Red Fisher Conference Semi Finals - Ottawa Senators (2) vs Pittsburgh AC (3)

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express

OTTAWA SENATORS (2)

200px-Original_Ottawa_Senators_Logo.png


GM: BenchBrawl

Coach: Hap Day
Captain: Mark Messier
Assistant: Punch Broadbent
Assistant: Jimmy Thomson


HEAD COACH

Hap Day

ROSTER

Sweeney Schriner - Mark Messier (C) - Alex Kovalev
Artemi Panarin - Jeremy Roenick - Tony Amonte
Gabriel Landeskog - Frank McGee - Punch Broadbent (A)
Gregg Sheppard - Doug Risebrough - Russ Courtnall


Sprague Cleghorn - Jimmy Thomson (A)
Al Arbour - Guy Lapointe
Ryan McDonagh - Jack Laviolette


Henrik Lundqvist
Normie Smith

Spares: Brenden Gallagher, Marc Savard, Sheldon Souray


PP1: Schriner-Messier-Kovalev-Cleghorn-Lapointe
PP2: Panarin-Roenick-Broadbent-Arbour-Thomson


PK1: Sheppard-Risebrough-Lapointe-Thomson
PK2: Messier-Courtnall-Cleghorn-Arbour
PK3: Sheppard-Broadbent





VS




Pittsburgh AC (3)

Original Red and White colours of the AC

pittsburgh-ac-red-and-white-front-jpg.340201

pittsburgh-ac-red-and-white-back-jpg.340202




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 - Westwick - Wilson

Keith - Coulter
Shore - Lake
Ivanov - Girardi


BALANCED LINE UP @ HOME

Olmstead - Beliveau - Westfall
Gainey - Bowie - Russell
Harris - Jarvis - Balderis
Kunitz - Westwick - 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 - Westwick - 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 - Westwick - 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*
Westwick - 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.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Interesting match-up between the #1 centers: Messier vs. Beliveau. Arguably the two greatest all-around playoff centers of all-time, with Beliveau taking the notch obviously. Still, if I'm facing Beliveau I'm glad I'm doing it with Mark Messier.

Ottawa's main advantage is once again the blueline, with Ottawa winning at the #1, #2 and #3 defenseman position. Still like Pittsburgh's first pairing in a vaccuum though. Ottawa has a better 1st and 2nd pairing.

Not sure I like Helmut Balderis so much with Beliveau and Olmstead. Balderis doesn't remind me of Bernie Geoffrion at all, and he seems like an Ilya Kovalchuk type that needs to be the focus of his line. Hard to do that playing with Jean Beliveau. But could work.

Huge strenght for Pittsburgh is the 3rd line, but I feel their usefulness against my team will be more limited than it would have against a more offensively-minded team. My team is not an offensive powerhouse that you need a Gainey-Jarvis-Westfall combo to face. It's overkill.

Serious advantage for Pittsburgh with Georges Vézina in net.

I'd say coaching is a wash. Apparently Pete Green is now a Top 10 or Top 5 coach, though I haven't read the research closely yet. But I'm buying it by assumption. Hap Day is also a Top 10 or Top 5 coach.

I prefer Ottawa's 1st line than Pittsburgh's, but this is a matter of taste and people will make their own judgement.

Ottawa has a better PP, Pittsburgh a better PK.

Overall both teams seems very close to me. Not sure how much I'll be able to go on long posts but I'll try to be as active as possible.

Good luck, IE, you build a strong team.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
@BenchBrawl

Same to you bud! Always tough but fun going up against you. Should be a great series here.


Coaching: Very slight edge to Ottawa

  • Day vs Green
It's ironic, as the 2 side by side's I did in the HoH section w/Green were Lester Patrick (who Pitt just beat) and Hap Day.

Day is 5/6 all time for me. Fantastic defensive/checking oriented coach. Certainly has some innovative defensive tactics to his his resume. 5 titles in 10 years is exactly what Green had. Obviously the value of titles favoring Day given era differences. I do question the fit of some of the Ottawa F's for a Happy Day team.

With that being said, the foundation for what Day was doing in the 1940's was laid long before that by Green specifically in the 1909-13 and 1920-25 time periods. Please take 15-20 minutes if possible, i don't even care if you plan to vote for me. Green's contributions were historically massive.

Specific team play, a supported attack system that helped Ottawa dominate most of Green's time there during the 1st run, Ottawa blowing the doors off the league offensively while remaining above average defensively. His moving Taylor to D while mentoring him specifically on defense/blocking (great move), finding and developing Kerr and Darragh, the latter speaking very highly of Green and the impact he had on his career.

The 1920's saw another dynasty and the development of the earliest version of the neutral zone trap that I'm aware of. His use of wingers on their off wing to shadow specific stars was critical. Use of multiple wingers and not just the same people over and over to check opposing players.

King Clancy (Green discovered and scouted him) and Cleghorn both developed by Green specifically. Player and peer testimony both during his coaching all the way until after his death greatly summed up how great a coach Green was. Pre Lester Patrick, there isn't a coach remotely close to Green. He dominated the league and his peers like few others have and his contributions across the board were massive.

I'm very confident Green is a top 10 coach all time at this point. His win/loss record is sterling. And more importantly his contributions to strategy/tactics, scouting, development, conditioning, peer/player testimony are as or more significant than any coach IMO, not just because of the volume but timing especially. Doing things first is pretty big in this respect.



Forwards: Big Advantage Pittsburgh:

  • I see a clear advantage in the top 6 for Pittsburgh.
  • Pitt has better offense by a comfortable margin in top 6.
  • Easily better defensive players (Russell/Harris/Olmstead/Beliveau vs Messier/Amonte/Roenick/Schriner?).
  • Pitt has better fit and chemistry with a 3 real life duo's who are all joined by strong partners. Balderis is not THAT much of a drop from Geoffrion (at least offensively) and he's certainly on Cournoyer's level overall and is better offensively. Harris is miles better than anything Bowie-Russell ever had at LW. Westfall is big upgrade for Gainey-Jarvis.
  • Can a Hap Day top 6 have a Panarin and Kovalev in it, especially with a Schriner who doesn't seem like anything special checking or defensively?
  • Who is slowing/shutting down Beliveau and Bowie or their lines?
  • Schriner-Messier-Kovalev meet Gainey-Jarvis-Westfall.
  • Westwick and Wilson will be pushing Messier's buttons
  • 3rd lines do 2 different things. I think Pittsburgh's does their job a lot better but it's a wash given all the players involved
  • Please read the Westwick bio
  • Pitt 4th line is going to absolutely wreck people both ways.
  • Pitt simply has better offense on the 1st, 2nd and 4th lines. Elite skating team with high end defense up and down the line up. Gainey, Westfall, Jarvis, Harris, Russell, Westwick/Olmstead is an incredibly high end and deep corp of defensive forwards.
  • Big game? Beliveau (Smythe), Gainey (Smythe), Westwick (could easily argue it), Balderis, Harris, Jarvis, Kunitz, Wilson, Westfall, are all above average to legendary postseason players.

1st Line: Moderate Advantage Pitt


  • Olmstead vs Schriner
Schriner is a clear notch above Olmstead here mainly because of his offensive record. A 91 v 76 VsX is a clear gap and they are both two opposite players. Beyond that, when you read Schriner's bio's which are on the longer side, you don't see much beyond his offensive traits. I see next to nothing going into any detail about checking, defensive abilities, etc. I'll just assume he's league average in those areas. Olmstead obviously brings a better all around game IMO as he's an above average back checker and elite fore checker/corner man and he's rolling w/ Beliveau here.

  • Beliveau vs Messier
As good as Messier is all time, Beliveau is slightly better. As good as Messier is in the postseason, Beliveau is just a shade better (longevity is difference). I also like Beliveau's huge size and strength as buffer against Messier if Ottawa wants to go power on power on home ice. He's not pushing JB around like he might do with Gretzky. And the offensive gap that exists between Schriner and Olmstead is completely erased (almost to the literal decimal) looking at Jean and Mark. In most match ups, especially the postseason, Messier is going to give you a BIG advantage. Not in this match up though.

I also want to through some quotes out touching on the relationship between Beliveau and Olmstead:


It's these little things IMO that make the difference between winning and losing.

''He didn't stand any nonsense from us. Bert was about the best left wing I ever saw when it came to fighting for possession of the puck. And if I was where he wanted me, parked in front of the net, his pass would be perfect. Playing with Bert, I always felt that he got the best out of me, that he made me do smarter things than I would of done myself.'' - Jean Beliveau

''He's the best mucker in the league. By mucker I mean that he's the best man in the corners. He goes in there and digs the puck out for you.'' - Kenny Reardon

''Olmstead could hammer an opponent senseless, and seconds later chew you out on the bench because you were three inches out of position'' - Jean Beliveau


  • Balderis vs Kovalev
This is where the line really shifts in favor of Pittsburgh IMO and is a pretty wide gap as I think Kovalev is over his head on a 1st line to be honest. Kovy doesn't strike me as a player Day would like much either.

Balderis was a league MVP in 1977 and 2 time scoring champion in Soviet league that had a lot of talent at F. Stellar record on the international circuit. I've seen his relative offensive value put in the 85-90 (VsX) range by others in previous years. Even on the more conservative end, he's still a much better offensive player in this setting.

As for the fit? Is it to the letter perfect? No, but it's quite good IMO:

(from Rob's 2017 bio)

Sturminator said:
  • Based on what I have found, I think Triffy's analysis was most likely right on. Balderis seems to have been a player who would hold the puck and try to carry a line when on weak Riga teams or when his line was built to feed him, but he also seems to have been capable of sharing the puck when placed on strong lines, and was at any rate not a selfish player.

New York Times said:

"Their passing and quickness are impressive," said Arbour, the Islanders' coach...

Then the Soviet team scored what proved to be the winning goal on breakaway rush by Sergei Makarov and Helmut Balderis, who traded passes until Makarov was able to put the puck behind a charging Smith...

Throughout the game, the Soviet team demonstrated an outstanding ability to move the puck and to anticipate the movements of their teammates.

"They practice 11 months a year," said Arbour, who admitted he was impressed by the deftness and agility of the Red Army passing game. "They move it - and right away it's gone again."


This is an overview of Cournoyer a player Beliveau would have been very familiar with.

Joe Pelletier said:

For those who got to witness Yvan Cournoyer apply his trade live and in person knew they were seeing something special. One of the best skaters and stickhandlers ever to grace a sheet of ice, Cournoyer played with an affection for the game of hockey that was as obvious as it was rarely matched.

Despite his small size physically, Cournoyer was one of the strongest and most uncatchable skaters of all time.

Yvan was not only fast but was also an impressive stickhandler, and had a booming slap shot that was deadly accurate. Yvan was actually a pretty tough player and was never intimidated by bigger stronger players.

"I was never the kind of guy who was going to hit first. But if a guy dropped his gloves I didn't back down."
Some quotes about Boom Boom from your 2017 bio:

Bernard Geoffrion said:
I was a natural as a stick-handler, I was a natural as a shooter

ourhistory.canadiens.ca said:
While his legend was built around his nose for the net and his booming slap shot, Geoffrion was also a skilled passer and playmaker, usually picking up at least as many - if not more - assists as goals.
Once I looked more closely at Balderis and saw he was certainly capable of playing an unselfish game given he doesn't have to be the focal point here, I was sold. He possesses top shelf stick handling and elite wheels (Cournoyer) and he had a lethal shot and was very good at putting the puck in the net while also being a very solid passer of the puck (Geoffrion).

In reality his offense is probably just a shade behind Boom Boom but certainly a full measure above Cournoyer. He has a lot of similarities to the guys above, especially Cournoyer IMO.

People forget Beliveau was a very good skater, especially considering how damn big he was for the era. I can see him and Balderis doing damage together in transition not to mention in short areas down low, cycling, Balderis able to probe and carry the puck given his high end ability there.



2nd Line: Moderate Advantage Pitt

  • Harris vs Panarin
Harris comfortably here.

Even before extensive bio I put up on Harris he was still well out in front IMO. Panarin has less than 400 games to his name. Even a 5 year VsX isn't going to be kind to him. He's got 1 AS nod (would have had another this year to be fair).

Harris has one of the best resumes in PCHA history when you talk about longevity. Was an AS reserve player in 1912 (literally because of his back checking) and had another 6 spots on the postseason AS squad dating all the way to 1921. He was a unanimous choice in 1917 at RW for Portland. He was the only winger to ever lead the PCHA in scoring. And his new bio shows he was one of the very best defensive players from start to finish in the league as well as being an extremely physical player. Oh, and he was an elite skater on the level of Cyclone Taylor (bio in OP).

Even being generous, Panarin probably isn't worth more than Harris offensively due to his very short career (391 games) and Harris blows Panarin away in basically every other aspect of hockey.

Panarin is another player who I'm not sure is a good fit for Day.

  • Bowie vs Roenick
Give me Bowie by a little bit.

Even if you're overly conservative with Bowie's offense he's as good or better than Roenick and I personally have Bowie by a full notch given his dominance over his peers for a long period of time and the chemistry of the line. Bowie is in about as good a spot to succeed as you could hope in a draft this size with no trading. 2 defensive stalwarts with passable offense on either side with skills that compliment Bowie perfectly IMO.

  • Blair Russell vs Amonte
This is a wash IMO.

Russell was a slight reach for the purpose of reuniting him w/Bowie so he could stand to go down about where Amonte ended up who was a prime target btw if I hadn't have went w/ BR. Amonte is going to provide more offense by a full notch over Russell but Russell is a clear step above Amonte going the other way, though Amonte is no slouch there. Russell's calling card was his back checking and passing. And he's riding w/ the man who helped him get into the HOF.



3rd Line: Wash

  • Gainey vs Landeskog
I like Landeskog a lot as a player, but this is Gainey by a mile. Don't need to really elaborate IMO.

  • Jarvis vs McGee
Two totally opposite players. I'm higher on McGee than most even though Jarvis generally goes higher. This feels like a wash but I'll be generous and give McGee a very slight nod as I think his peak was a little brighter than Jarvis. Don't forget Jarvis' legendary face off ability late in games and on the PK. Pitt is still well out in front overall though IMO.

  • Westfall vs Broadbent
Broadbent by a bit. I personally like Westfall just as much given he's a top 3 defensive winger of all time but Broadbent is a HOF'er and just a strong 2 way player on a 3rd line. I really like both of these 3rd lines for the roles their intended to play. Great job here BB!



4th Line: Moderate Advantage Pitt


  • Kunitz vs Sheppard
Forget where they are drafted. Please.

Kunitz has a postseason AS, winner of 4 Cups with more than a few big moments as a key secondary piece on every Cup team. Has elite possession metrics, is a fantastic and relentless fore checker and brings good ability to a 2nd PP unit while being a solid player in his own end. I still think this is Sheppard because his PK ability is the peak ability out of the 2 but Kunitz has a very strong resume for a 4th liner here and both had better than average postseason careers though Shepp never was able to hoist the Cup.

  • Westwick vs Riseborough
Westwick easily if you read the bio I just finished.

Harry Westwick

It's basically a complete career reconstruction. Very proud of that one. There are numerous reasons that man is in the HOF.

He has a fabulous regular season resume and was absolutely money in the SC challenges against a lot of really strong opposing rovers (Marty Walsh, Tommy Phillips, Si Griffis, Joe Hall, Lester Parick, was the only one who got to him a bit).

To give you and idea of how good he was against all those rovers, Ottawa went 13-3-1 with Westwick scoring 20 goals in 17 games. That group of players above combined for 16 in those 17 games.

He's about the perfect 4th liner.

Pound for pound the toughest player of his era and arguably all time given the insane violence taking place between 1896 and 1908. He beat the shit out of Joe Hall and once skated off the ice w/a bone sticking out of his leg and then watched the game from the side, to give you an idea how tough he was. And his longevity is elite. Was known from ocean to ocean and well liked even by rival fan bases.

Tommy Gorman saidhe would have won the Byng trophy every year had it existed. Newsy Lalonde confirmed this as well post death and commented on how good a skater Westwick was. One of the cleanest players of the era yet a royal pain in the ass to play against. Alf Smith said he was the greatest athlete he ever knew.

Great skater, very unselfish player, but scored at a goal per game pace and twice led Ottawa in scoring. I got some of his assists reconstructed and in 1905 he had 13 to go with 15 goals for 28 points in 8 games. He drew a lot of penalties against. Another important detail.

And his defensive reputation was sterling. Not quite a Phillips but read his bio and you'll get a very clear idea of how damn good he was, for a long time in that area.

  • Wilson vs Courtnall
Wilson by a good bit IMO. He was talented and thought highly enough to be a postseason AS in the PCHA and WCHL. Wilson was aces in the postseason more often than not, especially offensively which is a nice bonus here. Wilson brings elite pest/checking ability. He'll take some penalties no doubt but he's EXACTLY the type of player I want agitating Messier because MM retaliating (which he was known to do) will only help Pittsburgh more.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
Just to give you an idea of where Bowie was ranked in the top 100 project:

Came in at 113 on the Aggregate list:

C's he's ranked above?


Gilmour
Maltsev
Francis
Datsyuk
Perreault
Delvecchio
Oates
Leamaire
Toews
McGee

# of Lists he was on

Bowie = 13

Gilmour = 17
Maltsev = 15
Francis = 14
Datsyuk = 13
Perreault = 12
Delvechhio = 12
Oates = 8
Lemaire = 5
Toews = 6
McGee = 5
Hawerchuk = 3

upload_2020-5-27_0-30-5.png
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
Defensemen: Small Advantage Ottawa


  • Pittsburgh has the best Dman as far as postseason resumes go.
  • Keith-Coulter seem to be a much steadier/reliable pair than the volatile Cleghorn-Thomson
  • Bigger gap between Coulter-Thomson than Keith-Cleghorn
  • Pitt big time physicality all the way up and down the pairings.
  • How will the slow skating, 2nd pairing of Ottawa (Arbour-Lapointe) handle the elite skating which is prevalent throughout the Pitt lineup?

1st Pairing: Wash

  • Keith-Coulter vs Cleghorn-Thomson
I have Cleghorn right about 15th all time barely above Keith (see below). Slight edge to Cleghorn but in the postseason who would you rather have on the back end? Keith is money in crunch time and I especially like his chances of countering against Kovy there at RW on line 1. Cleghorn is more volatile and in the postseason I want rock steady which Keith generally brings. Keith is a first ballot lock for the Hall.

Art Coulter erases any gap between that exists between Cleghorn and Keith making this a solid wash. And to be honest, given the tremendous fit IMO, and bigger gap between the #2's I actually like Pittsburgh's top paring slightly more. ESPECIALLY in the playoffs. Pittsburgh top pairing is that rock steady metronome. No real weakness defensively. Coulter being elite in his own end and Keith well above average. Both guys can transition especially Keith. Physical? Yep? Clutch? Absolutely.

BTW Coulter was a 4 time postseason AS and is in the HOF. Captained the Rangers to a title in 1940 and was a major reason Chicago won in a big upset in 34. Both Lester Patrick and Conn Smythe called him the best Dman in the league at various points. Absolutely peaked on Earl Seibert's level just didn't hold it that long. Noted to be near perfect checker and is almost never out of position. Good skater for his size, crazy physical and could whip anyone, including Seibert who most people stayed clear of.

upload_2020-5-27_0-42-46.png




2nd Pairing: Big Advantage Ottawa

  • Shore-Lake vs Arbour-Lapointe

Shore and Lake are both much better than Arbour IMO, especially when you factor in the bio's and how dominant they were together in Ottawa winning multiple titles and playing for their head coach from those titles here. They were AS caliber players and Shore especially was extremely famous and well thought of. He had an AS game in his honor and a monument erected after his death. Even at age 30 in his last year he was said to have been playing like the league's MVP for Ottawa. A team that had Nighbor and company on it. Arbour is a great fit here, no doubt, but his career is that of a nice depth player. Shore and Lake were the backbone of the final 3rd of a dynasty. When Percy Lesueur says that was the best pairing he played behind, it speaks volumes.

Regardless, Lapointe is a low end #1 riding well above everyone as an elite #3 for Ottawa. His presence alone makes this a big advantage for Ottawa.

Another thing to consider. Shore and Lake were elite/great skaters. Shore mentioned more than a few times to be on Cyclone Taylor's level. This is something to keep an eye on especially with Shore. He's electric on his skates and has very good stickhandling. If he can get a run going deep, Lapointe is is definitely susceptible to speed.



3rd Pairing: Small Advantage Pittsburgh

  • Ivanov-Girardi vs McDonagh-Laviolette

I want to illustrate the reasons why Girardi is a fantastic #6 here and every bit as good as McD.

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. McD right behind in 9th.
  • Since 2010-11 (when McD first appeared) Giardi is 2nd in blocked shots (total and per game). McD is 11th though drops to 25th in per game.
  • Since 2010-11 (when McD first appeared) Girardi is 5th in hits. McD is 45th.
  • 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 and is a difference maker in the checking game.
  • 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. Coulter on top of all of it. Vezina is going to be pleased with so much rubber not finding its way to the net.
upload_2020-5-13_22-17-38-png.346096



upload_2020-5-13_22-8-52-png.346095




I think Ivanov is a clear step above Laviolette who's highlights came from early in his career when he was a high scoring forward in the IPHL. Soviet legendary dman Nik Sologubov said Ivanov was a more modern (2 way) player than Ragulin and I get the feeling there were at least some that thought Ivanov not far off that mark. Ivanov was another great skater, very physical and he had a cannon of a shot to go with pinpoint passing. He was a noted shot blocker and just all around warrior of a player. Could be a bit of a risk taker at times which is why I think Girardi is a perfect fit next to him.



Goalie: Big Advantage Pittsburgh


  • Vezina vs Lundqvist

Vezina by A LOT.


I don't think I need to elaborate too much on this match up here. I think, if anyone has any doubts, you can look here for the difference IMHO.

Back in 2012-13 in the top 40 G project, Henrik came in at 38th all time. That was the year just after he won his Vezina. Beyond 2012-13 he had a 5th and 6th place finish in the Vezina race. Hasn’t had more than token votes since 2014-14.

How much further has he risen? 5 spots? Probably. 10? Eh. Seems to be about the max I’d go. I think at best he’s just inside the top 30 all-time which still puts him far behind Vezina who I have 10th all time.

Vezina is just simply better across the board. Both peak and longevity as a stud player at the position. Far more impressive postseason resume for Vezina as well. Cool, calm and collected is Georges and that’s exactly what I want in my netminder.




Special Teams to come tomorrow but at this point I think I’ve illustrated that Pittsburgh has a pretty decided advantage at F and G. Best player overall and big game player as well. Strong leadership top to bottom and clutch play seems to certainly favor Pitt.


Ottawa has a small advantage on D, namely because of Lapointe of the 2nd pairing and Hap Day gets a slight nod in my book over Green.
 
Last edited:

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
Special Teams: Small Advantage Pittsburgh

  • Clearly better point men on top unit for Ottawa
  • Pittsburgh with stronger forwards on top PP unit and better point men on 2nd unit w/ Balderis being strongest offensive player on either 2nd unit.
  • PK favors Pitt greatly in large part due to big advantage with Westfall/Jarvis/Gainey/Russell/Westwick/Harris
  • Girardi is pretty clearly one of the 3-4 best PK'ers of cap era. Arguably the best shot blocker. Keith and Orpik aren't far behind. They have more impressive resumes on the kill than Cleghorn and Arbour
  • Coulter washes out Lapointe though Thomson is better than Lake
  • PP wash out overall but strength of Pitt's PK'ers especially the big gap at F is why they come out ahead slightly.


Power Play: Wash


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

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

vs

PP1: Schriner-Messier-Kovalev-Cleghorn-Lapointe

PP2: Panarin-Roenick-Broadbent-Arbour-Thomson



Pittsburgh clearly has better forwards on the PP on the 1st unit. Beliveau is a beast here and best player overall. Even without JB's peak 1950's numbers in overpass' special teams roles study, he's far ahead of Messier on the PP. Bowie erases Schriner completely IMO. Kovalev and Olmstead, by the numbers, are a wash but they play two different roles completely and Olmstead has the luxury of playing with his long time partner in Beliveau who are tailor made to dominate on the PP.

Ottawa clearly has better point men on PP 1. Cleghorn and Lapointe are an elite top unit. I'm glad I have elite PK forwards to counter (Westfall/Jarvis and Gainey/Harris/Russell/Westwick). Pitt has the luxury of pressuring high and forcing rushed decisions with folks like those mentioned above. They are good to elite skaters. Good to elite defenders, PK or otherwise. This was a big part of why I invested a premium in having the overwhelming best checking unit in the draft. Be it at ES or on the PK. Limiting chances by elite/heady defensive play.

I put Westwick and Wilson on the 2nd PP unit for one main reasons. It allows Smokey Harris to avoid playing basically any special teams, thus setting him up for maximum time at ES which I want given his strong 2 way game, especially defensively. Blair Russell is only seeing time on the 2nd PK and will rotate there with Harris and Westwick, again maximizing his ability to play ES minutes. On this unit the opposite is true. Ottawa has better forwards, though Balderis is easily the best player on either unit. Pittsburgh, IMO, clearly has a better D pairing on the 2nd unit with Ivanov and Keith. Yes, Ivanov is playing most/all of the PP but he's a #5 and was a strong offensive player with a heavy shot. Ivanov is not being taxed anywhere near what most other point men are around the league are and can surely handle another 30-40 seconds. Plus Keith is a strong defensive presence and high end skater.


Penalty Kill: Moderate advantage Pittsburgh


PK 1:

Jarvis - Westfall

Lake - Coulter

PK 2:


Gainey - Russell/Westwick/Harris

*Keith/Orpik - Girardi


VS:


PK1: Sheppard-Risebrough-Lapointe-Thomson

PK2: Messier-Courtnall-Cleghorn-Arbour

PK3: Sheppard-Broadbent



Again, Pittsburgh comfortably on the kill.


Jarvis and Westfall are both legendary PK'ers: Jarvis is also one of the greatest face off men of all time.

Sheppard is just below their level but Doug Risebrough is not close to the other 3.

upload_2020-5-27_10-48-13.png




Gainey/Russell/Westwick/Harris is simply far better than Messier/Courtnall/Broadbent.

Gainey being a big luxury, Russell way above the bar, and Westwick/Harris profiling as very strong defensive players themselves. Messier is a very good 2nd unit player and Courtnall seems at least solid but again, Pittsburgh has a big, big advantage at F IMO.


Defensemen?

I think Coulter and Lapointe are washes on the kill. People underrate how good Lapointe was for the Habs on special teams but Coulter is one of the greats in this area so a straight wash. I do really like Coulter's ability to play a heavy game in front with elite positioning and ability to carry or pass the puck out of danger.

Fred Lake was compared to Tommy Phillips when he was an AS forward in the IHL which had some strong, strong players in it at the time (Taylor, Lalonde, Shore) and he became a force of nature as a back end player for Green in Ottawa. Was average of height but heavy body, very good skater and was one of the best checkers between 1909 and 1913. His defensive reputation was way more often than not praised and praised well. He's tailor made to bang on the PK and like most Green Dmen, was very capable at carrying the puck given his AS time at F early in his career and speed.

I think you definitely have to give Thomson the nod here given his standing all time is better than Lake even though I think both are solid options as #2's on a 1st unit. Lake should be a little fresher though given he is playing #4 minutes vs 2/3 and doesn't have to play the PP.


Keith/Orpik/Girardi are simply better than Cleghorn/Arbour if you look past names. Numbers greatly bear this out.


Girardi can absolutely claim to be in the conversation for best PK'er of the last decade+. His shot blocking is elite even in an all time sense. He's physical and simply plays a dependable simple game. I've laid out the easy to read statistical bullet points on Girardi. Keith is just a touch below Girardi and Orpik is another luxury as he's been a near dominant PK'er over the past decade as well. These guys are all great shot blockers, w/good physicality.

Take a look at where Girardi and Keith slide in against contemporaries when it comes to PK'ing:

Girardi especially is on par with usage and impact of Lidstrom/Potvin/Langway. Keith/Orpik just slightly behind. I don't see Arbour being on that level and even if you think Cleghorn is an high end PK'er (i don't) was his impact as great as Girardi, Keith or Orpik? And Cleghorn is playing #1 minutes as well as top PP time. My guys will be fresher.

Just for reference the 52/53% is how much time a player spent on his teams PK over the course of his career. The number right beside that (0.84 in Girardi's case) is how far above/below the league average the player's team was at killing penalties.

The lower number the better. The further over 1 you go, the worse.


upload_2020-5-27_11-9-48.png
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
Why Pittsburgh Should Win:


  • BIG advantage in net. As I said before, if you think this is a close series, how can a top 10 goalie all time not give Pittsburgh a decided advantage over one who would struggle to get into the top 25-30, especially factoring in postseason performance?
  • BIG advantage at F. A central part of my draft strategy was to draft F/G heavy while getting a top pair that would be at least league average. I targeted going for a hall of fame shutdown 3rd line to supplement the fact I knew I'd be waiting longer than average to draft my 2nd pairing which ended up turning out about as good as it could have anyway all things considered. Gainey-Jarvis-Westfall is essentially like having another elite defensive pairing. They can play any style. Trap, fore check hard (with C high just as Jarvis often did) w/ wingers, skate north and south/east west. You play physical? Not a problem. Play fast? Not a problem. Jarvis gives Pittsburgh an advantage over basically anyone in the dot.
  • If you look at a defense as an entire unit (F/D/G) I don't think anyone can come close to matching Gainey-Jarvis-Westfall - Keith-Coulter - Vezina. I feel like that is about as air tight a defensive core as you will see here.
  • Better players and scoring in the top 6 for Pittsburgh and as I just mentioned who is going to slow down Beliveau, Bowie, Balderis, etc.

  • Both teams have fantastic 3rd lines doing opposite things. I think Pittsburgh's unit is going to be more impactful as a checking group but overall a wash.
  • Clutch play? Beliveau (Smythe), Keith (Smythe), Gainey (Smythe), Vezina (very strong playoff resume). Other players who are above average or better in the playoffs include, 2nd pairing, Balderis (given his international record), Harris, Jarvis, Westfall, whole 4th line, Coulter. Big game play and leadership oozes throughout Pitt's lineup.
  • Pittsburgh can match Ottawa's top pairing as there is a bigger gap between Coulter/Thomson than Cleghorn/Keith IMO and Keith is the best postseason player on either unit by a solid margin. Cleghorn/Thompson are a volatile top paring. Keith/Coulter are like the Rock of Gibralter, who can skate. :)
  • Chemistry. Are Kovy, Panarin good fits for Day? Pittsburgh has so many real life connections and a lineup with an ability to play 2 way hockey on the 1st, 2nd and 4th lines. While able to check any top line in the draft at an elite rate with our 3rd trio.
  • Special Teams. PP are rather tight but I just cannot see anything but a wide gap on the PK.
  • Keeping pace with Day. As I outlined last series against Lester Patrick, Pete Green's newfound reputation puts him inside the top 10 for me. He checks off all the major boxes in a big way and as an innovator his record is massive and pre-dates all of these folks. Day is 5/6 all time. And let's not forget the defensive/ST boon Larry Robinson brings. His resume as a coach who greatly improved both ES and PK performances is without question. Robinson brings a modern element to the equation that Pitt sought well before we decided to pull the trigger on Big Bird. In most series, Ottawa would be well out in front behind the bench with Day. I just don't see that as the case here. The gap here is minimal.
  • I simply don't see how Ottawa closes the large gap that exists at F and G, favoring Pittsburgh. Is the small advantage behind the bench and on D (namely because of Lapointe on the 2nd pair) able to bridge the divide? Pittsburgh is much stronger defensively when looking at F and D. Vezina is far better than Lundy and Pitt has a good bit more offense in the top 6. Lastly, clutch play favors the Pitt AC.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Defensemen: Small Advantage Ottawa


  • Pittsburgh has the best Dman as far as postseason resumes go.
  • Keith-Coulter seem to be a much steadier/reliable pair than the volatile Cleghorn-Thomson
  • Bigger gap between Coulter-Thomson than Keith-Cleghorn
  • Pitt big time physicality all the way up and down the pairings.
  • How will the slow skating, 2nd pairing of Ottawa (Arbour-Lapointe) handle the elite skating which is prevalent throughout the Pitt lineup?
1st Pairing: Wash

  • Keith-Coulter vs Cleghorn-Thomson
I have Cleghorn right about 15th all time barely above Keith (see below). Slight edge to Cleghorn but in the postseason who would you rather have on the back end? Keith is money in crunch time and I especially like his chances of countering against Kovy there at RW on line 1. Cleghorn is more volatile and in the postseason I want rock steady which Keith generally brings. Keith is a first ballot lock for the Hall.

Art Coulter erases any gap between that exists between Cleghorn and Keith making this a solid wash. And to be honest, given the tremendous fit IMO, and bigger gap between the #2's I actually like Pittsburgh's top paring slightly more. ESPECIALLY in the playoffs. Pittsburgh top pairing is that rock steady metronome. No real weakness defensively. Coulter being elite in his own end and Keith well above average. Both guys can transition especially Keith. Physical? Yep? Clutch? Absolutely.

BTW Coulter was a 4 time postseason AS and is in the HOF. Captained the Rangers to a title in 1940 and was a major reason Chicago won in a big upset in 34. Both Lester Patrick and Conn Smythe called him the best Dman in the league at various points. Absolutely peaked on Earl Seibert's level just didn't hold it that long. Noted to be near perfect checker and is almost never out of position. Good skater for his size, crazy physical and could whip anyone, including Seibert who most people stayed clear of.

View attachment 347778



2nd Pairing: Big Advantage Ottawa

  • Shore-Lake vs Arbour-Lapointe

Shore and Lake are both much better than Arbour IMO, especially when you factor in the bio's and how dominant they were together in Ottawa winning multiple titles and playing for their head coach from those titles here. They were AS caliber players and Shore especially was extremely famous and well thought of. He had an AS game in his honor and a monument erected after his death. Even at age 30 in his last year he was said to have been playing like the league's MVP for Ottawa. A team that had Nighbor and company on it. Arbour is a great fit here, no doubt, but his career is that of a nice depth player. Shore and Lake were the backbone of the final 3rd of a dynasty. When Percy Lesueur says that was the best pairing he played behind, it speaks volumes.

Regardless, Lapointe is a low end #1 riding well above everyone as an elite #3 for Ottawa. His presence alone makes this a big advantage for Ottawa.

Another thing to consider. Shore and Lake were elite/great skaters. Shore mentioned more than a few times to be on Cyclone Taylor's level. This is something to keep an eye on especially with Shore. He's electric on his skates and has very good stickhandling. If he can get a run going deep, Lapointe is is definitely susceptible to speed.


.

Thanks for bringing it IE. I won't be able to battle you point by point unfortunately, but I appreciate the drive.

IMO the gap between Cleghorn and Keith is substantial, though I don't have the stamina to make the case here and so will let people decide if they agree. I have Sprague Cleghorn as just as good as Chris Chelios, but even if you're not as enthousiastic as I am about him, he was a bigger star than Keith for his era and a much more complete defenseman.

Also you say "Keith-Coulter seem to be a much steadier/reliable pair than the volatile Cleghorn-Thomson", but why? This doesn't make any sense to me. Beyond Cleghorn's occasional violent outburst, there is nothing indicating he was anything but superb defensively, and Thomson could be defined by the word "steady" you yourself employ. Thomson is basically some sort of Eddie Gerard, with whom Cleghorn was very successful.

I also think you either overrate Coulter or underrate Thomson or both. I don't see any significant gap between Coulter and Thomson. Certainly not as big as the gap between Cleghorn and Keith. I think my 1st pairing is clearly better than yours, not by a lot but still clearly. I'll let people judge what they think about that.

Arbour's Norris record is 5th, 6th, 10th. Calling him a "depth player" seems pretty unfair.

You say Guy Lapointe is slow-skating, is he? I'm really curious, never thought of him as a slow skater but maybe he is?

I think both my 1st and 2nd pairing are better, meaning my blueline is a significant advantage to Ottawa.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
And a minor point close to my heart: saying Kovalev and Olmstead are a wash on the powerplay is crazy. Kovalev is one of the greatest PP players I have ever seen in my lifetime. Olmstead is a cornerman who played on the greatest PP unit of all-time.
 
Last edited:

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
Thanks BB! I know you're very busy and have your head in the creative sphere these days so I appreciate you squeezing some time in sir.

I'll hit on all the points (if I miss any, please let me know)


1. If we stay true era differences, then Keith being the best defender in the world multiple times, is slightly more impressive than somebody doing it before consolidation.

  • Now let me be very clear as I have a handful of early era players. I'm not going to devalue anyone from that time period more than they already have in the past. I've already faced some of that (expected) in previous match ups w/ my own players. As long as folks remain reasonable, all is well. I've acknowledged (and always have) Bowie and others from that era cannot be judged in the same light as Wayne Gretzky.
  • With that being said, there is at least a slight bit more prestige being the best NHL defensemen today, than 100+ years ago. Just the nature of the beast given the growth of the sport and true world coverage we see today. I like Cleghorn quite a bit actually. He's simply a bigger hot head than Keith. Is it some massive deal? No, not at all. But those little things add up in a series. Keith has a better reputation of coming up aces in the biggest spots. GWG's, assists, legendary postseason runs. I don't think for one second Cleghorn is a better defensive player when looking at them in their own ends.
  • Keith gives up nothing to Cleghorn in skating. His endurance is top shelf. DK has very strong positioning, he can either pass or carry the puck out of danger at a high level. He's a strong shot blocker. His reputation on the PK is sterling for the entire era. He is very gritty and can elevate to a quite physical player, though I'd simply call him above average in an ATD setting. With that being said, I see that as an advantage. Keith is not going to get pushed around, can give back what he takes and isn't much of a penalty threat. Cleghorn on the other hand, while more physical, is also more like to be in the box in the long run.
  • Who's got a better postseason resume? Keith, by a good bit IMO. That doesn't erase the fact that Cleghorn IS the better player all time, but in a postseason setting, given the skills and resume Keith possesses I do not see much of a gap here. I have Cleghorn right about 15th all time among Dmen, give or take a spot. Keith would be right about 20, give or take a spot.

2. Let's refresh on Coulter:

  • He was called the best Dman in the league at multiple stages by Conn Smythe and Lester Patrick.
  • He absolutely peaked on Earl Seibert's level, for at least a handful of seasons w/ more than a few thinking NY got the better end of that particular deal at the time.
  • When Coulter broke into the league there were prime Eddie Shore, King Clancy, Ching Johnson, Lioniel Conacher, not to mention the arrival of Seibert at the same time and then Clapper later in the 30's. Thomson's comp was Butch Bouchard, Ken Reardon, Jack Stewart, Bill Quackenbush. It wasn't until the early 50's that Harvey, Kelly burst onto the scene. When Thomson was a 2nd team AS in 50 and 51 he was on the 2nd unit with Leo Reise and Hy Buller (had to look him up).
  • As good a leader as Thomson was, Coulter has a better record. His career is littered with strong leadership quotes/traits. He captained the Rangers directly after Cook left and won a title wearing the C.
  • I think there is a bigger gap between our #2's than #1's.
  • Either way, I do believe I've outlined why the top pairs are a wash. 2nd pairing, as I said above, is clearly Ottawa but not the top pairing.
upload_2020-5-15_23-39-8-png.346350



upload_2020-5-15_13-22-58-png.346281

upload_2020-5-15_13-27-1-png.346283





upload_2020-5-15_23-35-43-png.346348

upload_2020-5-15_23-36-14-png.346349

upload_2020-5-15_23-46-30-png.346353



upload_2020-5-15_23-41-52-png.346352




upload_2020-5-15_23-50-49-png.346355





3. Arbour played almost his entire career in the 06 era. 6 teams. His best Norris finish came when their were 8 teams (5th).
  • He's a nice depth player with not much to write home about in an all time sense IMO. If the voters read what I have on Shore and Lake, especially the former, they'd see their impact was much greater than Arbour's. I think Arbour is a fine #4 here but certainly behind Shore in an all time sense and Lake, though the gap to Lake is small. My 2nd pairing anchored the back end of a dynasty for Pete Green and were very highly regarded, shutting down players like Cyclone Taylor and Newsy Lalonde more than once. Even on ST's where does Arbour rank in this series? Dan Girardi is in the conversation for best PK'er among blue liners of the last 10+ years and has a strong case for best shot blocker of the entire cap era. His peak Norris finish of 6 came in a 30 team league. He's my #6.
  • Like I said from the beginning though, Ottawa clearly has the better 2nd pairing via Lapointe who btw was a strong skater. I had him confused in my head w/someone else. So I absolutely retract my original statement.
  • When you factor in Pittsburgh has just as good a 1st pairing and a notch better 3rd pairing I don't see Ottawa with much of an advantage overall. If you were blowing the doors off me on the top pairing, sure, but that isn't the case IMO. Pittsburgh has the best D when it comes to crunch time. Keith. A real life 2nd pairing who are battle tested and proven big game performers playing for the guy who coached them in real life.
  • I truly believe Pittsburgh's huge advantage in net and larger gap at F, while keeping pace behind the bench puts Pittsburgh over the top here. I think I've made fair and accurate points top to bottom. I leave the fate up to the voters.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Overall, these are two strong teams for the most part, of course.

But I can't decide who I hate more on a second line - Blair Russel or Artemi Panarin. For entirely different reasons, of course.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ResilientBeast

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
Thanks TDMM.

Blair Russell is running w/ Bowie and is a very strong defensive player. His offense is below average for a 2nd liner no doubt, but that's not his primary purpose anyway. He's in the HOF. Chemistry and defense here.

Panarin doesn't have 400 games to his name in the NHL.

I think Panarin is much more out of a realistic element than Russell but we're not robots so obviously some may disagree.
 

ResilientBeast

Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Jul 1, 2012
13,902
3,557
Edmonton
Thanks TDMM.

Blair Russell is running w/ Bowie and is a very strong defensive player. His offense is below average for a 2nd liner no doubt, but that's not his primary purpose anyway. He's in the HOF. Chemistry and defense here.

Panarin doesn't have 400 games to his name in the NHL.

I think Panarin is much more out of a realistic element than Russell but we're not robots so obviously some may disagree.

Really?

Panarin has been among the top of his position almost his entire career so far (AST voting) and managed a very strong shortened season this year.

Tack on 1-2 more seasons of even average play and it would be surprising to not see him at LW considering positional depth)
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
Really?

Panarin has been among the top of his position almost his entire career so far (AST voting) and managed a very strong shortened season this year.

Tack on 1-2 more seasons of even average play and it would be surprising to not see him at LW considering positional depth)

Are we not taking seriously the fact he's got less than 400 games to his name and 1 postseason AS nod (2 if you count this year of course).

What's his 7 year VsX? What are his abilities besides being a largely one way player who doesn't really offer any checking abilities?

You're literally comparing him to a guy who's in the HOF and is running with the guy who helped put him there.

If people (anyone) think Panarin is a better player in a top 6 role in the ATD, then I'm probably not getting that persons vote in the long run haha. When did we start the trend of thinking a player with 391 modern day games to their name are better than someone who was among the best at their position (defense/backchecking) over a decade long period and posted complimentary scoring numbers en route to being in the HOF. Tack that on to the chemistry and I'm at a loss otherwise.

Panarin has the same amount of time in the league as McDavid and he's not even in the same ballpark as it pertains to impact/resume/accolades/etc. And people are openly questioning McDavid in a top 6 role are they not? So if McDavid is a question mark, how is Panarin not a much bigger one?

I think the voters see the difference.

As I've said from the beginning, I'm having a blast with the research and spirit of the ATD. I haven't felt this vigor since my earliest days. I'm working on a presentation to the NHL and HOF on Pete Green as it's a travesty he's not in there (anti Green fodder for someone haha). My educated guess is they've all been under the same impression that we have since day 1 and that's Gorman was the one running the show in Ottawa during their 1920's dynasty. I'm not saying take Gorman out and put Green in, but Green really should be in the HOF based on the pretty large amount of information that has been brought to light. IMO, but I'm just a lonely dude w/nothing better to do in middle earth PA haha.

I'm just going to town on these newspaper subscriptions. I've got about 150 pictures that are just awesome. Some aren't even players I drafted. I've book marked guys to research that aren't even on either roster. Hell, I'd be glad to give a peek through the papers for anyone that wants the help. This draft should be about expanding our knowledge.

I've got nothing to hide. I think this squad is the best I've ever built. It's better top to bottom than the team I built a few years ago that lost in the finals to @rmartin65 mainly due to my failure to make the team a good enough fit for Gorman. I got fixated on Gretzky and Roy early and then took a value in Gorman (because of what I thought of him in an all time sense) not giving enough thought to how the team was already built to that point. Doomed me down the line absolutely.

I've been open since the beginning of my admiration for the Pitt squad. think it's the best in the ATD this year (I've never thought I built one of these definitively in the past). Not by a large amount. It's not some super squad. I just think, top to bottom, looking at offense and defense equally, to include G and coach, it's the most complete roster. It's got the little things that I think push a team over the edge in a championship environment (leadership all over the roster, clutch play all over the roster, chemistry). I truly think that is a fair assessment.

Again, I'm not saying I should just sweep my way to the ATD finals. This series is a perfect example. In a real life setting, this would probably go 6 or 7 games. I just think Pittsburgh has the better group to win in those late series settings. I don't see a team left in the ATD that can match the leadership and clutch play of Beliveau, Keith, Gainey, Vezina, Coulter, 2nd pairing, 3rd line, 4th line).

If people do actually care about participation and that being a part of their evaluation, I do hope those same people give me at least some credit there. Nobody has been remotely close to me in terms of activity, be it research or discussion. I know most don't have the same amount of time or care to go as hard as I have. Nobody should be punished for not posting 57 messages in a series thread but if somebody is in there, round after round, making clear and concise points, I will give that GM a slight bump. At least I know where they're coming from, how they see the series playing out. Matchups, etc.

I've tried my best (it's not easy given who I am as a person) to not be as crazy long winded as in the past. I've tried to make sure I read all the bios of opposing players before commenting on them. I don't think I've had a single GM say I was being overly fair/unfair in either direction. Just had great discussions with everyone, including yourself sir.

If people don't vote for me because they think Ottawa (or any other roster) is better, fantastic. How I see things, may not be how others see them. If people don't vote for me because of something I said when I was being a prick in the past, based on emotion rather than levity and common damn sense, I would feel bummed, as I don't vote that way myself, but at the same time I've given people reason to simply not like me in the past. Unconscious biases if you will. That's on me and nobody else.

I'm in a far better place in my life than I was when I was married (we both are). I'm still alive. I'm still employeed which is more than many can say.

Whether I get bounced this round or later, or end up winning, I'll be back to keep this draft moving. I'll say my congrats/thanks to the other GM like a sensible adult and just continue to do what is one of my few passions. And that's hockey history. I was sifting through old Montreal Gazette papers last night and felt so proud that there are a group of people that pull these legends from the distant pages of time. I'd like to think those old guys are somewhere on some other plane of existence admiring there are at least a few people who give a damn about what they did as human beings.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
I wanted to post this piece regarding Gainey/Jarvis as told by one of the most well versed members on the HoH board @Killion who hasn't been with us for a few years now but he's one of a handful of folks that were old enough to see the complete careers of guys like these: And Killion wasn't a Habs fan either. Very respected over there. I have a whole lot more of this stuff, but this is a paricutlarly important one as it pertains to Pittsburgh.

  • "When I think of Jarvis, it's always with Bob Gainey, and really, combined. I don't think you'll find two smarter linemates, guys who really knew how to shut down top players and get into their heads so cleanly and effectively."

This is to further illustrate my point about chemistry. I think teams are going to have a very difficult time scoring on Gainey-Jarvis-Westfall. Not just looking at F's and who their counterparts are but who these guys have to skate against at ES/PP. We talk about dominant units. If ever there was a line that can put the clamps down on any scoring line in the ATD, it's this one IMHO.

upload_2020-5-30_19-54-52.png
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Overall, these are two strong teams for the most part, of course.

But I can't decide who I hate more on a second line - Blair Russel or Artemi Panarin. For entirely different reasons, of course.

Won't make the comparison, but I'll repost what I posted about Panarin when I drafted him:

His VsX scores are as follows, in chronological order:

86.5
83.1
79.6
79.1
97.9

For an average of 85.3 in VsX 5 years. This is better than Bobby Bauer VsX 5 years score (84.4) (keeping in mind Panarin doesn't have Bauer's excuse; my point is to say Panarin was just as good offensively as peak Bauer for a 5 years stretch).

And the benchmarks were pretty high during his two 79 VsX seasons, where he scored 80+ points both times. He also strongly dominated his teams starting from the 3rd season:

In his first two years on Chicago he finished 2nd in scoring to Patrick Kane both times and by a good distance over 3rd. In his 2nd season, he was 2nd in +/- behind Keith, so 1st among forwards.

In his VsX 79.6 season (3rd season), he scored 82 points on Columbus. Closest teammate was a defenseman who scored 57 points. He also led the team in +/-

In his VsX 79.1 season (4th season), he scored 87 points on Columbus. Closest teammate scored 69 points. He finished 5th in +/-

This year, he scored 95 points, 3rd in the NHL and 2 points behind McDavid. He had by far the best +/- on the NYR with +36, next closest was +22. Closest teammate in points had 75 (though he missed a few games). He also had 63 assists in 69 games, 2nd in the NHL tied with McDavid, clear sign of a great playmaker from the wing.

I've also read some hfboards posters who insist Panarin is decent defensively, contrary to what you'd think give nhis profile as a small skilled player. I don't know how much weight to give to that, but the idea is running around. His +/- numbers are impressive, whatever that means.

He finished 2nd AST in 2017, and will clearly finished 1st AST this year, unless Ovechkin wins it with almost 30 less points.

He might win the Hart this year, and no doubt will finish Top 3 in voting.

Playoffs are an unknown for now, but he has 26 points in 27 games.

Panarin is also a rare LWer with strong playmaking abilities. It doesn't intrinsically boost his value but it's worth mentionning.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheDevilMadeMe

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
tldr: Panarin has posted an impressive 5 years stretch offensively, with all indications pointing to him being a decent defensive player. His +/- numbers are very strong and rumors about his defensive play being good are running around. I'm not personally sure this is the case tho. Haven't watched enough of him.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Won't make the comparison, but I'll repost what I posted about Panarin when I drafted him:

His VsX scores are as follows, in chronological order:

86.5
83.1
79.6
79.1
97.9

For an average of 85.3 in VsX 5 years. This is better than Bobby Bauer VsX 5 years score (84.4) (keeping in mind Panarin doesn't have Bauer's excuse; my point is to say Panarin was just as good offensively as peak Bauer for a 5 years stretch).

And the benchmarks were pretty high during his two 79 VsX seasons, where he scored 80+ points both times. He also strongly dominated his teams starting from the 3rd season:

In his first two years on Chicago he finished 2nd in scoring to Patrick Kane both times and by a good distance over 3rd. In his 2nd season, he was 2nd in +/- behind Keith, so 1st among forwards.

In his VsX 79.6 season (3rd season), he scored 82 points on Columbus. Closest teammate was a defenseman who scored 57 points. He also led the team in +/-

In his VsX 79.1 season (4th season), he scored 87 points on Columbus. Closest teammate scored 69 points. He finished 5th in +/-

This year, he scored 95 points, 3rd in the NHL and 2 points behind McDavid. He had by far the best +/- on the NYR with +36, next closest was +22. Closest teammate in points had 75 (though he missed a few games). He also had 63 assists in 69 games, 2nd in the NHL tied with McDavid, clear sign of a great playmaker from the wing.

I've also read some hfboards posters who insist Panarin is decent defensively, contrary to what you'd think give nhis profile as a small skilled player. I don't know how much weight ot give to that, but the idea is running around. His +/- numbers are impressive, whatever that means.

He finished 2nd AST in 2017, and will clearly finished 1st AST this year, unless Ovechkin wins it with almost 30 less points.

He might win the Hart this year, and no doubt will finish Top 3 in voting.

Playoffs are an unknown for now, but he has 26 points in 27 games.

So his 5 years peak is rather strong, and I can't think of another LW who comes close, but I don't have the list in front of me. If there's another one, I'd be curious to know who it is.

Thank you for going through this.

The problem, of course, is that his 6th best season is a big fat 0.00. Same exact career length as McDavid for what it's worth.

With players like this who are all peak with no meat to their careers, I guess my preference is to see them have low ice-time in the ATD, but there never will be a good hard and fast rule on how to deal with guys at this stage of their careers.
 
Last edited:

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
@ImporterExporter it's to your credit for bringing it. I would never criticize a GM for putting a lot of effort. That said, it is impossible for me to respond to you point by point right now, so don't take my modest participation the wrong way.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImporterExporter

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Thank you for going through this.

The problem, of course, is that his 6th best season is a big fat 0.00. Same exact exactly career length as McDavid for what it's worth.

With players like this who are all peak with no meat to their careers, I guess my preference is to see them have low ice-time in the ATD, but there never will be a good hard and fast rule on how to deal with guys at this stage of their careers.

I mean, I guess I don't disagree, but there was no one better when I picked him IMO. I realize this is not an argument in defense of Panarin right now tho.

At some point what Panarin did for 5 straight years ought to be more impressive than a long no-peak unimpressive career.
 

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
Then there's also the matter of fit and chemistry. I feel Panarin's style will fit very nicely with Roenick and Amonte. So while his own career is short and he should be punished for it, the unit works.

And I don't agree with people saying Panarin won't work under a coach like Hap Day. Panarin's +/- numbers are always among the best on his teams. Is he considered worthless defensively just because he's a skilled soft russian? Sounds like it. I really wish we had a Columbus or NYR fan in here.

@Hawkey Town 18 how good was Panarin defensively in Chicago? Was he just a soft worthless bum? Shades of Pierre Turgeon? I would expect him to be less good defensively in Chicago than he was in Columbus and NYR tho, from lack of experience.
 

TheDevilMadeMe

Registered User
Aug 28, 2006
52,271
6,980
Brooklyn
Then there's also the matter of fit and chemistry. I feel Panarin's style will fit very nicely with Roenick and Amonte. So while his own career is short and he should be punished for it, the unit works.

And I don't agree with people saying Panarin won't work under a coach like Hap Day. Panarin's +/- numbers are always among the best on his teams. Is he considered worthless defensively just because he's a skilled soft russian? Sounds like it. I really wish we had a Columbus or NYR fan in here.

@Hawkey Town 18 how good was Panarin defensively in Chicago? Was he just a soft worthless bum? Shades of Pierre Turgeon? I would expect him to be less good defensively in Chicago than he was in Columbus and NYR tho, from lack of experience.

THN's player profiles are usually pretty detailed if a player is notable for being either good or bad defensively, and they don't mention Panarin's defense at all either way, just a lot of skill, and lack of size and physicality: - TheHockeyNews
 
  • Like
Reactions: BenchBrawl

BenchBrawl

Registered User
Jul 26, 2010
30,844
13,628
THN's player profiles are usually pretty detailed if a player is notable for being either good or bad defensively, and they don't mention Panarin's defense at all either way, just a lot of skill, and lack of size and physicality: - TheHockeyNews

Right, so I don't see the big problem here. My 2nd line clearly brings the intangibles required "by committee", with both Roenick and Amonte being scrappy players and decent defensively, and Panarin not being a Turgeon-like black hole neither. I have heard many fans on hfboards state he was underrated defensively, so there is *something* there at least. Players like Turgeon would never have such fans shouting out of the cracks like this.

My guess is since Panarin is a very smart player, he plays smart defense when the opportunity arise and in general, without specializing in it like say Datsyuk.
 

ImporterExporter

"You're a boring old man"
Jun 18, 2013
18,780
7,804
Oblivion Express
Thank you for going through this.

The problem, of course, is that his 6th best season is a big fat 0.00. Same exact career length as McDavid for what it's worth.

With players like this who are all peak with no meat to their careers, I guess my preference is to see them have low ice-time in the ATD, but there never will be a good hard and fast rule on how to deal with guys at this stage of their careers.

As I think I astutely pointed out:

If anyone has a problem with McDavid on a 2nd line, how can you not have a problem with Panarin? Even if you don't have an issue with McDavid, is the bar been lowered to glean at guys who have had 2 AS caliber seasons w/ less than 400 games to their name vs players who have entire careers to judge?

Their resumes to this point are night and day. Even 5 year VsX which I don't understand using in the first place. Am I to believe that Panarin, in an all time setting, is worth almost what Bowie is offensively?

I thought we judged players with such little time differently in all the years previous but who knows. I can't keep the trends straight to that point.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->