HFBoards

HFBoards (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/index.php)
-   All Time Draft (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/forumdisplay.php?f=181)
-   -   MLD2011 Mickey Ion Rnd 1: Belleville Bulls (3) vs. Brandon Shamrocks (6) (http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=968471)

BillyShoe1721 08-14-2011 01:00 PM

MLD2011 Mickey Ion Rnd 1: Belleville Bulls (3) vs. Brandon Shamrocks (6)
 
Belleville Bulls

http://www.cjbq.com/lorne/wp-content...go-298x300.png

Head Coach: Bobby Kromm
Assistant Coach: Brian Kilrea

Jimmy Gardner (C) - Skene Ronan - Bud Poile
Dutch Hiller - Billy Barlow - Dave Christian
Jörgen Pettersson - Vyacheslav Anisin - Mac Colville
Rob Zamuner - Stu Barnes - George Ferguson
Loui Eriksson - Erik Cole

Doug Crossman - Arthur Moore
Uwe Krupp - Bob Plager (A)
Jack Ruttan - Frank Eddolls (A)
Keith Carney

Kirk McLean
Ilya Bryzgalov

PP1: Jimmy Gardner-Billy Barlow-Skene Ronan-Doug Crossman-Arthur Moore
PP2: Jorgen Pettersson-Vyacheslav Anisin-Bud Poile-Uwe Krupp-Dutch Hiller
PK1: Dutch Hiller-Rob Zamuner-Bob Plager-Arthur Moore
PK2: Mac Colville-Stu Barnes-Frank Eddolls-Jack Ruttan

vs.

BRANDON SHAMROCKS

GM: Iain Fyffe

Coaches: Bob Pulford, Steamer Maxwell


Spares: Hugh Currie (RD), Aaron Broten (C/LW), Frank Mathers (LD/RD)

Notes on why Glover and Fielder didn't "make it".

A lengthy post about why pre-1893 hockey should be considered on par with post-1893 hockey. AKA, "why Tom Paton was the best goalie available".


PP1: Breen - Power - Hergesheimer - Hucul - Siltanen
PP2A: Ahlberg - Fielder - Cammalleri - Newell - Laflamme
PP2B: Russell - Herbert - Glover - Newell - Laflamme
PK1: Sharp - Howard - Stewart - Traub
PK2: Herbert - Russell - Laflamme - Newell

seventieslord 08-15-2011 08:37 PM

please tell me there will be some action in this series.

vecens24 08-15-2011 08:55 PM

Agreed I figured this would be the most active series to be honest. I feel pretty confident I had these two teams right next to each other.

Iain Fyffe 08-15-2011 09:29 PM

The first lines match up well at centre and right wing, but I think I have a real advantage at left wing. Gardner is more well-known than Power and is in the Hall of Fame (though I'd say he doesn't belong there), but he really falls short offensively when it comes to a first-line position. Gardner and Power's careers overlap a bit - and Power outscored Gardner in 1909, even though Power was playing defence and Gardner forward. In Power's best years, he was outscored only by Russell Bowie, Harry Smith and Frank McGee. Gardner never finished better than 11th in scoring. Ronan and Poile have to carry him offensively.

None of Belleville's forward lines can match my second line's level of physical play. Presumably Krupp and Plager will match up against them, so at least at home they'll be able to dominate physically.

I don't think there's a single really dangerous unit to guard against, so Stewart and Traub will be split up, playing with Siltanen and Newell respectively.

Based on the All-Star voting, presumably the reason I'm ranked sixth was the defence corps. I didn't place any blueliner on even the third All-Star team. Even though Tom Paton was recognized as the best goalie, I guess people don't realize that James Stewart was Paton's teammate for most of their careers, and Stewart played the second-most important defensive position. Before joining the Winged Wheelers, Stewart played with the Crystals, and they were excellent defensively as well. He is absolutely an elite stay-at-home blueliner at this level.

I have a lot of respect for Belleville's third line. I'd say the fourth line has a weak spot in Zamuner. The first PP unit seems a bit weak with Gardner and Art Moore, who was by no means an offensively gifted defenceman.

I'm not a believer in Jack Ruttan's value at all, and I'm the biggest Manitoba senior hockey booster that you'll ever come across. He was a decent defenceman, but his Hall of Fame selection is indefensible. He is not clearly better than players like Ollie Turnbull, Corky Fowler or Les Moffatt, who played in his league at the same time, and who no one would even consider drafting in the MLD.

vecens24 08-15-2011 10:52 PM

I certainly buy the Glover argument (even though he seems like a headcase) and he certainly should have been in the NHL.

However, can you sell me more on the Fielder thing? What was the WHL's general reputation at the time? It seems like it was pretty clearly the third best league. Also, while it doesn't seem like a situation where he couldn't hack it, just because he never got a real chance, I do have to question: What makes you think he is capable of playing at a high level against high level players like he will be facing here?

chaosrevolver 08-16-2011 03:40 AM

I will have some comments soon. A lot of things have been going on.

Iain Fyffe 08-16-2011 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vecens24 (Post 35957511)
However, can you sell me more on the Fielder thing? What was the WHL's general reputation at the time? It seems like it was pretty clearly the third best league.

I don't think it was clearly inferior to the AHL. I believe they were considered roughly equal, but they fulfilled different roles. Seventieslord pointed out that more NHLers went through the AHL, and used that fact to infer that the AHL was better. Of course more NHLers went through the AHL, it had much closer ties to the NHL. The WHL was much more independent. It's not reflective of the quality of the leagues but of the circumstances.

Fielder played one AHL year before going to the WHL. In the AHL he went 22-61-83 in 62 games, leading the league in assists. The next season in the WHL he went 24-64-88 in 68 games, leading the league in assists. That speaks to the similarity of the leagues.

Another of my players, Hugh Currie, played in both the AHL and WHL in his career in the same era. He scored better in the AHL than the WHL.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vecens24 (Post 35957511)
Also, while it doesn't seem like a situation where he couldn't hack it, just because he never got a real chance, I do have to question: What makes you think he is capable of playing at a high level against high level players like he will be facing here?

He's not playing against extremely high-level players here. The best 1,000 players aren't here. Isn't that quite similar to the situation he actually played under, where the very best players played in an insular 6-team NHL?

vecens24 08-16-2011 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe (Post 35965215)
I don't think it was clearly inferior to the AHL. I believe they were considered roughly equal, but they fulfilled different roles. Seventieslord pointed out that more NHLers went through the NHL, and used that fact to infer that the AHL was better. Of course more NHLers went through the AHL, it had much closer ties to the NHL. The WHL was much more independent. It's not reflective of the quality of the leagues but of the circumstances.

Wouldn't you think the best players though (for the most part) would want to play for a chance to get into the best league in the world though? Therefore wouldn't you try to go through the AHL to get to that league since it had the circumstance of being the league you had to go through? You would know more about it than I would so I'm more in the dark here and trying to understand the thought process of why I should consider them equal.

Quote:

Fielder played one AHL year before going to the WHL. In the AHL he went 22-61-83 in 62 games, leading the league in assists. The next season in the WHL he went 24-64-88 in 68 games, leading the league in assists. That speaks to the similarity of the leagues.

Another of my players, Hugh Currie, played in both the AHL and WHL in his career in the same era. He scored better in the AHL than the WHL.
Okay he had roughly the same output. Sounds good to me.


Quote:

He's not playing against extremely high-level players here. The best 1,000 players aren't here. Isn't that quite similar to the situation he actually played under, where the very best players played in an insular 6-team NHL?
Sure he's not playing against an "extrmeely" high level. But it certainly as a whole is a higher level than he has ever played against in his professional life couldn't you agree?

Iain Fyffe 08-16-2011 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vecens24 (Post 35968317)
Wouldn't you think the best players though (for the most part) would want to play for a chance to get into the best league in the world though? Therefore wouldn't you try to go through the AHL to get to that league since it had the circumstance of being the league you had to go through?

Remember that players in the O6 days were not the millionaires they are now. Hockey was not the only consideration for some of them. For example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greatest hockey legends.net
When Guy returned to Seattle - now renamed the Totems - he picked up right where he left off. He scored 26 goals and again led the league with 85 assists and 111 points.

The Toronto Maple Leafs came calling after that season, but they could not woo Guy out of Seattle. Guy was apprenticing as an electrician at the time, and was thinking of his long term future. He didn't want to leave the city of Seattle without some guarantees. There was a lot of bus and train travel between those cities and if he signed he wanted play in either Toronto or Seattle, and never have to make that long trip.

The NHL was clearly not offering enough to get Fielder to put aside his apprenticeship, which was imoprtant to him because hockey (even NHL hockey) did not pay enough to retire on, so he needed to have a vocation when his playing days were over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vecens24 (Post 35968317)
Sure he's not playing against an "extrmeely" high level. But it certainly as a whole is a higher level than he has ever played against in his professional life couldn't you agree?

Probably, but this comes to the "myth of the AAAA player" as Bill James calls it. There is no magical difference between the NHL and the minor leagues, there's just more good players in the NHL.

In the MLD Fielder would not be the absolutely dominant player he was in the WHL. Otherwise I'd have him on the first line. But the assumption that players who never "made it" in the O6 era should automatically be discounted as they would be today is baseless. The circumstances were very different than they are now.

seventieslord 08-16-2011 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe (Post 35965215)
I don't think it was clearly inferior to the AHL. I believe they were considered roughly equal, but they fulfilled different roles. Seventieslord pointed out that more NHLers went through the NHL, and used that fact to infer that the AHL was better. Of course more NHLers went through the AHL, it had much closer ties to the NHL. The WHL was much more independent. It's not reflective of the quality of the leagues but of the circumstances.

Surely you can see how that is a tough sell, though. One was full of recognizable players who, just the year before or the year after, cracked an NHL roster when it was the toughest league to get into. One was full of players much more obscure by comparison.

Quote:

Fielder played one AHL year before going to the WHL. In the AHL he went 22-61-83 in 62 games, leading the league in assists. The next season in the WHL he went 24-64-88 in 68 games, leading the league in assists. That speaks to the similarity of the leagues.
That helps.

Quote:

Another of my players, Hugh Currie, played in both the AHL and WHL in his career in the same era. He scored better in the AHL than the WHL.
what does "scored better" mean though? I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Raw numbers wouldn't cut it for me because there could be differences in scoring levels between the leagues.

Quote:

He's not playing against extremely high-level players here. The best 1,000 players aren't here. Isn't that quite similar to the situation he actually played under, where the very best players played in an insular 6-team NHL?
Relatively speaking though, I think what vecens is saying is legitimate. The O6 era is a different ballgame, but there are other O6 players here (and many remaining, too) who did play against the very best, for hundreds of games, and performed very well.

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

This is probably a good time for this conversation. Let's look at an "average" O6 season, like, 1963 or something. I realize the NHL was tough to crack and there were some defensemen good enough to make it (not necessarily good enough to star) in other leagues. I think if they were good enough to star, they'd find their way in, headcase or not. So how do we slot these players? My intuition, just based on the performance changes from league to league and the records of players clearly good enough for support O6 duty but caught in a numbers game like Larry Hillman and Al Arbour, says it goes something like this:

- NHL Norris winner (1)
- other NHL 1st AST member (1)
- NHL 2nd AST members (2)
- At least the next few top vote-getters in the NHL (5)
- Anyone not named above who made the NHL ASG on merit (not just by being on the champs) (2, perhaps?)
(a few Europeans, such as Ragulin, Ivanov, Suchy, maybe even Stoltz, might be in any of the above few tiers or the below few) (6 in total?)
- A handful of very good NHL regulars who've earned recognition in the past or soon will - guys of the Dollard St. Laurent/Moose Vasko variety (6)
- excellent NHL journeymen in their primes (Godfrey/Dewsbury types) (6)
- 1st AST members in the top minor leagues (4)
- 2nd AST members in the minor leagues (4)
(now would be a good time to consider slotting in WEC/Olympic all-stars and European league all-stars not already recognized above) (6?)
- average/below average NHL players not yet mentioned (just being there means something at this point) (5)
- top senior players, particularly those who had already proven or were soon to prove themseves at a higher level, second-tier european stars, second tier NA minor league stars (6 more of these would make 50)

this is not set in stone and obviously there is a lot of blurring between these tiers but this is how I think it shakes out in a rather simplified exercise. If you're a 1st AST member in a top minor league in the O6, ignoring blurring, it probably means you're about 25th-30th-best defenseman in the world at the time. That is not that bad, really (perhaps equivalent to being 55th-90th today, a good #2-3 defenseman), but if that's the highwater mark it's not a great career. (Al Arbour, for example, fell into those tiers more than a few times, but he also fell into tier 3 on two occasions and tier 6 a number of other times)

This topic is of great interest to me as I really struggled with determining when to introduce AHL all-stars into the mox going down as far as the A and B levels of the 2010 drafting cycle. I ultimately chose just one, Steve Kraftcheck, and maybe that was a big of a chicken pick because he did prove he could cut it in the NHL, at least for a short time.

What are your thoughts, Iain? Particularly, what do you think was the highest spot a guy like Hugh Currie or Fred Hucul ever occupied on hockey's great defenseman pecking order?

Iain Fyffe 08-16-2011 02:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 35968729)
Surely you can see how that is a tough sell, though. One was full of recognizable players who, just the year before or the year after, cracked an NHL roster when it was the toughest league to get into. One was full of players much more obscure by comparison.

A tough sell, certainly, but perhaps only because people aren't very familiar with this aspect of the O6 era. It's easy to apply modern standards of what "career minor leaguer" means, when it often meant something very different back then.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 35968729)
what does "scored better" mean though? I just want to make sure we're on the same page. Raw numbers wouldn't cut it for me because there could be differences in scoring levels between the leagues.

I didn't go into detail since he's a bench player for me, but he did set the assists record in the AHL and scored over a point a game one season. Overall his numbers are pretty similar from one league to the next but it seems he scored more in the AHL. Just another example of similarity, not trying to say the AHL was weaker.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 35968729)
Relatively speaking though, I think what vecens is saying is legitimate. The O6 era is a different ballgame, but there are other O6 players here (and many remaining, too) who did play against the very best, for hundreds of games, and performed very well.

That's true, but as Fielder's situation illustrates, ability is not the only consideration in this era. Nowadays he'd be crazy to turn down $1 million to apprentice as an electrician, but in the O6 era that was a legitimate consideration. The economics were completely different, meaning a player could be quite content playing in the WHL for his entire career rather than being jerked around by the NHL syndicate. Look at what Montreal had to do to get Beliveau in their lineup.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 35968729)
This is probably a good time for this conversation. Let's look at an "average" O6 season, like, 1963 or something. I realize the NHL was tough to crack and there were some defensemen good enough to make it (not necessarily good enough to star) in other leagues. I think if they were good enough to star, they'd find their way in, headcase or not.

If they were good enough to star in the high minor leagues, they could find their way in if so inclined. As the Fielder example illustrates, playing in the NHL was not always a priority for minor-league players. The NHL probably didn't pay much more than the WHL at that time, so other considerations are in play. This doesn't make a player a headcase for choosing not to pursue an NHL position year after year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 35968729)
this is not set in stone and obviously there is a lot of blurring between these tiers but this is how I think it shakes out in a rather simplified exercise. If you're a 1st AST member in a top minor league in the O6, ignoring blurring, it probably means you're about 25th-30th-best defenseman in the world at the time.

That's not a bad listing, but as you say it's a very simplistic exercise and doesn't account for a lot of things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 35968729)
What are your thoughts, Iain? Particularly, what do you think was the highest spot a guy like Hugh Currie or Fred Hucul ever occupied on hockey's great defenseman pecking order?

I wouldn't be able to say without putting much more thought into it.

I think in the cases of Fielder and Hucul longevity must be considered. Fielder led the AHL or WHL in assists fourteen times in his career; all but one of these was before the Great Expansion. He led in points nine times, and was a First Team All-Star nine times. Hucul led WHL defencemen in scoring seven times and was a six-time First Team All-Star. These are not "typical" star minor league players, Fielder in particular.

seventieslord 08-16-2011 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe (Post 35968523)
Probably, but this comes to the "myth of the AAAA player" as Bill James calls it. There is no magical difference between the NHL and the minor leagues, there's just more good players in the NHL.

Is this what you're trying to demonstrate?

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x.../nhlahlwhl.jpg

because I agree with that; it's just that:

- it's really hard to quantify and prove this,
- even if there are some red and blue dots up there, they still played mostly against those other blue and red dots who are primarily C and D players.

Quote:

In the MLD Fielder would not be the absolutely dominant player he was in the WHL. Otherwise I'd have him on the first line. But the assumption that players who never "made it" in the O6 era should automatically be discounted as they would be today is baseless. The circumstances were very different than they are now.
I totally agree that the landscape was very different. Just like today, there might be "2nd line or bust"-type players toiling in the AHL, I'm sure they had them back then. The difference is, even if you think Fielder was not better than any team's 2nd-line center, that still means he was potentially a top-15 center in the world. Extraoplate to today, and that's a top-40 center (or something) which is a good second-liner, a guy who might be good for 45-55 points a season (just looking at what the 40th-highest scoring center typically gets lately)

I think that's a fair extrapolation based on talent pool sizes and strengths, etc, but of course what could throw it off is if you think (and can demonstrate somehow) that Fielder wasn't "just" a top-15 center when he was in the minors, but that he was perhaps 5th or 6th-most talented out there at some point. But that's tricky, isn't it?

There is so much guesswork here, I'm trying to be as logical as possible but our best educated guesses can only take us so far. And you can see why some guys have questions about these players.

TheDevilMadeMe 08-16-2011 06:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe (Post 35965215)


He's not playing against extremely high-level players here. The best 1,000 players aren't here. Isn't that quite similar to the situation he actually played under, where the very best players played in an insular 6-team NHL?

The MLD draft teams, while not filled with the very best in the world, are certainly something of all-star teams still - definitely your average MLD forward or defenseman was well above average in the NHL at some point in his career.

So no, it's not similar to playing against players who, for the most part, weren't good enough to make it to the NHL at all.

TheDevilMadeMe 08-16-2011 06:39 PM

I find it interesting that chaos is using my #5 defenseman from last AAA draft (Arthur Moore) as a top pairing guy and seventieslord's #1 from the same draft (Jack Ruttan) as a bottom pairing guy.

Shows how tough it is to place a lot of the early era guys.

Iain Fyffe 08-16-2011 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 35971377)
There is so much guesswork here, I'm trying to be as logical as possible but our best educated guesses can only take us so far. And you can see why some guys have questions about these players.

Oh sure, but the question is raised in the form of why he didn't "make it", which is the wrong question. To me that question implies modern blinders, where career O6 minor-leaguers are seen as equivalent to modern ones, which they're not.

I would certainly take 55 points from a third-line centre in today's game.

Iain Fyffe 08-16-2011 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 35971377)
Is this what you're trying to demonstrate?

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x.../nhlahlwhl.jpg

because I agree with that; it's just that:

- it's really hard to quantify and prove this,
- even if there are some red and blue dots up there, they still played mostly against those other blue and red dots who are primarily C and D players.

That is what I mean.

The fact that the minor league are mainly populated by C and D players means we can't assume 118 points in the WHL would be 118 points in the NHL, since the overall quality of competition in the NHL is higher.

What it doesn't mean is that the A-level blue and red dots are anything other than A-level blue and red dots.

vecens24 08-16-2011 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe (Post 35977933)
Oh sure, but the question is raised in the form of why he didn't "make it", which is the wrong question. To me that question implies modern blinders, where career O6 minor-leaguers are seen as equivalent to modern ones, which they're not.

I would certainly take 55 points from a third-line centre in today's game.

I'm sorry I totally didn't mean it in a why didn't he make it way. I meant more why should we believe he's capable of playing against these players on a consistent basis. I fully understand he could have made it.

Iain Fyffe 08-16-2011 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vecens24 (Post 35978121)
I'm sorry I totally didn't mean it in a why didn't he make it way. I meant more why should we believe he's capable of playing against these players on a consistent basis.

But that's basically the same thing. If he's a B-level player for example, as evidenced by his play against C- and D-level players in the minors, then there's no reason to believe he'd be anything but a B-level player when playing against A- and B-level players.

It's difficult to explain, I guess. The idea that he wouldn't be "capable" of being a B-level player because he was playing against A-levels rather than C-levels is what I'm objecting to.

He is what he is. Establishing whether he's a B-level or not is the question. Playing against A-level does not turn a B-level into a C-level.

chaosrevolver 08-17-2011 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 35977505)
I find it interesting that chaos is using my #5 defenseman from last AAA draft (Arthur Moore) as a top pairing guy and seventieslord's #1 from the same draft (Jack Ruttan) as a bottom pairing guy.

Shows how tough it is to place a lot of the early era guys.

I just find Ruttan a tough sell..I actually almost moved him to extra cause I love Carney's defensive ability.

My first question posed...can your defense handle the speed of my forwards?

As you know..I built my team fast and I don't see anything on about four or five of your defenseman's skating ability. Closer examination by myself may lead to some more exploits as well.

I find that your team has too many tough sells to me..and I will absolutely have to research on them more. However, for now, I will speak about those I do know:

Tom Paton is excellent. Best goalie in the draft for sure..but is he enough of an advantage to give your team the edge in this series? I don't think so..as I really don't really think your defense is going to cut it, and your forwards are going against one of the best playoff goalies in the draft.

I'll do some more research later tonight..but my first thoughts are that there isn't enough info on a lot of your players to put them over my team of proven players in this series.

TheDevilMadeMe 08-17-2011 01:44 AM

Iain, can you provide more info on Jerry Laflamme?

His bio mentions his leadership and has anecdotes about puck rushing and scoring. Nothing about his defensive ability at all. And if he was primarily a scorer, I'd like to know what his stats were, if available.

I think the Stewart-Traub pair should be very good in its own zone, but chaos does have a point that the defensive abilities of your other 4 starting defensemen are unproven at best.

seventieslord 08-22-2011 04:25 AM

Belleville trimphs in 5 games!

1. Tom Paton
2. Skene Ronan
3. Billy Breen
4. Joe Power
5. Kirk McLean

Iain Fyffe 08-22-2011 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by seventieslord (Post 36106521)
Belleville trimphs in 5 games!

Wow. Clearly this one was decided before the discussion even started. My opponent did nothing but ask a couple of questions. Maybe I should have metagamed more and voted my team to win in 4? That wouldn't have been an honest opinion though.

Three of the top four stars are on my team, and I win a single game of five? Something doesn't add up there.

It's nice to see Paton, Breen and Power recognized, at least.

TheDevilMadeMe 08-22-2011 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe (Post 36108019)
Wow. Clearly this one was decided before the discussion even started. My opponent did nothing but ask a couple of questions. Maybe I should have metagamed more and voted my team to win in 4? That wouldn't have been an honest opinion though.

Three of the top four stars are on my team, and I win a single game of five? Something doesn't add up there.

It's nice to see Paton, Breen and Power recognized, at least.

We can't vote for our own teams.

The way the votes are calculated, if all 13 GMs voted "Belleville in 7," then you'd lose 4-0. A 4-1 series means the vote total was probably something like 10-3 in his favor, regardless of the number of games each person voted for.

Anyway, I'd say your team's defeat was a combination of several factors.

1) Team building:

a) Your first line was full of shooters without playmakers. Herg is one of the most goal-biased players in the draft, but who is there to get him the puck? Do we know anything about Breen other than his goal scoring abilities? Team chemistry is very important to success in this thing.

b) I'm not sure if you have a forward line that I'd feel comfortable with in defensive situations. (Definitely NOT the line centered by Fielder). Generally teams in this that don't have a line that can be used as a checking line don't do very well.

2) Too many unknowns:

a) As I alluded to upthread, the defensive ability of 3 of your starting defensemen is basically unknown (plus Siltanen who was known bad).

b) Like jkrx's team, you filled your team with guys unknown to us, which makes it tough for you. You provided short profiles on most of these guys, and definitely convinced people on some of them (Breen, Power, Paton though we already knew about Paton), but filling a team with relatively unknown guys hasn't been a recipe for success in this thing historically. Maybe you're be like seventieslord of two years ago and be the guy constantly losing while "discovering" guys only to find that everyone appreciates your guys more next time.

c) And I think putting too many career O6 minor leaguers on the team was probably a tough sell for some.

Hope you're back at this again. You're a valuable source of knowledge in this thing and know more about the early era that most of us. Learning how to build successful teams in the ATD/MLD is relatively easy compared to the substantial historical knowledge required to do well. Most GMs lose their first try out for similar reasons to what went wrong with your team, then come back much stronger the second time. I got wiped out easily in the first round of my first MLD, then came back to the main ATD the next year and went all the way to the semifinals (getting lucky enough to draft Bobby Orr did help though).

Iain Fyffe 08-22-2011 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 36112153)
The way the votes are calculated, if all 13 GMs voted "Belleville in 7," then you'd lose 4-0.

Really? How does that make sense? Why do we vote on the number of games then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 36112153)
b) Like jkrx's team, you filled your team with guys unknown to us, which makes it tough for you. You provided short profiles on most of these guys, and definitely convinced people on some of them (Breen, Power, Paton though we already knew about Paton), but filling a team with relatively unknown guys hasn't been a recipe for success in this thing historically.

I agree that if I had unlimited time for this I'd have done much better. The time I had available to put into it relied too much on people knowing the early era better than they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe (Post 36112153)
Hope you're back at this again. You're a valuable source of knowledge in this thing and know more about the early era that most of us.

I'll be back, at the very least as a neutral observing to provide info. Not sure if I'm keen on investing this much time again, when such an investment wasn't enough to begin with.

TheDevilMadeMe 08-22-2011 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe (Post 36117303)
Really? How does that make sense? Why do we vote on the number of games then?

The number of games we vote on is only used as a tiebreak. It's been that way since before I joined the ATDs.

Edit: It wasn't clear to me for the first 2 drafts I was in, either.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:42 PM.

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com, A property of CraveOnline, a division of AtomicOnline LLC ©2009 CraveOnline Media, LLC. All Rights Reserved.