View Single Post
12-01-2009, 03:52 PM
Leafs Forever
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,799
vCash: 500
Equating a top-5 then to a top-25 now is probably taking it a little far, but you are right in principle.

LF, consider how many jobs were available in the original six era. Not many. The defensemen to make the NHL were the best all-around defensemen in the world, and the rankings that you pull from those, are the top offensive defensemen among those, but not in the world. There were almost surely a number of defensemen in the minors who were better offensively than those guys placing 7th, 8th, 9th among defensemen in the NHL, but couldn't make the show because the rest of their game wasn't there. Later on (1970 and onward) the league got bigger and perceptions changed. Now there is room for those players. Now the list of top-scoring defensemen in the NHL does read like a list of the top offensive defensemen on earth.

I use top-10s for defensemen from merger to expansion, but I realize they are highly suspect as you get to those guys in 8th-10th. Post-expansion they aren't. And post-1980, I'm inclined to even start recognizing a top-15 as something worthy of appreciation.

Relatively speaking, you might still convince me Mortson is a better offensive blueliner than Carlyle, but whatever is the case, it's closer than you made it out to be at first.
I would say taking top-5 to top-25 is more than a little far.

Fair enough; and I always supported the higher competition and thus if it's closer in those base scoring finishes but the older guy is still ahead a guy in the expansion and beyond may make go ahead. But I was trying to just argue the value of those Mortson finishes- and they do have value. And in an arguement where we are talking a guy who made top-10 6 times vs two guys who made it twice each, I don't think the adjustment makes up the difference (carlyle's two top-10's were both better than anything Mortson came with, but still). How many guys were there outside the league that were really better offensively than Mortson?

To extend to top-15's;

Desjardins-15th, 12th, 12th

Carlyle- 14th, 15th, 11th

Of course, I think it's only fair to do the same for Mortson, which although aren't the same value show that Mortson did more outside his top 10's and that even the addition of the top 15's for Desjardins and Carlyle don't make them better than Mortson:

Mortson- 13th, 15th


Morton- 5, 8, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 13, 15

Desjardins- 4, 8, 12, 12, 15

Carlyle- 1, 4, 11, 14, 15

I get that Desjardins and Carlyle get good era adjustments- but are those really enough to make htem better offensively than Mortson's longevity? I don't really think so.

I don't look at World Championships or Olympics when talking about a player's ability to deliver in the clutch. I'll rave about how great of a player Valeri Kharlamov was, but his performances in World Championships and Olympics don't change my perceptions of him being a clutch guy.

We draft international players because they deserve to be drafted. But you can't look at a guy's performance in the Worlds and say he'll be a clutch player in a best-of-seven. In Selanne's case, he proved that the two are very different things.

If we were playing a one-off series on big ice, then I might put credence into Selanne's performances in the World Championships and the Olympics. But we're not. We're playing a best-of-seven. Comparing World Championship and Olympic performances to Stanley Cup playoff performances is damn close to comparing apples and oranges, because there's a very big difference.
But why do they deserve to be drafted? What makes them any good in the playoffs then? I don't think the russian leagues ever had playoffs, and if there more pressured accomplishments in the international tournaments in best on best won't translate to the best of seven format, how do we know if we'll perform?

My point isn't necessary clutchness; it's that Selanne can perform with increased pressure, and with two excellent playoff performers in Taylor and Blake as his linemates, he will perform well in this series.

And you put way too much emphasis on relativity. It only goes so far. In those eighth, ninth and 10th place finishes, how many points did he have? An eighth place finish in 54 for defenceman scoring is a completely different story from an eighth place finish for defenceman scoring in 1984. I see two seasons above 20 points for Mortson. Like I said before, I really like Mortson, especially because of the protection element he brings to a No. 3 role. But you're letting relativity jerk you around. You say you've shown plenty? I say you've shown nothing that I didn't know before because you're overly reliant on stats-based relativity.
It's one thing to say the finishes are worse due to era's (which is true); but the league leaders in those years defense years weren't even scoring 54 points. And again, is the era advantage (which I never though Desjardins and Carlyle didn't get- I was just more-so really angered at your comparing of top-5 to top-25) really make up the gap?

And you're too anti-stats "I won't show any quotes or real proof, but my guys are better and can do this".

I gave you plenty on Carlyle. I told you that Winnipeg wanted him out there against the opposition's best players. He was the best player on a team that, in a couple years, was one of the best in the game, and probably would have been to the Stanley Cup final on a couple times if not for the overwhelming strength of the other teams in the division. In an all-out, ultra-aggressive division that for six years was head and shoulders above every other division in the league, the Jets used Carlyle to play against the opposition's best players. If Carlyle wasn't playing at a high level, if he wasn't strong defensively, he wouldn't be used in that situation, he wouldn't be counted on to have the responsibility that he had.
You've given me plenty of "I saw, therefore he is". I could say I am really 80 years old and saw Mortson play and saw all the players from the time and Mortson was by far the best defensively. How would you know I was lieing? Because there isn't any evidence to really back up Mortson played at that defensive level (although he was good defensively).

As jarek said, if he was really good, let's see evidence.

You also forget he didn't spend all his years in Winnipeg. He spent nearly half his career playing for the Penguins and Leafs too.

As for the notion that Winnipeg could have been to the cup final a couple times, it is speculation, a big "what-if", and is speculation and assumption. Don't tend to give value to that.

As for the notion he was the best player on those Winnipeg teams? Dale Hawerchuk says "hi".

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote