MLD 2010 Mickey Ion Final Round: #1 Toronto Marlies vs. #2 Brooklyn Americans
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Two teams that placed a big emphasis on peak performance on drafting players.
First impression: Brooklyn has the better coaching, playoff goaltending, 2nd line and 3rd line. Toronto has the better 1st and 2nd defense pairs.
First impression: Brooklyn has the better coaching, playoff goaltending, 2nd line and 3rd line. Toronto has the better 1st and 2nd defense pairs.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Tikhanov and Pilous were the only two coaches that I thought would have a clear advantage over Bun Cook.... and unfortunately, I still believe that
You do have a coaching advantage, but I would call it a minor advantage, since I still think Cook is the 3rd best in the draft.I also have to agree that you have a goaltending advantage. I'll have to take a closer look to see how much of an advantage it is, but, at first glance, it looks like another minor advantage. Asside from the one great run, Kiprusoff's play-offs look kind of mediocre.... but, that one run was pretty damn good!
I will definately be contesting your claim to the better 2nd and 3rd lines, as I do think they both look pretty close. The biggest thing I see there is that Red Hamill, in my opinion, is the only 2nd liner in the draft who can give Dubbie Kerr a run for his money! We'll see how the deeper analysis comes out.
As for my own first observations:
These teams have been build in a very similar way. Offensive lines have been built with the Scorer, Passer, Puckwinner theme. The 3rd lines are very biased towards pure defense. Defense groups are a little different, since you seem to have Puckmover with a Stay-at-Homer on each pair, while we put our 2 best offesive guys on the first pair, and our 2 shut-down guys on the second pair.
I do look forward to the discussion!
I'm trying to figure out if arguing 1st line centre's is going to be easier or harder in this series than the last 
Good luck Brooklyn! Here's hoping for a good series.
Good luck Brooklyn! Here's hoping for a good series.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Coaching and Goaltending
Might as well get coaching and goaltending out of the way early.
Coaching
Assuming Pilous has a small edge over Cook behind the bench, the addition of a good assistant (Larry Robinson) who can keep the players loose and handle changing the defensemen widens the advantage.
Moderate Edge Brooklyn (would be a slight edge without Robinson)
Goaltending
In short, Kiprusoff has a slightly better regular season resume and the gap widens in the playoffs.
Vezina records:
Kipper: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 8th
Nabby: 2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, and 6th
Remove repeats and you have:
Kipper: 1st, 3rd, 8th, 8th
Nabby: 4th, 4th, 4th, 6th
Edge to Kipper in peak value and slight edge overall. Kipper also has a 3rd and 4th in Hart voting, but part of that is a function of playing on an otherwise worse team than Nabby.
Career save % (Nabby entered the league in 1999-00 and Kipper in 00-01):
Kipper: 0.914
Nabokov: 0.912
Cumulative save % since 2003-04 (when Kipper became a full-time starter):
Kipper: 0.915
Nabokov: 0.912
No need to look at competition, since their careers almost perfectly overlap. I don't think either is known as a puckhandling goaltender, so neither brings "hidden value" that save % doesn't cover (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't recall either San Jose or Calgary being biased in either directions in shot recording, either.
Overall, they look very close in the regular season with small edge to Kipper.
The gap widens in the playoffs for a couple of reasons:
1) Kipper's 2004 run is much better than anything Nabby has done.
2) Nabby has been one of the goats when his team has lost early. See San Jose not even offering him a contract after this past year. While Kipper has lost in the first round every year since the lockout that he made the playoffs, he has never been fingered as a reason the team lost.
3) I think that comparing playoff save % is uselss, considering different goalies play different teams with different strengths and styles. But for what it's worth, Kipper has a .921 save % in the playoffs vs. .913 for Nabokov.
Slight Edge Brooklyn increases to Moderate Edge in the playoffs
Me too. I'll let you get started the comparisons of other positions started. But I'll start by saying that I don't think Hammil is particularly close to Dubbie Kerr
Tikhanov and Pilous were the only two coaches that I thought would have a clear advantage over Bun Cook.... and unfortunately, I still believe that
I also have to agree that you have a goaltending advantage. I'll have to take a closer look to see how much of an advantage it is, but, at first glance, it looks like another minor advantage. Asside from the one great run, Kiprusoff's play-offs look kind of mediocre.... but, that one run was pretty damn good!
Might as well get coaching and goaltending out of the way early.
Coaching
Assuming Pilous has a small edge over Cook behind the bench, the addition of a good assistant (Larry Robinson) who can keep the players loose and handle changing the defensemen widens the advantage.
Moderate Edge Brooklyn (would be a slight edge without Robinson)
Goaltending
In short, Kiprusoff has a slightly better regular season resume and the gap widens in the playoffs.
Vezina records:
Kipper: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 8th, 8th
Nabby: 2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, and 6th
Remove repeats and you have:
Kipper: 1st, 3rd, 8th, 8th
Nabby: 4th, 4th, 4th, 6th
Edge to Kipper in peak value and slight edge overall. Kipper also has a 3rd and 4th in Hart voting, but part of that is a function of playing on an otherwise worse team than Nabby.
Career save % (Nabby entered the league in 1999-00 and Kipper in 00-01):
Kipper: 0.914
Nabokov: 0.912
Cumulative save % since 2003-04 (when Kipper became a full-time starter):
Kipper: 0.915
Nabokov: 0.912
No need to look at competition, since their careers almost perfectly overlap. I don't think either is known as a puckhandling goaltender, so neither brings "hidden value" that save % doesn't cover (correct me if I'm wrong). I don't recall either San Jose or Calgary being biased in either directions in shot recording, either.
Overall, they look very close in the regular season with small edge to Kipper.
The gap widens in the playoffs for a couple of reasons:
1) Kipper's 2004 run is much better than anything Nabby has done.
2) Nabby has been one of the goats when his team has lost early. See San Jose not even offering him a contract after this past year. While Kipper has lost in the first round every year since the lockout that he made the playoffs, he has never been fingered as a reason the team lost.
3) I think that comparing playoff save % is uselss, considering different goalies play different teams with different strengths and styles. But for what it's worth, Kipper has a .921 save % in the playoffs vs. .913 for Nabokov.
Slight Edge Brooklyn increases to Moderate Edge in the playoffs
Me too. I'll let you get started the comparisons of other positions started. But I'll start by saying that I don't think Hammil is particularly close to Dubbie Kerr
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Brooklyn's roster for ease of reference:
PP1: Dubbie Kerr - Vladimir Zabrodsky - Todd Bertuzzi - Dick Redmond - Fredrick Olausson
PP2: Keith Crowder - Dutch Reibel - Eddie Wiseman - Steamer Maxwell - Walter Smaill
PK1: Ron Sutter - Jay Pandolfo - Normand Rochefort - Rick Green
PK2: Charlie Sands - Rich Preston - Dave Lewis - Walter Smaill
Brooklyn Americans
GMS: jareklajkosz & TheDevilMadeMe
Head Coach: Rudy Pilous
Assistant Coach: Larry Robinson
Dennis Hextall (A) - Vladimir Zabrodsky - Eddie Wiseman
Dubbie Kerr - Dutch Reibel - Todd Bertuzzi
Jay Pandolfo - Ron Sutter (C) - Rich Preston
Steamer Maxwell - Charlie Sands - Keith Crowder
Normand Rochefort - Dick Redmond
Rick Green (A) - Fredrick Olausson
Dave Lewis - Walter Smaill
Miikka Kiprusoff
Dan Bouchard
Spares: Sergei Brylin, Jimmy Herberts (Steamer Maxwell is a rover who switch to D in case of injuries)
GMS: jareklajkosz & TheDevilMadeMe
Head Coach: Rudy Pilous
Assistant Coach: Larry Robinson
Dennis Hextall (A) - Vladimir Zabrodsky - Eddie Wiseman
Dubbie Kerr - Dutch Reibel - Todd Bertuzzi
Jay Pandolfo - Ron Sutter (C) - Rich Preston
Steamer Maxwell - Charlie Sands - Keith Crowder
Normand Rochefort - Dick Redmond
Rick Green (A) - Fredrick Olausson
Dave Lewis - Walter Smaill
Miikka Kiprusoff
Dan Bouchard
Spares: Sergei Brylin, Jimmy Herberts (Steamer Maxwell is a rover who switch to D in case of injuries)
PP1: Dubbie Kerr - Vladimir Zabrodsky - Todd Bertuzzi - Dick Redmond - Fredrick Olausson
PP2: Keith Crowder - Dutch Reibel - Eddie Wiseman - Steamer Maxwell - Walter Smaill
PK1: Ron Sutter - Jay Pandolfo - Normand Rochefort - Rick Green
PK2: Charlie Sands - Rich Preston - Dave Lewis - Walter Smaill
Dreakmur
Registered User
Agreed.
Asside from 2004, Kiprusoff has been a goalie who's never been out of the first round. I don't think that's all his fault, be he's definately had some pretty mediocre play-offs. Like Nabokov, his biggest problem is having his team fold in front of him, but, at the same time, Nabokov gets questioned for not being able to steal a series - I don't see Kipper as any better in that regard.
Nabokov's been past the first round 5 times, and into the semi-finals once.
Overall, I still think you have a slight advantage in net.
I don't expect coaching or goaltending to be how the series is won or lost, given how rather close they are. Outside of one run, Kipper really hasn't been better than Nabakov in the playoffs. Nabakov has been outed a bit more, but we all know the problems of San Jose go beyond him.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Since I think it's the easiest, I will hopefully show that we have a clearly better 3rd line.
Pandolfo vs. Erixson
- Jan Erixon has the clearly better Selke voting record. Eliminating the even results (3rd and 8th), Erixon wins with a 6th, 7th, 9th vs. nothing.
- having said that, I think Pandolfo is better than his voting shows.
- offensive (in)ability is basically a wash
- overall, I'd have to give a slight edge to Erixon
Blachford vs. Preston
- both guys appear to have one solid offensive season followed by a bunch of mediocre ones. I think, though, that Preston probably brings moe offense to the table.
- a defensive comparison is pretty tough here, since one guy played 100 years ago, and the other guy played in the WHL for most of his prime. The good quotes and 4th in Selke votin, I think evens out with 2 Retro Selkes and the assumptions we can make about Blachford.
- both guys were good play-off performers.
- overall, with the offensive edge, the slight edge goes to Preston
Rolston vs. Sutter
- Selke voting very clearly shows that Rolston was the better defensive player. Sutter has his Runner-up, but Rolston has 6 finsihes better than Sutter's next best.
- Offensively, the gap is basically a chasm, and it widens even further on the PK.
- Sutter is definately tougher
- overall, I'd give a pretty big edge to Rolston
Pandolfo vs. Erixson
- Jan Erixon has the clearly better Selke voting record. Eliminating the even results (3rd and 8th), Erixon wins with a 6th, 7th, 9th vs. nothing.
- having said that, I think Pandolfo is better than his voting shows.
- offensive (in)ability is basically a wash
- overall, I'd have to give a slight edge to Erixon
Blachford vs. Preston
- both guys appear to have one solid offensive season followed by a bunch of mediocre ones. I think, though, that Preston probably brings moe offense to the table.
- a defensive comparison is pretty tough here, since one guy played 100 years ago, and the other guy played in the WHL for most of his prime. The good quotes and 4th in Selke votin, I think evens out with 2 Retro Selkes and the assumptions we can make about Blachford.
- both guys were good play-off performers.
- overall, with the offensive edge, the slight edge goes to Preston
Rolston vs. Sutter
- Selke voting very clearly shows that Rolston was the better defensive player. Sutter has his Runner-up, but Rolston has 6 finsihes better than Sutter's next best.
- Offensively, the gap is basically a chasm, and it widens even further on the PK.
- Sutter is definately tougher
- overall, I'd give a pretty big edge to Rolston
Marc Savard vs Vladimir Zabrodsky
Two crucial player in their respective clubs, both top lines essentially built around these two players. Which is better?
seventies did a much better job than I likely could calling Zabrodsky into serious question. I probably wouldn't call him a complete dud, persay, but is he really an MLD star? Can he really compare to Marc Savard?
TDMM often uses a comparison between Zabrodsky and Bobrov in comparison to defend him, but I have never been or likely will be a fan of Bobrov or those '50s Russians, and it doesn't seem so simple as "Zabrodsky compares to Bobrov, canon is Bobrov could be a great MLD lineplayer, thus Zabordsky can too" (not a real quote, but the general sense I get from this defense) to me . The Russians went through a much more clear evolution than the Czechs did, with how many of the Czechs were lost once the 50s hit. 40s Czech hockey was better than 40s Soviet hockey, but I don't know that it really means it's comparable to 50s Soviet hockey- logic might dictate that (40s Czech hockey was a ways ahead of 40s Soviet hockey, thus 50s Soviet hockey caught up to that level and made things on par), but leagues and games can develop at rather different rates. And I am curious as to just how far behind the 40s soviets really were.
I don't think seventies evidence against Zabrodsky, at least, was bad. (maybe ran with it a bit too far) I thought it painted a clear picture that Zabrodsky wasn't all that impressive international wise, usually being outscored by either his own teammates or north american amateurs that will never be drafted. That, in my mind, seriously puts things into question with him. If he could indeed compete at an NHL level, surely he should have outscored these amateurs everytime he was up against them by a fair margin, since they weren't really close to NHL level. He gets points for being likely the best Czech hockey player at the time, but if he was being outscored by his own teammates, well it doesn't look that good.
Sure, maybe guys like Bobrov deserve similar criticisms, but to me that means we should more closely look at Bobrov's credentials and try and better approximate his true values, rather than giving Zabrodsky the benefit of the doubt because he might compare to Bobrov.
To me, Zabrodsky isn't close to an MLD scoring star after the evidence seventies brought up. I'm not completely sure where he belongs- again I think seventies probably went a bit extreme with things, but he is certainly isn't an ideal MLD top line centre, to me.
Marc Savard, however, is a guy we KNOW can play, and dominate, at an MLD level. His assist record in a modern age is dominant and one of the best in the draft (3, 3, 3, 6 in top-10 assists), he makes the players around him better (unlike Zabrodsky, who probably makes his much more MLD-first line calibre linemates worse), he has 3 top-10s in points. Sure, he is a bit of a negative in intangibles, but Zabrodsky, a complete non-entity in that regard, doesn't seem much better to me.
Marc Savard's dominant playmaking record is unqestionable and likely worthy of an MLD first line centre role, a spot I think he is going to become a bit of a staple in. Zabrodsky has far too many questionmarks, didn't dominate nearly enough interationally to me, to really compare against Marc Savard. I think Savard has a strong edge against Zabrodsky.
And these are the two centrepieces of the line. As I said, I think Savard elevates two great complimentary wingers while Zabordsky deflates and otherwise good MLD top line. Depending on how close these wingers are, I think that alone could give our top line an edge.
Two crucial player in their respective clubs, both top lines essentially built around these two players. Which is better?
seventies did a much better job than I likely could calling Zabrodsky into serious question. I probably wouldn't call him a complete dud, persay, but is he really an MLD star? Can he really compare to Marc Savard?
TDMM often uses a comparison between Zabrodsky and Bobrov in comparison to defend him, but I have never been or likely will be a fan of Bobrov or those '50s Russians, and it doesn't seem so simple as "Zabrodsky compares to Bobrov, canon is Bobrov could be a great MLD lineplayer, thus Zabordsky can too" (not a real quote, but the general sense I get from this defense) to me . The Russians went through a much more clear evolution than the Czechs did, with how many of the Czechs were lost once the 50s hit. 40s Czech hockey was better than 40s Soviet hockey, but I don't know that it really means it's comparable to 50s Soviet hockey- logic might dictate that (40s Czech hockey was a ways ahead of 40s Soviet hockey, thus 50s Soviet hockey caught up to that level and made things on par), but leagues and games can develop at rather different rates. And I am curious as to just how far behind the 40s soviets really were.
I don't think seventies evidence against Zabrodsky, at least, was bad. (maybe ran with it a bit too far) I thought it painted a clear picture that Zabrodsky wasn't all that impressive international wise, usually being outscored by either his own teammates or north american amateurs that will never be drafted. That, in my mind, seriously puts things into question with him. If he could indeed compete at an NHL level, surely he should have outscored these amateurs everytime he was up against them by a fair margin, since they weren't really close to NHL level. He gets points for being likely the best Czech hockey player at the time, but if he was being outscored by his own teammates, well it doesn't look that good.
Sure, maybe guys like Bobrov deserve similar criticisms, but to me that means we should more closely look at Bobrov's credentials and try and better approximate his true values, rather than giving Zabrodsky the benefit of the doubt because he might compare to Bobrov.
To me, Zabrodsky isn't close to an MLD scoring star after the evidence seventies brought up. I'm not completely sure where he belongs- again I think seventies probably went a bit extreme with things, but he is certainly isn't an ideal MLD top line centre, to me.
Marc Savard, however, is a guy we KNOW can play, and dominate, at an MLD level. His assist record in a modern age is dominant and one of the best in the draft (3, 3, 3, 6 in top-10 assists), he makes the players around him better (unlike Zabrodsky, who probably makes his much more MLD-first line calibre linemates worse), he has 3 top-10s in points. Sure, he is a bit of a negative in intangibles, but Zabrodsky, a complete non-entity in that regard, doesn't seem much better to me.
Marc Savard's dominant playmaking record is unqestionable and likely worthy of an MLD first line centre role, a spot I think he is going to become a bit of a staple in. Zabrodsky has far too many questionmarks, didn't dominate nearly enough interationally to me, to really compare against Marc Savard. I think Savard has a strong edge against Zabrodsky.
And these are the two centrepieces of the line. As I said, I think Savard elevates two great complimentary wingers while Zabordsky deflates and otherwise good MLD top line. Depending on how close these wingers are, I think that alone could give our top line an edge.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Marc Savard is the type of player who makes his wingers better. Zabrodsky, on the other hand, needed to be surrounded by wingers that make him better.
Dreakmur
Registered User
Here are the links to our important bios. I have completed a new one on Hy Buller that will hopefully solidify him as the top defenseman in this series.
Marc Savard - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762173&postcount=48
Stephane Richer - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762283&postcount=49
Red Hamill - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762460&postcount=50
Hy Buller - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=27189785&postcount=85
Doc Romnes - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26858606&postcount=64
Art Gagne - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26862748&postcount=66
Al MacAdam - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26862980&postcount=68
Evgeni Nabokov - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26864809&postcount=69
Cecil Blachford - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867421&postcount=70
Brian Rolston - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867832&postcount=71
Jan Erixon - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867864&postcount=72
John van Boxmeer - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26869286&postcount=74
Gord Fraser - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26893653&postcount=82
Mario Marois - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26896744&postcount=83
Bun Cook - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26874399&postcount=75
Warren Godfrey - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26868809&postcount=73
Carl Liscombe - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26887421&postcount=80
Craig Conroy - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26942650&postcount=84
Marc Savard - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762173&postcount=48
Stephane Richer - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762283&postcount=49
Red Hamill - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26762460&postcount=50
Hy Buller - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=27189785&postcount=85
Doc Romnes - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26858606&postcount=64
Art Gagne - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26862748&postcount=66
Al MacAdam - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26862980&postcount=68
Evgeni Nabokov - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26864809&postcount=69
Cecil Blachford - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867421&postcount=70
Brian Rolston - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867832&postcount=71
Jan Erixon - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26867864&postcount=72
John van Boxmeer - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26869286&postcount=74
Gord Fraser - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26893653&postcount=82
Mario Marois - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26896744&postcount=83
Bun Cook - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26874399&postcount=75
Warren Godfrey - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26868809&postcount=73
Carl Liscombe - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26887421&postcount=80
Craig Conroy - http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=26942650&postcount=84
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
The one thing we have on our side here is that Marc Savard has always played with elite talent at his wings. In Calgary, he failed with Iginla, then he found success in Atlanta with Kovalchuk. However, Kovalchuk proved that he didn't need Savard to score many points. So, I don't see how Savard elevated his play at all. Then, with Kessel, Kessel proved last season that he didn't need Savard at all.. Savard, meanwhile, didn't exactly perform well. Even in his 96 point season, his play didn't exactly elevate anyone's performance, as Glen Murray only had 45 points, third highest on the team. Much the same story in 07-08, although Marco Sturm was a better player at that point than Murray was. Overall, I don't see how Savard has ever elevated anyone. Prove me wrong.
Looking at Sturm specifically, going to Boston and playing with Savard didn't seem to affect his numbers THAT much. I don't know who else Savard has played with in his career, other than Kovalchuk and Iginla, but I don't agree that Savard particularly helped either of those guys much.
He failed with Iginla in Calgary because he had not yet developed into the great playmaker he is today.
That goes both ways though, certainly- Savard leaves Kovalchuk, comes to Boston with awful wingers (Kessel wasn't anything at the time), and still produces basically the same number of points.
Meanwhile, the opposite really happened with Kovalchuk. Sure, Kovalchuk doesn't necessarily need Savard to be a great player, but one can see the drop in production. Kovalchuk put his career high in points and highest goal finish with Savard around. Savrd leaves Atlanta, he produces the same number of points. Kovalchuk dropped from 98 points to 76 points. Kessel too had a bit of a dip in goals and points when he left Boston.
Savard didn't appear to elevate anyone in Boston (other than perhaps Kessel), but I wonder how consistent his wingers really were, given that he led the team with 74 assists and their leading goalscorer only had 28 (Glen Murray- 4 more than the previous year in 5 less games).
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Most of the time, Savard didn't even play with Kovalchuk in Atlanta. He played with Heatley and then Hossa. Kovalchuk only played with them on the PP.
Anyway, I'll respond to the third line comparison in detail later, but are you really using Rolston's 10th and 11th place finishes in Selke voting as proof that he's better defensively than Sutter? We all know how Selke voting actually works: once you get past the first handful of players - the guys who actually get significant recognition, maybe top 5 or 6 in the voting - writers throw a couple of remaining Selke votes to guys with good offensive stats who backcheck well.
Basically, Rolston got a handful of Selke votes more often than Sutter because he was better offensively, not defensively.
Can you find quotes substantiating Rolston's shutdown ability? My guess is that you can't, because he was never used in this way. We've all seen this guy play. At his best, he was considering "one of the best two-way players in the game." He was never a shutdown player. He was as scoring line player who was a good back checker.
Something like what Joe Pelletier posted about Ron Sutter would be good:
Rolston was a great PKer in his prime, but he was never really a shutdown guy at even strength like Ron Sutter.
Anyway, I'll respond to the third line comparison in detail later, but are you really using Rolston's 10th and 11th place finishes in Selke voting as proof that he's better defensively than Sutter? We all know how Selke voting actually works: once you get past the first handful of players - the guys who actually get significant recognition, maybe top 5 or 6 in the voting - writers throw a couple of remaining Selke votes to guys with good offensive stats who backcheck well.
Basically, Rolston got a handful of Selke votes more often than Sutter because he was better offensively, not defensively.
Can you find quotes substantiating Rolston's shutdown ability? My guess is that you can't, because he was never used in this way. We've all seen this guy play. At his best, he was considering "one of the best two-way players in the game." He was never a shutdown player. He was as scoring line player who was a good back checker.
Something like what Joe Pelletier posted about Ron Sutter would be good:
Rolston was a great PKer in his prime, but he was never really a shutdown guy at even strength like Ron Sutter.
Last edited:
Dreakmur
Registered User
Sutter played his best years before the Selke became heavily influenced by offensive stats. Jan Erixon played at the same time, and he sure as heck didn't have any trouble getting recognition.
Agreed that Rolston is not a shut-down guy, and he was always regarded as an elite 2-way player... but that's why we picked him. We didn't want a one-dimentional guy in that spot. With very solid defensive wingers, Rolston can just play his responsible two-way hockey, and bite back on the counter-attack.
Not every 3rd line center needs to be a shut-down type.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Does that mean you take back your statement that Rolston is better than Sutter defensively?
Dreakmur
Registered User
Does that mean you take back your statement that Rolston is better than Sutter defensively?
Not really.
The vast majority of Sutter's peak came before the Selke started to consider offensive production, so his Selke record isn't really influenced by his lack of offense. Rolston's voting does take into account his offensive abilty, so his voting record would be considered somewhat inflated above just his defensive ability.
The gap in voting is quite wide, and I'm not sure the adjustments would completely close the gap.
Dreakmur
Registered User
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
Not really.
The vast majority of Sutter's peak came before the Selke started to consider offensive production, so his Selke record isn't really influenced by his lack of offense. Rolston's voting does take into account his offensive abilty, so his voting record would be considered somewhat inflated above just his defensive ability.
The gap in voting is quite wide, and I'm not sure the adjustments would completely close the gap.
Care to substantiate that? You make pretty bold claims Dreak. I'd like to see some evidence that "the vast majority of Sutter's peak came before the Selke started to consider offensive production". And for what it's worth, Sutter's prime hailed players such as the likes of Esa Tikannen and Guy Carbonneau - far more interesting defensive players to watch. He never had a chance at the Selke voting. Rolston, meanwhile, if he was such an elite two-way player, the competition should have justified him getting way more recognition, no? The 80s certainly seemed to be FAR more deep in good defensive forwards as compared to the late-90s going into the 00's.
This is true, but.. can you substantiate that? Your buddy seems to love playing with numbers. As TDMM actually pointed out, it wasn't even Kovalchuk who Savard played with in Atlanta either, at least not at ES.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Not really.
The vast majority of Sutter's peak came before the Selke started to consider offensive production, so his Selke record isn't really influenced by his lack of offense. Rolston's voting does take into account his offensive abilty, so his voting record would be considered somewhat inflated above just his defensive ability.
The gap in voting is quite wide, and I'm not sure the adjustments would completely close the gap.
You're seriously trying to convince us that black is white or up is down if you are trying to convince us that Rolston is a shut down center. It's not like this is a player who played decades ago where we need to look at Selke voting. We've all seen him play.
Selke voting shares
Dreakmur posted their raw Selke records. But how much does getting a few 3rd or 4th place votes for the Selke really mean? IMO, they each only have one significant Selke finish - 2nd for Sutter and 5th for Rolston.
For instance, in 2009-10, Nicklas Backstrom was 10th in Selke voting and Zach Parise was 12th. Nobody would ever confuse either of these players for shut-down guys. They are just good offensive players who backcheck well.
I'm going to look at their Selke voting shares, based off of Hockey Outsider's Norris voting shares method. A score of 1.00 means a player got 100% of the points available (in other words, every first place vote).
Comparing Rolston's Selke results directly to Sutter's isn't comparing apples to apples since the voting systems were totally different! When Sutter played, writers voted their top 3 choices. 1st place got 5 points, 2nd place got 3 points, 3rd place got 1 vote. When Rolston played, writers voted their top 5 choices. 1st place got 10 points, 2nd place got 7 points, 3rd place got 5 points, 4th place got 3 points, 5th place got 1 points. Is it any wonder that Rolston has more token placements in Selke voting than Sutter with the 2 different systems?
To make this an apples-to-apples comparison, I'm using the points system when Sutter played, since there were no 4th or 5th choices back then.
Ron Sutter Selke Voting Shares
84-85|21st|0-0-4|4|290| 0.014
85-86|2nd|17-11-9|127|300| 0.423
88-89|14th|0-2-1|7|315| 0.022
Total Selke Shares = 0.429
Sutter also got a single vote for the Selke 3 times. I omitted these seasons.
Brian Rolston Selke Voting Shares
98-99|11th|0-0-4|4|280| 0.014
01-02|5th|3-8-6|45|290| 0.155 *
02-03|10th|0-0-4|4|310| 0.013 *
03-04|14th|0-0-3|3|570| 0.005 *
05-06|10th|4-4-3|35|620| 0.056
06-07|16th|1-3-6|20|705| 0.028
*These are the seasons Rolston played as a center.
Total Selke shares: 0.271
Rolston also got a single vote for the Selke once. I omitted this season.
From the actual voting results these things are clear:
-In 85-86, Sutter received 42.3% of the available points. Using the same points system, Rolston only received 15.5% of the available points in his best season. Ranking these seasons "2nd" and "5th" fails to show how much closer Sutter was to actually winning the Selke than Rolston was.
-Both players only had one season where they got more than 6% of the available points (using the 80s points system since 4th and 5th place votes weren't available in the 80s).
-Sutter received 17 first place votes for the Selke in 85-86. Rolston has received 8 first place votes for the Selke over his entire career. This despite the fact that the number of voters doubled in the middle of Rolston's career (60 total first place votes recorded in 85-86, 59 total 1st place votes recorded in 98-99, 124 total first place votes recorded in 05-06).
Sutter has the more impressive Selke record if you actually look at the vote totals. This despite 3 disadvantages that he had:
1) Early in his career, he played on the same team as Dave Poulin (a staple as a shutdown center in the ATD) who overshadowed him (much like Madden overshadowed Pandolfo in the voting).
2) He is a worse offensive player than Rolston, which we all know affects Selke vote totals for the guys farther down the list, despite the claims of my opponent.
3) Early in his career, he was competing with Craig Ramsey and Bob Gainey. Late in his career, he was competing with Guy Carbonneau. If the writers wanted to vote for a pure shut down center rather than a two-way player, they had better options than Ron Sutter. Rolston didn't have this issue - he always had his scoring stats to remind the writers of his presence.
Conclusion: Combine Sutter's superior Selke record with the fact that there are actually quotes supporting his shutdown ability (no quotes about Rolston's shutdown ability have been provided most likely because there aren't any), and it's clear that he's better defensively than Rolston.
Last edited:
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
By the way, I had Savard on my yahoo fantasy hockey team two years in a row, which is why I followed him more closely in Atlanta than I would have other players.
This was substantiated by Atlanta fans, however, after Kovalchuk was traded to NJ. Kovalchuk basically carried his own line, while Savard played with Heatley and then Hossa, since they were less individualists than Kovy.
Well if Savard only played with Kovalchuk on the PP, assumably Savard was the primary playmaker in that powerplay unit (it's not like Atlanta has had much in the way of PP QB's..)
That year, Kovalchuk scored 56 of his 96 points on the powerplay (Savard scored 50 of his 97 there)- not a big expert on that, but that seems like a rather high percentage of his points. It would seem, in reality assuming Savard did indeed play with Kovy in the PP, which he logically did, that Kovalchuk scored more points playing wit Savard than without.
Kovalchuk's powerplay points take a big leap down the next year after Savard left- went from 56 to 32 points. Kovalchuk's ES points stayed much more consistent- he actually went up from 41 ES points with Savard in Atlanta to 44 ES points after Savard had left. Savard, meanwhile, went from 50 PP points with Kovalchuk to 49 PP points the next year, his ES points going up by 2 in the transition- very consistent, and quite evident that the lowering doesn't go both ways, even though Savard was left with a similar if not greater decline in talent playing with him.
Kovalchuk's career high and dramatic fall afterwards can still be explained by Savard leaving, as Savard was no longer there to elevate Kovalchuk on the powerplay.
That year, Kovalchuk scored 56 of his 96 points on the powerplay (Savard scored 50 of his 97 there)- not a big expert on that, but that seems like a rather high percentage of his points. It would seem, in reality assuming Savard did indeed play with Kovy in the PP, which he logically did, that Kovalchuk scored more points playing wit Savard than without.
Kovalchuk's powerplay points take a big leap down the next year after Savard left- went from 56 to 32 points. Kovalchuk's ES points stayed much more consistent- he actually went up from 41 ES points with Savard in Atlanta to 44 ES points after Savard had left. Savard, meanwhile, went from 50 PP points with Kovalchuk to 49 PP points the next year, his ES points going up by 2 in the transition- very consistent, and quite evident that the lowering doesn't go both ways, even though Savard was left with a similar if not greater decline in talent playing with him.
Kovalchuk's career high and dramatic fall afterwards can still be explained by Savard leaving, as Savard was no longer there to elevate Kovalchuk on the powerplay.
Last edited:
A couple of notes on the selke voting shares:
-@ the Rolston's career voters doubled- do we know if this was a gradual increase? Because if not, the real doubling occurs in the downswing of Rolston's career...
-It paints an interesting picture, but A LOT of Sutter's advantage basically boils down to one year. Rolston 2nd best year is better than Sutter's 2nd best, 3rd best year is better, 4th best year is better, 5th best year is better, and 6th best year is better, as far as I can see.
-Is there a need to remove Rolston's 4th and 5th place voting when looking at this metric..? Does that actually unfairly hurt him? I mean, if you're doing a percentage based metric within each player's own era, such a thing shouldn't matter as all players get that same benefit. I'm not sure if you adjusted for that when looking at Rolston and only looked at top-3 voting points, but if you didn't, wouldn't that be an unfair metric?
-And I wonder if Rolston does better here including those 4th and 5th finishes. Sure, it's more votes that Sutter couldn't get, but again, the percentage metric should adjust for this given that there would be more votes available to the whole league as well, at least if I have my head wrapped around this right.
And in rebuttal to those finishing 3 points on why Sutter may have been maligned in selke voting
-Point #1- You say "early in his career"- how many seasons does that amount to, exactly?
-Point#2- I don't think Dreak's comments were out of line there..there was indeed a point, in the Gainey and Ramsay era and such, where offense didn't matter nearly as much in selke voting. If Sutter played before selke voting became two-way, well his offensie should indeed not be much of a consideration.
-Point#3-If they were willing to vote for these purely defensive guys, however, wouldn't they thus be wanting to vote for the next best pure defensive specalist as they evidently prefer that over best two-way forward if they are voting for the names you just mentioned?
Sutter's quotes are stronger, but just because Rolston is a two-way player does not mean his defensive can't be comparable. And is it really a bad thing Rolston is more versatile than Sutter? Sutter may have a defensive edge, but I could certainly see Rolston's offensive one more than making up for it.
-@ the Rolston's career voters doubled- do we know if this was a gradual increase? Because if not, the real doubling occurs in the downswing of Rolston's career...
-It paints an interesting picture, but A LOT of Sutter's advantage basically boils down to one year. Rolston 2nd best year is better than Sutter's 2nd best, 3rd best year is better, 4th best year is better, 5th best year is better, and 6th best year is better, as far as I can see.
-Is there a need to remove Rolston's 4th and 5th place voting when looking at this metric..? Does that actually unfairly hurt him? I mean, if you're doing a percentage based metric within each player's own era, such a thing shouldn't matter as all players get that same benefit. I'm not sure if you adjusted for that when looking at Rolston and only looked at top-3 voting points, but if you didn't, wouldn't that be an unfair metric?
-And I wonder if Rolston does better here including those 4th and 5th finishes. Sure, it's more votes that Sutter couldn't get, but again, the percentage metric should adjust for this given that there would be more votes available to the whole league as well, at least if I have my head wrapped around this right.
And in rebuttal to those finishing 3 points on why Sutter may have been maligned in selke voting
-Point #1- You say "early in his career"- how many seasons does that amount to, exactly?
-Point#2- I don't think Dreak's comments were out of line there..there was indeed a point, in the Gainey and Ramsay era and such, where offense didn't matter nearly as much in selke voting. If Sutter played before selke voting became two-way, well his offensie should indeed not be much of a consideration.
-Point#3-If they were willing to vote for these purely defensive guys, however, wouldn't they thus be wanting to vote for the next best pure defensive specalist as they evidently prefer that over best two-way forward if they are voting for the names you just mentioned?
Sutter's quotes are stronger, but just because Rolston is a two-way player does not mean his defensive can't be comparable. And is it really a bad thing Rolston is more versatile than Sutter? Sutter may have a defensive edge, but I could certainly see Rolston's offensive one more than making up for it.
Dreakmur
Registered User
1993, when Doug Gilmour won the Selke, is when the Selke made the shift. Sutter's peak was 1986 to 1994, so only 2 of his 9 peak years came after the Selke shifted focus.
Sutter's competition would explain why he never won it, or even why he wasn't a consistent top-10 guy, but why wasn't he ever top-20?
Rolston had plenty of stiff competition in his career, and I wouldn't say either guy faced more or less competition than the other.
What am I substantiating? Playmakers make their wingers better?
Ad
Upcoming events
-
2024 NHL Draft Lottery Team that wins #1 pick - PICK ONLY ONE TEAMWagers: 16Staked: $17,242.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 9Staked: $14,827.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 2 Carolina Hurricanes @ NY Rangers - NYR leads 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $2,309.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
-