Divisional Semi-finals - Sokovia Recorders vs. Michigan Wolverines

[BenchBrawl]

Sokovia Recorders

Punch Imlach
Roger Neilson

Cy Denneny - Syl Apps "A" - George Armstrong "C"
Roy Conacher - Jean Ratelle - Bill Cook "A"
Bob Pulford - Anze Kopitar - Corey Perry
Kevin Stevens - Cooney Weiland - Rick Tocchet

Jacques Laperriere - Eddie Shore
Moose Johnson - Jimmy Thomson
Sergei Gonchar - Terry Harper

Ken Dryden
Tiny Thompson

PP1: Denneny-Apps-Cook-Gonchar-Shore
PP2: Conacher-Ratelle-Perry-Laperriere-Thomson

PK1: Pulford-Armstrong-Johnson-Harper
PK2: Kopitar-Weiland-Laperriere-Thomson

Spares:
Bruce Stuart, F
Joe Primeau, C
Carol Vadnais, D


vs.


Michigan Wolverines

Head Coach: Tommy Gorman

Captain: Harvey Pulford
Alternate: Duke Keats
Alternate: Punch Broadbent

Dickie Moore - Stan Mikita - Martin St Louis
Paul Thompson - Hooley Smith - Babe Dye
Wayne Cashman - Henrik Sedin - Danny Gare
Smokey Harris - Duke Keats - Punch Broadbent
Spares: RW/C Bernie Morris, C/LW Don McKenney, RW Tie Domi

Larry Robinson - Erik Karlsson
Carl Brewer - Harvey Pulford
Allan Stanley - Moose Vasko
Spare: Leo Boivin

Frank Brimsek
Chuck Rayner

Powerplay:
PP1: Moore - Mikita - Gare - Brewer - Karlsson
PP2: Thompson - Hooley - Dye - Robinson - Stanley

Penalty Kill:
PK1: Keats - Broadbent - Larry Robinson - Harvey Pulford
PK2: Cashman - Harris - Carl Brewer - Moose Vasko​

Click to read more...

 

[Dreakmur]

I suppose I'll just throw out some initial thoughts, and hopefully be able to get more in depth later this week.

Forwards:
At first glance, I'm not sure either of us will have a clear edge. You're top two lines have a good amount of talent, and are very nicely constructed. You're bottom two lines have some talent, but lack any real defensive ability.

Defensemen:
This is where I feel I have an edge. The second pairing seems to be the difference.

Goalies:
Two goalies who are pretty close.

Coaching:
I think this is pretty close. Two mediocre coaches. I think you built a good forward group to take advantage of Gorman's forechecking expertise.

Power Play:
Your first unit has a few big warts. Neither Danny Gare nor Carl Brewer should be anywhere near a first unit in this thing. My second unit has a few lower-end talents.

Penalty Kill:
Your forwards are really bad here. Not one of the four are guys I would consider good. The defensemen are really good though.


I'll take some deeper dives later, but hopefully this gets us started! Good luck Wrigley.

 

[Dreakmur]

1st Line: Moore-Mikita-St.Louis vs. Denneny-Apps-Armstrong

• Michigan assembled one of my favorite top lines in the draft. Very good offensive punch, plenty of grit, and all three guys have some defensive pedigree.
• George Armstrong's weak offense is the biggest difference between the lines, which is why Bill Cook will be taking a few shift a game in his place.
• Michigan's line has a combined 7 season vs. X score of 285.6. Sokovia's has 252.8 with Armstrong and 295.9 with Cook.
• In terms of play-off performance, there are no duds on either line. I would consider Moore, Denneny, Apps, and Armstrong to be very good. I would consider Mikita, St. Louis, and Cook to be decent.

Michigan has the edge when Armstrong is there, and Sokovia has the edge when Cook is there.

2nd Line: Thompson-Smith-Dye vs. Conacher-Ratelle-Cook

• Another well assembled line for Michigan.
• Michigan's line has a combined vs. X score of 249.7. Sokovia's has 283.6.
• In terms of play-off performances, it appears that Babe Dye has a pretty weak record. As an offense-only player, going pointless in 4 of his 5 play-off appearances looks bad. Paul Thompson and Hooley Smith both seem to be hot and cold, but overall I would consider them to be about average. All of Conacher, Ratelle, and Cook are fine, but not great.

Sokovia has a pretty good offensive edge here. Especially in the play-offs.

Top-6 overall:

• Offensively, they are about equal. Michigan has a combined vs. X score of 535.3. Sokovia has 536.4.
• Defensively, I would consider Moore, Smith, and Armstrong to be very good. I would consider Mikita, St. Louis, and Ratelle to be good. Dye is bad. I've seen people say Apps was bad, though I've not found anything to substantiate that.
• Physically, neither team is particularly good or bad. Michigan has smaller (average 6'0" and 191 lbs) gritty players, and Sokovia has bigger (6'2.5" and 211 lbs) but less aggressive players.
• Sokovia has an edge in play-off performers. Babe Dye, who is the key to the offense on Michigan's 2nd line, is the only player on either team with a bad play-off record.

 

[Dreakmur]

3rd Line: Cashman-Sedin-Gare vs. Pulford-Kopitar-Perry

• As a scoring line, Michigan's looks to well balanced, but a tad weak on talent. The lack of defensive ability is a bit concerning.
• In terms of even strength scoring, Michigan has a combined score of 154. Sokovia has 157. It appears that Kopitar is the only guy one either line that scored a high percentage of his points on the power play. In terms of creating offense, both of these lines should be able to do the job at even strength.
• Defensively, Sokovia has a very significant advantage. Sedin, Gare, and Perry are all non-factors defensively, though Perry brings some agitator qualities. Cashman, I believe, was decent defensively. Pulford and Kopitar are both very good, maybe even elite.
• For physical play, neither line has a significant edge. Cashman is an animal, but Sedin and Gare are both soft. All of Sokovia's guys are big, strong, and play hard, though none are intimidating.
• In terms of play-offs, only Kopitar and Pulford would be considered great play-off performers.

Sokovia has a good edge here.

4th Line: Harris-Keats-Broadbent vs. Stevens-Weiland-Tocchet

• Again, as a scoring line, Michigan's line looks well-assembled, and again, the lack of defensive ability is an issue.
• For even strength scoring, it's tougher to measure when most of the guys are pre-WW2. For this comparison, I am just going to apply the "average" rate of 66% even strength scoring (Keats 55, Weiland 52, Harris 46, and Broadbent 40). Under that assumption, Michigan comes away with a score of 141. Michigan gets 147.
• Depending on what you think of my math on the even strength scoring, Sokovia is better scoring. Their regular vs. X scores are 213.1 vs. 206.1 in favour of Michigan. Tocchet and Stevens are such good ES scorers that they tilt it once you remove the PP scoring. Is it fair to assume none of Harris, Keats, and Broadbent are better than average ES scorers? Maybe. I personally view Broadbent as a guy who would be a good ES scorer, but Keats as a guy who would be more of a PP scorer, so I think it evens out.
• Defensively, only Broadbent and Weiland have much pedigree.
• Physically, both lines have a lot of bite. Broadbent, Stevens, and Tocchet are all big-time power forwards. Keats is a big boy with an edge.
• Weiland led play-off scoring in back to back years. He's the best play-off performer on either line, though Broadbent was pretty good too. No duds on either side.

Based on the even strength scoring, I think Sokovia has a slight edge.

Bottom-6 overall:

• Offensively, Sokovia has a small edge in scoring at even strength. Michigan has 295. Sokovia has 304.
• Defensively, Sokovia has a significant advantage, which is based mostly on Kopitar and Pulford being so much better than anyone Michigan has.
• Physically, its about even. Cashman, Broadbent, Tocchet, and Stevens bring the heat!
• In terms of play-off performances, Sokovia has the two best in Kopitar and Pulford. Broadbent and Weiland are also good. Smokey Harris was pretty good too, actually.

 

[Dreakmur]

1st Pair: Robinson-Karlsson vs. Laperriere-Shore

• Shore is one of the super-elite offensive defensemen. While he was known as a rusher, it also seems that he was a really good passer (he led defensemen in assists six times, compared to leading in goals only twice). For me that means he doesn't have to be reckless to create offense. He's also one of the most physically intimidating players of all time. Defensively, he is probably good, but not great - he seems like he was really good most of the time, but prone to being over-aggressive at times.
• Robinson is one of the best defensive defensemen. In a shut-down role, he's one of the few defensemen who can match up against any kind of player - he has the size and strength to deal with Gordie Howe, and he has the skating to deal with Bobby Hull. While he is super-tough, he wasn't particularly mean.
• Laperriere is pretty much a poor-man's Robinson. A big rangy guy who defends really well and makes a good first pass.
• Karlsson is a strong offensive defenseman, even with a short peak. Defensively, he's pretty awful. Despite actually improving his defense over the last few years, he's still just becoming OK in San Jose. Physically, he's a zero.

Norris record:
Robinson - 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5
Shore - 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 4, 4, 5

Laperriere - 1, 2, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 8, 9
Karlsson - 1, 1, 2, 2, 7

Laperriere vs. Karlsson is a tricky call. Karlsson has a better peak, but Laperriere has twice as many relevant seasons. Shore is clearly a lot better than Robinson. Chemistry is pretty good on each pair. I think Shore and Laperriere is about as perfect as it gets for a stylistic match. Robinson and Karlsson is pretty good too, though, I think Robinson will end up sacrificing some of his offensive game to support Karlsson. That's the weakest part of his game though, so not a huge blow.

This looks like a good edge for Sokovia, with Shore being the game-breaker.

 

[Dreakmur]

2nd Pair: Brewer-Pulford vs. Johnson-Thomson

• Thomson was known as a rugged, defensive defenseman. He wasn't a great skater, but was good positionally and excelled at the clutch and grab style encouraged by his coach. Despite that reputation, he had some very impressive offensive totals, especially assists.
• Brewer was a super-talented defenseman who excelled at defensive hockey. His offensive totals never really matched his skill.
• Johnson was, despite his very large frame, an excellent skater. He also put up some decent offensive numbers, though they were neither great nor frequent.
• Pulford is pretty much a tank. One of the biggest and baddest defensemen ever. He was pretty good defensively. With the puck, however, he'd probably be better off using a shovel instead of a hockey stick.

Norris record:
Brewer - 2, 3, 4, 6, 6, 9, 9
Thomson - 6, 7 (pre-Norris All-Star record 3, 4, 5, 6, 6)

Thomson and Brewer are pretty close. Their records are pretty similar. Brewer missed a few years, and Thomson had some really tough competition at his peak (Harvey, Kelly, and Gadsby). With no voting records, it's a bit trickier to compare Johnson and Pulford. At their peaks, they were probably both among the best defensive guys, but Johnson just did it for so much longer.

Overall, both pairs are very good defensively. Both pairs brings a lot of physical play. Sokovia's pair brings a lot more puck-moving ability, so this should be an advantage.

 

[Dreakmur]

3rd Pair: Stanley-Vasko vs. Gonchar-Harper

• Stanley seems to be a pretty well-rounded defenseman, and probably a top-4 guy in this draft. He's a bad skater, but he's responsible defensively and is a really good puck-mover.
• Gonchar is a really strong offensive defenseman, with an under-rated defensive game. I wouldn't say he's good defensively at this level, but certainly not bad. His bio is filled with scouting reports.
• Vasko is a pretty well-rounded guy - big and strong, good skater, skilled with the puck.
• Harper is a low-skill stay at home defenseman with an ability to agitate opposing players.

Norris record:
Stanley - 2, 3, 7, 8, 8, 8, 10
Gonchar - 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Vasko - 3, 4, 9
Harper - 5, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9

Gonchar and Stanley are pretty even. Stanley has a better early peak, and Gonchar has a much better middle peak. Vasko is probably a little better than Harper. Harper has a longer peak, but he was never among the best like Vasko was.

At even strength, Michigan has an edge here. Sokovia's have a much bigger impact on special teams. It's probably a wash overall.

 

[Dreakmur]

Goaltending: Brimsek vs. Dryden

• Brimsek is one of the elite regular season goalies. He's got a really good peak. He's not bad in the play-offs, but certainly not as good as the regular season.
• Dryden has a better regular season peak than Brimsek, but he lacks the longevity. In the play-offs, however, Dryden is probably better than he was in the regular season.

All-Star record:
Brimsek - 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2
Dryden - 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 4

Hart record:
Brimsek - 2, 3, 5
Dryden - 2, 4, 4

In the regular season, this would probably be a wash. In the play-offs though, Dryden has the edge. Slight edge to Sokovia.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

3rd Pair: Stanley-Vasko vs. Gonchar-Harper

• Stanley seems to be a pretty well-rounded defenseman, and probably a top-4 guy in this draft. He's a bad skater, but he's responsible defensively and is a really good puck-mover.
• Gonchar is a really strong offensive defenseman, with an under-rated defensive game. I wouldn't say he's good defensively at this level, but certainly not bad. His bio is filled with scouting reports.
• Vasko is a pretty well-rounded guy - big and strong, good skater, skilled with the puck.
• Harper is a low-skill stay at home defenseman with an ability to agitate opposing players.

Norris record:
Stanley - 2, 3, 7, 8, 8, 8, 10
Gonchar - 4, 4, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9

Vasko - 3, 4, 9
Harper - 5, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9

Gonchar and Stanley are pretty even. Stanley has a better early peak, and Gonchar has a much better middle peak. Vasko is probably a little better than Harper. Harper has a longer peak, but he was never among the best like Vasko was.

At even strength, Michigan has an edge here. Sokovia's have a much bigger impact on special teams. It's probably a wash overall.

I think most of your comparisons are more or less fair, but I'm going to cry foul on the Stanley vs Gonchar comparison.

1. Gonchar played at a time when a non-trivial number of voters viewed the Norris as something of an Art Ross for defensemen. As a result, high scoring defensemen always received decent number of Norris votes, regardless of their overall impact. It would be one thing if Gonchar was ever actually close to winning it, but he didn't. A defenseman of that era who lead the league in scoring was going to get a lot of Norris votes, regardless of how good he was overall. Gonchar was no Housley, but early in hia career, he did get decent Norris votes when he wasn't even top pairing at even strength.

2. Even if you disagree with my rational in #1, it should be uncontroversial that much of Gonchar's value is on the PP - he's a legit all-time great PP QB, up there with Lidstrom as the best PPQB of his generation (granted, it was a pretty weak generation for PPQBs, but still pretty impressive). Therefore, less of his value would be at even stength.

I like the way you are using Gonchar here - bottom pairing at even stength, top PP unit. And for my own team, if I missed out on Harry Cameron, I would have likely drafted Gonchar for this role - perhaps even several rounds before you did (at that stage of the draft top-unit-capable PPQBs are a valuable commodity). But he's no Allan Stanley at even strength. Stanley could be a passable (not great) #4 in a draft this size; Gonchar couldn't.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think most of your comparisons are more or less fair, but I'm going to cry foul on the Stanley vs Gonchar comparison.

1. Gonchar played at a time when a non-trivial number of voters viewed the Norris as something of an Art Ross for defensemen. As a result, high scoring defensemen always received decent number of Norris votes, regardless of their overall impact. It would be one thing if Gonchar was ever actually close to winning it, but he didn't. A defenseman of that era who lead the league in scoring was going to get a lot of Norris votes, regardless of how good he was overall. Gonchar was no Housley, but early in hia career, he did get decent Norris votes when he wasn't even top pairing at even strength.

Gonchar twice received decent Norris votes during a season where he didn't lead his team in ES ice time - 5th in 2000 and 6th in 2001. He led his teams in ES ice time 7 times, 1999 and every season from 2002 to 2008. Ice time wasn't officially recorded in 1995 or 1996, but according to scouting reports, he was on the primary match-up unit.

Actually, he never led the league in scoring without also leading his team in ES ice time. Every one of his top-2s in scoring among defensemen came in that 6-season string from 2002 to 2008. In 2000, he was 5th in scoring, and in 2001, he was 6th in scoring.

How often was Allan Stanley his team's #1 defenseman? Probably 1956 in Chicago, and maybe 1957 in Boston.

2. Even if you disagree with my rational in #1, it should be uncontroversial that much of Gonchar's value is on the PP - he's a legit all-time great PP QB, up there with Lidstrom as the best PPQB of his generation (granted, it was a pretty weak generation for PPQBs, but still pretty impressive). Therefore, less of his value would be at even stength.

I did specifically mentioned that more of Gonchar's (and Harper's) value will come on their respective special teams units.

I like the way you are using Gonchar here - bottom pairing at even stength, top PP unit. And for my own team, if I missed out on Harry Cameron, I would have likely drafted Gonchar for this role - perhaps even several rounds before you did (at that stage of the draft top-unit-capable PPQBs are a valuable commodity). But he's no Allan Stanley at even strength. Stanley could be a passable (not great) #4 in a draft this size; Gonchar couldn't.

I think Gonchar's all-around game is a lot better than you. I don't think he was the offense-only player that you seem to describe. Most scouting reports, through his entire career, cited defensive play or two-way ability.

Based on the reports, he seemed to start as a shut-down defensemen. Once his offensive game started to develop, he went through a phase of being terrible defensively, which seems to have been 1999 and 2000. In 2001, he started to stabilize. From 2002 to 2008, he was an elite 2-way defenseman.

A few quotes from the bio:
"Once seen as a stay-at-home "D", Gonchar has proved to be a pure two-way rearguard."

"Gonchar made the quick jump to becoming a complete player by adding offense."

 

[Dreakmur]

Well, I suppose I'll throw out my final word here. Unfortunately, Wrigley can't be around to make this more interesting, but doctor's orders!

Roger Neilson's tactics:
-Punch Imlach and Tommy Gorman are similarly rated coached. As long as both teams fit their coaches relatively well, they should be about even, which I think is the case now.
-Neilson gives Sokovia a small coaching edge.
-Neilson is particularly useful in terms of pre-scouting and game-planning for a play-off series.

Third Line mismatch:
-Pulford, Kopitar, and Perry is a well-rounded line that can both be used for shutting down opponents and adding depth ES scoring.
-Cashman, Sedin, and Gare can add almost as much scoring depth as Sokovia's line, but they cannot be used as anything more than a scoring line.
-Not only is Sokovia's line strong, they allow for may more options in terms of match-ups and game plans.

Penalty Killing mismatch:
-Pulford, Armstrong, Kopitar, and Weiland is a good group of PK forwards.
-Keats, Broadbent, Harris, and Cashman is an extremely weak group of PK forwards.
-Assuming penalties get called, Sokovia will have a significant advantage in special teams.

Eddie Shore a gamebreaker:
-Simply put, Shore is the best player in this series.
-He was known for his endurance, so he can play a tonne if needed.

Winning Pedigree:
-Combining the four lines, three defense pairs, staring goalie, and coach, Sokovia has 60 Stanley Cups
-Michigan has 41 Stanley Cups