2018 Assassination Thread

[Batis]

I'm just going to come out and say that I think it's impossible to rank PK'ers 1 to whatever, and it is more appropriate to rank them in tiers. Can we really conclusively say that one era's PK'ers were better than any other's? They all had the same job - stop their respective era's top offensive players from scoring on the PP. Who are we to say any one specific group was better than any other?

Dillon, Toppazzini, Nevin, Marshall, Westfall, Ramsay, Gainey, Ward, etc. would all likely occupy that first tier. Ace Bailey might even make it there. Maybe you give an edge to the Westfalls, Ramsays, etc. because they are more known commodities, but I'm not even sure that's really fair. Then you need to go further back and start talking about the Crawfords, Phillips, Westwicks, etc., and I'm probably missing a lot of obvious ones. And how about the international greats? Makarov, Krutov and Martinec would all likely end up in that top tier, or at the very worst, in the next tier below.

Jiří Holík definitely belongs in the top group of international PK greats as well no matter if they belong in the top tier or the next tier below. In fact I would say that Holík is the greatest Czechoslovakian penalty killer and also has a strong case for being the greatest penalty killer from the Eastern Bloc. In that categorie I would say that Makarov is his main competition for the top spot. Here below are Holiks shorthanded ice time finishes from the available tournaments.

WHC 1967: 1st
WOG 1968: -
WHC 1969: 2nd
WHC 1970: 1st
WHC 1972: 1st
Post Summit Series 1972: 5th
WOG 1976: 1st
Canada Cup 1976*: 1st
WHC 1977: 5th

It is also worth noticing that his 2nd place finish at the 1969 WHC was a performance every bit as strong or perhaps even stronger than many of his 1st place finishes since Holík and 1st placed Ševčík (along with Suchý) completely carried the Czechoslovakian penalty kill during that tournament and both of them had far more than twice as much shorthanded ice time as the 3rd placed forward Jaroslav Holík. Considering that Jiří Holík did so well both during the 1967-1972 and 1976-1977 time frames it seems reasonable to assume that he also did well in 1973-1975. It seems likely that he did reasonably well in 1964-1966 as well. Add all of this together and it is likely that Holíks longevity as a top notch penalty killer surpassed that of any Soviet PK great. Even without speculating about the 1964-1966 time frame the time frame during which Holík was one of very greatest Czechoslovakian penalty killers compares very well to that of any of the Soviet greats as evident by his first 1st place finish coming in 1967 and his last in 1976.

Now I personally don't think that Holík peaked quite as high as Makarov and Krutov did in the mid-late 80's (unless he had such a peak in 1973-1975) but that his combination of a still very high peak and incredible longevity as a top notch penalty killer gives him a strong case for being the greatest penalty killer from the Eastern Bloc. The main argument against Holík could perhaps be that it is possible that the competition among Czechoslovakian penalty killing forwards was on a somewhat lower level than among Soviet forwards. Even if this would be true Holík still definitely belongs very near the top of the greatest penalty killers from the Eastern Bloc.

In case anyone is interested in how Martinec did here you have his shorthanded ice time finishes.

WHC 1970: -
WHC 1972: 3rd
Post Summit Series 1972: 3rd
WOG 1976: 2nd
Canada Cup 1976*: Tied for 2nd
WHC 1977: 1st
WHC 1978: 1st
WHC 1979: 3rd
WOG 1980: - (Got injured before the first shorthanded shift in the available game)
WHC 1981: Tied for 4th

One thing worth noting is that from the majority of these tournaments we only have 1 or 2 available games which means that it is far from certain that the shorthanded ice time numbers perfectly mirrors what happened the whole tournament. This was a problem in the Soviet study as well but far less so than in the Czechoslovakian study since there are far less available games with Czechoslovakia. One example of this problem is that I personally believe that Martinec likely led the 1979 WHC in shorthanded ice time over the whole tournament but since he was in the box during 1 of the 4 boxplays in the available game he ended up 3rd in shorthanded ice time just 5 seconds behind the leaders. So I personally make mental adjustments between the shorthanded ice time finishes and the eye-test when I rank the players.

It is clear that Martinec was a outstanding penalty killer as evident by him being top 3 in shorthanded ice time during every available tournament between 1972 and 1979. That is some truly great consistency right there. With that said I don't think that he quite measures up to the Holík/Makarov level of penalty killing even if he definitely belongs near the top.

* Since the video quality from first part of the USSR-CSSR game at the 1976 Canada Cup makes it impossible to estimate the ice times I have only included the shifts from the second half of that game. From that tournament we also fortunately have 3 full games against Canada.

It would be really interesting to do a top PK'ers project. In fact I think I'd like to do that if enough people are interested.

I am definitely interested in joining such a project even if I have much to learn about the top penalty killers of the NHL especially pre WW-2. But I guess skimming through ATD-bios can teach me much about the subject.

 

[rmartin65]

It's not so much that I am doubting Tarasov's abilities as a coach. It's more that I'm just not too sure what Tarasov's true impact on the Soviet hockey monster actually was. Chernyshev seemed to have a bigger role than I once thought.

My issue, though that isn't the right word, is that Gilbert played the best years of his career with a primarily set up man as his center. Stamkos hasn't proven that he is that kind of player, although he's making strides this year for sure. How Gilbert ended up with more assist than goals finishes in that situation, however, I am not sure. Maybe Ratelle is underrated as a goal scorer.

The issue with your 2nd pairing will be clearer once we have some actual comparisons to work with I believe.

My issue with Bailey is career length as a top PK'er. What can you tell us about that?

I get that you just drafted Chernyshev... but this is bordering on lunacy. Tarasov was the architect of the Soviet hockey monster (to use your terms). His strategy, his training methods, his design. Chernyshev did well carrying on what Tarasov started, but let's not get carried away.

Rod Gilbert has more top 10 assist finishes than goal finishes, a higher VsX Assist placement than VsX goal placement, and in the seasons he reached the top 10 in assists, his average ranking was 6.4, while the same for goals is 7.6 (meaning that not only did he reach the top 10 in assists more, he also had higher finishes within the top 10). Mark Recchi, who everyone agrees is an example of a playmaking winger, only had 4 seasons in the top 10. Patrick Kane only has 3 (and is actually top 10 in goals 3 times as well, but people dont have a problem with him being classified as a playmaker). I guess what I am trying to prove is, the general assumption that Gilbert is primarily a shooter is wrong. Hell, Gilbert finished in the top 10 in assists more than Ratelle did (7-6).

2nd pairing- Again, not only does Siebert have some pretty strong assist numbers, but both he and Goldham have references to their rushing ability. There is more than one way to get the puck out of the zone- they dont have to just pass it all the time, they can (and will) skate it out.

I'm going to level, I'm not terribly interested in digging through the old newspapers for the sole purpose of finding out when exactly Bailey became a PKer. He only played 7 seasons, so odds are it wasn't for terribly long (likely a handful of seasons), but he was clearly cited as an exemplary penalty killer for some period of time. And since I have him next to Luce, who was a great penalty killer for a long time, I'm not going to stress about it.

 

[jarek]

I get that you just drafted Chernyshev... but this is bordering on lunacy. Tarasov was the architect of the Soviet hockey monster (to use your terms). His strategy, his training methods, his design. Chernyshev did well carrying on what Tarasov started, but let's not get carried away.

Rod Gilbert has more top 10 assist finishes than goal finishes, a higher VsX Assist placement than VsX goal placement, and in the seasons he reached the top 10 in assists, his average ranking was 6.4, while the same for goals is 7.6 (meaning that not only did he reach the top 10 in assists more, he also had higher finishes within the top 10). Mark Recchi, who everyone agrees is an example of a playmaking winger, only had 4 seasons in the top 10. Patrick Kane only has 3 (and is actually top 10 in goals 3 times as well, but people dont have a problem with him being classified as a playmaker). I guess what I am trying to prove is, the general assumption that Gilbert is primarily a shooter is wrong. Hell, Gilbert finished in the top 10 in assists more than Ratelle did (7-6).

2nd pairing- Again, not only does Siebert have some pretty strong assist numbers, but both he and Goldham have references to their rushing ability. There is more than one way to get the puck out of the zone- they dont have to just pass it all the time, they can (and will) skate it out.

I'm going to level, I'm not terribly interested in digging through the old newspapers for the sole purpose of finding out when exactly Bailey became a PKer. He only played 7 seasons, so odds are it wasn't for terribly long (likely a handful of seasons), but he was clearly cited as an exemplary penalty killer for some period of time. And since I have him next to Luce, who was a great penalty killer for a long time, I'm not going to stress about it.

Chernyshev was coaching Soviet hockey from the inception of Soviet hockey according to the research I've done. He coached Moscow Dynamo for at least 27 years starting from 1946 I believe. This information may be off as the source material doesn't seem that good, but that's what I've found. I don't have a problem with the idea that Tarasov was the main guy on those strong USSR teams, just that I think Chernyshev seems to have had a bigger role than we had previously thought.

2.65 Arkady Chernyshev

I'm not disputing what Gilbert accomplished in his career. Just that he played primarily in real life with a guy who didn't play much like Stamkos at all. To be honest I was surprised about Gilbert's playmaking finishes so maybe it doesn't matter.

Marty Walsh was likely the best player in the world for about 4 seasons, but nobody is rushing to throw him on a 1st line. I'm just a little wary about guys like Bailey. He was likely one of the best PK'ers of his time, I'm just not sure how long that was. Playing beside Luce doesn't really change that.

 

[rmartin65]

Coach: Fred Shero

Ted Lindsay (A) - Edouard "Newsy" Lalonde (A) - Reginald "Hooley" Smith
Keith Tkachuk - Jean Ratelle - Jari Kurri
Dean Prentice - Ralph Backstrom - Dirk Graham
Adam Graves - Mike Richards - Shane Doan

Denis Potvin (C) - Shea Weber
Mike Grant - Jack Crawford
Kevin Lowe - Yuri Lyapkin

Tony Esposito
Tom Barrasso


Spares: Ken Morrow, D - Gaye Stewart, LW - Doug Weight, C - Blake Wheeler, RW


PP1: Keith Tkachuk - Ted Lindsay - Newsy Lalonde - Denis Potvin - Shea Weber
PP2: Shane Doan - Jean Ratelle - Hooley Smith - Jari Kurri - Yuri Liapkin

PK1: Mike Richards - Dirk Graham - Denis Potvin - Jack Crawford
PK2: Dean Prentice - Ralph Backstrom - Kevin Lowe - Shea Weber​

Coaching and Leadership
On point, Shero is top 5 IMO, and Potvin is a great leader. You could even give Richards the third A, if you'd like.

1st Line
My favorite line in the draft, this line is fantastic. It can score, it can play defense, and it can play nasty. Excellent, excellent line.

2nd Line
This one, however, I like a lot less. It should be ok in the regular season, but it's effectiveness is likely to take a real hit in the playoffs with both Ratelle and Tkachuk. I do think it works stylistically though, it looks a lot like the GAG line with Tkachuk being a better version of Hadfield, and Kurri being a more defensively responsible Gilbert.

3rd Line
You wont get much offense out of this one, but it looks like a strong checking line. Unfortunately, I think it's lack of offense really limits it.

4th Line
This wont be a fun line for other teams to play- they can all bang bodies, and have some underrated offense. It really is too bad that Richards burnt out so fast, because in his prime, he was one heck of a player.

1st Pairing
Potvin and Weber? Whooo boy, I pity the wingers going against those guys. Love it.

2nd Pairing
Less sold about this one, and its because I have a hard time really pegging Grant. I like Crawford, but this pairing's effectiveness really depends on what you can get out of Grant.

3rd Pairing
Looks like a pretty standard 3rd pairing, certainly wont hurt you.

Goalies
I am not a huge fan of Esposito, so I have to question this pick. That said, I think Barrasso is a pretty solid backup/emergency blanket for the playoffs... if his ego can tolerate being a backup.

Spares
I'd consider moving Wheeler up instead of Graves.

Special Teams
I think your PP units are a bit weak up front, but those PK units are dynamite.

3 things I like
1) 1st Line
2) 1st Pairing
3) 4th Line

3 things I don’t like
1) 3rd Line
2) Goalies
3) PP forwards

 

[overpass]

Thanks for the review!

2nd Line
I like Richard, I really do- but one of the best all-time ES centers? I think we are getting carried away here. He is very good, and better than his VsX score would indicate, but I think saying that he is a top-5 all-time ES center is going a bit overboard.

No, if I was going a bit overboard I would say Henri Richard was #2 among centres at ES, behind only Gretzky.

Seriously, his ES scoring was comparable to Stan Mikita and ahead of Jean Beliveau. Add in his checking, his longevity, and especially his playoff contributions.

Here’s a quick ranking. I haven’t put a ton of thought into this, especially the 2-4 spots. Frank Nighbor and Bobby Clarke might be in the mix too. But I do think that Henri Richard was right there with Jean Beliveau and Stan Mikita at even strength.

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Howie Morenz
4. Sidney Crosby
5. Henri Richard
6. Stan Mikita
7. Jean Beliveau

 

[jarek]

Thanks for the review!



No, if I was going a bit overboard I would say Henri Richard was #2 among centres at ES, behind only Gretzky.

Seriously, his ES scoring was comparable to Stan Mikita and ahead of Jean Beliveau. Add in his checking, his longevity, and especially his playoff contributions.

Here’s a quick ranking. I haven’t put a ton of thought into this, especially the 2-4 spots. Frank Nighbor and Bobby Clarke might be in the mix too. But I do think that Henri Richard was right there with Jean Beliveau and Stan Mikita at even strength.

1. Wayne Gretzky
2. Mario Lemieux
3. Howie Morenz
4. Sidney Crosby
5. Henri Richard
6. Stan Mikita
7. Jean Beliveau

I definitely think Nighbor would have been one of the best ES players of all time. His profile certainly suggests that, and is why I wanted to maximize his ES minutes by keeping him off the PP.

There's probably a number of pre-PP stats guys that would profile that way to be honest. Howie Morenz comes to mind.

 

[Namba 17]

That's all fine, but you still have to look at them in comparison to all the players who ever played.

Let's see.
VxV goals for Goulet, 7 years.
LW, who has better VxV:
Bobby Hull
Ovechkin
Frank Mahovlich
Roy Conacher
Lindsay
Kovalchuk
Busher Jackson
LeClair
Robitaille
Sweeney Schriner
Tkachuk

It's 11 names. You may add Cecil Dillon and Camille Henry here, if you consider them as LW, but even then a difference between their VxV, Tkachuk VxV and Goulet VxV is marginal and non sufficient. You may add here Krutov, A.Yakushev and Firsov, who were definitely better goal-scorers than Goulet and, probably, Kharlamov and V.Aleksandrov (though I'm not sure about the latter two).
It seems, that Goulet looks just fine in comparison. In draft of this size he is an average 1st liner, not to speak of 3d line.

I didn't ask for his numbers. I asked how effective Kerr will be at even strength. That's a rhetorical question that basically implies that he is going to be bad. As an overall offensive player, he is mediocre, and he was weaker at even strength than he was overall.

As 4th liner? With 2, 6, 7 ES goal-scoring finishes? Find better ES offense in 4th line in this ATD.

Simply based on a list of players I rank that is ordered by how I evaluate offense in players.

Yeah, I got it - points and nomatterwhat. We are going circles here, no need to continue.
Just wonder - why do you rate Elias offense that high?

I don't think I even brought up anything outside your 4 forward lines

You asked who will play in key defensive situations and said that they are bad

 

[Namba 17]

Aren't Kane and Mosienko similar as goal-scorers?

7 years VxV
Mosienko 39.5
Kane 37.8

Top-10 goals finishes:
Mosienko 2, 5, 6, 10, 10
Kane: 2, 5, 10

 

[jarek]

Find better ES offense in 4th line in this ATD.

Don McKenney.

 

[Dreakmur]

Let's see.
VxV goals for Goulet, 7 years.
LW, who has better VxV:
Bobby Hull
Ovechkin
Frank Mahovlich
Roy Conacher
Lindsay
Kovalchuk
Busher Jackson
LeClair
Robitaille
Sweeney Schriner
Tkachuk

It's 11 names. You may add Cecil Dillon and Camille Henry here, if you consider them as LW, but even then a difference between their VxV, Tkachuk VxV and Goulet VxV is marginal and non sufficient. You may add here Krutov, A.Yakushev and Firsov, who were definitely better goal-scorers than Goulet and, probably, Kharlamov and V.Aleksandrov (though I'm not sure about the latter two).
It seems, that Goulet looks just fine in comparison. In draft of this size he is an average 1st liner, not to speak of 3d line.

Well, we just disagree on how to evaluate players.

As 4th liner? With 2, 6, 7 ES goal-scoring finishes? Find better ES offense in 4th line in this ATD.

Well, Kerr barely breaks 60 in the 7 season vs.X average, and he is very heavily skewed towards PP scoring. Some 4th line RWs were drafted for special defensive roles, so obviously those guys won't score more - though that doesn't mean they won't be more effective. I would say that just about every 4th line RW who was drafted to score will be better than Kerr at even strength.

But, you will look at just goal-scoring, so I'm sure you'll disagree.

Yeah, I got it - points and nomatterwhat. We are going circles here, no need to continue.
Just wonder - why do you rate Elias offense that high?

Not points no matter what.... just points before goals.

Elias was the offensive catalyst for his team. That's one thing I value a lot - was a player the primary offensive producer for his team?

You asked who will play in key defensive situations and said that they are bad

I asked that about your forwards.... and they are bad.

 

[Dreakmur]

7 years VxV
Mosienko 39.5
Kane 37.8

That's not similar?

Top-10 goals finishes:
Mosienko 2, 5, 6, 10, 10
Kane: 2, 5, 10

Mosienko did that with 6 teams. Kane did it with 30.

 

[Namba 17]

Don McKenney.

I'm not sure here, because I can't find ES stats for him. His overall goal-scoring finishes are 6, 7, 10, 10. Even if he scored all his goals in ES it hardly makes him better, than Kerr. He probably is better, but even then not by significant margin. And even if he is better, it's still one name only.

 

[Sturminator]

Maybe Ratelle is underrated as a goal scorer.

Jean Ratelle was a good goal scorer when he wanted to be. Most of the time, he was better off passing, and so made the right play, but he could definitely shoot. Ratelle was soft, but other than that, he was a very well-rounded player. He could skate, stickhandle, pass, shoot, and defend at a high level.

 

[kruezer]

View attachment 94539

Coach: Lester Patrick

Aurèle Joliat - Howie Morenz (A) - Helmuts Balderis
Doug Bentley - Max Bentley - Dave Taylor (A)
Zach Parise - Duke Keats - Jimmy Ward
Marty Pavelich - Steve Kasper - Don Marcotte
Dave Trottier, Billy Burch

Jack Stewart - King Clancy (C)
Art Ross - Tom Johnson
Ted Harris - Jiří Bubla
Marc-Edouard Vlasic

Jiří Holeček
Percy LeSueur

Powerplay:

Keats
Morenz - Joliat
Clancy - M. Bentley

Taylor
Balderis - D. Bentley
Bubla - Ross

Penalty Kill

Marcotte - Pavelich
Stewart - Johnson

Kasper - Ward
Harris - Clancy​

Coaching/Leadership: Patrick's an all time coach of course, 5 finals 2 cups, he and Quenneville make sense as going back to back like they did, I think they are pretty comparable guys all time. I would say your on ice leadership is solid, middle of the pack.

Line 1: I love Balderis but this feels like a below average first line to me (obviously you've split your top forwards so this is a bit expected). This line will certainly be able to score but in a PvP matchup I am not sure how many top lines they can outscore. I'm guessing you'll run your top two lines rather equally, so we will have the normal matchup questions during a PO series.

Line 2: I like this line, love the known chemistry both of your lines have. Not much needs to be said about the Bentley's. Taylor fits nicely as a guy who can help fight their battles a bit. Assuming Doug misses a few games as always (and Max a little too) I think your spares slot in well, on multiple lines so you can shake things up as needed.

Line 3: Duke Keats is a really interesting player, I looked at him a lot when he I took Bowie and I came away a little disappointed. Granted Bowie has his issues and I just made him my second line center so glass houses and all . Thing I like about your bottom lines is you have a bottom 8 that I think you can really mix and match well, I wouldn't be concerned about (forward) injuries with your team.

Line 4: This line is beautiful.

Pairing 1: This is a really great pairing, Crawford is awesome and Clancy is obviously fantastic. Its not like Clancy is lacking in info about his career but even still I like him more each time I read about him.

Pairing 2: I love Tom Johnson, solid anchor to a second pair. Art Ross I find hard to rank, he is okay here though.

Pairing 3: This feels like a solid pairing. Again I don't know Bubla well enough to rank this pairing right now, I will need to read up on him more.

Spares: As I've said I think you're in great shape for forwards. I really like Vlasic, I don't see him giving much offense at this level though, if you lose an offensive D to injury I would worry about the amount of offense you might be able to get from this d-core.

Goalies: Holecek was a great pick, steal where you got him. Fitting he and Tretiak are in the same division. Definitely gave your team a boost to be able to get him where you did, I don't see what separates him so far from the round 7 goalies. Unfortunately that let you steal Tom Johnson from me.

PP: I like your PP 1 but your PP 2 is really intriguing to me, I don't know enough about Jiri Bulba.

PK: I think you're PK is very good comparatively better than your PP I'd say.

 

[Namba 17]

Well, Kerr barely breaks 60 in the 7 season vs.X average, and he is very heavily skewed towards PP scoring. Some 4th line RWs were drafted for special defensive roles, so obviously those guys won't score more - though that doesn't mean they won't be more effective.

I didn't tell about effectiveness. Effectiveness may be different. I told about offence.

I would say that just about every 4th line RW who was drafted to score will be better than Kerr at even strength.

Here we go again... You would say... why? based on what? nobody knows...

But, you will look at just goal-scoring, so I'm sure you'll disagree.

Off course I will. Why do I need assists from my RW when I have Joe Primeau as his C? What I need is as better goal-scoring as possible. Which is more - I may afford pure goal-scoring, because Primeau himself was below average goal-scorer, but pass-first guy. Both my 4th line wingers meet the requirements. This is what I told about earlier - you need to estimate line, not one player in it. Kerr was good scorer, but bad passer - no problem, he will play with great passer, who used to play in the same type of line in real life.

Elias was the offensive catalyst for his team. That's one thing I value a lot - was a player the primary offensive producer for his team?

From 1979/80 to 1989/90 Goulet is second in points (90% of 1st place) and first in goals (120% of the first place) for his team.
Year by year:
1979/80 (rookie) - 3d in points, 3d in goals
1980/81 - 5 points, 4 goals
1981/82 - 4 points, 2 goals
1982/83 - 2 points, 1 goals
1983/84 - 1 points, 1 goals
1984/85 - 2 points, 1 goals
1985/86 - 2 points, 1 goals
1986/87 - 1 points, 1 goals
1987/88 - 2 points, 1 goals
1988/89 - 4 points, 3 goals
1989/90 - 3 points, 3 goals
Last two years he played 69 and 57 games respectively.
Also, the difference between his amount of goals and other players amount of goals is usually huge in almost every year he took 1st place.

I asked that about your forwards.... and they are bad.

I like your style... let me try to copy it - no, they are good.

 

[Namba 17]

That's not similar?

If that is similar, than Mosienko has goals' VxV similar to Aurel Joliat, Syd Howe, Cam Neely and Doug Bentley

 

[Dreakmur]

If that is similar, than Mosienko has goals' VxV similar to Aurel Joliat, Syd Howe, Cam Neely and Doug Bentley

Sounds good.

 

[Dreakmur]

I didn't tell about effectiveness. Effectiveness may be different. I told about offence.

I was talking about his offensive effectiveness. His 7 season vs.X score is like 62. That's his overall offense, which is better than his even strength offense. He's fine as a power play net presence, but that's basically the only thing he can do at the ATD level.

Here we go again... You would say... why? based on what? nobody knows...

I said already that I start with the 7 season vs.X and then look at other factors. His score of 62 is not good.

Off course I will. Why do I need assists from my RW when I have Joe Primeau as his C? What I need is as better goal-scoring as possible. Which is more - I may afford pure goal-scoring, because Primeau himself was below average goal-scorer, but pass-first guy. Both my 4th line wingers meet the requirements. This is what I told about earlier - you need to estimate line, not one player in it. Kerr was good scorer, but bad passer - no problem, he will play with great passer, who used to play in the same type of line in real life.

That's all true, but it doesn't make either of those players better. I agree that chemistry matters, but mostly when something on a line is missing.

From 1979/80 to 1989/90 Goulet is second in points (90% of 1st place) and first in goals (120% of the first place) for his team.
Year by year:
1979/80 (rookie) - 3d in points, 3d in goals
1980/81 - 5 points, 4 goals
1981/82 - 4 points, 2 goals
1982/83 - 2 points, 1 goals
1983/84 - 1 points, 1 goals
1984/85 - 2 points, 1 goals
1985/86 - 2 points, 1 goals
1986/87 - 1 points, 1 goals
1987/88 - 2 points, 1 goals
1988/89 - 4 points, 3 goals
1989/90 - 3 points, 3 goals
Last two years he played 69 and 57 games respectively.
Also, the difference between his amount of goals and other players amount of goals is usually huge in almost every year he took 1st place.

I'm not exactly sure what these are all supposed to mean, but I hope you aren't trying to say that Peter Stastny was not the obvious catalyst for the teams Goulet played for...

 

[Namba 17]

I was talking about his offensive effectiveness. His 7 season vs.X score is like 62. That's his overall offense, which is better than his even strength offense. He's fine as a power play net presence, but that's basically the only thing he can do at the ATD level.
I said already that I start with the 7 season vs.X and then look at other factors. His score of 62 is not good.

You didn't even try to compare his offence with other 4th liners. You took his points VxV in vacuum and said - he is not good. There is no such a thing as "not high enough VxV in general" because VxV can be not high enough only relatively to other players. You didn't try to analyze his goal-scoring VxV, despite all I said about his role and position. And Tim Kerr VxV goalscoring is higher than Gaborik, Modano Ratelle, Tavares, Roenick, Ted Kennedy, Ciccarelli, Mullen, Patrick Kane, Elias, Perreault... yeah, not good enough 4th liner...
I wonder why do we make lines and pairings. Lets just have a heap of names and see which set of names has better PPG. It would be very interesting ATD...

I'm not exactly sure what these are all supposed to mean, but I hope you aren't trying to say that Peter Stastny was not the obvious catalyst for the teams Goulet played for...

I got it. There can be only one offensive catalyst per team and it's a guy who has more points.

 

[Dreakmur]

You didn't even try to compare his offence with other 4th liners. You took his points VxV in vacuum and said - he is not good. There is no such a thing as "not high enough VxV in general" because VxV can be not high enough only relatively to other players. You didn't try to analyze his goal-scoring VxV, despite all I said about his role and position. And Tim Kerr VxV goalscoring is higher than Gaborik, Modano Ratelle, Tavares, Roenick, Ted Kennedy, Ciccarelli, Mullen, Patrick Kane, Elias, Perreault... yeah, not good enough 4th liner...
I wonder why do we make lines and pairings. Lets just have a heap of names and see which set of names has better PPG. It would be very interesting ATD...

A score of 62 is so bad that other factors don't really matter. He didn't even make the chart in Hockey Outsider's study, and that goes up to like 250 players, while also ignoring pre-consolidation and other non-NHL players.

His role is to provide offense, and his offense output is good enough to land him likely outside the top 300 players at providing offense.

I got it. There can be only one offensive catalyst per team and it's a guy who has more points.

Well, there can be more than one catalyst, but they actually have to be close in points.

There were 4 seasons where Stastny and Goulet were close enough in scoring that they could be co-catalysts. The rest of Goulet's career, he was quite a distance behind his team's leading scorer (18 in 1986, 19 in 1983, 21 in 1989... and the rest are in the 30s and 40s and above).

 

[Claude The Fraud]

GM
Claude The Fraud

Captain
Bob Gainey
Assistant
Larry Robinson
Serge Savard

Head Coach
Joel Quenneville

Roster
#14 Brendan Shanahan - #21 Peter Forsberg - #22 Mike Bossy
#10 John LeClair - #26 Peter Stastny - #9 Glenn Anderson
#23 Bob Gainey - #17 Walt Tkaczuk - #92 Rick Tocchet
#11 Brian Sutter - #12 Brent Sutter - #15 Pat Verbeek
Extra
#19 Dennis Hull - #16 TrevorLinden

#19 Larry Robinson - #18 Serge Savard
#2 Derian Hatcher - #65 Erik Karlsson
#32 Paul Reinhart - #4 Kevin Hatcher
Extra
#27 Mathieu Schneider - #24 Robert Svehla

#1 Tiny Thompson
#31 George Hainsworth

PP1
#14 Brendan Shanahan - #21 Peter Forsberg - #22 Mike Bossy
#65 Erik Karlsson - #32 Paul Reinhart

PP2
#10 John LeClair - #26 Peter Stastny - #9 Glenn Anderson
#4 Kevin Hatcher - #19 Larry Robinson

PK1
#23 Bob Gainey - #17 Walt Tkaczuk
#19 Larry Robinson - #18 Serge Savard

PK2
#11 Brian Sutter - #12 Brent Sutter
#2 Derian Hatcher - #4 Kevin Hatcher​

 

[Namba 17]

New York Americans

Coaches: Anatoli Tarasov, Billy Reay
Captain: Boris Mikhailov
Alternate Captains: Sid Abel, Anze Kopitar, Brad Park

Paul Kariya-Stan Mikita-Boris Mikhailov
Sid Abel-Steven Stamkos-Rod Gilbert
Gordon Roberts-Anze Kopitar-Ace Bailey
Dave Balon-Don Luce-Blair Russel

Spare Forwards: Lynn Patrick, LW, Terry O'Reilly, RW

Borje Salming-Brad Park
Babe Siebert-Bob Goldham
Vasili Davydov-Joe Hall

Spare Defense: Lars-Erik Sjoberg

Bernie Parent
Sergei Bobrovsky

PP1
Stamkos-Mikita-Mikhailov
Kariya-Park

PP2
Roberts-Abel-Gilbert
Salming-Hall

PK1
Luce-Bailey
Salming-Goldham

PK2
Kopitar-Dave Balon
Siebert-Park

​

Well, I am sure every GM says it this time of year, but I have to say it- I am really excited about this team.

Coaching and Leadership
This has historically been a weaker part of my teams, but not this year; Tarasov and Reay fit well with my team- an attacking team with a strong defense- with Mikhailov and Abel leading on the ice and in the locker room, I don’t think we have any concerns on that front.

1st Line
This is one of the strongest lines in the draft, in my opinion. Offensively, it has it all- 2 very capable puck carriers that can beat you with a pass or a shot in Kariya and Mikita to go with puck-winning and defensive ability in Mikita and Mikhailov. VsX isn’t the end-all-be-all, but this unit has a 7 year score of 278.7 (if you give Mikhailov an 86, which is roughly the same score as Iginla. I think he should be higher, but I will make that case at another time). As far as negatives- it is not a very physical line. Mikita and Mikhailov are pretty ornery and won’t back down from anyone, but this line wont be a physically punishing unit.

2nd Line
I haven’t run the numbers for all of the teams, but again, this unit has to be one of the more offensively potent 2nd lines out there, with a 7-year VsX of 253.4, with the potential to increase with Stamkos’ current season- it is basically a suped-up GAG line, with Abel playing the ‘driver’/’digger’ role (as he did in real-life) and defensive safety-valve. Stamkos brings top-notch sniping and underrated playmaking, while Gilbert does the same thing he did alongside Ratelle and Hadfield. Everyone can pass (to varying degrees), and everyone can score. I should add that Abel will take the lion’s share of faceoffs. The downside to this line is that I don’t think it is very strong defensively, nor, like the top line, will it be a physically punishing squad. While I don’t think Stamkos and Gilbert are bad defensive players, they don’t seem to be much more than average in that respect. Abel is above average, but still, the unit as a whole is below average in that regard.

3rd Line
Building around Kopitar, my 3rd line is predicated on strong 2-way play. Kopitar has to be one of the upper-tier 2 way 3rd line centers at this point (in terms of total offensive and defensive package), and Roberts and Bailey add additional size and ability to the unit. Getting VsX out of the way (and giving Roberts a 74, as per a number I saw thrown about last year)- 217.7, not including the bump that Kopitar is going to get this year. Each player is well-above average in size, and while maybe not a punishing line, they can each play the body well and effectively.

4th Line
This line is mainly for defensive situations. It could use more physicality, but I think in terms of skill and ability, this line is above average among the other 4th lines in the league.

Spares
It is unfortunate that most people (I assume) pay little attention to spares, because I think I landed 2 players here that could very easily be regulars; Patrick in particular should be a very solid second-liner, but his extreme dislike of the physical game relegates him to spare-status in a draft this size. However, because he is so talented, I have no problems with him taking over for Kariya when Kariya is injured. O’Reilly adds some muscle without being useless offensively. I didn’t draft a center because I have a couple wingers who played center- Abel and Russel can both shift to center.

1st Pairing
While I missed out on one of the elite number 1 defensemen, in a draft this size Park is still an average to above-average one who is very well-rounded. Salming is a low-end number 1/elite number 2 who is also pretty well rounded, so this should be one of the better 1st pairings in the league. Simply put, it is a plus pairing across the board- defensive ability, physicality, skating, passing, and shooting.

2nd Pairing
I follow up my 1st pairing with another strong unit, with Siebert being a high-end number 3/low-end number 2, and Goldham being a solid number 4. Siebert brings the physicality and offensive skills, while Goldham is the stay-at-home shot blocker with a good outlet pass. Stylistically, I really like this pairing.

3rd Pairing
Again, I think I hit on meshing styles, in much the same way as I did on my second pairing- Davydov plays the role of defensive safety-valve (though many people have written about his passing and skating abilities), while Hall plays the role of offensive driver with a (wicked) mean-streak.

Spare
Sjoberg is an undersized defender but brings a physical presence and strong offensive game. He is a spare, but I don’t have a problem with him on my bottom pairing in the event of injury.

Goaltenders
I am below average here, I wont try to argue the point. However, Parent is not weak to the point that I think he puts my team at a significant disadvantage, especially in the playoffs (where Parent shined). Bobrovsky is a bit of a mercurial case, with very high highs and pretty low lows. However, few backups can boast of 2 Vezina’s/1st Team All-Star nods and 2 Top-5 Hart voting finishes in a 30 team league. His playoff record is quite poor… but I (or rather, Tarasov and Reay) wont be starting our backup in the playoffs. Bobrovsky is there to spell Parent in the regular season, and to keep Parent fresh for the playoffs. Bobrovksy certainly has the record for that.

PP
I think my PP units are above average, but not elite. On my top unit, Mikita, Park and Kariya should be able to drive defenses crazy finding the open shooter (ideally Stamkos or Park), with Mikhailov provind screens and getting greasy garbage goals. The second unit is set up in much the same way, with Gilbert, Salming and Siebert (or Hall, I haven’t really decided) distributing the puck to each other or Roberts, and Abel being the net-front presence.

PK
Like my PP units, I think my PK is pretty strong all the way around. Luce is one of the best, and Kopitar is easily a top PK player who I have slumming it on the second unit. The defensemen are all above-average as PKers as well, with Salming, Goldham and Davydov being well-noted shot blockers.

I'd like to return a favor to rmartin65 for his thoughts about my team.

1st line.
Great line. I guess, you did a great job, finding proper players in term of chemistry and roles. This line basically repeats one of the best line in history - Kharlamov - Petrov - Mikhailov. Dynamic LW, who can score and make a pass, big C, who is great scorer and passer himself and who will be very good defensively and hard-working grinder, one of the best net presence in history with hell of goal-scoring touch, who will forcheck and backcheck restless and who can make a pass too. Mikita is one of the best C in ATD and Mikhailov is one of the best RW. Kariya is a legit 1st liner, so it's great not only by players balance, but by players' quality as well.
2nd line.
This line I definitely like much less. Everything is fine in terms of talent, but I'm not a fan the way it was built. I guess, that Abel as LW is losing some of his quality, because he was C primarily. Yes, I know he played LW and he is capable to play there, but it's like moving Stewart or Messier to LW - smth, that you don't like instinctively, even not being able to explain. Couple of quotes about Abel's defensive game don't impress as well. With his partners he will have to do all the defensive work. Will he be effective there? What will happen to his stats if he will be used as the main defensive force of the line? Another question I have here - who will go into corners, who will fight for a puck along boards? Neither of this line looks promising in this department. Both Gilbert and Stamkos used to play with players, who did all defensive and puck retrieving job for them and I'm not sure, that Abel will be that great here. Will Gilbert and Stamkos be as effective as they were in real life under such a condition?
3d line.
Another great line, one of the best 3d lines in this ATD, I guess. I like offense-defense balance as well as goals/assists ratio. Kopitar is great 3d line's C and both LW and RW are solid. Nothing to say much, really. This line has everything it can have.
4th line.
Pretty typical ATD-line. Good enough defensively, average offensively... Not bad. Nothing more, though.

1st pair.
Great. I like it a lot. I guess, it's probably top-5 pair in this ATD. Both great offensively AND defensively, tough enough - just great.
2nd pair.
Very good. Probably, I'd like to see the better offensive defenseman in 2nd pair, but that's not a big flaw here. Both D are great value for their position. Quality pair.
3d pair.
Very good. I think, you have one of the best defense this ATD.

Goaltending.
Weak link, I guess. Below average starter and very inconsistent back up with awful PO history. Your defense is good enough to reduce a damage, but your forward group is not two-way enough for such a goalies, IMO.

Spares. Good enough.

PP1. Great. Any PP with Mikhailov in slot is great - he just knows how to score from there and you have other necessary PP tools - shooter in Stamkos, passers and secondary scorers in Kariya, Mikita and Park. Great job here.
PP2 Very good.

PK. I'm not sure about Bailey as first PK option. Why didn't you change him and Ballon? Other than this - you PK is great, I believe.

Leadership. Mikhailov was one of the best captains in history. No problems here.

Coach. Tarasov is good enough in terms of quality, though he was not the top coach in history - he definitely had tough time with international team as a head coach. On the other hand he did very well domestically. But the worse problem here is that he was not offence-first and only coach. I don't know there was it taken from. His believed, that every player must play defense and must give everything each shift. Even Kharlamov and Firsov backchecked in his teams because they had to. Probably, Kariya will be able to fit his demands, but he will kill Stamkos and Gilbert, I guess.

Overall.
Great defense, 1st line, 3d line, PP and leadership.
Very good PK.
Good enough - coach.
Average - 4th line.
Weak - 2nd line, goaltending.
Puzzling - coach/team synergy.

 

[jarek]

I'm not sure here, because I can't find ES stats for him. His overall goal-scoring finishes are 6, 7, 10, 10. Even if he scored all his goals in ES it hardly makes him better, than Kerr. He probably is better, but even then not by significant margin. And even if he is better, it's still one name only.

McKenney's 7 season ES VsX is around 75. No, he is not a better goal scorer, but he is a much, much better offensive player overall.

Jean Ratelle was a good goal scorer when he wanted to be. Most of the time, he was better off passing, and so made the right play, but he could definitely shoot. Ratelle was soft, but other than that, he was a very well-rounded player. He could skate, stickhandle, pass, shoot, and defend at a high level.

Thanks for this!

Off course I will. Why do I need assists from my RW when I have Joe Primeau as his C? What I need is as better goal-scoring as possible

So here is the point I will try to make for you and pretty much anyone else using a modern line of thinking. I agree with your ideas, I really do. A line featuring 3 heavily playmaking biased players who have very high VsX scores probably won't be as effective as a well rounded offensive line with 3 players with slightly worse VsX scores. I just think it's a really bad idea to tunnel vision towards one certain aspect of offense and settle with the player that was the best at that. For example, your Patrick Kane vs. Bill Mosienko comparison. Yes, Mosienko is a slightly better goal scorer. However, that is ALL he will provide. Patrick Kane is both a threat to score AND make a great pass. This gives the line options, and makes Kane a much more dangerous player offensively overall.

I'm not saying you had better options when you took Mosienko, but I would have preferred to see a guy with a better overall offensive resume if one was available at the time. Why? Even though Joe Primeau is mostly a pass-first guy, you can't pretend that he just won't score any goals. He will. He will be much better at scoring those goals if his wingers were at least competent at distributing the puck. That's the reason we look at VsX. It takes the overall offensive impact of a player instead of isolating just goals and assists. Even Adam Oates, one of the most playmaking biased players in history, scored 45 goals one year.

Your 4th line currently contains pretty much just one guy who will be good at passing the puck - Joe Primeau. Not only will this line be predictable (all the offense going through Primeau), but what are Mosienko and Heatley going to do when they don't have the puck? Neither was known for much of anything beyond goal scoring. If you had one winger that was more balanced between goals and assists, this line would be much, much better. Then the other team wouldn't have to worry about only Primeau passing pucks to Heatley, but those passes also coming from the other wing as well. This is the reason why the Caps' PP this year is so deadly. Ovechkin isn't the only guy you have to worry about anymore. Even if you cheat to cover him, you'll get burned by someone else. A unit having those kinds of options is what makes a line great.

 

[rmartin65]

2nd line.
This line I definitely like much less. Everything is fine in terms of talent, but I'm not a fan the way it was built. I guess, that Abel as LW is losing some of his quality, because he was C primarily. Yes, I know he played LW and he is capable to play there, but it's like moving Stewart or Messier to LW - smth, that you don't like instinctively, even not being able to explain. Couple of quotes about Abel's defensive game don't impress as well. With his partners he will have to do all the defensive work. Will he be effective there? What will happen to his stats if he will be used as the main defensive force of the line? Another question I have here - who will go into corners, who will fight for a puck along boards? Neither of this line looks promising in this department. Both Gilbert and Stamkos used to play with players, who did all defensive and puck retrieving job for them and I'm not sure, that Abel will be that great here. Will Gilbert and Stamkos be as effective as they were in real life under such a condition?


Coach. Tarasov is good enough in terms of quality, though he was not the top coach in history - he definitely had tough time with international team as a head coach. On the other hand he did very well domestically. But the worse problem here is that he was not offence-first and only coach. I don't know there was it taken from. His believed, that every player must play defense and must give everything each shift. Even Kharlamov and Firsov backchecked in his teams because they had to. Probably, Kariya will be able to fit his demands, but he will kill Stamkos and Gilbert, I guess.

I appreciate the review, if I may respond a bit-

Concerning my second line- Abel was actually the digger on his line, a role which he can easily do (and did) from the wing. Furthermore, I think Stamkos does get underrated in terms of both defense and puck retrieval; while I wont say that he is a stud in either aspect, I think he is at least average, perhaps slightly below-average. If you look at his common linemates, the often have a defense and puck-winning by committee approach.

Tarasov- I certainly dont think Tarasov is an offense-only coach, but I do think he was an offensive-leaning one. To paraphrase a quote of his from his bio, Tarasov believed that you cant consistently beat good teams by playing defense first, because then you cede the initiative. I definitely agree that he valued defensive ability and effort, and outside of Gilbert (you mentioned Stamkos as well, but I have already given my defense of his defensive ability and effort), I have no doubt that my team can fulfill Tarasov's demands in that regard.

Again, thanks for the review.

 

[overpass]

New York Americans

Coaches: Anatoli Tarasov, Billy Reay
Captain: Boris Mikhailov
Alternate Captains: Sid Abel, Anze Kopitar, Brad Park

Paul Kariya-Stan Mikita-Boris Mikhailov
Sid Abel-Steven Stamkos-Rod Gilbert
Gordon Roberts-Anze Kopitar-Ace Bailey
Dave Balon-Don Luce-Blair Russel

Spare Forwards: Lynn Patrick, LW, Terry O'Reilly, RW

Borje Salming-Brad Park
Babe Siebert-Bob Goldham
Vasili Davydov-Joe Hall

Spare Defense: Lars-Erik Sjoberg

Bernie Parent
Sergei Bobrovsky

PP1
Stamkos-Mikita-Mikhailov
Kariya-Park

PP2
Roberts-Abel-Gilbert
Salming-Hall

PK1
Luce-Bailey
Salming-Goldham

PK2
Kopitar-Dave Balon
Siebert-Park

​

Well, I am sure every GM says it this time of year, but I have to say it- I am really excited about this team.

Coaching and Leadership
This has historically been a weaker part of my teams, but not this year; Tarasov and Reay fit well with my team- an attacking team with a strong defense- with Mikhailov and Abel leading on the ice and in the locker room, I don’t think we have any concerns on that front.

1st Line
This is one of the strongest lines in the draft, in my opinion. Offensively, it has it all- 2 very capable puck carriers that can beat you with a pass or a shot in Kariya and Mikita to go with puck-winning and defensive ability in Mikita and Mikhailov. VsX isn’t the end-all-be-all, but this unit has a 7 year score of 278.7 (if you give Mikhailov an 86, which is roughly the same score as Iginla. I think he should be higher, but I will make that case at another time). As far as negatives- it is not a very physical line. Mikita and Mikhailov are pretty ornery and won’t back down from anyone, but this line wont be a physically punishing unit.

2nd Line
I haven’t run the numbers for all of the teams, but again, this unit has to be one of the more offensively potent 2nd lines out there, with a 7-year VsX of 253.4, with the potential to increase with Stamkos’ current season- it is basically a suped-up GAG line, with Abel playing the ‘driver’/’digger’ role (as he did in real-life) and defensive safety-valve. Stamkos brings top-notch sniping and underrated playmaking, while Gilbert does the same thing he did alongside Ratelle and Hadfield. Everyone can pass (to varying degrees), and everyone can score. I should add that Abel will take the lion’s share of faceoffs. The downside to this line is that I don’t think it is very strong defensively, nor, like the top line, will it be a physically punishing squad. While I don’t think Stamkos and Gilbert are bad defensive players, they don’t seem to be much more than average in that respect. Abel is above average, but still, the unit as a whole is below average in that regard.

3rd Line
Building around Kopitar, my 3rd line is predicated on strong 2-way play. Kopitar has to be one of the upper-tier 2 way 3rd line centers at this point (in terms of total offensive and defensive package), and Roberts and Bailey add additional size and ability to the unit. Getting VsX out of the way (and giving Roberts a 74, as per a number I saw thrown about last year)- 217.7, not including the bump that Kopitar is going to get this year. Each player is well-above average in size, and while maybe not a punishing line, they can each play the body well and effectively.

4th Line
This line is mainly for defensive situations. It could use more physicality, but I think in terms of skill and ability, this line is above average among the other 4th lines in the league.

Spares
It is unfortunate that most people (I assume) pay little attention to spares, because I think I landed 2 players here that could very easily be regulars; Patrick in particular should be a very solid second-liner, but his extreme dislike of the physical game relegates him to spare-status in a draft this size. However, because he is so talented, I have no problems with him taking over for Kariya when Kariya is injured. O’Reilly adds some muscle without being useless offensively. I didn’t draft a center because I have a couple wingers who played center- Abel and Russel can both shift to center.

1st Pairing
While I missed out on one of the elite number 1 defensemen, in a draft this size Park is still an average to above-average one who is very well-rounded. Salming is a low-end number 1/elite number 2 who is also pretty well rounded, so this should be one of the better 1st pairings in the league. Simply put, it is a plus pairing across the board- defensive ability, physicality, skating, passing, and shooting.

2nd Pairing
I follow up my 1st pairing with another strong unit, with Siebert being a high-end number 3/low-end number 2, and Goldham being a solid number 4. Siebert brings the physicality and offensive skills, while Goldham is the stay-at-home shot blocker with a good outlet pass. Stylistically, I really like this pairing.

3rd Pairing
Again, I think I hit on meshing styles, in much the same way as I did on my second pairing- Davydov plays the role of defensive safety-valve (though many people have written about his passing and skating abilities), while Hall plays the role of offensive driver with a (wicked) mean-streak.

Spare
Sjoberg is an undersized defender but brings a physical presence and strong offensive game. He is a spare, but I don’t have a problem with him on my bottom pairing in the event of injury.

Goaltenders
I am below average here, I wont try to argue the point. However, Parent is not weak to the point that I think he puts my team at a significant disadvantage, especially in the playoffs (where Parent shined). Bobrovsky is a bit of a mercurial case, with very high highs and pretty low lows. However, few backups can boast of 2 Vezina’s/1st Team All-Star nods and 2 Top-5 Hart voting finishes in a 30 team league. His playoff record is quite poor… but I (or rather, Tarasov and Reay) wont be starting our backup in the playoffs. Bobrovsky is there to spell Parent in the regular season, and to keep Parent fresh for the playoffs. Bobrovksy certainly has the record for that.

PP
I think my PP units are above average, but not elite. On my top unit, Mikita, Park and Kariya should be able to drive defenses crazy finding the open shooter (ideally Stamkos or Park), with Mikhailov provind screens and getting greasy garbage goals. The second unit is set up in much the same way, with Gilbert, Salming and Siebert (or Hall, I haven’t really decided) distributing the puck to each other or Roberts, and Abel being the net-front presence.

PK
Like my PP units, I think my PK is pretty strong all the way around. Luce is one of the best, and Kopitar is easily a top PK player who I have slumming it on the second unit. The defensemen are all above-average as PKers as well, with Salming, Goldham and Davydov being well-noted shot blockers.

Looks like a strong team. That said, I'm not used to 24 teams...there are a whole lot of teams that look very good.

Coaching and leadership: Tarasov was unquestionably a great and innovative coach. But it's hard to translate someone from the Soviet hockey system to an ATD setting, whatever that is. Not saying it's a negative, and Tarasov should be recognized in the ATD. Just having a hard time wrapping my head around how the team will play and what Tarasov brings to the table.

Mikhailov as captain should be a good fit with Tarasov, as far as I can tell.

Stan Mikita was a pretty puck-dominant centre -- he didn't mesh well with Bobby Hull for that reason. He and Kariya might not get the most out of each other for that reason...unless Tarasov can get them to buy in and move the puck quickly as a line. Actually I could see clashes between Tarasov and Mikita (Mikita's dirty play, strong individual personality, and puck dominant style might not fit with Tarasov) but if Mikita falls in line I think everything else does.

First line: I already mentioned a possible concern with Mikita being a more puck-dominant centre than is best for Kariya...but if they both buy into Tarasov's style of play it would be a great fit. Even if Mikita remains puck-dominant, worst-case is that Kariya scores a bunch of goals on feeds from Mikita like Kenny Wharram did IRL but doesn't do as much playmaking as he could.

Mikhailov will go to the net and make sure they don't remain on the perimeter. Possibly a little light on puckwinning? Although Mikita and Mikhailov will contribute. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mikhailov was more of a net front man than a strong corner man, right?

Bottom line is there's a lot of talent on this line and they could really carry the play and generate scoring chances against anyone.

Second line: I think it's a good fit. Having a C/W on the wing like Abel works best with a centre who can also play off the puck, and I think Stamkos can do that. Overall you have a line that can generate offence from all three players and I think they fit well. Abel and Gilbert are a strong pair of scoring wingers for a second line, and Stamkos is a low-end #2C but probably brings as much offence as several C's drafted ahead of him.

Third line: Kopitar is a strong #3 C and is the strength of the line. Roberts is fine. I agree with those who said that Bailey is getting a pretty big role for someone with a career as short as it was. No issues with his talent or fit but I would rather see him on a fourth line.

Fourth line: Luce and Balon mean it's a forechecking line that will generate offence from turnovers and probably play in defensive situations. Russell is a good fit for that type of line as far as I could tell. It's a solid fourth line, but just a minor quibble -- is this the kind of fourth line that Tarasov would ice? Especially with Don Luce at C, who was a forechecking and turnover-forcing centre through and through rather than a puck-possession centre. I thought the Soviets tended to have more stylistic consistency up and down the lineup and didn't use so-called checking lines.

First pairing: One of the team strengths. You don't have one of the very first-class defencemen but a pair of strong two-way mobile and skilled defenders in Park and Salming. Should be a balanced pairing where either one can move the puck, either one can jump up in the rush, and either one can stay back, so opponents can't key on anyone.

Random question: was Brad Park really six feet tall as listed? I assumed he was 5'10" or so based on pics and video and was surprised to see him listed at six feet even.

Second pairing: Looks like a good second pairing, with Siebert as a strong #3 who rushes the puck and defends, and Bob Goldham as a defensive shotblocker who was the best of his type in his era. A bit more one-sided than your top pairing though and much less offensive juice.

Third pairing: Looks good. Solid defensively, with Hall's physicality offsetting Davydov's smaller size. Won't get much offensively from this pairing either though.

Goalie: Bernie Parent was a great tender in his time. I'm used to thinking of him of an average ATD starter, but in a 24 team ATD he's below average. I don't know if Bobrovsky was the best backup for him...Parent's career didn't have a lot of consistency outside of two great seasons, and Bobrovsky has a short career. I think a backup with a more consistent career would be better for Parent, as Parent will probably need his backup to step up at times and Bobrovsky may or may not. Lotta upside from both goalies though.

Power play is good. I don't know if it's above average in a 24 team league...would have to do a more systematic comparison. I don't think you have any top 10 PP players on your team, at least. Mikita is the key to the PP and Kariya, Mikhailov, Park, and Stamkos are all good pieces. I don't rate Park as highly on the PP as you seem to...to me he's a definite step down from the best PPQBs and possibly below average as a #1 pointman in a 24 team league.

Penalty kill is solid for the most part. But no real first-class PK guys except for maybe Luce. I would move Balon off...only 12% PK usage in his NHL career. I've argued against strict rules for minimum usage at this level, but 12% is pretty low. I would put Russell on instead--although penalty killing as such wasn't a thing in his era, the skillset should translate.

Overall it's a strong team. Would like to see more of a Tarasov-style fourth line.