View Single Post
Old
09-10-2012, 05:50 PM
  #133
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,225
vCash: 500
Certain Assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
The only problem with that, is that their top-9 forwards are almost entirely pre-expansion players, and the reason those two lists are separate is, as I said, because percentage scores tend to favour modern players by about 15%. If you were to give 15% credit to all their pre-expansion players they would hold an edge in the 12% range.

Also - and this is important - three of your weakest four are in your top-6 including one on the top line.



I disagree that you have the two top centers, and the standings indicate that a lot more people probably disagree as well.

While it is probably impossible to spin Billy Gilmour in any way other than he is the weakest offensive player in either team’s top 9 (although I would love to see them attempt it), his score of 89, if taken literally, would mean that the player holding the next-lowest score (Jordan Staal) is about 2.6 times as likely to generate offense. That is simply not realistic. Gilmour’s score breaks the mold somewhat.



As I demonstrated last draft, the offensive differences from 4th line to 4th line, unless one drafts a line of enforcers or specifically seeks out offensive ringers, is almost negligible. Keep in mind that the 4th line will play 8-12 minutes a game and will not play on the power play.

Adjusted ESP/season, counting best 6 seasons

Jim Roberts: 31 (probably skewed down somewhat thanks to pinch hitting)
Todd Marchant: 41
Dan Maloney: 45
Erik Cole: 56
Robert Lang: 59
Mud Bruneteau: 40-46 (depends on what his PP/ES breakdown was)

In your case you did, in fact, go after offensive ringers. While Cole plays a 4th line type of game, Lang and Bruneteau are primarily scorers. So you can claim to have an offensive edge on the 4th line. But, to what effect? Your 4th line may enjoy an offensive edge in the 8-12 minutes that it plays against Zambia’s 4th line, but how many extra goals is that in the series? Two, maybe? And if your 4th line isn’t out there causing a ruckus, keeping opponents honest, and generating momentum for other lines to build on, then is it a useful 4th line?

As for defensemen… here are all the instances of defensemen in this series scoring at least 75% of the #2 defenseman in the NHL (by my system which occasionally changes the #2 depending on large gaps between them and “the pack”)

Karlsson 147
Green 129
Green 114
Streit 95
Streit 88
Green 86
Streit 83
Young 81
Letang 81
Letang 79
Murray 79
Buswell 77

There is some offensive consistency among your guys (especially Murray and Cote) but as for who has the guys who have put up big numbers, your opponents have 7 of the 8 biggest seasons (and 8 of 12)

This is also based on 7 defensemen for you, and 5 defensemen for your opponents (as there is no easy way to translate Dvorak into such a comparison)

Defenseman offense can be so PP-driven, however, and the PP is a whole other discussion. If we are just talking about which defensemen are going to be able to get the puck to the forwards in everyday situations with regularity, based on the ES points generated throughout their careers, we have 3 tiers of players here:

- The puck movers (29-41 ESP/season): Karlsson, M.Green, Streit, Letang

- The average guys (17-22 ESP/season): Murray, Cote, Sweeney, Hannan, R.Green

- Brad Marsh (12 ESP/season)

Your opponents likely know Buswell and Young better than we do, but I think they’d agree that they are in the middle tier with those guys. Likely Dvorak as well.

What does that all mean? The distribution is pretty much even. I don’t see that either team has significant edge offensive ability on their blueline. It’s interesting to note that the four “puck movers” have just 216-443 NHL games each (in other words, these per-game averages aren’t as impressive as if they had been maintained for longer), and if they had 900-1100 like the guys in the next tier, their numbers would be a lot closer to theirs. So although one would still prefer to consider these the four blueline catalysts in this series, their far less-established track records will likely mean that there will be some puckhandling adventures mixed in with those tape-to-tape passes and the gap in their abilities is certainly not in the 100% range as those figures imply.
Thank you for the detailed resonse.

We do not share certain assumptions.

The pre expansion players are getting an artificial double perhaps triple boost - games, era( all inclusive from quality of opposition to roster sizes).

Factor in availability at the draft. From the O6 Ron Murphy was not an attractive alternative.

Composition of lines. Canadiens would regularly play a weaker player with the star line. 1960-61 Don Marshall, Jean-Guy Gendron and a rookie Gilles Tremblay rotated thru with Beliveau and Richard.Many other examples of successful teams doing so. Opposition has to burn a checking forward or juggle their lines.

Study the history of 4th lines. 1959 and 1960 Canadiens and Leafs pioneered the use of 4th lines. No goons or energy players, just depth talent. Net benefit, fresher top two lines, greater diversity, pressure on depth challenged opponents. The 8-12 minutes assumption does not hold for my fourth line.

The offensive numbers for defensemen are interesting but they are based on first pairing minutes for Streit and Green.Streit is a third pairing dman here. So do you support the assumptions of the model and settle for very weak defense or cut back on the minutes and the offense. Not an issue with my defense. I could role all three pairings or seven dmen an get the same offensive and defensive results.

Canadiens1958 is online now   Reply With Quote