# Schremp vs. Reddox vs. Potulny vs. Brule in the AHL

Much has been made by some fans over the order in which Craig MacTavish gave minutes to forwards who the Oilers called up from the AHL in 2008-09. In order of games played, they ranked as follows:

1. Liam Reddox: 46
2. Gilbert Brule: 11
3. Ryan Potulny: 8
4. Rob Schremp: 4

I haven’t included J-F Jacques since his AHL time was technically only on a conditioning stint, so the question I’d like to ask is this: based on their AHL play, do these four players belong in this order?

I’ve decided to look at a number of different statistics to try and answer that question. Since each player spent a different amount of time in the AHL, I’ve divided all their numbers by total games played to give a per game rate. We’ll consider goals, points, +/- and Quality of Competition.

Goals Per Game:

1. Potulny: .543
2. Reddox: .357
3. Brule: .333
4. Schremp: .101

Points Per Game:

1. Potulny: .886
2. Reddox: .643
3. Brule: .615
4. Schremp: .609

Plus-Minus Per Game

1. Potulny: -.157
2. Reddox: -.214
3. Brule: -.308
4. Schremp: -.377

Quality of Competition

1. Reddox: 1.853
2. Brule: 1.677
3. Potulny: 1.552
4. Schremp: 1.355

### Summation

The offensive categories and plus/minus all had exactly the same order: Potulny, Reddox, Brule, Schremp. Quality of competition, on the other hand, had Reddox on top by a fair bit, followed by Gilbert Brule, Ryan Potulny, and Rob Schremp.

It isn’t surprising that of the four players, Reddox got the most games: offensively, he tracked behind only Potulny, and the players he was playing against were better. Of the four, he’s also most suited to a role on the fourth-line and killing penalties, followed by Gilbert Brule. Given that a fourth line role is what was available to most of the call-ups, it only makes sense that Reddox would get the lion’s share of the games, with Brule (the youngest of this group) behind him.

As for offensive games, the only surprising thing is that Rob Schremp got called up before Ryan Potulny, since the latter had a far superior season. The splits explain that a little bit; Schremp was better in the first half of the season than he was in the second half. Regardless, after that point Potulny was the player who deserved – the player who had earned – a cameo with the Oilers.

Looking at their AHL achievements, it’s difficult to fault the order that Craig MacTavish placed these players in.  In fact, the only quibble that I would have is that perhaps Ryan Potulny should have gotten a longer look.

• Hippy

ronaldo wrote:

GSC wrote:

Okay, I get it…the enlightened math wizards turned hockey bloggers love Liam Reddox because us mouth-breathing, ignorant “saw him good” clowns don’t.
How do you get Reddox is loved by anyone out of this article? It shows statistically Schremp has not been as good as Reddox in the AHL. Using Reddox as an example because they are of similar age.
I am a mouth-breathing, ignorant “saw him good” clown and I don’t get why thinking Schremp is not ready means loving Reddox.

I'm with Brownlee in calling this a cherry-picking manoeuvre. There is an agenda with articles like these, esp. when it comes to players that the masses aren't all that thrilled with (such as Reddox). Read between the lines.

• Hippy

Joe wrote:

And what is poor Kevin Prendergast have to do with it? He doesn’t even know what possition with the Oilers he is in today.

You asked Brownlee if MacTavish was making his boss look stupid by not playing the player he drafted. The executive responsible for the draft in 2004 was Kevin Prendergast.

• Hippy

GSC wrote:

I’m with Brownlee in calling this a cherry-picking manoeuvre. There is an agenda with articles like these, esp. when it comes to players that the masses aren’t all that thrilled with (such as Reddox). Read between the lines.

Suit yourself, but it isn't. I've never really been a fan of giving Reddox the minutes.

This summer, if you've missed it, I have argued repeatedly for the signing of a bottom-six forward so that he'll go back to Springfield where he belongs.

I just wanted to see where Schremp slotted in vs. his competition for a spot on the roster – as a test of Craig MacTavish more than naything else. Had Schremp come out on top, I would have argued that MacTavish's personal bias was marooning him in the AHL.

But I'm not going to argue against the data to please the fanboys.

• Hippy

GSC wrote:

Okay, I get it…the enlightened math wizards turned hockey bloggers love Liam Reddox because us mouth-breathing, ignorant “saw him good” clowns don’t.

Speaking of cherry picking…

Since I've repeatedly argued this summer that Liam Reddox is exactly the kind of AHL forward the Oilers should replace with a veteran, where in the hell do you get the notion I love the kid?

And as for the insults, I've strived to treat people on here with respect – all the more so the longer I'm here. If you can find an example where I've used that kind of over-the-top hyperbole, I'll apologize. If not, than shut up.

• Hippy

MacTavish proved he played favourites time and again. His love of Reasoner had him sending Reasoner out when his butt should have been on the bench.
He seemed to have a chip on his shoulder regarding Schremp before the kid ever got here. As long as MacTavish was coaching, Schremp never stood a chance to play with the club.
Personalities do come into it; you can't help it but at the same time, they are all paid to play hockey. It's the coach's job to get his players to perform at their best. To be a better coach, MacTavish needs to learn to leave his personal opinions of plays at home. The coach is never going to love everyone on the team.

• Hippy

Chris. wrote:

Are there huge holes in my reasoning?

Let's not forget, Gagner had a better camp than most of the team his rookie year, partly because he was still in game shape/mindset. He earned his way on, and even then, they still considered sending him back to JR's.

• Hippy

Joe wrote:

Why is my gut feeling worst then your gut feeling?

Did you read the nine-page article I wrote on Schremp? My opinion of Schremp has almost nothing to do with gut feeling, and a ton to do with what both the math and what coaches and scouts have said (Kyle Woodlief, Dale Hunter, Todd Richards, the good fellows at USA Hockey, and Craig MacTavish) have said over years of working with the player.

I've presented data, I've presented quotes from knowledgeable people and I've tossed up a aft of comparables (everyone from Cory Stillman to Jason Dawe).

You've presented your opinion that without NHL games it's impossible to tell.

That's why I feel my argument is not only more compelling, but ultimately correct. Prove me wrong – use math, use what hockey people have said, use whatever you like. But present some support for your argument.

• Hippy

Jonathan Willis wrote:

Joe wrote:
And what is poor Kevin Prendergast have to do with it? He doesn’t even know what possition with the Oilers he is in today.
You asked Brownlee if MacTavish was making his boss look stupid by not playing the player he drafted. The executive responsible for the draft in 2004 was Kevin Prendergast.

No matter what his possition with the Oilers was at the time Kevin Prendergast was still MacT boss wasn't he?

• Hippy

@ smileigirl15:

You mean Marty "Joe Sakic" Reasoner. Mac T did love him didnt he…

• Hippy

Joe wrote:

Jonathan Willis wrote:
Joe wrote:
And what is poor Kevin Prendergast have to do with it? He doesn’t even know what possition with the Oilers he is in today.
You asked Brownlee if MacTavish was making his boss look stupid by not playing the player he drafted. The executive responsible for the draft in 2004 was Kevin Prendergast.
No matter what his possition with the Oilers was at the time Kevin Prendergast was still MacT boss wasn’t he?

What exactly are you trying to get at? that coaches should be forced to play their 1st round picks?

• Hippy

Jonathan Willis wrote:

Joe wrote:
Why is my gut feeling worst then your gut feeling?
Did you read the nine-page article I wrote on Schremp? My opinion of Schremp has almost nothing to do with gut feeling, and a ton to do with what both the math and what coaches and scouts have said (Kyle Woodlief, Dale Hunter, Todd Richards, the good fellows at USA Hockey, and Craig MacTavish) have said over years of working with the player.
I’ve presented data, I’ve presented quotes from knowledgeable people and I’ve tossed up a aft of comparables (everyone from Cory Stillman to Jason Dawe).
You’ve presented your opinion that without NHL games it’s impossible to tell.
That’s why I feel my argument is not only more compelling, but ultimately correct. Prove me wrong – use math, use what hockey people have said, use whatever you like. But present some support for your argument.

The point is I can not present support of my position based on only 7 games in 3 years exept 3 points in 4 games but nether can you because it is better to see it with your own eyes than hear about it from people like MacT. Do you trust enything he said? By saying something bad about Shremp he was only covering his a\$\$ because its all players folt not his.

• Hippy

Jonathan Willis wrote:

GSC wrote:

Okay, I get it…the enlightened math wizards turned hockey bloggers love Liam Reddox because us mouth-breathing, ignorant “saw him good” clowns don’t.
Speaking of cherry picking…
Since I’ve repeatedly argued this summer that Liam Reddox is exactly the kind of AHL forward the Oilers should replace with a veteran, where in the hell do you get the notion I love the kid?
And as for the insults, I’ve strived to treat people on here with respect – all the more so the longer I’m here. If you can find an example where I’ve used that kind of over-the-top hyperbole, I’ll apologize. If not, than shut up.

Did I say that you used those words specifically? In fact, I stole them from Brownlee in a comments section from an article long ago. I never ONCE suggested that you failed to treat someone with respect, in fact I'd say you have treated me (and everyone else from what I've read) with great respect.

I guess it's hard to do the tongue-in-cheek thing in movable type…a sarcasm smiley would prove quite useful. We know where each other stands more often than not, but this time you're taking what I said completely out of context and too seriously.

And do you want to know the funny part? As much as I disagree with your analyses and/or your methods, I read most of your articles and even agree at times with your conclusions. Anything that I say about the clash of the theories between "numbers good" and "saw him good" is purely in jest and not meant to be insulting at all.

• Hippy

Ogden Brother wrote:

Joe wrote:
Jonathan Willis wrote:
Joe wrote:
And what is poor Kevin Prendergast have to do with it? He doesn’t even know what possition with the Oilers he is in today.
You asked Brownlee if MacTavish was making his boss look stupid by not playing the player he drafted. The executive responsible for the draft in 2004 was Kevin Prendergast.
No matter what his possition with the Oilers was at the time Kevin Prendergast was still MacT boss wasn’t he?
What exactly are you trying to get at? that coaches should be forced to play their 1st round picks?

No, just give them a chance!

• Hippy

Jonathan Willis wrote:

If not, than shut up.

Testy cuss.

• Hippy

@ GSC:

Sorry – I overreacted. Thanks for the clarification.

• Hippy

Joe wrote:

Jonathan Willis wrote:
Joe wrote:
Why is my gut feeling worst then your gut feeling?
Did you read the nine-page article I wrote on Schremp? My opinion of Schremp has almost nothing to do with gut feeling, and a ton to do with what both the math and what coaches and scouts have said (Kyle Woodlief, Dale Hunter, Todd Richards, the good fellows at USA Hockey, and Craig MacTavish) have said over years of working with the player.
I’ve presented data, I’ve presented quotes from knowledgeable people and I’ve tossed up a aft of comparables (everyone from Cory Stillman to Jason Dawe).
You’ve presented your opinion that without NHL games it’s impossible to tell.
That’s why I feel my argument is not only more compelling, but ultimately correct. Prove me wrong – use math, use what hockey people have said, use whatever you like. But present some support for your argument.
The point is I can not present support of my position based on only 7 games in 3 years exept 3 points in 4 games but nether can you because it is better to see it with your own eyes than hear about it from people like MacT. Do you trust enything he said? By saying something bad about Shremp he was only covering his a\$\$ because its all players folt not his.

Good lord man, the whole point is that players can be evaluated in places other then the NHL…. and that it wasn't only MacT saying those things.

• Hippy

Wow, almost 200 comments already. If we could just get Schremp and Heatley to beat up a cab driver who was trying to argue that Horcoff was the best 1st line centre in the league, we'd really have a topic.

• Hippy

ronaldo wrote:

Just trying to get Bingofuel a little extra cash.

• Hippy

Ogden Brother wrote:

Good lord man, the whole point is that players can be evaluated in places other then the NHL….

…and developed.

• Hippy

Who is this bingofuel you speak of?

• Hippy

I just want to be post 200

• Hippy

oh dam I missed it.

• Hippy

@ Travis Dakin:

I was joking about refreshing and getting a whole pile of comments and more money. Secretly, I just love watching all the discussion play out, you fabulous webheads!

• Hippy

Jonathan Willis wrote:

@ GSC:
Sorry – I overreacted. Thanks for the clarification.

No need to apologize at all, JW…if anything, it's me who owes you the apology.

Back to the article, I actually couldn't agree more with you regarding Ryan Potulny. While he isn't the same player as Schremp in terms of skill-set, I too think he deserves a closer look with the big club. I could see him filling in nicely on the 4th line, although that goes against Quinn's kamikaze line philosophy.

• Hippy

@ bingofuel:
Voyeur…pervert. 🙂

• Hippy

GSC wrote:

a sarcasm smiley would prove quite useful.

That's what this thing ~ is for; on these pages, it denotes sarcasm.
@ Curious:
yes I almost fell off my chair when I heard him say Marty could be as good as Joe Sakic if only he could skate faster. Marty had a purpose for sure, as we're now feeling the effects of having no 3rd line centreman who can win a faceoff but the point is, Marty is no Joe.

• Hippy

@ ronaldo:

You have NO idea. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go get "dressed" for my "evening out"

• Hippy

@ bingofuel:

ROFL…don't forget the beaver skin hat

• Hippy

GSC wrote:

No need to apologize at all, JW…if anything, it’s me who owes you the apology.

Love in.

• Hippy

Dear Everyone,

However, you need to know that I really am not ready to play in the NHL. Right now I am not, or wouldn't be, a very good NHL'er. So, please stop talking and thinking about me in that way. I am a pretty good AHL'er. Maybe I'll play in Europe for a year. Who knows.

My problem is that although I have slick hands, I'm not very fast or strong, and NHL players are unbelievably fast and strong. Moreover, I don't have the ability to see plays developing, to 'think' the game, in the way that some smaller, slower players had. I'm working on it, but I've begun to accept that I might never make it.

Now there's a small chance I'll improve my skating and understanding of the game and eventually play well at the NHL level. So keep an eye on me as I play minor hockey and how I do in camp. Anyone can make it in the NHL, if they put in the work. Even me.

But there are some guys I play with and against that really are great prospects, who deserve a shot in the NHL. They deserve to be talked about more than me. My buddy Ryan Potulny was a prolific amateur, even better than me really, because I got most of my points on the powerplay, playing on a stacked team. And he's better than me now. When you say I deserve more of a look at camp it's embarrassing to me and offensive to the guys I play with and the guys I respect who've done much more than me and haven't made it in the bigs.

So please, cut it out. If I make it, it's because I played so well that an NHL team had to play me, not because I have some slick skills or some abstract 'offensive potential.' That's how it works.

Oh and Brownlee. I don't want any special attention at camp. If I play great the first few days, then I'll deserve more ice time, and if I rip it up in exhibition and play well defensively, I'll earn a spot somewhere in the NHL. I'd be embarrassed if I got chances that guys who outplayed me at camp weren't getting.

P.S. This is not really Rob Schremp.