WJC: 2021 Germany Roster Talk

[filip85]

I wouldn't be so sure about Germany beating Finns and Russians. The gap between the best and the worst German player was huge and you need more than a couple of good guys to win. Finland and Russia would have still have had a huge material advantage compared to Germany. Seider would have been a good add to the lineup because Germany's defence was so poor. Very slow and unable to move the puck. Having Seider would have helped as he would have played a lot, but he can't play the whole game. Also, I don't think he could have provided that much offence. Reichel would have added another scoring threat and maybe they could have created two dangerous lines instead of just one or maybe they would have put all their best players on one line. Ancicka would have been good, I just don't think he would have been the difference maker because the defence would have still sucked.

While I agree with you overall, but in close ( relatively) game as it was yesterday two players of such calibre (Reichel, Seider) could mean world diffirence for team like Germany.

 

[pgfan66]

I wouldn't be so sure about Germany beating Finns and Russians. The gap between the best and the worst German player was huge and you need more than a couple of good guys to win. Finland and Russia would have still have had a huge material advantage compared to Germany. Seider would have been a good add to the lineup because Germany's defence was so poor. Very slow and unable to move the puck. Having Seider would have helped as he would have played a lot, but he can't play the whole game. Also, I don't think he could have provided that much offence. Reichel would have added another scoring threat and maybe they could have created two dangerous lines instead of just one or maybe they would have put all their best players on one line. Ancicka would have been good, I just don't think he would have been the difference maker because the defence would have still sucked.

I read an interesting article somewhere a couple years ago that looked into whether sports were "strong link" or "weak link" sports. What it means is: do the best players on a team have a stronger positive impact on the outcome of the game than the weakest players' negative impact or is it the other way around?

An easy example for a strong link sport is basketball. NBA teams can have superstars like Lebron James on the court for 40 minutes and he'll win the game almost by himself. In theory (simplified), if your team is Lebron, 3 exactly average players, and the worst player in the league, Lebron's impact on the game would be larger than that of the worst player and the team would still be more likely to win.

Soccer is the opposite. It's much harder for a single player to make a positive impact but an awful player can lose a game by himself relatively easily when he makes a bunch of mistakes.

Finally, here's my point: hockey is also a strong link game. The best players' impact cancels out that of the worst players on the team. A major benefit over soccer is obviously that the worst players will get much less ice time than the best ones. In other words: depth isn't as important as having the best players on the ice. With Seider, Stützle, Reichel, Peterka, Germany's best players might actually have been better than the best players for Finland and Russia.

Still, who knows what would've happened. This was just a really long explanation that means nothing in the end haha. We also saw Vegas be extremely successful in their debut season with amazing depth but little star power.

Edit: Here's the article Strong and Weak Links: Talent Distribution within Teams

 

[IHaveNoCreativity]

I wouldn't be so sure about Germany beating Finns and Russians. The gap between the best and the worst German player was huge and you need more than a couple of good guys to win. Finland and Russia would have still have had a huge material advantage compared to Germany. Seider would have been a good add to the lineup because Germany's defence was so poor. Very slow and unable to move the puck. Having Seider would have helped as he would have played a lot, but he can't play the whole game. Also, I don't think he could have provided that much offence. Reichel would have added another scoring threat and maybe they could have created two dangerous lines instead of just one or maybe they would have put all their best players on one line. Ancicka would have been good, I just don't think he would have been the difference maker because the defence would have still sucked.

I watched that game against Finland and I was not impressed by Finland, at this level Seider would have made the difference, we’re talking about maybe the best D in the tourney who can play 25-27 and change the game. That’s massive, then we’re adding the better goalie to a team that really didn’t get great goaltending against Finland and Canada, and another scoring threat to a team in need.

makes all the difference required for an upset and to beat the fins.

 

[IHaveNoCreativity]

I read an interesting article somewhere a couple years ago that looked into whether sports were "strong link" or "weak link" sports. What it means is: do the best players on a team have a stronger positive impact on the outcome of the game than the weakest players' negative impact or is it the other way around?

An easy example for a strong link sport is basketball. NBA teams can have superstars like Lebron James on the court for 40 minutes and he'll win the game almost by himself. In theory (simplified), if your team is Lebron, 3 exactly average players, and the worst player in the league, Lebron's impact on the game would be larger than that of the worst player and the team would still be more likely to win.

Soccer is the opposite. It's much harder for a single player to make a positive impact but an awful player can lose a game by himself relatively easily when he makes a bunch of mistakes.

Finally, here's my point: hockey is also a strong link game. The best players' impact cancels out that of the worst players on the team. A major benefit over soccer is obviously that the worst players will get much less ice time than the best ones. In other words: depth isn't as important as having the best players on the ice. With Seider, Stützle, Reichel, Peterka, Germany's best players might actually have been better than the best players for Finland and Russia.

Still, who knows what would've happened. This was just a really long explanation that means nothing in the end haha. We also saw Vegas be extremely successful in their debut season with amazing depth but little star power.

Edit: Here's the article Strong and Weak Links: Talent Distribution within Teams

I would certainly argue that Seider and Stuetzle would be better than the best players on most teams at the tourney. Stars win games.

 

[kabidjan18]

The Germans are already here. If Reichel, Seirder and the starting goalie are at the tourney let’s be real here they beat Finland and Russia.

No, they would lose to Switzerland because they have less depth and even Reichel and Seider wouldn't matter.