HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

MLD 2011 Draft Thread I

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-11-2011, 12:28 AM
  #51
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
 
chaosrevolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Paton's a total wild card right now. He could be the best goalie in the draft; he could be below the pack (unlikely but possible); or he could be in the pack (which is the only way ranking him top 3 or 5 makes sense IMO). I don't see how you can rank him otherwise. His resume is so unlike any other guy likely to be a starter.

The fact that he is the most accomplished goalie in the draft (quite easily), despite the incredibly weak era is what made him so tantalizing and why I knew that if we wanted him, we had to draft him early.

I'll be honest, knowing what I knew about Iain, I had 2 guess as to who he would pick and Paton was one of them.

One suggestion: Get a backup goalie who has a good regular season record who can start a lot of games to alleviate any questions about whether Paton can handle a 82 game grind. Paton is your man in the playoffs, obviously.
Absolutely. That is exactly what I was going for with my post. There are a few solid backups that could be had later on that are known for handling large schedules with good success. I won't name anyone..but I think that would be a good direction to look at.

chaosrevolver is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:28 AM
  #52
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,610
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Good pick. I'm pretty sure he's the most talented offensive winger left.
We were pretty sure of it too; that's why we picked him.

I PMed Tony, but we already decided the clock won't start until noon tomorrow, so he has until 4PM to make his selection.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:29 AM
  #53
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
 
chaosrevolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Eden Hall selects an explosive right winger (every source but Pelletier calls him a RW), who had a brilliant peak until he managed to cross his dictator, I mean coach, Victor Tikhonov, who then proceeded to bury him:

Nikolai Drozdetsky, RW


A really interesting player..would have been interesting to see how much better his career could have been if he never came across Tik. Great pick though as he had an excellent peak as you mentioned.

chaosrevolver is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:30 AM
  #54
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Paton is your man in the playoffs, obviously.
Why would that be so obvious? Paton won a Stanley Cup, yes, but he didn't even play a playoff game to do so.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:38 AM
  #55
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
 
chaosrevolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,048
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Why would that be so obvious? Paton won a Stanley Cup, yes, but he didn't even play a playoff game to do so.
I think he was just saying that cause your first overall should be your playoffs starter..

Which is a pretty fair statement to make.

chaosrevolver is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:40 AM
  #56
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The fact that he is the most accomplished goalie in the draft (quite easily), despite the incredibly weak era is what made him so tantalizing and why I knew that if we wanted him, we had to draft him early.
I think the era is stronger than most people today think it was. Hockey didn't just spring up overnight in 1883; some players in the first winter carnival tournament were referred to as established players. It's just that the games weren't as organized before that time.

I believe the first recorded hockey game (or ice hurtling game, at least) in Montreal was in 1837.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'll be honest, knowing what I knew about Iain, I had 2 guess as to who he would pick and Paton was one of them.
I'd be interested in knowing who the other was.

Iain Fyffe is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:43 AM
  #57
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Why would that be so obvious? Paton won a Stanley Cup, yes, but he didn't even play a playoff game to do so.
Well, in 1885 he recorded three shutouts in four games in a tournament setting, where every game was a possible elimination game.

I understood the comment to mean that coming from an 8-game era, some might question his ability to play a modern schedule. I don't think that's a fair standard of course; we could as easily say that modern players couldn't handle the game in his day, needing to play the full 60 minutes. But a solid backup is definitely in the cards for the Shamrocks.

Iain Fyffe is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:47 AM
  #58
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
I think the era is stronger than most people today think it was. Hockey didn't just spring up overnight in 1883; some players in the first winter carnival tournament were referred to as established players. It's just that the games weren't as organized before that time.
But that is part of the problem too. Population alone meant that the talent pool was the shallowest ever. But then throw in the fact that hockey was for members of "clubs" - groups of affluent gentlemen with the time to spare and the money to play - and you have the weakest level of competition of all-time, easily. Very poor record keeping also means it's really tough determining who was the best at anything in those times (though Paton is a pretty safe bet in that regard)

I think anyone's uncertainty about those times, is well-warranted.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 01:02 AM
  #59
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think anyone's uncertainty about those times, is well-warranted.
Oh sure, but I suspect the era is over-discounted due to the uncertainty. There's little difference between hockey in 1890 and (Montreal) hockey in, say, 1905. Except that some players were likely paid under the table in 1905, though they still had to be part of the club.

In 1905 we had Russell Bowie and Frank McGee and Jack Marshall and Herb Jordan and both Patricks and Moose Johnson and Blair Russel and Ernie Russell and Alf Smith and Harvey Pulford and Rat Westwick and Dickie Boon. These players benefit from greater familiarity today, but the gap in talent between them and Paton's contemporaries is easy to overstate due to this greater familiarity.

Allan Cameron, Jack Campbell, Dolly Swift and Weldy Young are not nearly as recognizable today as the above-mentioned players. But I don't take that as evidence that they were not nearly as good.


Last edited by Iain Fyffe: 07-11-2011 at 10:26 AM.
Iain Fyffe is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 01:40 AM
  #60
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Oh sure, but I suspect the era is over-discounted due to the uncertainty. There's little difference between hockey in 1890 and (Montreal) hockey in, say, 1905. Except that some players were likely paid under the table in 1905, though they still had to be part of the club.
You don't think that's big?

Players getting paid meant that winning was now considered very important, and a premium was placed on players who would help a club do so. This also meant there was incentive for many more people to try to play hockey to cash in. Hence, much greater talent pool, even by 1905.

Violence was getting big in hockey, a symptom of wanting to win at all costs, with money and glory on the line. There's an important distinction between that, and leisurely hockey where an undetermined amount of effort was exerted.

Quote:
In 1905 we had Russell Bowie and Frank McGee and Jack Marshall and Herb Jordan and both Patricks and Moose Johnson and Blair Russel and Ernie Russell and Alf Smith and Harvey Pulford and Rat Westwick and Dickie Boon. These players benefit from greater familiarity today, but the gap in talent between them and Paton's contemporaries is easy to overstate due to this greater familiarity.
I hate to just default to HHOF to demonstrate greatness because I often see great incongruity between who is in and who isn't (Is there any way Billy Gilmour can honestly be argued better than Eddie oatman?) but the HHOF committee had every opportunity to induct players of that earlier generation and they didn't... not even one.

Quote:
Allan Cameron, Jack Campbell, Dolly Swift, Desse Brown and Weldy Young are not nearly as recognizable today as the above-mentioned players. But I don't take that as evidence that they were not nearly as good.
Ever notice how almost no one from that 1900s generation lasted very long into the 1910s? We've come to the conclusion that the 1910s generation was much stronger. The same thing can be said for the 1900s versus the 1880s/1890s.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 02:23 AM
  #61
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Violence was getting big in hockey, a symptom of wanting to win at all costs, with money and glory on the line.
If you think there was no violence in the game in the 1890s, you need to read some game reports from the era. Writers were decrying the violence in the game almost from day one. The idea that 1890s hockey was a genteel, gentlemanly pursuit is a false one. That might have been the stated ideal by many writers, but it was only really referenced with respect to how the game failed to meet those standards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
There's an important distinction between that, and leisurely hockey where an undetermined amount of effort was exerted.
This is an unfair characterization of the game in that era. Players who loafed and didn't put in a full effort were derided in the papers. Sport was taken very seriously at that time, in a way that is not done today.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
but the HHOF committee had every opportunity to induct players of that earlier generation and they didn't... not even one.
Where are you drawing that line? Mike Grant? His career started the year after Paton retired. Graham Drinkwater? He played against Paton in 1893. Dan Bain? His first action was in 1894. Are you saying that 1893 was worlds apart from 1888?

Harvey Pulford? Harry Trihey? Dickie Boon? These are all pre-pro players. The game in 1900, when Trihey dominated, was much closer to the game of 1890 than it was to the game of 1910.

Maybe the problem lies with the idea that only the Stanley Cup matters, an idea perpetuated by Trail of the Stanley Cup, which pretends that hockey began in 1893. This is why we have to reference a decent-but-full-of-holes book like Ultimate Hockey, because so little attention has been paid to the game before 1893.

Besides that, if previous selection committees looked anything like the current one, there's no reason to think they have any real understanding of this era. There are a few journalists but no real historians. Mostly it's the boy's club, hockey executives who may or may not know anything about the game from before their day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Ever notice how almost no one from that 1900s generation lasted very long into the 1910s? We've come to the conclusion that the 1910s generation was much stronger. The same thing can be said for the 1900s versus the 1880s/1890s.
Has this been studied systematically? Spefically, has the fact that amateur athletes retire earlier than professional ones been taken into consideration? When you're not getting paid to play, you tend to retire when work and family life start putting more demands on your time. Russell Bowie retired before hitting age 30, and he certainly had no trouble keeping up with the pros in 07 and 08. Amateur players simply retired earlier; playing at age 37, as Paton did, is quite rare for the era.


Last edited by Iain Fyffe: 07-11-2011 at 02:33 AM.
Iain Fyffe is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 03:02 AM
  #62
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Players getting paid meant that winning was now considered very important, and a premium was placed on players who would help a club do so.
Players getting paid was a reflection of how important winning was already considered; it did not create that importance. Some men, if not paid, might decide they want to spend more time with their wife and kids rather than getting whacked in the shins by some defenceman's stick.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
We've come to the conclusion that the 1910s generation was much stronger. The same thing can be said for the 1900s versus the 1880s/1890s.
And the 1920s is stronger than the 1910s, and the 1930s is stronger than the 1920s, and so on. That reduces the ATD to picking the best post-expansion players available, and making sure you have some token early players to meet the requirements. I don't think that's the intent here?

Iain Fyffe is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 05:39 AM
  #63
tony d
Thanks for memories
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 34,717
vCash: 500
Just got up and saw that I'm on the clock. Sorry for the delay here but the Garnish Dragons are proud to select with our first pick centre, Pierre Larouche.



Larouche may have his critics but he's the highest scoring guy left, here are more facts about Larouche:

- 395 Goals and 427 Assists in 812 games
- 3 Seasons of 40 or more goals
- 9 Seasons of 30 + Assists

For more on Larouche click the following link:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Legen...p?player=13318

I've notified the next team that they're on the clock, glad to have this started.

__________________
tony d is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 08:35 AM
  #64
Velociraptor
Nucks future 1C??
 
Velociraptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,664
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
Just got up and saw that I'm on the clock. Sorry for the delay here but the Garnish Dragons are proud to select with our first pick centre, Pierre Larouche.



Larouche may have his critics but he's the highest scoring guy left, here are more facts about Larouche:

- 395 Goals and 427 Assists in 812 games
- 3 Seasons of 40 or more goals
- 9 Seasons of 30 + Assists

For more on Larouche click the following link:

http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Legen...p?player=13318

I've notified the next team that they're on the clock, glad to have this started.
Good pick, Tone. That's who we wanted but had a feeling that he'd be swept up by 9th overall.

Velociraptor is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 09:38 AM
  #65
Selfish Man
The Wrong Company
 
Selfish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tobacco Islands
Country: Ireland
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
The Pittsburgh Hornets select Normie Himes, C




- was the NHL's New York Americans' leading scorer for seven consecutive seasons
- played in first ever NHL all-star game, the benefit for Ace Bailey
- finished top-10 in NHL assists three times (1929-30, 31-32, 32-33) and top-10 in goals in 1929-30 with an impressive 28 markers
- also had two other top-20 goal seasons and another top-20 assist season.

Quote:
Himes was described as a brilliant playmaking center, and an underrated scorer. While he was not necessarily the star of the Amerks, he was the backbone. He started out as a reserve center (kind of like a 3rd or 4th line player nowadays). He really impressed in his opportunities to play. He finally displaced husky Bill Burch when Burch suffered a bad knee.

Wearing his trademark black ball cap, Himes emerged as the Americans leading scorer for the next seven seasons. His best year came in 1929-30, scoring 28 goals in the 44 game NHL schedule and had 50 points

snip

The Americans never had much team success, likely why Himes did not earn the notoriety he probably should have. As one commentator suggest, Himes "should be judged the MVP of the league if the Americans weren't so far down in the standings." In 1930 he finished 6th in Hart trophy balloting.

There was no All Star game back in those days, but Himes was one of the players chosen in the very first All Star game, which, in 1934, was actually a benefit game for fallen player Ace Bailey.

He was a crafty pivot blessed with intelligent burst of speed, very durable despite his size having played 360 consecutive games. He could be dazzling at times, but for the most part was an underrated star.
http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com...mie-himes.html
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=2...&postcount=342

Selfish Man is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 10:24 AM
  #66
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,841
vCash: 500
Check my MLD11 bio of Normie Himes... there's a lot more in there.

I see him as more of a 2nd line center here... but he is good.

Larouche was probably the most talented center heading into this, but also really hard to build around because you probably want that precious, coveted playmaking winger to go with him, and he should probably be tough too, or else you're giving him a complete grunt on the other side. That player is tough to find right now. Dennis Hextall has long been the ideal first line, cover-for-a-guy-with-poor-intangibles, playmaking winger, but with a 1000 pick ATD he is long gone.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 11:03 AM
  #67
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
If you think there was no violence in the game in the 1890s, you need to read some game reports from the era. Writers were decrying the violence in the game almost from day one. The idea that 1890s hockey was a genteel, gentlemanly pursuit is a false one. That might have been the stated ideal by many writers, but it was only really referenced with respect to how the game failed to meet those standards.

This is an unfair characterization of the game in that era. Players who loafed and didn't put in a full effort were derided in the papers. Sport was taken very seriously at that time, in a way that is not done today.
Some examples would be nice. My impression thus far is that hockey was more about the activity, the competition, and going out and playing a game with "the boys" of the club.

Quote:
Where are you drawing that line? Mike Grant? His career started the year after Paton retired. Graham Drinkwater? He played against Paton in 1893. Dan Bain? His first action was in 1894. Are you saying that 1893 was worlds apart from 1888?

Harvey Pulford? Harry Trihey? Dickie Boon? These are all pre-pro players. The game in 1900, when Trihey dominated, was much closer to the game of 1890 than it was to the game of 1910.
There's no "line", it would be impossible to draw one. Obviously careers are going to overlap here and there. That your best examples are a player whose career overlapped one season with paton's, and another who "almost" did, says a lot.

I would not call those players Paton's contemporaries.

Quote:
Maybe the problem lies with the idea that only the Stanley Cup matters, an idea perpetuated by Trail of the Stanley Cup, which pretends that hockey began in 1893. This is why we have to reference a decent-but-full-of-holes book like Ultimate Hockey, because so little attention has been paid to the game before 1893.

Besides that, if previous selection committees looked anything like the current one, there's no reason to think they have any real understanding of this era. There are a few journalists but no real historians. Mostly it's the boy's club, hockey executives who may or may not know anything about the game from before their day.
I think they've shown many times before that they don't know squat about the game from before their day. But when the HHOF selections were initially made, it was generally done with first hand knowledge of the players. Anyway, that's another story. You're right that we've been bred to believe that only Stanley Cup hockey matters and I don't want to just spout that line. But at the same time, there was more structrure than ever before once the cup came around, there was "something to play for", something that could truly signify who was the best, and, to my knowledge, it played a part in the competition of the game eventually ramping up to new levels (see: violence, money)

Quote:
Has this been studied systematically? Spefically, has the fact that amateur athletes retire earlier than professional ones been taken into consideration? When you're not getting paid to play, you tend to retire when work and family life start putting more demands on your time. Russell Bowie retired before hitting age 30, and he certainly had no trouble keeping up with the pros in 07 and 08. Amateur players simply retired earlier; playing at age 37, as Paton did, is quite rare for the era.
My criticism is certainly not of Paton particularly.

That is a good point; it has not been studied systematically. You're free to do so. You could be onto something, but at the same time, look at the players whose careers petered out really fast in the 1909-1911 region. Money and amateurism don't appear to have been factors there. Many of the players I am thinking of, were either paid, or paid under the table, or went from the latter to the former.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
Players getting paid was a reflection of how important winning was already considered; it did not create that importance. Some men, if not paid, might decide they want to spend more time with their wife and kids rather than getting whacked in the shins by some defenceman's stick.
You make it sound like a switch was just flipped right at the start of hockey. I certainly don't think the switch was flipped in some magical 190x season, either. The importance of winning developed over time, and the integration of money and the separation of players and management, developed over time.

Quote:
And the 1920s is stronger than the 1910s, and the 1930s is stronger than the 1920s, and so on. That reduces the ATD to picking the best post-expansion players available, and making sure you have some token early players to meet the requirements. I don't think that's the intent here?
No, absolutely not.

But, it does make for important discussion.

Paton was probably the best goalie of the 1880s. But given competition levels, how impressive is that? We certainly don't think it's the same as being Benedict, Plante, Dryden, or Roy, the bests of their respective eras (and, we're much more sure that they were the best, than we are about Paton) .

-It's about as impressive as being the Xth-best goalie of the 1910s
-It's about as impressive as being the Yth-best goalie of the 1930s
-It's about as impressive as being the Zth-best goalie of the 1950s.

Determining X, Y, and Z is the fun and interesting part, IMO. Are they 2, 3, and 4? Well then you have a steal. They could also be 10, 15, and 20. Yeah, I realize the true answer is probably well in the middle and your X, Y, and Z are likely a couple notches lower than mine. But anyone will tell you I've given the oldies plenty of props in my day.


Last edited by seventieslord: 07-11-2011 at 11:10 AM.
seventieslord is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 11:21 AM
  #68
Killion
Global Moderator
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Casablanca
Country: Morocco
Posts: 21,692
vCash: 500
So, Im assuming Im going to have to check through previous draft threads to make sure that whomever Im picking hasnt already been taken in previous drafts (easy enough to follow who goes here & when of course)?..... VanIsle PM'd me a list of available players, and somehow, I dont think Id be "pickin" guys like ********* , Gawd Luv him n' all, but given my druthers, um, dont think so. . Obviously the Orrs', Beliveaus & Hull's, and prolly brother Dennis included are all gone, so I guess were looking through Camera Obscura' in order to dig up some beauties that have been by-passed in past drafts, then trying to sell some of these slugs to the rest of the board?. Thats gonna be fun. Howre' ya'll in dealing with ergodic literature & stats, no links, just stuff I'll make up, referencing people & things that never existed?....


Last edited by seventieslord: 07-11-2011 at 11:40 AM.
Killion is online now  
Old
07-11-2011, 11:26 AM
  #69
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Paton was probably the best goalie of the 1880s. But given competition levels, how impressive is that? We certainly don't think it's the same as being Benedict, Plante, Dryden, or Roy, the bests of their respective eras (and, we're much more sure that they were the best, than we are about Paton) .
There are two factors in making that determination:

- the quality of competition, and

- the degree of dominance

"Best" is not a constant. If Paton is 100% better than his closest competition, that can put him above a 1905 goalie who's 50% better than his closest competition. Just pulling some numbers to make the point, of course.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I would not call those players Paton's contemporaries.
You have an awfully narrow definition of "contemporaries" then.

Iain Fyffe is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 11:43 AM
  #70
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iain Fyffe View Post
"Best" is not a constant. If Paton is 100% better than his closest competition, that can put him above a 1905 goalie who's 50% better than his closest competition. Just pulling some numbers to make the point, of course.
Well, yes, I agree. I mean, it's for this reason that Orr is undoubtedly better than someone like Lidstrom despite playing in the watered-down 70s, and for me it is a big reason why Harvey is also surely better.

Proving Paton to actually be that percentage better, is much harder than it would be for a player like Orr or Harvey though.

Quote:
You have an awfully narrow definition of "contemporaries" then.
I'm puzzled. If those two players played a combined one season with/against Paton, why would I call them his contemporaries?

seventieslord is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 11:48 AM
  #71
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Killion View Post
So, Im assuming Im going to have to check through previous draft threads to make sure that whomever Im picking hasnt already been taken in previous drafts (easy enough to follow who goes here & when of course)?..... VanIsle PM'd me a list of available players, and somehow, I dont think Id be "pickin" guys like ********* , Gawd Luv him n' all, but given my druthers, um, dont think so. . Obviously the Orrs', Beliveaus & Hull's, and prolly brother Dennis included are all gone, so I guess were looking through Camera Obscura' in order to dig up some beauties that have been by-passed in past drafts, then trying to sell some of these slugs to the rest of the board?. Thats gonna be fun. Howre' ya'll in dealing with ergodic literature & stats, no links, just stuff I'll make up, referencing people & things that never existed?....
- Big difference here. You are looking for players who were not drafted in the 2011 ATD - it is 1000 picks long, listed in one of the first few posts of this thread. You are not just looking for players who have never, ever been drafted as we've been doing this for 8-9 years and there'd be no one left at all.

- Use the last year's draft lists as a guide to see when you can expect to get a certain player. About 1700 were taken in the 2010 round of drafting. If your pick is not on that board, be prepared to do some selling because we had some great GMs doing a ton of research to find the best guys that far down. But remember, it's just a guide. If someone went 1500th and you think he's the best player left at 1200th, then take him, and PROVE IT!

- Please do not mention undrafted players. I starred out the one that you mentioned - he actually has a really good chance of being selected here.

- Sell your picks in any way you choose. That's the beauty of the draft. Whoever gets the players with the meaty resumes to back up their GMs' claims, will ultimately win this thing.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:14 PM
  #72
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
 
Iain Fyffe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fredericton, NB
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,640
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Proving Paton to actually be that percentage better, is much harder than it would be for a player like Orr or Harvey though.
Surely. I'm buoyed by the fact that Allan Cameron and Jack Campbell were both drafted in the ATD, Cameron at 653. Paton is more clearly the best goaltender than Cameron is the best cover-point, considering he had to compete against Campbell for that honour.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I'm puzzled. If those two players played a combined one season with/against Paton, why would I call them his contemporaries?
Because hockey in 1893 and hockey in 1888 are the same thing. The addition of the Stanley Cup did not change things overnight. The AHAC originated in 1887, and the same group of teams competed then and into the late 1890s. They're literal contemporaries in that their careers do overlap some, but more importantly the conditions in which they played were basically identical.

There is no era dividing line between 1892 and 1893; this distinction is artificial and not reflective of the game on the ice.

Iain Fyffe is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:24 PM
  #73
Stoneberg
Bored
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Halifax
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,672
vCash: 500
After much deliberation, the Sleepwatchers are pleased to select C, Gus Bodnar.

4 times top ten in assists and twice in points over a steady 650+ game career through the 40's and 50's.

Stoneberg is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:30 PM
  #74
Selfish Man
The Wrong Company
 
Selfish Man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Tobacco Islands
Country: Ireland
Posts: 283
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Check my MLD11 bio of Normie Himes... there's a lot more in there.

I see him as more of a 2nd line center here... but he is good.
The Penguins took their current second line center at #2 overall. I think they are happy with the value. The Hornets are ecstatic with getting theirs at #4.

In all seriousness, I'm okay with not getting a "first line" guy here. I have my eye on others who might fit that bill later on. I didn't think if I waited on a player like Normie (make sure you say it with a Boston accent, like Cliff Clavin ) that I'd be getting the same value at that spot.

Selfish Man is offline  
Old
07-11-2011, 12:43 PM
  #75
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,032
vCash: 2498
Warroad Lakers select RW Carson Cooper

DaveG is online now  
Closed Thread

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 06:39 PM.

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.