View Single Post
Old
09-02-2011, 07:54 PM
  #37
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,005
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Actually Harris was top-27 in ESP four times, for an MLD 3rd liner that is really good. Most ATD 3rd liners can't even say that.



I said Craven was perfect for Bullard, and that's because he prevents the line from being as terrible as Bullard is defensively. Meeker I liked a lot as a AAA 4th liner. He's nothing special on a 3rd line here. He had one very good season and one decent one, with a HHOF center.



What makes Meeker a better offensive player than Harris?



Already addressed, thank you.



Mmm hmmm, and pp goals are of course how we should evaluate defensemen.



You know, i never claimed him to be a big puckwinning presence, nor did i spend any time pimping him at all, but all those other supposedly gullible GMs sure gave him a lot of all-star votes, didn't they? My only point is that the evidence is just as strong for guys like him and gingras and gracie, as it is for libett or hooper.



Bain supposedly "hit like a dump truck", yet Gingras was the guy going to the box for rough play... connect the dots.



You are just reading what you want to read. There is nothing there that says he will win battles any better than my 1st liners.

Gingras' toughness is better substantiated, plus he delivered a level of offense reasonably close to the player many consider the very best of that era, Dan Bain.



Again, reading what you want to read. You are talking about "winning battles for pucks along the boards" but there is nothing in there about that.



Uh, i have no idea what you're talking about. I have plenty of information supporting Warwick's toughness, more than just the Allan Cup, and that is if I even used that. Off the top of my head, i don't think i did.

5'6", 155 in the 40s is not like the same size today, everyone knows that including you, it is just not convenient for you to admit it right now.



Great, Witt was so good at hitting and it made such a big impact on winning hockey games, that his coaches put him on the ice for lots of minutes, demonstrating that they trusted him to actually defend the zone and move the puck. Oh wait, they didn't?

(Nhl.com took down the pre-lockout RTSS stats years ago)



Yes, you do have a VERY MINOR offensive advantage on the blueline, ASSUMING MCKENNYS POINTS CAN ALL BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE. (Be honest and paste in the McKenny discussion from when he was drafted, will ya?) Assuming there is an edge at that point, isn't it amazing how Regina's defensemen are all the ones in the series consistently known as nearly elite players even though they were supposedly so bad offensively? While we are on the topic, answer me this, if your guys are better offensively but never got allstar/norris votes and mine did, what does that say about their defensive games?



Good for you. But Everyone knows by now that adjusting size by era makes more sense than using raw size, so i am not sure what your point is.

You also neglected to mention that two of my guys have unknown heights, are you assuming they were midgets? Seems to me that average for the era would be a lot more reasonable assumption.



Ok, so bio reading isnt your strong suit, gotcha.

Let me recap. From 1900 to 1909, nicholson had just three years where he didnt lead his league in gaa or wins, or get named to an allstar team, or make/win the league final. Most years he did a combination of the above. He won two stanley cups in three cup finals. On the surface his resume appears as strong as his HHOF contemporaries Moran, Lesueur, and Hern. I wouldnt dream of taking Beaupre over him. It seems most voters agreed too... but hey, Beaupre's 7th place finish in the voting isnt THAT bad...



Already done, beyond a shadow of a doubt, thank you very much.



Nice, your whole case is based on trashing my team!

- any physicality/puckwinning advantage you have is being very overstated, nothing more than a case of reading your own quotes one way and mine another way.

- Carveth's playoff resume was from the war years so curb your enthusiasm just a little, ok?

- yes, you probably do have better secondary scoring, but it is at the expense of defense. There is a reason most teams dont go for balls to the wall offense like you are here.

- no one is buying your "let's ignore everything except playoff ppg" angle for harris, but admirable effort.

- you went to the school of Dreakmur, i see. As far as defensemen are concerned, point totals FTW! Unfortunately for you, that doesn't tell the story. Except for a few cases, your defensemen were not good enough to be a top player for a good team, nor did they ever, aside from Murdoch once, get recognized as one of the League's best defenseman. EVERY REGINA DEFENSEMAN WILL BE SELECTED SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER THAN HALIFAX'S DEFENSEMEN NEXT YEAR, with the possible exception of Murdoch. Now that the allstar voting is known, no one would ever take stiffs like mckenny, giles, matvichuk or zidlicky over armstrong, kampman or portland. You would be best advised to just try to sweep this advantage under the carpet and hope there are 6 or 7 voters who didn't notice it.

I focesed hard on defense and i did pay a little on my offense, but it was worth it. All the little matchups here and there are a +1 or +2 for Regina or Halifax, but on the blueline it is a +20 for Regina. Nothing else in this series can make up for it, it is insurmountable.



It is my opinion that descriptions of Golonka colour him as the Czech version of Doug Gilmour. Disagree if you like.



Yep, 100% correct, i think Stumpel is just a bargain basement 2nd liner. So is Collins though. (Liked him as a aaa player)

How about that, hey? A GM who can be realistic about his players. You should give it a try sometime.



I dunno, but Golonka's excellent array of high finishes in the Czech league and internationally seem to paint him as quite the goal scorer. Warwick's six top-20s in goals in the NHL do the same.

Bullard got to play big minutes for a horrible teams, was bad defensively and expected his linemates to "feed" him, his finishes are hardly an indication of his true value.



Nice, boiling it down to top-10s even though the majority of mld players have none of them. The above comparison is useless and pointless.

Smith and hooper can both be measured by top-10, but of course they played in half-leagues so only top-5s have the same value. I know Hooper never came close, and you can check my aaa11 bio for smith to see how many he has, i am guessing one in points and a couple in goals.

Of course, leading the czech league in goals multiple times in the mid-1960s is nothing, and beating the soviets twice at the height of their power is nothing, right?

As for McKenny and Zidlicky, just because they can put up PP points, dont make the assumption that they will be any good at getting the puck out of the zone. McKenny had an awful habit of circling in front of his net, often with disastrous results. Zidlicky gets outmuscled nightly and can be forced into turnovers.



Not even close. Zidlicky has been a 2nd or 3rd pairing defenseman his entire career, who gets a bunch of minutes on the PP because that is the only nhl situation in which he is above average. Despite all these points, Zidlicky has never received allstar or Norris votes or been selected for the all-star game... why do you suppose that is?

Sargent, on the other hand, was 8th in voting in 1978 and was named to the 1980 allstar game. Yeah, he had no points at the canada cup, but you forgot to mention that because he was a great all-around defenseman, something no one would ever call Zidlicky, he was voted USA's 2nd most valuable player in the tournament. In 77, 78, and 79, he was one of the most heavily-used defensemen in the NHL. It's not even close. Sargent proved to be a semi-elite player over a period of four seasons, Zidlicky hasnt done anything close to that, and doesnt even have a big nhl longevity advantage to fall back on.

Only pure dreakmurism would make zidlicky better.




Your entire ATD/MLD rebuttles are boiled down in the two bolded posts. You want me to "connect the dots" with your players because a guy on his line hits hard but your players gets more penalty minutes so he of course has the physical attributes desperately needed.

Andddddd then of course 3 lines down you say I like to "Im reading what I like to read" and a guy who does all the small things for a team to win, is a relentless checker, has the best work ethic on his team etc.. etc.. of course is unable to win puck battles along the boards.


Who has the time to sort through all of your BS? I sure as hell don't and that is what 95% of your posts are.


Oh ya well my player was top 27 in ESP on the road during weekend games 3 times in his career and my defenseman minus 4 outliers averaging together there 1st and 3rd periods and 75% of the 3rd place defenseman in their 2nd and 3rd best seasons all have better % then yours...... GIVE ME A BREAK, when does common sense enter the conversation?

Yes MLD players have top 10's in points, 4 of my players have finished top 10 in points. Explain that one?

Golonka has your main offensive weapon is weak very weak and you know it, you completely ignore Joe Carveth so I guess +75 to Halifax compared to your "+20" for defenseman so I guess according to your methods Halifax now has the +55 advantage.


Quote:
ep, 100% correct, i think Stumpel is just a bargain basement 2nd liner. So is Collins though. (Liked him as a aaa player)

How about that, hey? A GM who can be realistic about his players. You should give it a try sometime.
I don't select players I am "unimpressed with" I like to do my research before I pick them. Thanks though.


Last edited by markrander87: 09-02-2011 at 08:03 PM.
markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote