AA Draft Quarterfinal Round: #4 Saskatoon Sheiks vs #5 HC Krylya Sovetov

[DaveG]

Saskatoon Sheiks

Coach: Paul Thompson

Matti Hagman - Guy Charron (A) - Tommy Williams
Sergei Samsonov - Evgeny Groshev - Nelson Emerson
Jochen Hecht - Gavin Kirk - Kevin Miller
Sibby Nichol - Raimo Helminen (C) - Jason Blake

Roy Rickey - Willie Huber
Frank Martin - Barret Jackman (A)
Garth Boesch - Jason Woolley

Bob Froese
Dennis Herron

spares:
Lou Nanne (D/RW)
Bryan Marchment (D)
Parker MacDonald (LW/C)
Chris Simon (LW)

PP1: Hagman - Charron - Emerson - Huber - Woolley
PP2: Samsonov - Groshev - Williams - Martin - Woolley
PK1: Kirk - Hecht - Rickey - Jackman
PK2: Blake - Miller - Huber - Boesch
PK3: Helminen - Hecht - Martin - Jackman


vs


HC KRYLYA SOVETOV:

GM: BenchBrawl
Coach: James Arthur Link
Captain: Juha Widing
Assistant: Tom Poti
Assistant: Ruslan Salei

Bob Berry - Juha Widing - Brad Boyes
Walt Poddubny - David Krejci - Bobby Ryan
Brooks Laich - Jay McClement - Michael Ryder
Alex Burrows - Paul Gaustad - Ryan Clowe
Spares: Jussi Jokinen , Rene Bourque

Ruslan Salei - Tom Poti
Karlis Skrastins - Dan Girardi
Joe Cirella - Dennis Wideman
Spares: Joe Corvo

Byron Dafoe
Michel Larocque
Mario Lessard

PP1: Berry - Widing - Ryder - Poti - Wideman
PP2: Poddubny - Krejci - Boyes - Salei - Wideman*
PK1: McClement - Burrows - Salei - Skrastins
PK2: Gaustad - Laich - Girardi - Cirella

* Wideman plays full powerplay or close to it.

Click to read more...

 

[BenchBrawl]

I like my 2nd & 4th lines better than seventies one , my first line is weaker but I definitely deserves a + for proven chemistry between Widing and Berry.His third line is better than mine.The defense is close but I think mine is a little bit better.I prefer my power play because of Wideman mainly , and I prefer my first PK unit.Froese is probably better than Dafoe , but he also played a lot less games.

That wasn't the most detailed post but since it was dead I figured I would at least shoot one post

 

[seventieslord]

Top-6 scoring

Reen, you have six modern NHL forwards in your top-6, and I have four, so this makes it a skewed comparison. But without including Groshev, and with Hagman barely included (and with Tommy Williams playing half his career in the tight O6 era) I hope to show that we do have the offensive edge here.

Keep in mind that this doesn't make any adjustments of any sort. I'm just keeping it raw, since we are in a real small-time draft here.

Name|80+ Pts|70+|60+|50+|40+
Hagman |0|0|0|2|2
Charron|1|4|4|6|6
Williams|0|0|1|3|5
Samsonov|0|2|2|4|9
Emerson|0|2|3|5|6
TOTAL|1|6|10|20|28
Berry|0|0|2|3|5
Widing|0|1|3|5|5
Boyes|0|1|3|4|6
Poddubny|2|3|3|4|4
Krejci|0|1|2|3|3
Ryan|0|1|2|3|3
TOTAL|2|7|15|22|26

Note that Saskatoon's totals (with the exception of the 60+ column) are almost identical to Krylya Sovetov's, except that ours are based on four players and just three NHL seasons by Hagman. Krylya Sovetov's totals are based on the full careers of six post-expansion NHLers.

Assuming that Groshev's substantial soviet career (and short but prolific international career), and Hagman's Finnish (4 scoring titles) and international career (39 points in 56 games) are worth something - and I think they obviously are - this is a big win for Saskatoon.

 

[seventieslord]

Bottom 6 play

Typically, once you get this far down, there isn't much separating bottom-6 players in offense. But I do have a couple of very strong even strength scorers here so let's look if I have earned a bit of an edge.

Keep in mind I am only using even strength scoring because in everyone's case except Ryder, those are the only offensive situations they are going to see.

Name|40+ ESP|35+|30+|25+|20+
Hecht|1|4|6|8|9
Miller|1|4|7|8|9
Blake|4|5|7|8|9
TOTAL|6|13|20|24|27
Laich|0|1|2|4|4
McClement|0|0|1|2|4
Ryder|1|2|2|3|6
Burrows|3|3|3|4|4
Gaustad|0|0|0|2|4
Clowe|2|2|2|4|4
TOTAL|7|8|8|19|26

Note that Saskatoon's THREE forwards who qualify for easy analysis, together have a better showing as even strength scorers than Krylya Sovetov's SIX. Then, keep in mind the following:

- all these players have benefitted in some way, from having better offensive players on their lines. But none even close to Burrows, who has spent four seasons with two art ross winners feeding him pucks. What do his ESP totals look like without the Sedins?

- Gavin Kirk averaged close to a point per game in his WHA career.

- Sibby Nichol was three times top-6 in PCHA scoring.

- Helminen was top-7 in points in the Swedish and Finnish leagues 7 times, and had 93 points in 148 major international games.

Saskatoon's bottom six could conceivably produce double what Krylya Sovetov's does.

Now with guys like Gaustad and Clowe, there is no doubt that Krylya Sovetov will have a physicality edge in the bottom six, but it is not huge. Saskatoon has no shrinking violets in their bottom six either; they are competitive players who want to win. Gaustad/Clowe/Burrows have more of the ability to get some momentum by throwing some hits and taking the opponent off their game, but it is not more important than the massive sacrifice in offensive potential.

Defensively, I think that Hecht, Miller, McClement and Kirk have the best 4 overall resumes among these 9. Not sure of the order. But with three of the top 4, I think we have what it takes to outscore the opponent.

 

[seventieslord]

Starting goalies

I think Regina has a minor edge. Here's why.

- Froese has the better "best" season. Dafoe had an excellent 1999, earning a 2nd all-star team nod, the same trick Froese turned in 1986. Froese was the NHL's sv% leader with a .909, 25 points (or 36%) better than the league average that season. Dafoe was 18 points and 20% better than the league average in 1999. Froese was just two voting points behind Beezer for the 1st all-star team. Dafoe was distant behind Hasek. Edge Froese.

- Froese's 1984 is his 2nd best season, and it's also very impressive. He badly outperformed his teammate Lindbergh, and was 8th in the NHL with an .887 sv%. He outperformed the league average by 10%. In 1998, Dafoe's 2nd best season, he outperformed the league average by 8%. Froese also earned a 7th in vezina voting for his efforts. Close, but edge for Froese.

- Beyond that, Dafoe starts to look better but not much better than Froese, if at all. His 1996, 1997, 2000, 2001 and 2002 seasons are all years spent as a #1 or #1a goalie who was performing at less than the league average for sv%. On average, he was 4 sv% points below average those years. He earned no vezina/all-star recognition these years.

- In Froese's next best 5 years (83, 85, 87, 88, 89), he was a #1b or backup, typically playing with a sv% better than his teammates and the league average. Marginally less impressive than being a below average 1/1a, but I wouldn't say by much, as there is obviously lots of blurring between those classes of goaltenders (i.e. not all 1a's are better than 1b's, not all 1b's are better than all backups). During this time he averaged 8 sv% points over the league average, and earned a 5th in all-star voting in 1987.

- Neither has any other seasons that could be said to add anything to their resumes. Neither has a playoff record that adds anything.

- Dafoe averaged one sv% point below the league average in his career. Froese averaged 13 over. Dafoe playing more games (ever after accounting for era) does help to make up for this, but only barely.

 

[seventieslord]

Defense corps

It doesn't help much to look at how much all-star or norris recognition exists in each defense corps. Because this is it:

- My Frank Martin was 9th in all-star voting one year and made the ASG on merit the year before (meaning about top-10)
- Dennis Wideman was 11th in all-star and norris voting in 2009.

So this tells us nothing. What I want to know is, how often are these defensemen the most relied-upon defensemen on their teams, and how good are their teams that rely on them?

Seasons spent in the top-4 in total icetime on team

Huber: 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4
Jackman: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4
Woolley: 3, 4 (totally a specialist and I know that)

Salei: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4
Poti: 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4
Skrastins: 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4
Girardi: 2, 2, 2, 3
Wideman: 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4
Cirella: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4

What does this tell us? Basically that these are all the same "class" of player, aside from Woolley, who was a PP specialist, and Girardi, who lacks the longevity of the others.

Of course, this also ignores Roy Rickey, who wasn't an all-star but anchored the best defensive team in the PCHA for five years, and Frank martin, the only player in the series to earn significant all-star recognition ever. Plus Garth Boesch who was the #4 on a very strong, v ery deep cup winning Leafs team three times, back when the NHL featured less than 30 defensemen.

To come to any conclusions about the 9 more easily-comparable modern defensemen, more depth is needed. And even then it may not be clear.

 

[seventieslord]

Name|GP|TOI|team quality
Jackman|555|21.27|0.94
Huber|655|23.63|0.83
Woolley|718|17.10|1.17
Cirella|828|20.91|0.82
Girardi|360|22.1|1.03
Wideman|490|23.20|0.97
Salei|917|21.11|0.93
Poti|808|22.72|1.11
Skrastins|832|20.23|0.99

See how tough this is? For example, Woolley had the lowest TOI numbers, but he's also been on the most successful teams, with the hardest defense corps to get minutes on. On the other hand, Huber has the best numbers but did it for the worst teams (aside from Cirella)

It looks clear that Poti has the best all-around figures here. Good GP total, high minutes, and for good teams. Girardi, on the other hand, just hasn't built up a good enough case in just 360 games.

I think it's clear Huber was better than Cirella, and that as far as offensive specialists go, Woolley and Wideman have vastly different figures in different areas but are probably even in terms of overall resumes right now.

There's not a lot else to choose among them, there is a lot of give and take there. We both have good mixes of puckmoving, speed, smarts, defense and toughness. This might come down to how one views the resumes of the three pre-modern defensemen Saskatoon has. Do they improve upon the other three? Decrease the overall value? or are they par for the course? See post 6 for quick rundowns of their achievements, and see their linked bios in the OP to come to your own conclusion.

These could very well be even, in which case I'm leaning on my far superior forwards to be the difference.

 

[seventieslord]

One thing to note, in this series you may have seen that I was often doing incomplete comparisons because I have a number of players from different sources (russia, finland, PCHA, WHA or just NHL pre-expansion). Every single player on Reen's roster is a post-expansion NHL player.

It is possible that all the best players remaining at this time are post-expansion NHLers. It's also possible that you can put together a competitive team using only the post-expansion NHL as your go-to source. It's possible, but is it probable?

The tunnel vision with regards to era is what prevented Reen from having the chance at selecting guys like Frank Martin, Roy Rickey, Sibby Nichol, Gavin Kirk and Matti Hagman. In their place he ended up with more vanilla NHLers, and I don't think his team is the better for it.

good luck, Reen. Wish we could have made more of this.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Defense corps

It doesn't help much to look at how much all-star or norris recognition exists in each defense corps. Because this is it:

- My Frank Martin was 9th in all-star voting one year and made the ASG on merit the year before (meaning about top-10)
- Dennis Wideman was 11th in all-star and norris voting in 2009.

So this tells us nothing. What I want to know is, how often are these defensemen the most relied-upon defensemen on their teams, and how good are their teams that rely on them?

Seasons spent in the top-4 in total icetime on team

Huber: 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4
Jackman: 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4
Woolley: 3, 4 (totally a specialist and I know that)

Salei: 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4
Poti: 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4
Skrastins: 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4
Girardi: 2, 2, 2, 3
Wideman: 1, 2, 2, 2, 4, 4
Cirella: 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 4

What does this tell us? Basically that these are all the same "class" of player, aside from Woolley, who was a PP specialist, and Girardi, who lacks the longevity of the others.

Of course, this also ignores Roy Rickey, who wasn't an all-star but anchored the best defensive team in the PCHA for five years, and Frank martin, the only player in the series to earn significant all-star recognition ever. Plus Garth Boesch who was the #4 on a very strong, v ery deep cup winning Leafs team three times, back when the NHL featured less than 30 defensemen.

To come to any conclusions about the 9 more easily-comparable modern defensemen, more depth is needed. And even then it may not be clear.

I think Girardi deserve a 1 for this year , not ot mention he's probably ( I admit I didn't looked ) the most used dman in the league or very close to it if not with 27 minutes of ice-time.

Any lack of longevity Girardi has , Poti makes up for it.That's 8 years as a top 2 dman.

Pretty hard to compare both group , but I kindda feel my defense is a bit better than yours , I think it's the strong point of my team.

 

[BenchBrawl]

It is possible that all the best players remaining at this time are post-expansion NHLers. It's also possible that you can put together a competitive team using only the post-expansion NHL as your go-to source. It's possible, but is it probable?

good luck, Reen. Wish we could have made more of this.

I was going to come up with this argument a week ago but other things happened since then and I just forgot about it.I think since the average NHLer has become better and the players pool much bigger , there's a strong possibility the deepest you go the more modern players are where it's at ( in general ).

Anyway , I was entering this draft as basically 2nd GM to Velociraptor but things changed and he didn't have any time anymore so I had to do all of this with less time that I usually have and I took the easy route I admit it.I also still wonder where you guys come up with all these depth stats ( not necessarily the one you showed in this thread but in general ).My lack of statistical depth is getting old and I need to be able to dig a little deeper soon enough but don't really know where to check except HR and HDB.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Bottom 6 play

Typically, once you get this far down, there isn't much separating bottom-6 players in offense. But I do have a couple of very strong even strength scorers here so let's look if I have earned a bit of an edge.

Keep in mind I am only using even strength scoring because in everyone's case except Ryder, those are the only offensive situations they are going to see.

Name|40+ ESP|35+|30+|25+|20+
Hecht|1|4|6|8|9
Miller|1|4|7|8|9
Blake|4|5|7|8|9
TOTAL|6|13|20|24|27
Laich|0|1|2|4|4
McClement|0|0|1|2|4
Ryder|1|2|2|3|6
Burrows|3|3|3|4|4
Gaustad|0|0|0|2|4
Clowe|2|2|2|4|4
TOTAL|7|8|8|19|26

Note that Saskatoon's THREE forwards who qualify for easy analysis, together have a better showing as even strength scorers than Krylya Sovetov's SIX. Then, keep in mind the following:

- all these players have benefitted in some way, from having better offensive players on their lines. But none even close to Burrows, who has spent four seasons with two art ross winners feeding him pucks. What do his ESP totals look like without the Sedins?

- Gavin Kirk averaged close to a point per game in his WHA career.

- Sibby Nichol was three times top-6 in PCHA scoring.

- Helminen was top-7 in points in the Swedish and Finnish leagues 7 times, and had 93 points in 148 major international games.

Saskatoon's bottom six could conceivably produce double what Krylya Sovetov's does.

Now with guys like Gaustad and Clowe, there is no doubt that Krylya Sovetov will have a physicality edge in the bottom six, but it is not huge. Saskatoon has no shrinking violets in their bottom six either; they are competitive players who want to win. Gaustad/Clowe/Burrows have more of the ability to get some momentum by throwing some hits and taking the opponent off their game, but it is not more important than the massive sacrifice in offensive potential.

Defensively, I think that Hecht, Miller, McClement and Kirk have the best 4 overall resumes among these 9. Not sure of the order. But with three of the top 4, I think we have what it takes to outscore the opponent.

You definitely have the offensive advantage , but I'm still wondering if guys like Blake will be able to produce as much ES points playing on a 4th line when they were clearly given more important roles in real life , while my players are just expected to do what they do best , which is playing good defense , playing physical , intimidating and trying to create momentum.This is a case where the differance might be bigger on paper then if we actually saw those lines played on the ice.Or it might not be.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Top-6 scoring

Reen, you have six modern NHL forwards in your top-6, and I have four, so this makes it a skewed comparison. But without including Groshev, and with Hagman barely included (and with Tommy Williams playing half his career in the tight O6 era) I hope to show that we do have the offensive edge here.

Keep in mind that this doesn't make any adjustments of any sort. I'm just keeping it raw, since we are in a real small-time draft here.

Name|80+ Pts|70+|60+|50+|40+
Hagman |0|0|0|2|2
Charron|1|4|4|6|6
Williams|0|0|1|3|5
Samsonov|0|2|2|4|9
Emerson|0|2|3|5|6
TOTAL|1|6|10|20|28
Berry|0|0|2|3|5
Widing|0|1|3|5|5
Boyes|0|1|3|4|6
Poddubny|2|3|3|4|4
Krejci|0|1|2|3|3
Ryan|0|1|2|3|3
TOTAL|2|7|15|22|26

Note that Saskatoon's totals (with the exception of the 60+ column) are almost identical to Krylya Sovetov's, except that ours are based on four players and just three NHL seasons by Hagman. Krylya Sovetov's totals are based on the full careers of six post-expansion NHLers.

Assuming that Groshev's substantial soviet career (and short but prolific international career), and Hagman's Finnish (4 scoring titles) and international career (39 points in 56 games) are worth something - and I think they obviously are - this is a big win for Saskatoon.

You have the edge , but I can try to reduce it by saying my top 6 is bigger in size overall , my top 10 finishes look better than if you just take it at numbers of 40-50-60-70-80pts value and that my first line has 2 players who played for years together which is guaranteed chemistry while we'll never know about yours.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Anyway , good luck seventies , I'll send you the all-star voting tomorrow.

 

[seventieslord]

I think Girardi deserve a 1 for this year , not ot mention he's probably ( I admit I didn't looked ) the most used dman in the league or very close to it if not with 27 minutes of ice-time.

Any lack of longevity Girardi has , Poti makes up for it.That's 8 years as a top 2 dman.

Pretty hard to compare both group , but I kindda feel my defense is a bit better than yours , I think it's the strong point of my team.

Yeah, I even liked the Girardi pick when you made it, but putting him up against all these guys and imagining his career ended today, I don't see him being near them yet.

 

[seventieslord]

I was going to come up with this argument a week ago but other things happened since then and I just forgot about it.I think since the average NHLer has become better and the players pool much bigger , there's a strong possibility the deepest you go the more modern players are where it's at ( in general ).

Anyway , I was entering this draft as basically 2nd GM to Velociraptor but things changed and he didn't have any time anymore so I had to do all of this with less time that I usually have and I took the easy route I admit it.I also still wonder where you guys come up with all these depth stats ( not necessarily the one you showed in this thread but in general ).My lack of statistical depth is getting old and I need to be able to dig a little deeper soon enough but don't really know where to check except HR and HDB.

It is obvious the players have gotten better, but the key is dominance of one's own peers in one's era.

With that said, I think with larger talent pools feeding the nhl, there should be more modern players selected than otherwise (I actually think it should progressively increase through time) but the last couple drafts have seen that get completely out of whack.

My ratio of 15 players from the last 45 years and 10 from the 80 before that is probably pretty close to what it "should" be. Of course, I have no real figures to back that up.

 

[seventieslord]

You definitely have the offensive advantage , but I'm still wondering if guys like Blake will be able to produce as much ES points playing on a 4th line when they were clearly given more important roles in real life , while my players are just expected to do what they do best , which is playing good defense , playing physical , intimidating and trying to create momentum.This is a case where the differance might be bigger on paper then if we actually saw those lines played on the ice.Or it might not be.

Yes, that is always a tough call to make. It depends, do you think that, talent-wise, Jason Blake is just a Jay McClement that got to play with Yashin and Sundin? I think players earn those opportunities.

 

[seventieslord]

You have the edge , but I can try to reduce it by saying my top 6 is bigger in size overall , my top 10 finishes look better than if you just take it at numbers of 40-50-60-70-80pts value and that my first line has 2 players who played for years together which is guaranteed chemistry while we'll never know about yours.

I haven't really looked at our sizes in depth. Is your team actually bigger up front, or is it because it is all modern? You pretty much have to add an inch and 10 pounds for players born before 1970, and 2 and 20 for before 1950, and so on, to make a reasonable comparison.

Not saying your team isn't bigger, maybe it is, but drafting the more modern team doesn't mean a gm gets to claim that edge automatically. It is generally accepted here that size relative to era is more important than raw size. Just sayin'.

 

[seventieslord]

Anyway , good luck seventies , I'll send you the all-star voting tomorrow.

Thanks man, I appreciate it.

 

[DaveG]

Saskatoon wins the series in 4

three stars:
Guy Charron
Matti Hagman
Evgeny Groshev

 

[BenchBrawl]

meh... didnt even have time to vote was going to do it today.

I didn't particularly liked my team , but still disagree with the result if only for my defense and goalie who would have prevented such a massacre.

 

[seventieslord]

I agree, 4 is harsh. Everyone does the voting differently. The voting is really based on so few people in the low drafts, that it is pretty easy for voting to be 3-0 or 4-0 or 5-0. In those cases I prefer to use the "median" result.

I.e. suppose I won voting 5-0 but the number of games voted for was 5, 5, 6, 7, 7. I would say I won in 6.

No big deal. Hey, you did alright for someone flying by the seat of their pants who didn't really like their team.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I agree, 4 is harsh. Everyone does the voting differently. The voting is really based on so few people in the low drafts, that it is pretty easy for voting to be 3-0 or 4-0 or 5-0. In those cases I prefer to use the "median" result.

I.e. suppose I won voting 5-0 but the number of games voted for was 5, 5, 6, 7, 7. I would say I won in 6.

No big deal. Hey, you did alright for someone flying by the seat of their pants who didn't really like their team.

Franckly I was going to vote for your team , that's how honest I am

I agree your team was superior but 4-0 superior? I would like to hear the reasoning behind it , but I know I won't hear it so I'll just wish you good luck into the next series and see y'all for the ATD 2012.

 

[BenchBrawl]

BTW I agree with your formula , but for me to lose 4-0 that would mean almost everybody voted 4-0 no?

 

[MadArcand]

No, unfortunately the currently/mostly used formula is incredibly stupid, and only considers series winner.

How a series with 8 votes of 4-0 and two of 3-4 can be 4-1, yet one with 10 votes of 4-3 is a 4-0 has always been beyond me.

 

[BenchBrawl]

No, unfortunately the currently/mostly used formula is incredibly stupid, and only considers series winner.

How a series with 8 votes of 4-0 and two of 3-4 can be 4-1, yet one with 10 votes of 4-3 is a 4-0 has always been beyond me.

What?! Who decided that?! I hope we can change the formula for the next ATD because this is just not logical.Everyone might vote for a team , but everyone also could think this team would win by a hair , which should be presented that way in the results.