ATD 2024 championship final: Trois Rivieres AC vs. Windsor Spitfires
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
-
Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
jigglysquishy
Registered User
spitsfan24
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2017
- 438
- 470
Here are my special teams:
PP 1:
Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau - Mike Bossy
Mark Howe - Brent Burns
PP 2:
Henrik Zetterberg - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Doug Mohns - Earl Seibert
PK 1:
Vinny Damphousse - Henrik Zetterberg
Ryan Suter - Earl Seibert
PK 2:
Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Mark Howe - Bob Goldham
I'll be back to get the discussion started with some general thoughts within the next few days.
PP 1:
Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau - Mike Bossy
Mark Howe - Brent Burns
PP 2:
Henrik Zetterberg - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Doug Mohns - Earl Seibert
PK 1:
Vinny Damphousse - Henrik Zetterberg
Ryan Suter - Earl Seibert
PK 2:
Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Mark Howe - Bob Goldham
I'll be back to get the discussion started with some general thoughts within the next few days.
spitsfan24
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2017
- 438
- 470
Or right now.
Starting at the very top, the Spitfires have a massive advantage when it comes to top lines. The Spits are better at all three positions, and their skill sets all mesh together wonderfully. Trotz looks forward to putting Beliveau's line out there against TR's top unit consistently, and it's a matchup I fully expect to be a huge factor in the Spits prevailing. This is the biggest advantage either team possesses in this final.
TR's second line is very offensively gifted. If they're not producing offense, however, there's not much else on the bone, so to speak.
Mitigating Kucherov's offense is of great importance, and the Spits are going to make life very difficult for him in this series. For one, he'll be seeing a lot of Zetterberg.
With a lot of offensive-minded players, physicality is a great way to deter them from playing at their best. In Kucherov's case, it seems to be the opposite. He's so slippery and incredibly adept at avoiding hard contact. A rugged, physical defenceman always looking for a bone-crushing hit plays right into his strengths, allowing him to pick apart the defence after luring someone out of position.
That being said, you'll find much more success defending him with a positionally-sound, suffocating-space player archetype.
Both Henrik Zetterberg and Ryan Suter fit this description to a tee, so Windsor is very well-equipped to slow him down.
Either Zetterberg or Suter will be tasked with marking Kucherov closely, closing in on him with effective positioning, stick-work and gap control. Since Suter is paired with Burns, it allows Windsor to utilize Brent at his best. While Suter (or Zetterberg) is essentially shadowing Kucherov, Burns uses his foremost defensive skill - his incredibly long reach - to swallow up passing lanes, which either leads to no high-danger scoring chances against, or a turnover that sends Windsor out in transition.
With the Spits' clear-cut top line superiority, Kucherov and Bowie are going to be asked to do a lot of the heavy lifting offensively. I believe the Spits have the horses to be a matchup nightmare for them, and like I already said, if TR's second line isn't dominating offensively, they don't bring much else to the table.
Windsor's top-nine is incredibly well-balanced, affecting play positively in all three zones. I think TR has too many one-dimensional players in their top-nine to say the same.
So, a quick forward recap: Windsor with a massive leg up on TR's first line (and the biggest advantage of the series), and pretty even top-nines when you look beyond pure offensive ability. If you want to give an edge to TR's fourth line, that's certainly fair, but my fourth line is out there to shrink the game, allowing my game-breakers to do more damage. They fill that role perfectly, so I'm perfectly fine with what they're contributing to the team.
-----
Shifting to the blueline, I see two teams that are propped up by elite defencemen.
Our first pairs are both incredible - in skill and fit. Howe-Seibert and Harvey-Lapointe complement each other beautifully. There's one thing I wonder about, though, and in a series of this magnitude, it could come into play. Consider this post from Overpass in reference to Doug Harvey:
Harvey was a great defensive-defenceman with almost no offence added to the package until 1955 when he became the two-way stud we all know of today.
This was seemingly influenced by two factors, both of which work against TR:
1. Toe Blake taking over as coach. Harvey blossomed under the leadership of Blake, and it's probably not a stretch to say he knows Harvey better than almost anybody in the world; as a hockey player and as a human being. With Blake on Windsor's top line, this information could be valuable.
2. Shifting from LD to RD at even strength. This is pretty important in my opinion. As a LD, Harvey was a great player. As a RD, he became one of the best players of all-time. Part of Harvey's appeal is his fantastic two-way play. If playing him at LD limits that in any way, shape, or form? You're not getting the best from him. And with Seibert and Howe anchoring things for Windsor, I think it's very possible they're a more logical choice as a top pairing.
I've already outlined why I think Suter and Burns will experience success in this series, so I don't have too much to add there. Our second and third pairs look to be pretty even.
And since I know it'll be brought up, I'll say exactly what I said last round in terms of goaltending.
Over a long period of time (whether that be a full season or 20 full seasons), Brodeur is likely to be the more consistent goalie. But with a short sample size that a seven-game series brings with it, Belfour can easily play just as good as (if not, better than) Brodeur. I don't see it as being much of a factor at all, really.
In closing, while both teams have similar forward and defensive depth, Windsor's dominant first line, attention to detail in all facets of the game, and perhaps some question marks regarding the usage of Harvey, will ultimately lead them to prevail over TR and hoist the championship high above their heads.
Starting at the very top, the Spitfires have a massive advantage when it comes to top lines. The Spits are better at all three positions, and their skill sets all mesh together wonderfully. Trotz looks forward to putting Beliveau's line out there against TR's top unit consistently, and it's a matchup I fully expect to be a huge factor in the Spits prevailing. This is the biggest advantage either team possesses in this final.
TR's second line is very offensively gifted. If they're not producing offense, however, there's not much else on the bone, so to speak.
Mitigating Kucherov's offense is of great importance, and the Spits are going to make life very difficult for him in this series. For one, he'll be seeing a lot of Zetterberg.
With a lot of offensive-minded players, physicality is a great way to deter them from playing at their best. In Kucherov's case, it seems to be the opposite. He's so slippery and incredibly adept at avoiding hard contact. A rugged, physical defenceman always looking for a bone-crushing hit plays right into his strengths, allowing him to pick apart the defence after luring someone out of position.
That being said, you'll find much more success defending him with a positionally-sound, suffocating-space player archetype.
Both Henrik Zetterberg and Ryan Suter fit this description to a tee, so Windsor is very well-equipped to slow him down.
Either Zetterberg or Suter will be tasked with marking Kucherov closely, closing in on him with effective positioning, stick-work and gap control. Since Suter is paired with Burns, it allows Windsor to utilize Brent at his best. While Suter (or Zetterberg) is essentially shadowing Kucherov, Burns uses his foremost defensive skill - his incredibly long reach - to swallow up passing lanes, which either leads to no high-danger scoring chances against, or a turnover that sends Windsor out in transition.
With the Spits' clear-cut top line superiority, Kucherov and Bowie are going to be asked to do a lot of the heavy lifting offensively. I believe the Spits have the horses to be a matchup nightmare for them, and like I already said, if TR's second line isn't dominating offensively, they don't bring much else to the table.
Windsor's top-nine is incredibly well-balanced, affecting play positively in all three zones. I think TR has too many one-dimensional players in their top-nine to say the same.
So, a quick forward recap: Windsor with a massive leg up on TR's first line (and the biggest advantage of the series), and pretty even top-nines when you look beyond pure offensive ability. If you want to give an edge to TR's fourth line, that's certainly fair, but my fourth line is out there to shrink the game, allowing my game-breakers to do more damage. They fill that role perfectly, so I'm perfectly fine with what they're contributing to the team.
-----
Shifting to the blueline, I see two teams that are propped up by elite defencemen.
Our first pairs are both incredible - in skill and fit. Howe-Seibert and Harvey-Lapointe complement each other beautifully. There's one thing I wonder about, though, and in a series of this magnitude, it could come into play. Consider this post from Overpass in reference to Doug Harvey:
This was seemingly influenced by two factors, both of which work against TR:
1. Toe Blake taking over as coach. Harvey blossomed under the leadership of Blake, and it's probably not a stretch to say he knows Harvey better than almost anybody in the world; as a hockey player and as a human being. With Blake on Windsor's top line, this information could be valuable.
2. Shifting from LD to RD at even strength. This is pretty important in my opinion. As a LD, Harvey was a great player. As a RD, he became one of the best players of all-time. Part of Harvey's appeal is his fantastic two-way play. If playing him at LD limits that in any way, shape, or form? You're not getting the best from him. And with Seibert and Howe anchoring things for Windsor, I think it's very possible they're a more logical choice as a top pairing.
I've already outlined why I think Suter and Burns will experience success in this series, so I don't have too much to add there. Our second and third pairs look to be pretty even.
And since I know it'll be brought up, I'll say exactly what I said last round in terms of goaltending.
Over a long period of time (whether that be a full season or 20 full seasons), Brodeur is likely to be the more consistent goalie. But with a short sample size that a seven-game series brings with it, Belfour can easily play just as good as (if not, better than) Brodeur. I don't see it as being much of a factor at all, really.
In closing, while both teams have similar forward and defensive depth, Windsor's dominant first line, attention to detail in all facets of the game, and perhaps some question marks regarding the usage of Harvey, will ultimately lead them to prevail over TR and hoist the championship high above their heads.
Last edited:
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Soooooo salty.
Keep on crying, VanIslander. And you wonder why nobody likes you here.
Your team couldn't even get to Game 7 against the players you just listed too.
spitsfan24
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2017
- 438
- 470
Oh my, this again?
I responded to all this in great detail last round. I really don't want to rehash this discussion again.
Putting aside the rash generalizations about draft positioning and "championship material", I still haven't heard any reasoning why these players don't fit well on my team.
If you have any thoughts on this championship series specifically, I'm happy to discuss that with you. But these sarcastic remarks aren't adding any value to the finals.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
I would not be here if i thought this true.
I say what i think is true. I make mistakes. I hit the target. I have taken B.A. and M A. programs in Philosophy (got an A+ in Informal Logic), newspaper reported for years and head edited a newsroom for nearly a year (until the publisher in the pocket of the local supermarket owner/ top advertiser started trying to sway news stories) . When i was 18 in 1987 my beloved father who supported me in everything i did as youth, from soccer, to Boy Scouts, to skiing to golfing,. on my 18th birthday said. .... "You're a man now. Go make your way." He added: i'd never give you a penny again but there would be a home always there for him. ... i have been supporting myself for 35+ years. When he passed, my rock went away, but actually it is still here.
I love ATDs. I don't gaf what people think of my opinion, though i care about feelings. I teach kindy these days.
Last edited:
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
nabby12. ... maybe what you said is true.
DO YOU LIKE ME?
If this post doesn't get five likes i will not bother you guys again
DO YOU LIKE ME?
If this post doesn't get five likes i will not bother you guys again
Blah blah blah, nobody cares about your life story that you seem to post about every couple of days here.
Next time, don't try and take shots at teams that just swiftly whooped you out of the ATD.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I am back home and just got up after a days rest...PA to Colorado is a stout drive twice inside of 2 weeks lol. I will begin my assessment of this series tonight.
Also, Van, please just stop. What is the point of posting the shot above? Boredom? Vindictiveness?
We've all had teams we thought should have won a series or went further. I say this as someone who's been on the wrong side of acting like an ass after being on the losing end of a fantasy match up.
This is the thread for the Milt Dunnell Cup, that you posted. I said earlier in the week I was traveling and wouldn't be able to post anything until this weekend.
Let's keep the discussion about THIS series. Keep it about the coaches and players. Not about the other posters.
If I can do it, anyone can.
Also, Van, please just stop. What is the point of posting the shot above? Boredom? Vindictiveness?
We've all had teams we thought should have won a series or went further. I say this as someone who's been on the wrong side of acting like an ass after being on the losing end of a fantasy match up.
This is the thread for the Milt Dunnell Cup, that you posted. I said earlier in the week I was traveling and wouldn't be able to post anything until this weekend.
Let's keep the discussion about THIS series. Keep it about the coaches and players. Not about the other posters.
If I can do it, anyone can.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Forwards:
Sweeney Schriner | Cyclone Taylor | Bernie Morris |
Paul Thompson | Russell Bowie | Nikita Kucherov |
Tony Leswick | Marty Barry | Bobby Bauer |
Bob Bourne | Fleming Mackell | Claude Lemieux |
| | |
- Spare: Jack Adams - C/LW
| Doug Harvey | Guy Lapointe |
| Harvey Pulford | Lester Patrick |
| Mike Grant | Jack Marshall |
-Spare: Si Griffis - D/C
- Note: Jack Marshall, a right handed shot, can also play C, and will be the person to shift up to the 4C spot, if/when Imlach were to move Taylor back to D.
Goalies:
| Martin Brodeur |
| Percy LeSueur |
Special Teams:
PP1:
Slot/Net - Bowie
Right Wall - Kucherov
Left Wall - Taylor
QB - Harvey
Trigger - Lapointe
PP2:
Slot/Net - Barry
Right Wall - Schriner
Left Wall - Morris
QB - Patrick
Trigger - Grant
PK1:
Mackell-Leswick
Pulford-Harvey
PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
@spitsfan24 Once again, congratulations on making it to this point! I've enjoyed seeing you build this squad and then go to bat for it along the way. Your top line was among my favorite of the entire draft. And you managed to get an elite C, a legitimate #1D and a G who isn't among the weakest starters in the draft. That's generally a great foundation for a long run here. I think this is a close series, though ultimately think our squad is the better of the 2 and look forward to laying out why we should come out on top.
I'm going to post each section at a time. That will give Spits time to digest and respond (as well as any other observers) while I work on the subsequent areas of analysis.
I'll start with coaching, and then move on to forwards, defensemen, special teams, etc.
Here we go!
Coaching - Punch Imlach/Bob Johnson vs Barry Trotz - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
I wanted to start this overview with giving our franchise a moderate victory in a key area, head-to-head. With that being said, I do want to err on the side of being conservative in my views of our team (wanting the win) in relation to Windsor.
I don't really need to rehash the accomplishments of Imlach. and certainly, think his 4 Cups (3 in a row at one point) during the 1960's speaks for itself. Especially considering the competition at the time and how the Leafs had largely become a laughingstock as the 50's rolled on with Imlach not only coaching the squad but working as it's GM simultaneously.
It took me a while to come around on Trotz. He always seemed like the guy who got a lot of mileage out of the regular season counting stats go but faltered so many times in the playoffs, even when coaching one of the better rosters in the tournament.
With that being said, he finally got that elusive ring in 2018 and then overachieved for a few years with the Islanders and showed there was still some magic left in his style of play.
Still, he guided 1 team, in 23 years, to the SCF. There is a lot of longevity to like, but when the chips are down, and you need a 7-game series win, I think he's comfortably behind Imlach in terms of career value + accomplishment.
As you'll see in some of the newspaper clippings Imlach and Beliveau were very close, from Imlach's days with the Quebec Aces. He mentored Beliveau, who credits Imlach as being a vital part of his career arc.
Imlach ended up being the coach who saw the Leafs make it pretty difficult on Beliveau, in the postseason, throughout the 60's.
1960 SCF - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 4 points in 4 games (+5)
1963 Semi Final - Leafs win 4-1
Beliveau 3 points in 5 games (-1)
1964 Semi Fain - Leafs win 4-3
Beliveau 2 points in 5 games (-2)
1965 Semi Final - Habs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (even)
1966 Semi Final - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 5 points in 4 games (+1)
1967 SCF - Leafs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (-1)
Even in the 3 series wins, Beliveau didn't explode. 15 points in 14 games. Over the 3 losses? 11 in 16. A decent downturn in production.
Imlach used Red Kelly's skating to put pressure on Jean in real life. Is there a better player in history to replicate that look than Taylor?
The physicality of the Leafs defensemen also gave Beliveau fits, and when I look at Doug Harvey, Guy Lapointe, and Harvey Pulford specifically (3 of the 4 biggest minute getters on D) I can envision Beliveau again dealing with a lot of bumps and bruises.
Harvey's IQ was off the charts. He'd have the book on Beliveau (that surely does go both ways of course) and coupled with Punch Imlach's ability to historically contain and even slow #4 gives us a better feeling as far as match ups go.
Last series, Leswick was our ace against the opponent's top player (overall+offensive), Maurice Richard.
In this match up, it may just be our coach, Punch against his student Beliveau.
Here is a small portion of the trove I have on Imlach. Enjoy!
Working with assistant(s)
@Johnny Engine and I spoke about Imlach having a history working with an assistant (King Clancy) being the calm to Imlach's storm. Below are a few snips I've unearthed with both Dink Carroll and then Frank Currie citing Clancy as the "assistant" and being the one to help smooth any grievances over with players.
This is why we decided on Bob Johnson as a late pick to help set up a similar structure. If we're playing the ATD by a modern structure (4 lines, 3 pairs, special teams), there are instantly more responsibilities for a coach of those distant eras to contend with.
Johnson helps aid both in the tactical regard (in this case, special teams specifically) and most importantly, is the counterweight to Imlach's harsher, straight to the point, MO.
He also allowed veteran players to handle practices in the even that GM duties took him away. We think old time brilliant hockey minds/leaders like Lester Patrick and Harvey Pulford will be right at home in those situations.
I'm going to post each section at a time. That will give Spits time to digest and respond (as well as any other observers) while I work on the subsequent areas of analysis.
I'll start with coaching, and then move on to forwards, defensemen, special teams, etc.
Here we go!
Coaching - Punch Imlach/Bob Johnson vs Barry Trotz - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
I wanted to start this overview with giving our franchise a moderate victory in a key area, head-to-head. With that being said, I do want to err on the side of being conservative in my views of our team (wanting the win) in relation to Windsor.
I don't really need to rehash the accomplishments of Imlach. and certainly, think his 4 Cups (3 in a row at one point) during the 1960's speaks for itself. Especially considering the competition at the time and how the Leafs had largely become a laughingstock as the 50's rolled on with Imlach not only coaching the squad but working as it's GM simultaneously.
It took me a while to come around on Trotz. He always seemed like the guy who got a lot of mileage out of the regular season counting stats go but faltered so many times in the playoffs, even when coaching one of the better rosters in the tournament.
With that being said, he finally got that elusive ring in 2018 and then overachieved for a few years with the Islanders and showed there was still some magic left in his style of play.
Still, he guided 1 team, in 23 years, to the SCF. There is a lot of longevity to like, but when the chips are down, and you need a 7-game series win, I think he's comfortably behind Imlach in terms of career value + accomplishment.
As you'll see in some of the newspaper clippings Imlach and Beliveau were very close, from Imlach's days with the Quebec Aces. He mentored Beliveau, who credits Imlach as being a vital part of his career arc.
Imlach ended up being the coach who saw the Leafs make it pretty difficult on Beliveau, in the postseason, throughout the 60's.
1960 SCF - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 4 points in 4 games (+5)
1963 Semi Final - Leafs win 4-1
Beliveau 3 points in 5 games (-1)
1964 Semi Fain - Leafs win 4-3
Beliveau 2 points in 5 games (-2)
1965 Semi Final - Habs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (even)
1966 Semi Final - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 5 points in 4 games (+1)
1967 SCF - Leafs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (-1)
Even in the 3 series wins, Beliveau didn't explode. 15 points in 14 games. Over the 3 losses? 11 in 16. A decent downturn in production.
Imlach used Red Kelly's skating to put pressure on Jean in real life. Is there a better player in history to replicate that look than Taylor?
The physicality of the Leafs defensemen also gave Beliveau fits, and when I look at Doug Harvey, Guy Lapointe, and Harvey Pulford specifically (3 of the 4 biggest minute getters on D) I can envision Beliveau again dealing with a lot of bumps and bruises.
Harvey's IQ was off the charts. He'd have the book on Beliveau (that surely does go both ways of course) and coupled with Punch Imlach's ability to historically contain and even slow #4 gives us a better feeling as far as match ups go.
Last series, Leswick was our ace against the opponent's top player (overall+offensive), Maurice Richard.
In this match up, it may just be our coach, Punch against his student Beliveau.
Here is a small portion of the trove I have on Imlach. Enjoy!
Working with assistant(s)
@Johnny Engine and I spoke about Imlach having a history working with an assistant (King Clancy) being the calm to Imlach's storm. Below are a few snips I've unearthed with both Dink Carroll and then Frank Currie citing Clancy as the "assistant" and being the one to help smooth any grievances over with players.
This is why we decided on Bob Johnson as a late pick to help set up a similar structure. If we're playing the ATD by a modern structure (4 lines, 3 pairs, special teams), there are instantly more responsibilities for a coach of those distant eras to contend with.
Johnson helps aid both in the tactical regard (in this case, special teams specifically) and most importantly, is the counterweight to Imlach's harsher, straight to the point, MO.
He also allowed veteran players to handle practices in the even that GM duties took him away. We think old time brilliant hockey minds/leaders like Lester Patrick and Harvey Pulford will be right at home in those situations.
spitsfan24
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2017
- 438
- 470
@ImporterExporter First of all, thanks for the kind words. You've obviously built quite the team over in Trois Rivieres as well.
Now, down to business.
To be clear, I don't disagree with your overarching point about Imlach giving TR a slight coaching advantage. But I would like to comment on a few things you mentioned.
Yet again using part of an Overpass post, here are the even-strength matchups in all games played involving Beliveau in Toronto after Kelly arrived. So, the matchups that Imlach hunted more or less.
Beliveau-Kelly, games in Toronto
1960-61: -0.78
1961-62: 0.50
1962-63: -0.78
1963-64: -0.17
1964-65: -0.80
1965-66: -0.51
1966-67: -0.76
For those that don't know, the closer the number is to -1, the higher percentage of ice time is estimated to be shared.
Going back to the numbers you posted where Beliveau plays Toronto in the playoffs, this leaves us with the following matchups to analyze:
1963 Semi Final - Leafs win 4-1
Beliveau 3 points in 5 games (-1)
1964 Semi Fain - Leafs win 4-3
Beliveau 2 points in 5 games (-2)
1965 Semi Final - Habs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (even)
1966 Semi Final - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 5 points in 4 games (+1)
1967 SCF - Leafs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (-1)
In 1963, the Kelly-Beliveau correlation is strong throughout the entire season (the matchups encompass regular season and playoffs), and Beliveau seems to be kept in check during the playoffs. This starts to give credence to your theory of Kelly (and thereby Taylor) being a nuisance to Beliveau.
In 1964, it doesn't look like Kelly deserves much of the credit for Beliveau's disappointing performance on the scoresheet.
In 1965, our strongest correlation yet. It seems Kelly is almost exclusively matched up against Beliveau and Jean has a great series, eventually leading to a Habs win.
In 1966, not a strong correlation, but not a weak one either. Beliveau has a great series anyway.
In 1967, Kelly and Beliveau again see a lot of each other. Beliveau has a pretty good series, but definitely nothing special.
So, to recap, in years that they met in the playoffs, the playoff series' that they (likely) saw the most of each other were 1963, 1965, and 1967. Only one of those series saw Beliveau underperform. I don't think there's any discernible difference between Beliveau's play against Kelly and everyone else. Especially considering my next point.
In 1965 and 1967, Beliveau's production against Imlach in the playoffs actually increased, compared to his regular season numbers. At this point in time, he was getting up there in age. Those were his 33 and 35 year old seasons respectively. I think his play against Imlach's elite Toronto teams in the twilight of his career should be applauded, not used as a minus against him.
Beliveau 1965 regular season: 43 points in 58 games
Beliveau 1965 Semi Final against Imlach: 6 points in 6 games
Beliveau 1967 regular season: 38 points in 53 games
Beliveau 1967 SCF against Imlach: 6 points in 6 games
Even past his prime, Beliveau performed very well against Imlach in the playoffs.
Furthermore, after the Rocket retired following their 1960 Cup win, Beliveau never played with as talented a scorer as he will in this series. If anything, Beliveau's play in the 1960 Cup Final (dominant offensively and territorially) is indicative of what he could do against TR with Bossy (and Blake).
Overall, I don't think Imlach is your "ace" against Beliveau, as you put it. Based on the factors I've laid out, Jean acquitted himself quite well against his mentor.
Now, down to business.
To be clear, I don't disagree with your overarching point about Imlach giving TR a slight coaching advantage. But I would like to comment on a few things you mentioned.
Yet again using part of an Overpass post, here are the even-strength matchups in all games played involving Beliveau in Toronto after Kelly arrived. So, the matchups that Imlach hunted more or less.
Beliveau-Kelly, games in Toronto
1960-61: -0.78
1961-62: 0.50
1962-63: -0.78
1963-64: -0.17
1964-65: -0.80
1965-66: -0.51
1966-67: -0.76
For those that don't know, the closer the number is to -1, the higher percentage of ice time is estimated to be shared.
Going back to the numbers you posted where Beliveau plays Toronto in the playoffs, this leaves us with the following matchups to analyze:
1963 Semi Final - Leafs win 4-1
Beliveau 3 points in 5 games (-1)
1964 Semi Fain - Leafs win 4-3
Beliveau 2 points in 5 games (-2)
1965 Semi Final - Habs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (even)
1966 Semi Final - Habs win 4-0
Beliveau 5 points in 4 games (+1)
1967 SCF - Leafs win 4-2
Beliveau 6 points in 6 games (-1)
In 1963, the Kelly-Beliveau correlation is strong throughout the entire season (the matchups encompass regular season and playoffs), and Beliveau seems to be kept in check during the playoffs. This starts to give credence to your theory of Kelly (and thereby Taylor) being a nuisance to Beliveau.
In 1964, it doesn't look like Kelly deserves much of the credit for Beliveau's disappointing performance on the scoresheet.
In 1965, our strongest correlation yet. It seems Kelly is almost exclusively matched up against Beliveau and Jean has a great series, eventually leading to a Habs win.
In 1966, not a strong correlation, but not a weak one either. Beliveau has a great series anyway.
In 1967, Kelly and Beliveau again see a lot of each other. Beliveau has a pretty good series, but definitely nothing special.
So, to recap, in years that they met in the playoffs, the playoff series' that they (likely) saw the most of each other were 1963, 1965, and 1967. Only one of those series saw Beliveau underperform. I don't think there's any discernible difference between Beliveau's play against Kelly and everyone else. Especially considering my next point.
In 1965 and 1967, Beliveau's production against Imlach in the playoffs actually increased, compared to his regular season numbers. At this point in time, he was getting up there in age. Those were his 33 and 35 year old seasons respectively. I think his play against Imlach's elite Toronto teams in the twilight of his career should be applauded, not used as a minus against him.
Beliveau 1965 regular season: 43 points in 58 games
Beliveau 1965 Semi Final against Imlach: 6 points in 6 games
Beliveau 1967 regular season: 38 points in 53 games
Beliveau 1967 SCF against Imlach: 6 points in 6 games
Even past his prime, Beliveau performed very well against Imlach in the playoffs.
Furthermore, after the Rocket retired following their 1960 Cup win, Beliveau never played with as talented a scorer as he will in this series. If anything, Beliveau's play in the 1960 Cup Final (dominant offensively and territorially) is indicative of what he could do against TR with Bossy (and Blake).
Overall, I don't think Imlach is your "ace" against Beliveau, as you put it. Based on the factors I've laid out, Jean acquitted himself quite well against his mentor.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Forwards - Slight Advantage Windsor
Three Rivers
Sweeney Schriner - Cyclone Taylor (A) - Bernie Morris
Paul Thompson - Russell Bowie - Nikita Kucherov
Tony Leswick - Marty Barry - Bobby Bauer
Bob Bourne - Fleming Mackell - Claude Lemieux
Jack Adams
vs
Windsor
Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau (C) - Mike Bossy
Henrik Zetterberg (A) - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Smokey Harris - Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Gilles Tremblay - Vincent Damphousse - Ken Randall
Ernie Russell, Eric Staal
You might wonder how I gave Windsor the slight edge among F's, considering I do have Three Rivers winning 7 of the 12 individual match ups.
Well, Windsor does have a big advantage when comparing top lines, and obviously those are the biggest minute eaters.
While I do think that we make up a lot of ground considering all 7 of those head-to-head wins occur in the bottom 9, the gaps vary, and I do want to highlight Windsor's really well put together F group.
Blake-Beliveau-Bossy is just an all-time great ATD unit. They're all playoff dynamo's, especially Beliveau and Bossy who are all time great. The fit is there from left to right. In a lot of ways, this is simply an upgrade to the Olmstead-Geoffrion combo Beliveau had in the mid 50's.
As I talked about in the coaching section above, I do think Three Rivers is well positioned to slow Beliveau and Leswick will once again be a key defensive player getting a lot Bossy in this series.
Schriner's a better and more dynamic offensive player than Blake, and I don't see much of a gap between them all time, though Blake is still ahead thanks to the Hart and a better all-around reputation.
Obviously, there are only a few C's who will definitively come out ahead of Beliveau all time, and Taylor isn't one, though I don't see this as any sort of large gap. In the Top 100 project about a half decade ago, I had Beliveau 8th and Taylor 23rd all time. 5 C's separated them (Crosby, Messier, Mikita, Nighbor, Morenz). You could probably put McDavid in that group now, but the overall point is that LW and C are still relatively close between the 2 squads.
The largest and most dominant win is Bossy vs Morris. The latter may be a more rounded player, but make no mistake, it's a huge win for Windsor.
While the bulk of the remaining 9 F's tilt back to Three Rivers (IMHO, as I will show below), I want to give ample credit to the straight sweep between the top lines in favor of the Spitfires and is ultimately why I think their F group edges out.
Zetterberg > Thompson mainly due to the playoff peak of Zetterberg (Conn Smythe in 08 and a really impressive 3-year window), but Thompson was a 1st and 2nd team AS (Z managed a 2nd team nod once) and Hart runner up as a regular season player, not to mention was runner up in scoring on both Blackhawks title winners in 1934 and 38. Zetterberg brings versatility and a more defined 2-way game.
Bowie gives Three Rivers its first clear win between the 2 teams, among F.
We often talk about tiers, among players and I personally have Bowie on the 2nd tier among per-merger C's and Fredrickson on the 3rd.
Tier 1
Nighbor (would put him 15-20 all time)
Taylor (20-25)
Lalone (30-35)
Tier 2
Bowie (65-75)
Malone (70-80)
Tier 3
Fredrickson (120-130)
McGee (150-175)
Mackay (150-175)
Bowie's statistical dominance is well documented.
forums.hfboards.com
Beginning there and going page by page will give you a really deep look into Bowie's career and why he ended up ranking where he did in the pre-merger project. @jigglysquishy and @rmartin65 produced a lot of great quotes and stats in the evaluation process.
Prior to 1910, nobody had the dominance of peak or longevity compared to Bowie. If he wasn't someone's pick as best player in the world between 1900 and 1908, his name was certainly near the top.
forums.hfboards.com
A wonderful bio by RB with older material from TDMM also highlights the statistical absurdity that was Bowie year in and year out over much of the 1st decade of the 1900's.
Bowie is someone I think you could put on a 1st line, in a 20+ team draft and have a legitimate #1 C.
He was obviously the dominant scorer of pre-1910 hockey. His stickhandling, beyond finishing, was also lauded as all world.
And with what rmartin specifically dug up on Bowie's other attributes, I think you can comfortably say he was a good leader (long time captain), a hardworking and scrappy C who put up absurd offensive totals, on a squad (Victorias) that was never the best in the business in terms of depth of talent. Ottawa was superior for much of the 1900's. Same with the Wanderers.
Bowie was overwhelmingly the best player on his team and shouldered a larger burden than any other player in my estimation.
Lastly, when you read everything that is available on Bowie, his offensive profile would seem to be a match made in heaven with a visionary like Kucherov, who has made a living off setting up goal dominant players like Stamkos and Point.
Kucherov offers a significant advantage over Dany Heatley. Yes, the latter is a bigger and more physical player, but nothing to write home about defensively or in terms of intangibles.
It's not quite Bossy to Morris but certainly a wide gap and 2nd largest among top 6 battles.
Three Rivers spreads their offensive capabilities well and I think this is another series where depth of scoring favors the AC.
Consider:
Schriner won multiple Art Ross trophies. Taylor won multiple league scoring titles. Bowie won a slew of league scoring titles and the Russian wizard just wrapped up his 2nd.
Bowie - 136.5 (Vs2 - years) - That # obliterates every other star from the pre-merger era though no one, myself included, has a great way to translate that to VsX or even compare, concretely, his #'s vs those who played post 1910.
Taylor - 103 (Vs2 - 7 years) - 94.0 (VsX equivalent by seventieslord)
Kucherov - 98 (VsX - 7 year)
Schriner - 91.3 (VsX - 7 year)
Thompson - 82.6 (VsX - 7 year)
Morris - 82.0 (VsX equivalent per seventieslord)
Combined Vs2 in NHA/NHL/PCHA 1910-1926.
For reference, Bowie's numbers come to 179.7 (3 year), 158.4 (5 year), 136.5 (7 year)
Bowie and Taylor are the only players from the pre-merger period who produce 100+. 7-year, Vs2 resumes. Taylor doing so despite playing a 3rd of his career as a defenseman.
Paul Thompson is an 82.6 (VsX - 7 year) and @seventieslord has Morris as a 82.0 7-year VsX equivalent.
Compare these figures with Windsor:
Beliveau - 105.7
Bossy - 94.8
Blake - 86.3
Fredrickson - 88.0 (VsX equivalent per seventies)
Heatley - 81.0
Zetterberg - 79.5
Depending on what you think of Taylor and Bowie's relative offensive value, Three Rivers has somewhere in the range of as much or more firepower offensively than Windsor.
Three Rivers Top 10 Scoring Finishes:
Bowie:
Goals - 1st (1901), 1st (1903), 1st (1904), 1st (1905), 1st (1908), 1st (1909*), 2nd (1900), 2nd (1902), 2nd (1906), 2nd (1907), 3rd (1899)
Reconstructed Assists: 1st (1904), 1st (1908), 2nd (1906), 3rd (1903), 7th (1907)
(not recorded in 1901, 1902, or 1905)
Rconstructed Points - 1st (1901), 1st (1903), 1st (1904), 1st (1905), 1st (1906), 1st (1907), 1st (1908), 1st (1909*), 2nd (1900), 2nd (1902), 3rd (1899)
Taylor:
forums.hfboards.com
From our old ATD regular, Billyshoe:
In addition, Taylor was named to the first all-star team in every season in his career up to 1918, at defense in the beginning of his career and later at rover.
Here are the two best attempts I've seen to put how dominant Taylor was in perspective compared to the rest of professional hockey, and within the PCHA
Mind you, those 2 players are supported by 2 time Art Ross winner Schriner and Kucherov on the wings and 80+ VsX glue types in Thompson and Morris.
Schriner:
1, 1, 2, 7. 8,
Kucherov:
1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 7
Thompson:
2, 3, 8, 9, 10
Morris (thanks to Dreakmur):
PCHA Scoring:
PCHA Points - 1st(1917), 2nd(1916), 2nd(1918), 2nd(1919), 4th(1922), 6th(1921), 6th(1923)
PCHA Goals - 1st(1916), 2nd(1917), 2nd(1918), 2nd(1919), 4th(1923), 5th(1922), 9th(1921)
PCHA Assists - 1st(1918), 2nd(1917), 2nd(1921), 2nd(1922), 3rd(1919), 5th(1916)
Consolidated Scoring:
Points - 2nd(1919), 3rd(1916), 3rd(1917), 3rd(1918), 10th(1922), 12th(1921), 16th(1923)
Goals - 1st(1916), 2nd(1919), 4th(1917), 4th(1918)
Assists - 1st(1918), 3rd(1921), 4th(1919), 5th(1922), 8th(1916), 8th(1917)
Play-off Points - 1st(1917), 2nd(1924)
Windsor top 10 Scoring Finishes:
Beliveau:
1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9
Fredrickson: (thanks to Sturm)
Goals - 1st (22-23) ,3rd (20-21), 3rd (23-24), 4th (21-22) PCHA years ; [3rd (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [5th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th
- Assists - 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24), 2nd (21-22), 4th (20-21 -- PCHA years] ; [3rd (26-27), 8th (28-29) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 8th
- Points: - 1st (20-21), 3rd (21-22), 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24) -- PCHA years] ; [5th (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [4th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th
Bossy:
2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6
Blake:
1, 3, 3, 6, 7, 7
Heatley:
4. 4, 9,
Zetterberg:
6, 8
Schriner and Kucherov (4) double up Beliveau and Blake (2) in terms of league scoring titles.
Bowie and Taylor were 1st a combined staggering 11 times (I only counted Taylor's consolidated/reconstructed 1st place finishes).
Even the 2 lowest rated offensive players on Three Rivers, Thompson (2 times) and Morris (4) combined to finish 2nd or 3rd in consolidated scoring SIX times while the 2 lowest rated offensive players (Heatley and Zetterberg) never finished above 4th and were in the TOP 10 just 5 times combined.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=43086119&highligh
There has been some talk (BB brought this up last series) has been made about the defensive shortcomings in the top 6 for Three Rivers and once again, I'll highlight the overreaction.
Zetterberg is almost surely, the best defensive player out of the 12 players we're looking at here but beyond him, I don't exactly see any other definitive plusses for Windsor.
Blake might have been a plus but I'm not sure there is enough to concretely conclude that. I'm open to being corrected with enough material. Fredrickson was solid, Beliveau solid. Heatley and Bossy? Passable. No black marks whatsoever, but certainly no Selke level players outside of Zetterberg.
Bernie Morris sees a pretty big jump in terms of what he brings to the table beyond offense. His defensive game was praised numerous times throughout his career. Not Selke level mind you, but certainly solid. Taylor was at least solid and probably better if we count his rep as a defenseman. I personally think Thompson was in the solid camp. Schriner, like Heatley or Bossy was passable. There is nothing to indicate Bowie was a negative value player in this area and the advanced possession numbers and plus/minus figures for Kucherov can't bring you to the conclusion that he's hurting you. If I'm giving Bossy a passable grade, Kuch is right there as well.
I'm a big Smokey Harris fan. Did a thorough bio on him a few years back and think he was probably underrated by the pre-merger projected as he didn't place, in large part, I think, due to his rather meh scoring exploits. But Harris' biggest contributions are on the defensive side of the puck and in the corners.
In this regard, I think he and Leswick are very similar. Where I think Leswick edges out, comes down to his legendary pest abilities, specifically being a thorn in the side of all-time greats such as Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard. There are concrete instances of Leswick, slowing, or shutting down the best wingers of all time. His reputation as a defensive ace in the hole is well documented and these instances largely come from the postseason, when the stakes are highest.
Jacques Lemaire is a fantastic 3rd line, depth C in this draft. He gives you some 2-way abilities and very solid scoring metrics (77.9 VsX - 7 year) to go with a robust and shining playoff resume.
I simply see Barry as a better overall player. His 7-year VsX is considerably higher (89.6), He was surprisingly physical, especially when looking at the low PIM record and his playoff reputation is, like Lemaire, sterling, being one of, if not the best playoff performers of the entire 1930's.
Mickey MacKay > Bobby Bauer in large part due to the all-time standing of the former (he'd probably sneak into the very back end of a fresh top 200 player ever list) and reputation as a defensive stopper. I do think there are some things to nitpick with Mackay as his stock has taken a bit of a hit in recent years.
Mackay was one of the biggest culprits for an underperforming Millionaires team post Cyclone Taylor. That's long been dissected by RB (and others) and much of his career value came playing down the middle as a C/R.
His time at RW was largely spent being centered by Frank Boucher in Vancouver. Boucher was known as a playmaking C and we see MacKay's offensive profile shift to a more goal-based output as he turned into a W.
I don't see Lemaire as the same type of C. He's not as gifted offensively or defensively. He isn't the same type of line driver and facilitator as Boucher.
Seventies had MacKay right at 80 in terms of VsX equivalent, and Bauer, if you adjust for WWII would have been in an almost identical spot offensively as I pointed out in an earlier series thanks to a little study by BenchBrawl. The difference being most of MacKay's most prominent offensive seasons, came as a C/R.
Bauer was lauded by numerous people, as being the brains/smartest player from the Kraut line. 4 time AS, with 3 full, prime, seasons being lost to his service during WWII. He was an AS/Byng winner before and after the war so it's pretty safe to assume VsX doesn't represent his true offensive ceiling, and he likely lost an AS/Byng nod or 2.
We built the 3rd unit around the original production line (Herbie Lewis-Marty Barry-Larry Aurie) and Kraut line (Dumart-Schmidt-Bauer) and think Leswick-Barry-Bauer is extremely similar to what Barry had in real life in Detroit in mid to late 1930's.
Bob Bourne > Gilles Tremblay - Bourne simply has a more robust career of accomplishments, especially as a postseason player. He brings versatility, able to play all 3 F spots, his scoring being superb during the Islander dynastic run (74 points in 74 games) and was the noted PK ace during this time period as well for NY.
Damphouse is a nice 4th line player. He gives Windsor some offensive pep (74 7-year score) and was a solid defensive player (had 1 season with legitimate Selke votes) but I think the lesser known Mackell was actually a touch more impressive. He peaked as a 1st team AS, got a few Hart votes in another year, won a pair of Cups in Toronto and then led the playoffs in assists twice, and points once when he played for Boston, showing off impressive offensive chops as an older player.
Mackell also brings elite speed and was regarded as of the strongest PK players which is a valuable set of traits for a 4th line sparkplug. From what is written, had the Selke been around, he'd certainly have gotten more votes than Damphouse did, which is basically one season.
I think the gap is smaller between these 2 vs the wingers, but Mackell is still my pick head-to-head.
Lastly, Claude Lemieux is handedly a better player than Ken Randall. Pepe was an all-time great pest, and considering he was more of a depth player rather than star, had an extremely impressive run as a playoff performer. He led the playoffs in goals, twice. He won a Smythe in 1995. When the games are biggest, there aren't many you'd want in a bottom 6 role over Lemieux. Like Leswick, he was a player who other teams spent too much time worrying about, which is a big reason why Johnny and I split the 2 up, maximizing the amount of time we have an all-time great pest on the ice.
So, there you have it.
Ultimately, one can't ignore the super impressive top line of Windsor and the big head start that gives the team on the whole, when comparing the teams, line by line.
With that being said, the players start to tilt more and more the further down the line up card you go and there is a clear superiority for Three Rivers in spreading out the scoring wealth, making Windsor more dependent on their top line to produce.
And that top line is facing a tougher defensive gauntlet in Harvey, Lapointe, Pulford, Patrick + Brodeur, which is also important when projecting offensive outcomes in hypothetical match ups.
Three Rivers
Sweeney Schriner - Cyclone Taylor (A) - Bernie Morris
Paul Thompson - Russell Bowie - Nikita Kucherov
Tony Leswick - Marty Barry - Bobby Bauer
Bob Bourne - Fleming Mackell - Claude Lemieux
Jack Adams
vs
Windsor
Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau (C) - Mike Bossy
Henrik Zetterberg (A) - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Smokey Harris - Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Gilles Tremblay - Vincent Damphousse - Ken Randall
Ernie Russell, Eric Staal
You might wonder how I gave Windsor the slight edge among F's, considering I do have Three Rivers winning 7 of the 12 individual match ups.
Well, Windsor does have a big advantage when comparing top lines, and obviously those are the biggest minute eaters.
While I do think that we make up a lot of ground considering all 7 of those head-to-head wins occur in the bottom 9, the gaps vary, and I do want to highlight Windsor's really well put together F group.
Blake-Beliveau-Bossy is just an all-time great ATD unit. They're all playoff dynamo's, especially Beliveau and Bossy who are all time great. The fit is there from left to right. In a lot of ways, this is simply an upgrade to the Olmstead-Geoffrion combo Beliveau had in the mid 50's.
As I talked about in the coaching section above, I do think Three Rivers is well positioned to slow Beliveau and Leswick will once again be a key defensive player getting a lot Bossy in this series.
Schriner's a better and more dynamic offensive player than Blake, and I don't see much of a gap between them all time, though Blake is still ahead thanks to the Hart and a better all-around reputation.
Obviously, there are only a few C's who will definitively come out ahead of Beliveau all time, and Taylor isn't one, though I don't see this as any sort of large gap. In the Top 100 project about a half decade ago, I had Beliveau 8th and Taylor 23rd all time. 5 C's separated them (Crosby, Messier, Mikita, Nighbor, Morenz). You could probably put McDavid in that group now, but the overall point is that LW and C are still relatively close between the 2 squads.
The largest and most dominant win is Bossy vs Morris. The latter may be a more rounded player, but make no mistake, it's a huge win for Windsor.
While the bulk of the remaining 9 F's tilt back to Three Rivers (IMHO, as I will show below), I want to give ample credit to the straight sweep between the top lines in favor of the Spitfires and is ultimately why I think their F group edges out.
Zetterberg > Thompson mainly due to the playoff peak of Zetterberg (Conn Smythe in 08 and a really impressive 3-year window), but Thompson was a 1st and 2nd team AS (Z managed a 2nd team nod once) and Hart runner up as a regular season player, not to mention was runner up in scoring on both Blackhawks title winners in 1934 and 38. Zetterberg brings versatility and a more defined 2-way game.
Bowie gives Three Rivers its first clear win between the 2 teams, among F.
We often talk about tiers, among players and I personally have Bowie on the 2nd tier among per-merger C's and Fredrickson on the 3rd.
Tier 1
Nighbor (would put him 15-20 all time)
Taylor (20-25)
Lalone (30-35)
Tier 2
Bowie (65-75)
Malone (70-80)
Tier 3
Fredrickson (120-130)
McGee (150-175)
Mackay (150-175)
Bowie's statistical dominance is well documented.
Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 1
Procedure You will be presented with ~15 players based on their ranking in the Round 1 aggregate list Players will be listed in alphabetical order to avoid creating bias You will submit ten names in a ranked order, #1 through #10, without ties via PM to @seventieslord & @rmartin65 Use the same...
Beginning there and going page by page will give you a really deep look into Bowie's career and why he ended up ranking where he did in the pre-merger project. @jigglysquishy and @rmartin65 produced a lot of great quotes and stats in the evaluation process.
Prior to 1910, nobody had the dominance of peak or longevity compared to Bowie. If he wasn't someone's pick as best player in the world between 1900 and 1908, his name was certainly near the top.
ATD 2017 Bios
Russell Bowie Thank you to TDMM and Dreakmur for the bulk of this Awards and Achievements: Stanley Cup Champion (1899) Allan Cup Champion (1909) Montreal Victorias Captain ECHA First Team All-Star (1905) Charles Coleman's 1893 to 1926 All-Star Team from The Trail of the...
A wonderful bio by RB with older material from TDMM also highlights the statistical absurdity that was Bowie year in and year out over much of the 1st decade of the 1900's.
Bowie is someone I think you could put on a 1st line, in a 20+ team draft and have a legitimate #1 C.
He was obviously the dominant scorer of pre-1910 hockey. His stickhandling, beyond finishing, was also lauded as all world.
And with what rmartin specifically dug up on Bowie's other attributes, I think you can comfortably say he was a good leader (long time captain), a hardworking and scrappy C who put up absurd offensive totals, on a squad (Victorias) that was never the best in the business in terms of depth of talent. Ottawa was superior for much of the 1900's. Same with the Wanderers.
Bowie was overwhelmingly the best player on his team and shouldered a larger burden than any other player in my estimation.
Lastly, when you read everything that is available on Bowie, his offensive profile would seem to be a match made in heaven with a visionary like Kucherov, who has made a living off setting up goal dominant players like Stamkos and Point.
Kucherov offers a significant advantage over Dany Heatley. Yes, the latter is a bigger and more physical player, but nothing to write home about defensively or in terms of intangibles.
It's not quite Bossy to Morris but certainly a wide gap and 2nd largest among top 6 battles.
Three Rivers spreads their offensive capabilities well and I think this is another series where depth of scoring favors the AC.
Consider:
Schriner won multiple Art Ross trophies. Taylor won multiple league scoring titles. Bowie won a slew of league scoring titles and the Russian wizard just wrapped up his 2nd.
Bowie - 136.5 (Vs2 - years) - That # obliterates every other star from the pre-merger era though no one, myself included, has a great way to translate that to VsX or even compare, concretely, his #'s vs those who played post 1910.
Taylor - 103 (Vs2 - 7 years) - 94.0 (VsX equivalent by seventieslord)
Kucherov - 98 (VsX - 7 year)
Schriner - 91.3 (VsX - 7 year)
Thompson - 82.6 (VsX - 7 year)
Morris - 82.0 (VsX equivalent per seventieslord)
Combined Vs2 in NHA/NHL/PCHA 1910-1926.
| Player | Vs2- 3 Years | Vs2 - 5 Years | Vs2 - 7 Years |
| Cyclone Taylor | 128.1 | 119.2 | 103.0 |
| Newsy Lalonde | 110.6 | 106.7 | 99.3 |
| Joe Malone | 106.3 | 103.8 | 98.5 |
| Cy Denneny | 101.4 | 100.9 | 99.2 |
| Frank Nighbor | 97.4 | 90.7 | 82.4 |
For reference, Bowie's numbers come to 179.7 (3 year), 158.4 (5 year), 136.5 (7 year)
Bowie and Taylor are the only players from the pre-merger period who produce 100+. 7-year, Vs2 resumes. Taylor doing so despite playing a 3rd of his career as a defenseman.
Paul Thompson is an 82.6 (VsX - 7 year) and @seventieslord has Morris as a 82.0 7-year VsX equivalent.
Compare these figures with Windsor:
Beliveau - 105.7
Bossy - 94.8
Blake - 86.3
Fredrickson - 88.0 (VsX equivalent per seventies)
Heatley - 81.0
Zetterberg - 79.5
Depending on what you think of Taylor and Bowie's relative offensive value, Three Rivers has somewhere in the range of as much or more firepower offensively than Windsor.
Three Rivers Top 10 Scoring Finishes:
Bowie:
Goals - 1st (1901), 1st (1903), 1st (1904), 1st (1905), 1st (1908), 1st (1909*), 2nd (1900), 2nd (1902), 2nd (1906), 2nd (1907), 3rd (1899)
Reconstructed Assists: 1st (1904), 1st (1908), 2nd (1906), 3rd (1903), 7th (1907)
(not recorded in 1901, 1902, or 1905)
Rconstructed Points - 1st (1901), 1st (1903), 1st (1904), 1st (1905), 1st (1906), 1st (1907), 1st (1908), 1st (1909*), 2nd (1900), 2nd (1902), 3rd (1899)
Taylor:
ATD 2013 BIO Thread (quotes, stats, pics, sources, everything)
Note: Links can break over time so refrain from just posting links (links are best used to indicate source of post).
From our old ATD regular, Billyshoe:
In addition, Taylor was named to the first all-star team in every season in his career up to 1918, at defense in the beginning of his career and later at rover.
Here are the two best attempts I've seen to put how dominant Taylor was in perspective compared to the rest of professional hockey, and within the PCHA
Mind you, those 2 players are supported by 2 time Art Ross winner Schriner and Kucherov on the wings and 80+ VsX glue types in Thompson and Morris.
Schriner:
1, 1, 2, 7. 8,
Kucherov:
1, 1, 3, 3, 5, 7
Thompson:
2, 3, 8, 9, 10
Morris (thanks to Dreakmur):
PCHA Scoring:
PCHA Points - 1st(1917), 2nd(1916), 2nd(1918), 2nd(1919), 4th(1922), 6th(1921), 6th(1923)
PCHA Goals - 1st(1916), 2nd(1917), 2nd(1918), 2nd(1919), 4th(1923), 5th(1922), 9th(1921)
PCHA Assists - 1st(1918), 2nd(1917), 2nd(1921), 2nd(1922), 3rd(1919), 5th(1916)
Consolidated Scoring:
Points - 2nd(1919), 3rd(1916), 3rd(1917), 3rd(1918), 10th(1922), 12th(1921), 16th(1923)
Goals - 1st(1916), 2nd(1919), 4th(1917), 4th(1918)
Assists - 1st(1918), 3rd(1921), 4th(1919), 5th(1922), 8th(1916), 8th(1917)
Play-off Points - 1st(1917), 2nd(1924)
Windsor top 10 Scoring Finishes:
Beliveau:
1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 6, 8, 8, 9
Fredrickson: (thanks to Sturm)
Goals - 1st (22-23) ,3rd (20-21), 3rd (23-24), 4th (21-22) PCHA years ; [3rd (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [5th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th
- Assists - 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24), 2nd (21-22), 4th (20-21 -- PCHA years] ; [3rd (26-27), 8th (28-29) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 8th
- Points: - 1st (20-21), 3rd (21-22), 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24) -- PCHA years] ; [5th (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [4th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th
Bossy:
2, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6
Blake:
1, 3, 3, 6, 7, 7
Heatley:
4. 4, 9,
Zetterberg:
6, 8
Schriner and Kucherov (4) double up Beliveau and Blake (2) in terms of league scoring titles.
Bowie and Taylor were 1st a combined staggering 11 times (I only counted Taylor's consolidated/reconstructed 1st place finishes).
Even the 2 lowest rated offensive players on Three Rivers, Thompson (2 times) and Morris (4) combined to finish 2nd or 3rd in consolidated scoring SIX times while the 2 lowest rated offensive players (Heatley and Zetterberg) never finished above 4th and were in the TOP 10 just 5 times combined.
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=43086119&highligh
There has been some talk (BB brought this up last series) has been made about the defensive shortcomings in the top 6 for Three Rivers and once again, I'll highlight the overreaction.
Zetterberg is almost surely, the best defensive player out of the 12 players we're looking at here but beyond him, I don't exactly see any other definitive plusses for Windsor.
Blake might have been a plus but I'm not sure there is enough to concretely conclude that. I'm open to being corrected with enough material. Fredrickson was solid, Beliveau solid. Heatley and Bossy? Passable. No black marks whatsoever, but certainly no Selke level players outside of Zetterberg.
Bernie Morris sees a pretty big jump in terms of what he brings to the table beyond offense. His defensive game was praised numerous times throughout his career. Not Selke level mind you, but certainly solid. Taylor was at least solid and probably better if we count his rep as a defenseman. I personally think Thompson was in the solid camp. Schriner, like Heatley or Bossy was passable. There is nothing to indicate Bowie was a negative value player in this area and the advanced possession numbers and plus/minus figures for Kucherov can't bring you to the conclusion that he's hurting you. If I'm giving Bossy a passable grade, Kuch is right there as well.
I'm a big Smokey Harris fan. Did a thorough bio on him a few years back and think he was probably underrated by the pre-merger projected as he didn't place, in large part, I think, due to his rather meh scoring exploits. But Harris' biggest contributions are on the defensive side of the puck and in the corners.
In this regard, I think he and Leswick are very similar. Where I think Leswick edges out, comes down to his legendary pest abilities, specifically being a thorn in the side of all-time greats such as Gordie Howe and Maurice Richard. There are concrete instances of Leswick, slowing, or shutting down the best wingers of all time. His reputation as a defensive ace in the hole is well documented and these instances largely come from the postseason, when the stakes are highest.
Jacques Lemaire is a fantastic 3rd line, depth C in this draft. He gives you some 2-way abilities and very solid scoring metrics (77.9 VsX - 7 year) to go with a robust and shining playoff resume.
I simply see Barry as a better overall player. His 7-year VsX is considerably higher (89.6), He was surprisingly physical, especially when looking at the low PIM record and his playoff reputation is, like Lemaire, sterling, being one of, if not the best playoff performers of the entire 1930's.
Mickey MacKay > Bobby Bauer in large part due to the all-time standing of the former (he'd probably sneak into the very back end of a fresh top 200 player ever list) and reputation as a defensive stopper. I do think there are some things to nitpick with Mackay as his stock has taken a bit of a hit in recent years.
Mackay was one of the biggest culprits for an underperforming Millionaires team post Cyclone Taylor. That's long been dissected by RB (and others) and much of his career value came playing down the middle as a C/R.
His time at RW was largely spent being centered by Frank Boucher in Vancouver. Boucher was known as a playmaking C and we see MacKay's offensive profile shift to a more goal-based output as he turned into a W.
I don't see Lemaire as the same type of C. He's not as gifted offensively or defensively. He isn't the same type of line driver and facilitator as Boucher.
Seventies had MacKay right at 80 in terms of VsX equivalent, and Bauer, if you adjust for WWII would have been in an almost identical spot offensively as I pointed out in an earlier series thanks to a little study by BenchBrawl. The difference being most of MacKay's most prominent offensive seasons, came as a C/R.
Bauer was lauded by numerous people, as being the brains/smartest player from the Kraut line. 4 time AS, with 3 full, prime, seasons being lost to his service during WWII. He was an AS/Byng winner before and after the war so it's pretty safe to assume VsX doesn't represent his true offensive ceiling, and he likely lost an AS/Byng nod or 2.
We built the 3rd unit around the original production line (Herbie Lewis-Marty Barry-Larry Aurie) and Kraut line (Dumart-Schmidt-Bauer) and think Leswick-Barry-Bauer is extremely similar to what Barry had in real life in Detroit in mid to late 1930's.
Bob Bourne > Gilles Tremblay - Bourne simply has a more robust career of accomplishments, especially as a postseason player. He brings versatility, able to play all 3 F spots, his scoring being superb during the Islander dynastic run (74 points in 74 games) and was the noted PK ace during this time period as well for NY.
Damphouse is a nice 4th line player. He gives Windsor some offensive pep (74 7-year score) and was a solid defensive player (had 1 season with legitimate Selke votes) but I think the lesser known Mackell was actually a touch more impressive. He peaked as a 1st team AS, got a few Hart votes in another year, won a pair of Cups in Toronto and then led the playoffs in assists twice, and points once when he played for Boston, showing off impressive offensive chops as an older player.
Mackell also brings elite speed and was regarded as of the strongest PK players which is a valuable set of traits for a 4th line sparkplug. From what is written, had the Selke been around, he'd certainly have gotten more votes than Damphouse did, which is basically one season.
I think the gap is smaller between these 2 vs the wingers, but Mackell is still my pick head-to-head.
Lastly, Claude Lemieux is handedly a better player than Ken Randall. Pepe was an all-time great pest, and considering he was more of a depth player rather than star, had an extremely impressive run as a playoff performer. He led the playoffs in goals, twice. He won a Smythe in 1995. When the games are biggest, there aren't many you'd want in a bottom 6 role over Lemieux. Like Leswick, he was a player who other teams spent too much time worrying about, which is a big reason why Johnny and I split the 2 up, maximizing the amount of time we have an all-time great pest on the ice.
So, there you have it.
Ultimately, one can't ignore the super impressive top line of Windsor and the big head start that gives the team on the whole, when comparing the teams, line by line.
With that being said, the players start to tilt more and more the further down the line up card you go and there is a clear superiority for Three Rivers in spreading out the scoring wealth, making Windsor more dependent on their top line to produce.
And that top line is facing a tougher defensive gauntlet in Harvey, Lapointe, Pulford, Patrick + Brodeur, which is also important when projecting offensive outcomes in hypothetical match ups.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I was very clear in stating that Beliveau was never shut out (like Leswick did to Richard for example) when facing Imlach led teams. I don't expect him to be so in this series. But there is a downturn.
I believe Three Rivers is set up well, with Taylor assuming the Kelly role and most importantly, the defensemen + goalie present a very tough road for the top line of Windsor. You have a defensive group that is filled with high IQ players (including a top 10 player ever in Harvey), superb transition, well above average physicality, all backed by a goalie who's probably the best puck handler and passer of all time. And these are all battled tested, playoff lynchpins.
Beliveau in 3 Series wins? 15 points in 14 games. Over the 3 losses? 11 in 16.
Beliveau had a career 0.87 PPG (26 points/30 games) in the playoffs against Imlach led Toronto teams.
Beliveau had a career 1.09 PPG (176/162) in the playoffs (includes those 30 games above) against all teams.
Beliveau had a career 1.14 PPG (150/132) in the playoffs (removing 30 games against Leafs) against all non-Imlach led teams.
The bulk of Beliveau's peak playoff resume is made of the time before and after Imlach was coaching in Toronto, namely 54 through 58 and then 69 and 71. Again, I don't expect Beliveau to be a non-factor, but I do think we're uniquely set up to limit the damage he does.
On Bowie-
First- I think he was pretty easily the greatest player of the 1887-1909 era. And I do think Kucherov is a good offensive partner for him, though I would like to note that Bowie usually had a strong, hard-working defensive guy with him (Blair Russell), and I don't think Thompson is quite that guy. He's a different fit. But the Kucherov-Bowie connection is great offensively.
Second- I think we should be really careful about using VsX or Vs2 for this time period. While I think there was a lot of talent available in this era, it was spread out over a bunch of leagues. In the midst of Bowie's prime, we have top tier talent spread out over at least 3 leagues- the CAHL/ECAHA being the best, but there were really good players in the WPHL/IPHL, the FAHL at times, the Manitoba league, and possibly (though I am not certain, I am still doing the research) the AAHL and OPHL. If all that talent were consolidated, I am certain Bowie's score would be considerably lower than the 136 (if I remember correctly) you cited. What is the correct number? I don't know if we'll ever come up with a good solution (though I'm hoping that once I get through all of those leagues I can look at players who crossed leagues to come up with something half-way decent, but I'm probably a year away from getting there), but I do know that we shouldn't be taking individual league scores at face value.
Again, though- this isn't me knocking Bowie. He was a stud, and deserved (IMO) the bump he got this year. The game summaries, the newspapers of the day, and what is written late by people who actually saw this time period have me convinced that he is truly one of the greatest players of all time. But the counting stats need a lot more context than Vs2 and VsX can give right now.
First- I think he was pretty easily the greatest player of the 1887-1909 era. And I do think Kucherov is a good offensive partner for him, though I would like to note that Bowie usually had a strong, hard-working defensive guy with him (Blair Russell), and I don't think Thompson is quite that guy. He's a different fit. But the Kucherov-Bowie connection is great offensively.
Second- I think we should be really careful about using VsX or Vs2 for this time period. While I think there was a lot of talent available in this era, it was spread out over a bunch of leagues. In the midst of Bowie's prime, we have top tier talent spread out over at least 3 leagues- the CAHL/ECAHA being the best, but there were really good players in the WPHL/IPHL, the FAHL at times, the Manitoba league, and possibly (though I am not certain, I am still doing the research) the AAHL and OPHL. If all that talent were consolidated, I am certain Bowie's score would be considerably lower than the 136 (if I remember correctly) you cited. What is the correct number? I don't know if we'll ever come up with a good solution (though I'm hoping that once I get through all of those leagues I can look at players who crossed leagues to come up with something half-way decent, but I'm probably a year away from getting there), but I do know that we shouldn't be taking individual league scores at face value.
Again, though- this isn't me knocking Bowie. He was a stud, and deserved (IMO) the bump he got this year. The game summaries, the newspapers of the day, and what is written late by people who actually saw this time period have me convinced that he is truly one of the greatest players of all time. But the counting stats need a lot more context than Vs2 and VsX can give right now.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Agree w/everything you said.
I have a tough time putting Bowie's #'s into context against later peers. I've been open about that many times, including previous series.
My gut (and head) says it's hard for me to conclude he's an 80's level (or lower) VsX equivalent, simply because you're starting to get into the depth stars of the different eras (a lot of 70's-80's C's, 2nd tier players from other eras). It "feels" wrong to place Bowie within that group of players.
Bowie simply crushed his era like no one else in hockey history, sans Gretzky. No one else was as consistently dominant over the years you mention which is 2+ decades long.
It's not just a ridiculous peak. His peak was also a lot longer than the vast majority of players from this era.
I believe it was this past series against Montreal, but I'd feel more comfortable putting Bowie somewhere in the 90's, as a VsX equivalent. That's the Cowley, Thornton, Boucher, Mac, Malkin, Trottier, Yzerman, Apps, Clarke, etc range of C's. A couple of those guys are probably coming in lower on a fresh top 100 list vs Bowie.
If we assume Bowie is better than say Thornton and Cowley and Bowie's offensive dominance is largely the reason for putting him in such a light, it stands to reason his relative offense would be on par (or better) than those players.
But, and there's usually always a but, that's not scientific. If someone comes up w/a legitimate way to merge this time period w/everything after, I'd be one of many appreciative curious hockey people.
spitsfan24
Registered User
- Mar 18, 2017
- 438
- 470
Lots of great discussion points here @ImporterExporter. Something that came to mind while reading it:
I think you did a really good job of arguing TR as having similar levels of offensive firepower to Windsor. But most of what you said is mainly applicable to the regular season. Almost my entire top six can bring their games to another level come postseason time.
In data compiled by pnep (going back to 1918), this is very clear.
Looking at goals scored by player divided by total goals in the series (Goals%), the Spitfires have four players in the top 40 (Bossy, Beliveau, Zetterberg, Blake).
Doing the same process with assists instead of goals (AST%), Blake ranks 5th, posting similar results as Connor McDavid and Wayne Gretzky.
Sticking with the theme, Blake finds himself one spot behind Mario Lemieux (8th) when points are used (PTS%).
When you apply the same procedure to the numbers, but only include players' best 10 series (allowing for guys who played forever and guys with short careers that only have peaks and no diminishing statlines as they age to be on a level playing field), 1924-1928 Fredrickson rockets up to first (!) in AST% and seventh in PTS%.
Zetterberg and Fredrickson are going to be a potent offensive duo with Heatley's big body creating space for them. Much like Windsor's top line, they seem to find another level when the lights shine the brightest.
I have considerably more to say on the subject, but I don't think I'll have the time until sometime tomorrow. So I'll have to leave it here for now.
I think you did a really good job of arguing TR as having similar levels of offensive firepower to Windsor. But most of what you said is mainly applicable to the regular season. Almost my entire top six can bring their games to another level come postseason time.
In data compiled by pnep (going back to 1918), this is very clear.
Looking at goals scored by player divided by total goals in the series (Goals%), the Spitfires have four players in the top 40 (Bossy, Beliveau, Zetterberg, Blake).
Doing the same process with assists instead of goals (AST%), Blake ranks 5th, posting similar results as Connor McDavid and Wayne Gretzky.
Sticking with the theme, Blake finds himself one spot behind Mario Lemieux (8th) when points are used (PTS%).
When you apply the same procedure to the numbers, but only include players' best 10 series (allowing for guys who played forever and guys with short careers that only have peaks and no diminishing statlines as they age to be on a level playing field), 1924-1928 Fredrickson rockets up to first (!) in AST% and seventh in PTS%.
Zetterberg and Fredrickson are going to be a potent offensive duo with Heatley's big body creating space for them. Much like Windsor's top line, they seem to find another level when the lights shine the brightest.
I have considerably more to say on the subject, but I don't think I'll have the time until sometime tomorrow. So I'll have to leave it here for now.
Respectfully, I still don't think my point is coming across- he didn't crush his era (offensively) like no one else in hockey history, sans Gretzky, he crushed his league.
Bowie's era saw what was probably the least amount of talent consolidation in hockey history. To reiterate, it wasn't a weak era for talent, but the individual leagues weren't particularly strong. I mean, let's take 1905 for example; the 4 best players in the world were (probably) Russell Bowie (CAHL), Frank McGee (FAHL), Tommy Phillips (MHL), and Hod Stuart (IPHL). Does Bowie still lead a consolidated league in scoring? For my money, probably. But does he have a Vs2 of 130 (using the stats I compiled from the papers)? Almost certainly not.
This is the kind of thing I think we need to be aware of when looking at this era.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
Wimbledon Ladies' Olga Danilovic vs Anca Alexia TodoniWagers: 2Staked: $75.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
-