Red Fisher conference final: Trois Rivieres AC vs. Canadiens de Montreal
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,053
- 13,975
PP
Ted Lindsay-Frank McGee-Maurice Richard
Harry Cameron-Max Bentley
Sergei Kapustin-Anze Kopitar-Theoren Fleury
Dit Clapper-Frank Patrick
PK
George Hay-Anze Kopitar
Serge Savard-Dit Clapper
Red Sullivan-Shirley Davidson
Alex Ragulin-Allan Cameron
Ted Lindsay-Frank McGee-Maurice Richard
Harry Cameron-Max Bentley
Sergei Kapustin-Anze Kopitar-Theoren Fleury
Dit Clapper-Frank Patrick
PK
George Hay-Anze Kopitar
Serge Savard-Dit Clapper
Red Sullivan-Shirley Davidson
Alex Ragulin-Allan Cameron
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
Bowie vs. McGee...
The first decade of all-time great hockey re-visited.
Both on #1 seeds, yet one with apparent big game play.
Has anyone tried to parse Bowie's beating up on crap from his play against greats to show he might be more than a paper tiger; he may have a good record against top teams? I dunno.
The first decade of all-time great hockey re-visited.
Both on #1 seeds, yet one with apparent big game play.
Has anyone tried to parse Bowie's beating up on crap from his play against greats to show he might be more than a paper tiger; he may have a good record against top teams? I dunno.
I’m very much looking forward to seeing how this series plays out. Two strong clubs and three very knowledgeable GM’s. Good luck, fellas.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Trois Rivieres Athletic Club
Pittsburgh, PA
View attachment 825626
Coach - George "Punch" Imlach
AC - Bob "Badger" Johnson
Captain - Lester Patrick
AC - Harvey Pulford
AC - Cyclone Taylor
Forwards:
- Spare: Jack Adams - C/LW
Defensemen:
-Spare: Si Griffis - D/C
- Note: Jack Marshall, a right handed shot, can also play C, and will be the person to shift up to the 4C spot, if/when Imlach were to move Taylor back to D.
Goalies:
Special Teams:
PP1:
Slot/Net - Bowie
Right Wall - Kucherov
Left Wall - Taylor
QB - Harvey
Trigger - Lapointe
PP2:
Slot/Net - Barry
Right Wall - Schriner
Left Wall - Morris
QB - Patrick
Trigger - Grant
PK1:
Leswick-Mackell
Pulford-Harvey
PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall
Pittsburgh, PA
View attachment 825626
Coach - George "Punch" Imlach
AC - Bob "Badger" Johnson
Captain - Lester Patrick
AC - Harvey Pulford
AC - Cyclone Taylor
Forwards:
Sweeney Schriner | Cyclone Taylor | Bernie Morris |
Paul Thompson | Russell Bowie | Nikita Kucherov |
Tony Leswick | Marty Barry | Bobby Bauer |
Bob Bourne | Fleming Mackell | Claude Lemieux |
| | |
- Spare: Jack Adams - C/LW
| Doug Harvey | Guy Lapointe |
| Harvey Pulford | Lester Patrick |
| Mike Grant | Jack Marshall |
-Spare: Si Griffis - D/C
- Note: Jack Marshall, a right handed shot, can also play C, and will be the person to shift up to the 4C spot, if/when Imlach were to move Taylor back to D.
Goalies:
| Martin Brodeur |
| Percy LeSueur |
Special Teams:
PP1:
Slot/Net - Bowie
Right Wall - Kucherov
Left Wall - Taylor
QB - Harvey
Trigger - Lapointe
PP2:
Slot/Net - Barry
Right Wall - Schriner
Left Wall - Morris
QB - Patrick
Trigger - Grant
PK1:
Leswick-Mackell
Pulford-Harvey
PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
@BenchBrawl I can't recall how many times we've faced each other in the past, but you're one of the best to have ever done it around these parts so it's an honor to square our teams up. Definitely looking forward to some cordial back and forth and a Three Rivers triumph! 
Hope @Johnny Engine has some time to lay down some knowledge as well!
I'll have my traditional long winded write up at some point over the next week. My weekend is jammed packed (son's baseball game, end of season party for the team, minor league game, couple hours of travel involved) but I should be able to get a chunk of my write up in before the beginning of next week and have everything wrapped up by Friday.
I want to throw a couple of quick hitters out there as crucial match ups that I (and I'm sure Johnny would agree) favor Three Rivers in this particular match up.
1. Tony Leswick is Maurice Richard's kryptonite historically
-I find this to be a major part of this series. It's not often a superstar player can be historically slowed and even shut out over numerous playoff series, but that's exactly what Leswick did to Richard as a member of the Rangers/Red Wings.
Leswick was arguably the game's best shadow and all around defensive player in his day and you can see from TDMM's 2013 how effective Tony was as a pest and shutdown ace against the game's greatest goal scorer of all time at that point in hockey history.
forums.hfboards.com
Against Maurice Richard
Here are Richard's totals in head to head series vs Leswick as his shadow:
1950 Semi Finals - Rangers (Leswick) win 4-1 vs Canadiens (Richard)
Richard - 1 PPG and 1 PPA in 5 games
-Richard did register a point at even strength in this series.
1952 Stanley Cup Final - Red Wings win 4-0 vs Canadiens
Richard - 0 points in 4 games
-Doesn't get much better than shutting the best goal scorer in the world out completely in a SCF)
1954 Stanley Cup Final - Red Wings win 4-3 vs Canadiens
Richard - 3 goals (2 PP) and 0 assists in 7 games
-Richard once again owned at even strength in a SCF. Leswick would score the Cup winning goal in OT in game 7.
1958 - Semi Finals - Canadiens win 4-0 vs Red Wings
-Richard - 10 points (7G/3A) in 4 games
-Richard punches back in the last head to head meeting. 6 of his 10 points came on the PP.
So in 20 games, Richard managed 15 points. Not bad by any means, but certainly below the standard for a player like Richard, especially for a playoff performer like Richard. 10 of his 15 points came in 1 series.
Otherwise he was once completely blanked, and two other times held largely in check, especially at even strength. Consider in 3 of the 4 meetings, Richard scored ONE point at ES and 5 overall (16 games). That's pretty damn impressive. And Leswick's teams won 3 of the 4 meetings, including both SCF match ups.
And then, we haven't even got into the portion of the discussion where Richard, as a RW, will have an entire series to not only deal with Leswick, but Doug Harvey and Harvey Pulford, the top 2 LD on Three Rivers. Considering the legendary defensive acumen of those 2, coupled with Leswick, Johnny and I believe we are set up as well as one could be vs a Richard led team.
2. Ted Lindsay, meet Claude Lemieux
-The beauty of having 2 all world pests that can play opposite wings, means Three Rivers can needle the crap out of the 2 overwhelmingly best offensive players on Montreal. Lemieux made a living as a dynamite clutch playoff performer, who scored above the expected line often on that stage, and had a reputation as arguably the league's most hated, yet effective button pusher. His tenacious, physical style means Lindsay won't have an edge in that area.
And given Lindsay was known to take penalties, a lot, especially for a top scoring line player, we feel like there is an avenue to getting Teddy off his game. 14 times, Lindsay was top 10 in PIM's and a player like Lemieux is worth his weight in gold in getting a guy like that to put himself in the box more than you'd want to see as his coach/fans.
Lemieux is going to get more run in this series in the bottom 6.
3. Three Rivers Advantage down the middle of the ice, from G through D, to C.
Brodeur > Brimsek
-Should be no debate on who's got the edge
Harvey-Lapointe > Savard-Clapper
-Should be no debate on the better pairing.
Pulford-Lester Patrick >= Ragulin-Harry Cameron
-Patrick and Cameron are letter even as they have ranked closely forever and sport similar styles. The match up comes down to Harvey Pulford vs Ragulin. Especially after the pre-merger project and considering Pulford was the next D ranked directly after Patrick and Cameron, I'd give the edge, slightly to Three Rivers. There is an intimate familiarity with Pulford and Patrick considering they played against one another for years in the first decade of the 1900's. Pulford was the captain of a dynasty and widely regarded as the best shutdown defensemen in hockey's first few decades.
Grant-Marshall > Frank Patrick-Allan Cameron
-Really neat match up of 4 pre-merger players. Let's go to where they stacked up in the pre-merger project. I see this as a slight edge again for Three Rivers as Mike Grant is pretty clearly the best of the 4 here.
Grant = 25
Patrick = 43
Cameron = 53
Marshall = 56
Taylor >> Max Bentley
Bowie >> Kopitar
-I'll have a more in depth write up as the days go on, but is there really any debate here? This is a pretty wide gap in terms of ranking and all-time stature and historical output.
Barry >= McGee
-If McGee is ranked on the same level or lower than Fredrickson, which seems to be the case for most, and Barry is ranked by most as better than Fredrickson, I'd wager this is a slight win for Pittsburgh and at worst an even split. McGee would normally get you a win on a 3rd line, but not this time. Barry was arguably the best playoff performer of the 1930's, the clear best player on back to back Cup winners w/Detroit.
Mackell = Sullivan
-Dead even split here.
To keep it short and sweet, I don't see a single clear advantage for Montreal, at any of those spots. Three Rivers has the best G, the best Dman, the best C's (plural)., in our humble opinion.
Hope @Johnny Engine has some time to lay down some knowledge as well!
I'll have my traditional long winded write up at some point over the next week. My weekend is jammed packed (son's baseball game, end of season party for the team, minor league game, couple hours of travel involved) but I should be able to get a chunk of my write up in before the beginning of next week and have everything wrapped up by Friday.
I want to throw a couple of quick hitters out there as crucial match ups that I (and I'm sure Johnny would agree) favor Three Rivers in this particular match up.
1. Tony Leswick is Maurice Richard's kryptonite historically
-I find this to be a major part of this series. It's not often a superstar player can be historically slowed and even shut out over numerous playoff series, but that's exactly what Leswick did to Richard as a member of the Rangers/Red Wings.
Leswick was arguably the game's best shadow and all around defensive player in his day and you can see from TDMM's 2013 how effective Tony was as a pest and shutdown ace against the game's greatest goal scorer of all time at that point in hockey history.
ATD 2013 BIO Thread (quotes, stats, pics, sources, everything)
C Joe Thornton Boston Bruins Captain, 2002-2005 San Jose Sharks Captain, 2010-present 2010 Olympic Gold Medalist 6x NHL All Star Game Participant 05-06 Art Ross Trophy Winner 05-06 Hart Trophy Winner 2x Top 16 Goals(12, 16) 11x Top 12 Assists(1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 12) 8x...
Against Maurice Richard
Ultimate Hockey said:
Here are Richard's totals in head to head series vs Leswick as his shadow:
1950 Semi Finals - Rangers (Leswick) win 4-1 vs Canadiens (Richard)
Richard - 1 PPG and 1 PPA in 5 games
-Richard did register a point at even strength in this series.
1952 Stanley Cup Final - Red Wings win 4-0 vs Canadiens
Richard - 0 points in 4 games
-Doesn't get much better than shutting the best goal scorer in the world out completely in a SCF)
1954 Stanley Cup Final - Red Wings win 4-3 vs Canadiens
Richard - 3 goals (2 PP) and 0 assists in 7 games
-Richard once again owned at even strength in a SCF. Leswick would score the Cup winning goal in OT in game 7.
1958 - Semi Finals - Canadiens win 4-0 vs Red Wings
-Richard - 10 points (7G/3A) in 4 games
-Richard punches back in the last head to head meeting. 6 of his 10 points came on the PP.
So in 20 games, Richard managed 15 points. Not bad by any means, but certainly below the standard for a player like Richard, especially for a playoff performer like Richard. 10 of his 15 points came in 1 series.
Otherwise he was once completely blanked, and two other times held largely in check, especially at even strength. Consider in 3 of the 4 meetings, Richard scored ONE point at ES and 5 overall (16 games). That's pretty damn impressive. And Leswick's teams won 3 of the 4 meetings, including both SCF match ups.
And then, we haven't even got into the portion of the discussion where Richard, as a RW, will have an entire series to not only deal with Leswick, but Doug Harvey and Harvey Pulford, the top 2 LD on Three Rivers. Considering the legendary defensive acumen of those 2, coupled with Leswick, Johnny and I believe we are set up as well as one could be vs a Richard led team.
2. Ted Lindsay, meet Claude Lemieux
-The beauty of having 2 all world pests that can play opposite wings, means Three Rivers can needle the crap out of the 2 overwhelmingly best offensive players on Montreal. Lemieux made a living as a dynamite clutch playoff performer, who scored above the expected line often on that stage, and had a reputation as arguably the league's most hated, yet effective button pusher. His tenacious, physical style means Lindsay won't have an edge in that area.
And given Lindsay was known to take penalties, a lot, especially for a top scoring line player, we feel like there is an avenue to getting Teddy off his game. 14 times, Lindsay was top 10 in PIM's and a player like Lemieux is worth his weight in gold in getting a guy like that to put himself in the box more than you'd want to see as his coach/fans.
Lemieux is going to get more run in this series in the bottom 6.
3. Three Rivers Advantage down the middle of the ice, from G through D, to C.
Brodeur > Brimsek
-Should be no debate on who's got the edge
Harvey-Lapointe > Savard-Clapper
-Should be no debate on the better pairing.
Pulford-Lester Patrick >= Ragulin-Harry Cameron
-Patrick and Cameron are letter even as they have ranked closely forever and sport similar styles. The match up comes down to Harvey Pulford vs Ragulin. Especially after the pre-merger project and considering Pulford was the next D ranked directly after Patrick and Cameron, I'd give the edge, slightly to Three Rivers. There is an intimate familiarity with Pulford and Patrick considering they played against one another for years in the first decade of the 1900's. Pulford was the captain of a dynasty and widely regarded as the best shutdown defensemen in hockey's first few decades.
Grant-Marshall > Frank Patrick-Allan Cameron
-Really neat match up of 4 pre-merger players. Let's go to where they stacked up in the pre-merger project. I see this as a slight edge again for Three Rivers as Mike Grant is pretty clearly the best of the 4 here.
Grant = 25
Patrick = 43
Cameron = 53
Marshall = 56
Taylor >> Max Bentley
Bowie >> Kopitar
-I'll have a more in depth write up as the days go on, but is there really any debate here? This is a pretty wide gap in terms of ranking and all-time stature and historical output.
Barry >= McGee
-If McGee is ranked on the same level or lower than Fredrickson, which seems to be the case for most, and Barry is ranked by most as better than Fredrickson, I'd wager this is a slight win for Pittsburgh and at worst an even split. McGee would normally get you a win on a 3rd line, but not this time. Barry was arguably the best playoff performer of the 1930's, the clear best player on back to back Cup winners w/Detroit.
Mackell = Sullivan
-Dead even split here.
To keep it short and sweet, I don't see a single clear advantage for Montreal, at any of those spots. Three Rivers has the best G, the best Dman, the best C's (plural)., in our humble opinion.
VanIslander
20 years of All-Time Drafts on HfBoards
To be clear, in terms of playoffs, the PIM leaders in this draft are Claude Lemieux, Glenn Anderson, Chris Chelios and Scott Stevens.
Clark Gillies, Gordie Howe, Brad Park led playoff PIMs among ATDers prior to the most expanded playoff format.
Go earlier... Beliveau, Richard... and there because of insane per game prolific penalization: Eddie Shore (Eddie was a 7-time Hart trophy finalist for regular season dominance but his playoff performance was epic underwhelming: once among many for a cup by committee and ten years later 8th in team scoring zero goals, four assists.)
Clark Gillies, Gordie Howe, Brad Park led playoff PIMs among ATDers prior to the most expanded playoff format.
Go earlier... Beliveau, Richard... and there because of insane per game prolific penalization: Eddie Shore (Eddie was a 7-time Hart trophy finalist for regular season dominance but his playoff performance was epic underwhelming: once among many for a cup by committee and ten years later 8th in team scoring zero goals, four assists.)
Last edited:
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
@BenchBrawl We've been doing this a while now eh? Good luck my friend and I'm looking forward to a good battle and ultimately close finish in all likelihood.
Series Overview:
Coaching - Punch Imlach/Bob Johnson vs Cecil Hart - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Cecil Hart won back-to-back Cups with Morenz leading the way in 1930/31. He was a player's coach, who built his teams based on skating speed, with an attacking philosophy that included all 5 men.
Beyond the 2 Cup titles, Montreal never made another SCF under Hart's guidance as far as I can tell. IMO, I've long felt Montreal underachieved a bit considering there was a prime Morenz, Joliat, Sylvio Mantha, George Hainsworth, Pit Lepine and others. On paper, one would expect that kind of roster to make deeper runs, more often.
Imlach has a better resume considering Toronto clearly overachieved during the 1960's under Imlach, winning 4 titles, including 3 in a row from 1962-64, beating teams like the Toe Blake led Canadiens and Gordie Howe led Red Wings.
I think each roster is set up well for their respective coach(s), so if we're judging this based on merit and accomplishment, it's hard to conclude that Three Rivers doesn't have the better bench boss.
Forwards - Even
Sweeney Schriner - Cyclone Taylor (A) - Bernie Morris
Paul Thompson - Russell Bowie - Nikita Kucherov
Tony Leswick - Marty Barry - Bobby Bauer
Bob Bourne - Fleming Mackell - Claude Lemieux
Jack Adams
vs
Ted Lindsay (A) - Max Bentley - Maurice Richard
Sergei Kapustin - Anze Kopitar - Theoren Fleury
George Hay - Frank McGee (A) - Dave Taylor
Dolly Swift - Red Sullivan - Shirley Davidson
Chauncey Kirby, Marian Gaborik
Montreal has a fantastic 1st line, clearly winning the head-to-head match up based on the wingers. It's a well-balanced unit with a great blend of skating, physicality, playmaking, goal scoring. They can win in transition or the cycle with a fantastic puck retriever in Lindsay who also was a splendid passer from the perimeter. Bentley's stick handling will come in handy as the puck driver of the line. He's another player who was really impacted by WWII losing 2 full years (age 23 and 24) and prime years at that. And of course, Richard is one of the greatest goal scorers of all time and playoff extraordinaire. Bentley isn't exactly the punishing fore-checker Elmer Lach or Ken Mosdell were but he was a gifted passer and Lindsay can certainly handle the fore-checking duties from LW.
Three Rivers counters hard as Richard will be shadowed by Tony Leswick and Leswick made his mark and money shutting down Richard (among others), like no one else, over numerous meetings. Richard was prone to take stupid penalties, and, in the event, he goes off with Leswick, that = a major win for Three Rivers. Even when they're both on the ice, Richard scored just FIVE ES points in 20 playoff games head-to-head. That's a massive downturn for one of the greatest players of all time. One cannot assume he'll be an automatic, major difference maker in this series. It's simply not as likely as it would be in most other scenarios.
Ted Lindsay is susceptible to taking penalties as well, and he'll see a lot of Claude Lemieux, the legendary pest, himself a fantastic playoff performer who has a Smythe on his record. Three Rivers will gladly trade Lemieux going off, along with Lindsay as the latter is a 20+ minute player and key cog for Montreal, while Lemieux is a 3rd or 4th liner in this setting and his ability to get under the skin of opposing players is well documented and effective.
Taylor is a strong win down the middle for Three Rivers and his skating + all around brilliance + adaptability brings a presence that very few players offer.
The 2nd line, IMHO, is a clean sweep for Three Rivers, though I won't get up in arms if a person puts Kapustin on the same level as Thompson.
It's always tough to compare Soviet era players with old time North American, but Kapustin reads a lot like Thompson. Played a physical, 200-foot game, good offense, a traditional glue type player. I do give the edge to our player, Thompson, because he was a 2-time league AS, despite being stuck behind the Bread line in NY over the first 3rd of his career. He peaked as a Hart runner up in 1938 finishing just 7 votes behind legend Eddie Shore. Kapustin was a Soviet league AS only once (1981) by my research.
If we look at the past 5 drafts, the draft positions of both LW's remain very consistent, which shows Thompson being draft ahead of Kapustin every year.
2024 - 189 (Thompson)-335 (Kapustin)
2023 - 219-303
2022 - 215-299
2021 - 208-320
2020 - 231-338
Draft position doesn't always correlate better, but when you see this kind of consistent gap over a long period of time, with numerous GM's making picks on each player, it does give you a good barometer of who is viewed as more valuable/better. I'm not saying there is any sort of significant gap, just a small one in favor of Three Rivers.
Bowie and Kopitar are very different players, but historically speaking Bowie ranks higher given he was regarded by many as the best player in hockey for much of his career. A superstar, known in all circles. He's a top 100 lock, and probably ascends into the 60-75 range given he outplaced Joe Malone in the top 60 pre-merger project last year and Malone was 72nd in the last version of the top 100 project (a few years prior). Kopitar is certainly a top 200 player, coming in at 161 in that project. Anze brings much more defensive attributes to the table, whereas Bowie brings significantly more offense, and that level of dominance seems more significant than Kopitar's defensive history.
The biggest gap on the 2nd line would be Kucherov over Fleury. The former is a league MVP in 2019 (he's a finalist this year as well), 2-time Art Ross winner, soon to be 5 time AS, and playoff dominator. He owns the top 2 assist seasons all time for a winger (became the 1st to hit 100 this year). I think this past year certainly cemented his status as a top 100 player ever.
Below are the VsX and Vs2 scores for the top 6 of each team. To be clear, Vs2 is a far less refined version of VsX. You generally see the Vs2 used for the pre-merger players.
I don't know how to properly translate Bowie's Vs2 # over to VsX. If we're finally to the point where those early hockey stars are treated on more equal ground to their later counterparts, I'd wager someone would put the X version closer to that 136.5 mark. I can't get behind something of that magnitude, but I certainly think he's more valuable/stronger offensively than a Max Bentley (90.4). We judge players on how they fared vs their peers at the time, and nobody dominated hockey like Bowie, at least from a statistical standpoint. Heck, Gretzky is basically the only player ever, who was further ahead of his counterparts in producing offense. Orr too, if you include D.
Taylor's 103 figure seems about spot on for where I'd put him historically (Crosby level offensively). He was a dominant scorer, arguably the game's biggest superstar if you base that on how widely known a player is. And let's not forget he played the first 3rd of his career as a high scoring defenseman, obviously suppressing a score like Vs2/VsX.
Bowie - 136.5 (Vs2)
Taylor - 103.0 (Vs2)
Kucherov - 98.0
Schriner - 91.3
Thompson - 82.6
Morris - 82.0 (Vs2)
vs
Lindsay - 104.4
Richard - 102.4
Max Bentley - 90.4
Fleury - 82.0
Kopitar - 79.2
Kapustin - ???
Bowie, Taylor, Kucherov, and Schriner all led their respective leagues in scoring multiple times. To have 4, multi time, league scoring champs in the top 6, is a reflection of how strong Three Rivers is offensively in the top 6, despite spending 3 of our first 5 picks on D (Harvey, Brodeur, Lapointe).
Both Pittsburgh units are built to do damage, whereas you see a very pronounced drop between Montreal's 1st and 2nd line's offensive output. This puts more pressure on the top line of Montreal to hit their benchmarks offensively.
And again, when you factor in who are the G/D getting these F's the puck, Brodeur, Harvey, Lapointe, Lester Patrick, and Mike Grant is the best group at transition in this tilt.
Looking at the 3rd lines, George Hay is a strong player in that kind of role. 2-way star, I think he outpaces Leswick based on peer adulation and offensive ceiling. BB and Sturm did a wonderful bio on him a few years ago and I came away impressed. He's a guy I think you could put anywhere in a lineup, and he'd be a plus player. And that's not to slight our guy Leswick, who I highlighted above as a key player in this series due to his historical ability to limit Maurice Richard through stellar defense and annoying the living shit out of the French-Canadian.
Where Three Rivers edges out is at C and RW.
I love McGee the player. I think he's another guy you put into a 3rd line in the ATD and you don't worry about impact. He was very potent offensively (had Bowie's peak but not longevity), a battle tested, physical, scoring leader of the Silver Seven.
But he only played 4 years of senior hockey. It's a very short career in the grand scheme of the ATD. Consider, Barry was an iron man, missing a grand total of 2 games in the 1930's. Even though careers were shorter in the 1900-1910 range, most players exceeded 4 years. To be fair, losing an eye at the turn of the century not only explains some missed time but also makes his accomplishments all the more impressive.
I already pointed out earlier that Barry came in ahead of Fredrickson in the top 200 project (148th to 167th), with McGee not placing, though I think he'd be among the last 20 entries or so, in a re-do now that the pre-merger project highlighted him in more detail. Still, Fredrickson was ahead of McGee in that project so it's hard to conclude that Barry isn't the better player, though the gap is small IMO.
forums.hfboards.com
Is a nice look at Barry from the top 200 project. Not only does it highlight the consistently strong offensive totals, it hammers home how good Barry was a playoff performer, arguably the best of the 1930's. That's key, because McGee was also great in big games, but for a much shorter time period. Barry gives no ground in being a difference maker in a "best of 7" format. He twice led the playoffs in scoring and was the best player on the back-to-back winners in Detroit (36-37). In the 2nd leg he led everyone in goals, assists, and points.
Marty Barry's playoff stats
Most points in the playoffs: 1930-1939:
Charlie Conacher 33
Marty Barry 33
Busher Jackson 25
Frank Boucher 25
Doc Romnes 25
Highest playoff PPG 1930-1939 (min 25 games):
Marty Barry 0.77 (43 games)
Johnny Gagnon 0.74 (31 games)
Charlie Conacher 0.72 (46 games)
Syd Howe 0.68 (25 games)
Frank Boucher 0.68 (37 games)
Marty Barry played with Herbie Lewis and Larry Aurie in Detroit. Johnny and I had a desire to re-create the original production line with similar players. We believe we accomplished that with Tony Leswick at LW and Bobby Bauer at RW.
Bauer was a 4 time AS, who lost 3 full, prime years (age 27-29) to WWII. He was an AS on both sides of the war, so it reasons that his award cabinet is lighter than it would have been not missing so much time.
When you line him up next to Taylor, Bauer comes out ahead in key categories.
AS Teams:
Bauer = 4 (2nd team) - He lost aged 27-29 seasons due to WWII and was an AS on both sides of the war
Taylor = 1 (2nd team)
Major Awards:
Bauer = 3 (3 Byng)
Taylor = 0
VsX:
Bauer = 74.6 (remember he's handicapped significantly by WWII)
Taylor = 70.2
Taylor brings more fore-checking, certainly physicality, and probably a touch more defense to the equation. But Bauer is a HOF'er with a greater resume at the end of the day. Yes, he played on the Kraut line but was still highly regarded and Taylor's own offensive exploits were greatly impacted by skating with a prime Marcel Dionne, in a division that featured low hanging fruit in the 70's/80's Penguins, Wings, and Capitals.
Bauer was probably robbed more than anyone for time lost, certainly offensively speaking when you look at VsX. BB made a mini bio in 2018 that highlighted how VsX underrates Bauer (not factoring in WWII he's a 74.6).
forums.hfboards.com
Another bio
Bauer is more along the lines of an 80 VsX type player and his playmaking, heady thinking offensive game, translates very well with a goal scoring C like Barry.
A lot of times Bauer gets cast as a bottom 6 player but doesn't have the sort of linemates like he did in real life (Schmidt + Dumart) and thus is likely to be less effective in a depth role.
Here, he has an offensively gifted C to run with and an ultra-glue/pest LW in Leswick. Not at all a far cry from his real-life situation.
Overall, I see the Fs in this series as pretty darn even. Montreal enjoys a clear advantage on the top line due to the wingers, with Three Rivers punching back hard on the 2nd line, across the board. I have the Pittsburgh based squad edging out on the 3rd line (edge at C and RW) and the 4th line is a dead heat (Swift>Bourne, Mackell = Sullivan, Lemieux>Davidson).
In a close match, I do have my reasoning for tipping the scales in Three Rivers direction.
The keys are the depth of scoring for Three Rivers. We are less reliant on our top line to produce offense.
C resumes, talent, and depth favors Three Rivers.
Tony Leswick is Maurice Richard's kryptonite.
Skating and speed. Taylor is in the highest tier of skater w/the Orr and Morenz's of the world. Bourne and Mackell were both regarded as elite skaters, among the best during their days. Morris, Bauer, Leswick, Thompson, were all pluses. The overwhelming majority of the team has positive mentions regarding each player's skating abilities.
Every line has a playoff lynchpin. Taylor, Kucherov, Barry, Lemieux (though the entire 4th line is quite clutch, Bourne, Mackell + Pepe). Players like Leswick, Bauer, Thompson, Schriner, were all strong complimentary players on multiple Cup winners.
Three Rivers F group is supported by a superior blue line and G.
Speaking of D:
Defensemen - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Harvey-Lapointe > Savard-Clapper
Harvey is easily the best D in this series. He's a top 10 player ever, most have him as the 2nd best defensemen of all time (behind Orr). I don't need to rehash his accomplishments/attributes at this point, but his presence gives Pittsburgh a key win, at an extremely important position. Clapper is a viable #1 D in this, though he ranks in the back 3rd of the top 100 all time.
Savard and Lapointe are more or less dead even in terms of resume/all-time ranking. I know some prefer Savard, some Lapointe and most have them on equal ground.
In the top 200 project a few years ago, Savard ranked 119th, and Lapointe 135th, with only 3 defensemen separating the 2 players.
They played on the same squad, were part of the big 3 on the 70's Montreal dynasty.
AS nods:
Lapointe - 1, 2, 2, 2
Savard - 2
Norris Finishes:
Lapointe - 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5
Savard - 4, 5, 5, 5.
Savard likely lost out on more AS votes/Norris because he wasn't producing the same offensive totals as his counterparts. With that being said, he did win a Smythe in 69 and has a more robust reputation than someone with his counting stats usually does. Henc he and Lapointe being ranked so closely by most.
TOI - Usage:
Lapointe:
ES - 42%
PP - 64%
PK - 53%
Savard:
ES - 43%
PP - ?
PK - 58%
I don't have a figure for how much Savard was used on the PP but perhaps @Hockey Outsider could chime in? I wager it wasn't a big number considering how defensive minded Savard was after his leg injuries.
Larry Robinson
ES - 43%
PP - 49%
PK - 45%
I think the most important aspect to Guy Lapointe's career is just how much he was used in all aspects of the game. All 3 of the HOF'ers were used roughly the same amount at ES, but Lapointe is the only player to go 50+% on each of the special teams units (Robinson's usage has always surprised me considering everyone thinks him the clear cut best of the bunch). Lapointe has the most PP usage (a lot), and cleared Robinson by 8% on the PK. And consider this stat brought to you by HO.
I don't think there is any doubt that Savard had a better defensive game from a technical standpoint. But the extent to which Bowman relied on Lapointe at both ends of the ice, tell me he was the more complete player (at least after Savard's leg injuries early in his career).
Windsor Star Apr 23, 1973.
I think another aspect that favors the top pairing of Three Rivers, is it's a true 200-foot pairing. Both Harvey and Lapointe are fantastic puck carriers and facilitators. They were strong skaters and had a robust game at both ends of the ice. It's not a pairing that is telegraphed in terms of who will carry the puck and be the stay-at-home presence. Both can play either role. They'll beat you with heady play, skating, passing, etc. And as good as Savard is defensively. Harvey was almost surely better.
Harvey is going to be a key figure in slowing Richard (RW) being a LD. He'd have intimate knowledge on Richard's tendencies and coupled with Tony Leswick shadowing Richard from the LW spot = a difficult defensive sandwich to stomach for The Rocket.
Pulford-Lester Patrick >= Ragulin-Harry Cameron
I touched on these pairings briefly in my snapshot post a few days back, but Patrick and Cameron are about as even as you can get in comparison. Both had similar styles of play and they ranked 20th (Patrick) and 21st (Cameron) respectively in the top 60 pre-merger project.
The slight gap I have in favor of Three Rivers would be Harvey Pulford over Ragulin. Interestingly enough, Pulford came in 22nd in the pre-merger project so his all-time standing is on equal ground as Patrick/Cameron.
Ragulin and Pulford are very similar style players in that both had skating limitations though Ragulin seemed to be done in this later in his career more so than Pulford was. Each was strong as an ox and played a hard, checking game, w/strong positional play being their hallmark defensively.
Pulford was almost surely the best defensive defensemen between 1890 and the late 1910's when Gerard became a household name in Ottawa. And there were certainly a few years in the middle of the 1900's when he was regarded by many as simply the best defenseman in hockey.
Pulford was the captain of the 2nd great Stanley Cup dynasty in Ottawa (Montreal Vics in the 1890's was the 1st). I'd wager McGee was the most important player on those teams, but it's hard to argue Pulford lower than 2 when you read all the in-depth material available. He was an undisputed star from about 1900, onward.
We also had some fellow ATD posters talk about Pulford's stellar longevity in the project last year, an era where a lot of guys didn't see 10+ years of senior level play. This can also be said for Patrick, an even more extreme case of playing much longer than the average.
There would also be a strong familiarity between Pulford and Patrick considering they played one another numerous times in the mid/late 1900's.
Here is a wonderful post from the pre-merger project by @rmartin65
forums.hfboards.com
I'm totally fine with this being a wash for some folks, but Pulford's resume and contributions to a dynasty seem a bit more robust than Ragulin, who played in a weaker era for peer competition (The defensemen in the USSR in the 1960's was not exactly a deep pool of talent). Both Suchy and Pospisil are more highly regarded players, though they were Czech nationals.
Grant-Marshall >= Frank Patrick-Allan Cameron
-Really neat match up of 4 pre-merger players. Let's go to where they stacked up in the pre-merger project. I see this as a slight edge again for Three Rivers as Mike Grant is pretty clearly the best of the 4 here. Grant and Marshall would have also crossed paths briefly in the early 1900's, playing each other in the CAHL. Grant's skating and offensive abilities were renowned in all hockey circles as elite, especially for that time period.
Grant = 25
Patrick = 43
Cameron = 53
Marshall = 56
If you want a battle tested and accomplished 3rd pairing, look no further than Three Rivers.
Mike Grant is pretty clearly the best of the players involved in this comparison and he was part of the 1st great hockey dynasty I mentioned just above (Montreal Victorias). Not only that but like Pulford he served as the team Captain.
Grant was renowned for his skating ability, and was arguably the earliest exponent of rushing defensemen, in hockey history. Certainly, one that reached superstar status.
I wanted to touch on just how much experience in big games the entire defense corps has for Three Rivers.
Three Rivers shows 12 Cup wins between Harvey and Lapointe. Harvey played in 10 straight Cup finals, winning 6 between 1950-51 and 1959-60. These are both integral parts of dynasties, Harvey obviously being a legend in this regard. Both were heavily used in all phases of the game.
Pulford and Patrick were mainstays in the Cup challenges between 1903 and 1909, the former being the captain of the famous Silver Seven dynasty in Ottawa and latter, winning back-to-back challenges with the Montreal Wanderers in 1906 and 1907, playing in 4 other finals beyond those 2.
Mike Grant, mentioned above, was captain of the Montreal Victorias dynasty in the 1890's. His team won or retained possession of the SC, 5 times between 1895 and 1899. It's widely accepted he was the best player on most of those teams.
And last but not least, Jack Marshall, won 5 Cup challenges during his career. His ability to play both D and C, gives us the flexibility to move he and Cyclone Taylor around in a pinch. He'd be familiar with Mike Grant and ties a bow on the strongest and most accomplished defensive corps in the draft IMO.
I say this is a slight advantage for Three Rivers, in part because I do really like the fit and construction of Montreal's blue line. It's got everything you need to succeed.
But in reality, I probably feel like this is a more moderate level advantage because Harvey is easily the best Dman in the series, and the best overall player IMHO. MIke Grant is a luxury, anchoring a 3rd pairing, given he ranks closer to Lester Patrick and Harry Cameron than Allan Cameron and Frank Patrick.
Puck control and transition is paramount to winning and we're thrilled to have the likes of Harvey, Lapointe, Patrick, Grant, leading the way in that area. Even Pulford became a respected rusher later in his career. Jack Marshall played F when he wasn't on the back end. He could handle a puck.
And beyond Leswick, Three Rivers is beautifully set up to subdue Richard, with Harvey and Pulford (seems weird typing it like that, lol) making for a near insurmountable 1-2 punch as far as defensive ratings go. Not only is it airtight positionally speaking, both Doug and Harvey (just too damn weird!) represent a very physical duo, adding to the strain of playing against them.
Goalies - Martin Brodeur/Percy LeSueur vs Frank Brimsek/George Hainsworth - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
I've always been a fan of Brimsek. There is an argument he's the best US born player ever. He had a couple of really, great playoff runs that culminated in a SC victory w/Boston. 8 straight AS seasons (2 1sts. and 6 2nds), and he lost ages 28, 29, and part of 30 to WWII (like Bauer). There is little doubt in my mind Brimsek would have a few more AS nods and Vezina/Hart votes had he not been called off to war. He was a Hart runner up in 48, and had 2 other top 5 finishes in that category. Like Brodeur, he also won the Calder to kick off his career.
But Brodeur was just so damn good, for so long. Consider his resume.
When he came into the league, you had a prime Hasek, and Roy. He scored more Vezina votes than Roy in 1996, 97, 98. 99, 00. and 01, 03. He was routinely ahead of Ed Belfour as well. Not exactly lightweights in the G department.
Another stat that always blows me away regarding Brodeur, highlights his stamina and usage. He was essentially Glenn Hall with a better playoff record if you line their careers up. Brodeur played 70 or more games in a single season, 12 times in his career. Roy AND Hasek combined to do that ONCE. Belfour managed to do it 3 times.
Not that either back up would likely see action, I think Hainsworth is slightly better. One thing to ponder is why, when AS voting started up in 1931, he was never on the 1st or 2nd team. even during the first half of the 1930's when he was leading the league in wins and on a popular Canadiens team. LeSueur, thanks to the pre-merger project, likely takes the mantle as best G in the world, circa 1905-1912 range (until Vezina got settled in). That may seem like LeSueur is the better player, but I think you have to remember Hainsworth played in a more robust era for peer competition at the G spot.
At the end of the day, Brodeur is simply more accomplished, and he played forever, against the likes of Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Lundqvist, Luongo, Kippy, etc.
Special Teams - Slight Edge Three Rivers
Three Rivers:
PP1:
Slot/Net - Bowie
Right Wall - Kucherov
Left Wall - Taylor
QB - Harvey
Trigger - Lapointe
PP2:
Slot/Net - Barry
Right Wall - Schriner
Left Wall - Morris
QB - Patrick
Trigger - Grant
PK1:
Leswick-Mackell
Pulford-Harvey
PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall
Montreal:
PP1:
Ted Lindsay-Frank McGee-Maurice Richard
Harry Cameron-Max Bentley
PP2:
Sergei Kapustin-Anze Kopitar-Theoren Fleury
Dit Clapper-Frank Patrick
PK1:
George Hay-Anze Kopitar
Serge Savard-Dit Clapper
PK2:
Red Sullivan-Shirley Davidson
Alex Ragulin-Allan Cameron
It's no surprise I find our squads very evenly matched here. I think that comes from doing so many of these damn drafts lol.
Both top PP are lethal. There is a wonderful blend of playmaking, goal scoring, transition and QB'ing from the blue line. Both top units have multiple C's capable of taking draws. If you include the G as part of the unit (puck retrieval and passing), that helps Three Rivers. I think these are very accurate/fair rankings and the slight edge goes to our squad.
Here's how I rank the players involved:
Harvey (Pitt) - top 10 player ever
Richard (Mont) - top 10-15
Taylor (Pitt) - top 30
Lindsay (Mont) - top 40
Bowie (Pitt) - top 75
Kucherov (Pitt) - top 75
Bentley (Mont) - top 100
Lapointe (Pitt) - top 140
McGee (Mont) - top 175
Cameron (Mont) - top 200 (just inside or out)
The F's are a wash IMHO, Richard being the best of the bunch, but all 3 of Pitt's F's are top 100 locks, whereas I think McGee is much further down the list closer to the 175 range.
Harvey led the league in PP points many times, among D, coming in 1st in 1953, 2nd in '54 (behind Kelly), 1st in '55, '56, '57, 2nd in '58 (behind Gadsby), 1st in '61, 3rd in '62, 1st in '63. His generalship and ability to control the puck and tempo, along with the big usage and output as a PPQB is well documented. He may not have the flash or absurd output of an Orr, but he was the most productive Dman at generating offense while a man up, over the course of his career.
His main competition were no pushovers, being Red Kelly and Bill Gadsby. He outpaced both comfortably (graphic below).
Consider he had the most PP points for a defensemen until Orr passed him in 1974 and would remain in the 2nd spot until 1980 (Park).
Guy Lapointe routinely led Montreal in PP usage and output during the 1970's, his shot was particularly effective in this setting. Couple that with Harvey's passing abilities and you a have a dangerous pair on the blue line.
From a pure ranking standpoint, I'd absolutely put Harvey and Lapointe over Cameron and Bentley, though Bentley was used quite a bit on the point (as a F playing D) and was very effective in that role. Cameron, while ranking significantly lower than Harvey and a bit lower than Lapointe, was as good or better than any other offensive Dmen in his day, so there is a higher ceiling, though I think the nuances of playing the blue line, favors Harvey-Lapointe. In a best of 7 series, I find it tough to bet against those 2 in the pressure cooker.
I think the edge between PP units happens when you look at the 2nd units, specifically F.
Schriner-Barry-Morris is simply a more potent offensive trio of F's vs Kapustin-Kopitar-Fleury, which is by no means poor, but doesn't have the offensive chops of their counterparts. It feels like a really strong 2 way unit but not necessarily dangerous. Schriner was a 2 time Ross winner, Barry routinely finished high on the scoring charts and twice was runner up in PP goals scored despite that stat not being tracked until midway through his career. And of course his playoff record speaks for itself, especially as a scorer (highest PPG in the 1930's). As a goal first C, he'll be right at home between Schriner and Morris given their own playmaking prowess.
Both squads have excellent 2nd pairing Dmen. It's hard to find any real difference between Lester Patrick-Mike Grant and Frank Patrick-Dit Clapper.
Taylor-Bowie-Kucherov
Schriner-Barry-Morris
Lindsay-McGee-Rocket Richard
Kapustin-Kopitar-Fleury
Harvey-Lapointe
Grant-Lester Patrick
Cameron-Bentley
Clapper-Frank Patrick
I'm not out to make this any sort of large, or even moderate gap. I do think our squad has a deeper and more potent group of 6 F's, and the defensemen for Three Rivers feel and point out ahead of Montreal's based on history.
PK1:
Leswick-Mackell
Pulford-Harvey
PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall
PK1:
George Hay-Anze Kopitar
Serge Savard-Dit Clapper
PK2:
Red Sullivan-Shirley Davidson
Alex Ragulin-Allan Cameron
Three Rivers certainly has the best skating PK forwards in the draft, by a wide margin, but I'm still giving the edge to Montreal's group here. Hay and Kopitar are strong defensively but also provide you some counter abilities that others might not. It's a nice blend of enough offensive ability with real, concrete defensive chops. This isn't a Gretzky of the 80's. I think Leswick and Mackell are surely more experienced as PK players given how much they did it in real life, and their rep was "among the best PK'ers in the game" but I'm not blind to talent, ability, or rep.
Bourne was an accomplished PK presence on a dynasty. He made a lot of his bones in that role and his elite speed pairs with the highest order of skater, Taylor, to provide an extremely dangerous duo. Taylor was an AS caliber defensemen for the first 3rd of his career and played a lot of rover, with numerous citations of him playing good defensive hockey. I have little doubt about him playing the PK and keeping tired 1st teamers honest with the puck.
Sullivan played a lot of PK in his day and was strong in that area. I don't think his impact was on Bourne's level, especially considering Bourne's playoff exploits, but I won't argue for any real gap between the two. More of a preference. I need to re-read the back end of the pre-merger project to get a better feel for Davidson, but I know he was a very strong skater himself and checker so I'd wager he'd do well on a PK unit. But against Taylor? I think Cyclone wins that race.
This is a really close call, ending in a draw, but I can see an argument for a slight nod in either direction.
Just for kicks, here's a clip of what Bourne could do with a little gap. Put someone just a touch faster next to him (Taylor) and that's a dangerous counter trait to deal with.
As for the defensemen on the PK.
I've said it before and I'm sticking by it, I think Pulford-Harvey is the best top PK paring in the draft. Beyond the defensive rep (positioning, shot blocking, etc.) of those 2, which is immense, there is a wonderful abundance of physicality, calmness, ability to clear a puck (in Pulford's era clearing a puck meaning lobbing it down the ice, which on the PK would be perfectly fine, and Pulford was renowned as great in this art) and generally outsmarting the opposition.
I certainly think Savard belongs in the upper echelons of PK defenders in hockey history. Not only can he play D, he can also take some shifts as a F on that unit. Clapper, who I personally think was a good defensive player (especially being a transitioned F), wouldn't put him on the same tier as Pulford in terms of defensive reputation. That's the biggest gap between the 4, which is why I see Three Rivers having a slightly better quad than Montreal.
I see Montreal edging us on the 2nd pairing. Ragulin might have played in a shallow era for peer competition but his strength and defensive rep, is not in question. I think the PK is a highlight for a player like Regulin where skating can be hidden easier through strong positional play. While Lapointe played a lot when the Habs were down a man, I don't know if I'd put him on the Regulin tier as a PK'er.
Is there any discernible gap in talent, ranking, or rep between Jack Marshall and Allan Cameron? I don't think so.
Prediction: Three Rivers wins in 7
Series Overview:
Coaching - Punch Imlach/Bob Johnson vs Cecil Hart - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Cecil Hart won back-to-back Cups with Morenz leading the way in 1930/31. He was a player's coach, who built his teams based on skating speed, with an attacking philosophy that included all 5 men.
Beyond the 2 Cup titles, Montreal never made another SCF under Hart's guidance as far as I can tell. IMO, I've long felt Montreal underachieved a bit considering there was a prime Morenz, Joliat, Sylvio Mantha, George Hainsworth, Pit Lepine and others. On paper, one would expect that kind of roster to make deeper runs, more often.
Imlach has a better resume considering Toronto clearly overachieved during the 1960's under Imlach, winning 4 titles, including 3 in a row from 1962-64, beating teams like the Toe Blake led Canadiens and Gordie Howe led Red Wings.
I think each roster is set up well for their respective coach(s), so if we're judging this based on merit and accomplishment, it's hard to conclude that Three Rivers doesn't have the better bench boss.
Forwards - Even
Sweeney Schriner - Cyclone Taylor (A) - Bernie Morris
Paul Thompson - Russell Bowie - Nikita Kucherov
Tony Leswick - Marty Barry - Bobby Bauer
Bob Bourne - Fleming Mackell - Claude Lemieux
Jack Adams
vs
Ted Lindsay (A) - Max Bentley - Maurice Richard
Sergei Kapustin - Anze Kopitar - Theoren Fleury
George Hay - Frank McGee (A) - Dave Taylor
Dolly Swift - Red Sullivan - Shirley Davidson
Chauncey Kirby, Marian Gaborik
Montreal has a fantastic 1st line, clearly winning the head-to-head match up based on the wingers. It's a well-balanced unit with a great blend of skating, physicality, playmaking, goal scoring. They can win in transition or the cycle with a fantastic puck retriever in Lindsay who also was a splendid passer from the perimeter. Bentley's stick handling will come in handy as the puck driver of the line. He's another player who was really impacted by WWII losing 2 full years (age 23 and 24) and prime years at that. And of course, Richard is one of the greatest goal scorers of all time and playoff extraordinaire. Bentley isn't exactly the punishing fore-checker Elmer Lach or Ken Mosdell were but he was a gifted passer and Lindsay can certainly handle the fore-checking duties from LW.
Three Rivers counters hard as Richard will be shadowed by Tony Leswick and Leswick made his mark and money shutting down Richard (among others), like no one else, over numerous meetings. Richard was prone to take stupid penalties, and, in the event, he goes off with Leswick, that = a major win for Three Rivers. Even when they're both on the ice, Richard scored just FIVE ES points in 20 playoff games head-to-head. That's a massive downturn for one of the greatest players of all time. One cannot assume he'll be an automatic, major difference maker in this series. It's simply not as likely as it would be in most other scenarios.
Ted Lindsay is susceptible to taking penalties as well, and he'll see a lot of Claude Lemieux, the legendary pest, himself a fantastic playoff performer who has a Smythe on his record. Three Rivers will gladly trade Lemieux going off, along with Lindsay as the latter is a 20+ minute player and key cog for Montreal, while Lemieux is a 3rd or 4th liner in this setting and his ability to get under the skin of opposing players is well documented and effective.
Taylor is a strong win down the middle for Three Rivers and his skating + all around brilliance + adaptability brings a presence that very few players offer.
The 2nd line, IMHO, is a clean sweep for Three Rivers, though I won't get up in arms if a person puts Kapustin on the same level as Thompson.
It's always tough to compare Soviet era players with old time North American, but Kapustin reads a lot like Thompson. Played a physical, 200-foot game, good offense, a traditional glue type player. I do give the edge to our player, Thompson, because he was a 2-time league AS, despite being stuck behind the Bread line in NY over the first 3rd of his career. He peaked as a Hart runner up in 1938 finishing just 7 votes behind legend Eddie Shore. Kapustin was a Soviet league AS only once (1981) by my research.
If we look at the past 5 drafts, the draft positions of both LW's remain very consistent, which shows Thompson being draft ahead of Kapustin every year.
2024 - 189 (Thompson)-335 (Kapustin)
2023 - 219-303
2022 - 215-299
2021 - 208-320
2020 - 231-338
Draft position doesn't always correlate better, but when you see this kind of consistent gap over a long period of time, with numerous GM's making picks on each player, it does give you a good barometer of who is viewed as more valuable/better. I'm not saying there is any sort of significant gap, just a small one in favor of Three Rivers.
Bowie and Kopitar are very different players, but historically speaking Bowie ranks higher given he was regarded by many as the best player in hockey for much of his career. A superstar, known in all circles. He's a top 100 lock, and probably ascends into the 60-75 range given he outplaced Joe Malone in the top 60 pre-merger project last year and Malone was 72nd in the last version of the top 100 project (a few years prior). Kopitar is certainly a top 200 player, coming in at 161 in that project. Anze brings much more defensive attributes to the table, whereas Bowie brings significantly more offense, and that level of dominance seems more significant than Kopitar's defensive history.
The biggest gap on the 2nd line would be Kucherov over Fleury. The former is a league MVP in 2019 (he's a finalist this year as well), 2-time Art Ross winner, soon to be 5 time AS, and playoff dominator. He owns the top 2 assist seasons all time for a winger (became the 1st to hit 100 this year). I think this past year certainly cemented his status as a top 100 player ever.
Below are the VsX and Vs2 scores for the top 6 of each team. To be clear, Vs2 is a far less refined version of VsX. You generally see the Vs2 used for the pre-merger players.
I don't know how to properly translate Bowie's Vs2 # over to VsX. If we're finally to the point where those early hockey stars are treated on more equal ground to their later counterparts, I'd wager someone would put the X version closer to that 136.5 mark. I can't get behind something of that magnitude, but I certainly think he's more valuable/stronger offensively than a Max Bentley (90.4). We judge players on how they fared vs their peers at the time, and nobody dominated hockey like Bowie, at least from a statistical standpoint. Heck, Gretzky is basically the only player ever, who was further ahead of his counterparts in producing offense. Orr too, if you include D.
Taylor's 103 figure seems about spot on for where I'd put him historically (Crosby level offensively). He was a dominant scorer, arguably the game's biggest superstar if you base that on how widely known a player is. And let's not forget he played the first 3rd of his career as a high scoring defenseman, obviously suppressing a score like Vs2/VsX.
Bowie - 136.5 (Vs2)
Taylor - 103.0 (Vs2)
Kucherov - 98.0
Schriner - 91.3
Thompson - 82.6
Morris - 82.0 (Vs2)
vs
Lindsay - 104.4
Richard - 102.4
Max Bentley - 90.4
Fleury - 82.0
Kopitar - 79.2
Kapustin - ???
Bowie, Taylor, Kucherov, and Schriner all led their respective leagues in scoring multiple times. To have 4, multi time, league scoring champs in the top 6, is a reflection of how strong Three Rivers is offensively in the top 6, despite spending 3 of our first 5 picks on D (Harvey, Brodeur, Lapointe).
Both Pittsburgh units are built to do damage, whereas you see a very pronounced drop between Montreal's 1st and 2nd line's offensive output. This puts more pressure on the top line of Montreal to hit their benchmarks offensively.
And again, when you factor in who are the G/D getting these F's the puck, Brodeur, Harvey, Lapointe, Lester Patrick, and Mike Grant is the best group at transition in this tilt.
Looking at the 3rd lines, George Hay is a strong player in that kind of role. 2-way star, I think he outpaces Leswick based on peer adulation and offensive ceiling. BB and Sturm did a wonderful bio on him a few years ago and I came away impressed. He's a guy I think you could put anywhere in a lineup, and he'd be a plus player. And that's not to slight our guy Leswick, who I highlighted above as a key player in this series due to his historical ability to limit Maurice Richard through stellar defense and annoying the living shit out of the French-Canadian.
Where Three Rivers edges out is at C and RW.
I love McGee the player. I think he's another guy you put into a 3rd line in the ATD and you don't worry about impact. He was very potent offensively (had Bowie's peak but not longevity), a battle tested, physical, scoring leader of the Silver Seven.
But he only played 4 years of senior hockey. It's a very short career in the grand scheme of the ATD. Consider, Barry was an iron man, missing a grand total of 2 games in the 1930's. Even though careers were shorter in the 1900-1910 range, most players exceeded 4 years. To be fair, losing an eye at the turn of the century not only explains some missed time but also makes his accomplishments all the more impressive.
I already pointed out earlier that Barry came in ahead of Fredrickson in the top 200 project (148th to 167th), with McGee not placing, though I think he'd be among the last 20 entries or so, in a re-do now that the pre-merger project highlighted him in more detail. Still, Fredrickson was ahead of McGee in that project so it's hard to conclude that Barry isn't the better player, though the gap is small IMO.
Top-200 Hockey Players of All-Time - Round 2, Vote 10
Hossa, eh? Great player, but it seems a bit too early for him to be an option. I see him in the same tier as Alfredsson, Robitaille and Recchi. Also, I'm sure a number of people would say Toews > Hossa all-time. I guess the question is: Was he ever a team's clear-cut best player in his entire...
Is a nice look at Barry from the top 200 project. Not only does it highlight the consistently strong offensive totals, it hammers home how good Barry was a playoff performer, arguably the best of the 1930's. That's key, because McGee was also great in big games, but for a much shorter time period. Barry gives no ground in being a difference maker in a "best of 7" format. He twice led the playoffs in scoring and was the best player on the back-to-back winners in Detroit (36-37). In the 2nd leg he led everyone in goals, assists, and points.
Marty Barry's playoff stats
Most points in the playoffs: 1930-1939:
Charlie Conacher 33
Marty Barry 33
Busher Jackson 25
Frank Boucher 25
Doc Romnes 25
Highest playoff PPG 1930-1939 (min 25 games):
Marty Barry 0.77 (43 games)
Johnny Gagnon 0.74 (31 games)
Charlie Conacher 0.72 (46 games)
Syd Howe 0.68 (25 games)
Frank Boucher 0.68 (37 games)
Marty Barry played with Herbie Lewis and Larry Aurie in Detroit. Johnny and I had a desire to re-create the original production line with similar players. We believe we accomplished that with Tony Leswick at LW and Bobby Bauer at RW.
Bauer was a 4 time AS, who lost 3 full, prime years (age 27-29) to WWII. He was an AS on both sides of the war, so it reasons that his award cabinet is lighter than it would have been not missing so much time.
When you line him up next to Taylor, Bauer comes out ahead in key categories.
AS Teams:
Bauer = 4 (2nd team) - He lost aged 27-29 seasons due to WWII and was an AS on both sides of the war
Taylor = 1 (2nd team)
Major Awards:
Bauer = 3 (3 Byng)
Taylor = 0
VsX:
Bauer = 74.6 (remember he's handicapped significantly by WWII)
Taylor = 70.2
Taylor brings more fore-checking, certainly physicality, and probably a touch more defense to the equation. But Bauer is a HOF'er with a greater resume at the end of the day. Yes, he played on the Kraut line but was still highly regarded and Taylor's own offensive exploits were greatly impacted by skating with a prime Marcel Dionne, in a division that featured low hanging fruit in the 70's/80's Penguins, Wings, and Capitals.
Bauer was probably robbed more than anyone for time lost, certainly offensively speaking when you look at VsX. BB made a mini bio in 2018 that highlighted how VsX underrates Bauer (not factoring in WWII he's a 74.6).
ATD 2018 Bio Thread
Nels Stewart, C/LW Awards and Achievements 2 x Hart Trophy Winner(1926, 1930) 1 x Stanley Cup Champion(1926) 1 x Retro Conn Smythe Winner(1926) 1 x Retro Art Ross Winner(1926) 2 x Retro Maurice Richard Trophy Winner(1926, 1937) Scoring Ranking Finishes: Goals: 1st(1926), 1st(1937)...
Another bio
Bauer is more along the lines of an 80 VsX type player and his playmaking, heady thinking offensive game, translates very well with a goal scoring C like Barry.
A lot of times Bauer gets cast as a bottom 6 player but doesn't have the sort of linemates like he did in real life (Schmidt + Dumart) and thus is likely to be less effective in a depth role.
Here, he has an offensively gifted C to run with and an ultra-glue/pest LW in Leswick. Not at all a far cry from his real-life situation.
Vancouver Sun said:
Milt Schmidt said:
Woody Dumart said:
Babe Pratt said:
Jack McGill said:
Overall, I see the Fs in this series as pretty darn even. Montreal enjoys a clear advantage on the top line due to the wingers, with Three Rivers punching back hard on the 2nd line, across the board. I have the Pittsburgh based squad edging out on the 3rd line (edge at C and RW) and the 4th line is a dead heat (Swift>Bourne, Mackell = Sullivan, Lemieux>Davidson).
In a close match, I do have my reasoning for tipping the scales in Three Rivers direction.
The keys are the depth of scoring for Three Rivers. We are less reliant on our top line to produce offense.
C resumes, talent, and depth favors Three Rivers.
Tony Leswick is Maurice Richard's kryptonite.
Skating and speed. Taylor is in the highest tier of skater w/the Orr and Morenz's of the world. Bourne and Mackell were both regarded as elite skaters, among the best during their days. Morris, Bauer, Leswick, Thompson, were all pluses. The overwhelming majority of the team has positive mentions regarding each player's skating abilities.
Every line has a playoff lynchpin. Taylor, Kucherov, Barry, Lemieux (though the entire 4th line is quite clutch, Bourne, Mackell + Pepe). Players like Leswick, Bauer, Thompson, Schriner, were all strong complimentary players on multiple Cup winners.
Three Rivers F group is supported by a superior blue line and G.
Speaking of D:
Defensemen - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
Harvey-Lapointe > Savard-Clapper
Harvey is easily the best D in this series. He's a top 10 player ever, most have him as the 2nd best defensemen of all time (behind Orr). I don't need to rehash his accomplishments/attributes at this point, but his presence gives Pittsburgh a key win, at an extremely important position. Clapper is a viable #1 D in this, though he ranks in the back 3rd of the top 100 all time.
Savard and Lapointe are more or less dead even in terms of resume/all-time ranking. I know some prefer Savard, some Lapointe and most have them on equal ground.
In the top 200 project a few years ago, Savard ranked 119th, and Lapointe 135th, with only 3 defensemen separating the 2 players.
They played on the same squad, were part of the big 3 on the 70's Montreal dynasty.
AS nods:
Lapointe - 1, 2, 2, 2
Savard - 2
Norris Finishes:
Lapointe - 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5
Savard - 4, 5, 5, 5.
Savard likely lost out on more AS votes/Norris because he wasn't producing the same offensive totals as his counterparts. With that being said, he did win a Smythe in 69 and has a more robust reputation than someone with his counting stats usually does. Henc he and Lapointe being ranked so closely by most.
TOI - Usage:
Lapointe:
ES - 42%
PP - 64%
PK - 53%
Savard:
ES - 43%
PP - ?
PK - 58%
I don't have a figure for how much Savard was used on the PP but perhaps @Hockey Outsider could chime in? I wager it wasn't a big number considering how defensive minded Savard was after his leg injuries.
Larry Robinson
ES - 43%
PP - 49%
PK - 45%
I think the most important aspect to Guy Lapointe's career is just how much he was used in all aspects of the game. All 3 of the HOF'ers were used roughly the same amount at ES, but Lapointe is the only player to go 50+% on each of the special teams units (Robinson's usage has always surprised me considering everyone thinks him the clear cut best of the bunch). Lapointe has the most PP usage (a lot), and cleared Robinson by 8% on the PK. And consider this stat brought to you by HO.
- Zero forwards appeared on both top fifty lists (for special teams usage). Nine defensemen appeared on both lists (Orr, Bourque, Potvin, Leetch, Lidstrom, Pronger, Blake, Salming, Lapointe).
I don't think there is any doubt that Savard had a better defensive game from a technical standpoint. But the extent to which Bowman relied on Lapointe at both ends of the ice, tell me he was the more complete player (at least after Savard's leg injuries early in his career).
-Jean Beliveau.
- Greatest Hockey Legends
-Greatest Hockey Legends
- http://ourhistory.canadiens.com/player/Guy-Lapointe
- Scotty Bowman (on Lapointe's indecision before the 76 Canada Cup) Calgary Herald Aug 11, 1976.
- Guy Lapointe on Scotty Bowman's increased confidence in him during his third season.
Windsor Star Apr 23, 1973.
I think another aspect that favors the top pairing of Three Rivers, is it's a true 200-foot pairing. Both Harvey and Lapointe are fantastic puck carriers and facilitators. They were strong skaters and had a robust game at both ends of the ice. It's not a pairing that is telegraphed in terms of who will carry the puck and be the stay-at-home presence. Both can play either role. They'll beat you with heady play, skating, passing, etc. And as good as Savard is defensively. Harvey was almost surely better.
Harvey is going to be a key figure in slowing Richard (RW) being a LD. He'd have intimate knowledge on Richard's tendencies and coupled with Tony Leswick shadowing Richard from the LW spot = a difficult defensive sandwich to stomach for The Rocket.
Pulford-Lester Patrick >= Ragulin-Harry Cameron
I touched on these pairings briefly in my snapshot post a few days back, but Patrick and Cameron are about as even as you can get in comparison. Both had similar styles of play and they ranked 20th (Patrick) and 21st (Cameron) respectively in the top 60 pre-merger project.
The slight gap I have in favor of Three Rivers would be Harvey Pulford over Ragulin. Interestingly enough, Pulford came in 22nd in the pre-merger project so his all-time standing is on equal ground as Patrick/Cameron.
Ragulin and Pulford are very similar style players in that both had skating limitations though Ragulin seemed to be done in this later in his career more so than Pulford was. Each was strong as an ox and played a hard, checking game, w/strong positional play being their hallmark defensively.
Pulford was almost surely the best defensive defensemen between 1890 and the late 1910's when Gerard became a household name in Ottawa. And there were certainly a few years in the middle of the 1900's when he was regarded by many as simply the best defenseman in hockey.
Pulford was the captain of the 2nd great Stanley Cup dynasty in Ottawa (Montreal Vics in the 1890's was the 1st). I'd wager McGee was the most important player on those teams, but it's hard to argue Pulford lower than 2 when you read all the in-depth material available. He was an undisputed star from about 1900, onward.
We also had some fellow ATD posters talk about Pulford's stellar longevity in the project last year, an era where a lot of guys didn't see 10+ years of senior level play. This can also be said for Patrick, an even more extreme case of playing much longer than the average.
There would also be a strong familiarity between Pulford and Patrick considering they played one another numerous times in the mid/late 1900's.
Here is a wonderful post from the pre-merger project by @rmartin65
Top-60 Pre-Merger Players Of All Time: Round 2, Vote 5
Art Ross Babe Dye Bernie Morris Didier Pitre Frank Foyston George Hay Hap Holmes Harry Cameron Harvey Pulford Herb Gardiner Jack Walker Joe Simpson Mike Grant Percy LeSueur Reg Noble Tommy Dunderdale So of the candidates here from the west it's a weird mix. Dunderdale is going to take over...
I'm totally fine with this being a wash for some folks, but Pulford's resume and contributions to a dynasty seem a bit more robust than Ragulin, who played in a weaker era for peer competition (The defensemen in the USSR in the 1960's was not exactly a deep pool of talent). Both Suchy and Pospisil are more highly regarded players, though they were Czech nationals.
Grant-Marshall >= Frank Patrick-Allan Cameron
-Really neat match up of 4 pre-merger players. Let's go to where they stacked up in the pre-merger project. I see this as a slight edge again for Three Rivers as Mike Grant is pretty clearly the best of the 4 here. Grant and Marshall would have also crossed paths briefly in the early 1900's, playing each other in the CAHL. Grant's skating and offensive abilities were renowned in all hockey circles as elite, especially for that time period.
Grant = 25
Patrick = 43
Cameron = 53
Marshall = 56
If you want a battle tested and accomplished 3rd pairing, look no further than Three Rivers.
Mike Grant is pretty clearly the best of the players involved in this comparison and he was part of the 1st great hockey dynasty I mentioned just above (Montreal Victorias). Not only that but like Pulford he served as the team Captain.
Grant was renowned for his skating ability, and was arguably the earliest exponent of rushing defensemen, in hockey history. Certainly, one that reached superstar status.
I wanted to touch on just how much experience in big games the entire defense corps has for Three Rivers.
Three Rivers shows 12 Cup wins between Harvey and Lapointe. Harvey played in 10 straight Cup finals, winning 6 between 1950-51 and 1959-60. These are both integral parts of dynasties, Harvey obviously being a legend in this regard. Both were heavily used in all phases of the game.
Pulford and Patrick were mainstays in the Cup challenges between 1903 and 1909, the former being the captain of the famous Silver Seven dynasty in Ottawa and latter, winning back-to-back challenges with the Montreal Wanderers in 1906 and 1907, playing in 4 other finals beyond those 2.
Mike Grant, mentioned above, was captain of the Montreal Victorias dynasty in the 1890's. His team won or retained possession of the SC, 5 times between 1895 and 1899. It's widely accepted he was the best player on most of those teams.
And last but not least, Jack Marshall, won 5 Cup challenges during his career. His ability to play both D and C, gives us the flexibility to move he and Cyclone Taylor around in a pinch. He'd be familiar with Mike Grant and ties a bow on the strongest and most accomplished defensive corps in the draft IMO.
I say this is a slight advantage for Three Rivers, in part because I do really like the fit and construction of Montreal's blue line. It's got everything you need to succeed.
But in reality, I probably feel like this is a more moderate level advantage because Harvey is easily the best Dman in the series, and the best overall player IMHO. MIke Grant is a luxury, anchoring a 3rd pairing, given he ranks closer to Lester Patrick and Harry Cameron than Allan Cameron and Frank Patrick.
Puck control and transition is paramount to winning and we're thrilled to have the likes of Harvey, Lapointe, Patrick, Grant, leading the way in that area. Even Pulford became a respected rusher later in his career. Jack Marshall played F when he wasn't on the back end. He could handle a puck.
And beyond Leswick, Three Rivers is beautifully set up to subdue Richard, with Harvey and Pulford (seems weird typing it like that, lol) making for a near insurmountable 1-2 punch as far as defensive ratings go. Not only is it airtight positionally speaking, both Doug and Harvey (just too damn weird!) represent a very physical duo, adding to the strain of playing against them.
Goalies - Martin Brodeur/Percy LeSueur vs Frank Brimsek/George Hainsworth - Slight Advantage Three Rivers
I've always been a fan of Brimsek. There is an argument he's the best US born player ever. He had a couple of really, great playoff runs that culminated in a SC victory w/Boston. 8 straight AS seasons (2 1sts. and 6 2nds), and he lost ages 28, 29, and part of 30 to WWII (like Bauer). There is little doubt in my mind Brimsek would have a few more AS nods and Vezina/Hart votes had he not been called off to war. He was a Hart runner up in 48, and had 2 other top 5 finishes in that category. Like Brodeur, he also won the Calder to kick off his career.
But Brodeur was just so damn good, for so long. Consider his resume.
- 4 time Vezina winner with 5 other finalist nods.
- 11 times he was a top 12 Hart vote getter including a 3 time finalist.
- From age 21 to age 37 he was top 8 in Norris voting every year but 1, including those 4 wins above
- He was superb on all 3 Cup winners in NJ and even pushing 40 years old in a Cup finals run (loss to LA) put up very respectable numbers.
When he came into the league, you had a prime Hasek, and Roy. He scored more Vezina votes than Roy in 1996, 97, 98. 99, 00. and 01, 03. He was routinely ahead of Ed Belfour as well. Not exactly lightweights in the G department.
Another stat that always blows me away regarding Brodeur, highlights his stamina and usage. He was essentially Glenn Hall with a better playoff record if you line their careers up. Brodeur played 70 or more games in a single season, 12 times in his career. Roy AND Hasek combined to do that ONCE. Belfour managed to do it 3 times.
Not that either back up would likely see action, I think Hainsworth is slightly better. One thing to ponder is why, when AS voting started up in 1931, he was never on the 1st or 2nd team. even during the first half of the 1930's when he was leading the league in wins and on a popular Canadiens team. LeSueur, thanks to the pre-merger project, likely takes the mantle as best G in the world, circa 1905-1912 range (until Vezina got settled in). That may seem like LeSueur is the better player, but I think you have to remember Hainsworth played in a more robust era for peer competition at the G spot.
At the end of the day, Brodeur is simply more accomplished, and he played forever, against the likes of Roy, Hasek, Belfour, Lundqvist, Luongo, Kippy, etc.
Special Teams - Slight Edge Three Rivers
Three Rivers:
PP1:
Slot/Net - Bowie
Right Wall - Kucherov
Left Wall - Taylor
QB - Harvey
Trigger - Lapointe
PP2:
Slot/Net - Barry
Right Wall - Schriner
Left Wall - Morris
QB - Patrick
Trigger - Grant
PK1:
Leswick-Mackell
Pulford-Harvey
PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall
Montreal:
PP1:
Ted Lindsay-Frank McGee-Maurice Richard
Harry Cameron-Max Bentley
PP2:
Sergei Kapustin-Anze Kopitar-Theoren Fleury
Dit Clapper-Frank Patrick
PK1:
George Hay-Anze Kopitar
Serge Savard-Dit Clapper
PK2:
Red Sullivan-Shirley Davidson
Alex Ragulin-Allan Cameron
It's no surprise I find our squads very evenly matched here. I think that comes from doing so many of these damn drafts lol.
Both top PP are lethal. There is a wonderful blend of playmaking, goal scoring, transition and QB'ing from the blue line. Both top units have multiple C's capable of taking draws. If you include the G as part of the unit (puck retrieval and passing), that helps Three Rivers. I think these are very accurate/fair rankings and the slight edge goes to our squad.
Here's how I rank the players involved:
Harvey (Pitt) - top 10 player ever
Richard (Mont) - top 10-15
Taylor (Pitt) - top 30
Lindsay (Mont) - top 40
Bowie (Pitt) - top 75
Kucherov (Pitt) - top 75
Bentley (Mont) - top 100
Lapointe (Pitt) - top 140
McGee (Mont) - top 175
Cameron (Mont) - top 200 (just inside or out)
The F's are a wash IMHO, Richard being the best of the bunch, but all 3 of Pitt's F's are top 100 locks, whereas I think McGee is much further down the list closer to the 175 range.
Harvey led the league in PP points many times, among D, coming in 1st in 1953, 2nd in '54 (behind Kelly), 1st in '55, '56, '57, 2nd in '58 (behind Gadsby), 1st in '61, 3rd in '62, 1st in '63. His generalship and ability to control the puck and tempo, along with the big usage and output as a PPQB is well documented. He may not have the flash or absurd output of an Orr, but he was the most productive Dman at generating offense while a man up, over the course of his career.
His main competition were no pushovers, being Red Kelly and Bill Gadsby. He outpaced both comfortably (graphic below).
Consider he had the most PP points for a defensemen until Orr passed him in 1974 and would remain in the 2nd spot until 1980 (Park).
Guy Lapointe routinely led Montreal in PP usage and output during the 1970's, his shot was particularly effective in this setting. Couple that with Harvey's passing abilities and you a have a dangerous pair on the blue line.
From a pure ranking standpoint, I'd absolutely put Harvey and Lapointe over Cameron and Bentley, though Bentley was used quite a bit on the point (as a F playing D) and was very effective in that role. Cameron, while ranking significantly lower than Harvey and a bit lower than Lapointe, was as good or better than any other offensive Dmen in his day, so there is a higher ceiling, though I think the nuances of playing the blue line, favors Harvey-Lapointe. In a best of 7 series, I find it tough to bet against those 2 in the pressure cooker.
I think the edge between PP units happens when you look at the 2nd units, specifically F.
Schriner-Barry-Morris is simply a more potent offensive trio of F's vs Kapustin-Kopitar-Fleury, which is by no means poor, but doesn't have the offensive chops of their counterparts. It feels like a really strong 2 way unit but not necessarily dangerous. Schriner was a 2 time Ross winner, Barry routinely finished high on the scoring charts and twice was runner up in PP goals scored despite that stat not being tracked until midway through his career. And of course his playoff record speaks for itself, especially as a scorer (highest PPG in the 1930's). As a goal first C, he'll be right at home between Schriner and Morris given their own playmaking prowess.
Both squads have excellent 2nd pairing Dmen. It's hard to find any real difference between Lester Patrick-Mike Grant and Frank Patrick-Dit Clapper.
Taylor-Bowie-Kucherov
Schriner-Barry-Morris
Lindsay-McGee-Rocket Richard
Kapustin-Kopitar-Fleury
Harvey-Lapointe
Grant-Lester Patrick
Cameron-Bentley
Clapper-Frank Patrick
I'm not out to make this any sort of large, or even moderate gap. I do think our squad has a deeper and more potent group of 6 F's, and the defensemen for Three Rivers feel and point out ahead of Montreal's based on history.
PK1:
Leswick-Mackell
Pulford-Harvey
PK2:
Bourne-Taylor
Lapointe-Marshall
PK1:
George Hay-Anze Kopitar
Serge Savard-Dit Clapper
PK2:
Red Sullivan-Shirley Davidson
Alex Ragulin-Allan Cameron
Three Rivers certainly has the best skating PK forwards in the draft, by a wide margin, but I'm still giving the edge to Montreal's group here. Hay and Kopitar are strong defensively but also provide you some counter abilities that others might not. It's a nice blend of enough offensive ability with real, concrete defensive chops. This isn't a Gretzky of the 80's. I think Leswick and Mackell are surely more experienced as PK players given how much they did it in real life, and their rep was "among the best PK'ers in the game" but I'm not blind to talent, ability, or rep.
Bourne was an accomplished PK presence on a dynasty. He made a lot of his bones in that role and his elite speed pairs with the highest order of skater, Taylor, to provide an extremely dangerous duo. Taylor was an AS caliber defensemen for the first 3rd of his career and played a lot of rover, with numerous citations of him playing good defensive hockey. I have little doubt about him playing the PK and keeping tired 1st teamers honest with the puck.
Sullivan played a lot of PK in his day and was strong in that area. I don't think his impact was on Bourne's level, especially considering Bourne's playoff exploits, but I won't argue for any real gap between the two. More of a preference. I need to re-read the back end of the pre-merger project to get a better feel for Davidson, but I know he was a very strong skater himself and checker so I'd wager he'd do well on a PK unit. But against Taylor? I think Cyclone wins that race.
This is a really close call, ending in a draw, but I can see an argument for a slight nod in either direction.
Just for kicks, here's a clip of what Bourne could do with a little gap. Put someone just a touch faster next to him (Taylor) and that's a dangerous counter trait to deal with.
As for the defensemen on the PK.
I've said it before and I'm sticking by it, I think Pulford-Harvey is the best top PK paring in the draft. Beyond the defensive rep (positioning, shot blocking, etc.) of those 2, which is immense, there is a wonderful abundance of physicality, calmness, ability to clear a puck (in Pulford's era clearing a puck meaning lobbing it down the ice, which on the PK would be perfectly fine, and Pulford was renowned as great in this art) and generally outsmarting the opposition.
I certainly think Savard belongs in the upper echelons of PK defenders in hockey history. Not only can he play D, he can also take some shifts as a F on that unit. Clapper, who I personally think was a good defensive player (especially being a transitioned F), wouldn't put him on the same tier as Pulford in terms of defensive reputation. That's the biggest gap between the 4, which is why I see Three Rivers having a slightly better quad than Montreal.
I see Montreal edging us on the 2nd pairing. Ragulin might have played in a shallow era for peer competition but his strength and defensive rep, is not in question. I think the PK is a highlight for a player like Regulin where skating can be hidden easier through strong positional play. While Lapointe played a lot when the Habs were down a man, I don't know if I'd put him on the Regulin tier as a PK'er.
Is there any discernible gap in talent, ranking, or rep between Jack Marshall and Allan Cameron? I don't think so.
Prediction: Three Rivers wins in 7
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,053
- 13,975
Good luck @ImporterExporter !
I apologize about the wait, I had hoped to post my thoughts earlier this week, alas, I didn't find the time.
Frank McGee > Marty Barry
I get that if we go by usual rankings it's tempting to rank Barry in the same ballpark or higher than McGee, but those rankings are full of inertia from years of underrating pre-consolidation and have little grounding when you look at their respective profile.
Frank McGee was indisputably the greatest star of his era with Russell Bowie. He came back to hockey despite losing an eye while playing, dominated, kingpin'ed the Silver Seven dynasty then left what was essentially a hobby for greater opportunities, culminating in his heroic death in Battle during WWI. McGee is a f***ing legend who has reached both hockey and destinal heights that, with all due respect, Marty Barry has not.
True that McGee's career was short even for his era but his run still lasted longer than Barry's real prime as an elite player. Barry has that one year when he finished 5th in Hart voting and 1st in AST among centers, but that's all he accomplished of note that can be compared to what McGee was doing during those four years. Barry's longevity alone is not enough to compensate the massive star power discrepancy.
-
You undersell how better my 1st line is than all of Three Rivers' lines. Imlach's strategy seems to be matching Leswick against Richard and Claude against Lindsay, which is alright, but this alone is banking a lot on Montreal's stars losing their temper and this actually costing us games. Leswick and Lemieux are great pests but they are still bottom-liners in the ATD, and even if their plan succeeds in any given shift, you have Lindsay-Bentley or Bentley-Richard for the other players to deal with, which are still more dangerous duos than any duo on Three Rivers. Marty Barry is OK defensively but he's no dynamo here plus he's a slow skater, and Bobby Bauer has no defensive reputation. He's a smart perimeter playmaker going against Ted Lindsay; not a great match.
In the end, despite your great work on Bernie Morris and all due respect to Cyclone Taylor, we're looking at Ted-Lindsay-Max Bentley-Maurice Richard vs. Sweeney Schriner-Cyclone Taylor-Bernie Morris, a complete mismatch in talent between both teams' top line.
I think the real defense against my 1st line's firepower will be the Doug Harvey/Martin Brodeur combo, and on that I must say I'm not the biggest fan of Guy Lapointe as Harvey's partner at even-strength, even if I'm sure they can make it work. Lapointe likes to rush the puck which negates Harvey's slick puck control, and Harvey usually played with stay-at-home partners. That said, this is not a catastrophic fit or anything, but not one I would call optimal.
You argued that the extent to which Bowman used Lapointe means he was a more complete player than Savard. Bowman ranked Savard 20th and Lapointe 39th in his Top 100 Canadians Players of All-Time list. Whatever their usage means, we know what Bowman's final thoughts were.
And in Savard's case, on MTL he's paired with a partner that's pretty much the exact replica of his real life partner, with Clapper being a Robinson-like defenseman almost down to a T. While conceding a talent advantage for TR with Harvey, MTL's 1st pairing is a better fit together.
One thing playing in Montreal's favor is that Three Rivers' forward group is very weak defensively. Taylor is alright but nothing more. Morris, you dug up some nice stuff, but I'm not willing to call him a great two-way force just yet. Schriner is a zero. Bowie and Kucherov are non-factors. Bauer is a non-factor. Barry, like Taylor, is alright, but nothing really convincing, his wingers in Detroit doing more on the defensive end than him, and he's a slow skater to boot. Thompson is another who's a complete non-factor defensively, unless we take seriously the fact that his all-around game was compared positively to... Sweeney Schriner. The rest is just a bunch of second-handed quotes floating around since the prehistoric days of the ATD that have no meat around the bone. I'm very sad of the fact I can't find back a quote on Thompson, written by a fan in a newspapers, criticizing him for floating around the ice and doing nothing except "looking pretty". I thought it was hilarious. Nah, Paul Thompson has no real defensive game.
So that leaves TR with Leswick, and then whatever Taylor, Barry and Morris can bring as their sole defensive chops in their Top 9. This is NOT the kind of support Harvey and Brodeur were accustomed to, that's for sure. And not the type of forward group Imlach was accustomed to neither.
Richard will actually be facing Schriner and Thompson a ton, and Lindsay will be facing Kucherov and Bauer. Not favorable match-ups for TR at all.
MTL's 1st line towers over TR in a major way. This is an enormous advantage for Montreal.
TR's 2nd line is more talented than MTL's, but it has no defense and little physicality to speak of. The definition of a paper tiger. Feels like jamming your lineup with the highest ranked players and gambling that they'll stick, this time it failed. This is not a line, this is a list.
MTL's 3rd line is better. McGee > Barry (historically more important and dominant player), Hay > Bauer (close), and Leswick > Taylor but so what?
I don't care about 4th lines, but if we do, let it be known that Shirley Davidson and Dolly Swift are among the most underrated players in the draft. Davidson was arguably just as important or more than Mike Grant on those mid-1890s Victoria teams, and Dolly Swift was an offensive superstar with among the best longevity of his era. Not something Bourne or Mackell, for all their good, can compete with.
I agree that our 2nd pairing are similar but I'd give a slight advantage to TR for Pulford vs. Ragulin.
I'm not impressed with Mike Grant based on the quotes I've read. I don't have a strong opinion on our 3rd pairings though, they both seem solid for what they're called to do.
I think Cecil Hart is a better coach for Montreal than Imlach is for TR. Imlach had his best success the super defensive Toronto from the 1960's and that's not something that matches TR's forward group at all. Meanwhile Hart coached the offensive 1930's Canadiens and MTL fits that profile across the lineup.
TR has the goalie advantage, but it's manageable as Brimsek is still a strong G here.
MTL's top unit is better in my view, although both are strong. Harvey-Lapointe is solid but not anymore than Cameron-Bentley, and MTL's pointmen are right-handed/left-handed to boot. Lindsay-McGee-Richard > Bowie-Kucherov-Taylor upfront.
TR's 2nd unit is better because of the forwards. Pointmen are about equal.
I apologize about the wait, I had hoped to post my thoughts earlier this week, alas, I didn't find the time.
Frank McGee > Marty Barry
I get that if we go by usual rankings it's tempting to rank Barry in the same ballpark or higher than McGee, but those rankings are full of inertia from years of underrating pre-consolidation and have little grounding when you look at their respective profile.
Frank McGee was indisputably the greatest star of his era with Russell Bowie. He came back to hockey despite losing an eye while playing, dominated, kingpin'ed the Silver Seven dynasty then left what was essentially a hobby for greater opportunities, culminating in his heroic death in Battle during WWI. McGee is a f***ing legend who has reached both hockey and destinal heights that, with all due respect, Marty Barry has not.
True that McGee's career was short even for his era but his run still lasted longer than Barry's real prime as an elite player. Barry has that one year when he finished 5th in Hart voting and 1st in AST among centers, but that's all he accomplished of note that can be compared to what McGee was doing during those four years. Barry's longevity alone is not enough to compensate the massive star power discrepancy.
-
You undersell how better my 1st line is than all of Three Rivers' lines. Imlach's strategy seems to be matching Leswick against Richard and Claude against Lindsay, which is alright, but this alone is banking a lot on Montreal's stars losing their temper and this actually costing us games. Leswick and Lemieux are great pests but they are still bottom-liners in the ATD, and even if their plan succeeds in any given shift, you have Lindsay-Bentley or Bentley-Richard for the other players to deal with, which are still more dangerous duos than any duo on Three Rivers. Marty Barry is OK defensively but he's no dynamo here plus he's a slow skater, and Bobby Bauer has no defensive reputation. He's a smart perimeter playmaker going against Ted Lindsay; not a great match.
In the end, despite your great work on Bernie Morris and all due respect to Cyclone Taylor, we're looking at Ted-Lindsay-Max Bentley-Maurice Richard vs. Sweeney Schriner-Cyclone Taylor-Bernie Morris, a complete mismatch in talent between both teams' top line.
I think the real defense against my 1st line's firepower will be the Doug Harvey/Martin Brodeur combo, and on that I must say I'm not the biggest fan of Guy Lapointe as Harvey's partner at even-strength, even if I'm sure they can make it work. Lapointe likes to rush the puck which negates Harvey's slick puck control, and Harvey usually played with stay-at-home partners. That said, this is not a catastrophic fit or anything, but not one I would call optimal.
You argued that the extent to which Bowman used Lapointe means he was a more complete player than Savard. Bowman ranked Savard 20th and Lapointe 39th in his Top 100 Canadians Players of All-Time list. Whatever their usage means, we know what Bowman's final thoughts were.
And in Savard's case, on MTL he's paired with a partner that's pretty much the exact replica of his real life partner, with Clapper being a Robinson-like defenseman almost down to a T. While conceding a talent advantage for TR with Harvey, MTL's 1st pairing is a better fit together.
One thing playing in Montreal's favor is that Three Rivers' forward group is very weak defensively. Taylor is alright but nothing more. Morris, you dug up some nice stuff, but I'm not willing to call him a great two-way force just yet. Schriner is a zero. Bowie and Kucherov are non-factors. Bauer is a non-factor. Barry, like Taylor, is alright, but nothing really convincing, his wingers in Detroit doing more on the defensive end than him, and he's a slow skater to boot. Thompson is another who's a complete non-factor defensively, unless we take seriously the fact that his all-around game was compared positively to... Sweeney Schriner. The rest is just a bunch of second-handed quotes floating around since the prehistoric days of the ATD that have no meat around the bone. I'm very sad of the fact I can't find back a quote on Thompson, written by a fan in a newspapers, criticizing him for floating around the ice and doing nothing except "looking pretty". I thought it was hilarious. Nah, Paul Thompson has no real defensive game.
So that leaves TR with Leswick, and then whatever Taylor, Barry and Morris can bring as their sole defensive chops in their Top 9. This is NOT the kind of support Harvey and Brodeur were accustomed to, that's for sure. And not the type of forward group Imlach was accustomed to neither.
Richard will actually be facing Schriner and Thompson a ton, and Lindsay will be facing Kucherov and Bauer. Not favorable match-ups for TR at all.
MTL's 1st line towers over TR in a major way. This is an enormous advantage for Montreal.
TR's 2nd line is more talented than MTL's, but it has no defense and little physicality to speak of. The definition of a paper tiger. Feels like jamming your lineup with the highest ranked players and gambling that they'll stick, this time it failed. This is not a line, this is a list.
MTL's 3rd line is better. McGee > Barry (historically more important and dominant player), Hay > Bauer (close), and Leswick > Taylor but so what?
I don't care about 4th lines, but if we do, let it be known that Shirley Davidson and Dolly Swift are among the most underrated players in the draft. Davidson was arguably just as important or more than Mike Grant on those mid-1890s Victoria teams, and Dolly Swift was an offensive superstar with among the best longevity of his era. Not something Bourne or Mackell, for all their good, can compete with.
I agree that our 2nd pairing are similar but I'd give a slight advantage to TR for Pulford vs. Ragulin.
I'm not impressed with Mike Grant based on the quotes I've read. I don't have a strong opinion on our 3rd pairings though, they both seem solid for what they're called to do.
I think Cecil Hart is a better coach for Montreal than Imlach is for TR. Imlach had his best success the super defensive Toronto from the 1960's and that's not something that matches TR's forward group at all. Meanwhile Hart coached the offensive 1930's Canadiens and MTL fits that profile across the lineup.
TR has the goalie advantage, but it's manageable as Brimsek is still a strong G here.
MTL's top unit is better in my view, although both are strong. Harvey-Lapointe is solid but not anymore than Cameron-Bentley, and MTL's pointmen are right-handed/left-handed to boot. Lindsay-McGee-Richard > Bowie-Kucherov-Taylor upfront.
TR's 2nd unit is better because of the forwards. Pointmen are about equal.
Last edited:
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
1. I don't disagree that McGee had a star power that Barry didn't. Barry was absolutely a star but never "the best", but one has to remember era and competition.
As much as I respect the early era stars and think the latest project and just open discussion in general will be good for them getting more respect (and higher draft positions), I do put stock into how much comp a player had for laurels.
And in that regard, the Barry era was far more robust, with players such as Eddie Shore, Morenz, Bill Cook, Frank Boucher, Earl Seibert, King Clancy, Charlie and Lionel Conacher, Joliat, Nels Stewart, Busher Jackson, etc, etc.
A couple of those names are top 20 players ever. Numerous others fill out the top 100 in various spots. Who ranks that highly from pre 1910 hockey? Bowie. That's about it.
Barry might not have the award recognition of some others but his statistical output shines brightly (he's up there with basically all the stars of the 30's except Morenz), especially as a playoff performer. I dug up a lot on Barry through newspapers.com and while I haven't compiled everything for a bio post, his reputation as a money player is very well documented beyond just the counting numbers, which show him to have the best PPG of any player over the entire decade, which is not exactly a small amount of time.
McGee was dominant, yes, but dominant for a short period of time. And he also played on the best team in hockey in those 4 senior level seasons, which is almost always going to aid in team and individual production.
I know we're not comparing McGee and Bowie directly, but the latter didn't enjoy the same robust talent around him and yet equally dominated the same peer group for a longer period of time.
I think McGee's peak (compared to Barry) and ceiling is a bit higher than Barry, but it's not enough to erase, IMO, the length of time Barry was a good to great player which dwarfs McGee. And in a best of 7 series, Barry won't be left in the dust in this comp.
And lastly, I go back to the fact that McGee still ranks lower than Fredrickson (in the pre-merger project), who ranks lower than Barry (from the top 200 project). If there was more meat on McGee's resume, I'd agree he'd have an avenue to rank higher on a universal scale but 4 years, even in that era, is still a short period of time, especially compared to other greats from that era.
2. I certainly don't think I'm underselling your top unit. I gave it high praise and clear win over Three Rivers trio.
With that being said, Three Rivers is uniquely set up to hinder that line, not only through shadowing match ups among F's, but our robust defensive talent and deployment among the blue line players.
There is no arguing that Tony Leswick dominated Richard head to head outside of 1 match up. He routinely got under the Rocket's skin and this is not only talked about by historians but peers and the stats back it all up.
I'm not technically sure who has the home ice advantage here, but either way, Leswick will be on the ice when Richard is, quite a lot at ES. And despite Richard ranking much, much higher in an all time sense, he doesn't get an automatic pass to being a force in this series. That would defy real world happenings.
And that's just Leswick.
Then Richard has to cope with arguably the greatest defensive dman of all time, in Harvey, who absolutely will be on the ice 25+ minutes, which means Richard will very rarely get away from him. A player who would be intimately familiar with all of Richard's tricks, positive and negative traits.
Your best F is, IMHO, up against more resistance on multiple fronts than any of our F's.
3. I've increasingly gotten away from the mindset that pairings on the blue line need to follow the ATD blueprint of combining prototypical offensive player with a defensive minded one. It's far too rigid tactically and historically speaking.
Doug Harvey played on teams that didn't have a Guy Lapointe so that chance didn't exist. I really dislike the notion that a player like Harvey will be hindered because he's playing with someone else who was also a plus at moving the puck. We're talking about a top 10 player ever, who was noted for his IQ and thinking part of the game. He wasn't a gangbuster who was only productive when he had the puck or was written about as being ineffective when he didn't.
Lapointe's presence only makes the pairing more difficult to defend, BECAUSE of his ability to play at both ends of the ice, at a high level. Neither player is a liability and your squad can't hone in one one side of the ice to attack w/forechecking, against a weak skater or someone who is liable to fumble the f*** or be pressed into a bad pass.
Lapointe is quoted as saying he preferred playing the right side, which works beautifully as Harvey was plenty familiar with playing LD and in this series, Harvey playing LD, puts him in a better position to square up with Richard.
This allows for another stud defensive player (Pulford) being able to also play LD (his strong side) which lines him up directly against Richard in the handful of instances where Richard gets on the ice away from Harvey.
I'll always advocate for having as many 2 way defenders as possible on the back end, especially as it comes to handling the puck and moving it. That's the easiest way to attack a defensive pairing from a checking standpoint. Find the player who is weak(er) with the puck and force him to handle it as often as possible.
Bowman ranked Savard a bit higher on a top 100 list of his best/favorite players (the list has never been worth a whole lot), but Lapointe was still deployed in a more rounded way, whereas Savard was heavily used only at ES and PK. Lapointe had to have played more minutes. He was equal to Savard at ES, barely behind him on the kill, and vastly ahead of him on the PP. That's why I said he's a more rounded player. Doesn't mean better in an all time ranking (they're a wash) but simply more useful in the 3 phases of the game.
I don't think you'll find anyone who thinks Savard-Clapper is a better pair at producing transition/offense OR defending. It's a weaker skating, less physical, and less accomplished defensive pairing.
How do you attack Harvey-Lapointe? Both can handle the puck with aplomb. Both are strong skaters. They can and did handle the physical side of the game very well. Both are battle tested across many championship runs.
This isn't football where the WR's cry when they don't get enough balls thrown their way. If one player has an avenue to rush, he'll rush. And know the other guy won't be out of position. If an accurate pass is needed east-west, or north-south, is their a better pairing at doing that than ours?
4. I think you're overselling "very weak defensively". You need numerous negative level players to achieve that and while there are some, who aren't plusses (Schriner, Bowie, Kucherov, Bauer), these are not loafing players in the Bill Cowley or Gordie Drillon mold. Or post Montreal, Nels Stewart.
There is a big difference between someone who doesn't have a some or a lot of praise (Schriner for example) and someone who has numerous negative comments (Drillon) that directly correlate bad effort with results.
Schriner played for, and won multiple Cups with Hap Day as a coach in Toronto. He was a defensive minded coach and taskmaster. He was compared directly with Frank Mahovlich in terms of play style and Mahovlich was a key part of the dynasty in Toronto under Imlach. Seems like Schriner would fit on this roster rather well. No, he's not any sort of difference maker defensively, but hardly falls into the category of very weak. And while Imlach famously didn't get along with Mahovlich, that doesn't mean Schriner was the same person with the same personality.
For those who have a newspapers subscription you can read this incredible scouting report on Schriner from 1942.
Star Weekly
Toronto, Ontario, Canada • Sat, Mar 7, 1942Page 69Mar 07, 1942, page 69 - Star Weekly at Newspapers.com - Newspapers.com
View the digital scanned newspaper from Star Weekly dated Mar 07, 1942, page 69.
www.newspapers.com
Here is a game report from SCF in 1945:
The Windsor Star
Windsor, Ontario, Canada • Sat, Apr 7, 1945Page 27Cyclone Taylor was better than people seem to want to give him credit for defensively. He was an all star caliber defensemen (like Red Kelly), a superstar before he ever lined up as a rover/C. And the mentions of his defensive game are plentiful, both as a defensemen and when he moved west as a rover, a position that required a player be responsible and effective in that kind of role. Obviously, he's not Frank Nighbor, but with his legendary speed and what is written about him, I'd certainly say he was a net positive defensively.
Taylor fits Imlach well and there is a historical reason for it. Why? Imlach took a Norris caliber, superstar defensemen (Red Kelly) and turned him into an effective C when others though his career was winding down/over. The versatility of Taylor is a big bonus and he just happens to have a career arc not all that different than Kelly, though he wasn't as old when he switched positions.
As you mentioned, my bio on Morris shed a lot of light on his abilities beyond what was already known (mainly offensive exploits). Not only was he lauded defensively, over many different years, considering the amount of info I found, he was also a physical presence, playing a lot larger than his listed size. Very much in the mold of your 2nd liner Fleury. Plus Morris brings the bonus of being able to legitimately play C, which aids in the event Taylor takes a shift/game on the blue line.
Bauer was certainly not weak defensively. What is written about him, describes him as a pint size scrapper, who ironically was the boss/smartest player of the kraut line. Let me be clear. I'm not here to say Bauer is any sort of dynamo. I certainly didn't pass him off as such or suggest so but given what is written about him in the existing bio's and what can be found readily w/quick searches, makes him seem like a perfectly acceptable backchecking winger. Game breaking? No. But also not a zero. He was an energizer, coupled with brains.
The Ottawa Journal
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada • Tue, May 13, 1947Page 14A very quick search brought up these mentions of positive defensive plays. I'm sure with more time and going game by game, you could find more.
Times Colonist
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada • Fri, Apr 14, 1939 Page 14Evening Express
Portland, Maine • Fri, Apr 7, 1939 Page 19The Republican
Springfield, Massachusetts • Wed, Jan 19, 1938 Page 20Transcript-Telegram
Holyoke, Massachusetts • Wed, Dec 14, 1938 Page 21The Republican
Springfield, Massachusetts • Wed, Mar 12, 1941 Page 15The Gazette
Montreal, Quebec, Canada • Mon, Nov 12, 1945 Page 16I'm sure the Thompson quote exists and perhaps it means more than an observation of 1 fan, from one game, but I've also read enough to believe he was a solid checker, both ways, and not just an offensive number. He was more of a checker as a spare in NY and then played on a very defensive minded team under Tommy Gorman in Chicago. This while leading Chicago in scoring every year, from 1932-33 through 1937-38 (6 seasons), featuring 2 titles in that span.
Bowie's defensive rep is not really known, certainly in either direction from what I've seen unearthed. I'm not going to label him as a plus or minus without the proper sources.
Leswick was a very strong defensive player. HIs contributions to this series will be significant IMO.
The entire 4th line (Bourne-Mackell-Lemieux) makes up, IMO, the best pure checking line left in the draft. If we're talking strictly, balls to the wall physicality, speed, checking both ways, and, for a 4th line, clutch scoring. Those are all real world checking first players, who excelled in that kind of role for a long time. And in the postseason they bring it offensively relative to what their roles were in real life. It's not a line that can be ignored as defensive only in stature in a setting like this.
5. Calling a Thompson-Bowie-Kucherov line a "paper tiger" seems pretty extreme, when the only reason is because it's not filled with an abundance of truculence. Hockey isn't won or lost by having X amount of physicality on a single line.
Thompson played 13 years and rarely missed a game. In the first 12 years he missed a grand total of 7 games out of a possible 556. It wasn't until his final campaign at age 32 that he missed more than 1-2 contests.
Bowie, rarely missed a game and was described as a scrappy type player.
Kucherov, outside of missing his entire age 27 season and part of his age 28th (hip surgery), has largely been a model of health despite not being overly physical. The last 4 non-covid years (82 game seasons) he's missed a grand total of 3 games out of a possible 328. Before 2019, he never missed significant time. 5 games in 2016 and 8 in 2017.
The fit of that scoring line is tremendous, in both our opinions and we think a lot of people would agree.
Bowie and Kucherov's styles and traits play off one another beautifully. A goal dominant C with a playmaking and vision wizard. Both of them mor than capable of carrying the puck. Bowie's best trait beyond bagging goals was his legendary stickhandling, which was routinely cited as exceptional. It's hard to imagine these 2 wouldn't strike fear into opposing defenses. Bowie's offensive exploits are absurd and Kucherov is a 7 year, 98.0 VsX player with multiple assist records and Art Ross titles. There aren't many wingers who produce more offense, all time. And even less who are playmaking dominant. Thompson does bring some sandpaper and glue type elements to the line.
And you speak of the big advantage of the 1st line for Montreal, which is certainly true, but there is also a large disparity in talent and resume between our 2nd lines, which favor us, Three Rivers.
Lindsay and Richard are obviously major advantages over Schriner and Morris, especially the latter.
But Cyclone Taylor bests Max Bentley easily.
Bowie would rank around 100 spots better all time for me (top 60-75 player, with Kopitar somewhere in the back half of the top 200 range)
Kucherov would also rank among the top 75 players ever, maybe a touch lower, but is Theo Fleury in the top 200? No. So that's a huge win for us.
I outlined why I have Thompson over Kapustin in my long version of my overview. Thompson was an AS caliber F and Hart runner up. He routinely led his teams in scoring in Chicago and was a key player on 2 SC winning rosters. I won't suggest there is any sort of meaningful gap but at best (for you) this is a wash. I don't find Kapustin's resume overly impressive, especially domestically speaking.
You won 2 of 3 spots on the top line but also lose 2 of 3 spots comparing 2nd lines and wash on Thompson vs Kapustin.
I disagree that McGee > Barry unless we're just evaluating peak. And with that, Three Rivers is simply a better squad down the middle:
Taylor > Bentley
Bowie >> Kopitar
Barry>=McGee
Mackell = Sullivan
6. I'm working on Imlach's bio. I have such a massive amount of source material it's going to take me more time than usual to tally it up but I promise, it will paint a really detailed picture of Punch and most people will be surprised to learn what I've learned. Especially as it pertains to how Imlach coached (he was more open minded and flexible than people realize), how he didn't always have a sour relationship with Mahovlich, and what many different hockey people thought of him (mostly good to great, players or other types).
I wish I had the same free time as I used to, but I'm no longer single, have a 2nd kiddo (girlfriend's son) in my life now and am very focused on making sure I spend quality time with the people that matter most. So the days of me being able to churn on deep dives on 4, 5, 6 players/coaches in a single ATD cycle, are unfortunately gone.
Imlach has a better version of the goalie he coached and loved in Toronto (Brodeur vs Bower).
He has Doug Harvey, the near letter-perfect hockey player and a blue line that would make the 1960's Leafs teams wave the white flag in comparison, not only in terms of defensive ability and acclaim but transition and producing offense from the blue line. If you look at the 1960's blue line for the Leafs, we strongly feel like our group is a much better version of a similar group of players.
He can deploy Taylor in the exact manner he did Red Kelly in real life. Converted D to C, who played brilliant hockey on multiple Cup winning teams.
Schriner is Mahovlich (style of play) and the Big M was a key player over the entire Leafs dynasty under Imlach.
Morris reads like an Imlach player. Thompson, Barry, Leswick, Bauer to varying degrees, the entire 4th line. The spare, Jack Adams.
I'm glad you were able to get some comments in BB! It's always a pleasure going up against someone with your history of excellence here. I'm sure this will be a pretty darn close contest and while I do think our squad outpoints you, it wouldn't be a travesty to fall to Montreal.
Good luck bud!
Attachments
This is a pretty shocking (and, frankly, disappointing) argument from you. Shocking because a substantial part of your line-up has a strong pre-1910 legacy behind them. If pre-1910 competition was weak (using your argument), then you are dramatically weakening the legacies for your 2C and D3-6. And even the legacy of your 1C a bit, to be honest.
I find it disappointing in the greater HoH ( as opposed to the ATD) context in that, despite the project, we are still not seeing this era get its due. The biggest weakness of the amateur era, in my opinion, is the lack of awareness and context surrounding it, not the level of talent.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
I'm just as shocked to see a reaction of this sort.
You know how much time I've spent researching in general, which includes numerous players that played pre-1910. My bio on Rat Westwick was one of my most thorough to date and incredibly helpful in shining a light on an underrated player.
Pete Green began coaching in this era. I think you remember what my research on him did for his legacy.
I can go on and on and don't mean it to be novel gazing, just as I certainly didn't mean whatever it is you think I did.
My point is that, while I'm no expert, I have done my fair share of reading on this era and all the others. My thoughts are borne out of knowledge in most instances. Now, sometimes that knowledge is greater than others. I certainly don't know everything about hockey history. Far, far from it. Heck, I'd be willing to bet yourself, RB, and a few others are more intricately familiar with the pre-merger period than me.
Let me explain my position in more detail. Pre-1910 competition was weak if you compare it to other eras, in later years for a few reasons. All of which are logical IMHO.
1. The Pre-Merger period hasn't been researched or statistically been adjusted nearly as much as those periods that came after. This in turn, means more players, in later times, are going to be held in higher regard, simply based on knowledge. Doesn't mean it's right and I've not suggested that. That's just how research goes. The more you know, the more comfortable you are in staking a claim. We're learning more about these early stars, and in turn, already seeing an increase in their draft positions and I'd wager, rankings as we re-do older lists. But that takes time.
2. Very different rules, sometimes across multiple leagues during the same year(s). Seems more foreign to the modern concept. Equipment was different. Teams didn't role multiple lines, use spares. It was decades until the universal forward pass was allowed. Adding special teams, zones, etc, etc.
3. Non-consolidated talent in the pre-merger period. Competition levels weren't always equal across the early amateur leagues. Post 1910, you obviously had 2 main leagues (NHA/NHL and the PCHA/WCHL) and then of course, consolidation.
4. Lack of a real, consistent postseason tournament. There were numerous SC challenges that pitted juggernauts against inferior teams. Case in point, the 1905 Silver Seven against the Dawson City Nuggets. There was a big disparity in talent and....
5. Context in statistical data. Again, the example above drives home my point. I'm still not sure we've found a good way to merge this era's exploits with everything that came after it.
As I said in my original overview of the series, Bowie (our player) posted absurd numbers. If we're truly putting this era's players and their numbers on par with everything else, then Bowie is more or less Esposito offensively....and doing it without Bobby Orr. And you don't need to shrink his figures into a 3- or 5-year study because he was dominant for a longer time than most.
I have reason to try and inflate Bowie for argument's sake. I didn't and won't.
My honest answer, as I said before. I don't know how to contextualize his numbers. Do I think he's like a 130 VsX level player? No. Do I think he's probably more in 90-100 range? Yeah, that seems reasonable, if we're starting to increase the shine on these early era men. And I'm ok with that. I encourage it.
But let's do it with more intel.
A big reason why I'm not putting McGee over Barry is because McGee's career was incredibly short. Shorter than even Hod Stuart. Do I think Barry was a better hockey player against his peers than Barry was vs his? Yes. But not by a significant margin, and Barry was incredibly steady as a great player, both regular season and playoffs. If McGee had played longer, he'd be on and probably above even Bowie's position.
Johnny and I felt very comfortable going after the players we did, from the pre-merger period, in large part because of efforts from folks like yourself, @jigglysquishy @ResilientBeast @Professor What , among others.
Although I wasn't in a position in life to take part, I did read everything you all posted and absolutely think we're going to see a rise in ranking for dozens of ATD caliber players, and beyond. I've seen you talk about Bowie reaching Lalonde's region. I'm not there yet myself, but I appreciate the enthusiasm and conviction.
The arrow is up on these early era players. Let's allow the pace to be natural and work itself out as we continue to dive into the time period.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
If anyone is still reading on these series, here is a fantastic overview of Doug Harvey's playoff scoring. Research done by @overpass so you know it'll be detailed and accurate.
forums.hfboards.com
Doug Harvey's playoff scoring
Doug Harvey's playoff scoring compared to his regular season scoring is consistent with a player who could play at a high level offensively, but only did so when his team needed it. During the 1956-1960 Montreal dynasty, Doug Harvey scored at a notably higher level in the playoffs than in the...
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Doug Harvey's playoff scoring
Doug Harvey's playoff scoring compared to his regular season scoring is consistent with a player who could play at a high level offensively, but only did so when his team needed it. During the 1956-1960 Montreal dynasty, Doug Harvey scored at a notably higher level in the playoffs than in the...
Thanks again to overpass for this, including the translation.
Red Storey, longtime NHL referee:
I have been involved in hockey for thirty years and with all sincerity, I must admit that Doug Harvey is the greatest defense player in the history of our national sport. I have seen Harvey play since he lined up with the Royal juniors, and I have always followed with interest his rise in hockey. He's a real general on the ice, a very cunning player, who surely merits a place in the pantheon of hockey immortals. I don't believe I could live long enough to see another rearguard of Doug Harvey's caliber.
Frank Carlin, general manager of the Montreal Royal:
I have watched many good defense players in my time, but Harvey is without doubt the best of all. He's a complete player, an excellent skater, an ace at holding an opponent in check, briefly, a player who has a style all to himself. Harvey is alone in his class and I don't exaggerate when I say he is better than Eddie Shore.
Jimmy Orlando, former Detroit defenseman:
Doug Harvey is definitely the best defense player to wear the colours of a National Hockey League club in the last ten years. He possesses a remarkable "sang-froid", makes wonderful plays for his teammates, and is a real rock of Gibraltar on the blueline. Harvey is a great leader.
Joe Belanger, secretary-treasurer of Canadian Athletic promotion:
Doug Harvey is by a thousand yards the best defense player in the history of the Canadiens hockey club. He's a very great star and you would have to wait many years before finding another rear-guard of his caliber. He's a very intelligent athlete and I must confess that we should elect him into the Hall of Fame now.
Sylvio Mantha, former Montreal defenseman:
There is no doubt that Doug Harvey is the best defense player to line up in the National Hockey League in the last ten years. Offensively and defensively, he has no equal. Harvey is very skillful. He is cunning at anticipating the game. He's a gentleman, a player who knows how to use all legal means to win a game. He's a great asset to hockey in general.
Georges Mantha, former Montreal player:
Doug Harvey is definitely the Eddie Shore of his time. Shore was however more spectacular than the current ace of the Canadiens. Doug Harvey is a player more intelligent than Shore was, but the latter was much tougher. Harvey is a general of the game, one of the greatest defense players in the history of professional hockey.
Jean-Charles Pedneault, former player for the Banking League and with the Montreal Royals:
Doug Harvey is a very brilliant player who knows what to do when he has the puck. He facilitates the job of his forwards by his scientific passes. He's a player a club can put their trust in. He is undoubtedly the principal pillar of the Canadiens on the defense.
Gerard Dandurand, son of Leo Dandurand, former owner of Canadiens:
I have attended hockey games since 1921 and I consider Doug Harvey as a defense player superior to stars of other eras, including Eddie Shore. The latter had a lot of colour, but he made more errors than Doug Harvey. The veteran Canadiens player is extremely intelligent and is as cunning as possible. He's a natural athlete. Personally, Doug Harvey is the best defense player who's work I've seen, followed by Sprague Cleghorn and Eddie Shore.
Wildor Larochelle, former Canadiens player:
Doug Harvey is the best defense player, an athlete who belongs in the same class as Sylvio Mantha and Eddie Shore. It's very rare that Doug Harvey looks bad on any play. He is very intelligent and has all sorts of little tricks to stop an opponent. In the last ten years, no other player approaches him on defense, not even Red Kelly of the Detroit Red Wings
Newsy Lalonde:
I consider Doug Harvey as one of the greatest stars of professional hockey. He has no weaknesses as a player. He's a very elegant skater who rarely makes a false move. As a defenseman, he is complete in every way.
I feel like I am in the uncomfortable position of convincing you your team is good, haha. Like, if you don't like the pre-1910 era, why'd you draft so many players with strong pre-1910 records?
And for what it is worth, I think even if McGee had a longer career we'd still be looking at Bowie as the greater player.
Long story short- I don't think you made any strong arguments to justify the argument that the pre-1910 era was weak. You merely provided evidence that it is poorly understood.
You invalidate this argument in the middle of it- it isn't right that ignorance makes an era seem weaker. The era isn't necessarily weaker just because we don't know as much about it as other eras.
Rule changes happen throughout history, this isn't unique to the amateur era. I think this is also a pretty weak argument against pre-1910 players.
Again, this doesn't make the era weaker; it makes the individual leagues weaker. One of the biggest flaws in the pre-merger project (IMO) is that we didn't do a great job comparing players across leagues.
Blowouts happen. We just saw Edmonton crush Florida 8-1 in the SC finals. The Soviet Union beat Romania 18-1 in the 1977 IIHF WC. Are these eras weak too?
Here we agree- we absolutely haven't figured this out yet, especially when we talk about accounting for talent dispersal across leagues. Now, I don't think this means the era was weak, it just means we don't understand it.
For what is is worth, some of the new material I have been looking over the last couple of months does bring Bowie's scoring down a little bit (or, rather, it pumped up Trihey), so I think his "VsX equivalent" would drop. I personally don't think that harms his legacy too much- he's still the greatest scorer of his era and one of about 3 guys who were talked about as the best of all time (in their time).
McGee was the second best player of his day. That is pretty far above Barry's relative dominance, IMO.
And for what it is worth, I think even if McGee had a longer career we'd still be looking at Bowie as the greater player.
I have said that, a couple times. I've soured on that opinion a little bit recently, but it is something I am open to.
How is the arrow up if their era is weak? That's what I am trying to figure out. How can these players be on the rise if the second or third (to account for Philllips) best player from that era isn't as good as... wherever Barry ranks in his?
Long story short- I don't think you made any strong arguments to justify the argument that the pre-1910 era was weak. You merely provided evidence that it is poorly understood.
jigglysquishy
Registered User
One thing I liked in the pre merger was a huge rise on McGee. He's always been punished on longevity, but he's someone that peak on peak is top 10 pre merger maybe even 5th.
The longevity side hurts, but that's why he finished where he did.
The longevity side hurts, but that's why he finished where he did.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
Haha, no need to try and convince me of that.
I've got a better handle on what you're thinking now. Appreciate the further expansion.
You are under the impression I think the era is weak on the whole. That's an incorrect perception.
My point in saying the era was weak, was in relation to later eras. It's not that the era itself is subpar.
I judge players on how they fared against their peers with the rules as they were. Then take into consideration, many different factors when I juggle that player against someone from a different era.
In a lot of ways, the pre-1910 years were like the 80's. More wide open scoring w/the viewer still getting a lot of big checks and physicality. The wild west in a sense.
The 80's, saw the inception of Gretzky, Lemieux, Bourque, Messier, Yzerman, etc, etc.
It was a consolidated league, with a much larger talent pool to pull from.
Sure, blowouts happen, in most any era.
Here's the difference though; The Dawson City Nuggets didn't have a plane to fly across a continent. They took sleds and walked part of it. Then a ship and a train. The disparity in talent between the teams was significant. As in an NHL team playing an ECHL squad. This after it took a MONTH just to get to the challenge itself.
The 06 era, you didn't have those situations. Even the worst team in the league in the 50's, was still going to hang with the best, in the sense that they're not getting rolled up by 10-20 goals.
Not all competition is equal in retrospect.
Yes, rule changes do happen throughout hockey history. The difference though is we have had 1 league for the majority of pro hockey and the rules changes post consolidation would be uniform for the league, at least AFAIK.
Early era hockey was a rapidly changing landscape and that meant every aspect. Leagues rose and fell often. Players bounced around often.
McGee played 4 years. I'll continue to hammer on that as a bit of pause in terms of contextualizing his standing against other players.
And I don't see him as the 2nd best player from the first decade of the 1900's. I'll take Bowie, Phillips, and Stuart over him. All 3 of those were superstars known in every corner of hockey lands. And they all were of that quality longer than McGee.
It's not that I disagree with McGee's talent or accomplishments over the years he played senior level hockey. He simply did it for a shorter period of time than others, some significantly less so.
Marty Barry is a classic example of a guy who's probably a tier below McGee in terms of reputation and output vs peers. However, Barry also was good to great, for a very long time. He was instrumental in back-to-back Cup wins and has a strong argument as being the best playoff performer of the 1930's.
It's funny because I think this is simply a classic case of peak vs longevity bringing 2 players onto essentially equal footing. Both regular and postseason.
Some might prefer McGee. Some Barry. I certainly think it's a close match up, but I'll take, by a smidge, the guy who did it great for longer, in a consolidated league.
The arrow is up, because we're learning more about this time period. We're discovering more players, understanding more about said players. And the more we learn = a better idea of how to rank the era against later ones. How to rank players from 1905 against those from 2005.
And you've been one of the most instrumental in making this possible.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,053
- 13,975
Great series, @ImporterExporter !
You deserved it more than me, and your team was among my favorites to win the draft, so I have no problem with this result. Teams were close and you brought more energy so the victory belonged to you in my book.
I'm sorry for those who had hoped for a more involved debate, alas it is what it is, I don't have the mental space for hockey lately. Me not watching the game yesterday pretty much sums it up.
You deserved it more than me, and your team was among my favorites to win the draft, so I have no problem with this result. Teams were close and you brought more energy so the victory belonged to you in my book.
I'm sorry for those who had hoped for a more involved debate, alas it is what it is, I don't have the mental space for hockey lately. Me not watching the game yesterday pretty much sums it up.
Professor What
Registered User
I hope you're doing okay. If you're having a rough time, I certainly hope it passes quickly. I think I speak for the board when I say we're here for you.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,053
- 13,975
Everything good, just on a completely different track mentally with renovation projects, family visiting and the summer vibe.
Thank you! I appreciate the concerns.
ImporterExporter
"You're a boring old man"
You're one of the all time greats in this event. So to come out against you is an honor.
We've connected beyond just the ATD and I consider you a legitimately good human being. That's the coolest aspect of taking the plunge 10 years ago. There are so many good people in the ATD community.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 31,053
- 13,975
Indeed, we truly have an exceptional group in this section over the years and to this day. I have a lot of respect for you, both as a person and as a GM and researcher, and I've always enjoyed our conversations. I'm really happy that you're in such a great place in life too, from what you've told me last few weeks. I hope we can keep this community active for many more years, despite the ups and downs. We're getting older but we're still young men in the grand scheme of things!
Looking forward to seeing your final series. Cheers!
Ad
Upcoming events
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - AQUEDUCT RACE 8 - Long Island Stakes (Gr. 3) - Queens, New York CityWagers: 5Staked: $526.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
-
-