MLD2011 Sir Montagu Allan Rnd 1: Montreal Bad Habits (3) vs No-Names (6)
 

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
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)

Jason Spezza
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
All-Star voting– 10th(2004), *8th(2008)

Points – 20th(2004), 23rd(2006), 26th(2000)
Goals – 25th(2006)
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)


Alexei Zhamnov
All-Star voting – 2nd(1995)

Points – 3rd(1995), 30th(2002)
Goals – 3rd(1995)
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

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)

Olli Jokinen
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

Vincent Lukac
Czech League Scoring: 1st(1980), 1st(1983), 2nd(1977), 3rd(1984), 4th(1978), 4th(1979), 5th(1979), 10th(1985)

Mud Bruneteau
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

Geoff Sanderson
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)

Petr Sykora
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

Aleksander Kozhevnikov
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)

Carl Liscombe
Points – 4th(1944)
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.

It's not like I am making his offensive accomplishments. From 1982 to 84, he was among the leading scorers - if not the leader - in the league. He did that with little help, which is even more impressive.

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.

I'd be very interested to see what the reasoning was for Kozhevnikov not being on the All-Soviet team when he was second in scoring in the league with such worse linemates. Could very simply be that he was hated that bad in the Soviet community.

I believe the soviet all stars were done by a single newspaper, so its not like they had complicated voting structure that had checks and balances.

He may not have made an All-Star team, but he was named Merited Sports Master in 1982.

Along with one guy who wasn't even drafted at all last year and another guy who went in the Beer League draft. I'm not downgrading the achievement I'm jsut saying I'm not sure what it really means as far as how good he was.

I am just guessing, but it looks like anybody who wins an iihf gold medal gets that honour.

Based on that, it pretty meaningless.

So people can see the numbers, here they are. These are the top-5 scorers from 1982, 1983, and 1984 combined.

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.

I think those three were a line, and Kozhevnikov played with Victor Tumenyev and Alexander Orlov.

Regardless, the biggest difference was the support from the blueline. Fetisov and Kasatonov were absolutely lightyears ahead of anyone on Spartlak.

That is true in that it is a massive blueline difference and that is the biggest factor. But do you have proof that's who he played with or are you just guessing? I wish you had the capability of PMs because in reality this has very little to do withthe actual playoff matchup and more to do with my curiosity.

The thing is, for percentages to work in the war years, you have to pretend the best players are there and compare Bruneteau's production to what the 2nd-best player most likely would have (based on the percentage by which they often outscored the likes of Cain and Carr, for example) - I have Bruneteau as 54 and 52% in those years (so he's 64, 63, 61, 56, 54, 52)

offensively, they are about even. Liscombe had a year in 1944 better than Mud ever had, but Mud have better longevity. The sums of their best 6 years by my system are 350 and 340 - basically into hair-splitting territory.

Kozhevnikov is almost certainly the better offensive producer, but he's also not a natural winger.

I'm pretty much guessing, but its based on reading up on the other players and seeing that they played together.

Just like Jokinen vs Vail, you have to punish the out of position centres by a rediculous amount to make up the talent gap.

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.

That bolded part pretty much makes this coparison moot. Centres are better than wingers, and it's not just a coincidence.


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.

if it's entirely moot, then doesn't this mean that you could take any line where the C gets the most points, swap the center and LW, and the line would be just as effective, except more points would start coming from the LW instead of C?

It would be less effective because the best player is only patrolling half the ice instead of all of it. That's why the best guys are 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.

I don't think Burke playoff resume is enough to completely erase the advantage he has.He also had good playoff run.

I think my defense is more well-organized as far as chemistry goes , and I definetely have the best ''defensive zone'' specialists + the franchise D , and a better offense-defense balance.

This is the laughable part , Jokinen and Vail comparable? Both Jokinen and Vail were good players on bad teams , but putting a center like Jokinen at left wing which is the hardest wing to play and pretend he's going be as good as a legit first line left wingers is laughable considering the fact Jokinen isn't that great of a ''hockey-sense'' player.His hockey IQ is adequate at best and he's the worst kind of center you could put at wing.Vail was a good powerforward while Jokinen was basically close to being a cancer on a team.I would take Vail ahead of Jokinen 100 times out of 100 to play on a first line LW.All you do is basically confront 1 player vs another but I think my chemistry is better.It's possible I put Vail-Spezza-Sykora and Liscombe-Zhamnov-Brunteau which gives me another edge of real chemistry with Liscombe and Bruneteau playign otgether.Vail will be the glue guy with some decent offensive touch with Spezza as a playmaking center + sykora scoring some goals and my 2nd line will just work like a charm.

Laughable , I don't see how your defenseman are significantly better than Malakhov , Tallon or Maloney on the PP.Not a lot of differance with the forwards.

The PK is a clear advantage to me with players like Smith & Rouse.A great PK defenseman is BY FAR the greatest asset you can have on a PK ( except goalie ) and while you have some good PK forward , the gap isn't as big as the gap between your D and mine.

fair enough