ATD 2022 Assassination Thread

[Batis]

They were clearly the best Pkers in Europe at the time, but where did they rank world-wide?

I don´t know if I would say that Martinec and Mikhailov clearly were the best penalty killers in Europe during the 70s considering that both Vladimir Petrov and especially Jiri Holik were outstanding penalty killers as well. But they were definitely among the best penalty killers in Europe at the time.

Regarding where they ranked as penalty killers world-wide it is obviously very difficult to give an accurate answer to that. But considering that these four players (Martinec, Holik, Mikhailov and Petrov) proved that they could perform very well on the penalty kill in best-on-best tournaments I think that they probably should rank pretty high on a list of the best penalty killers of the 70s.

Petrov and Mikhailov ranked second and third among Soviet forwards in shorthanded ice time during the 1972 Summit Series where the Soviet penalty kill put on an absolute clinic and scored more shorthanded goals (3) than they had powerplay goals scored against them (2).

Holik and Martinec ranked first and second among Czechoslovakian forwards in shorthanded ice time during the 1976 Canada Cup and in the 3 games against Team Canada the highpowered Canadian powerplay "only" scored 2 powerplay goals on 12 opportunities.

Here is an example of Martinec and Holik having a very strong boxplay shift against a powerplay unit consisting of Potvin, Orr, Esposito, Lafleur and P.Mahovlich. When the second units came on late in the penalty Canada did score one of their two powerplay goals though.

 

[Dreakmur]

I don´t know if I would say that Martinec and Mikhailov clearly were the best penalty killers in Europe during the 70s considering that both Vladimir Petrov and especially Jiri Holik were outstanding penalty killers as well. But they were definitely among the best penalty killers in Europe at the time.

Regarding where they ranked as penalty killers world-wide it is obviously very difficult to give an accurate answer to that. But considering that these four players (Martinec, Holik, Mikhailov and Petrov) proved that they could perform very well on the penalty kill in best-on-best tournaments I think that they probably should rank pretty high on a list of the best penalty killers of the 70s.

Petrov and Mikhailov ranked second and third among Soviet forwards in shorthanded ice time during the 1972 Summit Series where the Soviet penalty kill put on an absolute clinic and scored more shorthanded goals (3) than they had powerplay goals scored against them (2).

Holik and Martinec ranked first and second among Czechoslovakian forwards in shorthanded ice time during the 1976 Canada Cup and in the 3 games against Team Canada the highpowered Canadian powerplay "only" scored 2 powerplay goals on 12 opportunities.

Here is an example of Martinec and Holik having a very strong boxplay shift against a powerplay unit consisting of Potvin, Orr, Esposito, Lafleur and P.Mahovlich. When the second units came on late in the penalty Canada did score one of their two powerplay goals though.

So they weren’t even the best Pkers outside the NHL? I’m not sure I can buy them as top unit PKers in the ATD.

 

[tony d]

Thanks @TheDevilMadeMe for the review, allow me to return the favor, my comments are in bold:

NJ Swamp Devils

Coach: Dick Irvin

In a 18 team draft Irvin is towards the lower end of the middle of the pack. He's a solid coach who will neither hurt or harm your team.

Sweeney Schriner - Joe Sakic (A) - Bill Cook
Sid Abel (C) <-> Joe Malone - Helmuts Balderis
Johnny Gottselig - Jonathan Toews - Marian Hossa
Rusty Crawford - Vyacheslav Starshinov - Rene Robert
Bernie Morris, Bruce Stuart

Forward Line 1: A very very good 1st line. Schriner was a great early era scorer. I was a little surprised when reading up on him that he never led the league in goal scoring. Still a solid pickup. Joe Sakic is as solid a player as anyone can pick in this draft. The type of guy who won't disappoint your team at all. Bill Cook was a very good early era power forward. Think this 1st line should get some mention as one of the better 1st lines in this draft.

Forward Line 2: Abel seems like a solid all around player. Reading his bio he was called the backbone of those Detroit teams in his era. If that included the Howe era then you know he's a solid player. Joe Malone's another great player, maybe even the first superstar in the NHL. When i first got into hockey in the early 90's he was a guy I really liked. He was actually the first forward I picked in the ATD (My 2011 entry with @DaveG). Balderis adds more skill and great overall play to the line. Being called the Guy Lafleur of Russia is a lofty honor for sure. Good 2nd line.

Forward Line 3: Looks like you went for an all Blackhawk forward line. Gottselig will bring some good 2 way play to the line. Toews isn't as good as he once was but is still a solid 2 way centre who has the benefit of being a part of the Blackhawks dynasty of last decade so that's a plus. Hossa's one of my favorite players all time. So he's a plus and I'd believe him on a 2nd line even in a 18 team draft. Maybe not the strongest 3rd line defensively but 1 that won't hurt you in that regard either.

Forward Line 4: Crawford reads as a solid 2 way player as well, similar to Gottselig on your 3rd line. Starshinov will provide some good 2 way play to your 3rd line, similar to Toews. Rene Robert will be the offensive consience of the line and will be able to provide some good 2 way play on the side as well though it might not be needed as much given the others on ths line. Overall a solid 4th line.

Ching Johnson - Doug Harvey (A)
Babe Siebert - Bill Gadsby
Mark Giordano - Red Dutton
Flash Hollett

Defense Pairing 1: Johnson has always been a favorite of mine and I got to pick him last year. Such a solid defenseman. Going to be interesting battles between him and Stevens in our division this year. Harvey of course is an elite defenseman all-time. Overall this is a strong 1st pairing.

Defense Pairing 2: Siebert adds some good 2-way play to your 2nd pairing. Gadsby looks to offer the same style of play. So a good strong 2-way 2nd pairing. Well done.

Defense Pairing 3: I usually like to be positive in my reviews but I have to criticize Giodarno here. He's good no doubt but not sure in an alltime sense he belongs on a bottom pairing especially in a 18 team environment, that could hurt the team. Dutton seems like a good physical presence on the bottom pairing, well that compensate for Giodrano's weakness in an all time sense? We shall see.

Johnny Bower
Tony Esposito

Goalie tandem: Bower and Esposito is a good goalie tandem. Bower may be one of the weaker starters in the 18 team draft but you more than complemented that with Tony Esposito. Esposito would be believable as a starter even in a 18 team draft so this tandem will work nicely.

One goal down: Schriner - Sakic - Cook - Harvey - Gadsby. Extra skater: Malone

PP1: Sweeney Schriner - Joe Malone - Bill Cook - Joe Sakic - Doug Harvey
PP2: Sid Abel - Vyacheslav Starshinov - Helmuts Balderis - Rene Robert - Bill Gadsby

PK1: Jonathan Toews - Johnny Gottselig - Ching Johnson - Doug Harvey
PK2: Vyacheslav Starshinov - Marian Hossa - Babe Siebert - Red Dutton
PK spares: Rusty Crawford, Bill Gadsby

Special teams and Spares: No comments really, the PP units look good especially PP 1. As for extras I expect Hollett to see a bit of playing time because of Giodarno's weaknesses.

Final Thoughts: As per usual you built a strong team, best of luck to you as we progress towards the playoffs.

 

[Batis]

So they weren’t even the best Pkers outside the NHL? I’m not sure I can buy them as top unit PKers in the ATD.

Well I never said that Martinec or Mikhailov should be top unit penalty killers in the ATD. What I did say is that I think that Martinec would be a great fit alongside Gretzky on a second penalty killing unit.

For what it is worth this is how I rank the top European penalty killing forwards of the 70s.

Holik
Martinec
Mikhailov
Petrov

 

[Dreakmur]

Well I never said that Martinec or Mikhailov should be top unit penalty killers in the ATD. What I did say is that I think that Martinec would be a great fit alongside Gretzky on a second penalty killing unit.

For what it is worth this is how I rank the top European penalty killing forwards of the 70s.

Holik
Martinec
Mikhailov
Petrov

The important thing for me is knowing where they rank compared to nhl players of that time.

 

[ResilientBeast]

@rmartin65 @ResilientBeast

Props for the unique team guys. Anyway....

I like:

- Esposito's wingers play exactly like they need to play - grind it out and get him the puck!
- Your blueline is excellent top to bottom.
- Lester Patrick is a rare coach who could make a wacky team like this work.

Cyclone Taylor on D:

I sort of hinted at this in the past, and not everyone will agree, but I really don't see what makes the D version of Cyclone Taylor any better than someone like Georges Boucher or Harry Cameron. Easily Hall of Fame quality, sure, but not "leading the PCHA in assist numbers by ludicrous margins" good. I know some GMs feel like rover is like a C/D hybrid, but given that a rover was so often the best offensive player on his team, I don't quite buy it.

That being said... even if Cyclone Taylor is your #4... you still would have a great blueline

Like I get what you are going for a Bobby Orr substitute when he's not on the ice... I just don't know if it fully works.

Mixed:

- If I were to pick the worst 3 defensive centers in the ATD, I'd say you have two of them. Not good. (Cowley is the other one). You guys did yourself a favor by drafting Bergeron - if anyone can carry an entire team's defensive structure, it is Bergeron. But he's still only one man.

I don't like as much:

- Your forwards are just not that great past Phil Esposito (I guess that's what happens when your 2nd best forward is playing D).
- Your second line is a real defensive liability. Gordon Roberts was pretty good defensively, but I don't think he can carry a line that way.
- I always say that every team needs 2 lines that can be trusted defensively; 3 is ideal. You have just the Bergeron line. I'd be fine with Kovalchuk on a 4th line as a PP specialist if you didn't need your 4th line to play defensive minutes. But you kind of do.

Special Teams:

Tons of talent for the PP, but I really feel like PP1 is less than the sum of its parts. Who is digging the puck out of the corners and throwing it in front to Esposito? Sure, playmaking is nice, but Espo thrived so much with puck retrievers, even on the PP. I would swap Syd Howe and Connor McDavid. I feel a Howe - Espo - Kucherov PP would be quite strong.

I know you love the Orr-Taylor duo on the PP. But wasn't skating with the puck Taylor's greatest asset, indeed the main thing he brings to the blueline? How is he doing that next to Orr? I honestly think Kovalchuk would be amazing next to Orr - like a super version of Fred Stanfield - a forward with a big right-handed shot that Orr can set up.

No issues with your PK; it's quite strong.

This was a fun team to assassinate. At the end, I'm left with the impression that an Espo-Orr based team really didn't need Cyclone Taylor. But with such a unique lineup, it's hard to predict how other GMs will feel!

May as well respond at least

I feel like Taylor is absolutely getting the shaft here for being used on D.

His time in the IHL/ECHA/ECAHA he was widely considered the star of the league and after coming back to Canada the best puck chaser around. He has a nearly even 1/3 split between C, Rover and CP.

He was among the highest scorers among CP and P and broke into the top 10 in league scoring at a time when playmaking wasn't recorded. His style of play absolutely suitable to being used on D in a role much like Bobby Orr actually played. Of all the players with erroneous second positions listed Taylor's is absolutely legitimate and shouldn't be so heavily used against him. We feel/felt that giving him a role and position has played that gives him more control over the play (much like the rover did) is the best way to maximize his own value. Based on play descriptions of his time out east he's as close to an Orr substitute I can think of without being absolutely garbage defensive (sorry Coffey).

Our forwards outside of Esposito are also absolutely getting shafted here, McDavid and Kucherov are plenty fine 2nd liners in a draft this size. Roberts is a little miscast as he'd be a low end glue guy at this size at best.

We're perfectly happy with the defensive abilities of our first line given Howe is a plus defensive player and Hooley is absolutely fine as the defensive anchor of a unit. We have no issues with our 3rd and 1st lines taking hard minutes especially since they will be backed up by Taylor and Orr who will both be able to drive the play in our favour.

On the power play, McDavid and Kucherov are perfectly fine digging the pucks out of the corners, you don't need to do it with brute force, handy stickwork and stickhandling can get the job done. We have 3 high IQ players on the top unit in Taylor, Orr, McDavid who are used to carrying the puck up the ice. This is a double edged sword as
1) they need to decide who is going to do it on a given entry (bad)
2) Gives our powerplay a bit of unpredictability in terms of zone entries (good)

And all 3 are excellent goal scorers as well so it's not like the unit won't be competent

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Thanks for the review. No need to be modest - I know it's still your favorite team but you're just trying not to give too much away.

I'll respond to some things if you don't mind.

Re: Phillips - A lot of the reason for drafting him was to be the defensive consciousness on the second line. It's a knock on Bentley and it's not a strength of whoever I was going to draft to be the RW based on how the picks were flying (ended up with Cournoyer which I think shows that) - and I don't think it's debatable he can fill that role. Also - I would argue a lot of those early generation players need to be graded on a bit of a curve. If he's not a top 6 offensive talent, then literally no one before 1910 is (Cyclone Taylor being an exception but he's one of the few players of that generation with actual longevity).

The problem with Tommy Phillips is that he only played 1 season in a competitive hockey league (the ECAHA in 1907-08). Here's how he did:

Edit: the numbers are games played and goals scored (no official record of assists)

Russell Bowie	Victorias	10	31
Marty Walsh	Ottawa	9	28
Tommy Phillips	Ottawa	10	26
Charles Power	Quebec	10	23
Herb Jordan	Quebec	8	22
Ernie Russell	Wanderers	9	21

That's good... but it's really hard to say just how good.

The MHL was a far lesser league, and Phillips didn't even really dominate it.

He was centered by low-end HHOFer Billy McGimsie for the Rat Portage / Kenora Thistles for 1904-05 and 1905-06. Here is how their stats compared those two seasons combined:

Phillips 50 goals in 17 games
McGimsie 49 goals in 17 games

Based on descriptions of their skillsets, it would seem likely that McGimsie was actually a better playmaker than Phillips, while Phillips was a far better two-way player.

Basically, Tommy Phillips gets a big fat "incomplete" as a regular season player.

Now, Phillips was a pretty dominant player in competitive Stanley Cup Challenges (as seventieslord's study reproduced in the ATD Phillips bios since showed), and that's where his legacy was really made. But how exactly do we evaluate him fully? Should we look at him like we would a 1970s or 1980s European player, where the regular season was basically a glorified exhibition schedule for the real games (international play / Cup challenges)? Or should we look at him like a mediocre regular season scorer, who was clutch in the playoffs? Hard player to evaluate.

I once used Phillips on a top line of my ATD team in a 40 team draft. And I felt his offense was pretty weak for the role, but that was a LW lock team with the Richard bros, so I thought he fit.

My best guess as to Phillips' offense is to look at him as a defense-first guy who is a good enough scorer to not totally kill a scoring line, but not a top scorer himself. But YMMV on that one.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

May as well respond at least

I feel like Taylor is absolutely getting the shaft here for being used on D.

His time in the IHL/ECHA/ECAHA he was widely considered the star of the league and after coming back to Canada the best puck chaser around. He has a nearly even 1/3 split between C, Rover and CP.

He was among the highest scorers among CP and P and broke into the top 10 in league scoring at a time when playmaking wasn't recorded. His style of play absolutely suitable to being used on D in a role much like Bobby Orr actually played. Of all the players with erroneous second positions listed Taylor's is absolutely legitimate and shouldn't be so heavily used against him. We feel/felt that giving him a role and position has played that gives him more control over the play (much like the rover did) is the best way to maximize his own value. Based on play descriptions of his time out east he's as close to an Orr substitute I can think of without being absolutely garbage defensive (sorry Coffey).

Our forwards outside of Esposito are also absolutely getting shafted here, McDavid and Kucherov are plenty fine 2nd liners in a draft this size. Roberts is a little miscast as he'd be a low end glue guy at this size at best.

We're perfectly happy with the defensive abilities of our first line given Howe is a plus defensive player and Hooley is absolutely fine as the defensive anchor of a unit. We have no issues with our 3rd and 1st lines taking hard minutes especially since they will be backed up by Taylor and Orr who will both be able to drive the play in our favour.

On the power play, McDavid and Kucherov are perfectly fine digging the pucks out of the corners, you don't need to do it with brute force, handy stickwork and stickhandling can get the job done. We have 3 high IQ players on the top unit in Taylor, Orr, McDavid who are used to carrying the puck up the ice. This is a double edged sword as
1) they need to decide who is going to do it on a given entry (bad)
2) Gives our powerplay a bit of unpredictability in terms of zone entries (good)

And all 3 are excellent goal scorers as well so it's not like the unit won't be competent

I'm glad you responded. I appreciate the work you've done on the player, and I know Taylor spent about 1/3 of his career as a CP, but were any of those peak seasons? How would he rank among the best players in the world at the time, while he was still playing CP? I know he was widely considered the best player in the world (or co-best with Lalonde) when he was a rover.

Cyclone Taylor on D is unusual, you had to expect you would have to defend the move

BTW, I'll defend Kucherov as an offensive second liner here; like I said when you drafted him, I think he's probably close to Recchi right now (with a very obviously higher peak). In not too long, he'll likely be at Martinec/Maltsev level. But he's not going to help out McDavid in the defensive end, right?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The important thing for me is knowing where they rank compared to nhl players of that time.

Of course, there is no way to know for sure - all comparisons of non-NHL players to NHLers involve educated guesses.

If I was more certain about Jiri Holik's penalty killing, I would have drafted him over Johnny Gottselig. Even so, if I had an elite PK1 C (which I didn't), I might have drafted Jiri Holik and used him on PK1 anyway.

Jiri Holik's defensive reputation so far overshadows every other 1970s European forward, that I think it says a lot.

As for Martinec, I think there's enough on his two-way play and penalty killing to make him a viable PK2 guy, especially when it's a Gretzky-style PK2.

(I stand corrected on Mikhailov vs Kharlamov as Petrov's PK partner; don't know why I mixed them up).

 

[Batis]

The important thing for me is knowing where they rank compared to nhl players of that time.

Well that is obviously impossible to know for sure. But like I showed earlier all of these four players managed to prove themselves as penalty killers against the powerplay units of Best-on-Best Team Canada. If you want a somewhat larger sample size it is also worth noting how impressive the shorthanded goal differential numbers of Mikhailov and Petrov were against NHL opponents in the 1972 Summit Series, 75/76 Super Series, 1979 Challenge Cup and 79/80 Super Series. In fact many of the top Soviet penalty killers from the 70s and 80s had impressive shorthanded goal differential numbers in Best-on-Best and Super Series competition as you can see here below.

Shorthanded goal differential from the 72 Summit Series, 76, 81, 84, 87 Canada Cups, 79 Challenge Cup, 87 Rendezvous and 75/76, 79/80, 82/83, 85/86, 88/89 Super Series. I only included players with at least 25 minutes of shorthanded ice time in those tournaments/series.

Petrov: 3 goals forward, 2 goals against over 26 min, 42 sec of shorthanded ice time: +1
Khomutov: 2 goals forward, 3 goals against over 42 min, 35 sec of shorthanded ice time: -1 every 42 min, 35 sec
Makarov: 6 goals forward, 8 goals against over 70 min, 18 sec of shorthanded ice time: -1 every 35 min, 9 sec
Mikhailov: 2 goals forward, 3 goals against over 26 min, 18 sec of shorthanded ice time: -1 every 26 min, 18 sec
Bykov: 2 goals forward, 4 goals against over 45 min, 14 sec of shorthanded ice time: -1 every 22 min, 37 sec
Krutov: 6 goals forward, 11 goals against over 69 min, 10 sec of shorthanded ice time: -1 every 13 min, 50 sec
Zhluktov: 0 goals forward, 5 goals against over 31 min, 19 sec of shorthanded ice time: -1 every 6 min, 16 sec

I would say that the majority of the seven Soviet forwards with more than 25 minutes of shorthanded ice time in these tournaments/series had outstanding goal differential numbers and only Zhluktov had what I would consider below average numbers.

This is how Mikhailov and Petrov measures up to the other top Soviets when it comes to ice time finishes in Best-on-Best and Super Series competition.

Makarov: 1st at the 1984 Canada Cup, 1st at the 85/86 Super Series, 1st at the 88/89 Super Series, 2nd at the 1987 Rendezvous, Tied for 3rd at the 1987 Canada Cup, 4th at the 1981 Canada Cup, 8th at the 79/80 Super Series
Krutov: 1st at the 1987 Rendezvous, 1st at the 1987 Canada Cup, 2nd at the 1984 Canada Cup, Tied for 4th at the 82/83 Super Series, 5th at the 88/89 Super Series, Tied for 7th at the 1981 Canada Cup,
Mikhailov: 1st at the 75/76 Super Series, 1st at the 79/80 Super Series, 3rd at the 1972 Summit Series, 9th at the 1979 Challenge Cup
Zhluktov: 1st at the 82/83 Super Series, 3rd at the 1979 Challenge Cup, 3rd at the 79/80 Super Series, 4th at the 75/76 Super Series, Tied for 4th at the 1976 Canada Cup, 5th at the 1981 Canada Cup
Bykov: 2nd at the 1987 Canada Cup, 2nd at the 88/89 Super Series, 3rd at the 1987 Rendezvous, 4th at the 85/86 Super Series, 7th at the 82/83 Super Series
Petrov: 2nd at the 1972 Summit Series, 2nd at the 75/76 Super Series, 4th at the 79/80 Super Series, 5th at the 1979 Challenge Cup
Khomutov: 3rd at the 85/86 Super Series, Tied for 3rd at the 1987 Canada Cup, 3rd at the 88/89 Super Series, 5th at the 1987 Rendezvous

Considering how incredibly well the Soviet penalty kill generally was doing in Best-on-Best competitions it does to me make sense that the best Soviet penalty killers should rank pretty high on a list of the top penalty killers from this time frame. Exactly how high is very difficult to say though.

And regarding the use of the Soviet players on the penalty kill in the ATD I would also say that it largely depends on what style of penalty killing the team is planning to use considering how much the Soviet penalty killing system was built on puck possession. If your plan is to play a very strict boxplay where the puck is dumped down deep at every opportunity then there are probably better options than the top Soviet penalty killers. However if you plan to use the puck possession tactic as an integral part of your penalty killing then I think that the top Soviet penalty killers are great options since the goal differential numbers here above clearly shows how effective they could be when playing that style. The Czechoslovakian penalty killing system on the other hand used more of a hybrid between the puck possession tactic and the more strict boxplay tactic so when it comes to those players I don´t think that this matters as much.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I'm glad you responded. I appreciate the work you've done on the player, and I know Taylor spent about 1/3 of his career as a CP, but were any of those peak seasons? How would he rank among the best players in the world at the time, while he was still playing CP? I know he was widely considered the best player in the world (or co-best with Lalonde) when he was a rover.

Cyclone Taylor on D is unusual, you had to expect you would have to defend the move

Oh I absolutely am ready and expected to defend the move.

My 2019 bio and the current vision have a ton of quotes from his pre-Vancouver days talking passively about his star power out East.

The Globe and Mail
30 Dec 1909
The Stanley cup is the ambition of millionaire owners of the Renfrew club and as Taylor's jump has left a bad hole in the Ottawa team it would not be all all surprising to see the famous trophy come to Renfrew in the spring.Taylor is recognized by hockey experts as the greatest player in the game.

14 Oct 1912

Art Ross, Didier Pitre and "Cyclone" Taylor, three of the the greatest players in Canadian hockey seem may be seen in the linup of the coast teams this season

11 Dec 1912

Fred Taylor, the sensation of the NHA for many years, stood head and shoulders above every other player.

23 Mar 1911

Fred Taylor, the Renfrew star, over whom there was a long wrangle as to whether he should play or not, when Ottawa substituted him for Fred Lake, after the Wanderers had scored twice in the first period, was the most spectacular man on the ice. For cleverness in carrying the puck down the rink his equal has never been seen here. A giant almost in stature he brought the crowd to its feet whenever he started down the ice, Taylor captivated his audience and was warmly applauded after each rush.

Offensive Resume at Cover-Point
1907-08 ECAHA - He's first in D scoring. Moose Johnson is a LW for the wanderers. 1st among D, 17th overall
1908-09 ECHA - He's tied Smail in D scoring. 1st among D, 9th overall
1909-10 NHA - I can't see any confirmed D ahead of him. 2nd in D scoring, 24th overall. Bobby Rowe played RW for Renfrew and Lester was the rover, Pitre played CP
1910-11 NHA - I can't see anyone who was D this season ahead of him. 1st/2nd in D scoring and 9th overall. Pitre played Rover and CP this season

Among D
1, 1, 2, 1

League-Wide
9, 10, 17, 24

Offensive Resume at Rover
1912-13 - 6th league wide
1914-15 - 1st in the league over teammate in less GP
1915-16 - 1st in the league, nearest teammate is 14 points back
1916-17 - Misses over half the season, still finishes 9th in scoring. His PPG in line with his career would have him league in scoring again

League-Wide
1, 1, 6, 9* (appendicitis almost killed him, modern medicine is a god send)

Offensive Resume at Center
1913 14 - 1st in the league, nearest teammate is 19 points back
1917-18 - 1st in the league, beats nearest teammate by 25 points
1918-19 - 1st in the league, beats nearest teammate by 10 points
1919-20 - 11th league wide

League-Wide
1, 1, 1

Edit: Ultimately he posted more eye-popping numbers as a R/C out west, but depictions of his all around ability come from his time out East and his star power is largely consistent throughout his career. I assume he was placed at rover partially because the Millionaires already had Patrick and Griffis who played P and CP and rarely if ever anywhere else. Also Taylor was really good at rover because of his skating coupled with the loosening of passing rules

 

[The Macho King]

The problem with Tommy Phillips is that he only played 1 season in a competitive hockey league (the ECAHA in 1907-08). Here's how he did:

Edit: the numbers are games played and goals scored (no official record of assists)

Russell Bowie	Victorias	10	31
Marty Walsh	Ottawa	9	28
Tommy Phillips	Ottawa	10	26
Charles Power	Quebec	10	23
Herb Jordan	Quebec	8	22
Ernie Russell	Wanderers	9	21

That's good... but it's really hard to say just how good.

The MHL was a far lesser league, and Phillips didn't even really dominate it.

He was centered by low-end HHOFer Billy McGimsie for the Rat Portage / Kenora Thistles for 1904-05 and 1905-06. Here is how their stats compared those two seasons combined:

Phillips 50 goals in 17 games
McGimsie 49 goals in 17 games

Based on descriptions of their skillsets, it would seem likely that McGimsie was actually a better playmaker than Phillips, while Phillips was a far better two-way player.

Basically, Tommy Phillips gets a big fat "incomplete" as a regular season player.

Now, Phillips was a pretty dominant player in competitive Stanley Cup Challenges (as seventieslord's study reproduced in the ATD Phillips bios since showed), and that's where his legacy was really made. But how exactly do we evaluate him fully? Should we look at him like we would a 1970s or 1980s European player, where the regular season was basically a glorified exhibition schedule for the real games (international play / Cup challenges)? Or should we look at him like a mediocre regular season scorer, who was clutch in the playoffs? Hard player to evaluate.

I once used Phillips on a top line of my ATD team in a 40 team draft. And I felt his offense was pretty weak for the role, but that was a LW lock team with the Richard bros, so I thought he fit.

My best guess as to Phillips' offense is to look at him as a defense-first guy who is a good enough scorer to not totally kill a scoring line, but not a top scorer himself. But YMMV on that one.

There are a ton of quotes - both contemporary and significantly post playing career - that touts Phillips' shot as elite. I'll agree he can't be the best offensive player on a line, but for my team... he isn't. He's going to use his speed as a forechexker and backchecker, and he's going to be an opportunistic scorer. And he (along with his linemates) bring playoff bone fides in spades.

As to how to evaluate him - in the pre-professional era I think you have to do your best to fill in the gaps similar to how we treat soviets/euros, and by virtue of no video, a heavy weight on contemporary accounts. Admittedly that's to my benefit right now, but I think this also holds true for guys like Hod Stuart.

 

[tinyzombies]

.

Defense:

Fetisov-Doughty is a great pair in terms of talent. I'm not convinced the fit is as air tight as some might suggest. I've always felt Doughty's best attributes were his ability to join the rush and move the puck. Where he left me wanting more was physicality and consistency as a defender. He could be an absolute unit there but also fleeting throughout the career arc. Given Fetisov's own style, I'd probably have opted for someone a bit more conservative as you want Slava to be the guy moving the puck, orchestrating from the back end, free to roam. Doughty is a 2 way defender but one I think has more value moving forward. Again, this is a STRONG pairing simply based on the 2 names/resumes. Slight worry that it could be exposed a bit more than other top pairings in the league defensively speaking, though one does have to remember the defensive strength you have down the middle in the top 9. Can't overlook them.

Doughty 21-22

16-17 the year after his Norris:

 

[ImporterExporter]

Doughty 21-22
View attachment 521294

16-17 the year after his Norris:
View attachment 521299

Obviously the advanced analytics aren't to be taken as gospel, as there are more and more of them coming out in recent years and there isn't always a clear consensus, but this one pretty much mirrors how I've seen Doughty on the whole. I always thought his skating was very strong, and again, transition/moving/passing the puck being his preeminent skill set, though is raw offensive totals were always stymied under Sutter. Defensively, can be great, can be bad, not nearly as consistent a performer, from season to season. His special teams usage is certainly slanted towards the PP as well, especially in the playoffs.

I still like the pairing in an overall sense, quite a lot. I'm a huge Fetisov fan, thanks in large part to the contributions of our Euro friends and more video coming out on YT. Slava is a great defensive player, and Doughty capable of playing at that level as well. I just think their primary, defining strengths overlap and obviously there is only 1 puck to move. You definitely don't want to take the puck away from Fetisov as an engineer so Day will be of great use in getting more from Doughty defensively and of course HT has incredibly strong defensive C's to absorb some of the responsibility in covering up as well.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Just glancing at things here...feel free to disregard.

Re: Doughty. I really liken him to Ray Bourque, except for the recent bad Kings years, when Doughty didn't care. Don't care Doughty is poor defensively. But his best was really good. Doughty and Bourque have similarities to me in their play style, including the occasional defensive embarrassments that Bourque doesn't get charged with nearly enough. But again, like Bourque, at their best they were excellent two-way defensemen.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Winnipeg Victorias

Coach: Fred Shero

Baldy Northcott --- Sidney Crosby (C) --- Jaromir Jagr
Doug Bentley --- Evgeni Malkin --- Bill Mosienko
Alexander Yakushev --- Gilbert Perreault --- Ziggy Palffy
Wendel Clark --- Joe Primeau --- Frank Finnigan
Steve Shutt - Peter Bondra

Borje Salming - Art Coulter (A)
Scott Niedermayer (A) - Sylvio Mantha
Hap Day - Bullet Joe Simpson
Sandis Ozolinsh

Terry Sawchuk
Pekka Rinne

PP1: Simpson --- Palffy --- Malkin --- Crosby --- Jagr
PP2: Salming --- Bentley --- Mosienko --- Perreault --- Yakushev
PK1: Niedermayer --- Coulter --- Northcott --- Clark
PK2: Day --- Mantha --- Primeau --- Finnigan

The thing I like about this team the most is the puck poise and possession ability of the forward group. Once they get it, I don't see how you're gonna get it back. Other than a Malkin or Bentley or Palffy potential over play or Clark's tunnel vision (he wouldn't make this team I don't think), this team seems impossible to get puck from when it gets to its forward group. Not a lot of two way play obviously, but if they get it, they keep it. I can respect that.

Niedermayer and Salming can hold it too, for that matter. This team can score.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Coach: Scotty Bowman
Captain: Guy Carbonneau
Assistant: Larry Robinson
Assistant: Duncan Keith

#15 Bert Olmstead - #10 Syl Apps - #5 Bernard Geoffrion
#14 Brendan Shanahan - #12 Adam Oates - #16 Brett Hull
#26 Brian Propp - #27 Jeremy Roenick - #8 Punch Broadbent
#11 Marty Pavelich - #21 Guy Carbonneau - #18 Dany Gare
#22 Henrik Sedin - #81 Phil Kessell


#19 Larry Robinson - #56 Sergei Zubov
#2 Duncan Keith - #7 Vitali Davydov
#3 Vladimir Lutchenko - #88 Brent Burns
#5 Ott Heller

#33 Patrick Roy
#1 Jiri Holecek

Powerplay #1
#14 Brendan Shanahan - #12 Adam Oates - #16 Brett Hull
#5 Bernard Geoffrion - #56 Sergei Zubov

Powerplay #2
#15 Bert Olmstead - #10 Syl Apps - #8 Punch Broadbent
#88 Brent Burns - #2 Duncan Keith

Penalty Kill #1
#21 - Guy Carbonneau - #11 Marty Pavelich
#19 Larry Robinson - #2 Duncan Keith

Penalty Kill #2
#10 Syl Apps - #26 Brian Propp
#3 Vladimir Lutchenko - #56 Sergei Zubov

#14 Brendan Shanahan - #12 Adam Oates - #16 Brett Hull

That's such a great line combination.

Conversely, I really wonder about the top line's skating ability. Does plugging Roenick up to 1LW help? Maybe, but I don't know how that would be viewed here.

Zubov was a really good puck carrier at his peek in a league year but I'm not sure if he's good enough for this stage (legitimately, I don't know).

Vitaly Davydov is a zero. A small, unproductive (smart player, but there's no way he can be good enough for this, right?) d-man playing on his off-side? I've seen him get posterized by 1964 Team Canada which is a bunch of nobodies...playing second pair here seems like a nightmare to me. But maybe it's a blindspot for me...

The defense can skate, but the ones that skate the best don't defend very well and the forwards don't offer enough pace for me. That Shanny-Oates-Hull line is an automatic goal per game at this level, but what are the rest of those guys gonna do?

 

[Michael Farkas]

Orillia Terriers

Toe Blake

Frank Mahovlich - Bobby Clarke "C" - Gordie Drillon
Jamie Benn - Duke Keats - Patrick Kane
Woody Dumart - Norm Ullman - Claude Provost
Tony Leswick - Ryan Kesler - Wayne Cashman

Zdeno Chara "A" - Eddie Shore
Roman Josi - Shea Weber "A"
Babe Pratt - Bob Baun

Turk Broda
Hap Holmes

Spares:
Phil Watson, C/RW
Ken Randall, D/RW/C
Jack Marshall, D/C/LW

PP1: Clarke-Drillon-Keats-Kane-Shore
PP2: Ullman-Benn-Mahovlich-Josi-Weber

PK1: Kesler-Provost-Chara-Baun
PK2: Ullman-Dumart-Weber-Shore
— Bobby Clarke won’t be a regular PKer, mainly just in an attempt to keep his ice time reasonable, but he will PK at the most high leverage times.

Frank Mahovlich is one of the most underrated players on this board imo. I don't know where you got him, but putting him with a playmaking worker bee in Clarke is a great idea. That duo will be tough to stop if the Big M is even playing at 60% pace. Really smart to not "waste" Kane with those guys.

I don't know Keats all that well, I'm aware of his pre-consolidation exploits, but not like the back of my hand. Outside of Kane, those other three lines leave me wondering what's gonna happen...Provost isn't more than a 4th liner at this level. I used to have more time for him, but going back and watching, he was just a good player...nothing special.

Chara and Shore will probably mesh well like Shore and Hitchman did. Shore can play his rambunctious, high-event style and Chara can hold it down. Roman Josi is an astute add, and another excellent multi-line puck carrier to account for all of the players, particularly in the bottom six, that can't carry the puck very well...I don't know if you'll get credit for Josi's 1st or 2nd place finish for the Norris this year or not, but he's having an unreal season on a team with a bunch of [just some guys]...

I'm not sure what the power play formations are going to be tactically, but there aren't a lot of real high power shots here except for on the back line...hopefully they get utilized. I don't think Jamie Benn can play on the power play at this level, but I also don't know what else you can do...Kesler in front? I don't know...

Turk Broda is probably a little underrated here.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Gallifrey TARDIS

First Line: Valeri Kharlamov-Wayne Gretzky(C)-Boris Mikhailov
Second Line: Bill Barber-Bill Cowley-Vladimir Martinec
Third Line: Reg Noble(A)-Nels Stewart-Vaclav Nedomansky
Fourth Line: John Tonelli-Cooney Weiland-Bobby Rousseau

First Pair: Rod Langway(A)-Al MacInnis
Second Pair: Tom Johnson-Alexei Kasatonov
Third Pair: Alexander Ragulin-Joe Hall

First PP Unit
Stewart
Kharlamov-Gretzky-Martinec
MacInnis
Second PP Unit
Mikhailov
Barber-Cowley-Rousseau
Kasatanov

First PK Unit: Gretzky-Mikhailov-Langway-MacInnis
Second PK Unit: Weiland-Barber-Johnson-Hall

Goalie: Bill Durnan, George Hainsworth

Spares: Ted Green(D), Joe Nieuwendyk (C), Vic Stasiuk (W)

Coach: Glen Sather

Notes: The "second" and "third" lines should be considered on a par, as they are intended to receive very similar ice times. In late game situations where additional offense is required, the line labeled second will see an increase in ice time at the expense of the line labeled third. In cases where additional defense is required, the reverse will be true. In those situations, the right wings will be swapped. In late game cases where defense is particularly important, the fourth line will receive additional ice time, and that line will also take particularly important defensive draws throughout the game (followed by a quick line change when possible in those situations).​

I like some of this a lot. I feel like it's missing a top 9 forward. But that's probably the "I got Gretzky" penalty. So I'd double him up whenever I could. Like maybe slide Nels Stewart up sometimes and put Gretzky with Ned or something just to get him some extra ice time.

Martinec is a gamebreaker. When you go back and see, he's a player. This team feels pretty balanced for having Gretzky. I was gonna talk some trash on Bill Barber and Reg Noble, but Barber with Cowley is fine because that's a similar level of passer that he worked with and Noble probably wouldn't have been as highly regarded if he had played in a consolidated league, but that's just a gut feeling more than anything...

It's a shame Rousseau can't feature a little more prominently. I like him. He's an outstanding 4RW for this level I think.

I bet your goalies weren't that good, but because of circumstances HoH like them a lot. But I don't think nearly as highly of Durnan as his award list or as Hainsworth as his -1.20 GAA or whatever he had, when hockey was played on thumbtacks. I wish there was more film on Durnan, but I don't get the sense he was great.

 

[Michael Farkas]

Coach: Ken Hitchcock
Captain: Raymond Bourque
Assistant Captain: Ted Lindsay
Assistant Captain: Keith Tkachuk
Assistant Captain: Mark Howe

#7 Ted Lindsay (A) - #19 Bryan Trottier - #9 Andy Bathgate
#20 Luc Robitaille - #91 Sergei Fedorov - #17 Steven Stamkos
#8 Keith Tkachuk (A) - #14 Jean Ratelle - #11 Mike Gartner
#10 Esa Tikkanen - #29 Joel Otto - #22 Claude Lemieux

Extras: #16 Joe Pavelski, #24 Bernie Federko

#77 Raymond Bourque (C) - #2 Mark Howe (A)
#55 Larry Murphy - #3 Harry Howell
#16 Vladimir Konstantinov - #27 Alex Pietrangelo

Extra: #58 Kris Letang

#30 Ed Belfour
#1 Roberto Luongo

Powerplay #1
#7 Ted Lindsay - #19 Bryan Trottier - #20 Luc Robitaille
#17 Steven Stamkos - #77 Raymond Bourque

Powerplay #2
#8 Keith Tkachuk - #91 Sergei Fedorov - #9 Andy Bathgate
#55 Larry Murphy - #2 Mark Howe

Penalty Kill #1
#91 Sergei Fedorov - #10 Esa Tikkanen
#77 Raymond Bourque - #2 Mark Howe

Penalty Kill #2
#29 Joel Otto - #22 Claude Lemieux
#16 Vladimir Konstantinov - #3 Harry Howell​

At first I really liked this team, it's well balanced. I'd probably do some different stuff with the lines. The two-way centers throughout the lineup is real nice and complement the two-way d-men here. I think Konstantinov gets overrated big time, he was a very flawed player...but with Letang there, I don't mind.

That 4th line sucks to play against. That's a playoff line. But speaking of playoffs, this is Team Playoff Ghost, eh? Bathgate, Tkachuk, Gartner, Stamkos is the worst playoff player of this generation...I mean, that's a lot of empty shells for Trottier and Fedorov to drag around.

I wonder if the top-six can be re-arranged a bit to get the gamebreakers setup a little better. Lindsay doesn't get enough discredit here for how relatively little structure he had in his game. He worked his bag off, but he was rushed into the league because of the War and his mental game leaves a lot to be desired. Trottier can probably use him, but that hockey sense disparity can sometimes be tough...

Similarly, I might re-arrange the top-4 D. Maximize multi-line puck carriers, especially if that top line doesn't change...though that comes from a place of me underrating Bathgate's playmaking ability and that I don't know much about his NZ transition game, so that's on me...

I really like Belfour.

 

[ImporterExporter]

@Mike Farkas Thank you for taking the time to come in and give your opinions on the rosters posted. Much appreciated!

 

[seventieslord]

It won't matter for anything other than to satisfy your curiosity, but I plan on posting a short paragraph on every team, sticking mostly to areas where I felt they were top 4 or bottom 4 in the league. It'll be critical, yes, but I don't think you all need to be told your first line is good and your second line is good another time.