Ask armati a question

[mandalorian2298]

This is actually more of PM type of question that I just realized you probably know the answer too, but since you made this thread I'll share your wisdom with the masses (you're welcome, masses ).

Has any NHL team ever tried to spread their talent equally between all four lines?
If yes, how did they do?
If no, why the hell not?

[Serbia]

Serbia...
Why do you from time to time ignore your adoring fans?

Lately it's due to the Euro Championships. Games are played throughout the day in my time zone, start times at 9, noon, and 3. As such, I avoid any type of media throughout the day, and watch games on the replay as soon as I get home. This leaves me very little time to then go back in the evening and check all my regular sports sites, news sites, and then finally social media sites, CC included. As such, I've been neglecting my fans. On the weekend though, I can check all sites while watching the games live.

And why dont you take a midol

Don't want to, thanks.

[Serbia]

This is actually more of PM type of question that I just realized you probably know the answer too, but since you made this thread I'll share your wisdom with the masses (you're welcome, masses ).

Has any NHL team ever tried to spread their talent equally between all four lines?
If yes, how did they do?
If no, why the hell not?

Certainly teams have done so. It'll typically be teams with an abundance of talent though. Typically teams don't do this, because each line has a role. Your scoring lines, your checking lines. Also, you usually want similar players playing together. For instance, you'd play your best sniper with your best set-up man, to maximize their talents, along with trying to maximize your scoring. Of course, this sometimes goes wrong, and the opposing team can load up defensively against your top line, while also freeing up your opponent's top line. Because of this, teams will try to split up their stars at times, unless they form a dominant line that can score on literally anyone.

Back to your question, for me, the most recent example of a team spreading it's talent equally over four lines is the 2002 Detroit Red Wings. This team was so deep that they frequently played Luc Robitaille, one of the most prolific left wingers ever, on the fourth line. That team could effectively spread their talent because they had so much talent.

Ultimately, teams always want to play their best players in the most critical situations, so ice time will always be uneven. A team that can truly roll four lines is either a great team, or a team with mediocre talent up and down. This is why a team like Chicago will double shift Toews and Kane, because they are world class players that you need on the ice. And Chicago is deep enough that they can roll four lines effectively, but their 4th line can't match the quality those two provide.

Agree?

[mandalorian2298]

This is actually more of PM type of question that I just realized you probably know the answer too, but since you made this thread I'll share your wisdom with the masses (you're welcome, masses ).

Has any NHL team ever tried to spread their talent equally between all four lines?
If yes, how did they do?
If no, why the hell not?

Certainly teams have done so. It'll typically be teams with an abundance of talent though. Typically teams don't do this, because each line has a role. Your scoring lines, your checking lines. Also, you usually want similar players playing together. For instance, you'd play your best sniper with your best set-up man, to maximize their talents, along with trying to maximize your scoring. Of course, this sometimes goes wrong, and the opposing team can load up defensively against your top line, while also freeing up your opponent's top line. Because of this, teams will try to split up their stars at times, unless they form a dominant line that can score on literally anyone.

Back to your question, for me, the most recent example of a team spreading it's talent equally over four lines is the 2002 Detroit Red Wings. This team was so deep that they frequently played Luc Robitaille, one of the most prolific left wingers ever, on the fourth line. That team could effectively spread their talent because they had so much talent.

Ultimately, teams always want to play their best players in the most critical situations, so ice time will always be uneven. A team that can truly roll four lines is either a great team, or a team with mediocre talent up and down. This is why a team like Chicago will double shift Toews and Kane, because they are world class players that you need on the ice. And Chicago is deep enough that they can roll four lines effectively, but their 4th line can't match the quality those two provide.

Agree?

DISCLAIMER: I have very little knowledge about RL hockey, so if I end up sounding clueless, that's because I probably am.

Firstly, I understand the "normal" division of the lines into two scoring lines, a checking line and the fourth line comprised of B quality players and/or developing youngsters.

The reason why this approach is used is because, as you said, most teams don't have the talent to spread over 4 lines. But, to my understanding, the teams put themselves in this position by spreading a BIG part of their salary space over a handful of players. Look at Chicago, who are going to pay 38.688 M (54% of the 71.4 M cap) to just five skaters (goalies are another story, since in most teams one goalie will play the vast majority of time when the game is still undecided): Kane, Toews, Hossa, Seabrook and Keith. These guys will be on ice roughly 20 minutes each. That's just one third of the game! Also, these elite guys will have to be carefully time-managed or their game is going to suffer from being overworked and they will have to pace themselves in order to last the season so the won't be able to give their 100% effort.
Wouldn't it be more efficient instead to spread the cap and get 21 (all the scaters on the rosters) good/very good players. Let's say that your goalies together get 10 M, and that your AHL players get 3.7 M. If you spread the remaining 56.7 M equally you would have 2.7 M per skater. Of course, you would save some on the guys who are still in their rookie contract and you would pay a little more to a few players, but 2.7 M is a decent pay for a solid non-star player.
My point is that, if you were to build your team like this, you could give all four lines an equal amount of time on ice (and equally spread the PP/PK duties), which would allow your players to press harder throughout the game, thus tiring the opponent's stars which would either lower the quality of their game or force the opponents to give more ice time to their inferior players.
Do you think that this could work in real life?

[riskllama]

i instantly thought of detroit towards the end of the bowman era, as well.
although the early 80's isles may fit this bill, as well. maybe the oilers, too. maybe.
gotta be a habs squad in there, somewheres, too - what with all them cup wins.

[riskllama]

This is actually more of PM type of question that I just realized you probably know the answer too, but since you made this thread I'll share your wisdom with the masses (you're welcome, masses ).

Has any NHL team ever tried to spread their talent equally between all four lines?
If yes, how did they do?
If no, why the hell not?

Certainly teams have done so. It'll typically be teams with an abundance of talent though. Typically teams don't do this, because each line has a role. Your scoring lines, your checking lines. Also, you usually want similar players playing together. For instance, you'd play your best sniper with your best set-up man, to maximize their talents, along with trying to maximize your scoring. Of course, this sometimes goes wrong, and the opposing team can load up defensively against your top line, while also freeing up your opponent's top line. Because of this, teams will try to split up their stars at times, unless they form a dominant line that can score on literally anyone.

Back to your question, for me, the most recent example of a team spreading it's talent equally over four lines is the 2002 Detroit Red Wings. This team was so deep that they frequently played Luc Robitaille, one of the most prolific left wingers ever, on the fourth line. That team could effectively spread their talent because they had so much talent.

Ultimately, teams always want to play their best players in the most critical situations, so ice time will always be uneven. A team that can truly roll four lines is either a great team, or a team with mediocre talent up and down. This is why a team like Chicago will double shift Toews and Kane, because they are world class players that you need on the ice. And Chicago is deep enough that they can roll four lines effectively, but their 4th line can't match the quality those two provide.

Agree?

DISCLAIMER: I have very little knowledge about RL hockey, so if I end up sounding clueless, that's because I probably am.

Firstly, I understand the "normal" division of the lines into two scoring lines, a checking line and the fourth line comprised of B quality players and/or developing youngsters.

The reason why this approach is used is because, as you said, most teams don't have the talent to spread over 4 lines. But, to my understanding, the teams put themselves in this position by spreading a BIG part of their salary space over a handful of players. Look at Chicago, who are going to pay 38.688 M (54% of the 71.4 M cap) to just five skaters (goalies are another story, since in most teams one goalie will play the vast majority of time when the game is still undecided): Kane, Toews, Hossa, Seabrook and Keith. These guys will be on ice roughly 20 minutes each. That's just one third of the game! Also, these elite guys will have to be carefully time-managed or their game is going to suffer from being overworked and they will have to pace themselves in order to last the season so the won't be able to give their 100% effort.
Wouldn't it be more efficient instead to spread the cap and get 21 (all the scaters on the rosters) good/very good players. Let's say that your goalies together get 10 M, and that your AHL players get 3.7 M. If you spread the remaining 56.7 M equally you would have 2.7 M per skater. Of course, you would save some on the guys who are still in their rookie contract and you would pay a little more to a few players, but 2.7 M is a decent pay for a solid non-star player.
My point is that, if you were to build your team like this, you could give all four lines an equal amount of time on ice (and equally spread the PP/PK duties), which would allow your players to press harder throughout the game, thus tiring the opponent's stars which would either lower the quality of their game or force the opponents to give more ice time to their inferior players.
Do you think that this could work in real life?

*moneypuck*

[Serbia]

This is actually more of PM type of question that I just realized you probably know the answer too, but since you made this thread I'll share your wisdom with the masses (you're welcome, masses ).

Has any NHL team ever tried to spread their talent equally between all four lines?
If yes, how did they do?
If no, why the hell not?

Certainly teams have done so. It'll typically be teams with an abundance of talent though. Typically teams don't do this, because each line has a role. Your scoring lines, your checking lines. Also, you usually want similar players playing together. For instance, you'd play your best sniper with your best set-up man, to maximize their talents, along with trying to maximize your scoring. Of course, this sometimes goes wrong, and the opposing team can load up defensively against your top line, while also freeing up your opponent's top line. Because of this, teams will try to split up their stars at times, unless they form a dominant line that can score on literally anyone.

Back to your question, for me, the most recent example of a team spreading it's talent equally over four lines is the 2002 Detroit Red Wings. This team was so deep that they frequently played Luc Robitaille, one of the most prolific left wingers ever, on the fourth line. That team could effectively spread their talent because they had so much talent.

Ultimately, teams always want to play their best players in the most critical situations, so ice time will always be uneven. A team that can truly roll four lines is either a great team, or a team with mediocre talent up and down. This is why a team like Chicago will double shift Toews and Kane, because they are world class players that you need on the ice. And Chicago is deep enough that they can roll four lines effectively, but their 4th line can't match the quality those two provide.

Agree?

DISCLAIMER: I have very little knowledge about RL hockey, so if I end up sounding clueless, that's because I probably am.

Firstly, I understand the "normal" division of the lines into two scoring lines, a checking line and the fourth line comprised of B quality players and/or developing youngsters.

The reason why this approach is used is because, as you said, most teams don't have the talent to spread over 4 lines. But, to my understanding, the teams put themselves in this position by spreading a BIG part of their salary space over a handful of players. Look at Chicago, who are going to pay 38.688 M (54% of the 71.4 M cap) to just five skaters (goalies are another story, since in most teams one goalie will play the vast majority of time when the game is still undecided): Kane, Toews, Hossa, Seabrook and Keith. These guys will be on ice roughly 20 minutes each. That's just one third of the game! Also, these elite guys will have to be carefully time-managed or their game is going to suffer from being overworked and they will have to pace themselves in order to last the season so the won't be able to give their 100% effort.
Wouldn't it be more efficient instead to spread the cap and get 21 (all the scaters on the rosters) good/very good players. Let's say that your goalies together get 10 M, and that your AHL players get 3.7 M. If you spread the remaining 56.7 M equally you would have 2.7 M per skater. Of course, you would save some on the guys who are still in their rookie contract and you would pay a little more to a few players, but 2.7 M is a decent pay for a solid non-star player.
My point is that, if you were to build your team like this, you could give all four lines an equal amount of time on ice (and equally spread the PP/PK duties), which would allow your players to press harder throughout the game, thus tiring the opponent's stars which would either lower the quality of their game or force the opponents to give more ice time to their inferior players.
Do you think that this could work in real life?

The thing with star players is that they're better than the other players. Chicago plays their top five guys because they're great. You want those guys playing more minutes. Looking at Chicago's roster, Andrew Shaw is making 2 M, Marcus Kruger is making 3 M. Shaw played 78 games, scored 14 goals, 34 points; Kruger played 41 games and picked up only 4 assists. Hossa, interestingly, played in only 64 games, scoring only 13 goals, 33 points, so one goal fewer than Shaw, which makes your theory look good. However, Toews played 80 games, 28 goals, 58 points; Kane, well, 46 goals, 106 points. Do you really want Shaw playing as much as Kane?

Of course, your theory is based on having 20 Shaw's on your team, the idea being that you can play them all equally and keep them fresh. The thing is, a young guy like Shaw is capable of playing 20 minutes a game. You just don't want him playing that much, because his talent doesn't dictate that he should. When you

Ok I'm spacign out. Drinking and watching tv at the same time is wrecking my brain. I'll trying again tomrorow.

[iAmCaffeine]

Do you give a shit?

Couple times a day, yes. But I always wipe.

That is not giving a shit. I donate shit to the homeless regularly.

Are the "homeless" the other parts of the Eiffel Tower?

You know I'm not French?

[mandalorian2298]

This is actually more of PM type of question that I just realized you probably know the answer too, but since you made this thread I'll share your wisdom with the masses (you're welcome, masses ).

Has any NHL team ever tried to spread their talent equally between all four lines?
If yes, how did they do?
If no, why the hell not?

Certainly teams have done so. It'll typically be teams with an abundance of talent though. Typically teams don't do this, because each line has a role. Your scoring lines, your checking lines. Also, you usually want similar players playing together. For instance, you'd play your best sniper with your best set-up man, to maximize their talents, along with trying to maximize your scoring. Of course, this sometimes goes wrong, and the opposing team can load up defensively against your top line, while also freeing up your opponent's top line. Because of this, teams will try to split up their stars at times, unless they form a dominant line that can score on literally anyone.

Back to your question, for me, the most recent example of a team spreading it's talent equally over four lines is the 2002 Detroit Red Wings. This team was so deep that they frequently played Luc Robitaille, one of the most prolific left wingers ever, on the fourth line. That team could effectively spread their talent because they had so much talent.

Ultimately, teams always want to play their best players in the most critical situations, so ice time will always be uneven. A team that can truly roll four lines is either a great team, or a team with mediocre talent up and down. This is why a team like Chicago will double shift Toews and Kane, because they are world class players that you need on the ice. And Chicago is deep enough that they can roll four lines effectively, but their 4th line can't match the quality those two provide.

Agree?

DISCLAIMER: I have very little knowledge about RL hockey, so if I end up sounding clueless, that's because I probably am.

Firstly, I understand the "normal" division of the lines into two scoring lines, a checking line and the fourth line comprised of B quality players and/or developing youngsters.

The reason why this approach is used is because, as you said, most teams don't have the talent to spread over 4 lines. But, to my understanding, the teams put themselves in this position by spreading a BIG part of their salary space over a handful of players. Look at Chicago, who are going to pay 38.688 M (54% of the 71.4 M cap) to just five skaters (goalies are another story, since in most teams one goalie will play the vast majority of time when the game is still undecided): Kane, Toews, Hossa, Seabrook and Keith. These guys will be on ice roughly 20 minutes each. That's just one third of the game! Also, these elite guys will have to be carefully time-managed or their game is going to suffer from being overworked and they will have to pace themselves in order to last the season so the won't be able to give their 100% effort.
Wouldn't it be more efficient instead to spread the cap and get 21 (all the scaters on the rosters) good/very good players. Let's say that your goalies together get 10 M, and that your AHL players get 3.7 M. If you spread the remaining 56.7 M equally you would have 2.7 M per skater. Of course, you would save some on the guys who are still in their rookie contract and you would pay a little more to a few players, but 2.7 M is a decent pay for a solid non-star player.
My point is that, if you were to build your team like this, you could give all four lines an equal amount of time on ice (and equally spread the PP/PK duties), which would allow your players to press harder throughout the game, thus tiring the opponent's stars which would either lower the quality of their game or force the opponents to give more ice time to their inferior players.
Do you think that this could work in real life?

*moneypuck*

Sort of, except moneyball, as I understand it, is more about what to look in a player. In hockey you can't do that since you want a different kind of, for example, Centar for your PK then you do for your PP. Also, as Serbia pointed out, you need the set up men and you need the scorers (of course it would be ideal to have a guy who does both, but his price tag would put him out the consideration).

Consider Left Wingers. For 13 M, would you rather have Ovechkin and three 1 M players; or 2 Pavelskis and 2 0.5 M players; OR four Palats, one in every line, playing their heart out each shift?

[notyou2]

Do you give a shit?

Couple times a day, yes. But I always wipe.

That is not giving a shit. I donate shit to the homeless regularly.

Are the "homeless" the other parts of the Eiffel Tower?

I'm sorry, is this question directed at me? THIS IS MY FUCKING THREAD, YOU ASK ME THE QUESTIONS, OR YOU GET OUT.

Howe rude. Sorry for your loss...........

[Serbia]

Howe rude. Sorry for your loss...........

Huge loss. My aunt and uncle attended the memorial at the Joe.

[Serbia]

Consider Left Wingers. For 13 M, would you rather have Ovechkin and three 1 M players; or 2 Pavelskis and 2 0.5 M players; OR four Palats, one in every line, playing their heart out each shift?

Now you're down to availability. Every team in the league would love to have 1 Ovechkin, or 2 Pavelskis. They just aren't there. You want to have a superstar, because the superstar is great. Kane, Crosby, McDavid, they are great players who can score against anyone. You want them. The trick then is on how you build the rest of the team. Chicago has done a good job, Pittsburgh obviously this year; some managers have a talent for it. Then you look at the Rangers from the 90's, who always led the league in payroll and disappointment, because for all the money they spent, the team was never cohesive.

The team you're suggesting is basically the Edmonton Oilers. Low paid, hardworking guys. They have a superstar, but since he's a rookie, he's low paid. Keep that up, and he's gone in a few years to a team that will pay him. Otherwise, you've got players like Draisaitl, Ference, Korpikoski, Yakupov, Maroon, Hendricks, Letestu... decent players, but they're not going to win you a Cup. Source - Sportrac

The last 5 teams to win the Cup are Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and Detroit. Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang, Kane, Toews, Keith, Gaborik, Kopitar, Doughty, Lucic, Rask, Chara, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, Datsyuk. All-Stars. They're important... perhaps even critical.

[riskllama]

hmmm, how about the panthers the year they stumbled into the finals vs. the 'lanche? except for vanbiesbrouck, they were all pretty much johnny lunchpails, weren't they? i think that had more to do with the "trap", tho, iirc...

[Serbia]

hmmm, how about the panthers the year they stumbled into the finals vs. the 'lanche? except for vanbiesbrouck, they were all pretty much johnny lunchpails, weren't they? i think that had more to do with the "trap", tho, iirc...

And how many games did they win in those Finals? Same number I've won.

[riskllama]

did they get swept? was a long time ago, i forget...
all i remember is that krupp scored the winner and...the rats...

[2dimes]

Did you ever roller skate while they played the song Pop Muzik by M on the rink PA?

[Serbia]

did they get swept? was a long time ago, i forget...
all i remember is that krupp scored the winner and...the rats...

Yeah, they got swept. By Peter Forsberg, Joe Sakic, Claude Lemiuex, Adam Foote, and Patrick Roy. So that's another good example.

[Serbia]

Did you ever roller skate while they played the song Pop Muzik by M on the rink PA?

No, I'm not Canadian. What is Pop Muzik by M?

[2dimes]

A hit song in Canada?

[mandalorian2298]

Consider Left Wingers. For 13 M, would you rather have Ovechkin and three 1 M players; or 2 Pavelskis and 2 0.5 M players; OR four Palats, one in every line, playing their heart out each shift?

Now you're down to availability. Every team in the league would love to have 1 Ovechkin, or 2 Pavelskis. They just aren't there. You want to have a superstar, because the superstar is great. Kane, Crosby, McDavid, they are great players who can score against anyone. You want them. The trick then is on how you build the rest of the team. Chicago has done a good job, Pittsburgh obviously this year; some managers have a talent for it. Then you look at the Rangers from the 90's, who always led the league in payroll and disappointment, because for all the money they spent, the team was never cohesive.

The team you're suggesting is basically the Edmonton Oilers. Low paid, hardworking guys. They have a superstar, but since he's a rookie, he's low paid. Keep that up, and he's gone in a few years to a team that will pay him. Otherwise, you've got players like Draisaitl, Ference, Korpikoski, Yakupov, Maroon, Hendricks, Letestu... decent players, but they're not going to win you a Cup. Source - Sportrac

The last 5 teams to win the Cup are Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and Detroit. Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang, Kane, Toews, Keith, Gaborik, Kopitar, Doughty, Lucic, Rask, Chara, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, Datsyuk. All-Stars. They're important... perhaps even critical.

Thank you for your answers. I bow to your superior knowledge of the matter, but I would still like to see someone try to create the Average Joe hockey team. Maybe when Paul DePodesta tires of football?

[Serbia]

Consider Left Wingers. For 13 M, would you rather have Ovechkin and three 1 M players; or 2 Pavelskis and 2 0.5 M players; OR four Palats, one in every line, playing their heart out each shift?

Now you're down to availability. Every team in the league would love to have 1 Ovechkin, or 2 Pavelskis. They just aren't there. You want to have a superstar, because the superstar is great. Kane, Crosby, McDavid, they are great players who can score against anyone. You want them. The trick then is on how you build the rest of the team. Chicago has done a good job, Pittsburgh obviously this year; some managers have a talent for it. Then you look at the Rangers from the 90's, who always led the league in payroll and disappointment, because for all the money they spent, the team was never cohesive.

The team you're suggesting is basically the Edmonton Oilers. Low paid, hardworking guys. They have a superstar, but since he's a rookie, he's low paid. Keep that up, and he's gone in a few years to a team that will pay him. Otherwise, you've got players like Draisaitl, Ference, Korpikoski, Yakupov, Maroon, Hendricks, Letestu... decent players, but they're not going to win you a Cup. Source - Sportrac

The last 5 teams to win the Cup are Pittsburgh, Chicago, Los Angeles, Boston, and Detroit. Crosby, Malkin, Kessel, Letang, Kane, Toews, Keith, Gaborik, Kopitar, Doughty, Lucic, Rask, Chara, Zetterberg, Lidstrom, Datsyuk. All-Stars. They're important... perhaps even critical.

Thank you for your answers. I bow to your superior knowledge of the matter, but I would still like to see someone try to create the Average Joe hockey team. Maybe when Paul DePodesta tires of football?

I'd be interested in seeing it too. After all, it worked in basketball. In basketball, conventional wisdom is that you need at least 1 superstar. The 2004 Pistons won without one, just a solid starting five and a solid bench.

And in hockey, as long as your goalie gets hot at the right time, anything is possible.

[mrswdk]

Who would you rather bang (top) - AoG or nietzsche?
Who would you rather bang (bottom) - betiko or saxi?

[Serbia]

Who would you rather bang (top) - AoG or nietzsche?
Who would you rather bang (bottom) - betiko or saxi?

AoG, because he's so small, he's cute

saxi, because at least he won't fling poo at me when he really starts enjoying himself

[muy_thaiguy]

Who would you rather bang (top) - AoG or nietzsche?
Who would you rather bang (bottom) - betiko or saxi?

AoG, because he's so small, he's cute

saxi, because at least he won't fling poo at me when he really starts enjoying himself

Really? I always got the impression that saxi had a thing for scat.

[Serbia]

Who would you rather bang (top) - AoG or nietzsche?
Who would you rather bang (bottom) - betiko or saxi?

AoG, because he's so small, he's cute

saxi, because at least he won't fling poo at me when he really starts enjoying himself

Really? I always got the impression that saxi had a thing for scat.

No, that would definitely be our French friend. Long story.