Is 4 Nations a “Best on Best”?

[heksagon]

Alright, if we're gonna hype up real life NHL third liners I think we're just making my point. Guys like Lehkonen, Lundell, Armia, Granlund, Kakko, Teravainen, Laine are wildly behind the equivalent players for the other notable countries in a best on best setting.

Finland has Barkov who is great, Rantanen who is great and Aho who is very good. After that, it drops off rather quickly and thus they'll basically have rely heavily on one scoring line and then trying to muck it up with the rest that just prays the goaltending can hold it together. Similar story on defense, if Heiskanen can play a full 60, great (well as is, he won't play at all) and then after that, again, just try and survive shifts and move on.

And you are proving my point about you being clueless about Finnish players if you think guys like Lehkonen and Granlund are wildly behind others. They have been deployed as top line forwards all season long and average over 20 minutes a game. They are absolutely comparable or better than some of the forwards Russia would ice. (We were always talking about Finland vs Russia, not sure why the other notable countries matter.) Could also mention Hintz being Dallas' leading goal scorer and Teräväinen being Hawks' second best scorer after Bedard. On defense Lindell and Mikkola are unspectacular but very solid, Heiskanen doesn't have to play 60 minutes.

Lets compare the possible centers deployment and importantly, faceoff-%:

Sebastian Aho-------55 20+35=55--TOI: 20:11--FOW%: 55.6
Aleksander Barkov--47 14+38=52--TOI: 20:18--FOW%: 59.4
Mikael Granlund----56 15+34=49--TOI: 20:36--FOW%: 48.3
Roope Hintz---------51 22+14=36--TOI: 16:55--FOW%: 54.8
Anton Lundell-------59 13+23=36--TOI: 16:46--FOW%: 51.6

Evgeni Malkin-------47 9+25=34---TOI: 18:03--FOW%: 42.4
Ivan Barbashev------46 15+19=34--TOI: 17:03--FOW%: 36.8
Pavel Buchnevich---54 11+23=34--TOI: 18:57--FOW%: 36.6
V. Namestnikov-----52 10+19=29--TOI: 14:55--FOW%: 45.8
Khusnutnidov-------53 2+5=7------TOI: 11:11--FOW%: 44.5 (honestly struggled to find other centers without making the faceoff situation even worse)

Both Barbashev and Buchnevich play a lot on the wing for obvious reasons, but would probably have to play center for Russia. I guess if you included KHL players they could choose Kuznetsov, but not sure that makes it much better.

Russia would bleed faceoff wins so hard. It's true that centers are not the only important thing, but they do matter a lot for possession and overall play. Russia does win wingers obviously and clearly, but they would get less of the puck.

Russia has more pure talent, but I think you are underestimating crucial factors if you think Russia would be that much better on the ice.

 

[sr edler]

It's not a best-on-best, but it's not necessarily just about Russia. The Czechs must be there as well, also the Swiss and Germans, for the purpose of depth. Also, players care more about the Olympics than fabricated NA tourneys because of the experience, camaraderie, atmosphere and history. This is not my opinion, but straight from the horse's own mouth.

Russia would not win a best-on-best tourney anyways, probably not even medal, just way too unbalanced roster.

 

[WarriorofTime]

And you are proving my point about you being clueless about Finnish players if you think guys like Lehkonen and Granlund are wildly behind others. They have been deployed as top line forwards all season long and average over 20 minutes a game. They are absolutely comparable or better than some of the forwards Russia would ice. (We were always talking about Finland vs Russia, not sure why the other notable countries matter.) Could also mention Hintz being Dallas' leading goal scorer and Teräväinen being Hawks' second best scorer after Bedard. On defense Lindell and Mikkola are unspectacular but very solid, Heiskanen doesn't have to play 60 minutes.

Lets compare the possible centers deployment and importantly, faceoff-%:

Sebastian Aho 55 20+35=55 TOI: 20:11 FOW%: 55.6
Aleksander Barkov 47 14+38=52 TOI: 20:18 FOW%: 59.4
Mikael Granlund 56 15+34=49 TOI: 20:36 FOW%: 48.3
Roope Hintz 51 22+14=36 TOI: 16:55 FOW%: 54.8
Anton Lundell 59 13+23=36 TOI: 16:46 FOW%: 51.6

Evgeni Malkin 47 9+25=34 TOI: 18:03 FOW%: 42.4
Ivan Barbashev 46 15+19=34 TOI: 17:03 FOW%: 36.8
Pavel Buchnevich 54 11+23=34 TOI: 18:57 FOW%: 36.6
V. Namestnikov 52 10+19=29 TOI: 14:55 FOW%: 45.8
Khusnutnidov 53 2+5=7 TOI: 11:11 FOW%: 44.5 (honestly struggled to find other centers without making the faceoff situation even worse)

Both Barbashev and Buchnevich play a lot on the wing for obvious reasons, but would probably have to play center for Russia. I guess if you included KHL players they could choose Kuznetsov, but not sure that makes it much better.

Russia would bleed faceoff wins so hard. It's true that centers are not the only important thing, but they do matter a lot for possession and overall play. Russia does win wingers obviously and clearly, but they would get less of the puck.

Russia has more pure talent, but I think you are underestimating crucial factors if you think Russia would be that much better on the ice.

Right, Russia not that great at faceoffs, etc. I agree. But also let's remember we were originally talking about overall caliber of NHL players, not just "on any given day", which we should consider Russia would have as good a shot at "stealing a game" against any team up to and including Canada because they have strong options in goaltending. You seem to entirely dismiss Wing entirely and think it's "Barkov + Aho = $$$" but Centers without great Wingers (ok, Rantanen makes one) won't lead to much scoring. In Florida, Barkov has Tkachuk and Reinhart on his team, so it's not like he won a Cup by himself.

I agree Finland had stronger options at 1C, 2C and 1D. But I would give Russian an edge everywhere else. As you said, Finland's issues on defensive depth makes them really hard to trust against any country better than Czechia. And the goaltending woes of the Finnish options this year is another factor hard to hand wave.

 

[ForsbergForever]

The rosters of all four nations are filled with their respective best players, therefore by definition it is best on best.

People saying it's not because no Russia or Czechia are just drawing lines in the sand.

 

[heksagon]

Right, Russia not that great at faceoffs, etc. I agree. But also let's remember we were originally talking about overall caliber of NHL players, not just "on any given day", which we should consider Russia would have as good a shot at "stealing a game" against any team up to and including Canada because they have strong options in goaltending. You seem to entirely dismiss Wing entirely and think it's "Barkov + Aho = $$$" but Centers without great Wingers (ok, Rantanen makes one) won't lead to much scoring. In Florida, Barkov has Tkachuk and Reinhart on his team, so it's not like he won a Cup by himself.

I agree Finland had stronger options at 1C, 2C and 1D. But I would give Russian an edge everywhere else. As you said, Finland's issues on defensive depth makes them really hard to trust against any country better than Czechia. And the goaltending woes of the Finnish options this year is another factor hard to hand wave.

I agree with many of your points, but the original comment I had issue with was just:

"No, because Russia is better than Finland, so it’s not even best teams against best teams."

I don't think we have proof that Russia would ice a better team than Finland, which is what I was analyzing. I think it would be very even currently, with historical results being on Finland's side, if you even consider them relevant. I could definitely see either one winning.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Yeah these other sports can try as they might to recreate a FIFA World Cup type of thing, but they always fall short. The Olympic Football Tournament didn't have real prestige behind it until 1924, so there was not a long history to that point. Following the first World Cup, Football was dropped from the Olympics in 1932 and by the time it returned in 1936, it had lost its prestige. So FIFA essentially did make a coup for it that was successful, but it would be much harder to do with a new event in a different sport given the fairly extensive histories involved as well as interconnectedness of the world today.

Also it is notable that FIFA is at least the governing body of international football. The NHL is just a domestic league. If the IIHF came out with a new best on best event that put the Olympics aside, it's a bit different than the hollow NHL invitationals that are easier to sniff out as cash grabs.

It's all about the money though.

In soccer (football) there are multiple domestic leagues, and no individual league has that much clout. Even the EPL, the obvious #1 league, still has Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, etc. So FIFA is able to set up the World Cup using its own rules - and keeping all the money.

Hockey though the NHL is so much more massive than any other league. Much bigger than the KHL, SHL, Liiga, etc. So the NHL has no interest in trying to share the money from a World Cup-type event. Which is why the Four Nations is set up the way it is. If the IIHF tried to set up its own World Cup it would just get ignored - much the same way the World Championships are.

 

[WarriorofTime]

It's all about the money though.

In soccer (football) there are multiple domestic leagues, and no individual league has that much clout. Even the EPL, the obvious #1 league, still has Bundesliga, La Liga, Serie A, etc. So FIFA is able to set up the World Cup using its own rules - and keeping all the money.

Hockey though the NHL is so much more massive than any other league. Much bigger than the KHL, SHL, Liiga, etc. So the NHL has no interest in trying to share the money from a World Cup-type event. Which is why the Four Nations is set up the way it is. If the IIHF tried to set up its own World Cup it would just get ignored - much the same way the World Championships are.

Yes, for another comparable, the NBA has tried to run an "In-Season Tournament" with whatever name, NBA Cup, the last couple of seasons. Some shills fans responding to criticism, will point out that the English Football System has the FA Cup, which even if it not considered as big a deal as the EPL League Title is still considered prestigious, so why should this be any different. Ultimately, there is not a clear answer, other than the FA Cup has existed all the way back since 1871, involves teams across multiple levels and there was something to it before a league decided it needed to find a new way to try and suck more $ out of its most devoted consumer base.

 

[Yukon Joe]

Yes, for another comparable, the NBA has tried to run an "In-Season Tournament" with whatever name, NBA Cup, the last couple of seasons. Some shills fans responding to criticism, will point out that the English Football System has the FA Cup, which even if it not considered as big a deal as the EPL League Title is still considered prestigious, so why should this be any different. Ultimately, there is not a clear answer, other than the FA Cup has existed all the way back since 1871, involves teams across multiple levels and there was something to it before a league decided it needed to find a new way to try and suck more $ out of its most devoted consumer base.

I'm not really a soccer guy, but what makes the FA Cup kind of cool is that it is played across different levels of soccer. It would be like some men's senior hockey team going up against an NHL squad. Otherwise I don't think EPL fans really care who wins the FA Cup.

In-Season Tournament isn't all that great - but at least it gives some extra excitement to what are otherwise some fairly boring early-season games.

 

[Lumber]

No. Russia should be included now and the United States dropped as they have declared war on the rest of the world in their own self interest.

 

[Voight]

Technically no because it’s a 4-team invitational without open qualification. But it is marketed as such as the four teams have fill nhl player availability.

Finland just barely being able to, which I think most saw coming. When you limit it to NHL players only and injuries happen.

It can't be best on best when two of the top six hockey nations are absent, as is one of the top two Hart candidates (Drai) as well as the guy on pace to lead the league in scoring (Kucherov).

They should've had something like an "Eastern Europe" team with Russia and Belarus (even if Protas and Sharangovich would be the only Belarussians to make it) since I know there can't technically be a Team Russia. I'd also have a Czechia-Slovakia team and a Europe team to fit in Swiss and German players. And that North America idea from the last World Cup would be great too, then we could see Celebrini and Bedard on the same team as a glimpse into the future. And just do a single-elimination tournament so that nobody plays more than three games.

Ehh no thanks. They did the gimmick team thing once already.

 

[Sasha Orlov]

No, many of the best players in the world are not playing

 

[Appleyard]

The rosters of all four nations are filled with their respective best players, therefore by definition it is best on best.

People saying it's not because no Russia or Czechia are just drawing lines in the sand.

If Finland could pick from Euro leagues their roster would probably be 25-30% different...

 

[Ducati Boy]

A lot of this discussion is down to semantic issues.

Are all the best players in the world there? No.

Are the four teams participating the best 4 teans? Arguably. ( Russia blah blah.)

Are those four teams participating icing their best teams? Yes.

Seems to me to meet the criteria for best-on-best. 4 best teams with their best players.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

I’m sure it’s posted elsewhere…but I’m lazy.

It's absolutely not the best on best. The best players weren't even chosen for this when you look at the joke of a roster Canada picked. That goalie situation might be the worse in this tournament and apparently it's because of egos that they didn't pick the better options.

Laughable.

Then there's the fact that Finland and Sweden have players that are very good over seas. Slovakia and Czechia aren't even in this. It's a farce of a best on best.

Also I get why Russia isn't included but if you allow Russian players in the NHL, you have to let them play under an independent flag so they can participate. You can't sit on the fence, banning Russia was the right move, but allowing players to play or be drafted from that country, you can't ignore them if they're in the NHL. You maybe keep the ones in the KHL banned from participating. But the ones in the NHL should be allowed to play as a "team" and there's more than enough to ice a roster.

 

[Albatros]

Are those four teams participating icing their best teams? Yes.

Finland has defensemen that even their own mothers wouldn't take over Lehtonen & co.

 

[trader997]

It's absolutely not the best on best. The best players weren't even chosen for this when you look at the joke of a roster Canada picked. That goalie situation might be the worse in this tournament and apparently it's because of egos that they didn't pick the better options.

Laughable.

Then there's the fact that Finland and Sweden have players that are very good over seas. Slovakia and Czechia aren't even in this. It's a farce of a best on best.

Also I get why Russia isn't included but if you allow Russian players in the NHL, you have to let them play under an independent flag so they can participate. You can't sit on the fence, banning Russia was the right move, but allowing players to play or be drafted from that country, you can't ignore them if they're in the NHL. You maybe keep the ones in the KHL banned from participating. But the ones in the NHL should be allowed to play as a "team" and there's more than enough to ice a roster.

It was mentionned multiple times that Finland and Sweden would withdraw from the 4 nations if Russia was participating. You attack a sovereign state and violate international laws, you pay the price.

 

[Ducati Boy]

There are posters here claiming that it’s not best-on-best because teams like the Swiss or the Slovaks are not playing. They’re conflating best-in-best with ‘world championships’.

There are posters claiming it’s not best on best because they don’t agree with roster choices.

There are posters claiming it’s not best on best because the Finns might be able to upgrade their 4th line and #5/6 DF by picking from Euro leagues.

There are posters claiming it’s not best in best because some excellent players from weaker countries are not playing. Newsflash: hockey is a team sport.

The only legit argument is the absence of Russia. The rest is grasping at straws.

 

[trader997]

There are posters here claiming that it’s not best-on-best because teams like the Swiss or the Slovaks are not playing. They’re conflating best-in-best with ‘world championships’.

There are posters claiming it’s not best on best because they don’t agree with roster choices.

There are posters claiming it’s not best on best because the Finns might be able to upgrade their 4th line and #5/6 DF by picking from Euro leagues.

There are posters claiming it’s not best in best because some excellent players from weaker countries are not playing. Newsflash: hockey is a team sport.

The only legit argument is the absence of Russia. The rest is grasping at straws.

You summed it up perfectly!

 

[SeanMoneyHands]

Best on best with a guy like Seth Jarvis? No.

 

[nowhereman]

Outside of the Russia disqualification (for obvious reasons), this is clearly a best-on-best tournament. Unless someone actually thinks the Slovaks or Germans are a top 3 team?

Best on best with a guy like Seth Jarvis? No.

So, if this was the Olympics, they would have picked a better player?

Okay.

 

[frontsfan67]

Can’t have a best on best without Russia who would likely beat Finland and Sweden and challenge Canada and the US for the top spot

 

[BelovedIsles]

Wish Russia could compete in these things. That’s a lot of talent missing.

 

[Honour Over Glory]

It was mentionned multiple times that Finland and Sweden would withdraw from the 4 nations if Russia was participating. You attack a sovereign state and violate international laws, you pay the price.

I'm not saying Russia should be included, f*** them for obvious reasons. I'm saying if you ban Russia but allow Russian players to play in the NHL and then hold a tournament of only NHL players and then also leave out 2 countries like Slovakia and Czechia, there's a lot of idiocy in a joke of a tournament like this already. Playing as independent and including the other two would make this compelling, worth watching even.

Like I said before though, if the players that are Russian want to play but as an independent, whatever, to act righteous when there's a bloke the league is wanking about beating a scoring record, that's a massive fan boy of the leader that chose to be an idiot and attack Ukraine, the NHL is already an epic joke, lean in to being the biggest f***ing joke out there. Don't half ass it, whole ass it being a jackass entity. It's 4 Nations that they cherry picked, then the idiots that run the teams chose their "guys" to show off vs picking the players that deserved to be on the team based on performance.

The winner of this tournament means nothing. Absolutely nothing. To not include Czechia and Slovakia, it's a farce.