View Single Post
Old
11-11-2013, 12:48 AM
  #557
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,271
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Hal Laycoe was tall (6'2 or 6'3 depending on the source) with positionally-smart stay-at-home play ... a tall, steady eddie
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Scuderi View Post
Just two things that may be worthy of adding to what you listed as notes already, Stew Evans picked up 5 all-star votes in 1938 and Al Dewsbury made the 1951 all-star game on merit (they dropped the SC winner format for 51 and 52)
Yeah, I gotta draw the line of noteworthiness somewhere... I mean if I was going to list Laycoe's height as noteworthy, then I'd have to list Cooper too. And while I'm at it, Cooper's bodychecking. Ultimately, only one of those defenseman was universally lauded for his hitting. And I think most of the guys at the top of that list (or all?) lasted as long as they did because of their steady/positional/defensive/physical play, or a combination of those factors. I was more trying to list reasons why you may not want to write off a player for having a poor showing on the chart, and Laycoe did very well without any "bonus points". Much better than I thought, actually.

I had to make a few decisions on a few guys' all-star and norris votes and the lowest I counted was 9. I considered Kent Douglas' 12 AST points to be enough, Bowman's 9 enough, Bolton's 9 points in 5th place enough, but Evans' 5 and Fontinato's 5 not enough. Arbitrary cutoff? It's certainly worthy of such criticism if you choose to issue it.

You're right about Dewsbury though.

one thing I probably should have added is that Bolton's poor showing is mostly because of injuries and not because he was not good enough.

Anyway, if you assume that NHL roster spots were granted on merit, there's a good case that the top 5 through Laycoe have a serious case at MLD 2nd pairings, the next 6 or so at MLD 3rd pairings/spare spots, and the rest sprinkled in after that, with exceptions made for exceptional cases as noted.

It would be nice if there was a sort of way to make a standardized composite metric out of those two figures. As in, how do you say what is more impressive: 9.96/-0.04, or 8.64/0.4?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote