Comparing the Bubble Classes

[jk]

(Was going to call the big classes bulges, but I didn't want to title a thread: comparing the bulges.)

Kermit had this insightful post in the Murray thread:

------------------------

The Sioux were a decent team in 2001-2, and they weren't far from being a very good team. Several of the freshmen had very good years. Bochenski and Schneider were outstanding. Schneider, Jones, and Fuher ranked 2,3, and 4 on the team among d-men in plus/minus. The team had some excellent goal scorers (Bayda, Skarperud, Bochenski), but lacked a great playmaking center. The biggest problem was in goal where Andy Kollar had a very disappointing year. I also thought that the senior defensemen (Mazurak and Schneekloth) regressed that year.

The next group of incoming freshmen has at least as much talent, but much less experience than the 01-02 group. Chris Fournier played FOUR years in the USHL, Brian Canady 3, Andy Schneider 2+, Nick Fuher 2, James Massen 2, etc. Maybe that explains why some of these guys didn't improve as much AFTER coming to UND.

------------------------

This got me thinking about taking a closer look at the two classes. Here are comparisons of the players' ages (The age shown is the player's age on September 1st of the year they entered school.):

Forwards:

21.1 Canady

20.5 Faul

19.6 Connelly

19.6 Massen

19.6 McMahon

19.4 Bochenski

19.4 Fournier

19.9 AVERAGE

20.5 Martens

20.1 Duncan

19.6 Miller

19.2 Kozek

18.8 Watkins

18.7 Oshie

17.3 Toews

19.2 AVERAGE

The difference in the average age works out to about 8.5 months, which is pretty significant. A more telling observation is that four players in the 2005 class would be the youngest player in the 2001 class.

Defense:

20.5 Fuher

20.1 Schneider

18.1 Jones

19.5 AVERAGE

20.7 Alexander

18.6 Jones

18.4 Lee

18.3 Chorney

19.0 AVERAGE

Although the difference in the average is only six months, it's pretty clear that the 2001 class had two seasoned players and one relative pup, while the 2005 class has three pups and one older player.

Overall, I agree that the 2005 class has perhaps greater potential than the 2001 class, but it might not be realized in the first year, due to the relative youth and inexperience of the 2005 players.

As to the quality of the team the classes are moving into, Kermit nailed the comparison. In 2001-02 both Bayda and Skarperud finished in the top five in WCHA scoring. In addition, very solid and dependable forwards like Lundbohm, Notermann and Spiewak were present. The current returning group (knock on wood) of Zajac, Stafford, Spirko, Prpich, Porter and Fabian compares favorably, but it's close.

On defense, Schneekloth, Mazurak, Hale and Leinweber returned. The preseason view was that this was a solid base to work in three newcomers. It didn't work out that way, as Hale's health issues and Schneekloth's and Mazurak's spotty seasons forced a baptism by fire for the freshmen. As trying as that was, the returning group in 2005 is even more questionable. (I personally expect the NHL to fix its issues, with Greene pursuing his career, and Bina to be unavailable this year.) That would mean the returning players would be Smaby (a rock), Radke (not far from a freshman himself) and Marvin and Foyt (more forwards now than defensemen). This time around, we know the kids will be required to play significant roles. Unfortunately, they'll all be just 18, rather than 20 as Schneider and Fuher were. Fortunately, they might ultimately be more talented overall.

The big difference, as Kermit noted, is that UND has two very capable goaltenders for 2005, which should help alleviate the main problem with the team in 2001-02.

The last point of comparison for me is that the league overall seems much tougher in 2005 than 2001. CC, Denver, MN and Wisconsin all look very tough, with all the lower tier teams (save perhaps SCSU) seemingly able to beat anyone on any weekend as well.

The coaching staff has a big, big job ahead of it next year. It will be frustrating at times, but also fun to watch the potential.

[THETRIOUXPER]

i HAVE MUCH MORE TOLERANCE FOR A YOUNG TEAM STRUGGLING THEN I WOULD FOR A TEAM LIKE WE HAD LAST YEAR THAT JUST DIDN'T PERFORM UP TO THEIR POTENTIAL AT TIMES.

[THETRIOUXPER]

Oops sorry about the last post, not really trying to shout, just not paying attention.

[DAR]

I don't know if I would call Smaby "a rock" for next season. It depends if he plays like he did in the NCAA's or like he did for a good part of the regular season which was often times average at best. Hopefully once Greene officially leaves he will know that he is the leader of the d corps and elevate his game. He is going to be depended on very heavily next year with or without Greene.

[Sioux_Hab-it]

Sorry JK but I have to diagree with your comparison/assessment. You have overlooked an important factor in your comparison. How about adding the prospect rankings for the two different groups and then compare them. The incoming talent far exceeds the old group. Go tell Sidney Crosby that age matters.

[dagies]

Good stuff, jk. To my untrained eye the average differences are not as great as I would expect, but when you look at the difference in each individual it's pretty obvious that the incoming recruits are significantly younger across the board.

It would be great to compare talent but that is subjective and worthy of another discussion. This objective data and extrapolation of Kermit's point is very interesting. This league is tough on young players.

It will be a very interesting first half of the year.

[Stack]

Sorry JK but I have to diagree with your comparison/assessment.  You have overlooked an important factor in your comparison.  How about adding the prospect rankings for the two different groups and then compare them.  The incoming talent far exceeds the old group.  Go tell Sidney Crosby that age matters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you look at the top forwards and defense of each class they compare about the same.

Forwards: In 2001 big things were expected out of McMahon, Massen, Bochenski, and Fournier.

Of course we saw what Bochenski could do and McMahon ended up a reliable 4 year player. Massen had a decent freshman year, a very good sophomore year and then pretty much disappeared the next two years. Fatty left.

In 2005 big things are expected out of Toews, Kozek, Watkins, and Duncan and possibly Oshie. So maybe one more player with high expectations in 2005 but younger players also. We have no idea what these guys will amount to until they are on the ice.

Defense: In 2001 big things were expected out of Fuher, Schneider, and Jones.

In 2005 big things are expected out of Lee, Jones, and Chorney. Once again younger players with less experience. Big difference here was we had 4 returning defensemen who had played a lot the year before. This year we have one if Greene jumps and Bina can't play.

Goal: 2001: Kollar was steady the year before but when he was "the man" he faltered badly.

2005: I don't see this happening with Lamourouex and Parise so this is a big plus.

The big question is defense. I think the forwards will work themselves out and will be very competitive if the freshmen can handle the grind of the WCHA. Defensively, the freshmen need to contribute immediately and pretty much be a stud right away like Peltier, Goligowski, and Hagemo did for the Gophs last year. Except I hope our guys aren't hurt as much.

I agree with JK that the WCHA in 2005 wil be tougher than in 2001 so this could be a .500 year. Here's hoping that we make the WCHA and the NCAAs. Anything more than that will probably be gravy.

Also keep in mind that 2001 team came out of the chute pretty hot and won some games they probably shouldn't have early on. But they also got pasted 7-2 by Minnesota in the first round of the playoffs.

[Sioux_Hab-it]

I agree with JK that the WCHA in 2005 wil be tougher than in 2001 so this could be a .500 year. Here's hoping that we make the WCHA and the NCAAs. Anything more than that will probably be gravy.

Also keep in mind that 2001 team came out of the chute pretty hot and won some games they probably shouldn't have early on. But they also got pasted 7-2 by Minnesota in the first round of the playoffs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are also trying to compare apples and oranges. You are trying to talk about a class that has come and gone versus an incoming class that has been part of both National and International success. You have two state Mr Hockeys the MVP of the last World U17 championship and two members of the U18 Gold Medal team. And what did the last Group accomplish before getting here. This year will not be a repeat.

[sprig]

The goaltending has been mentioned, but there's nothing harder on any defense than losing confidence in your goal tending. THe 01 team lost a whole lot of confidence (as did the tenders). It made for many poor outlet passes when the defense was overly worried about giving up shots from anywhere. Hopefully Parise and Lamoureux can provide the goal tending a young D needs.

[redwing77]

The goaltending has been mentioned, but there's nothing harder on any defense than losing confidence in your goal tending. THe 01 team lost a whole lot of  confidence (as did the tenders). It made for many poor outlet passes when the defense was overly worried about giving up shots from anywhere. Hopefully Parise and Lamoureux can provide the goal tending a young D needs.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do believe he will. I think the D will have to change at first. Our D has been "stifle/limit shots, get to the rebounds." I do believe we have to keep to that, but they also have to expect that, with the young D, they should give up more shots. So they should limit what they can, play good positioning and smart hockey, and work extra hard to get to the rebounds.

And hopefully JPar and Phil stay in the nets. I don't think wandering would be a good idea at first.

[Superman0099]

Although Murray's departure is a significant one, I feel confident that this team will handle the offensive expectations. Stafford, Spirko, and Zajac will be one of the best lines in the nation next year [if all 3 are still here]. Goaltending will not be a problem, Parise and Lammy are competitors of the highest sort and will be leaders.

Defensive wise... If Greene were staying and Bina were to be cleared I would say this team could be very strong in that department, however, though I believe Greene will be here, I don't see Bina playing at all next season (don't see how any doctor would clear him). This is too bad because I really like the way he is improving at UND. Smaby will need to be more consistent yes, but the big pressure is on players like Lee, Radke, and Jones as they all have good experience for their age. If those three can step up and contribute and play smart hockey I am very optimistic for this team.

There is a lot of talent on the offensive end and they will be very fast. Watkins and Duncan will impress many people who don't know alot about them. Their skating ability reflects that of the early Blais teams that use to break out of the zone and in an instant have a 3 on 1. Combine that with spirko stafford and zajac's abilities and our power forwards (porter, fabian, kiap prpich) and there is a lot of depth and balance out there. I for am looking for a top 3 WCHA finish, even with the tough league.

[The Sicatoka]

The change that Hakstol made to make it his system turned the team around last year, after the team finally bought into it.

That change may provide big benefits this coming (youthful defensive corps) season. That change helps the defense out by trying to limit the number of outmanned rushes they face.

The change is best summed up as "no more three forwards below the goal line" style. One forward stays up, in the slot, and is able to do a few key things: (1) take a quick shot if his teammate wins the puck in the corner, (2) pick off a cross-ice breakout pass if the opponent win the puck in the corner, and (3) prevent some of the previously numerous odd-man rushes against Parise and Lamoureux.

If you have three men in deep and don't win the puck the other team is coming out at least 3-on-2 or better. That's tough on goaltenders.

[Goon]

I do believe he will.  I think the D will have to change at first.  Our D has been "stifle/limit shots, get to the rebounds."  I do believe we have to keep to that, but they also have to expect that, with the young D, they should give up more shots.  So they should limit what they can, play good positioning and smart hockey, and work extra hard to get to the rebounds.

And hopefully JPar and Phil stay in the nets.  I don't think wandering would be a good idea at first.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think that our goaltenders better be ready to play next fall. We will have the offense but I think we might be winning 4-3, 5-3 and 5-4. Because we have what I call offensive defensemen. IF we keep Greene it won't be so back. Greene can counter act the offensive defensemen.

[redwing77]

[I Ranger]

Perhaps, but really, of those who will be getting significant time at D next fall, Radke and Lee are the only defensemen that can be considered true offensive defensemen. Chorney and Jones aren't know for their goalscoring.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[The Sicatoka]

I'd expect Brad Berry to tug back on the reigns on those young defensemen until their defensive responsibilities are understood and are performed as second nature. Once they've proven they understand and can do a defenseman's job, you'll see the offensive side of those freshmen if there is one.

Example? I don't recall seeing Matt Jones below the tops of the circles in the offensive zone once during his freshman year. Sophomore year and beyond? Oh yeah.

[dagies]

I don't recall seeing Matt Jones below the tops of the circles in the offensive zone once during his freshman year.

Yikes, and Radke had trouble even getting on the ice last year!

[The Sicatoka]

Yikes, and Radke had trouble even getting on the ice last year!

Matt was staying back, playing defense first. He grew into his offensive role. Radke jumped up on the play a couple of time this year when it probably wasn't a sound play from a defensive point of view. (Yes, there is such a thing as a defenseman jumping up on the play being the better move defensively. Think puck possession.) Not thinking defense first most likely wasn't seen as a positive by Berry (the defenseman coach). If Radke can think a little more "is this a smart defensive play" he'll be a fun one to watch.

[PCM]

Yikes, and Radke had trouble even getting on the ice last year!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, look who was already ahead of him: Greene, Jones, Schneider, Fuher, Smaby and Bina. It wasn't exactly an easy lineup to crack.

[dagies]

True, but Bina played forward much of the time while the top 5 D played.

[PCM]

True, but Bina played forward much of the time while the top 5 D played.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He didn't play forward until near the end of the season.

[The Sicatoka]

He didn't play forward until near the end of the season.

I remember him playing forward when the team was really short on healthy bodies (injuries, Stafford with WJC team) during mid-season*. However, down the key stretch he was playing defense. And wasn't he running a point on the second power play unit also?

* A forward line of Marvin, Bina, and centerman Scott Foyt played one night against Canisius, or a (RIP) "Uncle Ralph" would say, "Where the **** is Canisius?"

http://www.collegehockeystats.net/0405/boxes/mcnsndk1.d18

[dagies]

He didn't play forward until near the end of the season.

My memory is faulty then. I was thinking he played forward quite a bit that last couple of months.

[Sioux_Hab-it]

My memory is faulty then. I was thinking he played forward quite a bit that last couple of months.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I recall Bina playing forward quite a bit during the season too. In fact he did for both games here in Colorado Springs and that wasn't too long after the Christmas break.

[PCM]

I recall Bina playing forward quite a bit during the season too.  In fact he did for both games here in Colorado Springs and that wasn't too long after the Christmas break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure that you're not thinking of Fuher? He was switched for forward for a while around that time.