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 Finals - Eden Hall Warriors vs Regina Capitals

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-07-2011, 11:19 AM
  #51
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Steals happen. Get over it.
How would you know?...Explain to us how he is a steal?

Explain how he even comes close to Gus Bodnar or Billy McGimsie or even Mike Rebeiro......I'll wait.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 11:32 AM
  #52
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
How would you know?...Explain to us how he is a steal?

Explain how he even comes close to Gus Bodnar or Billy McGimsie or even Mike Rebeiro......I'll wait.
I don't have any answers for you, although he's certainly much better than Ribeiro, in my books.

Reading through his bio, there is quite a lot there to justify his intangibles. I'm willing to accept that he's a solid, all around player, not JUST an offense first guy.. so when you can combine those qualities with a good offensive track record, a guy like that isn't exactly common in the MLD. Also, even though the DEPTH in the Czech leagues wasn't great when Golonka played, the elite talent at the top most certainly was. He's no Milan Novy, but he's certainly worthy offensively at this level.. perhaps not as a top line C, but when you consider his intangibles, it's a rather enticing package.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 12:14 PM
  #53
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,721
vCash: 500
Golonka

It's tough to get a full picture of Golonka. I generally assume that domestic scoring finishes before a league becomes strong are meaningless as comparisons*. But I do think he should get some credit for what he did in International Tournaments, I'm just not sure who to compare him to.

*To clarify, I don't mean that what Golonka did before 1965 is meaningless - everything a player does is worth something. I mean that if a league isn't strong yet, ranking 2nd or 3rd in scoring among a bunch of unknowns isn't impressive on its own.

Based on his stats in this thread, Jaroslav Holik seems like the best comparable for later years after the CSSR domestic league had gotten stronger - 1968-69 was the last season either man was a factor in domestic scoring.

From 1965-66 to 1968-69 (the last 4 years of Golonka's prime), he had 175 points to 219 points for Jaroslav Holik. So assuming that neither man missed significant games (something I'm not going to do the research to confirm), it would appear that Golonka is 80% as good offensively as Jaroslav Holik. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that means compared to the worldwide talent pool.

I realize that Vaclav Nedomansky (a guy we think of much more highly than Jaroslav Holik) had some good seasons in the late 60s, but he doesn't appear to have become dominant until 1970-71, which is why I didn't use him as a comparison.

Disclaimer: Obviously, this comparison isn't meaningful if Golonka and Holik didn't play a similar number of games over the time frame.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-07-2011 at 12:35 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 02:12 PM
  #54
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Golonka

It's tough to get a full picture of Golonka. I generally assume that domestic scoring finishes before a league becomes strong are meaningless as comparisons*. But I do think he should get some credit for what he did in International Tournaments, I'm just not sure who to compare him to.

*To clarify, I don't mean that what Golonka did before 1965 is meaningless - everything a player does is worth something. I mean that if a league isn't strong yet, ranking 2nd or 3rd in scoring among a bunch of unknowns isn't impressive on its own.

Based on his stats in this thread, Jaroslav Holik seems like the best comparable for later years after the CSSR domestic league had gotten stronger - 1968-69 was the last season either man was a factor in domestic scoring.

From 1965-66 to 1968-69 (the last 4 years of Golonka's prime), he had 175 points to 219 points for Jaroslav Holik. So assuming that neither man missed significant games (something I'm not going to do the research to confirm), it would appear that Golonka is 80% as good offensively as Jaroslav Holik. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that means compared to the worldwide talent pool.

I realize that Vaclav Nedomansky (a guy we think of much more highly than Jaroslav Holik) had some good seasons in the late 60s, but he doesn't appear to have become dominant until 1970-71, which is why I didn't use him as a comparison.

Disclaimer: Obviously, this comparison isn't meaningful if Golonka and Holik didn't play a similar number of games over the time frame.
It's impossible to tell. Golonka has a couple years in that timeframe with missing GP.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 02:44 PM
  #55
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Reading through his bio, there is quite a lot there to justify his intangibles. I'm willing to accept that he's a solid, all around player, not JUST an offense first guy.. so when you can combine those qualities with a good offensive track record, a guy like that isn't exactly common in the MLD. Also, even though the DEPTH in the Czech leagues wasn't great when Golonka played, the elite talent at the top most certainly was. He's no Milan Novy, but he's certainly worthy offensively at this level.. perhaps not as a top line C, but when you consider his intangibles, it's a rather enticing package.
People seem to forget that his offense and intangibles are relative to the guys he played against. He played in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world, and it's players were not known for their physical play.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 02:55 PM
  #56
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,577
vCash: 500
Golonka was 5'8 155lbs playing in the 1960's NOT the 1890's, how exactly is he being deemed such a beast in terms of intangibles again?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 02:56 PM
  #57
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Initial impressions. [LIST=1][*]The biggest advantage that Eden Hall possesses is balance - the team is built to be able to both score and defend at a high level. Regina is a great defensive team, but they lack offensive firepower. If Eden Hall has the lead, Julien can have the team really lock down, secure in the knowledge that Regina doesn't have the offensive game breakers to really break through. Eden Hall, on the other hand, has some serious firepower - which can help if we trail, or help really put the game out of reach if we get a lead of a couple of goals.
[*]Regina has a very weak powerplay, which really makes it a viable strategy for Eden Hall's larger defensemen to freely rough up Regina's smaller forwards.
Although that is a "more viable" strategy than it might usually be, it doesn't mean it actually is viable. If you give any team enough powerplays, they will make you pay. I happen to think our forwards in the top-6 are at least average offensively, and since the same 6 forwards are on our PP (with one exchanged) there's no reason our PP shouldn't be considered that as well. However, the main focus all along has been, for some reason "omg, Sargent on both PP units!!!"

Also, small does not equal soft. And two of my forwards in the top-6 have unknown dimensions and should be considered average. So how small is this top-6, really? I think it's been overstated.

Quote:
a) Defensemen

Seems like Sargent is barely better than Ehrhoff on a per-game basis. And Ehrhoff kept up that average over 500 games, while Sargent only played 402, so I think they are basically equals on the powerplay.
Difference, of course, being that Sargent did literally everything for his teams while Ehrhoff was a pure offensive specialist for 5 of his 7 seasons thus far.

Quote:
b) Lack of offense up front also hurts Regina on the PP just like it does at even strength. Darcy Tucker on the PP?
Tucker had some success on the PP in his career, particularly with the tap-in from the right side. Seriously, MLD 2nd unit and he's getting flak?

Quote:
a) Gary Sargent

Over Sargent's regular season career (75-76 to 82-83), he missed a whopping 38% of the available games, playing only 402 of his team's 640 games over this stretch. To be fair, we should remove his final season, when he was basically hanging on by a thread, but then he only played 384 of his team's 560 games, still missing a solid 31% of his team's regular season games.

In Gary Sargent's playoff career, he only played in 20 of the 35 games his team was involved in. In other words, he missed 43% of the playoff games his teams played in over his career.

What does it mean for this series?

If the series goes 7 games,

31% missed would be 2.17 games.
38% missed would be 2.66 games
43% missed would be 3.01 games

Conclusion: On average, Gary Sargent can be expected to miss 2-3 games per 7 game series with injury. When Sargent is injured, Regina's powerplay, already fairly weak, because absolutely impotent.
All three of Regina's spares have legitimate ability. Weinrich consistently had 15-20 ESP, his point spikes come from the seasons in which his PP usage was 43-69%, and acquitted himself well in those years with 12-18 extra points. He's our #7, and he's definitely the guy who comes in if Sargent goes down. Both were so much more than offensive specialists but only really need to be that here, in order to be successful.

PP units with Sargent down:

Roberts-Weinrich
Roberts-Gibbs

this would, of course, change Roberts' ES and PK situations. (he would not be missed on the PK)

Quote:
Seventieslord likes to bring up how much ice time Sargent saw when he actually played, but maybe he would have been able to actually stay healthy if he played fewer minutes?
That's really lame to say, unless, of course, you actually have something to support it.

injury-wrecked players, when playing partial seasons, almost always tend to have lower TOI stats as well, as the team works them back into the lineup gradually, or as they play hurt a lot. Sargent is no exception. Since basically half the span of his career was in such a state, this actually hurts his career icetime average. He was playing 28-29 minutes in the 1977-1979 seasons, and since he missed 11 games in total in those three seasons and his injuries began the following season, at which point his icetime began to decline, there's absolutely nothing to support your statement.

Quote:
b) Jan Erixon

Over Erixon's regular season career (1983-84 to 1992-93), he missed 31% of his team's regular season games, playing in only 556 of 804 available games.

In Erixon's playoff career, he did play in 58 of his team's 63 playoff games, a very respectable number.

Based on Erixon's regular season career, we would expect him to miss an average of 2 games per 7 game series. He generally didn't miss games in the playoffs, however. I'm not sure how to account for that. I definitely don't think he should get full credit for his "per game" regular season accomplishments when he missed so many games.
It is fair to say that Erixon might miss 0-2 games out of 7. I don't disagree with your methodology or your assessment.

While in the lineup, he will be the best defensive forward on the ice by a country mile. Let me just point out that when he was top-9 in Selke voting 5 times, a lot of times that was despite missing a lot of games, which was surely factored into the votes. In other words, Selke voting is not a per-game stat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Moderator vs. Moderator.

Evans & Buswell vs. Armstrong & Kampman.

McGimsie vs. Gingras.

Stunning! Truly stunning!

Good luck everyone!
Well said.

Initial thoughts:

- these are clearly the two best teams in the draft, mainly because of their defense corps. I wouldn't even venture a guess as to who the 3rd-best would be.... Halifax comes to mind, but there are probably a couple more in that mix, too.
- my defense is clearly better, their forwards are clearly better. I will no doubt attempt to demonstrate that my advantage outweighs theirs, and they'll no doubt try to do the same. It's a toss up and I don't really care what happens now that the two best teams are deservedly here.
- thank you for keeping it (mostly) clean so far.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Annnnd we're done here.
what did this even mean?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
First pairing = slight advantage Regina

Jack Evans = Bob Armstrong

Seventieslord posted earlier that he didn't understand why Evans was a MLD All-Star and Armstrong wasn't, when they are basically the same defenseman. And he's right - they were very similar players. Armstrong seemed to fight more often, while Evans used his massive physical strength in a more controlled manner, but they seem to have gotten similar results.
definitely not. Evans is my favourite non-Regina defenseman in this draft, but he's not as good as Armstrong. We're talking about a defenseman with four seasons of significant to "worthy of mention" norris voting seasons, and a guy with one. You know as well as I do, that Evans' single vote in 1961 is meaningless. So we are looking at two guys with similar styles, and one was 7th in voting once, the other was 7th, 8th, 9th, and 13th (plus the 8th was a 5th in AS voting, even if I don't know where I got that right now)

Quote:
Mike O'Connell < Gordie Roberts (by a little)

offense: O'Connell > Roberts
defense: O'Connell < Roberts
overall peak: O'Connell = Roberts
longevity: O'Connell < Roberts

Roberts gets a slight advantage because he rebranded himself a depth defensive defenseman and won two Cups late in his career in Pittsburgh as a depth player, giving him more career value.

Basically, the only thing that puts Roberts over O'Connell is longevity as a productive player, but that is something that matters to me.
you forgot size/physicality/toughness, all advantages in Roberts' favour.

offense: O'connell's percentages over 50%, same criteria I used in my last series: 72, 72, 71, 70, 51. Roberts: 66, 62, 58, 55, 52*, 52*, 51. While it is true that O'Connell had four seasons better than any of Roberts' offensively, the difference in them is actually quite marginal in those top-4 seasons, and Roberts had three seasons of significance on top of that.

lastly, both had about the same significance to their teams, but Roberts was able to be a contributor to much more successful teams in the playoffs in his career, evidenced by almost twice as many playoff games, 2.5X as much if you include the WHA.

I would give O'Connell the edge in "peak offense" but little else.

Quote:
Second pairing = moderate advantage Eden Hall

Walt Buswell = Jack Portland

They played in the same era and have very similar Norris records. Portland was a bigger hitter, and Buswell more controlled, but they seem to have gotten similar results.
close, but I can't say I agree 100%. Buswell's voting record is 6th, 8th, 10th, with a total of 15 voting points in those three seasons (7, 6, 2). Portland's is 5th, 7th, 8th, with a total of 20 voting points (11, 6, 3).

Portland was also much bigger and more intimidating.

The above is enough to claim a definite edge, here are some more smaller reasons: Portland played more games and was able to contribute more to the offense, he also got into more playoff games and contributed to a stanley cup.

Quote:
Brian Campbell >>> Barry Gibbs (by a lot)

Campbell has been discussed to death in this thread. Barry Gibbs doesn't stack up:
  • Norris record: Campbell (5th, 10th); Gibbs (none)
  • All Star record: Campbell (4th, 9th, 16th); Gibbs (11th, 13th)
  • All Star games: Campbell (2007, 2008, 2009); Gibbs (1973)
  • Competition for above: Campbell (modern talent pool); Gibbs (70s NHL when many of the best players were in Europe or the WHA)
  • 5 year peak offense: Campbell (9th among dmen, 92% of 2nd place Niedermayer, 93% of 3rd place Pronger)); Gibbs (15th among dmen, 51% of 2nd place Park, 55% of 3rd place Lapointe)
  • Contribution to team success: Campbell (#1 on a President's Trophy winner, #3 on a Cup winner); Gibbs (#1 defenseman 9 times on 2 different expansion teams)
  • Playoff totals: Campbell (38 points in 90 games); Gibbs (6 points in 36 games)
  • Playoff highlight: Campbell (led the 2010 Cup winner in +/- from the second pairing); Gibbs (1 assist and 47 PIMs in 1971 as his team lost in the second round - the only time one of Gibbs teams made it past the first round in his career)
Let's start by talking about that 9th/10th in all-star/norris voting for Campbell. And let's do it using a common sense approach and our own eyes since it was 5 years ago, and to show we aren't a slave to the all-star votes that got us so far.

TDMM - do you seriously believe that Brian Campbell was the 9th-10th-best defenseman in the NHL in 2007?

There are now twice as many #1 D-man spots out there, and Campbell wasn't one until 2007, then again in 2008, and he hasn't been one since. Yeah, he's behind Keith and Seabrook, but is he a #1 defenseman otherwise? A top-30 guy in the NHL? Not by a long shot. His resume is based on two very good seasons, and being the #3 on a cup winner in a season that was "meh" individually.

For historical players, we have to rely on contemporary opinions a lot of times, but this is a modern player and we know a lot more about them without even having to look at the voting.

Quote:
Basically, Gibbs' role in history is as the undisputed #1 of the expansion North Stars, followed by the expansion Flames, teams that won a single playoff round between them. Basically the best fish out of a rotten bunch.
That is a terrible way to put it.

Here are some of the defensemen Gibbs was getting more minutes than, doled out by no less than 9 NHL coaches:

Leo Boivin
Doug Mohns
Ted Harris
Gary Bergman
Pat Quinn
Randy Manery
Dick Redmond
Rod Seiling

career paths notwithstanding, that is not a "rotten bunch". most of those names did not come from his time with Atlanta, where, with Gibbs playing the most minutes, they cracked .500 in all three of his full seasons there. (they also did twice in Minnesota)

Aside from goaltender-driven playoff results and pp-driven offensive totals, there is a good case to be made that Gibbs has a resume very similar to your boy Zhitnink.

Zhitnik was a #1 defenseman for nine straight seasons, IIRC. He was never a factor in postseason voting (Gibbs was twice, but yeah, it was the 70s) - Zhitnik's teams did better, but Zhitnik truly was #1 of a "rotten bunch" - here are the players worth mentioning that he outshone in those 9 years:

Garry Galley
James Patrick
Brian Campbell (of course, Campbell was not anything close to a significant player at this time, but I listed all players regardless of career path)

Now going back to Campbell, who's only been a #1 defenseman twice, versus Gibbs, who did it 9 times. Yeah, there was a difference in the talent pool - it's safe to say that the NHL talent doubled in that time, meaning Gibbs' results in all-star voting are more like 22nd and 26th. But if you're honest with yourself, you will acknowledge that Campbell has truly only had one season that was clearly better than that status - 2007, his all-star year, and we both know he wasn't truly 4th-best in the NHL, although he may not have been far off either.

It's also possible that Campbell is a guy buried behind good players (for example, maybe he's 20th-best in the NHL and playing behind #2 and #15) and it's also possible that Gibbs was the best of a rotten bunch (maybe he was only the equivalent of 50th-best in the NHL and the next-best guys on his team were about 100th-best). But surely you must see that that is a pretty big stretch to suggest that. There were big parity issues in the 70s but that would be just insane.

In the three seasons that gibbs was the "#1 of a slightly above average team", and not recognized in all-star voting, it's quite plausible - probable, even - that he was just outside the realm of recognized players: perhaps 16th-20th in the league. And in the other 4 years where he anchored, well, an anchor, he could have been that good, but more realistically could have been 20th-25th in the league.

I think the modern equivalent of Gibbs, if you pretend those 9 seasons were the last 9 seasons, is a poor #1 or top-end #2. Campbell has six noteworthy seasons (his pre-lockout career is a toss-off, really) - one where he was worthy of all-star votes, one where he was a legitimate top-half #1 d-man deserving a few scattered votes, three where he was a good supporting #3 who had the potential to be a #2 elsewhere, and one where he was a #5 who got a ton of PP time and points.

With all that said, here's how I see the seasons they put up:

- Campbell's all-star season
- campbell's 2007
- Gibbs' five seasons as the #1 of a .500+ team
- some mix of Gibbs' other 4 significant seasons and Campbell's last three
- Campbell's 2006

You are badly underappreciating Gibbs, while riding an all-star record for Campbell that most would agree isn't 100% deserved.

Quote:

What did Gibbs do with his massive ice time?:
[LIST][*]In 1973-74, more goals were scored against Gibbs' team when he was on the ice than any other defenseman in the NHL[*]In 1978-79, Gibbs' was second in goals against to Rick Green, the number one defenseman on the Washington Capitals, one of the worst teams of all-time. [*]This means Gibbs was an outlier away from the dubious distinction of twice leading the NHL in goals against his team while he was on the ice. [*]Of course, Gibbs' massive goals-against numbers are products of being the #1 guy on awful teams. But so are his massive ice time numbers that are the main reason seventieslord drafted him.
Gibbs' massive GA numbers are also products of him being the #1 penalty killer for bad teams, and of course goals happen at a higher rate on special teams. So this doesn't surprise me. If nine different coaches made him their #1 defenseman, that says a lot more to me.

Unfortunately, I can't do a similar study for Campbell, because, aside from two seasons, he was never given close to enough minutes to place highly in goals against. I would bet, however, that on a per-minute basis he was much more porous than average.

This is what McKeen's 2011 has to say about Campbell's defense after raving about his skating:

not as effective when the game slows down however... gets static when defending around the crease and is prone to coughing the puck up on retrievals... still gets impatient and over-pursues 1-on-1, yet is progressing steadily as a defender...

"still progressing steadily"? at age 31? Sounds like he's still well below average in his own end, and only "acceptable" if that means "acceptable considering he moves the puck well and is a PP option"

Quote:
Bottom pairing = slight advantage Regina

Christian Ehrhoff >> Gary Sargent (by a moderate amount)
  • Norris record: Ehrhoff (8th, 9th); Sargent (8th)
  • All Star record: Ehrhoff (7th, 11th); Sargent (12th)
  • longevity: Ehrhoff (500 games); Sargent (406 games)
  • playoffs: Ehrhoff (34 points in 73 games); Sargent (12 points in 20 games)

Ehrhoff beats Sargent in both peak and longevity.
See, here's the thing. Sargent was an all-around defenseman. Ehrhorr, aside from the last two years, is an offensive defenseman. It's apples to much better-tasting apples.

again - do you really think Ehrhoff deserved to place that highly? He was very good and finally became a #1 defenseman the last two seasons, but a top-10 guy?

also, it's nice that he's played in that many playoff games, but has he played that well in them? Looking back to last season, Ehrhoff posted the worst +/- of anyone to make the finals in 29 years of the stat being tracked in the playoffs, and the worst mark by a country mile, when adjusted for league scoring (Robitaille's 1993, for example, tied him, but scoring was 30% higher and he played an extra game). Ehrhoff was their #1 defenseman in the regular season, but became the #3 in the playoffs - why do you think that is?

Ehrhoff ranked 5, 4, 2, 5 in TOI on his teams before coming to Vancouver and was little more than a PP specialist - very unimpressive overall. You're drafting him really for the last two seasons, and I'm drafting Sargent for three. (plus he was playing at an all-star caliber in a 4th, hence being named to the ASG, I assume missing that was a mistake on your part) To give Ehrhoff a longevity advantage is to really just give him points for "showing up to work" in parts of five other seasons.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
You have an opinion of how good he was, but you can't accurately place him in an ATD setting without comparing him to the other players
You are right. I tried to explain this to him on msn as well. I am not a Campbell fan, clearly, but he's not quite as bad as jarek thinks either.

Quote:
Since Doughty was supposed to be the slam-dunk easy first pick of the AAA draft, you should compare Campbell to him. Doughty's career doesn't match Campbell's - not even close.
Of course it is close.

Doughty's three best seasons (his only three) when matched up to Campbells are all better, by significant, but not huge, amounts. Campbell take the edge only by longevity as a good NHLer (and I speak only of 06, 09, 10, 11 when I say that, obviously)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ReenMachine View Post
Regina has been riding to the finals with their defense , but I'm not sure they can make it happen this time.Edan Hall has a very solid group of defensemen (stronger than any previous Regina opponants ) but the key is they have a clear edge at forward in my humble opinion.I would need some serious convincing on seventieslord's part that his defense is better than Eden Hall or that his forward group is not that behind Edan Hall's group.
That's pretty much the point. Enjoy the series.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
I'm still wondering why Golonka who was drafted in the 8th round is consistently being voted a top star in these playoffs. Is it because he is there first line centre and has a "C" next to his name?
Seems to me you have decided how good he is, based on the round he was drafted in.

I will post more on Golonka later. For now I will tell you that a couple months ago when TDMM questioned him via PM (specifically what makes him better offensively than Zabrodsky), I explained Golonka's international credentials in-depth and he did not reply.

but we already know who you're voting for anyway, lol.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 03:15 PM
  #58
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
People seem to forget that his offense and intangibles are relative to the guys he played against. He played in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world, and it's players were not known for their physical play.
Read his bio. A lot of those ravings about his intangibles were referring to international games.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 03:20 PM
  #59
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
People seem to forget that his offense and intangibles are relative to the guys he played against. He played in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world, and it's players were not known for their physical play.
Golonka's offense is definitely relative to the guys he played against.

I think his drive to win and leadership transcend competition to an extent. He was playing in the most competitive league available to him and was captain of the CSSR National for some time, I think.

I wouldn't question Golonka's drive to battle for pucks. But you're right that we need to question his ability to an extent - his lack of size definitely would have been much more of an issue in the NHL than in the Czechoslovakian domestic league.

Note that in international hockey, body checking was only allowed in the defensive half of the ice until 1969 (about when Golonka retired): http://www.iihf.com/iihf-home/histor.../timeline.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Golonka was 5'8 155lbs playing in the 1960's NOT the 1890's, how exactly is he being deemed such a beast in terms of intangibles again?
I see Golonka as more of a pest than a power forward. His antics that are listed in seventies' profile more or less confirm this.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 03:22 PM
  #60
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,871
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Read his bio. A lot of those ravings about his intangibles were referring to international games.
International games.... made up of players from which leagues?

Canadian AMATEURS regularly placed in the top 10 in tournament scoring. Guys like Francis Huck and Gary Dineen outscored Golonka.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 03:43 PM
  #61
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Golonka

It's tough to get a full picture of Golonka. I generally assume that domestic scoring finishes before a league becomes strong are meaningless as comparisons*. But I do think he should get some credit for what he did in International Tournaments, I'm just not sure who to compare him to.

*To clarify, I don't mean that what Golonka did before 1965 is meaningless - everything a player does is worth something. I mean that if a league isn't strong yet, ranking 2nd or 3rd in scoring among a bunch of unknowns isn't impressive on its own.

Based on his stats in this thread, Jaroslav Holik seems like the best comparable for later years after the CSSR domestic league had gotten stronger - 1968-69 was the last season either man was a factor in domestic scoring.

From 1965-66 to 1968-69 (the last 4 years of Golonka's prime), he had 175 points to 219 points for Jaroslav Holik. So assuming that neither man missed significant games (something I'm not going to do the research to confirm), it would appear that Golonka is 80% as good offensively as Jaroslav Holik. Your guess is as good as mine as to what that means compared to the worldwide talent pool.

I realize that Vaclav Nedomansky (a guy we think of much more highly than Jaroslav Holik) had some good seasons in the late 60s, but he doesn't appear to have become dominant until 1970-71, which is why I didn't use him as a comparison.

Disclaimer: Obviously, this comparison isn't meaningful if Golonka and Holik didn't play a similar number of games over the time frame.
Let me try to expand on this.

When I was looking at who was available when I went for Golonka, I soon realized that all it really would take for him to be the best offensive center left, was a career of seasons in the 40-50-point range in the O6, or 55-65 points post-expansion. Given what he did and who he did it against, I don't see it as a stretch.

using stats all from the same source and for the same 4-season period where assist totals weren't spotty and these guys were all mostly active (1966-1969):

Jaroslav Holik (23-26): 139 GP, 229 points, 1.65 PPG
Nedomansky (22-24): 108 GP, 164 Points, 1.52 PPG
Golonka (28-31): 138 GP* 175 points, 1.27 PPG
Jirik (26-29) 129 GP, 137 points, 1.06 PPG
Jiri Holik (22-24, 1966 unavailable): 102GP*, 102 points, 1.00 PPG

Jaroslav Holik was probably the most prolific Czech scorer in this time; I'm not sure he alone would be the best comparison. It's much more effective to look at a number of players at the same time (see what I did with Moose Watson)

We can even set aside the fact that he offensively outperformed Jirik and Jiri Holik, two players selected in ATD2011 (the latter in the last ten ATDs, average position 395)

As you can see, Golonka was scoring at a rate of 77% Holik's rate despite being near the end of his career. He was at 84% of Nedomansky's rate, and Nedomansky was similarly in what was often the most prolific age, so Golonka's "true" percentage of Nedomansky's offensive value is likely a couple of notches higher. Of course, with Nedomansky, we saw what he was capable of in North America: a point per game in the WHA in his early 30s, and 0.66 in the NHL in his mid-late 30s. What would he have done in the NHL in his 20s, and what is 85-90% of that? Good question! Tough to answer definitively, but I can say pretty safely that it's better than the thresholds I needed (and mentioned above) to be certain about this pick.

*estimated based on schedule length and his last two seasons. 1966 and 67 are available, 68 and 69 are not.

what about internationally? based on competition, 1964 was the first significant international competition Jozef was in. He had 5 goals in 8 games but is unfortunately one of a small handful of pool A players without assist totals recorded. If we use his career average, our best guess is that he had 5 assists. So in total, from 1964-1969 he had 49 points in 46 games. Nedomansky had 34 in 38 in this period (of course, he exploded internationally in the 70s). Jiri had 31 in 45. Jaroslav had 23 in 27. Jirik had 43 in 37, the only comparable per-game average. Golonka was the Czechs' best forward internationally from 1964-1969, most likely. It is entirely possible that he racked up the points against poor teams and choked against Canada, Sweden, and USSR but given his clutch goal against the soviets and the type of player he was, I don't consider it likely. In any case, he led the Czechs in scoring in four major international tournaments, three of them post-1965.

I'm not sure which method tells us more. Domestic numbers are based on more games but international is better (but also wildly fluctuating) competition.

In any case, Golonka was, at worst, the 3rd-best Czech scorer of his time. Could such a player not have topped out as a 50-point O6 scorer or a 65-point guy in the few years following expansion? We would have to not think much of the Czechs overall if we conclude that he couldn't have.

Here's what I sent TDMM earlier when asked via PM:

Quote:
there were a couple of big wins over the Soviets that Golonka played a big part in. In one of those years they didn't even medal editor's note: they did, actually) but the win against the Soviets was considered a big enough achievement.

He had 64 points in 61 major international games. Starshinov had 101 in 86 in basically the same years and tournaments; about 10% more per-game and over more games, so clearly better, but also with better linemates and teammates.

Golonka led the 1965 worlds in points by a three point margin over any soviet (editor's note, he was also voted top player), with his prime competition being the Academia line and the Starsh line. In 1959, he was 3rd, but the soviet competition wasn't nearly as strong. Tourney leader was Red Berenson, though, with two more points. In '67 he led the Czechs by a 2-point margin but was 6th overall, behind 5 soviets. In '68, he led the Czechs and was 5th behind 4 soviets.

more, now that I am home:

results in the 8 tournaments Golonka played in:

1959: Czechs 3rd, Sweden 5th
1960: Czechs 4th, Sweden 5th, CZE beat SWE 3-1
1964: Czechs 3rd, Sweden 2nd, SWE beat CZE 8-3
1965: Czechs 2nd, Sweden 3rd, CZE beat SWE 3-2
1966: Czechs 2nd, Sweden 4th, CZE beat SWE 2-1
1967: Czechs 4th, Sweden 2nd, they tied 5-5
1968: Czechs 2nd, Sweden 4th, they tied 2-2
1969: Czechs 3rd, Sweden 2nd, SWE beat CZE 1-0

Total: 2.9 avg for the Czechs, 3.4 for the Swedes, they had a 3-2-2 record vs Sweden with a goal differential of 18-20.

42-16-3 (.713). 320 GF, 154 GA

34-21-6 (.607). 277 GF, 160 GA

17% higher win%, 16% better offense, 3% better defense.

vs. Soviets:

CZE
5-8
5-7
4-5
3-4
1-3
1-7
2-4
2-0
4-3

Total: 2-7-0, 27-41. (editor's note, I missed a second win before but added it in now)

SWE
2-2
2-4
2-3
2-4
3-5
3-3
1-9
2-4

Total: 0-6-2, 17-34.

Conclusion: The Czechs were marginally better than the Swedes, based on their results against eachother, against the same powerful opponent and against the overall competition

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
People seem to forget that his offense and intangibles are relative to the guys he played against. He played in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world, and it's players were not known for their physical play.
what about internationally?

oops, never mind, you can't see this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Golonka was 5'8 155lbs playing in the 1960's NOT the 1890's, how exactly is he being deemed such a beast in terms of intangibles again?
....because intangibles and size are not the same thing, nor are they anything more than faintly related.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 03:51 PM
  #62
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,878
vCash: 500
is something wrong with the board?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I see Golonka as more of a pest than a power forward. His antics that are listed in seventies' profile more or less confirm this.
Absolutely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
International games.... made up of players from which leagues?

Canadian AMATEURS regularly placed in the top 10 in tournament scoring. Guys like Francis Huck and Gary Dineen outscored Golonka.
LOL! Huck had 33 points in 31 games in the same period that I outlined in my last post. Dineen had 28 in 28. That a couple younger Canadian players came closer to his per-game production over fewer games, when he was close to the end of his career, is far from damning.

Also, not sure if you're aware, but Huck is not some nobody, he scored at a 48-point clip in his last NHL season at 27, then scored 74 and 67 in the WHA and was on pace to 64 in a third season. He scored 25 points in 35 pro playoff games.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 04:28 PM
  #63
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Golonka most likely was not a choker internationally.. if he was, he wouldn't have the reputation that he does. The Czechs are quite proud of their stars, and considering how a guy like Novy, as dominant as he was as a scorer, for some reason doesn't have the same kind of respect as Martinec and others, says a lot about Golonka, in my opinion. Circumstantial, yes, but a lot can be gleaned about a guy by his reputation to his kinsmen.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 05:10 PM
  #64
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Although that is a "more viable" strategy than it might usually be, it doesn't mean it actually is viable. If you give any team enough powerplays, they will make you pay. I happen to think our forwards in the top-6 are at least average offensively, and since the same 6 forwards are on our PP (with one exchanged) there's no reason our PP shouldn't be considered that as well. However, the main focus all along has been, for some reason "omg, Sargent on both PP units!!!"

Also, small does not equal soft. And two of my forwards in the top-6 have unknown dimensions and should be considered average. So how small is this top-6, really? I think it's been overstated.
Your top 6 group of forwards is the one weakness on your team, especially the wings. I was actually surprised at how much better Halifax's offense was than Regina's in the last series when I looked at things closely (Regina obviously had the better defense).

Quote:
Difference, of course, being that Sargent did literally everything for his teams while Ehrhoff was a pure offensive specialist for 5 of his 7 seasons thus far.
When Sargent was healthy. And those two seasons were better than any season Sargent ever had, if you go by Norris and All Star voting.

Quote:
Tucker had some success on the PP in his career, particularly with the tap-in from the right side. Seriously, MLD 2nd unit and he's getting flak?
Lots of players have had "some success" on the PP. McKay did for a couple of years, himself. Tucker played on the PP more than McKay of course, but I don't think he's all that much better out there.

Quote:
All three of Regina's spares have legitimate ability. Weinrich consistently had 15-20 ESP, his point spikes come from the seasons in which his PP usage was 43-69%, and acquitted himself well in those years with 12-18 extra points. He's our #7, and he's definitely the guy who comes in if Sargent goes down. Both were so much more than offensive specialists but only really need to be that here, in order to be successful.

PP units with Sargent down:

Roberts-Weinrich
Roberts-Gibbs

this would, of course, change Roberts' ES and PK situations. (he would not be missed on the PK)
I'm sure even you realize how terrible those point men are for the PP.

Honestly, you might have the worst PP I've seen of any team that's made a finals in this thing since I've been in, which says a lot about the other strengths of your team. Maybe EB's championship team in ATD12 had a worse relative PP, I donno.

Quote:
That's really lame to say, unless, of course, you actually have something to support it.
Common sense? If a guy plays a ton of minutes and is constantly injured, don't you think he'd put less stress on his body by playing less often? I know Peter Forsberg in particular saw much less ice time later in his career than earlier on - he was removed from the PK entirely and took fewer than his share of faceoffs - not because he couldn't do it anymore, but to avoid further injury.

Quote:
injury-wrecked players, when playing partial seasons, almost always tend to have lower TOI stats as well, as the team works them back into the lineup gradually, or as they play hurt a lot. Sargent is no exception. Since basically half the span of his career was in such a state, this actually hurts his career icetime average. He was playing 28-29 minutes in the 1977-1979 seasons, and since he missed 11 games in total in those three seasons and his injuries began the following season, at which point his icetime began to decline, there's absolutely nothing to support your statement.
Okay, it's not really important why Sargent was always injured, but he was.

Quote:
It is fair to say that Erixon might miss 0-2 games out of 7. I don't disagree with your methodology or your assessment.

While in the lineup, he will be the best defensive forward on the ice by a country mile. Let me just point out that when he was top-9 in Selke voting 5 times, a lot of times that was despite missing a lot of games, which was surely factored into the votes. In other words, Selke voting is not a per-game stat.
A "country mile?" That's a laugh and a half. What makes Erixon all that much better than Dave Tippett?

IMO, drafting Erixon in the third round (before drafting any of your first liners) is the biggest strategic blunder you made, and no different than when Bob Gainey used to go in the third round of the ATD. Sure, you got the best defensive winger in the MLD, but really how much better is he than Tippett?


Quote:
- my defense is clearly better, their forwards are clearly better. I will no doubt attempt to demonstrate that my advantage outweighs theirs, and they'll no doubt try to do the same. It's a toss up and I don't really care what happens now that the two best teams are deservedly here.
I certainly don't think your defense is "clearly better," not when you have the clearcut worst defenseman in either team's top 4 (Gibbs). Not that Gibbs is bad, but he's definitely a step below the rest of each team's top 4.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 05:15 PM
  #65
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
definitely not. Evans is my favourite non-Regina defenseman in this draft, but he's not as good as Armstrong. We're talking about a defenseman with four seasons of significant to "worthy of mention" norris voting seasons, and a guy with one. You know as well as I do, that Evans' single vote in 1961 is meaningless. So we are looking at two guys with similar styles, and one was 7th in voting once, the other was 7th, 8th, 9th, and 13th (plus the 8th was a 5th in AS voting, even if I don't know where I got that right now)
In his profile, I don't talk about Evans' "12th place" finish in 1957 with 1 point - I always omit seasons with only 1 voting point, I'm talking about his 12th place finish in 1961 with 3 points. (His name is spelled wrong in the thread for that year, so I don't blame you for missing it).

I have no idea where the 13th place finish you have for Armstrong comes from - not on the HOH board.

According to the thread on the HOH board, Evans has 19 points for the Norris over the course of his career (15+3+1). Armstrong also has 19 points for the Norris over the course of his career (12+4+3). I don't see how you can say that they aren't close - they played at the same time so point totals can be directly compared.

When you drafted Armstrong after we drafted Evans, didn't you say you had wanted Evans more? What happened?

Quote:
you forgot size/physicality/toughness, all advantages in Roberts' favour.
Don't make him out to be a physical beast - he's just larger than O'Connell. I did it fast and included all that stuff under "defense;" in actuality there is no evidence that Roberts was better positionally than O'Connell. So I could have just as easily called their defense even, and given Roberts the advantage in size/physicality/toughness.
Quote:
offense: O'connell's percentages over 50%, same criteria I used in my last series: 72, 72, 71, 70, 51. Roberts: 66, 62, 58, 55, 52*, 52*, 51. While it is true that O'Connell had four seasons better than any of Roberts' offensively, the difference in them is actually quite marginal in those top-4 seasons, and Roberts had three seasons of significance on top of that.
I wouldn't call the 4 to 0 difference in seasons in the 70th percentile "marginal." Isn't one of those Roberts seasons a crude conversion for the WHA?

Quote:
lastly, both had about the same significance to their teams, but Roberts was able to be a contributor to much more successful teams in the playoffs in his career, evidenced by almost twice as many playoff games, 2.5X as much if you include the WHA.
A large portion of those games were towards the end of Roberts' career, when he reinvented himself as a solid depth player. As I said, Roberts has a longevity advantage, which is why I gave him the edge.

Quote:
I would give O'Connell the edge in "peak offense" but little else.
And that advantage is equal to all your claimed advantages that peak Roberts has put together. This is evidence by the Norris voting - each player placed once, with similar point totals.

Roberts does have a longevity advantage, which means something.

Quote:
close, but I can't say I agree 100%. Buswell's voting record is 6th, 8th, 10th, with a total of 15 voting points in those three seasons (7, 6, 2). Portland's is 5th, 7th, 8th, with a total of 20 voting points (11, 6, 3).
Well, if I just used voting points above, I can't complain about you using them here. Whether the small difference in voting points (basically the ballots of 2-3 writers) is enough to give you a meaningful advantage is up for interpretation.

Quote:
Portland was also much bigger and more intimidating.
So what? Results matter, not style, and the people voting for the All-Star teams already took the style into account for both players.

Quote:
The above is enough to claim a definite edge, here are some more smaller reasons: Portland played more games and was able to contribute more to the offense, he also got into more playoff games and contributed to a stanley cup.
Contributing more on offense doesn't make Portland a better overall player, it just shows that Buswell must have been better defensively to have a similar All-Star record. I can't believe you're actually trying to say that the 381-368 difference in games between the two players is meaningful. It's nice that Portland contributed to a Stanley Cup as a secondary player, but IMO, it's countered by the fact that Buswell was captain of the Canadiens for a season (a more individualized accomplishment than being a secondary player on a Cup winner IMO).

Should I re-edit my post above to show that Jack Evans contributed to a Stanley Cup and Bob Armstrong didn't?

Seems strange that you're using completely different criteria in this comparison than you did in the Evans/Armstrong one.
Quote:
Let's start by talking about that 9th/10th in all-star/norris voting for Campbell. And let's do it using a common sense approach and our own eyes since it was 5 years ago, and to show we aren't a slave to the all-star votes that got us so far.

TDMM - do you seriously believe that Brian Campbell was the 9th-10th-best defenseman in the NHL in 2007?
Is this misdirection to attempt to distract us from the fact that Campbell's 2nd best season was a lot better than any season Gibbs ever had?

Campbell was the #1 defenseman on the President's Trophy winner in 2007. By your own methods, that was a great season!

Yes, I do think it's very reasonable to think the #1 on the President's Trophy winner was the 9th or 10th best defenseman in the NHL that season.

Quote:
There are now twice as many #1 D-man spots out there, and Campbell wasn't one until 2007, then again in 2008, and he hasn't been one since. Yeah, he's behind Keith and Seabrook, but is he a #1 defenseman otherwise? A top-30 guy in the NHL? Not by a long shot. His resume is based on two very good seasons, and being the #3 on a cup winner in a season that was "meh" individually.
Too bad Campbell wasn't lucky enough to play with crap like Gibbs, then maybe he could have been the #1 of his team more often. Of course, then Campbell wouldn't have been able to win a Cup as a depth player, but I guess winning the Cup is only a bonus if you are drafted by seventieslord.

Campbell played in 3 straight All Star games (2 more than Gibbs with tougher competition to make the games than Gibbs), so I think that saying he only had 2 good seasons is a bit... wrong, don't you? Over a 5 year stretch, he had over 90% as many points as prime Niedermayer or Pronger. Only 2 good seasons, my ass.
Quote:
For historical players, we have to rely on contemporary opinions a lot of times, but this is a modern player and we know a lot more about them without even having to look at the voting.
You apparently don't know that Campbell was an All Star three times, so maybe you don't know as much about him as you think you do.

Quote:
Here are some of the defensemen Gibbs was getting more minutes than, doled out by no less than 9 NHL coaches:

Leo Boivin
Doug Mohns
Ted Harris
Gary Bergman
Pat Quinn
Randy Manery
Dick Redmond
Rod Seiling

career paths notwithstanding, that is not a "rotten bunch".
"Career paths notwithstanding," nice way to give yourself an out when called on this crap. Do I really need to go through those guys one by one and show how many were past their primes when they played with Gibbs?

Quote:
those names did not come from his time with Atlanta, where, with Gibbs playing the most minutes, they cracked .500 in all three of his full seasons there. (they also did twice in Minnesota)
So the highlight of his career was being the #1 on a team that was a little bit over 0.500 3 times. Yeah, he's not even close to as good as Campbell.

Quote:
Aside from goaltender-driven playoff results and pp-driven offensive totals, there is a good case to be made that Gibbs has a resume very similar to your boy Zhitnink.
Who cares? Zhitnik isn't in this series and he's hardly "my boy." Is this another attempt to try to distract us from the fact that Campbell is a much better defenseman than Gibbs?

Quote:
Now going back to Campbell, who's only been a #1 defenseman twice, versus Gibbs, who did it 9 times. Yeah, there was a difference in the talent pool - it's safe to say that the NHL talent doubled in that time, meaning Gibbs' results in all-star voting are more like 22nd and 26th. But if you're honest with yourself, you will acknowledge that Campbell has truly only had one season that was clearly better than that status - 2007, his all-star year, and we both know he wasn't truly 4th-best in the NHL, although he may not have been far off either.
If you're "honest with yourself," you'll admit that Campbell had 2 seasons that absolutely blow Gibbs out of the water - 2006-07 when he was the #1 on a President's Trophy winner and finished 10th in Norris voting, and 2007-08 when he was a 2nd Team All Star. I would take his 2008-09 season over anything Gibbs did quite easily as well.

And I'd probably take Campbell's 2005-06 season over any of Gibbs - he scored more points than Gibbs ever did playing in a lower scoring league. So by my count, that's 2 seasons where Gibbs can't hold Campbell's jock and 3-4 total seasons for Campbell better than anything Gibbs ever did. And of course, Campbell's 2010 postseason is better than anything Gibbs did in the postseason.

Quote:
It's also possible that Campbell is a guy buried behind good players (for example, maybe he's 20th-best in the NHL and playing behind #2 and #15) and it's also possible that Gibbs was the best of a rotten bunch (maybe he was only the equivalent of 50th-best in the NHL and the next-best guys on his team were about 100th-best). But surely you must see that that is a pretty big stretch to suggest that. There were big parity issues in the 70s but that would be just insane.
The only insanity is attempting to discredit Brian Campbell for not being as good as Duncan Keith.

Quote:
In the three seasons that gibbs was the "#1 of a slightly above average team", and not recognized in all-star voting, it's quite plausible - probable, even - that he was just outside the realm of recognized players: perhaps 16th-20th in the league. And in the other 4 years where he anchored, well, an anchor, he could have been that good, but more realistically could have been 20th-25th in the league.
It's possible that Gibbs was top 20 in a weak talent pool, but we know for a fact Campbell was better than that at least 3 times in a much stronger talent pool.

Quote:
- Campbell's all-star season
- campbell's 2007
- Gibbs' five seasons as the #1 of a .500+ team
- some mix of Gibbs' other 4 significant seasons and Campbell's last three
- Campbell's 2006
Do you actually expect anyone to believe that Gibbs' had 5 seasons better than one when Campbell played in the All Star game and finished 16th in postseason All Star voting? (That would be 2008-09). Oh and Campbell scored 52 points that season. Gibbs' career high is 40, in a higher scoring league. And it's not like Gibbs was a defensive stalwart.


2009-10 was probably Brian Campbell's 5th best season. He scored 38 points in 68 games. In Gibbs' best offensive season, he scored 40 points in 76 games in a higher scoring league. There is a massive offensive difference between the two. And Gibbs wasn't exactly a defensive stalwart - in his second best season, he scored 38 points (same as Campbell's 5th best only in more games in a higher scoring league), but was on the ice for more goals against than any other defenseman in the league.


Quote:
You are badly underappreciating Gibbs, while riding an all-starrecord for Campbell that most would agree isn't 100% deserved.
Definte "most." Your only argument is that Campbell didn't deserve his votes in 2006-07... when he was #1 of the best team in the league.

Quote:
Gibbs' massive GA numbers are also products of him being the #1 penalty killer for bad teams, and of course goals happen at a higher rate on special teams. So this doesn't surprise me. If nine different coaches made him their #1 defenseman, that says a lot more to me.
Well, it's definitely better to be #1 out of a rotten bunch than #2....

Quote:
Unfortunately, I can't do a similar study for Campbell, because, aside from two seasons, he was never given close to enough minutes to place highly in goals against. I would bet, however, that on a per-minute basis he was much more porous than average.
Listen, nobody is trying to say Campbell is a stalwart in his own zone here. But he's a much better offensive and overall player than Gibbs.

Quote:
This is what McKeen's 2011 has to say about Campbell's defense after raving about his skating:

not as effective when the game slows down however... gets static when defending around the crease and is prone to coughing the puck up on retrievals... still gets impatient and over-pursues 1-on-1, yet is progressing steadily as a defender...

"still progressing steadily"? at age 31? Sounds like he's still well below average in his own end, and only "acceptable" if that means "acceptable considering he moves the puck well and is a PP option"
Campbell has never been a good own-zone defender. His defensive strength is skating the puck out of trouble - we all saw how much better Chicago played with Campbell in the lineup in 2010. Campbell's strength is tilting the ice towards play in the opponent's end.
Quote:
See, here's the thing. Sargent was an all-around defenseman. Ehrhorr, aside from the last two years, is an offensive defenseman. It's apples to much better-tasting apples.
And yet Ehrhoff has two seasons over overall play better that I think are better than anything Sargent did.

Quote:
again - do you really think Ehrhoff deserved to place that highly? He was very good and finally became a #1 defenseman the last two seasons, but a top-10 guy?
Yes, in fact, I was one of many on the Devils board who was pissed off that Lou didn't trade for him. When you consider injuries to better guys like Pronger took them out of the running, I think Ehrhoff did have a fringe top 10 season.

Quote:
also, it's nice that he's played in that many playoff games, but has he played that well in them? Looking back to last season, Ehrhoff posted the worst +/- of anyone to make the finals in 29 years of the stat being tracked in the playoffs, and the worst mark by a country mile, when adjusted for league scoring (Robitaille's 1993, for example, tied him, but scoring was 30% higher and he played an extra game). Ehrhoff was their #1 defenseman in the regular season, but became the #3 in the playoffs - why do you think that is?
I knew you would bring this up. And I really don't think that you can use +/- numbers from Vancouver's run as a meaningful sample size. That was such a weird run - the team won lots of close games and lost a lot of blowouts, so every player's +/-s were bad.

I think it's important to realize two things:
  • Ehrhoff played more playoff games in 2011 than Sargent played in his entire career!
  • What's worse? Ehrhoff having a bad plus minus as his team loses in game 7 of the SC finals? Or the trend of Sargent teams advancing farther in the playoffs when he was injured than when he was healthy?
Quote:
Ehrhoff ranked 5, 4, 2, 5 in TOI on his teams before coming to Vancouver and was little more than a PP specialist - very unimpressive overall.
Ehrhoff had 2 great seasons - one in San Jose and one in Vancouver. Calling him a PP specialist in San Jose is entirely inaccurate.

Quote:
You're drafting him really for the last two seasons, and I'm drafting Sargent for three. (plus he was playing at an all-star caliber in a 4th, hence being named to the ASG, I assume missing that was a mistake on your part) To give Ehrhoff a longevity advantage is to really just give him points for "showing up to work" in parts of five other seasons.
I did miss the extra partial season of all-star calibre play.

Okay how about this - Ehrhoff had the best 2 seasons, Sargent had the next best 3.5, then a 5-1 advantage in complete but unspectacular seasons to Ehrhoff (since Sargent wasn't exactly helping his team when he was constantly injured).

Quote:
You are right. I tried to explain this to him on msn as well. I am not a Campbell fan, clearly, but he's not quite as bad as jarek thinks either.
Not "quite" as bad. LOL, you're hilarious.

Quote:
Doughty's three best seasons (his only three) when matched up to Campbells are all better, by significant, but not huge, amounts. Campbell take the edge only by longevity as a good NHLer (and I speak only of 06, 09, 10, 11 when I say that, obviously)
This is a load of crap and you know it. Doughty had the best top season, but after that Campbell blows him away if we line up their top seasons. Other than Doughty's best season, nothing he did was even close to Campbell's second best.

Quote:
I will post more on Golonka later. For now I will tell you that a couple months ago when TDMM questioned him via PM (specifically what makes him better offensively than Zabrodsky), I explained Golonka's international credentials in-depth and he did not reply.
I really hope you are not trying to insinuate anything from the fact that I didn't respond to your one PM. Because that would be cheap even by ATD standards.

You PMed me first to ask me what I thought of Golonka. I asked what made him better than Zabrodsky and you sent me information I didn't feel a need to personally respond to.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-07-2011 at 05:58 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 05:23 PM
  #66
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
In my opinion, Ehrhoff was part of the problem as to why Vancouver didn't win the cup. Very, very indifferent defensively. It happened on more than one occasion where he was really lazy to return to defend. Ehrhoff was also a team worst -13.. Henrik was -11. Nobody else was double digits. Ehrhoff absolutely stands out as an aberration to that Canucks run in terms of defensive play.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 05:32 PM
  #67
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
In my opinion, Ehrhoff was part of the problem as to why Vancouver didn't win the cup. Very, very indifferent defensively. It happened on more than one occasion where he was really lazy to return to defend. Ehrhoff was also a team worst -13.. Henrik was -11. Nobody else was double digits. Ehrhoff absolutely stands out as an aberration to that Canucks run in terms of defensive play.
Absolutely, Ehrhoff was part of the problem when they lost, but he was also part of the solution when they won.

He was also a big part of the reason they came so close to winning - he was 5th on the team in overall scoring and 1st among defensemen, despite missing 2 games due to injury.

If the Canucks won the Cup and Ehrhoff played better, he'd be in someone's top 4 and deserve it. As is, he's an above-average offensive minded #5, one who I think has had a better peak and career than Gary Sargent.

This isn't really ATD-specific, but has there ever been another team that was 1 game away from winning the Cup where the public perception of basically every key player on the team goes down, rather than up?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 05:50 PM
  #68
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Absolutely, Ehrhoff was part of the problem when they lost, but he was also part of the solution when they won.

He was also a big part of the reason they came so close to winning - he was 5th on the team in overall scoring and 1st among defensemen, despite missing 2 games due to injury.

If the Canucks won the Cup and Ehrhoff played better, he'd be in someone's top 4 and deserve it. As is, he's an above-average offensive minded #5, one who I think has had a better peak and career than Gary Sargent.

This isn't really ATD-specific, but has there ever been another team that was 1 game away from winning the Cup where the public perception of basically every key player on the team goes down, rather than up?
Probably not.. but has there ever been a team that stunk so horribly on the road in the Stanley Cup finals, and then bending over backwards so easily in the deciding game?

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 05:57 PM
  #69
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Just as an aside about Ehrhoff.. in the playoffs last year, he was only really prevalent in 2 games against Nashville, scoring 5 points, and 3 games against Chicago, scoring 4 points (1 of them in a 7-2 loss). 9 of his 12 points came in 5 of 23 games. He was otherwise a dud, including 1 point in the finals.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 06:09 PM
  #70
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Just as an aside about Ehrhoff.. in the playoffs last year, he was only really prevalent in 2 games against Nashville, scoring 5 points, and 3 games against Chicago, scoring 4 points (1 of them in a 7-2 loss). 9 of his 12 points came in 5 of 23 games. He was otherwise a dud, including 1 point in the finals.
It certainly wasn't an all time great playoff run.

Here are some fun facts though:

Ehrhoff playoff career = 34 points in 73 games.
Erhoff in the 2011 playoffs alone: 12 points in 23 games.
Sargent playoff career: 12 points in 20 games.

Yeah yeah, that's only offense and Sargent was definitely better in his own zone than Ehrhoff. But then we remember that Sargent is being double shifted on the PP.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 06:22 PM
  #71
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,721
vCash: 500
With regards to Gary Sargent, if we're using "per game" rates rather than "per season" rates, I do think he would be a better all-round player than Ehrhoff. But we'd have to expect him to miss 2-3 games.

If we're just looking at their overall careers (which lets us ignore missed games), then I think Ehrhoff is better.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 06:30 PM
  #72
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It certainly wasn't an all time great playoff run.

Here are some fun facts though:

Ehrhoff playoff career = 34 points in 73 games.
Erhoff in the 2011 playoffs alone: 12 points in 23 games.
Sargent playoff career: 12 points in 20 games.

Yeah yeah, that's only offense and Sargent was definitely better in his own zone than Ehrhoff. But then we remember that Sargent is being double shifted on the PP.
I don't think Ehrhoff has truly ever had an "all-time great" playoff run. His 2010 run was probably his best (7 points in 12 games, and had to be better in his own zone than last year). Honestly, I really don't think much of him in an all-time sense.. but at least offensively, he appears to be better than Sargent.

I do think it's absurd how little respect Sargent is getting for how much ice time he played. That is not an easy thing to do in any era. The coaches kept putting him out there for a reason.. and unless you can find evidence that they were only doing so because they had no other choice, I think respect must be given to a guy who led his teams in ice time 9 times (is that correct?).

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 06:35 PM
  #73
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
I don't think Ehrhoff has truly ever had an "all-time great" playoff run. His 2010 run was probably his best (7 points in 12 games, and had to be better in his own zone than last year). Honestly, I really don't think much of him in an all-time sense.. but at least offensively, he appears to be better than Sargent.[
It's the MLD, very few of these guys had "all-time great" playoff runs.

Quote:
I do think it's absurd how little respect Sargent is getting for how much ice time he played. That is not an easy thing to do in any era. The coaches kept putting him out there for a reason.. and unless you can find evidence that they were only doing so because they had no other choice, I think respect must be given to a guy who led his teams in ice time 9 times (is that correct?).
Sargent played 3 full seasons and 5 seasons of significance in his career.

Gibbs is the one who apparently led his teams in ice time per game 9 times. I think Gibbs is solid. But he's not nearly as good as Campbell.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 06:36 PM
  #74
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,620
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
I think respect must be given to a guy who led his teams in ice time 9 times (is that correct?).
That would be very dependent on the teams.

Obviously someone is going to be #1 no matter how good or bad the team actually performs.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2011, 06:40 PM
  #75
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's the MLD, very few of these guys had "all-time great" playoff runs.



Sargent played 3 full seasons and 5 seasons of significance in his career.

Gibbs is the one who apparently led his teams in ice time per game 9 times. I think Gibbs is solid. But he's not nearly as good as Campbell.
My bad. Huh. I don't know what to say.

Regarding Erixon. I tend to agree that grabbing a checking line player in the 3rd round is not very smart, no matter how good he might be. I don't know anything about Tippett, but Erixon can't be so far ahead of him as seventies claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
That would be very dependent on the teams.

Obviously someone is going to be #1 no matter how good or bad the team actually performs.
I bet if you go through the list of #1 defensemen over the span of the NHL, I would imagine that you'd be hard pressed to find a guy who would be worse than a #2 on any other team (unless said team was stacked on D, like the cup winning Ducks).

jarek 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 08:56 PM.

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

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