View Single Post
09-10-2012, 12:09 PM
Student Of The Game
seventieslord's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 31,181
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Finally catching on. Other GMs drafted Hy Buller and Hugh Bolton. who played fewer games in the fifties than the equivalent of four seasons. I did not because there were better players available at that position.

Point is that my picks Karlsson and Quick face ageism discrimination while Bolton and Buller actually get venerated as good picks. Karlsson's achievements already are worth more than Buller's or Bolton's by any metric imaginable but he gets marked down unfairly because of the length of his career.
Karlsson's Norris season makes him a worthy MLD player but not the first pairing, super early pick that you made him, IMO. He obviously has the best "best season" out of any of the three defensemen you are comparing here. But his 2nd and 3rd best seasons are nothing special. Bolton and Buller's 2nd and 3rd best seasons are definitely better. Bolton is probably right in the same range as far as "all-time value" goes. Buller, with his extensive AHL career, is definitely well ahead of both.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Pederson also received Selke consideration a few times, brought toughness - 21 career fights
wow! 21 fights!

Vanek is a slightly better goal scorer than Geoff Courtnall, nowhere near the playmaker that Courtnall was, Vanek G>A, Courtnall G<A. Courtnall was much better defensively and brought toughness and corner work, 9 seasons with 100+ PIMs. Vanek is slightly better than soft. Advantage Courtnall.
Vanek has obviously been a more significant offensive performer in his 7-year career. He has had three seasons as good as Courtnall's best. Even in playmaking, his three best adjusted totals almost perfectly match Courtnall's three best. Goalscoring is, of course, not close.

I realize Courtnall could be considered ahead depending on how one values longevity, though. (10 seasons over 50 adjusted points, six over 60)

Sanford was a Boston Garden small rink performer. Supported by at least 2-3 HHOF quality defensemen - Boivin,Flaman,Quackenbush.
Couldn't that be said about almost any O6 forward who played 8 or more seasons? What's the point?

Russ Courtnall and Eddie Wiseman are a wash. Both could score, were good playmakers for RWs, solid defensively, could not be intimidated.
I see no metric that would put Courtnall over Wiseman.

Wiseman's best 6 percentage scores total 436; Courtnall's total 370, despite this stat tending to favour post-expansion players by roughly 15%.

Wiseman rarely being one of the two best offensive players on his team is a concern, but the same concern applies to Courtnall.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Allan "Scotty" Davidson is a prime example. Two year career ended by WWI. Great pick, should be a ATD player. Moose Watson never played in the NHL but gets a lot of favourable projection for no logical reason.
one season 4th in NHA scoring (a half league) and two seasons played in total makes him an ATDer?

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
. Harris brings a complete game.
Ward's game looks pretty complete too, though. And his offensive record is far better. He played on a line with superior players, but Harris usually did too.

Great teams blend youth and longevity.
No one is an "age" in the ATD.

You need to look at this as if the hockey continuum stops right now and historians are piecing together the record hundreds of years later. By that futuristic standpoint, all players are approximately the same "age" and they are judged solely by what they did on the ice.

the ageism claims are getting old.

Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Like I wrote pontificating plus juggling. Using adjusted numbers when it favours you then switching to raw when it favours you. Lalonde's adjusted numbers to a full season yields app. a 38 to 28 pt advantage compared to Donald Smith. Your boy looks even worse. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
....that is not how adjusted numbers work.

Last edited by seventieslord: 09-10-2012 at 02:54 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote