HFBoards

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

MLD2011 Sir Montagu Allan Final (1) Eden Hall Warriors vs. (2) Philadelphia Quakers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-01-2011, 01:04 PM
  #51
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,712
vCash: 9000
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Offense = Advantage Eden Hall

Kapanen = Krushelnyski
Sullivan > Pivonka
Pettersson = Kallur

The big difference is at center
I wouldn't be so quick to anoint Pettersson equal to Kallur offensively. Kallur has an NHL resume that Pettersson just doesn't have, and while he didn't light the league on fire, he did finish 27th in goals in 1981 at a respectable 62% of 2nd place. He also led the SEL in goals one year, did Pettersson ever do that? Kallur competed against the best in the world for part of his career, and Pettersson never did.

Quote:
Defense = Advantage Philadelphia

Kapanen = Krushelnyski
Sullivan = Pivonka
Pettersson < Kallur
I'd give a slight advantage to Pivonka over Sullivan, but otherwise, fine.

The big difference is at right wing
Quote:
Speed = Advantage Eden Hall

Eden Hall has the fastest third line in the draft. Philadelphia's third line doesn't seem fast or slow.
I disagree. All 3 of my players are strong skaters. Krushelnyski wasn't the fastest end to end, but Pelletier called him one of the better skaters in the league, especially for his size. He had more of a powerful stride that breakaway speed. Pivonka was called a strong skater by LOH, and Kallur was described as having "blazing speed", "quick lateral movement", and "swift". Sullivan and Kapanen are midgets, but they're both speed demons. Your line is faster, but mine is still above average in the speed department.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 02:12 PM
  #52
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
Dead puck percentages are deceiving because the scoring was down, significantly, and everyone was lumped together. The elite players didn't have the ability to really set themselves apart from the rest of the talent pool because of the rules in place. For example, let's look at Sullivan's 4 best seasons, 99-00 to 02-03. Here are the differences in point totals from the guy in 1st to the guy in 25th: 25, 42(Jagr and Sakic were 1-2 and were both 20+ points ahead of number 3), 27, and 34. Here are the gaps from 1-25 in Pivonka's 4 best years: 81(Gretzky was way ahead in 1st, 2nd place Hull was 47 points ahead), 49, 63(Lemieux was 12 points ahead of 2nd place LaFontaine, who was 51 points ahead of 25th), and 76(Lemieux and Jagr were way ahead, 3rd place was still 35 points ahead of 25th).

During the dead puck era, the elite players couldn't separate themselves from the pack in terms of point totals.
If you don't believe in the percentage method, then feel free to discard it, but don't use it and then just throw out the results if you don't like them. Personally, I have mixed feelings about pre-expansion percentages, but I feel that percentages is the best way to evaluate players post expansion - or at least players who weren't regularly in the top 10 in points (in other words, every player we are dealing with now).

I still don't get your argument. Why are you even talking about Gretzky and Lemieux? No rational system would compare percentages to those two players. Why are you talking about first place at all, when the point of vs2 is to compare to second place, and most of us allow comparisons to 3rd place if #2 is an outlier himself.

To the extent that scoring is more compressed in the dead puck era, isn't that what you'd expect when the league's talent pool explodes? Canadians were 90% of the league's talent pool in the 1980s; by 2000, they were closer to 50%. So yes, if the percentage system shows that the 40th best player in 2000 is about equal to the 25th best player in 1985, that's proof that it's a better system of judging talent, not a worse one.

In this case, percentages and adjusted points agree: Sullivan is a significantly better offensive player than Pivonka. And that's before we get into the fact that Pivonka got a lot of assists by simply dumping the puck to Peter Bondra and letting Bondra do all the work (Bondra was kind of breakaway artist like Bure who scored a lot of goals on individual effort).

Quote:
Kallur's best competition that I see is Mats Naslund and a young Anders Eldebrink. Did Pettersson compete against any guys of that caliber?
Sven "Tumba" Johansson was the most famous player Pettersson competed against in the SEL. History definitely remembers him as a greater player than Eldebrink, at least.

Quote:
Kapanen is also a midget.
Eh, I'd call him more a man of small stature, but not a midget like Sullivan or Ftorek (he outweights the two of them by 25-30 pounds if you believe their official weights).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 02:22 PM
  #53
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
I wouldn't be so quick to anoint Pettersson equal to Kallur offensively. Kallur has an NHL resume that Pettersson just doesn't have, and while he didn't light the league on fire, he did finish 27th in goals in 1981 at a respectable 62% of 2nd place. He also led the SEL in goals one year, did Pettersson ever do that? Kallur competed against the best in the world for part of his career, and Pettersson never did.
Why just look at goals? Kallur was tied for 70th in points with 47% of the leader in his best NHL season. It's certainly a plus that more of the points were goals than assists, but color me unimpressed overall.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-01-2011 at 03:24 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 04:21 PM
  #54
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,712
vCash: 9000
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If you don't believe in the percentage method, then feel free to discard it, but don't use it and then just throw out the results if you don't like them. Personally, I have mixed feelings about pre-expansion percentages, but I feel that percentages is the best way to evaluate players post expansion - or at least players who weren't regularly in the top 10 in points (in other words, every player we are dealing with now).

I still don't get your argument. Why are you even talking about Gretzky and Lemieux? No rational system would compare percentages to those two players. Why are you talking about first place at all, when the point of vs2 is to compare to second place, and most of us allow comparisons to 3rd place if #2 is an outlier himself.

To the extent that scoring is more compressed in the dead puck era, isn't that what you'd expect when the league's talent pool explodes? Canadians were 90% of the league's talent pool in the 1980s; by 2000, they were closer to 50%. So yes, if the percentage system shows that the 40th best player in 2000 is about equal to the 25th best player in 1985, that's proof that it's a better system of judging talent, not a worse one.
My point wasn't about the talent pool, it was about how the rules didn't allow the elite players to accumulate elite point totals as a result of the clutch and grab rules. Scoring went down more as a result of the rules than the change in the depth of the talent pool, although it played a factor. It waters down their numbers compared to other players, so the gap between them in points wasn't as large. Okay, ignore Gretzky and Lemieux. Let's look at the guy that's in 2nd place only, and 3rd if 2nd is an outlier. Here are the differences in points from 2nd to 25th(3rd if marked with an asterisk due to 2nd being an outlier, ** is 4th to 25th because first 3 were outliers)

Sullivan's best years: 23, 17*, 32, 19
Pivonka's best years: 33*, 27**, 51, 35*

Quote:
Eh, I'd call him more a man of small stature, but not a midget like Sullivan or Ftorek (he outweights the two of them by 25-30 pounds if you believe their official weights).
Either way, he's small. That was my point.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 04:28 PM
  #55
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Top 4 defense

It's tough to do a pairing-by-pairing comparison since Philadelphia put their best 2 offensive guys together on the 1st pair and their best 2 defensive guys together on the 2nd pair, while Eden Hall chose to balance our top pairings. So I'll compare the top 4 guys all together.

The offensive aces = Brian Campbell vs. Phat Wilson

First of all, there is reason to believe that Phat Wilson is in the HHOF as a builder/player hybrid, rather than just for what he did on the ice. Indeed, his LOH profile talks as much about his off ice exploits than what he did on the ice:

Quote:
There are few men who have done more for hockey in their native communities than has Gordon Allan "Phat" Wilson
...
Although he retired from active play in 1933 at the age of 37, he stayed very active in the hockey and sports scene in Port Arthur.

Wilson was the co-founder of the local girls hockey league and took the time not only to organize but to coach and referee games as well. He was also involved in the local baseball scene--as president of the Port Arthur National League--and went on to become the first Little League District Commissioner for the area. Wilson even found the time to coach the Port Arthur senior hockey clubs to the Western Senior Finals in 1938 and 1940.

In recognition of his hockey prowess and lifelong commitment to the Port Arthur sports scene, Wilson was inducted posthumously into the Northwestern Ontario Sports Hall of Fame at its first induction ceremonies in 1982.

"Phat" Wilson was inducted into the Hockey Hall of Fame in 1962.
What do we know about Phat Wilson, the player? He was the dominant offensive defenseman in amateur hockey, at a time when all the other best players were professionals. So we really have no idea just how good he was. His offensive accomplishments are so strong against the amateurs, that they have to translate to something here. How do they compare against Campbell? I donno. I do know that I'd rather have Campbell defend against NHL-calibre forwards, since that's something that Wilson has zero experience doing. Campbell isn't a defensive stalwart at the NHL level, but he was good enough to play big minutes in Buffalo as they made the Conference finals and to play as the #3 of the Cup winning Blackhawks.

Wilson has more leadership experience and has rightfully been given a letter, while Campbell has not.

Wilson and Campbell are both very good offensive defensemen here and it's impossible to compare their offense. Campbell has experience defending against NHL-calibre players; Wilson is a more accomplished leader.

The two-way guys: Mike O'Connell vs. Alex Smith

O'Connell finished 8th in Norris voting once. Alex Smith never received a vote for postseason all-star teams, but he played 5 seasons (aged 23-27) before the teams existed, so it isn't a fair comparison.

I hate doing season-by-season rankings of defensmen, so Billy or vecens, feel free. I'll look at the bigger picture, because it's less time-consuming. From 1927-28 to 1934-35 (8 seasons), Smith had 47% of the points of 2nd place King Clancy. Since King Clancy might be considered an outlier himself (he and Eddie Shore were far above anyone else), Smith had 75% of 3rd place Lionel Conacher.

From 1979-80 to 1986-87 (9 seasons, careers were a bit longer on average), O'Connell had 58% of the points of 2nd place Ray Bourque. Since I think Bourque is also something of an outlier himself, O'Connell had 70% of 3rd place Doug Wilson.

Seems like a very small offensive edge to Alex Smith to me.

Defensively, we know O'Connell was pretty good, not great. Do we know anything about Alex Smith's defense?

Alex Smith was known as "rugged" type guy, while O'Connell was small.

Small advantage to Alex Smith because of his small offensive advantage. O'Connell's defense is better substantiated, while Smith is much larger and tougher. If you can show that Smith was well-regarded defensively, I'd give him a moderate advantage.

The brutes: Jack Evans vs. Bill Juzda

Similar types of defensemen, but Evans is just plain better. Evans finished 5th and 12th in Norris voting. Juzda played before the Norris trophy was awarded, but we have All-Star voting down to 10th place for most of his career, and he doesn't ever place. It's possible he has a 6-10th place finish or two in the years for which we have sparse records, but we know Evans tied for 5th in Norris voting one season.

It's also worth noting that Evans, as a late 50s/early 60s guy was competing against a much better group of defenseman than Juzda was in the 40s/early 50s.

If we had complete voting records for Juzda's career, I'd say it was a significant advantage to Evans, but since we don't it's a moderate advantage to Evans.

The heady, defensive defenseman: Walt Buswell vs. Kim Johnsson

I'm a fan of Johnsson as a very solid #4. But Buswell is a better player. Johnsson finished 11th in All Star voting once and got 2 votes on another occasion. Buswell finished 6th and 8th in All Star voting, got 2 votes on a 3rd occasion, and a single vote on a 4th. Even taking into account the deeper talent pool of Johnsson's era, this has to be moderate advantage Buswell.

Overall conclusions
  • Campbell and Wilson are probably close offensively, but it's hard to tell. Campbell is more proven at defending against NHL-calibre talent
  • Smith is slightly better than O'Connell offensively and overall. O'Connell is better defensively (pending what Billy can post). Smith is larger and more physical
  • How good will the Wilson/Smith pair be in their own zone? Wilson never played against top talent, and not much seems to be written about Smith's defense
  • Evans is a moderately better version of Juzda
  • Buswell is a moderately better version of Johnsson
  • Overall, Eden Hall has a better top 4. Campbell and Wilson are hard to compare, but Campbell is no worse. Evans/Buswell are each better than Juzda/Johnsson by at least as much as Smith is better than O'Connell.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 04:38 PM
  #56
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
My point wasn't about the talent pool, it was about how the rules didn't allow the elite players to accumulate elite point totals as a result of the clutch and grab rules. Scoring went down more as a result of the rules than the change in the depth of the talent pool, although it played a factor. It waters down their numbers compared to other players, so the gap between them in points wasn't as large.
This is an interesting bit of conjecture, but do you have proof? If this is true, you'd expect the compression of scoring to have disappeared after clutch and grab was ended after the last lockout, and I'm pretty sure we're as compressed as between the lockouts.

If you want to avoid using both percentages and adjusted points, that's fine, but ignore them in all cases, not just in the dead puck era.

If you still believe that rankings are the best method, even though the difference between 20th and 35th could be 2 or 3 points in some years, that's fine. But you really need to take into account the fact that after 1993 or so, players had a larger talent pool that their rankings were against. See the way I compared Shane Doan to a variety of post-expansion "glue guys" in the ATD using rankings modified for talent pool.

Quote:
Okay, ignore Gretzky and Lemieux. Let's look at the guy that's in 2nd place only, and 3rd if 2nd is an outlier. Here are the differences in points from 2nd to 25th(3rd if marked with an asterisk due to 2nd being an outlier, ** is 4th to 25th because first 3 were outliers)

Sullivan's best years: 23, 17*, 32, 19
Pivonka's best years: 33*, 27**, 51, 35*
Honestly, these numbers make me happy because they make it look like the percentage method is doing its job by taking into account the flood of talent into the NHL after what I called the Second Great Consolidation (the influx of Europeans into the NHL).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 07:09 PM
  #57
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,712
vCash: 9000
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
This is an interesting bit of conjecture, but do you have proof? If this is true, you'd expect the compression of scoring to have disappeared after clutch and grab was ended after the last lockout, and I'm pretty sure we're as compressed as between the lockouts.

If you want to avoid using both percentages and adjusted points, that's fine, but ignore them in all cases, not just in the dead puck era.

If you still believe that rankings are the best method, even though the difference between 20th and 35th could be 2 or 3 points in some years, that's fine. But you really need to take into account the fact that after 1993 or so, players had a larger talent pool that their rankings were against. See the way I compared Shane Doan to a variety of post-expansion "glue guys" in the ATD using rankings modified for talent pool.
I don't exactly have stats to back it up, because it'd be something that's very hard to differentiate. But, is Sullivan's talent pool really that much different than Pivonka's? By the early 90s, the elite talents like Mogilny, Fetisov, Makarov, Kasatonov, Larionov, Kamensky, and Bure had all moved to the NHL.

Let's look at post-lockout differences between #2 and #25.

05-06: 26(outliers Thornton and Jagr were way ahead)
06-07: 33
07-08: 31
08-09: 35
09-10: 38
10-11: 30

It's opened up offensively for sure, but not by a large amount.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 07:37 PM
  #58
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,712
vCash: 9000
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The offensive aces = Brian Campbell vs. Phat Wilson

First of all, there is reason to believe that Phat Wilson is in the HHOF as a builder/player hybrid, rather than just for what he did on the ice. Indeed, his LOH profile talks as much about his off ice exploits than what he did on the ice:

What do we know about Phat Wilson, the player? He was the dominant offensive defenseman in amateur hockey, at a time when all the other best players were professionals. So we really have no idea just how good he was. His offensive accomplishments are so strong against the amateurs, that they have to translate to something here. How do they compare against Campbell? I donno. I do know that I'd rather have Campbell defend against NHL-calibre forwards, since that's something that Wilson has zero experience doing. Campbell isn't a defensive stalwart at the NHL level, but he was good enough to play big minutes in Buffalo as they made the Conference finals and to play as the #3 of the Cup winning Blackhawks.

Wilson has more leadership experience and has rightfully been given a letter, while Campbell has not.

Wilson and Campbell are both very good offensive defensemen here and it's impossible to compare their offense. Campbell has experience defending against NHL-calibre players; Wilson is a more accomplished leader.
I agree, it's difficult to compare who is better offensively. As a reference, here are Campbell's point finishes among defensemen: 22, 18, 4, 10, 28. Wilson was 9 times 1st in points, but in a vastly inferior league. It's difficult to say. I'll leave it at they are both strong puck movers, some of the best remaining.

Quote:
The two-way guys: Mike O'Connell vs. Alex Smith

O'Connell finished 8th in Norris voting once. Alex Smith never received a vote for postseason all-star teams, but he played 5 seasons (aged 23-27) before the teams existed, so it isn't a fair comparison.

I hate doing season-by-season rankings of defensmen, so Billy or vecens, feel free. I'll look at the bigger picture, because it's less time-consuming. From 1927-28 to 1934-35 (8 seasons), Smith had 47% of the points of 2nd place King Clancy. Since King Clancy might be considered an outlier himself (he and Eddie Shore were far above anyone else), Smith had 75% of 3rd place Lionel Conacher.

From 1979-80 to 1986-87 (9 seasons, careers were a bit longer on average), O'Connell had 58% of the points of 2nd place Ray Bourque. Since I think Bourque is also something of an outlier himself, O'Connell had 70% of 3rd place Doug Wilson.

Seems like a very small offensive edge to Alex Smith to me.

Defensively, we know O'Connell was pretty good, not great. Do we know anything about Alex Smith's defense?

Alex Smith was known as "rugged" type guy, while O'Connell was small.

Small advantage to Alex Smith because of his small offensive advantage. O'Connell's defense is better substantiated, while Smith is much larger and tougher. If you can show that Smith was well-regarded defensively, I'd give him a moderate advantage.
The best that I can offer about Smith is that he was called "sturdy", "reliable", and that "Smith has not only been forming perfect defense alongside Georges Boucher...".

Quote:
The brutes: Jack Evans vs. Bill Juzda

Similar types of defensemen, but Evans is just plain better. Evans finished 5th and 12th in Norris voting. Juzda played before the Norris trophy was awarded, but we have All-Star voting down to 10th place for most of his career, and he doesn't ever place. It's possible he has a 6-10th place finish or two in the years for which we have sparse records, but we know Evans tied for 5th in Norris voting one season.

It's also worth noting that Evans, as a late 50s/early 60s guy was competing against a much better group of defenseman than Juzda was in the 40s/early 50s.

If we had complete voting records for Juzda's career, I'd say it was a significant advantage to Evans, but since we don't it's a moderate advantage to Evans.
Evans' finishes are hard to argue with. The only thing I'll say is it appears Juzda has more quotes about his bone crunching hits than Evans, for whatever reason. From what I see, Evans was more of a sturdy defensive player that was physical, but didn't go out of his way to be physical, whereas Juzda went out and crunched guys. Either way, Evans is the superior player.
Quote:
The heady, defensive defenseman: Walt Buswell vs. Kim Johnsson

I'm a fan of Johnsson as a very solid #4. But Buswell is a better player. Johnsson finished 11th in All Star voting once and got 2 votes on another occasion. Buswell finished 6th and 8th in All Star voting, got 2 votes on a 3rd occasion, and a single vote on a 4th. Even taking into account the deeper talent pool of Johnsson's era, this has to be moderate advantage Buswell.
Johnsson is definitely a superior offensive player though. Buswell is essentially a non-factor in terms of offense from the blueline. Maybe you can explain this, how exactly are you getting Buswell's finishes out of this?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=145895&page=22

I'm not questioning what you're saying, but these numbers and systems just don't make sense to me. While perusing these, I also came up with something very interesting. Charlie Sands has an all star voting record we previously did not know about. He was actually a "3rd team" all star in 37-38, something Marian Stastny has nothing close to. He also received a vote in 38-39. That's a pretty nice feather in Charlie's cap. I previously said he and Stastny were more or less equal because of Sands' superior defense and Stastny's superior offense, but I'm not sure now.

Quote:
Overall conclusions
  • Campbell and Wilson are probably close offensively, but it's hard to tell. Campbell is more proven at defending against NHL-calibre talent
  • Smith is slightly better than O'Connell offensively and overall. O'Connell is better defensively (pending what Billy can post). Smith is larger and more physical
  • How good will the Wilson/Smith pair be in their own zone? Wilson never played against top talent, and not much seems to be written about Smith's defense
  • Evans is a moderately better version of Juzda
  • Buswell is a moderately better version of Johnsson
  • Overall, Eden Hall has a better top 4. Campbell and Wilson are hard to compare, but Campbell is no worse. Evans/Buswell are each better than Juzda/Johnsson by at least as much as Smith is better than O'Connell.
Even if we're calling Wilson/Campbell even, Philadelphia definitely has the superior group in terms of offensive ability from the top 4. Smith>O'Connell, Johnsson>Buswell, and Juzda and Evans are pretty much non-factors.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 08:15 PM
  #59
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,033
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
Maybe you can explain this, how exactly are you getting Buswell's finishes out of this?

http://hfboards.com/showthread.php?t=145895&page=22

I'm not questioning what you're saying, but these numbers and systems just don't make sense to me.
I assuming you're wondering how he gets those rankings? Simple, it's adding up the voting points, just like we would in any other year. Without checking that link, pretty sure in Buswell's time it was 3 for a 1st team vote and 1 for a 2nd team vote.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-03-2011, 06:02 AM
  #60
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
Trick Daddy
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,412
vCash: 2498
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
09-04-2011, 10:06 AM
  #61
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,712
vCash: 9000
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
The reason I've been so quiet is I've been moving into college the past couple days and haven't stopped moving. I'm not going to post any more arguments, may the better team win.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-04-2011, 05:12 PM
  #62
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
I've been really busy too, although not as busy as you sound. Moving's a *****.

Good luck.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 05:33 AM
  #63
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,212
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Sven "Tumba" Johansson was the most famous player Pettersson competed against in the SEL. History definitely remembers him as a greater player than Eldebrink, at least.
I don't know if history records Sura-Pelle as the greater player. More versatile though could play at any position.

jkrx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:04 PM
  #64
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Could just have to do with the fact that Sura-Pelle was the earlier player, but he is in the IIHF HOF while Eldebrink is not. Might just be a matter of time for Eldebrink though. It's so Difficult to compare more recent Defensemen with a jack of all trades guy like Pettersson.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:04 PM
  #65
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
Trick Daddy
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,412
vCash: 2498
In a 6 game series, your winners are:


The Eden Hall Warriors

The 3 stars of the series:
1) RW Nicolai Drozdetsky
2) C Robbie Ftorek
3) G Johnny Mowers

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:05 PM
  #66
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Good series Billy.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:11 PM
  #67
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Good series Billy.

Guess Robbie Ftorek was effective after all.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 12:15 PM
  #68
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
Trick Daddy
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 31,412
vCash: 2498
Interesting note about the 3 stars, no player (other then Droz and Ftorek) received more then one all-star vote.

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-05-2011, 05:38 PM
  #69
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,712
vCash: 9000
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Good series, I'll admit the better team won. I'll beat you one day TDMM, I'm 0 for 2 now.

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:43 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.