View Single Post
09-23-2012, 01:36 AM
MLD Glue Guy
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,371
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Looks like at his very best Hampson was able to keep up with Sundstrom in ES scoring, but falls off after his best three seasons. Also, it should be noted that his three best seasons are based on getting scads of icetime for horrible teams.
Sundstrom benefits a bit from that as well (his teams weren't as bad as Hampson's, but hardly quality either).

Defensively, you may call me crazy for this one, but I think they are even. Duchesne played his whole career in the selke era and earned 10 voting points (good for 14th overall) one year, and that’s the only significant objective record in his favour. I wouldn’t conclude he was better defensively any more than I’d conclude a defenseman with one 14th in Norris voting was better than a guy with nothing.
Duchesne never had any year with significant voting, but he did hover around the 14th place (getting an average of 2 votes per year) in 82-83, 83-84, 84-85, 85-86, 86-87, 87-88, 90-91, 91-92, 92-93 and 93-94. Nothing of any real merit other than consistent appearances. His two-way game was probably too lacking to get him much appeal for voters.

Also, he led his team in scoring six times, which is nice, but also difficult to quantify compared to a player in the 30 team era. (i.e. is this more, or less important than percentage scores, or an appendix?)
I'd say an appendix as there are so many factors. What I think it does indicate is that he is at a level above his teammates as if there were players of a similar caliber on the squad, the leading scorer should be spread around more. Gomez definitely had a better supporting cast to help achieve his numbers than Himes.

This is not Himes’ fault but it does call into question his ability to produce offense in a grueling series.
I don't think it does. For a player with no track record of either succeeding or failing (2 games is too small a sample size for it to be a failure), I think the fair thing would be to assume he'd perform about the same in the playoffs as the regular season. And the gruelling series thing isn't really a fair criticism as it could be applied to any player of his era because even if he had made the playoffs and went all the way to the finals, that would have been a mere 6 to 10 more games.

Satan was canonized as a AAA player because…. Well, for no good reason, really
Because God will hate your team (really, it's because modern Europeans without championships suffer in the ATD)

I can’t comment too definitively on where he belongs, but I can say that last draft, for my 1st line I saw him as “good enough” and nothing more.
I mainly picked him because I wanted to learn more about him and because of chemistry with Davidson (although that plan was scuttled when I moved Davidson to be the top line glue guy).

Himes was courageous, Bellows bulky and Richardson… well, we at least have no evidence he was soft but not really anything that says the opposite, either. I’m not sure this line has enough “toughness by committee” to get it done over a long series.
I'm not sure why this criticism isn't equally relevant to your 1st line?

Lacroix has no defensive resume that I am aware of, and although his bio says he was a good penalty killer, where are all the PPGA? Not on his NHL record, I can tell you that much (2 in his career).
In the WHA (where he had 10 SHG).
These articles mention him penalty killing:

The only problem with that is, those guy guy skills are still based on just two years of play at the top level. YMMV, but I believe that non-offensive skills still take time to develop a track record of.
Why? What possible reason would there be for his non-offensive skills to fall off if he had not died?

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote