2013 AA Semifinal: Balgonie vs. Lindsay
- Thread starter seventieslord
- Start date
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
I've been spending too much time on the Olympics, not enough on the ATD...
Let's see:
- I have an edge on the 4th line LW!
- I really dislike my Leeman pick as now that time's past I think my 2nd line is too weak - Leeman should probably be a spare in this draft.
- I think an edge I actually have is my defense's ability to move the puck, but Balgonie's defense is much better at defensive ability - Carney is pretty great at this level
- Another area I like is my centre depth - I think Lindsay can come out equal or ahead in each of the centre match ups, although like most things in the AA, it's really close.
- These are very differently constructed teams - I went with a lot of guys with good peaks but awful longevity while you favoured long tenured players with nothing special in terms of offense - only Horeck had any sort of high offense finish amongst the NHL players while Chevrefils and Gainor had high results, but short careers (some of my bottom six players had decent peaks too. Also, this analysis obviously discounts half of your top six, which is unfair. Martynyuk and Polupanov have good peaks in the Soviet league. Seibert is odd - he has good numbers for the time, but he certainly doesn't stand out as a Hall of Fame player. I would imagine the voter's preference for longevity vs. peak will be the main swaying factor.
- I think goaltending is a total wildcard here - Collins would be more consistent.
- I think Vlasic will see some games, possibly in place of Byakin?
Conclusion: I think this team is competitive to Balgonie, but I'm not seeing any areas Lindsay can take clear advantage of. It's a pessimistic view of my team, but an honest one.
Let's see:
- I have an edge on the 4th line LW!
- I really dislike my Leeman pick as now that time's past I think my 2nd line is too weak - Leeman should probably be a spare in this draft.
- I think an edge I actually have is my defense's ability to move the puck, but Balgonie's defense is much better at defensive ability - Carney is pretty great at this level
- Another area I like is my centre depth - I think Lindsay can come out equal or ahead in each of the centre match ups, although like most things in the AA, it's really close.
- These are very differently constructed teams - I went with a lot of guys with good peaks but awful longevity while you favoured long tenured players with nothing special in terms of offense - only Horeck had any sort of high offense finish amongst the NHL players while Chevrefils and Gainor had high results, but short careers (some of my bottom six players had decent peaks too. Also, this analysis obviously discounts half of your top six, which is unfair. Martynyuk and Polupanov have good peaks in the Soviet league. Seibert is odd - he has good numbers for the time, but he certainly doesn't stand out as a Hall of Fame player. I would imagine the voter's preference for longevity vs. peak will be the main swaying factor.
- I think goaltending is a total wildcard here - Collins would be more consistent.
- I think Vlasic will see some games, possibly in place of Byakin?
Conclusion: I think this team is competitive to Balgonie, but I'm not seeing any areas Lindsay can take clear advantage of. It's a pessimistic view of my team, but an honest one.
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
- how come you have the edge at 4th line LW? I do agree gendron was a good pick and probably one of the best scorers left when he was taken. But does he have any credibility at all as a 4th liner? Rota has lots, while also being a pretty damn decent scorer himself.... nearly 500 points. I think it's like if we had Brian Bellows and Vic Stasiuk as 4th line LWs in the ATD. Or maybe there's some stuff about Gendron I don't know?
- Comparing Gainor and Polupanov is practically impossible. But I will say this: When I took Polupanov there was no other Soviet center in his league offensively. Gainor was about 8th for pre-expansion centers when you took him. I don't have the list to prove that anymore though... I delete names off it as they're taken, and they're all gone now!
- I agree about the defensemen... there were too many good "overall" defensemen who I liked, for me to use a pick on a more offensively oriented guy. It's a flaw I need to work on going forward (actually, me beating that flaw probably kept me from flaming out in this year's MLD). Makarov seems to have more puckmoving credibility than my best guy Fedorov, and my next best, Lapointe, probably doesn't quite match up to your next three best. However, I'm not the least bit sold on Byakin, and Vlasic is pretty clearly better at this point. They should switch. Then I should be scared on the defense front. Not necessarily on overall ability, but on the puckmoving side of things for sure.
- You're right about goaltending.
- Vail seems pretty much like a better Bob Berry all-around, eh?
- Would Morozov have been a better scorer than Ryder if in the NHL over the last 9 years? Honest question.
- Comparing Gainor and Polupanov is practically impossible. But I will say this: When I took Polupanov there was no other Soviet center in his league offensively. Gainor was about 8th for pre-expansion centers when you took him. I don't have the list to prove that anymore though... I delete names off it as they're taken, and they're all gone now!
- I agree about the defensemen... there were too many good "overall" defensemen who I liked, for me to use a pick on a more offensively oriented guy. It's a flaw I need to work on going forward (actually, me beating that flaw probably kept me from flaming out in this year's MLD). Makarov seems to have more puckmoving credibility than my best guy Fedorov, and my next best, Lapointe, probably doesn't quite match up to your next three best. However, I'm not the least bit sold on Byakin, and Vlasic is pretty clearly better at this point. They should switch. Then I should be scared on the defense front. Not necessarily on overall ability, but on the puckmoving side of things for sure.
- You're right about goaltending.
- Vail seems pretty much like a better Bob Berry all-around, eh?
- Would Morozov have been a better scorer than Ryder if in the NHL over the last 9 years? Honest question.
I was being semi-sarcastic as I have so few edges anywhere. Gendron is described by Legends of Hockey as "hard working", "a fine goal scorer who embraced defensive responsibilities", and "played a checking role for two year in the provincial capital before retiring in 1974". Pelletier calls him a "useful utility forward". In Google News, I see references to him being called "gritty little Jean Guy Gendron". I think that's sufficient to prove his 4th credentials
I think he's pretty similar. I'm not really sure how to evaluate - Ryder's had a weird career where he seems like a top goal scorer and then disappears for a couple of seasons only to pop up again, but I'm convinced he has a better peak. With Morozov, his Olympic and World Championships numbers are the best tools we have to evaluate. His ppg in the WC is 0.77 and in the Olympics 0.60. Ryder's NHL ppg is 0.62. I'm guessing it would be pretty close between them?
jkrx
Registered User
- Feb 4, 2010
- 4,337
- 21
Morozov is the best better player in my opinion. His NHL career wasn't particularly good but he redeemed himself by maturing after returning to europe and playing very well for the national team. Ryder is more of a secondary player. You don't want him to carry the offense because he can't. Always seemed to rely on superior teammates.
BubbaBoot
Registered User
Watched Ryder in Boston. He would be a ghost for stretches and folks would grumble, then turn hot, go on a tear that would include timely gamewinners. A lot of talent, just inconsistent at times.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
