The AAA Draft Final Series: London Bandits vs. Regina Pat Canadians

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Newspaper quotes on Percy Traub that I added to his bio. He seems to be a fairly tough defenseman who could go on rushes on occasion:


All the following quotes are from The Morning Leader newspaper

All through the game Puss was a tower of strength for his club and his energy never failed
...
XXX accepting a perfect pass from Puss Traub, put the locals in the lead again.

XXX was injured by a collision with Traub and had to be carried off the ice.

Percy Traub then began to show his class and rushing down the right side passed to Wilson at the goal mouth, the latter batting it past XXX for the first score

Traub and XXX proved a good defensive pair.
... they warded off many dangerous attacks... both were strong on the attack too

Traub and XXX played strong games on the defense

Lehman saved from Traub on and end to end rush

It was a grim struggle and the checking of XXX, Traub, and Dutkowski took a lot of steam out of the cougars and made it necessary for the players to change often

 

[seventieslord]

So is it fair to say that Allison was approximately the 20th best forward in the world over this 5 year stretch?

Add in defensemen and goaltenders, and Allison is anywhere from the 35th to 40th best player in the world during his 5 year peak. It sounds unimpressive, but it's better than almost every other player in the AAA draft.

Jiri Lala

The best non-NHL, non-Soviet player in the world for 5 years, then did nothing else. But how does he stack up against the World's best?

This draft, we found complete Golden Stick voting for the "best player in Europe," as voted on by the various hockey federations. This is how Lala placed:

3rd in 1981
4th in 1982
3rd in 1983
DNP in 1984
4th in 1985

(For what it's worth, he also led the Czechoslovaks in goals and points in the Worlds all 4 of these years).

Due to vote splitting among Soviets, is it safe to say that Lala was approximately the 5th best non-NHLer in the world for this 5 year stretch? I think that's fair.

My comment on your method of grading the two players is as follows: Well done, and done in earnest, but a big flaw is that it gives Lala benefit of the doubt and not Allison. Let me explain:

You point out that during Allison's peak, there were players who he scored more points than: Ron Francis (354), Jeremy Roenick (349), Brendan Shanahan (334), Keith Tkachuk (331), Peter Forsberg (328 in fewer games) and Steve Yzerman (322), John Leclair (317), Patrik Elias (316), Jarome Iginla (313) all brought more to the table.

But if Allison is a very good player in his own right, why wouldn't he, at his very best, be better than some of these guys when they weren't? Sure, they're all better all-time players, but Allison was better and more valuable from 1998-2002 than Francis, Roenick, Shanahan, Tkachuk, LeClair, Iginla, and maybe Elias too.

At the same time, you say Lala was probably the 5th-best non-NHLer during his five-year prime. You don't mention that this was during the primes of some very good players, like the whole Green Unit, Tretiak, Hasek, Kralik, Novy, Kiessling, Kuhnhackl, Pervukhin, Bilyadetdinov, Lukac, Balderis, and maybe others. Unless our assessments of these players are way off, these guys are better all-time players than Lala, but it's possible he was better than some of them during his best period. It's not possible Allison was better than some of his better contemporaries when at his very best? It sounds like you want to have it both ways, and that's not fair.

After adjusting for worldwide talent levels (i.e. "being 30th in 1983 is like being 40th in 2000" or however you want to relativize it) Allison should definitely be considered the better offensive player. Although not by much. And yeah, Lala should get taken a lot higher because he's a winger. Looking back, I compared him and Golikov side by side and went with Golikov for the 2nd line job. I'm not sure how. Actually, I do know how - I hadn't seen the Golden Hockey Stick voting. I made up for that by taking Kralik after I had seen it

 

[seventieslord]

Nothing has been written about Bullard's speed, either good or bad. He's the big, gritty center to compliment fast, but small wings.

Let's see if I can help with that. I'll skim the odd-numberd yearas of scouting reports in his career:

1983: nothing

1985: needs to utilize linemares more, could improve playmaking (this is clear from looking at the stats, I don't know if there is any modern center with a greater G:A ratio.)

1987: exceptional skater with acceperation and speed... doesn't see the ice as well as expected... defensive game is where he's lacking and that's no secret... not physical by any means... has become a more hard worker... not the most coachable on the team, he's pretty much set in his ways... but he has changed and improved his attitude.

1989: will beat opponents with speed to the outside... good balance and agility... has become a better passer... has learned to play better positionally... will take punishment to make plays... good strength... taking the body more, but not a crushing hitter...demonstrating new maturity

1991: hands are now his best weapon... defense no better than average... he'll take hits if in close proximity to the boards but don't expect him to come charging out of the corners with the puck... skills are declining.

I was really looking for skating stuff. Looks like he was an excellent skater early on, and slowed up later, which is normal. He's definitely part of that 1987-1992 class of players that burned out quickly. I saw other stuff of interest so I threw it in too; I think it gives a good picture of how his career and skillset developed.

I really need to get that book. Right now, all we know is that he was very good, he "delivered toughness in spades," and his offense was decent (but likely not as good as his defense, as evidenced by his All Star nods in the Western league).

I don't recall getting anything on him in The Trail. Very limited stuff all-around on Western Players, and Trapp is no exception.

(what makes Scott Gomez a step up from Allison, for example?)

Playoffs. And now, longevity too. When I took Arnott for my MLD 4th line, it was between him and Gomez.

Hell, Allison and Arnott are both better overall players than my maligned 2nd liner Gardner, but to complete the skill set complement on the line I needed a tough playmaker, he was the guy. Allison's not tough and Arnott is not a playmaker.

I'm willing to call goaltending a wash in general, though I think of Kralik's lack of World Championships experience is similar to a question mark about ability to handle playoffs. While Lemelin had several very good playoff runs (see his profile), most notably his trip to the finals in 1988, when he had a 11-6, with a much better save % than the average goalie that playoff year.

In short, I think goaltending is basically equal, though Lemelin is much more proven in playoff-type situations, as far as I can tell.

Hold on, what lack of World Championship experience?

Kralik played in 4 World Championships and one Olympics, plus another game in another Olympics (which he won) for a total of 39 games. That's pretty sweet.

He was top goalie in two of those tournaments, and won a gold and four Silvers. Based on his GP and tournament records, it appears his W/L record was 25-7-7, with a 2.25 GAA. Tretiak's average in this period, in the same tournaments, with a much stronger defense, was 1.67.

1985 was really his crowning moment, though. After a middling preliminary (4-2-1, 16 GA), Kralik allowed just 2 against USA (who averaged 3.42 per game in the prelims), 3 against Canada (who averaged 4.71), and 1 against the Soviets (who averaged a whopping 7.43 in the prelims).

Lemelin was outstanding in 1988, in fact, this was the first hockey I can remember truly sitting watching. Even with that year, the dude's 23-25 in the playoffs, posting a save% that, when weighted by minutes played, averaged 3 points below the league playoff average during his career. I don't think that's BAD for a AAA goalie, but I don't see how this qualifies him for a pressure situation more than Kralik.

Newspaper quotes on Percy Traub that I added to his bio. He seems to be a fairly tough defenseman who could go on rushes on occasion:


All the following quotes are from The Morning Leader newspaper

Good stuff. I want royalties for letting you use Regina papers to win a series against a Regina team.

Here's where I see the D-men here:

Ruttan, Zhitnik: Another level. Could easily be MLD players. Zhitnik is a poor man's McCabe in all areas. He played top, tough minutes like McCabe but lost the battle more than McCabe did. (see adjusted +/-)

Trapp, Streit, Manery, Plager, Sargent: Can definitely play in the MLD in some capacity.

Traub, Juzda, Paladiev, Malakhov: solid AAA starters.

Moore, Quenneville, Zidlicky: middling AAA players. Could be the difference makers in the series if they see the ice much.

Jörgen Pettersson, another large two-way player who can bump bodies with Scott Mellanby.

Let's not oversell the guy as a physical player. Goes into the dirty areas, bumps bodies, sure, but he's not anything close to the wrecking ball Mellanby is. At the AAA level, Mellanby wrecks most guys, including Pettersson. I should also take this opportunity to point out that Pettersson's best offensive seasons for adjusted points (+10% to be fair as he's an 80s player) are 65, 62, 56, 54, 47. Mellanby's are 67, 64, 58, 54, 52. Pretty much the same at peak, but Mellanby really established himself with seven more 40+ adjusted points seasons. He wasn't a bad defensive player himself, and he should dominate Pettersson in all three zones.

Wish I had more time to start some arguments of my own instead of just replying to stuff that was said, but I don't. This was an awesome AAA finals and these two teams stood head and shoulders above the rest, IMO. Good luck, TDMM.

 

[VanIslander]

vote now

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

My comment on your method of grading the two players is as follows: Well done, and done in earnest, but a big flaw is that it gives Lala benefit of the doubt and not Allison. Let me explain:

You point out that during Allison's peak, there were players who he scored more points than: Ron Francis (354), Jeremy Roenick (349), Brendan Shanahan (334), Keith Tkachuk (331), Peter Forsberg (328 in fewer games) and Steve Yzerman (322), John Leclair (317), Patrik Elias (316), Jarome Iginla (313) all brought more to the table.

But if Allison is a very good player in his own right, why wouldn't he, at his very best, be better than some of these guys when they weren't? Sure, they're all better all-time players, but Allison was better and more valuable from 1998-2002 than Francis, Roenick, Shanahan, Tkachuk, LeClair, Iginla, and maybe Elias too.

I basically picked those guys because they all bring some form of defensive ability, toughness, or intangibles to the table, while Allison really didn't. I guess the counter argument is that Allison was always an offensive catalyst for his teams, while Francis, Shanahan, and LeClair weren't.

At the same time, you say Lala was probably the 5th-best non-NHLer during his five-year prime. You don't mention that this was during the primes of some very good players, like the whole Green Unit, Tretiak, Hasek, Kralik, Novy, Kiessling, Kuhnhackl, Pervukhin, Bilyadetdinov, Lukac, Balderis, and maybe others. Unless our assessments of these players are way off, these guys are better all-time players than Lala, but it's possible he was better than some of them during his best period. It's not possible Allison was better than some of his better contemporaries when at his very best? It sounds like you want to have it both ways, and that's not fair.

Listing names like that doesn't really work. Tretiak was on his way out and Hasek came in towards the very end of Kralik's reign. Golden Stick voting has Kralik well over Lukac over the short time frame, I believe. The one argument against what I did is that there were more than 4 Soviets better than the best non-Soviet Euro at the time, and the Soviets just split Golden Stick votes that badly. It's quite possible.

After adjusting for worldwide talent levels (i.e. "being 30th in 1983 is like being 40th in 2000" or however you want to relativize it) Allison should definitely be considered the better offensive player. Although not by much. And yeah, Lala should get taken a lot higher because he's a winger. Looking back, I compared him and Golikov side by side and went with Golikov for the 2nd line job. I'm not sure how. Actually, I do know how - I hadn't seen the Golden Hockey Stick voting. I made up for that by taking Kralik after I had seen it

You picked the Soviet because it's much easier to rate Soviet players from the 80s against each other, since we have the Green Unit and how they played against Canada as a reference.

The Golden Hockey Stick voting is very valuable though. I don't see it being much different from using Hart voting to look at early North American players.

Good luck!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Let's see if I can help with that. I'll skim the odd-numberd yearas of scouting reports in his career:

1983: nothing

1985: needs to utilize linemares more, could improve playmaking (this is clear from looking at the stats, I don't know if there is any modern center with a greater G:A ratio.)

1987: exceptional skater with acceperation and speed... doesn't see the ice as well as expected... defensive game is where he's lacking and that's no secret... not physical by any means... has become a more hard worker... not the most coachable on the team, he's pretty much set in his ways... but he has changed and improved his attitude.

1989: will beat opponents with speed to the outside... good balance and agility... has become a better passer... has learned to play better positionally... will take punishment to make plays... good strength... taking the body more, but not a crushing hitter...demonstrating new maturity

1991: hands are now his best weapon... defense no better than average... he'll take hits if in close proximity to the boards but don't expect him to come charging out of the corners with the puck... skills are declining.

I was really looking for skating stuff. Looks like he was an excellent skater early on, and slowed up later, which is normal. He's definitely part of that 1987-1992 class of players that burned out quickly. I saw other stuff of interest so I threw it in too; I think it gives a good picture of how his career and skillset developed.

Thanks. Basically what I thought, but it's always better to have more info. Bullard's bias towards goal scoring is why I've stubbornly kept the playmaking of Sullivan on his wing.

Hold on, what lack of World Championship experience?

Kralik played in 4 World Championships and one Olympics, plus another game in another Olympics (which he won) for a total of 39 games. That's pretty sweet.

He was top goalie in two of those tournaments, and won a gold and four Silvers. Based on his GP and tournament records, it appears his W/L record was 25-7-7, with a 2.25 GAA. Tretiak's average in this period, in the same tournaments, with a much stronger defense, was 1.67.

1985 was really his crowning moment, though. After a middling preliminary (4-2-1, 16 GA), Kralik allowed just 2 against USA (who averaged 3.42 per game in the prelims), 3 against Canada (who averaged 4.71), and 1 against the Soviets (who averaged a whopping 7.43 in the prelims).


Lemelin was outstanding in 1988, in fact, this was the first hockey I can remember truly sitting watching. Even with that year, the dude's 23-25 in the playoffs, posting a save% that, when weighted by minutes played, averaged 3 points below the league playoff average during his career. I don't think that's BAD for a AAA goalie, but I don't see how this qualifies him for a pressure situation more than Kralik.

I definitely stand corrected. I remember Hedberg asking why Kralik wasn't in net for the national team more often. I'd say he and Lemelin are both fairly well tested in pressure situations (at least for goalies at this level).

Good stuff. I want royalties for letting you use Regina papers to win a series against a Regina team.

Here's where I see the D-men here:

Ruttan, Zhitnik: Another level. Could easily be MLD players. Zhitnik is a poor man's McCabe in all areas. He played top, tough minutes like McCabe but lost the battle more than McCabe did. (see adjusted +/-)

Trapp, Streit, Manery, Plager, Sargent: Can definitely play in the MLD in some capacity.

Traub, Juzda, Paladiev, Malakhov: solid AAA starters.

Moore, Quenneville, Zidlicky: middling AAA players. Could be the difference makers in the series if they see the ice much.

Agree with most, but I definitely knock Malakhov down to the level of Zidlicky.

Also, I tend to think of Moore as somewhere between Traub and Quenneville.

Let's not oversell the guy as a physical player. Goes into the dirty areas, bumps bodies, sure, but he's not anything close to the wrecking ball Mellanby is. At the AAA level, Mellanby wrecks most guys, including Pettersson. I should also take this opportunity to point out that Pettersson's best offensive seasons for adjusted points (+10% to be fair as he's an 80s player) are 65, 62, 56, 54, 47. Mellanby's are 67, 64, 58, 54, 52. Pretty much the same at peak, but Mellanby really established himself with seven more 40+ adjusted points seasons. He wasn't a bad defensive player himself, and he should dominate Pettersson in all three zones.

Wish I had more time to start some arguments of my own instead of just replying to stuff that was said, but I don't. This was an awesome AAA finals and these two teams stood head and shoulders above the rest, IMO. Good luck, TDMM.

I doubt Mellanby will dominate Pettersson. I was trying to point out that Pettersson is physical enough to not be dominated by Mellanby. I don't think he's as tough, but he's not a weakling by any stretch. I have no doubt that Mellanby is the better overall player (I mean, he should be; he's on your first line ).

Anyway, good luck!

 

[VanIslander]

Regina wins in 5 games

Three stars:

1. Allison
2. Kralik
3. Craven

 

[seventieslord]

good series, TDMM. Surprised at the 5-game result.

I think this is the first HF draft I've won through voting. woot woot!

(I was a finalist in MLD10, MLD11, and the AAA10 finals got cancelled due to an influenza outbreak or something, and my simulated team beat hedberg's simulated team in AAA11)

VI, if you want to have a "knowing what we know now" final with those AAA10 rosters, I'm game!

 

[seventieslord]

I definitely stand corrected. I remember Hedberg asking why Kralik wasn't in net for the national team more often.

Later on I figured that must have been where that came from. Hedberg's question was why Kralik was not prominent in the Canada Cups. Which is a fair concern. It seems like it came down to timing. There was Holecek, then there was Hasek. In between, Kralik was the man, but for whatever reason, they played some other guy in 1981. It's not like Canada where they'd play their true best guy in BOB tournaments and the best of the dregs in the lesser tournaments. They wanted the best there at all times. For five tournaments over that 7-year period, they thought that guy was Kralik. Two other times, they didn't. In retrospect, it doesn't make much sense, but at the time it must have. Perception as to who your country's best goalie is, can change year to year.

 

[Hedberg]

I think this is the first HF draft I've won through voting. woot woot!

That's quite surprising . Congratulations!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Congratulations, seventies!

About time!

 

[EagleBelfour]

Congratulations, seventies!

About time!

If there's any consolation, I might have been the only one to vote for your team! No shame to lose in the finals, it was a very well assembled and talented team.