Good pick, Ciccarelli is criminally undervalued here IMO. The guy was one of the better goal scorers of his time. Poor playoff record sure but still a good regular season scorer. Bit gritty as well.
I'm selecting a PF that I find extremely difficult to believe falls below Stevens and Tocchet. This guy led the NHL in goals once, and has two (seperate) Second team ASTs. He'll be a support scorer on my second/third line (they both will get equal amounts of time ES, just depending on situations). I'm aware of his playoff deficiencies, I just think he's too good to pass up at this point.
With pick 316, I'll be selecting Keith Tkachuk, LW
Dino was terrible defensively in the playoffs and took bad penalies. He sure maintained a great goal scoring pace though. Either Tim Kerr went way too early or Dino is a steal.
I'm selecting a PF that I find extremely difficult to believe falls below Stevens and Tocchet. This guy led the NHL in goals once, and has two (seperate) Second team ASTs. He'll be a support scorer on my second/third line (they both will get equal amounts of time ES, just depending on situations). I'm aware of his playoff deficiencies, I just think he's too good to pass up at this point.
With pick 316, I'll be selecting Keith Tkachuk, LW
Yeah I've been asking myself why I picked Gary Roberts over him and aside from blindly hamming up intangibles (which actually was a concern with my roster) and the postseason thing I'm pretty sure the difference in drafting spots isn't there. I even let him go later than the past few drafts I think too.
Dino was terrible defensively in the playoffs and took bad penalies. He sure maintained a great goal scoring pace though. Either Tim Kerr went way too early or Dino is a steal.
I'm selecting a PF that I find extremely difficult to believe falls below Stevens and Tocchet. This guy led the NHL in goals once, and has two (seperate) Second team ASTs. He'll be a support scorer on my second/third line (they both will get equal amounts of time ES, just depending on situations). I'm aware of his playoff deficiencies, I just think he's too good to pass up at this point.
With pick 316, I'll be selecting Keith Tkachuk, LW
I've considered Tkachuk, but went with Stevens as he's proven Lemieux sidekick.
OH AND FFS FIX FLEURY'S NAME ON FIRST PAGE, I WAS ABOUT TO CELEBRATE A STEAL. ARGHBLE.
I've considered Tkachuk, but went with Stevens as he's proven Lemieux sidekick.
OH AND FFS FIX FLEURY'S NAME ON FIRST PAGE, I WAS ABOUT TO CELEBRATE A STEAL. ARGHBLE.
Yeah in your case I think it makes more sense to take Stevens, I just mean more so in a vaccuum I can't see how there should possibly be a 60 pick gap.
I don't think Stevens is any worse than Tkachuk. Tocchet is definitely worse than both, but he plays the RW, not LW, so it's not really comparable.
Doesn't that make it worse?
By the way...let's go easy on Tim Kerr here. He is one of the non top-200 players in this who has a skill which is truly elite even by ATD standards, and that alone has extra value. Besides, there are still players hanging around here who could have gone 100 picks ago. Because one guy is good value doesn't make the other guy bad value.
I don't think Stevens is any worse than Tkachuk. Tocchet is definitely worse than both, but he plays the RW, not LW, so it's not really comparable.
Personally I'd rather have Tkachuk. Much better longevity, and honestly I think his peak is more impressive too. Has a Richard, without Lemieux clearly boosting his totals. Stevens has 3 50 goal seasons in the middle of a high scoring era, Tkachuk has two in a low scoring era. Stevens was probably a better playmaker but I honestly have no idea how much of that was boosted by Lemieux.
(That's a very quick analysis with me being in class I go into more detail later)
By no means do I see Stevens as a bad pick where he was taken, especially by Mad with Lemieux. I just can't see the 60 pick difference between the two.
Tocchet is worse offensively. But his much more of a physical force and fighter. He's less like a scoring power forward and more like the second line equivalent of Clarke Gillies.
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Tocchet is worse offensively. But his much more of a physical force and fighter. He's less like a scoring power forward and more like the second line equivalent of Clarke Gillies.
Without Gillies' defense. But you're right, his mix of heavyweight fighting and not-terrible offense is Gillieseque
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24
Personally I'd rather have Tkachuk. Much better longevity, and honestly I think his peak is more impressive too. Has a Richard, without Lemieux clearly boosting his totals. Stevens has 3 50 goal seasons in the middle of a high scoring era, Tkachuk has two in a low scoring era. Stevens was probably a better playmaker but I honestly have no idea how much of that was boosted by Lemieux.
(That's a very quick analysis with me being in class I go into more detail later)
By no means do I see Stevens as a bad pick where he was taken, especially by Mad with Lemieux. I just can't see the 60 pick difference between the two.
Tkachuk is a fine pick, but he had an absurd amount of ENGs the season he led the league in goal scoring.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-14-2012 at 04:09 PM.
I like Mullen, but I have never understood why he is in the hall of fame when a bunch of modern guys like Oates are not. He is probably the most questionable modern inductee other than Gillies.
Tkachuk is a fine pick, but he had an absurd amount of ENGs the season he led the league in goal scoring.
Is there somewhere that records EN goals?
I guess if you're scoring a ton of them, your coach thinks you're a good guy to have on the ice to close out a game.
The year Tkachuk led the league in goals is also interesting due to the fact that he had one of the lowest PP goal totals of his career, while scoring way more ES goals than in any other year (he led the league in even strength goals that year). Anyone remember if he was being used any differently that year?
I guess if you're scoring a ton of them, your coach thinks you're a good guy to have on the ice to close out a game.
Not sure. I just remember that about Tkachuk because it came up when I drafted him. Considering that team won the championship, I don't think vecens should be too concerned about the factoid.
I like Mullen, but I have never understood why he is in the hall of fame when a bunch of modern guys like Oates are not. He is probably the most questionable modern inductee other than Gillies.
Retired as the highest scoring American ever... Some memorable playoff runs...
I like Mullen, but I have never understood why he is in the hall of fame when a bunch of modern guys like Oates are not. He is probably the most questionable modern inductee other than Gillies.
with his 3 cups as a 1st line RW? more than Ciccarelli?
with his 3 cups as a 1st line RW? more than Ciccarelli?
Tocchet was 1st line for the 3rd one. Mullen was hurt, but when he did play was 3rd line. Stevens-Lemieux-Tocchet/???-Francis-Jagr. (And that's not me blanking an undrafted, it's me not knowing who it is.)
Yes, but it shouldn’t be a mystery why. Gretzky and Lemieux for reasons already discussed, plus one beneficiary linemate.
Removing the lowest #2 point total between 72-73 and 97-98, excluding the 95 lockout season, as an outlier is crazy.
Quote:
The “undesired” effect of the latter is infinitesimal compared to the former.
Changing below average seasons into way above average scores is hardly infinitesimal.
Quote:
I mean, I can see what you’re saying about using the #1 (Bossy, par example) if there are multiple outliers above him removed, but it seems like such a petty issue in comparison to the issue of whether to remove the outliers in the first place.
I don't have a problem removing outliers. I do have a problem with removing outliers that aren't outliers, and it seemingly being done with no more thought than "I have removed outliers, so it must be better".
Quote:
Even 140 would be crazy for that year.
You have no problem using 139 in 1982. Why is 140 crazy? Show some examples illustrating how wrong it is.
By the way...let's go easy on Tim Kerr here. He is one of the non top-200 players in this who has a skill which is truly elite even by ATD standards, and that alone has extra value. Besides, there are still players hanging around here who could have gone 100 picks ago. Because one guy is good value doesn't make the other guy bad value.
Kerr is absolutely elite at scoring goals in front of the net on the PP. But is Dino really that far off?
IMO, Tim Kerr has gone the Bob Gainey route over the last few drafts - he's the best at what he does, but the next best guys (who aren't far off) go 100s of picks later.
Kerr is absolutely elite at scoring goals in front of the net on the PP. But is Dino really that far off?
IMO, Tim Kerr has gone the Bob Gainey route over the last few drafts - he's the best at what he does, but the next best guys (who aren't far off) go 100s of picks later.
Is Kerr even the best in the draft? Just off the top of my head, Phil Esposito and Nels Stewart come to mind as guys who clearly better.
