ATD 2013 Lineup Assassination Thread - Jim Robson Division
View Single Post
04-10-2013, 01:57 AM
I voted for Kodos
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Originally Posted by
Hawkey Town 18
One thing I would like people to note about my team is that because of the way the forward lines have been put together, there is a lot of room to juggle players between lines to get favorable matchups. The main reason for this is that the defensive conscience/glue guy on each line alternates from LW to RW. Here are the lines as they stand right now...
We are almost never going to have more offensive firepower than our opponents (which isn't surprising coming from a defensive-minded team built around an elite goalie), so getting favorable matchups will likely be a big factor in our success. With a high end coach like Hap Day, most of the time Chicago will be able to take advantage of this versatility and get the matchups they want.
This is sort of an interesting situation. I like the way you've set your lines generally because Day appears to have believed in playing tight defense up and down the lineup, and set his lines accordingly. Based on my research of Joe Klukay, I can say pretty definitively that the normal Leafs lines at that time were generally a mix of offensive and defensive players. I've recently read a lot of old game reports from Day's Leafs (in Thomson, Mortson and Klukay, Montreal owns the biggest part of Day's defensive core for that threepeat team), and I haven't found any evidence that he used line-matching as a regular tactic on his teams.
This question reflects a general distaste I've had for some time for the generic claims made about coaches in the ATD. Did Day match lines regularly? It's sort of an ATD tradition to assume that the better coach always gets the matchups he wants, and I think this is largely rubbish. Coaches have different strengths - different things that made them truly great - and Day's great strengths seem to have been as a motivator and a defensive system coach. If Day was really a line-matcher, I'd like to see some actual evidence of it.
Regarding Day's teams, you really do seem to have reproduced the general feel of the forwards from that 1947-49 championship run quite well. But I'm not sure you've gotten it quite right with the defensemen. From your bio of Day:
Day saw to it that his troops got the puck out of their own zone as quickly as possible. Then they could worry about finding creative new ways to score.
Day's defense on those teams was built around the two-way play of the Thomson - Mortson top pairing, both of whom moved the puck very well, and his earlier teams always had a strong puckmover like Stanowski or Pratt. Your 2nd and 3rd pairings will move the puck well, but Johnson - Brewer on the top pairing is a glaring weakness. Carl Brewer was a good even-strength puckmover in his day, but this is the ATD. As the primary offensive defenseman on an ATD top pairing, he is clearly lacking, and Ching Johnson is no kind of puckmover, at all. You are providing Day with less puckmoving on his top pair than he had in real life, and compared to ATD competition, much less. This looks like one of the weakest top pairings in the league in terms of puckmoving, and they may end up getting pinned in their own zone a lot by teams that can forecheck effectively.
edit: for clarity's sake, here is Carl Brewer's ES Assists record vs. other NHL defensemen:
1958-59: 4th behind Johnson, Gadsby, Turner
1959-60: 7th behind Johnson, Pilote, Pronovost, Morrison, Vasko, Flaman
1960-61: 6th behind Harvey, Gadsby, Pilote, Vasko, Talbot
1961-62: 4th behind Gadsby, Pilote, Talbot
1962-63: 3rd behind Harvey, Boivin
1964-65: 2nd behind Pilote
1969-70: 3rd behind Orr, Stapleton
Brewer certainly has a strong record as a puckmover at even-strength, but it is not ATD 1st pairing strong. If he's among the 32 best even strength puckmoving defensemen of all time, he's certainly towards the bottom of that list.
Last edited by Sturminator: 04-10-2013 at
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Sturminator