ATD2020 lineup advice thread

[Sturminator]

Those narrow margins made your debating skills all the more important in retrospective. If it had been me debating, we would have lost.

Yes, you created the original VsX thread in 2013 I believe. Like all systems, I feel VsX has been abused in recent years—used in questionable contexts—but it was a much needed revolution back then. A major advance in cross-era comparisons.

Thank you. Yeah, winning so narrowly made that one in many ways the most satisfying of all my teams.

How do you think VsX has been abused in recent years?

 

[VanIslander]

I was talking NHL.

I love the Mikhailov shout out.

(You really have to shout: 99.9% of hockey fans have bever heard of him. Don't let the ATD board on Hfboards fool you.)

Note: i keep friggin' ATDing Tikhonov and counter the "Players hate him" with the fact that Bowman was loathed in Montreal and Tretiak backed Tikhonov because he - like Bowman in Montreal and hard-assed Belichick as coach of the Pats in the NFL - was able to get the best out of his players time and again and again and again.

 

[Sturminator]

I was talking NHL.

I love the Mikhailov shout out.

(You really have to shout: 99.9% of hockey fans have bever heard of him. Don't let the ATD board on Hfboards fool you.)

Note: i keep friggin' ATDing Tikhonov and counter the "Players hate him" with the fact that Bowman was loathed in Montreal and Tretiak backed Tikhonov because he - like Bowman in Montreal and hard-assed Belichick as coach of the Pats in the NFL - was able to get the best out of his players time and again and again and again.

Tikhonov is the Soviet Punch Imlach, and I mean that. He may have been just as good a coach, and as such is probably quite underrated at #657 in such a big draft. I like him a lot more than Mike Keenan, who went directly before him (all the rage, none of the tactical skill). Give Tikhonov a set of "good soldiers", and he can make a great team out of them. Give him the Balderis/Bathgate/Mahovlich types, and you start to run into problems (I say this without having looked at any rosters).

 

[VanIslander]

Tikhonov is the Soviet Punch Imlach,....

Two of a handful of coaches DESERVING of consideration in greatest coach of all-time discussion, yet AREN'T on HfBoards.

 

[Sturminator]

Two of a handful of coaches DESERVING of consideration in greatest coach of all-time discussion, yet AREN'T on HfBoards.

If those two aren't even discussed among the greatest coaches of all time, they should be. Both ran cohesive, disciplined systems; both were unpleasant, authoritarian scumbags; and both got results.

 

[VanIslander]

Both ran cohesive, disciplined systems; both were unpleasant, authoritarian scumbags; and both got results.

Are you talking about Imlach, Tikhonov or... BOWMAN!

There is a pattern...

Is Belichick (or Tom Landry) in football an ounce less of a coach because he is an unloving hard-assed task master 24/7?

Billy Reay coached 16 NHL years with no cups as a players' coach; Pat Quinn went 20 years as an NHL coach as a players' coach and only once won his conference.

Coaches are ideally judged on what they ACCOMPLISH!!! Not on how agreeable or nice they are.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Thank you. Yeah, winning so narrowly made that one in many ways the most satisfying of all my teams.

How do you think VsX has been abused in recent years?

A few ways:

—Overused in debates, often in a plug n' chug manner, without context or interpretation. This is even worse with VsX's little cousin ESVsX. Problem with this is that since VsX is now very powerful in the community's imagination, it takes a lot of time and effort for a GM to override the score through interpretation and context, and it's often a lost battle.

—The (arbitrary) 7 and 10 years scores are overused, yielding needlessly artificial results. I understand 7 years is more or less the average lenght of prime, but sometimes other scores (e.g. 6 years) would be more appropriate, depending who we are comparing.

—Confusion of two goals: 1) comparing players across eras, and 2) artificializing a player's offensive value into a single number. Two very different goals that are widely undifferentiated inside the VsX method when it should be clear what we're trying to accomplish in any given comparison.

Guy Lafleur is my favorite example but he's not the only one. Using 7 years score for Lafleur overartificializes his essence. The use of the 7 scores is an attempt to punish him for his lack of longevity; fair enough. But too much information is lost IMO. To compare him to Jagr, I'd rather use their 6 years scores, then mentally adjust for Jagr's longevity and Lafleur's playoffs. Even better (but more timre-consuming), just lay out their season-by-season scores, so we can see the progression.

In that Lafleur/Jagr example—if we only use the 7 years score—the cross-era comparison power of VsX works fine, but the artificialization into a single number leaves me cold. And that wouldn't be a problem if everyone knew the method inside out, and could move around it with ease according to context, but this is not the case. To make an analogy, using the normal VsX method, with the 7 years score, is akin to taking a photography of a landscape or a beautiful building from a single perspective, when other perspectives (all generated without losing the essence of VsX) could reveal additional information. E.g. using the 6 years score, or PPGVsX, or ESVsX, or RVsX, etc.

Anyway, this is not exhaustive but a few complaints I have. My complaints are not about the method itself, but the "genealogy of its usage".

For criticism of the method itself, I do suspect a few non-Boston players in the early 1970s are punished by VsX, in particular Yvan Cournoyer. But I understand no method can handle the early-1970s perfectly.

 

[Dreakmur]

For criticism of the method itself, I do suspect a few non-Boston players in the early 1970s are punished by VsX, in particular Yvan Cournoyer. But I understand no method can handle the early-1970s perfectly.

How much better do you think Cournoyer should be rated? The guy has two top-1os and no top-5s in points.

 

[BenchBrawl]

How much better do you think Cournoyer should be rated? The guy has two top-1os and no top-5s in points.

Cournoyer is punished for several reasons:

—VsX hurts him because of the Orr years fudge
—Montreal were rolling 4 lines when most teams did not
—He missed a few games every season bringing his totals down

His star power is no accident, be it his ASTs, his playoff resume, his high status as a Team Canada winger, or his status in Montreal despite being a RW playing between Maurice Rocket Richard and Guy Lafleur.

How much better? In VsX or in general? I think Cournoyer is definitely a better player than Mark Recchi, for example. I don't think he's worse than Martin St. Louis. I think circumstances created the gap, not their actual level. I wouldn't sell him as = St. Louis if he was on my team because that's too extreme, but this is what I believe deep down.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Cournoyer also played with numerous HOF'ers whereas MSL did not. MSL was generally speaking the best player on any team he was on, at least for the bulk of his career.

I agree that YC is underrated all time, especially as a scorer but context should also include who these guys played with when comparing.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Cournoyer also played with numerous HOF'ers whereas MSL did not. MSL was generally speaking the best player on any team he was on, at least for the bulk of his career.

I agree that YC is underrated all time, especially as a scorer but context should also include who these guys played with when comparing.

St. Louis also boosted his numbers playing in the weakest division in the east and his TOI looks very high. He played over 24 minutes a game some years.

 

[ImporterExporter]

St. Louis also boosted his numbers playing in the weakest division in the east and his TOI looks very high. He played over 24 minutes a game some years.

Yeah, he logged heavy minutes. He was sneaky good defensively too.

 

[Namba 17]

Who is better fit for 2nd PK unit - Phil Russell or Babe Pratt?

 

[Dreakmur]

Cournoyer is punished for several reasons:

—VsX hurts him because of the Orr years fudge

If you think the fudges for the Orr years are wrong, that's something that we should all discuss and figure out. That impacts a lot more players than just Cournoyer.

—Montreal were rolling 4 lines when most teams did not

They didn't roll 4 lines on the PP, which is where Cournoyer did a lot of his scoring, especially early.

—He missed a few games every season bringing his totals down

Being injury prone is what it is.

His star power is no accident

A flashy French guy playing in Montreal had star power? Sounds made up....

How much better? In VsX or in general? I think Cournoyer is definitely a better player than Mark Recchi, for example. I don't think he's worse than Martin St. Louis. I think circumstances created the gap, not their actual level. I wouldn't sell him as = St. Louis if he was on my team because that's too extreme, but this is what I believe deep down.

Mark Recchi I can sort of understand. St. Louis is very extreme.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Who is better fit for 2nd PK unit - Phil Russell or Babe Pratt?

At 45% usage for PKs 4% better than league average over 1000+ games, I feel Phil Russell deserves to be on an ATD PK.

Pratt isn't a bad choice for it either - he was big and strong and seems to have the skillset to be a crease-clear on the PK, where he can keep it simple. Pratt has long seemed like a poor man's Rob Blake to me in that his poor decision would likely most be an issue for him at even strength.

Before VI and Habsfan jump down my throat, Blake was a fantastic penalty killer, but... I'll say hot and cold defensively at even strength.

 

[Namba 17]

At 45% usage for PKs 4% better than league average over 1000+ games, I feel Phil Russell deserves to be on an ATD PK.

Pratt isn't a bad choice for it either - he was big and strong and seems to have the skillset to be a crease-clear on the PK, where he can keep it simple. Pratt has long seemed like a poor man's Rob Blake to me in that his poor decision would likely most be an issue for him at even strength.

Before VI and Habsfan jump down my throat, Blake was a fantastic penalty killer, but... I'll say hot and cold defensively at even strength.

Thanks!

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

How should I organize my LWs?

Right now it's:

Damphousse - Richard - Provost
Gagne - Ratelle - Cleghorn
Tardif - Lecavalier - Rousseau

I'm thinking of switching Damphousse and Gagne with each other? Would that make any difference?

 

[ImporterExporter]

How should I organize my LWs?

Right now it's:

Damphousse - Richard - Provost
Gagne - Ratelle - Cleghorn
Tardif - Lecavalier - Rousseau

I'm thinking of switching Damphousse and Gagne with each other? Would that make any difference?

I'd honestly leave the most potent offensive player on the line with Richard/Provost. Richard and Provost provide some nice secondary ES scoring but Provost especially thrived most when he didn't have to take on more of an offensive burden.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Right now my bottom 7 forwards in the order they were drafted are:

Brenden Morrow - Red Sullivan - John MacLean
Patrick Sharp - Brian Skrudland - Viktor Shalimov
Ryan Callahan (RW)

This is a Tommy Gorman coached, heavy forechecking team. Also, my 1st line is a strong two-way line that will go power on power, so I don't need an elite shutdown line in my bottom 6. Sharp has some two-way ability and is some kind of a forechecker, but I don't think there's enough on that 4th line with Shalimov on the other wing, even though Skrudland is a strong forechecker. I'm leaning towards making Shalimov a spare. He'll be missed on the 2nd PP unit, but doesn't really seem to fit in at ES,which I think is more important, and MacLean was a pretty good PP guy who can take his place. Shalimov's replacement would be Callahan, who is a great fit on this type of team. Would like to get some opinions on that, as well as what is the optimal lineup between these options...

Option 1:
Morrow - Sullivan - MacLean
Sharp - Skrudland - Callahan

Option 2:
Sharp - Sullivan - Callahan
Morrow - Skrudland - MacLean

Option 3:
Sharp - Sullivan - MacLean
Morrow - Skrudland - Callahan

ES Vs.X Scores
Sharp: 46
MacLean: 46
Morrow: 43
Callahan and Skrudland do not have scores high enough to register
Sullivan's career was too early for the Vs.X study, but he's definitely a better scorer than Skrudland

My Ranking of Defensive Ability
Sullivan
Skrudland

Callahan/Morrow

MacLean
Sharp (probably a neutral to small plus)

As far as forechecking, I would call Sullivan, Skrudland, Morrow, and Callahan all strong to very strong forecheckers, with MacLean only slightly below them, and then Sharp 2-3 tiers lower, maybe a small plus.


Looking forward to hearing your comments...


EDIT: Also, Mike Bossy is my best offensive player, and will likely get some extra shifts on the 3rd/4th line

 

[ImporterExporter]

Right now my bottom 7 forwards in the order they were drafted are:

Brenden Morrow - Red Sullivan - John MacLean
Patrick Sharp - Brian Skrudland - Viktor Shalimov
Ryan Callahan (RW)

This is a Tommy Gorman coached, heavy forechecking team. Also, my 1st line is a strong two-way line that will go power on power, so I don't need an elite shutdown line in my bottom 6. Sharp has some two-way ability and is some kind of a forechecker, but I don't think there's enough on that 4th line with Shalimov on the other wing, even though Skrudland is a strong forechecker. I'm leaning towards making Shalimov a spare. He'll be missed on the 2nd PP unit, but doesn't really seem to fit in at ES,which I think is more important, and MacLean was a pretty good PP guy who can take his place. Shalimov's replacement would be Callahan, who is a great fit on this type of team. Would like to get some opinions on that, as well as what is the optimal lineup between these options...

Option 1:
Morrow - Sullivan - MacLean
Sharp - Skrudland - Callahan

Option 2:
Sharp - Sullivan - Callahan
Morrow - Skrudland - MacLean

Option 3:
Sharp - Sullivan - MacLean
Morrow - Skrudland - Callahan

ES Vs.X Scores
Sharp: 46
MacLean: 46
Morrow: 43
Callahan and Skrudland do not have scores high enough to register
Sullivan's career was too early for the Vs.X study, but he's definitely a better scorer than Skrudland

My Ranking of Defensive Ability
Sullivan
Skrudland

Callahan/Morrow

MacLean
Sharp (probably a neutral to small plus)

As far as forechecking, I would call Sullivan, Skrudland, Morrow, and Callahan all strong to very strong forecheckers, with MacLean only slightly below them, and then Sharp 2-3 tiers lower, maybe a small plus.


Looking forward to hearing your comments...


EDIT: Also, Mike Bossy is my best offensive player, and will likely get some extra shifts on the 3rd/4th line

Mike Bossy on a Gorman coached team. BLASPHEMY!

In all reality, you definitely want strong checkers, especially on the wings here so I'd probably go for option #1.

Morrow-Sullivan-Maclean is a very strong checking unit and provides nice 2 way ability for a 3rd line.

Sharp and Callahan are more 4th liners here and fit nicely with Skrudland. This line at least has 2 plus checkers so you're good IMO.

Shalimov gives you some offensive spark as the first offensive F off the bench if need be.

 

[overpass]

Mike Bossy on a Gorman coached team. BLASPHEMY!

I don’t get it. Why would Gorman have a problem with Bossy?

I think Mike Bossy could play for any coach , anywhere, as long as he doesn’t have to fight. He’s become underrated in the ATD IMO.

 

[Sturminator]

I don’t get it. Why would Gorman have a problem with Bossy?

I think Mike Bossy could play for any coach , anywhere, as long as he doesn’t have to fight. He’s become underrated in the ATD IMO.

Agreed. There aren't many coaches more demanding than Al Arbour (though there are a few), and Radar loved Bossy, who was more of a "good soldier" and responsible player/person than seems to be commonly believed around here.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I don’t get it. Why would Gorman have a problem with Bossy?

I think Mike Bossy could play for any coach , anywhere, as long as he doesn’t have to fight. He’s become underrated in the ATD IMO.

Sorry, it was a reference back to a few years ago when I had Gorman and Gretzky and a few folks said you couldn't have your best offensive player on a Gorman led team be weak/no checking. Just an inside zinger.

I don't have a problem with the line at all.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I don’t get it. Why would Gorman have a problem with Bossy?

I think Mike Bossy could play for any coach , anywhere, as long as he doesn’t have to fight. He’s become underrated in the ATD IMO.

Agreed. There aren't many coaches more demanding than Al Arbour (though there are a few), and Radar loved Bossy, who was more of a "good soldier" and responsible player/person than seems to be commonly believed around here.

Sorry, it was a reference back to a few years ago when I had Gorman and Gretzky and a few folks said you couldn't have your best offensive player on a Gorman led team be weak/no checking. Just an inside zinger.

I don't have a problem with the line at all.

Thanks, and just to follow up, Bossy's ES linemates, Kopitar and Syd Howe can more than handle any forechecking and defensive duties.

 

[Dreakmur]

Sorry, it was a reference back to a few years ago when I had Gorman and Gretzky and a few folks said you couldn't have your best offensive player on a Gorman led team be weak/no checking. Just an inside zinger.

I don't have a problem with the line at all.

A few players that don't fit isn't a problem. If he had 9-10 forwards who didn't fit the coach's system, it would be a problem.