ATD 2011 Line-up Assassination Thread

[BigDucky]

Is it too late to request another review of my team?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think your logic is entirely coherent here, and at any rate ignores the fact that there is rarely an even downslope of talent within a team. Valeri Vasiliev, for example, is an accepted #1 at this level, while no one else on that 70's team is considered worthy of playing on a top pairing. By your logic, somebody on that team should be a legit ATD #2 defenseman, but I don't think that's really the case.

Following your logic would also lead us to believe, in the most extreme example, that guys like Marc Bergevin and Alexander Khavanov, #3 defenseman at various points in St. Louis behind Pronger and MacInnis, should be able to play that role in the ATD because those Blues were really good teams and their top two defensemen are accepted ATD first pairing players. History is absolutely full of top-heavy teams. The skill of players on one unit has no bearing on the rest of the roster.

Allright, I'm done hammering on these old Russkies. I would personally not draft these guys to play on a second pairing, but there are a lot of pretty questionable #4s in the league, so I guess there's a place for Bilya and Perv.

You're comparing a national team with an NHL club team. All the best talent that the USSR hockey system produced went to the national team. It's quite different from a club team, which obviously does not represent the total talent pool of a nation or region.

Edit: the St Louis analogy is especially poor, since MacInnis and Pronger played on separate pairings to keep the defense from falling apart when one wasn't on the ice. Fetisov and Kasatonov played on the same pairing and the Soviet team quite clearly did not fall apart when they were not on the ice (though it obviously wasn't as good either).

 

[Sturminator]

You're comparing a national team with an NHL club team.

Not in the first example. If you don't like the example with the Blues, here is another one. Borje Salming is an accepted #1 defenseman in the ATD. Does that make Lars-Erik Sjöberg a #2? Frantisek Pospisil is an accepted #2 defenseman in the ATD. Does that make Jiri Bubla a #3?

This line of reasoning is so logically bankrupt I'm surprised you would seriously follow it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Not in the first example. If you don't like the example with the Blues, here is another one. Borje Salming is an accepted #1 defenseman in the ATD. Does that make Lars-Erik Sjöberg a #2? Frantisek Pospisil is an accepted #2 defenseman in the ATD. Does that make Jiri Bubla a #3?

This line of reasoning is so logically broken I'm surprised you would seriously follow it.

Are you seriously comparing the depth of the 70s Swedes and Czechs with the 80s USSR?

Given the success of the 70s Czechoslovakian team, their depth players probably are underrated, though.

As for the first example, I think most do consider Vasiliev's contemporary Lutchenko to be somewhere between a low-end #2 and high end #3 in this.

 

[Sturminator]

Are you seriously comparing the depth of the 70s Swedes and Czechs with the 80s USSR?

I am saying that it does not follow that because Player A and B on Team X were top pairing all-time defensemen, that Players C and D must therefore be second pairing all-time defensemen. There is no rational correlation here.

It may be that Bilya and Perv are legitimate ATD 2nd pairing defensemen, but I am unwilling to fill in the huge gaps in our knowledge of these players with the similarly huge assumptions you are making here. They might have been as good as a bunch of ATD #4s, but until we actually know that, I see no reason to rate them on the level of well-known second pairing defensive defensemen. The problem is that while I think it's very unlikely that either was better than a player like Ted Harris, there is a distinct possibility that one or both of them was actually on the level of a guy like Kasparaitis. Average it out, and I have a dim view of them as second pairing defensemen here.

 

[jarek]

Um, Pervukhin was actually quite decent offensively. He led an Olympics in assists once, and otherwise had a respectable, if unspectacular Russian league career.

 

[Sturminator]

As for the first example, I think most do consider Vasiliev's contemporary Lutchenko to be somewhere between a low-end #2 and high end #3 in this.

I think Lutchenko would be a pretty big stretch on an ATD top pairing and I think you would be the first GM to declare that he's "better as a puck-moving #3". Lutchenko would be very bottom of the barrel as an ATD#2, especially considering he didn't play top minutes against top lines even on his own team (Davydov was Vasiliev's most common partner). Lutchenko and Tsygankov were the second pairing. I consider Lutchenko a good #3 because of his ability to quarterback a powerplay, which is a quite valuable skill. At even strength, he is not high-end even for a second pairing player in this. On a top pairing, he would be a liability.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I am saying that it does not follow that because Player A and B on Team X were top pairing all-time defensemen, that Players C and D must therefore be second pairing all-time defensemen. There is no rational correlation here.

It may be that Bilya and Perv are legitimate ATD 2nd pairing defensemen, but I am unwilling to fill in the huge gaps in our knowledge of these players with the similarly huge assumptions you are making here. They might have been as good as a bunch of ATD #4s, but until we actually know that, I see no reason to rate them on the level of well-known second pairing defensive defensemen. The problem is that while I think it's very unlikely that either was better than a player like Ted Harris, there is a distinct possibility that one or both of them was actually on the level of a guy like Kasparaitis. Average it out, and I have a dim view of them as second pairing defensemen here.

Why do you keep talking about hypothetical Team X? I am talking about the actual Team USSR in the 1980s, which showed that it's nation's depth of talent was significantly better than any other nation but Canada - and really not all that far behind Canada in terms of high-end depth - through numerous international tournaments.

 

[jarek]

Why do you keep talking about hypothetical Team X? I am talking about the actual Team USSR in the 1980s, which showed that it's nation's depth of talent was significantly better than any other nation but Canada - and really not all that far behind Canada in terms of high-end depth - through numerous international tournaments.

I am confused by this as well. We are talking about the best the Soviet '80s had to offer. Only the very best made it on to the team, and the fact that Pervukhin and Bilya were able to make it there as the 2nd pairing for the better part of a decade is impressive, at least for me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think Lutchenko would be a pretty big stretch on an ATD top pairing and I think you would be the first GM to declare that he's "better as a puck-moving #3". Lutchenko would be very bottom of the barrel as an ATD#2, especially considering he didn't play top minutes against top lines even on his own team (Davydov was Vasiliev's most common partner). Lutchenko and Tsygankov were the second pairing. I consider Lutchenko a good #3 because of his ability to quarterback a powerplay, which is a quite valuable skill. At even strength, he is not high-end even for a second pairing player in this. On a top pairing, he would be a liability.

Davydov and Vasiliev weren't really contemporaries. According to chidlovski, Davydov's last game was in 1972, and Vasiliev's first game was in 1970. I'm not completely sure, but I believe that The clearly inferior Gusev became Vasiliev's more regular partner.

 

[Sturminator]

I am talking about the actual Team USSR in the 1980s, which showed that it's nation's depth of talent was significantly better than any other nation but Canada - and really not all that far behind Canada in terms of high-end depth - through numerous international tournaments.

You seem to be one of those people who believes that the results of short serieses between Canada and the Soviet Union were perfectly reflective of the relative level of talent on the teams. This would lead one to the conclusion that Goulet - Gretzky - Lemieux - Bourque - Coffey were better hockey players than Krutov - Larionov - Makarov - Fetisov - Kasatonov by only the thinnest of margins. It is pure fantasy. If those two teams played each other 100 times, the Canadians would have won 80 of them. They were not nearly as close in skill as they looked, just as the Americans who took down the Soviets in Lake Placid weren't actually on even terms with their opponents. Canada has always, likely out of arrogance, put together its international hockey teams "with the left hand".

Those Soviet teams had the benefit of training together for years, and placed the utmost importance on their showing in those tournaments. The Canadians practiced together for a few weeks in what was otherwise their offseason and scheduled the tournaments to fall just before the NHL preseason when many players weren't even properly in game shape.

 

[jarek]

You seem to be one of those people who believes that the results of short serieses between Canada and the Soviet Union were perfectly reflective of the relative level of talent on the teams. This would lead one to the conclusion that Goulet - Gretzky - Lemieux - Bourque - Coffey were better hockey players than Krutov - Larionov - Makarov - Fetisov - Kasatonov by only the thinnest of margins. It is pure fantasy. If those two teams played each other 100 times, the Canadians would have won 80 of them. They were not nearly as close in skill as they looked, just as the Americans who took down the Soviets in Lake Placid weren't actually on even terms with their opponents. Canada has always, likely out of arrogance, put together its international hockey teams "with the left hand".

Those Soviet teams had the benefit of training together for years, and placed the utmost importance on their showing in those tournaments. The Canadians practiced together for a few weeks in what was otherwise their offseason and scheduled the tournaments to fall just before the NHL preseason when many players weren't even properly in game shape.

I would love to hear why you actually believe this. You don't think the Canadians gave it their absolute all? You're fooling yourself if you do.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I actually agree with sturm that if the teams met 100 times, Canada would have likely won 80 - largely because the USSR had nobody close to Gretzky. Remove the best player ever (and Lemieux who peaked right up there with Gretzky), and the difference isn't nearly so great.

I don't know why sturm keeps bringing up 1980. It was one game and just showed that a team with lots of heart can beat an overconfident team with much more talent in a single game. Like Canada and Switzerland in 2006. Anyway, I think the Soviets proved their talent level over a much larger sample size of skating with Canada and generally obliterating everyone else.

As for Canada being so overconfident they didn't try their best, it might have been the case in 1981, but certainly not afterwards, not in 1987 when Gretzky supposedly was skating so hard he pissed himself.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I would love to hear why you actually believe this. You don't think the Canadians gave it their absolute all? You're fooling yourself if you do.

Rereading his post, I think he means that Canada often made some highly questionable roster choices, which is, in fact, true.

 

[seventieslord]

- LF, can we get an updated list of who's done reviews and who needs one?

- Home Nugget, I'm going to review your team today. Yes, assassinations are still on!

- Am I the only one who finds it a bit off-putting to call Pervukhin "Perv"?

- Don't bother starting a new thread. I haven't been as dilligent in this thread as I've been in the draft thread, mainly because there is much less garbage to clean up. I'm going to go through it today and do some merges and deletes, and we should still have a good page worth of free space and shouldn't have to start a new thread to accomodate what will likely be 20 posts.

 

[Sturminator]

Rereading his post, I think he means that Canada often made some highly questionable roster choices, which is, in fact, true.

Yes, those Canadian squads were constructed like all-star teams, and came to the tournaments generally out of shape and without having practiced together much. It is a testament to the importance of fitness, system and discipline that those Soviet teams were able to compete with team Canada in the 1980's.

 

[Dreakmur]

The converse is that he got scads of ice time, while Beliveau had to share even strength ice time with Henri Richard.

Beliveau didn't share PP time with Richard, which is where a large chunk of his points came from.

Bathgate probably got more ice time than Beliveau, but that doesn't make up for the difference in linemates.

Beliveau probably played 30 minutes per game, and he was on the ice with Benir Geoffrion, Dickie Moore, Doug Harvey, and Tom Johnson. For PPs, replace Johnson with Rocket Richard.

Bathgate probably played 35 minutes per game, but he was stuck with Dean Prentice, Dave Creighton, Bill Gadsby, and Harry Howell.

Do you really think those extra minutes makes up for the difference in talent? Add in the fact that every team knew going into a game that if you stop Bathgate you stop the Rangers. Not only did Bathgate have less help, he was under more checking pressure.... and he still scored at the same pace!

I'm entirely unconvinced that playing on a bad team is a drawback. Look at both Kovalchuk and Hossa who put up more points in Atlanta than anywhere else.

That had more to do with linemates than anything. Atlanta has some pretty scary offensive forwards over that period of time, and they all benefited from playing with each other (just like Beliveau in Montreal).

When each player left Atlanta, did they every play with the same level of linemate again? Hossa did in short spurts, but when that happened, he scored at the same pace.

Given that Dave Keon complained that Bathgate couldn't fit into Toronto's defensive system, I really doubt Bathgate was hurt offensively by playing for the Rangers.

Frank Mahovlich had his offense held back playing for Punch Imlach in Toronto. Bathgate was allowed to think all offense all the time in New York.

That's true that Bathgate was allowed to think all offense in New York, but he was also the only offense they had. Do you really think it's an easy spot to be in?

Here's the puck, now we need a goal, and you have to create it because nobody else can.... oh and also, you're going to have the other team entirely focused on you because they know just as much as we do that you're our only weapon.... have fun out there!

 

[Dreakmur]

I don't think Imlach was "part of the problem". After all, they won the cup, no? I'd say Imlach was right for sticking to his guns.

I didn't say it was the team's problem, I said it was Bathgate's problem.

Bathgate didn't fit into Toronto for two reasons:
- Andy couldn't adjust to their system.
- Punch woudldn't adjust the team system to better encorporate an elite offensive player.

See how he's part of the problem now?

 

[Sturminator]

I didn't say it was the team's problem, I said it was Bathgate's problem.

Bathgate didn't fit into Toronto for two reasons:
- Andy couldn't adjust to their system.
- Punch woudldn't adjust the team system to better encorporate an elite offensive player.

See how he's part of the problem now?

Bathgate was a guy who would speak his mind when he had a problem with something, and I think that rubbed some people in Toronto the wrong way. The players who went the other way in the Bathgate deal were also very popular guys, and that probably didn't help, either. Finally, Imlach was a totalitarian *****.

I think Bathgate is a guy who shouldn't be put on a team with an Imlach or a Keenan, but at the same time, I don't think he's a problematic personality on a normal team or a guy who really needs a players' coach.

 

[overpass]

Dreakmur, I think your minute estimates for Bathgate and Beliveau are 10 minutes too high. They played with 3 ines back then.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Updated list:

Here is the new list, as of the vecens review of the Senators. Took the liberty of adding teams with 0 reviews that have posted their completed rosters in the thread. I'll keep the list here updated.

I have added the page number of where the team is in the assasination thread for conveience, in brackets beside each team and reviewer that has posted a full line-up


TEAM REVIEWS RECEIVED
Received:
Toronto Maple Leafsx 1.5 (page 27)
Niagra City Blues- matsblue x 1
Regina Pats x 1.5
Portland Pirates x 1 (page 11)
Peterbourough Petes x 1 (page 18)
New Haven Nighthawks x 1 (page 9)
Vancouver Velocity x 1 (page 11)
Winnipeg Falcons x 1 (page 8)
Cincinnati Fireworks x 1.75 (page 20)
Springfield Indians x 1.75 (page 4)

Detroit Riots x 2 (page 27)
Pittsburgh Bankers x 2 (page 11)
Chicago Steelers x 2 (page 27)
Minnesota Fighting Saints x 2.25 (page 1)
Gwinett Gladiators x 2 (page 20)
Detroit Red Wings x 2 (page 3)
Tidewater Sharks x 2 (page 1)
Halifax Mooseheads x 2 (page 3)
Garnish Phantoms x 2 (page 4)
Jokreit hellsinki x 2 (page 1)
Vancouver Maroons x 2 (page 20)
Montreal AAA HC x 2 (page 2)
Philly Firebirds x 2 (page 1)
North Pole Penguinators x 2 (page 2)
Guelph Platers x 2 (page 3)
Detroit Falcons X 2.25 (page 1)
San Jose Sharks x 2.25 (page 8)
BattleCreek Battatlion x 2.25 (page 1)
Hartford Whalers x 2.5 (page 1)


Montreal Canadiens x 2.75 (page 1)
Kenora Thistles x 3 (page 15)
Dawson City Nuggets x 3 (page 8)
New Jersey Swamp Devils x 3 (page 20)
Clevland Barons x 3 (page 1)
McGuire's Monsters x 3.25 (page 1)
Inglewood Jacks x 3.5 (page 8)

Kimberely Dynamiters x 4 (page 1)
Ottawa Senators x 4 (page 6)
Vancouver Millionares x 4.25 (page 6)
Toronto St. Pats x 4.75 (page 7)

GM REVIEWS DONE
TDMM x 15 (page 20)
Leafs Forever x 16 (page 7)

Billy_Shoe x 9.5 (page 1)
vecens24 x 8 (page 8)

nik jr – x 5.25 (page 1)

Velociraptor x 4 (page 1)

Brave Canadian x 3 (page 3)
DoMakc x 3 (page 3)
tony d x 3 (page 4)

vancityluongo x 2.5 (page 1)
MxD x 2 (page 2)
Mr Bugg x 2 (page 1)
Dwight x 2 (page 1)
monster bertuzzi x 2 (page 6)
overpass x 2 (page 6)
DaveG x 2 (page 4)
Dreakmur x 2 (page 1)

Sturminator x 2 (page 20)

ReenMachine x 1 (page 1)
Johnny D x 1 (page 27)
JustOneOfTheGuys x 1 (page 11)
seventieslord X 1
Hedberg x 0.5
EagleBelfour x 1 (page 1)

Note: I called the smaller reviews vancityloungo did "0.25" reviews, the monster_bertruzzi reviews as "0.5" reviews and most of the reviews nik jr did that seems just a bit too short for full "0.75" reviews. Also calling Bravecandian "0.75" reviews. I am not going to try to defend these approximations, do if anyone has a complaint or a better idea on evaluating these reviews, feel free to suggest it.

If I missed something, please do say so.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yes, those Canadian squads were constructed like all-star teams, and came to the tournaments generally out of shape and without having practiced together much. It is a testament to the importance of fitness, system and discipline that those Soviet teams were able to compete with team Canada in the 1980's.

I think the "USSR got more time together" thing, while true, is overblown. The Trio Grande line had played together far longer by 1981 than any of the Soviet lines. The 1984 team was largely composed of Oilers and Islanders (I remember than Sather actually was criticized for bringing too many Oilers). By 1987, it was largely true, however.

 

[Dreakmur]

Bathgate was a guy who would speak his mind when he had a problem with something, and I think that rubbed some people in Toronto the wrong way. The players who went the other way in the Bathgate deal were also very popular guys, and that probably didn't help, either. Finally, Imlach was a totalitarian *****.

I think Bathgate is a guy who shouldn't be put on a team with an Imlach or a Keenan, but at the same time, I don't think he's a problematic personality on a normal team or a guy who really needs a players' coach.

That outspoken nature was why he got traded from New York in the first place.

He said it himself:

It wasn't a real shock when I got traded to Toronto. I was the captain for a while. They were trading away young fellas and it was a continual development for other teams to take our better players and those young players had quality. As the captain, I spoke up and they didn't care for that and eventually, I knew the resentment was building up and I was traded to Toronto.

Bathgate also spoke up about Punch Imlach working the team too hard. I think I read somewhere that the Leafs practices 2 or 3 times every day, which is just crazy.

That's the biggest reason I took Arkady Chernyshev when I did. I needed a coach who would work well with the team rather than bark orders.

Dreakmur, I think your minute estimates for Bathgate and Beliveau are 10 minutes too high. They played with 3 ines back then.

Maybe - I just pulled numbers out of my arse. Either way, the point was that Bathgate getting some extra minutes doesn't make up fot the poor talent level he had to carry.

I think this quote from the LOH site sums up my point nicely:

Yet, surrounded with a lineup that often looked like it was held together with bandages and hockey tape, Bathgate was able to shine.

 

[Dreakmur]

If I missed something, please do say so.

I think my divisional review should count for a 1/2 review for all 5 teams

EB, TDMM, Modo, Monster_B, and DaveG

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

After Dickie Moore and Geoffrion retired, who did Beliveau play with? Serious question. I know he often played with Dick Duff (no better than Prentice) or Ferguson (goon) on the left side. Cournoyer eventually ended up on the right side, I think, but I know there's a period of time when Cournoyer only played on powerplays because his defensive game was so poor as a young player.