Did he really played LW a lot? To me Cammalleri is a RW , he might have played a couple of game here and there but not enough to justify calling him a LW.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
Sheltered by who? Who were the good off-ice comparables for Berard?
Malahkov was generally used as a "second pairing" guy over his career, I'm pretty sure (and third pairing in his brief time in NJ).
In montreal , he was the n1 dman from his first game to his last.
Last edited by seventieslord: 08-01-2011 at 11:39 AM.
Sheltered by who? Who were the good off-ice comparables for Berard?
.
That's exactly the point! There are some good off-ice comparables for Malakhov (Krupp, Kasparaitis, Odelein, Manson, Leetch), and in his sheltered minutes he tended to outperform their goal differential (I realize this is nothing to be proud of, it just means he performed well on a second pairing)
Berard has very poor off-ice comparables. I've already listed some of them. I can't say for sure who sheltered him, but Berard's reputation was that he needed to be kept away from tough defensive situations so I believe it was some of the guys getting more ES minutes than him who took them. Despite the poor players playing ahead of him, he could not outperform their goal differential from the 2nd pairing.
I don't know where you guys get that Malakhov was playing 2nd pairing , but look more closely at his Montreal years and you'll notice he was BY FAR the n1 D ( which is sad in a way )
I don't know where you guys get that Malakhov was playing 2nd pairing , but look more closely at his Montreal years and you'll notice he was BY FAR the n1 D ( which is sad in a way )
You already said that.
I just had the impression he was a guy who was better suited to a second pairing. I guess him being a #1 in Montreal is just a symptom of what was the "dark ages" for the Canadians.
Last edited by seventieslord: 08-01-2011 at 11:40 AM.
No, he ranked 5, 5, 4, 4 in ES icetime from 1996-1999.
2, 2, 1, 2 in total icetime.
hmm , I remember this era very clearly , and while I don't doubt your info , I guess something is wrong when some of the other D were playing more than Malakhov , it was DAMN OBVIOUS he was better than everybody else on those D squad.
In montreal , he was the n1 dman from his first game to his last.
I'm pretty sure he was 1st or second pairing at the very worst in his Islander days too.
He was very highly thought of when he first came into the league and then the wheels fell off for some reason. I believe it was injury and a lack of work ethic but I can't remember.
Did he really played LW a lot? To me Cammalleri is a RW , he might have played a couple of game here and there but not enough to justify calling him a LW.
I aint calling him a LW. Just saying that he played it a little. Whenever he played with Gionta and Gomez, which happened once in a while, he would move the left wing. They usually did that if they were desperate for offense or just wanted to shake things up.
hmm , I remember this era very clearly , and while I don't doubt your info , I guess something is wrong when some of the other D were playing more than Malakhov , it was DAMN OBVIOUS he was better than everybody else on those D squad.
No wonder we sucked.
Better offensively, sure.
I wouldn't say he was better overall than Odelein, or two soon-to-be-drafteds who proved in the long run that they were much more reliable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian
I'm pretty sure he was 1st or second pairing at the very worst in his Islander days too.
He was very highly thought of when he first came into the league and then the wheels fell off for some reason. I believe it was injury and a lack of work ethic but I can't remember.
In 1993 he was 6th in ES icetime (but led D-men in points, perfect epitomy of "specialist"!) but went right up to #1 in 1994. At the time of his 1995 trade, he appears to have been the #3.
He definitely fell off, or, at least, expectations were adjusted. I remember him being highly touted as well, but he got a reputation for being bad defensively, and also inconsistent.
hmm , I remember this era very clearly , and while I don't doubt your info , I guess something is wrong when some of the other D were playing more than Malakhov , it was DAMN OBVIOUS he was better than everybody else on those D squad.
No wonder we sucked.
I guess that depends on if you believe in ES icetime as the latest holy grail of measuring a defenseman's worth regardless of their individual skills.
I think most people would go by total icetime to capture more about how well rounded a player was....
I aint calling him a LW. Just saying that he played it a little. Whenever he played with Gionta and Gomez, which happened once in a while, he would move the left wing. They usually did that if they were desperate for offense or just wanted to shake things up.
this line was laughably bad anyway and so small it was sickening.
I guess that depends on if you believe in ES icetime as the latest holy grail of measuring a defenseman's worth regardless of their individual skills.
I think most people would go by total icetime to capture more about how well rounded a player was....
if a guy was 6th in ES icetime but doubleshifted on the PP and got 50 points and finished 2nd in overall icetime, would you refer to him as a "1st pairing defenseman"?
Not looking at ES individually really prevents us from giving some great players their proper due. Jamie Macoun, for example, was usually #2-3 on his team in icetime, but he was the #1 at even strength more often than not. That's a first pairing defenseman, that's a guy who can be trusted on the ice. That's who I want.
You don't think their coaches (who know more than we do) see their skills? You don't think they look at a player whose skills don't match the ice time they've been given and say "hmm, I need to play that player more, because he's good, and it will make my team better"? Of course they do. If they don't, there's a good reason.
I decide to add some scoring off the bench here by selecting:
Greg Gus Adams was a 4 time 30 goal scorer and has 122 power play goals in his career.
Veli-Pekka Ketola is my 2nd pick and though I read somewhere he was a defenseman, he was not (My mistake), I'll still take him to be a centre and add some scoring off the bench. He was a 3 time national champion and his 60 goals are 6th most in Finnish National team history.
Selfish Man has been notified he's up.
__________________
Exhibit A as to how hockey doesn't matter on ESPN:
Last night an ESPN program was discussing how the Detroit Pistons needed a hero citing the heroes on the Detroit Tigers, Detroit Lions and no mention of the Detroit Red Wings. All this despite the Red Wings probably being the most succesful team in Detroit right now.
He was listed as one last year but now that I read more up on him he's listed as a centre. Shoot, call that my boneheaded selection of the draft if you will. Oh well can always trade him or drop him after.
- Ron Stern did have a couple "decent" seasons for a player of his type. But couldn't you guys do better than a career 10-minute-a-game thug?
You don't know Alex Motter? I thought you lived in Regina? He is a Cup winning defenseman who played very well in the beginning of the 40s. As a foward in Boston he was jumping between NHL and AHl but when traded to the Red Wings Adams used him on defense instead. I excelled.
Stern is a spare, we needed a good thug and we got one. H can also provide a little bit of goal scoring.
if a guy was 6th in ES icetime but doubleshifted on the PP and got 50 points and finished 2nd in overall icetime, would you refer to him as a "1st pairing defenseman"?
First off I think that was his rookie year and that needs to be kept in mind about that season in particular.
Second, I think that a lot depends on the context, as usual.
On teams with guys who are almost all defensive (Krupp and Kasparitus for example) or guys who are mostly to all offensive (******/******/Malakhov), it would make a lot of sense for a smart guy like Al Arbour to use them in their specialities and the ES vs PP icetime probably reflects that. Malakhov was probably the most well rounded defenseman on that squad pretty easily even in his first couple of seasons.
Looking only at ES icetime can cut both ways. You can say they must be the better defensive players because they are trusted more 5 on 5 but they could also be getting more ES time because they aren't good PK or PP players (or both in some cases).
I don't like taking it as gospel that ES icetime in a vacuum lets us see into what the coach was thinking because they adapt the icetime as best they can to take advantage of their players individual skills as well as fill in the gaps that they need filled on the team to the best of their ability.
I don't think it is always purely merit. The overall situation is going to dictate it to some degree. How much depends on the context.
So I guess that means I have my forward corps rounded out now, right now here is my game plan for my forward lineup:
Buzz Boll-Ted Hampson-Pierre Larouche
Tony Mckegney-Nikolai Khylstov-Bill Flett
Shawn Burr-Terry Crisp-Wildor Larochelle
John Marks-Michael Nylander-Jason Pominville
Extras: Greg Gus Adams, Veli-Pekka Ketola
Was wondering what the consensus was on this starting lineup, I'm happy with it and from what I read in the thread the picks where pretty well-recieved. Open to criticism as well as praise.
Looking only at ES icetime can cut both ways. You can say they must be the better defensive players because they are trusted more 5 on 5 but they could also be getting more ES time because they aren't good PK or PP players (or both in some cases).
This is a good point. I've seen it said that if your defenseman is the best option, you play him on the PK first, then PP, then ES last, since that's the order of where a defenseman can make the most difference per minute.
I think it's worth looking at both overall and ES ice time.
I'm also not a fan of ice time rankings; I'd rather look at the time itself. If one defenseman played 19:55 and another 20:34, I'd consider them pretty damn close even if one were technically a #2 and one technically a #4.
First off I think that was his rookie year and that needs to be kept in mind about that season in particular.
My question was not about Malakov in particular and was really ideological, but ok.
Quote:
Second, I think that a lot depends on the context, as usual.
On teams with guys who are almost all defensive (Krupp and Kasparitus for example) or guys who are mostly to all offensive (******/******/Malakhov), it would make a lot of sense for a smart guy like Al Arbour to use them in their specialities and the ES vs PP icetime probably reflects that. Malakhov was probably the most well rounded defenseman on that squad pretty easily even in his first couple of seasons.
I had to edit out a couple of undrafted guys there.
Malakhov played for about 10 coaches in the NHL and the usage rarely changed so we do have a good idea of what kind of player he was.
I'm not denouncing total icetime, not at all. I still use it as a shorthand and will continue to. But breaking it down shows us more in some cases. Just like separating out ES and PP scoring for forwards.
Quote:
Looking only at ES icetime can cut both ways. You can say they must be the better defensive players because they are trusted more 5 on 5 but they could also be getting more ES time because they aren't good PK or PP players (or both in some cases).
it's an indication, because you can't get the most minutes without playing minutes against the best opposition players (because they, too, play the most) - if you do, your coach is a tactical wizard.
in addition, ES time is by far the most important situation. PP and PK time are probably more "concentrated" importance but because they account for about 20% of the game they are still less important overall. Note that the correlation between a team's ES performance and their W/L record is very strong, and a correlation between PP and/or PK efficiency and W/L record barely exists. So a coach's primary concern should be "who do I use the most at ES?" and then dole out the rest from there, i.e. "I'm already playing this guy the most at ES, and he would be a decent PP performer. should I give him even more on the PP, or give it to Berard, who won't be exposed defensively and will be better-rested?" - just as an example.
Quote:
I don't like taking it as gospel that ES icetime in a vacuum lets us see into what the coach was thinking because they adapt the icetime as best they can to take advantage of their players individual skills as well as fill in the gaps that they need filled on the team to the best of their ability.
I agree, and it's not gospel, but it provides indications as to what types of strengths and weaknesses players had.
Quote:
I don't think it is always purely merit. The overall situation is going to dictate it to some degree. How much depends on the context.
Yeah, but let's be honest, it's at least 95% merit. Sometimes other factors are in play, but not often.
Guess I got my 2 extras at forward then unless I can find someone who wants to take Ketola from me for a defenseman. I'd like to think I've done a lot of research here but when I researched Ketola I saw he was a defenseman
I wish the people who updated the front post took more care with listing a player's proper position, since this happens every draft, usually multiple times. (It's happened at least twice this draft).
For the record, on Eden Hall, Drozdetsky is listed as a W, but should be RW. And Ulf Dahlen is listed as LW, but should be W.
I think it's worth looking at both overall and ES ice time.
Absolutely. They tell us different things when we need to know them.
Quote:
I'm also not a fan of ice time rankings; I'd rather look at the time itself. If one defenseman played 19:55 and another 20:34, I'd consider them pretty damn close even if one were technically a #2 and one technically a #4.
This is true as well, it is worth noting how big the differences were.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
I wish the people who updated the front post took more care with listing a player's proper position, since this happens every draft, usually multiple times. (It's happened at least twice this draft).
For the record, on Eden Hall, Drozdetsky is listed as a W, but should be RW. And Ulf Dahlen is listed as LW, but should be W.
can't say for sure about this draft, but that was not me who listed Ketola as a D-man last draft
Last edited by seventieslord: 08-01-2011 at 11:41 AM.
in addition, ES time is by far the most important situation. PP and PK time are probably more "concentrated" importance but because they account for about 20% of the game they are still less important overall.
Disagree entirely. PP and PK are a small part of the game, but are definitely more important than ES on a "per minute" basis.
Quote:
Note that the correlation between a team's ES performance and their W/L record is very strong, and a correlation between PP and/or PK efficiency and W/L record barely exists.
Do you have a link to the studies that show this? I mean, it's not surprising that ES is more important overall since it's most of the game, but I'd imagine it's less important per minute.
Quote:
So a coach's primary concern should be "who do I use the most at ES?" and then dole out the rest from there, i.e. "I'm already playing this guy the most at ES, and he would be a decent PP performer. should I give him even more on the PP, or give it to Berard, who won't be exposed defensively and will be better-rested?" - just as an example.
That's the complete opposite of what usually happens, IMO. Isn't the whole argument for someone like Vishnovsky or Yandle not getting the Norris last year that if he he was good enough to be on the PK, the coach would definitely put him there, since that's where a defenseman can make the most difference per minute?
Edit: But of course, who else you have on the team also affects it. If you have someone "almost as good" in one area but not the other, then the coach would adjust minutes according to need.
This is a good point. I've seen it said that if your defenseman is the best option, you play him on the PK first, then PP, then ES last, since that's the order of where a defenseman can make the most difference per minute.
I think it's worth looking at both overall and ES ice time.
I'm also not a fan of ice time rankings; I'd rather look at the time itself. If one defenseman played 19:55 and another 20:34, I'd consider them pretty damn close even if one were technically a #2 and one technically a #4.
Yeah seventies Macoun example is really the exact opposite specialist to Malakhov. He gives up PP time and gains ES/PK time. Partly due to his individual skills and partly due to his team context (Suter MacInnis on the PP etc.). I think their overall icetime demonstrates somewhat their overall skillsets and overall value in their particular team situation. Separating those two is hard.
The old adage you brought up makes me curious:
Does anyone have the following info?
average goals / min on PP
average goals / min at ES
average goals / min while SH
