Bob Cole Divisional Semifinals: Kazan vs. Rögle

[TheDevilMadeMe]

AK BARS KAZAN
АК БАРС КАЗАНЬ

Coach: Toe Blake
Captain: Sprague Cleghorn
Alternate Captains: Zdeno Chara, Eric Desjardins, Mike Modano

#26 Mats Naslund - #10 Jean Ratelle - #68 Jaromir Jagr
#7 Vic Stasiuk - #9 Mike Modano (A) - #33 Zigmund Palffy
#8 Johnny Wilson - #18 Walt Tkaczuk - #16 Eric Nesterenko
#25 Dave Andreychuk - #15 Bobby Smith - #17 Mike Foligno
#4 Bob Davidson
#14 Barney Stanley
#12 Tom Lysiak

#3 Zdeno Chara (A) - #2 Sprague Cleghorn (C)
#5 Mike Ramsey - #37 Eric Desjardins (A)
#6 Calle Johansson - #23 Petr Svoboda
#44 Alexei Zhitnik

#1 Johnny Bower
#11 Roberto Luongo

PP1
Ratelle - Andreychuk - Jagr
Cleghorn - Desjardins

PP2
Naslund - Smith - Palffy
Chara - Modano

(Jagr will take extended shifts on PP.)

PK1
Tkaczuk - Nesterenko
Chara - Ramsey
Bower

PK2
Modano - Wilson
Cleghorn - Desjardins
Bower

other PKers: Johansson, Svoboda, Ratelle, Palffy, Smith, Davidson, Stanley, Lysiak

Vs

Coach: Barry Trotz
Assistant coach: Larry Robinson

Frank Foyston - Peter Forsberg - Owen Nolan
Smokey Harris - Nels Stewart - Alf Smith
Tony Leswick - Mike Peca - Johnny Peirson
Ilya Kovalchuk - Red Sullivan - Bill Goldworthy

Nicklas Lidström - Larry Murphy
Harvey Pulford - Teppo Numminen
Kevin Hatcher - Jack Portland
Wade Redden

Martin Brodeur
Roger Crozier

PP1:
Nels Stewart - Peter Forsberg - Owen Nolan
Nicklas Lidstrom - Larry Murphy
PP2:
Smokey Harris - Frank Foyston - Alf Smith
Ilya Kovalchuk - Teppo Numminen

Pk1:
Michael Peca - Tony Leswick
Harvey Pulford - Nicklas Lidstrom

PK2:
Red Sullivan - Johnny Peirson
Jack Portland - Teppo Numminen​

Click to read more...

 

[Dreakmur]

Only thing I'll say right now is that Jack Portland will be coming to replace Wade Redden on the 3rd defense pair. He's much more suited to dealing with Kazan's larger group of forwards.

Good luck Nik.

 

[Elvis P]

Only thing I'll say right now is that Jack Portland will be coming to replace Wade Redden on the 3rd defense pair. He's much more suited to dealing with Kazan's larger group of forwards. Good luck Nik.

If I hadn't traded down I would have got Jagr, but lost Pilote. The next GM tony d told me that about Pilote. Dreakmur, I like your team and 3 of my #1 seeds are gone so you may be in deep trouble.

 

[Dreakmur]

If I hadn't traded down I would have got Jagr, but lost Pilote. The next GM tony d told me that about Pilote. Dreakmur, I like your team and 3 of my #1 seeds are gone so you may be in deep trouble.

Well, I would agree I am in trouble here. Nik assembled a great team, and it was voted first for a reason. I do believe, however, that our division was pretty close from 1 to 5, so it's not like its a mismatch or anything. Looking at the rosters, it can easily go either way, and I hope to be able to argue that effectively.
Jagr is definately an offensive juggernaught. He's a guy I have always wanted to own, since I was looking to argue him as the #2 RW of all time. I see his offenseclearly ahead of the Rocket.

After Jagr, the offense drops off considerably, and that's where I believe I hold the biggest advantage.

The bluelines both look strong. Can't call an advantage before looking deeper.

Goaltending is an advantage for us.

Coaching is a mismatch in his favour. The problem is that Rogle isn't really a matchup team, and there isn't much benefit in matching against us either, so a lot of the coaching aspects get dimished both ways.

 

[Dreakmur]

Well, I've been waiting for Nik, but I suppose I can just start the debate with the defensemen.....

Lidstrom-Murphy vs. Chara-Cleghorn
-I’m probably as high on Cleghorn as anybody, but he’s definitely behind Lidstrom in terms of offense and defense. His physical edge doesn’t close the gap, so Lidstrom should get the clear edge here.
-Chara’s better than Murphy, but I don’t think the gap is as big as the voting records indicate. Remember that Chara has played most of his peak against a less than stellar competition, and Murphy played a most of his career during two of the best defense eras ever. He first had to deal with the Robinson, Potvin, Park group, and then he had to deal with the Bourque, Chelios, Coffey group.
-as pairs, I think the talent level of these two pairs is about even. The gap between Lidstrom and Cleghorn is about equal to the gap between Chara and Murphy. If chemistry counts for something significant, it could give Rogle a slight edge on the first pair. If not, they are close to equal.

Pulford-Numminen vs. Ramsey-Desjardins
-I think it’s basically a mismatch between Pulford and Ramsey. Pulford was the most dominant defensive defenseman of his era, and while Ramsey played in a better era, he was never even close to the elite.
-Desjardins has a better peak than Numminen, but his peak was a lot shorter. Both guys were the steady and reliable type that rarely got noticed. They are similar in style, and close in ability. Maybe Desjardins is a little better, but not much.
-with Pulford being the only impact player, it looks like Rogle has the edge on the second pair.

Portland-Hathcer vs. Johansson-Svoboda
-Portland is clearly better than Johansson.
-Hatcher is way better than Svoboda, and this one is a complete mismatch.
-with both guys being better, Rogle should have a significant advantage on the third pair.

Overall
-Offensively, Rogle is going definitely stronger on the blueline. Our defense will be able to move the puck more effectively, and create a lot more offense.
-Defensively, these two defense cores look to be pretty even. Both are quite strong in that regard, but not elite.
-Physically, Kazan has the edge. With Chara and Cleghorn being on the ice more than Pulford and Portland means they will be able to make a bigger impact in that regard.

 

[Sturminator]

Desjardins has a better peak than Numminen, but his peak was a lot shorter. Both guys were the steady and reliable type that rarely got noticed. They are similar in style, and close in ability. Maybe Desjardins is a little better, but not much.

wut? Here are the AST voting records of the relevant defensemen on these second pairings:

Eric Desjardins:

1991-92: 11th
1994-95: 5th
1995-96: 9th
1996-97: 10th
1998-99: 4th
1999-00: 4th
2000-01: 13th
2002-03: 17th

Teppo Numminen:

1995-96: 12th
1997-98: 10th
1999-00: 15th
2001-02: 6th

Mike Ramsey:

1982-83: 16th
1983-84: 6th
1984-85: 14th
1986-87: 13th
1989-90: 8th

Yeah, Numminen played about 200 games more than Desjardins did, but most of his "peak" was at a level well below what Desjardins achieved regularly. This comparison is not close. Desjardins is a strong two-way #3 defenseman. Numminen is about an average #4. Comparing Desjardins to Pulford and Ramsey to Numminen would ultimately be more sensible. If I ignore my growing skepticism about Pulford's generation (I just don't feel like making such detailed arguments here), then I guess he is the best defenseman on either second pairing, but I don't think he beats Desjardins by much, at any rate. Ramsey looks a bit better than Numminen by AST voting, and it's not because the voters did him any favors. The second pairings look to me about equal, on the whole.

 

[Sturminator]

Looking over this series, I think it's a lot closer than the respective regular season finishes would indicate. The defenses look extremely even on the top two pairings. Ak Bars has the more dangerous top line, but Nels Stewart is a scary weapon on a second line and Rögle has the goaltending advantage. This could be a barnburner.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't think you have to ignore your "suspicion" of the generation. If Hod Stuart would be a worthy #2, Pulford is (at best but probably) a good #3 (the gap between them is pretty clear) - and a good #3 is exactly what Desjardins is.

 

[Dreakmur]

wut? Here are the AST voting records of the relevant defensemen on these second pairings:

Yeah, Numminen played about 200 games more than Desjardins did, but most of his "peak" was at a level well below what Desjardins achieved regularly. This comparison is not close. Desjardins is a strong two-way #3 defenseman. Numminen is about an average #4. Comparing Desjardins to Pulford and Ramsey to Numminen would ultimately be more sensible. If I ignore my growing skepticism about Pulford's generation (I just don't feel like making such detailed arguments here), then I guess he is the best defenseman on either second pairing, but I don't think he beats Desjardins by much, at any rate. Ramsey looks a bit better than Numminen by AST voting, and it's not because the voters did him any favors. The second pairings look to me about equal, on the whole.

Looks like I under-rated Desjardins. He's better than Numminen.... but Numminen is my 5th best defenseman, so I'm not overly worried about it.

Ramsey's voting looks to be about equal to Numminen's. 6, 10, 12, and 13 vs. 6, 8, 13, 14, 17


I did pulford/ramsey and numminen/desjardins because they played the same roles on the pairs.

We can do it your way though:
Harvey Pulford > Eric Desjardins
Teppo Numminen = Mike Ramsey

 

[Dreakmur]

I don't think you have to ignore your "suspicion" of the generation. If Hod Stuart would be a worthy #2, Pulford is (at best but probably) a good #3 (the gap between them is pretty clear) - and a good #3 is exactly what Desjardins is.

According to the recent defenceman project, Harvey Pulford is 60th which makes him an bottom end #2 or elite #3.

 

[Sturminator]

According to the recent defenceman project, Harvey Pulford is 60th which makes him an bottom end #2 or elite #3.

That project is not the exactly the bible of relative ATD value. If we assume that Pulford's draft position this year was appropriate (in the tier with Flaman, Reardon, Howell and White), then he looks like a low end #2, yes. That would put him ahead of Desjardins. But I don't buy that. The Silver Seven (where Pulford would play his best hockey) competed in an extremely thin CAHL league which drew almost all of its players from likely just a few hockey academies in Ottawa and Montreal. Yeah, he was the best defenseman on the best defensive team of his era, but what does that mean?

Much of the foundation for the arguments in favor of players from this generation is built on what I consider to be an obviously faulty set of assumptions about the quality of competition in the leagues which predate the ECAHA (which is where we see the beginning of the inflow of the first large generation of Canadian talent). Iain Fyffe takes an almost unbelievably friendly view towards the players of that generation, and his work was largely used in the arguments in favor of Pulford in the top-60 project. In light of some of his statements (like this blog post) about that generation, I consider him an interesting source of information, but far from a credible one in terms of evaluating the relative value of players across the ages. Simply put, Mr. Fyffe has not indicated any awareness of the enormous demographic shift in the hockey talent pool which took place between the Pulford generation and the one that followed it, nevermind between that generation and Gretzky's.

Read that blog post where he claims without irony that Russell Bowie was at the Gretzky-Orr level, and then take a look at these numbers:

Russell Bowie vs. Ernie Russell scoring in the ECAHA 1906-08:

Bowie: 99 goals // 29 games played // 3.4 GPG
Russell: 84 goals // 24 games played // 3.5 GPG

This is how Bowie compares to his best peer in the ECAHA. Kind of sobering, isn't it? Doesn't really make him look like Gretzky, does it? Unless there were a whole bunch of Gretzkys back then...

Reading that guy's blog is like reading stories of the heroes of ancient Greece. Now, Ernie Russell has probably been underrated in the ATD thus far, but the above sort of tears to pieces the argument that Bowie was head and shoulders above his peers, unless the peers we're talking about are restricted to the CAHL scrubs against whom he competed over the first two thirds of his career. This ultimately affects Pulford as much as it does Bowie.

We've pumped a lot of hot air into this generation.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That comparison is Ernie Russell's best three years vs a Russel Bowie who was past his prime. "Well done" starting the comparison the first season after Bowie's 4 scoring titles in 5 years. Anyway, that's not really relevant to this thread

I also don't think Pulford was voted into the HOH list because of that post by Ian. I think he got more mileage out of being an inaugural member of the HHOF than from Ian's blog. If you had been following the project from the beginning, you'd know that that blog post had already been posted several weeks earlier and come under heavy criticism for putting a ridiculously high emphasis on longevity.

My impression was we as a group had trouble placing Pulford. Hod Stuart was compared favorably by a handful of sources to guys like Gerard, Boucher, and Johnson so we had a frame of reference for him. All we knew about Pulford is he was "next best" of his generation behind Hod Stuart but ahead of Si Griffis. No frame of reference to more modern players. I think in the end a lot of voters just decided to include Pulford due to "historical significance."

 

[Sturminator]

That comparison is Ernie Russell's best three years vs a Russel Bowie who was past his prime. "Well done" starting the comparison the first season after Bowie's 4 scoring titles in 5 years. Anyway, that's not really relevant to this thread.

Sure it is. Pegging the skill level of this generation is extremely relevant to understanding Harvey Pulford's place in history.

Was Bowie past his prime? You are basing this on what? Bowie was 26, 27 and 28 years old in the 1906-08 timeframe, led the ECAHA in scoring overall, and was the season leader in 1908. I see no reason to believe that he was in any way past his prime. Bowie's sudden fall to earth in terms of scoring versus his peers seems to have everything to do with the emergence of players like Harry Smith and Ernie Russell and nothing to do with him athletically declining at the age of 26.

I realize we're talking about more than 100 years ago, but barring health problems, there is no reason that a man of that era should not have still been in his athletic prime in his late twenties. And Bowie was remarkably healthy. He missed only a single league game in his entire ten year career in the CAHL/ECAHA. The argument that Bowie was past his prime in the ECAHA looks like an attempt to hide him from scrutiny. He can't be directly compared to the players of the next generation because...shucks...his prime ended just before they came into the league. I don't buy it. Much more likely is that he wasn't actually any more talented than Ernie Russell.

I don't want to gunk up this thread too much with Bowie talk, but this is relevant to Pulford because Pulford came from the same tiny generation that spawned Bowie. I deal with Bowie and his results in discussing the talent level of this generation because Bowie was its star scorer and as such can be critiqued in a quantifiable way. No analysis of statistics can give us a clear picture of Pulford's skill level, and a purely qualitative critique would devolve into gibberish almost instantly.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

No analysis of statistics can give us a clear picture of Pulford's skill level, and a purely qualitative critique would devolve into gibberish almost instantly

Is Iain's formula any worse than Alan Ryder's formulas that you posted recently? It's based off the observation that in 60 minute hockey, team goals for and goals against are all you need to credit an individual's goals for and goals against (the components of plus minus). And you don't have to worry about things like quality of competition and offensive vs defensie zone draws when every player was on the ice for 60 minutes.

 

[Sturminator]

Is Iain's formula any worse than Alan Ryder's formulas that you posted recently? It's based off the observation that in 60 minute hockey, team goals for and goals against are all you need to credit an individual's goals for and goals against (the components of plus minus). And you don't have to worry about things like quality of competition and offensive vs defensie zone draws when every player was on the ice for 60 minutes.

Both systems work pretty well (with some obvious flaws) for telling us how good the relevant players are compared to their peers. But Pulford's value relative to his peers is not what's at issue here. The question is how his entire generation relates to the rest of the continuum of hockey history, and there Iain's formulas cannot help us.

 

[Dreakmur]

That project is not the exactly the bible of relative ATD value.

That's right. All-Time lists and ATD value are not the same. Some players are more valuable when building a team than their all-time rankings. I'd say an intimidating defensive defenseman would be one of those guys, wouldn't you?

If we assume that Pulford's draft position this year was appropriate (in the tier with Flaman, Reardon, Howell and White), then he looks like a low end #2, yes. That would put him ahead of Desjardins. But I don't buy that.

That's up to each person to decide.

You have a guy who was the 2nd best defenseman of his weak generation vs. a guy who was between 15th and 20th of his strong generation.

 

[Sturminator]

You have a guy who was the 2nd best defenseman of his weak generation vs. a guy who was between 15th and 20th of his strong generation.

The point is that, in this case, the difference between "weak" and "strong" (measured in terms of the approximate size of the talent pool) is likely several orders of magnitude.

 

[Dreakmur]

The point is that, in this case, the difference between "weak" and "strong" (measured in terms of the approximate size of the talent pool) is likely several orders of magnitude.

That might be true, but it's still 2 vs 15-20.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The reason I have much more respect for the Pulford/Bowie generation than I used to is the revelation (mostly last draft through newspaper research) that people who saw them play thought that the true stars of the era (mostly Phillips and Hod Stuart but some others) compared favorably to the "current" (20s or 30s) stars.

But yes the talent was obviously quite thin.

 

[nik jr]

Well, I've been waiting for Nik, but I suppose I can just start the debate with the defensemen.....

Portland-Hatcher vs. Johansson-Svoboda
-Portland is clearly better than Johansson.
-Hatcher is way better than Svoboda, and this one is a complete mismatch.
-with both guys being better, Rogle should have a significant advantage on the third pair.

i have no problem conceding an advantage here, but i think you overrate hatcher.

as i said earlier, hatcher was erratic and prone to errors, similar to mccabe, jovanovski or phaneuf. that is why he was generally a minus player despite playing for good teams and scoring a lot. in late '80s and early '90s, hatcher sometimes played with langway, who was able to cover for hatcher.

as with those others, hatcher's combination of offense and physicality was very attractive to voters, and his gaffes and often spotty D were overlooked.

hatcher also had back problems in 2nd half of his career and lost his physical play.

i am guessing vecens agreed more with my view of hatcher than yours b/c hatcher played for the penguins and vecens is a penguins fan.



i think you and i have different approaches to 3rd pairs. i basically want them to not screw up and make safe plays until better players get on the ice.

both svoboda and especially johansson were underrated throughout their careers (as was numminen) and by voters. imo, johansson was a really poor man's lidstrom. he was good in every area, not physical, and led a very good d-corps in washington in '90s (after hatcher was traded for tinordi).

svoboda was not at johansson's level, but was a reliable player. i also picked him b/c he is a buddy of jagr (currently his agent). jagr of course could be moody, and his teams often added czechs to make him more at ease.

Overall
-Offensively, Rogle is going definitely stronger on the blueline. Our defense will be able to move the puck more effectively, and create a lot more offense.

i agree that your blueline has more offensive ability. i think my d-men have more speed, though.

i don't think your d-men will create a lot more offense, b/c they generally supported offense, as did mine.

-Defensively, these two defense cores look to be pretty even. Both are quite strong in that regard, but not elite.
-Physically, Kazan has the edge. With Chara and Cleghorn being on the ice more than Pulford and Portland means they will be able to make a bigger impact in that regard.

though not at the level of cleghorn or chara, ramsey and svoboda were also physical players.


i think my d-men are better defensively.

cleghorn, chara and ramsey were elite defensively in their eras. you have 2 such players: lidstrom and pulford. desjardins was better than numminen.

johansson and svoboda were not elite defensively, but both played important roles on strong defensive teams ('90s capitals, '80s-'90s habs).

hatcher was sometimes a liability. i have no such player.


a player can be better defensively but less effective defensively if he spends too much time in the defensive zone, but i don't think that is a problem for me.





matchups
cleghorn and chara will play against forsberg. forsberg will not be able to overpower them on the boards or near the net.

ramsey and desjardins will play against stewart.


jagr will start his shifts almost entirely in the offensive and neutral zones.

4th line will generally avoid forsberg. bobby smith and foligno were 2 way players, but i have 3 better defensive C's and andreychuk was not a good defensive player.

tkaczuk will take a large share of defensive zone faceoffs, especially against forsberg (who was not good on faceoffs) and stewart (who was very good on faceoffs).

tkaczuk was known for his play against big and/or tough C's such as esposito and clarke, and i think he will be effective against stewart and forsberg. unlike a standard checking C, tkaczuk had good offensive ability, was very strong on the puck and effective on the cycle.



forsberg and palffy
forsberg was obviously superior offensively, but palffy was not terribly far behind, despite playing with little support, and almost always being the focus of opposing defenders.

'96-'06
(jagr: 1043p)
forsberg: 766p
palffy: 696p


the gap is much, much larger in the playoffs, but palffy only played 3 times in playoffs. he was one of LAK's best players in each playoff, but was shut down by roy and bourque in 2001.



goaltending
rogle has an advantage, but i don't think it is as big as it first appears.

i think much of brodeur's value came from his ability to play 70+ games every season. but that is not very important in the playoffs.

brodeur's puckhandling of course is a bonus in transition.




i will also post later about ES scoring and puck possession. i think i have advantages in these areas.

 

[vecens24]

Just to be fair to Dreakmur since nik is pointing to my knowledge of Hatcher as a Pens fan: I'd say I have seen Hatcher about 50 times in my life while he played a a Pen, but as far as actually watching the game and knowing his nuances defensively/horrible gaffes, I'd say I've seen about 10-15 of his games as a Pen, or basically just what I've seen on replayed games of that era.

I'm 22, so I can't exactly say that I'm a Hatcher expert here as to when he played for us. However I can remember a couple of times te Pens announcer (Mike Lange) mid game referred to his ability to at times make a mistake defensively in the replays. Yet again though, I've only seen him on replays during his 30s, so I can't exactly be held to a high standard lol. My remarks were more geared towards what I've read about Hatcher during his Washington days as opposed to his Pens years, although I've heard the same things as far as that.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think guys like Kevin Hatcher, Phaneuf, Jovanovski, and McCabe usually get overrated by the media for a few years for their big hits and offense, then they get tired of their constant mistakes and actually become underrated. So guys like that often have an all-star "peak" they probably don't deserve but then spend the later part of their careers being overly criticized.

I think it's most true about Phaneuf, but it probably affects the others too

 

[Hobnobs]

am I the only one who is not impressed with Niks offense (except for Jagr)? I think it will be pretty "easy" for our forward corps to shut them down.



Edit alffy will get injured in the first game.

 

[Dreakmur]

i think you and i have different approaches to 3rd pairs. i basically want them to not screw up and make safe plays until better players get on the ice.

My appoach to the 3rd pair is the same as my approach to the 4th lines. I want my bottom ends to contribute something that is lacking in the top of my line-up.

My top 4 defensemen are all steady and reliable, so I don't need that on the 3rd pair.

i think my d-men are better defensively.

cleghorn, chara and ramsey were elite defensively in their eras. you have 2 such players: lidstrom and pulford. desjardins was better than numminen.

johansson and svoboda were not elite defensively, but both played important roles on strong defensive teams ('90s capitals, '80s-'90s habs).

hatcher was sometimes a liability. i have no such player.

Here are the defensive groupings that I see on these two teams.

Lidstrom

Cleghorn, Chara, Pulford

Ramsey, Desjardins, Numminen, Portland

Johansson, Svoboda, Murphy

Hatcher

Your group is maybe a litte better defensively, but it's not really significant.

matchups
cleghorn and chara will play against forsberg. forsberg will not be able to overpower them on the boards or near the net.

I think the speed of Forsberg and Foyston are going to give Chara a lot of problems in open ice.

ramsey and desjardins will play against stewart.

That is going to be a mismatch down low.

 

[seventieslord]

I think guys like Kevin Hatcher, Phaneuf, Jovanovski, and McCabe usually get overrated by the media for a few years for their big hits and offense, then they get tired of their constant mistakes and actually become underrated. So guys like that often have an all-star "peak" they probably don't deserve but then spend the later part of their careers being overly criticized.

I think it's most true about Phaneuf, but it probably affects the others too

well said.