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.

ATD2012 Red Fisher Conference Finals: Pittsburgh Keystones vs. Inglewood Jacks

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-08-2012, 12:08 PM
  #26
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,360
vCash: 500
Even if z took faceoff , it doesn't even mean he really played center that shift.I think the real way to know it is to ask about 10 red wings fans that we trust and try to see if the numbers are matching what they are saying.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 12:40 PM
  #27
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Even if z took faceoff , it doesn't even mean he really played center that shift.I think the real way to know it is to ask about 10 red wings fans that we trust and try to see if the numbers are matching what they are saying.
You're right, I thought about that too. But is this really that common of a strategy?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 02:09 PM
  #28
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You're right, I thought about that too. But is this really that common of a strategy?
It doesn't matter if it is common or not when we're looking at a specific case..

That said I didn't see enough of the Wings to know either way.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 02:42 PM
  #29
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Oh, he's definitely in that conversation, like most veterans committee inductees.

I agree he has a better defensive game. But Roberts was on another level for consistent effort and intensity/grit from most players, Watson included. He has a leadership edge too, I think. That's why I speculated they were about even in intangibles.
I don't see any reason to think Roberts has a grit/character advantage over Watson. Doesnt every bio of Watson spend most of its time raving about his grit and leadership? Is this just exaggerating the intangibles of a player we saw?

I realize that Watson got into the HHOF based off the lobbying of Don Cherry and others who "wanted more of the 40s stars recognized" by the veterans' committee (according to Watson's own bio). But the vet committee had options. At the time, Turk Broda and Ted Kennedy were the only inductees who played for all 4 Cups of the dynasty. Watson became the third. They could have inducted Jimmy Thomson, Gus Mortson, or Joe Klukay, but they inducted Harry Watson instead. That doesn't mean it was a good induction, but I think it says Watson probably oozed the grit and leadership that the HHoF committee laps up.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 04:33 PM
  #30
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't see any reason to think Roberts has a grit/character advantage over Watson. Doesnt every bio of Watson spend most of its time raving about his grit and leadership? Is this just exaggerating the intangibles of a player we saw?
I wouldn't say so. I'd say it's giving more credit for something we are more sure of. And Roberts was "on" almost all the time. I see Watson as a guy who usually minded his own business and played his quiet, workmanlike game, but was a beast when you woke him up.

Quote:
I realize that Watson got into the HHOF based off the lobbying of Don Cherry and others who "wanted more of the 40s stars recognized" by the veterans' committee (according to Watson's own bio). But the vet committee had options. At the time, Turk Broda and Ted Kennedy were the only inductees who played for all 4 Cups of the dynasty. Watson became the third. They could have inducted Jimmy Thomson, Gus Mortson, or Joe Klukay, but they inducted Harry Watson instead. That doesn't mean it was a good induction, but I think it says Watson probably oozed the grit and leadership that the HHoF committee laps up.
Yes, that could be the case.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 05:03 PM
  #31
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't see any reason to think Roberts has a grit/character advantage over Watson. Doesnt every bio of Watson spend most of its time raving about his grit and leadership? Is this just exaggerating the intangibles of a player we saw?

I realize that Watson got into the HHOF based off the lobbying of Don Cherry and others who "wanted more of the 40s stars recognized" by the veterans' committee (according to Watson's own bio). But the vet committee had options. At the time, Turk Broda and Ted Kennedy were the only inductees who played for all 4 Cups of the dynasty. Watson became the third. They could have inducted Jimmy Thomson, Gus Mortson, or Joe Klukay, but they inducted Harry Watson instead. That doesn't mean it was a good induction, but I think it says Watson probably oozed the grit and leadership that the HHoF committee laps up.
I think this is probably the case. Is Watson a good HOF inductee? No, not really. From the mid-80's to the mid-90's the veterans committee seemed to be putting in a real questionable player every year, and he was one of them.

But that said, he was picked for a reason over any number of other players, and it wasn't because of his offensive numbers. As far as I can tell, Watson was universally respected throughout the league for his character and play. I think he was quite a leader, and he certainly proved to be a guy who could be relied on in big games. To use a McGuireism: I think Watson was a guy who "got it".

He definitely didn't have mean streak that Gary Roberts had, and there's a lot of value in that for Roberts (I absolutely love Gary Roberts, btw. Nobody face-washed the Senators like Gary Roberts). But I think Watson was the better all-around player, and certainly a more versatile one. In particular, I think his defensive game (and his use as a defensive matchup vs. star players) tips the scales in his favour. He was also a better skater, bigger, and a better fighter.

Most importantly though, I think he's a better fit where he is. Not because he's miles better than Roberts, but because his linemates are. To put it another way, I think Gretzky-Kurri allowed me to go for skill set more than skill level at the LW position. As good as Richard-Geoffrion were, I would have aimed higher offensively than Harry Watson (or Gary Roberts) if they were my top line.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 05:50 PM
  #32
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't see any reason to think Roberts has a grit/character advantage over Watson. Doesnt every bio of Watson spend most of its time raving about his grit and leadership? Is this just exaggerating the intangibles of a player we saw?

I realize that Watson got into the HHOF based off the lobbying of Don Cherry and others who "wanted more of the 40s stars recognized" by the veterans' committee (according to Watson's own bio). But the vet committee had options. At the time, Turk Broda and Ted Kennedy were the only inductees who played for all 4 Cups of the dynasty. Watson became the third. They could have inducted Jimmy Thomson, Gus Mortson, or Joe Klukay, but they inducted Harry Watson instead. That doesn't mean it was a good induction, but I think it says Watson probably oozed the grit and leadership that the HHoF committee laps up.
Would Smythe's opinion of Thomson and Mortson have any sway in the veterans' committee votes? I never considered the veterans' committee and always thought they were passed over for their involvement in forming the players union.

I'm not sure Mortson would have made it necessarily, but I don't see what held Thomson back. He got shipped to the lowly Hawks for his involvement in the union, a la Lindsay. He only lasted a year before bitterly retiring and I figured Smythe's opinion of his former star shot his hopes of making the hall.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 05:54 PM
  #33
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,956
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Scuderi View Post
Would Smythe's opinion of Thomson and Mortson have any sway in the veterans' committee votes? I never considered the veterans' committee and always thought they were passed over for their involvement in forming the players union.

I'm not sure Mortson would have made it necessarily, but I don't see what held Thomson back. He got shipped to the lowly Hawks for his involvement in the union, a la Lindsay. He only lasted a year before bitterly retiring and I figured Smythe's opinion of his former star shot his hopes of making the hall.
I honestly don't know. Conn Smythe died in 1980, so would he have a lasting effect on the Veteran's committee?

Also how anti-union is the HHOF in general? They waived the mandatory waiting period for Ted Lindsay, after all.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 06:12 PM
  #34
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I honestly don't know. Conn Smythe died in 1980, so would he have a lasting effect on the Veteran's committee?

Also how anti-union is the HHOF in general? They waived the mandatory waiting period for Ted Lindsay, after all.
Good question, here's the founding members.

Ted Lindsay (DET) - in

Fern Flaman (BOS) - in ('90)

Jim Thomson (TOR) - out

Doug Harvey (MON) - in

Bill Gadsby (NYR) - in

Gus Mortson (CHI) - out

Seems like the veteran's committee did end up saving one former Union guy in Flaman. Lindsay had his waiting period waived as you said, and Harvey and Gadsby did not. Harvey also had to wait a year so maybe that speaks to the fact that things just simply got ugly in his case.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 06:14 PM
  #35
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,956
vCash: 500
I always thought Harvey not getting in first ballot had more to do with his alcoholism than the union thing

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 07:10 PM
  #36
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,955
vCash: 500
FYI - inglewood has home ice advantage.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 07:16 PM
  #37
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I always thought Harvey not getting in first ballot had more to do with his alcoholism than the union thing
That's what I was trying to say

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 07:46 PM
  #38
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,551
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think if we want to definitively know what percentage of time Zetterberg spent at C vs. LW, we just need to look at his number of faceoffs taken relative to his total TOI:

nik is a Wings fan and says Zetterberg played C exclusively in the 2012 season, which also happens to be the season he or anyone else is most likely to be correct about.

Zetterberg played 1627 minutes and took 1115 faceoffs, which is 0.685 per minute. So anything in the 0.66 range or above probably represents a season spent entirely at center.

actually, considering Helm took 0.77 faceoffs per minute and Datsyuk took 0.88 per minute, those figures are probably closer to the standard for a full-time center. I didn't watch the Wings, but I think Zetterberg had to be playing some shifts at the wing to have such a low average compared to full time centers.

his other figures:

2011: 984/1567 = 0.63
2010: 1098/1485 = 0.74
2009: 1189/1531 = 0.78
2008: 1210/1655 = 0.73
2007: 888/1313 = 0.68
2006: 583/1460 = 0.40
2004: 627/1113 = 0.56
2003: 401/1288 = 0.31

based on this it looks like nik is mistaken that Zetterberg was a C in 2006. he was taking as many faceoffs as he had before the lockout. It was only in 2007 and beyond that he took as many faceoffs as you'd expect a full time (or most of the time) center to take.

If I was to use these numbers to speculate on his position, I would say this:

2003-2006: mostly LW, some C
2007-2012: mostly C, some LW

unless these numbers are lying to me somehow.
i am very surpised his faceoff numbers are that low for '06.

after looking back into old threads, zetterberg played on datsyuk's LW for much of '06. i thought it was only the early part.

lines were not always the same, but i remember zetterberg playing C primarily with holmstrom and samuelsson, but that is probably b/c it was the later part of the season.


something these numbers miss is that zetterberg gets thrown out of many faceoffs (especially since '08) b/c he tries to cheat. his faceoff % has declined since '08, so he is used less for important faceoffs.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I always thought Harvey not getting in first ballot had more to do with his alcoholism than the union thing
i thought so too. i remember reading a newspaper report about this last year.

nik jr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-08-2012, 07:59 PM
  #39
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
I have no idea how I'm going to stop Zetterberg in this series


Last edited by arrbez: 05-08-2012 at 08:31 PM.
arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 03:34 PM
  #40
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Also how anti-union is the HHOF in general? They waived the mandatory waiting period for Ted Lindsay, after all.
Oh, they can definitely be petty. Best case in point: J.C. Tremblay. Any halfway fair accounting of his career has him as an easy hall of famer. He was at least as good as Laperriere, and arguably more important to those Habs teams. But he jumped for the WHA.

Ted Lindsay was too much of a legend for that to matter. Different rules adhere to different calibres of player, whether it's HHOF voting, all-star voting, what have you.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 03:57 PM
  #41
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,955
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Oh, they can definitely be petty. Best case in point: J.C. Tremblay. Any halfway fair accounting of his career has him as an easy hall of famer. He was at least as good as Laperriere, and arguably more important to those Habs teams. But he jumped for the WHA.

Ted Lindsay was too much of a legend for that to matter. Different rules adhere to different calibres of player, whether it's HHOF voting, all-star voting, what have you.
a lot of times I heard this is what was keeping Mark Howe out as well. And he didn't even defect; he went to play with his dad at age 17.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 07:04 PM
  #42
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,956
vCash: 500
The HHOF has a known grudge against the WHA, and the early era players who pissed off Lester Patrick or Conn Smythe might have been screwed.

But I don't see evidence the HHOF is prejudiced against post-WW2 players who were involved in the union. It's not like they just let Ted Lindsay in first ballot, they waived the waiting period.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 07:40 PM
  #43
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The HHOF has a known grudge against the WHA, and the early era players who pissed off Lester Patrick or Conn Smythe might have been screwed.

But I don't see evidence the HHOF is prejudiced against post-WW2 players who were involved in the union. It's not like they just let Ted Lindsay in first ballot, they waived the waiting period.
What about post-WW2 changes your opinion of players pissing off Smythe? He was the one who brought Thomson and Mortson up to the Leafs and their dynasty was just after the war.

Smythe responded to Thomson's involvement in the union by saying the Leafs would have to appoint a new representative because his contract was sold to Rochester in the AHL so Thomson said he was retiring. He got traded to Chicago rather than retiring but only lasted a year before really retiring.

I don't think it's that unreasonable that the status of Lindsay was simply too great to merit the same punishment. Thomson even responds to Smythe's comment that Jimmy WAS a great player rather than is, following all this drama by saying that while flattered he never thought of himself as a great, rather players like "Howe and Richard and Lindsay and Beliveau."

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 08:36 PM
  #44
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,956
vCash: 500
Ted Lindsay was the third player in history, after Dit Clapper (the NHL's first two decade man) and Maurice Richard (no explanation needed) to have the waiting period waived. Clearly the HHOF committee wasn't entirely in the owners pockets.

Your previous post listing the guys who tried to start the NHLPA in the 50s and 60s shows no major bias against them by the HHOF that I can see.

It's possible that pissing off Conn Smythe by doing union stuff got Thomson left out at first, but I really don't see how that's relevant to who the Veteran'a Committee chose to let in in the 1990s.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 08:55 PM
  #45
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,890
vCash: 500
And lets be honest. Not inducting Thomson is like not inducting Derian Hatcher. The argument for is weaker than the argument against, but, if they were inducted, it would not be the end of the world.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 08:58 PM
  #46
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,788
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Ted Lindsay was the third player in history, after Dit Clapper (the NHL's first two decade man) and Maurice Richard (no explanation needed) to have the waiting period waived. Clearly the HHOF committee wasn't entirely in the owners pockets.

Your previous post listing the guys who tried to start the NHLPA in the 50s and 60s shows no major bias against them by the HHOF that I can see.

It's possible that pissing off Conn Smythe by doing union stuff got Thomson left out at first, but I really don't see how that's relevant to who the Veteran'a Committee chose to let in in the 1990s.
That's exactly why I asked to start this conversation. I didn't think about it and had no idea how much sway all that would have in the committee votes. I just don't see why WW2 was the bright line that allowed you to be a dick in Smythe's eyes without repercussions.

I also think if you accept the idea that there were different rules for the top end players in that list (which you don't seem to), that it's entirely possible Flaman, Thomson, and Mortson were punished in that order. I read another anecdote about Mortson pissing off Jack Adams in DET and I'm not sure he'd even make it without this nonsense so I'm really not trying to backhandedly lobby for him. I just think Jimmy Thomson got screwed because his GM was a bigger dick than the others. Mortson and Flaman had already left the Leafs when the Union formed so they weren't on Smythe's payroll at the time. Thomson was Smythe's star and he was even captain before Kennedy un-retired, but then he betrayed the mighty Smythe and it got ugly.

Rob Scuderi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-09-2012, 09:11 PM
  #47
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,956
vCash: 500
I could have just as easily said "after 1940" or "after 1950." Point being that guys who tried to start the NHLPA in the late 50s/ early 60s do not seem to be discriminated against by the HHOF in my opinion.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-10-2012, 05:33 PM
  #48
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,956
vCash: 500
Does either team have a plan to stop the other team's big gun?

I think Cecil Hart and Inglewood wants to goad Pittsburgh into a run-and-gun speed game. Not only is the Watson-Gretzky-Kurri-Leetch-Johnson unit terrifying all over the ice in transition, but I think Inglewood's second line is better suited for a speed game than Pittsburgh's second line.

I think Hap Day wants Pittsburgh to slow things down a little.
Pittsburgh's second line excels in a slower paced cycling game, and Inglewood's D could be vulnerable against the cycle. I think Pittsburgh's first line could play it either way, but they will be overwhelmed if they try to trade chances with Gretzky. Is this the series that forces Bobby Orr to play more conservatively, or do you just let him go?


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 05-10-2012 at 05:44 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2012, 12:46 AM
  #49
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
I agree, it should be an interesting contrast in styles.

I'm not sure my D is particularly vulnerable against the cycle. Obviously Timonen is a pretty small dude, but other than that, it's pretty good size all around with at least 1 heavy physical defenseman on each pairing. But more importantly, I think the ability to skate and make quick, smart decisions with the puck will help counter-act the cycle game before it starts (ala Lidstrom-Murphy in 1997). No team is immune to it, but I think I'm in a pretty good position to contain it.


Last edited by arrbez: 05-11-2012 at 01:00 AM.
arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-11-2012, 06:30 AM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,956
vCash: 500
Is there a case that Jimmy Watson is actually Inglewood's 6th best defenseman? That's partly a criticism of Watson, but it's also an acknowledgement that Inglewood probably has the best bottom pairing in the draft.

TheDevilMadeMe 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 11:47 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.