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 Mickey Ion Division Final - (1) Regina Capitals vs (2) Halifax Sleepwatchers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-02-2011, 04:17 PM
  #26
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Can somebody explain to me why my last two posts were deleted? How can I possibly defend myself when my responses are getting deleted?






And my responses are being deleted, this is ridiculous, i'm messaging a global mod about this. There is no way a GM participating in the ATD/MLD etc.. should be able to delete another Gm's response to a thread regarding their own series. This is absolute nonsense, I have no idea how anybody could think this is rational, I spend a lot of time and effort with these and am terribly unimpressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THIS???? hopefully this message doesnt get deleted

Please be my guest! You were flaming another member. Consider it generosity that you were not also handed an infraction.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 05:14 PM
  #27
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Please be my guest! You were flaming another member. Consider it generosity that you were not also handed an infraction.
PM has been sent.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 05:29 PM
  #28
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Yeah sorry mark, going back to see what seventies deleted I have to say that I agree with seventies decision to delete those. You weren't bringing up new points there, and they were highly inflammatory remarks that have no place here.

If it was something new I would consider going back and just editing, but yeah sorry that's pointless when it's the same thing we've been discussing for 15 or so posts.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 05:43 PM
  #29
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Yeah sorry mark, going back to see what seventies deleted I have to say that I agree with seventies decision to delete those. You weren't bringing up new points there, and they were highly inflammatory remarks that have no place here.

If it was something new I would consider going back and just editing, but yeah sorry that's pointless when it's the same thing we've been discussing for 15 or so posts.
Sorry but that's ridiculous, Jarek comes out of the wood works and posts

Quote:
This isn't a pissing contest about who is better. This is about your erroneous conclusion that PP goals = PP effectiveness for defensemen.
How is anybody suppose to react to something like that? I've never once said anythig ridiculous like that.

The funny thing is that there are 3 Mods in this forum and I knew right away who deleted the comments. Bottom line there is no way a participating GM can also be able to "moderate" his own thread during a ATD/MLD/AAA etc.. discussion. We as GM's but a lot of time and effort into this thing, and to have somebody else with that advantage is simply not fair.

What's the line? what get's deleted what doesn't? Can somebody explain to me how:

Quote:
seventieslord: Doesn't matter how soft you think my forwards are or how much of an advantage an offense-only player on your 3rd line gives you... your defense isn't close to ours. Not by any stretch. That's the key. If you want to get to the MLD finals, draft some bloody defensemen next time.

Isn't flaming another GM?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 06:12 PM
  #30
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
First off mark, calling someone a giraffe clown is not only unintelligible because that's not even an insult, but it's also totally unnecessary an pointless to the convo. To be honest, I actually agree with your main point that a mod shouldn't be able to edit his own thread, but I'm really not sure how you can argue with deleting something like that.

I have no problem taking over from here in this thread if seventies agrees, but honestly jarek just brought up a point and then was trying to say that this SHOULDN'T be a flame fest. Haven't you noticed how these type of things follow you around mark? There are some things that you take far too angrily.

As far as seventies statement, that is more a statement of his opinion that he thinks he should win the series, and that he thinks his Defensemen are far superior to yours. You have said far more inflammatory things in the past. We all have. I think that toes the line just fine.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 06:42 PM
  #31
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
First off mark, calling someone a giraffe clown is not only unintelligible because that's not even an insult, but it's also totally unnecessary an pointless to the convo. To be honest, I actually agree with your main point that a mod shouldn't be able to edit his own thread, but I'm really not sure how you can argue with deleting something like that.

I have no problem taking over from here in this thread if seventies agrees, but honestly jarek just brought up a point and then was trying to say that this SHOULDN'T be a flame fest. Haven't you noticed how these type of things follow you around mark? There are some things that you take far too angrily.

As far as seventies statement, that is more a statement of his opinion that he thinks he should win the series, and that he thinks his Defensemen are far superior to yours. You have said far more inflammatory things in the past. We all have. I think that toes the line just fine.

It's a reference to Wedding Crashers..."Make me a bicycle clown"...

Yes these things do follow me around and yes 99% of them are with 70's and Jarek. (Just ask dreamkur), They love to dish it out but as soon as somebody dishes it back they cry fowl and whine and complain.

Jarek said it shouldn't be a flame fest and then finished off the sentence WITH A FLAME? Im still waiting for him to show where I said what his quote said.

Could you please tell me how:

Quote:
seventieslord: Doesn't matter how soft you think my forwards are or how much of an advantage an offense-only player on your 3rd line gives you... your defense isn't close to ours. Not by any stretch. That's the key. If you want to get to the MLD finals, draft some bloody defensemen next time.

Is not an obvious flame towards Stoneberg and I. The funny thing is I could care less, but when my responses start to get deleted then things aren't fair.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 06:49 PM
  #32
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Now, instead of answering the questions directed towards him by myself and Dreamkur, 70's deletes posts and the whole attention of the series is on this now. I've made my points and have addressed several concerns with him team.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 07:07 PM
  #33
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,768
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Yes these things do follow me around and yes 99% of them are with 70's and Jarek. (Just ask dreamkur), They love to dish it out but as soon as somebody dishes it back they cry fowl and whine and complain.
I don't have an issue with Jarek. He and I just like to be involved in the debate, and we don't always agree. We both have strong opinions, and we don't always agree. Just because he's wrong when he doesn't agree with me, doesn't make him a bad guy

I've had three issue with members of the ATD. Two of them were exposed as dishonest and spiteful voters in the LC ATDs. The other is at HF, and I do suspect he has engaged in the same practice here.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 07:31 PM
  #34
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
I have no problem taking over from here in this thread if seventies agrees.
Please do.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 07:33 PM
  #35
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
The other is at HF, and I do suspect he has engaged in the same practice here.
Well of course you do! Now take it to the chat thread.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 07:40 PM
  #36
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Oh yea Toronto Billy Harris who has a 18th and 25th in points and thats it, not to mention 18 points (8 goals) in 62 career playoff games is going to light it up offensively how could I have overlooked such dominating offense statistics? Pretty terrible stats for I quote
Actually Harris was top-27 in ESP four times, for an MLD 3rd liner that is really good. Most ATD 3rd liners can't even say that.

Quote:
Mike Bullard has more offensive ability then your entire 3rd line, not to mention he's paired with two perfect Wingers in Craven and Meeker (Who you even said are a perfect fit for him)
I said Craven was perfect for Bullard, and that's because he prevents the line from being as terrible as Bullard is defensively. Meeker I liked a lot as a AAA 4th liner. He's nothing special on a 3rd line here. He had one very good season and one decent one, with a HHOF center.

Quote:
The Sleepwatchers have by far the best two offense players on either line in Bullard and Meeker, and the best playoff performer in Craven who had 70 points in 118 playoff games
What makes Meeker a better offensive player than Harris?

Quote:
God seventies you baffle me sometimes, how on gods green earth are we suppose to buy a guy who played a total of 402 career professional hockey games with only 28 career PP goals as not only a number 1 Powerplay Dman. but a guy who will run both Power play units?? First we can expect Sargent to be beaten and battered as he had terrible longevity so playing in the conference finals and being expected to play a 2 minute shift will have its toll on his "offensive abilities." I think any other reasonable GM would want to have another option on there 2nd unit.
Already addressed, thank you.

Quote:
It seems as though you already answered the question for me.... Of course they stand out, Checkmate Halifax, It seems kind of funny that Zidlicky has almost twice as many career Power Play goals then your beloved Sargent.
Mmm hmmm, and pp goals are of course how we should evaluate defensemen.

Quote:
You must have completely omitted all of this "evidence" in your bio for him, please enlighten me... All I see his a bunch of bs about him being a "street kid" and "hockey being in his blood", who cares? That doesnt mean a thing. Are we really suppose to buy a 5'8 165lb czech player form the 1960's as any type of physical puck winning presence? Who was he out muscling for the puck Team Japan? We have no proof of how he would fair against tougher caliber players and now he is a top end MLD Center?? You should change your name to "Seventiesmagician" for trying to pull all of these rabbits out of your hat. I'd hope the remaining GM's who vote can see through theses far fetched claims.
You know, i never claimed him to be a big puckwinning presence, nor did i spend any time pimping him at all, but all those other supposedly gullible GMs sure gave him a lot of all-star votes, didn't they? My only point is that the evidence is just as strong for guys like him and gingras and gracie, as it is for libett or hooper.

Quote:
Ahh yes plenty of evidence followed by stating he had 52 PIMS in 37 games..... How could I have overlooked such a telling stat, forgive me. I guess Zidlickys 82 PIMS in 82 games as a rookie in the NHL should have been noted too...
Bain supposedly "hit like a dump truck", yet Gingras was the guy going to the box for rough play... connect the dots.

Quote:
I'd like you to direct me to some other 1900-1910 players who have written factual evidence about there puck winning battles? Not that many to chose from , clearly Hooper was among the best during his time. I'll absolutely take "Hooper built an early reputation as a fearless skater, formidable checker, and clever stickhandler" over any guy on your 1st line.
You are just reading what you want to read. There is nothing there that says he will win battles any better than my 1st liners.

Gingras' toughness is better substantiated, plus he delivered a level of offense reasonably close to the player many consider the very best of that era, Dan Bain.

Quote:
I guess you completely missed or decided to ignore the info we found on Libett, allow me to refresh your memory:

Ya sorry Libett is not just purely a "defensive forward", Sounds like the perfect type of guy I want as my 2nd line glue guy. The fact that he more then able to produce offensively is a complete bonus.
Again, reading what you want to read. You are talking about "winning battles for pucks along the boards" but there is nothing in there about that.

Quote:
SHOW ME THIS EVIDENCE?? Gracie has a bad attitude and is cocky?? Why does that even matter (Easily a negative), thats what I got out of your bio for him. Absolutely no physical of puck winning information on him whatsoever.

All your evidence for Warwick is regarding the Allan cup (Ya I saw what you did there, nice try. Voters can take that as they want, again who was he playing against? Hockey reference has him listed at Height: 5-6 Weight: 155 lbs. GIVE ME A BREAK
Uh, i have no idea what you're talking about. I have plenty of information supporting Warwick's toughness, more than just the Allan Cup, and that is if I even used that. Off the top of my head, i don't think i did.

5'6", 155 in the 40s is not like the same size today, everyone knows that including you, it is just not convenient for you to admit it right now.

Quote:
There is this little Stat in hockey called total Hits, Witt led the entire league in them in 2000-01, not to mention was among the leagues top shot blockers as well and captained his team, I really wish I could find the HITS and blocked shots stats during Witts career NHL.com is being a b*tch this morning, im sure he is up there in both.
Great, Witt was so good at hitting and it made such a big impact on winning hockey games, that his coaches put him on the ice for lots of minutes, demonstrating that they trusted him to actually defend the zone and move the puck. Oh wait, they didn't?

(Nhl.com took down the pre-lockout RTSS stats years ago)

Quote:
Unlike other Gm's I can sort through your statistical smoke and play on words. As per above we've already determined Halifax has the advantage offensively for Dmen. To say the massive advantage we have in regards to puck winning and physical play and secondary scoring in both forwards groups is hilarious. Joe Carveth has a better playoff resume then any forward for Regina, and he is on our 2nd line Regina's 3rd line will produce next to nothing offensively and there top 2 lines are very poorly constructed. Halifax's blueline will have a lot easier time breaking out of our end and moving the puck due to the lack of physical players in Reginas top 3 lines.
Yes, you do have a VERY MINOR offensive advantage on the blueline, ASSUMING MCKENNYS POINTS CAN ALL BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE. (Be honest and paste in the McKenny discussion from when he was drafted, will ya?) Assuming there is an edge at that point, isn't it amazing how Regina's defensemen are all the ones in the series consistently known as nearly elite players even though they were supposedly so bad offensively? While we are on the topic, answer me this, if your guys are better offensively but never got allstar/norris votes and mine did, what does that say about their defensive games?

Quote:
Your really scrapping the bottom of the barrel on this one, resorting to adjusting size and claiming this extra inch per player will serve any extra edge at all. Since you've decided to bring up height,(Aside from Stumple, who we've all seen with our own two eyes and is a very soft player. The biggest player in your top 6 is 5'8 Golonka What a small group.
Good for you. But Everyone knows by now that adjusting size by era makes more sense than using raw size, so i am not sure what your point is.

You also neglected to mention that two of my guys have unknown heights, are you assuming they were midgets? Seems to me that average for the era would be a lot more reasonable assumption.

Quote:
It is painfully obvious that you realize you are completely outmatched offensively and between the pipes so you have to try and direct all the importance to the defenseman. The difference in nets is larger then the difference on the blueline Billy Nicholson is a complete unknown with next to nothing on his resume. Don Beaupre is a 2 time NHL All star and proven number 1. What the Hell is Nicholson? It would be an absolute farce if a team with a goalie like Nicholson made it to the league finals. Why do we not put more importance on goaltending during playoffs (See last years playoffs) It is a massive advantage for Halifax
Ok, so bio reading isnt your strong suit, gotcha.

Let me recap. From 1900 to 1909, nicholson had just three years where he didnt lead his league in gaa or wins, or get named to an allstar team, or make/win the league final. Most years he did a combination of the above. He won two stanley cups in three cup finals. On the surface his resume appears as strong as his HHOF contemporaries Moran, Lesueur, and Hern. I wouldnt dream of taking Beaupre over him. It seems most voters agreed too... but hey, Beaupre's 7th place finish in the voting isnt THAT bad...

Quote:
Our defence is very close to yours, actually they are ahead offensively, i'd like for you to prove otherwise.
Already done, beyond a shadow of a doubt, thank you very much.

Quote:
WHY HALIFAX WILL WIN

- Huge advantage among forwards in several facets. Regina has the smallest top 6 in the league, relying on 5'8 Golonka as there physical presence. This not only effects his forwards but helps our defenseman.

-No puck winning presence on either of Reginas top two lines. Unless seventies can prove otherwise he has yet to show any proof any of those 5'8 and under forwards will be able to battle and win those important puck battles

-Halifax has the massive edge in secondary scoring. Carveth has a better playoff resume the any Regina player. Leading two different playoff seasons in points and or goals and assists he is a playoff monster.

-Reginas third line will provide next to nothing offensively, No Bill Harris who averages what 0.26 PPG in the playoffs is not an offensive threat. NEXT

- Yes we all know seventies is trying to milk these new 9th and 12th place votes among defenseman but as shown above Halifax has the better offensive production in our top 6.

-Regina has a glaring lack of puck movers in his back end, clearly proved by needing Sargent on both PP. Zidlicky has almost twice as many Powerplay goals then Sargent. For a team who has a lack of scoring up front, you'd think they'd make sure they have several puck movers on the back end to produce more offense. BUT THEY DON'T. VERY POORLY CONSTRUCTED
Nice, your whole case is based on trashing my team!

- any physicality/puckwinning advantage you have is being very overstated, nothing more than a case of reading your own quotes one way and mine another way.

- Carveth's playoff resume was from the war years so curb your enthusiasm just a little, ok?

- yes, you probably do have better secondary scoring, but it is at the expense of defense. There is a reason most teams dont go for balls to the wall offense like you are here.

- no one is buying your "let's ignore everything except playoff ppg" angle for harris, but admirable effort.

- you went to the school of Dreakmur, i see. As far as defensemen are concerned, point totals FTW! Unfortunately for you, that doesn't tell the story. Except for a few cases, your defensemen were not good enough to be a top player for a good team, nor did they ever, aside from Murdoch once, get recognized as one of the League's best defenseman. EVERY REGINA DEFENSEMAN WILL BE SELECTED SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER THAN HALIFAX'S DEFENSEMEN NEXT YEAR, with the possible exception of Murdoch. Now that the allstar voting is known, no one would ever take stiffs like mckenny, giles, matvichuk or zidlicky over armstrong, kampman or portland. You would be best advised to just try to sweep this advantage under the carpet and hope there are 6 or 7 voters who didn't notice it.

I focesed hard on defense and i did pay a little on my offense, but it was worth it. All the little matchups here and there are a +1 or +2 for Regina or Halifax, but on the blueline it is a +20 for Regina. Nothing else in this series can make up for it, it is insurmountable.

Quote:
How did Doug Gilmour ever enter this conversation?
It is my opinion that descriptions of Golonka colour him as the Czech version of Doug Gilmour. Disagree if you like.

Quote:
Let's not forget 70's self assessment of his 2nd line Center:

Sounds about right.
Yep, 100% correct, i think Stumpel is just a bargain basement 2nd liner. So is Collins though. (Liked him as a aaa player)

How about that, hey? A GM who can be realistic about his players. You should give it a try sometime.

Quote:
Who will be scoring the goals for Regina? He drafted Golonka in the 8th round Halifax's 3rd line has better offense finishes then Reginas first line.
I dunno, but Golonka's excellent array of high finishes in the Czech league and internationally seem to paint him as quite the goal scorer. Warwick's six top-20s in goals in the NHL do the same.

Bullard got to play big minutes for a horrible teams, was bad defensively and expected his linemates to "feed" him, his finishes are hardly an indication of his true value.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
The massive advantage in scoring is shown in the following:

Top 10 Goals: 1, 6

Top 10 Assists: 3, 6

Top 10 Points: 2, 5

The unbolded Regina and Bolded as Halifax. Halifax has the advantage in every offensive category

And before 70's can mention Gingras, Golonka and Richardson I will point out that Don Smith and Tom Hooper can not be measured by this stat either. So unless Golonka (Who was drafted in the 8th round) can make up for these enormous differences in stats in is plain as day that Halifax as the MASSIVE advantage offensively in this series.

The two best offensive Defenseman in this series belong to Halifax too with Mckenney and Zidlicky. With those two great puck movers feeding our forwards it will be an all out attack for Halifax.
Nice, boiling it down to top-10s even though the majority of mld players have none of them. The above comparison is useless and pointless.

Smith and hooper can both be measured by top-10, but of course they played in half-leagues so only top-5s have the same value. I know Hooper never came close, and you can check my aaa11 bio for smith to see how many he has, i am guessing one in points and a couple in goals.

Of course, leading the czech league in goals multiple times in the mid-1960s is nothing, and beating the soviets twice at the height of their power is nothing, right?

As for McKenny and Zidlicky, just because they can put up PP points, dont make the assumption that they will be any good at getting the puck out of the zone. McKenny had an awful habit of circling in front of his net, often with disastrous results. Zidlicky gets outmuscled nightly and can be forced into turnovers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Let me ask you a question. Who has the better resume Zidlicky or Sargent?

Sargent had a career 402 Professional hockey games, 222 points, 28 playoff games and one Canada Cup where he scored zero points.

Zidlicky has 507 career NHL games and 474 more Czech and Finnish elite league games with 284 career NHL points with 42 PP Goals and another 246 points in the Czech/Finnish league. On top of this he also has 10 points in 12 olympic games, 4 points in 5 world cup games and 21 points in 39 World Cup games.

Not only are Zidlickys NHL numbers better, he also has the Elite league and International experience as absolute gravy.

It's not even close between the two. If all of Golonkas International and Euro league accomplishments hold value then you better not ignore all of Zidlickys.
Not even close. Zidlicky has been a 2nd or 3rd pairing defenseman his entire career, who gets a bunch of minutes on the PP because that is the only nhl situation in which he is above average. Despite all these points, Zidlicky has never received allstar or Norris votes or been selected for the all-star game... why do you suppose that is?

Sargent, on the other hand, was 8th in voting in 1978 and was named to the 1980 allstar game. Yeah, he had no points at the canada cup, but you forgot to mention that because he was a great all-around defenseman, something no one would ever call Zidlicky, he was voted USA's 2nd most valuable player in the tournament. In 77, 78, and 79, he was one of the most heavily-used defensemen in the NHL. It's not even close. Sargent proved to be a semi-elite player over a period of four seasons, Zidlicky hasnt done anything close to that, and doesnt even have a big nhl longevity advantage to fall back on.


Last edited by vecens24: 09-02-2011 at 07:59 PM. Reason: Trolling both.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 07:54 PM
  #37
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Actually Harris was top-27 in ESP four times, for an MLD 3rd liner that is really good. Most ATD 3rd liners can't even say that.



I said Craven was perfect for Bullard, and that's because he prevents the line from being as terrible as Bullard is defensively. Meeker I liked a lot as a AAA 4th liner. He's nothing special on a 3rd line here. He had one very good season and one decent one, with a HHOF center.



What makes Meeker a better offensive player than Harris?



Already addressed, thank you.



Mmm hmmm, and pp goals are of course how we should evaluate defensemen.



You know, i never claimed him to be a big puckwinning presence, nor did i spend any time pimping him at all, but all those other supposedly gullible GMs sure gave him a lot of all-star votes, didn't they? My only point is that the evidence is just as strong for guys like him and gingras and gracie, as it is for libett or hooper.



Bain supposedly "hit like a dump truck", yet Gingras was the guy going to the box for rough play... connect the dots.



You are just reading what you want to read. There is nothing there that says he will win battles any better than my 1st liners.

Gingras' toughness is better substantiated, plus he delivered a level of offense reasonably close to the player many consider the very best of that era, Dan Bain.



Again, reading what you want to read. You are talking about "winning battles for pucks along the boards" but there is nothing in there about that.



Uh, i have no idea what you're talking about. I have plenty of information supporting Warwick's toughness, more than just the Allan Cup, and that is if I even used that. Off the top of my head, i don't think i did.

5'6", 155 in the 40s is not like the same size today, everyone knows that including you, it is just not convenient for you to admit it right now.



Great, Witt was so good at hitting and it made such a big impact on winning hockey games, that his coaches put him on the ice for lots of minutes, demonstrating that they trusted him to actually defend the zone and move the puck. Oh wait, they didn't?

(Nhl.com took down the pre-lockout RTSS stats years ago)



Yes, you do have a VERY MINOR offensive advantage on the blueline, ASSUMING MCKENNYS POINTS CAN ALL BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE. (Be honest and paste in the McKenny discussion from when he was drafted, will ya?) Assuming there is an edge at that point, isn't it amazing how Regina's defensemen are all the ones in the series consistently known as nearly elite players even though they were supposedly so bad offensively? While we are on the topic, answer me this, if your guys are better offensively but never got allstar/norris votes and mine did, what does that say about their defensive games?



Good for you. But Everyone knows by now that adjusting size by era makes more sense than using raw size, so i am not sure what your point is.

You also neglected to mention that two of my guys have unknown heights, are you assuming they were midgets? Seems to me that average for the era would be a lot more reasonable assumption.



Ok, so bio reading isnt your strong suit, gotcha.

Let me recap. From 1900 to 1909, nicholson had just three years where he didnt lead his league in gaa or wins, or get named to an allstar team, or make/win the league final. Most years he did a combination of the above. He won two stanley cups in three cup finals. On the surface his resume appears as strong as his HHOF contemporaries Moran, Lesueur, and Hern. I wouldnt dream of taking Beaupre over him. It seems most voters agreed too... but hey, Beaupre's 7th place finish in the voting isnt THAT bad...



Already done, beyond a shadow of a doubt, thank you very much.



Nice, your whole case is based on trashing my team!

- any physicality/puckwinning advantage you have is being very overstated, nothing more than a case of reading your own quotes one way and mine another way.

- Carveth's playoff resume was from the war years so curb your enthusiasm just a little, ok?

- yes, you probably do have better secondary scoring, but it is at the expense of defense. There is a reason most teams dont go for balls to the wall offense like you are here.

- no one is buying your "let's ignore everything except playoff ppg" angle for harris, but admirable effort.

- you went to the school of Dreakmur, i see. As far as defensemen are concerned, point totals FTW! Unfortunately for you, that doesn't tell the story. Except for a few cases, your defensemen were not good enough to be a top player for a good team, nor did they ever, aside from Murdoch once, get recognized as one of the League's best defenseman. EVERY REGINA DEFENSEMAN WILL BE SELECTED SIGNIFICANTLY EARLIER THAN HALIFAX'S DEFENSEMEN NEXT YEAR, with the possible exception of Murdoch. Now that the allstar voting is known, no one would ever take stiffs like mckenny, giles, matvichuk or zidlicky over armstrong, kampman or portland. You would be best advised to just try to sweep this advantage under the carpet and hope there are 6 or 7 voters who didn't notice it.

I focesed hard on defense and i did pay a little on my offense, but it was worth it. All the little matchups here and there are a +1 or +2 for Regina or Halifax, but on the blueline it is a +20 for Regina. Nothing else in this series can make up for it, it is insurmountable.



It is my opinion that descriptions of Golonka colour him as the Czech version of Doug Gilmour. Disagree if you like.



Yep, 100% correct, i think Stumpel is just a bargain basement 2nd liner. So is Collins though. (Liked him as a aaa player)

How about that, hey? A GM who can be realistic about his players. You should give it a try sometime.



I dunno, but Golonka's excellent array of high finishes in the Czech league and internationally seem to paint him as quite the goal scorer. Warwick's six top-20s in goals in the NHL do the same.

Bullard got to play big minutes for a horrible teams, was bad defensively and expected his linemates to "feed" him, his finishes are hardly an indication of his true value.



Nice, boiling it down to top-10s even though the majority of mld players have none of them. The above comparison is useless and pointless.

Smith and hooper can both be measured by top-10, but of course they played in half-leagues so only top-5s have the same value. I know Hooper never came close, and you can check my aaa11 bio for smith to see how many he has, i am guessing one in points and a couple in goals.

Of course, leading the czech league in goals multiple times in the mid-1960s is nothing, and beating the soviets twice at the height of their power is nothing, right?

As for McKenny and Zidlicky, just because they can put up PP points, dont make the assumption that they will be any good at getting the puck out of the zone. McKenny had an awful habit of circling in front of his net, often with disastrous results. Zidlicky gets outmuscled nightly and can be forced into turnovers.



Not even close. Zidlicky has been a 2nd or 3rd pairing defenseman his entire career, who gets a bunch of minutes on the PP because that is the only nhl situation in which he is above average. Despite all these points, Zidlicky has never received allstar or Norris votes or been selected for the all-star game... why do you suppose that is?

Sargent, on the other hand, was 8th in voting in 1978 and was named to the 1980 allstar game. Yeah, he had no points at the canada cup, but you forgot to mention that because he was a great all-around defenseman, something no one would ever call Zidlicky, he was voted USA's 2nd most valuable player in the tournament. In 77, 78, and 79, he was one of the most heavily-used defensemen in the NHL. It's not even close. Sargent proved to be a semi-elite player over a period of four seasons, Zidlicky hasnt done anything close to that, and doesnt even have a big nhl longevity advantage to fall back on.

Only pure dreakmurism would make zidlicky better.




Your entire ATD/MLD rebuttles are boiled down in the two bolded posts. You want me to "connect the dots" with your players because a guy on his line hits hard but your players gets more penalty minutes so he of course has the physical attributes desperately needed.

Andddddd then of course 3 lines down you say I like to "Im reading what I like to read" and a guy who does all the small things for a team to win, is a relentless checker, has the best work ethic on his team etc.. etc.. of course is unable to win puck battles along the boards.


Who has the time to sort through all of your BS? I sure as hell don't and that is what 95% of your posts are.


Oh ya well my player was top 27 in ESP on the road during weekend games 3 times in his career and my defenseman minus 4 outliers averaging together there 1st and 3rd periods and 75% of the 3rd place defenseman in their 2nd and 3rd best seasons all have better % then yours...... GIVE ME A BREAK, when does common sense enter the conversation?

Yes MLD players have top 10's in points, 4 of my players have finished top 10 in points. Explain that one?

Golonka has your main offensive weapon is weak very weak and you know it, you completely ignore Joe Carveth so I guess +75 to Halifax compared to your "+20" for defenseman so I guess according to your methods Halifax now has the +55 advantage.


Quote:
ep, 100% correct, i think Stumpel is just a bargain basement 2nd liner. So is Collins though. (Liked him as a aaa player)

How about that, hey? A GM who can be realistic about his players. You should give it a try sometime.
I don't select players I am "unimpressed with" I like to do my research before I pick them. Thanks though.


Last edited by markrander87: 09-02-2011 at 08:03 PM.
markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 08:15 PM
  #38
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,538
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Your entire ATD/MLD rebuttles are boiled down in the two bolded posts. You want me to "connect the dots" with your players because a guy on his line hits hard but your players gets more penalty minutes so he of course has the physical attributes desperately needed.

Andddddd then of course 3 lines down you say I like to "Im reading what I like to read" and a guy who does all the small things for a team to win, is a relentless checker, has the best work ethic on his team etc.. etc.. of course is unable to win puck battles along the boards.
No, you are missing the point, I don't want you to connect any dots, nor do I care if you do, I am just matching you, logical leap by logical leap.


Quote:
Who has the time to sort through all of your BS? I sure as hell don't and that is what 95% of your posts are.


Oh ya well my player was top 27 in ESP on the road during weekend games 3 times in his career and my defenseman minus 4 outliers averaging together there 1st and 3rd periods and 75% of the 3rd place defenseman in their 2nd and 3rd best seasons all have better % then yours...... GIVE ME A BREAK, when does common sense enter the conversation?
Wind. You forgot wind. And the coefficient of friction on the ice, which changes throughout the game.

Quote:
Yes MLD players have top 10's in points, 4 of my players have finished top 10 in points. Explain that one?
Yeah, I said most don't. Since 4 of your picks do, does that not mean that most of them don't?

Quote:
Golonka has your main offensive weapon is weak very weak and you know it, you completely ignore Joe Carveth so I guess +75 to Halifax compared to your "+20" for defenseman so I guess according to your methods Halifax now has the +55 advantage.
Well done, sounds like you are right on top of things here.



Quote:
I don't select players I am "unimpressed with" I like to do my research before I pick them. Thanks though.
Hey, don't get me wrong. Stumpel was the best I could do at the time. Doesn't mean I have to be impressed with him, it just means I wasn't impressed with what was left. I am fine though... six of the top-20 defensemen in the MLD is a pretty good haul. (I think my next opponent has five of them too). Good luck to ya.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 08:36 PM
  #39
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
No, you are missing the point, I don't want you to connect any dots, nor do I care if you do, I am just matching you, logical leap by logical leap.




Wind. You forgot wind. And the coefficient of friction on the ice, which changes throughout the game.



Yeah, I said most don't. Since 4 of your picks do, does that not mean that most of them don't?
3 out of my top 6 have top 10's and HHOF Hooper and Smith don't qualify due to era, i'd say that's a pretty impressive amount, it's not my fault yours don't.


Quote:
Well done, sounds like you are right on top of things here.
Pretty pathetic isn't it, thats what we look forward to reading while sorting through your posts.




Quote:
Hey, don't get me wrong. Stumpel was the best I could do at the time. Doesn't mean I have to be impressed with him, it just means I wasn't impressed with what was left. I am fine though... six of the top-20 defensemen in the MLD is a pretty good haul. (I think my next opponent has five of them too). Good luck to ya.

Show me where 6 of the top 20 dmen in the MLD belong to your team (Interesting you havent touched on sargents pathetic longevity) Bodnar,Smith, Carson and Carveth are the top 4 offensive players in the series, heck prove that Bullard is behind Golonka (Or whoever you claim to be your best offensive player)

Ya drafting a 2nd line C in round 11 will absolutely cost you, add in that its one of your famous Modern compiler and that 2nd line is well below par.

You had a voter ask you to sell golonkas offense, do you plan on addressing him?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 08:39 PM
  #40
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Please if any voters have any questions fire away. I am well aware that there will probably only be 5-7 votes in this series as some GM's have lost interest. Please post any thoughts or concerns for Halifax as we will try to address them as well as possible.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 08:49 PM
  #41
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
SHOW ME WHERE I SAID THIS???? hopefully this message doesnt get deleted
Here:

Quote:
It seems kind of funny that Zidlicky has almost twice as many career Power Play goals then your beloved Sargent.
What am I to infer from this other than, "how good a defenseman is on the PP is based off his PP goals".

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Was the competition as good as he is going to face here?
What does it matter? Other than the goalie he is shooting the puck at.. unless you mean to infer that some legendary, epic puck battles will be happening at the blueline where Sargent is, on the PP.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 09:05 PM
  #42
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,796
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
What does it matter? Other than the goalie he is shooting the puck at.. unless you mean to infer that some legendary, epic puck battles will be happening at the blueline where Sargent is, on the PP.
It matters if Halifax's final wave of fresh PKers can take advantage of a tired Sargent at the end of a long PP shift.

Luckily for Regina, I don't think any of Halifax's PKing forwards were notorious SH threats (correct me if I'm wrong).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 09:11 PM
  #43
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Here:

"It seems kind of funny that Zidlicky has almost twice as many career Power Play goals then your beloved Sargent."



What am I to infer from this other than, "how good a defenseman is on the PP is based off his PP goals".



wow just wow, infer all you want boywonder.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 09:18 PM
  #44
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It matters if Halifax's final wave of fresh PKers can take advantage of a tired Sargent at the end of a long PP shift.

Luckily for Regina, I don't think any of Halifax's PKing forwards were notorious SH threats (correct me if I'm wrong).
Craven has a 4th in SH goals and is 52nd all time in SH goals so he will be athreat to pounce on Sargent. Libett also has a 3rd in SH goals, but more importantly is known for his speed and Work ethic and can blow by sargent after a long shift and also play the body on him and allow an offensive cycle down low with his fresh linemates Carveth and carson to pounce on a tired sargent.

Quote:
Left-winger Nick Libett used his speed and quick hands to be an asset at both ends of the ice. He reached the 20-goal mark six times and would have been better known if he played on one of the NHL's better clubs.
-http://www.legendsofhockey.net/LegendsOfHockey/jsp/SearchPlayer.jsp?player=13396

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 09:26 PM
  #45
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
What am I to infer from this other than, "how good a defenseman is on the PP is based off his PP goals".
I'd say it is one pretty strong indicator if everything else is even close.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 09:33 PM
  #46
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I'd say it is one pretty strong indicator if everything else is even close.
All it says is how accurate he was as a shooter. If a guy who played 400+ NHL games has double the PP goals of another guy, amounting to an absolute value of 20 extra goals, that.. is almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things. That MIGHT, MIGHT amount to 2 extra goals per season..

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-02-2011, 09:51 PM
  #47
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
All it says is how accurate he was as a shooter. If a guy who played 400+ NHL games has double the PP goals of another guy, amounting to an absolute value of 20 extra goals, that.. is almost insignificant in the grand scheme of things. That MIGHT, MIGHT amount to 2 extra goals per season..
Their shooting percentages are 7.0 and 7.4% for their careers.

Since these comparisons are in an all time sense, and the guy playing in a lower scoring period of time has a bunch more powerplay goals than the guy being sold as having the capability to run an entire powerplay.. I think that is pretty significant even if PP goals don't tell the whole story with regards to powerplay effectiveness.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 12:57 AM
  #48
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Their shooting percentages are 7.0 and 7.4% for their careers.

Since these comparisons are in an all time sense, and the guy playing in a lower scoring period of time has a bunch more powerplay goals than the guy being sold as having the capability to run an entire powerplay.. I think that is pretty significant even if PP goals don't tell the whole story with regards to powerplay effectiveness.
PP goals don't even come close to telling the whole story. So one guy has more goals because he shot more. Tomas Kaberle never shoots, yet he's considered among the best PP QBs in the league. Your passing ability, not shooting ability, is what makes you a dangerous PP player as a defenseman.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 06:01 AM
  #49
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
RIP Kev
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,722
vCash: 1832
Just to let you guys know, I'll be taking the votes for both sets of finals so PM your votes to me if you're ready.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 07:41 AM
  #50
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,318
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
PP goals don't even come close to telling the whole story. So one guy has more goals because he shot more. Tomas Kaberle never shoots, yet he's considered among the best PP QBs in the league. Your passing ability, not shooting ability, is what makes you a dangerous PP player as a defenseman.
I already told you their shooting percentages are very similar. Also, Sargent shot more in less games so there goes that out the window right away.

I would say that both your passing ability and shooting ability (and other abilities) is what makes you a dangerous PP player. Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Kaberle is much less effective than he would be if he shot more because players can play the pass on him and be correct 99.9% of the time. I'm sure you know how often people would be screaming at their TV when he had the puck at the point SHOOOOOOOOT!!!!! And he would pass off into a worse position.

That being a bit beside the point, Sargent was also on the ice for less powerplay goals for in total despite playing in a higher scoring time.. even if you prorate the number of games. What is the excuse now?

BraveCanadian 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 07:12 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.