Milt Dunnell Cup Finals 2022: Montreal Canadians (1) vs. Vancouver Millionaires (2)

[BenchBrawl]

Here's a great post by ContrarianGoaltender on Ryan Getzlaf excelling against tough competition.

My most recent stats project has been focusing on removing scoring totals against the worst teams in the league, and evaluating players based on everything else, since scoring against the worst teams really doesn't have any relevance whatsoever in terms of winning championships. There are certain players that were particularly proficient at pounding the worst competition, and taking that out removes a lot of air from their numbers. On the other hand, there are some players that were elite against strong competition, but either weren't as good at padding their stats against bottom feeders or weren't deployed in a manner that allowed them to do so, and as a result tend to get underrated by people who focus only on their overall scoring numbers or rankings.

Ryan Getzlaf is pretty much the prototypical example of the latter type. So far, of all the players I've run the numbers on, he has the smallest career split between his points-per-game stats against the worst teams compared to everyone else (just 0.03).

Sure, there were plenty of other guys in that era that scored more than Getzlaf did against mediocre opposition. But in a head-to-head matchup of 1Cs, if you have peak Getzlaf, you're fine against anybody. For example, here is his record in the playoffs against the Western Conference elite of that era:

Year	Opponent	GP	G	A	P	Team GF
2007​	Detroit	6​	2​	4​	6​	16​
2009​	San Jose	6​	2​	6​	8​	18​
2009​	Detroit	7​	2​	8​	10​	17​
2013​	Detroit	7​	3​	3​	6​	21​
2014​	Los Angeles	7​	1​	7​	8​	15​
2015​	Chicago	7​	0​	8​	8​	22​
		40​	10​	36​	46​	109​

A 1.15 PPG while being involved in 42% of his team's offence in that era against that level of competition is insanely good. I'm honestly not sure any post-lockout forward can match Getzlaf here.

For example, here's Patrick Kane against the best of the West in the same period:

Year	Opponent	GP	G	A	P	Team GF
2009​	VAN	6​	6​	2​	8​	23​
2009​	DET	5​	1​	1​	2​	10​
2010​	VAN	6​	3​	5​	8​	23​
2010​	SJS	4​	0​	5​	5​	13​
2011​	VAN	7​	1​	5​	6​	22​
2013​	DET	7​	2​	2​	4​	16​
2013​	LAK	5​	4​	1​	5​	14​
2014​	LAK	7​	2​	8​	10​	23​
2015​	ANA	7​	3​	4​	7​	24​
		54​	22​	33​	55​	168​

Even disregarding his playoff performance and the way his stats hold up against the best teams, I'm not at all convinced Getzlaf's regular season scoring results are as weak as some people claim. He very much fits in the Sundin/Modano mold of a guy who dominated his own team in scoring over a long period of time, which I think is something that people often fail to appreciate compared to players who were clearly profiting from more offensively talented teammates. Getzlaf has 8 of the top 11 PPG seasons by Ducks players from 2007-08 to 2020-21, while Anaheim as a team ranked just 24th in goals per game over that period.

I guess all I can say is that if you somehow think Ryan Getzlaf isn't a Hall of Famer, then we view hockey in a fundamentally different way.

 

[Sturminator]

George Hay's star power was huge, and the more I read on him the more I feel his name fell through the cracks of history. In the 1925 MacLean article, Tommy Gorman voted him greatest LWer, despite having coached Cy Denneny, which is remarkable. That was before his big 1928 season in the consolidated NHL, where he finished 4th in Hart trophy behind Morenz, Worters and Shore, and won the 1st AST against Aurèle Joliat.

It's worth noting that Hay actually got two votes (that we know of...the MacLean's voting record is incomplete) on the 1925 all-time list - one from Gorman, and one from the immaculately-named Druce Boreham, Editor of the Winnipeg Tribune. This was only five seasons into Hay's professional career, and three years before his great 1928 season in the consolidated NHL. That's also more than Cy Denneny (one), Mickey MacKay (one), or Frank Foyston (zero) got from the voters, despite the fact that all three had long careers by that point while Hay was still just 5 seasons in.

All-Star, All-Time Canadian Hockey Team | Maclean's | March 15, 1925

archive.macleans.ca

George Hay is one of the all-time great left-wingers - better than Foyston, it seems, and far ahead of Smokey Harris.

---

Vancouver's 3rd line in this series is an answer to the wrong problem, built to match up with teams that want to drive the puck up the middle of the ice - classic NHL stuff. Montreal is not that kind of team. The Bergeron line matches up poorly against the Habs' scoring lines for two reasons:

1) Vancouver's wings simply aren't up to the task. MacKay is out of position defensively, and sending a cream puff to check Hull/Jackson is not a good idea. Smokey Harris, for his part, just doesn't belong on the same sheet of ice as Makarov/Maltsev.

2) Bergeron slogging it out with the Habs' centers changes nothing.

The Bergeron line will get killed in puck-possession against either of Montreal's top units, which is bad news for a checking line. Straight-up against Hay - Getzlaf - Perry, they will simply get outclassed. Montreal doesn't have to chase matchups in this series because all of the matchups are good.

 

[rmartin65]

But beyond that, I see the merit in using a player with an incomplete short career to pimp up a line stylistically. But TWO such players, side-by-side? It feels like overexcitement over the latest trend, in a game where history and nostalgia are the heart of the matter. Too much is like too little.

No rule against it, just a matter of taste.

I think there is just a fundamental disagreement in how people see modern players (and that is ok- there is no hard-and-fast rule about this). I think modern players should be given credit for what they have done. 7 years is hardly a short career- especially when the players in question have accomplished as much as they have. I mean, seriously, how many players - over their entire career- have a trophy case as strong as McDavid's? I'm not going to spend the time to count it up, but is it 15? 20? This isn't like we are drafting some player with 3 seasons under his belt. Same thing with Kucherov (although obviously on a lesser scale)- he's been a top player in the league for years now.

Nobody is asking people to project out anything these guys are doing, and we certainly not getting caught up in "overexcitement over the latest trend". We simply though McDavid and Kucherov brought the most to our team compared to the players available when we were on the clock.

I also take some issue with your assessment that "history and nostalgia are the heart of the matter". To me, hockey is the heart of the matter. The goal is to build the best team from all of hockey history, not just from a select era. And in any case, what McDavid (and Kucherov, and all modern players) have done is a part of hockey history; their stats, their trophies, their successes and failures, all of that has already been done and are thus already a part of hockey history and lore. Recency of an accomplishment shouldn't devalue the accomplishment any more than it should boost it. What has happened, happened, and should be valued.

 

[rmartin65]

What nobody has really discussed this series is the massive advantage Vancouver has on defense.

Orr is arguably the best player of all time, and certainly the best defenseman. He is the star of this Millionaires team, and is so far over Cleghorn that it is almost comical. There is a reason why Orr is always a top 3 pick, while Cleghorn goes in the second round. Indeed, just look at the rankings from the various HoH projects- Orr is ranked 1st in the D-project, whereas Cleghorn is 15th. Orr is 3rd on the Top 100 list whereas Cleghorn is 57th. @Sturminator , you yourself put Orr in a class of his own in a post from a couple years ago, and put Cleghorn somewhere between 15 and 20.

I will cede that Montreal has the better second pairing defenseman; Clapper is ranked a touch higher than Gerard , but we are talking a level or two higher, not anything like the massive talent gap between Orr and Cleghorn. Even then, @BenchBrawl voted Gerard higher in his initial top 100 list (source) and only two spots behind Clapper in his preliminary top 200 list (source). FWIW, the spread between Orr and Cleghorn on that same list is 43.

Vancouver regains the advantage in terms of 3D- and I'm even going to offer Vasiliev as the 3D here, instead of Taylor (who I actually consider our 3D). Vasiliev is ranked higher than Stuart in the top 200 list, the top defenders list, and on both Sturm's 2017 list and BB's top 200 list. Clear advantage at the 3 spot for Vancouver.

At 4D, we have Taylor vs Flaman. I recognize that some voters may be wary of Taylor on D (despite @ResilientBeast 's excellent research showing that Taylor was a true star on the blueline), but certainly we can all agree that he is a far superior player to Flaman.

Pausing here- Vancouver has a massive advantage at 1D and 4D, and a small but clear advantage at 3D. Montreal does have a small but clear advantage at 2D, but I'd argue that Gerard is closer to Clapper than Stuart is to Vasiliev.

Vancouver>>>>>>>>>>Montreal
Orr>>>>>>Cleghorn
Gerard<Clapper
Vasiliev>>Stuart
Taylor>>>>Flaman (?)

The bottom pairings seem pretty close. Grant and Mohns seem to be at a similar level (Grant by far more of a star than Mohns, but level of competition is a concern), while I would say Wentworth and Goldham are pretty close as well. I'd argue this is a wash, and certainly nothing that changes then colossal advantage Vancouver has on D.

Vancouver also boasts the superior netminder. Now, Vezina is no scrub, but Tretiak is rightfully (IMO, of course) recognized as having been the better goalie. While Vezina was (arguably) the best goalie in the NHL during his time, Tretiak was being recognized as the best player in his league. Heck, Tretiak won more Soviet League MVPs (5) than anyone else in the history of that league.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Good god this MacKay is out of position non-sense again.

Positional Breakdown from last ATD by me

1914-15 - C, eastern rules LW (according to Trail)
1915-16 - C
1916-17 - C
1917-18 - C, eastern rules RW/LW
1918-19 - R
1920-21- R
1921-22 - R, part time W. Eastern rules C
1922-23 - MacKay starts the season on D, plays about 8-10 games from there (early Nov-early Jan) before playing wing/RW regularly beside Boucher
1923-24 - W
1924-25 - W
1925-26 - W
1926-27 - Chicago is doing some weird stuff with their roster if you look at the personnel it kinda makes sense (when they get picked we can talk about it) C/W
1927-28 - W/C

Bolded are from seasons he was definitely a winger
5 x PCHA First Team All-Star (1915, 1917, 1919, 1922, 1923)
3 x PCHA Second Team All-Star (1916, 1918, 1921)
WCHL First Team All-Star (1925)

Scoring:
PCHA Points – 2nd(1915), 2nd(1922), 2nd(1923), 3rd(1924), 6th(1917), 9th(1918), 10th(1916), 10th(1919), 10th(1921)
PCHA Goals – 1st(1915), 1st(1924), 2nd(1923), 5th(1922), 6th(1917), 9th(1918), 9th(1921), 10th(1919)
PCHA Assists – 1st(1922), 2nd(1915), 2nd(1923), 3rd(1916), 6th(1924), 8th(1921)

WCHL Points – 2nd(1925)
WCHL Goals – 1st(1925)

Despite being moved to wing to make room for Frank Boucher, MacKay was still an excellent defensive player because handy stickwork (hook checking) is useful everywhere the puck is and because he was probably the second best defensive player to play most of his career in the PCHA to Jack Walker.

The Calgary Daily Herald (1908-1939); Calgary, Alberta [Calgary, Alberta]17 Feb 1925: 13.
The maroons continued their strong defensive tactics, seemingly content to the let the waves of prairie rushes break on the phalanx of Moran, Duncan and MacKay

The Calgary Daily Herald (1908-1939); Calgary, Alberta [Calgary, Alberta]06 Nov 1924: 4.
Vancouver fans sat back and howled for forwards that could score while Skinner, Frank Boucher and the MacKay followed instructions to the letter, paid more attention to back checking than to attacking saw their goal averages suffer but the games won until the team found itself in the final for the Stanley Cup.

The Calgary Daily Herald (1908-1939); Calgary, Alberta [Calgary, Alberta]08 Mar 1923: 16.
Towards the close of the game the Cougars rallied and Frederickson, who had been dogged and checked to death by MacKay and Boucher finally outstripped his rivals by some fast skating and broke through…..

The Calgary Daily Herald (1908-1939); Calgary, Alberta [Calgary, Alberta]20 Mar 1923: 16.
At the face-off Cy Dennny seized the puck and got as far as the Vancouver blue line where MacKay’s hook check cut short his progresss…Ottawa came back strongly with brilliant two men and three men attacks which went to pieces on MacKay’s defence.

Smokey Harris came under fire and apparently doesn't belong on the same ice as Makarov and Matlsev.

Perennially underrated Smokey Harris, @ImporterExporter bio from 2020 was up to his usual quality and thoroughness. George Hay certainly has more star power historically, but spewing blatant hyperbole about how certain players don't belong even on the same ice is just wasting our time. Smokey Harris is a perfectly fine 3rd liner at 18 teams bringing some scoring pop, physicality and defense

 

[BenchBrawl]

What nobody has really discussed this series is the massive advantage Vancouver has on defense.

Orr is arguably the best player of all time, and certainly the best defenseman. He is the star of this Millionaires team, and is so far over Cleghorn that it is almost comical. There is a reason why Orr is always a top 3 pick, while Cleghorn goes in the second round. Indeed, just look at the rankings from the various HoH projects- Orr is ranked 1st in the D-project, whereas Cleghorn is 15th. Orr is 3rd on the Top 100 list whereas Cleghorn is 57th. @Sturminator , you yourself put Orr in a class of his own in a post from a couple years ago, and put Cleghorn somewhere between 15 and 20.

Yes, Bobby Orr was better than Sprague Cleghorn. I gotta say, this chasing of old posts is somewhat questionable, given that people can change their mind, and not everything they post is done with the same intensity of thought and belief. I'm not totally against it though, since they can help catch inconsistencies and ask for clarifications, but then you should be consistent and fair (which I know you to be in general), and also post the old rankings which works in our favor and against yours, for example my ranking of Sprague Cleghorn as the 10th greatest defenseman of all-time in my Top 200 list, over Chelios, Clancy, Park, Coffey and Pilote. And you quoted that list in your post, so it's not like you didn't see the source. But instead, you chased a post by Sturminator dating back from 2017 where he has Cleghorn down a few notches.

But honestly, my Top 200 list is irrelevant, because it was put together in a rush, and there wasn't that much thought put into it. In retrospect, I shouldn't have participated in that project, since I wasn't able to put in the thought and time it deserved.

What's more important is I've been claiming Cleghorn = Chelios for a few years now, in a couple of places, and I think those multi-years "crusades" by a poster are more valuable in terms of having to be held to a standard of consistency.

I've been singing Cleghorn's praise for some time, because IMO he's a very rare defenseman that excelled at everything, one of the strongest offensive defensemen of his era, one of the most feared physically, and one of the best defensively, as shown by the impact he had on his teams as he moved around. Plus, he has a solid playoff resume and was a respected leader.

I will cede that Montreal has the better second pairing defenseman; Clapper is ranked a touch higher than Gerard , but we are talking a level or two higher, not anything like the massive talent gap between Orr and Cleghorn. Even then, @BenchBrawl voted Gerard higher in his initial top 100 list (source) and only two spots behind Clapper in his preliminary top 200 list (source). FWIW, the spread between Orr and Cleghorn on that same list is 43.

Vancouver regains the advantage in terms of 3D- and I'm even going to offer Vasiliev as the 3D here, instead of Taylor (who I actually consider our 3D). Vasiliev is ranked higher than Stuart in the top 200 list, the top defenders list, and on both Sturm's 2017 list and BB's top 200 list. Clear advantage at the 3 spot for Vancouver.

At 4D, we have Taylor vs Flaman. I recognize that some voters may be wary of Taylor on D (despite @ResilientBeast 's excellent research showing that Taylor was a true star on the blueline), but certainly we can all agree that he is a far superior player to Flaman.

Pausing here- Vancouver has a massive advantage at 1D and 4D, and a small but clear advantage at 3D. Montreal does have a small but clear advantage at 2D, but I'd argue that Gerard is closer to Clapper than Stuart is to Vasiliev.

Vancouver>>>>>>>>>>Montreal
Orr>>>>>>Cleghorn
Gerard<Clapper
Vasiliev>>Stuart
Taylor>>>>Flaman (?)

Let's admit that those inequalities are a very inexact science.

Again, I don't care particularly for my Top 200 list, but it's obvious why I ranked Eddie Gerard so high, because I was passionnated about his career, given the work I did on him and the Ottawa dynasty. Speaking of Gerard, I know we had this discussion before, but all the info I have is that he played RD, not LD. Not a deal-breaker, but it is still a fact if I had to pick a LD and Eddie Gerard was available and the best defenseman on board, I wouldn't pick him because of this, so I feel no remorse holding you guys to the same level of rigor, especially considering this information was available.

It's not clear to me why Vasiliev is better than Stuart, but regardless, I think we put Stuart in a better position to succeed than you did with Vasiliev. I can imagine the Vancouver F+D 2nd unit on the ice, and with Taylor's somewhat questionable and unproven defensive abilities in that role, with upfront Roberts-McDavid-Kucherov, that's a heavy weight on Vasiliev's shoulders in terms of providing the defense for the entire unit, against a Montreal team that has two lines with serious offensive threats on it. Sounds like an horrendous match-up to me.

Fern Flaman, regardless of rankings and inequalities, seems undervalued here. Flaman took two Boston teams to the Stanley Cup Finals during the Montreal mega-dynasty of the 1950's, and he was the best player on those teams as well as team captain. He was widely considered one of the toughest players in the league. So was Hod Stuart, and so was Sprague Cleghorn. Dit Clapper was 6'2'' in the 1930's and one of the strongest players of his era. Bob Goldham was a tower of a strength, and Doug Mohns was pretty tough. Montreal has an ideal blueline to defend against Espo in front of the net, and Espo is the sole elite game-breaker among Vancouver's forwards at this level. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find three teams in ATD history who would be better suited for that task than Montreal. Espo won't have the size/strength advantage against the Montreal defenders that he usually benefitted from in his career.

 

[rmartin65]

Yes, Bobby Orr was better than Sprague Cleghorn. I gotta say, this chasing of old posts is somewhat questionable, given that people can change their mind, and not everything they post is done with the same intensity of thought and belief. I'm not totally against it though, since they can help catch inconsistencies and ask for clarifications, but then you should be consistent and fair too (which I know you to be in general), and also post the old rankings which works in our favor and against yours, for example my ranking of Sprague Cleghorn as the 10th greatest defenseman of all-time in my Top 200 list, over Chelios, Clancy, Park, Coffey and Pilote. And you quoted that list in your post, so it's not like you didn't see the source. But instead, you chased a post by Sturminator dating back from 2017 where he has Cleghorn down a few notches.

I assure you, there was nothing nefarious about my neglecting to mention your Cleghorn ranking. I honestly didn't notice it, as I was more focused on looking for your Gerard ranking (as I remembered you to be a big fan of his). I have Sturm's list from 2017 because I have it bookmarked; I can't say I agree with it word-for-word, but it is probably (off the top of my head) the best tiered list of defensemen that I have seen. There are certainly some things I would argue about, but I think it is a strong list to use for comparisons. I'd even cite this list is a series were Sturm wasn't a participant- it is a good freaking list from a good freaking poster.

I like using people's past posts because I think it is important to show what people have previously said about a particular player. If what I quote is no longer that poster's belief, I'd like to know why; for as fun the ATD is as a game, I am still principally motivated by learning about hockey and hockey's history. If there is new information out there that I missed, I'd like to hear about it.

But honestly, my Top 200 list is irrelevant, because it was put together in a rush, and there wasn't that much thought put into it. In retrospect, I shouldn't have participated in that project, since I wasn't able to put in the thought and time it deserved. Plus, my mind works better in a team-building exercise than a pure ranking list.

So does it matter where you ranked Cleghorn there or not? I don't think you have anything to be ashamed of with that list. Everyone is going to have rankings that look a little odd in places, but that's the beauty of these group projects- we see where everyone ranks players, and come to a relative consensus.

However, what's more important is I've been claiming Cleghorn = Chelios for a few years now, in a couple of places, and I think those multi-years "crusades" by a poster are more valuable in terms of having to be held to a standard of consistency.

I've been singing Cleghorn's praise for some time, because IMO he's a very rare defenseman that excelled at everything, one of the strongest offensive defensemen of his era, one of the most feared physically, and one of the best defensively, as shown by the impact he had on his teams as he moved around. Plus, he has a solid playoff resume and was a respected leader.

You sure have. I think you have been remarkably consistent with your rankings of Cleghorn. I disagree with your opinion of him (as does a majority of the HoH community, judging by the rankings), but that is going to happen.

Let's admit that those inequalities are a very inexact science.

Sure. Just about everything about the ATD is an inexact science. Just because those are my opinions and they largely line up with Sturm's list doesn't make them fact. Every voter gets to determine how they see this information and vote accordingly.

Again, I don't care particularly for my Top 200 list, but it's obvious why I ranked Eddie Gerard so high, because I was passionnated about his career, given the work I did on him and the Ottawa dynasty. Speaking of Gerard, I know we had this discussion before, but all the info I have is that he played RD, not LD. Not a deal-breaker, but it is still a fact if I had to pick a LD and Eddie Gerard was available and the best defenseman on board, I wouldn't pick him because of this, so I feel no remorse holding you guys to the same level of rigor, especially considering this information was available.

So is Gerard's ranking on your list "real" or not? Is the Cleghorn ranking "real" or not? Are you no longer passionate about his career? If so, what made him slide in your rankings?

As for the LD/RD argument- I recall looking through that wonderful work you did, and there were many, many instances where both defensemen were just listed as either "D", or as P/CP. Considering he also played LW during his career, I am confident asserting that he likely played meaningful time on the left side of the ice.

It's not clear to me why Vasiliev is better than Stuart, but regardless, I think we put Stuart in a better position to succeed than you did with Vasiliev. I can imagine the Vancouver F+D 2nd unit on the ice, and with Taylor's somewhat questionable and unproven defensive abilities in that role, with upfront Roberts-McDavid-Kucherov, that's a heavy weight on Vasiliev's shoulders in terms of providing the defense for the entire unit, against a Montreal team that has two lines with serious offensive threats on it. Sounds like an horrendous match-up to me.

Did you? Flaman is not an overly strong ATD-level defender, particularly offensively. Vasiliev's partner is a top 30-40 hockey player of all time, playing in a position that RB has shown that he played at a significant level for a significant level of time. Is Taylor a better defender than, say Cleghorn? No. But I'll absolutely go to the mat in saying that he contributes more to an ATD team on the blueline than Flaman does.

I'd love to see McDavid/Taylor/Orr flying down the ice against Flaman. That sounds like a horrendous match-up to me.

And I guess while we are at it- Montreal sure has a lot of D-men who will see time in the box- Cleghorn, Flaman, Stuart, all are known to have spent a lot of time in the box. I imagine they'll be frustrated by the speed of some of Vancouver's players, or by Esposito making his living in front of the net.

 

[BenchBrawl]

As for the LD/RD argument- I recall looking through that wonderful work you did, and there were many, many instances where both defensemen were just listed as either "D", or as P/CP. Considering he also played LW during his career, I am confident asserting that he likely played meaningful time on the left side of the ice.

Then show the proof. I know Georges Boucher played LD after Gerard's retirement (with both Clancy and Hitchman), so I can speculate he did also when playing with Gerard. And I have a SC FINAL game where Gerard was at RD and Cleghorn at LD.

Did you? Flaman is not an overly strong ATD-level defender, particularly offensively. Vasiliev's partner is a top 30-40 hockey player of all time, playing in a position that RB has shown that he played at a significant level for a significant level of time. Is Taylor a better defender than, say Cleghorn? No. But I'll absolutely go to the mat in saying that he contributes more to an ATD team on the blueline than Flaman does.

I'd love to see McDavid/Taylor/Orr flying down the ice against Flaman. That sounds like a horrendous match-up to me.

And I guess while we are at it- Montreal sure has a lot of D-men who will see time in the box- Cleghorn, Flaman, Stuart, all are known to have spent a lot of time in the box. I imagine they'll be frustrated by the speed of some of Vancouver's players, or by Esposito making his living in front of the net.

"Top 30-40 hockey player of all time" sounds good, but that's not Taylor's worth here and everyone knows it. At best, he looks like Erik Karlsson, which didn't work well last series for Montreal's opponent.

Skimming RB's bio on Taylor years at D, lots of praise for his wild rushes, but very little on his defense. Why so little praise for his defense if he was that good?

 

[rmartin65]

Then show the proof. I know Georges Boucher played LD after Gerard's retirement (with both Clancy and Hitchman), so I can speculate he did also when playing with Gerard. And I have a SC FINAL game where Gerard was at RD and Cleghorn at LD.

"Likely" means I don't have the proof I need to state that as a fact. I think that, given the sum of the information that we have (that you provided, really. That was phenomenal research into those early-era Sens teams), it is highly likely that Gerard spent meaningful time on the left side of the ice. He played in the P/CP era, he played LW, etc.

EDIT- you even say it yourself- you "speculate" that Boucher played LD with Gerard. It was not unheard of for players back then to play both sides. A game (or couple of games) showing Gerard on RD hardly condemns him to RD, as that only shows a fraction of his career.

"Top 30-40 hockey player of all time" sounds good, but that's not Taylor's worth here and everyone knows it. At best, he looks like Erik Karlsson, which didn't work well last series for Montreal's opponent.

Skimming RB's bio on Taylor years at D, lots of praise for his wild rushes, but very little on his defense. Why so little praise for his defense if he was that good?

Even if we take the Taylor on D = Karlsson angle (which I don't)- that still makes Taylor a heck of a lot more valuable on an ATD blueline than Flaman, which was the 1-to-1 comparison. Taylor is also a lot more "protected" than Karlsson was in your previous series, as Vasiliev is a much stronger player than Gardiner. In other words, Taylor-Vasiliev is a better pairing than Gardiner-Karlsson, and it is a better pairing than Stuart-Flaman.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Even if we take the Taylor on D = Karlsson angle (which I don't)- that still makes Taylor a heck of a lot more valuable on an ATD blueline than Flaman, which was the 1-to-1 comparison. Taylor is also a lot more "protected" than Karlsson was in your previous series, as Vasiliev is a much stronger player than Gardiner. In other words, Taylor-Vasiliev is a better pairing than Gardiner-Karlsson, and it is a better pairing than Stuart-Flaman.

Chicago had great defensive forwards throughout the lineup, something which Vancouver doesn't have. You only have Hooley Smith in your Top 6 who can play defense worth a damn, and I'm not even sure he can do it at RW as effectively as he did at center (can he?). Even if he can, that's still very thin, and then you got the 3rd shutdown line, where Mackay faces a terrible match-up against the physically powerful Hull and Jackson.

So no, I don't think Taylor is more protected than Karlsson was.

Edit: I concede Syd Howe can also play defense, as I mixed his defensive reputation with someone else, but given the Espo line will line up with Orr most of the time, it doesn't change the fact about Taylor being unprotected when sent with the McDavid line.

 

[rmartin65]

Chicago had great defensive forwards throughout the lineup, something which Vancouver doesn't have. You only have Hooley Smith in your Top 6 who can play defense worth a damn, and I'm not even sure he can do it at RW as effectively as he did at center (can he?). Even if he can, that's still very thin, and then you got the 3rd shutdown line, where Mackay faces a terrible match-up against the physically powerful Hull and Jackson.

So no, I don't think Taylor is more protected than Karlsson was.

Howe was a fine defensive player. Roberts was also a fine defensive player. Smith absolutely performed defensively on the wing as part of the S-Line, as Stewart wasn't.

A player doesn't need to be physically imposing or dominating to be effective defensively. Lidstrom was not a physical player, yet he is (rightfully) considered to be one of the best defensemen of all time. Bergeron is considered one of the best defensive forwards of all time, and he is not dominating players physically. Smart positional play, skating ability, and hockey IQ go a long way on the defensive side of the puck.

In any case, MacKay/Hull/Jackson are not on Taylor's side of the ice- they are on Vasiliev's side, who is a strong physical player. Smokey Harris is also on the LW on that checking line, and he is both a strong defensive player and a physical one.

I am definitely ok with Orr and Vasiliev playing defense against Hull and Jackson.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Howe was a fine defensive player. Roberts was also a fine defensive player. Smith absolutely performed defensively on the wing as part of the S-Line, as Stewart wasn't.

A player doesn't need to be physically imposing or dominating to be effective defensively. Lidstrom was not a physical player, yet he is (rightfully) considered to be one of the best defensemen of all time. Bergeron is considered one of the best defensive forwards of all time, and he is not dominating players physically. Smart positional play, skating ability, and hockey IQ go a long way on the defensive side of the puck.

In any case, MacKay/Hull/Jackson are not on Taylor's side of the ice- they are on Vasiliev's side, who is a strong physical player. Smokey Harris is also on the LW on that checking line, and he is both a strong defensive player and a physical one.

I am definitely ok with Orr and Vasiliev playing defense against Hull and Jackson.

See my edit about Howe.

A player doesn't need to be physically imposing or dominating to be effective defensively. It's nice to bring Lidstrom into this, but Mackay is not Lidstrom, and Lidstrom never had the reputation of being fragile and affected by physical play.

Right, Hull/Jackson aren't on Taylor's side of the ice, but Makarov/Malstsev are, so the threat remains. As for Smokey Harris, assuming we're even supposed to care about his ability to shut down a player of Makarov's caliber, Montreal has the home ice advantage and last change.

 

[rmartin65]

See my edit about Howe.

I missed that while I was writing my post. Thanks for recognizing and admitting it.

I'll also address the edit you made to an earlier post in a bit.

A player doesn't need to be physically imposing or dominating to be effective defensively. It's nice to bring Lidstrom into this, but Mackay is not Lidstrom, and Lidstrom never had the reputation of being fragile and affected by physical play.

Right, Hull/Jackson aren't on Taylor's side of the ice, but Makarov/Malstsev are, so the threat remains. As for Smokey Harris, assuming we're even supposed to care about his ability to shut down a player of Makarov's caliber, Montreal has the home ice advantage and last change.

MacKay's fragility and fear of physical play seems greatly overblown. That is one of the things that I think the ATD community does a relatively poor job of- players kind of get made into caricatures of themselves, where both their strengths and weaknesses are overblown. See "the Rocket never passes!" "Thorton never shoots!", and "Dionne is useless in the post-season!". MacKay had his face shattered by a high-stick; I would imagine that would set anyone back for a bit. Heck, the slash/high-stick was so savage that Wilson (the perpetrator... Tom Wilson's ancestor???) was banned from the PCHA for life. It was simply not a hockey play, even by the rough-and-tumble standards of the era. Are one of the short-fuses on Montreal going to slash him in the face? If not, I think he'll be ok.

I don't know why you are arguing like Taylor is going to be on the ice at all times, that'd be like me arguing Flaman is going to be on the ice all the time. They are both second pairing defensemen- yes, they are going to struggle defensively at times against top 6 talent. The difference is that Taylor, unlike Flaman, is going to be a substantial contributor offensively.

Did Tarasov do line-matchups? Home-ice you guys may have, but if Taraov didn't match lines, then that's something Vancouver doesn't have to really worry about.

 

[rmartin65]

Fern Flaman, regardless of rankings and inequalities, seems undervalued here. Flaman took two Boston teams to the Stanley Cup Finals during the Montreal mega-dynasty of the 1950's, and he was the best player on those teams as well as team captain. He was widely considered one of the toughest players in the league. So was Hod Stuart, and so was Sprague Cleghorn. Dit Clapper was 6'2'' in the 1930's and one of the strongest players of his era. Bob Goldham was a tower of a strength, and Doug Mohns was pretty tough. Montreal has an ideal blueline to defend against Espo in front of the net, and Espo is the sole elite game-breaker among Vancouver's forwards at this level. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find three teams in ATD history who would be better suited for that task than Montreal. Espo won't have the size/strength advantage against the Montreal defenders that he usually benefitted from in his career.

I missed this edited add-on in my original post, so I'll address it here:

Flaman was the best player on those teams? I'm not sure about that one. One of the toughest (and most penalized), sure. A valuable player on that team, absolutely. But there was plenty of talent on those teams- Allen Stanley, Don McKenney, Vic Stasiuk, John Bucyk, Bronco Horvath, Doug Mohns (on wing), etc.

Esposito played against plenty of big and strong defensemen, I'm not sure why you are bringing up Goldham and Mohns like they are going to stymie him.

And Espo is the sole elite gamebreaker among Vancouver's forwards? I get that you don't like McDavid, but he has a VsX score higher than anyone on your team outside of Makarov and Hull. Hell, in a 7 year career, McDavid has already surpassed Hull in Art Ross wins and tied him for Harts. Unless you want to argue that Hull is not an elite game-breaker at this level, I don't see how you can't grant McDavid that same title (EDIT- I'm definitely not stating that McDavid is equal to or greater than Hull. Hull dominated the league for much longer than McDavid has (so far). My point in this comparison is that McDavid has shown that, for at least a 7 year period, he has roughly matched Hull's offensive peak). Can Montreal's D skate with Orr/Taylor/McDavid AND matchup physically with Esposito in front of the net? I don't think so.

 

[rmartin65]

Skimming RB's bio on Taylor years at D, lots of praise for his wild rushes, but very little on his defense. Why so little praise for his defense if he was that good?

I just wanted to re-attack this one, citing some past comments from @Sturminator :

This one is from 2019;

Toe Blake team: average top pairing in terms of talent that I somehow think will be better than the sum of its parts. Taylor on a 2nd pairing is a real power move, and Mantha is a good partner for him. Pospisil on a 3rd pairing is absurd, and Joe Hall as a #6 is almost as dumb. I don't know what this GM has planned, but I dunno if there are really enough minutes to go around. If I were running this team, I'd probably work up some sort of weird, elaborate minutes plan which had Taylor bouncing around the lineup and the rest of the defensemen getting a minutes load commensurate with their talents. Blake is capable of handling this. He's one of the few coaches with whom you can probably get away with wacky minutes/line rotation plans, and Taylor is maybe the single best player in the draft to implement them.

(source)

This one is from 2017;

It's tough... there is no formula for how to evaluate multi-position players, but I do think we do them a disservice by not looking at their careers holistically. This is especially important for many pre-war F/D stars, guys like Taylor, Clapper, Siebert, Goodfellow, etc. If we only look narrowly at what they did at a given position, I think we shortchange their careers pretty badly.

(source)

And this one is from 2015;

Slow down, jarek. Taylor was good defensively as a defenseman, though he would still be considered an offensive defenseman by ATD standards. As a forward, reports of his two-way play are more mixed. He was cited for his all-around performance when he won the 1918 PCHA MVP award, but there are also scattered complaints about his loafing in the last few years of his prime, when he was still putting up big points but probably conserving his energy more going the other way (and had Mickey MacKay at rover behind him covering his ass).

I think he's probably good enough as a forward to be considered a small plus defensively at this level, but he's not Bryan Trottier.

edit: got the year wrong for Taylor's "Champion All-around Player" award in the PCHA. Foyston won it in 1916-17, and Taylor in 1917-18.

(source)

It looks to me like Taylor should be just fine- for an offensive defenseman- in the ATD.

 

[Sturminator]

If you had strong information about Taylor's defensive ability, you would simply post the actual historical documents instead of focusing on years old, out-of-context comments like a drunk girlfriend. So far we've gotten this:

Taylor, who was on the line the night the team was beaten in Quebec (TDMM - I assume this means at forward, RB if this is the same game he was at CP), was in Moore's position at cover point, increasing the efficiency of the defence about 50 percent. He was ruled off 4 times in the game, twice for heavy bodychecking and twice for slashing Wanderer forwards over the arms. His play, while on the rough side, was very effective; he was a hard man to get by and towards the end he stirred up the crowd by lightning rushes from end to end of the rink.

and this:

Although the latter team (Ottawa) was without the services of Pulford and Smith they proved too fast for Montral and the result was never in doubt.

According to Montreal papers Marty Walsh of the Ottawas struck Ross of the Wanderers on the head and put him out of business, and Taylor knocked Blachford down and kicked him when he was down.

(Taylor listed at Cover Point)

You got any more?

The historical record of Taylor's defensive game is remarkably thin, and you know it. Posting everything you have would simply reveal this fact, so you're throwing out smoke and hoping the voters don't actually read his bio. I sincerely hope that they do.

 

[rmartin65]

If you had strong information about Taylor's defensive ability, you would simply post the actual historical documents instead of focusing on years old, out-of-context comments like a drunk girlfriend.

Classy

Please, provide the context for those, then. Because, in two ATD draft threads and a dishing-the-dirt thread, you claim that Taylor is a "power move" on the second pairing (alongside Mantha, who, while good, doesn't measure up to Taylor's partner here) and " good defensively as a defenseman". What is the context that makes those comments now untrue?

The historical record of Taylor's defensive game is remarkably thin, and you know it. Posting everything you have would simply reveal this fact, so you're throwing out smoke and hoping the voters don't actually read his bio. I sincerely hope that they do.

It is no more thin than it was when you made the above-cited comments. What has changed between when you made those comments and now?

And I do hope they read that bio you linked, and all of @ResilientBeast 's work on Taylor- it shows that Taylor played defense for a significant time. Is he Scott Stevens out there? Nope, but nobody is claiming him to be. We are claiming that he is a legitimate play at defense. And that bio (and your comments!) show that he is.

 

[Sturminator]

And I do hope they read that bio you linked, and all of @ResilientBeast 's work on Taylor- it shows that Taylor played defense for a significant time.

This is your entire argument: "Taylor played defense for a significant time."

 

[rmartin65]

This is your entire argument: "Taylor played defense for a significant time."

Nah- as you are no doubt aware (since you cropped the original post), the argument is that he is a viable option at defense in the ATD. As you have written in the past, and as RB has shown, Taylor was "good defensively as a defenseman" (to use your words), and that he is a "power move" (again, your words) on the second pairing in the ATD.

Again, we are not arguing that he is some kind of defensive god- he's an offensive defenseman playing on the second pairing with a defense-minded partner.

 

[ResilientBeast]

If you had strong information about Taylor's defensive ability, you would simply post the actual historical documents instead of focusing on years old, out-of-context comments like a drunk girlfriend. So far we've gotten this:

I'll echo @rmartin65 very classy comments

Not sure how those quotes are "out of context" considering he's playing on the second pairing on and ATD team, constructed by us/me not sure how's the not in the appropriate context.

But by all means go off

 

[nabby12]

Can we vote on this crap and be done with ATD this year already?

What else is there to argue and bicker about lol.

 

[Sturminator]

Nah- as you are no doubt aware (since you cropped the original post), the argument is that he is a viable option at defense in the ATD. As you have written in the past, and as RB has shown, Taylor was "good defensively as a defenseman" (to use your words), and that he is a "power move" (again, your words) on the second pairing in the ATD.

Funny...it was actually RB's 2019 bio that convinced me Taylor wasn't worth much as a defenseman. I had given him the benefit of the doubt up to that point, but it eventually became clear that there simply wasn't much there when it comes to Taylor's defense, and that he had been moved up to forward for a good reason.

It's not a problem of era, either. Compare the two quotes we have in support of Taylor's defensive abilities to the mountain of evidence we have for Hod Stuart.

Stuart was a clean player who played for keeps. His punishing checks and long reach frustrated his opponents as much as his offensive rushes dazzled the fans.

He could skate, shoot, play-make, and play-break, and he was a good fellow as well.

Hod Stuart's work at cover point was grand, and he stopped McCarron's rushes many times.

The Victoria forward men were unable to get away with the puck when they secured it for any distance, and the few times they did get started near the Portage Lake part of the ice big Hod was always on the spot and put an end to the play by taking away the rubber.

Hod Stuart has been barred from the International Hockey League, the western contingent claiming he won too many championships and that he is too rough. He is one of the best hockey players on this continent.

Hod has been accused of being a rough and dirty player, but there was nothing in the least offensive in his work last night. He was here, there, and everywhere, always following the puck when it went down the rink, and yet never losing sight of his opponent. When the Canadians line would start towards the Pittsburgh goal, with the puck in its possession, Hod always got busy. He would skate in and out between the opposing men, and nearly every time take the puck away from the man who was dribbling it.

There is no wonder that Hod Stuart's name is mentioned wherever hockey is played. His work toward the last half of the second half was sensational. Stuart plays both offense and defense, and what he doesn't do in a game is not worth doing.

The defence work of Hod Stuart and Billy Baird could not be improved on.

While he was on the ice, Stuart exhibited many of those qualities which have gained him renown in the hockey world. He handled his stick with marvelous dexterity, skated rings around most of the men on the ice, broke up rush after rush with ease, and several times carried the puck down through the whole Toronto team, his great speed carrying his huge bulk along with almost irresistible force.

Hod Stuart is given credit by his teammates of playing the greatest game of his life, and he certainly gave one of the finest exhibitions of defence work ever seen here. He blocked rush after rush, and inaugurated many dangerous attempts. He checked hard, hit cleanly, and was never even warned, although he had much provocation. When it is considered the big cover point played with a broken finger, his was truly a remarkable exhibition.

Why is there so little praise for Taylor's defensive abilities, and so much for Stuart's? Taylor seems to have been considered the inferior cover point, both by contemporary sportswriters, and by the committee that picked the 1925 all-time teams for MacLean's. This largely comes down to the fact that Taylor wasn't apparently worth much as a puck-winner, which is, you know...a big part of what defensemen do.

As a defenseman, Cyclone Taylor reads a lot like Erik Karlsson.

 

[rmartin65]

Again, the argument is not that Taylor is some paragon of defensive ability. Our argument is that Taylor played good-enough D for long enough to be considered an asset as an offensive defenseman on an ATD blueline... and I think the research indicates that is the case. You don't. As such, it seems we are at an impasse.


As an aside, I am a big fan of Stuart. I think he is underrated, and he was on my list of potential picks when we were gaming out how to spend our picks. I even rated him as the steal of the 8th round in the summary thread, if my memory is correct. He was a great player.

 

[rmartin65]

And again, even if we are saying Taylor on D = Karlsson, Vancouver's D is still vastly superior to Montreal's.

Orr is in another stratosphere in comparison to Cleghorn.

Clapper has a small advantage over Gerard.

Vasiliev has a decent advantage over Stuart.

Erik Karlsson (oops, I mean Taylor on D) is far superior to Flaman.

 

[Sturminator]

This back-and-forth about Cyclone Taylor has happened for a good reason; it goes to the heart of the conflict in this series. In spite of superficial differences in roster construction, these two teams look to win in exactly the same way - namely, by dominating puck-possession.

The question then becomes: which side does it better?

One is a highly-structured two-way team made of interchangeable parts - strong on and off the puck on every unit.

The other is a run-and-gun hockey bouillabaisse, all-in on puck-handling, but without commitment to puck-winning.