View Single Post
08-26-2011, 12:00 PM
Registered User
Velociraptor's Avatar
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,912
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
OK, dubiosity of a player's claims about himself aside, "a lot of times" can mean many things. it can mean 500 times, or ten times, or anything in between. it can mean a few games a season, every single game, or anything in between. He can also be talking about a period half a season long, or ten seasons long, or anything in between.

Anyway, Bobby Clarke didn't earn the reputation as one of the best defensive players of his time, and all-time, by playing against mediocre 2nd and 3rd lines.

What's really telling about Orest's quote, though, is that he says "in road games"... which means that was not what Shero wanted, it was what the other coach wanted. Why was that?
Coming from Kindrachuk, that line did play against the other teams top lines, who cares if it was on the road, they did it and they did it effectively.

not sure what the problem with per-game rates is, for a guy who was so often injured. The point is deterining "how good he was", wasn't it? "how many games he played" is another thing altogether.

Ironically enough, Saleski is one of the few post-expansion forwards here who didn't play as many games as Erixon's 556.

In any given game that either of them played, adjusted for era, Saleski was 15% more likely to participate in an even strength goal. Can I attribute that all to Kindrachuk? Hell yeah, Kindrachuk was an excellent ES producer in his role. Can I hold that against Saleski here? No, because he has Kindracuk centering him.

Based on descriptions of both players, I don't find it obscene at all to suggest that Erixon was actually a more skilled player. Not sure why you and others are focusing so hard on finishing in particular - which Erixon was obviously brutal at.
Not playing a lot of games is one thing, still not being effective offensively in those games is another thing. Erixon proved zero offensively in his career, he's renowned for his strong defensive play. If he's not good offensively that's something I'm going to point out.

- No, I am sure Riley is missing assists, but I'm sure that everyone else is too, and I'm sure that there's no evidence to suggest this phenomenon affects him significantly more than anyone else. Foyston and Morris were awesome and plenty is written to support this (nothing about Riley). It's possible that all the "missing assists" were theirs and none were Riley's - right? But the most logical solution (with the greatest probability of being as close to the truth as possible) is that assists were "missed" to about an equal degree for everyone. Conclusion - Riley was as poor a playmaker compared to his contemporaries as his numbers indicate.

He's an above average 1st line goal scorer, well below average playmaker, slightly below average overall offensive producer, and no real proven intangibles. I only ever claimed Gracie to be average for a 1st line, and Riley is less than that.
Well below? Not really, there's no reason to believe that besides looking at early 1920's stats, where assists are obviously missing.

Bob Gracie is not a better first liner than Riley, I am sorry. You could pair me with Bernie Morris and Frank Foyston and I'd get injured, or maybe get 4 goals a season, you have to be a good first line player to score 23 goals in 24 and 29 games respectively, if he couldn't keep up with that line with chipping in assists, I'd think Pete Muldoon would find a place for him on the second line, at least.

come on, you still have to know that's pretty weak. What about something that describes his play in NHL games?
Honestly there's very scarce information on Sutter, at least that quote provides some evidence.

well, for one thing, Stumpel was top-13 in points twice. McCourt peaked at 21st.

Or this: Stumpel averaged 72 adjusted points per 80 games compared to 69 for McCourt, and this includes games played well into his 30s, nearly twice as many as McCourt. If I was to just take Stumpel's best 8-year period, 1996-2002, his per-80 average was 82, significantly higher than McCourt's, and that still ignores a couple of decent 50-point seasons.

McCourt being on a bad team is significant to note, yes, but it is significant because it helped his production! The guy got copious minutes in all situtions because there was no one else to take them. It translated into higher scoring stats than he'd have anywhere else in the NHL at that time.
Stumpel's top-13 came in the dead puck era. McCourt's came in the early 80's of which the avalanche of offensive production began. If McCourt played in the dead puck era in his prime, I have no doubt he'd project better offensively than Stumpel. Instead he competed against Gretzky, Bossy, Dionne and several others.

OK, from now on let's stick to saing things that we actually believe, ok? The fact that you're in an MLD series doesn't mean your sense-making abilities need to vanish.

Warwick was 7th in the NHL in goals when he had 22. (his highest was actually 23). Sinisalo's 39 goals were 24th in the NHL and he was nowhere near that again. Warwick had six seasons where he ranked better than that. Percentages would make it closer, yes, but you threw that out as an acceptable comparison method apparently. It's true, Sinisalo is not remotely close as an offensive producer, that is not an unfair statement, at all.

as for the PP, good for him, but you do realize, of course, that there are no available PP stats for Warwick's career, right? Considering he was top-20 in goals with percentages over 50% six times, it's probably safe to say he was getting PP time and PP goals (and if not, hey, better for him anyway!) so I'm not sure what the point of that was, or if you have one, really.
How didn't that make sense? That's clearly an offensive rundown of goals-per-game? That's as simple as a statistic as it gets... You clearly missed my point completely. Not remotely close? I'll let some of the comments slide, but this is foolish. Sinisalo has some undeniable goal-scoring seasons, just as impressive or even more than Warwick's. There's honestly nothing that convinces me he is a better goal-scorer, who also played in the NHL when there was much less scoring competition.

OK, but what I said is "he has more defensive skill than your whole third line" - obviously no one player can actually be better defensively than any three. but the funny thing is, I don't regret saying it at all. Erixon received selke votes in five seasons and his scouting reports rave about his defensive abilities, consistently calling him the best, or one of the best, and namedropping Bossy and Lemieux as guys he's stifled. Your trio has no selke votes between them, Is there anything, anywhere, that states they are teh best, or among the best at something?
It's just a bush league comment to claim someone has more defensive ability than 3 players who have all played in prominent defensive roles. That can't even be justified slightly, it's just gross embellishment. We get it, he's good defensively, the five or six pages of Libett/Erixon debate showed us continuously how good he was defensively, but he clearly isn't better than even two of the three players together defensively. Also in the process we learned how bad Erixon was offensively.

1. Pelletier is just a blogger with a lot of books who does research - like me or a lot of ATD GMs. He's no more credible than an ATD GM; he should be the "seasoning" to an argument for a player, definitely not the "main course".

2. Grier is active, Tucker just retired. Therefore Pelletier didn't profile them, or Boutette. If he did, what do you suppose he'd write about them? Do you think he'd speak in any less exemplary terms about Tucker's exuberance, Boutette's combativeness or Grier's intimidation? Regardless, refer to point #1. It doesn't really matter. Multiple sources (see bios) are quite clear about what types of players these are. I've only seen a quote from a blogger from your end.
His information is still credible though isn't it? I know he hasn't watched every player he's documented, but his information is clearly credible.

They're called "bios"...
I'm looking for the actual records themselves, I don't know where to get access to them.

Yes, Gibbs and Seabrook are pretty similar. Seabrook has arguably peaked higher, being the #2 defenseman for a cup winner. He's probably well on his way to being a better player than Gibbs, but I don't think he's there yet. Gibbs was a #1 defenseman for nine straight years, Seabrook has only played for six and he's never been a His career progression looks like this:

- #5 on a brutal team
- #3 on an improving, but still bad team
- #2 on a decent, non-playoff team
- #2 on a conference finalist
- #2 on a cup winner
- #2 on a playoff team.

the whole time he has been a #2, he was paired with a player whom most would agree is significantly better - Duncan Keith.

Seabrook did receive a couple scattered all-star votes the last two seasons, placing 10th and 15th, but the 15th was based on just one vote.

Gibbs placed 11th and 13th in all-star voting himself, with 11 and 5 voting points. His GA totals are not really relevant considering he was the guy getting the most (and toughest) minutes on teams that were below average. Yeah, being a #1 on a below-average team isn't as great as doing it on a good team, that's why he's in the MLD. PPGA totals say nothing more than "he spent a ton of time on the PK".

not sure if missing the AS/Norris voting was deliberate or not, but let me just point out that the Regina pairing has the better voting results between the two: 5th, 7th, 8th, 11th, 13th, vs. 8th, 10th, 12th, 13th (three of those four the results of Souray being overrated by his offense which was all his shot, not passing/skill/mobility)
Gibbs was the best defenseman on his team in all of those situations, hence being a #1 defenseman. Currently I think Seabrook is a #1 on many NHL teams, he's just playing with a defenseman who is simply better than him, which shows that he hasn't been given the opportunity to be a #1 defenseman.

Sargent was much better than Hedican ever was. Hedican never received a norris or AS vote in his career and was never in the running for a best on best roster. Sargent finished 9th/12th in 1978, was named to the 1980 ASG, and was USA's 2nd best player in the 1976 CC. He was also top-7 in the NHL in minutes three times. Hedican was a decent #2-5 defenseman for 1000 games but didn't do anything even close to that. We saw enough of both to know Sargent was better.

Kampman was just as tough, strong and physical as Quinn, but he actually earned all-star votes for it. 5th, 7th, and 9th, to be exact.

These two pairings are so far off that you probably should have just skipped them.
Kampman played in a six-team era, yes that's my argument because I think Quinn makes a similar impact in a six-team league as well.

They are not far off by much, both include a tough defensive defenseman, you have the advantage because you have a two-way defenseman who is capable of both aspects, while Hedican is a serviceable defensive defenseman that has speed as an advantage.

sorry, I don't understand, what exactly do you need to know avout Nicholson's teams? He won two Stanley Cups and was a finalist for another at the turn of the century. the team he won with had Dickie Boon on defense; I can't recall him playing with any other HHOF defensemen offhand but I could be wrong.

"slow"? based on what, his weight? That's pretty lame, man.

"minus a cup championship"? nice. yeah, except for that, they're about the same.

I'm curious, where would you rank Ed Johnston in terms of importance to Boston's cup win?
A team in front of the goaltender can contribute to his success can it not? He played on a good team which is a reason for his success, much like Johnston. Clearly he was a factor with a 1.86 GAA, yes he had a good team in front of him, but you aren't going to win with a bad goaltender in net. Much like Nicholson's success.

Well sure, it can be argued Theodore was better than Robertson, without a doubt. You even praised Theodore in the draft thread slightly after he was selected.

what a joke. Darran Haydar/Jason Krog-type players? Where is Iain when I need him?

Cook coached in a league that contained the next-best 100 or so players in the world. Are you really going to punish him for the NHL being just 6 teams? Even extrapolating for talent pool and stuff, the players he coached were relavitely as good as average NHL players today. I don't know why he didn't get a chance in the NHL, or even if he was never offered one. He might have been. There were quite a few coaches who came and went in the O6 era that Cook was clearly better than, though.

Line matching won't help Carlyle a lick if there are no advantages for him to take advantage of.
If he was that good, some team would want him to coach for them. Louis.

There's an advantage for us offensively...

Velociraptor is offline   Reply With Quote