Foster Hewitt Division Semifinals: (1) Pittsburgh AC vs. (4) Miami Screaming Eagles

[jarek]

Pittsburgh AC

Coach: Lester Patrick

Vladimir Krutov-Frank Boucher-Brett Hull
Frank Foyston-Marty Barry-Andy Bathgate
Jiri Holik-Ivan Hlinka-Bob Nevin
Don Marshall-Dale Hunter-Terry O'Reilly
Jack Adams, Kent Nilsson, Brenden Morrow

Ebbie Goodfellow-Doug Harvey
Georges Boucher-Bob Goldham
Rod Seiling-Nikolai Sologubov
Viktor Kuzkin

Grant Fuhr
Rogie Vachon

PP1: Hull-Boucher-Barry-Bathgate-Harvey
PP2: Krutov-Hlinka-Foyston-Boucher-Goodfellow

PK1: Marshall-Nevin-Harvey-Goldham
PK2: Boucher-Holik-Goodfellow-Seiling
Extras: Foyston, Hunter, Boucher



vs.

Coach: Mike Keenan
Assistant Coach: Larry Robinson
Captain: Shane Doan
Assistant Captain: Charlie Gardiner
Assistant Captain: Brad Park

Dickie Moore-Phil Esposito-Steve Larmer
Bill Barber-Mike Modano-Bobby Bauer
Shane Doan (C)-Jeremy Roenick-Bill Guerin
Dave Balon-Red Sullivan-Mario Tremblay

Spares: Bobby Smith, C; Paul MacLean, RW

Lionel Conacher-Brad Park (A)
Mark Howe-Brad McCrimmon
Kevin Lowe-Reed Larson

Spare: Kris Letang

Charlie Gardiner (A)
Mike Richter

PP1- Dickie Moore-Phil Esposito-Jeremy Roenick-Reed Larson-Brad Park
PP2- Shane Doan-Mike Modano-Bobby Bauer-Mark Howe-Lionel Conacher

PK1- George Sullivan-Dave Balon-Lionel Conacher-Brad McCrimmon
PK2- Mike Modano-Bill Barber-Kevin Lowe- Brad Park​

Click to read more...

 

[rmartin65]

It has been a busy week, but I plan to make some arguments tomorrow night. Does anybody have any questions/comments about the series that I might address?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Sorry I've been a terrible opponent rmartin. Best of luck!

I won't have much time to contribute, but will chip in if I can find some time.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

First Lines

7yr VsX
Eposito - 130.4
Boucher - 95.1
Hull - 88
Moore - 85.4
Larmer 71.9

Krutov??

Esposito is a force, who you built around well. Moore is an ideal linemate for him, Larmer works stylistically but is kind of an eyesore on a top line. We don't have VsX for Krutov, but I think he's a good margin better than Larmer.

You have advantages for our two best players here and the better top line, but I make up some ground with Larmer being above his head and Krutov merely solid.

Second Lines

7 yr VsX
Bathgate 101.1
Barry 89.6
Modano 81.5
Bauer 74.6
Barber 70

Foyston??

I think I have advantages at all three spots for our second lines. Bathgate is the best player on either line and a good margin ahead of Bauer and Barber. I think there is a noticeable gap between Barry and Modano too. Foyston doesn't compare cleanly, but his offense was probably superior and he did more than just score.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Goaltending and coaching have fairly big gaps in each direction.

Gardiner is around 10-15 all-time (I have him at 11), Fuhr is at 20-25 all-time (I have him at 22). Gardiner has a clear advantage, but Fuhr could hold his own in the playoffs behind a strong group of skaters.

Patrick is around 5th all-time (I have him at 4), Keenan is around 20th all-time (I have him at 19). Again another decisive advantage one way, but Keenan did win a Cup and had consistently competitive teams.

The biggest difference between our weaker members though is the fit, I think. Fuhr was used to playing behind a strong offensive team, who he aided with his puckhandling skills. Keenan was used to keeping a tight ship, staffed by deckhands who played a workmanlike game. Miami does have a lot of these types (particularly the third line), but it does not at all fit Esposito who is Miami's best player.

 

[rmartin65]

First Lines

7yr VsX
Eposito - 130.4
Boucher - 95.1
Hull - 88
Moore - 85.4
Larmer 71.9

Krutov??

Esposito is a force, who you built around well. Moore is an ideal linemate for him, Larmer works stylistically but is kind of an eyesore on a top line. We don't have VsX for Krutov, but I think he's a good margin better than Larmer.

You have advantages for our two best players here and the better top line, but I make up some ground with Larmer being above his head and Krutov merely solid.


Second Lines

7 yr VsX
Bathgate 101.1
Barry 89.6
Modano 81.5
Bauer 74.6
Barber 70

Foyston??

I think I have advantages at all three spots for our second lines. Bathgate is the best player on either line and a good margin ahead of Bauer and Barber. I think there is a noticeable gap between Barry and Modano too. Foyston doesn't compare cleanly, but his offense was probably superior and he did more than just score.

I think this analysis is quite fair, to both teams. I have a sizable advantage with the first lines, and you have it on the 2nd.

I do have a quibble about the noticeable gap between Barry and Modano. While I would probably take Barry over Modano, I dont think there is that much of a difference between the two.

I would take Barber over Foyston for sure, but not to a massive degree. And certainly not enough to make up for the Bauer/Bathgate combination.

I will say, however, that I think my line would match up pretty well if they were on the ice together. I think Modano would do a good job with Barry, and Barber seems like the right kind of player to deal with Bathgate, as he could skate pretty well (at least, before the knee injury) and play a physical game.

So, in sum for the top 6:

1st Line: Miami
2nd Line: Pittsburgh

I can do a quick analysis of the bottom 6 now.

Since we have more modern era players here, I will switch over to the 10 year system.

3rd line:
Jeremy Roenick 76.1
Shane Doan 62.5
Bob Nevin 59.4
Billy Guerin 57.8

Holik and Hlinka are not on the list, but I would imagine that Hlinka comes in under Roenick, while Holik tops Doan.

In any case, I think Miami has the edge, but not by as big of a margin as we saw in the top 6 lines. Roenick I am higher on than most (I think he is a worthy, if low-end, 2C here), but I think he is definitely a couple notches above Hlinka. Doan and Holik are pretty close to equal, in my eyes. And Nevin is one of my favorite under the radar guys, so I wont try to say that Guerin is better. They are close, but Nevin has the edge.

In terms of fit, I like my line better. They will come after any line hard and fast, and can excel in either an offensive or checking role.

4th line
Our 4th lines wont be doing much, if I read your team correctly, so I wont put much time into it. I do think that Hunter and O'Reilly could lead to your team being shorthanded more than you would like, though.

 

[rmartin65]

Goaltending and coaching have fairly big gaps in each direction.

Gardiner is around 10-15 all-time (I have him at 11), Fuhr is at 20-25 all-time (I have him at 22). Gardiner has a clear advantage, but Fuhr could hold his own in the playoffs behind a strong group of skaters.

Patrick is around 5th all-time (I have him at 4), Keenan is around 20th all-time (I have him at 19). Again another decisive advantage one way, but Keenan did win a Cup and had consistently competitive teams.

The biggest difference between our weaker members though is the fit, I think. Fuhr was used to playing behind a strong offensive team, who he aided with his puckhandling skills. Keenan was used to keeping a tight ship, staffed by deckhands who played a workmanlike game. Miami does have a lot of these types (particularly the third line), but it does not at all fit Esposito who is Miami's best player.

Again, a very fair review. I would like to address the Keenan/Esposito issue, in that I dont think it is a deal breaker for my team. I think the fact that my team is littered with Iron Mike players will help insulate Esposito from Keenan's wrath. I imagine that they would butt heads occasionally, but I think as long as Espo is producing offensively, everything will go ok between the two. And down the line-up, I think Keenan will get the most out of some of the other guys.

Moving on to defense:

1st Pairing- Pretty clear advantage to Pittsburgh. Harvey is better than Park, and Goodfellow is better than Conacher. I dont think my pairing is weak, but you have one of the best top pairing in the draft.

2nd Pairing- Miami advantage, but not to the extent that the 1st pairing tilts to Pittsburgh. I think Miami's real life chemistry should be taken into account as well.

3rd Pairing- Again, I give the edge to Miami.

I think we have some of the best defenses in the draft, so it is a shame that we have to meet up so soon.

Overall:

It is going to be an interesting series. We both have some top offensive talents, and we both have a strong defensive corps. While Pittsburgh does have the edge on offense, I think that Miami's edge in defense (including defensive play from the forwards) and in net are what gives Miami a legitimate chance at the upset.

 

[jarek]

Ugh.. rmartin, I really hate to say it because you built a good team, but Pittsburgh is an incredibly strong team. Park, Esposito and Gardiner would have to play the series of their lives to win here, but I think Pittsburgh just has too much offensive depth.

To your credit, I think you're built reasonably well to handle the type of offensive depth Pittsburgh has, but I think Pittsburgh is just too talented.

Currently I'm at Pittsburgh in 5. Don't let that stop you from continuing the debate though, there might be an ace in the hole on your team that I'm just missing that could give you a chance to take this series.

 

[rmartin65]

Ugh.. rmartin, I really hate to say it because you built a good team, but Pittsburgh is an incredibly strong team. Park, Esposito and Gardiner would have to play the series of their lives to win here, but I think Pittsburgh just has too much offensive depth.

To your credit, I think you're built reasonably well to handle the type of offensive depth Pittsburgh has, but I think Pittsburgh is just too talented.

Currently I'm at Pittsburgh in 5. Don't let that stop you from continuing the debate though, there might be an ace in the hole on your team that I'm just missing that could give you a chance to take this series.

RS is a great GM, and has assembled a great team. But can you explain to me how exactly Pitt's offensive depth overcomes Miami's depth in defense (both from the defense and from the forwards) and in net? And it is not like Pittsburgh crushes Miami offensively down the line- Miami has stronger offensive units for lines 1 and 3, with the 4th line being insignificant due to ice time. I dont think that Miami is stronger offensively, mainly because the gap in second lines is significant, but to suggest that the gap in that one line is wide enough for Miami to get handled is, in my opinion, absurd.

In any case, Gardiner has a history of leading lesser offensive teams to the cup- the 1933-34 Blackhawks that he led to the Cup scored the least amount of goals in the NHL that season with 88, while the average team (including CHI) scored 116. In other words, the average team- not even the best teams in the league- was scoring .58 goals a game more than the Blackhawks that season. And according to his bio, his play jumped dramatically in the playoffs, as his GAA dropped roughly 30% from his already impressive regular season stats. In short, even if Miami is outclassed offensively, Gardiner excels playing behind teams that dont score as much... and, like I have noted, I dont think Miami is a weak offensive team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Ugh.. rmartin, I really hate to say it because you built a good team, but Pittsburgh is an incredibly strong team. Park, Esposito and Gardiner would have to play the series of their lives to win here, but I think Pittsburgh just has too much offensive depth.

To your credit, I think you're built reasonably well to handle the type of offensive depth Pittsburgh has, but I think Pittsburgh is just too talented.

Currently I'm at Pittsburgh in 5. Don't let that stop you from continuing the debate though, there might be an ace in the hole on your team that I'm just missing that could give you a chance to take this series.

Yikes.

I think this one is going 7, either way. Pittsburgh has a great top pairing to go against Espo, but Espo is really going to dominate his opposing center off each faceoff.

 

[Hobnobs]

RS is a great GM, and has assembled a great team. But can you explain to me how exactly Pitt's offensive depth overcomes Miami's depth in defense (both from the defense and from the forwards) and in net? And it is not like Pittsburgh crushes Miami offensively down the line- Miami has stronger offensive units for lines 1 and 3, with the 4th line being insignificant due to ice time. I dont think that Miami is stronger offensively, mainly because the gap in second lines is significant, but to suggest that the gap in that one line is wide enough for Miami to get handled is, in my opinion, absurd.

In any case, Gardiner has a history of leading lesser offensive teams to the cup- the 1933-34 Blackhawks that he led to the Cup scored the least amount of goals in the NHL that season with 88, while the average team (including CHI) scored 116. In other words, the average team- not even the best teams in the league- was scoring .58 goals a game more than the Blackhawks that season. And according to his bio, his play jumped dramatically in the playoffs, as his GAA dropped roughly 30% from his already impressive regular season stats. In short, even if Miami is outclassed offensively, Gardiner excels playing behind teams that dont score as much... and, like I have noted, I dont think Miami is a weak offensive team.

I dont think your outclassed offensively at all. I do think RS has an edge on offense.

I have this series going 7 games. I have yet to decide which team.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Two very good teams here with advantages on both sides.

I haven't committed either way, myself.

 

[jarek]

RS is a great GM, and has assembled a great team. But can you explain to me how exactly Pitt's offensive depth overcomes Miami's depth in defense (both from the defense and from the forwards) and in net? And it is not like Pittsburgh crushes Miami offensively down the line- Miami has stronger offensive units for lines 1 and 3, with the 4th line being insignificant due to ice time. I dont think that Miami is stronger offensively, mainly because the gap in second lines is significant, but to suggest that the gap in that one line is wide enough for Miami to get handled is, in my opinion, absurd.

In any case, Gardiner has a history of leading lesser offensive teams to the cup- the 1933-34 Blackhawks that he led to the Cup scored the least amount of goals in the NHL that season with 88, while the average team (including CHI) scored 116. In other words, the average team- not even the best teams in the league- was scoring .58 goals a game more than the Blackhawks that season. And according to his bio, his play jumped dramatically in the playoffs, as his GAA dropped roughly 30% from his already impressive regular season stats. In short, even if Miami is outclassed offensively, Gardiner excels playing behind teams that dont score as much... and, like I have noted, I dont think Miami is a weak offensive team.

RS posted the VsX scores already, so let's see how it actually shakes out.

1st line

Miami: 287.7
Pittsburgh: 183.1 + Krutov

Does Krutov have a score over 100? Not even close.. I'd give Miami the edge in VsX total on line one by about 20-30 points.

2nd line

Miami: 226.1
Pittsburgh: 190.7 + Foyston

I'd give Foyston a regular season VsX of somewhere around 70-75 I think. He actually wasn't that great of an offensive player in the regular season - his reputation is built largely around playoff scoring. That being said, Pittsburgh's line still dominates Miami's offensively.

It would be interesting if you guys could discuss playoff scoring in more detail. This might make things very interesting.

Your 3rd line is indeed better offensively than Pittsburgh's, but I don't think it's by a whole lot, and I also don't think it will matter a great deal unless you're not planning to use your third line as a matchup line. I could definitely see Keenan using that line to grind down one of Pittsburgh's scoring lines (which isn't a bad thing, to be clear).

One other not so small issue is that Pittsburgh's PP is quite a bit better than Miami's (IMO), mainly due to the second unit, however, Miami doesn't seem like a team that will take a ton of penalties, so it might not be that big a deal. (EDIT: I didn't realize Pittsburgh stacked the top PP unit.. yikes. That PP unit is brutal, but it came at the cost of having a fairly pedestrian second unit.)

Yeah.. the most interesting thing right now for me at least would be a comparison of playoff scoring, I think.

I dont think your outclassed offensively at all. I do think RS has an edge on offense.

I have this series going 7 games. I have yet to decide which team.

If that's true, then Miami ought to win this series. They have the overall better defensive team (I think anyways), mostly due to the forwards, and a much better goaltender.

 

[rmartin65]

RS posted the VsX scores already, so let's see how it actually shakes out.

1st line

Miami: 287.7
Pittsburgh: 183.1 + Krutov

Does Krutov have a score over 100? Not even close.. I'd give Miami the edge in VsX total on line one by about 20-30 points.

2nd line

Miami: 226.1
Pittsburgh: 190.7 + Foyston

I'd give Foyston a regular season VsX of somewhere around 70-75 I think. He actually wasn't that great of an offensive player in the regular season - his reputation is built largely around playoff scoring. That being said, Pittsburgh's line still dominates Miami's offensively.

It would be interesting if you guys could discuss playoff scoring in more detail. This might make things very interesting.

Your 3rd line is indeed better offensively than Pittsburgh's, but I don't think it's by a whole lot, and I also don't think it will matter a great deal unless you're not planning to use your third line as a matchup line. I could definitely see Keenan using that line to grind down one of Pittsburgh's scoring lines (which isn't a bad thing, to be clear).

One other not so small issue is that Pittsburgh's PP is quite a bit better than Miami's (IMO), mainly due to the second unit, however, Miami doesn't seem like a team that will take a ton of penalties, so it might not be that big a deal. (EDIT: I didn't realize Pittsburgh stacked the top PP unit.. yikes. That PP unit is brutal, but it came at the cost of having a fairly pedestrian second unit.)

Yeah.. the most interesting thing right now for me at least would be a comparison of playoff scoring, I think.

So, by your own words and estimations, Miami wins the first line match-up by 20-30, while Pittsburgh wins the second by 35-40, which means the total balance is between 5 and 20. Add in Miami's advantage on the 3rd and we are talking about a rather insignificant difference here... especially if we take Miami's defense and, more importantly, goaltending into account.

In the interest of fairness, I do want to note that Pittsburgh has the home-ice advantage, so the matchups will be determined largely by Pittsburgh. If RS has the time, I would be interested in knowing what he envisions there. If I may launch a bit of a preempitve attack in that regard, though, I do think that Miami is well-equipped to deal with Pittsburgh's offense. Pittsburgh's top 6 gets the bulk of it's goals from the RW, and Pittsburgh has good LWs that can play with Bathgate and Hull. Hull in particular I could see having problems with either Barber or Moore.

In terms of PP, Miami's 1st unit will be taking the large majority of time, as, of the 5 players, only Park is playing the PK... and that is on the 2nd unit. But yes, the second unit is rather underwhelming.

I have to run, but I hope to find time to work on playoff stats later.

 

[jarek]

So, by your own words and estimations, Miami wins the first line match-up by 20-30, while Pittsburgh wins the second by 35-40, which means the total balance is between 5 and 20. Add in Miami's advantage on the 3rd and we are talking about a rather insignificant difference here... especially if we take Miami's defense and, more importantly, goaltending into account.

In the interest of fairness, I do want to note that Pittsburgh has the home-ice advantage, so the matchups will be determined largely by Pittsburgh. If RS has the time, I would be interested in knowing what he envisions there. If I may launch a bit of a preempitve attack in that regard, though, I do think that Miami is well-equipped to deal with Pittsburgh's offense. Pittsburgh's top 6 gets the bulk of it's goals from the RW, and Pittsburgh has good LWs that can play with Bathgate and Hull. Hull in particular I could see having problems with either Barber or Moore.

In terms of PP, Miami's 1st unit will be taking the large majority of time, as, of the 5 players, only Park is playing the PK... and that is on the 2nd unit. But yes, the second unit is rather underwhelming.

I have to run, but I hope to find time to work on playoff stats later.

Thanks rmartin you brought up some really great points and this series really is much closer than I initially thought it was.

Just to be clear, when I said "mainly due to the second unit", I was referring to Pittsburgh's second unit, but that was before I realized Pittsburgh decided to stack their top PP unit. Pittsburgh still has a better PP unit and it would serve Miami well to not take any penalties against that monster.. yikes.

 

[rmartin65]

Alright, I have some playoff stats. It comes out to say pretty much what the VsX did- Miami's first line is better, while Pittsburgh's second line is better.

I want to stress that hockey is not all about points, however. The situation that the players were/are in vary, as does their usage.

1st lines (NHL only)
Pittsburgh
Boucher goes from roughly .76 PPG in the regular season to roughly .65 PPG in the playoffs- a 13.3% drop
Hull goes from 1.1 to .94- 14.4% drop

Miami
Esposito goes from 1.24 to 1.05- 15% drop
Moore goes from .85 to .815- 4% drop
Larmer goes from 1.01 to .94- 8% drop

Miami’s top line works is less affected by the playoffs. And, despite Esposito’s 15% drop in production, according to his bio, he still led the playoffs in points 3 times, goals 3 times, and assists twice. And

Led the 1972 Summit series in scoring with 13 points (7 goals, 6 assists) in 8 games. With no Bobby Orr in the lineup.

Moore led the playoffs in points twice, goals once, and assists twice.
To Hull’s credit, he did lead the playoffs in goals twice and scoring once.
And Boucher led the playoffs in scoring twice as well.

2nd lines (NHL only)
Pittsburgh
Barry goes from .76 to… .76. No drop- impressive
Bathgate goes from .91 to .65- 29% drop

Miami
Modano goes from .92 to .83- 10% drop
Barber goes from .98 to .84- 15% drop
Bauer goes from .80 to .40- 50% drop- Ouch!

Barry had 2 1st place finishes in points, and a single first place finish in both goals and assists. Bathgate led the playoffs in goals once.

Modano led in assists twice, and Barber led in goals once.

Pittsburgh wins the 2nd line matchup.

I could compare the 3rd lines, but with Pittsburgh having two players who did not play in the NHL, the comparison gets lost.

 

[rmartin65]

For the goalies, Gardiner is the clear winner in the playoffs:

Gardiner drops his GAA from 2.02 to 1.42- 30% improvement
Fuhr drops his GAA from 3.38 to 2.92- 14% improvement

We dont have SV% numbers from Gardiner's era, so a comparison can't be made there.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Two very good teams here with advantages on both sides.

I haven't committed either way, myself.

I had Miami first in this division!

 

[Rob Scuderi]

I do have a quibble about the noticeable gap between Barry and Modano. While I would probably take Barry over Modano, I dont think there is that much of a difference between the two.

The VsX gap is pretty big to start. Barry has an 8 point gap which is significant. Barry regularly led his teams in scoring as well so he wasn't getting gifted those points (this applies to Modano too). As such, he's definitely a better scorer in terms of regular season production.

Switch to the playoffs, Barry was one of the best playoff performers of his era. Here is their playoff scoring finishes:

Barry - 1, 1, 5, 6
Modano - 2, 2, 6, 9, 11

Playoff scoring was notoriously low during Barry's era (which is one of the problems with comparing regular season PPG to playoff PPG) yet Barry kept scoring at the same pace as his regular season record! Which again was handedly better than Modano.

Throw in non-scoring attributes. We know Modano became a better defensive player under Hitchcock after not taking much pride in that part of the game early in his career (which isn't really too damning considering his team situation and skill level). Barry was praised for being a workmanlike guy throughout his career only missing two games in a decade despite making the playoffs almost every year. He was praised for his defensive work, and was probably more physical than Modano.

When you consider that Barry was significantly better offensively in the regular season, better in the playoffs offensively, and did more than just score, I don't see how you can't acknowledge there is a "noticeable" gap between them. Don't get me wrong, I'm talking around 10 spots on a list of centers, it's not like he embarrasses Modano. But noticeably better? Yeah, I think it's very fair.

I would take Barber over Foyston for sure, but not to a massive degree. And certainly not enough to make up for the Bauer/Bathgate combination.

Eh, I have a pretty big gap here. I am not very high on Bill Barber, as he played next to Clarke basically his entire career and had on top ten in points finish. His VsX scores are pretty pedestrian even for a 2nd line glue guy. Yeah Foyston played in the split league era, but he had seven top five scoring finishes in the PCHA. He also won his league's MVP in a year he finished 3rd in scoring.

The playoffs though are where Foyston jumps up, and Barber is kind of meh for a top line guy on a two-time cup winner.

Barber - 4, 4, 10

It's weird, Barber finished 16th and 4th in scoring the years the Flyers won their Cups. Yet his most impressive playoff performance didn't come until 1980 when he again finished 4th in scoring and led the playoffs in goals.

Foyston on the other hand, was excellent in the playoffs. He led the playoffs in scoring twice, and finished second twice, with a 5th place finish near the end of his career. He was called the best player on his team at times, and always their captain.

Check out Sturminator's analysis of how good Foyston was in the playoffs compared to his peers.

Foyston was a consistent regular season scorer during the split league era, Barber was not a strong regular season scorer on a very good team. In the playoffs, Foyston really shows his worth, where Barber had two nice runs.

Foyston contributed outside of the scoresheet like Barber as well, so there isn't ground to be made up here.

I see a pretty big gap between these two guys.

I will say, however, that I think my line would match up pretty well if they were on the ice together. I think Modano would do a good job with Barry, and Barber seems like the right kind of player to deal with Bathgate, as he could skate pretty well (at least, before the knee injury) and play a physical game.

I understand Barber was good defensively during his career, but Bathgate is one of the best scorers in the draft. He didn't get a ton of Selke recognition, and with his light bio I don't know how much to make of his checking skills. My impression is, without knowing more, that while Barber was pretty good defensively he's not someone I should be worried about locking down Bathgate. Bathgate was the same size as Barber and could take care of himself. Physicality doesn't seem like the key to getting him off his game. Crappy linemates on the other hand saw him struggle in the playoffs with the Rangers, as teams could key in on him. Luckily, I have two of the strongest playoff performers of their generations next to him in Barry and Foyston.

So, in sum for the top 6:

1st Line: Miami
2nd Line: Pittsburgh

I agree with you, but the degrees of the advantages matter and are very different. A top line with Espo and Moore should always get the edge, even with a guy like Larmer finishing off the unit (I mean you can argue his value outweighs his scoring ability in the context of an Espo line).

But I think your second line is the weakest part of your team. Modano is a solid second liner, but I wouldn't want him as the best scorer on a second line. You have to concede that is the case with your line, and his linemates are fairly unimpressive in terms of scoring so it hurts even more. I haven't looked around, but Bathgate has to be one of the best second liners in the draft and Barry is very good too. Foyston rounding out the line is just gravy. I think there's a much bigger difference here than on the top lines.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

I can do a quick analysis of the bottom 6 now.

Since we have more modern era players here, I will switch over to the 10 year system.

3rd line:
Jeremy Roenick 76.1
Shane Doan 62.5
Bob Nevin 59.4
Billy Guerin 57.8

Holik and Hlinka are not on the list, but I would imagine that Hlinka comes in under Roenick, while Holik tops Doan.

In any case, I think Miami has the edge, but not by as big of a margin as we saw in the top 6 lines. Roenick I am higher on than most (I think he is a worthy, if low-end, 2C here), but I think he is definitely a couple notches above Hlinka. Doan and Holik are pretty close to equal, in my eyes.

I too am a big fan of JR, but honestly I think he and Hlinka are a wash essentially. Hlinka was excellent offensively. He outpaced Martinec in domestic scoring despite being on a garbage team. He was very good in games against the USSR as well, so he was a big game player. After reading some of these studies, I've gotten more bullish on Hlinka and think he and JR are basically equals.

Holik is a tough nut to crack, he was hurt offensively both on his domestic league and international teams by his defensive role. These aren't my words, look at the bio I made - Holik said it himself. Despite this, he was a key man in the CSSR left-wing lock system and had to cover for Suchy.His Golden Stick voting record, despite not being a stud scorer, validate this. Doan is really good, but I can't really see him on Holik's level. Admittedly, these types of comparisons are difficult.

In terms of fit, I like my line better. They will come after any line hard and fast, and can excel in either an offensive or checking role.

I really, really like the style of your line. It is very cohesive and plays a game conducive to third line minutes. I'm just not sure the talent favors you. I basically see these lines as a wash, based on my agreement with your assessments of our wingers and my own assessment of our centers.

4th line
Our 4th lines wont be doing much, if I read your team correctly, so I wont put much time into it. I do think that Hunter and O'Reilly could lead to your team being shorthanded more than you would like, though.

I think you have an edge on centers, but I have edges on both wings. Marshall is a stud, and maybe better than Sullivan. As I said during the assassinations, Tremblay really seems unimpressive. I compiled a lot of information on O'Reilly in my bio. He's your tough guy who can really play. He had a very strong season 1978 that Bobby Orr thought made him the league's MVP. Yeah, yeah Orr is a nice guy like Gretzky, but Fred Shero had effusive praise for O'Reilly too. He said that no one seems to realize that O'Reilly is one of the best players in the league. Tremblay, on the other hand, seems more like just a tough guy to me.

It's true O'Reilly had a lot of PIMS, but over half of them came from fighting majors which won't leave my team shorthanded.

I don't think either line here is material to the success of our teams, but I think I have the more talented line. Like your third line, my line has an excellent fit. They'll be playing limited minutes and out there creating havoc the whole time.

 

[rmartin65]

I understand Barber was good defensively during his career, but Bathgate is one of the best scorers in the draft. He didn't get a ton of Selke recognition, and with his light bio I don't know how much to make of his checking skills. My impression is, without knowing more, that while Barber was pretty good defensively he's not someone I should be worried about locking down Bathgate. Bathgate was the same size as Barber and could take care of himself. Physicality doesn't seem like the key to getting him off his game. Crappy linemates on the other hand saw him struggle in the playoffs with the Rangers, as teams could key in on him. Luckily, I have two of the strongest playoff performers of their generations next to him in Barry and Foyston.

Oh, I am not saying (nor did I intend to imply) that Barber would shut down Bathgate. I intended to say that both Barber and Moore are among the most well-equipped top 6 wingers to deal with Bathgate, as they were both defensively responsible, physical, and could skate. So while I dont think that they will be shutting him down, I do think that it is unlikely that he would be man-handling them as he could/would other top 6 LWs.

I agree with you, but the degrees of the advantages matter and are very different. A top line with Espo and Moore should always get the edge, even with a guy like Larmer finishing off the unit (I mean you can argue his value outweighs his scoring ability in the context of an Espo line).

But I think your second line is the weakest part of your team. Modano is a solid second liner, but I wouldn't want him as the best scorer on a second line. You have to concede that is the case with your line, and his linemates are fairly unimpressive in terms of scoring so it hurts even more. I haven't looked around, but Bathgate has to be one of the best second liners in the draft and Barry is very good too. Foyston rounding out the line is just gravy. I think there's a much bigger difference here than on the top lines.

Yep, degrees matter, I am not trying to argue otherwise. And I am not arguing that the gap on 1st lines is equal to the gap in second lines. What I am arguing is that your team's offensive depth does not far outstrip my own.

Furthermore, I like Miami's defensive ability (from both the forwards and defensive corps) better than Pittsburgh, which does not get quantified in VsX.

In sum, my argument is that yes, Pittsburgh has a stronger unit than Miami on the 2nd line, and by a significant margin. But does that margin trump the combined margins of Miami's advantage in 1st line, 3rd line, goalie, and overall team defense? I would posit that it does not, which is why Miami should be able to squeak out a victory in the series.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Again, a very fair review. I would like to address the Keenan/Esposito issue, in that I dont think it is a deal breaker for my team. I think the fact that my team is littered with Iron Mike players will help insulate Esposito from Keenan's wrath. I imagine that they would butt heads occasionally, but I think as long as Espo is producing offensively, everything will go ok between the two. And down the line-up, I think Keenan will get the most out of some of the other guys.

I don't want to make a meal out of this for the sake of it, but I really didn't like the pick when you made it - and pointed out my concern during the assassinations.

Esposito and Keenan are both guys with ridiculous egos. (I mean if we were making a list of the most egomaniacal guys in hockey history, they'd have to be in the conversation right?) That's not a bad thing in and of itself the way some people may contend. But it's an issue when they're part of the same team. Espo and Keenan aren't the type of guys to give an inch so I really think there will be some serious clashes. Ultimately, yeah all that matters is Espo scores and Keenan handling of him isn't to the detriment of your team, but it's not a wrinkle I'd want to deal with on a team led by Esposito.

I've pointed out my concerns with your second line, and while your third line is really, really good, it's not an offensive juggernaut (relative to third line terms). Your team really seems to rely on that top line, so a clash of personalities with the coach isn't ideal.

 

[jarek]

I don't want to make a meal out of this for the sake of it, but I really didn't like the pick when you made it - and pointed out my concern during the assassinations.

Esposito and Keenan are both guys with ridiculous egos. That's not a bad thing in and of itself the way some people may contend. But it's an issue when they're part of the same team. Espo and Keenan aren't the type of guys to give an inch so I really think there will be some serious clashes. Ultimately, yeah all that matters is Espo scores and Keenan handling of him isn't to the detriment of your team, but it's not a wrinkle I'd want to deal with on a team led by Esposito.

I've pointed out my concerns with your second line, and while your third line is really, really good, it's not an offensive juggernaut (relative to third line terms). Your team really seems to rely on that top line, so a clash of personalities with the coach isn't ideal.

It's funny how it works sometimes, but I think there's a chance that Keenan and Espo actually work quite well together. Espo showed during the Summit Series, especially in his reply to the fans after being booed, that he cares a great deal about winning. I'm sure Keenan and Espo would have their occasional arguments but I think Keenan would be able to recognize that Espo is far and away his best player and he'll just have to take the lumps defensively. That line is built exceptionally well regardless to make the most out of Espo, so it isn't like Espo's deficiencies would stick out like a sore thumb. Make no mistake, that line will be in the offensive zone the vast majority of the time in this series so I don't even know if it'll become a big factor the other way.

Keenan also has some real life familiarity with Larmer and Roenick as well. There might be others too.

Also, in 89 and 90, Keenan coached Denis Savard, who to my knowledge wasn't much of anything except a scorer. Although to be fair, your point wasn't about Espo's defensive deficiencies, but about his ego, which is fair. Roenick also had (and still has) a hell of an ego as well, so there is a bit of a track record of Keenan being able to work with a guy like that as long as he bought in.

 

[rmartin65]

I too am a big fan of JR, but honestly I think he and Hlinka are a wash essentially. Hlinka was excellent offensively. He outpaced Martinec in domestic scoring despite being on a garbage team. He was very good in games against the USSR as well, so he was a big game player. After reading some of these studies, I've gotten more bullish on Hlinka and think he and JR are basically equals.

Roenick was an offensive stud in a system that stifled creativity and offense during his highest scoring years, and then played against other teams top units in a power vs power set-up, and still produced. I like a lot of the research that came out about Hlinka, and agree that he was underrated, but I think you are swinging the pendulum too far in the other direction. For one, I dont think that him putting up a ton of points on a weak team is a particularly good indicator of offensive chops; as the best player on the team, the puck would be going to/through him often, thus granting him more opportunities to accumulate points. I dont think that he is a scrub, but he is not JR's equal here.

Holik is a tough nut to crack, he was hurt offensively both on his domestic league and international teams by his defensive role. These aren't my words, look at the bio I made - Holik said it himself. Despite this, he was a key man in the CSSR left-wing lock system and had to cover for Suchy.His Golden Stick voting record, despite not being a stud scorer, validate this. Doan is really good, but I can't really see him on Holik's level. Admittedly, these types of comparisons are difficult.

This is a difficult comparison, but again, I have to disagree, as I have them valued pretty equally. They bring different things, but I dont have one above the other by any significant amount. Like Roenick, Holik played in a system that did not allow him to reach his potential offensive peak. Unlike Roenick, he did not show that he could still produce at a very high level.

I think you have an edge on centers, but I have edges on both wings. Marshall is a stud, and maybe better than Sullivan. As I said during the assassinations, Tremblay really seems unimpressive. I compiled a lot of information on O'Reilly in my bio. He's your tough guy who can really play. He had a very strong season 1978 that Bobby Orr thought made him the league's MVP. Yeah, yeah Orr is a nice guy like Gretzky, but Fred Shero had effusive praise for O'Reilly too. He said that no one seems to realize that O'Reilly is one of the best players in the league. Tremblay, on the other hand, seems more like just a tough guy to me.

It's true O'Reilly had a lot of PIMS, but over half of them came from fighting majors which won't leave my team shorthanded.

I don't think either line here is material to the success of our teams, but I think I have the more talented line. Like your third line, my line has an excellent fit. They'll be playing limited minutes and out there creating havoc the whole time.

I dont know how you can say that Tremblay was just a tough guy yet O'Reilly was a real contributor, when they played in roughly the same era and had very similar offensive stats, with Tremblay maybe even coming out ahead.

I also disagree with Marshall being a stud here. He was a very good defensive player, but I would hardly consider him a game changer here. And Miami has a strong 2Way LW in Balon, who also displayed more offensive ability than Marshall.

 

[Rob Scuderi]

Moving on to defense:

1st Pairing- Pretty clear advantage to Pittsburgh. Harvey is better than Park, and Goodfellow is better than Conacher. I dont think my pairing is weak, but you have one of the best top pairing in the draft.

2nd Pairing- Miami advantage, but not to the extent that the 1st pairing tilts to Pittsburgh. I think Miami's real life chemistry should be taken into account as well.

3rd Pairing- Again, I give the edge to Miami.

I want to step back before looking at our pairings and compare our defenders #1-6, since you have your #2 on the second pair.

I don't want to type out Harvey and Park's voting records as it will take too long on both counts Instead, I'll just say that Harvey has a clear advantage.

Howe vs Goodfellow
Goodfellow - 2, 2, 3, 5, 5; 3 (center), 4 (center)
Howe - 2, 2, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11

The all-star records for these two are actually pretty similar. Goodfellow played a number of seasons at center which depresses his all-star record. He finished 5th in 1934-35, despite his time moving between positions. See overpass's analysis below:

1934-35 - Goodfellow started the season at defence. He was on fire, leading all players in the American division in scoring as of Dec 17 with seven goals and 14 points. But around the new year, to break up the team's slump, he was moved back to the second line between Wiseman and Sorrell, where he had played in the playoffs the previous year. The move didn't help, as Detroit missed the playoffs. Goodfellow's point totals remained high despite spending part of the year as a rearguard, finishing fifth in scoring on Detroit once again. His presence on the power play probably drove that, with the five power play players finishing 1 through 5 in scoring on Detroit (Aurie-Lewis-Weiland-Sorrell-Goodfellow.) Goodfellow's position switching in this season may have cost him an all-star spot

I would agree Howe is better, but they seem pretty close.

Boucher vs Conacher
Conacher - 1, 4, 4, 8, 8

We don't have a robust voting record for Boucher who was 34 during the season official AST voting was introduced. However, Boucher was on the second team of the 1925 MacLean's all-time team, with Eddie Gerard behind only Sprague Cleghorn and Hod Stuart. He would play 7 more seasons.

Boucher was a key player on the Ottawa Senators and an elite scorer. I have him slightly ahead of Conacher.

Goldham vs McCrimmon
Goldham - 3, 5, 7, 8; 7?, 5-11?
McCrimmon - 4, 6, 7, 8, 12

So the question mark finishes come from years we don't have full voting records, but Goldham made the ASG on merit. You can read my full breakdown in his bio.

But, without those seasons, what does McCrimmon have on Goldham? They were both defensive-minded guys who would be hurt by voters relying on point totals. Goldham edges McCrimmon out for their two best finishes, and ties for the third and fourth best finishes. McCrimmon has that extra 12th place finish, but Goldham has those two merited ASG appearances. They both contributed to strong teams as well, with Goldham winning five Stanley Cups. Is there really a meaningful difference here?

If we stop at our top four...Harvey is clearly the best guy on either pair. Our #2s and #4s are incredibly close despite cannon suggesting Miami has an edge at both spots. At #3, again it's close, but I prefer Boucher.

I'm not seeing Miami's distinct advantage on defense, and in fact the only obvious difference to me is Harvey over Park.