Red Fisher Conference Final: (1) Tidewater Sharks vs. (2) New Jersey Swamp Devils
- Thread starter God Bless Canada
- Start date
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
So Makarov ain't even top 10? Or is the first Maltsev Makarov?
A-ha! Good catch.
Dreakmur
Registered User
The CSKA team was basically their national team, and it had a very significant number of the top Soviet players. It was basically the best of the best, and them playing against the Philidelphia Flyers is hardly a fair representation from each league.
The Soviet advantage was that the majority of their top players played together on a club team.
Tarasov played a role, but the biggest factor in Soviet international success was their "military" style club team. With all the top players playing together, under the same system, they were much better prepared for international competitions, and as a result, their success in said events are unpreportionate to the league's strength.
Doesn't the Czechs' emergence as international powerhouses coincide with their adoption of a similar military system?
Dreakmur
Registered User
So Makarov ain't even top 10? Or is the first Maltsev Makarov?
Yeah. First one is Makarov.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I'm not sure what the countries other than Russia did. But I would guess it was a similar system. A quick check of the sihr database for some swedes and czechs would help tell the story.
the Russian players didn't play together ALL season, though. there were some greats who spent their careers on lesser teams like perrennial second fiddle Soviet Wings but were still national team staples.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I honestly can't see any justification for Yakushev over Maltsev. Sure, he was great in the Summit Series, but that's just one tournament. Maltsev has a far better record in the Soviet League, and a better record in other international Tournaments.
Compare their resumes in this thread:
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=565254
Boldface added to what I think are the major differences.
Sturminator said:
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
If we look at MVP shares (a concept originally created by Hockey Outsider for Hart Voting, but one Triffy later applied to the Soviet MVP voting), we see that Maltsev's MVP record is a tiny bit below Mikhailov. Yakushev doesn't even place. "The idea is to compare player's MVP voting points to the total amount of points which were given that year (for the players in the top 5)." (Explained in more detail in the link).
This are the Soviet players with the most MVP shares:
Tretiak 3.13
Makarov 2.56
Fetisov 2.01
Kharlamov 1.87
Mikhailov 1.66
Maltsev 1.63
Krutov 1.48
Firsov 1.12*
Petrov 0.78
Starshinov 0.72*
Larionov 0.45
*MVP award didn't exist for the majority of his career.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=672152
Now, it isn't fair to compare the players of the 70s to Makarov, Fetisov, and Tretiak, who dominated voting in the 80s. But it is fair to compare them to each other, and it's definitely noteworthy that Maltsev is so close to Mikhailov.
This are the Soviet players with the most MVP shares:
Tretiak 3.13
Makarov 2.56
Fetisov 2.01
Kharlamov 1.87
Mikhailov 1.66
Maltsev 1.63
Krutov 1.48
Firsov 1.12*
Petrov 0.78
Starshinov 0.72*
Larionov 0.45
*MVP award didn't exist for the majority of his career.
http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=672152
Now, it isn't fair to compare the players of the 70s to Makarov, Fetisov, and Tretiak, who dominated voting in the 80s. But it is fair to compare them to each other, and it's definitely noteworthy that Maltsev is so close to Mikhailov.
Last edited:
Dreakmur
Registered User
They didin't ALL play together, but a very large number of them played for the CSKA team, and most of the key players. The number of players increased through the 70s, and by the 80s, nearly every top player was on CSKA.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Here’s a comparison of Russian scorers when they played against Canada. These are the 10 who scored the most goals against Canada.
Boris Mikhailov
30 goals in 46 games
0.65 goals per game
Alexander Yakushev
28 goals in 37 games
0.76 goals per game
Vyacheslav Starshinov
27 goals in 43 games
0.63 goals per game
Sergey Makarov
27 goals in 54 games
0.50 goals per game
Anatoly Firsov
26 goals in 35 games
0.74 goals per game
Valery Kharlamov
25 goals in 46 games
0.54 goals per game
Vladimir Petrov
25 goals in 48 games
0.53 goals per game
Vladimir Krutov
24 goals in 40 games
0.60 goals per game
Alexander Maltsev
20 goals in 48 games
0.42 goals per game
Igor Larionov
16 goals in 34 games
0.47 goals per game
Here are their goals per game rankings:
Alexander Yakushev – 0.76
Anatoly Firsov – 0.75
Boris Mikhailov – 0.65
Vyacheslav Starshinov – 0.63
Vladimir Krutov – 0.60
Valery Kharlamov – 0.54
Vladimir Petrov – 0.53
Sergey Makarov – 0.50
Igor Larionov – 0.47
Aleksander Maltsev – 0.42
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I've seen that thread, and all it tells me is that Yakushev, who was primarily a goal scorer and who for whatever reason had Canada's number, scored more goals against Canada than Maltsev, who was primarily a playmaker.
I wish there were a way to include assist totals. That would be more useful in determining who played well against Canada, at least.
Maltsev was the only Soviet All-Star in the 76 Canada Cup for what that's worth.
Edit: To me, the stat is the international equivalent of showing who scored the most playoff goals against the Montreal Canadiens dynasty of the 50s (or 70s, or choose your dynasty that was the NHL's best team by a good margin for a number of years). It shows something, but it's a very minor and selective data point in showing who was a better player overall.
Last edited:
overpass
Registered User
- Jun 7, 2007
- 5,299
- 2,887
I realize that, but CSKA wasn't the only team that had success against NHL teams. To take one example, Dynamo Moscow, Spartak Moscow, and the Soviet Wings played 17 games against NHL teams in the Super Series from 1976 to 1980, with a record of 10-5-2. CSKA had a 5-3-1 record over that time against NHL competition.
Talk about good matchups. This series is so close that it goes to overtime game 7. My hats go off to both teams.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
No, not at all. Canada is the exception. They were the only country that was sending what was, by their standards, a class B or C team. When I say other countries may have gone by a similar system, I mean the czechs or swedes in particular.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
I really don't know how they were similar. The Czechoslovak teams weren't based on a single club team like CSKA. Club teams and training methods weren't military based either (while Jihlava and Trencin were 'army' teams, all that meant was that players who were in age to do military service had to play for one of them for that short period - don't think that's comparable with CSKA, which was a fulltime commitment).
Yes, most countries other than Canada were sending their strongest teams availiable. I thought it was more about extending the common 'but the Soviets used teams which had chemistry' excuse to CS/Swedish teams.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Yeah, pretty much it was about that. But like I said, I don't know for sure. I'm not an expert on exactly which club teams all the European stars played for, and I doubt any of us are either, except perhaps dreakmur, jarek, and VI in regards to Russians in particular. I would have to look into it more, but I've got a feeling a good number of czechs would have spent the season on the same club team.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
I'm pretty sure that's rather wrong. I'll look into it when I have more time, busy time right ATM here at work.
Reds4Life
Registered User
- Dec 24, 2007
- 3,975
- 333
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Comparing defenses
First Defense Pair = Advantage NJ.
Tidewater has one of my favorite top pairs of the draft. I really think Chelios and Pronovost complement each other very well. But neither is as good as his counterpart on NJ.
Second Defense Pair = Slight advantage NJ overall. (Offensive edge to NJ, Defensive edge to Tidewater).
---Art Ross/Herb Gardiner is a tough call. Art Ross gets the offensive edge, Herb Gardiner gets the defensive edge.
Gardiner's Hart year gives him the better peak, but his peak is so short, since he got started so late. Only 3 years in the NHL. I think they are pretty close overall.
Here's a post I found from a past ATD on Ross's offense:
Without an in depth analysis, I think it's fair to say that's better than Gardiner, who had 6 goals and 12 points in his Hart winning year, and then 7 points combined in his other 2 years in the NHL. Yes, he did have some good numbers in the WCHL early in his career, for what we want to make of that.
As for defense, Ross "brought savvy to the defensive zone," but Gardiner "was a rock on the defense corps of every team he played on," and is well known for his play in his own zone. So Gardiner has the advantage. But the advantage is lessened by the fact that he only had the 3 years in the NHL.
---Harper = Goldham defensively. Goldham > Harper at puck moving, so Goldham is a bit better overall.
Terry Harper and Bob Goldham were both among the best defensive defensemen of their eras, and either would probably be in the HOF if he brought more offense. Both were key complimentary players on dynasties. I'll say they are even defensively. But Goldham is better at moving the puck, and this is why I think my 2nd pair has the slight edge overall. To illustrate, Goldham was 7th in assists by defensemen over the course of his career (41-55). Harper, on the other hand, is one of the biggest black holes on offense in the entire ATD (see http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22476075&postcount=10 for a "junk stat" that sort of illustrates this).
Third Defense Pair = Close. Offensive Advantage for Tidewater. Defensive advantage for NJ.
---Kuzkin vs. Drinkwater is very close. Both are solid 2way guys from completely different leagues. Drinkwater is a secondary star from the 1890s (probably the 2nd best dman in the league at the time after Grant). Kuzkin is a secondary star from the USSR in the 60s/early 70s - and is probably a Top 2-3 defenseman of the time, after Vasiliev. I think Kuzkin is better because I think he faced better competition, but it's a close call. Kuzkin is more of a standard puck mover, whereas Drinkwater is more of a puck rusher (as was the style of play in his era).
---Moose Goheen and George McNamara are both pre-consolidation HOFers. Goheen has great stats, but he also has the "early American who never played in the NHL" problem. It's hard to compare. But what we do know is Goheen was better offensively, and McNamara was better defensively and a better hitter. This is probably the biggest difference between the pairs.
---I wonder who Tidewater's pair of early puck rushers will have their game translate into the ATD. I'd rather have a more stay at home guy with an early puck rusher. Though admittedly, Drinkwater is very solid in his own end, and in this fantasy world, I suppose that one or both would adapt.
First Defense Pair = Advantage NJ.
Tidewater has one of my favorite top pairs of the draft. I really think Chelios and Pronovost complement each other very well. But neither is as good as his counterpart on NJ.
Second Defense Pair = Slight advantage NJ overall. (Offensive edge to NJ, Defensive edge to Tidewater).
---Art Ross/Herb Gardiner is a tough call. Art Ross gets the offensive edge, Herb Gardiner gets the defensive edge.
Gardiner's Hart year gives him the better peak, but his peak is so short, since he got started so late. Only 3 years in the NHL. I think they are pretty close overall.
Here's a post I found from a past ATD on Ross's offense:
Here, I did some quick Art Ross research while siting in my car in my laptop, leeching off someone's wireless network while waiting for my dog to get groomed.
I think if you're only going as deep as 5th, it's only fair that with Ross we concern ourselves with the times he was in the top-3 in his league among defensemen, since it was essentially a half league. I will do my best to account for other star players' stints at defense and forward where possible. I will also only include the 1907 season and onwards, because that was when he began playing in a "top" league.
1907 - Ross was in a 3-way tie for 2nd behind Hugh Ross, with Si Griffis and Paddy Chambers. Joe Hall had many more points but I know Hall was a forward at this time.
1908 - It appears Ross was in a tie for 2nd, again, with Frank Patrick. Moose Johnson topped them by one goal. Was Johnson a forward at the time? I forget. Hall topped them but he was still a forward.
1911 - Ross' 6 points were actually tied for the most in the NHA by a defenseman that season, and he did it in fewer games. Taylor outscored him but as a rover - not sure if you count that.
1912 - Ross topped the NHA. Hall and Cleghorn were 2nd and 3rd. This was Ross' peak.
1913 - Ross again topped the NHA, with Cleghorn, McNamara, Cameron and Hall within 4 points of him.
1916 - Ross finished 2nd, a point behind McNamara and three ahead of Foghorn.
I think it's fair to say that if you're top-3 in the NHA at this time, you're top 5 in all of hockey. If I was to speculate what this translates out to in a consolidated league, I'd say:
1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Gonchar territory, or a little better.
Not campaigning for anyone here, I just like to research and post what I find
Without an in depth analysis, I think it's fair to say that's better than Gardiner, who had 6 goals and 12 points in his Hart winning year, and then 7 points combined in his other 2 years in the NHL. Yes, he did have some good numbers in the WCHL early in his career, for what we want to make of that.
As for defense, Ross "brought savvy to the defensive zone," but Gardiner "was a rock on the defense corps of every team he played on," and is well known for his play in his own zone. So Gardiner has the advantage. But the advantage is lessened by the fact that he only had the 3 years in the NHL.
---Harper = Goldham defensively. Goldham > Harper at puck moving, so Goldham is a bit better overall.
Terry Harper and Bob Goldham were both among the best defensive defensemen of their eras, and either would probably be in the HOF if he brought more offense. Both were key complimentary players on dynasties. I'll say they are even defensively. But Goldham is better at moving the puck, and this is why I think my 2nd pair has the slight edge overall. To illustrate, Goldham was 7th in assists by defensemen over the course of his career (41-55). Harper, on the other hand, is one of the biggest black holes on offense in the entire ATD (see http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=22476075&postcount=10 for a "junk stat" that sort of illustrates this).
Third Defense Pair = Close. Offensive Advantage for Tidewater. Defensive advantage for NJ.
---Kuzkin vs. Drinkwater is very close. Both are solid 2way guys from completely different leagues. Drinkwater is a secondary star from the 1890s (probably the 2nd best dman in the league at the time after Grant). Kuzkin is a secondary star from the USSR in the 60s/early 70s - and is probably a Top 2-3 defenseman of the time, after Vasiliev. I think Kuzkin is better because I think he faced better competition, but it's a close call. Kuzkin is more of a standard puck mover, whereas Drinkwater is more of a puck rusher (as was the style of play in his era).
---Moose Goheen and George McNamara are both pre-consolidation HOFers. Goheen has great stats, but he also has the "early American who never played in the NHL" problem. It's hard to compare. But what we do know is Goheen was better offensively, and McNamara was better defensively and a better hitter. This is probably the biggest difference between the pairs.
---I wonder who Tidewater's pair of early puck rushers will have their game translate into the ATD. I'd rather have a more stay at home guy with an early puck rusher. Though admittedly, Drinkwater is very solid in his own end, and in this fantasy world, I suppose that one or both would adapt.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Goaltending
I think Esposito = Belfour in the regular season.
Esposito has 3 first team, 2 second team All Stars. Belfour has 2 and 1. But Belfour faced much better competition - without Hasek and Roy, Belfour would also have 3 and 2. Without Hasek, Roy, or Brodeur, Belfour would have 4 and 2. Additionally, there were far more one-year wonders in Belfour's time.
In the playoffs, Belfour > Esposito, which is why I rate Belfour higher overall. Esposito's really bad playoff goals are known to all, so I don't need to go into them in detail.
But look at GAA:
Belfour's GAA goes down from 2.50 in the regular season, to 2.17 in the playoffs. Esposito's GAA rises from 2.92 to 3.07 in the playoffs. Yes, it was a higher scoring era, but fewer goals are usually scored in the playoffs than the regular season. So a goalie's GA rising in the playoffs is a bit of a flag.
Belfour's win-loss record is 88-68 in the playoffs, and Tony Esposito's is 45-53.
Official save % wasn't recorded in the playoffs in Esposito's time (is it in the HSP?), but Belfour's playoff save % is .920, tied with Martin Brodeur and behind only Dominik Hasek among goalies with more than 60 career playoff games. Yes, it is inflated by the fact that he had a couple of really long playoff runs at the height of the dead puck era, but that's some elite company.
I think Esposito = Belfour in the regular season.
Esposito has 3 first team, 2 second team All Stars. Belfour has 2 and 1. But Belfour faced much better competition - without Hasek and Roy, Belfour would also have 3 and 2. Without Hasek, Roy, or Brodeur, Belfour would have 4 and 2. Additionally, there were far more one-year wonders in Belfour's time.
In the playoffs, Belfour > Esposito, which is why I rate Belfour higher overall. Esposito's really bad playoff goals are known to all, so I don't need to go into them in detail.
But look at GAA:
Belfour's GAA goes down from 2.50 in the regular season, to 2.17 in the playoffs. Esposito's GAA rises from 2.92 to 3.07 in the playoffs. Yes, it was a higher scoring era, but fewer goals are usually scored in the playoffs than the regular season. So a goalie's GA rising in the playoffs is a bit of a flag.
Belfour's win-loss record is 88-68 in the playoffs, and Tony Esposito's is 45-53.
Official save % wasn't recorded in the playoffs in Esposito's time (is it in the HSP?), but Belfour's playoff save % is .920, tied with Martin Brodeur and behind only Dominik Hasek among goalies with more than 60 career playoff games. Yes, it is inflated by the fact that he had a couple of really long playoff runs at the height of the dead puck era, but that's some elite company.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
You're correct. The even strength points thing probably isn't an advantage for either. Still, I think Mosdell has a small, but clear, offensive edge.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
In sum
Why NJ should win:
1. Better group of defensemen
a) the biggest difference is the top pair
b) but NJ's second pair is slightly better too, because their offensive edge is greater than Tidewater's defensive edge.
c) the third pairs are pretty close - NJ's is better defensively, Tidewater's is better offensively. I personally think Kuzkin > Drinkwater, but it's close enough and a hard enough comparison, that I'll call the pairs even.
2. Better secondary scoring.
a) Maltsev is the best player on either team's second line, and makes NJ's second line better than Tidewaters's. Second line wingers are close.
b) NJ's 3rd line provides more offense on the counterattack than Tidewater's does.
c) Clint Smith and John McKenzie are probably better offensive players than anyone on Tidewater's 4th line.
3. Better playoff goaltending.
-I have Belfour a few spots ahead of Esposito on my all-time list, because of his better playoff record. I think their regular season records are very comparable.
Why Tidewater could win:
1. Better first line.
-In short, Jagr > Malone > Delvecchio > Iginla > (Goulet = Kariya).
Counter-point: NJ's top line will play primarily with Bobby Orr, which should raise their goal totals.
2. Better defensive play from the forwards.
a) NJ has a great checking line, but Tidewater's is even better defensively
b) Tidewater's Top 2 lines both have defensive consciences on them - Delvecchio and Datsyuk. (I think this is countered by NJ's superior defensive corps, but it is still still here).
c) A 4th line that is probably better defensively (Though Ryan Walter is a fine defensive player).
Why NJ should win:
1. Better group of defensemen
a) the biggest difference is the top pair
b) but NJ's second pair is slightly better too, because their offensive edge is greater than Tidewater's defensive edge.
c) the third pairs are pretty close - NJ's is better defensively, Tidewater's is better offensively. I personally think Kuzkin > Drinkwater, but it's close enough and a hard enough comparison, that I'll call the pairs even.
2. Better secondary scoring.
a) Maltsev is the best player on either team's second line, and makes NJ's second line better than Tidewaters's. Second line wingers are close.
b) NJ's 3rd line provides more offense on the counterattack than Tidewater's does.
c) Clint Smith and John McKenzie are probably better offensive players than anyone on Tidewater's 4th line.
3. Better playoff goaltending.
-I have Belfour a few spots ahead of Esposito on my all-time list, because of his better playoff record. I think their regular season records are very comparable.
Why Tidewater could win:
1. Better first line.
-In short, Jagr > Malone > Delvecchio > Iginla > (Goulet = Kariya).
Counter-point: NJ's top line will play primarily with Bobby Orr, which should raise their goal totals.
2. Better defensive play from the forwards.
a) NJ has a great checking line, but Tidewater's is even better defensively
b) Tidewater's Top 2 lines both have defensive consciences on them - Delvecchio and Datsyuk. (I think this is countered by NJ's superior defensive corps, but it is still still here).
c) A 4th line that is probably better defensively (Though Ryan Walter is a fine defensive player).
Last edited:
I think Tidewater can win this series with it's forward advantage. Tidewater's top line is better than New Jersey's while their second line is slightly weaker offensively, but probably stronger defensively. In a head to head matchup, I think Tidewater would actually outscore New Jersey due to their better defensive play. New Jersey has a good third line that will provide more offence, but I don't think is as strong as a shutdown unit. My third line should limit the opportunities of New Jersey's top line (and Orr) more than New Jersey's third unit will limit Tidewater's top line, which further increases the gap in the top units. As for the fourth line:
Ideally the line matchups are T3 vs. NJ1 and T2 vs. NJ2
I'm thinking Drinkwater could provide the all-around defence. My top four is pretty defense oriented, so I liked the idea of having a third pairing that could be dangerous offensively.
This series is definitely going to be a close one. Good luck
Venjamin Alexander might be on the same level as those two, but it's pretty difficult to compare his numbers with NHL players. Personally I think the chemistry of the line would make it more offensively dangerous than New Jersey's fourth line, but that really depends on how one views 1960's Soviet hockey. It's cohesiveness will also make it strong defensively.
Ideally the line matchups are T3 vs. NJ1 and T2 vs. NJ2
I'm thinking Drinkwater could provide the all-around defence. My top four is pretty defense oriented, so I liked the idea of having a third pairing that could be dangerous offensively.
This series is definitely going to be a close one. Good luck
Last edited:
The Tidewater Sharks defeat the New Jersey Swamp Devils in seven games.
Three stars:
1. Bobby Orr
2. Chris Chelios
3. Jaromir Jagr
Three stars:
1. Bobby Orr
2. Chris Chelios
3. Jaromir Jagr
Ad
Upcoming events
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Intercontinental Stakes (Gr. 3) - SARATOGA RACE 9 - FS2Wagers: 6Staked: $17,662.00Event closes- Updated:
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE Just a Game Stakes (Gr. 1) - SARATOGA RACE 10 - FS2Wagers: 5Staked: $3,095.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-
Stanley Cup PICK ONE PLAYER - Conn Smythe Trophy WinnerWagers: 11Staked: $15,265.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Series Winner Edmonton Oilers vs Florida PanthersWagers: 24Staked: $87,937.00Event closes- Updated: