AAA2012 Prelims: Eisbaren Berlin vs. Macon Whoopee

[seventieslord]

EHC Eisbären Berlin
Coach: Jimmy Skinner
Captain: Olli Jokinen
Assistant Captains: Geoff Sanderson, Rick Smith

Jeff Friesen-Olli Jokinen-Mac Colville
Geoff Sanderson-Mike Ribeiro-Doug Brown
Mark Osborne-Travis Zajac-Mark Hunter
Val Fonteyne-Chris Gratton-Shawn Horcoff
Bob Berry, Travis Green, Brian Mullen

Rick Smith-Randy Manery
Leo Lamoureux-Alex Levinsky
Nikolai Makarov-Zbynek Michalek
Zarley Zalapski

Herbert Collins
Viktor Zinger

PP1: Friesen-Jokinen-Colville-Makarov-Lamoureux
PP2: Sanderson-Ribeiro-Hunter-Levinsky-Manery

PK1: Osborne-Zajac-Smith-Michalek
PK2: Fonteyne-Brown-Manery-Levinsky
PK3: Horcoff-Osborne-Smith-Michalek

VS

Macon Whoopee

Head Coach
Paul Maurice

Derek King - Tim Young - Anson Carter
Red Green - Don Raleigh - Mike Murphy
Magnus Arvedson - Jude Drouin - Donald Audette
Matt Cooke - Wes Walz - Matthew Barnaby

Tom Kurvers - Bret Hedican
Richard Matvichuk - Stephane Robidas
Al McNeil - Joni Pitkanen

Hal Winkler
Pekka Rinne


Spares
Paul Ranheim, W
Steve Ott, C/LW
Sean Avery, C/LW
Joe Corvo, D

​

Click to read more...

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I see a couple things to note right away. The first is a large advantage for Eisbaren in firepower in the top 6. Looking at the first lines:

-Friesen's adjusted PPG is .648 over 893 games, and King's is .712 over 830 games. In terms of individual seasons of adjusted PPG, their 5 best are:

Friesen-72, 67, 65, 64, 57
King-69, 63, 61, 61, 59

I'll give King an advantage offensively here, but Friesen helps to close the gap by bring some intangibles like grit and defensive play later in his career. I also think Friesen is a better fit for how his line is going to operate.

-Jokinen and Young is an advantage to Jokinen IMO. I'll give Young the advantage in intangibles with some defensive ability, but Jokinen has an advantage in offensive ability. Young had a .715PPG over 628 games, and Jokinen has .702 over 1,042 games. Young did that with a much better supporting cast, and led his team in points only once, while Jokinen has led his team in points 5 times.

-Carter and Colville is a sort of hard comparison. Colville had the benefit of being the 3rd wheel on a great line, but brings some glue guy skills to the table as well. Carter had good size, but the impression I get from him is that he didn't use it all that much. He used it to gain position in front of the net and shield the puck, but didn't seem like much of a grinder considering he topped 40PIM only once in his career. Each guy has 6 seasons of over 40% of 2nd place, and they add up to 337 for Colville, and 318 for Carter. But, take into account Colville being helped by linemates, and his advantage gets smaller. Take into account that Colville was known as a good defensive player, I think he gets the advantage here. He also missed a couple years that likely would have been productive years as a result of being in WWII for 3 years.

That brings us to the chemistry of the first lines. Eisbaren's first line runs around getting Jokinen the puck with two wingers that were decent playmakers, could play some defense, and were willing to go in the corners. Macon's first line seems to lack a physical presence to retrieve pucks in the corners. King was mostly a speedy perimeter player, as was Young. Carter had size, but from what I remember of him, he didn't go in the corners much, instead using his size to get position in front of the net. I think Eisbaren has the advantage among first lines.

 

[seventieslord]

I'll give King an advantage offensively here, but Friesen helps to close the gap by bring some intangibles like grit and defensive play later in his career.

He had those things for most/all of his career, not just at the end when his offense dried up. He was also much more prominent to his teams' offense. Don't forget that he was one of the fastest players in the NHL.

-Carter and Colville is a sort of hard comparison. Colville had the benefit of being the 3rd wheel on a great line, but brings some glue guy skills to the table as well. Carter had good size, but the impression I get from him is that he didn't use it all that much. He used it to gain position in front of the net and shield the puck, but didn't seem like much of a grinder considering he topped 40PIM only once in his career. Each guy has 6 seasons of over 40% of 2nd place, and they add up to 337 for Colville, and 318 for Carter. But, take into account Colville being helped by linemates, and his advantage gets smaller. Take into account that Colville was known as a good defensive player, I think he gets the advantage here. He also missed a couple years that likely would have been productive years as a result of being in WWII for 3 years.

You're being generous. Colville has better offensive stats than most O6 wingers selected, and has the two-way game in addition to that. Carter doesn't really match up in any way that I can see.

Colville was voted an all-star in this draft, and Carter was one of the least popular picks here (and I didn't even vote for him).

 

[BillyShoe1721]

He had those things for most/all of his career, not just at the end when his offense dried up. He was also much more prominent to his teams' offense. Don't forget that he was one of the fastest players in the NHL.

From what I read, Friesen seemed a like a bit of a hothead in the beginning of his career that focused more on offense, and developed that two-way game as he matured as a player. I only remember the Friesen of the early 2000s that was more of a gritty role player for the Devils.

You're being generous. Colville has better offensive stats than most O6 wingers selected, and has the two-way game in addition to that. Carter doesn't really match up in any way that I can see.

Colville was voted an all-star in this draft, and Carter was one of the least popular picks here (and I didn't even vote for him).

Fair enough. Carter's offense looked better than I thought it would going in, so I didn't want to just declare Colville better.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

2nd Lines:

-I like Red Green. I had him last year in the AAA draft, and he's got a decent offensive resume between the NHL and NOHA days(where he outscored a 25 year old Bill Cook) and he brings a little grit to the table despite being a very small guy. But, Sanderson brings better longevity, and played in a much better era. Green played in the early per-consolidation NHL, and had 2 decent seasons there and some NOHA seasons that we think were pretty good. Sanderson was 50% or more of the 2nd place goal scorer 6 times, and has another season at 47%. Advantage goes to Sanderson.

-That brings us to one of the more interesting comparisons, Ribeiro and Raleigh. Raleigh has six relevant Vs2 seasons, and Ribeiro has 8. Raleigh's 6 best seasons total 377. Ribeiro's 8 relevant seasons total 509, and his best 6 total 412. Here are their best 6 each:

Raleigh-88, 67, 59, 55, 54, 54
Ribeiro-78, 74, 72, 71, 65, 52

So, Raleigh has the 1st, 6th, 8th, 9th 10th, 11th best seasons. Ribeiro has the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 12th best seasons. Neither guy had the benefit of playing with any great linemates, so there is no skewing of the numbers here. But, Raleigh was ranked as the 2nd best center in this draft. Neither guy brings any intangibles to the table that I know of, so from what I'm seeing, Ribeiro is a better offensive player than Raleigh, and a better player overall. The only thing that I see that Raleigh has that Ribeiro doesn't is that he was voted to two all star games by merit. Ribeiro has been voted to one.

-That brings us to the two glue guys for each line. I'll admit, Murphy is definitely one of the better glue guys in this draft. He's responsible defensive, and has a decent offensive resume. Brown is definitely a weak spot in my top 6 offensively. But since he's lined up with Sanderson and Ribeiro, his offense is not going to be that relied upon. Murphy gets the advantage here for sure.

Overall, I think the 2nd lines are an advantage to Eisbaren because of a pretty big advantage at LW and what I believe is an advantage at center.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think Carter was a decent (not great) pick in a vaccuum. I think a few people were turned off with the "oh yeah, you like Burrows? How about Carter?" way in which he was drafted.

(Hey, that's one of the few parts of the draft where i was paying attention!)

 

[tarheelhockey]

Ribeiro > Raleigh is the kind of conclusion that shines a light on the flaws of ATD-style stat obsession.

Putting aside the hair-splitting of obscure stats, single-digit voting for the Byng, and all the other noise, what has Ribeiro actually done in the NHL to vault his career over that of an Original Six star? What is the highlight of Mike Ribeiro's career? What is he best known for?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Neither guy had the benefit of playing with any great linemates, so there is no skewing of the numbers here. .

Raleigh played for a doormat in the Original 6 era, when the 4 best teams were loaded with stars. Ribeiro has played for average teams in a 30 team era loaded with parity.

There absolutely is a skewing of numbers.

Ribeiro > Raleigh is the kind of conclusion that shines a light on the flaws of ATD-style stat obsession.

Putting aside the hair-splitting of obscure stats, single-digit voting for the Byng, and all the other noise, what has Ribeiro actually done in the NHL to vault his career over that of an Original Six star? What is the highlight of Mike Ribeiro's career? What is he best known for?

ON the other hand, what did Raleigh accomplish? He was voted Team MVP in a 6 team league (but the same season his goalie won the Hart?), which I think is a big deal, but Billy is right, it is just one season.

(I might have missed something from your profile though)

BTW, the "splitting hairs" is why I no longer participate in drafts below the MLD level, but that's just me.

 

[tarheelhockey]

ON the other hand, what did Raleigh accomplish?

The thing he's most remembered for is leading the underdog Rangers past the Habs and to within a double-OT game 7 goal of upsetting the Howe/Lindsay/Abel/Kelly/Sawchuk Red Wings in 1950. In the Finals he scored two OT goals and rang a shot off the crossbar in that Game 7 OT.

What's Ribeiro's career going to be remembered for? What's his "tell the grandkids" moment?

 

[seventieslord]

Ribeiro > Raleigh is the kind of conclusion that shines a light on the flaws of ATD-style stat obsession.

I'd say that reaching the above conclusion shines a light on why the 10-15% adjustment for pre-expansion guys makes a lot of sense and why you shouldn't ignore it.

Raleigh is clearly better, IMO, and I am not sure how Jokinen ended up ahead of him in voting, either. Actually, I am sure. one ballot inexplicably had him omitted entirely.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Ribeiro > Raleigh is the kind of conclusion that shines a light on the flaws of ATD-style stat obsession.

Putting aside the hair-splitting of obscure stats, single-digit voting for the Byng, and all the other noise, what has Ribeiro actually done in the NHL to vault his career over that of an Original Six star? What is the highlight of Mike Ribeiro's career? What is he best known for?

How are they obscure stats? If I'm comparing an O6 guy to a modern guy, is there a more cut and dry stat than using Vs2? I didn't mention Lady Byng at all because it doesn't mean anything. I'm not sure I'd call Raleigh a "star". This is the AAA draft, none of these guys are stars. Here's something you cannot debate. People have said that Raleigh's teams were terrible, yet he led them in points just once. Ribeiro led his team in points 4 times. Is it easier to lead a team in points when there are 30 teams compared to 6, of course it is. But I think the point of Raleigh played on bad teams and Ribeiro's were better is exaggerated. Give Raleigh the .15% boost and it's 433.5 to 412 in favor of Raleigh. Adjust Raleigh's adjusted PPG to reflect an 82 game season and give him the 15% boost and his adjusted PPG is .773 over 651.8 career games. Ribeiro's is .813 over 737 games. I don't know any other ways I can compare them.

What is Ribeiro's lasting impression on this league? It's that he was a diver, a whiner, and a wuss because that's what people remember from his early days. You don't have to like him to recognize that he's been one of the best playmakers in the NHL for the last 8 years. He's 10th in assists over that period, and the entire top 37 was taken before him. And he's 21st in assists/game during that span too(of players with at least 100 games in that span). People don't like him, and I don't really like him either, but he's a great playmaker.

It shouldn't matter what his "lasting impression" on the league is. If lasting impression and one signature clutch this is what we're basing this on, then Danny Briere is the best player in the NHL right now.

 

[seventieslord]

Give Raleigh the .15% boost and it's 433.5 to 412 in favor of Raleigh

This is about what I see the difference between them as.

Raleigh is in a class by himself in this draft, whatever that means, and then there's about 11 who are all arguably next-best, and that includes the top-2 centers of all the top three teams in this division. Comparing those 11 is splitting hairs, but I don't think it's splitting hairs with Raleigh. I think a separation exists there.

 

[tarheelhockey]

How are they obscure stats?

Maybe the easier question is, how is Vs2 not obscure? The way it's used around here is practically a custom ATD invention.

I'm not sure I'd call Raleigh a "star".

He was definitely a star, both on and off the ice.

This is the AAA draft, none of these guys are stars.

Raleigh wouldn't have been in the AAA if the ATD had been a 1000-pick draft.

Here's something you cannot debate. People have said that Raleigh's teams were terrible, yet he led them in points just once. Ribeiro led his team in points 4 times. Is it easier to lead a team in points when there are 30 teams compared to 6, of course it is.

It sounds like you answered your own argument there.

You don't have to like him to recognize that he's been one of the best playmakers in the NHL for the last 8 years. He's 10th in assists over that period, and the entire top 37 was taken before him. And he's 21st in assists/game during that span too(of players with at least 100 games in that span).

Let's split the difference and say he was the 15th best pure playmaker over those 8 years.

Where do you think Raleigh ranks during his best 8 years?

It shouldn't matter what his "lasting impression" on the league is. If lasting impression and one signature clutch this is what we're basing this on, then Danny Briere is the best player in the NHL right now.

Briere would be better than either of these guys for sure.

The reason I brought up "lasting impressions" is that the stat-obsessiveness of this forum goes over the top at times. Maybe I'm off in left field in relation to the culture around here, but I really couldn't care less that Ribeiro or Raleigh scored .XXX of the second leading scorer in a particular year, and scoring .XXX+1 is literally not any more impressive to me. In order to make those numbers meaningful, you have to go back and build a framework of context around them... and once you've done that, the stat itself is just a bit of trivia.

I look at a guy like Ribeiro, who I admit is a talented player, and I see a guy who has never actually done anything with his stats. He has had exactly one respectable playoff in his career, and that ended with him being mostly ineffective in the semifinals (1 or 2 meaningful points in 6 games). Other than that, honestly, his career seems pretty empty of meaning. People remember him as a diver and a wuss because he hasn't given them much else to hang onto in the ensuing 6 or 7 years.

 

[seventieslord]

I don't want to sound stat-obsessed when I say this, but we're talking about primarily offensive players here, right? So when we're discussing how much offense they're going to provide in this imaginary league, the first thing we should start with is how much they processed relative to their peers, right?

that part should be agreed on universally. It's the contextual adjustments that come afterwards, that are more difficult.

and if you don't like percentages, show us something more efficient. The way I see it, they are a shorthand answer too the simple question: offensively, how close to the best were they?

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Maybe the easier question is, how is Vs2 not obscure? The way it's used around here is practically a custom ATD invention.

I meant it's not obscure in the sense that it's easy to understand what it means, and it's the best thing we've come up with.

He was definitely a star, both on and off the ice.

I think our definitions of "star" are different. I see only a handful of players in this draft that you could call "stars" because their context was they were a famous Olympian only(Seth Martin) or a star because they played in an international/inferior league(Herb Carnegie and Jozef Malecek). But if they played in the NHL, I don't think any of them would be stars.

Raleigh wouldn't have been in the AAA if the ATD had been a 1000-pick draft.

You could say that about plenty of guys. Doesn't mean anything.

It sounds like you answered your own argument there.

You cut out the caveat that quantified that entire statement.

Where do you think Raleigh ranks during his best 8 years?

During his best 8 years(his only real 8 years of production) he was 7th in the NHL in assists. On a APG basis, he was 12th among players with at least 100 games played. During those 8 years, there were 95 forwards in the NHL that played at least 100 games, and he was the ~9th best playmaker. During Ribeiro's prime(03-04 to 11-12), there were 640 forwards that played at least 100 games, and he was the ~15th best playmaker. 9th out of 95, or 15th out of 640?

I look at a guy like Ribeiro, who I admit is a talented player, and I see a guy who has never actually done anything with his stats. He has had exactly one respectable playoff in his career, and that ended with him being mostly ineffective in the semifinals (1 or 2 meaningful points in 6 games). Other than that, honestly, his career seems pretty empty of meaning. People remember him as a diver and a wuss because he hasn't given them much else to hang onto in the ensuing 6 or 7 years.

There are plenty of guys that have "hollow" stats in their careers, but they are still highly regarded. Not every guy gets the chance to play on a cup-contending team and plays great in the playoffs, it's just the luck of the draw sometimes that the guy is a good player that just doesn't get the chance to play on teams that are that good. Take Jay Bouwmeester for example, who has logged some of the most minutes in the NHL since the lockout, but has never been on a playoff team.

 

[tarheelhockey]

and if you don't like percentages, show us something more efficient.

That's just it, though -- if I came something more efficient, I'd have the same attitude toward that method too.

We're talking about players separated by 50 years and in utterly non-comparable situations. To me, attempting to fix their stats to a common standard is stretching the numbers far beyond what they were ever meant to signify. There are far too many moving parts for us to derive sound conclusions from any such metric, unless we're willing to do a huge amount of research to confirm them, in which case we may as well do the research and forget the stats.

 

[seventieslord]

That's just it, though -- if I came something more efficient, I'd have the same attitude toward that method too.

We're talking about players separated by 50 years and in utterly non-comparable situations. To me, attempting to fix their stats to a common standard is stretching the numbers far beyond what they were ever meant to signify. There are far too many moving parts for us to derive sound conclusions from any such metric, unless we're willing to do a huge amount of research to confirm them, in which case we may as well do the research and forget the stats.

I agree that there are so many moving parts, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try. If we don't have some sort of quantifiable metric to at least start with, we're probably lost.

And hey, Billy's the one trying to take players separated by 60 years and fit the metric to them. I'm trying to say that it doesn't apply to them equally and that Raleigh is clearly better. I've taken that starting point (percentage) and applied some context and sense to it because I recognize there are different situations.

Intuitively it makes sense. Raleigh was far ahead of other pre-expansion centers heading into this, while Jokinen and Ribeiro were in a group of about ten post-expansion guys who were all within about 5% of eachother in terms of peak output. Their raw percentage scores top those of Raleigh. Intuitively, does it make sense that there were a dozen or more post-expansion centers better than the best pre-expansion one heading into this? I don't think so. I like my numbers but don't think I don't use my gut sometimes too.

As for the percentages being "obscure", we're all just trying to make sense of stats in a new way because adjusted stats were far from perfect. The concept makes logical sense and it's not like there's really a mainstream that we're straying from. You can't really complete this sentence, I imagine: "When comparing the offensive output of players 60 years apart, I don't like obscure things like percentages. I like the old-fashioned way, which is ....."

 

[BillyShoe1721]

3rd Lines

I'm not sure what to think of Macon's third line. Arvedson is a decent two-way player that can chip in a little offense, Drouin is a good offensive player for a 3rd line who doesn't seem to bring anything in terms of intangibles(and is pretty small) and Audette is a good offensive player for 3rd lines, and brings a little defensive ability. It looks like a 3rd line that's heavily leaned towards offense with a little defensive ability sprinkled in.

Eisbaren's 3rd line has a much more traditional 3rd line build. Osborne was voted to the first AS team here, and Zajac was voted as the 4th best bottom 6 forward, but is on the 2nd AS team because the only 3 guys ahead of him were centers as well. Macon's group will probably put in more goals, but in terms of serving as a traditional 3rd line, it won't be effective. It features a guy with decent size(Arvedson) that wasn't physical, and two smaller guys that aren't physical at all. I see this line getting pushed around by physical defensive corps, and physical forward groups as well. My 3rd line would grind this line into a dust with Osborne and Hunter being known muckers and grinders that chip in offense as well. Hunter isn't on the level of Zajac or Osborne defensively, but he's still decent.

Overall, Macon's line is the most offensively talented line, but I see them getting pushed around because they're small and non-physical, while not really serving the purpose of a traditional 3rd line. I think the gap between the offense of these 2 groups is definitely smaller than the gap in defense and intangibles, which is way in favor of Eisbaren. Add in the fact that Osborne and Zajac were rated among the top bottom 6 players in the draft, and none of Macon's guys were even mentioned, I'd give the advantage to Eisbaren here.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There are some long-time Devils fans who think Travis Zajac is just as good defensively as John Madden was. I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think he's that far behind. His two-way play was definitely a big part of the trip to the finals in 2012 (IMO, he was the 4th most important player on that team in the playoffs behind Brodeur, Kovalchuk, and Parise).

He got significant Selke votes in 2009 (9th) and 2010 (6th)

 

[BillyShoe1721]

There are some long-time Devils fans who think Travis Zajac is just as good defensively as John Madden was. I wouldn't go that far, but I don't think he's that far behind. His two-way play was definitely a big part of the trip to the finals in 2012 (IMO, he was the 4th most important player on that team in the playoffs behind Brodeur, Kovalchuk, and Parise).

He got significant Selke votes in 2009 (9th) and 2010 (6th)

He was actually 7th in 2009 and 6th in 2010.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He was actually 7th in 2009 and 6th in 2010.

Huh? Why'd I type 9th? Damn my fat fingers!

 

[BillyShoe1721]

The 4th lines for these teams seem to serve a different purpose. Mine serves as a shutdown line, and it looks like Macon's serves as a high-energy forechecking line with a little defensive ability. Cooke and Fonteyne are very different players. Neither is a real factor offensively, but Cooke is the better offensive player. But, neither of these guys is here for their offense. Fonteyne was a model of clean, disciplined and effective play, and Cooke is well known for cheapshots(he's calmed himself this past season, but for the rest of his career his MO was a cheapshot artist). They're effective in different ways. Walz is better defensively than Gratton, but significantly worse offensively. Gratton brings physicality that Walz can't match either. Shawn Horcoff is a better hockey player than Matthew Barnaby. Personally, I'd rather have my line because the largest gap is clearly at RW. Eisbaren's line will produce more offensively, while being a little worse defensively.

 

[Michael Farkas]

I largely agree with what was said about the 4th lines, except I've never seen Shawn Horcoff play RW in his life - unless I'm misdisremembering...his style of play would be pretty severely disadvantaged there...

 

[BillyShoe1721]

I largely agree with what was said about the 4th lines, except I've never seen Shawn Horcoff play RW in his life - unless I'm misdisremembering...his style of play would be pretty severely disadvantaged there...

You are correct that he doesn't play RW. It was more of a decision that putting Horcoff at RW would be better than the mediocre RWs that were out there. It also had a bit to do with the fact that Gratton is an extremely good faceoff-man. His offensive production and effectiveness will be reduced a bit, but I still think he's a good 4th line wing here. Admittedly, I know very little about his playing style because I'm a Flyers fan, and I get to see him play basically once a year.

 

[seventieslord]

Mike, what are your thoughts on Gratton? I get the impression he’s being oversold. He has that really short offensive peak but for the vast majority of his career was a 30-40 point player. He was used in a defensive role later on but it was more due to size and inconsistent offense that precluded him from scoring line roles; I’ve read he wasn’t cut out for a defensive role and wasn’t that good at it when used that way. He just seemed to be a very disappointing, inconsistent player, and I remember early in his career he was one of my favourites; it seemed he had “poor man’s Lindros” potential. That said, ignoring his potential, does what he did on the ice make him a good pick at this point? I know that he has gone hundreds more picks beyond this point a couple of times…