ATD 2024 championship final: Trois Rivieres AC vs. Windsor Spitfires

[ImporterExporter]

To recap where I humbly have this series:

Coach - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Forwards - Slight Advantage Windsor
Defensemen - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Goalie - Slight Advantage Three Rivers

Special Teams - Slight/Moderate Advantage Three Rivers

Power Play - Slight Advantage Three Rivers

Three Rivers:

PP1:
Slot/Net - Bowie
Right Wall - Kucherov
Left Wall - Taylor
QB - Harvey
Trigger - Lapointe
Brodeur

PP2:
Slot/Net - Barry
Right Wall - Schriner
Left Wall - Morris
QB - Patrick
Trigger - Grant
Brodeur

vs

Windsor:

PP 1:
Toe Blake - Jean Beliveau - Mike Bossy
Mark Howe - Brent Burns
Belfour

PP 2:
Henrik Zetterberg - Frank Fredrickson - Dany Heatley
Doug Mohns - Earl Seibert
Belfour

The biggest difference of our respective PP's is the advantage in transition Three Rivers enjoys.

Let's start with Brodeur.

We know his rep as a puck handler and passer. And we also know that the G handles the puck almost every time it's cleared by the opposing team past center ice.

Having someone of Brodeur's caliber, being able to skate out, see the ice, handle the puck, and make a crisp pass, is a big advantage, as every second counts, in the highly structured environment that is special teams, most notably, on a 2-minute timer.

We often forget the G's role on the PP. I think nuances such as these are the real keys to victory.

Let's move to Doug Harvey (and Lapointe).

I've highlighted both a bunch over the last couple of series. One of the biggest confirmations, from a large number of sources, is that Harvey was the chief general of the Habs famous PP of the 50's. His ability to dictate the tempo and control the puck was legendary, as were his passes.

Lapointe was the most heavily used player out of the big 3, on those magnificent 70's Habs PP's. I pointed out earlier in this series how stellar Lapointe was in the deepest runs of his career. His shot was particularly effective.

Having Lapointe next to an already dominant player in Harvey, supported by Brodeur behind them and you have the recipe for a very successful transition game.

Cyclone Taylor brings an element nobody else can here. All word speed.

That's a huge plus coming out of your end, trying to navigate the neutral zone. A lot of players can skate fast but not handle the puck quite as well. Taylor doesn't have that issue. That skating ability puts defenders on their heels. You get a great idea of the impact I'm talking about when looking at McDavid. in today's game.

Bowie was a masterclass stickhandler, beyond scoring goals. I think his role as a bumper to net presence makes for an extremely dangerous player with the man advantage, a little extra space never hurt a finisher like that, especially when you consider who's surrounding him as passers.

Kucherov's PP brilliance has been highlighted as well, I don't need to repost the tables and counting stats. His ability to see the ice and anticipate is a big reason why he's such a lethal player in this part of the game. He's also a magician with the puck, ala the other F's.

Still, I would give Windsor an edge among top unit F's.

Most people will focus on Beliveau and Bossy, rightfully so, as they are incredible offensive weapons as ES, let alone on the PP. I don't want people to sleep on Blake, as he posted the best PP numbers in the NHL over the course of his career (mid 30's to late 40's).

So, while I think Blake is the overall, lowest ranked F out of the 6, he's still a very strong option on the PP.

There is just a bigger gap when looking at the D.

A lot of Mark Howe's value came at ES. He wasn't used on the PP nearly as much as his counterparts. I'm not dismissing him as a player, certainly, but Howe just doesn't have the kind of history Harvey, or even Lapointe do as PP difference makers.

Burns is a better option on the PP, in a lot of ways similar to Lapointe, a bit goal dominant from the point, but someone who's played a lot in this area and produced over a long period of time.

I don't see Belfour giving any sort of real lift to the PP for Windsor.

And therein lies another nuance.

The art of transition is no easy road. If it were, teams would score a good bit more up a man. Getting the puck into the offensive zone isn't a formality. It takes a unit. And as I've said from the first series we've taken part in, I think Three Rivers has the most well rounded and effective PP set ups in the 2024 ATD.

When you look to the 2nd units, I think we have the slight advantage at F.

Barry, Schriner, and Morris > Zetterberg, Fredrickson, Heatley, thanks to a higher offensive ceiling on the whole.

Three Rivers also has 4 players (Taylor/Bowie/PP1, Barry/Morris/PP2) adept at taking faceoffs. Windsor has 3 players with C credentials. In the event the primary man is kicked out, we have a nuanced edge in gaining possession.

I actually quite like the defensemen on Windsor's 2nd unit. Mohns was an underrated offensive player (had a heavy shot) and posted pretty strong PP numbers as a Dman in Boston. Seibert wasn't a spectacular offensive player, but he's more than capable here on a 2nd unit.

Patrick and Grant were both highly regarded offensive players from the blue line. Both were big stars and contemporary praise for their offensive brilliance/ability is robust. Their top end skating/speed is also a boon in keeping PK units honest.

Seibert is comfortably the best player of the bunch (in an overall sense, but not offensively speaking) and Mohns the weakest, so in a nutshell, I'd say this is a wash between defensemen on our respective 2nd units. I do prefer our pair by a smidge, as they're a more experienced and battle tested duo in a playoff atmosphere.

In summary, I think the F's are very evenly matched when cumulatively examining both groups but Three Rivers wins out due to their superior top pairing on defense and having the best puck moving G of all time in Brodeur.

Penalty Kill - Moderate Advantage Three Rivers

Three Rivers:

PK1:
Mackell-Leswick
Pulford-Harvey

PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall

vs

Windsor:

PK 1:
Vinny Damphousse - Henrik Zetterberg
Ryan Suter - Earl Seibert

PK 2:
Jacques Lemaire - Mickey MacKay
Mark Howe - Bob Goldham


When looking at the F's, I'm certainly more fond of our group. Not only because of the defensive acumen but the skating of the 4 players (Leswick, Mackell, Bourne, Taylor) is a wonderful boost. Mackell, Bourne, and Taylor all had top of the charts skating, especially Taylor. This will aid in putting pressure on the points, taking away time and space, not to mention giving pause to Windsor's PP, for fear of turning it over and being caught in odd man/breakaway situations. This is especially true with Bourne/Taylor. Tired 1st unit PP players for Windsor will certainly need to be on edge.

I've posted scouting reports on Bourne, people already know about Taylor and you'll see the contemporary praise for Leswick/Mackell below.

Leswick and Mackell were both highly regarded defensive and PK players. Here are some contemporary quotes on both.

Leswick:

Among the outstanding players who possessed great skill as skaters, stickhandlers and backcheckers but were not likely candidates for the Lady Byng trophy, Tony Leswick is an example. This little player was rated as one of the best defensive forwards in the league. He played either wing and was a great penalty killer. He was a fast skater and full of hustle and spirit. His other attributes were anathema to the opposition. He kept up a constant chatter of deprecatory remarks concerning the antecedents or ability of opposing wings, interspersed with elbow action or buttends to goad them into penalties. This cost him time in the penalty box but he was usually successful in having one of the opposition stars for company... Jack Adams had observed his fine checking and scrappy play, and made a deal to get him... Retired in 1958. Some of his opponents must have sighed with relief at his departure.

Anthony Leswick proved himself as one of the best defensive forwards in the NHL. Although a natural left-flanker, he could play both sides and was a bullish penalty killer - that is, if he wasn't in the box himself. He was a swift, strong skater who always hustled. He had a knack for getting his team going with a big hit on an opposing player... He was a decent stickhandler as well as a heads-up passer. Pound-for-pound, #8 was one of the best fighters in the league and was not one to shy away from a punching bee. "I did a little bit of fighting," he once confessed. "I could take care of myself. I wasn't afraid."

Marty Pavelich and Tony Leswick killed a lot of penalties together. Those guys checked the hell out of Montreal in 1952.

He was a tough customer who had lengthy and frequent battles with, among others, Maurice Richard. Despite his size and style of play, he missed exactly 2 games in his 11 full seasons in the NHL. He hit hard and took penalties, but he was also expert as a penalty killer. He was a goal scorer, passer, and hero all rolled into one.

Tony was a combative little bugger. He played a lot bigger than his size.

Tony was one of the toughest little guys who ever played.

Leswick could bring out the worst in a saint.

Mackell

When he was called upon by the Leafs he was expected to be a defensive-minded winger with rugged intentions. He was considered by many to be the fastest skater in the league when he played, despite a bowlegged stance.
...
In the 1951-52 season MacKell was traded to Boston where he found a home for nearly a decade. He became an important part of the Bruins attack, as well as a specialty teams specialist. He was a regular on both the power play and penalty kill units, thanks to his speed. He was also noted for scoring goals from the side of the net.

Speaking of penalty killers, ex-Bruin FLEMING MACKELL, one of the best in the ' 50s and '60s, made a rare visit yesterday to the Garden from Montreal...

(Coach)Milt feels better about his team's chances because Fleming MacKell is ready to go back to his job of penalty killing. Last year, Flaming Flem teamed with Jerry Toppazzini and bagged 10 goals when the team was shorthanded.

(Goalie Don)Simmons credited the goaling of Harry Lumley, his replacement for much of the season while he recovered from a shoulder separation, with carrying the Bruins through to the playoffs. Both (Bruins broadcaster) Libby and Simmons piled praise on MacKell, openly rating as the league's foremost penalty killing team.

-Lewiston Daily Sun, June 7, 1958

I'm a bit surprised that MacKay isn't on the top unit. I certainly think he's the best defensive F out of the 4 and given he's a 3rd liner in this, would probably be best used on the top unit w/Zetterberg, who was a more effective checker at ES and wasn't used extensively as a killer in real life. Consider he ranked 516th over the course of his career (02-03 to 17-18) in average TOI/SH at 1:06 minutes per game.

I don't really see him as a viable top unit player at this level. Can he do it? Sure, but didn't have the reputation of someone like Leswick, Mackell, and Bourne.

I don't see Damphousse as anything more than passable as a PK player in an ATD setting either and lastly, Jacques Lemaire was used much more on the PP than PK (he had 6 total SH points over a 12 year career) in the 70's by Bowman. His rep as a 2 way player was pretty strong, but he simply wasn't a major contributor in this kind of role.

You can see the praise for Mackell and Leswick above and I'll re-post the scouting reports on Bourne from the 80's:

Bourne:

Call him "Jets"...He has them for skates...One of swiftest skaters in the league...Used mostly at left wing but played all three forward positions..Plays on power play...Kills penalties...

May be fastest skater in league and he knows how to use his speed...Has emerged as devastating penalty killer due to speed and long reach...Versatile guy who played all three forward position...

One of hockey's swiftest, most graceful skaters...Always a threat to penetrate behind opposing defensemen with his quick, clever moves...Used either at center or left wing...Excels in defensive part of game as checker and penalty killer...A versatile player...Receives and delivers passes well while in full speed...Uses his speed effectively to create two-one-one rushes and breakaways...

One of the fastest skaters in the game...Always a breakway threat...Important cog in Islanders' great penalty-killing unit...Usually a left wing but has played all three forward positions...Underrated defensive player...Can play point on power play...

Islanders missed his speed in losing Stanley Cup final to swift skating Edmonton...Sidelined with ankle injury during most of playoffs..Has exceptional skating speed...Always a threat to make solo fast-break rush from one end of ice to the other...Can play all three forward positions...Excels as penalty-killer...Good forechecker and backchecker...Has winning touch when taking faceoffs...Normally plays wing...

This member of the Islanders Hall of Fame was known mostly for his offensive play during his 12 years on the Island. Using his skills as a goal scorer, Bourne also brought versatility to the penalty kill. His ability to attack the puck and then create offensively going the other way was vital to both his and the team’s success when shorthanded. Bourne is currently fifth all time in shorthanded goals for the Isles with 16. He led the team in the same category in the 1980-1981 season with seven shorthanded goals. Bourne’s seven shorties is still an Islanders single season record.

NYI TOP 10: Penalty Killers 6-10

Bob Bourne
Position: Left Wing/Center, New York Islanders 1974-86; Los Angelas Kings 1986-88

Bourne made his own luck through the rest of his career on a combination of speed, versatility, determination, attitude and heart.

His SPEED, DEFENSE, AND PENALTY KILLING made him EXTREMELY VALUABLE even if he was not as well known as some of his teammates.

-Who's Who in Hockey
http://books.google.com/books?id=wpbLnSHBNHgC&pg=PT58&lpg=PT58&dq=bob+bourne+versatility&source=bl&ots=XN8Z4bp-ra&sig=DX9IyOdf13rWlkNNj1WJ57Vs9VM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=99IcU5vkMoSj0QG02YDwDQ&ved=0CEUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=bob bourne versatility&f=false


As we get into the defensemen, the top unit of Three Rivers is yet again, an advantage as Pulford/Harvey >> Suter/Seibert.

Pulford/Harvey has everything you want in a killing duo and their reps (massive contemporary praise for overall rep, physicality, positioning, calmness under fire, etc, etc) as defensive players cements this thought IMHO.

I think Seibert was a good but not great defensive player, at least not on the consistent level of Harvey or Pulford, especially the former. He was very strong, blocked shots well, and was a huge player so I do think he'd do very well in a traditional PK role but there is simply far more established with Pulford/Harvey in the defensive area.

Suter was a good 2 way defensemen, at times great, but PK'ing, like many of the other players on the Windsor units, wasn't a primary duty and usage is lacking a bit for this stage, certainly as a top unit player.

Consider from the beginning of his career (2005-06) until now, he ranks 236th overall in PK TOI/per game (2:09).

Looking into the 2nd unit, Windsor does get a pair of W's with MacKay over Taylor and Goldham over Marshall, though I certainly think Bourne and Lapointe > Lemaire and Howe, so all in all, I've got these duo's as a wash.

Most of the PK forwards for Windsor are more geared towards counter offensive chances than outright defending IMO and aren't traditional PK players. The issue with that is I think our team has such exemplary and experienced defensemen (and puck moving G) that mistakes will be minimal and efficiency will favor both our units.

 

[spitsfan24]

Hey, just wanted to pop in and apologize for not being active this week. I recently started a new job, and it has kind of took over my life the last week or so.

I'm really hoping to find some time in the next few days to get caught up on the thread, and post some more of my thoughts as well.

I'm not sure when voting will open, but I would like to get back into the swing of things before it does.

 

[ImporterExporter]

To Summarize Where I Have Each Key Area of the Series:

Coach - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Forwards - Slight Advantage Windsor
Defensemen - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Goalie - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Special Teams - Slight/Moderate Advantage Three Rivers

Why I think Three Rivers Prevails:

1. See summary above. Advantages exist just about everywhere outside of the top 6 F group for Three Rivers, IMHO.

2. Transition - Getting the puck out of the defensive zone, through neutral ice, and into scoring areas favors our squad, led by Brodeur and Harvey/Lapointe, up to noted puck handlers and speedsters.

3. Skating/speed - Speed kills and we're supplied with a lot.

Taylor's wheels were legendary. Schriner was a fast, smooth skater. There are multiple mentions of Morris being fast on blades. Same with Thompson, and we know Kucherov is explosive. Bowie's the only one in the top 6 who isn't a plus to legendary.

The 3rd line is made of up plus skaters, especially Leswick. The 4th has 2, "among the best skaters in the league at the time" in Bourne and Mackell.

Harvey and Lapointe were fantastic skaters.

Patrick had exceptional wheels, though his partner, Pulford is one of just 2 skaters who could possibly be labeled as below average (Bowie is the other).

Grant was a literal speed skating champ as a youngster, and his ability in this area was noted often. Marshall reads like above average to above average.

Brodeur = terrific.

4. Three Rivers spreads playoff heroics around better (beyond F group).

Without a doubt, Windsor has a huge wealth of playoff punch in their top 6 F group (entire top line, Zetterberg and Fredrickson to lesser degrees than Beliveau/Bossy), with Lemaire anchoring the 3rd line, a top 50 player in the postseason certainly. I don't think Blake was quite on that level but not far off. His scoring is fantastic. I don't want to gloss over these players because Beliveau and Bossy were legends in the postseason, especially the former. Blake is a verifiable plus.

However, I don't see anyone else that really stands out beyond a flash in the pan in the bottom 6 (Harris might be the 2nd best player in the bottom 6, based on my own bio and deeper dive on him a few years back. Heatley was fantastic 1 time in 06-07. Same thing with Damphouse in 92-93. Gilles Tremblay was good/great in 1966 (3rd on team in scoring). Nothing significant beyond 1 year. Ken Randall seems quite average, and MacKay's uneven playoff record is part of why he's fallen slightly in rankings recently.

The top 6 is loaded with playoff oomph, absolutely, but they're also facing a loaded bottom 6 of Three Rivers, loaded entire blueline of Three Rivers, and the best G in the series. Led by a coach who built a dynasty while Toe Blake was still coaching.

Examining Three Rivers forwards, you'll see Taylor having multiple significant SCF bullet points (1915 and 1918).

Kucherov was Smythe good both years of the back-to-back and already has a resume that would surely put him on a top 50 list of playoff performers all time.

Bowie is a mystery. He only played in 1 Cup challenge (1 goal 2 games) after his rookie season in 1899. The only other playoff series (CAHL) he had was in 1903 against the Ottawa Silver Seven, who won the 2-game series 8-1 blanking Bowie. I wouldn't call him bad based on a lack of data, but he certainly can't label him a plus. The way Johnny and I look at it is, he doesn't have to be THE guy like he was in Montreal and is supported by a great performer in Kucherov and solid one in Thompson, on his own line. We don't need him to be dominant to prevail, but the tools and team around him are there.

Paul Thompson would have been in the Smythe discussion for both Cup wins in Chicago, from what I've read. He scored a game winning, OT goal both years and was the most dangerous offensive player.

Tony Leswick tied for team lead in points (5) in 1948 SCF (loss) while also holding Gordie Howe to 2 points (ZERO at ES) in 7 games.
He again tied for team lead in points (6) in 1950 SCF (loss) for NYR.
A 3rd time, he tied team lead in points (3) in 1952 SCF (win) while also BLANKING Rocket Richard, this time w/Detroit.
In the 1954 SCF he held Richard to 3 goals (1 ES) in 7 games (win) while also scoring the Cup winning goal, in OT, in game 7.
That's a pretty incredible playoff resume for a non-HOF player IMO.

Marty Barry has a strong claim to being the best playoff performer of an entire decade (1930's). Lemaire is usually a good bet to take the cake as far as playoffs go for a 2/3C but Barry is just as big a stud, if not bigger, considering he was arguably the best player on the team (Goodfellow). Lemaire was behind Lafleur, Robinson, Dryden, Lapointe and Savard.

Bauer was on a pair of Cup winners in Boston but wasn't a significant contributor from what I've read + numbers. A meh by ATD standards.

Bob Bourne
-4 Time Stanley Cup Winner (80-83)
-Scored 74 points over 74 games (+32) during the dynastic run, 4th most, behind the big 3.
-Led all Islanders in playoff points (28) during their 4th title run (83)
-5 playoff SH goals

Fleming Mackell
-2 Time Cup winner (49, 51) and 5-time finalist (53, 57, 58)
-Led playoffs once in overall scoring (1958) and assists twice (53, 58).
-Led Boston in playoff scoring 1957, 58, 59. T2nd in 1953. T3rd in 1949 (Toronto)

Claude Lemieux
-1995 Smythe
-4 Time Cup winner (86, 95, 96, 2000)
-3rd most playoff GW goals, all time (Gretzky and Hull have more, that's it)
-Twice led playoffs in goals (95. 97)

To be clear, although I think Three Rivers clearly wins within the bottom 6, the same can be said about Windsor's top 6 and they'll play more minutes. However, as you get out of the top 6 of Windsor, the sterling playoff runs start to dry up rather quickly, being driven home by examining each team's blueline.

Mark Howe doesn't bring much as a playoff performer (never on a Cup winner and his deepest runs were meh as I showed earlier. Seibert definitely had a Smythe worthy run in 1938 on a Cup winner in Chicago, but over 11 playoff years, there is little beyond that specific year.

Suter is a bit of a playoff liability IMO (never on a Cup winner). I actually think Burns is a plus on the whole, though it's a peak and not longevity plus. He, like Howe and Suter, never lifted Lord Stanley.

There is 1 SC win in the top 4 of Windsor's D group.

There are 12 SC wins on the top pairing, alone, for Three Rivers.

The disparity continues to grow the rest of the way.

Mohns was also never on a Cup winner, though his offensive numbers still look good relative to his regular season output. No big bullets points but it doesn't seem like you're venturing into negative territory like Suter. Goldham might actually have the best playoff resume out of Windsor's entire defensemen corps! A lot of that experience is lost as a #5/6 though, and I think this is a big area of dominance for Three Rivers.

So often you'll see opposing teams score because a Dman couldn't clear a puck from a danger area. They couldn't make the tape-to-tape pass to get out of the zone cleanly. Or just make the wrong decision entirely with the puck. They got caught out of position and lose zone integrity, so on and so forth.

Ranking the playoff defensemen IMHO:

1. Harvey


2. Lapointe

3-5. Patrick/Pulford/Grant in some order
6-7. Seibert/Goldham
8. Marshall

9-12. Rest of Windsor's D

Harvey ranked as the #1 D, and 6th overall in the HoH top 40 SC Playoff Performers list. I linked overpasses' playoff scoring study on Harvey multiple times previously and that coupled with what is written on the whole, confirms that sort of legendary ranking.

I highlighted Lapointe's significant contributions to the 70's juggernaut on the previous page in the D section. Hit heavy shot is a match made in heaven with a masterclass passer like Harvey, both at ES and on the PP.

Patrick/Pulford were playoff plusses (and legit stars, more than once on Cup winners/losers. Huge wealth of experience.

Ditto for the bottom pairing, though Marshall was more of a depth player than star.

Ed Belfour is an underrated playoff G IMO, but he's still a tier below Brodeur, who was an integral part of 3 title teams vs 1 and was also routinely picked to start/play for Team Canada over Belfour.

At the end of the day, I think this is a close match up, between 2 very well put together teams. I simply think Three Rivers is absolutely ahead behind the bench, on the blue line, in net, and on special teams. It's hard for me to conclude that a Windsor advantage in the top 4 only will see them take the series.

Final Analysis - Three Rivers wins in 7

 

[VanIslander]

... it goes 7 games... that means either way...

 

[ImporterExporter]

I'm finding more citations of Pulford's skating (and rushing of the puck in other clippings) improving greatly as his career went on. Odd that his skating seems to have peaked late in the career arc, rather than early.

Ottawa Citizen, Jan 13, 1908

Ottawa Citizen, Jan 16, 1908

 

[rmartin65]

I'm finding more citations of Pulford's skating (and rushing of the puck in other clippings) improving greatly as his career went on. Odd that his skating seems to have peaked late in the career arc, rather than early.

Ottawa Citizen, Jan 13, 1908

View attachment 894004


Ottawa Citizen, Jan 16, 1908

View attachment 893999

If I had to guess, it is because his skating was terrible for the bulk of his career. The Montreal Star wrote “... and while Pulford is probably the poorest skater playing first class hockey, he generally makes gains” on 20 January 1902 after one of his games; by 1902, Pulford had already been a senior-level player by 8 years (7 seasons, he sat out 1899), so this isn't an example of some young player receiving feedback for improvement. When you start at such a low level of proficiency at a skill, there is really no where to go put up.

That said, there is no denying that he was an effective player, even with his poor skating. And he could also show some rushing ability- the most notable that comes to mind is the 1905 (I think, I am not going through my files at the moment) series against Rat Portage.

I have also opined earlier that Pulford's skating deficiencies weren't necessarily speed related, though that is very much conjecture at this point and probably not worth getting into right now.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Really cool article I dug up on Taylor written about a half century after he got his professional start.

The Province Nov 05 1955

 

[ImporterExporter]

@spitsfan24

Hope all is well! I wanted to tag you and ask if you were ok with voting being opened up and running a week so that it gives people ample time to get votes into Theo. Figure we could open voting now and allow it to run through say next Tuesday?

I know you said you were hoping to get some comments in so I figured it best to check w/you before we got the puck moving.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I wanted to touch on individual matchups as we wind down this ATD, and one of the prominent head to heads will be Beliveau vs Taylor and the top 4 of Three Rivers D.

As I highlighted earlier, Imlach managed to slow Beliveau from his scoring pace against the rest of the league and his acquisition of a Taylor like Red Kelly was a big part of that success.

Beliveau vs Imlach coached teams - Results:

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)

Beliveau Wins (3 series) - 15 points in 14 games (+6)
Beliveau Losses (3 series) - 11 points in 16 games (-4)

Beliveau had a career 0.87 PPG (26 points/30 games) in the playoffs against Imlach led Toronto teams.

Beliveau had 1.09 PPG (176/162) in the playoffs (includes those 30 games above) against all teams.

Beliveau had 1.14 PPG (150/132) in the playoffs (removing 30 games against Leafs) against all non-Imlach led teams.

That = 0.27 decrease against Imlach coached teams:

That's not a massive amount but certainly isn't small either.

Cyclone Taylor represents a near replica of Red Kelly, the player who was brought in by Punch Imlach to specifically check Beliveau.

When I had the contract talk with Imlach, we talked most of the day and then it went until midnight before we agreed. Nothing was ever said about where I was going to play or anything until after I agreed to come to Toronto. Toronto was playing Montreal the next night. They had to fly my skates in from Detroit for that game. After I signed, I told Punch, 'I've been off skates for ten days or so. I'd hate to make a mistake out there and cause a goal,' and Punch said, 'Red, how would you feel about playing centre?' I said, 'Great! No problem.' I didn't care where I played as long as I was playing hockey. He said, 'If we're going to win the Stanley Cup, we 're going to have to go through Montreal. I need somebody to check Beliveau.' He said, 'How would you feel if I started you against Beliveau?' I just said, 'Fine. Great. Love it!

Beliveau was a strong skater, especially for his size, but isn't in Taylor's class, which he shares with the likes of Morenz, Orr, and McDavid.

His speed should push Beliveau to exert more energy, with the goal, wearing him down over the course of a long series. Take away time/space with superior skating on the defensive end and make him hustle every shift when you have the puck. Wearing players down isn't just done with physicality. Winning puck battles is just as much about getting to the puck first, which superior skating aids in doing.

I also wanted to highlight the additional game reports I've found so far on Taylor's defensive reputation and ability, along with his toughness and reputation for being aggressive at times without ever being a penalty liability. These are new entries from anything produced in the previous Taylor bios.

Enjoy!

Note - Could only posted 18 pictures (miss the old days) so I typed out the rest of the quotes.

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Wed, Jan 8, 1908

Taylor's strongest point in this game was his blocking and back checking.

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Wed, Feb 5, 1908

Taylor was capable of dealing out heavy checking.

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Mon, Feb 17, 1908

Taylor and Pulford (one of numerous real-life connections on Three Rivers roster) frustrated other team in trying to score.

2nd clipping from same game notes clever blocks by Taylor.

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Thu, Jan 7, 1909

Taylors toughness noted again. Bocking and relieving cited as well.

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Mon, Jan 11, 1909

Steady defensive work by Taylor + aggressiveness noted.

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Thu, Jan 14, 1909

Taylor slashed time and again but shrugged it off. Scored 3+1.

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Mon, Jan 25, 1909

Taylor's aggressiveness noted

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Mon, Feb 1, 1909

Taylors blocking noted as superb.

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Thu, Jan 20, 1910

Taylor breaking up most dangerous attacks

The Ottawa Citizen​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Mon, Feb 14, 1910

Great game report talks about Taylor's mental and physical fortitude. I'm focusing on defensive and toughness related entires and you'll see both cited in great favor of Taylor.

The Ottawa Journal​

Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Wed, Feb 16, 1910

Taylor's toughness noted.

The Victoria Daily Times​

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada • Wed, Dec 11, 1912

Taylor easily best man on the ice and back checking had a lot to do with winning game.

The Victoria Daily Times​

Victoria, British Columbia, Canada • Sat, Jan 18, 1913

"Cyclone Taylor was the hardest worker on the line with Fred Harris a close second. The latter notched a brace of goals while Taylor's skating relieve the Vancouver net time and time again."

Daily News Advertiser​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Wed, Jan 29, 1913

"Cyclone Taylor lived up to his reputation as a spectacular player. He stopped rushes, intercepted passes and came out on top in all his skirmishes with Johnson (Moose). Taylor scored one goal and assisted in notching a few more."

The Vancouver Sun​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Wed, Mar 12, 1913

Taylor's ability to beat a double team (forecheck) via skating and score end to end noted.

"It was a great night for Cyclone Taylor. Never has Taylor performed more brilliantly. He was the mainstay of the attack, while his wonderful skating and beautiful stick handling brought forth rounds of applause time after time.

In the last period he scored the most sensational goal of the season.

Dunderdale had Rowe attempted to "corner" him near the Vancouver nets, but after circling several times he dashed up the side with lightning speed, zig-zagged through the entire Victoria team, and beat Lindsay with a high shot.

It was a great effort and worthy of the applause which was accorded."

Daily News Advertiser​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Sat, Jan 16, 1915

Taylor's absence noted to have big impact on offensive and defensive abilities of team.

"With Taylor on the ice the score would probably have been two to one all through with the leaders on the winning end, but the players seemed lost without the Cyclone's speed and offensive and defensive plays and the only logical answer to Vancouver's defeat is his absence from the lineup."

The Vancouver Sun​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Wed, Jan 12, 1916

Taylor did a lot of back checking in game.

"Leaving Taylor and Stanley to do the back checking and these two sure did work for their living last night.

Of Cyclone Taylor it was must be admitted that the Cyclone is back. Last night he "centred that puck from behind time and time again."

The Spokesman-Review​

Spokane, Washington • Mon, Dec 4, 1916

"The Ty Cobb of hockey, and the big great attraction of the Pacific Coast Hockey association, is coming to Spokane on Tuesday as rover of the Vancouver Millionaires and will endeveavor to notch a couple of goals against Lester Patrick's pets.

The player in question is Fred "Cyclone" Taylor, the Listowel Bullet, the Human Flash and so on."

To enumerate the names Taylor has had applied to him by enthusiastic admirers woudl take half a page of high-priced print paper.

Taylor is 31 years old, but in his 28th, 29th, and 30th he led the scorers of the Pacific Coast Hockey association and made the lives of opposing goal keepers of the league miserable for four months out of the 12.

Taylor in Class By Himself

When Taylor is right, there is no such hockey thinker, stick handler or skater in this or any other league. He can outguess any hockey defense ever brought together, can go through any team ever put on skates without losing possession of the puck. He can take the puck from one end of the rink to the other and finding no chance to score can race back to the other end and start all over again."

The Province​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Mon, Jan 29, 1917

Taylor incredibly plays after having his Appendix removed. Noted to break up Seattle rushes among other feats.

"Aided and abetted by the veteran Cyclone Taylor, just out of bed after a combat with Old Man Appendicitis in which the latter was victor, Taylor jumped into the game from the start, performing a "come-back" that will form a topic of discussion in years to come. Taylor was going good when he was stricken. Saturday he was in the most brilliant form of his coast career.

Skeptics gave Taylor about ten minutes in which to display his wares and then toddle off to the dressing room. They got the surprise of their lives when the famous Cyclone played for over fifty minutes of the time, zig-zagging his way down the ice in sensational rushes, breaking up Seattle rushes and taking just as many chances as the most rugged man on the ice."

The Vancouver Sun​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Thu, Mar 14, 1918

Taylor was bottled up offensively but found a way to contribute defensively.

"Cyclone Taylor was even more closely watched than Monday night at Vancouver, but shunted to defensive playing, trotted out a little checking system of his own which did not agree with the Seattle temperament."

The Seattle Star​

Seattle, Washington • Thu, Feb 13, 1919

Taylor's back checking noted as beautiful.

"Cyclone Taylor and Mickey MacKay were the big men on the ice for the winners.

Taylor skated like a world-beater last night taking innumerable shots at the Seattle goal and playing a fast-checking game. Time and time again the veteran would race the puck down the ice, lose it, and catch the Seattle man with the puck before he could get within the Vancouver defense. He staged some beautiful back-checking."

The Vancouver Sun​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Tue, Mar 11, 1919

Taylor's steal directly leads to goal and noted to work like fiend while shifting to defensive playing at rover.

They saw the old Cyclone grab the puck from an Aristocrat rusher, zigzag his way with terrific speed, through the whole Island team and shoot. Murray stopped it as he had stopped so many in the previous five minutes, but Barney Stanley was right on top of him and beat him on the rebound."

Cyclone Taylor not only worked like a fiend and made his work count in the goal getting last night, but actually played a defence game part of the night, taking Cook's position at rover who went back on the defence."

Vancouver Daily World​

Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada • Tue, Jan 6, 1920

Cyclone Taylor hit a dizzy pace from start to finish. He skated and stick handled in wonderful fashion, while his old shooting iron was responsible for two of Vancouver's three goals. He also assisted Alf Skinner in tallying.

He was all over the ice last night and backchecked like a fiend, keeping Holmes hopping about his goal throughout the game."

Those entries plus what was already known certainly aren't moving Taylor into some sort of Selke level category of F, but I do think we can step onto the "hey was a plus defensively" platform at this point. That doesn't mean great, but good.

From what I've read coupled with what others have already posted gives me the strong impression that at his absolute physical peak (seems to be the Ottawa years), Taylor was quite capable of taking over a game beyond just the offensive end of the ice. He was surprisingly physical before heading west and handled the rough stuff very well as you can see above.

It's going to be extremely hard for Beliveau to get clear of Taylor coming out of his own end and through neutral ice. Pressure is the name of the game here.

Then as Beliveau gets deeper into Three Rivers territory will be met by Harvey, Lapointe, Pulford, and Patrick, just about every shift over the series.

Putting a body on Beliveau won't be an issue with that group, especially the top 3. And unlike a lot of the heavier body checkers in history, Harvey and Pulford were masters at defensive hockey (Harvey being the best ever in my eyes). They didn't need to take excessive risk to lay someone out.

Harvey also has the benefit of knowing Beliveau as good or better than anyone. The book on Jean is in Harvey's back pocket. And if you read up on the 4 players involved, their collective hockey IQ and reputation for being smart players is extremely robust. Frustrating the other team isn't just about physicality or skill alone. Defensemen need to understand angles and positioning. Being in the right place at the right time, consistently, to take away time and space will frustrate the opposition.

Three Rivers having stellar transition from the blue line is a great counter to Windsor's talent on the top line. A lot of defensive pairings have a weaker defensive partner to attack in terms of forechecking. Once Three Rivers D get the puck, it's likely they'll be getting it out of the zone and moving the other way.

Taylor's speed and ability to stick to Beliveau, creating a constant nuisance before passing him off to a stellar top 4, should create a tough grind for Windsor's best weapon.

 

[VanIslander]

Good luck!

 

[spitsfan24]

You've raised a lot of great points @ImporterExporter. However, I'd like to take the time right now to push back against the notion that Windsor's defence isn't equipped to handle the pressures of a playoff series, specifically Suter and Howe.

Let's look at Suter first:

2010 was the first playoff run he had as an upper-echelon defenceman. Just behind Weber in TOI, he averaged over 24 minutes a game against the quasi-dynasty Blackhawks. Plus-minus is definitely not my favourite statistic in the world because it lacks so much context. Suter finishes the series (losing in 6 to the eventual Cup champs) with 0 points and is a -1. The Predators were over-matched in pretty much every facet of the game. Joel Ward led their forwards in ATOI for Pete's sake. With no points, a -1 tells me he probably wasn't out there for many goals against, although I realize it isn't an exact science. He also puts up 4 points in 6 games (+9) as an alternate captain on Team USA in the Olympic Games, illustrating that she shows up under the bright lights.

In 2011, Suter puts up a respectable 3 points in 6 games playing an absurd 27:28 on average against the Ducks in the first round. He's a +2, and the Preds advance to face the Canucks. Against the team that pushed Boston to 7 games in that year's Cup Final, Suter's Preds fall in 6. He played over 30 (!) minutes per game in this series and finishes with 3 points in 6 games, and an even +-. This playoff run sees him play the role of the unquestioned #1D (on a team with Weber) and he responds with a 0.5 PPG as a plus player. Not a ton more he could have realistically done here.

2012 sees Suter and Weber getting almost identical minutes against Detroit in the first round. The Preds defeat them in 5 games, and Suter is even with no points. In the next round against the Coyotes, Suter leads his team in points as a defenceman while playing just under 30 minutes a night in a losing effort. Disappointing result for the team, but make no mistake, Suter showed up.

2013 was Suter's first year in Minnesota. His reward is running into the wagon known as the Blackhawks in round 1. 31:37 was his ATOI, and he was a -5 with no points recorded. Minnesota loses in 5 games to the Cup Champs in a series that they just didn't have the horses to compete in. I think you could swap Suter for Harvey here, and Minnesota would still get walloped.

2014 sees the Wild play the Avs in the first round, and he plays over five minutes more than their #2 dman, Jared Spurgeon. Suter's 4 points help Minnesota advance in 7. Unfortunately for him, they run into the buzzsaw Blackhawks again. 3 points in 6 games isn't enough to get past them. At the Olympics, Suter again has a great showing with 3 points in 6 games (+2).

In 2015, Suter has an uneventful first round against the Blues. No points and a -3. The Wild advance despite Suter's iffy series. But for the 4th time in 6 seasons, the Blackhawks bounce him from the playoffs. He was solid in terms of point production (2 in 4 games), but was a -5. He played almost 40 more minutes than any other teammate, which explains why the +- is so inflated.

2016's playoff run only lasted 6 games, but Suter himself was great. At a half point-per-game, he is a +3 against the Stars. Dallas prevails, however.

After a great regular season for the Wild in 2017, they struggle to score in the playoffs, as they are on the receiving end of a gentleman's sweep at the hands of St. Louis. Suter ties for the team lead in scoring. Not one Minnesota Wild player is a plus player.

2018 sees 33-year-old Suter have a very good regular season, propelling the Wild to over 100 points. He misses the first round series against the Jets, and the Wild are thoroughly dominated.

And that covers Suter's prime. So I guess my question is: what part of that is abysmal? In terms of team performance, his clubs lost to the near-dynasty Blackhawks four times, and a Cup runner-up in 2011.

Suter himself plays at the level of an undisputed #1 dman. Quite simply, the teams that he was a part of weren't good enough to go deeper than the 2nd round. He plays ridiculous minutes for almost an entire decade, leads his team in scoring twice as a defenceman, and his play doesn't fall off further into the playoffs. In fact, his minutes actually go up as his teams advance. Additionally, he was borderline fantastic at two best-on-best international tournaments. I think his big-game "deficiencies" are way overblown.

When it comes to Howe, context is yet again so important.

After rolling through the first two rounds in 1985, Howe's Flyers take on the Nordiques in the conference finals. Howe is a +2 with 4 points in 6 games. In the finals, Howe has a forgettable series against the dynasty Oilers. 2 points in 5 games (-1) isn't bad going up against that collection of talent, but it's not great either.

1987 sees Howe record 11 points in 19 games (+19) in the first three rounds, before running into the dynasty Oilers for the 2nd time in 3 years. Howe struggles, finishing with 1 point in 7 games (-4).

In 1989, the 36-36-8 Flyers made a run to the conference finals, and Howe was exquisite. Amassing 15 points in 13 games (+13) against the Capitals and Lemieux-led Penguins, Howe was dominant. Montreal was clearly the better team in the CF, yet Howe was one of only three plus players for the Flyers despite having no points.

Overall, we have two good playoff runs here, and a great one in 1989. With all due respect to Taylor and Bowie, Howe does not have to worry about a Gretzky-caliber offensive talent coming his way in this championship series.

Furthermore, Howe isn't being relied on as the #1 dman in Windsor. Seibert fills that role nicely, allowing Howe's abilities to play up as an elite #2. That applies to Suter as well. This team is going to give them the support they may not have had during their best runs in real-life.

The way I see it, both Suter and Howe are good playoff performers, with Howe being a bit better at his peak. They're definitely not weaknesses as it relates to playoff resumes.

----------

One other point about the defencemen in this series: the importance of breakouts has been mentioned a fair bit. Windsor's blueline excels at this very thing. They combine size, skill, smarts, and speed as well as anybody in the ATD. Their ability to neutralize the forecheck was, in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons why they prevailed in the conference finals. And Broome's top-six was much more adept at that style of game than TR. I think last round's experience against that heavy style of play will be really beneficial for us here facing Leswick and Lemieux.

TR's back-end is obviously great in transition as well, but I see Pulford as somebody that's weaknesses could very well be exploited. He loves to rush the puck up the ice, but what happens when he turns it over? It's widely known that his skating leaves something to be desired, and I'm not sure TR's forwards are going to provide him much insulation in that regard. Especially if he sees a lot of time with their second line. Kucherov isn't getting back, and Bowie (as far as I know) always had a defensively responsible winger to do that for him. A lot of pressure on Thompson to fill that role.

I still wonder about Harvey's usage. Is he going to be the two-way stud we know him to be on the left side? Overpass' thread seems to put that into question.

So, saying that, I see the two teams' rearguards to be pretty damn even. I don't think either team has any discernible advantage in that aspect.

I have a few other scattered thoughts, but this post is messy enough as is. Hopefully, I'll be back a bit later, and I'll put them in a separate post.

 

[tinyzombies]

Wasn't there a study done of dmen in one of those playoff runs where it was shown that all Suter did was bang it off the glass? I seem to remember he was great vs Canada in 2010 tho?

 

[ImporterExporter]

Glad to see you back in the fold Spits! Hopefully we can finish with a bit of a flurry here discussion wise.

 

[spitsfan24]

A lot has been made of TR's pests, namely Leswick and Lemieux. No question, they have been invaluable to TR's playoff run thus far. But I think Windsor differs from their previous opponent in one major way.

Leswick in particular was critical to their win against Montreal due to his real-life exploits when playing Richard. He is notorious for his shutdown abilities against Richard and Gordie Howe. In both instances, he acted as the ultimate pest, frustrating them into oblivion. For as great as Howe and Richard are, they could be goaded into penalties and poorer play under these circumstances. Mike Bossy's temperament is much different. While Richard and Howe would always be interested in pursuing swift justice, Bossy didn't let his counterparts get under his skin to the same degree. Windsor's entire top-nine (with the exception of maybe Blake) are all incredibly disciplined, and this is important because the pests on TR are out there to get their team on the PP, which is admittedly potent.

While I'm on the subject, @Dr John Carlson, sorry for such a late response Doc, but my answer to your question is twofold. Firstly, as I just touched on, limiting our time spent in the penalty box is of utmost importance. I think we're well-equipped to do that. But obviously, we will find ourselves short-handed at some point. When we do, attacking the puck-carrier is going to be Trotz' game plan. If you give guys like Kucherov time and space, he'll pick you apart. By getting in his face and forcing the action, I believe he's susceptible to turning the puck over. And that's when our forwards can either choose to counter-attack or kill some time depending on the situation and their particular strengths. We've seen Kucherov get thrown off his game when frustrated at times, so disturbing his peace is essential.

I do want to take a second to talk goalies. It's clear that Brodeur has more career value, but (as you have even admitted), there's not a ton separating them in a championship series. One thing that I think is worth mentioning is Brodeur's career in New Jersey never saw a GM not named Lou Lamoriello. Now, I'm not one of those people to dismiss Brodeur's accomplishments as purely a result of the stingy defence in front of him (especially as a Devils fan myself), but Lou's Devils were always built on stout two-way play. They turned Ilya Kovalchuk into a committed defensive player at one point. Throughout Brodeur's tenure in New Jersey, his forwards were always paying attention to the defensive side of the puck. At their best, Brodeur's skill set helped the defence, the defence helped the forwards, and so on. They were a structured, well-oiled machine.

I don't see that same level of structure in TR. Even if you want to argue that the top-six isn't one-dimensional (which I don't agree with), they're certainly not Lou's Devils in terms of attention to the detail without the puck. Can Brodeur overcome that deterrent? I'm sure it's possible. But it's still a situation that we haven't seen him in. It's crazy that for all his time spent in New Jersey, their forwards were always built in the same way; just performed at various skill levels. I think he'll see more scoring chances in this series than he's accustomed to, and that could have a huge affect on the series.

To recap where I have this series, I have no qualms giving TR the coaching advantage. I think Trotz fits Windsor's team well, but Imlach has the resume that almost makes that point moot.

I have Windsor ahead at forward. A huge difference in top line personnel, a second line that is levelled up in the post-season (plus being the far more reliable defensively of the two), and while TR has the advantage in the bottom-six, their pests potentially being neutered by our even-keeled players shrinks the gap. Overall, a win for Windsor.

I think our bluelines are the most even part of this series. At this point, I think it's fair to say our top pairs are ultra-close. Harvey loses a bit of mustard on the left side, and Howe and Seibert are simultaneously a great fit stylistically and perfectly set in their roles. Suter-Burns (with bonus points due to Trotz) are right there with TR's second pair, especially with Pulford's skating deficiencies a potential problem playing with Bowie and Kucherov. I have our third pairs similarly close, although Grant is the best of the bunch among those four. I call this entire section a wash.

Goaltenders in a 7 game series may be just as even. Brodeur gets extra points for his ability to aid in transition, but the questions I raised above cloud just how effective he'll be in between the pipes.

In conclusion, as my opponent has also said, I think this series goes the full 7. But Windsor's unstoppable top trio (I've already shown Kelly and, by extension, Taylor, didn't/won't have as much of an impact on Beliveau as IE believes), playoff-tested top-nine (with the discipline and all-around play that encompasses it), and a defence that's roles are well-defined and maximizes their talents will ultimately lead them to victory.

Wasn't there a study done of dmen in one of those playoff runs where it was shown that all Suter did was bang it off the glass? I seem to remember he was great vs Canada in 2010 tho?

I don't recall ever seeing that study, but I'd love to see it. And yes, he was excellent against Canada in 2010.

The spotlight doesn't get much bigger than that.

 

[ImporterExporter]

You've raised a lot of great points @ImporterExporter. However, I'd like to take the time right now to push back against the notion that Windsor's defence isn't equipped to handle the pressures of a playoff series, specifically Suter and Howe.

Let's look at Suter first:

2010 was the first playoff run he had as an upper-echelon defenceman. Just behind Weber in TOI, he averaged over 24 minutes a game against the quasi-dynasty Blackhawks. Plus-minus is definitely not my favourite statistic in the world because it lacks so much context. Suter finishes the series (losing in 6 to the eventual Cup champs) with 0 points and is a -1. The Predators were over-matched in pretty much every facet of the game. Joel Ward led their forwards in ATOI for Pete's sake. With no points, a -1 tells me he probably wasn't out there for many goals against, although I realize it isn't an exact science. He also puts up 4 points in 6 games (+9) as an alternate captain on Team USA in the Olympic Games, illustrating that she shows up under the bright lights.

In 2011, Suter puts up a respectable 3 points in 6 games playing an absurd 27:28 on average against the Ducks in the first round. He's a +2, and the Preds advance to face the Canucks. Against the team that pushed Boston to 7 games in that year's Cup Final, Suter's Preds fall in 6. He played over 30 (!) minutes per game in this series and finishes with 3 points in 6 games, and an even +-. This playoff run sees him play the role of the unquestioned #1D (on a team with Weber) and he responds with a 0.5 PPG as a plus player. Not a ton more he could have realistically done here.

2012 sees Suter and Weber getting almost identical minutes against Detroit in the first round. The Preds defeat them in 5 games, and Suter is even with no points. In the next round against the Coyotes, Suter leads his team in points as a defenceman while playing just under 30 minutes a night in a losing effort. Disappointing result for the team, but make no mistake, Suter showed up.

2013 was Suter's first year in Minnesota. His reward is running into the wagon known as the Blackhawks in round 1. 31:37 was his ATOI, and he was a -5 with no points recorded. Minnesota loses in 5 games to the Cup Champs in a series that they just didn't have the horses to compete in. I think you could swap Suter for Harvey here, and Minnesota would still get walloped.

2014 sees the Wild play the Avs in the first round, and he plays over five minutes more than their #2 dman, Jared Spurgeon. Suter's 4 points help Minnesota advance in 7. Unfortunately for him, they run into the buzzsaw Blackhawks again. 3 points in 6 games isn't enough to get past them. At the Olympics, Suter again has a great showing with 3 points in 6 games (+2).

In 2015, Suter has an uneventful first round against the Blues. No points and a -3. The Wild advance despite Suter's iffy series. But for the 4th time in 6 seasons, the Blackhawks bounce him from the playoffs. He was solid in terms of point production (2 in 4 games), but was a -5. He played almost 40 more minutes than any other teammate, which explains why the +- is so inflated.

2016's playoff run only lasted 6 games, but Suter himself was great. At a half point-per-game, he is a +3 against the Stars. Dallas prevails, however.

After a great regular season for the Wild in 2017, they struggle to score in the playoffs, as they are on the receiving end of a gentleman's sweep at the hands of St. Louis. Suter ties for the team lead in scoring. Not one Minnesota Wild player is a plus player.

2018 sees 33-year-old Suter have a very good regular season, propelling the Wild to over 100 points. He misses the first round series against the Jets, and the Wild are thoroughly dominated.

And that covers Suter's prime. So I guess my question is: what part of that is abysmal? In terms of team performance, his clubs lost to the near-dynasty Blackhawks four times, and a Cup runner-up in 2011.

Suter himself plays at the level of an undisputed #1 dman. Quite simply, the teams that he was a part of weren't good enough to go deeper than the 2nd round. He plays ridiculous minutes for almost an entire decade, leads his team in scoring twice as a defenceman, and his play doesn't fall off further into the playoffs. In fact, his minutes actually go up as his teams advance. Additionally, he was borderline fantastic at two best-on-best international tournaments. I think his big-game "deficiencies" are way overblown.

When it comes to Howe, context is yet again so important.

After rolling through the first two rounds in 1985, Howe's Flyers take on the Nordiques in the conference finals. Howe is a +2 with 4 points in 6 games. In the finals, Howe has a forgettable series against the dynasty Oilers. 2 points in 5 games (-1) isn't bad going up against that collection of talent, but it's not great either.

1987 sees Howe record 11 points in 19 games (+19) in the first three rounds, before running into the dynasty Oilers for the 2nd time in 3 years. Howe struggles, finishing with 1 point in 7 games (-4).

In 1989, the 36-36-8 Flyers made a run to the conference finals, and Howe was exquisite. Amassing 15 points in 13 games (+13) against the Capitals and Lemieux-led Penguins, Howe was dominant. Montreal was clearly the better team in the CF, yet Howe was one of only three plus players for the Flyers despite having no points.

Overall, we have two good playoff runs here, and a great one in 1989. With all due respect to Taylor and Bowie, Howe does not have to worry about a Gretzky-caliber offensive talent coming his way in this championship series.

Furthermore, Howe isn't being relied on as the #1 dman in Windsor. Seibert fills that role nicely, allowing Howe's abilities to play up as an elite #2. That applies to Suter as well. This team is going to give them the support they may not have had during their best runs in real-life.

The way I see it, both Suter and Howe are good playoff performers, with Howe being a bit better at his peak. They're definitely not weaknesses as it relates to playoff resumes.

----------

One other point about the defencemen in this series: the importance of breakouts has been mentioned a fair bit. Windsor's blueline excels at this very thing. They combine size, skill, smarts, and speed as well as anybody in the ATD. Their ability to neutralize the forecheck was, in my opinion, one of the biggest reasons why they prevailed in the conference finals. And Broome's top-six was much more adept at that style of game than TR. I think last round's experience against that heavy style of play will be really beneficial for us here facing Leswick and Lemieux.

TR's back-end is obviously great in transition as well, but I see Pulford as somebody that's weaknesses could very well be exploited. He loves to rush the puck up the ice, but what happens when he turns it over? It's widely known that his skating leaves something to be desired, and I'm not sure TR's forwards are going to provide him much insulation in that regard. Especially if he sees a lot of time with their second line. Kucherov isn't getting back, and Bowie (as far as I know) always had a defensively responsible winger to do that for him. A lot of pressure on Thompson to fill that role.

I still wonder about Harvey's usage. Is he going to be the two-way stud we know him to be on the left side? Overpass' thread seems to put that into question.

So, saying that, I see the two teams' rearguards to be pretty damn even. I don't think either team has any discernible advantage in that aspect.

I have a few other scattered thoughts, but this post is messy enough as is. Hopefully, I'll be back a bit later, and I'll put them in a separate post.

The Suter-Howe playoff highlights are minimal, especially when you start comparing them against their counterparts in this series. Despite them being big minute and clearly impactful players for their respective team(s), they impacted the game, positively, less than many, many ATD greats, not to mention players outside that sphere.

Some players have the misfortune of playing for the "wrong" team, at the wrong time. Dionne is an example of this.

Howe's prime years were spread across multiple dynasties he didn't play on. That's a fact. What is also a fact, is that numerous players, be it 1st liners, or 4th, 1st pairing, or 3rd, have given their team a bigger boost come postseason. In some cases, multiple times.

Claude Lemieux is an example. Doesn't matter where he went, what style of team he played on, he shows up. Was never THE guy, wasn't always on THE best team, but produced big moments, numerous times. There are many, many examples of players who were on underdog rosters, against great odds, and put-up significant numbers or had significant praise written about their exploits.

I don't think Howe is some sort of liability here, but across 140 odd years of history, his resume in the playoffs is significantly less impressive than any of the top 4 players on Three Rivers, not to mention scores of others. A couple of good/great series over a career for Howe, just doesn't match up against most of Three Rivers players.

Suter's postseason record is just not good. No matter where he's gone, the #'s shows his pairing (usually the top) bled goals. His offensive contributions waned

How much leeway should we give him simply because he wasn't on one of the top 2-3 teams in the league at the time? He was a net negative player 10 out of 15 times in the playoffs. He never made it out of the 2nd round until age 38.

There really isn't a single time, in 15 years, where you go, "that's a defining moment" for Suter in the playoffs.

You brought up the Olympics. While I absolutely count that on a player's resume, and Suter was particularly great in 2010, that tournament is not apples to apples, NHL play. The Olympics don't feature 82 games and then 4, best of 7 series, to decide a champion.

Again, comparing those resumes to Harvey, Lapointe, Pulford, and Patrick? It's simply put, night and day.

Against the ATD world, Suter and Howe are not good playoff performers. That's just too generous when you examine the who's who at this level and having done this many times, I don't think I'm off in hammering home this point.

I can't in good conscience come close to agreeing about breakout and transition when you say your group does that as well as anyone.

Nobody on Windsor's team has the reputation that Harvey did at controlling a game with the puck on his stick. That's not just a generational timescale, pat on the back. His dominance at moving a hockey team spans the entirety of hockey history.

His presence alone gives us a leg up in that regard, which doesn't even take into consideration the rest of the team.

Yes, Pulford was a poor skater until the last few years of his career, the improvement should be considered as part of the equation for starters.

Secondly, and this is more important, from a tactical standpoint. Pulford was a very strong defender, despite his skating. He did it with strong IQ, power, and positioning. As his career went on, he improved considerably as a rusher and skater. And next to a player/skater/offensive catalyst like Lester Patrick, Pulford doesn't need to rush the puck or often play deep into the offensive zone. His primary job when we have the puck is to be the safety for Patrick and given what the contemporary reports say about Pulford, he should be a source of consistent defensive excellence.

Defensive excellence favors our top pairing as well.

Suter and Burns, historically, are going to be a pairing to target for our F group. They play smaller than their sizes from a physical standpoint, and are the weakest defensively out of our top 4's.

What does Windsor's blue line do better than Three Rivers on the whole?

Offensive ability/contemporary praise? No
Defensive ability/contemporary praise? No
Physicality? No
Transition? No
Positioning? No
Usage/efficiency at ES and ST? No
Regular season accolades? No
Playoff accolades? No

That may seem overly biased, but contemporary accounts, along with numbers, plus visual evidence leads me to honestly put that in writing above. I truly feel that's an accurate overview of our respective bluelines.

Harvey was the best defensemen in the world playing both sides of the ice. The AS and Norris record backs that up as Harvey played LD consistently, up until the point of Bouchard retiring (after 1955-56) By that time he was already a perennial AS and in his 2nd Norris campaign.

Here is the late Canadiens1958 confirming that.

Not only does it highlight Harvey playing a long time at LD with Butch Bouchard, it also notes that even when Harvey converted to the right side for the 56-57 season and beyond, he would still play LD to counter great RW's, which makes A LOT of sense in a series where you trot out Mike Bossy.

And lastly, Harvey played and controlled the famous Habs PP from the LEFT side.

I think the conclusion is that Harvey was a plug and play superstar, regardless of what side of the ice he started the game on.

And in this series, his positioning on the left side puts him in prime real estate to confront Bossy.

 

[rmartin65]

Yes, Pulford was a poor skater until the last few years of his career, the improvement should be considered as part of the equation for starters.

Could you please point me in the direction of the sourcing that has him as not a poor skater? I have seen the quotes about him improving in that department, but I don't recall seeing him described as an average skater (or better).

 

[tinyzombies]

A lot has been made of TR's pests, namely Leswick and Lemieux. No question, they have been invaluable to TR's playoff run thus far. But I think Windsor differs from their previous opponent in one major way.

Leswick in particular was critical to their win against Montreal due to his real-life exploits when playing Richard. He is notorious for his shutdown abilities against Richard and Gordie Howe. In both instances, he acted as the ultimate pest, frustrating them into oblivion. For as great as Howe and Richard are, they could be goaded into penalties and poorer play under these circumstances. Mike Bossy's temperament is much different. While Richard and Howe would always be interested in pursuing swift justice, Bossy didn't let his counterparts get under his skin to the same degree. Windsor's entire top-nine (with the exception of maybe Blake) are all incredibly disciplined, and this is important because the pests on TR are out there to get their team on the PP, which is admittedly potent.

While I'm on the subject, @Dr John Carlson, sorry for such a late response Doc, but my answer to your question is twofold. Firstly, as I just touched on, limiting our time spent in the penalty box is of utmost importance. I think we're well-equipped to do that. But obviously, we will find ourselves short-handed at some point. When we do, attacking the puck-carrier is going to be Trotz' game plan. If you give guys like Kucherov time and space, he'll pick you apart. By getting in his face and forcing the action, I believe he's susceptible to turning the puck over. And that's when our forwards can either choose to counter-attack or kill some time depending on the situation and their particular strengths. We've seen Kucherov get thrown off his game when frustrated at times, so disturbing his peace is essential.

I do want to take a second to talk goalies. It's clear that Brodeur has more career value, but (as you have even admitted), there's not a ton separating them in a championship series. One thing that I think is worth mentioning is Brodeur's career in New Jersey never saw a GM not named Lou Lamoriello. Now, I'm not one of those people to dismiss Brodeur's accomplishments as purely a result of the stingy defence in front of him (especially as a Devils fan myself), but Lou's Devils were always built on stout two-way play. They turned Ilya Kovalchuk into a committed defensive player at one point. Throughout Brodeur's tenure in New Jersey, his forwards were always paying attention to the defensive side of the puck. At their best, Brodeur's skill set helped the defence, the defence helped the forwards, and so on. They were a structured, well-oiled machine.

I don't see that same level of structure in TR. Even if you want to argue that the top-six isn't one-dimensional (which I don't agree with), they're certainly not Lou's Devils in terms of attention to the detail without the puck. Can Brodeur overcome that deterrent? I'm sure it's possible. But it's still a situation that we haven't seen him in. It's crazy that for all his time spent in New Jersey, their forwards were always built in the same way; just performed at various skill levels. I think he'll see more scoring chances in this series than he's accustomed to, and that could have a huge affect on the series.

To recap where I have this series, I have no qualms giving TR the coaching advantage. I think Trotz fits Windsor's team well, but Imlach has the resume that almost makes that point moot.

I have Windsor ahead at forward. A huge difference in top line personnel, a second line that is levelled up in the post-season (plus being the far more reliable defensively of the two), and while TR has the advantage in the bottom-six, their pests potentially being neutered by our even-keeled players shrinks the gap. Overall, a win for Windsor.

I think our bluelines are the most even part of this series. At this point, I think it's fair to say our top pairs are ultra-close. Harvey loses a bit of mustard on the left side, and Howe and Seibert are simultaneously a great fit stylistically and perfectly set in their roles. Suter-Burns (with bonus points due to Trotz) are right there with TR's second pair, especially with Pulford's skating deficiencies a potential problem playing with Bowie and Kucherov. I have our third pairs similarly close, although Grant is the best of the bunch among those four. I call this entire section a wash.

Goaltenders in a 7 game series may be just as even. Brodeur gets extra points for his ability to aid in transition, but the questions I raised above cloud just how effective he'll be in between the pipes.

In conclusion, as my opponent has also said, I think this series goes the full 7. But Windsor's unstoppable top trio (I've already shown Kelly and, by extension, Taylor, didn't/won't have as much of an impact on Beliveau as IE believes), playoff-tested top-nine (with the discipline and all-around play that encompasses it), and a defence that's roles are well-defined and maximizes their talents will ultimately lead them to victory.


I don't recall ever seeing that study, but I'd love to see it. And yes, he was excellent against Canada in 2010.

The spotlight doesn't get much bigger than that.

Pretty sure someone posted it here at atd. Burns turns it over and Suter bangs it off the glass- so maybe not an ideal pair

 

[ImporterExporter]

A lot has been made of TR's pests, namely Leswick and Lemieux. No question, they have been invaluable to TR's playoff run thus far. But I think Windsor differs from their previous opponent in one major way.

Leswick in particular was critical to their win against Montreal due to his real-life exploits when playing Richard. He is notorious for his shutdown abilities against Richard and Gordie Howe. In both instances, he acted as the ultimate pest, frustrating them into oblivion. For as great as Howe and Richard are, they could be goaded into penalties and poorer play under these circumstances. Mike Bossy's temperament is much different. While Richard and Howe would always be interested in pursuing swift justice, Bossy didn't let his counterparts get under his skin to the same degree. Windsor's entire top-nine (with the exception of maybe Blake) are all incredibly disciplined, and this is important because the pests on TR are out there to get their team on the PP, which is admittedly potent.

While I'm on the subject, @Dr John Carlson, sorry for such a late response Doc, but my answer to your question is twofold. Firstly, as I just touched on, limiting our time spent in the penalty box is of utmost importance. I think we're well-equipped to do that. But obviously, we will find ourselves short-handed at some point. When we do, attacking the puck-carrier is going to be Trotz' game plan. If you give guys like Kucherov time and space, he'll pick you apart. By getting in his face and forcing the action, I believe he's susceptible to turning the puck over. And that's when our forwards can either choose to counter-attack or kill some time depending on the situation and their particular strengths. We've seen Kucherov get thrown off his game when frustrated at times, so disturbing his peace is essential.

I do want to take a second to talk goalies. It's clear that Brodeur has more career value, but (as you have even admitted), there's not a ton separating them in a championship series. One thing that I think is worth mentioning is Brodeur's career in New Jersey never saw a GM not named Lou Lamoriello. Now, I'm not one of those people to dismiss Brodeur's accomplishments as purely a result of the stingy defence in front of him (especially as a Devils fan myself), but Lou's Devils were always built on stout two-way play. They turned Ilya Kovalchuk into a committed defensive player at one point. Throughout Brodeur's tenure in New Jersey, his forwards were always paying attention to the defensive side of the puck. At their best, Brodeur's skill set helped the defence, the defence helped the forwards, and so on. They were a structured, well-oiled machine.

I don't see that same level of structure in TR. Even if you want to argue that the top-six isn't one-dimensional (which I don't agree with), they're certainly not Lou's Devils in terms of attention to the detail without the puck. Can Brodeur overcome that deterrent? I'm sure it's possible. But it's still a situation that we haven't seen him in. It's crazy that for all his time spent in New Jersey, their forwards were always built in the same way; just performed at various skill levels. I think he'll see more scoring chances in this series than he's accustomed to, and that could have a huge affect on the series.

To recap where I have this series, I have no qualms giving TR the coaching advantage. I think Trotz fits Windsor's team well, but Imlach has the resume that almost makes that point moot.

I have Windsor ahead at forward. A huge difference in top line personnel, a second line that is levelled up in the post-season (plus being the far more reliable defensively of the two), and while TR has the advantage in the bottom-six, their pests potentially being neutered by our even-keeled players shrinks the gap. Overall, a win for Windsor.

I think our bluelines are the most even part of this series. At this point, I think it's fair to say our top pairs are ultra-close. Harvey loses a bit of mustard on the left side, and Howe and Seibert are simultaneously a great fit stylistically and perfectly set in their roles. Suter-Burns (with bonus points due to Trotz) are right there with TR's second pair, especially with Pulford's skating deficiencies a potential problem playing with Bowie and Kucherov. I have our third pairs similarly close, although Grant is the best of the bunch among those four. I call this entire section a wash.

Goaltenders in a 7 game series may be just as even. Brodeur gets extra points for his ability to aid in transition, but the questions I raised above cloud just how effective he'll be in between the pipes.

In conclusion, as my opponent has also said, I think this series goes the full 7. But Windsor's unstoppable top trio (I've already shown Kelly and, by extension, Taylor, didn't/won't have as much of an impact on Beliveau as IE believes), playoff-tested top-nine (with the discipline and all-around play that encompasses it), and a defence that's roles are well-defined and maximizes their talents will ultimately lead them to victory.


I don't recall ever seeing that study, but I'd love to see it. And yes, he was excellent against Canada in 2010.

The spotlight doesn't get much bigger than that.

Leswick could bring out the worst in a saint.

The great aspect of being a world class pest, is that they can get under anyone's skin. Leswick and Lemieux fit into that class. Furthermore, they don't need to simply target one player in particular. There is no reason why it needs to be a winger vs winger. Words travel, players end up all over the ice. Emotions run high in these situations.

Jean Beliveau was prone to taking penalties at times, and his PIM/game rate jumped from the regular to postseasons.

Consider in 1966-67 playoff run (ended w/loss to Punch Imlach's Leafs in SCF) Beliveau led the Montreal squad AND playoffs overall, in PIM's (26).

He was 2nd on the squad in 55-56 and 56-57, and 64-65.

This isn't to say Beliveau will spend significant time in the box this series, but I certainly think Three Rivers has the players and defensive acumen to frustrate him into sitting at least a handful of times and whether he goes off alone or along with one our players, Three Rivers is coming out on top in that exchange short of it being Harvey.

Ken Randall spent huge amounts of time in the sin bin, over his career. Smokey Harris was routinely among the PIM leaders in the PCHA the first half of his career.

IMHO, Brodeur was the most important part of the Devil's system. He was the best player on those squads, and his puck moving abilities were crucial to their particular structure. Force a team to give the puck up in the neutral zone, and Brodeur is going to get to it often, and process it before an opposing F can retrieve. Belfour didn't have that kind of impact. He didn't force the league to change rules in how goalies can play the puck.

I don't believe this is a series where Marty will see any abnormal increase in shots against as you allude to happening. Our blue line is too strong defensively, are aces at transitioning the puck via skating or passing and supported by an incredibly swift group of skaters who bring counter offensive abilities that make us dangerous going into Windsor's end. That isn't exclusive to our top 6 either. Leswick-Barry-Bauer is a potent 3rd line in an ATD setting w/this many teams.

And as I highlighted, Taylor and Morris both had a wealth of positive things said about their defensive contributions, over many years of their career. They are much closer to plusses than liabilities if you compare what I dug up vs contemporary praise of many other offensive stars from that era.

Taylor was a game breaking weapon offensively. Numerous league scoring titles. And consider most of the 1st 3rd of his career was spent playing on defense. He was already past his physical peak when he got out west and was still the best player until the latter part of the 1910's.

Schriner won back-to-back Art Ross trophies. He's a 91 VsX level player. That's better than Toe Blake and just 3 points behind Bossy.

Bernie Morris kept pace with Taylor, finishing in 2nd in scoring, just 3 points behind him in 1916. Morris then led the league in scoring the following season. though Taylor only played in half the games so it would have been neck and neck once again. Morris was runner up to Taylor the following two years as well. Seventies pegs his VsX equivalent to 82. That's a good # for a 3rd wheel, especially one who brings qualities beyond offensive output.

Our top line is very dangerous offensively and has 2 players who clearly put effort into the defensive aspects of the game over the course of many years.

There just isn't a viable argument to be made that our top 6 is one dimensional on the whole. Taylor is one of the most valuable chess pieces in hockey history. How many players were all world at F and D over their career arc? He was called the best player in the world by many as a D and rover and C. His all around game is well documented. Morris was able to play C and RW equally well. Again, plenty of evidence past and new (my stuff) that paint him as a well rounded player, and not at all one dimensional.

Even Schriner was traded for and played under Hap Day, winning a pair of titles w/the defensive minded task master. So Schriner proved he could operate within the confines of a more defensive focused style of play. That bodes well for playing under Punch Imlach.

I do agree and have said, our 2nd line is certainly more offensively bent than rounded but even still, there isn't anything written to suggest Bowie was a liability in his own end. Kucherov's possession/advanced playoff stats are stellar. He doesn't get credit for being a plus defensively, and won't shut anyone down. Conversely history says he won't kill you either. Thompson played, and starred for a very defensive minded coach in Tommy Gorman, a Pete Green disciple.

It's not like every F from those NJ teams were renowned or even historically strong defensive F's. Guys like Scotty Gomez, Petr Sykora, Mogilny, Arnott, etc were nothing special. There are no Gordie Drillon's or Bill Cowley's on Three Rivers. We have defensive plusses and a handful of players who certainly aren't any worse than those players I mentioned above.

The core of those NJ teams was Brodeur and defensemen, led by Stevens, Niedermayer, and Rafalski.

Punch Imlach kept Mahovlich around for the duration of his dynasty. He converted a defensemen to C specifically to go against Beliveau. The core of those Maple Leafs teams was their blue line, led by Horton, Stanley, Brewer, Baun. Imlach routinely fawned over Johnny Bower, a goalie who was historically very adept at moving the puck and came out of his net to play the puck, ala Brodeur.

As I said in my final analysis, I do give you an edge at F overall, mainly due to the impressive 1st line and balance across the top 9. But, as you said yourself, it's not a big edge because Three Rivers counters very well on lines 2, 3, and 4.

Lastly, I'll bang the drum again, in that the biggest advantages in this series belong to Three Rivers on defense, in net, and special teams.

Howe and Seibert are simply put, not ultra close to Harvey-Lapointe. I touched on this in my previous post. There is a fairly substantial gap from Harvey to Seibert, while Howe and Lapointe are very close all time, w/Lapointe having a much more robust playoff resume, especially in Conference Finals and SCF's, which I detailed on the previous page. The accolades, both regular and postseason favor our top pairing, by a lot. They are capable of playing a more physical style. They are better, collectively, at moving the puck. They are better, collectively, on the defensive end. And lastly, conveying that Harvey loses points or mustard for playing the left side, is bordering on a dangerous take. He was a multi time 1st team AS playing there. A Norris winner playing there. A title winner. He played and quarterbacked the left side of the vaunted PP. Put him on either side of the ice, and he's the best defensemen in any series, unless Orr happens to be present.

As I said in my previous post, Pulford's skating would be more of an issue if there was written confirmation that it negatively impacted his defensive game. Despite his skating, he had consistently great things written about his defensive exploits. He reads like a more physical Rod Langway, with better leadership credentials and contributions to winners.

He and Patrick have very robust playoff records and were both considered the best or among the best defenders in their time. And we're not talking about a 2-3 year window either. I think both are absolutely top 200 players of all time and I can't say that about both Suter and Burns who simply cannot stack up in a playoff setting, with so much on the line vs their counterparts on the other side.

It's the same story on the bottom pairing, as the best defender on either team is Mike Grant. He was a certified superstar for numerous years and was the captain of hockey's first real dynasty. Big game experience isn't lacking w/him or Marshall who was a part of 5 SC winners.

 

[spitsfan24]

You brought up the Olympics. While I absolutely count that on a player's resume, and Suter was particularly great in 2010, that tournament is not apples to apples, NHL play. The Olympics don't feature 82 games and then 4, best of 7 series, to decide a champion.

Technically, you brought up international play when you mentioned Brodeur getting the nod over Belfour. While I agree that it's not a direct replica of the situation Suter finds himself in now, I believe it dilutes the notion that he doesn't show up in big games. The 2010 Olympics were arguably some of the biggest games of his career, and he was a stud. We never got to see him facing the pressure of a Stanley Cup Final series, but is there any reason to believe that he wouldn't be able to handle it considering his best-on-best performance for the Americans? I don't think so.

It's not like every F from those NJ teams were renowned or even historically strong defensive F's. Guys like Scotty Gomez, Petr Sykora, Mogilny, Arnott, etc were nothing special.

I agree with this to a certain extent. They weren't renowned for their defence, but they sure as hell bought into the system, and did their part to prevent goals against. If they didn't, they'd be benched (or dealt).

And lastly, conveying that Harvey loses points or mustard for playing the left side, is bordering on a dangerous take. He was a multi time 1st team AS playing there. A Norris winner playing there. A title winner. He played and quarterbacked the left side of the vaunted PP. Put him on either side of the ice, and he's the best defensemen in any series, unless Orr happens to be present.

Doug Harvey is obviously going to be a great player on either side of the ice. But I don't think I'm being unreasonable here in questioning his effectiveness offensively at even strength in this series.

He had great regular season success playing on the left side, as you noted here. The fact of the matter is that his offence completely dried up in the playoffs (at even strength). It didn't "pop off" until he shifted sides. The shutdown version of Harvey is unquestionably still an elite player. But if he's not the other-worldly two-way demon that you're counting on seeing in this series, that's an important distinction, especially considering the gap between the two bluelines isn't large at all.

As I said in my previous post, Pulford's skating would be more of an issue if there was written confirmation that it negatively impacted his defensive game.

Ok, here are some quotes provided by rmartin65. I believe all of them come from the pre-merger project.

From 1894 and 1895; Pulford's skating leading him to be "outclassed".
From 1905; Pulford allowing opposing forwards to skate around him.

From 1906; Pulford getting bailed out by his goalie many times after allowing the "speedy Quebecers" to get by.

From 1906; Pulford yet again needing his goalie to save the day "too often" in this game.

From 1906; Pulford losing the puck "quite frequently" and having to "hump back" to defend his goal.

From 1907; Not high praise for Pulford's mobility, defensive acuity, or discipline here.

From 1908; Pulford's skating causing Wanderers to "repeatedly go around him".

And that was just a quick search of the boards. These quotes span most of his career, so it doesn't seem like he improved it enough to not be somewhat of a liability at times as you've tried to articulate.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think Pulford is a great player. I just think his weaknesses are particularly magnified on your squad considering the amount of time he'll see with Kucherov's line. Again, he's a great but flawed player that's mistakes could prove to be costly for TR in this series.

EDIT: I'm not sure why the spacing is so off when displaying the images. Hopefully it's not too difficult to read.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Technically, you brought up international play when you mentioned Brodeur getting the nod over Belfour. While I agree that it's not a direct replica of the situation Suter finds himself in now, I believe it dilutes the notion that he doesn't show up in big games. The 2010 Olympics were arguably some of the biggest games of his career, and he was a stud. We never got to see him facing the pressure of a Stanley Cup Final series, but is there any reason to believe that he wouldn't be able to handle it considering his best-on-best performance for the Americans? I don't think so.


I agree with this to a certain extent. They weren't renowned for their defence, but they sure as hell bought into the system, and did their part to prevent goals against. If they didn't, they'd be benched (or dealt).


Doug Harvey is obviously going to be a great player on either side of the ice. But I don't think I'm being unreasonable here in questioning his effectiveness offensively at even strength in this series.

He had great regular season success playing on the left side, as you noted here. The fact of the matter is that his offence completely dried up in the playoffs (at even strength). It didn't "pop off" until he shifted sides. The shutdown version of Harvey is unquestionably still an elite player. But if he's not the other-worldly two-way demon that you're counting on seeing in this series, that's an important distinction, especially considering the gap between the two bluelines isn't large at all.



Ok, here are some quotes provided by rmartin65. I believe all of them come from the pre-merger project.

From 1894 and 1895; Pulford's skating leading him to be "outclassed".
View attachment 897096From 1905; Pulford allowing opposing forwards to skate around him.View attachment 897097From 1906; Pulford getting bailed out by his goalie many times after allowing the "speedy Quebecers" to get by.View attachment 897098From 1906; Pulford yet again needing his goalie to save the day "too often" in this game.View attachment 897099From 1906; Pulford losing the puck "quite frequently" and having to "hump back" to defend his goal.View attachment 897100From 1907; Not high praise for Pulford's mobility, defensive acuity, or discipline here. View attachment 897101From 1908; Pulford's skating causing Wanderers to "repeatedly go around him".View attachment 897102And that was just a quick search of the boards. These quotes span most of his career, so it doesn't seem like he improved it enough to not be somewhat of a liability at times as you've tried to articulate.

Now, don't get me wrong, I think Pulford is a great player. I just think his weaknesses are particularly magnified on your squad considering the amount of time he'll see with Kucherov's line. Again, he's a great but flawed player that's mistakes could prove to be costly for TR in this series.

EDIT: I'm not sure why the spacing is so off when displaying the images. Hopefully it's not too difficult to read.

Suter's record is subpar because the sample size of a single Olympic tournament is incredibly small. We have significant data that shows him to be more of a non-factor come playoff time. People can give him some cushion because he was never on the "best" team, but time and time again, his teams faltered and as a key player, his numbers and finishes don't add up to being a significant contributor on the positive. That can't just be waved away because he didn't play on a dynasty.

This is not to say Suter will PLAY abysmally, but the odds of him doing a consistent, net positive job, is smaller than his counterparts on Three Rivers.

This applies to Burns, to a lesser degree, as he at least has 1 defining playoff run to his name and another that was certainly plus. But it's a mostly blank career arc once hockey starts going best of 7. Especially compared to the other side of the coin.

Their records in playoff hockey doesn't stack up well against Pulford and Patrick, or anyone on the AC side. In a 7-game series, the historical data points to Three Rivers having a big advantage in that portion of the conversation, on this pairing, the top, and bottom to be factual.

Getting back to Harvey.

Even if we want to say Harvey's offensive output (meaning counting stats like goals/assists) will suffer a bit playing the left side, his partner, Guy Lapointe, is an excellent player going forward. HIs offensive abilities are not in question, which includes skating, passing, scoring, etc. I already highlighted how great he was, deep in the postseason. Not only in counting stats, but usage in ALL situations. Part of the pairings' brilliance is that both players are good in both directions.

Harvey, in a series with MIke Bossy, would tactically be used on the left side. I'd do that, and would put a lot of money on Imlach, or Blake, or Bowman, doing the same if given the choice. Harvey played the left side for match up purposes even after he shifted to the right regardless. That's not in question. It puts him in better position to engage Windsor's best winger, Bossy.

Harvey's point totals are also not entirely indicative of his generalship on the whole anyway. That's well documented by a lot of peers, coaches, refs, etc. His ability to control the tempo and pace of the game doesn't rely on stats. It's everywhere in print when you look for it. He certainly racked up a ton of points playing the left side on the PP, which was routinely talked about being ran by Harvey. The brains and engine.

I fully would expect every player on Three Rivers to buy into the system here. There is nothing to suggest AC players wouldn't backcheck or pay attention to details beyond just offense.

On Pulford, I certainly agree that he can be beaten defensively. Even Doug Harvey isn't a full proof guaranteed shut out, defensemen. There are some quotes about his skating being a liability. However, many more quotes exist, speaking to his defensive abilities being positive, regardless of his skating issues.

You can see them here (the main post by rmartin in the pre-merger project)

I really hope we can vote in some of the early-era guys without having to resort to arguments revolving around quotas- I respect the era as much as anyone (hell, I'm trying to write a book about it), but I think setting an arbitrary quota to ensure that this era gets its due sets a bad precedent. These players deserve to be acknowledged based on their merits, not least of all because their successes and play inspired others and popularized the game.

Since I promised a quote about Pulford, I'll make a case for him now (this isn't every quote I have, but I think it is a good representation of the positives and negatives)

From Pulford's first AHAC game:

"The Ottawa defence was kept busy throughout, but they fought off the enemy in a rattling manner, the burden of the work being attended to by Weldy Young and Pulford. The latter played point for the first time and did most effective work. He is not a brilliant stick handler or skater, but a splendid check, and can interfere in a quiet, nice way without willfully hurting an opponent. He showed good judgement when things looked critical, and generally succeeded in stopping the many rushes of the Davidsons and Wallace.The latter played grandly in both halves”

“S. McDougall is a phenomenally fast skater and full of grit, his brother Joe, a thoroughly trained athlete, wicked checker and a cool player with only one fault, which is shared in by Pulford, he only plays with one hand”

From the rest of that first season (1894):

“Pulford played a consistently good game in front of goal, and is apparently the man the Ottawas have long needed for point”

“Nearly all the Montreal rushes that passed Young got to be very dangerous. Pulford tried hard enough, but he is not a first class skater… He was outclassed, and so was Joe McDougall, who lacked speed for the company he was in"

His next season (1895)-

“Pulford was not up to the mark, and it was only the excellent work of Young that prevented a bigger score against them”

“Chittick proved himself a splendid stop and a good checker, while Pulford took care of his man every time and spoiled many good shots”

“Pulford showed good head in front of the goals and did some fine checking, but was occasionally too tender with the puck. A good hard drive without loss of time would have saved considerable anxiety”

"‘Weldy’ Young lifted beautifully at cover, and Pulford was reliable at point"

“Pulford played a strong, careful game, using his stick and weight with good judgment, and was seldom very hard pressed”

1896-

“The Ottawa defence is a very strong one, and few chances are missed by either Young or Pulford, while Chittick is one of the coolest and best stops in the flags”

“Pulford did grand work when the Ottawas were minus their brilliant cover point’s services. So, also, did Kirby and Westwick, who played a splendid game throughout. When Young was on he played as brilliantly as usual, and there is no doubt that the three defence men of the Ottawas compose a back division that is the strongest in Canada”

“Young at point made no mistakes and he and Pulford both indulged in runs up the ice” (I believe this is the first mention of Pulford rushing- far earlier than what is popularly bandied about)

1897-

“Pulford was not particular how he stopped the puck or the man, but he stopped them just the same and caused the whistle to blow"

"Pulford as point did very little in that position"

1898-

“The match was a good exhibition, and at times some beautiful work was done by both teams, but when the ice got heavy and the pace slackened up, but even then there was plenty of excitement for the spectators by reason of the heavy checking indulged in. Young and Pulford were the leaders in this style of play and were not very particular how they stopped an opposing forward as long as they saved a score”

“The Ottawas defence put up a great game all the way through. Young and Pulford stopped the rushes well and lifted the puck with a great deal of judgment”

“Cope made some good stops in the second half, but was not very effective in the first half. Cope claimed, and a great many consider with considerable reason, that Pulford played too close in on him in the first half and that he did not get a proper show”

“Pulford is playing better this year than ever before”

“The play of both teams was characterized by a looseness and want of combination on the forward line. This was especially noticeable on the part of the visitors, who, though well served by Pulford and Young, were unable to do much with the puck when they did get it"

Pulford did not play in Senior hockey in 1899, but we have a good quote about him anyway-

"Pulford’s style of play would have proved most effective, and the Ottawas attribute their defeat largely to the fact that he was not on the team”

1900 (here is where, in my opinion, Pulford really starts to hit his stride as a player)-

“Stuart, at cover-point, was not up to form, and the Montreal forwards had little difficulty in going by. Pulford was a harder proposition, and as he was not very particular about his tactics, the Montreal forwards were somewhat abused"

"A great amount of defence work fell on Pulford, as the Montrealers frequently got inside of Stuart, and Pulford stopped them very effectively and sometimes quite roughly. Very few of the Montrealers made a second effort to go around Pulford"

“Pulford, at point, showed right good hockey and was ably supported by Duval, at cover. Pulford’s bringing out and centring to his line did much to steady the forwards, and might advantageously be adopted by many senior defence players"

" Pulford played effectively and did not have much trouble in breaking up the rushes of the Vic’s forwards"

1901-

“Pulford and Duval, besides doing good puck lifting, used their bodies to advantage”

"Pulford played a strong game, and besides helping to defend is own goal he always was on the lookout to put the Montreal goal in danger”

"Pulford is the same stronger player and is a difficult man to pass"

“... and while Pulford is probably the poorest skater playing first class hockey, he generally makes gains”

"In the earlier stages of the game Pulford used his body with telling force, but, according to Hoyle, and succeeded in instilling a wholesome fear into the visiting forward line”

"Pulford, if he would only stay at point, is at all times a resourceful player”

1903-

"All seemed, however, to have a very marked respect for Pulford and for this reason played rather too much on the side instead of going in on the flags”

“It was certainly an off night for Bouse, but these are bound to crop up with any player. Pulford did the best work on the defence. Harvey has by no means an enviable reputation as a clean hockey player, but to the majority of those present on saturday night his work was as free from rough house work as it could possibly be”

“Harvey Pulford never played better and it was through him that Ottawa scored at least one of its goals. He blocked his men and rushed when necessity demanded, with skill"

"Pulford and Moore on the defence played hard and rough hockey, but could not ‘lift’ the puck to any advantage, and did not play together"

"Arthur Moore and Harvey Pulford on the defence simply refused to allow the Montreal anyways near Bouse Hutton. They body-checked hard, and after the first few minutes Dickie Boon’s forwards were content to shoot at long range. Both lifted well, too, and kept their forwards well fed"

"Pulford and Hutton as usual played a reliable game. Pulford is a bad man to run against and this the Montrealers learned to regret”

"Pulford worked hard and his rushes up the ice put the Quebec poles in danger time after time"

“Pulford played a great game on the Ottawa defence, and many a good attack by Bowie, Russell and Allan was broken up by the big man”

"Bouse Hutton had little chance to show his skill, but Pulford was a second goal keeper. The number of shots he stopped was a surprise and when it began to grow the crowd yelled itself hoarse"

“The visitors seemed afraid to form and intimate acquaintance with Moore and Pulford, and for that reason their shooting was ineffective”

“On a couple of occasions Pulford lost the puck to Quebec when trying to carry it up the ice rather than lift it out”

"Harvey Pulford was a little selfish at times and seemed to have a particular desire to get even with the Quebec goalkeeper”

“Pulford played Saturday as if he was pretty close to that state known as ‘all in’, while it is an open secret that Hutton narrowly escaped being replaced by Cope. But Pulford is yet serviceable, and there are not many of the youngsters who would care to try conclusions with the big fellow"

“Pulford at point put up a careful game. He was perhaps too lenient about checking and although he went to the fence once he often let a Montreal forward off with less punishment that would have been admissible. He was reliable and always where he was needed. His rushes up the ice were surprises to many. Pulford is a fast skater and generally gets a clear rink when he starts out with the puck” (so I can show that Pulford's skating issues weren't speed after all!)

"Pulford was merciless with his body, and any one who came within his territory suffered severely”

“Pulford’s lifting is improving from game to game”

1904- I don't have much, due to Ottawa HC leaving the CAHL after 4 games

1905-

"Moore was almost ‘always in the way’ or Pulford would reach for the puck or the man and generally got what he reached for. If both failed, as they sometimes did, Finnie was on deck, with the finest exhibition of goaltending he has put up since he started to travel in senior company”

“Baker, the Wanderers’ goal keeper, had no sinecure, though Strachan in front of him, like Pulford, stopped many dangerous shots”

“Moore and Pulford also took matters easy and frequently allowed the opposing forwards to skate around the in a way which was surprising in view of their past performances”

Pulford was named to the fan-voted 1905 all-star team in 1905 at point. He was also named as the point on an unnamed Montreal man's all-star team that was published in 1905- "Pulford, point, and Moore, cover point. Both are strapping big men, they do not use boarding-school methods to handle the enemy as it sweeps down upon them. Pulford is a poor skater. That is his only weakness. But opposing teams fear him, as they fear no man on the ice, and Pulford's strenuous work in the defence of his goal net has earned him the endearing title of 'Butcher'."

1906-

“Pulford put up the same serviceable game as of old. He played perfectly in his position and when the attack lagged in their efforts he headed many a dangerous rush"

“Pulford proved himself to be as good if not better than ever and the years seem but to add to his activity. He was the best man on his side”

"Next the Smith brothers in excellence of play was Pulford, who put up a terrific game at point and not satisfied with playing his position kept going down the side or straight down the center with the rubber and leading the rush of the forwards on the Wanderer flags. He always got back in time however to save his own position”

"Pulford as usual was a prominent figure in all the defence plays and his rushes helped to disorganize the visitors”

"Pulford did not shine so much as in the Quebec match. He and Moore were too often beaten to make the club’s supporters feel very well, and it was only the very wonderful goal-keeping of Hague that saved many a score”

"Pulford had moved out to cover point early in the half, and he backed up the work of the three with rushes that carried the disc into close quarters”

"Haig was the best and did splendid work, while Pulford, as usual, showed that he had something in reserve at critical times"

“... Pulford playing one of the strongest games of his long and varied athletic career. He broke up most of the rushes, with stick or body, and inaugurated many an attack for the Ottawas”

"Pulford pulled off some sensational plays when he saw that the team was up against it, but at that stage Wanderers weren’t leaving many openings and even Harvey’s great speed, weight and stick-handling were ineffective" (interesting note about stickhandling)

"In the general result the most prominent factor was the play of Harvey Pulford. The veteran defence man was at best, and playing clean, if hard hockey, he was the rock on which split all the attempts of the Vics forwards to work in on the Ottawa nets. Changing places with Moore, he played throughout the game at the cover point position. This change Pulford has made from time to time in the different games of the present series, but Saturday night was the first occasion on which he has made the change permanent for the whole hour’s play. It was one more evidence of generalship which had done much to place the Ottawa seven at the head of the hockey world. The evident reasoning was that with Moore at cover point Vics would be able to work sufficiently far in to give Grier and Bowie the chances they had in the game at Ottawa. At cover point he formed a dividing line in the play and few Vic rushes culminated in a shot from close quarters”

"Pulford played cover point nearly all through the game, and it was plain that he had a good deal to do with the demoralizing of the Vics”

“Pulford, next to McGee, was the most conspicuous for effective work. He was at cover point again, and kept his eye on the puck”

“Pulford then made the most brilliant run of the evening, taking the puck from Smaill just in front of the goal, he came up the ice with it himself and circled round all opponents until he came to Horsfall when he passed to Smith on his right, who returned to him and the point player scored easily”

“Pulford was the hardest worker of the whole team. He threw all his energies into initiating attack, and repeatedly swung into the forward line, using his build in strength in many endeavors to break down the Wanderer line and force the play onto the local net. However, Harvey lost the puck quite frequently, and then had to hump back to defend his goal”

An Assistant Referee (Fred Brophy) reportedly was not a fan of Pulford, with a Montreal paper writing that he “did not think much of Pulford as a player. His game, though not exactly dirty, was to often effectually smother the attack of the opposing side”

“Harvey Pulford was the most brilliant player on the ice. Nobody did as much as he, if only for the reason that nobody had to do so much, but he did it, and one shivers to imagine what the score would have been had the great point man not been in the very finest fettle. Pulford himself was never beaten”

“Pulford’s play will long be remembered by those who saw it as one of the grandest expositions of point play ever seen in Canadian hockey”

“On the other hand Pulford, the Ottawa giant, played a great game for his team and rushed repeatedly down the ice in a vain attempt to score”

“Pulford and Moore performed many feats, and the work of Pulford in aiding his forwards had a great deal to do with the manner in which the Ottawa lot pulled up on Wanderer. As in the previous match, Pulford swung his weight and strength into the line and made many efforts to break through the Wanderer opposition, as if to crush it down”

" Pulford again shone as the best defence man in Canada, while Moore put up a splendid game at point"

“Pulford rushed the length of the ice whenever he wished”

1907-

“Pulford played his old reliable game on the defence and would repeatedly take the puck down into the enemy’s territory and come close to scoring on a number of occasions. The way he broke up the rushes of the Quebecers was good to see. Moore also put up a good defence game and assisted the forwards in many a rush down the ice"

“Pulford, playing his first game of the season, was quite as good as ever, getting in many an effective run down the ice in assistance of his lagging forward line"

“... only to collide and go down with Pulford, who at this time of the game was playing like a demon, saving scores when scores seemed certain”

“Spittal did not amount to much at point for Ottawa, and Pulford had to work overtime. The cover point was in a vicious humor, but the effectiveness of his play was not to be denied"

“Pulford seemed out of sort somehow or another, and stood listlessly moving his stick around in a semi-circle till he lost his temper again”

Harvey Pulford and the great Hod Stuart opposed each other at cover. Pulford hadn’t as much speed as Stuart, but he bored down on the Wanderer nets in great shape, aiding the forwards and checking with his usual skill”

"Pulford, however, was at his best. His work was not gentle- he is a big fellow and of a strenuous temperament- but it appeared to be fair. He was none the less effective for cutting out rough tactics, and combination dashes by the opposing quartette were met with all the resources and cunning that made him one of the great defence players in the game. Bowie drew his especial attention; he seemed to calculate that a rush would culminate in a pass to the great Vic scorer, and time and again he anticipated this pass with a poke or a jab at the puck that brought the Vic attack to a fruitless end. Pulford sallied out occasionally, but not often”

“None of the Ottawas showed up particularly well, except Pulford. The big cover-point played rag with the Montreal forwards, and took the puck down within shooting distance frequently"

"Harvey Pulford again proved that he is still a star cover-point, and his frequent rushes were always dangerous"

“Pulford at cover played his old reliable game and broke up all kinds of dangerous attacks. He also made several attempts to go down and score but got little support in these rushes"

"The slushy ice told against Harvey Pulford, and he fell frequently. Pulford did his share, nevertheless, and the rushes which he made as the game drew to a close brought back memories of the Kenora-Ottawa series two years ago"

“Pulford was outmatched in cleverness as a cover point by Hod Stuart, but he played his usual effective game. He gave no quarter to Wanderers, particularly to Stuart, but his tactics, while severe, were fair"

1908-

“Alf Smith’s work was the most effective of the Ottawa forwards, but to Pulford the greater portion of the defence work fell. He strove hard to turn the tide, and his rushes were a feature of the game"

“Pulford at point proved to be the old reliable and broke up rush after rush in pretty fashion. He also made some nice rushes down the ice and came close to scoring on several occasions"

“Harvey Pulford played a grand game at point, his rushing bringing the Ottawa crowd to its feet repeatedly. Harvey is speedier and more effective than ever"

“Pulford was steady and too hard a man for the Wanderer forwards to work around”

“Undoubtedly the individual star of the Ottawa team was Harvey Pulford. Pulford played a clean, steady article of hockey throughout, scoring the first goal himself and engineering the attack which resulted in the second"

"Pulford was as strong as ever. He played a good, steady, clean game, although the crowd on principle hooted him once or twice”

“Pulford seldom plays a dirty game but the crowd hoots him from force of habit. Hockey crowds have hooted Pulford for years and for some reason or other it seems to give them unlimited pleasure”

"Pulford put up a star game breaking up all kinds of dangerous rushes"

“Pulford, by carrying the campaign into the enemy’s country with a couple of brilliant rushes, was the man most instrumental in the turning of the tide of battle at that critical juncture”

"Pulford did some beautiful checking and carried the rubber down to the Vic flags on several occasions"

"Pulford did some nice checking, and took the rubber down quite often, but the speedy Wanderer forwards would repeatedly go around him"

Pulford was named to both 1908 all star teams mentioned up thread; in one he was listed at point, for the other he was on the second team as a cover.

Closing Thoughts
I think we (and hockey historians) have been unfairly making Pulford into a bit of a caricature. He had his limitations as a player, yes, especially early in his career. He took a couple years to get going (and I think was overshadowed by Weldy Young until Young went west), but he really hit his stride at the turn of the century and put up several years of play as the best (or at least one of the best) defensemen in hockey. He's going to be high on my ballot this time around.

@rmartin65 (you asked about quotes regarding Pulford's speed)

Ottawa Journal March 10 1905

Furthermore, I'd like to highlight Pulford's game report, from game 3, the deciding game of the Stanley Cup challenge against Rat Portage in 1905. Obviously, a huge game, winner takes all, and Pulford was the MVP without question.

His skating certainly seems like it got considerably better as his career went on. To what extent is harder to tell, but he doesn't seem like a slowpoke reading from 1905 onward.

 

[rmartin65]

@rmartin65 (you asked about quotes regarding Pulford's speed)


His skating certainly seems like it got considerably better as his career went on. To what extent is harder to tell, but he doesn't seem like a slowpoke reading from 1905 onward.

As I've stated before, I've seen the game summaries. If it is a pre-1910 AHAC/CAHL/FAHL/ECAHA or SC game, and in the papers covered by newspapers.com, I have the scans for it and spreadsheets full of player stats and quotes. And in the 120 games I have for Pulford, I don't see much evidence that he was anything but a poor skater. He was definitely an effective player- a Hall of Fame caliber player, in my opinion- so this isn't me trying to bust up his legacy or anything.

I was/am looking for quotes about his skating, not his speed. I have opined multiple times over the past year+ that I think that Pulford's skating issues weren't necessarily speed related; one can be a poor skater and a fast skater (moving forward, at least) at the same time, the two are not mutually exclusive, and I think that it the case here.

And in any case, improvement doesn't mean he became average or better. Using made-up numbers here, if Pulford was in the bottom 5% of skaters in the league and improved to being in the bottom 25%, he certainly improved a lot in comparison to his peers but he would still be a below-average skater.

Obviously it is hard for us to tell some 110+ years later, which is why I am always looking for new information. It would be a great find if someone did uncover solid evidence that Pulford became an average (or better!) skater, but I just don't think that's what we are looking at right now.

 

[ImporterExporter]

As I've stated before, I've seen the game summaries. If it is a pre-1910 AHAC/CAHL/FAHL/ECAHA or SC game, and in the papers covered by newspapers.com, I have the scans for it and spreadsheets full of player stats and quotes. And in the 120 games I have for Pulford, I don't see much evidence that he was anything but a poor skater. He was definitely an effective player- a Hall of Fame caliber player, in my opinion- so this isn't me trying to bust up his legacy or anything.

I was/am looking for quotes about his skating, not his speed. I have opined multiple times over the past year+ that I think that Pulford's skating issues weren't necessarily speed related; one can be a poor skater and a fast skater (moving forward, at least) at the same time, the two are not mutually exclusive, and I think that it the case here.

And in any case, improvement doesn't mean he became average or better. Using made-up numbers here, if Pulford was in the bottom 5% of skaters in the league and improved to being in the bottom 25%, he certainly improved a lot in comparison to his peers but he would still be a below-average skater.

Obviously it is hard for us to tell some 110+ years later, which is why I am always looking for new information. It would be a great find if someone did uncover solid evidence that Pulford became an average (or better!) skater, but I just don't think that's what we are looking at right now.

What I see is that he improved, and I'd wager significantly so from the beginning of his career, to the end. That's literally in print, numerous times.

How much, is debatable, but you can't read what is out there and not see the improvement.

That may only take him from poor to below average, but in terms of quality AND quantity of contemporary entries on this topic, there is a lot of info comparatively speaking to other players on file. Your own research drives home that when I line up how much is available on Pulford, coupled with what I've found in just a quick newspapers search last night. His skating and rushing is routinely mentioned as you get further into the 1900's.

I'm more interested in the overall game and resume. Pulford is by no mean a plus skater and he is not infallible to being beaten 1v1 (that's in print absolutely) but despite his skating, he managed to rise to superstar status, arguably the best defender in hockey, over a longer stretch than basically everyone from that era. You drove that home in the pre-merger project.

He was a noted rusher later in his career, skating be damned and was a kingpin on a dynasty. A noted leader and big game performer. Your own research and gleaming was a big reason why Johnny and I honed in on him as a great fit for someone like Lester Patrick.

BTW, do you have any comments or questions for the other squad? Haven't seen any put forth in this series or past, when you've showed up.

 

[rmartin65]

What I see is that he improved, and I'd wager significantly so from the beginning of his career, to the end. That's literally in print, numerous times.

How much, is debatable, but you can't read what is out there and not see the improvement.

Sure, I have no issues with agreeing that he improved; I don't think he was always the worst skater in senior hockey. But I don't know just how much he improved, and I don't know how much his overall skating improved vs his speed.

That may only take him from poor to below average, but in terms of quality AND quantity of contemporary entries on this topic, there is a lot of info comparatively speaking to other players on file. Your own research drives home that when I line up how much is available on Pulford, coupled with what I've found in just a quick newspapers search last night. His skating and rushing is routinely mentioned as you get further into the 1900's.

Ottawa players generally have more coverage. The Montreal papers covered the Ottawa games in great detail, while the Ottawa papers didn't always return the favor for games between two Montreal clubs.

EDIT: Coverage also generally became more robust as it advanced into the 1900s. It makes sense to me that there would be more references the more recent in history we look.

None of this means Pulford wasn't great, but I think this is some context we need to consider.

I'm more interested in the overall game and resume. Pulford is by no mean a plus skater and he is not infallible to being beaten 1v1 (that's in print absolutely) but despite his skating, he managed to rise to superstar status, arguably the best defender in hockey, over a longer stretch than basically everyone from that era. You drove that home in the pre-merger project.

Sure, I've never argued otherwise. Without double-checking my posts in this thread, I believe I have been clear that I think Pulford was a great player. I am only pushing back against the idea that his overall skating was anything but poor.

He was a noted rusher later in his career, skating be damned and was a kingpin on a dynasty. A noted leader and big game performer. Your own research and gleaming was a big reason why Johnny and I honed in on him as a great fit for someone like Lester Patrick.

Noted rusher is a hard sell for me. He rushed on occasion, but he did not stand out in this department when looking at his contemporaries. By the 1900s (when Pulford really started to flex this part of his game, though there are some mentions of it earlier), there were probably a half dozen players in his league alone that were better rushers- off the top of my head, from players in the 1900-1908 time period, I'd wager that, in no particular order, Dickie Boon, Frank Patrick, Lester Patrick, Hod Stuart, Peg Duval, Walter Smaill, Joe Power, Art Ross, Didier Pitre, Rod Kennedy, and Cyclone Taylor were better rushers. I'll stress that I don't think they were better players than Pulford, but based on what I have read, they were more accomplished/successful/threatening rushers on a regular basis than Pulford. There is some wiggle room with a couple of those names, and some only overlapped for a season or two, but that is 11 defenders I think were better than Pulford at rushing the puck.

Kingpin is also difficult for me. McGee was the kingpin, full stop. Then I think you look at Alf Smith and Harvey Pulford as fighting for that second spot, then LeSeuer and Westwick in the 4th and 5th spots. Just looking at the real dynasty guys, of course.

BTW, do you have any comments or questions for the other squad? Haven't seen any put forth in this series or past, when you've showed up.

Your opponent doesn't have any of the really old-time players I have spent a lot of time researching- Frederickson, Mackay, and Harris are outside of my focus area, both in terms of league and time period.

And for the record, I have waded into other threads earlier this year. I believe I made some comments about Frank McGee and Shirley Davidson. And even Russell Bowie, if I remember correctly.

I like to talk about the era I am particularly interested in, to share what I know (or think I know) and to try to learn from what others know. If something piques my curiosity, I am going to ask questions to try to see where opinions differ and to try to figure out why.

I am here for the history, not the ATD. Winning really doesn't interest me at this point (and that's a good thing, too, considering I got smoked in the first round this year). I enjoy researching and discussing the era, not just the players on my team. I apologize if you interpret this as anything more nefarious than that.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Sure, I have no issues with agreeing that he improved; I don't think he was always the worst skater in senior hockey. But I don't know just how much he improved, and I don't know how much his overall skating improved vs his speed.


Ottawa players generally have more coverage. The Montreal papers covered the Ottawa games in great detail, while the Ottawa papers didn't always return the favor for games between two Montreal clubs.

EDIT: Coverage also generally became more robust as it advanced into the 1900s. It makes sense to me that there would be more references the more recent in history we look.

None of this means Pulford wasn't great, but I think this is some context we need to consider.


Sure, I've never argued otherwise. Without double-checking my posts in this thread, I believe I have been clear that I think Pulford was a great player. I am only pushing back against the idea that his overall skating was anything but poor.


Noted rusher is a hard sell for me. He rushed on occasion, but he did not stand out in this department when looking at his contemporaries. By the 1900s (when Pulford really started to flex this part of his game, though there are some mentions of it earlier), there were probably a half dozen players in his league alone that were better rushers- off the top of my head, from players in the 1900-1908 time period, I'd wager that, in no particular order, Dickie Boon, Frank Patrick, Lester Patrick, Hod Stuart, Peg Duval, Walter Smaill, Joe Power, Art Ross, Didier Pitre, Rod Kennedy, and Cyclone Taylor were better rushers. I'll stress that I don't think they were better players than Pulford, but based on what I have read, they were more accomplished/successful/threatening rushers on a regular basis than Pulford. There is some wiggle room with a couple of those names, and some only overlapped for a season or two, but that is 11 defenders I think were better than Pulford at rushing the puck.

Kingpin is also difficult for me. McGee was the kingpin, full stop. Then I think you look at Alf Smith and Harvey Pulford as fighting for that second spot, then LeSeuer and Westwick in the 4th and 5th spots. Just looking at the real dynasty guys, of course.


Your opponent doesn't have any of the really old-time players I have spent a lot of time researching- Frederickson, Mackay, and Harris are outside of my focus area, both in terms of league and time period.

And for the record, I have waded into other threads earlier this year. I believe I made some comments about Frank McGee and Shirley Davidson. And even Russell Bowie, if I remember correctly.

I like to talk about the era I am particularly interested in, to share what I know (or think I know) and to try to learn from what others know. If something piques my curiosity, I am going to ask questions to try to see where opinions differ and to try to figure out why.

I am here for the history, not the ATD. Winning really doesn't interest me at this point (and that's a good thing, too, considering I got smoked in the first round this year). I enjoy researching and discussing the era, not just the players on my team. I apologize if you interpret this as anything more nefarious than that.

IMO, I think you're probably being overly concerned in regards to Pulfords skating limitations. He ascended into superstar status and the defensive aspects of the game were long talked about in a positive light, regardless of how his skating is described. That's an important part of the discussion.

Logic and common sense tells me that based on what we have on Pulford (a lot of which is thanks to your time and efforts), his skating simply could not be THAT awful by the mid to late 1900's. There are too many descriptions of it being positive vs an earlier timeframe. Sure, some of that is based on game reports becoming more readily available the further past 1900 you get. Ottawa players have always been the easiest to research IMO as there is so much source material (multiple city papers that are well detailed). And of course, we don't have clear distinctions between skating and speed but my rub is that the negative comments shrink (coupled with an increase in positive) as you get further along the career arc. That is very telling, to me. Maaaayyybe that means just speed in a straight line, but I doubt it is that narrow in description. If he was such a pylon, the mentions of people beating him 1v1 would be readily available across the entire career.

As for his rushing, that's another area of big improvement from what I'm reading. Not only in the end result and output of said rushes, but the quantity of mentions of it.

I certainly agree that he's nowhere near Taylor or Patrick, or some of the names you mentioned. But that doesn't lessen his contributions (not that you said so). I am glad to see more and more mentions of his ability to rush the puck and impact the game offensively, regardless of skating abilities. A putrid skater and stickhandler probably wouldn't be getting much praise in these areas so it stands to reason that Pulford was adept at these things later in the career. Certainly not best in the league, or even on the next rung. That's altering reality. But I do believe the word capable is warranted.

And next to Lester Patrick, a player he'd be very familiar with, his attributes gel well, in our opinions. Pulford and Patrick (not many players were 6' or taller in this era) were both very big players for their day and Patrick was an excellent skater and rusher. Lester was indeed in the upper tier of those 2 attributes, so the need for Pulford to handle these duties is lessened considerably. His focus is on the defensive area of the ice and in that area, I think he's superior to both of Windsor's 2nd pairing defensemen and his own partner.

Lastly, no worries at all about asking questions and posting thoughts. I'm honestly stoked we got some back and forth and contributions from both GMs! You're one of the last people I'd consider entering for nefarious reasons. It was just general observation from the tournament so far in the match ups I've been a part of.

 

[rmartin65]

IMO, I think you're probably being overly concerned in regards to Pulfords skating limitations.

I wouldn't say I'm concerned about his limitations at all; like I said, I don't really care who wins. I care that we are talking about these players as accurately as possible, and I think attempts to plus up his skating are not accurate. At least, based on the primary sourcing that I have seen so far.

Logic and common sense tells me that based on what we have on Pulford (a lot of which is thanks to your time and efforts), his skating simply could not be THAT awful by the mid to late 1900's.

That doesn't make it average, though. I don't think he was always the weakest skater in the league, but I do think he was always among the weakest.

There are too many descriptions of it being positive vs an earlier timeframe. Sure, some of that is based on game reports becoming more readily available the further past 1900 you get. Ottawa players have always been the easiest to research IMO as there is so much source material (multiple city papers that are well detailed). And of course, we don't have clear distinctions between skating and speed but my rub is that the negative comments shrink (coupled with an increase in positive) as you get further along the career arc. That is very telling, to me. Maaaayyybe that means just speed in a straight line, but I doubt it is that narrow in description.

The negative comments don't really shrink, though; he just wasn't called the worst skater in senior hockey again. Of course, no one was. That kind of "attack" on a player is exceedingly rare. The only other one I can really recall on that level (asides from players being accused of being too rough or too selfish) is Ernie Russell, who the papers absolutely destroyed once or twice one year.

As for his rushing, that's another area of big improvement from what I'm reading. Not only in the end result and output of said rushes, but the quantity of mentions of it.

Defenders rushing the puck became more common, so it stands to reason he would be doing it more. However, Pulford didn't really do any better relative to his peers in 1905-08 than he did earlier in his career, at least not that I can recall. His point finishes among defensemen generally remained low, which indicates that he was not as good or successful rusher as many of his contemporaries.

1908

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Joe Power	10	14.5	3
Frank Patrick	8	7	8.5
Cyclone Taylor	10	9	3.33
Art Ross	10	8.33	3.5
Walter Smaill	5	7	4
Didier Pitre	10	3	6
Rod Kennedy	8	3	4
Art Leader	8	2.5	1
Harvey Pulford	9	1	2.5

1907- Lester Patrick spent a couple games at forward. I’ve put the stats from games played at D in parenthesis.

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Lester Patrick	9 (7)	8.5 (7)	4 (3)
J.T. Brennan	9	7	0
Hod Stuart	8	2	4
G. Davidson	5	2	2.5
George Cameron	8	4	0
Harvey Pulford	10	0	3.5

1906- Same thing here with Eddie Hogan

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Eddie Hogan	10 (7)	9 (6)	0
Rod Kennedy	7	6	1
Harvey Pulford	10	2.5	1
Herbert Horsfall	8	3	0
G. Davidson	5	2	0

1905

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Art Moore	8	1	2
Griffith	5	2	0
M. McDonald	6	2	0
Dickie Boon	7	0	2
McRobie	8	1.5	1
Harvey Pulford	6	1	0

1904- I won’t count this one, since Ottawa HC only played half the schedule, and Pulford only played half of that (2 total games, no points)

1903

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
G. Davidson	7	4	1
Dickey Boon	7 (5)	3 (1)	1 (1)
Molson	5	1.33	2.5
Art Leader	2	0	3
Art Moore	7	.5	1
George Fairbanks	2	1	0
Charles Spittal	2	1	0
Turkey Bellingham	5	1	0
Harvey Pulford	7	0	1
Billy Strachan	8	0	1

‘
1902- Pulford had 0 points in 5 games

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Hod Stuart	8	5	2
Peg Duval	5	2.83	3
Dickey Boon	8	.5	2
F. McKenna	6	.5	1.5

1901

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Hod Stuart	7 (5)	2.5 (0)	3.5
Dickey Boon	7	2.83	2.5
Frank Wall	6	3	0
Herb Yulie	8	2	1
Harvey Pulford	6	1	1
Peg Duval	6	1	1

1900- Harvey Pulford had 0 points in 5 games

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Hod Stuart	7 (4)	5.66 (.5)	2.17 (1)
Frank Wall	6	3	0
Dickie Boon	8	1.5	.5
Harry Smith	8	0	2
Peg Duval	5	1.5	0
Frank Tansey	6	1	0
Fairbanks	5	1	0
F. McRobie	8	0	1
Lindsay	1	.5	0

1899- DNP

1898- Pulford had 0 points in 7 games

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Weldy Young	8	2	4
Mike Grant	8	1	2.5
Hartland MacDougall	8	1	2
Dave Watson	8	1	2
Frank Tansey	8	1	1
Frank Wall	8	0	1
Charlie Scott	7	.75	0
Norris	3	0	.5
Hugh Baird	6	0	.5
Charlie Scott	7	.75	0

1897

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Mike Grant	8	3	2.33
Howard Henderson	8	0	3.33
Weldy Young	8	0	2
Hugh Baird	5	0	1.33
Charlie Scott	7	.25	1
Frank Stephens	8	.5	.5
Dave Watson	7	1	0
Willie Murphy	7	0	.5
Harvey Pulford	8	0	.5

1896

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Mike Grant	8	3	2.5
Howard Henderson	6	1	2
Dave Watson	7	0	3
Willie Murphy	7	0	3
Harvey Pulford	8	0	2.5

1895

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Weldy Young	8	3.5	3.5
Dave Watson	7	3	1
Mike Grant	8	1.5	2
C. Cahill	8	1	2
Frank Stephens	5	2	0
Clare Mussen	5 (3)	1 (1)	.5 (.5)
Charlie Scott	7	.66 (.66)	.5 (0)
Howard Henderson	3	0	1
Harvey Pulford	7	.5	0

1894- Pulford had 0 points in 6 games

Name	Games	Goals	Assists
Weldy Young	8	1.33	3.17
Dave Watson	8	1	2
James Stewart	4	0	2
Allan Cameron	5	0	1

He is not really much of a threat offensively, even if rushes were noted in the local papers. Ottawa HC was a high-scoring team in the back half of his career, so it isn't like we can say he wasn't getting any help from his forwards there.

And I know we've touched on it before, but it should be noted again- these leagues were not consolidated; there was noticeable talent dispersal among several leagues for many/most of these seasons. He'd likely place even lower in a consolidated league.

I certainly agree that he's nowhere near Taylor or Patrick, or some of the names you mentioned. But that doesn't lessen his contributions (not that you said so). I am glad to see more and more mentions of his ability to rush the puck and impact the game offensively, regardless of skating abilities. A putrid skater and stickhandler probably wouldn't be getting much praise in these areas so it stands to reason that Pulford was adept at these things later in the career. Certainly not best in the league, or even on the next rung. That's altering reality. But I do believe the word capable is warranted.

Players received praise for doing things outside of the norm all the time. Fred Brophy, a goalie for Montreal HC, scored 2 goals and these rushes were covered in detail. It was unusual, which is probably why it received such a coverage. Am I saying Pulford's rushes were akin to Brophy's? Absolutely not, but it drives home the point that not all coverage is created equal. There is a greater understanding of the league, the teams, the players, and the papers that needs to be taken into account.

And next to Lester Patrick, a player he'd be very familiar with, his attributes gel well, in our opinions. Pulford and Patrick (not many players were 6' or taller in this era) were both very big players for their day and Patrick was an excellent skater and rusher. Lester was indeed in the upper tier of those 2 attributes, so the need for Pulford to handle these duties is lessened considerably. His focus is on the defensive area of the ice and in that area, I think he's superior to both of Windsor's 2nd pairing defensemen and his own partner.

I think it is a very nice pairing. Lester Patrick- at least pre-1910- was indeed a very successful skater and rusher.

Standard disclaimer (for my posts in this thread now)- I like Pulford a lot. He's a worthy second pairing defenseman in an ATD of this size.