View Single Post
Old
12-14-2011, 10:48 PM
  #103
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,825
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
No goals against Czechoslovakia or Sweden. Maybe some assists? Beating up on West Germany and Poland in "games that mattered" matter less to me than so-called mere exhibition matches against the best two or three international teams of the time.
Thing is, we don't really know much about how many points other players from other countries picked up against the better and worse teams either. We kinda have to go with what we have. If Groshev had no goals in the games against good teams and piled them on against the bad teams, AND (this part is important) this wasn't a usual tendency for most other soviet forwards, I agree this is a potential concern. It doesn't, however, completely disqualify him from consideration, either.

Since chidlovski tracks only goals, we can't say where his assists came from.

Quote:
So your point is he stands out as the next-best Soviet pick because of his domestic league accolades? Maybe no more Soviets ought to be drafted then, or maybe domestic league accomplishments, especially in a clearly lesser era, ought to be secondary instead of primary in considerations of all-time merit?
No, I mean he stands out because of his overall resume, which includes a reasonable weighting of his domestic and international components. Internationally I am sure you could find a dozen who compare. Domestically, I don't think any do. You should never be overly focused on just one or the other.

Quote:
To be clear: Loktev does have intangibles and international success that make him an all-time great Bottom-6 forward; Starshinov is a legit 2nd liner in a 40-team main ATD for reasons other than domestic league scoring. I see your reasoning but don't buy it: it's like comparing a major juniors star who never went to the pros to someone who continued into the pros and starred there too. There are plenty of junior stars who couldn't raise their game to the next level, and Groshev didn't, not against the top teams internationally, not even staying on the national team long. That means a huge question mark remains as to whether his domestic league scoring would have translated well to games against the best.
Yes, obviously that is correct about Loktev. Let's try put that into an NHL context. Pie McKenzie, Jean Pronovost, Wilf Paiement, those are good bottom-6 ATD forwards thanks to intangibles, not necessarily their underwhelming (though decent) offensive output. Those three averaged from 0.69 to 0.82 PPG in their NHL careers. If there was a forward who played 800 games, was one-dimensional, and scored at 84% their rate (0.58 to 0.69, or 464-552 pts, a Mike Murphy or Nick Libett without the defense and physicality), yes, he would be drafted by now. Groshev, as a question mark, is not necessarily one-dimensional, but might be. which makes him a surer bet than this hypothetical player.

I could do a similar analogy with Starshinov replaced by a marginal 2nd line center like a Roenick or Brad Richards.

The analogy about junior players is not valid at all. The difference between the soviet league and international play in the late 50s and early 60s is not analogous to the difference between junior and the NHL in modern times - not even close.

Quote:
Now, what domestic league team did he play for and against? If he scored a lot against the Red Army team then THAT is significant. Most of that league though was chopped liver, like those 18 international points he got weren't against the Czechs or Swedes!
Groshev was a member of Krylya Sovetov Moscow. He played mostly with scrubs. I don't know, of course, who he scored against. Maybe it was that he gave the Red Army team trouble that earned him more all-star votes than his raw stats suggested he should.


Quote:
You are under the impression that having the last word means you've won. There's no contest. One person makes a point and if another makes a counterpoint then sometimes things stand like that, they agree to disagree and third parties make up their own minds.
Believe me, I am more than fine with the bolded. But let me just clarify one important piece for you - i do not think having the last word means I won. This is the second time you've made such an accusation. If I ever complain that you didn't reply, it is not in a "you never replied, therefore I win" context, it is a complaint that you didn't engage me in the conversation/debate as much as you could have, and failed to take it further. As it applies to Makarov - what I am saying is, if you wanted to say something like that about that pick, there was a time and a place for it, and it's passed, and I wanted you to make comments like that so that they could be addressed and so that I could make the attempt to have my player stand up to critical analysis.

Quote:
This is the sort of reasoning that makes me not even want to reply to it. I think I have amply demonstrated in my research and extensive quotes in bios that both of those books have plenty of good stuff on individual players, most recently my Svetlov and Romishevsky bios, hell the last page's Gimayev had quotes from The Red Machine about Gimayev's sparkling play with Makarov and the punchfest he had with a USA player, among the multiple references to Gimayev. There are no references in the index to your draftee Groshev and I have counted 121 Soviet player references in the index of that one book alone. Of course, if your point was that it is possible for a player to be significant and not even mentioned in those two great hockey books then fine. But to try and broadstroke the texts as if they don't talk much about players is misleadingly dismissive.
No, that wasn't really my point. The very best players are talked about a lot. But I'm not talking about a lot of players, and certainly none that were available even at the MLD level. Some lesser players are mentioned a very small handful of times - nothing that a good bio can be based on, but certainly seasoning for the main course. But follow most of those 121 references and they lead to passages that don't tell us anything about the player that can really be useful.

One of the 121 is Nikolai Makarov. Here's what they say. "Nikolai Makarov, the 33-year old brother of Sergei, who played 13 seasons as a defenseman with Traktor of the elite division, was sent to Finland."

Another one of those 121 is Romishevsky. Here's the one reference to him: "The five players chosen were given the name "the system". They were *******, Romishevsky, Mishakov, ****** and *******."

There are many, many examples like this. The amount of players that The Red Machine can actually be a useful reference for is quite small. (there might be variance between your definition of useful and mine)

Sorry for my tone earlier on today.... bad day.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote