View Single Post
08-31-2011, 02:46 PM
Global Moderator
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,267
vCash: 500
I'm not going to respond to every point, but:

I'm going to need a legit source for this or for Iain to validate this to believe it.
Seriously? Iain posted the stats when I drafted McGimsie and now you need him to confirm to assume I'm not just making crap up by re-posting the stats that he provided?

Are you trying to be a dick?

So you admit that McGimsie had no depth of competition in this league? I see 3 total relevant players that he had to compete with for finishes, one of them being a defenseman.
Define, "relevant," because last I checked there were more HHOFers who played in McGimsie's league than McDougall's...

In fact, did a single forward in McDougall's league make the HHOF? Drinkwater and Grant were defensemen. Alf Smith made the Hall, but he barely competed against McDougall.

Again, see my note about quality and depth of competition. You accuse me of statistical smoke, and you're using it yourself here. That 39% is as deceiving a number as it gets. McDougall led the league in goals/game!
I have always used full season percentages when using the method, even if it hurts my players (see Zigmund Palffy in the ATD). It's a valid method. You can disagree with it, but it's not the same as your ridiculous insistence that #2 in a league that didn't contain all the world's best players is the same as #2 in a consolidated NHL. Which is what you are saying when you use VS2 numbers for pre-1926 seasons.

See my note above about depth of competition. McGimsie basically had to compete against 2 forwards for scoring finishes, and one of them is another MLD forward! McDougall was competing against 6 legitimate ATD forwards, and one that shifted positions. I don't see how one could argue McGimsie's league is close to McDougall's in terms of competition.
Okay, maybe this needs to be made clear: our ATD, while an interesting and educational exercise, is still a fantasy world. If your only evidence for a player's greatness is past draft position, that's really no better than having no evidence at all.

Yet again, see my note about the depth and quality of competition. Who cares who was seen as a "superstar"? Why does that matter at all?
How can you argue that it doesn't matter who was seen as a better player by those who actually saw them? Anyway, McGimsie was overshadowed by Tommy Phillips, a much better player than Graham Drinkwater and Mike Grant, the two guys overshadowing McDougall.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote