Mellanby wasn't making Team Canada for a decade straight. Holding down a spot on the best European team in the world for a decade while they won nearly every tournament they participated in is worth pointing out when the other player he's being compared to had a span of four years making the national team.
I agree that Golikov was the better prime scorer considering competition levels, but the gap in their appearances on the national team is notable nonetheless.
OK, but if we're using national team performance as a bit of a proxy for playoff value for soviets, which is about as good as we can do, it's a little bit of a special situation when you have a player who was talented enough to be a factor more, but fell out of favour with perhaps the toughest coach in hockey history. How do we handle that?
43 games should be enough to be able to conclude he was a better "playoff" producer, I think.
I think I get it, and it's not that I'm unconvinced, but it's all a fudge factor. We accept reasonable comparisons between ATDers and have every Soviet player's scoring fit into that formula. I just personally would prefer a percentage system that isn't fudged, and compares Soviets to Soviets and see how they fall in line (like how we do with pre-NHLers).
This is getting off-topic kind of, but I worry with this line of thinking what happens to the benchmarks when our perceptions of Soviet to NHL players shift. Wouldn't these shifts affect targeted groups of Soviets (e.g. the 70s were too low, the 80s were too high)? If so, all of a sudden the gap between Khomutov's offense and Golikov's offense would be different, in the name of better comparing Soviet leaguers to NHLers. What would that mean for your analysis of a 10% difference between the two above? (even though I agree, looking at point finishes and quality of competition, Golikov was the better prime scorer)
I get what you're saying in the first part, and yeah, it's kind of a choice you have to make right at the start if you're going to try to make an all-eras-included system. Do you just do a soviet VsX then try to translate that to the NHL? or take it season by season on an evolving scale based on how strong we perceive the top end soviet talent to be? i did the latter. Had I done the former, we could be looking at Evgeny Zimin and Golikov and saying the former had a much better soviet VsX than the other, but then what do you do to account for the fact that one played 20 years after the other? What I did accounts for that, or at least tries to.
The first two occurred on an expansion team during it's first two years. I do believe Kunitz could have done this.
Sure the third time was a stronger team, but here's scorers 2-4: Nystrom, Westfall, Howatt. I think Kunitz could do this too.
For being a complementary 1st line forward, Kunitz has done this on two separate Stanley Cup winners, and made an all-star and Olympic team out of it.
The Islanders that Harris led in scoring were a group of blue collar forwards led in scoring by a star defensemen. Why couldn't Kunitz have led the Nashville Predators in scoring once? Phoenix Coyotes? If we look at Harris's first two years, why couldn't he lead an awful team's forwards in scoring twice?
I'm surprised you think Kunitz is a team-leading-scorer capable player, let alone three times. I don't see that in him at all. He gets to where he needs to go so a more talented player can get him the puck, but the idea of him being the most talented player on a line... it's never been the case in real life. most talented on a team? how bad does a team have to be for him to be the guy bouncing pucks off of the schmucks who are the 2nd and 3rd best? I can't even imagine.
I agree Kozhevnikov's peak offense is really impressive. Boldirev can't touch him there, but has excellent consistency in his scoring. I see more than one quote about Boldirev's checking though. I underrated what he brought in addition to scoring before profiling him.
Later on you mention Boldirev has three checking quotes. I'll split the difference with you. It's two. The first one refers to the checking attention he
received. But you are right that he has more than one.
I don't think the FAHL is particularly impressive outside of the years with the Wanderers, and Wanderers and Senators.
[note: I'm using Trail for this and OPHL below]
Here's the scoring table for Smith's first place finish:
1. Owen McCourt - 16 G (8 GP)
1. Don Smith - 16 G (9 GP)
3. Robert Harrison - 15 G (7 GP)
4. Alphonse Prevost - 14 G (10 GP)
5. W. Lannon - 12 G (7 GP)
5. Fred Strike - 12 G (8 GP)
7. Aeneas McMillan - 9 G (9 GP)
8. Jack Marshall - 6 G (3 GP)
8. Ken Mallen 6 G - (6 GP)
10. Buchan - 5 G (4 GP)
10. A. Degray - 5 G (4 GP)
There's no way that's the WHA to the NHL.
I don't think that looks very far off from the WHA to the NHL. there are some more unknown quantities, but there are three players there in the top-10 who proved they were very useful at the NHA/PCHA level and were slightly more dominant in the OPHL than they tended to be in the NHA/PCHA - but not grotesquely so. (if they did blow this league away, that would be damning to the league's quality)
still, I assume you agree that outright deleting it is not fair, and 0.7 can't be far off from a fair factor to use.
I mean we wrote off post 1990 Khomutov with no question. He beat out Selanne (4th), Lindros (4th), Lang (3rd), and Loob (11th) in 1992 Olympics. And in 1993 WC: Corson (3rd), Kariya (5th), Renberg (8th), Nylander (8th), Recchi (13th), Gartner (13th), Dahlen (13th). I don't see why we aren't immediately writing this off if we're treating Khomutov that way.
though the sample size of games is about the same in absolute terms, one represents a full season of games and the other is one tenth of what constituted an NHL season. But in any case, I see that this does add some value for Khomutov. I don't know, I don't quite feel right rolling it in with the Iron Curtain era as though it's the same thing. There was this instant skyrocketing for him and it seems really odd. Am I out of line to say that? Do you think it all belongs in the same bucket?
I'm also missing what you saw in 1909 with the OPHL. (Did Trail get it wrong?)
Here's what I have:
1. Tommy Smith - 33 G (13 GP)
2. Newsy Lalonde - 24 G (11 GP)
2. Johnny Ward - 24 G (11 GP)
4. Ezra Dumart - 23 G (15 GP)
5. Dusome - 20 G (15 GP)
6. Bruce Ridpath - 18 G (11 GP)
6. Cap McDonald - 18 G (15 GP)
7. Marsh Cochrane - 17 GP (9 GP)
7. Toad Edmunds - 17 G (13 GP)
7. Manson - 17 G (14 GP)
10. Seibert - 16 G (14 GP)
...
17. Don Smith - 11 G (14 GP)
Even so, outside of two HHOFers, I'm not seeing much here in terms of competition.
Smith played 14 games, but 8 were for one team and 6 were for another. He had 11 goals for one team and 10 for another (per SIHR) for a total of 21. If The Trail has 11, that's incorrect.
Looks like a lot was filled in for this season. it looks like this on SIHR:
Tommy Smith C Brantford Indians 13 40 0 40 44
Newsy Lalonde C Toronto Pros 11 29 0 29 79
Andrew Dusome RW Galt Pros 17 29 0 29 38
Jack Ward C Brantford Indians 12 25 0 25 16
Ezra Dumart C Berlin Dutchmen 15 23
Don Smith LW Toronto/StCatherines 14 21 0 21 27 0 23 33
Bruce Ridpath F Toronto Pros 11 21 0 21 11
Goldie Cochrane R Galt Pros 17 20 0 20 31
Cap McDonald D Brantford Indians 16 20 0 20 71
Edward Edmunds R Berlin Dutchmen 13 19 0 19 39
As far as competition, all he really needed was one superb top end player to use as a #1 benchmark - and he had two! being compared to Smith's 40 gives him a pretty meh score of 53, which is definitely fair. The overall league was not bad though. In addition to those two, there was Ridpath, who was pretty good, and Ezra Dumart was a huge OPHL scorer in the two years they challenged (very unsuccessfully) for the cup. the league also had Dubbie Kerr, Jack Marks and former IHL scoring sensation Billy Taylor.
damn I didn't even notice.
I'll be honest I think Lukowich is the best glue guy in the series. He did it all, including some very solid scoring where he carried the load. I was very glad to get Hartnell though, he's too good to be a second line glue guy at this level, sadly he's just being compared to an even better one (accidentally compared that is!).
Since we both missed this, all in all this is how I see the four guys:
Lukowich
Kunitz
Hartnell
Harris
Assuming Harris is in his right place, give me Hartnell over him as I said above.
All of them bring a nice range of glue guy skills, right? That part probably doesn't separate any of them from the others
too much.
So looking at offense again, we have this (VsX 7-year totals including WHA, and collaboration score):
Kunitz: 428, 0.88
Harris: 365, 1.15
Hartnell: 365, 1.01
Lukowich: 355, 1.24
Again, the point collaboration score represents a weighted 7-year prime average of what their points per game was, compared to the combined weighted points per game of the players who scored points on the same goals that they did.
Do you realize how bad that looks for Kunitz? it's fairly rare for a player with raw totals that strong, to actually have a collaboration score below 1.0, because even if a strong linemate is feeding you, you're gonna get points with defensemen, the 3rd wheel on the line, and other lines you occasionally play with. With all that considered, it should still be fairly easy to get into the 1.0+ range. (Delvecchio did in all seasons but two, and with ease)
For him to have a score significantly below 1.0 is really damning to his offensive value. I know it's weird to say that for a guy who had a 2013 season like he had. But he's a real passenger offensively, and if you look at his age, he really shouldn't be better now than he was in his mid-late 20s - there is something real Johnny Bucyk going on there.
I think Lukowich and Harris have clearly demonstrated they were much more responsible for their offensive totals than Hartnell and Kunitz. I don't know if there's a mathematically logical way to combine those two numbers and arrive at a composite that tells the whole story, but my gut's saying those two are definitely the better two offensive players here, and therefore the better all-around players, too.
I don't think Smith and Robinson is as clear cut as you had above the reasons I said. I want to see where I'm getting mixed up on the OPHL, but I think Robinson has an argument to be better.
I think his 1909 is unimpeachable. Tell me your thoughts on 1907. Even if you use 50% there, he's still up 390 to 372 and with better "supporting years" on top of it.
I don't see what Seiling has on Pandolfo really considering they're very similar and Pandolfo got the Selke votes and press for shadowing Jagr.
He's a better offensive player, isn't he? As two-way players they should be very similarly valued.
I don't agree with this even though it's reasonable. We are the at the time when McNeil is at his best and Konvalenko his worst. Konvalenko being outdueled by Martin was seen as the undoing of his Soviet teams in the Worlds. McNeil routinely raised his game in the playoffs and this is where he's most valuable.
This is the current conventional wisdom on Konovalenko. I've been collecting passages to put together a good bio on him - which I'll finish tonight - and I think that overall, the conventional wisdom is mostly mistaken.
As a preview, he was flaky, but only as much as any goalie. He could crumble, but he rebounded from bad games in a big way. He was
very respected by Tretiak. I'll let you know when I've put it all together.
I don't get why being on a good team makes Smith a leader with no C or any mention of leadership in his bio. Lukowich was a captain for one year.
Bykov wore the K at some point, I struggle to ever find information on European captains so I don't have any more information.
I'm not sure this area is much of a difference honestly.
no, probably not.
I don't see why Kozhevnikov is a slam dunk over Bykov to start. Kozhevnikov has that four year peak (2, 2, 5, 6) and a 3rd in goals in one Olympics. Bykov has 3, 4, 7, 8 in Soviet league play (plus 3 11th place finishes) and 4, 4, 5, 5, 5 in international play including the 87 Canada Cup. I think he's definitely better than Kozhevnikov.
As an overall package, perhaps I'd agree if we're comparing them as members of a line. On a power play though, you're really looking at how explosive they are, how talented they are, and honestly their very best years are the best way to do that. Kozhevnikov was more of a singular talent than Bykov and the PP is the one place where I'd be sure he would be better.
Boldirev's edge is not small, he's the best post expansion forward (who is playing up front) on either PP and by a good margin.
(this leaves out the past season for active players)
|GP|Adjusted PPP|Points per season|Usage, Team Rating
Boldirev|1052|251|19|48%, .86
Kisio|761|150|16|39%, .96
Plekanec|598|146|19|43%, 1.12
Hartnell|875|131|12|37%, 1.11
Kunitz|581|119|16|52%, 1.09
Lukowich|582|97|13|41%, .87
I mean Boldirev has 100 more points on the powerplay than anyone else, while maintaining the best average in the group, and on the worst units!
Plekanec was respectable, but we don't Robinson's figures and we know he was the better scorer. Hartnell did what Lukowich did on the PP for around 300 more games. If you give Lukowich the benefit of the doubt with his WHA years, he gets the edge and the smallest difference in the group, not the largest.
Zhamnov would best Boldirev, but you have him on the point where he outclasses Pavelski instead. Neither d man rounding out our units moves the needle here. I think Pittsburgh's unit is superior based on the edge at 2/3 forward spots.
- just to clarify, I was looking at the wrong number when I said Lukowich had a big edge on Hartnell. I saw 19 but that was his career adjusted +/-, not his PP points per season!
Re: Robinson and Plekanec: It's fair IMO to use overall offense as a proxy for PP offense for guys from his time. In this case Plekanec actually has a slight edge as an overall producer (based on best 7 years), but unlike most bottom-six types, his ES scores are worse, so he scores a disproportionately high number of points on the PP. So the edge he has overall is a tad higher on the PP. That's where I got that anyway.
Agree that Boldirev is the best forward playing up front. But after that, Regina has the next best three. Lukowich doesn't have Kunitz' numbers, but those collaboration scores...
|GP|Usage|Team Rating
Brad Marsh|1086|49%|.90
Harold Snepsts|1033|49%|1.08
Paul Martin|584|45%|.86
Mark Hardy|915|44%|1.12
Keith Brown|876|39%|1.02
Rick Smith|687|38%|.89
I can agree with your call on the forwards. Smith's usage % wasn't that impressive for a short career guy, is he really a good specialist? Is there anything in Brown's game that make it clear he was as responsible for his team's PKing results as Snepsts was? You mention that the team differences don't truly capture the difference between Snepsts and Marsh (even though we agree Marsh is an elite PKer at this level right), so why isn't this even more true for Hardy considering the defensive game he developed on garbage teams?
I don't think the difference on second units makes it a push considering those concerns.
Smith's not a short career guy, he had 200+ WHA games and was a good NHLer both before and after, so he's really more like a 900 game guy. (I didn't mean he was a PK specialist, sorry, just a defensive specialist in general)
To answer the question about Brown: while I don't think he was more key to his team's PK results than Snepsts, yes, I can answer what made him a useful penalty killer - his incredible physical strength, according to his bio, thanks to prolific weightlifting, which would have benefited him in front of the net and in close quarters.
not sure exactly what to say about Hardy. He was used a lot but early on in his career it wasn't exactly his strength, and it showed in the team results. With a guy like Snepsts, you get the sense he was really relied on for that. He wasn't just a guy who put up points who they also stuck on the PK - which is sort of what you could say for early LA-era Hardy's penalty killing resume.
anyway - if you were to average out our modern defensemen yours would be 46% and 0.96, mine 42% and 1.00. Throw in Smith and Holden and the gap should lessen but the edge is there for you on defense. The forwards average 29% and 0.89 for me, and 39% and 0.96 for you, but then you throw in Dahlstrom and Hiller...
Dahlstrom's Hawks were 3-3-4-5-5-6-7 in goals against during his time there, so if we use team defense as a proxy for PK success (what else can we do?) then his teams were a notch below average. Hiller's teams were 1-1-1-1-2-4-5-6 in defense, so a notch above average. Overall you've got a group of PK forwards who were used a little more, but contributed to penalty kills that were essentially average. Mine achieved better results in less usage. I'm not good at determining exactly when higher usage makes one guy a more historically noteworthy penalty killer than a guy with better results. My gut's telling me I have the better forwards and the penalty kills are a wash overall.
