MLD2011 Sir Montagu Allan Rnd 1: Montreal Bad Habits (3) vs No-Names (6)
MONTREAL BAD HABITS
Coach: Emile Francis & Bob Hartley
Captain: Jason Smith
Assistant: Dave Maloney
Assistant: Brian Gionta
Eric Vail - Jason Spezza - Mud Bruneteau
Carl Liscombe - Alex Zhamnov - Petr Sykora
Bob Kelly - George Gee - Brian Gionta(A)
Stan Jonathan - Daymond Langkow - Ian Laperriere
Spare: Tomas Plekanec , Mike Knuble
Dave Maloney(A) - Jason Smith(C)
Dale Tallon - Bob Rouse
Brad Stuart - Vladimir Malakhov
( If Plekanec is in the line-up I put him on the first wave )
No-Names from Nowhere
Coach: Terry Crisp
Olli Jokinen - Scott Gomez - Vincent Lukac
Geoff Sanderson - Jason Allison - Aleksander Kozhevnikov
Murph Chamberlain - Todd Marchant - Ken Schinkel
Baldy Cotton - Forbes Kennedy - Shorty Green
Bill Brydge - Tom Bladon
Mike McEwen - Eric Brewer
Bryan Berard - Bert Marshall
Spares: Oren Frood - LW/C, Fred Higginbotham - D, Dave Creighton - C/W, Bryan Watson - D/RW
Olli Jokinen - Jason Allison - Vincent Lukac
Mike McEwen - Bryan Berard
Aleksander Kozhevnikov - Scott Gomez - Geoff Sanderson
Bryan Berard - Tom Bladon
Todd Marchant - Baldy Cotton
Bert Marshall - Bill Brydge
Forbes Kennedy - Murph Chamberlain
Eric Brewer - Tom Bladon/Bert Marshall
Scott Gomez - Ken Schinkel
As usual, I'l just make a few opening thoughts before we get into the serious comparisons.
Coaching should be in Montreal's favour. Emile Francis might be the 2nd best coach in the draft. I think Terry Crisp is among the top-5, so it's not a very big gap.
Goaltending should be pretty close. I might give Burke an edge overall, but since his play-off resume is pertty weak, that pretty much erases that.
Defense should also be pretty close. The No-Names don't have anyone who stacks up against Maloney, but I think our bottom 5 is better than Montreal's.
Bottom 6 forwards should be a significant advantage for the No-Names. Guys like Marchant, Cotton, and Chamberlain are among the elite role-players in the MLD.
Top 6 forwards should be a slight advantage for the No-Names. Spezza and Zhamnov is very comparabe to Gomez and Allison. Jokinen and Vail are comparable, and that's after you punish Jokinen for being out of position. Sanderson and Liscombe are pretty similar as well - I might give Liscombe a sight edge. I'd give Kozhevniov an edge over Sykora. The most significant edge either way is Lukac over Bruneteau. There is a pretty solid case that Lukac is among the elite offensive players in the draft.
The powerplay should be a pretty significant edge for the No-Names. The biggest difference will be on the blueline, where Bladon, McEwen, and Berard are all among the elite PP pointmen.
The PK will be fairly close. Montreal has much better PK defensemen, and the Non-Names have much better PK forwards. I think the defenseman are more inportant, so Montreal probably has a slight edge.
Just went through the numbers on the 4 offensive centers, and they are even more similar than I thought they would be! It makes more sense to compare the short careers vs. each other and the longer ones vs. each other, so:
Jason Allison vs. Jason SpezzaJason Allison
Hart voting 8th(1998), 1 vote(2001)
All-Star voting 4th(1998), 5th(2001), 6th(1002)
Selke voting 11th(1998)
Points 4th(2001), 9th(1998), 14th(1999), 16th(2002)
Goals 10th(1998), 18th(2001)
Assists 2nd(2002), 6th(1999), 7th(2001), 8th(1998)
Points % - *99(2001), 91(1998), 82(2002), 71(1999), *57(2006)
Assists % - 100(2002), 86(2001), 79(1999), 75(1998), 61(2006)
All-Star voting 7th(2006), *8th(2007), *8th(2008)
Points 6th(2008), 13th(2006), 15th(2007)
Goals 16th(2008), 23rd(2007), 23rd(2009)
Assists 2nd(2006), 7th(2008), 21st(2007)
Points % - 87(2008), *85(2006), 76(2008), 66(2009), 63(2004), 58(2011), 52(2010)
Assists % - 100(2006), 88(2008), 63(2008), 59(2004), 59(2009)
It looks like Jason Allison has a distinct and difinitive edge in short-term peak. Both scoring and voting show his peak was more elite. On the other hand, Spezza has better longevity in terms of "decent" offensive seasons, with 2 extra 50+ percent seasons.
Keep in mind that Spezza was often the 3rd best player on his line, while Allison was almost always the best.
Scott Gomez vs. Alexai ZhamnovScott Gomez
All-Star voting 10th(2004), *8th(2008)
Points 20th(2004), 23rd(2006), 26th(2000)
Assists 1st(2004), 8th(2000), 12th(2008), 20th(2001), 20th(2010), 26th(2006)
Points % - 80(2004), 74(2000), 68(2006), 66(2008), 54(2010), 53(2001), 53(2002), 53(2003), 53(2007), 53(2009)
Assists % - 100(2004), 91(2000), 82(2008), 72(2006), 71(2001), 69(2002), 68(2010), 65(2003), 60(2009), 56(2007)
All-Star voting 2nd(1995)
Points 3rd(1995), 30th(2002)
Assists 10th(1995), 14th(2002), 28th(1997)
Points % - 93(1995), 74(2002), 64(2000), 59(1994), 57(1997), 57(1999), 56(2003), 54(1998), *51(2001)
Assists % - 82(2002), 80(1995), *67(1997), 66(2000), 66(2003), 61(1999), 54(1994), 52(2001)
I looked at Zhamnov's raw point totals here and thought Gomez was in trouble in this comparison. When I actually looked through the leaderboards, I was shocked at how poorly Zhamnov was doing - he rarely broke into the top-50, and was often outside the top-70!! Zhamnov has a slight edge in overall offense. Both of these guys are primarily playmakers though, and Gomez has a very substantial edge in that department.
Their regular season accomplishments are close to equal, but Zhamnov is quite bad in the play-offs, while Gomez has a very strong play-off resume.
(* indicates it was either a single vote or there was an outlier who was ignored)
God, it seriously scares me that Allison got Selke recognition with his skating.
I'm going to have to change one of my opening comments. Olli Jokinen and Eric Vail are not comprable - Jokinen is much superior. At the start of this draft, I wanted Vail, but I'm glad I didn't take him, because I really over-rated him.
Olli Jokinen vs. Eric Vail
Points 17th(1979), 28th(1977)
Goals 11th(1975), 17th(1979), 20th(1977)
Points % - *68(1977), 64(1979), *50(1975)
Goals % - 74(1975), 67(1977), 59(1979), 50(1980)
Points 14th(2007), 15th(2006)
Goals 11th(2007), 12th(2003), 15th(2006), 16th(2008), 28th(2004)
Points % - *84(2006), 80(2007), 67(2004), 67(2008), 63(2003), 55(2011), 52(2009)
Goals % - 78(2007), 75(2003), 70(2006), 65(2008), 63(2004), 63(2009)
The gap in offensive production is significant. Unless you're are punishing Jokinen by an absolultely rediculous amount, he is a better winger than Vail.
Vincent Lukac vs. Mud Bruneteau
Czech League Scoring: 1st(1980), 1st(1983), 2nd(1977), 3rd(1984), 4th(1978), 4th(1979), 5th(1979), 10th(1985)
Points 11th(1945), 18th(1943), 18th(1944)
Goals 5th(1944), 10th(1945), 11th(1943)
Points % - 69(1944), 64(1941), 64(1945), 63(1942), 63(1943), 56(1940)
Goals % - 97(1944), 77(1943), 72(1945), 58(1942)
I was actually surprised to see how good Bruneteau's percentages are. I was explecting to be able to call him a terrible offensive player, but I can't :(. Depending on how much you value war year scoring, he might actually be a decent 1st line winger. He still isn't on Lukac's level, who is one of the best offensive players in the draft, but the gap isn't as huge as I thought it was.
Geoff Sanderson vs. Petr Sykora
Goals 14th(1997), 15th(1994), 18th(1993), 18th(2003), 30th(1996)
Points % - 64(2003), 61(1997), 60(1993), *58(2001), 56(1994), *54(1996)
Goals % - 72(1994), 71(1997), 71(2003), *62(1996), 61(1993), 56(1995), 56(2001)
Points 18th(2001) 20th(1999), 30th(2000)
Goals 18th(2003), 19th(2001), 29th(1999)
Points % - 84(2001), 72(2000), 68(1999), 60(2004), 59(2008), 57(2004), 53(2002)
Goals % - 71(2003), 66(1999), 65(2001), 57(2000), 56(2004), 54(2008), 54(2009), 51(2002)
I was surprised how both of these guys did in their percentages. They were both more impressive than I thought. In overall offense, it looks like Sykora has the edge. In goal-scoring, Sanderson has the edge. Both of these guys are primarily goal-scorers, so I think that matters more.
Also, keep in mind, like Spezza, Sykora was almost always the 3rd best player on his line, so his totals are inflated. Sanderson was often his line's best offensive player.
Alesander Kozhevnikov vs. Carl Liscombe
Points 2nd(1982), 2nd(1983), 5th(1984), 6th(1988)
Goals 1st(1982), 2nd(1983), 3rd(1984), 4th(1988)
Assists 6th(1982), 6th(1983), 8th(1988)
Goals 2nd(1944), 10th(1945), 17th(1943), 20th(1938)
Points % - 95(1944), 58(1943), 56(1942)
Goals % - 100(1944), 72(1945), 63(1943) 61(1938), 54(1942)
I always had Liscombe ahead of Bruneteau, but I guess I was wrong there.
Both Liscombe and Kozhevniov have relatively short peaks, Kozhevniov's is definately higher. There's a legitimate argument to be made that he was the best Soviet player from 1982 to 1984. He put up huge offensive numbers, that compared very favourably with top CSKA players, and he was carrying weaker teams. Kozhevnikov also brings a physical style that makes him more valuable than just a goal-scorer.
Liscombe is great in the play-offs, so that closes the gap in this series.
I'm not exactly sure how telling it is, but Kozhevnikov was never first team All Soviet league. I think it would be very difficult to make the argument that he was the best Soviet player from '82-'84. Also he wasn't in the top 10 in scoring at the '84 Olympics (Lukac was though). Kozhevnikov is good, but let's not pimp him like crazy here.
He was hated by the Soviet bras, so he was rarely invited to international tournaments. He was 11th in the 1984 olympics, wich was 3rd on the soviet team.
Based on that, it pretty meaningless.
Sergei Makarov: 93 goals, 97 assists, 190 points
Vladimor Krutov: 106 goals, 70 assists, 176 points
Aleksander Kozhevniov: 111 goals, 64 assists, 175 points
Helmut Balderis: 80 goals, 65 assists, 145 points
Igor Larionov: 66 goals, 67 assists, 133 points
There's a huge drop-off after the top-3. Considering the linemate factor, and that Kozhevniov missed substantial time during one of the seasons, he is easily ahead of Krutov there. Makarov had 15 more points, but 18 fewer goals. He also had much, much more help, so I think it's debatable as to which one of them was better offensively over this period of time.
Am I missing something with the Kozhevnikov linemates factor Dreak? Didnt he play with Shalimov, Kapustin, and/or Shepelev? http://www.hockeydb.com/ihdb/stats/l...017891982.html
I mean yeah it's definitely not Larionov, Krutov, Drozdetsky, etc., but he wasn't playing with scraps by any means. I'm more asking about this than trying to prove you wrong Dreak, because you mention two guys in your bio I've never heard of as his linemates.
Regardless, the biggest difference was the support from the blueline. Fetisov and Kasatonov were absolutely lightyears ahead of anyone on Spartlak.
Kozhevnikov is almost certainly the better offensive producer, but he's also not a natural winger.
You're right, it depends on how much you punish a player for that. How does one quantify it? Tough to say.
Based on their existing points percentages, if you were to punish Jokinen by 20%, their best five offensive seasons would be almost identical (64,58, 50, 49, 47 for Vail, 64, 58, 54, 54, 50 for Jokinen) and from there, Vail's "power forward" reputation would definitely make him the more valuable winger.
But there's nothing saying 20% is the standard to punish a player by, either. I wonder if it's as simple as just looking at how many points centers tend to get compared to wingers?
Using 1994 (often called by stats guys an "average" season) as an example, wingers scored 0.50 points per game on average. Centers scored 0.62. that's an advantage of about 23%. The reciprocal of that 23% edge would be to "punish" their numbers by approximately 19%.
Two things: one, this doesn't account for the fact that the center is just generally the better player. That eats into that percentage somewhat. Second, this is comparing player A (C) to player B (W), not player A (C) to player A (W) - it could be completely out of whack otherwise. There could be wild fluctuations from player to player. Some may maintain their production entirely, some may be completely lost.
Anyway, there does appear to be, from a point production standpoint, a definite disadvantage playing wing as opposed to center. Some downgrade in production has to be expected.
Coaches generally put their best players at center. There are some exceptions, but players usually end up on the wing because there are better options in the middle.
Take a look at the make-up of most IIHF teams, especially the teams who draw primarily from the NHL.
I don't really want to pile on here, but if Reen isn't going to show up, I still want to get all my arguments in. I do feel my team can win this series, so if he's not around today, I'm just going to have at it....
First of all I personally punish severely players that are out of position , specifically if they aren't known for their great hockey sense.That's why I go out of my way to select some players sometimes when I could've just draft a center to put it on a wing but prefer not to do it.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:53 PM.|
vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.