Jim Coleman Conference 2nd round - Pittsburgh AC vs. Philadelphia Flyers
View Single Post
04-29-2013, 01:13 AM
Join Date: Sep 2009
Originally Posted by
The big time defensemen for the two eras(with where I think they stand in the ATD) were:
Fetisov(#1), Kasatonov(#2), Pervukhin(#6), Bilyatednov(#5), Konstantinov(#4 or bad #3), Gusarov(spare)
Ragulin(#3), Davydov(#4), Ivanov(#4), Kuzkin(#5)
Fetisov and Kasatonov were definitely better top-end talent for the two eras, but beyond that, are the other 1980s Soviet defensemen that much more impressive? It very well could be that we underrate them in the ATD and overrate the guys from the 1960s, but the way that they're used now, the top end talent was better in Fetisov/Kasatonov, but the rest doesn't seem all that much better. Sturm's analysis of defensemen in this draft fits with these rankings of where they belong as well.
His competition is listed above. Does Kasatonov's competition really seem that much better than Davydov's? The point of saying he won 9 gold medals was to show that the longevity of his career is much longer than Beck's, not that it's particularly impressive.
Kasatonov got to play in 3 Canada Cups and better competition internationally. I don't think the 60s Soviets who missed the Summit Series are really as proven. I don't see Ivanov and Davydov as #4s.
Bob Armstrong isn't a great skater. I'm not sure why this is such a problem, the guy lasted 10+ years in the O6 NHL, and going by the votes and seeing who was ahead of him, was certainly recognized as one of the best stay at home defensemen in the league between 1954 and 1960.
He faced Jean Beliveau and Andy Bathgate 14 times a year for basically his entire career, and was seen as one of the best defensive defensemen in the NHL. Why's it different now?
In addition, he's playing next to one of the best, most fluid skating defensemen in recent hockey history. I'm not concerned.
His voting record is decent, but I see Beck's as sort of average for a #4. Armstrong's is unspectacular.
He'll still be effective cutting down scoring chances, that's what his game was. It's just he's going to struggle with a team reliant on speed. My team is trying to wear defenses down rolling four lines and having someone who has trouble skating will make that easier.
Just so the L-R positioning is correct. They are L-R for the bottom two pairings, but both guys on the top pairing are left handed. This is one thing Pittsburgh doesn't has on their roster that has typically been overlooked in the ATD. You are championing the puck-moving ability of your defensemen, yet every single one of them is left handed, meaning when they are skating towards their goal-line to retrieve the puck with a forechecker bearing in on them, one of them is going to be on their backhand for each pairing, and it's going to hurt the puck-moving ability that you are championing. This also hurts you on your power play when setting up one timers from the point(although you've partially addressed this by putting Bathgate on the right point on your first PP, it still applies to your 2nd PP).
Kasatonov played the right side throughout his career. He's not what we consider a puckmover and had no trouble with it. Stapleton didn't play the right side with White at his best years, but he did play some on the right. Patrick played when it was point and coverpoint where there weren't sides. I don't have idea if he had a side preference.
I don't understand your example though. Do you really expect my defensemen to be making a breakout pass with their back to its receiver? They can all skate and move the puck, I'm hoping they do more than just chip it up their side. Even if they're forced in that situation you describe, they're still on their forehand if they wish to pass behind the net or to their partner. I think dealing with those things is something you can expect from puckmovers or players who actually did it like Kasatonov so its manageable.
Originally Posted by
Very interesting, and seems to contradict what I believed. What is this website, I've never heard of it and didn't know that these numbers were available. I'd like to utilize it myself because it provides important context to numbers.
It was the hockey summary project, HSP was me being lazy.
There is a slight difference, Richards hasn't really been used extensively at LW besides spot duty in LA, and the Olympics. Berenson played a decent amount at LW, and didn't do much with it. Looking at when that quote was from, I looked up Richards' numbers from those two games that are mentioned, he had 1 assist in the two games. Not much of a sample size to draw from, so I dug back into the LA Kings board and looked at their GDTs to see where they had Richards as a LW. He played LW for two more games after that, and didn't have any points. At the same time, the Kings only managed 6 goals over those 4 games, so the offense wasn't exactly clicking at the time. Then in the Olympics, he managed 5 points over 7 games on what was considered maybe Canada's most effective line. Perhaps even more importantly is the fact that that line held Ovechkin-Malkin-Semin to just one assist between the three of them in a 7-3 Canada win, showing Richards' defense can be very effective at LW.
He led the Blues in scoring playing 55 of 74 games, how is that not doing much?
Your argument here is, since Richards only played a few odd shifts at LW with LA we can't assume he won't produce there. But since Berenson played there as a depth player and then leading his team with an unspectacular vsX score we can assume he won't produce there. Richards gets the credit for everything he did at center, but Berenson gets credit for none of it. Unless you think Richards will be a full-blown plug at left wing you're just not being consistent here. Walter and Berenson get the shaft, but Richards gets a pass for not playing the position as much they did.
Agreed with your take on special teams. You've got me good on penalty killing units. My only quibble with the PP is comparing Mullen and Olmstead. I made a decision to put him on the top unit for his skillset instead of throwing Schriner and just stacking offense. No question Mullen's the better offensive player overall compared to Olmstead.
Olmstead's there to help with the puck retrieval. Beliveau will do his work around the net and letting Olmstead work the boards and have him to feed is what I wanted. Olmstead's as good as they come in battles for the puck and he was an excellent passer so he knows what do if he wins possession. I think this will make a more valuable PP unit then just throwing all of my best offensive players out there.
I found an article written by LLoyd Percival about Olmstead's passing.
Originally Posted by
The Montreal Gazette - 1/5/1961 (Lloyd Percival)
Bert Olmstead of the Toronto Maple Leafs is praised by [unreadable word] hockey experts for his great forechecking, his ability to go into a corner and dig the puck out. This makes Bert the kind of player any coach loves to have on his side. But if you watch Olmstead carefully you will suddenly begin to realize that he has other [unreadable word] equally well developed.
One of the skills Olmstead has developed to a high level is setting up a play. Perhaps because he is not a smooth skater Bert's ability to set up a teammate with a perfect pass, to make the move that creates a good offensive situation, is inclined to be overlooked. But the young player, anxious to learn how to set up a play, can do no better than watch the Leaf left winger.
The article cuts off large parts, but that part is complete enough to follow. He goes on to talk about how Olmstead perfectly executes Trailer Plays, or drop passes, but so much of it is cut off you can't pull a quote.
Last edited by Rob Scuderi: 04-29-2013 at
View Public Profile
Rob Scuderi's albums
Find More Posts by Rob Scuderi