HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

Jim Coleman Conference Semifinals - Pittsburgh AC vs. Quebec Nordiques

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-30-2013, 10:54 AM
  #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 Semifinals - Pittsburgh AC vs. Quebec Nordiques

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.

All-Time Draft #7 Division Winner and Quarter Finalist
All-Time Draft #8 Division Winner and Semi Finalist
All-Time Draft #9 Division Winner and Finalist
All-Time Draft #10 Division Winner and Semi Finalist
All-Time Draft #11 Division Winner and Quarter Finalist
All-Time Draft #12 Division Winner and Champion
All-Time Draft #13 (2010) Division Runner-Up
All-Time Draft #14 (2011) Division Runner-Up
All-Time Draft #15 (2012)


Les Nordiques de Québec

(1972-1995)

General Manager: DaveG & EagleBelfour
Head Coach: Peter Laviolette
Assistant Coach: Father David Bauer

Richard Martin - Mark Messier - Bill Cook
Sid Smith - Eric Lindros - Didier Pitre
Alf Smith - Fred Stanfield - Gordie Drillon
Mel Bridgman - Michal Handzus - Stan Smyl
Art Chapman
Orland Kurtenbach

Jack Stewart - Babe Siebert
Frantisek Pospisil - Leo Boivin
František Tikal - Gilles Marotte
Ron Greschner

Tom Barrasso
Eddie Giacomin


Powerplay:
Mark Messier - Gordie Drillon - Bill Cook
Babe Siebert - Didier Pitre

Richard Martin - Sid Smith - Eric Lindros
Fred Stanfield - Frantisek Pospisil

Penalty Kill:
Mark Messier - Michal Handzus
Jack Stewart - Frantisek Pospisil

Babe Siebert - Mel Bridgman
Leo Boivin - Frantisek Tikal


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-06-2013 at 08:05 AM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2013, 11:04 AM
  #2
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
Good luck to the AC Pittsburgh, a team I respect a lot.

- The Pittsburgh AC finished 1st in their division, 2nd in the Jim Coleman conference. They won their two series in a combine 12 games (5 + 7OT). They have home ice advantage

- The Quebec Nordiques finished 1st in their division, 3rd in the Jim Coleman conference. They won their two series in a combine 11 games (5 + 6). They won't get home ice advantage for the first time in these playoffs

---

It should be a VERY close series! Can't wait to start arguing



PS: Unfortunately, I am going on a little trip from now until Thursday night, ET. I hope Dave will have enough time to start arguing this series for us. If not, but be shocked if this series is quiet for the next few days, it will pick up as soon as I'll be back!

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2013, 12:35 PM
  #3
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,611
vCash: 4800
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
There is going to be zero defense in this entire series.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2013, 04:38 PM
  #4
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,741
vCash: 1832
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
There is going to be zero defense in this entire series.
Not so sure about that. There's no ace top pairings at all here, or exceptional shut down lines. But beyond the top pairing I think I'd put Pospisil up against just about any other #3 in the draft, and Boivin, Tikal, and Marotte (who'll be replacing Greschner in the lineup for this series) make a very solid 4-6 options.

Undoubtedly it'll be a high scoring series, but this may be the first series where Quebec holds a distinct defensive advantage. I'll post a more indepth analysis a bit later. I should have plenty of time tomorrow to go line by line here.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2013, 05:52 PM
  #5
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Wow, this would be a series I would love to watch. Another great battle at center for Quebec...after Trottier and Clarke, Messier is running into his toughest test yet.

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-30-2013, 09:55 PM
  #6
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
Not so sure about that. There's no ace top pairings at all here, or exceptional shut down lines. But beyond the top pairing I think I'd put Pospisil up against just about any other #3 in the draft, and Boivin, Tikal, and Marotte (who'll be replacing Greschner in the lineup for this series) make a very solid 4-6 options.

Undoubtedly it'll be a high scoring series, but this may be the first series where Quebec holds a distinct defensive advantage. I'll post a more indepth analysis a bit later. I should have plenty of time tomorrow to go line by line here.
I have a hard time comparing our defenses, they seem very close. I'm not sure either of us will have a distinct advantage.

Just quickly, here's how I see it
Leetch > Stewart
Kasatonov > Siebert
Stapleton < Pospisil
Beck =(?) Boivin
Patrick > Tikal
Mitchell < Marotte

I think the gap between our #2 and #3s is very close. Boivin's so hard to get a read on, he made the HHOF but his voting record is unspectacular. I think Beck's all-star record is below average for #4s, partly due to his competition, but it's better than Boivin's.

Beck AST: 5, 6, 6, 8, 9
Norris: 6, 6, 7, 7, 9 (2 votes)

Boivin AST: 7 (1961), 10 (1965), 11 (1956), 12 (1967), 15 (1963), ? (1958, not in 5 listed). ? (1962, not in 8 listed)
Norris: 5 (1961), 8 (1958, 2 voting points), 10 (1962, 7 voting points), 10 (1967, 1 vote), 14 (1963, 2 voting points), 14 (1964, 1 vote)
All-Star Games: 1961, 1962, 1964

All-Star games were played in the beginning of October so it seems the voting that fits them best is from the season before it was played. For example, 1961 probably considered Boivin's 1960-61 season rather than the 1961-62 season the all-star game was played at the start of.

We know how Boivin fared in the all-star team voting for 2/3 all-star games he made. He had his best season before the 1961 game according to the voting placing 7th in AST and 5th in Norris. For 1962, we know he finished 10th in the Norris, but we don't have his all-star voting result aside from knowing he was outside of the top 8. In 1964, he got a single Norris vote, but we have the complete list of all-star voting and he didn't get a single vote there.

Beck made two all-star games in an era we care less about, anyone know who picked them? But he did make Team Canada in the 1981 Canada Cup which is meaningful.

Am I crazy to give Beck a slight edge over Boivin?

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-02-2013, 04:48 PM
  #7
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
Am I crazy to give Beck a slight edge over Boivin?
I don't know if it's right or wrong, but I wouldn't call it crazy. Leo Boivin is a tough player to place, and opinions on him will vary. I've got them in the same tier, overall, and there is certainly plenty of room for difference of opinion. Overall, the defenses are pretty close, though the advantage of Pittsburgh's top pairing over Québec's may be bigger than any advantage the Nords hold on the lower units, as the top pairings will see the most icetime. Not sure I'd rank Patrick over Tikal, though that's another one where there may be wide difference of opinion. Is Gilles Marotte starting in place of Ron Greschner?

I'd probably give Pittsburgh a slight advantage, overall, but it's close.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-03-2013, 12:46 PM
  #8
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
Lets get started!

1st line:
Two very strong first unit are facing each other. Jean Béliveau is a beast, and one of the best player of all-time. On his right side, Andy Bathgate is another great offensive weapon. For the Nordiques, Mark Messier is a playoff beast. On his right side, a fantastic goalscorer with grit in Bill Cook. The difference between those pairing are minimal, although I might just prefer having the better player in Jean Beliveau on my side. The biggest difference is on the left side. Bert Olmstead is an elite glue-guy, a great playmaker, who mesh extremely well with Beliveau and Bathgate. for the Nordiques, Richard Martin is another great goalscorer, but isn't close to bring the incredible set of intangibles Bert Olmstead brings.

Beliveau > Messier (Messier will have to play is very best!)
Bathgate < Cook
Olmstead > Martin (A big advantage for the AC)

AC holds the advantage, and this will be a key matchup for the Nordiques. If the Messier-Cook be effective to dish his fair share of goals while slowing down Beliveau & Bathgate (not an easy task!), then the Nordiques will most probably prevail.

2nd line:
Bernie Morris is a great offensive player, who can score goals or pass the puck just as well. For the Nordiques, we have Eric Lindros, another fantastic offensive weapon, but who also bring such an impressive array of physical attribute. A players that was fear by many when he played, I think Bernie Morris will be outmatched by the better centre and one of the best 2nd liner in this draft. He will definitely have his hand full. Sweeney Schriner is another great offensive weapon, who brings size (but didn't use it that often) and speed. He's a very good offensive weapon for a second line. However, the Nordiques have someone extremely similar to Schriner in Didier Pitre, another great offensive weapon (but not as good as Schriner), but faster. He also possess impressive strength and size, which makes him difficult to get the puck away from him. Pitre was also a better defensive player and a better playoff performer, which doesn't say much, as Schriner was abysmal for a player of his quality. Steve Larmer is a two-way player that will be the defensive conscience of his line. For the Nordiques, Sid Smith is not as good defensively as Larmer, but brings much more offensive credential; a much better goalscorer.

Morris < Lindros (A big advantage for the Nordiques)
Schriner = Pitre (Although in the playoffs, I would take Pitre)
Larmer = S.Smith (both bring different things to the table)

3rd line:
I think Neil Colville returned to the spotlight in this draft, and deservedly so. One of the very true versatile player, who owns credential at both C or D. However, he was primary a centre IMO, and it's good you're using him this way. Fred Stanfield is a good playmaker, but Neil Colville is the better player of the two. However, just to be sure I point this out: when he was playing centre, Colville was not a defensive stalwart and definitely an offensive player. Red Berenson is a good all-around player, important on his team special team. However, he's no match for Alf Smith, an elite 3rd liner, the best 3rd liner of both teams, who brings the full package on the table. Another fearless player that any soft player will hate (if not be scared) to play against. Jimmy Ward is a nice little player, but even after reading the whole biography (very long biography might I say!) I wouldn't tag him as a true two-way forward. Not one-way hole by any means, but his scoring placement lacks, and his overall intangible are decent, but not extraordinary. On the Nordiques right side, Gordie Drillon is very much the best offensive weapon of any third line in the draft. He brings speed, size, an incredible shot and the willingness to score goals in front of the net. Don't ask him though

Colville > Stanfield
Berenson < A.Smith (a very good edge for the Nordiques)
Ward < Drillon (A big edge, again, for the Nordiques)

The Nordiques holds a distinct edge on the third line.

Overall, the AC have the edge with their first line, but the Nordiques have a much better depth in term of goalscoring and hurting the opposition. In a long, gruesome, 7-games series, now in the quarter final, depth is most of the time the difference maker.

----

1st pairing:
Brian Leetch is a decent #1 defenceman who brings offence to the table. Alex Kasatonov, is a good #2 defenceman, who also brings offence to the table. The pairing is overall very good, but both defenceman were definitely offence first defencemn, and although far from terrible in their own end, I might have preferred to have someone a little less offensively driven next to Leetch. No big deal though. For the Nordiques, Jack Stewart is a lower-end #1 defenceman who's mainly a stay-at-home defenceman with a thunderous body check. His partner is Babe Siebert, a great two-way defenceman who can also play with the roughest players. Stats are a bit misleading for Siebert, and actually any player who played significant time at both forward and defence (the same can be said for Didier Pitre)

Leetch > Stewart
Kasatonov = Siebert (I like Kasatonov, but considering the position duality, Siebert is just as good as Kasatonov IMO)

2nd pairing:
Pat Stapleton is a good #3 defenceman, who brings two-way abilities, but perhaps more offence than defence. Also, my dad always preferred Stapleton to Bill White, so that's that! Frantisek Pospisil is an elite #3 defenceman, who brings pretty much everything to the table. I've seen the discussion between Barry Beck and Leo Boivin: Beck & Boivin played a similar style of hockey. I also agree with Sturminator that they both are in the same category. Both are great #4 defenceman, and you've got better value for Beck. However, I would still take Leo Boivin. Boivin is an HoF, perhaps the most punishing body checker of All-Time. A feared defenceman to play against, moreso than Beck. The AS voting doesn't paint the whole picture for Boivin, and too much have been told on him for me to justify his placement only by statistic. I understand view will be distorted greatly on Boivin, but I'm very happy to have him on the Nordiques, and pair him up with Frantisek Pospisil. God, Pospisil and Boivin waiting on you at defence ... you better have your head up!

Stapleton < Pospisil
Beck < Bovin (My personal bias, I wouldn't throw a tantrum if an '=' symbol was written there instead)

3rd pairing:
Frank Patrick is an offensive defenceman that got overrated in the past, but he's still a great #5 defenceman. He's paired with Willie Mitchell, who carved himself a decent career as a stay-at-home defenceman. For the Nordiques, Frantisek Tikal is another defenceman hard to judge, but he brings an array of skills. It really depend on how you view his competition. Gilles Marotte is a fearless defensive player with bone crushing hits.

Patrick = Tikal
Mitchell < Marotte

Again, AC holds an edge on high-end talent, but the Nordiques in depth.

----

Goaltending:
Well, for once!, the Nordiques holds a slight edge in goaltending. Tom Barrasso been able to show is worth come playoff time, while Chuck Rayner is no slouch and played well when given the chance. We had Barrasso #1 on our list and Chuck Rayner #2 for the longest of time. Eddie Giacomin is a far better goaltender than Ross Roach, but shouldn't play a factor.

Rayner < Barrasso (it's a slight edge)
Ross Roach < Giacomin (A good edge, but shouldn't play a factor)

----

Coach:
Cecil Hart is a good coach for an offence first team, which the AC own. Peter Laviolette is a good coach for an offence first team, which the Nordiques own. David Bauer will help with the strategy for the Nordiques.

Hart > Laviolette, Bauer

----

Special Team:

Powerplay:
Well, both first unit owns a WOW factor. Extremely strong two units and the pieces seems to work well together. I would give a slight edge to the AC there, mostly because of Beliveau and Bathgate on the point. On the second unit though, we believe the Nordiques holds an edge.

Penalty Kill:
Those two teams holds average penalty kill, but decent enough to do the job. Kasatonov is excellent, so is Pospisil. Messier vs. Berenson, Tikal vs. Mitchell, Bridgman vs. Walter. I honestly have no clue who owns an edge, if any. Is it alright if I call them equal?

------

Overall, it's going to be a really close series. One theme struck me as I was doing the comparision: high end skills vs. depth. the AC hold the edge for the 1st line and 1st pairing, but the Nordiques golds the edge for the second and third offensive line and a slight edge in term of defensive depth. A small edge for the goaltenders for the Nordiques, but the AC have the better coach. The special looks mighty equal, although the AC perhaps have a better end end on the PP, while the Nordiques more depth.

It's pretty much this: the AC high-end skills vs. the Nordiques depth. After already 13 games for the AC (12 for the Nordiques) & another very long series ahead of them: would you be more confident winning with an edge on high-end talents, or an edge in overall depth?

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 06:37 AM
  #9
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,741
vCash: 1832
One more point that needs to be noted is that this Quebec team is built to wear their opponents out and win by attrition just as much as it's built to win by pure talent and skill. Does Pittsburgh have the horses to be able to handle the rough stuff that Quebec can roll out on all 4 lines and throughout its defense?

In a series that, at least on paper, looks to be a long one, that could be the deciding factor one way or the other.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 10:19 PM
  #10
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
One more point that needs to be noted is that this Quebec team is built to wear their opponents out and win by attrition just as much as it's built to win by pure talent and skill. Does Pittsburgh have the horses to be able to handle the rough stuff that Quebec can roll out on all 4 lines and throughout its defense?

In a series that, at least on paper, looks to be a long one, that could be the deciding factor one way or the other.
My thoughts were Quebec may be too much of a brute for Pittsburgh to handle as well.

monster_bertuzzi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 10:28 PM
  #11
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
My thoughts were Quebec may be too much of a brute for Pittsburgh to handle as well.
It's too bad Pittsburgh is not around to retort back. He's got a very nice team, but with some issues I would of like to get an answer from. I'm trying to be as truthful and fair in my analysis, but obviously some bias come into play.

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 10:41 PM
  #12
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
My thoughts were Quebec may be too much of a brute for Pittsburgh to handle as well.
If this was a street fight, I would agree with you.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
1st line:
Two very strong first unit are facing each other. Jean Béliveau is a beast, and one of the best player of all-time. On his right side, Andy Bathgate is another great offensive weapon. For the Nordiques, Mark Messier is a playoff beast. On his right side, a fantastic goalscorer with grit in Bill Cook. The difference between those pairing are minimal, although I might just prefer having the better player in Jean Beliveau on my side. The biggest difference is on the left side. Bert Olmstead is an elite glue-guy, a great playmaker, who mesh extremely well with Beliveau and Bathgate. for the Nordiques, Richard Martin is another great goalscorer, but isn't close to bring the incredible set of intangibles Bert Olmstead brings.

Beliveau > Messier (Messier will have to play is very best!)
Bathgate < Cook
Olmstead > Martin (A big advantage for the AC)

AC holds the advantage, and this will be a key matchup for the Nordiques. If the Messier-Cook be effective to dish his fair share of goals while slowing down Beliveau & Bathgate (not an easy task!), then the Nordiques will most probably prevail.
Beliveau vs. Messier is almost a mismatch, isn't it? I have Messier behind Joe Sakic.

I don't see Cook as having an edge on Bathgate. Cook is meaner, but Bathgate has a significant offensive edge IMO. Both guys have some play-off issues.

Quote:
2nd line:
Bernie Morris is a great offensive player, who can score goals or pass the puck just as well. For the Nordiques, we have Eric Lindros, another fantastic offensive weapon, but who also bring such an impressive array of physical attribute. A players that was fear by many when he played, I think Bernie Morris will be outmatched by the better centre and one of the best 2nd liner in this draft. He will definitely have his hand full. Sweeney Schriner is another great offensive weapon, who brings size (but didn't use it that often) and speed. He's a very good offensive weapon for a second line. However, the Nordiques have someone extremely similar to Schriner in Didier Pitre, another great offensive weapon (but not as good as Schriner), but faster. He also possess impressive strength and size, which makes him difficult to get the puck away from him. Pitre was also a better defensive player and a better playoff performer, which doesn't say much, as Schriner was abysmal for a player of his quality. Steve Larmer is a two-way player that will be the defensive conscience of his line. For the Nordiques, Sid Smith is not as good defensively as Larmer, but brings much more offensive credential; a much better goalscorer.

Morris < Lindros (A big advantage for the Nordiques)
Schriner = Pitre (Although in the playoffs, I would take Pitre)
Larmer = S.Smith (both bring different things to the table)
Not taking Schriner was my biggest mistake of the draft - he's an offensive stud on a 2nd line. Didier Pitre is not his equal.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 11:09 PM
  #13
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
If this was a street fight, I would agree with you.

Beliveau vs. Messier is almost a mismatch, isn't it? I have Messier behind Joe Sakic.

I don't see Cook as having an edge on Bathgate. Cook is meaner, but Bathgate has a significant offensive edge IMO. Both guys have some play-off issues.

Not taking Schriner was my biggest mistake of the draft - he's an offensive stud on a 2nd line. Didier Pitre is not his equal.
- Figuratively speaking, the playoffs are indeed a street fight. You have to have to claw for every inches, every corner battles count. We're already in the third round, the body are sore. Some players are physically tired, even mentally perhaps. The AC will face one of the meanest, most brutal team of the drafts, that will hurt you physically. Every forward line & every defensive pairing can hurt the AC physically. Whichever team you believe will win, no one will doubt that this is gonna be a long series. With that in mind, we believe the Nordiques hold a edge on that front

- Perhaps I'm bias, and no doubt Andy Bathgate is an elite player, but in my mind Bill Cook brings more to the table than Andy Bathgate. He's physically much stronger, fearless. A fantastic goalscorer, a leader. I definitely take Bill Cook over Andy Bathgate in every situation. That's not to say that Cook is vastly superior to Bathgate: he's not. They're in the same tier, but give Cook everytime.

- You don't like Mark Messier. I think the opinion of people on those elite players are pretty much set in print, so I won't argue against your opinion. I disagree, and again, I would take Mark Messier over Joe Sakic. Sakic never were in our discussion for our first selection. My opinion is that Jean Beliveau and Mark Messier are two of the five best forward playoff performer of All-Time (Gretzky, Lemieux, Richard). Is Beliveau better than Messier. No one question that. Is it a mismatch? Absolutely not. If so, pretty much every battle in this series are mismatches. With that in mind, Jean Beliveau is a better player than Mark Messier, and a key matchup for the AC against the Nordiques.

- Again, I will disagree. Sweeney Schriner is undoubtedly the better offensive player of the two. However, Didier Pitre offensive output is underrated by the fact that he played significant amount of time as a defenceman. Looking at his number (who are definitely decent) at face value is misleading. Moreover, Pitre brings much more to the table, such a complete hockey player in my opinion, and a reason why it's the second year in a row I select him. He will always fit nicely with whoever you pair him with. At last, Schriner is a very underwhelming playoff performer. His numbers are definitely not good for a player of his quality. Didier Pitre played very good in the playoffs. In a All-Time list, Sweeney Schriner deserve to be ranked higher than Pitre. In the regular season, I will also select Sweeney Schriner. In the playoffs, the margin is reduce, IMO, to the point that they are very close to each other if you compare their body of work and the overall skillset

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-04-2013, 11:53 PM
  #14
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
- Perhaps I'm bias, and no doubt Andy Bathgate is an elite player, but in my mind Bill Cook brings more to the table than Andy Bathgate. He's physically much stronger, fearless. A fantastic goalscorer, a leader. I definitely take Bill Cook over Andy Bathgate in every situation. That's not to say that Cook is vastly superior to Bathgate: he's not. They're in the same tier, but give Cook everytime.
Their offensive percentages are almost identical.

Bathgate - 117, 110, 107, 100, 100, 99, 93, 86, 75, 70, 60, 54, 54
Cook - 116, 114, 111*, 103*, 98, 96, 95, 79, 77, 72*, 69, 60, 56

If you factor in competition and team situations, which both favour Cook, then Bathgate comes away with a definitive offensive advantage. Also, Cook is just a goal scorer while Bathgate is an elite playmaker and good goal scorer too.


Why is Cook physically much stronger? He was 5'10" and 170 lbs, which was about average for his era. Bathgate was also about average. Bathgate was known a powerful man who was well-adept at defending himself if needed. Cook was definitely a lot more aggressive in initiating contact.

Quote:
You don't like Mark Messier. I think the opinion of people on those elite players are pretty much set in print, so I won't argue against your opinion. I disagree, and again, I would take Mark Messier over Joe Sakic. Sakic never were in our discussion for our first selection. My opinion is that Jean Beliveau and Mark Messier are two of the five best forward playoff performer of All-Time (Gretzky, Lemieux, Richard). Is Beliveau better than Messier. No one question that. Is it a mismatch? Absolutely not. If so, pretty much every battle in this series are mismatches. With that in mind, Jean Beliveau is a better player than Mark Messier, and a key matchup for the AC against the Nordiques.
I just think Messier is over-rated. Sakic is significantly better offensively. He has better Hart and all-star voting records. He's also good defensively. He's just about as good in the play-offs.

Quote:
Again, I will disagree. Sweeney Schriner is undoubtedly the better offensive player of the two. However, Didier Pitre offensive output is underrated by the fact that he played significant amount of time as a defenceman. Looking at his number (who are definitely decent) at face value is misleading. Moreover, Pitre brings much more to the table, such a complete hockey player in my opinion, and a reason why it's the second year in a row I select him. He will always fit nicely with whoever you pair him with. At last, Schriner is a very underwhelming playoff performer. His numbers are definitely not good for a player of his quality. Didier Pitre played very good in the playoffs. In a All-Time list, Sweeney Schriner deserve to be ranked higher than Pitre. In the regular season, I will also select Sweeney Schriner. In the playoffs, the margin is reduce, IMO, to the point that they are very close to each other if you compare their body of work and the overall skillset
Not sure why you think Pitre brings more to the table. He was basically a one-dimensional offensive player. He was fast and he had a great shot. He was not noted for defensive or physical play, and he was apparently averse to playing a team game.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 12:40 AM
  #15
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,611
vCash: 4800
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
I'm not sure that I agree, Bathgate's VsX need asterisks next to them because of how the 50s are treated by the method, his three best finishes need to be downgraded. Cook also has three seasons where he led the WCHL in points, which would certainly add some impressive VsX finishes if we could account for them. Cook wasn't great in the playoffs, but he was definitely better than Andy Bathgate. From my series last round on Bathgate and his teammates in playoff scoring:

Quote:
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)
Cook's finishes are: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 6, no points, no points(played two games and the entire team had one goal)

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 01:01 AM
  #16
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Cook also has three seasons where he led the WCHL in points, which would certainly add some impressive VsX finishes if we could account for them.
I included Cook's pre-NHL seasons - which were marked with an *. As I said, they are basically identical.

Quote:
Cook wasn't great in the playoffs, but he was definitely better than Andy Bathgate. From my series last round on Bathgate and his teammates in playoff scoring:
First of all, with such small sample sizes, it's tough to make really sound judgements. In just a handful of games, its easy for some guys to get hot or cold. Over his career, Bathgate's point totals fall in the play-offs, but his goal totals rise. To me, that points more towards his team mates than himself. If he was playing poorly, he wouldn't score, but he scored more in the play-offs.

He had a broken wrist in 1965, so that one should just be ignored.

Quote:
Cook's finishes are: 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 6, no points, no points(played two games and the entire team had one goal)
Must be nice to finish 1st with just 1 point...

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 04:02 AM
  #17
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
I'm not sure that I agree, Bathgate's VsX need asterisks next to them because of how the 50s are treated by the method, his three best finishes need to be downgraded.
How, exactly, should we handle an era when there was a small group of elite scorers who were way ahead of the pack? We're only talking about a three season segment, during what is generally called the golden age of O6 hockey, where the system awards multiple players a score above 100. I don't see why this is so hard to swallow, to be honest. We've heard this argument about Bathgate's VsX scores quite a few times now, but funnily enough, his is only one of several periods when the averaging method is used and multiple players are awarded scores above 100. Why are Andy's results singled out as being anomalous, while those of Gordie Howe, Dickie Moore, Guy Lafleur and Jean Beliveau are not? All of these guys have their VsX results boosted considerably due to the averaging method, and yet I haven't heard any complaints about how the system handles those players. Do we have a problem with this, too, or only as it applies to Andy Bathgate, because canon says he doesn't belong where the system places him?

This was an era full of elite talents all at their peak competing against one another at the same time. I don't see why it's so hard to believe that there may have been three or four of them in any given season who were legitimate outliers. It's not like the system awards scores above 100 to a bunch of chuds. For the three season span (1956-59) of Andy's prime where the averaging method is used, here are the players who receive a score above 100:

Howe x3
Bathgate x3
Beliveau x2
Moore x2
Ted Lindsay
Henri Richard
Ed Litzenberger

There were a lot of tremendously talented forwards in the league during that period. Either there were multiple outliers during this time, or the rest of the scoring forwards in the league flat-out sucked, because the gaps in scoring between the #2s and the pack are huge.

- Maurice Richard gets a score of 73 in 6th place in 1956-57 using the old method. Is this appropriate? Did the league suck so badly that nobody outside of the top-5 could top a score of 80?

- Ed Litzenberger gets a score of 78 in 6th place in 1957-58 using the old method. Again, did the league suck that bad during the "golden age" of O6 hockey, or were the elite players just that good?

- Bernie Geoffrion gets a score of 73 in 6th place in 1958-59 using the old method. Same question.

The criticism of how these seasons are handled has been, to this point, quite facile. What do we believe was actually happening during one of the greatest periods of hockey in NHL history? Did the league just start sucking so much that the best players were made to look better? That seems a good deal less likely than the alternative.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 11:35 AM
  #18
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,611
vCash: 4800
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
We've heard this argument about Bathgate's VsX scores quite a few times now, but funnily enough, his is only one of several periods when the averaging method is used and multiple players are awarded scores above 100. Why are Andy's results singled out as being anomalous, while those of Gordie Howe, Dickie Moore, Guy Lafleur and Jean Beliveau are not? All of these guys have their VsX results boosted considerably due to the averaging method, and yet I haven't heard any complaints about how the system handles those players. Do we have a problem with this, too, or only as it applies to Andy Bathgate, because canon says he doesn't belong where the system places him?
I raised this exact criticism of Jean Beliveau and Bert Olmstead in addition to Bathgate last series when discussing my matchup against Pittsburgh. I'm not singing out Andy Bathgate, I was using it as a way to give more context to the VsX numbers of any of the guys that played in that era that I faced. If I would have come up against Dickie Moore or Guy Lafleur in a series, I would have certainly brought it up, or if I disagreed with what someone said(which I disagreed with Dreak on Bathgate/Cook), I brought it up.

Quote:
- Maurice Richard gets a score of 73 in 6th place in 1956-57 using the old method. Is this appropriate? Did the league suck so badly that nobody outside of the top-5 could top a score of 80?

- Ed Litzenberger gets a score of 78 in 6th place in 1957-58 using the old method. Again, did the league suck that bad during the "golden age" of O6 hockey, or were the elite players just that good?

- Bernie Geoffrion gets a score of 73 in 6th place in 1958-59 using the old method. Same question.
I never said the old method was better, and it's not. VsX is more effective for the vast majority of the years. You admitted yourself that it's not a perfect system and that there are tweaks that need to be made. Just looking at the benchmarks for these years, they don't pass the smell test if you ask me.

Quote:
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
I'm not saying Vs2 is what we should do, I'm saying that we need to tweak VsX so it passes the smell test.

Quote:
The criticism of how these seasons are handled has been, to this point, quite facile. What do we believe was actually happening during one of the greatest periods of hockey in NHL history? Did the league just start sucking so much that the best players were made to look better? That seems a good deal less likely than the alternative.
This was definitely a period of elite talent, and it shouldn't be treated with a Vs2 method. But I do not agree with the numbers it gives under the VsX method. During this three year period, it gives 13 years of scores above 100. Then, take some random three year period, I don't know. 05-06 to 07-08, it gives 7 years of scores above 100. Do we believe the top end talent during that time was almost double as dominant? Or how about 84-85 to 87-88(I'm just pulling random numbers here), which gives 6 years of scores above 100. How about 36-37 to 38-39 with 7 years of scores above 100.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 11:51 AM
  #19
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
I'm confident in saying that in the 1956-57 and 1957-58 seasons, there were, in fact, four outliers. Handling the scoring in any other way would result in a ridiculous downward distortion for the rest of the league. Yes, I do think that this was a period of unusually great top-end talent. That is actually, and ironically, what canon tells us - that is, that hockey was played at an extremely high level during the golden years of the O6 era. Look at the names in the top-4, all in their primes. Does it really come as a surprise that we might have an unusually large clump of outliers in a couple of seasons during this period?

1958-59 is a trainwreck, and how to handle that season is really debatable. There are 10% gaps between both the #3/#4 scorers and between the #5/#6 scorers. I don't know what to do with it, and I agree that it may need some tweaking, though Bathgate, as the #3 scorer, should end up with a score of 100, at minimum.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 12:44 PM
  #20
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
Lets get started!

1st line:
Two very strong first unit are facing each other. Jean Béliveau is a beast, and one of the best player of all-time. On his right side, Andy Bathgate is another great offensive weapon. For the Nordiques, Mark Messier is a playoff beast. On his right side, a fantastic goalscorer with grit in Bill Cook. The difference between those pairing are minimal, although I might just prefer having the better player in Jean Beliveau on my side. The biggest difference is on the left side. Bert Olmstead is an elite glue-guy, a great playmaker, who mesh extremely well with Beliveau and Bathgate. for the Nordiques, Richard Martin is another great goalscorer, but isn't close to bring the incredible set of intangibles Bert Olmstead brings.

Beliveau > Messier (Messier will have to play is very best!)
Bathgate < Cook
Olmstead > Martin (A big advantage for the AC)

AC holds the advantage, and this will be a key matchup for the Nordiques. If the Messier-Cook be effective to dish his fair share of goals while slowing down Beliveau & Bathgate (not an easy task!), then the Nordiques will most probably prevail.
Is there any reason to believe Cook will be effective slowing down Bathgate? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to suggest Beliveau and Olmstead will slow down Messier and Cook? This is a pretty obvious advantage to Pittsburgh and I have the second or third best defensive player on either line in Olmstead.

Quote:
2nd line:
Bernie Morris is a great offensive player, who can score goals or pass the puck just as well. For the Nordiques, we have Eric Lindros, another fantastic offensive weapon, but who also bring such an impressive array of physical attribute. A players that was fear by many when he played, I think Bernie Morris will be outmatched by the better centre and one of the best 2nd liner in this draft. He will definitely have his hand full. Sweeney Schriner is another great offensive weapon, who brings size (but didn't use it that often) and speed. He's a very good offensive weapon for a second line. However, the Nordiques have someone extremely similar to Schriner in Didier Pitre, another great offensive weapon (but not as good as Schriner), but faster. He also possess impressive strength and size, which makes him difficult to get the puck away from him. Pitre was also a better defensive player and a better playoff performer, which doesn't say much, as Schriner was abysmal for a player of his quality. Steve Larmer is a two-way player that will be the defensive conscience of his line. For the Nordiques, Sid Smith is not as good defensively as Larmer, but brings much more offensive credential; a much better goalscorer.

Morris < Lindros (A big advantage for the Nordiques)
Schriner = Pitre (Although in the playoffs, I would take Pitre)
Larmer = S.Smith (both bring different things to the table)
Agreed Lidros is better than Morris, but I really disagree with your two other comparisons. What makes Pitre in Schriner's class offensively? He led the NHA in scoring twice and IHL once, Schriner has two Art Rosses and a second place finish. Looking at your bio he still had plenty of seasons up front, so I'm not sure how playing defense some years stymied his offense that much. I think Schriner's the better offensive player overall, he was a better playmaker. I'd say they're fairly comparable in not having much more than their one-way game. Both were big but used their size for protecting the puck.

I think Larmer's better offensively than Smith too. Smith has the better finishes, but Larmer's there with his three best seasons and certainly pulls away when you look at their best 7 years.

Smith vsX: 82.61, 77.27, 72.97, 65.22, 63.93, 62.30, 56.94
Larmer vsX: 87.83, 77.78, 72.58, 69.77, 67.94, 63.79, 63.70

I think second lines are another advantage for Pittsburgh. You have the best center, and I hold the advantage on both wings. I've called this my weakest line defensively all draft, but it seems Larmer alone pushes my line's defensive abilities ahead of yours. When Lindros isn't possessing the puck, will there be anyone on the line shutting down my offensively-inclined forwards?

Quote:
3rd line:
I think Neil Colville returned to the spotlight in this draft, and deservedly so. One of the very true versatile player, who owns credential at both C or D. However, he was primary a centre IMO, and it's good you're using him this way. Fred Stanfield is a good playmaker, but Neil Colville is the better player of the two. However, just to be sure I point this out: when he was playing centre, Colville was not a defensive stalwart and definitely an offensive player. Red Berenson is a good all-around player, important on his team special team. However, he's no match for Alf Smith, an elite 3rd liner, the best 3rd liner of both teams, who brings the full package on the table. Another fearless player that any soft player will hate (if not be scared) to play against. Jimmy Ward is a nice little player, but even after reading the whole biography (very long biography might I say!) I wouldn't tag him as a true two-way forward. Not one-way hole by any means, but his scoring placement lacks, and his overall intangible are decent, but not extraordinary. On the Nordiques right side, Gordie Drillon is very much the best offensive weapon of any third line in the draft. He brings speed, size, an incredible shot and the willingness to score goals in front of the net. Don't ask him though

Colville > Stanfield
Berenson < A.Smith (a very good edge for the Nordiques)
Ward < Drillon (A big edge, again, for the Nordiques)

The Nordiques holds a distinct edge on the third line.
Colville is significantly better than Stanfield. Stanfield's bio has references to his abilities forechecking, was he a defensive stalwart ever? Here's the vsX

Colville: 95.45, 88.37, 84.09, 81.82, 62.22, 61.11, 31.75 (played D)
Stanfield: 76.19, 76.00, 75.00, 67.52, 67.44, 50.47, 46.46

No qualms with Berenson vs Alf Smith. You gave Red his credit, but Smith is just better, especially in a bottom six role.

I think you underrate Ward, but I agree Drillon's clearly better offensively. I'd say Ward is probably faster, he was one of the fastest in the league during his time. Ward's offense was better than his point finishes show.

Ward: 77.5, 76, 75.86, 75, 62.22, 59.09, 53.49

What's wrong with calling him a two-way forward? Nikjr has at least 10 quotes in the section of the bio he labeled 2 way forward. There's quotes from 1928 when he was a rookie and a number from the 1935 playoffs. Either way he's worlds better than Drillon defensively.

I agree your line is better offensively, but is really that big a margin overall? You have one of the worst defensive players in the draft on the line, an undersized center who's a better fourth liner than third, and Alf Smith. Where's the evidence of Stanfield's defensive game? Are you really comfortable calling this a distinct edge when my third line maligned for a lack of defense is clearly better defensively?

Quote:
Overall, the AC have the edge with their first line, but the Nordiques have a much better depth in term of goalscoring and hurting the opposition. In a long, gruesome, 7-games series, now in the quarter final, depth is most of the time the difference maker.
In terms of pure offense, my team is better. My first and second lines are better offensively. Your third line is better than mine, but mine is still pretty solid and centered by Neil Colville who creates his own chances. If we're talking overall depth, fourth lines count too.

Steen: 63.31, 62.22, 58.26, 51.59, 51.16, 48.65, 47.58
Handzus: 66.67, 56.38, 50.00, 42.31, 41.51, 38.53, 38.18
Pappin: 88.46, 68.87, 65.42, 61.63, 49.61, 45.71, 45.00
Smyl: 70.97, 65.55, 53.17, 53.06, 47.41, 46.67, 43.97
Walter: 60.48, 59.18, 55.46, 50.37, 48.28, 42.59, 38.89
Bridgman: 59.18, 54.29, 50.86, 48.41, 45.19, 44.68, 44.04

Clearly fourth liner scores here, but Steen seems to be the best offensively. I think Pappin's the second best and Smyl third.

Where is Quebec's edge in depth scoring coming from?
----

Quote:
1st pairing:
Brian Leetch is a decent #1 defenceman who brings offence to the table. Alex Kasatonov, is a good #2 defenceman, who also brings offence to the table. The pairing is overall very good, but both defenceman were definitely offence first defencemn, and although far from terrible in their own end, I might have preferred to have someone a little less offensively driven next to Leetch. No big deal though. For the Nordiques, Jack Stewart is a lower-end #1 defenceman who's mainly a stay-at-home defenceman with a thunderous body check. His partner is Babe Siebert, a great two-way defenceman who can also play with the roughest players. Stats are a bit misleading for Siebert, and actually any player who played significant time at both forward and defence (the same can be said for Didier Pitre)

Leetch > Stewart
Kasatonov = Siebert (I like Kasatonov, but considering the position duality, Siebert is just as good as Kasatonov IMO)
Kasatonov was not offensive first at all, he was the rock of the Green Unit playing with Fetisov in the USSR and briefly in NJ.

Hockey Scouting Report 1990-1991
The Finesse Game
Unlike fellow Soviet Viacheslav Fetisov, Kasatonov's skills are far more subtle and far less dramatic. All he does is get excellent reads of the ice at both ends, contain and control both blue lines, force turnover and speed the transition game. He just doesn't do it with the flair Fetisov does - when Fetisov does it.

The Physical Game
As with his finesse game, Kasatonov's physical game is a subtle one but highly defined nonetheless. His excellent skating ability puts him in good position for takeouts, and his strength and balance allow him to pin his man to the boards. He excellently uses his body to gain position, plays a willing physical game in all areas and cannot be intimidated.

Hockey Scouting Report 1991-1992
The Finesse Game
Kasatonov is a blue-collar Soviet, if there could be such a thing. Where most Soviet players have graceful, seamless games, Kasatonov is a worker.

He is an excellent stick-checker and is able to turn the flow back quickly the other way and jump into the play offensively. He is an excellent penalty-killer, aggressive without losing his position.

Hockey Scouting Report 1992-1993
One of the league's better penalty-killing defensemen, an underrated Kasatonov skill is lifting the puck from deep in his defensive zone to center ice on his backhand.

He was plenty physical too even if he didn't blow people up with hits
New York Times - 4/11/1991
"It doesn't matter if it's Lemieux or Coffey," Kasatonov said after today's practice. "You have to be very strong and aggressive against every player in the playoffs."

Neil Colville isn't double-dipping and being called a shutdown center, why can't Seibert's puckmoving abilities as defenseman stand up on their own?

I think Seibert and Kasatonov are very close, but I give Kasatonov a slight edge. Either way, Leetch over Stewart swings this pair in Pittsburgh's favor.

Quote:
2nd pairing:
Pat Stapleton is a good #3 defenceman, who brings two-way abilities, but perhaps more offence than defence. Also, my dad always preferred Stapleton to Bill White, so that's that! Frantisek Pospisil is an elite #3 defenceman, who brings pretty much everything to the table. I've seen the discussion between Barry Beck and Leo Boivin: Beck & Boivin played a similar style of hockey. I also agree with Sturminator that they both are in the same category. Both are great #4 defenceman, and you've got better value for Beck. However, I would still take Leo Boivin. Boivin is an HoF, perhaps the most punishing body checker of All-Time. A feared defenceman to play against, moreso than Beck. The AS voting doesn't paint the whole picture for Boivin, and too much have been told on him for me to justify his placement only by statistic. I understand view will be distorted greatly on Boivin, but I'm very happy to have him on the Nordiques, and pair him up with Frantisek Pospisil. God, Pospisil and Boivin waiting on you at defence ... you better have your head up!

Stapleton < Pospisil
Beck < Bovin (My personal bias, I wouldn't throw a tantrum if an '=' symbol was written there instead)
Yeah I think these two pairs are very close and will probably depend on individual voters. I think Stapleton and Beck have slight advantages, you think your guys do. I'm not sure who's right or wrong honestly, but you definitely do hold the physical advantage here.

Quote:
3rd pairing:
Frank Patrick is an offensive defenceman that got overrated in the past, but he's still a great #5 defenceman. He's paired with Willie Mitchell, who carved himself a decent career as a stay-at-home defenceman. For the Nordiques, Frantisek Tikal is another defenceman hard to judge, but he brings an array of skills. It really depend on how you view his competition. Gilles Marotte is a fearless defensive player with bone crushing hits.

Patrick = Tikal
Mitchell < Marotte

Again, AC holds an edge on high-end talent, but the Nordiques in depth.
Eh, is it really an advantage in depth? Our 3-5 defense are basically coin flips. Marotte holds the advantage with scant all-star voting over Mitchell, but Mitchell's game was built to not receive all-star votes in the modern era. If Marotte > Mitchell is the biggest difference between our two bottom pairings, is that really an edge in depth?
----

Quote:
Goaltending:
Well, for once!, the Nordiques holds a slight edge in goaltending. Tom Barrasso been able to show is worth come playoff time, while Chuck Rayner is no slouch and played well when given the chance. We had Barrasso #1 on our list and Chuck Rayner #2 for the longest of time. Eddie Giacomin is a far better goaltender than Ross Roach, but shouldn't play a factor.

Rayner < Barrasso (it's a slight edge)
Ross Roach < Giacomin (A good edge, but shouldn't play a factor)
They finished back to back on the HoH goaltender project (with Rayner ahead), but I think you can elevate Barrasso for his playoff performances. I think our approaches were pretty similar and we both landed excellent puckmovers in net. Neither guy should make or break this series.
----

Special Team:

Quote:
Powerplay:
Well, both first unit owns a WOW factor. Extremely strong two units and the pieces seems to work well together. I would give a slight edge to the AC there, mostly because of Beliveau and Bathgate on the point. On the second unit though, we believe the Nordiques holds an edge.
I don't really see Quebec's first PP unit as that overwhelming to warrant just a slight advantage.

Beliveau's decently better than Messier, and PP scoring was his bread and butter. Leetch and Bathgate are also fairly better on the points than Seibert and Pitre. Bill Cook is probably your second best guy and better than Morris, but I don't see he and Messier as deadly as my unit.

I think the second units are close overall. I avoided it comparing second lines, but on the powerplay what makes Lindros better than Schriner? I already said I don't see what makes Smith better offensively than Larmer. Does Martin have a big advantage over Colville?

Are Pospisil and Stanfield better than Stapleton and Patrick?


Quote:
Penalty Kill:
Those two teams holds average penalty kill, but decent enough to do the job. Kasatonov is excellent, so is Pospisil. Messier vs. Berenson, Tikal vs. Mitchell, Bridgman vs. Walter. I honestly have no clue who owns an edge, if any. Is it alright if I call them equal?
I'll take anyone saying their PK is equal to mine
------

Quote:
Overall, it's going to be a really close series. One theme struck me as I was doing the comparision: high end skills vs. depth. the AC hold the edge for the 1st line and 1st pairing, but the Nordiques golds the edge for the second and third offensive line and a slight edge in term of defensive depth. A small edge for the goaltenders for the Nordiques, but the AC have the better coach. The special looks mighty equal, although the AC perhaps have a better end end on the PP, while the Nordiques more depth.

It's pretty much this: the AC high-end skills vs. the Nordiques depth. After already 13 games for the AC (12 for the Nordiques) & another very long series ahead of them: would you be more confident winning with an edge on high-end talents, or an edge in overall depth?
I really just don't see how there's a noticeable advantage in overall depth. Your biggest advantage on defense is our #6s. I have the better top pair and then our second pair is extremely close. Maybe you take third on Mitchell>Marotte, but Patrick and Tikal are comparable and leading the way.

I honestly believe I have the better second line too. You definitely have better offensive depth on the third line. In the least important of all, I have marginally better offense from the fourth who will be tasked to get on the cycle and hold the puck.

With goaltending being so close, I hope Pittsbugh's advantages are enough to pull out ahead in this tight series.


Last edited by Rob Scuderi: 05-05-2013 at 01:38 PM.
Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 12:53 PM
  #21
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Here is a little ten year graph:



- the yellow line is Vs2/GPG

- the blue line is VsX/GPG

- the red line is #6 raw score/GPG

The #6 scorer is definitely a part of the pack, and dividing by GPG is a way to blend out changes in leaguewide scoring.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 01:46 PM
  #22
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveG View Post
One more point that needs to be noted is that this Quebec team is built to wear their opponents out and win by attrition just as much as it's built to win by pure talent and skill. Does Pittsburgh have the horses to be able to handle the rough stuff that Quebec can roll out on all 4 lines and throughout its defense?

In a series that, at least on paper, looks to be a long one, that could be the deciding factor one way or the other.
My top line is my toughest. Bathgate took care of himself, Beliveau is the definition of a horse, and Olmstead's the toughest of the three.

Schriner could handle the rough stuff being decently large for his era. Larmer's very tough and played 884 games consecutively before a contract holdout ended his ironman streak. I have no idea about Morris's toughness aside from one random quote calling him aggressive which isn't enough to say anything.

Colville could handle the rough stuff.

New York Times - 1/7/1937
A Noteworthy First Offender

For a young fellow, practically a freshman, Neil Colville of the Rangers is attaining prominent notice on the crime calendar. Allan Shields has a long lead, but Neil is in the thick of the pursuing group of delinquents and may go through the season as the chief offender in a Ranger uniform.

It seems that Neil came up with a flashy reputation and some of the veterans of the league decided to find out whether or not the reputation was only skin deep. To do that, they had to get under his skin. In hockey, this operation usually is performed with the butt end of a stick. Neil underwent a number of such operations that were more or less successful and initiated at least an equal number of counter-operations of the same kind.

He found this give-and-take pleasant enough, but, unfortunately, the referees halted him ever and anon and ushered him to the calaboose to serve various sentences. Neil is a real find for the fun-loving spectators, but if Red Horner is going to be the big peace party of 1937, he ought to dye that red thatch of his. It doesn't look natural any more.

Edmonton Journal - 12/23/1937 (quote from Andrew Lytle of the Toronto Star
"Neil Colville looks like a hockey player just as much as Bill Cook ever did. I say Cook because Neil with his young face and rapidly graying hair, has the thick, resistant body that Bill Cook had. He combines with Cook's strength with a lot of Boucher's speed and weaving skill with a puck at his flying feet. Like Apps, when Neil appears to be stopped in his tracks, somehow in the next breathless instant he is sailing on again."

Ward has a section of his bio on physicality and he could play a physical game. I don't have anything on Berenson's toughness however.

My fourth line has three tough players. Don Cherry said Pappin was a mean guy and he had size. Walter is probably my most physical forward. Steen wasn't big, but he played with tons of heart.

The Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey - 1987
A gifted athlete with marvelous skills who plays rough

The Complete Handbook of Pro Hockey - 1988
Tough, by anyone's standards

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 02:46 PM
  #23
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
Ahhhh, why are you replying SO late in this series! It's already four o'clock in the afternoon, it's my birthday, and tonight I'm celebrating (I'm actually already drinking). Tomorrow I'm starting a new job, so I won't have time to counter any of what you said until the voting close.

If Dave decide to reply back, great! But for me, this is my last words in this series. BBS, you built a great team, and it's going to be a close one. Good luck to you

... On that, I'll enjoy my Alexander Keith India Pale Ale!

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 03:25 PM
  #24
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,598
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
Ahhhh, why are you replying SO late in this series! It's already four o'clock in the afternoon, it's my birthday, and tonight I'm celebrating (I'm actually already drinking). Tomorrow I'm starting a new job, so I won't have time to counter any of what you said until the voting close.

If Dave decide to reply back, great! But for me, this is my last words in this series. BBS, you built a great team, and it's going to be a close one. Good luck to you

... On that, I'll enjoy my Alexander Keith India Pale Ale!
Hah sorry man today was the first day I really had time. Best of luck to you and Dave as well, this will definitely be a good one.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-05-2013, 03:27 PM
  #25
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
Hah sorry man today was the first day I really had time. Best of luck to you and Dave as well, this will definitely be a good one.
Yeah, Sunday just seems like the best day of the week to spend the afternoon arguing on the internet.

Maybe we shouldn't have had Sunday as the start of the voting period. Oh well.

I only have 1 vote so far, so there is definitely a point of continuing the discussion today, though I don't blame EB for putting his birthday over this for a night.

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 03:56 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.