HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 Lineup Assassination Thread - Bob Cole Division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-29-2013, 08:34 AM
  #151
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
That's all fine, but a little consistency would be nice.
The post I quoted was from ATD#8, dreak, more than five years ago. I don't think owning up to my changing opinion on a player is inconsistent in any way. At the time I made that post, there were no google archives, and we had no way of knowing at what points in Stuart's career he was actually considered a star. Now that we do have the ability to search archives, I think it is telling that mentions of Stuart as a star begin in 1904. If you or anyone else were to find evidence that Hod was considered a star before that date, that would be great, but we have more precise tools now than we had in 2007, and we should use them, rather than continuing to treat the careers of old-time players as monolithic periods of homogenous performance.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 08:59 AM
  #152
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,010
vCash: 500
Is there any place as interested and dedicated to hockey history (qua history, not as some ballast to the present) on the Internet?

Seriously, PM me if there is. I'm humbled by your dedication and interest guys! You're of my kin.

There are so few people who try at all to understand the history of the game...



Last edited by VanIslander: 03-30-2013 at 10:53 AM.
VanIslander is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 10:48 AM
  #153
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
The post I quoted was from ATD#8, dreak, more than five years ago. I don't think owning up to my changing opinion on a player is inconsistent in any way. At the time I made that post, there were no google archives, and we had no way of knowing at what points in Stuart's career he was actually considered a star. Now that we do have the ability to search archives, I think it is telling that mentions of Stuart as a star begin in 1904. If you or anyone else were to find evidence that Hod was considered a star before that date, that would be great, but we have more precise tools now than we had in 2007, and we should use them, rather than continuing to treat the careers of old-time players as monolithic periods of homogenous performance.
I wasn't refereeing to your opinion changing on Stuart over the years. I would hope everybody changes their opinion as new information gets discovered.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 10:51 AM
  #154
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Is there any place as interested and dedicated to hockey history (qua history, not as some ballast to the present) on the Internet?

Seriously, PM me if there is. I'm humbled by your dedication and interest guys! You're of my kin.

There are so few people who try at all to understand the history of the game...

I'm just happy you didn't post this picture of Bruce Stuart:

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 11:55 AM
  #155
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Mystery Alaskans



Anatoli Tarasov
Arkady Chernyshev

Aurele Joliat - Howie Morenz - Jack Walker
George Hay - Pierre Turgeon - Jarome Iginla "C"
Pavol Demitra - Russell Bowie - Vic Stasiuk
Ray Getliffe - Red Sullivan "A" - Billy Boucher

Hod Stuart - Earl Seibert "A"
Sergei Gonchar - Bob Goldham
Rod Seiling - Yuri Liapkin

Bill Durnan
Alec Connell


Spares: Saku Koivu, Ken Randall, Alexander Gusev


Power Play #1
Aurele Joliat - Howie Morenz - Jarome Iginla
Sergei Gonchar - Yuri Liapkin

Power Play #2
Russell Bowie - Pierre Turgeon - Vic Stasiuk
Hod Stuart - Earl Seibert

Penalty Kill #1
Jack Walker - Red Sullivan
Hod Stuart - Earl Seibert

Penalty Kill #2
Howie Morenz - Aurele Joliat
Rod Seiling - Bob Goldham

Penalty Kill #3
Ray Getliffe - George Hay

Estimated Minutes:
ForwardsESPPPKtotal
Howie Morenz144220
Aurele Joliat144220
Jack Walker120315
Pierre Turgeon123015
George Hay120214
Jarome Iginla144018
Russell Bowie123015
Pavol Demitra121013
Vic Stasiuk122014
Red Sullivan80311
Ray Getliffe80210
Billy Boucher8008
Total1382114173

DefensemenESPPPKTotal
Earl Seibert192425
Hod Stuart192324
Sergei Gonchar155020
Bob Goldham150419
Yuri Liapkin125017
Rod Seiling120315
Total921514120


As stated earlier, we will be using the Aurele Joliat - Howie Morenz - Jack Walker line in most head-to-head match-up situations. In some situations, Jarome Iginla will replace Jack Walker on the 1st line, so that's why Iginla plays 2 minutes more than his line mates and Walker plays 2 fewer.
I don't have time for a full review right now, but I'll post a few thoughts:

- the research you guys did on Howie Morenz was good, sufficient to raise our esteem for his intangibles, I think. From the Dirt thread, this quote from Pit Lepine seems to suggest that Morenz became a fully-developed defensive forward first in the 1927-28 season:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pit Lepine, February 1928
Last season Howie Morenz started to use a poke-check and at the close of the year he was getting very effective...
...so Howie doesn't seem to be a guy like Gilmour or Schmidt who was strong defensively coming out of amateur hockey, but rather developed his game and hit his stride defensively at the same time he was peaking offensively, as happens with many players. Anyway, I think it's an open question at this point which of Morenz or Mikita is the 4th best center of all-time.

- George Hay is a pretty hard player to place. He had one NHL season where he was clearly an elite player, but beyond that, his scoring record is not all that impressive. The "consolidated scoring" results you assign him for the 1922, 1923 and 1924 seasons are too generous in my opinion. Hay didn't look like a real scoring star once the western leagues merged, and other than the one great season in the NHL, he wasn't a big scorer there, either. I think Hay ends up being a lot like Bobby Rousseau: one big season offensively, a number of other good but not great scoring seasons, plus defensive value, no physicality. Like Rousseau, I think he's a below average but viable second line wing.

- I'm not sure about how much Tarasov would actually use the 1st line as a matchups unit. This team is well-built to play Tarasov's puck-possession style, but I don't think line-matching played any role in his system, and I am particularly skeptical that he would deploy his best forward by far (Morenz) in a defensive role. Insofar as Tarasov will line-match at all, I wouldn't expect him to be especially good at it. If you were to drop Jack Walker to the 4th line and move all the other RWs up a unit, this would arrange the players more efficiently with respect to how I would expect Tarasov to use them, without leaving any of your lines devoid of physicality.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 12:40 PM
  #156
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
With the Cincinnati-Vancouver trade being seemingly vetoed, I've deleted the adjusted lineup.

If something happens to change that, I will undelete it.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 12:54 PM
  #157
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
I've been avoiding reviewing Dreakmur / vecens team because I was hoping for more information about how Tarasov ran his bench, but I guess I'll get around to it tonight or tomorrow

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:01 PM
  #158
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I've been avoiding reviewing Dreakmur / vecens team because I was hoping for more information about how Tarasov ran his bench, but I guess I'll get around to it tonight or tomorrow
What do you want to know about how Tarasov ran his bench, specifically? I can search through Road to Olympus again to see if I can find what you're looking for.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:07 PM
  #159
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I don't have time for a full review right now, but I'll post a few thoughts:

- the research you guys did on Howie Morenz was good, sufficient to raise our esteem for his intangibles, I think. From the Dirt thread, this quote from Pit Lepine seems to suggest that Morenz became a fully-developed defensive forward first in the 1927-28 season:



...so Howie doesn't seem to be a guy like Gilmour or Schmidt who was strong defensively coming out of amateur hockey, but rather developed his game and hit his stride defensively at the same time he was peaking offensively, as happens with many players. Anyway, I think it's an open question at this point which of Morenz or Mikita is the 4th best center of all-time.
That's pretty much the conclusion that I have come too. It wasn't until he developed the poke-check that Morenz became an elite defensive forward. Before then he relied on back-checking.

Agreed with Morenz and Mikita being up for debate.

Quote:
- George Hay is a pretty hard player to place. He had one NHL season where he was clearly an elite player, but beyond that, his scoring record is not all that impressive. The "consolidated scoring" results you assign him for the 1922, 1923 and 1924 seasons are too generous in my opinion. Hay didn't look like a real scoring star once the western leagues merged, and other than the one great season in the NHL, he wasn't a big scorer there, either. I think Hay ends up being a lot like Bobby Rousseau: one big season offensively, a number of other good but not great scoring seasons, plus defensive value, no physicality. Like Rousseau, I think he's a below average but viable second line wing.
You know this, so this is mostly for people who may read this and think otherwise. My consolidated numbers are a mathematical formula. I agree that it`s not perfect, but it`s completely objective. Basically, I don`t want people to read `generous` as me just picking numbers out of the air.

I`m not sure what`s out of line with the numbers anyway. Here`s how they get adjusted:

1922 - 2nd in WCHL is adjusted to 5th overall
1923 - 3rd in WCHL is adjusted to 8th overall
1924 - 3rd in WCHL is adjusted to 9th overall
1925 - 9th in WHL is adjusted to somewhere outside the top-20
1926 - 5th in WHL is adjusted to 8th overall

Quote:
- I'm not sure about how much Tarasov would actually use the 1st line as a matchups unit. This team is well-built to play Tarasov's puck-possession style, but I don't think line-matching played any role in his system, and I am particularly skeptical that he would deploy his best forward by far (Morenz) in a defensive role. Insofar as Tarasov will line-match at all, I wouldn't expect him to be especially good at it. If you were to drop Jack Walker to the 4th line and move all the other RWs up a unit, this would arrange the players more efficiently with respect to how I would expect Tarasov to use them, without leaving any of your lines devoid of physicality.
All we know is that Tarasov didn`t use `checking`lines. That doesn`t mean he didn`t use strategic line match-ups.

Morenz isn`t really in a defensive role. He`s going head to head with the other team`s best lines.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:18 PM
  #160
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,729
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
What do you want to know about how Tarasov ran his bench, specifically? I can search through Road to Olympus again to see if I can find what you're looking for.
Ideally, I would like to know if he ran 5 man units like later Soviets or separated his forwards and defense like North Americans. Hobnobs said he probably ran 5 man units, but I'd like to know for sure. I'd also like to know if he used different lines in different situations or if he constructed units that could play in all situations like later Soviets (and the Czechoslovaks) did.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 01:58 PM
  #161
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I`m not sure what`s out of line with the numbers anyway. Here`s how they get adjusted:

1922 - 2nd in WCHL is adjusted to 5th overall
1923 - 3rd in WCHL is adjusted to 8th overall
1924 - 3rd in WCHL is adjusted to 9th overall
1925 - 9th in WHL is adjusted to somewhere outside the top-20
1926 - 5th in WHL is adjusted to 8th overall
The numbers assume parity between the leagues, which I definitely do not think is the case for the 1922, 1923 and 1924 seasons in the WCHL. Newsy Lalonde was basically washed up in the NHL in 1921-22, and came over to the WCHL for the 1922-23 season at the age of 34 and led the league in goals. WCHL teams made it to the Cup finals in both 1923 and 1924, and got swept both times by the NHL.

I don't see much reason to think that the western leagues were ever quite on the level of the NHL until they consolidated in 1925, and I certainly don't think that was the case during the three league era. Any strict numerical system which treats the leagues as equals before the 1925 - 26 season is going to introduce a lot of distortions, in my opinion. There is also the problem of league playstyles, about which we know little with regards to the prairie league. A more wide-open league would benefit players in it with respect to others in a system that treats their relative scoring as being of equal value.

There are so many variables that cannot be accounted for in the split league era. I do not think it is wise to just toss it all in a pan and compare the scorers as though they were all competing in the same league.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 02:29 PM
  #162
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
The numbers assume parity between the leagues, which I definitely do not think is the case for the 1922, 1923 and 1924 seasons in the WCHL. Newsy Lalonde was basically washed up in the NHL in 1921-22, and came over to the WCHL for the 1922-23 season at the age of 34 and led the league in goals. WCHL teams made it to the Cup finals in both 1923 and 1924, and got swept both times by the NHL.

I don't see much reason to think that the western leagues were ever quite on the level of the NHL until they consolidated in 1925, and I certainly don't think that was the case during the three league era. Any strict numerical system which treats the leagues as equals before the 1925 - 26 season is going to introduce a lot of distortions, in my opinion.
It does assume the league's were equal, and they were not. Obviously, the question is how much of a difference was there.

As for Newsy Lalonde being washed up in 1922-23, I think that`s way off. The guy led the NHL in scoring in 1920-21.

Quote:
There is also the problem of league playstyles, about which we know little with regards to the prairie league. A more wide-open league would benefit players in it with respect to others in a system that treats their relative scoring as being of equal value.
That is included in the formula. Scoring rates in all leagues are equalized.


Quote:
There are so many variables that cannot be accounted for in the split league era. I do not think it is wise to just toss it all in a pan and compare the scorers as though they were all competing in the same league.
Oh, I agree it's not perfect, which is why I'm always sure to list those finishes separately.

In terms of these variables that are not accounted for, I think the equalizing of the scoring rates does account for them. Any difference that would change the offensive results gets washed out.

The only problem I see with the system is the assumption that the leagues were exactly equal. I believe they were close, but the NHL was stronger. That strength, in my opinion, came from depth and not top-end talent. I think that is proven in 1927, when the incoming Western players rule the offensive leaderboards. Since only the best players from each league are going to be involved in the top end here, I don't see much impact of the lack of depth in the West.


Last edited by Dreakmur: 04-01-2013 at 02:34 PM.
Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 04:39 PM
  #163
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Ideally, I would like to know if he ran 5 man units like later Soviets or separated his forwards and defense like North Americans. Hobnobs said he probably ran 5 man units, but I'd like to know for sure. I'd also like to know if he used different lines in different situations or if he constructed units that could play in all situations like later Soviets (and the Czechoslovaks) did.
The way he talks in the book, I believe he used specific units as 5 man lineups, but not always. For instance, he goes on at length about using his 1-2-2 system with Romishevsky, Ionov, Zaitsev, Moiseyev, and Mishakov (page 7). But he also talks about how forward units work as a whole (for instance he uses the Almetov-Loktev-Alexandrov line as an example of how all three pieces of a forward line can work together and provide everything as opposed to the past Bobrov line, which was simply the old "one scorer + two assistants" principle (page 13).

Then again though, he also describes how he used the Volkov-Senyushkin-Firsov line as a two assistants and a scorer idea for the Central Army (page 12 in my copy).

From the writing, I think he likes his lines to have three pieces that can do it all as opposed to a "scorer and two assistants," (he calls it the "new school vs. the old school" but he thinks that both can be effective, given his writing about the Firsov line if all three work together. It's worth noting that I do think he wouldn't switch his lines around at all mid-game though. Like, say for our team the Joliat-Morenz-Walker line needed a boost offensively or we needed a late goal, I don't think he'd just move Iginla up to that line. He'd keep lines together rigidly.

So basically in conclusion for the first part, I do think that he thinks that certain units (normally, it seems these units had excellent skating defensemen, such as Romishevsky -- who Tarasov loves -- and a good defensive stopper in the back) should run as a 1-2-2 five man unit, but not exclusively. The biggest thing worth noting here is I think he is flexible in what he is running. I don't think one of the games best innovators of all time would have any trouble adjusting to a modern style of game.

For what it's worth, I do think our team could run his 1-2-2 with the top line by sliding either Stuart or Seibert (most likely Stuart, but both were excellent skaters) up into the midfielder role and sliding Walker back into the midfield role. But it wouldn't be a necessity for us to use a 5 man unit either.

For the second part of your question, I kind of answered it up there but not really. I don't think he would hard line-match, and I do think that mostly he made units that could play in all situations. For how that affects our team, I don't think he'd have a problem with any of our lines (even the Turgeon line because of all the intangibles the other two guys bring to the table. It's not like Venjamin Alexandrov did anything other than score -- in fact, he was being dubbed at the time "Bobrov No. 2 (page 13)" at the time because of his scoring prowess. But he does mention he likes Alexandrov better because he isn't just a goal scorer. In fact, I think that Tarasov would like the fact that Turgeon has a versatile offensive skill set instead of simply being a playmaker or goal scorer)


Last edited by vecens24: 04-01-2013 at 04:45 PM.
vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 06:16 PM
  #164
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Ideally, I would like to know if he ran 5 man units like later Soviets or separated his forwards and defense like North Americans. Hobnobs said he probably ran 5 man units, but I'd like to know for sure. I'd also like to know if he used different lines in different situations or if he constructed units that could play in all situations like later Soviets (and the Czechoslovaks) did.
Five man units.

Todd Denault in The Greatest Game on a Soviet team visiting Canada in 1957: “Those watching also made note of the propensity of the Soviet visitors to rotate their men on and off the ice as part of a five-man unit, as opposed to the Canadian way of changing their forward and defensive units separately. Not only were the offensive lines and defensive pairings changed at different times, but in Canadian hockey they were also initially constructed in complete isolation of one another. Tarasov took the opposite tack. “We have every right to demand that all players [five not three] be equal in their playing skills and, first of all, in their speed,” Tarasov informed an inquisitive media. “If one of the defenseman is a slow skater, then it is no longer a fivesome, but a foursome.

Denault sources Lawrence Martin's The Red Machine for this paragraph.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 07:06 PM
  #165
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Five man units.

Todd Denault in The Greatest Game on a Soviet team visiting Canada in 1957: “Those watching also made note of the propensity of the Soviet visitors to rotate their men on and off the ice as part of a five-man unit, as opposed to the Canadian way of changing their forward and defensive units separately. Not only were the offensive lines and defensive pairings changed at different times, but in Canadian hockey they were also initially constructed in complete isolation of one another. Tarasov took the opposite tack. “We have every right to demand that all players [five not three] be equal in their playing skills and, first of all, in their speed,” Tarasov informed an inquisitive media. “If one of the defenseman is a slow skater, then it is no longer a fivesome, but a foursome.

Denault sources Lawrence Martin's The Red Machine for this paragraph.
That confirms that he did use the 5 man units for part of his career, which is something we all knew. The question is, how much of his career did he use that system.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 08:04 PM
  #166
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Here's some more stuff on Tarasov from Google Translate from 1971. It's a book called "Ice Hockey in the Future," and I'll throw a link to the Russian site at the bottom of the page.

"reasonable employment of all players at all stages of the game - and in attack and defense, and in the fight for the puck in the neutral zone, and in the assault on the "enemy" gate, and dedicated and competent protection of its own - will characterize hockey future." (TDMM, there is your question on matching lines. He definitely wants all guys to be able to do everything)

He was still using the 1-2-2 as of the games in Vienna, in 1967.

In 1971, same book: "I have already said that the fundamental difference between the tactics of pressure in our execution is that Canadians engage in this tactical idea with three players, and we - five players. Two of their athletes aspire to join the combat, the first - going for a military clash, the second - trying to pick up the puck and if the partner is missed, correct his mistake. Third - works for the insurance, covering, usually free next board to rival could prokinut puck, throw it out of the zone."

"And the defenders? Defenders, lying on long positions only contemplate this fight attackers, they fear. And if the action forwards sometimes seem wasteful, it is the right impression Canadians attacking play at times risky, because they worry about their rear.

But is there any guarantee that the founders of the world hockey will also base their actions and in the seventies? Hardly! I strongly believe that the desire to retain the area to keep it, the desire to experience, test the strength of our defense force them to follow a set of forwards all the players to play with personal care, covering all possible moves.

With TALO be, we have to find new ways to succeed, to change something, something strengthened. In particular, I believe, we will strengthen our front-speed maneuver the attackers. Their functions will be included as a compulsory and a maneuver that would allow them at least for a moment to be free from the defender and get the puck."

"(I have no doubt that by the time our leadership team, including the national team, will move to the "system")."

I'd say I feel pretty good about saying that he had fully employed his "system" by 1967 and was still using it as of 1971, and by that, I mean 5 man units and the 1-2-2.

Here's the link to that stuff, guys. I know some of it is broken because of Google Translate, but, well, I don't know Russian lol: http://www.sportlib.ru/books/hokkey/tarasov/glava8.htm

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 09:18 PM
  #167
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Please wait until the trade has been pushed through mark. This one is seemingly questionable as well given someone's initial resistance.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-01-2013, 11:25 PM
  #168
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
The biggest thing worth noting here is I think he is flexible in what he is running. I don't think one of the games best innovators of all time would have any trouble adjusting to a modern style of game.
Wait, we're playing a modern style of game? My team is definitely playing home games in the Arena on Laurier Avenue in 1920.

Anyway, I would agree with you. Tarasov built a system of hockey and he should be able to adapt that system to changing conditions. While North American teams eventually found ways to counter the system he built, who knows how he would have responded to their adjustments? The Soviet hockey team continued to develop and learn from North American hockey through the 70s and 80s, and they may have had even more success with a hockey mind of Tarasov's calibre in charge.

I can't imagine that Tarasov would take a line-juggling, line-matching approach in this format. He'd get his team to play his system and his game and let the opponents respond. And of course he could make tactical adjustments like any other coach would, but I don't think that would include a line matching strategy or anything else that went against his basic philosophy of hockey.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 05:31 AM
  #169
BubbaBoot
Registered User
 
BubbaBoot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Mission Hill
Country: Wallis & Futuna
Posts: 10,989
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Wait, we're playing a modern style of game? My team is definitely playing home games in the Arena on Laurier Avenue in 1920.

Anyway, I would agree with you. Tarasov built a system of hockey and he should be able to adapt that system to changing conditions. While North American teams eventually found ways to counter the system he built, who knows how he would have responded to their adjustments? The Soviet hockey team continued to develop and learn from North American hockey through the 70s and 80s, and they may have had even more success with a hockey mind of Tarasov's calibre in charge.

I can't imagine that Tarasov would take a line-juggling, line-matching approach in this format. He'd get his team to play his system and his game and let the opponents respond. And of course he could make tactical adjustments like any other coach would, but I don't think that would include a line matching strategy or anything else that went against his basic philosophy of hockey.
I've been trying to make points with similar types of premises all along....there really is no right or wrong, only assumptions, suppositions and educated guesses.

BubbaBoot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 07:03 AM
  #170
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Anyway, I would agree with you. Tarasov built a system of hockey and he should be able to adapt that system to changing conditions. While North American teams eventually found ways to counter the system he built, who knows how he would have responded to their adjustments? The Soviet hockey team continued to develop and learn from North American hockey through the 70s and 80s, and they may have had even more success with a hockey mind of Tarasov's calibre in charge.

I can't imagine that Tarasov would take a line-juggling, line-matching approach in this format. He'd get his team to play his system and his game and let the opponents respond. And of course he could make tactical adjustments like any other coach would, but I don't think that would include a line matching strategy or anything else that went against his basic philosophy of hockey.
Yeah, that's basically my conclusion, as well. I don't think Tarasov would be hamstrung by the eventual weaknesses in (what I believe is) his system which were eventually exploited in the late 70's, but I also don't think we should expect him to completely change his approach in this format. It should also be noted that many of the problems which emerged in the Soviet system were due to a lack of either systemwide training in one specific skill (like faceoffs), or experience against certain tactics (like trapping and aggressive forechecking), and not necessarily theoretical weaknesses of the system, itself. This is, to an extent, an indictment of Tarasov the builder (ignoring training in faceoffs seems quite foolish), but not much of an indictement of him as a coach.

In the ATD, I would expect him to go forward with his 5-man units, line rolling, and aggressive, attacking puck control style of play, but in a way that is more in keeping with modern conditions. I don't think he would try to match lines and don't buy the idea that the Morenz unit would be used in a shutdown role, which is why I have recommended shuffling the RWs around. This is all pretty hard stuff. Dealing with coaching systems, especially vague, foreign-looking ones like Tarasov's, is probably the most difficult kind of "meta-analysis" that we run into in the ATD.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 07:52 AM
  #171
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Wait, we're playing a modern style of game? My team is definitely playing home games in the Arena on Laurier Avenue in 1920.


Can you let my grandpa know to buy some Bell and Microsoft stock?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 09:27 AM
  #172
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Yeah, that's basically my conclusion, as well. I don't think Tarasov would be hamstrung by the eventual weaknesses in (what I believe is) his system which were eventually exploited in the late 70's, but I also don't think we should expect him to completely change his approach in this format. It should also be noted that many of the problems which emerged in the Soviet system were due to a lack of either systemwide training in one specific skill (like faceoffs), or experience against certain tactics (like trapping and aggressive forechecking), and not necessarily theoretical weaknesses of the system, itself. This is, to an extent, an indictment of Tarasov the builder (ignoring training in faceoffs seems quite foolish), but not much of an indictement of him as a coach.

In the ATD, I would expect him to go forward with his 5-man units, line rolling, and aggressive, attacking puck control style of play, but in a way that is more in keeping with modern conditions. I don't think he would try to match lines and don't buy the idea that the Morenz unit would be used in a shutdown role, which is why I have recommended shuffling the RWs around. This is all pretty hard stuff. Dealing with coaching systems, especially vague, foreign-looking ones like Tarasov's, is probably the most difficult kind of "meta-analysis" that we run into in the ATD.
One thing I did notice that Tarasov said in both books is that he was already down to 50 second shifts by 1967. Was that normal in the NHL as well during that time? Or would he be one of the few people at the time with modern shift-style?

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 09:37 AM
  #173
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
One thing I did notice that Tarasov said in both books is that he was already down to 50 second shifts by 1967. Was that normal in the NHL as well during that time? Or would he be one of the few people at the time with modern shift-style?
In an interview after the 1935 Cup Finals in the bio Dreak just posted, Tommy Gorman talks about cutting his shifts down to a minute each in order to get maximum energy out of his skaters in his up-tempo system. Gorman's system seems to have been adopted at all levels of north american hockey in relatively short order after his two year run, so I would say no, "modern" shifts probably weren't anything unusual when Tarasov was doing it in the 60's.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 09:56 AM
  #174
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
In an interview after the 1935 Cup Finals in the bio Dreak just posted, Tommy Gorman talks about cutting his shifts down to a minute each in order to get maximum energy out of his skaters in his up-tempo system. Gorman's system seems to have been adopted at all levels of north american hockey in relatively short order after his two year run, so I would say no, "modern" shifts probably weren't anything unusual when Tarasov was doing it in the 60's.
Okay thanks, I've always been curious about that. I knew Gorman did it, but I wasn't sure if it was widely adopted or not.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 10:08 AM
  #175
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,546
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hobnobs View Post
Seattle Eskimos



Coach: Joel Quenneville
Assistant coach: Tommy Sandlin


Markus Näslund - Peter Forsberg (A) - Odie Cleghorn
Syd Howe - Darryl Sittler (C) - Dino Ciccarelli
Mats Näslund - Edgar Laprade - Bob Nystrom
Jan Erixon - Derek Sanderson - Alf Skinner
Bob Probert, Danny Briere

Denis Potvin (A) - Butch Bouchard
Brad McCrimmon - Flash Hollett
Jamie Macoun - Glen Wesley
Mark Tinordi

Martin Brodeur
Mike Richter

PP1: Markus Näslund - Peter Forsberg - Dino Ciccarelli, Denis Potvin - Flash Hollett

PP2: Mats Näslund - Darryl Sittler - Odie Cleghorn, Syd Howe - Glen Wesley

PK1: Derek Sanderson - Jan Erixon, Denis Potvin- Butch Bouchard

PK2: Edgar Laprade - Alf Skinner, Brad McCrimmon - Jamie Macoun
I like:
+ the defense - all-around good, and I think Wesley and Macoun are quite underrated by the canon
+ goaltending is oviously pretty good
+ interesting mix of players in the bottom 6
+ good 2nd line

I don't like:
- Forsberg is by far your best offensive player, but his injury history means your best weapon will spend 1/3rd of the season on IR
- the 1st line wings are outright terrible
- mediocre coaching

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:24 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.