or have games that don't translate well into the playoffs (perhaps a certain flaw in their game that opponents can take advantage of over a seven game series).
This is what I was referring to. If a player has a flaw in his game, it's exploitable over any number of games. Why are these four to seven games so different from, say, the 14 games the O6 teams would play against each other in the regular season?
This is what I was referring to. If a player has a flaw in his game, it's exploitable over any number of games. Why are these four to seven games so different from, say, the 14 games the O6 teams would play against each other in the regular season?
It's quite possible that the O6 period is the exception, as you are correct, teams did specifically game plan for each other's stars in the regular season, and winning the regular season title was much more prestigious than today.
In the modern game, there are quite clearly players whose games don't translate well into the playoffs.
1) Joe Thornton - predictable game - won't shoot the puck. Figure out his passing tendencies, and you only have to worry about his wingers. Compare to Peter Forsberg, who was just as pass-first in the regular season, but became much more of a scorer in the playoffs, and was thus much harder to cover.
2) Keith Tkachuk - became so rapped up in the emotional, physical game that he took himself out of prime scoring positions.
3) Dave Andreychuk (not often mentioned among playoff "chokers" but should be) - one-trick pony - commit defensemen to keep him out of the crease, and he was rendered much less effective.
Canadiens1958 (who I disagree with often - his bias against Europeans and modern players is so extreme as to be comical, for example) has said that Marcel Dionne had very predictable tendencies which could be taken advantage of in the playoffs - which I find plausible, given his consistently mediocre performances.
And in the European area, it's guys like Maltsev, said to not be able to handle the physical play of Canada and Czechoslovakia.
Some GMs look straight at playoff numbers, which is reasonable. I prefer to look at WHY a player didn't perform and to cover up that flaw (as I think I did nicely in my ATD2010 championship team which featured Tkachuk as the 3rd best member of the 2nd line, taking the attention away from him).
As to Cooper, put him with a center who excelled in the playoffs, and he should be fine. As I said, he's a question mark, not a poor performer.
To those unsure of who is available, anyone from hockey history who weren't in ATD 2011. So, that means players overlooked from ATD 2010 (there's only one), all past years' ATDs, MLDs, AAA drafts, Double-A drafts, free agent lists, plus off-the-board picks (only a few each year it seems), as indeed there has been a lot of good research done in past drafts.
Bears repeating:
Quote:
MLD 2011 Preliminary Research Aid:
(to help you generate initial long lists
before you delve into more research)
Plus, usually a couple of off-the-board picks per team. After all, that's all part of expanding our knowledge of players in hockey history. Dig up some gem and profile him earlier, where deserved. Take a flyer on a guy or two in the later rounds, especially extra skater status. But avoid stinkers!
- I don't even consider drafts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 relevant at this point. Anything that we knew at that time has been built on since then. Those draft lists are practically useless. Last year is still good... but in a year or two I will consider that obsolete as well.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you VanIsle & GM's. I simply dont have the time required to give this thing the kind of time & attention it deserves. Im out. PM'd chaos earlier who I see has assumed the #11 spot. Good luck, I'll be watching it out.
I don't even consider drafts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 relevant at this point. Anything that we knew at that time has been built on since then. Those draft lists are practically useless. Last year is still good... but in a year or two I will consider that obsolete as well.
Long lists are to provide NAMES TO BE RESEARCHED. That is all. I have personally found all past drafts useful for research purposes. Not to share the judgements or rankings based on past draft position, but to get names and bio info and to use that!
Past drafts are a starting point for research by providing names and tidbits of info, then afterwards google is your friend. No one should use any past draft order to decide relative worth, though of course many GMs look at the last draft or two to see where a guy may be drafted. One's own decision as to value should result from research, of which the past drafts are just a research tool.
- I don't even consider drafts 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 relevant at this point. Anything that we knew at that time has been built on since then. Those draft lists are practically useless. Last year is still good... but in a year or two I will consider that obsolete as well.
I usually assume the last two draft lists are relevant - so I'd still look at 12 and 2010.
Agree that previous drafts are only useful to find information to add to player profiles, but not really for figuring out who to draft.
Long lists are to provide NAMES TO BE RESEARCHED. That is all. I have personally found all past drafts useful for research purposes. Not to share the judgements or rankings based on past draft position, but to get names and bio info and to use that!
Past drafts are a starting point for research by providing names and tidbits of info, then afterwards google is your friend. No one should use any past draft order to decide relative worth, though of course many GMs look at the last draft or two to see where a guy may be drafted. One's own decision as to value should result from research, of which the past drafts are just a research tool.
Useful to find info once you already have an idea of who to draft. Telling noobies to go back through 7 versions of this to put together lists makes this thing look more complicated than it actually is, IMO.
Sorry for the delay in getting back to you VanIsle & GM's. I simply dont have the time required to give this thing the kind of time & attention it deserves. Im out. PM'd chaos earlier who I see has assumed the #11 spot. Good luck, I'll be watching it out.
My fault for missing your PM at noon (CST) today... again, did not receive any notification. I did, however, get a notification for CR's PM just 20 minutes later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander
Long lists are to provide NAMES TO BE RESEARCHED. That is all. I have personally found all past drafts useful for research purposes. Not to share the judgements or rankings based on past draft position, but to get names and bio info and to use that!
Past drafts are a starting point for research by providing names and tidbits of info, then afterwards google is your friend. No one should use any past draft order to decide relative worth, though of course many GMs look at the last draft or two to see where a guy may be drafted. One's own decision as to value should result from research, of which the past drafts are just a research tool.
fair enough.
----------------
hmmm, I was not expecting to see Guevremont's name called for a while, and I was going to mention it was early for him, but.... now that I compare him with other guys I'm considering, he's not really that bad. He compares fairly well. Definitely more valuable offensively than defensively, but not just an offensive specialist, either. Certainly not Fredrik Olausson.
Have a good draft guys! I'm not giving any advice on who specifically to pick (had two GMs PM me asking who I'd take). I was willing to provide pre-draft long lists of guys drafted in previous years, but once the draft begins and specifically regarding my personal choices, I've kept to myself. I'm paying my dues for my transgressions. I am not participating in this draft except as an observer and commentator AFTER picks are made.
Now, if you want research on a particular guy, sometimes I can dig up stuff on a guy where I know it is in past draft threads (the search function at hfboards has sucked recently). Just don't ask if I would draft that guy, or what guy I'd pick, etc.
Last edited by VanIslander: 07-11-2011 at 07:45 PM.
hmmm, I was not expecting to see Guevremont's name called for a while, and I was going to mention it was early for him, but.... now that I compare him with other guys I'm considering, he's not really that bad. He compares fairly well. Definitely more valuable offensively than defensively, but not just an offensive specialist, either. Certainly not Fredrik Olausson.
His LOH and Pelletier profiles make him sound horrible defensively. I don't know much about him, honestly. As soon as I read his profiles, my desire to research him in depth went away.
The Philadelphia Quakers are happy to select W Robert MacDougall
3rd in Goal Scoring in AHAC, 1895
1st in Goal Scoring in AHAC, 1896
3rd in Goal Scoring in AHAC, 1898
7th in Goal Scoring in CAHL, 1899(1st in goals/game, played only 2 games)
5x Stanley Cup Champion
Retro Hart Trophy Winner, 1897
Quote:
Macdougall was the highest scoring forward before the 1900s in Stanley Cup play. Robert scored a confirmed total of 49 goals in 36 recorded games. Overshadowed today by the likes of fellow teammates and hall of famers Graham Drinkwater and Mike Grant, Robert was consistently one of the Montreal Victorias' highest scoring forwards.
Bob McDougall led the AHA in scoring with ten goals in six games. Just 20 years of age, he attended McGill University for a year before securing a job at the Bank of Montreal.
Graham Drinkwater (below) scored the go ahead goal in the second half. He teamed with xxx and McDougall to form a deadly combination.
This time he and winger Bob MacDougall rushed the puck to the other end "and made the Winnipeg people hold their breath."
xxx and MacDougall made matters tough for Winnipeg defensemen xxx and xxx.
Playing for the tie, xxx and MacDougall went on the attack, and after pouncing on the rebound of a MacDougall shot, xxx's second goal of the game soon evened matters at 4-4.
With xxx's goal having wiped out the Winnipeg lead, the Montrealers sensed their opportunity. xxx and fellow forwards MacDougall, Drinkwater, and xxx (teams in this era had a rover in addition to their centre and two wingers) pressed the play. xxx, Bain, and xxx did what they could do to fight back for Winnipeg, but goalie xxx xxx wasn't about to let the puck slide between his posts. MacDougall put Montreal ahead 5-4...
The Vics' forward line as it is today, with Bowie, Russell, Howard, and Patrick, is perhaps stronger than at any time since the days of MacDougall, xxx, Drinkwater, and xxx.
His LOH and Pelletier profiles make him sound horrible defensively. I don't know much about him, honestly. As soon as I read his profiles, my desire to research him in depth went away.
True, we got this impression from him also, but we did find this from Pelletier's page on him:
Quote:
Though he continued to be an offensive specialist, the Canucks lacked the patience and veteran player presence to properly teach Geuvremont the defensive game that he was knocked for. It wasn't until a trade to the Buffalo Sabres in 1974 that "Josh" earned the reputation as a solid two way player.
It might be early for him, but he was a guy that both Velociraptor and I had interest in. We didn't see too much difference between him and offensive specialists selected late in the ATD.
His LOH and Pelletier profiles make him sound horrible defensively. I don't know much about him, honestly. As soon as I read his profiles, my desire to research him in depth went away.
He actually posted a decent adjusted +/-, which is not unheard of for offensive specialists, but it is unheard of for offensive specialists who received a ton of ES ice time (meaning, not sheltered) - I definitely have new respect for Guevremont. He might have been bad defensively, but it was in a McCabe/Aucoin/Zhitnik/Stackhouse kind of way - still good enough to be your top pairing guy, who's sometimes ok, sometimes outmatched, i.e. not good defensively for a top pairing guy.
The Philadelphia Quakers are happy to select C Robert MacDougall
He played with Graham Drinkwater, Mike Grant and Russell Bowie on the great Montreal Victorias team, winning 5 Stanley Cup challenges. Since he played with Bowie, who was a center, and MacDougall is listed as a F, he is clearly a W.
He played with Graham Drinkwater, Mike Grant and Russell Bowie on the great Montreal Victorias team, winning 5 Stanley Cup challenges. Since he played with Bowie, who was a center, and MacDougall is listed as a F, he is clearly a W.
He actually posted a decent adjusted +/-, which is not unheard of for offensive specialists, but it is unheard of for offensive specialists who received a ton of ES ice time (meaning, not sheltered) - I definitely have new respect for Guevremont. He might have been bad defensively, but it was in a McCabe/Aucoin/Zhitnik/Stackhouse kind of way - still good enough to be your top pairing guy, who's sometimes ok, sometimes outmatched, i.e. not good defensively for a top pairing guy.
I don't know. Zhitnik had a reputation in the media as a two-way guy, VI protestations aside. Multiple references to Guevremont's defensive struggles in both LOH and Pelletier and then this:
Quote:
The Sabres of the 1970s were known for their hulking, physical defenders. Guevremont didn't necessarily fit in with that group more so than complimented it nicely with his different approach. Guevremont was a regular power play power point quarterback in Buffalo, often trying to set up forward Rene Robert for one timers on the other point, while Gilbert Perreault, Rick Martin and Danny Gare set up down low. When playing at full strength he often paired with lanky defensive specialist Bill Hajt.
Did he get better defensively in Buffalo or just play with better players? Who knows. Better find a Bill Hajt type player to pair him with. I don't recall Zhitnik, Aucoin, or McCabe playing with someone that good. In fact, Zhitnik and Aucoin were the better defensive players in their partnerships in their primes.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-11-2011 at 08:14 PM.
He played with Graham Drinkwater, Mike Grant and Russell Bowie on the great Montreal Victorias team, winning 5 Stanley Cup challenges. Since he played with Bowie, who was a center, and MacDougall is listed as a F, he is clearly a W.
Robert MacDougall, W
You're correct that McDougall was a winger, specifically RW, though he played some cover-point early in his career. However your reasoning is off. Bowie played rover, not centre. He played only one season with Drinkwater, who moved to point so Bowie could play rover.
1) Joe Thornton - predictable game - won't shoot the puck. Figure out his passing tendencies, and you only have to worry about his wingers.
For examples like this, my question is: how is this different from the regular season. If he's so predictable, why don't teams just figure out his passing tendencies in the regular season?
It's not like he's some mystery when he comes into your building, some enigma that you need time to figure out. You scout him. You do whatever you would do in the postseason.
For examples like this, my question is: how is this different from the regular season. If he's so predictable, why don't teams just figure out his passing tendencies in the regular season?
It's not like he's some mystery when he comes into your building, some enigma that you need time to figure out. You scout him. You do whatever you would do in the postseason.
If you don't think coaches put together specific game plans for the other team in the playoffs that they don't in the regular season, they I don't know what to tell you. Playing the same team 4-7 times in a row, all in highly meaningful games is a big difference from the regular season.
I don't know. Zhitnik had a reputation in the media as a two-way guy, VI protestations aside. Multiple references to Guevremont's defensive struggles in both LOH and Pelletier and then this:
Did he get better defensively in Buffalo or just play with better players? Who knows. Better find a Bill Hajt type player to pair him with. I don't recall Zhitnik, Aucoin, or McCabe playing with someone that good. In fact, Zhitnik and Aucoin were the better defensive players in their partnerships in their primes.
McCabe too, I'd argue.
Actually, I had no idea that he played with Hajt. I always thought Hajt played with Schoenfeld. That completely colours Guevremont's adjusted +/- to the point where I can't accept it at face value. The Hajt pairing played with the Ramsay line, and that unit's +/- was always through the roof, so this is a rare case of an offensive specialist actually playing a ton of ES minutes, and still being "sheltered".
On the plus side, he deserves his share of the credit for his puckmoving skills, as that line's ES production was just a smidge below that of the French Connection... and you know Hajt had little to do with that.
Actually, I had no idea that he played with Hajt. I always thought Hajt played with Schoenfeld. That completely colours Guevremont's adjusted +/- to the point where I can't accept it at face value. The Hajt pairing played with the Ramsay line, and that unit's +/- was always through the roof, so this is a rare case of an offensive specialist actually playing a ton of ES minutes, and still being "sheltered".
On the plus side, he deserves his share of the credit for his puckmoving skills, as that line's ES production was just a smidge below that of the French Connection... and you know Hajt had little to do with that.
I had no idea, either. And Pelletier has been wrong before (saying things like "usually" based off one or two game reports). Agree with your interpretation of things if Pelletier is correct.
Edit: As for McCabe, the impression was usually that Kaberle covered for him, correct?
