What would an all-time best on best tournament look like?

[WarriorofTime]

Maybe because Gretzky-Orr are so special, but it is tempting to go the other way around, Canada third best teams against other country third-best team seem a safer bet for Canada than playing against Fetisov, Jagr, Hasek, etc...

But more you think about it, dealing with Lemieux-Gretzky-Orr for 60 minutes..

Canada lost a game to the Swiss in the Olympics, Soviet to the US college player, even in a 4 of 7 hockey does not feel safe like Soccer, Football or Basketball, there a bit of Baseball like quality to it if the gap is not extreme and you face 1994 Fedorov-Bure, peak Tretiak/Vasilivski

Depth advantage likely matters more as you get to countries that have third lines of players that can't hang, i.e., weren't at least high-end NHL 1st line (or an equivalent of NHL 1st line players for Iron Curtain) players.

I actually had basketball in the back of my mind with the "turn fatigue off" thing. Basketball is a sport that involves a lot of high variance activity, three point shooting in particular, where this year, the worst NBA team to best NBA team in terms of made percentage is a range of 34.5 % to 38.9 %. It is also much more of a 'your turn, my turn' alternating possession kind of sport as opposed to hockey where one team can dominate possession for longer (rebounding is the x-factor to negate that general principle). But in basketball, the star players both play much longer and you can more deliberately run an offense through them compared to a faster moving sport at hockey at 5 on 5 play. I would say the fact that you can essentially spam Michael Jordan or LeBron James all game is why basketball sees less variance than hockey in my opinion, where Gretzky and Orr still come off the ice most of the time.

 

[MadLuke]

I would say the fact that you can essentially spam Michael Jordan or LeBron James all game is why basketball sees less variance than hockey

Physical advantage translate a lot on the court and could be a lot because it is a high event sport, there over 85 shot attempts by teams and about 100% of the shots are high chance relevant play, during the many equivalent amount of relevant scoring attempt of an average hockey game (say 20-25 for a really unbalanced dominating team) that occur during a basketball game we probably see similar amount of variance in them, but they play a best of 4 series every game.

 

[buffalowing88]

Forward (x13)
Brett Hull
Patrick Kane
Pat LaFontaine
John LeClair
Auston Matthews
Joe Mullen
Mike Modano
Zach Parise
Joe Pavelski
Jeremy Roenick
Keith Tkachuk
Matthew Tkachuk
Blake Wheeler

Defense (x7)
Chris Chelios
Adam Fox
Mark Howe
Quinn Hughes
Rod Langway
Brian Leetch
Ryan Suter

Goaltender (x3)
Frank Brimsek
Connor Hellebuyck
Tim Thomas

Fox has the Norris so I get his inclusion but I don't know that he's cracking my top 6, personally. I also just have an entirely unjustified distaste for him that I can't explain haha, but there's a case to be made for him being the 7th defenseman or left off entirely.

Does Drury squeeze out Wheeler? I'd argue that it's close just based on the intangibles he'd offer.

Only other nitpick from me is Miller over Thomas as the third goalie. His 2010 performance is an all-timer and I think he'd be a lot more dependable.

Agree with everything else, though!

 

[WarriorofTime]

Fox has the Norris so I get his inclusion but I don't know that he's cracking my top 6, personally. I also just have an entirely unjustified distaste for him that I can't explain haha, but there's a case to be made for him being the 7th defenseman or left off entirely.

A right-handed shot helps his case, imo. I figured Phil Housley omission would be controversial but I'd rather take the modern guys.

Does Drury squeeze out Wheeler? I'd argue that it's close just based on the intangibles he'd offer.

Maybe.. feel like Wheeler has been a bit underrated in his career. I'd like to think he's someone you'd be able to slide in everywhere. The size, speed, passing, grit were all really top notch in his prime. Maybe that really coming in "DPE 2.0" has hurt his standing in that regard since there's not the same eye-popping stat numbers as in other times. Having a not great contract hurt his reputation a lot and came with a lot of the character assassinations you sometimes see there, but he was also just a player getting old by then.

How many Americans can get to a top 5 in points over their eight-year prime?

NHL Stats

Only other nitpick from me is Miller over Thomas as the third goalie. His 2010 performance is an all-timer and I think he'd be a lot more dependable.

Yeah, I can go either way there.

Agree with everything else, though!

Thanks, it's definitely shallow when you look through older generations and so it skews heavily modern, but that should mean it'll continue evolving and getting better over time as there are spots that can be had.

 

[MadLuke]

Forward (x13)
Brett Hull
Patrick Kane
Pat LaFontaine
John LeClair
Auston Matthews
Joe Mullen
Mike Modano
Zach Parise
Joe Pavelski
Jeremy Roenick
Keith Tkachuk
Matthew Tkachuk
Blake Wheeler

Defense (x7)
Chris Chelios
Adam Fox
Mark Howe
Quinn Hughes
Rod Langway
Brian Leetch
Ryan Suter

Goaltender (x3)
Frank Brimsek
Connor Hellebuyck
Tim Thomas

Some candidates I had dirrently, a lot would be the same, kind of start with that 1996 world cup team and tweak it.

Quick in goals but who to remove...., already mentioned big game Drury that can play a bit everywhere.

K.Tkachuck, like the other big winger was good in the 1996 world cup, but playoff and olympics we can say mixed at best.

What about Kevin Stevens instead ? or even Kessel....

Rafalski had a lot of international ice experience (the most ?), a big winner, would be an interesting one to consider brining has well.

 

[Yozhik v tumane]

Forsberg - Sundin - Alfredsson
Le Petit Viking - Mr. Magic - Loob
The Whirlwind from Vuollerim - Sterner - Tumba
Sedin - Sedin - Zetterberg
Holmstrom

Lidstrom - Salming
Hedman - Karlsson
Sjoberg - Lill-Strimma
Hjalmarsson - Brodin

Lundqvist
Leif “Honken” Holmqvist
Kurt “Suggan” Sucksdorff

 

[WarriorofTime]

Some candidates I had dirrently, a lot would be the same, kind of start with that 1996 world cup team and tweak it.

Quick in goals but who to remove...., already mentioned big game Drury that can play a bit everywhere.

K.Tkachuck, like the other big winger was good in the 1996 world cup, but playoff and olympics we can say mixed at best.

What about Kevin Stevens instead ? or even Kessel....

Rafalski had a lot of international ice experience (the most ?), a big winner, would be an interesting one to consider brining has well.

Issue with Drury, not really a high-end enough player, high-end moments you always question what of that is just variance. I think his reputation oversold him a bit.

K. Tkachuk never had a great postseason definitely but he brings a lot of traits you'd want and an overall great resume.

Stevens, would have liked to see him do really anything worthy of a top player away from Lemieux to justify a spot. Zach Hyman effect.

Kessel I can't see playing down in the lineup effectively and it could create some issues. I like LaFontaine, Mullen and Kane more for what he does bring. Same with Johnny Gaudreau.

Rafalski another not bad option for a natural right handed Defenseman, but over Fox feels a bit disrespectful based on their individual pedigrees.

I wasn't specifically counting 1996 World Cup of Hockey players, but there isn't a whole lot going back earlier than that with a handful of contenders from the 80s and then bear bones in the 70s, 60s, 50s, 40s... This era of players is definitely the deepest for American Hockey players with a lot of high-end, and there was a bit of a lull in the 00s between those two (I guess that's where you'd throw in Drury and Rafalski just for the sake of representation).

 

[Crosby2010]

By the way, do we all agree Scotty Bowman is Team Canada's coach? A half decent coach can ensure that either one of Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr are on the ice at all times.

 

[buffalowing88]

A right-handed shot helps his case, imo. I figured Phil Housley omission would be controversial but I'd rather take the modern guys.

Maybe.. feel like Wheeler has been a bit underrated in his career. I'd like to think he's someone you'd be able to slide in everywhere. The size, speed, passing, grit were all really top notch in his prime. Maybe that really coming in "DPE 2.0" has hurt his standing in that regard since there's not the same eye-popping stat numbers as in other times. Having a not great contract hurt his reputation a lot and came with a lot of the character assassinations you sometimes see there, but he was also just a player getting old by then.

How many Americans can get to a top 5 in points over their eight-year prime?

NHL Stats

Yeah, I can go either way there.

Thanks, it's definitely shallow when you look through older generations and so it skews heavily modern, but that should mean it'll continue evolving and getting better over time as there are spots that can be had.

Awesome points on Wheeler. I personally was a fan. I just remember there being rumblings about him in the lockeroom but maybe it's nothing more than the contract, like you said.

And honestly, I dislike Drury personally. Felt like he was a bit overrated on Buffalo and on Colorado and someone who was a mercenary. I just figured the public opinion juxtaposition would be interesting between him and Wheeler since Drury was considered Captain America for a bit there.

Wheeler was about 5x more talented than Drury but narratives probably figure into this stuff.

 

[buffalowing88]

Some candidates I had dirrently, a lot would be the same, kind of start with that 1996 world cup team and tweak it.

Quick in goals but who to remove...., already mentioned big game Drury that can play a bit everywhere.

K.Tkachuck, like the other big winger was good in the 1996 world cup, but playoff and olympics we can say mixed at best.

What about Kevin Stevens instead ? or even Kessel....

Rafalski had a lot of international ice experience (the most ?), a big winner, would be an interesting one to consider brining has well.

Keith Tkachuk stays. He was a massive lockeroom presence for the US team for over a decade and unlike Bill Guerin, he didn't try to kill his own teammate. I wouldn't worry about him on open ice because he's essentially going to be our answer for a Mahovlich. His weaknesses are offset by his presence in the offensive zone.

Not sure on Kessel but would love to see prime Stevens out there instead of Mullen. Mullen underwhelms me.

Excellent suggestion of Rafalski. He and Schneider are good big ice guys.

 

[sr edler]

Kesler would be on my US team for sure, they would need that type of player, and he always stood out with the national teams anyways.

 

[Namba 17]

Rus-2 would be very strong also

A.Yakushev - Shadrin - Shalimov
V.Alexandrov - Almetov - Loktev
B. Mayorov - Larionov - Bure
Kovalchuk - V.Yakushev - Vikulov
Zhluktov, Bykov

Davydov - Zubov
Markov - Konstantinov
Gusev - Kuzkin
Gonchar

Myshkin
Nabokov

 

[MadLuke]

Is it worth it for Russia to role the dice instead of simply rolling has your top 2 line:

Makarov-Larionov-Krutov
Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikailov

Is the difference in the replacement players you get worth not having the known formula ?

 

[Namba 17]

And Rus-3 is good also

Kapustin – Polupanov – Kovalev
Kamenskiy – Ionov – Mogilny
Bobrov – Shuvalov - Babich
Panarin – Guryshev – Radulov
Shepelev, Mishakov

Ivanov – Lyapkin
Romishevsky - Paladiev
Tregubov – Tsygankov
Billyaletdinov

Habibulin
Shesterkin

 

[WarriorofTime]

Is it worth it for Russia to role the dice instead of simply rolling has your top 2 line:

Makarov-Larionov-Krutov
Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikailov

Is the difference in the replacement players you get worth not having the known formula ?

In the hypo, I'd imagine every player is of an appropriate age to be coming up together and they could potentially find lines with even better chemistry. Don't know how you leave players like Ovechkin and Kucherov off the top two lines.

 

[WarriorofTime]

And Rus-3 is good also

Kapustin – Polupanov – Kovalev
Kamenskiy – Ionov – Mogilny
Bobrov – Shuvalov - Babich
Panarin – Guryshev – Radulov
Shepelev, Mishakov

Ivanov – Lyapkin
Romishevsky - Paladiev
Tregubov – Tsygankov
Billyaletdinov

Habibulin
Shesterkin

Were Soviets so much better that Panarin is Third Team 4th line (12th on depth chart)? He's already managed to climb pretty high on Russian NHL ranks which is hitting 30 years now, and the Soviet Era is roughly speaking 40 years (1952-1992)?

 

[Namba 17]

Were Soviets so much better that Panarin is Third Team 4th line (12th on depth chart)? He's already managed to climb pretty high on Russian NHL ranks which is hitting 30 years now, and the Soviet Era is roughly speaking 40 years (1952-1992)?

It's not list, it's team. It has some team-building rules.
I'd like to use Panarin's playmaking skills. There is no better candidate for line with him than Guryshev, who made his name parking in front of the net. Any other LW in this team has C or RW as playmakers for them, so Panarin is the better fit for Guryshev. I also rather not have Guryshev as my 1st line C even for my 3d team.
So it makes Panarin 4th liner here, but I don't rate him lower than any of LW of this team. Lines here will, probably, have more or less similar time, so its not a big deal.

 

[Namba 17]

Even Rus-4 looks decent

A. Golikov - V.Golikov - Tarasenko
Bodunov - Anisin - Lebedev
Varnakov - Kovin - Skvortsov
Khomutov - Nemchinov - Drozdetsky
Kozhevnikov, Zimin

Gusarov - Stelnov
Nikulin - Babinov
Orlov - Malakhov
Tverdovsky

Konovalenko
Varlamov

 

[JackSlater]

Krutov Fedorov Makarov
Ovechkin Datsyuk Kucherov
Kharlamov Petrov Mikhailov
Firsov Malkin Bure
Maltsev, Shadrin

Fetisov Kasatonov
Malakhov Zubov
Markov Konstantinov
Vasiliev, Gonchar

Vasilevskiy
Khabibulin
Tretiak

This is my Russian team. For me it requires a different thought process than making a Canadian or American all team, since Soviet teams were constructed somewhat differently and also I find a clear difference between Soviet teams and Russian teams. I am gambling that Fedorov, who came up in the Soviet system, can easily fit between Krutov and Makarov because I think he's quite a bit better than Larionov and also because I like that he brings size to that line. I went with the big Soviet line of the 70s even if there are better centres than Petrov below him. Ovechkin is probably the best player on the team but I found him hard to build around, went with a centre to do the defensive work and a well rounded (offensively) playmaker on the other wing. I like that Soviet forwards were often good two way players.

I'm a lot more confident in Vasilevskiy than I am in Tretiak. Defence was also difficult for me as I am generally not impressed with Soviet or Russian defencemen. The top pairing was obvious and I tried to otherwise put a puck mover with someone to cover for him.

Overall I think the Russian team is a strong number two in this context. Forward talent is above Sweden or USA and there is a chemistry advantage in my opinion.

 

[Overrated]

Not knowing much about anything, I would play it safe.

Makarov-Larionov-Krutov
Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikailov
Mogilny-Fedorov-Bure
Ovechkin-Datsyuk-Kucherov
Malkin

Would be my first reflex, maybe a specialist but they often played strong all around hockey and you have Fedorov-Datsyuk.

Maybe it make no sense (does in that world they played with each other.....), but short tourney some value in being certain that it can work.

A bit like I would be tempted with Lemieux-Gretzky, Crosby-Bergeron, Espo-Orr, etc....

One other aspect that would temp me, is to go Lindros all over the competition, is there a mix of Howe-Lindros-Messier-Beliveau-Lemieux-Mahovlich-Esposito-Pronger-Robinson-Neely-Iginla-Nash, that just too much speed-size to handle for the other team, you still put Gretzky-Orr in there obviously with them

Krutov despite being the goalscorer of the line was a LW. I think this one makes sense though Firsov should have made the list. His late prime coincided with the early prime of Kharlamov Petrov Mikhailov, Yakushev and Maltsev and he was better than all of them.

 

[WarriorofTime]

Kovalchuk good too. Underrated imo.

 

[Overrated]

Krutov Fedorov Makarov
Ovechkin Datsyuk Kucherov
Kharlamov Petrov Mikhailov
Firsov Malkin Bure
Maltsev, Shadrin

Fetisov Kasatonov
Malakhov Zubov
Markov Konstantinov
Vasiliev, Gonchar

Vasilevskiy
Khabibulin
Tretiak

This is my Russian team. For me it requires a different thought process than making a Canadian or American all team, since Soviet teams were constructed somewhat differently and also I find a clear difference between Soviet teams and Russian teams. I am gambling that Fedorov, who came up in the Soviet system, can easily fit between Krutov and Makarov because I think he's quite a bit better than Larionov and also because I like that he brings size to that line. I went with the big Soviet line of the 70s even if there are better centres than Petrov below him. Ovechkin is probably the best player on the team but I found him hard to build around, went with a centre to do the defensive work and a well rounded (offensively) playmaker on the other wing. I like that Soviet forwards were often good two way players.

I'm a lot more confident in Vasilevskiy than I am in Tretiak. Defence was also difficult for me as I am generally not impressed with Soviet or Russian defencemen. The top pairing was obvious and I tried to otherwise put a puck mover with someone to cover for him.

Overall I think the Russian team is a strong number two in this context. Forward talent is above Sweden or USA and there is a chemistry advantage in my opinion.

I think keeping the legendary Soviet lines but getting rid of the weak links (Larionov) makes sense. Wasn't prime Mogilny more than good enough though? Afaik it was his injuries and the lack of work ethic which made his career somewhat underwhelming.

 

[Overrated]

Is it worth it for Russia to role the dice instead of simply rolling has your top 2 line:

Makarov-Larionov-Krutov
Kharlamov-Petrov-Mikailov

Is the difference in the replacement players you get worth not having the known formula ?

Mogilny-Fedorov-Bure could become even greater imo.

 

[JackSlater]

I think keeping the legendary Soviet lines but getting rid of the weak links (Larionov) makes sense. Wasn't prime Mogilny more than good enough though? Afaik it was his injuries and the lack of work ethic which made his career somewhat underwhelming.

I don't see a role for Mogilny. The other LW were better and Maltsev gives some positional versatility as 13th forward. Mogilny didn't live up to his talent enough and Russia has tons of elite forwards to pick from.

 

[Overrated]

I don't see a role for Mogilny. The other LW were better and Maltsev gives some positional versatility as 13th forward. Mogilny didn't live up to his talent enough and Russia has tons of elite forwards to pick from.

Firsov Malkin Bure is your strongest line btw.