2014 MLD Assasination Thread

[seventieslord]

Tre Kronor

Steve Thomas - Sven Tumba - Art Gagne
Valeri Kamensky - Bill Hay - Marian Stastny
Don Maloney - Mikko Koivu - Mike Knuble
Jim Peplinski - Bill Clement - Wally Hergesheimer
Martin Straka, Billy McGimsie

Mattias Norström - Darryl Sydor
Marty McSorely - Alexei Zhitnik
Jeff Beukeboom - Mike Milbury
Uwe Krupp, Ivan Tregubov

Kirk McLean
Kelly Hrudey

Coached by Bobby Kromm

PP1

Steve Thomas - Sven Tumba - Art Gagne
Wally Hergesheimer - Alexei Zhitnik

PP2

Valeri Kamensky - Bill Hay - Marian Stastny
Darryl Sydor - Mike Knuble

PK1

Don Maloney - Mikko Koivu
Mattias Norström - Jeff Beukeboom

PK2

Jim Peplinski - Bill Clement
Darryl Sydor - Marty McSorley

Hobnobs, you've done a (sorta) review and you're the only one of the five who've done one that hasn't received one, so here ya go.

Who are your captain and assistants? If it were up to me, I'd say Peplinski, Norstrom and probably Tumba have the best credentials.

First line: Everyone else seems so sure what to make of Tumba offensively. I'm actually not. I think I'm sure he belongs here, but "slam dunk first overall MLD pick" might be jumping the gun. What can you or anyone provide to demonstrate he is a top caliber MLD center? Gagne is a very underrated western star who can play in an MLD top-6 and Thomas is a plucky gritty guy for the other side. It doesn't provide much defense, and Thomas carrying the physical load is asking a lot, but the talent is there.

Kamensky is right where he belongs; on an MLD 2nd line. I've often suspected as much; my recent work seems to confirm that. Hay is a good 2nd line center. Average offensively but great size, grit, leadership and defense. Such a well-rounded player. Marian Stastny just seems to keep rising and rising. has he risen too far yet? Not sure; I wish I had some numbers handy to compare him to these other north americans and soviets more easily. I think he's just fine on an MLD 2nd line though.

I've got no problem with Mikko centering a 3rd line in the MLD by now. He's earned it. Maloney is an outstanding 3rd liner who is a beast in the corners and a solid scorer. With Maloney, why did you need Knuble? He was known for corner work too. Knuble, to me, screams "AAA scoring line digger"; I'm not sure he's defensive or outright physical enough to warrant MLD bottom 6 work. Or maybe I'm just pigeonholing him. Either way, he is overkill on a line that already has Maloney.

Peplinski is an ideal 4th line center. Like a better Mellanby but with half as long a career. Clement you clearly just took to be a PK ringer - his PK stats are outstanding. Did you really need Hergesheimer with all that firepower up front? I don't think he brings any 4th line skills, and your PP didn't need him... and if he can play the point on the PP, I've forgotten this detail. I remember his best skill was standing in front, and kinda being the Johnny-On-the-Spot.

I'm not a huge fan of the defense. I like the parts but some of them are playing a little higher in the lineup than they maybe should. Norstrom is probably your best all-around guy and if that's the case then he has to be the weakest #1 here, although I have a great deal of respect for the guy. Zhitnik is a pretty good #2, and McSorley looks good among the other #6 guys here (at least I think he's your #6). Having a true heavyweight fighter never hurts, either.

Are you sure your starter should be McLean and your backup should be Hrudey? Hrudey seems to be superior by every metric - all-star and vezina voting (aside from McLean's one big year), minutes and sv% rankings, and scouting reports for a good six years spoke of Hrudey as one of the game's elite goalies; McLean was a fringe top-10 guy for a few years. I had Hrudey higher on my list all draft. I know that's against canon, as McLean tends to go about 100 spots behind Kelly, but that's how I see it.

Kromm is an ok mid-tier coach. I know little about his style, I'm basing that solely on his accomplishments.

Very good spares! McGimsie is a sort of BPA pick at center. Same with Tregubov. Straka can step in on a scoring line on either wing or center if needed - just don't expect him to score as much as he did with Jagr. Krupp is a mid-tier AAA guy who you could still improve on with an add/drop. But it's not like he's Clarence Jamieson, either...

This team will hold its own offensively but may find its defense outmatched.

 

[Hobnobs]

Hobnobs, you've done a (sorta) review and you're the only one of the five who've done one that hasn't received one, so here ya go.

Who are your captain and assistants? If it were up to me, I'd say Peplinski, Norstrom and probably Tumba have the best credentials.

First line: Everyone else seems so sure what to make of Tumba offensively. I'm actually not. I think I'm sure he belongs here, but "slam dunk first overall MLD pick" might be jumping the gun. What can you or anyone provide to demonstrate he is a top caliber MLD center? Gagne is a very underrated western star who can play in an MLD top-6 and Thomas is a plucky gritty guy for the other side. It doesn't provide much offense, and Thomas carrying the physical load is asking a lot, but the talent is there.

Kamensky is right where he belongs; on an MLD 2nd line. I've often suspected as much; my recent work seems to confirm that. Hay is a good 2nd line center. Average offensively but great size, grit, leadership and defense. Such a well-rounded player. Marian Stastny just seems to keep rising and rising. has he risen too far yet? Not sure; I wish I had some numbers handy to compare him to these other north americans and soviets more easily. I think he's just fine on an MLD 2nd line though.

I've got no problem with Mikko centering a 3rd line in the MLD by now. He's earned it. Maloney is an outstanding 3rd liner who is a beast in the corners and a solid scorer. With Maloney, why did you need Knuble? He was known for corner work too. Knuble, to me, screams "AAA scoring line digger"; I'm not sure he's defensive or outright physical enough to warrant MLD bottom 6 work. Or maybe I'm just pigeonholing him. Either way, he is overkill on a line that already has Maloney.

Peplinski is an ideal 4th line center. Like a better Mellanby but with half as long a career. Clement you clearly just took to be a PK ringer - his PK stats are outstanding. Did you really need Hergesheimer with all that firepower up front? I don't think he brings any 4th line skills, and your PP didn't need him... and if he can play the point on the PP, I've forgotten this detail. I remember his best skill was standing in front, and kinda being the Johnny-On-the-Spot.

I'm not a huge fan of the defense. I like the parts but some of them are playing a little higher in the lineup than they maybe should. Norstrom is probably your best all-around guy and if that's the case then he has to be the weakest #1 here, although I have a great deal of respect for the guy. Zhitnik is a pretty good #2, and McSorley looks good among the other #6 guys here (at least I think he's your #6). Having a true heavyweight fighter never hurts, either.

Are you sure your starter should be McLean and your backup should be Hrudey? Hrudey seems to be superior by every metric - all-star and norris voting (aside from McLean's one big year), minutes and sv% rankings, and scouting reports for a good six years spoke of Hrudey as one of the game's elite goalies; McLean was a fringe top-10 guy for a few years. I had Hrudey higher on my list all draft. I know that's against canon, as McLean tends to go about 100 spots behind Kelly, but that's how I see it.

Kromm is an ok mid-tier coach. I know little about his style, I'm basing that solely on his accomplishments.

Very good spares! McGimsie is a sort of BPA pick at center. Same with Tregubov. Straka can step in on a scoring line on either wing or center if needed - just don't expect him to score as much as he did with Jagr. Krupp is a mid-tier AAA guy who you could still improve on with an add/drop. But it's not like he's Clarence Jamieson, either...

This team will hold its own offensively but may find its defense outmatched.

I'm come down with something so Im a bit tired so Ill just say Im currently working on a bio on Tumba... hopefully ill get it done before playoffs.

 

[seventieslord]

wow, Rick Nash is a 405 on my chart and Gaborik 434 - no intangibles for either of them. Remind me again how they became MLD scoring line players??

Steve Shutt - just a 408. Despite the Lafleur factor.

Blair Russell 328 - is he much of a two-way player?

Reggie Leach 351 - and one-dimensional. And the Clarke factor.

Bob Bourne 292. Is he enough of a two-way player to justify him in an ATD lineup?

Camille Henry 388. Is it worth having him in the lineup as a PP specialist?

Bruce Stuart 330. What else does he do well? Is he just big?

Mario Tremblay 291. Are his intangibles good enough? Couldn't players like Marsh, Wiseman, Bellows, and Sandstrom replace him and provide way more offense?

Sid Smith is just a 410, and one-dimensional. he seems more like a good MLD winger.

Ed Litzenberger 404.

At 439 without a great two-way game, Dennis Hull looks more like a top MLD winger than an ATD player.

Anders Hedberg - 386. Without a super great two-way or physical game, he screams MLD 2nd liner, not ATD 4th liner.

With a 424 score, Bill Goldsworthy has to be a bubble guy. You don't want him on an ATD scoring line, and he has "some' intangibles but not even at a Dubbie Kerr-like level. I think he's a good MLD 1st liner.

At 421, Harry Hyland is nothing too special for an ATD scorer. He has high PIM totals though, perhaps he's a 4th line fireball. Has anyone given him a really good bio? We need to know how he plays.

Paul Ronty was top-10 in points 4 times, but with a score of 415, he's easily edged out of an ATD scoring line role and really shouldn't be on a 3rd/4th line. His score looks a lot more like the Gomezes, Ferraros and Brieres here.

Ed Sandford has decent intangibles, but not THAT great, right? with a 298 score he seems like he'd be more at home in the MLD playing scoring line glue guy.

How good are Ross Lonsberry's intangibles? He scores 311 and seems no better as a scorer or checker than Gary Dornhoefer, who is a good 2nd/3rd line MLDer with a 360 score.

Bob Nystrom's score is 265. Does he have "all-time great" intangibles to be selected ahead of guys like Wiseman, Bellows, Sandstrom, or even Mike Murphy, Dornhoefer, Warwick, Labine, etc? I think he's dining out on being a part of a dynasty and scoring a cup winning goal.

Bill Thoms scores 444, which would make him an excellent top line MLD center. Is his two-way game established enough to throw him on an ATD 3rd/4th line? I'm not seeing it, I don't think.

Is Clark Gillies, with his 350 score, just too much of an offensive drag on an ATD 1st line? I know he is a role player but there are more talented role players, too.

Charlie Simmer - 421 and no major intangibles. Probably a solid MLD 1st liner, not a guy you try to pass off as an ATD role player.

Hejduk and Tanguay - 457 and 450, no intangibles, linemates were responsible for a lot of their points. I think I like these guys better in the MLD. They'd be elite MLD producers, but they just scream "tweener" to me. Their ideal spots could depend solely on the number of teams.

With a score of 329, punch Broadbent just needs to stay off ATD scoring lines. Although he's an excellent 3rd/4th liner.

Jean Pronovost is 393 and an ok two-way player, but not all-time great at it. I could see him down in this draft and a few of these guys ahead.

Is Bruce MacGregor an all-time great role player? His score is just 309.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

wow, Rick Nash is a 405 on my chart and Gaborik 434 - no intangibles for either of them. Remind me again how they became MLD scoring line players??

Both overpass guys.

Overpass made a big deal of Gaborik's even strength scoring per game, so he's been used as an even strength specialist of sorts. I think he goes too high though.

Nash - for some reason, he's sold (including by overpass) as a strong two-way player. I guess Ken Hitchcock had him doing a decent job going strength-on-strength in Columbus for a season or two.

Steve Shutt - just a 408. Despite the Lafleur factor.

Playoffs. Only reason he goes in the ATD. And maybe thats fair.

Blair Russell 328 - is he much of a two-way player?

I thought his defensive reputation was very strong. Honestly, this number seems way too high for him, considering his teammate Bowie basically doubled his scoring. You're really giving Bowie like a 600????

Reggie Leach 351 - and one-dimensional. And the Clarke factor.

Yeah, he's one of the most overrated players in the ATD. One-season wonder basically. Gets a lot of mileage out of a Conn Smythe, but Justin Williams has one too.

Bob Bourne 292. Is he enough of a two-way player to justify him in an ATD lineup?

I made the same argument too, and was pointed at his outstanding playoff stats.

Camille Henry 388. Is it worth having him in the lineup as a PP specialist?

That's surprisingly low. I would imagine as a PP specialist in the O6 era, he saw limited even strength ice time, while he would have seen much more in a larger league. I would still draft him as a 4th liner PP specialist, yes, though maybe I'm more comfortable now that he goes behind Ciccarelli, Andreychuk, and Kerr (never understood why he went so far behind them before).

Bruce Stuart 330. What else does he do well? Is he just big?

Big, fast, mean, leader. Rare skillset. Not surprised his offense is weak.

Mario Tremblay 291. Are his intangibles good enough? Couldn't players like Marsh, Wiseman, Bellows, and Sandstrom replace him and provide way more offense?

I would absolutely take Marsh over him. Wiseman doesn't really have the intangibles though.

Sid Smith is just a 410, and one-dimensional. he seems more like a good MLD winger.

Agreed.

Ed Litzenberger 404.

Pappy convinced us all that he had great talent before being cut down with injury.

At 439 without a great two-way game, Dennis Hull looks more like a top MLD winger than an ATD player.

Not surprising. A GBC darling because of "locker room character."

Anders Hedberg - 386. Without a super great two-way or physical game, he screams MLD 2nd liner, not ATD 4th liner.

Worse than I thought.

With a 424 score, Bill Goldsworthy has to be a bubble guy. You don't want him on an ATD scoring line, and he has "some' intangibles but not even at a Dubbie Kerr-like level. I think he's a good MLD 1st liner.

Fringe ATD 4th liner, depending on how big the draft is.

At 421, Harry Hyland is nothing too special for an ATD scorer. He has high PIM totals though, perhaps he's a 4th line fireball. Has anyone given him a really good bio? We need to know how he plays.

Likely overrated because of how we used to evaluate players (top 10 finishes).

Paul Ronty was top-10 in points 4 times, but with a score of 415, he's easily edged out of an ATD scoring line role and really shouldn't be on a 3rd/4th line. His score looks a lot more like the Gomezes, Ferraros and Brieres here.

Not surprising.

Ed Sandford has decent intangibles, but not THAT great, right? with a 298 score he seems like he'd be more at home in the MLD playing scoring line glue guy.

Read my bio! Strong defensively, mean, and has a Clark Gilles-like thing where he was such a good fighter, he rarely had to fight. I think he's an ideal ATD 4th liner.

How good are Ross Lonsberry's intangibles? He scores 311 and seems no better as a scorer or checker than Gary Dornhoefer, who is a good 2nd/3rd line MLDer with a 360 score.

Not an ATD-player by my count.

Bob Nystrom's score is 265. Does he have "all-time great" intangibles to be selected ahead of guys like Wiseman, Bellows, Sandstrom, or even Mike Murphy, Dornhoefer, Warwick, Labine, etc? I think he's dining out on being a part of a dynasty and scoring a cup winning goal.

Well his jersey was retired by the Islanders... That said, I've never ever considered him anywhere near he's usually drafted.

Bill Thoms scores 444, which would make him an excellent top line MLD center. Is his two-way game established enough to throw him on an ATD 3rd/4th line? I'm not seeing it, I don't think.

You've clearly not been paying attention to the ATD recently - he's been a an ATD 4th liner the last two drafts and some of us (namely me) think he should be regularly 3rd liner for a two-way, rather than shutdown line. Personally, I don't see what someone like Phil Goyette has on Thoms.

Is Clark Gillies, with his 350 score, just too much of an offensive drag on an ATD 1st line? I know he is a role player but there are more talented role players, too.

I would never use him on an ATD first line. Was really surprised to see Nalyd draft him so high last time.

Charlie Simmer - 421 and no major intangibles. Probably a solid MLD 1st liner, not a guy you try to pass off as an ATD role player.

Not surprising. He did have a few postseason All-Stars though.

Hejduk and Tanguay - 457 and 450, no intangibles, linemates were responsible for a lot of their points. I think I like these guys better in the MLD. They'd be elite MLD producers, but they just scream "tweener" to me. Their ideal spots could depend solely on the number of teams.

Agree. Tanguay at least has a rare skillset though (playmaking winger).

With a score of 329, punch Broadbent just needs to stay off ATD scoring lines. Although he's an excellent 3rd/4th liner.

Not surprising. Someone will draft him in the 100s next year like they always do though.

Jean Pronovost is 393 and an ok two-way player, but not all-time great at it. I could see him down in this draft and a few of these guys ahead.

Agree.

Is Bruce MacGregor an all-time great role player? His score is just 309.

First one of these I don't have an opinion on!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I've got a rough read on the soviets now, based on their regular season production. I'm still tweaking it but I have it mostly "right". Makarov basically produces like Bossy through the 80s. Mikhailov comes out looking exactly like Iginla. I think I want to get the mid-late 50s guys like Firsov and the Alexandrov line up; I think I may have been too cruel to that generation. We'll see how that goes. If I can get that up without making the leading soviet scorer a top-3 NHL scorer every season, I will try.

Remember, there is nothing objective about this. It's a complete fudge where I tried to fit known quantities into where we figure they belong, and seeing how that extrapolates to lesser players. I selected a factor from 1.0 to 2.4 to multiply all soviet points by in each season. Basically I looked at the few scoring leaders and the separation between them and the pack, and between eachother and gave my best guess as to where that should put them on an NHL chart. I like the results but obviously they are open to scrutiny.

here are the 6-year scores for the guys in this draft. I left the NHL guys in up there so you could compare.

Shalimov 450
Drozdetsky 396
Lebedev 391
Kamensky 389 (includes 4 NHL years and 2 USSR years)
Zhluktov 358
Almetov 351
Alexandrov 321
Loktev 298
Nemchinov 287 (includes 4 USSR years and 2 NHL years)
Babich, Shuvalov : incomplete. I could only go back to 1954 safely. starting in 1954, each player has a known goal total at least. Before 1954, over half the league has no stats at all, only about 1/3 of the players have a goal total and that's it. I didn't see the point in working on those numbers.

So, it seems TDMM is really onto something with Shalimov. Drozdetsky is probably not as high as he, rob or I thought he'd be, but he does dine out on just a couple of great seasons. Lebedev is solid, and Zhluktov has a score like a mid-tier AAA center.

in case anyone is wondering, there are two 397s left out there. Also a 390, but their best season is almost twice as good as their second best.

Remember, whatever value you place in this, it is really like vsx in that it's a measure of regular season scoring. The guys who made the national team more often could be viewed in the way we might view NHL players who contributed to better teams and may transcend their vsx scores. It's up to the individual whether such a factor can make up the gaps between some players.

Here are how the prominent ATD soviets stack up. Let me know if I've forgotten anyone.

Makarov
Petrov
Maltsev
Krutov
Mikhailov
Balderis
Kharlamov
Larionov
Yakushev
Vikulov
Firsov
Starshinov
Kapustin
Shadrin
Mayorov

I'd sure like to try slotting in Czechs like Lala, Anton and Marian Stastny (with a hybrid score based on both CSSR and NHL), Lukac and Golonka. That would really leave us with only the pre-1899 guys, the pre-1954 soviets, Tumba, Kuhnhackl, and Sterner that we wouldn't have a pretty good offensive read on, from this MLD at least. (Loob and Gradin are debatable, but I honestly think their best 6 seasons were in the NHL). But that may be for another month. This was really taxing on my brain - you have no idea the formatting, reformatting, copying, pasting, inserting and deleting and trimming I had to do in order to get all this data into a sortable spreadsheet.

(interestingly, these numbers indicate Fetisov, had he started at 18 in the NHL, would have had 706 points in about 975 NHL games through 1988-89, giving him a hypothetical career total of 934 in 1521 games. Not sure if one case proves that the system is realistic for defensemen, but I like the signs. Kasatonov would have had 590 before his real NHL career in the same number of games - so 750 in 1358... which sounds about right!)

A few comments:

Not surprised by Shalimov's high ranking. He has both peak and longevity

Drozdetsky is a special case where his longevity was hurt by playing for a coach who could banish players to Siberia for no reason.

Seeing a relative role player like Lebedev over Alexandrov, Almetov, or Loktev is strange. You might be overly harsh to 60s players (actually seeing Firsov under every 70s player makes it quite clear that you are!).

Obviously, this only talks Soviet domestic league, so needs to be taken with whatever grain of salt we give statistics there. Actually, you probably shouldn't even bother with pre-1970 players when assists weren't recorded.

Interesting exercise nonetheless. Useful for 1980s players at least, since by then the USSR elite league seemed to be taking stat keeping seriously

 

[VanIslander]

Mario Tremblay 291. Are his intangibles good enough? Couldn't players like Marsh, Wiseman, Bellows, and Sandstrom replace him and provide way more offense?

Only if you think a single crunched number sums up totally a player's contribution to offense? (And ignore the playoffs totally.) Steve Shutt isn't an all-time great because of a single number cooked up based on his regular season scoring?

 

[VanIslander]

And in terms of Soviets, judging a player's worth based on their scoring in the domestic league in the regular season is stunning. Most Soviet teams were awful, as has been well discussed in history books, as a couple of Moscow-based teams poached all others. So players didn't have to play their best and in fact coaches saw it more as training ground to practice strategies. The significance of regular season scoring wasn't recognized by the Soviets nor should it be overplayed in evaluating the ability of a player in Soviet history. Giving such a number more than a fraction of consideration (a quarter or third) is wrongheaded.

The Soviet playoffs would be interesting to look at, careerwise, especially between the Red Army, Dynamo and Soviet Wings. But, of course, international play ought to have at least half of one's consideration in evaluating the all-time worth of a Soviet player. The national team was the end all and be all of the Soviet hockey system and to be chosen year after year for a decade for that team, and to score in tourney after tourney abroad against the best of other countries was what the Soviets valued, hockey historians focus on, the players played for and what anyone wanting to gauge a player's abilities and worth ought to pay the most attention to, in terms of Soviet players. The world championship games against the Czechoslovakians, the touring series against NHL teams, the Olympics to some degree and certainly the Summit Series and Canada Cups of the 1970s-1980s were the highest levels of competition and the true litmus test of a player's worth to the Soviet national team, which was widely regarded as worldclass, as indeed it was.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And in terms of Soviets, judging a player's worth based on their scoring in the domestic league in the regular season is stunning. Most Soviet teams were awful, as has been well discussed in history books, as a couple of Moscow-based teams poached all others. So players didn't have to play their best and in fact coaches saw it more as training ground to practice strategies. The significance of regular season scoring wasn't recognized by the Soviets nor should it be overplayed in evaluating the ability of a player in Soviet history. Giving such a number more than a fraction of consideration (a quarter or third) is wrongheaded.

The Soviet playoffs would be interesting to look at, careerwise, especially between the Red Army, Dynamo and Soviet Wings. But, of course, international play ought to have at least half of one's consideration in evaluating the all-time worth of a Soviet player. The national team was the end all and be all of the Soviet hockey system and to be chosen year after year for a decade for that team, and to score in tourney after tourney abroad against the best of other countries was what the Soviets valued, hockey historians focus on, the players played for and what anyone wanting to gauge a player's abilities and worth ought to pay the most attention to, in terms of Soviet players. The world championship games against the Czechoslovakians, the touring series against NHL teams, the Olympics to some degree and certainly the Summit Series and Canada Cups of the 1970s-1980s were the highest levels of competition and the true litmus test of a player's worth to the Soviet national team, which was widely regarded as worldclass, as indeed it was.

I value USSR domestic play more than you do, but agree that international needs to be a big part of any analysis since there is a legit argument that the Soviet domestic season was a glorified exhibition schedule used simply to warm up for international play

 

[seventieslord]

Playoffs. Only reason he goes in the ATD. And maybe thats fair.

Yeah, it's fair.

I thought his defensive reputation was very strong. Honestly, this number seems way too high for him, considering his teammate Bowie basically doubled his scoring. You're really giving Bowie like a 600????

yes, Bowie has a 600. I realize your concerns but with these older players the pendulum swings too far one way or the other. If Bowie's a 550 or whatever you think he should be, then there's literally no other pre-1910 player who would make the ATD (and maybe not even the MLD) based solely on offense. That would be way out of whack.

I remember him having "some" two-way quotes but I don't recall there being much.

I made the same argument too, and was pointed at his outstanding playoff stats.

Christ, 40 playoff games on a team scoring 4.7 goals per game in 1980 and 1983 make all the difference, eh...

I would absolutely take Marsh over him. Wiseman doesn't really have the intangibles though.

I thought Wiseman was being sold as a guy with a little grit. But if that's all he has, I guess he's always bound to just be a top MLD winger.

Read my bio! Strong defensively, mean, and has a Clark Gilles-like thing where he was such a good fighter, he rarely had to fight. I think he's an ideal ATD 4th liner.

fair enough.

Well his jersey was retired by the Islanders... That said, I've never ever considered him anywhere near he's usually drafted.

yeah, me neither...

You've clearly not been paying attention to the ATD recently - he's been a an ATD 4th liner the last two drafts and some of us (namely me) think he should be regularly 3rd liner for a two-way, rather than shutdown line. Personally, I don't see what someone like Phil Goyette has on Thoms.

I checked billy's bio on him, which was the most recent one. I was unimpressed. What else is there on him.

Goyette? very similar peak, similar skill set, more longevity and better playoff success.

First one of these I don't have an opinion on!

Anyone have some MacGregor quotes?

Seeing a relative role player like Lebedev over Alexandrov, Almetov, or Loktev is strange. You might be overly harsh to 60s players (actually seeing Firsov under every 70s player makes it quite clear that you are!).

Yes, I am. The 60s need to be re-worked.

Obviously, this only talks Soviet domestic league, so needs to be taken with whatever grain of salt we give statistics there. Actually, you probably shouldn't even bother with pre-1970 players when assists weren't recorded.

in seasons without assists, or with imperfect assist stats, I just used goals. Sucks that it's all we have, though.

Only if you think a single crunched number sums up totally a player's contribution to offense? (And ignore the playoffs totally.) Steve Shutt isn't an all-time great because of a single number cooked up based on his regular season scoring?

Alright, so tell me, what did Mario Tremblay specifically do in the playoffs, aside from play on a winning team? It's not that this isn't a consideration to make, but Tremblay was not even one of the 12 most valuable Habs in the 76-79 Cups.

As for Shutt, it is what it is. You can call it "cooked up" all you like but the point of the number is how close he was to being the best scorer in the game, and how often he was that close. He wasn't that close, and he wasn't close very often. The case can be made that enough players were closer and more often to push him off of ATD scoring lines. Playoffs are a consideration, yes. But they are also less than 10% of all the games he played.

And in terms of Soviets, judging a player's worth based on their scoring in the domestic league in the regular season is stunning. Most Soviet teams were awful, as has been well discussed in history books, as a couple of Moscow-based teams poached all others. So players didn't have to play their best and in fact coaches saw it more as training ground to practice strategies. The significance of regular season scoring wasn't recognized by the Soviets

Then why are all the best regular season scorers the ones who played on the national team the most often?

nor should it be overplayed in evaluating the ability of a player in Soviet history. Giving such a number more than a fraction of consideration (a quarter or third) is wrongheaded.

It's not being "overplayed"; it's being played just right. Just like with any NHL player, the number represents their regular season offensive dominance which is a good starting point to understand where they fall in terms of offense. From there, there are many other things to consider. But if you think that looking at a forward's ability to generate offense based on how good he was at generating offense in 90% of his career games, is worth a "quarter or third" of his value, you're out to lunch.

The Soviet playoffs would be interesting to look at, careerwise, especially between the Red Army, Dynamo and Soviet Wings.

Unfortunately, there are little to no playoff stats available for this league.

But, of course, international play ought to have at least half of one's consideration in evaluating the all-time worth of a Soviet player. The national team was the end all and be all of the Soviet hockey system and to be chosen year after year for a decade for that team, and to score in tourney after tourney abroad against the best of other countries was what the Soviets valued, hockey historians focus on, the players played for and what anyone wanting to gauge a player's abilities and worth ought to pay the most attention to, in terms of Soviet players. The world championship games against the Czechoslovakians, the touring series against NHL teams, the Olympics to some degree and certainly the Summit Series and Canada Cups of the 1970s-1980s were the highest levels of competition and the true litmus test of a player's worth to the Soviet national team, which was widely regarded as worldclass, as indeed it was.

10% of the career games of a player worth "at least half" of the player's value? That's obscene.

I mean, no one's saying to completely throw it out, but some perspective would be a good thing. Small sample sizes can deceive so easily.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

And in terms of Soviets, judging a player's worth based on their scoring in the domestic league in the regular season is stunning. Most Soviet teams were awful, as has been well discussed in history books, as a couple of Moscow-based teams poached all others. So players didn't have to play their best and in fact coaches saw it more as training ground to practice strategies. The significance of regular season scoring wasn't recognized by the Soviets nor should it be overplayed in evaluating the ability of a player in Soviet history. Giving such a number more than a fraction of consideration (a quarter or third) is wrongheaded.

The Soviet playoffs would be interesting to look at, careerwise, especially between the Red Army, Dynamo and Soviet Wings. But, of course, international play ought to have at least half of one's consideration in evaluating the all-time worth of a Soviet player. The national team was the end all and be all of the Soviet hockey system and to be chosen year after year for a decade for that team, and to score in tourney after tourney abroad against the best of other countries was what the Soviets valued, hockey historians focus on, the players played for and what anyone wanting to gauge a player's abilities and worth ought to pay the most attention to, in terms of Soviet players. The world championship games against the Czechoslovakians, the touring series against NHL teams, the Olympics to some degree and certainly the Summit Series and Canada Cups of the 1970s-1980s were the highest levels of competition and the true litmus test of a player's worth to the Soviet national team, which was widely regarded as worldclass, as indeed it was.

Most of the games the Soviets played internationally were against teams that were just as bad, or worse. Poland, West Germany, East Germany, etc. were all probably worse than those teams. Even the Swedes and Finns weren't that good at that point. Right now, we don't have complete data of all Soviet players that played best-on-best (so, against NHLers or Czechs). It would be an interesting and very useful (albeit long and tedious) study to do. I certainly don't have the time or desire to do it.

 

[seventieslord]

Most of the games the Soviets played internationally were against teams that were just as bad, or worse. Poland, West Germany, East Germany, etc. were all probably worse than those teams. Even the Swedes and Finns weren't that good at that point. Right now, we don't have complete data of all Soviet players that played best-on-best (so, against NHLers or Czechs). It would be an interesting and very useful (albeit long and tedious) study to do. I certainly don't have the time or desire to do it.

and if we could ever do that, what we'd have is......... a small sample from the already small sample!

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Thank you for the review seventies. I agree with your analysis of my forwards. I admit that my defense is a weak point compared to my forwards, but I don't think it's as bad as you paint it out to be. I think you're underrating Graham, he had two 7th place finishes in AS voting, and in both years he was either the highest ranking defenseman on his team or tied for highest ranking, and those teams were the 2nd and 3rd best defensive teams in the league. Going by the chart RS posted earlier, he's one of the most decorated defensive defensemen in this draft.

The way I see it, I have about 5 middle pairing defensemen, and a bottom pairing specialist in Streit. Yes, my first pairing is below average. But I would say the second pairing is average, and the third pairing is somewhat above average.

 

[seventieslord]

I think you're underrating Graham, he had two 7th place finishes in AS voting, and in both years he was either the highest ranking defenseman on his team or tied for highest ranking, and those teams were the 2nd and 3rd best defensive teams in the league.

True, but we are only talking about 7 total voting points over two seasons.

 

[seventieslord]

A few comments:

Not surprised by Shalimov's high ranking. He has both peak and longevity

Drozdetsky is a special case where his longevity was hurt by playing for a coach who could banish players to Siberia for no reason.

Seeing a relative role player like Lebedev over Alexandrov, Almetov, or Loktev is strange. You might be overly harsh to 60s players (actually seeing Firsov under every 70s player makes it quite clear that you are!).

Obviously, this only talks Soviet domestic league, so needs to be taken with whatever grain of salt we give statistics there. Actually, you probably shouldn't even bother with pre-1970 players when assists weren't recorded.

Interesting exercise nonetheless. Useful for 1980s players at least, since by then the USSR elite league seemed to be taking stat keeping seriously

I changed some seasons around, paying close attention to the numbers of players hitting certain benchmarks. I made it better for the 60s guys, but I still couldn't get them where we think we want them.

Shalimov 474
Alexandrov 452 (i think I was looking at Boris last time)
Drozdetsky 424
Lebedev 407
Kamensky 400 (includes 4 NHL years and 2 USSR years)
Zhluktov 385
Almetov 378
Loktev 345
Nemchinov 296 (includes 4 USSR years and 2 NHL years)

again, all a subjective fudge, and meant to be a shorthand. This decently represents where these players probably fit here. Shalimov one of the four most skilled forwards. Alexandrov just behind. Drozdetsky a very good 1st liner. Lebedev an excellent 3rd liner and potential 2nd liner. Kamensky solid 2nd liner. Zhluktov would make a good AAA top-2 center. Almetov is an OK 2nd liner. Loktev is a fireball who'd be a 1st/2nd line glue guy or a very good 3rd/4th liner here.

others (keep in mind that if they were all in the NHL, Makarov would often change the benchmark; I made no attempt to adjust the NHL benchmark based on such hypotheticals - I also didn't do this by targeting a point total or ranking for Makarov, I targeted a certain number of players being over 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 each season)

Makarov 685
Petrov 609
Balderis 555
Krutov 551
Maltsev 545
Mikhailov 541
Kharlamov 510
Larionov 506
Yakushev 493
Firsov 474
Starshinov 466
Vikulov 462
Kapustin 431
Mayorov 407
Shadrin 392

I don't know what to make of Firsov. Based on how we typically rank and draft him, he "should" score about 540-600. But I can't get him there without assuming he has about six seasons 2nd or 3rd in the NHL in points. I don't see that; do you?

The issue with Kharlamov was predictable; we all knew already that his linemates outpointed him.

 

[seventieslord]

Strathroy Rockets

Coach: Red Berenson
Captain: Allan "Scotty" Davidson
Alternate Captains: Mike Rogers, Claude Larose

Pierre Mondou - Dennis Maruk - Moose Goheen
Ulf Sterner - Guy Chouinard - Allan "Scotty" Davidson
Murray Craven - Mike Rogers - Claude Larose
Darcy Tucker - Larry Patey - Cliff Koroll

Garry Galley - Francois Beauchemin
Warren Godfrey - Sami Salo
Brad Stuart - Jocelyn Guevremont

Nikolai Khabibulin
Mike Karakas

Spares: Dolly Swift, Dale Tallon, Sergei Babinov, Dallas Drake

PP1: Galley - Maruk - Sterner - Chouinard - Salo
PP2: Guevremont - Mondou - Davidson - Rogers - Goheen

PK1: Patey - Mondou - Beauchemin - Stuart
PK2: Craven - Larose - Godfrey - Salo

Decent salvage job here.

Really poor array of leaders. I could see Davidson wearing an A in the MLD, but there's no guy who screams captain, and the two you had to choose as assistants are weak options.

Maruk is a strong first line center. I did some reading on him lately and although he's nothing special defensively, he is a hard worker and will take a hit. Goheen might be, after era adjustment, this draft's largest forward. Determining his offensive ability is tough, as stats are sparse and the best I could find was that he was 4th in the 1926 CAHL and 3rd in the 1928 AHA. As far as a glue guy for a 1st line goes, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt due to HHOF pedigree. Mondou, I'm not really sure about, at all. He somehow got canonized as an ATD player for years (maybe beacuse he can play LW and C?) and just finally fell out. I had him in ATD12. His offense is nothing special. He wasn't a physical guy. He was average defensively. (someone correct me id I'm wrong here!) If he was available right now, he wouldn't be anywhere near the top of my list for a scoring line role or checking line role at either LW or C. You could still improve greatly on this spot in the lineup with an add/drop.

Sterner seems to belong right here according to those who know him best. Chouinard is a really weak ES center (even taking his % scores at face value and ignoring he was double shifted on the PP, he is a poor producer compared to most here) but you're doing the right thing using him at the point. He's another guy you could still improve on, if you were so inclined. Davidson is a fair glue guy for a 2nd line, even if I'd prefer to see him on a 4th line.

Rogers is just really not a 3rd line type player at all, at least not for the type of 3rd line I like to build. Craven is a good winger for him though, playing a bit of a two-way game and feeding him passes. Larose is the defensive valve for the line. I wish I had more quotes on the guy to understand how good he was defensively.

Patey is one of the better pure defensive centers here. Tucker is right where he belongs as a **** disturber on an MLD 4th line, and Koroll is likely overqualified for this role, which is good. What's his skillset like? I always have him longlisted for a 3rd line role and then never get to take him.

Defense is hurting, and it's not your fault. There's no one player there who makes me say "really? You have HIM?" but as a group they make me say "that's your top-6?" I'm a believer in Beauchemin, he's a passable #1 if not suited perfectly. but Galley and Godfrey as #2 and 3, should really be a 5 and 6 here. Stuart and Salo are good AAA #2/3 guys. Guevremont isn't the worst offensive specialist to be taken and is a feasible #6 here, though he could fall to the AAA as well and few would care. You could improve your #4/5 with an add/drop but these aren't Clarence Jamieson-level blunders; they don't deserve that indignity, and to be honest, the upgrades would be fairly marginal.

Goal is the weakness for this team. Khabibulin is a good goalie, but I can't see a starter in this draft I'd put him ahead of, aside from McLean, and Billy might change that soon. Karakas is also a guy who I can't put ahead of any backup in this draft. There are at least a few out there who could help this team if you want to add/drop.

really good spares! Two good F/D players (and I mean good as in, they'd perform at either position at an acceptable level), a BPA-type on D in Babinov, and then Drake, who is nothing special but can play both wings in the bottom 6 at least.

Berenson's a bottom tier coach, but then, you did pick him right at the end. I count seven, however, that would be an improvement, even right now.

The team's not good, but it's sure better than it was before you showed up. You did just about as good as could be expected, and your counterpart Billy picked the team that was less ****ed before you had a chance to! Thanks for coming in here and playing the part of clean-up GM.

 

[seventieslord]

Pittsburgh Yellow Jackets

Coach: Emile Francis

Brian Bellows - Harry Smith - Eddie Wiseman
Nikolai Drozdetsky - Billy Taylor - Mush March
Pud Glass (A) - Jaroslav Holik - Jason Pominville
Nick Libett (A) - Pete Stemkowski - Bill Fairbairn
Spares: Johnny Gagnon, Buzz Boll

Paul Shmyr (C) - Bingo Kampman
Doug Jarrett - Lubomir Visnovsky
Joe Watson - Bob Murray
Spares:Gordie Roberts, Udo Kiessling

Roger Crozier
Tomas Vokoun

PP 1: Bellows-Smith-Wiseman-Visnovsky-Murray
PP 2: Drozdetsky-Taylor-March-Shmyr-Pominville

PK 1: Glass-Fairbairn-Watson-Kampman
PK 2: Stemkowski-Libett-Jarrett-Shmyr

another contending entry from probably the best GM to hit the scene in the last couple of years.

Francis is an excellent MLD coach. I actually rank him 2nd in this draft. I hope you take the time to put some of the quotes from those pages I sent you into his bio, it would maybe push him up to the ATD for good (I started his rise when I mentioned him at pick 1322 in the undrafteds thread following AA10 back in 2009).

All kinds of skill on the first line. Wiseman we've covered enough. He's destined to be a top-3 RW in the MLD for years - a classic tweener. Bellows I'm now convinced deserves a 4th line ATD spot. He reads like a less fiery Verbeek. At the MLD level, a solid enough glue guy. Smith is someone who ranges from "should be a HHOFer" (and Iain makes the case well, and if he is then he should be up in the ATD) to "shouldn't even be in the MLD) which, if you have been following the discussion between TDMM and I, is what he has implied about Jordan considering his percentage scores in relation to Bowie's, which he thinks are too high. Is Smith better than Jordan offensively? Tough to say. On one hand, Iain's done the work with all the league equivalencies and has concluded he is. On the other hand, some of those leagues he pummelled were weak, certainly much weaker than the ones Jordan dominated. Personally I think they both belong. Easily. And Smith is pretty much a slower skating, loose cannon, less playmaking version of Jordan, with a better playoff record. Thoughts?

Drozdetsky should probably be a first liner here based on his numbers. Taylor is well above average in his role. March adds in all the skills they lack, and is surprisingly effective offensively for a player with his skills. He should not fall to the MLD. This is a super solid line.

Glass is a little more of a plugger. I saw him as somewhat of a poor man's Marsh. Holik is a guy I briefly considered for a 3rd and even 2nd line role but from his Kings of the Ice bio I wasn't convinced enough. Looking at what you've cobbled together, yes, he's definitely suited here. He's no Golonka but he's surprisingly close. It appears he's a lesser version of Razorblade offensively, too, though he did play in a better era on average. I would have to reserve judgment on his offensive worth until I do the Czech version of the USSR study I did. He could be a good 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th liner, I'm not certain. My gut tells me he's great where you have him. Pominville was a surprise to see you pick. I just didn't think you needed him. You have the penalty killers and you have the firepower up front. Was it nothing more than needing a guy to play the point?

I already raved about your 4th line. All three are very good ES producers (especially Stemmer and Bulldog), all three are very good defensively, and all three are physical. Bulldog has the extra bonus of being extremely clean, providing awesome bang for the buck, Stemkowski was an occasional playoff hero, and Libett could fight. A little, anyway. Just a super, super 4th line. You thought of everything here. I'm very proud of my first line and the mix of intangibles it brings, along with offense, but yours beats mine in a simple offense metric (best 6 vsx scores), 1001 to 960, and if I'm not mistaken, would win by a larger gap if ES points were taken separately. I can't say enough good things about my own 4th line... and yours is better!

Shmyr is an excellent #1. Last year I compared him to Munro; they are practically the same player. Kampman is super solid as a #2. Jarrett and Watson are both above average as #3/4 guys, and Murray's an outstanding #5 that you ripped away from me. Visnovsky is a necessary evil. He's not nearly the overall player Kaberle is, IMO, but he's about even offensively and you got real good comparitive value getting him where you did. And of course, you're sheltering him well. This is my favourite defensive corps in the draft from 1-6, other than my own (naturally!) but not by much - jkrx's team is right behind.

Crozier I have 4th among starting goalies. A solid mix of regular season and playoff success. Is he any worse than Ron Hextall? Just to name one guy who I think Resch, Peeters, Lindmark and Crozier could replace in the ATD. Vokoun is a guy I think I like more than most guys do, but even despite that I have him as a low-end backup.

Spares are very good. I know I keep saying that, but I coincidentally happen to have reviewed all the teams with my favourite sets of spares. Gagnon was the BPA among wingers. Roberts was close to the BDA and has a well-rounded skillset for being slotted anywhere. Boll can play any forward position and has that well-rounded, Roberts-like skillset. Kiessling, I don't know. I literally don't. Is he a hidden gem who should be up with the ATD #5s, or a AAA spare? or in-between? (5 minutes later) I just read tarheel's well-versed bio, and my gut tells me you have a good one here.

I've ranked the players in this draft at every position and I find yours to be above average at every single role, with the exception of Vokoun at backup, and Pominville as a 3rd liner. This is a lineup I hope to go head to head against, and I hope that it happens in the semifinals.

 

[VMBM]

Most of the games the Soviets played internationally were against teams that were just as bad, or worse. Poland, West Germany, East Germany, etc. were all probably worse than those teams. Even the Swedes and Finns weren't that good at that point. Right now, we don't have complete data of all Soviet players that played best-on-best (so, against NHLers or Czechs). It would be an interesting and very useful (albeit long and tedious) study to do. I certainly don't have the time or desire to do it.

Yep, but it's not like the Soviets played tons of games against those countries. Look at Boris Mikhailov's record ("games by opposing countries"), for example http://www.chidlovski.net/1954/54_player_info.asp?p_id=m018):

Boris Mikhailov (USSR national team, 1968-1980)

Country GP

Sweden 61
Finland 61
Czechoslovakia 57
Canada 46
West Germany 18
Poland 15
United States 14
East Germany 8
Netherlands 3
Switzerland 2
Romania 1
Japan 1
Austria 1

Most of their games were against opponents that were at least 'okay'. Of course, if one thinks that only the games vs. NHL calibre players/teams and Czechoslovakia count, it's a little different. IMO Sweden wasn't that far from Czechoslovakia in the 1960s/early 1970s, and sometimes they finished higher in the World Championships etc. Only around 1974 when Sweden really started to lose their best players to the WHA and the NHL did Czechoslovakia have much better teams for the rest of the 1970s.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

another contending entry from probably the best GM to hit the scene in the last couple of years.

Francis is an excellent MLD coach. I actually rank him 2nd in this draft. I hope you take the time to put some of the quotes from those pages I sent you into his bio, it would maybe push him up to the ATD for good (I started his rise when I mentioned him at pick 1322 in the undrafteds thread following AA10 back in 2009).

Francis is a good coach at the MLD level, probably one of the better coaches here, but I can't really see him as an ATD coach. His playoff record is not good, and at least in the case of his mishandling of Jean Ratelle, we have direct reason to think that Francis has to share in the blame.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't necessarily disagree, but aren't there three or four ATD coaches that the best ones here can replace? I mean, there has to be a few, right? Or do we have the coaches perfectly assessed by now?

 

[Johnny Engine]

He was average defensively. (someone correct me id I'm wrong here!)

I'll admit I haven't been terribly familiar with Mondou up to this point, but when I took stock of what I when I took over, he looked fine enough. This Very Friendly Bio really pushes the defense and checking angle...do you have any context to mitigate any of that? By extension, would my team be any better if my top-3 LWs played musical chairs to get Mondou on the 3rd line?

Rogers is just really not a 3rd line type player at all, at least not for the type of 3rd line I like to build.

I'll just say it: I don't know why my predecessor picked 3 midget centres before taking any second-line wingers. Dropping one of them seemed like poor asset management, and out of the three of them, Rogers has this on him:

...and his ability to dart and spin into the corners against bigger wingers while emerging with the puck.

...a good face-off man.

Not much for a 3rd line centre, but the idea of putting Chouinard there makes me ill.

Stuart and Salo are good AAA #2/3 guys ... You could improve your #4/5 with an add/drop but these aren't Clarence Jamieson-level blunders; they don't deserve that indignity, and to be honest, the upgrades would be fairly marginal.

Here's where the problem comes not from the old GM, but from me coming in cold and disoriented. I've had Stuart before, and it's been received positively, but not after a 28 team ATD! Would Babinov be better suited for his role? Or for that matter, now that I know Chouinard can play the point, maybe Salo comes out and Craven or Koroll could draw into the PP. Thoughts?

 

[seventieslord]

I'll admit I haven't been terribly familiar with Mondou up to this point, but when I took stock of what I when I took over, he looked fine enough. This Very Friendly Bio really pushes the defense and checking angle...do you have any context to mitigate any of that? By extension, would my team be any better if my top-3 LWs played musical chairs to get Mondou on the 3rd line?

I wouldn't say it pushes the defense and checking angle that hard, really... I'm still seeing him as a Benoit Hogue type, who wouldn't stand out as a top offensive or defensive guy even in the AAA. Maybe get a 2nd or 3rd opinion here; I don't want to be the only reason you make a change if there's one to be made.

Definitely a swap with Sterner looks like a good idea from what I can tell. With the courageous Maruk and the huge Goheen, that line could do without the little bit of extra intangibles Mondou brings, and I'm pretty sure Sterner has better offensive upside.

I'll just say it: I don't know why my predecessor picked 3 midget centres before taking any second-line wingers. Dropping one of them seemed like poor asset management, and out of the three of them, Rogers has this on him:

Not much for a 3rd line centre, but the idea of putting Chouinard there makes me ill.

fair enough.

Here's where the problem comes not from the old GM, but from me coming in cold and disoriented. I've had Stuart before, and it's been received positively, but not after a 28 team ATD! Would Babinov be better suited for his role? Or for that matter, now that I know Chouinard can play the point, maybe Salo comes out and Craven or Koroll could draw into the PP. Thoughts?

Babinov and Stuart are approximately equal in value, IMO.

whoops, I looked at your PP units too quickly, I saw Chouinard as the 4th guy listed and assumed you had him on the point.

If you make Chouinard a point man and can drop one D, who would it be? I assume Goheen, right? If so, then getting Craven in there in his place would probably make the PP stronger overall.

 

[seventieslord]

tony, tdmm and hedberg are getting reviews from me in the next day. Not sure which I'll do first.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think Babinov is an excellent defensive defenseman who probably deserves a spot in the starting 6. Definitely better than Brad Stuart

 

[Hobnobs]

 

[VanIslander]

Selfish Man's Fife Flyers and papershoes' San Francisco Seals are pretty decent squads, but although their GMs seem to be active enough to keep picking in the concurrently-run so-called PTD on this board,... they're not active enough to post their line-ups from the MLD here on the assassination thread (though they have had two weeks to do so). A sign of the times, perhaps.

I have the only posted line-up (on page 1) that has not been reviewed yet. Some teams have received two reviews (and seventieslord plans to make it three for some).

This'll drag into September I suspect. So be it. It is what it is. And what it is becoming.