Louis Magnus Division Finals - Pittsburgh AC (1) vs Portland Rosebuds (2)

[ImporterExporter]

Pittsburgh AC (1)

Original Red and White colours of the AC

Head Coach:


Pete Green


Please see my extensive bio above (click on Pete Green) for in depth review if you're not overly familiar with Green.


Assistant Coach:


Larry Robinson



Forwards:


Bert Olmstead - Jean Beliveau (C) - Helmuts Balderis

Smokey Harris - Russell Bowie - Blair Russell

Bob Gainey (A) - Doug Jarvis - Ed Westfall

Chris Kunitz - Harry "Rat" Westwick - Cully Wilson


Spare:

Jason Arnott



Defensemen:


Duncan Keith - Art Coulter (A)

Hamby Shore - Fred Lake

Eduard Ivanov - Dan Girardi


Spare:

Brooks Orpik


Goalies:


Georges Vezina

Corey Crawford




Special Teams:

PP 1:


Bowie - RHS (trigger/half wall into slot) Beliveau - LHS (net front) - Olmstead - LHS (cornerman/facilitator)
Ivanov - RHS (trigger) - Shore- LHS (QB)

PP 2:

Westwick - RHS (half wall) - Harris - LHS (net front/slot) - Balderis - LHS (float)
Ivanov - RHS (trigger) - Keith - LHS (QB)

PK 1:

Jarvis - Westfall

Lake - Coulter

PK 2:

Gainey - Russell

*Keith/Orpik - Girardi

*When playing with 7 Dmen on away ice Orpik will take Keith's spot on the 2nd unit. This frees up Keith to play even more time @ ES which I want out of my #1.


Line Combinations Home/Away:


STANDARD LINE UP @ HOME:

Olmstead - Beliveau - Balderis
Harris - Bowie - Russell
Gainey - Jarvis - Westfall
Kunitz - Arnott - Wilson

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi


BALANCED LINE UP @ HOME

Olmstead - Beliveau - Westfall
Gainey - Bowie - Russell
Harris - Jarvis - Balderis
Kunitz - Arnott - Wilson

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi

*Really like this fit as a change of pace given it spreads the offensive talent around the top 9 more than consolidating it on the scoring lines. Green can role this out to keep teams off balance. Balderis can carry a line offensively here while Jarvis can play a Larionov role between 2 wingers who are much more offensively gifted than the Gainey/Westfall. Beliveau and Bowie have elite checkers who can do heavy lifting in the corners and defensive zone while retaining the ability to get the puck to the C.


PROTECTING LEAD LATE @ HOME:

Olmstead - Beliveau - Balderis
Kunitz - Bowie - Wilson
Gainey - Jarvis - Westfall
Harris - Arnott - Russell

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi

*Lines 3 and 4 will see increased action, with neutral ice clogged up. Force teams to dump and then use the speed and transition ability of our top 4 D to recover puck and move in counter direction.


WHEN TRAILING LATE @ HOME:

Olmstead - Beliveau - Balderis
Harris - Bowie - Wilson
Kunitz - Arnott - Westfall
Gainey - Jarvis - Russell

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi

*Not a big change from standard lineup. Just inserting a bit more offense into top 9 with Kunitz and Wilson and rolling 3 lines late if trailing.



STANDARD LINE UP @ AWAY : (11 F - 7 D)

Olmsted - Beliveau - Balderis
Harris* - Bowie - Russell*
Gainey* - Jarvis - Westfall*
Arnott - Wilson

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi
Oprik (PK specialist)


* Will all take extra shifts to cover 4LW vacancy.

This lineup is to maximize Keith's ES time. I want the #1 out @ ES as much as possible. He's already in the upper echelons of Dmen in terms of logging minutes but having Orpik means Keith only sees time on the 2nd PP unit.

The rest of the lineup can be juggled as outlined above w/ the home variations.

Portland Rosebuds (2)

Coaches: Lester & Frank Patrick

Nels Stewart --- Hooley Smith --- Blake Wheeler
Tommy Smith --- Mickey MacKay --- Todd Bertuzzi
Leon Drasaitl --- Bill Thoms --- Joe Pavelski
Don Lever --- Mel Bridgeman --- Pat Flatley

Paul Coffey --- Fern Flaman
Gary Bergman --- Art Duncan
Clem Loughlin --- Brent Seabrook

Terry Sawchuk
John Bouse Hutton

PP1: Coffey - Duncan - T.Smith - Stewart - MacKay
PP2: Loughlin - Pavelski - Bertuzzi - Drasaitl - Wheeler
PK1: Bergman - Flaman - H.Smith - Thoms
PK2: Loughlin - Seabrook - MacKay - Bridgeman
​

Click to read more...

 

[ImporterExporter]

@ResilientBeast

Hey bud, just wanted to say congrats on making it here! I look forward to some quality discussion over the next few days. Hope you can squeeze some time in sir.

One line up change for Pittsburgh.

Harry Westwick will move into the 4th line C position w/Arnott being the sub for game 1.

A lot of info inbound in the near future on Westwick.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I'll at least try and make it interesting. If you post things I disagree with I'm sure I'll find time to clap back

 

[ImporterExporter]

General Overviews for Coach and Goalie:


1. Have to give Portland slight edges behind the bench and in net.

With that being said, unlike a lot of folks, Pittsburgh isn't severely behind in goal with Vezina. If you transported Vezina's career to the 06 era/into 70's he's essentially Glenn Hall. Vezina played 15 years and never missed a game. Never came off the ice. Fantastic peak, elite longevity and he was generally strong in the playoffs winning 2 Cups. Vezina is playing behind, arguably the best all around defensive team in the ATD.

I've got Vezina 10th all time and Sawchuk 6th (Roy, Hasek, Plante, Brodeur, Hall are my top 5).

Sawchuk has an edge but it's a small one and Pittsburgh feels Vezina is steadier/consistent/over a longer period of time.

Vezina posted fantastic numbers and carried the early Montreal teams he was on.

• His league and consolidated GAA (from Dreak's bio) are stellar, again at the peak, as well as over a long period of time.

• Remember over this period of time you had Clint Benedict, Hugh Lehman and Hap Holmes in the east and west. Vezina routinely had strong competition for top player in the net.

Statistical Accomplishments:

• Goals Against Average - 1st(1911), 1st(1912), 1st(1914), 1st(1918), 1st(1924), 1st(1925), 2nd(1913), 2nd(1915), 2nd(1916), 2nd(1917), 2nd(1919), 2nd(1922), 2nd(1923)

• Consolidated GAA - 1st(1911), 1st(1912), 1st(1914), 1st(1924), 1st(1925), 2nd(1918), 3rd(1916), 3rd(1917), 3rd(1922), 3rd(1923)

Couple of other points from Dreak's bio:

He played 328 consecutive regular-season games and 39 straight postseason games for the Canadiens, a stoic presence who performed in an almost nonchalant manner. As one hockey writer of the day put it, "He has a calmness not of this world."

Author Andy O'Brien, who watched the Canadiens for over seven decades, recalled in his book "Fire-Wagon Hockey" seeing Vezina play against the Toronto St. Pats and their star winger, Walter "Babe" Dye, a frequent 30-goal man who would lead the NHL in that 1924-25 season with 38. "Babe Dye, owner of a shot, the violence of which wasn't duplicated until Bobby Hull came on the scene 33 years later, got a breakaway down the centre alley," O'Brien wrote. "Vezina remained upright as a statue. At about 30 feet out, Dye leaned on one; only Vezina's left arm moved as he picked off the puck with almost disdainful ease."

Vezina's modesty was just one of the marks of his greatness. He was a superb sportsman, neither boastful in victory nor complaining in defeat. Although his spoken English was poor and conversational skills were modest, his presence commanded respect. He was the spiritual leader of the original Flying Frenchmen.

Vezina's coolness on the ice earned him the handle "The Chicoutimi Cucumber." He stood erect in the cage and was blessed with lightning-quick reflexes and a knack for stickhandling uncommon among the keepers of his day. When the pressure around Vezina's net intensified, he would often deflect the puck over the glass. And because he played on offensively oriented clubs, it was not uncommon to see him playing keep-away with an enemy checker until a teammate came to his aid.

Georges Vezina turned in some great performances behind teams not known for their defensive abilities

Vézina was a pale, narrow-featured fellow, almost frail-looking, yet remarkably good with his stick. He'd pick off more shots with it than he did with his glove. He stood upright in the net and scarcely ever left his feet; he simply played all his shots in a standing position. He always wore a toque—a small, knitted hat with no brim in Montreal colours – bleu, blanc et rouge. I also remember him as the coolest man I ever saw, absolutely imperturbable.

Much of the Canadiens' first Stanley Cup victory could be attributed to goalkeeper George Vezina. The 29-year-old goalie surrendered 13 goals for a 2.60 average, well below a typical number of the time.

2. The coaching match up is very interesting as I did a side by side over in the HoH section regarding Green's resume vs Patrick's.

For the sake of the ATD and the fact we need time to digest not only what Green is now known to have done but also dig deeper on Patrick, I'm giving Patrick a small edge here. Until we get coaching project done I'm comfortable giving Patrick the nod here in the sake of fairness. But i don't think there is anywhere near the gap that existed a few months ago.

I'm not going to litter the thread with a bunch of material from my bio. I think some have read it by now and I hope more will not only during the playoffs here but in the future. It's easily the most significant bio of my time here given the impact it had on a man's reputation.

We know the 20's Senators were his and his alone as coach now. No more grey area. He essentially created the neutral zone trap (before the NZ existed) during this time period. His system was so good the NHL designed ways to make it obsolete. He was the first, as far as I now know, to use players on their off wing to specifically shadow opposing stars. Green used multiple players to check a single opponent rather than using the same person over and over. Wingers, not just Nighbor.

On top of that, we know he was already using a "double defense" system during his first coaching run between 1909 and 1913. This was more of a F3 system where a forward hung back high in the zone and covered for a rushing D or extra attacker. Interestingly enough his early era Sens were dominant offensive juggernauts whereas the 20's teams transformed into more trapping type

His invention of a bell system to call for subs was telling as not many teams subbed people, especially at the rate Green was doing. Probably stems from his storied career as a trainer before coaching. His impact from a conditioning standpoint is legendary as well.

His eye for talent was second to none. He scouted and developed, King Clancy, Sprague Cleghorn, Jack Darragh, Dubbie Kerr, among others. Was responsible for moving Cyclone Taylor back to D when he played for the Sens. Noted to have been instrumental in making Taylor the refined player he became.

Green's record is sterling. Winning percentage that rivals the best of all time (Blake) and he was the overwhelming best coach of his era. Nobody even comes close.

He won 5 SC's outright including multiple series that went the distance against very strong western teams.

I'm pretty confident Green is top 10 coach of all time. His contributions to the game are massive, not just in terms of wins/losses but coaching tactics, physical conditioning, scouting, coaching/development, etc. And everything he did predates Patrick who was one of the people who spoke highly of Green after Pete died.



So from those 2 standpoints I think Portland has edged out ahead. But I think the series turns considerably in Pittsburgh's favor when looking at the rest of the equation (F's/D/leadership/playoff/big game play).

Will touch on those later.

 

[ImporterExporter]

1. Looking at F's, I think Pittsburgh is well ahead of Portland.


Top Line: Big Advantage Pittsburgh

• Olmstead vs Stewart at LW

On the surface Stewart is a better player than than Olmstead in an all time light, but Stewart is playing away from his traditional position at C. With that being said, I was the guy who did the bio on Stewart and don't think he'd lose much impact at winger and he does have his real life teammate in Hooley Smith so that is worth a bonus in my book. But Olmstead is in his normal position, as well as playing with his real life partner in Jean Beliveau. So while I'll still give Stewart a nod here, it's a slight one as Nels is not in his normal position and Olmstead-Beliveau is much stronger (really in every metric) all time than Stewart-Smith.

• Beliveau vs Smith at C

This is major mismatch in favor of Pittsburgh.

I like Smith quite a bit and he's very strong defensively but we're talking about a top 10 player of all time vs somebody who might struggle to crack a top 50's C list today. Obviously Smith's calling card is defense but Beliveau was solid in that area and brings a huge amount of offense that Smith can't provide. Peak, longevity, playoffs, etc, all heavily favor JB. No way to slice this as anything other than a big advantage for Pittsburgh, especially on home ice when we can get JB off Smith or MacKay.

• Balderis vs Wheeler at RW

This is another mismatch IMO.

Balderis won a league MVP and scoring title (83 as well) in 1977 USSR, no small feat. And he also was Best Forward and AS at the 77 WC's, a big bullet point for that time period. His offense peak, longevity and general ability are all vastly superior to Wheeler. Wheeler is no slouch offensively and provides really nice play making but beyond that he doesn't bring a whole lot at this level. His defensive game in real life is responsible (pair of 25th place finishes in the Selke), but in the ATD, on a 1st line it's nothing to write home about. Wheeler really only has 1 strong playoff run to his name. Balderis has a very strong international record. And I think Wheeler loses a touch of his play making value as well given the goal scoring presence on this line is now over at LW instead of C, though that's minor details.

Balderis:

1975: 3rd (94 - Mikhailov)
1976: 4th (88 - Yakushev)
1977: 1st (102 - Petrov)
1978: 9th (65 - Mikhailov)
1979: 5th (77 - undrafted)
1980: 2nd (100 - 1st is Makarov)
1981: 7th (82 - undrafted)
1982: 10th (61 - undrafted)
1983: 1st (111 - undrafted)
1984: xxx (68 - Krutov)
1985: 3rd (96 - Krutov)

Best seasons sequentially: 111, 102, 100, 96, 94, 88, 82, 77, 68, 65, 61

Maltsev:

1969: 8th (65 - Starshinov)*
1970: 9th (80 - Mikhailov)*
1971: 1st (112 - Kharlamov)
1972: 6th (79 - Vikulov)
1973: 6th (90 - undrafted)
1974: 2nd (100 - 1st is undrafted)
1975: 11th (67 - Mikhailov)
1976: 3rd (92 - Yakushev)
1977: 3rd (94 - Petrov)
1978: xxx (56 - Mikhailov)
1979: xxx *injured*
1980: xxx (64 - Balderis)
1981: 11th (69 - undrafted)
1982: xxx (58 - undrafted)

Best seasons sequentially: 112, 100, 94, 92, 90, 80, 79, 69, 67, 65, 64, 58, 56

That gives you a pretty good idea of how good Balderis was offensively. He outscored Maltsev head to head routinely in the mid to late 70’s. Outscored other superstars of the day or regularly stuck with them in the scoring race.

Now consider who they're facing head to head:

On home ice, Pittsburgh will look to match up as follows:

Stewart - Smith - Wheeler
T. Smith - MacKay - Bertuzzi

vs

Gainey - Jarvis - Westfall
Kunitz - Westwick - Wilson

• Westfall is a great player to match up against Stewart. He's big, physical, elite defensively and skates at a high rate. I can see Stewart visiting the box more than normal in this series out of pure frustration.

• Gainey is a great match up against anyone but Wheeler seems over his head on a 1st line and would likely be quite handicapped vs arguably the greatest pure defensive F ever.

• Jarvis is every bit as good as Smith defensively. Obviously Smith brings two way ability but Smith is already well below the bar as a 1st line offensive player. Throwing Jarvis into the mix doesn't help.

• Pittsburgh already has a superior top line and then factor in who each line will see at ES more often than not and I think this is a big advantage for Pittsburgh.

• Love the match up as well vs Portland's 2nd line. Westwick's profile takes a pretty big jump after the bio I put out (it's not done btw).

• Guy is about as perfect a bottom 6 F you could build. He drew so many penalties against and we now know he was actually a very clean player while still playing a very physical style of game. He matches up well vs MacKay who was also clean but nowhere near as physical as far as i can tell.

• Westwick is fast, good goal scorer, better passer. Led Ottawa in scoring in 1896 (over Alf Smith) 1902 (over Bruce Stuart) and was 2nd (ahead of Alf Smith) in 1905.

• Certainly above average defensively. And he was pound for pound the toughest SOB of a very violent era. Given his size, the fact he lasted more than a decade at a high rate of play, it's no surprise he made the HOF (before Tommy Smith btw). His toughness is absolutely legendary.

• Wilson is going to make Tommy Smith's life absolutely miserable as Wilson is a good skater and absolute wrecking ball physically speaking. Pittsburgh would gladly take the trade off of Smith going off w/Wilson. Kunitz is a nice counter to a player like Bertuzzi. Capable offensive player, who will skate all day long and give/take checks w/o issue.

2nd Line: Small Advantage Pittsburgh

• Harris vs Smith

Honestly, I can't see this as anything other than a wash.

To me, especially after the bio I completed, Harris was absolutely one of the best defensive players of the entire PCHA era. Smith brings very little value defensively as there are numerous quotes of him loafing. Harris brings elite speed and very strong physical game, the latter which Smith lacks. Obviously Smith has a much better offensive peak but as far as all around game? Harris by a mile. Playoff resume? I see 9 goals in 9 SC games for Smith. Seems like a steep drop from his peak.

Just to give an overview of Harris's accomplishments post new bio:

• League Leader in Assists 2x (1919-20 and 1923-24)
• League Leader in Points (1920-21)
• League Leader in Penalty Minutes (1913-1914)
• Stanley Cup Playoff Points Leader (1915-1916)
• Stanley Cup Playoff Assists Leader (1915-1916)
• PCHA Playoff Goals Leader (1920-21)
• PCHA Playoff Points Leader (1920-21)
• 4 x PCHA League Champion (1916, 1921, 1922, 1923)
• PCHA First All-Team (1912*, 1913, 1916, 1917**, 1919, 1920, 1921***)

*Only 1 AS team in 1912. Harris was reserve player
**Unanimous choice at RW (Played for Portland)
***Utility position

Summary of Points Finishes: (bolded might have been skewed by playing with Taylor though Harris outscored Taylor in their first full season together)
1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13

Summary of Goals Finishes:
2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 9, 9, 12, 13* 14, 16

Summary of Assist Finishes:

1, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6*, 6, 9, 11, 11, 16, 18

(*1918-19 Season where missed half the games)

He was able to get those kind of offensive numbers while playing such a high level defensive and supportive game beyond scoring. Looking at his bio and the fact that he scored at a premium rate AWAY from Cyclone Taylor, I think Harris' general 70ish VsX undervalues how impactful he was as an offensive asset.

• Bowie vs MacKay

Bowie by a hair but ok calling it a wash in grand scheme

MacKay is a really good 2nd line offensive presence but he's still behind Bowie, who btw, doesn't get near enough credit for his play making skills. Now MacKay is very good defensively so that's why their isn't really a gap on the surface. We also must remember Bowie has a critical real life teammate in Blair Russell along for the the ride. Chemistry does/should matter. We know of the consistent offensive domination Bowie and Russell put up for almost a decade and Smoke Harris is far better than any LW they ever had as a 3rd option. Also how much will MacKay carrying the defensive burden of the line take away from his offensive impact? Bowie can consistently go deep into the zone and do his thing because one of Harris or Russell will be sure to cover defensive responsibilities.

• Russell vs Bertuzzi

Bertuzzi is only marginally better than Russell, offensively, going by VsX. Russell brings a far more defensive ability and has his real life C so to me, this is an edge for Pittsburgh.



Will get to bottom 6 later tonight.

 

[ImporterExporter]

3rd Line: Moderate Advantage Pittsburgh

• Gainey vs Draisaitl

Going to keep this one relatively short. I certainly think Drai will be a staple in the top 6 one day in the ATD. He was essentially a lock for the scoring title this year and probably Hart even with the negative rating. His play without McDavid was stellar and I watched him a good bit a few years back in the postseason and thought he looked like a beast whereas McDavid seemed a bit overwhelmed. His 7 year Vsx would be very low, without looking. Even if you give him the benefit of the doubt with a 5 year version, we're at what, 78-80? Just over 400 games played. And you're going up against arguably the greatest pure defensive forward ever, HOF'er and Smythe winner. I think Drai is overmatched here. 3-4 years down the line? Might be a different story. Big advantage Pitt here IMO.

• Jarvis vs Thoms

This is advantage Jarvis but not by a big amount IMO. Thoms brings much more offense (think his VsX said 72) but I certainly think Jarvis is clearly better defensively and DJ brings legendary face off ability to the equation, a valuable asset to a 3rd line C on a checking line (possession is key). I'd like to know more about Thoms physical abilities as TDMM's bio link is broken. Jarvis was a very good skater. Plus Jarvis is battle tested winner like Gainey. Thoms never won a title and over 4 trips to the SCF's he scored 7 points in 15 games (5 of those points were in the 36 finals) and the Leafs lost all 4 times. Keeping up with the team theme, Gainey and Jarvis were also real life partners at ES for a long time.

• Westfall vs Pavelski

I actually feel like this one is pretty close. I think Westfall brings the most valuable assets to the table with his elite ES defense and elite PK ability (very strong point getter on the kill btw) but Pavelski has carved out a really nice career. Has an AS to his name, is a good two way player and generally was very good in the playoffs for the Sharks even if they couldn't finish. I do like that Westfall's offense jumps considerably from the regular season to postseason. Nice boon to the already stellar defense. Led the playoffs in SH goals 4 times btw. Had 8 in 95 games so the chances of Westfall potting a SH goal aren't terribly shabby. Overall though, I think this is Westfall by a small margin.

 

[ImporterExporter]

4th Line: Moderate Advantage Pittsburgh

• Kunitz vs Lever

Kunitz but not by a lot. On the surface he's got a lot more noticeable things (4 titles, postseason AS, big game moments) but Kunitz was fortunate to play on some really good teams with generational talent. His game translates very well to a bottom 6 role, part of the reason I took him. Lever on the other hand played on mainly garbage teams from the looks of it. You still have to give Kunitz credit for being a key secondary piece on 4 Cup winners. He wasn't just a passenger in Pittsburgh. Huge goals in OT, assisted on Cup winner in 17), just always played a heady and steady game, wearing on people night after night. With his resume I think he's a pretty good 4th liner now in the ATD, especially so in a 40 team draft. I think Lever was a similar player all things considered. The edge comes with Kunitz having more to hang his hat on as a postseason player (again Lever never really had a shot in that regard).

• Westwick vs Bridgman

Honestly with what I've dug up on Westwick, I have to give him the nod here. I mean we are talking about a HOF'er, who got inducted before somebody like Tommy Smith who was drafted about 500 picks earlier. Very confident he was the toughest player of his era. Sized like Larry Aurie, he was a clean player who somehow managed to still be a verifiable pain in the ass to play against. He was routinely cited for body checking, playing very aggressively but almost always within the rules.

Tommy Gorman said if the Byng trophy had existed in Westwick's day he would have won it every year. Newsy Lalonde also backed this up in the same article after Westwick passed away. Alf Smith said he was the best all around athlete he ever knew. Can't say I'm upset at all about those finds. Westwick once had his leg broken deliberately, bone sticking out, he skated off on his own, got it set and watched the rest of the game from the side against doctors wishes. I was pleased to find many instances of his strong defesnive awareness and play. Not surprising given his acclaim at rover.

And his offense is sneaky good. Led Ottawa in scoring in 1896 (over Alf Smith) 1902 (over Bruce Stuart) and was 2nd (ahead of Alf Smith) in 1905 just 3 goals behind McGee. Many citations of his unselfish play. Larry Aurie, ironically, is a really good comparison, not just from a size standpoint but style of play. Westwick was also shown to be a great big game player.

Interestingly enough Westwick was actually captain in Ottawa in 1902 and 1903 (first of 4 titles by the Silver Seven). Even though his pro career ended the year before Green took over coaching, Green and Westwick would be very familiar as Petie was the trainer for the Sens over this time period.

• Wilson vs Flatley

Again, I honestly think this is Wilson. Cully is a goon type player who was actually good at the game. Was an AS in both the PCHA and WCHL. Strong playoff performer over a couple of SC wins. Solid offense for a 4th line role. Flatley seems rather bland from what I can tell, but I'm not really familiar with him in all honesty.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Re: Smokey Harris

"Summary of Points Finishes: (bolded might have been skewed by playing with Taylor though Harris outscored Taylor in their first full season together)
1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13"

With the exception of 2 seasons (4 teams), the PCHA had 3 teams, in an era of 60 minute hockey players, which means 9 full-time forwards and 3 full-time rovers in the entire league: Pacific Coast Hockey Association - Wikipedia

Those 10-13th place finishes are absolutely terrible, and the 7th place finishes aren't much better. There's a reason his VsX-equivalent-score or whatever you want to call it is what it is.

Re: Bill Thoms

Here's the most recent and thorough bio by BillyShoe1721: ATD2011 Bio Thread. I don't think he was a physical player at all, but he was a strong two-way player. Miles ahead of Jarvis offensively.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Re: Smokey Harris

"Summary of Points Finishes: (bolded might have been skewed by playing with Taylor though Harris outscored Taylor in their first full season together)
1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 7, 10, 10, 10, 11, 12, 13"

With the exception of 2 seasons (4 teams), the PCHA had 3 teams, in an era of 60 minute hockey players, which means 9 full-time forwards and 3 full-time rovers in the entire league: Pacific Coast Hockey Association - Wikipedia

Those 10-13th place finishes are absolutely terrible, and the 7th place finishes aren't much better. There's a reason his VsX-equivalent-score or whatever you want to call it is what it is.

Re: Bill Thoms

Here's the most recent and thorough bio by BillyShoe1721: ATD2011 Bio Thread. I don't think he was a physical player at all, but he was a strong two-way player. Miles ahead of Jarvis offensively.

Thanks for the bio sir. Appreciate it, as it confirmed what I thought looking the rosters:

Bill Thoms offense is surely inflated given he spent time between Busher Jackson and Charlie Conacher in Toronto (Primeau skated with those 2 as well in the earlier years). He rode with the Bentley's in Chicago. He's now in a 3rd line role with wingers who aren't in the same class of those who Thoms had in real life.

Drai and Pavelski are steep drop offs. That's very evident and should be accounted for in this scenario IMO. One day Drai might ascend to the level of Jackson or Conacher but he's nowhere near that right now. Pavelski is a capable offensive player, certainly good for a 3rd line presence but again, he's not Conacher or Gordie Drillon or Doug Bentley offensively.

And looking the bio on Thoms there are only a few instances of his poke check and two way play. As I've continually said, we need to refrain from overstating ability based on limited sources. A big part of doing such in depth bio's on players like Harris and Westwick is too get a much more refined and detailed look at the players. Obviously I think it helps my case here but getting better handle on early era players is rewarding beyond the competition here.

Sure Thoms offensive ability is much better than Jarvis but I think Jarvis is clearly a better defensive player and Jarvis is skating with Gainey (real life partner) and Westfall, a clear upgrade over most o the wingers Jarvis had in real life. And as postseason players? I'll take Jarvis all day long.

Same thing with Harris. Same thing with Balderis.

So many of the match ups I am evaluating are seeing players end up with big drop offs in talent from what they had in real life. Pittsburgh doesn't have that problem. Harris is skating with Russell Bowie who is just as dominant offensively, certainly from a goal scoring standpoint, as Cyclone Taylor and Harris put up big numbers in Portland without Taylor anyway, proving he wasn't just a product of dominant teammates, which is striking to me.

And again, there is a difference between an offensive only player and one that was as strong defensively and all around as Harris was clearly shown to be. I think Harris in particular is in a prime position to thrive with Bowie and Russell. Harris was a better play maker (leading the PCHA in assists twice is a pretty big bullet point) than goal scorer and Bowie is one of the best pure goal scorers of all time, all things considered. IMO it's absolutely one of the best pure fits in the entire ATD between the chemistry of Bowie/Russell and the style/speed/defense/physicality of Harris.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I think I accidently edited your post @ImporterExporter on top 6 when I tried to quote....

 

[ResilientBeast]

So, you can't talk about how great the Bowie-Russell & Olmstead-Beliveau connections are and neglect the Stewart-Smith connection.

The idea the Olmstead is anywhere near the player Stewart is, is totally laughable to me. Sure the duo was most successful historically but Nels is far and away the better player.

Beliveau >> Stewart > Smith >>>> Olmstead

Olmstead is finally acceptable as a first liner in a 40 team draft.

Again MacKay's offence is not why he's on that line. His job is to cover for my defense as they generate offence for the line. His offensive impact is secondary. Your comment about backchecking wingers covering for a borderline cherrypicker in Bowie is unfair to my line. Since MacKay will be doing largely the same thing.

You call out Tommy Smith's playoff performance, but Smokey Harris has 8 points in 14 Stanley cup games seems like a steep drop off from his peak....

You cannot use VsX for comparisons pre-consolidation, so I would take issue with your attempts to suggest that your second line of pre-NHL players is better than mine offensively by those metrics. I used to cling to them for meaning but they are largely meaningless.

 

[ImporterExporter]

So, you can't talk about how great the Bowie-Russell & Olmstead-Beliveau connections are and neglect the Stewart-Smith connection.

The idea the Olmstead is anywhere near the player Stewart is, is totally laughable to me. Sure the duo was most successful historically but Nels is far and away the better player.

Beliveau >> Stewart > Smith >>>> Olmstead

Olmstead is finally acceptable as a first liner in a 40 team draft.

Again MacKay's offence is not why he's on that line. His job is to cover for my defense as they generate offence for the line. His offensive impact is secondary. Your comment about backchecking wingers covering for a borderline cherrypicker in Bowie is unfair to my line. Since MacKay will be doing largely the same thing.

You call out Tommy Smith's playoff performance, but Smokey Harris has 8 points in 14 Stanley cup games seems like a steep drop off from his peak....

You cannot use VsX for comparisons pre-consolidation, so I would take issue with your attempts to suggest that your second line of pre-NHL players is better than mine offensively by those metrics. I used to cling to them for meaning but they are largely meaningless.

Stewart isn't worth as much at LW as he was at C, even with Smith. I outlined that in my bio. Trust me, I'm not one to drop Stewart much because he still scored goals (not at the rate as he did at C) at LW but the passable defense I found on him at C is now void with him at LW. And he played about 1.5 years at LW vs the rest of his career at C, where his best seasons came at btw. His general VsX does have to drop a bit IMO just based on the numbers and limited time at the position.

I agree Stewart IS the better player overall. But that gap shrinks when you move a player off the position they didn't play THAT much of. Joe Malone had a monster season at LW (he only played 1 season IIRC at LW). There is a reason why people are hesitant to put him out there now in the ATD. Even with his real life C Stewart didn't post as good of number as he did at C. So naturally his 90 isn't really a 90. So as that number slips towards Olmstead's 76. Say you give Stewart an 85, which I think is more than fair, does it make up for the gap that Olmstead brings as a checker and defensive conscious? I don't think so.

Also how did Stewart-Smith do in the postseason?

We know what Olmstead-Beliveau were doing together. Olmstead won 2 assist titles. Beliveau won his 1st Hart. Won his only Art Ross. 4 postseason AS in 4 years. 3 straight Cups with both of them generally dominating together. Give them Balderis who's not a terrible drop from Geoffrion all time, is every bit as good as Yvan Cournoyer, and can replicate all the things those 2 players did form a stylistic standpoint to include elite skating.

And lastly, your unit is getting checked by Gainey-Jarvis-Westfall and occasionally Kunitz-Westwick-Wilson.

Stewart @ secondary position vs Westfall?

Jarvis on Smith?

Gainey on Wheeler?

I also love the chances of Wilson taking Nels off the ice a bunch of times this series. Big reason I picked Cully up beyond the fact he was actually good at hockey.



I knew the topic of degrading the early era players would come up.

How much are we going to suppress the numbers of players who played pre-consolidation?

Obviously Russell Bowie is not as valuable as Cylcone Taylor even though Bowie's offensive dominance was just as large as Taylor's. The reason being competition and depth of talent increased as time went along, naturally. Taylor's offensive brilliance isn't quite worth what Howe did, so on and so forth.

But going by the old/new versions of Vs1/2/x whatever, Bowie's at something ridiculous like 130 or am I remembering wrong? How much do we drop that because he played between 1900 and 1909? 10%, 20%, 50%? Where does it stop? Obviously that time period didn't have the depth of talent the 1910's or 1920's did. But even Cyclone Taylor was still playing rover hockey, with mostly still primitive rules for a large portion of his career. And it's not like Bowie played against scrubs across the board. Numerous HOF players and he was mainly on average to subpar squads that were him and Blair Russell in many cases. He never had a defense or G that was remotely close to what the Senators or Wanderers had.

Obviously he's not a 130. He's not a 110. He's probably not even a 100. But I certainly see him in the class as Cowley who peaked in a weak era that also coincided with the war depleted mid 40's. I certainly don't think Bowie should be dropped below a 90 which is very large % already.

Having researched Bowie somewhat within my time on the Senators over the past month I can tell you he was thought of as the best player in the world by most people. He was routinely named best player on the ice in game reports, win or loss. He was just an offensive machine, incredible in the slot, wicked shot, so many goals from in close, but could score from anywhere and i gained a better appreciation for his passing ability. There are definitely some reconstructions to be done with assists. Will never be 100% but as I found with Westwick, you can get a really good idea of who did what. Those old game reports are generally quite detailed, really because they had to be. Radio would have just barely been on the scene IIRC and obviously no TV.

I just don't want to see anyone trying to move the goal posts (not saying you're doing this at all just to be crystal clear) to the point where these guys are being construed as some players over there in the corner.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Stewart isn't worth as much at LW as he was at C, even with Smith. I outlined that in my bio. Trust me, I'm not one to drop Stewart much because he still scored goals (not at the rate as he did at C) at LW but the passable defense I found on him at C is now void with him at LW. And he played about 1.5 years at LW vs the rest of his career at C, where his best seasons came at btw. His general VsX does have to drop a bit IMO just based on the numbers and limited time at the position.

I agree Stewart IS the better player overall. But that gap shrinks when you move a player off the position they didn't play THAT much of. Joe Malone had a monster season at LW (he only played 1 season IIRC at LW). There is a reason why people are hesitant to put him out there now in the ATD. Even with his real life C Stewart didn't post as good of number as he did at C. So naturally his 90 isn't really a 90. So as that number slips towards Olmstead's 76. Say you give Stewart an 85, which I think is more than fair, does it make up for the gap that Olmstead brings as a checker and defensive conscious? I don't think so.

Also how did Stewart-Smith do in the postseason?

We know what Olmstead-Beliveau were doing together. Olmstead won 2 assist titles. Beliveau won his 1st Hart. Won his only Art Ross. 4 postseason AS in 4 years. 3 straight Cups with both of them generally dominating together. Give them Balderis who's not a terrible drop from Geoffrion all time, is every bit as good as Yvan Cournoyer, and can replicate all the things those 2 players did form a stylistic standpoint to include elite skating.

And lastly, your unit is getting checked by Gainey-Jarvis-Westfall and occasionally Kunitz-Westwick-Wilson.

Stewart @ secondary position vs Westfall?

Jarvis on Smith?

Gainey on Wheeler?

I also love the chances of Wilson taking Nels off the ice a bunch of times this series. Big reason I picked Cully up beyond the fact he was actually good at hockey.



I knew the topic of degrading the early era players would come up.

How much are we going to suppress the numbers of players who played pre-consolidation?

Obviously Russell Bowie is not as valuable as Cylcone Taylor even though Bowie's offensive dominance was just as large as Taylor's. The reason being competition and depth of talent increased as time went along, naturally. Taylor's offensive brilliance isn't quite worth what Howe did, so on and so forth.

But going by the old/new versions of Vs1/2/x whatever, Bowie's at something ridiculous like 130 or am I remembering wrong? How much do we drop that because he played between 1900 and 1909? 10%, 20%, 50%? Where does it stop? Obviously that time period didn't have the depth of talent the 1910's or 1920's did. But even Cyclone Taylor was still playing rover hockey, with mostly still primitive rules for a large portion of his career. And it's not like Bowie played against scrubs across the board. Numerous HOF players and he was mainly on average to subpar squads that were him and Blair Russell in many cases. He never had a defense or G that was remotely close to what the Senators or Wanderers had.

Obviously he's not a 130. He's not a 110. He's probably not even a 100. But I certainly see him in the class as Cowley who peaked in a weak era that also coincided with the war depleted mid 40's. I certainly don't think Bowie should be dropped below a 90 which is very large % already.

Having researched Bowie somewhat within my time on the Senators over the past month I can tell you he was thought of as the best player in the world by most people. He was routinely named best player on the ice in game reports, win or loss. He was just an offensive machine, incredible in the slot, wicked shot, so many goals from in close, but could score from anywhere and i gained a better appreciation for his passing ability. There are definitely some reconstructions to be done with assists. Will never be 100% but as I found with Westwick, you can get a really good idea of who did what. Those old game reports are generally quite detailed, really because they had to be. Radio would have just barely been on the scene IIRC and obviously no TV.

I just don't want to see anyone trying to move the goal posts (not saying you're doing this at all just to be crystal clear) to the point where these guys are being construed as some players over there in the corner.

I'll tackle the first chunk hopefully tomorrow.

But to accuse me the largest PCHA/WCHL/WHL fanboy we have here as degrading early era players a solid lol my friend.

You just can't use the Vs2 since that's likely what you're citing not VsX for a period of time where talent was distributed unevenly among a variety of professional leagues and compare that to modern VsX scores (modern referring to 1926 and consolidation). Bowie's time is definitely harder to compare when compared to Taylor's in the PCHA and NHA. The hockey landscape was far more fractured than it would be even 5 years later.

It's not suppression, it's intellectually dishonest to try and compar apples with oranges. Sure they are both fruits so they have commonality but they are different items.

Edit: Actually, I have to comment, I totally forgot that the Olmstead-Beliveau connection was the only thing the Habs had during their 3-peat in the second half of the 50s. Teams that had Dickie Moore in his prime, Henri Richard in his, young Boom Boom, prime Doug Harvey.

To recite the accolades of those two as part of the greatest team of all time as though they don't have the massive luxury of having their legacies augmented by their teammates. Then to compare them to two members of now defunct and forgotten franchises (except by us) who ultimately did manage to win hockey's ultimate prize despite not having nearly the talent the Habs did is such a weak argument.

Also the gap doesn't shrink nearly as much as you seem to believe. The two seasons Stewart spent mostly at LW he finished 5th and 2nd in points and 3rd and 2nd in goals. These are two of his 4 best offensive seasons in terms of raw output. There was no degradation of his abilities he was clearly just as effective at wing as he was at center. (I am aware of the rules of the time might impact the interpretation of these numbers....but that opens up a whole can of worms regarding other pre-forward passing players in this series)

Olmstead playing on a stacked team peaked at #4 in scoring, it isn't a narrowing gap between the two it's a chasm the size of the grand canyon.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'll tackle the first chunk hopefully tomorrow.

But to accuse me the largest PCHA/WCHL/WHL fanboy we have here as degrading early era players a solid lol my friend.

You just can't use the Vs2 since that's likely what you're citing not VsX for a period of time where talent was distributed unevenly among a variety of professional leagues and compare that to modern VsX scores (modern referring to 1926 and consolidation). Bowie's time is definitely harder to compare when compared to Taylor's in the PCHA and NHA. The hockey landscape was far more fractured than it would be even 5 years later.

It's not suppression, it's intellectually dishonest to try and compar apples with oranges. Sure they are both fruits so they have commonality but they are different items.

Edit: Actually, I have to comment, I totally forgot that the Olmstead-Beliveau connection was the only thing the Habs had during their 3-peat in the second half of the 50s. Teams that had Dickie Moore in his prime, Henri Richard in his, young Boom Boom, prime Doug Harvey.

To recite the accolades of those two as part of the greatest team of all time as though they don't have the massive luxury of having their legacies augmented by their teammates. Then to compare them to two members of now defunct and forgotten franchises (except by us) who ultimately did manage to win hockey's ultimate prize despite not having nearly the talent the Habs did is such a weak argument.

Also the gap doesn't shrink nearly as much as you seem to believe. The two seasons Stewart spent mostly at LW he finished 5th and 2nd in points and 3rd and 2nd in goals. These are two of his 4 best offensive seasons in terms of raw output. There was no degradation of his abilities he was clearly just as effective at wing as he was at center. (I am aware of the rules of the time might impact the interpretation of these numbers....but that opens up a whole can of worms regarding other pre-forward passing players in this series)

Olmstead playing on a stacked team peaked at #4 in scoring, it isn't a narrowing gap between the two it's a chasm the size of the grand canyon.

Clearly pointed out that I wasn't saying you were degrading Bowie to an unseen level. It's right there. But I know it's an argument that I had to be prepared for. That's what I was clearly saying just for the record.

So why even have early era players? I'm seriously asking. If they're so terribly different and incredibly difficult to judge, why not just pull them from the draft?

Russell Bowie was the best hockey player in the world over the first decade of the 1900's. Was MacKay that in the teens? No. 20's? No. That's not a slight on MacKay, because there were more players, more talent, but again, it's not like the 1900-1910 is void of talent beyond Russell Bowie. Hod Stuart, Harvey Pulford, Moose Johnson, Tommy Phillips, Frank McGee, Marty Walsh, the list goes on and on. And most of these players never played with Bowie.

Yet Bowie destroyed the league offensively under the same rules as everyone else, on a comparatively average team (at best) to the best teams in the league (Wanderers and Sens). Judge people on what they do against their peers. Unless the peer time period is going to be treated in the light of MLD level hockey? If that's the case then we can just remove the players pre consolidation and we don't have to worry about interpreting anything.

I've said Bowie is a mid 90's VsX. Not dishonest by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly not the first person to put that kind of figure out there for him, I've seen higher, I've seen lower. There is more interpretation with early era players obviously. Voters will see this.

It's your job to convince people he's not worth what I'm claiming. Noting I've said in relation to Bowie is dishonest. I'm sure people can see that. He's a 90's VsX player. Again not outlandish. Dreak has him on Savards level who is an 86 I believe. I have him a couple points higher. I can bring other examples to the table if need be.

He's got his real life RW and a LW that is vastly better than anything he ever had in real life. I think my 2nd line will produce just fine. They have the luxury of not facing the top pairings a great deal, don't have to face the top checking unit and both wings on that line for Pitt are very strong defensively while providing solid supporting offense both in playmaking (Harris) and goal scoring (Russell).

Henri Richard and Dickie Moore have nothing to do with Beliveau and Olmstead at ES or on the PP much for that matter either. You're trying to shift the argument from line mates to the entire team. I've been very honest in looking at who players skated with. Thoms had a good part of his career with players like Conachers, Jackson and Bentley. Do you really think Drai and Pavelski provide that kind of offense?

I'm not incorrect in saying Balderis is every bit as good as Cournoyer (somebody Beliveau played with), both all time, and absolutely has a higher offensive ceiling, peak, and longevity than Yvan. Balderis plays a very similar game, is apt and goal scoring, passing, doesn't matter. He can out skate 90-95% of the ATD. Did Balderis ever skate with someone as good as Beliveau? I don't think so.

Again, there is a difference between a guy playing a position for 8-10 years and 1.5 years. Nels Stewart did not score at his peak rate at LW and he spent 1.5 years there. Not taking at least a few points off given those 2 factors is what I'd consider dishonest. But that's up to the voters and I'm not using that word beyond now. I don't think you're being dishonest. I'm certainly not and don't see anyone in any other playoff series doing that. We may have different opinions and we're clearly going to fit arguments and go to bat for our players. Beyond that I'm not interested in throwing pot shots or being involved in any drama. I'm quite burnt out given the amount of research done while juggling 2 rosters, running admin and doing life in the real world. Again, zero drama intended or wanted and IM NOT saying you are bringing that at all. Just want to avoid it down the line.

Lastly, sure I don't have Doug Harvey. But Russell Bowie is as good or better than any offensive C that's played behind Beliveau. I don't think that's outlandish by any stretch, era or not. As i pointed out above Beliveau has his kick ass glue guy and real life partner at LW and a RW who brings offensive ability, style, and all time standing that is as good or better than Cournoyer IMO. Ranked closely in the all time wingers project for reference sake and generally drafted close together every year, for the bean counters.

Paul Coffey doesn't have Wayne Gretzky, Mario Lemieux, Mark Messier, Jaromir Jagr, Steve Yzerman, Kurr, Anderson, on and on and on and on. We'll get how Coffey is not set up to thrive at all later tonight.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bill Thoms offense is surely inflated given he spent time between Busher Jackson and Charlie Conacher in Toronto (Primeau skated with those 2 as well in the earlier years). He rode with the Bentley's in Chicago. He's now in a 3rd line role with wingers who aren't in the same class of those who Thoms had in real life.

Do you have a source for Thoms playing on the same line as the Bentleys? I have never seen that before, but perhaps it is true.

In Toronto, of course, Thoms was helped by the few years he played between Jackson and Conacher. But he was hurt in other years by the presence of Joe Primeau pushing him down the lineup - in the early 1930s especially, a very large portion of scoring was usually done by a team's top line. We also do know that VsX as a system systematically underrates pre-expansion players who weren't regulars on the power play, which would also likely apply to Thoms in the Primeau years. In the absence of a more detailed analysis, I would assume that Thoms' raw VsX score is likely close to true.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Do you have a source for Thoms playing on the same line as the Bentleys? I have never seen that before, but perhaps it is true.

In Toronto, of course, Thoms was helped by the few years he played between Jackson and Conacher. But he was hurt in other years by the presence of Joe Primeau pushing him down the lineup - in the early 1930s especially, a very large portion of scoring was usually done by a team's top line. We also do know that VsX as a system systematically underrates pre-expansion players who weren't regulars on the power play, which would also likely apply to Thoms in the Primeau years. In the absence of a more detailed analysis, I would assume that Thoms' raw VsX score is likely close to true.

Actually right from the bio you linked me:

The Calgary Herald - Google News Archive Search

Nice little overview on Thoms. I like him as a player in the bottom 6 to be certain, but again I think his offense is slightly inflated. Again, not saying it's something drastic but there is a difference between playing with the Conachers/Jacksons/Bentley's of the world and Drai/Pavelski. In the real world, those are fabulous wingers for a C like Thoms. In the ATD? I think it's a steep drop from what Thoms did enjoy quite a bit in real life.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Clearly pointed out that I wasn't saying you were degrading Bowie to an unseen level. It's right there. But I know it's an argument that I had to be prepared for. That's what I was clearly saying just for the record.

So why even have early era players? I'm seriously asking. If they're so terribly different and incredibly difficult to judge, why not just pull them from the draft?

Russell Bowie was the best hockey player in the world over the first decade of the 1900's. Was MacKay that in the teens? No. 20's? No. That's not a slight on MacKay, because there were more players, more talent, but again, it's not like the 1900-1910 is void of talent beyond Russell Bowie. Hod Stuart, Harvey Pulford, Moose Johnson, Tommy Phillips, Frank McGee, Marty Walsh, the list goes on and on. And most of these players never played with Bowie.

Yet Bowie destroyed the league offensively under the same rules as everyone else, on a comparatively average team (at best) to the best teams in the league (Wanderers and Sens). Judge people on what they do against their peers. Unless the peer time period is going to be treated in the light of MLD level hockey? If that's the case then we can just remove the players pre consolidation and we don't have to worry about interpreting anything.

I've said Bowie is a mid 90's VsX. Not dishonest by any stretch of the imagination. Certainly not the first person to put that kind of figure out there for him, I've seen higher, I've seen lower. There is more interpretation with early era players obviously. Voters will see this.

It's your job to convince people he's not worth what I'm claiming. Noting I've said in relation to Bowie is dishonest. I'm sure people can see that. He's a 90's VsX player. Again not outlandish. Dreak has him on Savards level who is an 86 I believe. I have him a couple points higher. I can bring other examples to the table if need be.

It's not VsX.

VsX is a vetted system developed for post consolidation.

You're using Vs1 or Vs2 please stop conflating the two

 

[ResilientBeast]

Henri Richard and Dickie Moore have nothing to do with Beliveau and Olmstead at ES or on the PP much for that matter either. You're trying to shift the argument from line mates to the entire team. I've been very honest in looking at who players skated with. Thoms had a good part of his career with players like Conachers, Jackson and Bentley. Do you really think Drai and Pavelski provide that kind of offense?

"We know what Olmstead-Beliveau were doing together. Olmstead won 2 assist titles. Beliveau won his 1st Hart. Won his only Art Ross. 4 postseason AS in 4 years. 3 straight Cups with both of them generally dominating together. Give them Balderis who's not a terrible drop from Geoffrion all time, is every bit as good as Yvan Cournoyer, and can replicate all the things those 2 players did form a stylistic standpoint to include elite skating."

You're just citing their HockeyRef pages ignoring the benefits they had playing on stacked team. Am I discounting their accomplishments of course not (except maybe a little for Olmstead) but you can't cite all this without even considering the team context

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Actually right from the bio you linked me:

The Calgary Herald - Google News Archive Search

Nice little overview on Thoms. I like him as a player in the bottom 6 to be certain, but again I think his offense is slightly inflated. Again, not saying it's something drastic but there is a difference between playing with the Conachers/Jacksons/Bentley's of the world and Drai/Pavelski. In the real world, those are fabulous wingers for a C like Thoms. In the ATD? I think it's a steep drop from what Thoms did enjoy quite a bit in real life.

View attachment 346969

Okay, he played C for at least a time on the Doug Bentley - Bill Mosienko line at some point after Max Bentley was traded. Not both Bentleys. And it looks like Thoms' two good offensive years in Chicago were before Mosienko was an established player.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's not VsX.

VsX is a vetted system developed for post consolidation.

You're using Vs1 or Vs2 please stop conflating the two

Agreed. But to be fair, IE is far from the only one who uses the phrase "VsX" for similar formulas that apply to pre-consolidation or non-NHLers.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Agreed. But to be fair, IE is far from the only one who uses the phrase "VsX" for similar formulas that apply to pre-consolidation or non-NHLers.

It just bears repeating and I've been guilty of doing it in the past.

 

[ImporterExporter]

It's not VsX.

VsX is a vetted system developed for post consolidation.

You're using Vs1 or Vs2 please stop conflating the two

Apologies. They're all thrown around so often I'm guilty of thinking they're the "same".

Not my intention at all.

Still doesn't change the fact that I think Bowie is worth what Bill Cowley is, formula or no formula. If people think he's worth less, fine. Got zero issues with that. I just hope people realize that's not a new argument or outlandish position. If people think he's Denis Savard level? OK. Better? Fantastic.

As I said, if Bowie did what he did in the 1910's or 20's he'd be drafted with Cyclone Taylor. I think his all time ranking is apt (just outside the top 100) and he is still drafted to low (outside the top 300 is ridiculous IMO). I'm not placing him or anyone else on that line in a light that hasn't already been established.

The only bump I'v given is Smokey Harris. And why? Multiple AS nods found that we didn't know about including a unanimous nod in Portland without Taylor. Mountains (certainly compared to most from that era) of references to his elite speed, best in the league defense and physicality. Again, I'll let the voters read what I found and determine how much they want to bump Harris.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Top pairing: Wash

• Keith/Coulter vs Coffey/Flamen

I don't have much of a gap at all between Keith and Coffey all time personally. I made as much clear in the HoH Top 100 project so don't want people say I'm just over inflating Keith because I drafted him. Pretty sure everyone here or at least most know I've been vocal in my eval of Coffey.

With that being said, for the sake of integrity Coffey has a nod here. Still don't think it's much, but I'll say it's more than 3 spots as I have above. Beyond that, there are some critical points to be made about Coffey:

• He played in in the most wide open era of all time for 1 dynasty in Edmonton, which featured Gretzky, Messier, Kurri, Anderson, etc, etc.

• He then went and played a few years with Mario, a young Jagr, Recchi, on a team that was good enough to win back to back Cups. Pitt won the 2nd one a few months after Coffey was traded by Bowman, btw w/Larry Murphy anchoring the D.

• He then went to LA and played with Gretzky again for a brief stint

• He then went to Detroit and played on another dynasty in Detroit with Steve Yzerman and company.

Now who are the C's on Portland?

Hooley Smith
Mickey MacKay
Bill Thoms
Mel Bridgman

It'd say that is a very, very far cry from Gretzky, Mario and Yzerman. Like other side of the universe.

I don't know if I've ever seen a player who benefited from playing around so many superstars over such a great length of time. Loaded offensive rosters, top to bottom many times. Wide open leagues with ride open play style (certainly all the way through the mid 90's when he got to Detroit). Coffey simply doesn't have the F support to be anywhere near as effective as his VsX would indicate. I'll argue that until the end of days. Nothing personal but I hope people can see there is simply no correlation between the Rosebuds and the overwhelming talent Coffey enjoyed playing with in real life.

Fit with Patrick? Sure. Won't argue that. Patrick liked rushing Dman so in that sense, the fit is perfectly fine.

But the drop off in terms of talent around him, in an offensive light, is staggering. Nels Stewart is your best offensive player, out of his normal position and Blake Wheeler. By VsX. Obviously MacKay and Smith are better offensive players but neither are worth Bowie and I have Bowie @ Cowley's level and am fine if people want to argue him slightly lower.

Coffey is elite offensively on the surface, but the simple reality is he never played with this little talent offensively. We simply can't say his output would be the same trying to carry the Rosebuds. There isn't anyone there remotely close to Gretzky or Mario and nobody can even claim to be on Yzerman's level offensively, though Stewart is close.



I personally think Duncan Keith was the best player on Chicago for a LONG time, certainly through their dynasty (is when you consider a cap era). @ChiTownPhilly could weigh in to see If I'm off base in that assertion. Just want to see if there is any viable argument for the other 2.

The impact he had from simply being able to log ridiculous minutes, especially in the postseason, is mighty impressive.

Peaked with a pair of Norris'. Had a legendary playoff run in 2015 and Smythe. I'll take him all day over Coffey in the playoffs for an all around game and stone cold ice water in his veins. It was tough seeing Chicago peak as a Pittsburgh fan during those awful Bylsma years but one thing I can say, Keith is one hellova gamer: One of my favorite players that's never worn the black and yellow.

• How many defensemen have multiple Norris trophies, multiple Cups, and a Conn Smythe to their name? Orr, Lidstrom, Robinson and Duncan Keith. Like i said, gamer.

• Can play in all situations though he shouldn't run a 1st team PP here. Log heavy, heavy minutes. He's a high end skater. Effortless in that manner. Really strong vision and passing. Plays a bigger game than his size and is gritty as hell. For my money his 2015 Cup run was the most impressive performance by a defensemen since Leetch in 94.

• Consider, since TOI was tracked in 1998-99 no defensemen has averaged more even strength time on ice in the postseason than Keith. He has averaged 22:34 in ESTOI over 126 career playoff games. The next closest is Alex Pietrangelo at 21:59 per game. Drew Doughty is 20:58 in 84. Chara 20:17 in 182. Pronger is only at 19:44 over 154 games.

• Keith (28:11) even bests Nick Lidstrom (28:07) in total TOI. Doughty (27:51). Chara (26:04).

And Keith is going to be able to log ridiculous minutes as he doesn't have to the play the PK unless we're on home ice (see OP for roster variations home/away/leading/trailing/etc) and even then he's a 2nd unit guy. 2nd team PP. I want my #1 on the ice at ES as much as possible and that happens with this roster.

Keith is strong 2 way hockey player, certainly slanted towards defense but his controlling the flow of the game from the back end was fantastic to watch in those 2010-2015 years. Keith is a high end skater. Not quite on Coffey's level but DK has long been one of the best skating blue liners in the entire league. Very strong vision and passing skills. Muffin of a shot but that isn't needed here.

And Keith is upgrading grandly with Jean Beliveau as his best offensive target. He's got a higher end skill guy in Balderis on the wing. He's got a high end scoring line C on the 2nd line. It wouldn't shock me at all to see Keith putting up a better than average numbers with the people he has around him him.

Pete Green would have loved Keith as well. He generally had elite to better than average skating Dmen. Check. He had Dmen who could and were trusted to rush the puck. Check. Strong 2 way game? Check.

Obviously Coffey is a FAR superior offensive dman than Keith but you can say the exact opposite when it comes to defensive ability and impact. Coffey isn't worthless defensively (don't like absolutes) but most of his career (outside late in Detroit) he was very suspect to say the least and on this team? He is almost the best offensive player on the roster. How much D can he even be counted on to play?

Coffey is a bit better all time, yes, but in a 7 game series, with the the players Coffey doesn't have and the ones Keith does, I like Pitt's chances to hang here.

• Coulter vs Flamen

I think this is Coulter by an small/medium margin.

One, he's generally ranked over Flaman. Don't know of anyone who has Fern over Art. Coulter peaked on the same level as Earl Seibert (see below), just didn't hold the peak near as long. Two, his accolades are better and given what I'm digging up, Coulter is probably going to jump a few spots in the future. Three, he doesn't have a partner that will leave him out to dry as Coffey will.

• Just a few clippings from the bio I'm inching along with, on Coulter.

28 Dec 1934, 20 - The Leader-Post at Newspapers.com

Your own coach, Lester Patrick, calling Art Couler his "ideal defensemen" in 1934

21 Dec 1935, 10 - The Ottawa Citizen at Newspapers.com

Conn Smythe calls Coulter the best Dman in the league (obviously Shore but this is still high praise from a major hockey luminary)

16 Jan 1936, 14 - The Gazette at Newspapers.com

Coulter famed for expert body checking and brainy defensive play

Hockey minds in Montreal say NY got the better end of the deal

Seibert, perennial holdout, noted to be a tough player to handle

16 Jan 1936, 6 - Edmonton Journal at Newspapers.com

Coulter noted as "near perfect back line blocker"

Considered "one of the brainiest defensemen in the NHL"

10 Feb 1936, 19 - The Herald-News at Newspapers.com

Coulter noted to have many similarities to Ear Seibert

Both hard body checkers

Both excel as puck carries, though Seibert is better overall scorer

Seibert noted, "is a better scorer, but in attempting to score he often has left openings for the opposition to break through"

"Coulter, while not as dangerous a shot, rarely is caught out of position"

 

[ImporterExporter]

2nd Pairing: Moderate Advantage Portland

• Shore/Lake vs Bergman/Duncan

Duncan is a really nice 2nd pairing guy. Solid #3. Short but very strong peak as an offensive Dman. I think he's the best player on either paring certainly. The moderate advantage I'm giving you here is more than fair IMO.

Just a sidebar but why would Art Duncan go 200 picks above Smokey Harris moving forward? Harris has as good/better AS record now. Was the only winger in PCHA history to lead/tie for the league scoring title. All while being cited as having zero (early part of career) or few/if any (late) peers as a defensive forward?

I mean we're going to value a D more naturally in the ATD, but an all around LW (which are scarce as it is) who held top form in a quality league, for a long time, with an expanded AS resume and many sources cited to back up his elite skating and highly respected physicality. I think that gap is going to shrink. Just a hunch.

Shore/Lake bio

I've read the bios on Bergman to include @overpass scouting report.

What standout qualities does he bring? Being able to play 2nd pairing minutes in the ATD? Sure. Had one good series playing next to Brad Park in 72, along with the rest of the best players Canada had to offer at the time.

• He has some distant AS finishes in a league that had between 6-18 teams. I'm not THAT impressed.

• Once he finished 6th in the Norris. Dan Girardi, my 6th defensemen has a 6th place Norris finish to his name and brings elite shot blocking and near elite PK ability to the mix (I'll be glad to repost those metrics from my last series if somebody wants them).

• Hamby Shore was highly thought of. He wasn't just somebody that people thought was related to Eddie. If Art Duncan should be in the HOF, Shore should be as well reading over his bio and seeing the very good longevity in an era where a lot of players didn't last as long. And Lake was already an AS caliber hockey player before even getting to Ottawa, compared to Tommy Phillips in style, then teamed up with Shore and coach Green to win a couple of SC's and routinely get cited as playing fantastically, especially defensively speaking.

• And most importantly, Shore/Lake was a standout pairing for multiple years, winning multiple Cups for the coach who's behind the bench for them now in this series. Not to mention Larry Robinson who's a boon for the entire group of Dmen.

• Shore/Lake certainly have more big game playoff experience and performances to fall back on as well comparing these parings.

Anyway, I do think Shore and Lake are better than Bergman w/Shore being a fairly large gap. So again, I think I'm being more than fair in giving you a moderate nod.

Consider the following tidbits from a much larger bio:


7 Mar 1908, Page 2 - The Ottawa Journal at Newspapers.com

Lake compared to and plays much like Tommy Phillips.

"marvel at checking back"

Gives you an idea of the reputation of Fred Lake when he was playing forward before getting to Ottawa. He was already very highly regarded as a defensive player and that would continue once he teamed up with Shore.

Ottawa Citizen - Google News Archive Search

Ottawa Citizen - Jan 23rd, 1911

Lake blocks Lalonde and forces Newsy to take a dumb penalty. Noted for his physical play. Shore gets concussed and comes right back in.

"Lalonde went off for throwing the rubber with his hand after a rush which Lake had blocked with a clever body check, and with one man to the good Ottawa proceeded to out-general the visitors."

Lake with great defensive work and his physical game stuck out:

"Fred Lake was reliable at point and while he did not get down the ice so often as in the game against Wanderers or Renfrew he did a great deal of effective blocking and used his body in such a way as to fill the visiting forwards with respect.

Shore played well but got hurt in the 2nd period, concussion, but like all those lunatics, came back in almost right away.

"Hamby Shore was in great fettle (condition) until the second period when he fell head foremost on the ice (concussion). It was the first time that he had even been injured in a game and Shore was no sooner off than he resumed. Afterwards Hamby was not quite himself although he worked like a little horse."

1 Feb 1911, 8 - The Ottawa Citizen at Newspapers.com

Captain Percy Lesueur says the defensive pairing of Lake and Shore is the best combination he's ever played behind. In the spring of 1911 he would have already had both Harvey Pulford and Cyclone Taylor in front of him as teammates in prior seasons. Speaks volumes as to the impact that pairing had on the Silver Seven dominance.

Despite being smaller, they use their bodies more effectively than Cyclone Taylor, Moose Johnson, and others. Noted as clever blockers.

Pete Green mentions that modern hockey players must have 6 capable forwards (people who can carry the puck). This is noted to be perhaps their greatest strength.

22 Jan 1917, 8 - The Ottawa Citizen at Newspapers.com

Hamby Shore playing like the most valuable player in the entire NHA.

In 1917 when he was 30, one year before retiring. On a team with Nighbor, Gerard, Boucher, etc. Again, pretty telling he was still this impactful/thought of this late in his career.

"Shore at his present form, looks like the most valuable man in the league. He scored one on and end to end rush that would do "Cye" Taylor credit; passed it to Darragh for another and blocked in superb style.

15 Oct 1918, 8 - The Ottawa Citizen at Newspapers.com

In 1910, Renfrew raided the Ottawa team, but overlooked Hamby Shore who had not played in 1909. President Bate then induced Shore to try out on the Ottawa defense and, succeeding Cylone Fred Taylor, after the latter’s jump to Renfrew, Shore become one of the grandest defencemen in the game.


In 1910 Renfrew, with their celebrated “million dollar” team, which included Bert Lindsay, Lester Patrick, Frank Patrick, Fred Whitcroft, Hay Miller, Newsy Lalonde, Steve Vair and Bobby Rowe made a desperate effort to capture the honors.


There were defeated in both games by the Ottawas and it was the late Hamby Shore, whose superb defense work proved largely responsible for Renfrew’s downfall.

Same paper:

"Shore played in that winter (1911) the greatest hockey of his career, his phenomenal speed and beautiful stick handling making him the best all-around defenseman in the league"

Had an AS game to honor Shore. That doesn't happen often in hockey history:

12 Mar 1919, 8 - The Ottawa Citizen at Newspapers.com

Monument funded for Hamby Shore who is called "one of the greatest all around hockey players in the game". (Really neat article, click link).

 

[ImporterExporter]

3rd pairing: Moderate Advantage Pittsburgh

• Ivanov/Girardi vs Loughlin/Seabrook

Why is Dan Girardi drafted behind Brent Seabrook?

• Better Norris finish (by a lot)

• Girardi brings 2 high end skills to the series. Shot blocking and PK ability (see below). Both of which are better than Seabrook and Girardi never played on a dynasty with a Norris/Smythe caliber player.

• Giardi peaked as a 25-26 minute a night Dman. Seabrook never got close to that number.

• Giardi gives up nothing in terms of hitting or playing with an edge.

That’s SHTOI and shot blocking #’s below:

• Girardi's killed 52% of his team’s penalties over his career at 16% above the league average. Girardi is 7th in the past decade in terms of SHTOI.

• DG is 2nd all time in shot blocks since it started being traced in 05-06 with his blocks per game better than Seabrook even though BS is just ahead of him in raw total.

• As I said when I drafted him, Girardi is one of the very best PK’ers of the cap era. He’s arguably the best shot blocker of the last 15 years as well. I think it was an astute pick given he’s the #6 and brings 2 pivotal skills to the table here.

• Anyone else notice that 3 of the top shot blockers of the cap era are on Pittsburgh's roster here? (Keith, Girardi, Orpik). That's coupled with Ivanov who was noted as strong in this area for the Soviets. Vezina is going to be pleased with so much rubber not finding its way to the net.

I think Ivanov is pretty clearly the best player out of the 4. IMO he could pass for a #4 in a 40 team league and anchoring a 3rd pairing he stands out to me in this series as a really quality depth piece.

3x Soviet 1st-Team All Star
1x Soviet 2nd-Team All Star
1x Soviet 3rd-Team All Star
1x Olympic Gold Medalist
3x World Championships Gold Medalist
4x Soviet League Champion
Best forward in 1964 Olympics/World Championships as a Defenseman
Soviet Hockey Hall of Fame Member
16 goals in 79 career National Team games
40 goals in 300 career Soviet League games


Ivanov bio

Very nice overview on Ivanov from @billyshoes old bio.

Edward Ivanov had a North American first name, and he played a North American style of defense. He was a defensive defender who loved to play physically. He would do anything - sacrifice his body, block shots, clear the front of the net - in order for his team to win. He had a great ability to spring transition offense with his deadly accurate passing.

Edward started at the bottom and worked his way to the top. He started as a spare defenseman, but soon he was paired with one of the greatest Russian defensemen of all time - Alexander Ragulin. Ivanov's play quickly improved with the guidance of Ragulin. Soon Ivanov was considered one of the best players in the country, and the Ragulin-Ivanov tandem is still considered to be perhaps the best defensive duo in Russian history, with the possible exception of the Viacheslav Fetisov-Alexei Kasatonov pairing of the 1980s.

xxx wrote the following about Ivanov in his book Road to Olympus:

"Like an experienced warrior, he has many fine qualities, courage, and decisiveness. He is entirely dedicated to hockey, he is in love with the game, he thirsts for battle."

I don't think a hockey player on either side of the Atlantic could get a better quote from his coach.

Although the relationship between the two remained rocky at best, Ivanov enjoyed his best years under xxx. From 1963 through 1967, Ivanov was part of 4 USSR championships, and 3 world championships.

Always one to tinker with the game, xxx was particularly pleased with Ivanov's versatility and complete understanding of the game. This allowed xxx to experiment with what was known as "the System." Instead of two conventional defenders backing up three forwards, xxx created a five man unit with only one true defender, the great Alexander Ragulin. xxx and Anatoli Firsov were the explosive forwards, while xxx and Ivanov served as "semi-defensemen," almost like a mid-fielder in soccer. They would roam both ends of the ice, creating odd man situations in both the offensive and defensive zones. Ivanov's ability in both ends led to this revolutionary though still uncommon strategy.

Ivanov's shining moment came at the 1964 Olympics in Innsbruck, Austria. Ivanvov was a key player of the 1964 gold medal championship team in his only Olympic games. Under the revolutionary roaming system, Ivanov, still technically listed as a defenseman, scored 6 goals and 7 points in 8 contests and was named as the best forward in the Olympics.

Though his career with the national team was cut short, the 5'10" 185 pound Ivanov continued to play the game he loved until 1970. Though he was devastated by the demotion and the politics played, he never lost his love of hockey.

Ivanov bio

Really telling quote from Soviet defensemen and legend Nik Sologubov from @Theokritos work from the Soviet historical thread

Just another player on Pittsburgh that was a very strong skater as well.

Sologubov: "The hockey-defenceman has long ceased to just be a destroyer. Now he is a creator, a full-fledged partner of the forwards, someone who strikes the target no worse than the most skilled attackers, sometimes even better. A good defenceman knows how to anticipate the next moves in the development and continuation of an attack and to be back in time for the critical work on defence. (...) If you ask me which of the current defencemen comes closest to the type of a modern defenceman, the first I will name is Eduard Ivanov of CSKA, and – sometimes – Vladimir Brezhnev. To a lesser degree, Viktor Kuzkin and Aleksandr Ragulin."

Farid Bektemirov (championat.com):

"Ivanov on the ice was like a locomotive - an athlete of great size and quite muscular, yet able to skate at incredible speeds, unusual for hockey. Opponents tried, to put it mildly, to avoid direct confrontation with this imposing figure, who was capable of winning any struggle and coming out with the puck, in open ice as well as the corners. In addition, Eduard Georgievich Ivanov had (as is often the case with attacking defenders) a powerful shot, but differed from many of his colleagues in that he also had excellent vision of the ice and amazing accuracy on his passes."