René Lecavalier Divisional Quarterfinals: Hartford vs. Atlanta

[Sturminator]

Hartford Whalers

Coach: Peter Laviolette
Assistant coach: Dave Tippett

Kevin Stevens - Mario Lemieux (C) - Sergei Makarov
Michel Goulet - Joe Thornton - Joe Mullen
Brenden Morrow - Doug Risebrough - Terry O'Reilly
Ryan Smyth (A) - Murray Oliver - Kevin Dineen
Ryan Walter, Kent Nilsson

Guy Lapointe (A) - Marcel Pronovost
Pat Stapleton - Ted Harris
Bert Corbeau - Rob Ramage
Ryan Suter

Roy Worters
Mike Richter

Vs.

Head Coach: Babcock
Captain: Patrick
Alternates: Federko, Ullman

Yakushev-Ullman-Lafleur
Schriner-Federko-J. Pronovost
Gottselig-Hay-Hebenton
Kelly Miller-Otto-Ron Sutter
Kovalev, M. Savard

Clancy-Kasatonov
L. Patrick-Schoenfeld
Ozolinsh-Bilyaletdinov
D.Redmond


Gardiner
Resch​

Click to read more...

 

[MadArcand]

Just a quick overview to get this started.

- I think I have a clear edge in every forward line, and big edge in forwards overall
- I don't know what's Atlanta's plan with the 3rd line
- Atlanta has a tiny edge in goal and coaching
- the defenses seem basically like a wash

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Just a quick overview to get this started.

- I think I have a clear edge in every forward line, and big edge in forwards overall
- I don't know what's Atlanta's plan with the 3rd line
- Atlanta has a tiny edge in goal and coaching
- the defenses seem basically like a wash

You're going to have to sell me on this one. I think Atlanta has a pretty clear edge on each of the top 2 pairings

 

[MadArcand]

You're going to have to sell me on this one. I think Atlanta has a pretty clear edge on each of the top 2 pairings

I wouldn't say so. I'm not a fan of Kasatonov on top pairing at all, but then Clancy is the best D-man here. A tiny edge at best for Atlanta. Atlanta has a small edge on second pairing (courtesy of Schoenfeld), but has much worse bottom pairing.

 

[Sturminator]

Opinions on Kasatonov will vary, I guess. I am also not his biggest fan, but I am a big fan of Clancy, and I think Atlanta ends up with a small but meaningful edge on the top pairing. I give them a small edge on the second pairing, as well, because Schoenfeld is better than Harris. I think the third pairings are about equal. Atlanta has the edge in goal, as well.

Of course, Atlanta will need all of these edges because Hartford's top two lines are frightening. I also don't really get Atlanta's bottom lines.

 

[jkrx]

Opinions on Kasatonov will vary, I guess. I am also not his biggest fan, but I am a big fan of Clancy, and I think Atlanta ends up with a small but meaningful edge on the top pairing. I give them a small edge on the second pairing, as well, because Schoenfeld is better than Harris. I think the third pairings are about equal. Atlanta has the edge in goal, as well.

Of course, Atlanta will need all of these edges because Hartford's top two lines are frightening. I also don't really get Atlanta's bottom lines.

I think you are underrating Harris here because Schoenfeld isnt ahead of him. I do agree that Clancy - Kasatonov might be better than Guy Lapointe - Marcel Pronovost.

 

[Sturminator]

The voters seem to have believed that Schoenfeld had three more fringe top-10 seasons than Harris did. The relevant AST voting results:

Jim Schoenfeld:

1974-75: 13th
1975-76: 12th
1976-77: 9th
1977-78: 8th
1978-79: 11th
1979-80: 4th
1980-81: 10th

Ted Harris:

1965-66: 14th
1968-69: 4th
1970-71: 11th
1971-72: 7th

I also find it impressive in Schoenfeld's case that these AST voting finishes are all sequential. Schoenfeld didn't have a really long career, but he was consistently an excellent player at his peak. I saw them play just like you, but not enough to trust my 40 year old memories at this point over the historical record.

 

[jkrx]

The voters seem to have believed that Schoenfeld had three more fringe top-10 seasons than Harris did. The relevant AST voting results:

Jim Schoenfeld:

1974-75: 13th
1975-76: 12th
1976-77: 9th
1977-78: 8th
1978-79: 11th
1979-80: 4th
1980-81: 10th

Ted Harris:

1965-66: 14th
1968-69: 4th
1970-71: 11th
1971-72: 7th

I also find it impressive in Schoenfeld's case that these AST voting finishes are all sequential. Schoenfeld didn't have a really long career, but he was consistently an excellent player at his peak. I saw them play just like you, but not enough to trust my 40 year old memories at this point over the historical record.

I didnt know about the votings but Harris is an underrated player. I would treat them as fairly equal in an ATD sense.

 

[DoMakc]

Just a quick overview to get this started.

- I think I have a clear edge in every forward line, and big edge in forwards overall
- I don't know what's Atlanta's plan with the 3rd line
- Atlanta has a tiny edge in goal and coaching
- the defenses seem basically like a wash

Good luck for the series (not really, but i need to say something nice in this post).

- You have an edge in your first line, but i think that Stevens is clearly the worst player on either lines. I think he is better candidate for PED-usage as Krutov, considering his short prime thanks reliance on physical aspects of the game, his fast downfall and drugs dependence. I don't think your second line is better than mine. It's playoffs time so take Federko ahead of Thornton without thinking twice. I think Goulet isn't better offencively than Schriner at all, and considering teammates i wouldn't say that Mullen is that much better than Pronovost. But again your second line depends on Thornton and playoffs aren't his time to shine.

- This are my regular season line-up. In playoffs my third line is Gottselig-Otto-Hebenton and forth line Miller-Hay-Ron Sutter (Kovalev sits). PP: Yakushev-Federko-Lafleur; Clancy-Ozolinsh; Schriner-Ullman-Pronovost; Patrick-Ozolinsh/Kasatonov;PK: Otto-Miller; Schoenfeld-Kasatonov; R. Sutter - Hebenton; Hay/Ullman - Gottselig/Pronovost; Patrick-Bilyaletdinov.

The third line is there for drefencive presence. Otto will take the most of defencive zone faceoffs, especially against the Lemieux-line.
Again you have two 4th lines and none of them is capable of being shutdown-line. Overall, you don't have many defencive-capable forward, especially i see nobody who can slow down Lafleur.

- Is "tiny" some kind of a pun against your own goalie? i don't see how the edge in goal is "tiny". Gardiner and Worters were contemporaries and Gardiner was always recognized as a superior one. Gardiner is known for his playoffs heroics and to be fair to Worters he is playoffs "untested". The excuse of playing on a bad team isn't valid at all, since Gardiner's team wasn't much better. So much for their accomplishments. And than, there is a question how they translate - you know the elephant in the room - Worters' size. I don't see him being as successful in alltime context as he was in the context of his era.
As for coaches, i think it's pretty easy - they are contemporaries too, and Babcock is recognized as the superior one.

- Defence. Yeah, basically a wash. If not the fact that my top 2 pairings are clearly better than yours. You don't have a legetim top defenceman (like Clancy, who is head and shoulders above anybody on your team), Lapointe was on the second pairing and didn't play against top opponents and Pronovost is strong numero 2, but not more. i think he is in the same tier as Kasatonov. If this pairing that plays against my top line i like my chances.
Stapleton is strong number 3, but i like Patrick more (they are tough to compare, but i think that is the current opinion of majority, e.g To 60 defencemen project). And Schoenfeld is better than harrisö. Harris was a depth defenceman on a hidden dynasty Habs team, Schoenfeld was a top defenceman for a pretty strong team, voting results confirm this.

 

[Sturminator]

they are tough to compare, but i think that is the current opinion of majority, e.g To 60 defencemen project

I don't think the top 60 defensemen project represents any kind of majority opinion, other than the "majority" of the people who voted in that project, a number of whom had opinions that seem rather problematic, to put it mildly. Specifically with regards to old-time defensemen, there is a strong "sunshine" effect apparent in the results of their voting. Arguments were made for the old-timers, but very little was said against them, and some of the material used on their behalf (like Ian Fyffe's analysis) is so obviously devoid of any recognition of the differences between eras that it ends up being clearly biased in favor of old-time players.

Let a comparison of Patrick and Stapleton stand on its own merits. That list is a crutch. BM67 pieced together all-star lists for the PCHA here. Looks like Lester shows up as a four time PCHA first team all-star, though the quality of competition for PCHA all-star nods on defense is questionable, and of course Patrick was president of the league. He also seems to have had strong seasons in 1910 in the NHA, and in 1906 in the ECAHA, though how we should value those seasons is a matter of some controversy.

Stapleton is no pushover. I'm not at all sure that an honest comparison between the two which critically evaluates era and strength of competition would show that Patrick is clearly the better player.

 

[MadArcand]

- You have an edge in your first line, but i think that Stevens is clearly the worst player on either lines. I think he is better candidate for PED-usage as Krutov, considering his short prime thanks reliance on physical aspects of the game, his fast downfall and drugs dependence.

Or maybe having his face crushed had something to do with it? Geez. That's a new one, Stevens on roids.

I don't think your second line is better than mine. It's playoffs time so take Federko ahead of Thornton without thinking twice. I think Goulet isn't better offencively than Schriner at all, and considering teammates i wouldn't say that Mullen is that much better than Pronovost. But again your second line depends on Thornton and playoffs aren't his time to shine.

My second line depends on Thornton? How about Goulet, who is ATD first liner? I don't think Federko has that much on Thornton in playoffs, really.

The third line is there for drefencive presence. Otto will take the most of defencive zone faceoffs, especially against the Lemieux-line.

Good luck keeping up with Mario. And I say that as big fan of Otto. It's not a matchup that's very good for him.

Again you have two 4th lines and none of them is capable of being shutdown-line. Overall, you don't have many defencive-capable forward, especially i see nobody who can slow down Lafleur.

In such case, your bottom 6 is also 5/6 4th liner (sans Otto). If my guys can't slow down Lafleur, what can yours do with Mario and Makarov?

- Is "tiny" some kind of a pun against your own goalie? i don't see how the edge in goal is "tiny". Gardiner and Worters were contemporaries and Gardiner was always recognized as a superior one. Gardiner is known for his playoffs heroics and to be fair to Worters he is playoffs "untested". The excuse of playing on a bad team isn't valid at all, since Gardiner's team wasn't much better. So much for their accomplishments. And than, there is a question how they translate - you know the elephant in the room - Worters' size. I don't see him being as successful in alltime context as he was in the context of his era.

I see them more as successors than true contemporaries, Worters was a star before Gardiner even made the league, and Gardiner took over as Worters started winding down.

As for size, that damn Arturs Irbe surely didn't get the memo in the 2002 playoffs! I don't think size matters that much, really. It didn't stop Worters when he played, and I see no reason it should stop him here.

Besides, I have a clear edge in backup.

As for coaches, i think it's pretty easy - they are contemporaries too, and Babcock is recognized as the superior one.

My assistant coach has more Adamses than Babcock.

- Defence. Yeah, basically a wash. If not the fact that my top 2 pairings are clearly better than yours. You don't have a legetim top defenceman (like Clancy, who is head and shoulders above anybody on your team), Lapointe was on the second pairing and didn't play against top opponents and Pronovost is strong numero 2, but not more. i think he is in the same tier as Kasatonov. If this pairing that plays against my top line i like my chances.
Stapleton is strong number 3, but i like Patrick more (they are tough to compare, but i think that is the current opinion of majority, e.g To 60 defencemen project). And Schoenfeld is better than harrisö. Harris was a depth defenceman on a hidden dynasty Habs team, Schoenfeld was a top defenceman for a pretty strong team, voting results confirm this.

Kasatonov in the same tier as Pronovost? Talk about greatness osmosis from Fetisov.

Patrick and Stapleton are very comparable, Schoenfeld isn't far from Harris. And then your bottom pairing is just way behind.

I don't see an edge for you here.

 

[DoMakc]

Stapleton is no pushover. I'm not at all sure that an honest comparison between the two which critically evaluates era and strength of competition would show that Patrick is clearly the better player.

i don't think that's what i said. i called Stapleton a strong nuber 3 defenceman, and that it's hard to compare him with Patrick. I called my second pairing clearly better than Mac Arcand's one, but it's more the matter of Schoenfeld being better than Harris.

 

[jkrx]

i don't think that's what i said. i called Stapleton a strong nuber 3 defenceman, and that it's hard to compare him with Patrick. I called my second pairing clearly better than Mac Arcand's one, but it's more the matter of Schoenfeld being better than Harris.

In what way is Schoenfeld actually a better player than Harris? They both have a 2nd AST and voting beyond that is far from defenitive.

 

[DoMakc]

My second line depends on Thornton? How about Goulet, who is ATD first liner? I don't think Federko has that much on Thornton in playoffs, really.

It was an easy statement to make, considering that it's not difficult to be better than Thornton in playoffs. Let me know when Thonton will lead playoffs inscoring despite not making it to the Stanley Cup finals. Federko did it mostly by himself, Thonrton failed on pretty strong teams.

Good luck keeping up with Mario. And I say that as big fan of Otto. It's not a matchup that's very good for him.

Umm, why? I understand, he is Mario Lemieux and there is no such thing like favourable match up against him, but at least can you provide some argument.
Actually if something could bring Mario from his game was phisicality. And Otto can provide it en masse.

In such case, your bottom 6 is also 5/6 4th liner (sans Otto).

Gottselig is a better player than anybody you have in your bottom 6. Hebenton is at least good defencively.

I don't quite understand the purpose of your 3rd line - it's actually a glorified energy line. Morrow is phisical player and a decent scorer, but not really a strong defencive player, and if he is a match up for Lafleur i gladly take it. Risebrough was 4th liner on Habs dynasty, agitator, but wasn't supposed to shutdown opponent's top lines. O'Reilly - a grinder. Sorry all of them scream "4th line - energy line".

If my guys can't slow down Lafleur, what can yours do with Mario and Makarov?

I think they will be more successful than their counterparts. At least they are capable defencively something that can be said about your third line.

I see them more as successors than true contemporaries, Worters was a star before Gardiner even made the league, and Gardiner took over as Worters started winding down.

What? Worters was active during Gardiner's first as well as his last season. He was four years older.

As for size, that damn Arturs Irbe surely didn't get the memo in the 2002 playoffs! I don't think size matters that much, really. It didn't stop Worters when he played, and I see no reason it should stop him here.

Yeah, the sample of 18 games in the middle of grab-and clutch era clearly shows something. And Irbe was 5'8 not 5'3. Not many players during Worters time could pick a top corner.

Besides, I have a clear edge in backup.

Congrats, i hope he will be able to showcase himself. You know it's playoffs, if your back up is playing, than everything is ****ed up.

Kasatonov in the same tier as Pronovost? Talk about greatness osmosis from Fetisov.

Oh, come on. Kasatonov did actually showed that he didn't need Fetisov to shine in the Canada Cup '84 (Fetisov was injured).

Patrick and Stapleton are very comparable, Schoenfeld isn't far from Harris. And then your bottom pairing is just way behind.

Again, you don't have a legit top defenceman, you top consists of #2 and #3 in real life. Schoenfeld was clearly better than Harris, you can't provide a contra-argument other that stating that are same. And bottom paring is "way behind"-statement is laughable. Bilyaletdinov may actually be the best defenceman of 4 and Ozolinsh will not see much ice-time, other than on power play.

So let me summerize: i have much better first (and most important) and forth defenceman, I'd say 5th too but it's arguable. #2 and #3 are about even. And who cares about number 6. Does this picture screams "wash"?



Can you please post your special teams?

 

[DoMakc]

In what way is Schoenfeld actually a better player than Harris? They both have a 2nd AST and voting beyond that is far from defenitive.

It may be far from defenitive, but it's a better indicator than 2nd AST team. You know Ozolinsh has a 1st AST is he far better than both of them. Schoenfeld was top pairing defenceman that was relied upon to shut down the opponents top line. In most cases Harris was a depth defenceman for Habs.

 

[jkrx]

It may be far from defenitive, but it's a better indicator than 2nd AST team. You know Ozolinsh has a 1st AST is he far better than both of them. Schoenfeld was top pairing defenceman that was relied upon to shut down the opponents top line. In most cases Harris was a depth defenceman for Habs.

Would Schoenfeld be a top pairing defenseman on those habs teams? Harris proved time and time again that he could shutdown any top line in the NHL. I suggest you watch the cup finals in '69. Harris was an ace.

 

[MadArcand]

Sigh. I don't know if I even want to get into this.

A world where Stevens is on roids and Risebrough was a 4th liner on Habs is not one I'm familiar with.

 

[DoMakc]

Would Schoenfeld be a top pairing defenseman on those habs teams? Harris proved time and time again that he could shutdown any top line in the NHL. I suggest you watch the cup finals in '69. Harris was an ace.

So was Schoenfeld in '75. You want to pull a pappyline and pimp your guy it's fine, but it makes no sence since you can't say anything about Schoenfeld. The voting shows that Schoenfeld was more respected by pretty much same peolpe, since Schoenfeld was Harris' "successor".
Schoenfeld had Orr, Park, Robinson, Savard, Lapointe, White to compete for the votes, who was Harris' competition?

 

[DoMakc]

Sigh. I don't know if I even want to get into this.

A world where Stevens is on roids and Risebrough was a 4th liner on Habs is not one I'm familiar with.

Yeah, there is no way Stevens would touch such a bad thing like PEDs. You know if Krutov is accused of using them, than Stevens and Tocchets of this league should be too. And drug dependence goes hand in hand with PED usage.

As for Risebrough feel free to correct me, but AFAIK he was used with Lambert and Tremblay (or Houle) as 4 th line. And Jarvis played with gainey and got toughest assignment.

Again it's not like you provided some arguments othen saying, my guy is better than your guy.

 

[BraveCanadian]

- You have an edge in your first line, but i think that Stevens is clearly the worst player on either lines. I think he is better candidate for PED-usage as Krutov, considering his short prime thanks reliance on physical aspects of the game, his fast downfall and drugs dependence.

This is nonsense.

I agree that Stevens resume is a bit thin to be on a first line in this but he has proven chemistry with Lemieux. That said, he was a 40 goal guy without Lemieux too.

As far as his quick downfall and drug dependence, I think almost all of that can be traced to the horrific injury he suffered in the playoffs where his face was crushed. He was never the same player after that, and for good reason I might add.

 

[vecens24]

I agree the Stevens thing is nonsense. No reason to even try to say something like that. It literally has no founding.

The Krutov thing as well is speculation. It's well-founded speculation and it's not necessarily a wrong conclusion, but it is definitely speculation still.

 

[Sturminator]

Yeah, there is no way Stevens would touch such a bad thing like PEDs. You know if Krutov is accused of using them, than Stevens and Tocchets of this league should be too. And drug dependence goes hand in hand with PED usage.

I don't think this is a responsible argument. We have specific evidence about Krutov from Ed Willes' book. The ATD is not a court of law, but we should at least expect some form of tangible evidence of cheating (in any form) to be provided before we make this kind of argument.

 

[DoMakc]

I don't think this is a responsible argument. We have specific evidence about Krutov from Ed Willes' book. The ATD is not a court of law, but we should at least expect some form of tangible evidence of cheating (in any form) to be provided before we make this kind of argument.

It's just my opinion, it's as good as Willes' - it's basically general suspicion about "power" forwards of 80ies. Are there any hard evedence of Griffith-Joyner's or Carl Lewis' PED usage? are there any doubts?

 

[Rob Scuderi]

It's just my opinion, it's as good as Willes' - it's basically general suspicion about "power" forwards of 80ies. Are there any hard evedence of Griffith-Joyner's or Carl Lewis' PED usage? are there any doubts?

Proving a negative or negative proof may refer to:

• Evidence of absence in general, such as evidence that there is no milk in a certain bowl
• Modus tollens, a logical proof
• Proof of impossibility, mathematics
• Unfair burden, in law, a plaintiff need not prove a negative about a defendant
• Russell's teapot, an analogy: inability to disprove does not prove
• Sometimes it is mistaken for an argument from ignorance, which is non-proof and a logical fallacy.

 

[Sturminator]

It's just my opinion, it's as good as Willes' - it's basically general suspicion about "power" forwards of 80ies. Are there any hard evedence of Griffith-Joyner's or Carl Lewis' PED usage? are there any doubts?

Willes formed his opinion based on the following:

- the testimony of Igor Larionov
- the testimony of the Canucks training staff

Knowing this, we can look at the circumstantial evidence (Krutov's highly unusual athletic profile - ie. his size/strength ratio, Krutov's very sudden fall-off while still in his late 20's after leaving Russia, background information about steroid use in Soviet sports) and get a picture of Krutov's career that is highly suspicious, but the circumstantial evidence, alone, is useless.

You are basing your argument on purely circumstantial evidence.