ATD2011 Sam Pollock Semi: (2) Gwinnett Gladiators vs. (3) Chicago Steelers

[jarek]

Coaches coach. Determining the icetime and usage rate of our players is an ATD convention that predates me, and I've been around for awhile. As it has always been the assumption that the whole careers of ATD players are known to the coaches in our little imaginary universe, any sensible coach, when faced with a tandem of Barrasso and Nabokov, would choose to lean on Nabokov's strong regular season credentials and take it easy on the fragile Barrasso. It's not rocket science. Barrasso was a vastly superior postseason player to Nabokov, and his only playoff hiccup came in a season in which his coach (Scotty Bowman) chose to ride him in pursuit of a meaningless record for something like 30 games straight to end the season. I chose Evgeni Nabokov specifically to take pressure off of Barrasso in the regular season, and stated as much at the time I drafted him.

If a coach had the propensity to overuse his starting goaltender in the regular season, well, I really don't care what your plan was, I will default to what the coach believed in. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here, because I don't know how Hart worked in that respect, but I'd be very careful in the future about superceding the authority of your coach when it comes to managing the team.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think many coaches really have reputations for how they handle goalies. Most seem to do an adequate job. Keenan is obviously noteworthy as a guy who swapped goalies multiple times per game; Torts was always tough on his goalies, etc.

 

[jarek]

As far as Tarasov, I certainly think he was the best coach ever. His USSR club won all but 5 domestic championships. It went so far as people saying whether or not they would win their game was in question, but rather by how much. Internationally, he won 9 straight world golds (including 3 Olympics).

As far as his "draconian" training methods, keep in mind the era that he coached in. Many say that a guy like Fred Shero was well ahead of his time as a coach (keeping in mind that he studied Tarasov), yet many of the principles that he based his coaching on are just obvious things to follow these days. Tarasov was definitely way ahead of his time as a hockey genius.

You really should buy his books. Great insight into his thoughts.

 

[Sturminator]

Your first line wingers, especially Guerin, are overmatched.

A small comparison of Bill Guerin vs. Daniel Alfredsson's Adjusted Even Strength Points totals, using 40 points as an arbitrary cutoff:

Guerin AESP: 72, 65, 61, 56, 52, 49, 47, 41, 41

Alfredsson : 71, 67, 62, 61, 61, 58, 56, 51, 51, 44, 43

Not as big a gap as you expected, is it? Out to their four best seasons, they are very close. Alfredsson certainly had better non-peak years as a scorer (in addition to being the better powerplay producer), but the offensive margin at even strength is basically a question of post-peak longevity, and when you get past the 5th best offensive season, I think longevity counts for less and less. The difference between Guerin and Alfie at even strength is just not all that great. Alfie was the better defensive player, but Guerin was a lot more aggressive and physical. Guerin was simply a much better even strength player than people give him credit for.

As for your comments about the first line wingers, in general...I suppose I shall have to remind the ATD GMs why Frank Foyston gets drafted where he does. Foyston's career was actually quite Fedorov like in terms of the comparison between regular season and postseason production. That will have to wait for the weekend.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

A small comparison of Bill Guerin vs. Daniel Alfredsson's Adjusted Even Strength Points totals, using 40 points as an arbitrary cutoff:

Guerin AESP: 72, 65, 61, 56, 52, 49, 47, 41, 41

Alfredsson : 71, 67, 62, 61, 61, 58, 56, 51, 51, 44, 43

Not as big a gap as you expected, is it? Out to their four best seasons, they are very close. Alfredsson certainly had better non-peak years as a scorer (in addition to being the better powerplay producer), but the offensive margin at even strength is basically a question of post-peak longevity, and when you get past the 5th best offensive season, I think longevity counts for less and less. The difference between Guerin and Alfie at even strength is just not all that great. Alfie was the better defensive player, but Guerin was a lot more aggressive and physical. Guerin was simply a much better even strength player than people give him credit for.

As for your comments about the first line wingers, in general...I suppose I shall have to remind the ATD GMs why Frank Foyston gets drafted where he does. Foyston's career was actually quite Fedorov like in terms of the comparison between regular season and postseason production. That will have to wait for the weekend.

I am puzzled by the bolded. Isn't this right where longevity starts? Usually a player's best 5 seasons are considered his prime. If you don't think anything after that is that important then you are basically saying longevity doesn't count for much at all. Convenient cutoff point as well, in his 9th best season Alfie was producing as much as Guerin was in this 5th best.

Longevity should count for something and it is a reason Alfredsson is considered better than Guerin. I also think Alfredsson's defensive advantage is larger and more important than the physical advantage Guerin has.

EDIT: Also, I would assume that since Alfredsson was a 1st unit PP player AND a PKer he was getting less ES time than Guerin. I don't have time now, but I will try to look it up later.

 

[overpass]

I am puzzled by the bolded. Isn't this right where longevity starts? Usually a player's best 5 seasons are considered his prime. If you don't think anything after that is that important then you are basically saying longevity doesn't count for much at all. Convenient cutoff point as well, in his 9th best season Alfie was producing as much as Guerin was in this 5th best.

Longevity should count for something and it is a reason Alfredsson is considered better than Guerin. I also think Alfredsson's defensive advantage is larger and more important than the physical advantage Guerin has.

EDIT: Also, I would assume that since Alfredsson was a 1st unit PP player AND a PKer he was getting less ES time than Guerin. I don't have time now, but I will try to look it up later.

Sturm's vs teammates metric (or a vs linemates variation) might be relevant for this comparison. Alfredsson spent some of his prime years being centred by Todd White and Bryan Smolinski. Although I take his general point about Guerin.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

In response to an earlier comment about Fedorov having friction with Tarasov...

I don't think this is an issue in the playoffs, perhaps they butt heads in the regular season, but Fedorov always "bought-in" in the playoffs. If Fedorov could play under Bowman, then he should be fine under Tarasov.

 

[Sturminator]

Sturm, can you post more specifics of why you think Boucher I'd the best playoff performer of his era? You may have mentioned it before, but if you did, I don't remember specifics. I always think of the 30s as a time of no real standout playoff performers.

See my posts here, here and here in the Dirt thread. Boucher was considered the greatest playoff performer of his generation as late as 1933. In terms of career playoff points per game, here are the NHL leaders from the era:

Barry: .77
Conacher: .71
Boucher: .67 (not counting pre-consolidation non-NHL playoffs)
Primeau: .61
Morenz: .56 (not counting pre-consolidation non-NHL playoffs)
Bill Cook: .52
Joliat: .49
Stewart: .42
Jackson: .42

Compared to the other players at the top, Boucher is by far the best defensive player, and of course the above ignores his strong performances in Vancouver and the otherworldly peak that he hit in 1928. Taking everything into account, I see no argument for Charlie Conacher as the better playoff performer, but an argument could be made for Marty Barry. I don't know enough about the specific details of Barry's playoff performances to comment intelligently on what his numbers really mean. In lieu of more information of Barry, I think Boucher was pretty clearly the generation's greatest playoff performer, because of his great defensive value, his extra western league performances, his scary good peak and the fact that he was specifically identified as the greatest playoff performer in league history by contemporary papers.

More information on Barry (and maybe Conacher) could change this picture somewhat...I dunno.

 

[Sturminator]

Sturm's vs teammates metric (or a vs linemates variation) might be relevant for this comparison. Alfredsson spent some of his prime years being centred by Todd White and Bryan Smolinski. Although I take his general point about Guerin.

I wish I could hold up the method in question as a coherent tool for looking at the modern game, but I think it becomes more and more limited the more different the playing conditions of the players involved become. Playing on a lesser second line as Alfredsson did for some time, for example, is surely not helpful in terms of help from teammates, but is clearly a positive in terms of checking attention received. This same issue pops up for tandems like Sakic/Forsberg and Yzerman/Fedorov. Does it help or hurt an elite player at even strength to play on a second line? I don't know.

The VsNext method is only useful, in my opinion, for comparing players who played in like situations. Obviously, this works best for old-timers, who were all first liners and in fact playing most of the game. First liners in the modern era could probably be analyzed in this way without major distortion, but when we start analyzing players in totally different playing situations, I don't think the method yields any really meaningful data.

 

[Reds4Life]

See my posts here, here and here in the Dirt thread. Boucher was considered the greatest playoff performer of his generation as late as 1933. In terms of career playoff points per game, here are the NHL leaders from the era:

Barry: .77
Conacher: .71
Boucher: .67 (not counting pre-consolidation non-NHL playoffs)
Primeau: .61
Morenz: .56 (not counting pre-consolidation non-NHL playoffs)
Bill Cook: .52
Joliat: .49
Stewart: .42
Jackson: .42

Compared to the other players at the top, Boucher is by far the best defensive player, and of course the above ignores his strong performances in Vancouver and the otherworldly peak that he hit in 1928. Taking everything into account, I see no argument for Charlie Conacher as the better playoff performer, but an argument could be made for Marty Barry. I don't know enough about the specific details of Barry's playoff performances to comment intelligently on what his numbers really mean. In lieu of more information of Barry, I think Boucher was pretty clearly the generation's greatest playoff performer, because of his great defensive value, his extra western league performances, his scary good peak and the fact that he was specifically identified as the greatest playoff performer in league history by contemporary papers.

More information on Barry (and maybe Conacher) could change this picture somewhat...I dunno.

Sergei Fedorov's playoff "peak":

Playoffs 1995-2002:
Joe Sakic: 142 points, +8 in 129 games
Peter Forsberg: 135 points, +38 in 115 games
Sergei Fedorov: 127 points, +35 in 126 games
Steve Yzerman: 109 points, +12 in 127 games

Fedorov is 3rd overall in scoring, while being THE best defensive forward. This is including four consecutive 20+ Point Stanley Cup Playoffs campaigns (1995–98).

Fedorov also played in more competitive NHL than Boucher.

Fedorov is also a better skater, and bigger and stronger. Fedorov is above average face-off man, no idea about Boucher in that area.
But overall, I firmly believe Fedorov is a better playoff performer than Frank Boucher, who never played more than 9 playoff games in one NHL season (not something he could influence, but it is still a fact). 9 games is too small of a sample size to make statements such as "otherwordly peak" IMHO.

 

[Sturminator]

Fedorov is 3rd overall in scoring, while being THE best defensive forward. This is including four consecutive 20+ Point Stanley Cup Playoffs campaigns (1995–98).

Fedorov placed 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th in playoff scoring in those seasons. Placing in the 6 - 7 range for a first line forward on a team that goes to the finals is actually not all that surprising, as there are only six first line forwards who skate in the Cup finals. Fedorov's two best seasons are excellent, but let's not forget that in his best playoff season the Red Wings, Fedorov included, got the stuffing knocked out of them by New Jersey in the finals. Sergei Fedorov was an excellent playoff performer, but he was not a legendary one. Frank Boucher was.

I firmly believe Fedorov is a better playoff performer than Frank Boucher, who never played more than 9 playoff games in one season (not something he could influence, but it is still a fact).

Again falling back on these tired arguments. You act offended by my snarky remarks about your lack of respect for old-time players, and then you write something like this. Unless half of the GMs in this ATD are socks of Bilros, I can't imagine anyone cares how many games the playoffs were in Boucher's era.

In case you're wondering, Frank Foyston at his peak finished 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd in Cup finals scoring (or 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd in total playoff scoring - though comparing the PCHA and NHL playoffs is silly), and was probably the greatest playoff performer of his era (Frank Nighbor is the only other guy who really has an argument). I suppose I could parade those numbers out there and proclaim Foyston better than Fedorov in the playoffs, though I think it would be rather disingenuous. Foyston was a dominant playoff performer, but we cannot judge an ATD player's expected playoff production only based on his real-life playoff results. To do so would lead us to drafting Claude Lemieux in the top 100. Playoff results are a good indicator of a player's clutch ability, but they are not the end all and be all of what we should expect from ATD players in the postseason. Actual talent level and production over a whole career (including the regular season) is still very important.

Even if Fedorov were as good a playoff performer as Boucher, which he was not, that still doesn't mean that he should be expected to perform as well as Boucher in the ATD playoffs. Boucher was the much better player over the course of their respective careers. If playoff performance is the only thing that matters, then Frank Foyston is quite a lot better than Alexander Ovechkin, and I don't think that's an argument that's going to get you very far.

 

[Reds4Life]

Fedorov placed 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th in playoff scoring in those seasons. Placing in the 6 - 7 range for a first line forward on a team that goes to the finals is actually not all that surprising, as there are only six first line forwards who skate in the Cup finals. Fedorov's two best seasons are excellent, but let's not forget that in his best playoff season the Red Wings, Fedorov included, got the stuffing knocked out of them by New Jersey in the finals. Sergei Fedorov was an excellent playoff performer, but he was not a legendary one. Frank Boucher was.

"Legendary" status or whatever means nothing, in fact. Fedorov may very well be considered legendary in 70 years too.

Fedorov proved his playoff prowess in a more competitive league and on a bigger game sample, and that should definitely count for something.

Again falling back on these tired arguments. You act offended by my snarky remarks about your lack of respect for old-time players, and then you write something like this. Unless half of the GMs in this ATD are socks of Bilros, I can't imagine anyone cares how many games the playoffs were in Boucher's era.

I was never offended by any of your posts, ever. I may have disagreed with some of them, but that's it.

It's a fact, not lack of respect.

And of course sample size matters. 9 games long "otherwordly peak" is not really telling the whole story. Boucher never matched that streak again. What does that tell you? I have no doubt he was an elite performer of his era, but comparing it to Fedorov, or Sakic etc. is a different story.

In case you're wondering, Frank Foyston at his peak finished 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd in Cup finals scoring (or 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd in total playoff scoring - though comparing the PCHA and NHL playoffs is silly), and was probably the greatest playoff performer of his era (Frank Nighbor is the only other guy who really has an argument). I suppose I could parade those numbers out there and proclaim Foyston better than Fedorov in the playoffs, though I think it would be rather disingenuous. Foyston was a dominant playoff performer, but we cannot judge an ATD player's expected playoff production only based on his real-life playoff results. To do so would lead us to drafting Claude Lemieux in the top 100. Playoff results are a good indicator of a player's clutch ability, but they are not the end all and be all of what we should expect from ATD players in the postseason. Actual talent level and production over a whole career (including the regular season) is still very important.

Even if Fedorov were as good a playoff performer as Boucher, which he was not, that still doesn't mean that he should be expected to perform as well as Boucher in the ATD playoffs. Boucher was the much better player over the course of their respective careers. If playoff performance is the only thing that matters, then Frank Foyston is quite a lot better than Alexander Ovechkin, and I don't think that's an argument that's going to get you very far.

My whole point is that your statement "Fedorov is overmatched by Boucher" is just not right. I think it can be argued Fedorov is a better playoff performer (and I do believe that to be the case). That's it. Simple.

Whether or not you give the same credit for different playoff system to players from era A or era B is your problem, your opinion, and nothing more. It is not the universal truth. Our strategy will be posted soon. This is only a side-post, because I thought I should bring this up.

 

[Sturminator]

And of course sample size matters. 9 games long "otherwordly peak" is not really telling the whole story. Boucher never matched that streak again. What does that tell you?

As no player, ever, has been able to sustain that level of dominance, it tells me that Boucher was human.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If Fedorov wasn't a legendary playoff performer in his era, then who was? IMO, Fedorov and Scott Stevens were the best playoff perfomers of the decade between the lockouts. Let's not forget how much harder it was to put up big personal numbers in Detroit - where Bowman played defense-first hockey and rolled 4 strong lines - versus Colorado - a team that played a much more offensive style and leaned more heavily on it's stars.

I do agree with Sturm that you can't just ignore regular season performance as an indicator of a player's talent level. Usually, regular season is a better indicator of talent, playoffs a better indication of how a player uses that talent under pressure.

Fedorov may be a special case, however, as it's quite clear he stopped caring about the regular season after the 1996 postseason and the Wings' third epic choke in a row.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Chicago Steelers Summary

Our 1st line is the best overall line of this match-up (Ovechkin-Fedorov-Alfredsson). IMO Ovechkin-Fedorov>Foyston-Boucher, but for those that think it's close we have an edge at the RW position with Alfredsson>Guerin. This line has Fedorov as an elite defensive presence with Alfredsson as a solid 2nd man. It has an elite goalscorer in Ovechkin complimented by two players that can be playmakers for him, but are also threats to score themselves. The speed of Ovechkin-Fedorov will be extremely difficult for defenses to handle, and Alfredsson is a good enough skater to not be left in their dust when he should join them, and responsible enough to hang back when it is appropriate. Ovechkin brings brings a physical presence which will an advantage when fore-checking and Alfredsson will also help with the "dirty work" along the boards.

Our 2nd line is also a balanced group that will provide good secondary scoring. Thompson is a higher end 2nd line LW that can do it all. Recchi is an above average 2nd line RW and is the primary playmaker playing with 2 guys that can put the puck in the net. Roenick and Recchi have proven chemistry and are both hard workers with a physical edge that should serve well doing work along the boards and in the corners. None of these guys are exceptional defensive players, but are all defensively responsible and should be fine with capable defensemen backing them up.

Our 3rd line is our best defensive line overall. McKenney is one of the best 3rd line centers in the ATD and plays a great two-way game. Lonsberry and McKenney are both very good defensive players. Lonsberry has plenty of experience in a shut down role, while McKenney is more of an anticipation/positioning type of defender which should work well against Gwinnett's offensive system. John MacLean is a plus player defensively and can even be more than that if asked to, as he became a defensive specialist later in his career (this change would no doubt sacrifice some of his offense). MacLean and Lonsberry provide a good physical presence on this line, with MacLean in particular being a punishing forechecker. MacLean's big shot and nose for the net along with McKenney's offensive skills is enough to make this line more than a pure defensive line and give it a threat offensively as well. It should be noted that McKenney and Lonsberry are both players who are known for elevating their game in the playoffs, which should make this a very good 3rd line.

Our 4th line is an offensive line, which has one of the best 4th line scorers in the ATD in Viktor Shalimov. Shalimov has 7 Top 10's in Soviet League scoring and has two Top 4 finishes in MVP voting to go along with his 2 All-Star Team appearances. He is supported by Slava Bykov, who is the typical Soviet center that plays a good two-way game. Bykov is on the small side, but still said to be able to play physical hockey, and has proven it by being one of the top performers in the 87' Canada Cup and out dueling a young Eric Lindros in the 92' Olympics. They are joined by John Sorrell, who is another goal scoring threat.

Forward Summary: We have three lines that can play in any situation and the best line overall of the match-up. Our 1st and 3rd lines are definitely above average defensively while our 2nd line is at least a plus defensively and will be able to handle themselves just fine with capable defensemen backing them up. Our 4th line cannot be used in defensive situations, but is definitely good enough to occasionally contribute on the scoresheet. Shalimov is good enough to take the occasional shift on one of the other lines to provide a fresh player with speed and goal scoring ability when needed.


D-Pair 1: Vasiliev-Savard is one of the best pairings defensively in the ATD. Both are large men that can play physically. Vasiliev in particular will punish Gwinnett's forwards with his crushing body checks. This pair will not create/add much offense, but is more than capable enough to get the puck up to our forwards in the transition. These guys should be able to play a lot minutes as a pair.

D-Pair 2: Another pair that is very good defensively, and can play physically (Tsygankov in particular). Talbot is an above average #3 and will be the main puck-mover of this pair, a role in which he is nothing overly special, but certainly adequate.

D-Pair 3: This pair is a lesser version of our 2nd pair. They are good defensively and can play physically. IMO Bubla is one of the better #5's and underrated in the ATD. The research presented in his bio says that he was known as a tough physical player with good mobility, sharp outlet passes, and a hard shot. He was named to consecutive WC All-Star Teams with competition like Vasiliev, Fetisov, and Kasatonov, being named Top Defenseman in one of those. Gregg is an average #6 that is a defensive player who will be fine supporting Bubla.

Defensemen Summary: We are very good defensively in the first two pairs and average to above average in the 3rd pair. We will not be physically intimidated by large opponents, in fact we will be the ones dishing out the punishment. Outside of being able to adequately move the puck up to our forwards, our defensemen in general will not contribute to the offense very much.

Special Teams: Not too much to say here. I feel we have great PKing and an average PP. If a larger net presence is needed on a PP unit Tarasov has the option of putting John MacLean out there who is particularly good in front of the net. These extra minutes can be compensated for by giving MacLean less ES time (Shalimov) and/or less PK time (Lonsberry to 1st PK unit).



Vs. Gwinnett

I want to start off saying that I will not talk about specific line match-ups or strategy, because that is our coach's job. Tarasov is one of the greatest coaches of all time...he will find the match-ups and strategy that works and out-coach Cecil Hart. Instead I will tell you what some of Tarasov's options are. Gwinnett's offense is a one-two punch with its top two lines and D-pairings. Tarasov has 2 forward lines that are very good defensively and can play against those top two units. He also has two D-pairs that are very good defensively and can play against those lines, and a solid 3rd pair that should be fine against one of Gwinnett's top 2 as long as it is supported by one of the the afformentioned two "defensively good" forward lines. The top D-pair is elite defensively, and should be more than ok facing either of Gwinnett's top 2 lines with our 2nd line, which is still a plus defensively, but not in the category of "very good." This gives Tarasov the option of playing pretty much any of the top 3 lines or 3 D-pairs against Gwinnett's top 2 lines given the right combination is in place. Tarasov should be able to use this to take advantage of our depth and exploit Gwinnett's 3rd line, whom I don't think can handle any of our Top 3 lines. An offensive system like Gwinnett's risks some defense to get extra offense. We have shown that Tarasov has the defensive tools/players to combat the offense of Gwinnett, but he also has what is needed to expose the risks that will be taken, which are two-way players and speed. The advantage of having two-way players is that when they break up plays defensively they have the skill to transition quickly to the counter-attack whether it's skating the puck themselves or passing up to a teammate. Our top line is one of the fastest in the draft and Ovechkin is the perfect weapon for the quick counter-attack role, and Fedorov, Alfredsson, and our D have the skills to create those opportunities for him. Our 2nd line is not in the same league as the first speed wise, but has good speed (Thompson in particular) and is dangerous offensively. The 3rd line as it stands will not be as fast as the first two on the counter-attack, but Tarasov has the option of giving Viktor Shalimov shifts on that line. Shalimov is another speedy winger that is a natural goal scorer, and Lonsberry and McKenney are good enough to handle the defensive responsibilities when Shalimov is out there.


Final Thoughts: Gwinnett is a well put together team, but the Chicago Steelers are the type of team that can beat them. We have a deep team with 3 very capable lines all filled with two-way players backed up by physical defensemen that have very strong defensive games. Gwinnett's lack of elite goal scoring will be an issue for them against a team as strong as Chicago is defensively. The combination of two-way players and speed up front will allow Chicago to score on Gwinnett. The top line belongs to Chicago and will be a handful for any of Gwinnett's lines. The Steelers have the advantage in net in this series with one of the best clutch goaltenders of all time. They also have the advantage on the bench where the legendary Anatoli Tarasov will out coach Cecil Hart leading Chicago to victory.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm not really sure who considers Tasarov among the greatest coaches of all-time, or why, insofar as they do. .

I'll go on record as saying that I do. He's definitely in my personal top-5. I don't really have the energy to argue on his behalf, his GMs should though. He was not just a builder, he didn't just oversee and provide theoretical wisdom, he was the guy on the ice doing the actual coaching. When you look at everything - his international record, how he was regarded by his peers, and perhaps most importantly, his influence on North America - he should be a shoo-in for anyone's top-10.

I don't hold his training methods against him for two reasons: 1) History has proven he was just plain ahead of his time. What he had his players doing isn't too much different from what all teams are doing now. 2) He coached like a communist because he was one, because he was a Soviet. We start to get into muddy waters when we talk about this, but I don't want to hold the political landscape of a player or coach's country against them in any way. He was a product of that environment.

Does it help or hurt an elite player at even strength to play on a second line? I don't know.

I, too, have often wondered.

Fedorov placed 1st, 2nd, 6th and 7th in playoff scoring in those seasons. Placing in the 6 - 7 range for a first line forward on a team that goes to the finals is actually not all that surprising, as there are only six first line forwards who skate in the Cup finals.

I get what you're saying, but the top 6-7 scoring players are almost never forwards from the cup winners.

In 1996, Fedorov was 6th in points, and led Detroit. Lemieux and Jagr, semifinalists, were 2nd and 3rd.

In 1997, Fedorov was 7th in points, and lef Detroit. Sakic, Lemieux and Kamensky, semifinalists defeated by Fedorov, were 2nd, 3rd, and 4th.

When the playoffs are all said and done, being 6th-7th in scoring is a damn impressive achievement, and I don't see that these are exceptions.

Unless half of the GMs in this ATD are socks of Bilros, I can't imagine anyone cares how many games the playoffs were in Boucher's era.

I disagree with arguments that categorically undermine the importance of an era, BUT... don't the low games totals mean that our degree of certainty about Boucher's stats being representative of true greatness is lower?

Contrary to what some may think, I am not a stats expert. I don't know how to really get this across, but I'll try. Over the course of 7-9 games, there is a lot of opportunity for "noise" to come in, noise that won't get smoothed out or regressed to the mean like it would in a 20-30 game period. I would say that in a 20-game sample, we can look at the scoring leaders and be pretty certain that if all those games were replayed, the results would look quite similar. On the other hand, if we played just one game out and assumed that all players would score the same way for the next 19, we'd almost certainly be wrong. Whichever player was fortunate enough to have three points that night would not have 60 after 20. And so on.

The point is that larger sample sizes should be respected. And that I am bad at this. overpass would probably be better.

we cannot judge an ATD player's expected playoff production only based on his real-life playoff results. To do so would lead us to drafting Claude Lemieux in the top 100. Playoff results are a good indicator of a player's clutch ability, but they are not the end all and be all of what we should expect from ATD players in the postseason. Actual talent level and production over a whole career (including the regular season) is still very important.

Indeed it is.

Considering playoff games are generally about 10% of a player's total resume, what would you venture as a reasonable breakdown to assess their fantasy playoff ability? I'm thinking something like 75/25, which assigns greater value to what they did in the playoffs but still doesn't undermine everything they built in their regular season career, which, (going back to sample sizes), is likely what their playoff career would ultimately look like if it was the same number of games, give or take a small percentage of heroes and chokers.

 

[Sturminator]

Considering playoff games are generally about 10% of a player's total resume, what would you venture as a reasonable breakdown to assess their fantasy playoff ability? I'm thinking something like 75/25, which assigns greater value to what they did in the playoffs but still doesn't undermine everything they built in their regular season career, which, (going back to sample sizes), is likely what their playoff career would ultimately look like if it was the same number of games, give or take a small percentage of heroes and chokers.

This is a reasonable metric. I dunno...it's hard for me to break it down mathematically, but obviously playoff games are the most important games and should be given the most weight.

The point is that larger sample sizes should be respected. And that I am bad at this. overpass would probably be better.

I understand statistical significance pretty well, myself, though when we're talking about a guy who late in his career is being discussed in neutral publications as the greatest playoff performer of all time, I think we can pretty well assume that his career performances weren't mere "noise". Of course Boucher's 1928 playoff performance is distorted. Nobody, ever, in the history of any sport, was likely as dominant as that, combining shutdown defense, doubling the points of the next best playoff scorer, and accounting for 4 out of 5 of his team's goals in the final. It would be like if Michael Jordan scored 80 points in each game of the playoffs en route to an NBA championship. Those are video game results. But Boucher's career playoff record is not distorted, and was probably the best of all time when he hung 'em up.

 

[Sturminator]

If Fedorov wasn't a legendary playoff performer in his era, then who was?

Joe Sakic was. And Patrick Roy was. Fedorov was one of the best playoff performers of his era, but I'm not sure just how lightly we should hand out the "legendary" label here.

Let's not forget how much harder it was to put up big personal numbers in Detroit - where Bowman played defense-first hockey and rolled 4 strong lines - versus Colorado - a team that played a much more offensive style and leaned more heavily on it's stars.

The first two of Fedorov's great statistical runs in the playoffs were when Paul Coffey was still in Detroit. Those were not low-scoring teams, and weren't even all that conservative until Coffey left town. During Fedorov's four year run, the Red Wings placed 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd in goals per game among the sixteen playoff teams, and it wasn't because of the Draper line. You are thinking like a Devils fan.

Fedorov may be a special case, however, as it's quite clear he stopped caring about the regular season after the 1996 postseason and the Wings' third epic choke in a row.

So we should give Fedorov a mulligan for his mediocre regular season legacy because he "just didn't care"?! You think the fact that Paul Coffey's time in Detroit exactly matches Fedorov's statistical peak is coincidence?

 

[seventieslord]

This is a reasonable metric. I dunno...it's hard for me to break it down mathematically, but obviously playoff games are the most important games and should be given the most weight.

Just to clarify, what I mean is 75% regular season and 25% playoff. Which is still counting playoffs as "double" for the vast majority of players, as their playoff records represent about 1/10 of their total career.

Just in case you thought I meant the opposite.

 

[Sturminator]

Just in case you thought I meant the opposite.

I understood your meaning.

 

[Reds4Life]

As no player, ever, has been able to sustain that level of dominance, it tells me that Boucher was human.

Yes. And besides that, it tells me that Boucher got hot for a few games and had almost GPG (kinda like Franzen in 07-08 playoffs - this does not mean I think Franzen is better than Boucher, btw). You are free to give him as much credit as you want for that, but then again, so am I.

Joe Sakic was. And Patrick Roy was. Fedorov was one of the best playoff performers of his era, but I'm not sure just how lightly we should hand out the "legendary" label here.

You can give your label to whoever you want, of course. Fedorov is definitely up there with Sakic, Forsberg et al. Actually, I believe Fedorov was slightly better than Sakic in the playoffs (and I do know for a fact overpass think so too). Unlike Sakic, Fedorov always played against the opposition's best. Sakic scored a few more points, but Fedorov was the better defensive player. I have posted the numbers above.

Fedorov was one of the best playoff performes of a decade, an extremely fast, skilled and two-way play beast of a player capable of playing in any situation. All that in a much more competitive and bigger league than Frank Boucher ever played in.

The first two of Fedorov's great statistical runs in the playoffs were when Paul Coffey was still in Detroit. Those were not low-scoring teams, and weren't even all that conservative until Coffey left town. During Fedorov's four year run, the Red Wings placed 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd in goals per game among the sixteen playoff teams, and it wasn't because of the Draper line. You are thinking like a Devils fan.

So we should give Fedorov a mulligan for his mediocre regular season legacy because he "just didn't care"?! You think the fact that Paul Coffey's time in Detroit exactly matches Fedorov's statistical peak is coincidence?

Coffey was long gone when Wings have won the Cup. Fedorov continued his 20+ points run without Coffey. Actually, "no more Coffey" is the reason as to why the Wings have won the Cup. Bowman did not like Coffey very much (traded him a few times too), and for a good reason. As Scotty said, "so much talent and he (Coffey) can't play defense".

And it's not that Fedorov didn't care. He simply knew when it counted. Detroit was strong and deep team, playoffs were a sure-thing, which is why Bowman often put the pressure (and ice-time) off his top players in the end of regular season. You may have also noticed that no Wing ever won Art Ross under Bowman etc.; team results were more important than personal stats, and Fedorov knew that very well.

 

[Sturminator]

Our 2nd line is also a balanced group that will provide good secondary scoring. Thompson is a higher end 2nd line LW that can do it all. Recchi is an above average 2nd line RW and is the primary playmaker playing with 2 guys that can put the puck in the net. Roenick and Recchi have proven chemistry and are both hard workers with a physical edge that should serve well doing work along the boards and in the corners. None of these guys are exceptional defensive players, but are all defensively responsible and should be fine with capable defensemen backing them up.

I assume you're not comparing this unit to their counterparts for a reason. Gwinnett's second line is easily the better unit, offensively and defensively.

Our 3rd line is our best defensive line overall. McKenney is one of the best 3rd line centers in the ATD and plays a great two-way game. Lonsberry and McKenney are both very good defensive players. Lonsberry has plenty of experience in a shut down role, while McKenney is more of an anticipation/positioning type of defender which should work well against Gwinnett's offensive system. John MacLean is a plus player defensively and can even be more than that if asked to, as he became a defensive specialist later in his career (this change would no doubt sacrifice some of his offense). MacLean and Lonsberry provide a good physical presence on this line, with MacLean in particular being a punishing forechecker. MacLean's big shot and nose for the net along with McKenney's offensive skills is enough to make this line more than a pure defensive line and give it a threat offensively as well. It should be noted that McKenney and Lonsberry are both players who are known for elevating their game in the playoffs, which should make this a very good 3rd line.

Don McKenney is an excellent third line center - one of the best in the ATD this year. He was one of my bread and butter players from ATDs #10 and #11. He is definitely better than Thomas Steen, though it's not a landslide. Steen was a very strong two-way player in his own right. Lonsberry vs. Balon is an easy win for Gwinnett. As much respect as I have for Lonsberry as a hockey player, he is nothing but a checker at this level, and not even that good defensively. He's the worst player on either third line. Dave Balon was an excellent checker at even strength (back when "even strength specialists" were part of the league makeup) and a very dangerous goalscorer, as well. MacLean vs. Paiement is pretty much as wash in terms of overall value. Paiement was the better scorer while MacLean was better defensively. Both were quite physical. Overall, I think the third lines are basically a wash, with Chicago's advantage at center nullified by Gwinnett's advantage on the left wing and the right wingers being of equal value.

D-Pair 2: Another pair that is very good defensively, and can play physically (Tsygankov in particular). Talbot is an above average #3 and will be the main puck-mover of this pair, a role in which he is nothing overly special, but certainly adequate.

I don't buy Talbot as an above-average #3. His top-10 scoring placements among defensemen are: 1, 7, 7, 9. This is a player who was basically a "pretty good" puckmover throughout his career, with a one season high peak. At the ATD level, he's below average for a second pairing puckmover, and is nothing special defensively. Tsygankov is a lower-end #4, in my opinion, with nothing much distinctive about him.

The gap between this unit and Burrows / Coffey is enormous.

D-Pair 3: This pair is a lesser version of our 2nd pair. They are good defensively and can play physically. IMO Bubla is one of the better #5's and underrated in the ATD. The research presented in his bio says that he was known as a tough physical player with good mobility, sharp outlet passes, and a hard shot. He was named to consecutive WC All-Star Teams with competition like Vasiliev, Fetisov, and Kasatonov, being named Top Defenseman in one of those. Gregg is an average #6 that is a defensive player who will be fine supporting Bubla.

I like Bubla as a #5 and think he's good in that role, but I'm not really sure Gregg belongs in the ATD.

Defensemen Summary: We are very good defensively in the first two pairs and average to above average in the 3rd pair. We will not be physically intimidated by large opponents, in fact we will be the ones dishing out the punishment. Outside of being able to adequately move the puck up to our forwards, our defensemen in general will not contribute to the offense very much.

Yeah..."adequate" is about all I'd say for the puckmoving on Chicago's backline. With offensively focused scoringlines, I think the lack of puckmoving at even strength is a significant weakness.

Special Teams: Not too much to say here. I feel we have great PKing and an average PP. If a larger net presence is needed on a PP unit Tarasov has the option of putting John MacLean out there who is particularly good in front of the net. These extra minutes can be compensated for by giving MacLean less ES time (Shalimov) and/or less PK time (Lonsberry to 1st PK unit).

Gwinnett's power play is considerably better than Chicago's. The Steelers have Ovechkin, but beyond him, the advantages are all on Gwinnett's side, especially on the points, where the comparison is not even close, and among the second unit forwards. Yes, Chicago's second unit PP forwards are very soft, and I can't really see them having much success around the net against Boucher / Tinordi, both of whom were very strong defensively and physically. MacLean is "ok" as a band-aid on your second unit, but he's a good deal worse in the role than the other MacLean, his counterpart here. John MacLean placed top-10 once in powerplay goals and top-20 twice. Paul MacLean placed top-5 once, top-10 three times and top-20 five times.

 

[Sturminator]

All that in a much more competitive and bigger league than Frank Boucher ever played in.

See...this is where you get yourself in trouble. Frank Boucher's peak was during the first real Golden Age of hockey - the heyday of a thick generation of superstars which included Howie Morenz, Aurel Joliat, Bill Cook, Charlie Conacher, Joe Primeau, Busher Jackson, Nels Stewart, Hooley Smith and Boucher, himself - and that's just the top-end forwards. The late-20's/early-30's was a very strong era of hockey, and I'm not at all convinced that Fedorov's era had more top-end talent. There was more depth in the 1990's, to be sure, but was the top end talent in Fedorov's era better? Lemieux's playoff run in 1995-96 is the only meaningful overlap of his or Gretzky's prime with Fedorov's postseason prime, and beyond them, which forward against whom Fedorov competed in the postseason was as good as Howie Morenz? Which defenseman as good as Eddie Shore?

You are badly and transparently underrating the era in which Boucher played here. A list of the greatest players from both generations would be very hard to choose between down to about the 10th best player, at least. This business about how the Europeans coming made everything better is complete nonsense when discussing the elite, and completely ignores the fact that the quality of the generation of Canadian players which came into their primes after the fall of communism was actually quite poor. The NHL got deeper in sub-elite talent, that's for sure, but the top-end talent from Fedorov's era was not really anything special from a historical perspective.

It is the post-communist players who land in the 10-20 range who are most affected respective to the value of their achievements relative to older generations. There is virtually no difference at the top.

 

[Reds4Life]

See...this is where you get yourself in trouble. Frank Boucher's peak was during the first real Golden Age of hockey - the heyday of a thick generation of superstars which included Howie Morenz, Aurel Joliat, Bill Cook, Charlie Conacher, Joe Primeau, Busher Jackson, Nels Stewart, Hooley Smith and Boucher, himself - and that's just the top-end forwards. The late-20's/early-30's was a very strong era of hockey, and I'm not at all convinced that Fedorov's era had more top-end talent. There was more depth in the 1990's, to be sure, but was the top end talent in Fedorov's era better? Lemieux's playoff run in 1995-96 is the only meaningful overlap of his or Gretzky's prime with Fedorov's postseason prime, and beyond them, which forward against whom Fedorov competed in the postseason was as good as Howie Morenz? Which defenseman as good as Eddie Shore?

You are badly and transparently underrating the era in which Boucher played here. A list of the greatest players from both generations would be very hard to choose between down to about the 10th best player, at least. This business about how the Europeans coming made everything better is complete nonsense when discussing the elite, and completely ignores the fact that the quality of the generation of Canadian players which came into their primes after the fall of communism was actually quite poor. The NHL got deeper in sub-elite talent, that's for sure, but the top-end talent from Fedorov's era was not really anything special from a historical perspective.

It is the post-communist players who land in the 10-20 range who are most affected respective to the value of their achievements relative to older generations. There is virtually no difference at the top.

You name legendary names. That accomplishes exactly nothing as far as I am concerned.

Everyone knows hockey grew bigger over time, not only NA players compete in the NHL anymore, and there are more people (and hockey players) in general. Bigger talent pool means better competition, that is just common sense. And I do not mean only top end players, I do mean average players as well, since they do ADD to the competition. Citing top end talent and stating that THAT is an actual competition is just plain wrong, you gotta account for a lot more than that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You name legendary names. That accomplishes exactly nothing as far as I am concerned.

Everyone knows hockey grew bigger over time, not only NA players compete in the NHL anymore, and there are more people (and hockey players) in general. Bigger talent pool means better competition, that is just common sense. And I do not mean only top end players, I do mean average players as well, since they do ADD to the competition. Citing top end talent and stating that THAT is an actual competition is just plain wrong, you gotta account for a lot more than that.

This is an interesting conversation, but can you please explain it's relevance to this series? Thanks.