HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD2011 Red Fisher Conf. Finals: Regina Pats vs. McGuire's Monsters

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-24-2011, 11:56 AM
  #26
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
That said, Messier was known for putting all but the strongest checkers on their butts
Oh, Messier will definately toss Laprade around a few times, but Laprade will always be back for more.

The thing is that even if Messier gets past Laprade, he's got Ray Bourque to deal with.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2011, 03:53 PM
  #27
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
I wills ay this: You are more honest about your weaknesses and holes than I initially gave you credit for.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
The Cs and RWs basically even out, so the difference in the line comes down to Johnny Bucyk vs. Alf Smith. That doesn't make it a significant gap.
A. if it was that simple, yes it would.
B. Messier and Bathgate even out in terms of their respective standings among 1st liners at their positions, yes. Selanne is a much better RW than Ullman is a C, though. At this point there are only 10 RWs definitely better than Selanne (Bathgate might be 9th of those 10) and then Kurri, Mikhailov and Hull are debatable. He's 11th-14th, and that's better than Ullman, who I was generous calling "average" as I'm a fan, but he's likely closer to 30th than 20th.

Quote:
I agree that Dunderdale and Turgeon are about even in terms of offensive impact. I don't think Dunderdale is much better defensively, but he does have a solid physical edge.
Agree.

Quote:
I'm not sure why you chose to compare them this way. Stanfield and Cashman played on the same team, so they are an easy comparison. Also, Marshall and Adams played in the pre-consolidation era, so they are easlier to compare aswell.

Fred Stanfield vs. Wayne Cashman
- both guys are the glue guys
- Cashman did provide elite puck-winning and toughness, but he provided basically nothing else
- Stanfield provides lesser amoungs of both, but he also provides better offense and better defense.
- overall, Stanfield brings a lot more to the table, and that makes up for Cashman's one elite aspect.
- Stanfield provides "much lesser" amounts of both. In the same way that almost any player brings "much less" size than Pete Mahovlich, or "much less" speed than Yvan Cournoyer. We're talking about a guy top-5 all-time in this regard.
- Why is Stanfield's offense better? He didn't produce more at even strength, as already demonstrated, and produced more on the PP due to opportunities and situations he's not the beneficiary of here.
- Despite the PP advantage he had, I already demonstrated that he did not place as highly in team scoring (4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 6, 7) as Cashman did, or as often (3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 5, 5, 6, 6)

He's not close. He compares to my 3rd liners, certainly not my second liners.

Quote:
Jack Marshall vs. Jack Adams
- both guys are the secondary offensive producers
- Adams provides good offense and solid physical play
- Marhsall provides slightly less offense, the same physical play, and better defensive play
- overall, they are pretty close to equal
- Marshall's defensive ability as a defenseman was well-known, but I'm not sure how great he was as a forward.
- In any case, his offense is not just "slightly" less than Adams. He led the weaker FAHL in scoring twice; this is not anywhere close to what Adams did. In 1905, he tied McGee (took two extra games to do it) - pretty good, but not like outright leading the PCHA in scoring. The other year he is now apparently 2nd according to updated SIHR stats (10 pts, leader had 11) His other three decent offensive years were at least in the top leagues. Here are his percentages of the leader in those seasons: 65, 64, 36.
- So what we're left with is, he has a 100% and 91%, exactly like Adams, except that his 100 and 91 are not of the same value as Adams, not by a long shot. He has two seasons with scores in the mid-60s like Adams - those are of fairly similar values. He has nothing to compare to Adams' two other seasons of 86% and 85%. he's not close offensively.

Quote:
Pete Mahovlich vs. Mel Bridgeman
- Mahovlich brings much better offense and defense
- Bridgeman brings more toughness and grit
- don't let Bridgeman's mustache fool you, he's not in Mahovlich's league
Yes he is much better offensively.

However, you are attempting to extrapolate his PK excellence to even strength situations here. Oftentimes the two are closely correllated, other times they aren't at all. Mahovlich likely falls closer to the latter than the former, given what we know of him and his skillset.

Quote:
Edgar Laprade vs. Murray Oliver
- both provide similar grit
- Oliver brings better offense
- Laprade brings significantly better defense
You can say Laprade's defense is significantly better if you like, but you must admit Oliver's offense is significantly better, considering both are going to get their prime offensive opportunities at even strength. Having been top-7 in ESP three times, he's miles ahead.

Quote:
Bridgeman's ability to take people off their games won't effect Bathgate. In an erarlier series, you jumped in and said that Tony Leswick couldn't do the job, why would you think Bridgeman can?
Not the same thing at all. Leswick's most well-documented skill was his ability to really engage Maurice Richard and make him stoop to his level, a tradeoff his team would take any time. the Rocket was a spaz and he took full advantage. I said that he would have a more difficult time making Bathgate spaz, and that is true. I'm not suggesting Bridgman would be any more successful at that. I'm suggesting he would intimidate or goon up Bathgate, a very real possibility.

Quote:
Even if you do beleive Reise is better than Egan, the gap between them is small. The gap between Hod Stuart and Jim Neilson is pretty big.
the gaps are equally-sized. Stuart should be a good 70 spots ahead of Neilson/Reise, and they should be about 200 spots ahead of Egan. 200th-270th and 270th-470th are about equal in terms of the player values associated.

Quote:
Only changes I would make is move Raise down below Green and Egan, and move Watson down to the bottom.
You don't care at all that Watson was Philly's top ES defenseman both times they won the cup? Surely that has to be worth more than an AHL career plus two good NHL seasons and the "potential" for more.

As for Reise being behind Green and Egan... Sturm was quite prophetic when he said, "Your habit of judging defensemen by their scoring totals is curious."

I feel Reise being significantly better than Egan has been well-demonstrated by this point. As for Green - he was 3rd-best in 1969 (norris/AS), 6th/7th in 1968, and 7th in 1965. 1966 has been, of course, well-debunked by now, and 1967 was a single vote. 3rd/6th/7th is not a better resume than 3rd/4th/two other times from 5th-9th. Especially when you consider the greater visibility that comes from being on the top PP unit and putting up some points. It is close, though.

Quote:
Considering your PP isn't very good, I'm not that worried.
It's incredible that you would say such a thing.

Are you aware that Selanne was top-13 in PP points 7 times, including five in the top-6, and once leading 54-44 over 2nd place?

Are you aware that bucyk was top-12 in PP points an amazing ten times, including 7 times in the top-5?

This is probably the best PP winger combination in the entire ATD.

And Clancy is, of course, one of the six most prolific offensive defensemen of all-time (probably 6th)

Quote:
I never said he wasn't an offensive specialist.

I did say there was very little evidence that he was poor defensively. Actually, there is more evidence that he was good defensively than there was that he was bad.
Then you are refusing to read between the lines.

Finding direct evidence of anyone being particularly bad defensively from those times, is difficult. Make no mistake, what we do know is damning.

Quote:
Reise's 4 best years are probably better than Egan's best 4, Egan actually had a reall solid 10 year career. Reise did basically nothing outside those 4 years.
Egan had a solid offensive 10-year career.

And actually, a lack of detailed voting results and a lack of an ASG format to provide further depth is the only reason it looks to you like Reise did nothing outside of 4 years. It's really doubtful that he just stunk, then was a star for four years, then stunk again.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2011, 09:06 PM
  #28
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
A. if it was that simple, yes it would.
B. Messier and Bathgate even out in terms of their respective standings among 1st liners at their positions, yes. Selanne is a much better RW than Ullman is a C, though. At this point there are only 10 RWs definitely better than Selanne (Bathgate might be 9th of those 10) and then Kurri, Mikhailov and Hull are debatable. He's 11th-14th, and that's better than Ullman, who I was generous calling "average" as I'm a fan, but he's likely closer to 30th than 20th.
It doesn't matter how they compare to others of their position. It matters how they compare to each other. Bathgate and Ullman are about equal to Messier and Selanne.

Quote:
- Why is Stanfield's offense better? He didn't produce more at even strength, as already demonstrated, and produced more on the PP due to opportunities and situations he's not the beneficiary of here.
Cashman is very nearly an offensive zero. He put up points at even strength because he played with Esposito and Orr.

Quote:
I'm suggesting he would intimidate or goon up Bathgate, a very real possibility.
Bathgate won't be intimidted. If you want to goon him, you'll just be giving the Monsters extra chances to kill you on the PP.

Quote:
the gaps are equally-sized. Stuart should be a good 70 spots ahead of Neilson/Reise, and they should be about 200 spots ahead of Egan. 200th-270th and 270th-470th are about equal in terms of the player values associated.
This isn't about what their draft positions should be.

Hod Stuart is arguable a legitimate #1 defenseman here. He is very strong in every aspect of the game. Defensively and physically, Neilson is close to Stuart, but offensively it's not even close.

Reise it better than Egan defensively. Physically, they are about the same. Offensively, Egan is better than Reise. The gaps between offense and defense are probably similar. You can slam Egan's defensive play all you want, but it doesn't take away from the other aspects of his game.

Quote:
Then you are refusing to read between the lines.

Finding direct evidence of anyone being particularly bad defensively from those times, is difficult. Make no mistake, what we do know is damning.
What we know is basically nothing. What you assume is damning.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-24-2011, 09:18 PM
  #29
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Here's why you should vote for McGuire's Monsters:

Goaltending:
Once again, we'll have a distinct advantage between the pipes. Tretiak is definately better than Esposito, especially when you consider Tretiak's big game play vs. Esposito's play-off results.

Defense:
The Monsters have a significant edge on the top pairing and a distict advantage on the second pair. With horse like Ray Bourque and Hod Stuart on the ice for almost the entire game should give me a huge edge on the blueline.

Power Play:
With Bourque and Bathgate running things, the Monsters have a distinct edge on the powerplay. The pointmen especially are a significant advantage for the Monsters. Also, with Regina's plan to "goon Bathgate", the Monsters will have plenty of chances to make them pay with the man advantage.


Maybe it's just because this draft was incredibly balanced, or maybe I've just had an abnormally tough path to the semi finals, but, once again, I'm in a series that I can see myself winning or losing. I see my team as alightly better, and I beleive the Monsters should edge this out, but I won't be disappointed to lose to a strong Regina team.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 01:10 AM
  #30
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It doesn't matter how they compare to others of their position. It matters how they compare to each other. Bathgate and Ullman are about equal to Messier and Selanne.
Selanne and Ullman are similar in value (towards the bottom of the top-100 all-time), yes, but this makes me wonder.... do you think Bathgate is a top-30 player? Or do you think Messier belongs down in the 60s?

Quote:
Cashman is very nearly an offensive zero. He put up points at even strength because he played with Esposito and Orr.
And who do you think Stanfield played with? He wasn't the top scorer on the second line, you know. Sometimes not 2nd, either.

Obviously those two helped. But it doesn't matter who you're playing with, if you end up 4th and 7th in points with very little PP time, you're not an offensive zero. You brought up the fact that they played on the same time as a method of comparison, and I showed that Cashman ranked higher on the Bruins and more often. What happened to that?

Quote:
Bathgate won't be intimidted. If you want to goon him, you'll just be giving the Monsters extra chances to kill you on the PP.
I know that he gave back as much as he took on occasion, but that's similar to a guy like Selanne - he'd surprise with his toughness for a 1st line player, but that didn't necessarily make him tough. In the ATD, he is one of the more likely first liners to get thrown off his game. Ullman's not a protector type. Smith certainly is, but he's all the way across the ice.

Quote:
This isn't about what their draft positions should be.

Hod Stuart is arguable a legitimate #1 defenseman here. He is very strong in every aspect of the game. Defensively and physically, Neilson is close to Stuart, but offensively it's not even close.
Agree. And Neilson played over twice as long against a deeper talent pool. 70 spots from 200th-270th is significant. No doubt Stuart is better.

Quote:
Reise it better than Egan defensively. Physically, they are about the same. Offensively, Egan is better than Reise. The gaps between offense and defense are probably similar. You can slam Egan's defensive play all you want, but it doesn't take away from the other aspects of his game.
Trying to break it down into components like this is just glossing over the fact that these are two players whose careers overlapped six seasons, and one received much better recognition as an overall player, despite inferior offensive output. You know damn well what this means!

Quote:
What we know is basically nothing. What you assume is damning.
What I, and others, assume, is a very fair assumption.

Let's take a look at some of the other times a defenseman has led the league's blueliners in scoring and didn't receive great Norris/All-Star recognition:

Sergei Gonchar, 2004: 1st in points, 9th in Norris voting.
Brian Leetch, 2001: 1st in points, 5th for the Norris.
Phil Housley, 1993: 1st in points, 5th for the Norris.
Paul Coffey, 1990: 1st in points, 4th for the Norris.
Paul Coffey, 1983: 1st in points, 5th for the Norris.
Mike McMahon, 1968: 1st in points, NIL for the Norris.
Pat Egan, 1949: 1st in points, NIL for the AST.
Jim Thomson, 1948: 1st in points, NIL for the AST.
Pat Egan, 1947: 1st in points, NIL for the AST.
Babe Pratt, 1946: 1st in points, NIL for the AST.
Babe Pratt, 1945: 1st in points, 4th for the AST.
Flash Hollett, 1943: 1st in points, 4th for the AST.
Flash Hollett, 1939: 1st in points, NIL for the AST (top-15 known).
Red Horner, 1938: 1st in points, 5th for the AST.

With the exception of Jim Thomson, there is a definite common thread here. Of course, this is just the guys who came 1st in points,. The list of guys who were 2nd in points and not top-6 in voting, or 3rd in points and not top-8 in voting, would get even longer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Here's why you should vote for McGuire's Monsters:

Goaltending:
Once again, we'll have a distinct advantage between the pipes. Tretiak is definately better than Esposito, especially when you consider Tretiak's big game play vs. Esposito's play-off results.

Defense:
The Monsters have a significant edge on the top pairing and a distict advantage on the second pair. With horse like Ray Bourque and Hod Stuart on the ice for almost the entire game should give me a huge edge on the blueline.

Power Play:
With Bourque and Bathgate running things, the Monsters have a distinct edge on the powerplay. The pointmen especially are a significant advantage for the Monsters. Also, with Regina's plan to "goon Bathgate", the Monsters will have plenty of chances to make them pay with the man advantage.


Maybe it's just because this draft was incredibly balanced, or maybe I've just had an abnormally tough path to the semi finals, but, once again, I'm in a series that I can see myself winning or losing. I see my team as alightly better, and I beleive the Monsters should edge this out, but I won't be disappointed to lose to a strong Regina team.
Well, I hate "campaigning", but here goes. Here's why Regina deserves to win:

- McGuire's can can claim a small edge in net and a razor-thin one on the blueline. (this boils down to Bourque/Green over Clancy/Day, we're talking 10th & 300th over 50th & 200th, it's an edge but a pretty small one) It's not enough.

- Don't be fooled by McGuire's supposed "PP advantage". Bathgate has been touted as some sort of unstoppable ATD PP weapon, but it's getting carried away. Bathgate's 7 times in the top-5 in PP points are great, but they are no better than Selanne's (they are in fact worse if you look at % of leader), and he never led the league like Selanne once did, by 10 points. It is not Regina's team plan to goon Bathgate, that is simply the M.O. of one player, and Regina is a team equipped to take very little penalties overall, despite the best efforts of thugs like Bridgman.

The truth about the PP units is, Bucyk and Selanne are probably the ATD's best PP wing duo. Bucyk is 5th among the 655 700-game post-expansion players with a career average of 44 adjusted PPP per 80 games, and Selanne is 9th, despite a massive amount of games played. Turgeon is 35th and Messier 72nd. Think about that - all 80 of the top-80 should be selected by now, with every team having an average of two. Regina's got four. One in four teams should have a top-10 guy. Regina's got two of them.

Regina's top-6 forwards are clearly better offensively than McGuire's, and these are the same six forwards on the PP. McGuire's drops Marshall in favour of McNab. OK, but McNab's 18 adjusted PPP per 80 games is 218th among those 655 players - he's not a great specialist.

- Regina has the better coach, even if we have just one.

- Regina has the better PK units.

- There's no forward line on the Monsters that compares favourably to their Regina counterpart. The 2nd line is the only arguable one, and the highly dubious offensive achievements of Stanfield and Marshall collapse that house of cards pretty quickly.

- The Monsters are relying fairly heavily, for a team so deep in the playoffs, on forwards who did practically nothing in the playoffs. Bathgate, Dunderdale, Laprade, and 2/3 of the 4th line have poor resumes in the playoffs relative to their overall reputations. This should be a factor in a long series and after getting this far on the backs of their defense and goalie.

Very minor advantages in net and on the blueline and little else, do not a conference champion make.

Good luck to you, this has been fun. And I can keep if up too. You know I can't resist replying... ball's in your court, Pennywise.


Last edited by seventieslord: 05-25-2011 at 01:20 AM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 01:43 AM
  #31
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Selanne and Ullman are similar in value (towards the bottom of the top-100 all-time), yes, but this makes me wonder.... do you think Bathgate is a top-30 player? Or do you think Messier belongs down in the 60s?
I think both should be taken in the 40s.

Quote:
You brought up the fact that they played on the same time as a method of comparison, and I showed that Cashman ranked higher on the Bruins and more often. What happened to that?
Cashman played with Esposito and Orr. That's the only reason he put up points.

Quote:
In the ATD, he is one of the more likely first liners to get thrown off his game.
Odd that you said exactly the opposite when commenting on one of my earlier series. What's changed?

Quote:
Agree. And Neilson played over twice as long against a deeper talent pool. 70 spots from 200th-270th is significant. No doubt Stuart is better.
He played twice as long when the average career length was twice as long....

Quote:
Trying to break it down into components like this is just glossing over the fact that these are two players whose careers overlapped six seasons, and one received much better recognition as an overall player, despite inferior offensive output. You know damn well what this means!
As Sturm brought up earlier, Egan's penchant for punching referees hurt his award and all-star voting.

Quote:
- McGuire's can can claim a small edge in net and a razor-thin one on the blueline. (this boils down to Bourque/Green over Clancy/Day, we're talking 10th & 300th over 50th & 200th, it's an edge but a pretty small one) It's not enough.
There's a very fair argument to be made that Bourque is the 5th best player of all time. He's miles ahead of Clancy.

As Regina has already admitted, Hod Stuart is also better than Hap Day. That gives a substantial edge at the top end.

Our #3s are about equal. Ted Green having a better peak, and Jim Neilson having better longevity.

Our #4s are arguable.

That is a pretty subtantial edge on the blueline.

Quote:
- Don't be fooled by McGuire's supposed "PP advantage". Bathgate has been touted as some sort of unstoppable ATD PP weapon, but it's getting carried away.
The two best PP players in this series are Ray Bourque and Andy Bathgate.

Outside of Clancy, your PP blueliners are pretty weak.


Quote:
- Regina has the better PK units.
Laprade and Mahovlich are the two best PK forwards, and Bourque and Stuart are the 2 best PK defensemen. I really doubt you've got a PK edge.

Quote:
- The Monsters are relying fairly heavily, for a team so deep in the playoffs, on forwards who did practically nothing in the playoffs. Bathgate, Dunderdale, Laprade, and 2/3 of the 4th line have poor resumes in the playoffs relative to their overall reputations. This should be a factor in a long series and after getting this far on the backs of their defense and goalie.
Andy Bathgate was a fine play-off performer, as I have shown numerous times. His goals per game average goes up in the play-offs, and when he was finally moved to teams that were good enough to advance in the play-offs, he was an very strong performer.

Edgar Laprade played for a team that only made the play-offs twice, but both times he played in the play-offs he was better than he was in the regular season.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 10:27 AM
  #32
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,951
vCash: 500
I don't recall sturm actually agreeing with the Egan theory.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 11:10 AM
  #33
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't recall sturm actually agreeing with the Egan theory.
Sturm brought up the referee punching, which I didn't now about

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 01:51 PM
  #34
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Cashman played with Esposito and Orr. That's the only reason he put up points.
Orr played half the game and the +/- discrepancies between he and Esposito have already proven in the past that the two were not joined at the hip - you're kidding yourself if you think he didn't spend a lot of time on the ice with Stanfield... and most importantly, he was on the ice with Stanfield for copious amounts of PP time and was on the ice every time Stanfield was part of a Boston PP goal... literally, every time, if he was in the lineup.

Quote:
Odd that you said exactly the opposite when commenting on one of my earlier series. What's changed?
Do you and I have different definitions of being "thrown off one's game"? It doesn't have to mean agitating to the point of spazzing. It can also just mean being intimidated. There is no contradiction here. Better question is, why do I have to explain the same thing twice to you in two days?

Quote:
He played twice as long when the average career length was twice as long....
A. he played over twice as long.
B. At no time in history was the average career length actually anywhere near twice as long as another time in history.
C. Careers were shorter at certain times, for some reasons other than, "that's just the way it was." It also hints at a weaker generation.

Quote:
As Sturm brought up earlier, Egan's penchant for punching referees hurt his award and all-star voting.
There may or may not be truth to that. Regardless, that disgraceful behaviour couldn't have helped his teams, could it? Aside from the penalties and suspensions to Egan, it could have generated further penalty bias against him, or even to his team in general. This is very bad, not good!

Quote:
There's a very fair argument to be made that Bourque is the 5th best player of all time. He's miles ahead of Clancy.

As Regina has already admitted, Hod Stuart is also better than Hap Day. That gives a substantial edge at the top end.

Our #3s are about equal. Ted Green having a better peak, and Jim Neilson having better longevity.

Our #4s are arguable.
You run into trouble here when you try to say Green was about as good as Neilson - he wasn't - and of course when you say the #4s are arguable. The latter is especially delusional.

Quote:
The two best PP players in this series are Ray Bourque and Andy Bathgate.
They are both great, no doubt.

But let's talk about Bathgate, this unstoppable ATD PP weapon. Now generally, it is the player's actual PP numbers we use to determine their PP effectiveness, right? Here are his best 10 seasons for PPP in percentage of #2, no outliers removed:

100, 93, 91, 90, 87, 80, 69, 69, 62, 50.

And the same for Selanne, no outliers removed:

123, 89, 89, 84, 83, 82, 79, 77, 69, 68.

Why should anyone consider Bathgate to be a superior PP performer to Selanne, let alone one of the finest in the entire draft?

Quote:
Outside of Clancy, your PP blueliners are pretty weak.
Doesn't sound like you know very much about Day's offensive capabilities. He once led all defensemen in points, and was 4th four more times. It's arguable that he's the era's 3rd-best offensive defenseman after Clancy and Shore. Pretty sure that the 3rd-best of an era can be a good 2nd pointman on a 1st unit with 40 teams.

Redden was one of the better PP point producers of the last decade from the blueline. He's fine as a #3.

Neilson is only average as a #4, but when he got PP time, he placed in the top-8 in points 4 times post-expansion.

Quote:
Laprade and Mahovlich are the two best PK forwards, and Bourque and Stuart are the 2 best PK defensemen. I really doubt you've got a PK edge.
Laprade very well may be the best - he had to get in the hall somehow, right?

I'm quite curious why you would consider Mahovlich a better PKer than Messier or Nevin. Mahovlich was a major penalty killer for his team in just five seasons, other times not really at all. He had a great year in 1973 and led a poll one time as a result. Nevin was a major penalty killer in seven post-expansion seasons and most likely 7 more before that. He was universally regarded as an excellent penalty killer throughout his career. That cannot be said for Mahovlich, not even close.

Messier, including pre- and post-prime years, killed 41% of his team's penalties in his career, one of the highest percentages of all time despite being 2nd all-time in GP. In 20 seasons he was considered a major penalty killer for his team. His team's PK efficiency of 9% better than the league average during this time is also very impressive considering the length of time it covers and the personal contribution he made to it. There is simply no numerical reason that Pete Mahovlich should be considered a better PKer. It gets more absurd when you look at their skill sets. Messier is faster, a harder worker, just as good on faceoffs, just as strong, infinitely smarter, and much more fearless. he is far more cut out to be a top level penalty killer, it's not really close.

Defensemen: Yes, Bourque is the man. Why does Stuart get to be called the next-best PKer in the series? You have no idea how he killed penalties. I realize there has to be some guesswork involved with a player that old, but it can only take you so far.

- Leo Reise earned considerable all-star recognition solely for his defensive play.
- Jim Neilson killed 43% of penalties for his teams post-expansion and they were above average overall, despite that being tainted by 4 years for the Seals/Chiefs.
- Joe Watson killed 44% of penalties for his career and they were 15% better than the league average. Very narrowly behind Van Impe and Clarke, he was their 3rd-busiest PKer during their heyday, and they had the league's best PK over this time.
- Day was of course one of the smartest defenders of his time.

Quote:
Andy Bathgate was a fine play-off performer, as I have shown numerous times. His goals per game average goes up in the play-offs, and when he was finally moved to teams that were good enough to advance in the play-offs, he was an very strong performer.
His goals per game goes up in the playoffs? Actually, you have to really fudge the numbers to get people to believe that. Yes, based on his career it does. But his career spanned 19 seasons and his playoff career spanned 11. During this 11 year period, his playoff GPG was the same (0.38) as his regular season GPG. By taking career numbers, you include the start and end of his career, when he had 65 goals in 318 games (0.20 GPG) - we don't know whether his GPG in the playoffs would have risen from that in those years, now, do we?

Regardless, it is his points per game that really counts, especially considering he was primarily a playmaker. Bathgate's career 0.65 playoff PPG average is 29% below his career regular season average. Even more damning, it is 39% below his regular season average during that 11-year period. As for producing once he was on teams with a chance to advance - in 1964-1966 Bathgate averaged 0.59 playoff PPG with Toronto and Detroit... a 32% drop from his regular season performance over that same three-season period. A fine playoff performer? Come again?

This whole "Bathgate was a fine playoff performer" spiel is nonsense; if he was a fine playoff performer, anyone can claim to be. Please explain what makes you think you can get away with making claims like this.

Quote:
Edgar Laprade played for a team that only made the play-offs twice, but both times he played in the play-offs he was better than he was in the regular season.
yes, it appears that in that very miniscule sample size he performed offensively better than he did in the regular season. Good for him. Just curious, does this mean it should be extrapolated as though this is a full playoff resume? Should we give him the same credit we give a player with twice, five times, or ten times as much playoff experience, because his points per game average looks decent?


Last edited by seventieslord: 05-25-2011 at 01:57 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 03:34 PM
  #35
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Do you and I have different definitions of being "thrown off one's game"? It doesn't have to mean agitating to the point of spazzing. It can also just mean being intimidated. There is no contradiction here. Better question is, why do I have to explain the same thing twice to you in two days?
It doesn't matter. Bathgate will not be thrown off his game nor will he be intimidated.

Quote:
You run into trouble here when you try to say Green was about as good as Neilson - he wasn't - and of course when you say the #4s are arguable. The latter is especially delusional.
Ted Green's peak is quite a bit better than Neilson's, and, despite a brutal injury, still enjoyed a longer career.

As I've said before, Reise's peak is better than Egan's, but Egan has like 15 good years under his belt.

Quote:
Why should anyone consider Bathgate to be a superior PP performer to Selanne, let alone one of the finest in the entire draft?
Bathgate should be considered one of the best PP performers in the draft because he is one of the best offensive performers in the draft. Just like his overa scoring, his PP scoring was damaged by playing with crappy team mates.

Selanne was rarely, if ever, the best player on his team's powerplay. While he was a good PP player, he benefited from having other great players around him.

Quote:
Doesn't sound like you know very much about Day's offensive capabilities.
I've owned Day in 3 previous drafts. I know very well his offensive capabilities, and they are fine. He'd be the 4th or 5th best offensive defenseman in my team.

[quote]Redden was one of the better PP point producers of the last decade from the blueline. He's fine as a #3.[quote]

Again, he'd be the 5th or 6th best guy on my team.

Quote:
Neilson is only average as a #4, but when he got PP time, he placed in the top-8 in points 4 times post-expansion.
Neilson would probably be the worst offensive defenseman on my team.

Quote:
I'm quite curious why you would consider Mahovlich a better PKer than Messier or Nevin.
Mahovlich was the best PKer in the NHL for at least one season.

Quote:
Defensemen: Yes, Bourque is the man. Why does Stuart get to be called the next-best PKer in the series? You have no idea how he killed penalties. I realize there has to be some guesswork involved with a player that old, but it can only take you so far.
Stuart was arguably the best player of his generation, and he was an elite defensive player.

Quote:
His goals per game goes up in the playoffs? Actually, you have to really fudge the numbers to get people to believe that. Yes, based on his career it does. But his career spanned 19 seasons and his playoff career spanned 11. During this 11 year period, his playoff GPG was the same (0.38) as his regular season GPG. By taking career numbers, you include the start and end of his career, when he had 65 goals in 318 games (0.20 GPG) - we don't know whether his GPG in the playoffs would have risen from that in those years, now, do we?
Who's fudging numbers now? Even with your skewed numbers, his goals per game remains the same.

Quote:
Regardless, it is his points per game that really counts, especially considering he was primarily a playmaker. Bathgate's career 0.65 playoff PPG average is 29% below his career regular season average. Even more damning, it is 39% below his regular season average during that 11-year period. As for producing once he was on teams with a chance to advance - in 1964-1966 Bathgate averaged 0.59 playoff PPG with Toronto and Detroit... a 32% drop from his regular season performance over that same three-season period. A fine playoff performer? Come again?
His PPG dropped because his team mates were a bunch of seives. He can only do so much setting up - he can't put it in the net for them.

As for the 1964-66 period, that would include the 1965 season, when Bathgate broke his thumb.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 03:57 PM
  #36
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,951
vCash: 500
Bathgate did have Bill Gadsby playing the opposite point in NY for most of his time there. The forwards sucked, but I think you're going too far in how badly you find Bathgate's teammates to be.

Edit: nevermind, forwards didn't suck either.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-25-2011 at 05:32 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:13 PM
  #37
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Bathgate did have Bill Gadsby playing the opposite point in NY for most of his time there. The forwards sucked, but I think you're going too far in how badly you find Bathgate's teammates to be.
Do you know who they were?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:28 PM
  #38
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Do you know who they were?
See, you shouldn't have said that, because I actually checked. Camille Henry, powerplay specialist, was Bathgate's teammate his entire time in NY. Oops.

Between Gadsby and Henry, I don't see the problem for Bathgate on the PP. Rangers lacked depth and defense; their PP looks fine to me.

The rest was probably some mix of Red Sullivan, Dean Prentice, and Andy Heberton, not great, but not terrible.

I take back what I said about the forwards sucking.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 05:56 PM
  #39
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Ted Green's peak is quite a bit better than Neilson's, and, despite a brutal injury, still enjoyed a longer career.
Why is his peak "better"? Both peaked as 2nd team all-stars.

He played a whopping 14 more NHL/WHA games than Neilson. And of course, 403 fewer in the NHL. I'll let anyone reading come to their own conclusion about who had better staying power at the top levels.

Quote:
Bathgate should be considered one of the best PP performers in the draft because he is one of the best offensive performers in the draft. Just like his overa scoring, his PP scoring was damaged by playing with crappy team mates.

Selanne was rarely, if ever, the best player on his team's powerplay. While he was a good PP player, he benefited from having other great players around him.
LOL! OK, seriously, admit you just did that to make me waste some time proving it so horribly wrong.

- in 1993 he was behind only Housley.
- in 1994 only injuries prevented him from leading the Jets.
- in 1995 he was 2nd.
- in 1996 he led the Jets and/or Ducks.
- in 1997 he was 2 pts behind Kariya.
- 1998 was strange, the team's PP was awful and Kariya missed a lot of time - Selanne decided to lead the league in ESP instead.
- in 1999 he led the Ducks, outscoring Kariya by 11 points in fewer games.
- in 2000 he led the Ducks.
- in 2001 only the trade prevented him from leading the Ducks, but he easily led San Jose.
- In 2002 and 2003 he was 2nd on San Jose.
- 2004 was awful.
- he led the 2006 and 2007 Ducks in PP Points.
- only injuries prevented him from leading them in 2008.
- he led them in 2010 despite playing only 54 games.
- he turned 40 this season and led them again.

Quote:
I've owned Day in 3 previous drafts. I know very well his offensive capabilities, and they are fine. He'd be the 4th or 5th best offensive defenseman in my team.
Hmmm, ok, then explain why Day's "1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th" is not as good as Green's "2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 8th".

Quote:
Again, he'd be the 5th or 6th best guy on my team.
Redden averaged more points per game than Green in a 50% longer NHL career, in a significantly lower scoring era. What gives? Oh, right! the vaunted "points finishes"!!!

Quote:
Neilson would probably be the worst offensive defenseman on my team.
Well then it probably wouldn't be by much. Because he and Green played at the same time, and he scored 88% as many points per game as Green in an NHL career roughly 60% longer.

Quote:
Mahovlich was the best PKer in the NHL for at least one season.
Oh, ok, forgive me, I didn't realize an on-again-off-again PKer could be voted the best in one season and become elite in the ATD. Next up: Rob Brown on a 1st line!

Quote:
Who's fudging numbers now? Even with your skewed numbers, his goals per game remains the same.
I will let anyone reading decide what is more fudged:

- comparing Andy Bathgate's 1953-1971 regular season numbers to his 1956-1966 playoff numbers,

- or comparing his 1956-1966 regular season numbers to his 1956-1966 playoff numbers.

and while we're at it, they can also decide which is more "fudged up" from these two choices:

- using points as a measure of offensive output

- using goals as a measure of offensive output

As long as there are still people paying attention and not mailing in their votes, I'm set.

Quote:
As for the 1964-66 period, that would include the 1965 season, when Bathgate broke his thumb.
Completely ignore that season and it's still a 20% drop in production - that is at least defendable, but two defendable seasons don't get extrapolated to being a "fine playoff performer" - it doesn't matter what parameters for logic one has set in their head, they won't buy that.


Last edited by seventieslord: 05-25-2011 at 07:09 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 07:43 PM
  #40
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Bathgate did have Bill Gadsby playing the opposite point in NY for most of his time there. The forwards sucked, but I think you're going too far in how badly you find Bathgate's teammates to be.

Edit: nevermind, forwards didn't suck either.
Before I saw your next post, I was going to tell you to take it to our series if you wanted to bash Camille Henry.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:24 PM
  #41
Velociraptor
Registered User
 
Velociraptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,674
vCash: 500
And then there were two... in the ultimate showdown called the All Time Draft, one on side of the battle remained two teams. The Regina Pats and McGuire's Monsters.

Game 1: Regina doesn't disappoint at home. An early lead sprung by Johnny Buyck and Pierre Turgeon, and strong goaltending from Tony O is the story of this one. Mark Messier slams home a rebound and Alf Smith scores late. Regina takes Game 1 by a score of 3-1. REG 1-0

Game 2: The Monsters rebound in game two. Ray Bourque patrols the power play, and scores a goal in the second. Vladislav Tretiak puts on a clinic at the other end and steals the show. King Clancy starts getting under Norm Ullman's skin causing him to draw penalties out of frustration. But the PK and Tretiak turn everything aside. 1-0 Monsters, Series tied at 1.

Game 3: All Monsters at home, Bathgate and Ullman score early, but so does Bucyk. Messier ties the game in the second and Clancy adds a goal later on. The Monsters PP tightens in the third, and Bourque ties the game and we're going to overtime. Selanne ends it halfway through the first OT on a breakaway. 4-3 final. REG 2-1

Game 4: Monsters defense is impenetrable, Bourque and Tretiak play shut down, and Alf Smith scores in the first. Ullman and Laprade add second period goals, and Hap Day responds for the Pats. Bourque adds an empty netter and Tretiak stops 35 shots. 4-1 Monsters. TIED 2-2

Game 5: Pats return home with a bang as Messier and Bucyk add early markers. Clancy demolishes any Monster who crosses the blueline. Bathgate is able to score in the third. But it isn't enough. Pats look to take it all in Game 6. 2-1 Pats. 3-2 REG

Game 6: A physical affair, scoreless after 40 due to flawless goaltending and defense. Bourque finds the twine in the third. Tommy Dunderdale is sent off for cross-checking with three to go, and Bucyk finds the back of the net on the ensuing power play. We're headed to OT, lots of saves in the first, but Selanne and Messier are on a 2-on-1 with Bourque, and Messier's slick pass to Teemu is too much for Bourque and Tretiak, he slides it pass and the Pats will compete for the Milt Dunnell Cup! REG 4-2

Regina Pats defeat McGuire's Monsters in overtime of the 6th Game

3 STARS:
1. Ray Bourque, MCG
2. Johnny Buyck, REG
3. Mark Messier, REG

HM's: Selanne, Tretiak, Clancy, Ullman

Velociraptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-25-2011, 09:35 PM
  #42
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velociraptor View Post
And then there were two... in the ultimate showdown called the All Time Draft, one on side of the battle remained two teams. The Regina Pats and McGuire's Monsters.

Game 1: Regina doesn't disappoint at home. An early lead sprung by Johnny Buyck and Pierre Turgeon, and strong goaltending from Tony O is the story of this one. Mark Messier slams home a rebound and Alf Smith scores late. Regina takes Game 1 by a score of 3-1. REG 1-0

Game 2: The Monsters rebound in game two. Ray Bourque patrols the power play, and scores a goal in the second. Vladislav Tretiak puts on a clinic at the other end and steals the show. King Clancy starts getting under Norm Ullman's skin causing him to draw penalties out of frustration. But the PK and Tretiak turn everything aside. 1-0 Monsters, Series tied at 1.

Game 3: All Monsters at home, Bathgate and Ullman score early, but so does Bucyk. Messier ties the game in the second and Clancy adds a goal later on. The Monsters PP tightens in the third, and Bourque ties the game and we're going to overtime. Selanne ends it halfway through the first OT on a breakaway. 4-3 final. REG 2-1

Game 4: Monsters defense is impenetrable, Bourque and Tretiak play shut down, and Alf Smith scores in the first. Ullman and Laprade add second period goals, and Hap Day responds for the Pats. Bourque adds an empty netter and Tretiak stops 35 shots. 4-1 Monsters. TIED 2-2

Game 5: Pats return home with a bang as Messier and Bucyk add early markers. Clancy demolishes any Monster who crosses the blueline. Bathgate is able to score in the third. But it isn't enough. Pats look to take it all in Game 6. 2-1 Pats. 3-2 REG

Game 6: A physical affair, scoreless after 40 due to flawless goaltending and defense. Bourque finds the twine in the third. Tommy Dunderdale is sent off for cross-checking with three to go, and Bucyk finds the back of the net on the ensuing power play. We're headed to OT, lots of saves in the first, but Selanne and Messier are on a 2-on-1 with Bourque, and Messier's slick pass to Teemu is too much for Bourque and Tretiak, he slides it pass and the Pats will compete for the Milt Dunnell Cup! REG 4-2

Regina Pats defeat McGuire's Monsters in overtime of the 6th Game

3 STARS:
1. Ray Bourque, MCG
2. Johnny Buyck, REG
3. Mark Messier, REG

HM's: Selanne, Tretiak, Clancy, Ullman
That's fair. Regina definately had more play-off pedegree than the Monsters. I'm very happy with how well my team did this year, and there's no shame in losing a relatively close series to a very strong Regina team. Good luck in the finals seventies.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2011, 01:14 AM
  #43
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,952
vCash: 500
Dreakmur - thanks for the most entertaining series I've been a part of, in close to a year. It was a blast but at the same time, not frustrating or tiring. You fought well. You had one of my favourite teams. Now we'll see what I can do in the finals, I guess...

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-26-2011, 02:08 AM
  #44
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Dreakmur - thanks for the most entertaining series I've been a part of, in close to a year. It was a blast but at the same time, not frustrating or tiring. You fought well. You had one of my favourite teams. Now we'll see what I can do in the finals, I guess...
I appreciate that.

This was a very fun draft for me. I learned a lot about Andy Bathgate, Alf Smith, and Hod Stuart. I was hoping to learn a lot about Tommy Dunderdale and Pat Egan, but the information just isn't available.

I'm glad Ray Bourque got as much love as he did (he was the #1 star in all 4 series). I think he's better than both Shore ad Harvey. I just wish I went up against a top-end defenseman so I could really demonstrate his true greatness.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:54 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.