2015 AAA Draft Thread

[Hobnobs]

Seth Martin looks to have been way better than either Konovalenko or Holmqvist. His WC All-Star record absolutely blows them away. Also, anecdotes talk about how the next generation of European goalies (led by Tretiak and Holecek) were so impressed by Martin that they modeled their games off of his. Tretiak chosing to model his game off Martin, not Konovalenko, is especially telling.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a Tarasov quote about how the USSR wasn't able to produce a top goalie until Tretiak?

Im not saying that Martin wasnt better but two tiers better seems a bit much. And people mold their game after you is obviously good but it doesnt really say how good you were. Just that you were impressive enough. Meh I just dont buy it that he was several levels above the rest.

And his WC all-star record doesnt blow the others away. He has 3 and the others have 1. And its not like it was without controversy. I remember reading that Drzuilla was robbed in 66 for example. So no, I dont buy it. Not entirely atleast.

 

[tony d]

If we're doing add/drops I take seventies' advice and drop Curtis Leschshyn, defenseman for Kyle mclaren.

 

[Sanf]

- 7 times best soviet goalie vs. 7 times best swedish goalie
- Isn't 1st/3rd/7th in Soviet MVP voting better than 1st/1st in the SEL?
- Holmqvist had two major tournaments where he was named top or all-star goalie as opposed to one for Konovalenko, so there's that I guess?
- Konovalenko did win more gold medals than Holmqvist won medals of any colour. I know that's a team thing, but jeez. They were the best performing country internationally, by far, and he was their best goalie, for a long time.
- Both had 47 international decisions, one was 26-18-3 and 2.61, one was 42-2-3 and 1.72. I mean, if all those "you gotta stay sharp when facing fewer shots so you don't blow the loss" arguments apply to Brodeur...
- Lastly, this link here shows a glimpse of what kind of shots against totals international goalies likely saw in these times. USSR in this 1971 tournament allowed 24.5 shots per game. In my bio from last year, Tarasov claims to have tracked shots against in the 1969 Worlds (when Konovalenko did not play, but same timeframe at least) at 19.4 per game - so if you split the difference, the best guess for what Soviet goalies probably saw during the 1962-1972 heyday was 22.5 per game. Sweden allowed 31.3 in this one instance that we're aware of. If it was typical for a Swedish goaltender to see 39% more shots per game, then with a save percentage equal to a Soviet goaltender, he'd also have a GAA 39% higher. Holmqvist's career international GAA is 52% higher than Konovalenko's, and his career international sv% is therefore also likely lower. (I realize this one tournament, the last of Konovalenko's career, is not flattering to him, keep in mind he had a 2.57 GAA so his mediocre 89.1 sv% can't possibly be typical of what it would have been during the other 43 decisions in which he averaged 1.64.)

I believe shots were counted lot before that in International tournaments. I didn´t have much time, but I quickly looked shots against stats from few tournaments. Source is Finnish yearly hockey books.

1965 7 games
CSSR 140
USSR 148
SWE 166

1968 7 games
CSSR 148
USSR 148
SWE 160

1969 10 games
SWE 228
USSR 230
CSSR 253

1970 10 games
USSR 214
SWE 223
CSSR 246

After the top nations it usually took big jump. For example in 1969 there were over 500 shots against USA. in 1970 about 450 against Poland. The difference between the top nations in this regard wasn´t that big. edit. Though those are rather extreme examples.

Overall I think that Konovalenko is underrated. He had rough start for his International career and there were talks at the time in Soviet Union that Puchkov would have been the only good goalie in the country. But he did improve lot after that. He also had interesting relationhip with Tarasov.I hope I have more time during the Euro top project (if Konovalenko even comes to the discussion).

edit. I only had these yearbooks on my memory stick.

 

[seventieslord]

Honestly all this does make Konovalenko look like an Osgood variation. When you play on an insanely overpowered team compared to the competition (and there is no way in hell Sweden was just 40% 'weaker' than USSR back then), that record loses a lot of luster.

1. It sounds like you have the mindset that being on a better team automatically makes you a worse goalie. I never posted anything that hinted Holmqvist was better, only that Konovalenko had more team success, which meant he certainly had a better team, but considering his numerical and recognition cases are as good or better nearly across the board, I don't see how it follows that he was automatically the lesser goalie.

2. I'm pretty much at peace with where Osgood gets selected in these things. Individually, he was an average to above average goalie for a long time, which is pretty good. Imagine a sean burke playoff record and the same individual regular season numbers and recognition, and he's already been selected by now, right? And we're only about 40 goalies past where he gets taken regularly. Add in the fact that he did make a lot of playoff saves, he did win a lot of playoff games, and he did win two cups as a starter, and it's not really unfair for him to be taken in the range of goalies with moderately better individual numbers and/or recognition but far less team success. Team success does count and it does matter. It shouldn't be completely disregarded and it shouldn't be used against a player.

Holmqvist was better than Konovalenko according to canon. Both are underrated in these parts as well as Kjell Svensson.

"because canon" is a poor argument though. I've gone over a lot of little details to compare the two, and your response is kind of broad. Is there something more nuanced you can provide on this matter?

Seth Martin looks to have been way better than either Konovalenko or Holmqvist. His WC All-Star record absolutely blows them away. Also, anecdotes talk about how the next generation of European goalies (led by Tretiak and Holecek) were so impressed by Martin that they modeled their games off of his. Tretiak chosing to model his game off Martin, not Konovalenko, is especially telling.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there a Tarasov quote about how the USSR wasn't able to produce a top goalie until Tretiak?

- I agree Martin was likely better than either of them, but the binary counting of WC all-star teams is not exactly a bulletproof argument. We can accept that it's the best evidence we have, but there's a wide potential variance built into that, as far as what the real truth was.

- If you read my Konovalenko bio for the passages from Tretiak's book, I don't think it's as simple as saying "he modeled his game off Martin, not Konovalenko".

- I don't think I'm aware of the exact Tarasov quote you refer to, but you may have been referring to something that I posted in last year's bio, verbatim from his book, as opposed to the occasional paraphrasing I employed in years prior. I was a little harsh on Kono and it might have rubbed off on others. In any case, if you're referring to a different quote where he said literally that, there's a lot that it could mean. What's a "top" goalie? Good enough to win tournaments with the national team repeatedly? Good enough that you sweep the all-star award every year at the worlds? Good enough that you're legitimately in the conversation for best goalie in the world?

I believe shots were counted lot before that in International tournaments. I didn´t have much time, but I quickly looked shots against stats from few tournaments. Source is Finnish yearly hockey books.

1965 7 games
CSSR 140
USSR 148
SWE 166

1968 7 games
CSSR 148
USSR 148
SWE 160

1969 10 games
SWE 228
USSR 230
CSSR 253

1970 10 games
USSR 214
SWE 223
CSSR 246

After the top nations it usually took big jump. For example in 1969 there were over 500 shots against USA. in 1970 about 450 against Poland. The difference between the top nations in this regard wasn´t that big.

Overall I think that Konovalenko is underrated. He had rough start for his International career and there were talks at the time in Soviet Union that Puchkov would have been the only good goalie in the country. But he did improve lot after that. He also had interesting relationhip with Tarasov.I hope I have more time during the Euro top project (if Konovalenko even comes to the discussion).

edit. I only had these yearbooks on my memory stick.

This is awesome information, thank you. And USSR, SWE and CSSR are a LOT closer in shots against than I ever would have guessed. (interesting that these 1969 numbers contradict what Tarasov counted so greatly)

Did all these countries play exactly that many games all these seasons? Often one country plays 10 or 11, and others play 8 or 9 depending on how far they go.

Assuming they did, we have these totals for the four years:

USSR: 740
CSSR: 787
SWE: 777

Taking the cumulative goals against for these teams over these years, we'd easily be able to get some approximate cumulative team save percentages. Considering USSR was typically allowing only about 71% as many goals as Sweden (and this indicates that the shot difference was only about 5%) it's hard to see Holmqvist outperforming Konovalenko. (but to be honest, these shots against totals seem way too close; you'd think they would be a lot more different from USSR to SWE than this)

 

[Sanf]

Taking the cumulative goals against for these teams over these years, we'd easily be able to get some approximate cumulative team save percentages. Considering USSR was typically allowing only about 71% as many goals as Sweden (and this indicates that the shot difference was only about 5%) it's hard to see Holmqvist outperforming Konovalenko. (but to be honest, these shots against totals seem way too close; you'd think they would be a lot more different from USSR to SWE than this)

Sv% are calculated for some of the WHC´s. If someone has the time and interest it could be calculated from many other years.Atleast Russian Statforum5 has season-by-season game-by-game results. Shots are also mentioned (sometimes even period by period). I´m not sure if they have gathered those from newspapers or from official scoresheets (I have seen copies of scoresheets in there so it´s possible). By all the sources I have seen those shot against stats seem to be correct.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Even assuming they were recorded properly, shot totals don't really mean much if they mostly come from the games against the many doormats of the WCs

If the USSR is beating Poland or West Germany 10-1, how hard are are they trying to keep shots down?

 

[Sanf]

Even assuming they were recorded properly, shot totals don't really mean much if they mostly come from the games against the many doormats of the WCs

If the USSR is beating Poland or West Germany 10-1, how hard are are they trying to keep shots down?

This is of course true. It´s very small sample size of games and the level of the opponents varied a lot.

But I just quickly throw example from 1969.

USSR-SWE 4-2
shots 20-21

CSSR-SWE 0-2
26-24

CSSR-USSR 2-0
25-24

USSR-SWE 2-3
28-29

USSR-CSSR 3-4
30-24

SWE-CSSR 1-0
33-31

Atleast in this particular year those were pretty even. But true this would need to take much deeper look to say anything sure.

 

[seventieslord]

Even assuming they were recorded properly, shot totals don't really mean much if they mostly come from the games against the many doormats of the WCs

If the USSR is beating Poland or West Germany 10-1, how hard are are they trying to keep shots down?

- any shot total from anywhere pre-1990 (including the NHL) comes with the built-in caveat that we have little choice but to assume they were recorded to the best of the shot keeper's abilities, which means they may not be perfect. Besides, any inaccuracies would be applied evenly across the board, not consistently overcounting for one team and undercounting for another, right?

- As Sanf acknowledged, the worlds are small sample sizes and there is a wide range of opponent strengths, so yes it's important to keep in mind that weak opponents can pad one's stats. But generally speaking, USSR, CSSR and SWE are going to get the same number of "chances" to beat up on a weak sister, right?

- I'm not sure why you would make the assumption that is the opposite of what seems the most logical. If you're beating a team 10-1 you're enjoying a massive territorial advantage. They're not driving your shots against up, they're almost certainly taking less shots than you're used to seeing. We see this in the NHL now. Anyway, in these four games against the best opponents, USSR averaged 24.75 shots against, three higher than their supposed cumulative four year average of 21.8, a good indication that the weaker teams were taking fewer shots on them, which is of course what one should expect.

 

[seventieslord]

I believe shots were counted lot before that in International tournaments. I didn´t have much time, but I quickly looked shots against stats from few tournaments. Source is Finnish yearly hockey books.

1965 7 games
CSSR 140
USSR 148
SWE 166

1968 7 games
CSSR 148
USSR 148
SWE 160

1969 10 games
SWE 228
USSR 230
CSSR 253

1970 10 games
USSR 214
SWE 223
CSSR 246

After the top nations it usually took big jump. For example in 1969 there were over 500 shots against USA. in 1970 about 450 against Poland. The difference between the top nations in this regard wasn´t that big. edit. Though those are rather extreme examples.

Overall I think that Konovalenko is underrated. He had rough start for his International career and there were talks at the time in Soviet Union that Puchkov would have been the only good goalie in the country. But he did improve lot after that. He also had interesting relationhip with Tarasov.I hope I have more time during the Euro top project (if Konovalenko even comes to the discussion).

edit. I only had these yearbooks on my memory stick.

Goals against in these 4 tournaments:

1965:
USSR 13
CSSR 10
SWE 17

1969:
USSR 23
SWE 19
CSSR 20

1968:
USSR 9
SWE 22
CSSR 18

1970:
USSR 11
SWE 21
CSSR 30

Total:
USSR 56
CSSR 78
SWE 79

the cumulative save percentages for the the goalies from these countries would therefore be:

USSR .924
CSSR .901
SWE .898

(Konovalenko appears to have been a real difference maker for the USSR in this case. He did not play in 1969, a tournament where they allowed 10 more goals than any of the other three listed. In 1969 the Soviet goalie had a .900 sv%, making Konovalenko's sv% for the remaining three years .935)

The goalies for CSSR and SWE during these four tournaments, from what I can tell, were either exclusively or almost entirely Dzurilla and Holmqvist.

(I must be blind here; what does ATD staple Dzurilla have on Konovalenko? two best goalie awards to one? is that it?)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

(I must be blind here; what does ATD staple Dzurilla have on Konovalenko? two best goalie awards to one? is that it?)

You're forgetting 1976, which is honestly Dzurilla's big claim to fame for North Americans and probably makes him a bit overrated. That said, I think he was considered a lot closer to Holecek than Konovalenko was to Tretiak.

 

[MadArcand]

Well, the general consensus 'round here seems to be that goaltending has always been USSR's weak point. The only goalie that even gets a grudging 'praise' (if something akin to 'the only USSR goalie that didn't completely suck' can be considered as such) is Tretiak.

Now I think that's not particularly realistic, but...

 

[seventieslord]

Goals • 71/72 (5th) - 72/73 (7th) - 74/75 (5th) - 75/76 (T4th) - 76/77 (5th) - 79/80 (8th)
Assists • 72/73 (1st) - 74/75 (2nd) - 76/77 (T9th) - 79/80 (3rd)
Points • 72/73 (3rd) - 74/75 (5th) - 75/76 (T5th) - 76/77 (7th) - 79/80 (5th)

I checked out the 1970s Czech league scoring leaders in the seasons you have listed Novak as being in the top-7 and as it turns out, the above numbers are incorrect. In 73, 75, 76, 77 and 80, respectively, Novak's points finishes were:

7th, 5th, 10th, 9th, 5th.

So you are off by 4, 5, and 2 spots in 73, 76 and 77. That's pretty big.

That's in addition to the major error you posted about his 1978 world championship ranking, which you have not yet corrected.

Where are you getting this information? Whatever source you've been relying on, it would be great if you would discontinue using it. It's great that you want to provide extensive information in your bios, but people in following drafts are going to be looking at this information and making decisions assuming that it's correct. It's not fair that others have to take time to fact check your bios. Please don't get me wrong. I realize you have the best of intentions. But when your source has proven greatly unreliable, it's time to get a new source.

 

[BubbaBoot]

I checked out the 1970s Czech league scoring leaders in the seasons you have listed Novak as being in the top-7 and as it turns out, the above numbers are incorrect. In 73, 75, 76, 77 and 80, respectively, Novak's points finishes were:

7th, 5th, 10th, 9th, 5th.

So you are off by 4, 5, and 2 spots in 73, 76 and 77. That's pretty big.

That's in addition to the major error you posted about his 1978 world championship ranking, which you have not yet corrected.

Where are you getting this information? Whatever source you've been relying on, it would be great if you would discontinue using it. It's great that you want to provide extensive information in your bios, but people in following drafts are going to be looking at this information and making decisions assuming that it's correct. It's not fair that others have to take time to fact check your bios. Please don't get me wrong. I realize you have the best of intentions. But when your source has proven greatly unreliable, it's time to get a new source.

oh jeez, I just checked.....used Elite Prospects back then. Checked it against SIHR this morning and it's way off.....hell, Elite Prospects doesn't even have Novak's teammate Martinec even listed in 1973 and he was #1.

I'm going to have to fact check and rework the whole damn bio's stats.

Well this puts things in a different light now doesn't it?

......sigh*

 

[BubbaBoot]

Well, that's a kick in the nads....

While I was at it I also readjusted the domestic stats for Potsch and Cerny. For the most part they dropped a little bit from Elite Prospects against SIHR, except:
- in 59/60, where Potsch actually gained up a slot in assists and points and went up significantly in 61/62, which looks like an error on my part.
- in 63/64 Cerny actually gained 8 total points.
- in 68/69 I forgot to list Potsch's assists. He was 2nd among defensemen that season.

- In 65/66 Cerny was NOT 1st in goals, he was 4th.

- There's a HUGE discrepancy is 70/71 for Cerny between Elite Prospects and SIHR....I went with the lower total with SIHR as they seemed to be more consistent.

This is why I'm always searching for info on this era of Euro teams. The Iron Curtain was notoriously tight with info during this time and alot were from state-run sources so they may be fudged to some degree.....this is what makes this so damn frustratingly hard.....I mean, how can Elite Prospects not even list Martiinec at all?

 

[seventieslord]

Well, that's a kick in the nads....

While I was at it I also readjusted the domestic stats for Potsch and Cerny. For the most part they dropped a little bit from Elite Prospects against SIHR, except:
- in 59/60, where Potsch actually gained up a slot in assists and points and went up significantly in 61/62, which looks like an error on my part.
- in 63/64 Cerny actually gained 8 total points.
- in 68/69 I forgot to list Potsch's assists. He was 2nd among defensemen that season.

- In 65/66 Cerny was NOT 1st in goals, he was 4th.

- There's a HUGE discrepancy is 70/71 for Cerny between Elite Prospects and SIHR....I went with the lower total with SIHR as they seemed to be more consistent.

This is why I'm always searching for info on this era of Euro teams. The Iron Curtain was notoriously tight with info during this time and alot were from state-run sources so they may be fudged to some degree.....this is what makes this so damn frustratingly hard.....I mean, how can Elite Prospects not even list Martiinec at all?

Yeah, I figured that was the problem. Clearly some players were completely missing from these leaderboards for you to get the rankings that you did.

Good to hear that you have SIHR access. it's not perfect for the czech league but anytime other sources are revealed (like here ), they tend to be really close to what SIHR has. It looks like we will never have perfect, definitive stats but I don't really mind. As long as all sources generally agree, that's cool. We don't need to conclusively know who was 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th in a given year, I'm more concerned with who had more top-10 or top-5 caliber seasons.

I did a soviet equivalency thing a year ago using domestic stats, that puts all USSR players into an NHL context for the purpose of easier comparison with known players on a VsX basis. it's served me well, though it needs a few tweaks. I'd like to work on a czech version of it now. I did some preliminary work last night, but just realized this is a bigger task than I thought, because SIHR has playoff and regular season stats combined in some seasons - which I would have never known if I hadn't seen that info I linked to above - and in other seasons, they have playoff stats rolled into the regular season stats of some players but not others! There's no sense moving forward until I isolate these things properly.

(or, do I just roll all playoff stats in? Maybe it's better than ignoring them since they did happen, and were more important than the regular season games, then it gives extra credit to players who made the playoffs and advanced far... thoughts?)

 

[tony d]

Soon be time to do voting here I think, what's the schedule like for regular season and playoff voting?

 

[Elvis P]

All of our hemming and humming over our first three picks haven't generated a single peep of attention on the board (c'est la vie). We are mulling over some impact picks to come in the very near future...

The Fishermen also select this HHOFer...

I'm really enjoying reading this draft. The first 25 picks (ending in Phat Wilson) seem excellent to me and VI going 3rd person and mysteriously posting a link to his pick's name is awesome. Good luck to all in the playoffs!

 

[VanIslander]

I just voted.

(As usual, any past ATDer can vote if they have the time to read the linked bios and assassination thread.)

Regular season ranking is to be sent to TheDevilMadeMe today (or in the morning)!

 

[BubbaBoot]

I just voted.

(As usual, any past ATDer can vote if they have the time to read the linked bios and assassination thread.)

Regular season ranking is to be sent to TheDevilMadeMe today (or in the morning)!

I didn't know that.

 

[seventieslord]

There won't be all-star teams this draft; it's just too small a draft, and even if there's full participation (which never happens), six ballots is a small sample that one can't have much confidence in.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I just sent out a reminder PM this afternoon, so I'll be accepting votes through tomorrow.

Standings will be posted by Thursday

 

[tony d]

Will vote today.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

All 7 involved GMs have voted.

Your results:

1. Regina Amber Alerts 28
2. Selkirk Fishermen 22
3. Belleville Bulls 21
4. Rum River Renegades 19.5
5. City Point Clovers 18
6. Edmonton Oil Kings 17.5

 

[ResilientBeast]

All 7 involved GMs have voted.

Your results:

1. Regina Amber Alerts 28
2. Selkirk Fishermen 22
3. Belleville Bulls 21
4. Rum River Renegades 19.5
5. City Point Clovers 18
6. Edmonton Oil Kings 17.5

Impressive turnout

 

[seventieslord]

So I guess it's 3/6 and 4/5 with the winners playing 1 and 2, hey?

when you think about it, that's pretty close, because a team that ran the table would have had 36 points and a team that got completely trounced would have had 6.