay. However, Stamkos is nothing at all like the two-way playmaking centers Howe played the large majority of his career with - Sid Abel, Alex Delvecchio, and 2 years of Norm Ullman (Ullman wasn't as much of a playmaker, but Delvecchio played LW on the line the 2 seasons Howe played with Ullman).

Now I think your first line COULD work - Gordie Howe was just as good a playmaker as a goal scorer, so having him pass to Stamkos should work in theory. But IMO, it's less of a sure thing than a unit built to resemble Beliveau's real life unit as much as possible.

So that's my piece - of course your top pairing is great at countering the large star forwards in our division, because that's what you focused on. But it's quite weak for a top pairing at rushing and moving the puck, which is a weakness in trying to bring out the best in a superstar like Gordie Howe or Jean Beliveau.

You aren't the only team in our division to prioritize countering the large star forwards in our division, very early on, and you did a good job. However, that comes at a cost - your team isn't as good at creating its own thing.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

How much of Benedict's lack of contemporary praise could be attributed to distaste towards 'praying Benny' when he would 'accidentally' drop to his knees to make a save?

I mean... is there any way to actually know?

I've always been a Benedict skeptic though, as so much of his case rests the basic stats of GAA, wins, and shutouts, but he spent so much time playing on a dominant defensive team. (His comeback with the Maroons is definitely nice though).

 

[The Macho King]

I hope you weren't expecting anything groundbreaking. Just that I always place a high emphasis on what I would call the opinions of people who watched these guys play, especially hockey insiders. Something of a "collective eye test." And there really is no debate that Vezina was generally held in higher regard than Benedict, by a pretty clear margin.

It's not that I have a problem with this methodology in theory, but my eyebrow starts to twitch when I think of how highly regarded Carey Price still is (see, e.g. ESPN top goalie rankings by players, coaches, and GMs where I believe he was ranked third) and wonder how much that holds up.

Not to say that Vezina has the clearly inferior stats that Price has, but it's just like a reflex eye-twitch at this point.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's not that I have a problem with this methodology in theory, but my eyebrow starts to twitch when I think of how highly regarded Carey Price still is (see, e.g. ESPN top goalie rankings by players, coaches, and GMs where I believe he was ranked third) and wonder how much that holds up.

Not to say that Vezina has the clearly inferior stats that Price has, but it's just like a reflex eye-twitch at this point.

I tend to put more emphasis on older voting for two reasons:

• I think the opinions were generally better informed, mainly because there were many fewer teams, but also because the hockey press tended to travel with the teams.
• The farther back go, the less information we have, so contemporary opinion takes up a larger slice of our knowledge-base.

Re: your specific example, it's not directly comparable, as your biggest complaint seems to be about the inertia in opinions long after the player ceased being that great, while the Vezina/Benedict comparison is all opinions based on full careers (or Benedict's almost full career in the case of the 1925 MacLean's list). A closer example would be one that quoipourquoi has often mentioned on HOH - the same voters who voted Hasek for the Vezinas all those times tend to vote for Patrick Roy as the greatest ever when asked to make lists like that.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I mean... is there any way to actually know?

I've always been a Benedict skeptic though, as so much of his case rests the basic stats of GAA, wins, and shutouts, but he spent so much time playing on a dominant defensive team. (His comeback with the Maroons is definitely nice though).

You get what I'm trying to say though right? Benedict is another one of those guys who doesn't get his due in contemporary reports and like when we chatted about Moose Johnson on HOH project.

Benedict ended up being inducted behind.....Charlie Gardiner & Georges Vezina (1945), Alec Connell, Paddy Moran & Hugh Lehman (1958), Tiny Thompson (1959), George Hainsworth (1961), Riley Hern & Bouse Hutton (1963) and Bill Durnan (1965)

Which is quite the list....and I disagree pretty strongly with the "order" if we consider the merit of induction sequence

For a goalie to be that successful it seems unfathomable that unless voters/watchers harbored disdain for his playing style that he would be so poorly thought of.

 

[nabby12]

The big reason for Benedict being so underrated and taking forever to get inducted into the HHOF has to do with the events that transpired towards the end of his tenure in Ottawa:

Benedict developed a problem with drinking, which at first was kept secret by the Senators. Benedict occasionally played for the Senators while under the effects. In the playoffs, Benedict and the Senators played poorly and were quickly eliminated. Management withheld some of his salary for his behaviour. Benedict sued the team in return and the Senators countersued, revealing in court documents the extent of Benedict's behaviour. Once the Ottawa papers found out about the court case, the secret was out. The two sides quickly settled to minimize the publicity.

Benedict did turn it around in Montreal and it's nice that he was able to win a Cup with the Maroons in 1926.

 

[rmartin65]

Well, obviously he'd have to sacrifice some offense in that situation.

It's not like Pilote is a Coffey-type defenseman - by all accounts, he was very smart (that one old NHL beat writer said Pilote's hockey smarts were his biggest asset) and pretty good defensively. A cross between Lidstrom and Leetch, not just an upgraded version of Leetch. So it's more like each man could take turns covering for the other - if a player is going to modify his role for a playoffs matchup, I trust a pair of hockey smart guys to do it.

I don't have an issue with Pilote covering for Ross, my issue is Ross covering for Pilote. I get why you are making the switch (for home ice only), but I think it does make your second pair worse- it weakens the offensive impact of your players, and it is a weaker pairing defensively. How much my secondary offense can capitalize on that is the question; naturally, I like my 2nd-4th lines' odds while you like your pairing's odds.

I just remember Heatley as a big wussy, who relied on guys like Alfredsson to do the dirty work. Really, the best physical guy on your second line is probably Lach, but with all his injuries you don't really want him to play that way if he can help it.

The best physical guy IS Lach- no doubt. And I would even posit that Aurie is a better physical presence than Heatley, despite their sizes. I don't think Heatley is a great physical force, but I do think he used his size and strength to shield the puck/get around defenseman. His size is useful in that way.

Regardless, I wouldn't see this as an every shift thing, necessarily. For specific defensive situations, yes, I am fine with the defensemen matched up like that.

It's not like this is unprecedented - the most extreme real life example I can think of was Dallas winning the Cup with a defensive duo of Matvichuk-Hatcher and an offensive duo of Sydor - Zubov.

For sure- I think you are making the smart move. Howe is definitely the best offensive weapon in the series, and I think it behooves your team to prioritize containing him. I just think it creates vulnerabilities on the second pairing, because it is not as though your second forward line is particularly strong defensively- I like Harris' defense (as I understand it), but the other two are non-factors. Which means you are going to have your best offensive defensive/weakest defensive pairing behind either a weak defensive line or behind a weak offensive line. Either way, you are not putting those units in the best position to succeed, in my opinion.

This really goes to a philosophical difference in the construction of our teams - my team is built primarily to bring out the best in its star players, while countering your team is secondary. You put a higher emphasis on countering other teams in our division (like mine) and less on building around Howe. So it's not surprising that each team is at least a little better at doing what we prioritized.

I see it this way too! It is part of why I love the ATD. I had never tried focusing so much on the other teams in my division before, and figured that it would be fun to give it a shot.

I spent the early part of the draft focusing on bringing the best out of my star player - Jean Beliveau. Beliveau actually had a few down years in the middle of his career when he didn't have a top puck moving defenseman behind him - after Doug Harvey but before JC Tremblay had really emerged. So here, I have Pierre Pilote, an even better even strength puck mover than Harvey, though obviously not as elite overall. I also have Believeau's actual long-term RW in Geoffrion, and a grindy LW in Sid Abel. Abel isn't as tough as Olmstead, but he is a lot better overall I think. I think my top PP unit is somewhat reminiscent of the 1950s Montreal's unit that was so dominant that the NHL changed the rules to, for the first time, end a 2 minute penalty when the team with the PP scores. (Well, no Maurice Richard on my PP of course, but I did it as close as I could!).

And while I lucked into getting Serge Savard later than he ever went before, it wasn't until the middle of the draft, after I had already built my core, that I focused on picking guys specifically to counter the Hulls and Howes of our division - Flaman, Pavelich (for Howe), Westfall (for Hull).

You spent the early part of the draft constructing a defensive pair that is build to go against someone like Beliveau. And yes, they are very good at that. But the downside is that they don't compliment Gordie Howe as well. Gordie Howe's absolute peak was a 4 year stretch in the early 1950s when he won 4 straight Art Rosses by dominant fashions. Outside those 4 years, he was a great player, but I don't think he truly transcended the game (20 straight years of top 5 scoring is awesome of course, but outside that 4 year stretch, he was always among the leaders of "the pack," not way ahead of it). And based on everything I've read about that Detroit team, and supported by Hart voting, the second most important player on the team was Red Kelly, the "4th forward" (meant as a compliment) who opposing coaches really had no idea how to counter. Your team has nobody like that to really help push Gordie Howe's speed game. I guess Brent Burns is the most similar, but I would not want to give him big minutes at this level.

Less important than the lack of anyone remotely resembling Red Kelly is the construction of your first line, but it is still noteworthy. At his best, Howe played opposite Ted Lindsay, the two of them playing a high-speed aggressive dump-and-chase game, while the center stayed back and covered defensively. (I've drafted Howe, Lindsay, Abel, Kelly, and Delvecchio before, some of them multiple times, so I've read more about 1950s Detroit than any other historical team, and I don't think it's close). Anyway, I guess Toe Blake is something of a lesser Lindsay. However, Stamkos is nothing at all like the two-way playmaking centers Howe played the large majority of his career with - Sid Abel, Alex Delvecchio, and 2 years of Norm Ullman (Ullman wasn't as much of a playmaker, but Delvecchio played LW on the line the 2 seasons Howe played with Ullman).

Now I think your first line COULD work - Gordie Howe was just as good a playmaker as a goal scorer, so having him pass to Stamkos should work in theory. But IMO, it's less of a sure thing than a unit built to resemble Beliveau's real life unit as much as possible.

Honestly, I feel like your analysis is pretty spot on. I will have to search for the quote later, but I feel like I remember reading somewhere that, by the time Howe and Abel were playing together, Abel was largely the third man high due to his foot speed, and that Lindsay and Howe went into the corners and fed him. That said, I also remember a quote where Abel told Howe to get to the net with his stick on the ice, so... I guess make of that what you will.

I think Howe has the ability to be the primary puck distributor- he led the league in assists 3 times and finished in the top 3/5/10 a bunch of other times, so I believe that is not a stretch. Yes, it will impact his goal scoring, but I think Stamkos and Blake are a better goal scoring duo than any combination of linemates that Howe had (at least by the time they were playing with Howe).

I think the lack of a Kelly substitute is where I failed Howe more than in the construction of the forward line itself (I realize that not everyone will agree, but I really like the line- I think it has all the pieces). Once I decided to make that top pairing a counter Beliveau/Hull pairing (which I do think they would do well at), I missed the boat on defensemen who could contribute at that level offensively without being a problem defensively. As you've said, I prioritized shutting down opponents more than optimizing my players. I think the raw talent of Howe allows that line of thinking to work, but I recognize what I did.

So that's my piece - of course your top pairing is great at countering the large star forwards in our division, because that's what you focused on. But it's quite weak for a top pairing at rushing and moving the puck, which is a weakness in trying to bring out the best in a superstar like Gordie Howe or Jean Beliveau.

You aren't the only team in our division to prioritize countering the large star forwards in our division, very early on, and you did a good job. However, that comes at a cost - your team isn't as good at creating its own thing.

It will be interesting to see how the voters see this series going. I think that we agree on the general strategy in place, and that it comes down to which team can execute better. I like my team's ability to contain Beliveau, and I like that the Howe line will command the top defensive players on the other team. In my opinion, the focus on Howe will open up opportunities down the lineup for my team, especially when your defensive pairing switch is in effect.


Honestly, I got the playoffs I wanted already- I wanted to match up against @BenchBrawl 's team, and I wanted to match up with your team. I wanted to see if I could build a unit that could successfully counter Beliveau and Hull while still being good enough offensively to get the win. So, whatever happens here, I got to go up against two great GMs who had two great starting pieces.

 

[nabby12]

This sure is an interesting goaltending battle between the two stars of the 1910s/1920s in Vezina and Benedict.

Vezina himself admitted that Benedict was the better goaltender between the two so, in this matchup I'd have to give @rmartin65's New York Americans the edge in net.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

This sure is an interesting goaltending battle between the two stars of the 1910s/1920s in Vezina and Benedict.

Vezina himself admitted that Benedict was the better goaltender between the two so, in this matchup I'd have to give @rmartin65's New York Americans the edge in net.

A hockey player was humble... news at 11!

 

[nabby12]

A hockey player was humble... news at 11.

No, I think he was just being honest in this case.

Here's an excerpt from the Benedict piece I wrote for The Hockey News' Top 100 Goalies of All Time special magazine:

There’s long been a debate on who was the better netminder of the early NHL: Benedict or Georges Vezina. Comparing the two is difficult, since they were polar opposites as goaltenders. Vezina didn’t like to go down to block shots. Instead he stopped pucks with his pads in the stand-up position or slapped them aside with his stick. Benedict was a flopper, doing everything in his power to stop the puck.

Hall of Famer Punch Broadbent once noted, “Georges Vezina of the Canadiens was a great goalie back then. He’s honored with a trophy practically legend in hockey. But we all thought there was no goalie ever better than Clint Benedict. Clint went on for many years with a distinctive style that included going to the ice for pucks, which has become so much a part of a goalie’s play through the years.

Prior to a game between Vezina’s Canadiens and Benedict’s Montreal Maroons, Vezina told Leo Dandurand, the Canadiens owner who donated the trophy in Vezina’s name, “It will be a close battle. I can hold them out at my end, Leo, but it will be tough to score against them. The best man is in the other goal, you know.”

Dandurand also once claimed to a reporter that he was always very much tempted to trade for Benedict to play goal for the Canadiens instead of Vezina. It goes along with the legend that if Vezina hadn’t tragically died from tuberculosis in 1926, the Vezina Trophy might instead be called the Benedict Trophy.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No, I think he was just being honest in this case.

Here's an excerpt from the Benedict piece I wrote for The Hockey News' Top 100 Goalies of All Time special magazine:

There’s long been a debate on who was the better netminder of the early NHL: Benedict or Georges Vezina. Comparing the two is difficult, since they were polar opposites as goaltenders. Vezina didn’t like to go down to block shots. Instead he stopped pucks with his pads in the stand-up position or slapped them aside with his stick. Benedict was a flopper, doing everything in his power to stop the puck.

Hall of Famer Punch Broadbent once noted, “Georges Vezina of the Canadiens was a great goalie back then. He’s honored with a trophy practically legend in hockey. But we all thought there was no goalie ever better than Clint Benedict. Clint went on for many years with a distinctive style that included going to the ice for pucks, which has become so much a part of a goalie’s play through the years.

Prior to a game between Vezina’s Canadiens and Benedict’s Montreal Maroons, Vezina told Leo Dandurand, the Canadiens owner who donated the trophy in Vezina’s name, “It will be a close battle. I can hold them out at my end, Leo, but it will be tough to score against them. The best man is in the other goal, you know.”

Dandurand also once claimed to a reporter that he was always very much tempted to trade for Benedict to play goal for the Canadiens instead of Vezina. It goes along with the legend that if Vezina hadn’t tragically died from tuberculosis in 1926, the Vezina Trophy might instead be called the Benedict Trophy.

I just don't see why you value the opinions of a few people over the opinions of the dozens who were involved in the 1925 All-Time All-Star list.

It should also be noted that Vezina was a little older than Benedict. In 1924-25 (the only season that they could have possibly played against each other while Benedict was playing for the Maroons), Benedict was 32 years old and Vezina was 38 years old.

**So maybe just based on their respective ages, we can't glean much from Vezina doing significantly better than Benedict on the all-time all-star list that came out that year, or from Benedict having more trade value at that particular time.

____

Edit: And Punch Broadbent, Benedict's teammate preferred Benedict? I'd put as much stock into that as I would a Montreal Canadiens player preferring Vezina - which is basically nothing.

I guess I should point out that 1 of the 10 mentions of Vezina as the best ever from the HOH thread was his teammate Joliat, who then listed Hainsworth as the 2nd best ever... yeah

For what it's worth, Sprague Cleghorn, who played with both Vezina and Benedict at different times, preferred Vezina.

____

D0uble edit: Not criticizing your writing by the way. Obviously, you can't possible quote every player who has ever said anything about those two guys, and in a piece about Benedict, of course, you would focus on the support for Benedict.