HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

Jim Coleman Conference 2nd round - Pittsburgh AC vs. Philadelphia Flyers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-23-2013, 02:20 PM
  #1
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Jim Coleman Conference 2nd round - Pittsburgh AC vs. Philadelphia Flyers

Pittsburgh Athletic Club

Coach: Cecil Hart

Bert Olmstead - Jean Beliveau (C) - Andy Bathgate
Sweeney Schriner - Bernie Morris - Steve Larmer
Red Berenson (A) - Neil Colville - Jimmy Ward
Ryan Walter - Thomas Steen (A) - Jim Pappin
Barney Stanley, Murph Chamberlain

Brian Leetch - Alexei Kasatonov
Barry Beck - Pat Stapleton
Willie Mitchell - Frank Patrick
Ryan Suter, Bryan McCabe

Chuck Rayner
John Ross Roach

PP1:
Olmstead - Beliveau - Morris
Leetch - Bathgate

PP2:
Schriner - Colville - Larmer
Patrick - Stapleton

PK1:
Berenson - Larmer
Beck - Kasatonov

PK2:
Steen - Walter
Leetch - Mitchell

vs.


Philadelphia Flyers
Coach: Pete Muldoon
Captain: Danny Gare
Assistant Captains: Eddie Oatman, Scott Niedermayer

Alexander Ovechkin-Cyclone Taylor-Eddie Oatman
Kevin Stevens-Joe Thornton-Joe Mullen
Dave Trottier-Jean Ratelle-Danny Gare
Mike Richards-Butch Goring-Ron Stewart
Ray Whitney, Gregg Sheppard , John Ferguson

Brad Park-Lionel Hitchman
Scott Niedermayer-Bob Armstrong
Kevin Hatcher-Vitaly Davydov
Doug Barkley

Grant Fuhr
Andy Moog


PP1:Alexander Ovechkin-Joe Thornton-Joe Mullen
Brad Park-Cyclone Taylor

PP2: Kevin Stevens-Jean Ratelle-Eddie Oatman
Scott Niedermayer-Kevin Hatcher

PK1: Butch Goring-Ron Stewart
Brad Park-Lionel Hitchman

PK2: Dave Trottier-Mike Richards
Vitaly Davydov-Kevin Hatcher

PK3: Butch Goring-Ron Stewart
Lionel Hitchman-Bob Armstrong


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-28-2013 at 01:52 PM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-23-2013, 02:53 PM
  #2
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
This one's going to be a doozie, and neither of these teams deserves to be eliminated in the second round. It'll come down to Philadelphia's defense and goaltending being able to handle Pittsburgh's offense, while still generating scoring with their depth.

I'm definitely going to make some personnel changes. Mike Richards will be moving to the 4th line LW spot in place of Gregg Sheppard, and Bob Armstrong will be moving to the second pairing with Scott Niedermayer. Vitaly Davydov will move to the 3rd pairing alongside Kevin Hatcher.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 01:49 AM
  #3
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
This one's going to be a doozie, and neither of these teams deserves to be eliminated in the second round. It'll come down to Philadelphia's defense and goaltending being able to handle Pittsburgh's offense, while still generating scoring with their depth.

I'm definitely going to make some personnel changes. Mike Richards will be moving to the 4th line LW spot in place of Gregg Sheppard, and Bob Armstrong will be moving to the second pairing with Scott Niedermayer. Vitaly Davydov will move to the 3rd pairing alongside Kevin Hatcher.
I edited the OP. I'm assuming that Sheppard is replaced by Richards on the PK, since you didn't say otherwise.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 01:17 PM
  #4
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
I'm going to swap Jim Pappin and Jimmy Ward. Ward has more quotes about his defensive game and better offense. He's gritty, but not as mean as Pappin whose goalscoring will fit next to Steen.

Ward vsX: 77.5, 76, 75.86, 75, 62.22, 59.09, 53.49 = 479.16
Pappin vsX: 88.46, 68.87, 65.42, 61.63, 49.61, 45.71, 45 = 424.7

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 01:29 PM
  #5
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Pittsburgh's puck possession
Pittsburgh has a deep group of forwards, but no shutdown line. My team is built on speed and wearing defenses down as Hart's Flying Frenchman did. Olmstead, Larmer, and Walter are my only forwards who I think are average/below average skating-wise. I have no idea good or bad about Morris's skating though.

To facilitate this gameplan, I wanted to build a quick team based on possessing the puck. I believe I accomplished that building two-way lines around Colville and Steen.

Here's how Colville's line was directed: "Old Lester Patrick told us never to give the puck away because the other team couldn't score if we had it,''
Steen's bio is full of quotes about his speed, two-way game, and physicality.

Berenson, Ward, and Pappin were all players who could skate and offer a solid offensive game making use of Colville and Steen's talents. About their checking skills though, Berenson's coaches said he was too valuable to be used in a checking role, but had success doing so when called on. Ward was probably the fastest of the bunch and received lots of praise for his work covering star left wingers. Pappin played an offensive role in Chicago, but in Toronto he played on a checking line with Pete Stemkowski and Bob Pulford. Pulford said they were put together to check Mikita's line, and Gordie Howe said they used every ounce of their nearly 600 pound combined weight when checking. Walter is the closest forward I have to being an offensive blackhole (yet not as bad as the Erixon/Pandolfo dedicated checkers), but has plenty of quotes supporting his defensive game. I settled on him for the fourth line needing someone who can take faceoffs for Steen.

I believe these two lines are weaker defensively than many other bottom six lines, but they fit my team's concept like a glove while providing a defensive presence. They have plenty of speed and the ability to make plays with the puck which will allow Pittsburgh to wear defenses down all game long.

In order to support this gameplan, I felt it was important to load up on puckmoving from the backend (and in net). One of Leetch, Stapleton, or Patrick will be on the ice at all times which I see as a great axis for my plan. Their puckmoving and rushing abilities tie right in. Finally, with Rayner in net my forwards will have an even easier time getting the puck. I'll leave off with some quotes about his puckmoving skills.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Legends of Hockey
A superb skater, it was not unusual to see him carrying the puck down the ice… It wasn't until Jacques Plante starred with Montreal a decade later that other goalkeepers exhibited strong puckhandling and playmaking skills.

During the late 1940s, the New York Rangers used Rayner on the point during powerplays late in a handful of games. "That was Frank (Boucher’s) idea all the way. I used to do a lot of skating and shooting in practice, so he decided to try it in a game. I’d only come out half way up the blueline. It only happened four of five times," laughed Rayner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gordie Howe
“When you threw it in the corner, he would just go out and get the puck. He really forced us to change the way we came into the zone. No one other than Jacques Plante later on was doing that.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Hockey
He liked to yap during games, directing his team like a sergeant directing a military offense. He was a roving goaltender with the skating and stickhandling abilities of a forward...

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 06:37 PM
  #6
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Tactical Notes

Philadelphia is going to be playing a very similar game in terms of style with Pittsburgh. My team is built to be deadly on the transition, and includes a number of fast skaters. Gare, Stevens, and Thornton aren't as speedy, but rely on more of a powerful skating style(with the exception of Gare, who just wasn't that great of a skater). I put a real emphasis on making sure I had very good puck movers on my first two pairings in order to maximize Alexander Ovechkin and Cyclone Taylor in transition, who for my money, are the two fastest forwards in the entire series. I think Pittsburgh possesses more of a group of "strong" skaters, who were very powerful and hard to knock off the puck(like Beliveau and Bathgate) compared to guys that could just blow by you like Ovechkin or Taylor.

If Philadelphia is going to be able to succeed in this series, it's going to rely on our ability to get the puck out of our own zone before Pittsburgh's forwards have a chance to reach them on the forecheck and establish the puck possession game that BBS mentioned. Much of this hinges on the ability to break the puck out quickly, and hit Pittsburgh in transition before they get a chance to backcheck. A great amount of the success of this plan is going to hinge upon Brad Park and Scott Niedermayer, and their ability to break the puck out for a quick strike. Just as Chuck Rayner will help Pittsburgh, Grant Fuhr will help Philadelphia in this endeavor, as he is 2nd all time in points among goaltenders with 46, and is one of the best passing goalies ever. I think they'll be very good at this. I see Pittsburgh having more puck possession in the series, but Philadelphia capitalizing more on quick-strike ability in transition with odd-man rushes, and then quickly backchecking to get in defensive position when Pittsburgh begins lugging the puck up the ice again. This is where the two-way play of Philadelphia's forwards will really come into play. Of our forwards, only Ovechkin and Stevens are the two that are average to below average defensive players. In Pittsburgh's forward corps, I'd say there are 3 that are average to below average defensive players in Morris, Bathgate, and Schriner(with the latter two having some serious inconsistencies between their scoring abilities and voting finishes, suggesting they struggled in parts of the game that weren't scoring).

Our biggest goal this series is to get Brad Park and Lionel Hitchman out to face Pittsburgh's first line as much as possible. A borderline top 10 defenseman of all time, and the premier shutdown defenseman of his day should do as well as a pairing can be expected to do against such a strong line. Hitchman's size, and Park's aggressiveness should be useful in trying to handle Olmstead in the corners, and Beliveau/Bathgate on the cycle or in front of the net. In terms of forward lines, we're going to try to have our 3rd and 4th lines out against their first line, meaning that one of Mike Richards/Dave Trottier will be on Andy Bathgate, and Jean Ratelle/Butch Goring will be going up against Jean Beliveau. Like Pittsburgh, we don't have a real dedicated shutdown line, instead we've got solid defensive play throughout the lineup.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 10:30 PM
  #7
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Andy Bathgate and the VsX Project

TDMM made the point earlier, and BBS admitted that the way that the VsX project treats the years that Andy Bathgate played is quite favorable to him. In the years where Bathgate was above 50 in VsX, here were the benchmarks:

Quote:
1954-55:
2. M. Richard - 74

1955-56:
1. Beliveau - 88
2. Howe - 79
3. M. Richard - 71
...benchmark = M. Richard: 71

1956-57:
1. Howe - 89
2. Lindsay - 85
3. Beliveau - 84
4. Bathgate - 77
5. Litzenberger - 64
6. M. Richard - 62
7. McKenney - 60
8. Moore - 58
...average as benchmark: 72

1957-58:
1. Moore - 84
2. H. Richard - 80
3. Bathgate - 78
4. Howe - 77
5. Horvath - 66
6. Litzenberger - 62
7. MacKell - 60
8. Delvecchio - 59
...average as benchmark: 71

1958-59:
1. Moore - 96
2. Beliveau - 91
3. Bathgate - 88
4. Howe - 78
5. Litzenberger - 77
6. Geoffrion - 66
7. Sullivan - 63
8. Hebenton - 62
8. Sloan - 62
8. McKenney - 62
...average as benchmark: 75

1959-60:
2. Horvath - 80

1960-61:
2. Beliveau - 90

1961-62:
1. Hull/Bathgate - 84

1962-63:
2. Bathgate - 81

1963-64:
1. Mikita - 89
2. Hull - 87
3. Beliveau - 78
...benchmark = Beliveau: 78

1964-65:
2. Ullman - 83

1965-66:
2. Rousseau/Mikita - 78

1967-68:
2. Esposito - 84
1956-57 to 1958-59 are the 3 years that I really disagree with the system. In those years, Bathgate receives scores of 107, 110, and 117. Scores this high are typically reserved for the guy that leads the league in scoring, not the guy who finishes 3rd, 4th, and 4th. This system is supposed to be based on Vs2, with adjustments for years where the 2nd place scorer is an outlier. This is most important when dealing with the Bruins of the 70s, and scoring in the 1980s, not really scoring in the 1950s. The argument is that the Red Wings and the Canadiens were so far ahead of everyone else that they blew away the scoring race, and guys that were near 5th in scoring should be used as the benchmark. I disagree. I know Sturm used a uniform formula throughout, and he has admitted that the system isn't perfect, so I'm definitely not blaming him here. But when you look at those three seasons, and look at the top five scorers, there are four different teams represented in the top 5 scorers in each of those 3 years. It's not as if there was no parity in scoring leaders across the league, there definitely was. Some teams were certainly better than others, but not to the extent that the system says IMO. I can see the argument for 57-58 and 58-59 because the Canadiens blew away the field in terms of team goals scored(the Red Wings didn't), but in 56-57 the totals for the 6 teams were 210, 198, 195, 184, 174, and 169. Certainly nothing crazy about that, and certainly not deserving of using a guy that would be in 5th as the benchmark.

BBS mentioned earlier that it would be reasonable to knock off 10 points of Bathgate's VsX scores for these years, but I think even that is a little light, considering it would still leave him with 107, 100, and 97. Those numbers look like a guy that should be around 2nd. I'm not sure exactly where that should leave us regarding these finishes. I think a little more than 10 should be knocked off, but I'm not sure how much. While I'm at it, I'll compare Bathgate to Ovechkin, knocking off 10 points a year(which I find conservative) for those 3 years for Bathgate.

Bathgate: 107, 100, 100, 100, 99, 97, 93, 93, 86, 70, 60, 54, 54
Ovechkin: 106, 100, 100, 100, 86, 81, 67

During their four peak years, Ovechkin was just as good as Bathgate(soon to be 5 years because OV will likely add another finish in the high 90s this season), but after that, Bathgate's longevity pulls away. Bathgate is definitely the superior offensive player, but at their peaks, Bathgate wasn't any better than Ovechkin was a few years ago. In fact, many could make the argument Ovechkin was even better at his peak than Bathgate considering he got these high finishes scoring goals, which are considered more valuable than assists, which Bathgate had more of. There's also the matter of Hart voting, where Ovechkin is significantly better. Neither one has had very good(in an all time context) linemates to work with. Ovechkin has led his teams in points all 8 years he's been in the league, and Bathgate did that 9 times in his career.

On the matter of Bathgate's playoff scoring, here is how he finished among teammates in scoring in the playoffs:

55-56: 2nd with 3 points in 5 games(behind defenseman Bill Gadsby)
56-57: 6th with 2 points in 5 games(behind Camille Henry, Dave Creighton, Bill Gadsby, Red Sullivan, and Larry Popein)
57-58: 1st with 8 points in 6 games
61-62: 6th with 3 points in 6 games(behind Earl Ingarfield, Dave Balon, Rod Gilbert, Jean-Guy Gendron, and Johnny Wilson)
63-64: 5th with 9 points in 14 games(behind Frank Mahovlich, George Armstrong, Red Kelly, and Don McKenney)
64-65: 10th with 1 point in 6 games(behind Red Kelly, Dave Keon, Ron Ellis, Carl Brewer, Frank Mahovlich, Pete Stemkowski, Dickie Moore, Bob Pulford, and Tim Horton)
65-66: 5th with 9 points in 12 games(behind Norm Ullman, Alex Delvecchio, Dean Prentice, and Gordie Howe)

The fact that he was the main offensive weapon on those Ranger teams, and that he was the one they keyed on definitely played a part in this, but that resume is downright brutal. It's not like teams didn't key on him during the regular season. They knew very well that he was THE GUY to cover on the Rangers in the regular season, and he put up fantastic numbers. Checking may have gotten a bit tighter in the playoffs, but how much more could they key in on the one offensive dynamo on a team of scrubs in the playoffs compared to the regular season? It wasn't just a thing in New York either. When he led the league in assists in 63-64 and was 4th in points, he managed to only be 5th on his team in points in the playoffs when there was considerable depth around him that the other team had to pay attention to. He still didn't thrive. In the regular season, his PPG was .910. In the playoffs, it drops to .648. That's a huge decrease in offense.

Now, it's not as though Ovechkin's teams have been all that successful in the playoffs, but it certainly hasn't been his fault. He plays at over a PPG in the playoffs, and, you guessed it, has led his team in scoring in the playoffs every year the Capitals have made it(5 years out of 7).

Bert Olmstead also sees a significant decrease in his scoring when it comes to the playoffs. He averaged .710PPG during the regular season, but that number drops to .513 in the playoffs. He had two very solid playoff runs in cup years 55-56 and 56-57, but was otherwise pretty mediocre. When he had his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best VsX seasons, he managed just 9 points in 35 playoff games. In his best season, he had a strong playoff with 14 points in 10 games. In the other 3 cup years he won, he had a combined 8 points in 25 games(four of those games were at the very end of his career when he had one point, but the other two were when he was 26 and 31.) His effectiveness seemed to be really curbed in the playoffs, and he was playing around tremendous talent that was certainly keyed on more than he was.

I'm going to address Jean Ratelle and Joe Thornton's playoff records right now, because I'm sure someone is going to bring it up(I'm surprised someone hasn't tried already).

When Ratelle was on the Rangers, his playoff resume was underwhelming. Here it is:

66-67: 0 points in 4 games, had been hurt for a good bit of the season and the leader only managed 4 points
67-68: 4 points in 5 games, 2nd behind Gilbert
68-69: 1 point in 4 games, 5th behind leader Hadfield with 3 points
69-70: 4 points in 5 games, 2nd behind Gilbert
70-71: 11 points in 13 games, 2nd behind Hadfield
71-72: 1 point in 6 games, rest of team played 16 games, this was the year Ratelle was on track to win the MVP, and then he got hurt, I'm assuming he came back for the cup run, clearly still hurt
72-73: 9 points in 10 games, 1st(tied with 3 others; Vickers, Fairbairn, Tkaczuk)
73-74: 6 points in 13 games, 10th(leader Stemkowski had 12)
74-75: 6 points in 3 games, 1st(tied with Vickers)
Traded to Boston
75-76: 16 points in 12 games, 1st(second had 11)
76-77: 17 points in 14 games, 1st(second had 12)
77-78: 10 points in 15 games, 6th(leader Park had 20)
78-79: 13 points in 11 games, 1st(second had 12)
79-80: 0 points in 3 games, rest of the team played 10 games
80-81: 0 points in 3 games, leader had 4 points

By those last 2 years, Ratelle was 39/40 and clearly behind his prime. The important points here are that a) his playoffs in NY weren't all that bad, New York just wasn't that great of a team. He led them in playoff scoring twice, and was second three times. When you look at the four playoffs that could possibly be construed as "bad" he was hurt in the regular season and seemingly never got back on track(he never really got on track at all in 66-67, he was only 26, which is young in Ratelle terms) for two of them, one was a bad four game series where the team got swept, and the other one just wasn't a good playoff performance. Then, the pivot point in his career, being traded to Boston. Previously, the theory behind his playoff struggles was that New York didn't protect him enough in the playoffs, and he got beat up because he wasn't a physical player, despite having Vic Hadfield on his wing. Don Cherry, his coach in Boston, had another theory:

Quote:
"They damned near ruined Jean in New York and it was pretty stupid," said Don Cherry. "They wore him out for the playoffs in New York. They never gave him a day off from practice. They had him on the ice every day and made him burn himself out before the playoffs. That's why he never did much in the playoffs with the Rangers. Look at how he changed in Boston: average more than a point a game in the playoffs."

"I told Jean once that if I saw him in practice the day after a game I'd fine him. I knew that he wasn't the strongest guy in the world and he was up there in years and still killing penalties and working the power play and taking all the important faceoffs. You've got to be crazy not to give a guy like that a day off, especially when you know he busts his tail and always keeps himself in shape.
With Ratelle here, he's not going to be playing those front-line minutes that he played in New York, giving him more rest in-game, and we're going to be sure to give him enough rest and not wear him out before the playoffs. Just like he had Vic Hadfield as his bodyguard, he's got two willing fighters flanking him now in Dave Trottier and Danny Gare if anyone challenges him. Pittsburgh isn't all that physical of a team, so I don't see this as a problem. Despite the fact that his best regular season offense was clearly behind him, he managed to put up his best playoff numbers in Boston because they didn't run him ragged. I think we have every reason to think the Ratelle we'll get in the playoffs is more like the Boston version than the NYR one.

Moving to Joe Thornton, his case is even simpler than Ratelle. He gets a bad rap for having one bad playoff year, 03-04. People like to say he went pointless in 6 games in 97-98, but forget he was an 18 year old rookie. Here's where he stood among teammates:

97-98: 0 points in 6 games, 18 year old rookie
98-99: 9 points in 11 games, 3rd on team behind Bourque & Allison
01-02: 6 points in 6 games, 1st(tied with Guerin)
02-03: 5 points in 3 games, 1st(tied with McGillis)
03-04: 0 points in 7 games, leader had 7 points
05-06: 9 points in 14 games, 2nd behind Marleau
06-07: 11 points in 11 games, 1st(second had 6 points)
07-08: 9 points in 13 games, 1st
08-09: 5 points in 6 games, 1st
09-10: 12 points in 15 games, 5th(leader had 17)
10-11: 17 points in 18 games, 1st
11-12: 5 points in 5 games, 1st

There are also a number of quotes showing that Thornton devoted himself to more of a two-way game during the playoffs, sacrificing some offense in the process. While he hasn't been a great playoff performer, you can see from this that he hasn't been the problem with his teams in the playoffs.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-24-2013, 11:15 PM
  #8
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
A couple of quick comments, Billy:

1) To me, the most poignant criticism of Marcel Dionne's playoffs isn't that his team didn't win. It's that he often finished behind teammates in playoff scoring, teammates who he consistently blew away in the regular season. I'm not surprised at all that the same thing applies to Bathgate.

2) I think that once you take playoffs into account, Alexander Ovechkin does indeed have a higher peak than Bathgate. Bathgate's longevity and consistency as a top offensive player in the regular season is quite good though.

3) Thornton's 05-06 playoffs were pretty poor too - 9 points in 14 games is pretty terrible, considering how good Thornton was that regular season. 2nd on the team in scoring probably says more about his teammates than how Thornton played. I think that was before Thornton was really used in a defensive role, too.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2013, 01:43 AM
  #9
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Bathgate: 107, 100, 100, 100, 99, 97, 93, 93, 86, 70, 60, 54, 54
Ovechkin: 106, 100, 100, 100, 86, 81, 67

During their four peak years, Ovechkin was just as good as Bathgate(soon to be 5 years because OV will likely add another finish in the high 90s this season), but after that, Bathgate's longevity pulls away. Bathgate is definitely the superior offensive player, but at their peaks, Bathgate wasn't any better than Ovechkin was a few years ago. In fact, many could make the argument Ovechkin was even better at his peak than Bathgate considering he got these high finishes scoring goals, which are considered more valuable than assists, which Bathgate had more of. There's also the matter of Hart voting, where Ovechkin is significantly better. Neither one has had very good(in an all time context) linemates to work with. Ovechkin has led his teams in points all 8 years he's been in the league, and Bathgate did that 9 times in his career.

When he led the league in assists in 63-64 and was 4th in points, he managed to only be 5th on his team in points in the playoffs when there was considerable depth around him that the other team had to pay attention to. He still didn't thrive. In the regular season, his PPG was .910. In the playoffs, it drops to .648. That's a huge decrease in offense.
Bathgate's an 8 time all-star in a Howe-less world. It's true Ovechkin's peak is immense, otherwise how would he fit on a top line at age 27, and he was better in the playoffs. But Bathgate wasn't just beating him longevity-wise with middling seasons. He has two seasons above a score of 85 that Ovi hasn't touched yet (giving him credit for this season being better/on par). Ovechkin will have his 7th all-star spot after this season and his competition has been Heatley, Sedin, Parise, and Vanek. Even in a Howe-less world Bathgate's competition of Geoffrion and a few meaningful years of the Rocket are better.

His playoff woes are definitely worth mentioning, but he will get substantial help in that regard playing for my team instead of the Rangers. Beliveau could drag anyone along, and Bathgate's ability to shoot and pass will make them a deadly duo.

He was only fifth in his team's scoring in 1964 winning the Cup, but Stafford Smythe and Sid Abel thought he did his part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Montreal Gazette - 1/30/1965
Bathgate has played well with the Leafs. In last season's Stanley Cup playoffs he scored five goals, including the winner in the seventh and deciding game against Detroit Red Wings. As the Leafs celebrated their victory with champagne from the Stanley Cup, Stafford Smythe, the president of the team, said: "We wouldn't be drinking champagne now if we hadn't got Bathgate." Across the hall in the Red Wing dressing-room, coach Sid Abel was agreeing. "Without Bathgate, we would have beaten them," Abel said.
Quote:
Bert Olmstead also sees a significant decrease in his scoring when it comes to the playoffs. He averaged .710PPG during the regular season, but that number drops to .513 in the playoffs. He had two very solid playoff runs in cup years 55-56 and 56-57, but was otherwise pretty mediocre. When he had his 2nd, 3rd, and 4th best VsX seasons, he managed just 9 points in 35 playoff games. In his best season, he had a strong playoff with 14 points in 10 games. In the other 3 cup years he won, he had a combined 8 points in 25 games(four of those games were at the very end of his career when he had one point, but the other two were when he was 26 and 31.) His effectiveness seemed to be really curbed in the playoffs, and he was playing around tremendous talent that was certainly keyed on more than he was.
He led the playoffs in assists those two very solid years. Unlike Bathgate, Olmstead can still contribute when he's not scoring. He's a warrior type and a leader. His game is very simple and when you throw in his checking abilities I dug up I think he'll be fine in the playoffs even if his scoring dries up. Imlach agreed with claims he was "dominant" in 2 games of the 1962 finals with Toronto where he scored 1 assist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey is a Battle: Punch Imlach's Own Story by Punch Imlach and Scott Young
One of the toughest things I had to do at the 1962 meetings was leave Bert Olmstead unprotected...Olmstead had been able to play only about forty game the previous season. The way he played the game was all out, all the way. He played the danger spot, the corner, as if there was no tomorrow. In close quarters or at passing or taking a pass he was as good as he ever had been, if not better. But when end to end skating was needed he had trouble.

...And I know he went out that season and in the 1962 playoffs to show me that he still deserved to be protected. Some people thought he was a dominant figure in our last two games against Chicago, when we won the Stanley Cup, and I wouldn't argue with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sunday Sun - 4/1/1961
Cesare affirms that it is the few veterans who are the backbone of the Leafs but singles out George Armstrong and Bert Olmstead more than Red Kelly. "Armstrong as captain, has to get the team going. Olmstead is the guy who can fire the team up."

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2013, 02:09 AM
  #10
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Tactical Notes

Philadelphia is going to be playing a very similar game in terms of style with Pittsburgh. My team is built to be deadly on the transition, and includes a number of fast skaters. Gare, Stevens, and Thornton aren't as speedy, but rely on more of a powerful skating style(with the exception of Gare, who just wasn't that great of a skater). I put a real emphasis on making sure I had very good puck movers on my first two pairings in order to maximize Alexander Ovechkin and Cyclone Taylor in transition, who for my money, are the two fastest forwards in the entire series. I think Pittsburgh possesses more of a group of "strong" skaters, who were very powerful and hard to knock off the puck(like Beliveau and Bathgate) compared to guys that could just blow by you like Ovechkin or Taylor.
I disagree. They may not be Cyclone Taylor, but I have lots of skaters with good speed and quickness. I fully expect this attribute of my team to give Bob Armstrong trouble with his expanded role in the series. He said he couldn't skate very well adding "I couldn't go around my grandmother."

(Not reformatting for simplicity's sake)
Beliveau
Trail of the Stanley Cup, Vol. 3
He was a graceful skater and his long sweeping strides gave deception to his speed.

The Montreal Gazette (Dink Carroll) - 2/20/1956
"I've been watching Jean Beliveau closely and I haven't been able to find his weakness - not yet anyway. But I know he's got one because every hockey player has one. If I don't find it out this season, maybe I will next season. Beliveau can skate, he can carry the puck, he can make plays and he can score. But there must be something he can't do. -Phil Watson

The Montreal Gazette (Dink Carroll) - 3/25/1959
"He can skate, he can handle the puck, he can score and he's rough. He goes both ways, too, and lately he's become a leader. -Johnny Gottselig

Bathgate
NHL.com - 2/21/2009
"It was no fun playing against Andy because he was fast and strong, had a lot of courage and a hard, hard shot, one of the best in the League, if not the best." - Arnie Brown

Legends of Hockey
Andy Bathgate was a hockey stylist--an athletic, graceful skater

Hockey’s Glory Days
Andy Bathgate was a strong skater,

Kevin Shea
He was known as a smooth-skating playmaker

Schriner
The Calgary Daily Herald - 12/19/1962
Schriner himself, the big number 11 on his back, glided around the ice in the effortless fashion that tabled him the smoothie of all smoothies.

The Calgary Daily Herald - 3/24/1949 (He was 37 and playing in the minor pros at the time this was written)
Nobody could ever accuse Schriner of wasting energy, and now that he's older, he's more cagey than ever. But Sweeney can still get into high gear quickly when there is a scoring opportunity.

Trail of the Stanley Cup, Vol. 2
Sweeney was a big man, a fast skater and very nimble in his play. He played hard and his penalty record is surprisingly low considering his size.

Berenson
The Windsor Star - 3/20/1968
He is undoubtedly the fastest skater among the Blues and has the ability to lead the rest of the team on the attack.

Legends of Hockey
His speed and skill with the puck impressed the officials of the Belleville McFarlands as they prepared to compete in the World Championships, and Canada captured the gold medal thanks in part to Berenson's nine goals

Sports Illustrated - 3/25/1968
Berenson always could skate, pass and shoot;


Steen
The Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey - 1984
On his way to front-line status...Excellent skater and puckhandler who shows signs of becoming a good goal-scorer

Hockey Scouting Report - 1988-1989
The Finesse Game
Steen is an excellent skater, equipped with speed and good lateral movement. He also has good acceleration and his balance makes him a very agile forward with excellent quickness.

Likewise, he's superlative as a penalty-killer because of his quickness and anticipation. He is able to aggressively pressure the opposition's pukhandlers at the point, and will often break up passes because of his one-step quickness.

Hockey Scouting Report 1990-1991
The Finesse Game
If Steen shot the puck more we'd know all about his great skating ability - the speed, the quickness and lateral ability he uses to force loose pucks, to pounce on said pucks, to drive defensemen off the blue line, to get into scoring position, to change speed and direction within a stride.

Ward
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix: 3-13-1934
Kilrea, March and Ward have been regarded as exceptionally fast skaters over a period of years. But, for one reason or another, Jackson's ability to get there faster than the other fellow has received remarkably little attention. Even Toronto fans have considered Kilrea and Boll to be the fastest on the Leafs.

Montreal Gazette: 3-26-1928
Kilrea took his last whirl at the speed skating test and the $400 offered for the winner and left the fans gasping after a terrific onslaught of the 17 second mark held jointly by Siebert, Ward, Oatman, Morenz and Gizzy Hart which found him making every stride count perfectly for a mark of 16 2-5 seconds, which is liable to stand for a long time. Morenz had been announced as ready to skate against time, but after Kilrea's feat, even the meteoric Morenz was willing to conceded the honors to the Ottawa flash.

Calgary Daily Herald: 3-17-1928
Jimmy Ward, a sturdy ex-amateur star, and X give the Montreal team a pair of heavy but fleet wings.

Leader-Post: 12-14-1932
Jimmy Ward, fleet right winger for the Maroons, was too fast for the Red Wings. He cut through their defence for 2 goals and assisted in another

nikjr post of 1934 coaches poll
Montreal Gazette of March 13, 1934 has a poll of hockey writers/editors conducted by Canadian Press in connection with the all star voting.


fastest skater:
Howie Morenz 10, Busher Jackson 5, Hec Kilrea 4, Mush March 4, Jimmy Ward 3, Herbie Lewis 2, John Sorrel 1, Cecil Dillon 1, Jerry Shannon 1, Buzz Boll 1, Georges Mantha 1,

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2013, 12:46 PM
  #11
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
I disagree. They may not be Cyclone Taylor, but I have lots of skaters with good speed and quickness. I fully expect this attribute of my team to give Bob Armstrong trouble with his expanded role in the series. He said he couldn't skate very well adding "I couldn't go around my grandmother."
Your team is definitely a group of good skaters, but I think at least for Beliveau, Bathgate, and Schriner, they were more "big guys that had good speed for a big guy", sort of like Joe Thornton. All three of them were pretty big for their era, and I have a hard time believing they were the fastest skaters like Ovechkin and Taylor are. They were probably among the best skaters in the league, but there's a subtle difference there. They were all good skaters, but I don't think they were the fastest. Maybe I'm out to lunch here, but I just don't think guys that were that big for those eras were the fastest skaters in the league. Their size probably made their speed deceptive. In an end to end race, I have no doubt that Taylor and Ovechkin would beat any forward on Pittsburgh's team.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-25-2013, 03:41 PM
  #12
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Your team is definitely a group of good skaters, but I think at least for Beliveau, Bathgate, and Schriner, they were more "big guys that had good speed for a big guy", sort of like Joe Thornton. All three of them were pretty big for their era, and I have a hard time believing they were the fastest skaters like Ovechkin and Taylor are. They were probably among the best skaters in the league, but there's a subtle difference there. They were all good skaters, but I don't think they were the fastest. Maybe I'm out to lunch here, but I just don't think guys that were that big for those eras were the fastest skaters in the league. Their size probably made their speed deceptive. In an end to end race, I have no doubt that Taylor and Ovechkin would beat any forward on Pittsburgh's team.
It's not about an end to end race, it's about having speed throughout my forward group to wear down defenses. You don't have to be the fastest skater in the league to be considered fast. Bob Armstrong will struggle skaters even if they aren't Taylor/Ovechkin but merely fast.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 01:38 PM
  #13
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
1st Lines

Every member of Pittsburgh's first line benefits from the wonky VsX results that occur as a result of the 1950s. I've put an asterisk next to the years I believe over-state their offense. Here are the benchmarks for those years:

Quote:
1953-54:
1. Howe - 81
2. M. Richard - 67
3. Lindsay - 62
4. Geoffrion - 54
5. Olmstead - 52
6. Kelly - 49
...average as benchmark: 61

1955-56:
1. Beliveau - 88
2. Howe - 79
3. M. Richard - 71
...benchmark = M. Richard: 71
4. Olmstead - 70
5. Bathgate - 66

1956-57:
1. Howe - 89
2. Lindsay - 85
3. Beliveau - 84
4. Bathgate - 77
5. Litzenberger - 64
6. M. Richard - 62
7. McKenney - 60
8. Moore - 58
...average as benchmark: 72

1957-58:
1. Moore - 84
2. H. Richard - 80
3. Bathgate - 78
4. Howe - 77
5. Horvath - 66
6. Litzenberger - 62
7. MacKell - 60
8. Delvecchio - 59
...average as benchmark: 71

1958-59:
1. Moore - 96
2. Beliveau - 91
3. Bathgate - 88
4. Howe - 78
5. Litzenberger - 77
6. Geoffrion - 66
7. Sullivan - 63
8. Hebenton - 62
8. Sloan - 62
8. McKenney - 62
...average as benchmark: 75
Olmstead: 99*, 85*, 78, 74, 71, 67*, 62, 58, 54*, 52*, 50
Beliveau: 124*, 121*, 117*, 100, 100, 99, 99, 93, 83*, 82, 80, 77, 76, 57, 56*, 54, 51
Bathgate: 117*, 110*, 107*, 100, 100, 99, 93*, 93, 86, 70, 60, 54, 54

1955-56 isn't as egregious as the others, but it still overstates their offense. There is no way that there should be that many 100 scores from this period between just two guys, especially when you consider how many other 100 scores would be handed out to guys like Dickie Moore, Gordie Howe, and Bobby Hull. At least 10 points should be knocked off of those, and I think it should be more like 15-20. The guys that were in first and second were just not that far ahead of the pack to warrant this kind of severe adjustment.

Ovechkin: 106, 100, 100, 100, 96(this season), 86, 81, 67
Taylor: 129, 129, 123, 122, 117, 100, 69, 46
Oatman: 100, 92, 76, 76, 71*, 70, 69, 65, 60

The numbers for Taylor and Oatman come from this study that seventieslord did on PCHA scoring which attempts to compensate for the fact that assist records were very spotty, and Oatman/Taylor tended to mainly be playmakers rather than goalscorers. Here is a link: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=912. The asterisk next to Oatman's 71 finish is a Vs2 of just goals(which underrates him because he was a better playmaker) in the 1911-1912 NHA season, where assists weren't recorded. It also doesn't include Oatman's season in the NHA in 1916-17 when the 228th Battalion's season was cut short, and he was on pace for 3rd in goals, 1st in assists, and 3rd in points. When you consider real life linemates that they had to work with, I think a pretty clear hierarchy emerges in terms of the best offensive players on the first lines:

Beliveau
Taylor
Bathgate
Ovechkin
Oatman
Olmstead

Both lines will function very well, but in different ways. Pittsburgh has the more traditional grinding corner man next to two offensively talented players, Philadelphia will operate more from the transition and win pucks by committee. I can see Ovechkin flying in on the forecheck, making the first hit and jarring the puck loose, and then Oatman/Taylor coming in to support and gain possession. Pittsburgh's line will be the better overall line, because when you start a line with Jean Beliveau and Andy Bathgate, then give them one of the best grinders ever, it's going to be nearly impossible to beat. In the playoffs, Bathgate and Olmstead were known to be significantly less effective offensively than in the regular season. Ovechkin is known as a very good playoff performer, Taylor's PPG in cup challenge games was 1.81, just a step down from his obscene 2.02 in the regular season. Most of this is likely due to the playoffs being a tighter checking game, and always playing a strong opponent. And he played 3 of those 11 games when he was 36, clearly past his prime. Playoff numbers are hard to come by on Oatman, I'm not sure where to find them.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 01:52 PM
  #14
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
1st Lines

Every member of Pittsburgh's first line benefits from the wonky VsX results that occur as a result of the 1950s. I've put an asterisk next to the years I believe over-state their offense. Here are the benchmarks for those years:



Olmstead: 99*, 85*, 78, 74, 71, 67*, 62, 58, 54*, 52*, 50
Beliveau: 124*, 121*, 117*, 100, 100, 99, 99, 93, 83*, 82, 80, 77, 76, 57, 56*, 54, 51
Bathgate: 117*, 110*, 107*, 100, 100, 99, 93*, 93, 86, 70, 60, 54, 54

1955-56 isn't as egregious as the others, but it still overstates their offense. There is no way that there should be that many 100 scores from this period between just two guys, especially when you consider how many other 100 scores would be handed out to guys like Dickie Moore, Gordie Howe, and Bobby Hull. At least 10 points should be knocked off of those, and I think it should be more like 15-20. The guys that were in first and second were just not that far ahead of the pack to warrant this kind of severe adjustment.
If you use Sturminator's earlier standard - compare to #2 except when #2 is 10% over #3, then #2 works as the standard for all of the 1950s except 1956, when you use #3. I think this could be a more reasonable standard for the 1950s. Rather than arbitrarily knocking 10 points off what do their numbers look like if you just go back to comparing to #2?

The standard falls apart with regards to the 1970s Bruins and in 1989, but maybe in the end, we'll have to have different standards for before and after expansion.

Quote:
Ovechkin: 106, 100, 100, 100, 96(this season), 86, 81, 67
Taylor: 129, 129, 123, 122, 117, 100, 69, 46
Oatman: 100, 92, 76, 76, 71*, 70, 69, 65, 60

The numbers for Taylor and Oatman come from this study that seventieslord did on PCHA scoring which attempts to compensate for the fact that assist records were very spotty, and Oatman/Taylor tended to mainly be playmakers rather than goalscorers. Here is a link: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=912. The asterisk next to Oatman's 71 finish is a Vs2 of just goals(which underrates him because he was a better playmaker) in the 1911-1912 NHA season, where assists weren't recorded. It also doesn't include Oatman's season in the NHA in 1916-17 when the 228th Battalion's season was cut short, and he was on pace for 3rd in goals, 1st in assists, and 3rd in points. When you consider real life linemates that they had to work with, I think a pretty clear hierarchy emerges in terms of the best offensive players on the first lines:
The PCHAS numbers obviously need asterixes themselves because it was a split league, but you implicitly recognize this in what you say next:

Quote:
Beliveau
Taylor
Bathgate
Ovechkin
Oatman
Olmstead
Seems reasonable to me if we are talking strictly offense. Obviously, Olmstead is drafted mostly for things that aren't offense.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 02:29 PM
  #15
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
2nd Lines

Schriner: 112, 102, 100, 86, 86, 85, 67, 54
Morris: 111, 100, 100, 100, 97, 81, 60
Larmer: 88, 78, 73, 70, 68, 64, 64, 63, 60, 54

Stevens: 106, 75, 75, 73, 69*, 54
Thornton: 117, 100, 97, 91, 84, 82, 79, 78, 76, 74, 71, 64
Mullen: 81, 79, 75, 68, 67, 64, 64, 58, 53

*on pace for in shortened 94-95 season

Again, it becomes pretty easy to see how these guys rank in the regular season.

Thornton
Schriner
Morris
Larmer
Mullen
Stevens

Pittsburgh has the advantage offensively, but I'd say Philadelphia definitely has the advantage in terms of physicality and defensive play. Kevin Stevens was a big hitter, Mullen is very willing to go to the dirty areas and work the corners despite being somewhat small, and Thornton is huge, and while he isn't an outright physical player, he uses his size very effectively to shield the puck, and is physical when provoked. Let's look at their playoff records:

Schriner: .837PPG in regular season, .492PPG in the playoffs(finishes among teammates of 2, 9, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, and another season where he was shutout in the playoffs, along with his entire team). In those years, he finished behind the following players in points: Joe Jerwa(a defenseman, 35 year old Nels Stewart, 35 year old Hooley Smith, Tom Anderson, John Sorrell, Lorne Carr, Red Beattie, Eddie Wiseman, Hank Goldup, John Gallagher, Syl Apps(3 times), Nick Metz, Gordie Drillon, defenseman Wally Stanowski, Billy Taylor, Bud Poile, Ted Kennedy, defenseman Babe Pratt, and Mel Hill. Certainly not impressive to be behind most of these guys. I think it's safe to say Schriner is not that great of a playoff performer.

Morris: PPG goes from 1.38 in the regular season to 1.72 in Stanley Cup games, so he looks like a good playoff performer.

Larmer: very solid playoff performer, no problems there.

Stevens: regular season PPG of .831, playoff PPG of 1.03. A little deceiving because he played the majority of his playoff games before the injury, but the fact is when he played on the playoffs, he was always very good. He also led the 1991 cup champion in goals in the playoffs, and led the entire playoffs in goals.

Thornton: see post above. He's not bad like people think, but not great.

Mullen: good playoff performer, led a cup champion and entire playoffs in goals in 1989, also led the playoffs in goals in 85-86.

Schriner stands out as the lone weak spot on the second lines in terms of scoring in the playoffs. Pittsburgh's line is better offensively, Philadelphia's line is more physical and better defensively. I see Schriner and Morris as basically all-offense players, considering basically nothing is written of their defensive play(other than Schriner being better than Busher Jackson, which doesn't mean much), and in Schriner's case, his Hart voting doesn't come close to his scoring exploits. Larmer is definitely a strong defensive conscious for the two of them, but I think the Pittsburgh line could struggle if they get pinned in their own zone because Schriner and Morris don't have much strength at all in that area. There is also a quote in Schriner's bio, which intrigues me:

Quote:
"The kid has everything," said Fredrickson. "I could harp on his good points, and yes the one or two almost weaknesses he has for hours, but I think his record speaks for itself."
The way that Frederickson put that makes it seem as though he was a very good all around offensive player, but had one or two significant weaknesses to his game, and that could fill in the blanks as to why he received little Hart consideration. The most logical guess is his defensive game because he could clearly score, and was a fairly physical player.


Last edited by BillyShoe1721: 04-26-2013 at 02:50 PM.
BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 03:05 PM
  #16
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
1st Lines

Every member of Pittsburgh's first line benefits from the wonky VsX results that occur as a result of the 1950s. I've put an asterisk next to the years I believe over-state their offense. Here are the benchmarks for those years:



Olmstead: 99*, 85*, 78, 74, 71, 67*, 62, 58, 54*, 52*, 50
Beliveau: 124*, 121*, 117*, 100, 100, 99, 99, 93, 83*, 82, 80, 77, 76, 57, 56*, 54, 51
Bathgate: 117*, 110*, 107*, 100, 100, 99, 93*, 93, 86, 70, 60, 54, 54

1955-56 isn't as egregious as the others, but it still overstates their offense. There is no way that there should be that many 100 scores from this period between just two guys, especially when you consider how many other 100 scores would be handed out to guys like Dickie Moore, Gordie Howe, and Bobby Hull. At least 10 points should be knocked off of those, and I think it should be more like 15-20. The guys that were in first and second were just not that far ahead of the pack to warrant this kind of severe adjustment.
I think you're correct that there is some flattering going on here, but I also think Beliveau's clearly better than Taylor and Bathgate's better than Ovechkin. I think you agreed with this below.

Quote:
Ovechkin: 106, 100, 100, 100, 96(this season), 86, 81, 67
Taylor: 129, 129, 123, 122, 117, 100, 69, 46
Oatman: 100, 92, 76, 76, 71*, 70, 69, 65, 60

The numbers for Taylor and Oatman come from this study that seventieslord did on PCHA scoring which attempts to compensate for the fact that assist records were very spotty, and Oatman/Taylor tended to mainly be playmakers rather than goalscorers. Here is a link: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=912. The asterisk next to Oatman's 71 finish is a Vs2 of just goals(which underrates him because he was a better playmaker) in the 1911-1912 NHA season, where assists weren't recorded. It also doesn't include Oatman's season in the NHA in 1916-17 when the 228th Battalion's season was cut short, and he was on pace for 3rd in goals, 1st in assists, and 3rd in points. When you consider real life linemates that they had to work with, I think a pretty clear hierarchy emerges in terms of the best offensive players on the first lines:

Beliveau
Taylor
Bathgate
Ovechkin
Oatman
Olmstead
I'm not sure Oatman's offense is that impressive to be honest. Smokey Harris's PCHA finishes were better and he got ripped for being on a top line.

PCHA All-Time Forward Scoring Leaders
Name DOB HHOF? GP G A Pts PIM GPG APG PPG Best 5 G Best-5 A Best-5 Pts
Cyclone Taylor 1884 Y 130 159 104 263 65 1.22 0.80 2.02 1, 1, 1, 2, 2 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
Tommy Dunderdale 1887 Y 241 194 60 254 494 0.80 0.25 1.05 1, 1, 1, 3, 6 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 1, 1, 3, 3, 5
Smokey Harris 1890 252 156 90 246 416 0.62 0.36 0.98 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 1, 1, 2, 2, 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Mickey MacKay 1894 Y 192 159 82 241 193 0.83 0.43 1.26 1, 1, 2, 5, 6 1, 2, 2, 2, 4 2, 2, 2, 3, 5
Bernie Morris 1890 167 155 76 231 137 0.93 0.46 1.38 1, 2, 2, 2, 4 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 1, 2, 2, 2, 4
Frank Foyston 1891 Y 202 174 53 227 133 0.86 0.26 1.12 1, 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 5, 7, 8, 11 2, 3, 3, 4, 4
Eddie Oatman 1889 195 129 81 210 278 0.66 0.42 1.08 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 3, 4, 4, 5 3, 3, 4, 4, 6
Jack Walker 1888 Y 186 82 58 140 31 0.44 0.31 0.75 4, 7, 9, 9, 11 3, 4, 4, 4, 6 4, 8, 9, 9, 10
Frank Fredrickson 1895 Y 105 93 46 139 83 0.89 0.44 1.32 1, 3, 4, 4, DNP 1, 2, 2, 3, DNP 1, 2, 2, 3, DNP

These are his top 10s from split leagues, and I think it includes the OPHL which was much weaker than the PCHA/NHA/WCHL. Top-10 in Points in his league 12 times (3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 8th, 10th)

Maybe that makes him more impressive than Olmstead offensively, but his toughness doesn't come close to matching Olmstead's intangibles.

Quote:
Both lines will function very well, but in different ways. Pittsburgh has the more traditional grinding corner man next to two offensively talented players, Philadelphia will operate more from the transition and win pucks by committee. I can see Ovechkin flying in on the forecheck, making the first hit and jarring the puck loose, and then Oatman/Taylor coming in to support and gain possession. Pittsburgh's line will be the better overall line, because when you start a line with Jean Beliveau and Andy Bathgate, then give them one of the best grinders ever, it's going to be nearly impossible to beat. In the playoffs, Bathgate and Olmstead were known to be significantly less effective offensively than in the regular season. Ovechkin is known as a very good playoff performer, Taylor's PPG in cup challenge games was 1.81, just a step down from his obscene 2.02 in the regular season. Most of this is likely due to the playoffs being a tighter checking game, and always playing a strong opponent. And he played 3 of those 11 games when he was 36, clearly past his prime. Playoff numbers are hard to come by on Oatman, I'm not sure where to find them.
Here's Oatman's playoff goals from Trail, they don't have assists unfortunately. His team finished 3/3 during the PCHA's two-team playoff period a couple times so he missed a few chances.

1912 Quebec - 1 GP, 0 G
1916 Portland - 5 GP, 3 G
1922 Vancouver - 5 GP, 1 G
1923 Victoria - 2 GP, 1 G
1924 Calgary - 6 GP, 1 G
1925 Calgary - 2 GP, 0 G
21 GP, 6 G

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 03:29 PM
  #17
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Pittsburgh has the advantage offensively, but I'd say Philadelphia definitely has the advantage in terms of physicality and defensive play. Kevin Stevens was a big hitter, Mullen is very willing to go to the dirty areas and work the corners despite being somewhat small, and Thornton is huge, and while he isn't an outright physical player, he uses his size very effectively to shield the puck, and is physical when provoked. Let's look at their playoff records:

Schriner: .837PPG in regular season, .492PPG in the playoffs(finishes among teammates of 2, 9, 3, 4, 4, 2, 4, and another season where he was shutout in the playoffs, along with his entire team). In those years, he finished behind the following players in points: Joe Jerwa(a defenseman, 35 year old Nels Stewart, 35 year old Hooley Smith, Tom Anderson, John Sorrell, Lorne Carr, Red Beattie, Eddie Wiseman, Hank Goldup, John Gallagher, Syl Apps(3 times), Nick Metz, Gordie Drillon, defenseman Wally Stanowski, Billy Taylor, Bud Poile, Ted Kennedy, defenseman Babe Pratt, and Mel Hill. Certainly not impressive to be behind most of these guys. I think it's safe to say Schriner is not that great of a playoff performer.

Morris: PPG goes from 1.38 in the regular season to 1.72 in Stanley Cup games, so he looks like a good playoff performer.

Larmer: very solid playoff performer, no problems there.

Stevens: regular season PPG of .831, playoff PPG of 1.03. A little deceiving because he played the majority of his playoff games before the injury, but the fact is when he played on the playoffs, he was always very good. He also led the 1991 cup champion in goals in the playoffs, and led the entire playoffs in goals.

Thornton: see post above. He's not bad like people think, but not great.

Mullen: good playoff performer, led a cup champion and entire playoffs in goals in 1989, also led the playoffs in goals in 85-86.
Larmer was top 3 on his team in playoff scoring 10 times, granted there's some small samples in there. He led his 1990 Cup losing team in points. I don't see how Stevens was always very good and Larmer just solid. Also I see Morris as the best playoff producer on either line.

Quote:
Schriner stands out as the lone weak spot on the second lines in terms of scoring in the playoffs. Pittsburgh's line is better offensively, Philadelphia's line is more physical and better defensively. I see Schriner and Morris as basically all-offense players, considering basically nothing is written of their defensive play(other than Schriner being better than Busher Jackson, which doesn't mean much), and in Schriner's case, his Hart voting doesn't come close to his scoring exploits. Larmer is definitely a strong defensive conscious for the two of them, but I think the Pittsburgh line could struggle if they get pinned in their own zone because Schriner and Morris don't have much strength at all in that area. There is also a quote in Schriner's bio, which intrigues me:



The way that Frederickson put that makes it seem as though he was a very good all around offensive player, but had one or two significant weaknesses to his game, and that could fill in the blanks as to why he received little Hart consideration. The most logical guess is his defensive game because he could clearly score, and was a fairly physical player.
Schriner does seem to have been a floater who just scored. I don't understand the problem with his Hart record though. He finished 3rd the first year he leads the league in scoring, and doesn't makek the top 5 we have for the second year. The Americans also missed the playoffs this year and all five players making the voting cut made the playoffs.

This is my weakest line defensively. I think with my emphasis on moving the puck on the backend and in net will do this line wonders when the opposition has the puck. Schriner and Morris are a very good duo to move the puck up ice.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 03:53 PM
  #18
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Is it wrong to think of Schriner as something of a Kovalchuk-type player? A big, strong man, who was tough to knock off the puck and couldn't be intimidated, but not someone who initiated contact. And someone whose effort defensively and in the trenches could be described as inconsistent at best.

I think Schriner is a better playmaker than Kovalchuk (and therefore at least somewhat more dangerous at even strength), but his non-offensive skill set seems like it is probably similar. Or am I completely out to lunch?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 04:03 PM
  #19
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Is it wrong to think of Schriner as something of a Kovalchuk-type player? A big, strong man, who was tough to knock off the puck and couldn't be intimidated, but not someone who initiated contact. And someone whose effort defensively and in the trenches could be described as inconsistent at best.

I think Schriner is a better playmaker than Kovalchuk (and therefore at least somewhat more dangerous at even strength), but his non-offensive skill set seems like it is probably similar. Or am I completely out to lunch?
That sounds pretty good. I definitely believe he wasn't good defensively, but he still has size and some toughness. I wouldn't call him gritty or expect him to initiate contact as you said. Kovalchuk does seem to fit.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 04:15 PM
  #20
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
I'm not sure Oatman's offense is that impressive to be honest. Smokey Harris's PCHA finishes were better and he got ripped for being on a top line.

PCHA All-Time Forward Scoring Leaders
Name DOB HHOF? GP G A Pts PIM GPG APG PPG Best 5 G Best-5 A Best-5 Pts
Cyclone Taylor 1884 Y 130 159 104 263 65 1.22 0.80 2.02 1, 1, 1, 2, 2 1, 1, 1, 1, 1 1, 1, 1, 1, 1
Tommy Dunderdale 1887 Y 241 194 60 254 494 0.80 0.25 1.05 1, 1, 1, 3, 6 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 1, 1, 3, 3, 5
Smokey Harris 1890 252 156 90 246 416 0.62 0.36 0.98 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 1, 1, 2, 2, 4 1, 2, 3, 4, 7
Mickey MacKay 1894 Y 192 159 82 241 193 0.83 0.43 1.26 1, 1, 2, 5, 6 1, 2, 2, 2, 4 2, 2, 2, 3, 5
Bernie Morris 1890 167 155 76 231 137 0.93 0.46 1.38 1, 2, 2, 2, 4 1, 2, 2, 2, 3 1, 2, 2, 2, 4
Frank Foyston 1891 Y 202 174 53 227 133 0.86 0.26 1.12 1, 1, 2, 3, 4 5, 5, 7, 8, 11 2, 3, 3, 4, 4
Eddie Oatman 1889 195 129 81 210 278 0.66 0.42 1.08 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 1, 3, 4, 4, 5 3, 3, 4, 4, 6
Jack Walker 1888 Y 186 82 58 140 31 0.44 0.31 0.75 4, 7, 9, 9, 11 3, 4, 4, 4, 6 4, 8, 9, 9, 10
Frank Fredrickson 1895 Y 105 93 46 139 83 0.89 0.44 1.32 1, 3, 4, 4, DNP 1, 2, 2, 3, DNP 1, 2, 2, 3, DNP

These are his top 10s from split leagues, and I think it includes the OPHL which was much weaker than the PCHA/NHA/WCHL. Top-10 in Points in his league 12 times (3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 6th, 6th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 7th, 8th, 10th)

Maybe that makes him more impressive than Olmstead offensively, but his toughness doesn't come close to matching Olmstead's intangibles.
The difference there is that Smokey Harris had the benefit of playing with great players for basically his entire career, including Cyclone Taylor. Take a look at this chart from Oatman's bio:

Name Elig. Seasons TD EO FFo MM BM CT BS FFr JA GR FB FN DP NL TP DI Total Help from HHOFers Per Season Incl. Oatman
Gord Roberts 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.7 2.7
Barney Stanley 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 N/A 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2.5 2.5
Frank Nighbor 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 0 0 0 4 2.0 2.0
Didier Pitre 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 N/A 0 0 0 2 2.0 2.0
Cyclone Taylor 8 0 0 0 5 0 N/A 4 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 15 1.9 1.9
Mickey MacKay 9 0 0 0 N/A 0 5 4 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 15 1.7 1.7
Jack Adams 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N/A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.3 1.3
Bernie Morris 8 1 0 7 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1.1 1.1
Frank Boucher 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.0 1.0
Neswy Lalonde 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 0 1 1.0 1.0
Tommy Phillips 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N/A 0 1 1.0 1.0
Dick Irvin 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 1.0 1.0
Eddie Oatman 10 6 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.9 0.9
Frank Foyston 9 0 0 N/A 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.9 0.9
Frank Fredrickson 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.5 1.3
Tommy Dunderdale 11 N/A 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0.4 0.9

The list is sorted by number of HHOF forward teammates per season (that column does not include seasons with Oatman as a teammate; the next column does). Dunderdale had the least help among these players, with "only" Oatman to get him the puck most years. Frank Fredrickson had the second least, with just two seasons of Dunderdale, plus Oatman. If you include Oatman as someone who "helped" Dunderdale and Fredrickson (and you should), then Oatman, with 0.9 top players up front per season, had the least offensive help throughout his PCHA career, along with Dunderdale and Foyston.

How much did Dunderdale help Oatman?

Tommy Dunderdale and Eddie Oatman played together for six seasons. Dunderdale and Oatman were born just two years apart so they were at fairly the same points developmentally in the years that they played together. Here are their combined stats from those six seasons:

NameGPGAPts
Dunderdale 1268137118
Oatman 1195956115

Dunderdale was scoring 30% more goals per game than Oatman, but Oatman was also getting 60% more assists per game than Dunderdale. Oatman actually had a slightly higher points-per-game average.

Furthermore, aside from 1912, when there were no assists recorded, the PCHA gave out assists at the rate of 0.47 per goal. This put playmakers like Oatman at a disadvantage as far as point production went - one's point production would be heavily driven by their goalscoring, not their playmaking. Oatman was a much better playmaker than goalscorer, and Dunderdale the opposite. This is what the stats of two players like this might have looked like in modern times, with closer to 1.5 assists given out per goal:

NameGPGAPts
Dunderdale 12681111192
Oatman 11959168227

We don't have the numbers for the teammate chart for Harris, but he played with Taylor for 4 seasons, MacKay for 3 years, Jack Adams for 3 years, Barney Stanley for a year, Nighbor for a year, Pitre for a year, Newsy Lalonde for a year, Tommy Phillips for a year, Gord Roberts for a year, and Dick Irvin for a year. That's 17 years of help from hall of famers over the 13 year existence of the PCHA for a ratio of 1.31, putting him in the upper part of that column. The belief is that he really benefited from playing with very good players for basically his entire career.

Quote:
1912 Quebec - 1 GP, 0 G
1916 Portland - 5 GP, 3 G
1922 Vancouver - 5 GP, 1 G
1923 Victoria - 2 GP, 1 G
1924 Calgary - 6 GP, 1 G
1925 Calgary - 2 GP, 0 G
21 GP, 6 G
Seems rather underwhelming, but we don't really have the whole picture. At the same time, looking at these PCHA playoffs(I think this is what these are, except the Quebec one) he has 6 goals in 21 games(.286GPG) and Morris had 2 goals in 6 of these games for a GPG of .333. Similarly Cyclone Taylor managed just 2 points in 8 PCHA playoff games for a PPG of .25. For whatever reason, there wasn't a lot of scoring in these games it seems. I'm not sure I would call Morris the best, he had one absolutely massive year where he put up 16 points in 4 games, but in the other Cup games he played he had just 2 points in 7 games. 11 games and 3 series is a very small sample size to look at. With this logic, you could say Kevin Stevens is easily superior because he had 77 points in 57 playoff games over a 3 year stretch for a PPG of 1.35, up from his regular season PPG of .83.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 04:37 PM
  #21
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
The difference there is that Smokey Harris had the benefit of playing with great players for basically his entire career, including Cyclone Taylor. Take a look at this chart from Oatman's bio:

Name Elig. Seasons TD EO FFo MM BM CT BS FFr JA GR FB FN DP NL TP DI Total Help from HHOFers Per Season Incl. Oatman
Gord Roberts 3 0 0 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 2.7 2.7
Barney Stanley 4 0 0 0 4 0 4 N/A 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 2.5 2.5
Frank Nighbor 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 0 0 0 4 2.0 2.0
Didier Pitre 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 N/A 0 0 0 2 2.0 2.0
Cyclone Taylor 8 0 0 0 5 0 N/A 4 0 1 2 0 2 1 0 0 0 15 1.9 1.9
Mickey MacKay 9 0 0 0 N/A 0 5 4 0 2 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 15 1.7 1.7
Jack Adams 3 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 N/A 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1.3 1.3
Bernie Morris 8 1 0 7 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 1.1 1.1
Frank Boucher 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 2 1.0 1.0
Neswy Lalonde 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 0 1 1.0 1.0
Tommy Phillips 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 N/A 0 1 1.0 1.0
Dick Irvin 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 1 1.0 1.0
Eddie Oatman 10 6 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0.9 0.9
Frank Foyston 9 0 0 N/A 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0.9 0.9
Frank Fredrickson 4 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0.5 1.3
Tommy Dunderdale 11 N/A 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0.4 0.9

The list is sorted by number of HHOF forward teammates per season (that column does not include seasons with Oatman as a teammate; the next column does). Dunderdale had the least help among these players, with "only" Oatman to get him the puck most years. Frank Fredrickson had the second least, with just two seasons of Dunderdale, plus Oatman. If you include Oatman as someone who "helped" Dunderdale and Fredrickson (and you should), then Oatman, with 0.9 top players up front per season, had the least offensive help throughout his PCHA career, along with Dunderdale and Foyston.

How much did Dunderdale help Oatman?

Tommy Dunderdale and Eddie Oatman played together for six seasons. Dunderdale and Oatman were born just two years apart so they were at fairly the same points developmentally in the years that they played together. Here are their combined stats from those six seasons:

NameGPGAPts
Dunderdale 1268137118
Oatman 1195956115

Dunderdale was scoring 30% more goals per game than Oatman, but Oatman was also getting 60% more assists per game than Dunderdale. Oatman actually had a slightly higher points-per-game average.

Furthermore, aside from 1912, when there were no assists recorded, the PCHA gave out assists at the rate of 0.47 per goal. This put playmakers like Oatman at a disadvantage as far as point production went - one's point production would be heavily driven by their goalscoring, not their playmaking. Oatman was a much better playmaker than goalscorer, and Dunderdale the opposite. This is what the stats of two players like this might have looked like in modern times, with closer to 1.5 assists given out per goal:

NameGPGAPts
Dunderdale 12681111192
Oatman 11959168227

We don't have the numbers for the teammate chart for Harris, but he played with Taylor for 4 seasons, MacKay for 3 years, Jack Adams for 3 years, Barney Stanley for a year, Nighbor for a year, Pitre for a year, Newsy Lalonde for a year, Tommy Phillips for a year, Gord Roberts for a year, and Dick Irvin for a year. That's 17 years of help from hall of famers over the 13 year existence of the PCHA for a ratio of 1.31, putting him in the upper part of that column. The belief is that he really benefited from playing with very good players for basically his entire career.



Seems rather underwhelming, but we don't really have the whole picture. At the same time, looking at these PCHA playoffs(I think this is what these are, except the Quebec one) he has 6 goals in 21 games(.286GPG) and Morris had 2 goals in 6 of these games for a GPG of .333. Similarly Cyclone Taylor managed just 2 points in 8 PCHA playoff games for a PPG of .25. For whatever reason, there wasn't a lot of scoring in these games it seems. I'm not sure I would call Morris the best, he had one absolutely massive year where he put up 16 points in 4 games, but in the other Cup games he played he had just 2 points in 7 games. 11 games and 3 series is a very small sample size to look at. With this logic, you could say Kevin Stevens is easily superior because he had 77 points in 57 playoff games over a 3 year stretch for a PPG of 1.35, up from his regular season PPG of .83.
No they're not just PCHA playoffs, it includes the Stanley Cup finals.

Morris has his massive year against Vezina and 1924 where he finished second to Morenz for playoff points.

The difference between that and Kevin Stevens is the era first off. Players in the 1990s should have longer careers so for them to be level longevity wise is a big advantage to Morris. Morris played on a line with two other Hall of Famers and regularly beat them in scoring. Stevens played like a Hall of Famer those years, but he wasn't leading his team.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 08:14 PM
  #22
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
3rd Lines

Red Berenson VsX as a LW: 4, 10, 21, 4, 10, 64
Red Berenson VsX as a C: 7, 77, 83, 59, 59, 41, 63, 29, 39, 47, 35

Red Berenson started his career as a LW, and wasn't really able to stick in the original 6 NHL. When expansion happened, he moved to St. Louis, faced the weak competition of the West division, played at center(except the 64), and managed scores of 64, 77, and 83. For the first 3 years after expansion, St. Louis made the cup finals from the West division, and was swept 3 years in a row. That just goes to show that the division really was quite inferior. Berenson has two decent offensive seasons in the East division when he was with the Red Wings with scores of 59 and 62, but he was at center. I'm not really all that convinced of Berenson's offense as a left wing.

Dave Trottier isn't anything special at left wing offensively, with scores of 88, 70, 60, 51, 50, but it's definitely more of a proven track record at wing than Berenson. The VsX system also likely underrates Trottier because he was not the main left wing on his team for the majority of his career, that was usually Baldy Northcott or Babe Siebert during the S Line days. I'd say they're about equal otherwise, being good defensive players and good skaters. Trottier's proven track record at LW makes me rather have him.

Ratelle and Colville are among the best offensive 3rd line centers in the draft, but Ratelle is on another level.

Ratelle: 93, 93, 90, 90, 88, 86, 77, 73, 72, 72, 65, 63, 62, 61
Colville: 95, 88, 84, 82, 62, 61

Had Colville not gone to the war, maybe he never switches to defense, and puts up better offense. Even if he does, Ratelle still gets the advantage offensively. Defensively, it's tough to call. I think Ratelle's defensive game is underrated around these parts, and Colville seems like he should be a good defensive player as a forward considering his success as a defenseman, and there are a couple quotes about him checking back well. I like Ratelle's defensive game a bit more, but however you view their defensive game, Ratelle is still a superior overall player.

Ward: 78, 76, 76, 75, 62, 59, 53, 51
Gare: 75, 71, 63, 61, 58, 49, 49

Ward is a better overall offensive player, Gare is a better goal scorer, which is what I needed next to Ratelle. Gare brings a lot of physicality and grit to the table, as well as being good defensively. Ward isn't as physical, and is probably about the same defensively, maybe slightly better.

Philadelphia has the advantage on 3rd lines because of the big advantage Jean Ratelle has over Neil Colville. The wings are much closer. The lines are overall close defensively, and Philadelphia's line is more physical.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-26-2013, 09:06 PM
  #23
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Butch Goring the checker: Usually, Butch Goring had been known as a good, but not great defensive player at even strength, and an elite penalty killer. In 1983-84, as my bio shows, he was assigned to check Wayne Gretzky in the finals, and he did a very good job. In those playoffs, Gretzky had 35 points in 19 games(1.84PPG). In the 5 games in the finals, Goring helped hold Gretzky to 6 points in 5 games(1.2PPG). Meaning, when he went up against Goring, he scored at a 1.2PPG pace, and not against him, he was at 2.07PPG. In fact, Goring put the clamps on Gretzky for most of the series considering Gretzky put up 3 of those points in the last game of the finals when the Oilers clinched it. Similarly, when Goring went head to head against Gretzky in 1982-83, Gretzky had 4 assists in a 4 game sweep against the Islanders in the finals. He averaged 2.83PPG in the rest of the playoffs.

Here is how some of the top opposing centers fared against the Islanders in the playoffs when the Islanders dynasty was on:

1979-80: Dionne had 3 assists in 4 games, Perreault had 8 points in 6 games(1.33PPG compared to 1.625 otherwise)

1980-81: Sittler had 0 points in 3 games, Gretzky had 9 points in 6 games(1.5PPG compared to 4PPG in first round), Bobby Smith had 5 points in 5 games(1PPG compared to 1.43PPG otherwise)

1981-82: Mike Rodgers had 2 assists in 6 games(normally wouldn't include him, but he was coming off 106 point season. Had 5 points in 3 games in first round), Peter Stastny had 5 points in 4 games(1.25PPG compared to 1.625PPG in first two rounds)

1982-83: Pederson had 9 points in 6 games(again, usually wouldn't include him but he was coming off a 107 point season, had 2.09PPG in other rounds), and Gretzky case mentioned above.

You certainly can't equate all of that decrease in production solely to Goring, but the fact that every big center Goring went up against in the playoffs wasn't able to come close to replicating what they did against other teams, and that he was specifically said to have done a good job on Gretzky, makes me think he had more to do with checking than we thought. Billy Smith was obviously a money goalie and Potvin a great defenseman, so they deserve credit, but I think Goring's ES defense/shadowing ability is underrated.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2013, 04:22 PM
  #24
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,709
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
4th Lines

Walter as a LW: 59, 60, 39, 28, 35, 43, 27, 22, 18
Walter as a C: 48, 50, 50, 15

Walter started as a center(those first three center scores), then switched to a left wing for the next 9 years, then back to center for the final 3 years of his career(only one of which where he played a significant amount of games, the 15 score). His two best seasons are at LW, then his 3rd, 4th, and 5th best are at center. His decrease in point production when he moved to LW probably had more to do with being traded to Montreal. His 7 best is 349.

Richards: 73, 71, 67, 57, 57*, 45, 32, 28(7 best 402)

*This season. Just looking at the numbers, Richards is definitely better offensively. But, he's playing out of his natural position, playing at LW in this case. Playing LW isn't something unfamiliar to him, he's played some left wing in LA, and played LW on the shutdown line for Team Canada in the 2010 Olympics.

Quote:
Not only is Richards no longer playing center, he's paired with Kopitar on the top line with Dustin Brown. Coach Darryl Sutter put Richards at left wing last Saturday and is expected to stick with it for Monday's game against the Colorado Avalanche.

Richards played wing during the 2010 Winter Olympics. The only drawback is that L.A. doesn't get to use Richards as much on faceoffs.
http://www.nhl.com/ice/blogpost.htm?id=5302

Richards is also known as a very versatile player, who is very coachable and will play in any situation. I don't expect his offense to fully translate to the wing, but I still think it will be better than Walter's. He managed 5 points in 7 games in those Olympics while at wing, and was still very effective defensively. Richards also boasts a stronger playoff resume with two top 6 finishes in points(again, out of position), and a playoff PPG in a lower scoring era that is much better than Walter's(.783 to .451). But, Richards' real value is his defensive ability, and he's going to be the one that is going up against Andy Bathgate. With four top 8 finishes in Selke voting(2, 5, 7, 8), his record is definitely better than Walter's, who received token support in 3 years, and was 8th in one year, but that was with just two votes. Again, even though Richards is out of his normal position, I'll take him over Walter on both offense and defense. The only thing Walter has on Richards is toughness. Richards is known for throwing big hits every once in awhile, but Walter has more consistent physicality.

Steen: 63, 62, 58, 51, 49, 48, 47, 46, 45, 41(7 year total 378)
Goring: 81, 75, 70, 67, 66, 61, 58, 57, 47, 44, 43, 42(7 year total 478)

Pretty big edge to Goring there. Goring was also known as a strong playoff performer, being a key cog in the Islanders dynasty and winning a Conn Smythe despite being 5th on his team in scoring in the playoffs, a testament to his defense and play without the puck. Neither has a Selke resume that is particularly impressive, Goring has 12, 13, 17, 23, 24 and Steen has 8, 14, 17. Considering the findings about top centers facing Goring in the playoffs, I'll take him defensively. Goring is clearly a better all-around player.

Pappin: 88, 69, 65, 61, 50, 46, 45(7 year total 424)
Stewart: 57, 55, 49, 46, 45, 43, 41(7 year total 336)

Pappin is clearly a better offensive player. Stewart is a better defensive player. Overall, I'd give Pappin the advantage.

4th lines are an advantage to Philadelphia, both offensively and defensively. Add up the 7 year totals for both lines, Pittsburgh's is 1,151. Philadelphia's is 1,216. Philadelphia's line is better defensively also.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-27-2013, 04:45 PM
  #25
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,116
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Butch Goring the checker: Usually, Butch Goring had been known as a good, but not great defensive player at even strength, and an elite penalty killer. In 1983-84, as my bio shows, he was assigned to check Wayne Gretzky in the finals, and he did a very good job. In those playoffs, Gretzky had 35 points in 19 games(1.84PPG). In the 5 games in the finals, Goring helped hold Gretzky to 6 points in 5 games(1.2PPG). Meaning, when he went up against Goring, he scored at a 1.2PPG pace, and not against him, he was at 2.07PPG. In fact, Goring put the clamps on Gretzky for most of the series considering Gretzky put up 3 of those points in the last game of the finals when the Oilers clinched it. Similarly, when Goring went head to head against Gretzky in 1982-83, Gretzky had 4 assists in a 4 game sweep against the Islanders in the finals. He averaged 2.83PPG in the rest of the playoffs.

Here is how some of the top opposing centers fared against the Islanders in the playoffs when the Islanders dynasty was on:

1979-80: Dionne had 3 assists in 4 games, Perreault had 8 points in 6 games(1.33PPG compared to 1.625 otherwise)

1980-81: Sittler had 0 points in 3 games, Gretzky had 9 points in 6 games(1.5PPG compared to 4PPG in first round), Bobby Smith had 5 points in 5 games(1PPG compared to 1.43PPG otherwise)

1981-82: Mike Rodgers had 2 assists in 6 games(normally wouldn't include him, but he was coming off 106 point season. Had 5 points in 3 games in first round), Peter Stastny had 5 points in 4 games(1.25PPG compared to 1.625PPG in first two rounds)

1982-83: Pederson had 9 points in 6 games(again, usually wouldn't include him but he was coming off a 107 point season, had 2.09PPG in other rounds), and Gretzky case mentioned above.

You certainly can't equate all of that decrease in production solely to Goring, but the fact that every big center Goring went up against in the playoffs wasn't able to come close to replicating what they did against other teams, and that he was specifically said to have done a good job on Gretzky, makes me think he had more to do with checking than we thought. Billy Smith was obviously a money goalie and Potvin a great defenseman, so they deserve credit, but I think Goring's ES defense/shadowing ability is underrated.
I would want evidence that Goring was the Islander's first choice for defensive center for more than just that one series before giving him much credit for those other years. Edit: They did have Bryan Trottier after all.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-27-2013 at 04:56 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:15 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.