Have you ever met or seen Guy Lafleur?He is 60yrs old and in better shape than most men in their 30's.In 1976 at the Canada Cup the team Doctor did an oxygen test and its measurements were comparable to a tour de france rider.The biggest partyers in sports were Michael Jordan and Joe Montana if you did your homework?Jordan was messing with a lot.And if you read the book about Montana the stories are shocking.
Giroux has played his best, and the longest, at center, with Hartnell as his winger. No need to change things here. Further, Stamkos has been equally effective on wing or up the middle.
Typhoon Bolaven is going to hit this island (Jeju) in about twelve hours from now. The last time a typhoon this size hit (2003 Maemi) the power was out for four days!!!(And two people died on my street when a wall collapsed). Hope that doesn't happen again. Wish me luck!
Notice the irony that four of my MLD picks are involved - 2nd center, two defensemen and a #1 goalie. Yet certain GMs pan the picks.
There's a big difference between one or two year wonders and all-time greats. The ATD sub-board looks at careers to date, no projections into the future and not just this year's performance.
Someone once drafted Svatoš, a young NHL 30-goal scorer, in the MLD (simply because he had just had one great year his rookie season and was popular at that point in time).
How great someone is at one point in time is not the same with how great their careers are in terms of all-time respect. Cheechoo wasn't among the top-2000 picks last year and deservedly so (though the Single-A Draft had several picks his career approximated in terms of overall value). He would have been a bad MLD pick in his best season too.
History is littered with guys who had one or two great seasons.
Last edited by VanIslander: 08-27-2012 at 06:56 AM.
There's a big difference between one or two year wonders and all-time greats. The ATD sub-board looks at careers to date, no projections into the future and not just this year's performance.
Someone once drafted Svatoš, a young NHL 30-goal scorer, in the MLD (simply because he had just had one great year his rookie season and was popular at that point in time).
How great someone is at one point in time is not the same with how great their careers are in terms of all-time respect. Cheechoo wasn't among the top-2000 picks last year and deservedly so (though the Single-A Draft had several picks his career approximated in terms of overall value). He would have been a bad MLD pick in his best season too.
History is littered with guys who had one or two great seasons.
Games played. Bingo Kampman and other dmen have fewer games during the regular season and fewer significant honours than Karlsson or Letang. To argue otherwise on a career basis your are projecting what Kampman would have done had he played more regular season games. Even if you simply adjust to an 82 game season you are projecting in a negative sense because the AST voting would not increase.
Likewise for forwards - Bob Gracie and others vs Jordan Staal, or goalies, Tom Paton and others vs Jonathan Quick. Regardless of the justification there is a great amount of projecting as described above. This projecting is not sustainable in any fashion by the supporting numbers.
Last edited by Canadiens1958: 08-27-2012 at 09:54 AM.
Reason: bold
I'm taking Team Vigneault pretty easily. Better defense by far in my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur
yuppers
Yeah, I kinda thought so. I think Vigneault has perhaps the six best defensemen in the series and doesn’t give up anything at forward. (actually, out of the 17 “elite” offensive forwards in the starting lineups, 11 are on the Vigneault team, the exception being Hartnell who is there as a role player. The babcock team does have more “pure” role players but Vigneault was able to avoid that by getting guys like Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Iginla, Parise, Hossa, and St. Louis.
Lots of Chemistry there too. Sedins, Preds D-men, Stammer/St.Louis, Zet/Dats.
Babcock has a bigger, tougher forward corps and a better penalty kill, but that can’t win out over all the other advantages.
Goaltending is a wash. 1st and 4th in the NHL by most estimations, versus 2nd and… let’s be generous and say Thomas is still considered 3rd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
Games played. Bingo Kampman and other dmen have fewer games during the regular season and fewer significant honours than Karlsson or Letang. To argue otherwise on a career basis your are projecting what Kampman would have done had he played more regular season games. Even if you simply adjust to an 82 game season you are projecting in a negative sense because the AST voting would not increase.
Likewise for forwards - Bob Gracie and others vs Jordan Staal, or goalies, Tom Paton and others vs Jonathan Quick. Regardless of the justification there is a great amount of projecting as described above. This projecting is not sustainable in any fashion by the supporting numbers.
You’re right that kampman also had a very short career. But GP are not the issue; seasons are the issue, as it’s not his fault how short the seasons were back then. So he had five full seasons, plus there are good reasons why he didn’t have more. Even if it’s true he was no longer good enough by 30, we know he was good enough to at least play through the war but didn’t.
Anyway, this exercise was about “right here, right now” and not about “all-time value” so the two can’t really compare.
You’re right that kampman also had a very short career. But GP are not the issue; seasons are the issue, as it’s not his fault how short the seasons were back then. So he had five full seasons, plus there are good reasons why he didn’t have more. Even if it’s true he was no longer good enough by 30, we know he was good enough to at least play through the war but didn’t.
Anyway, this exercise was about “right here, right now” and not about “all-time value” so the two can’t really compare.
Regardless you are projecting for Kampman. All we know is what he did during the time he played.As for "all time value" the long seasons penalize the recent players.
The fact remains that various comparisons that contribute to this mythical "all time value" have GP as a base, eg offensive skills are determined by PPG. For the pre WWII goalies you have repeatedly looked at GAA which is a GP influenced stat. So it is very legit to look at GP in determining "all time value".
Last edited by Canadiens1958: 08-27-2012 at 03:16 PM.
Reason: punctuation
Regardless you are projecting for Kampman. All we know is what he did during the time he played.As for "all time value" the long seasons penalize the recent players.
That is a topic that has long been up for debate. WW2 players are a special case.
Quote:
The fact remains that various comparisons that contribute to this mythical "all time value" have GP as a base, eg offensive skills are determined by PPG. For the pre WWII goalies you have repeatedly looked at GAA which is a GP influenced stat. So it is very legit to look at GP in determining "all time value".
no, you are talking about "per game" stats. The GP number is simply the denominator of a fraction, which has nothing to do with your gripe, which is the raw number of games played being used as an indicator for a player. Two different things.
That is a topic that has long been up for debate. WW2 players are a special case.
no, you are talking about "per game" stats. The GP number is simply the denominator of a fraction, which has nothing to do with your gripe, which is the raw number of games played being used as an indicator for a player. Two different things.
Same could be said about TOI and ETOI. Concluding that leading a team in TOI/ETOI indicates #1 status at a position is just as faulty if we extend your reasoning.
Same could be said about TOI and ETOI. Concluding that leading a team in TOI/ETOI indicates #1 status at a position is just as faulty if we extend your reasoning.
not sure what you're talking about.
If you're saying I would call a guy with 27 minutes a game for 27 games the #1 defenseman over a guy who played 25 for a full season, you are mistaken. I would call the 25 minute guy the #1, but I would say the 27 minute guy was a "#1 when healthy".
If you're saying I would call a guy with 27 minutes a game for 27 games the #1 defenseman over a guy who played 25 for a full season, you are mistaken. I would call the 25 minute guy the #1, but I would say the 27 minute guy was a "#1 when healthy".
The basic point is that TOI or ETOI(estimated) has to reflect how the game was played/coached.
There are two situations O6/post 1967 expansion that I will use to illustrate.
O6 basically saw teams play with 4 defensemen with the 5th playing a swing role, rotating thru based on circumstances.
Rank the dmen 1,2,3,4, in terms of the team hierarchy. The coach would want his best two defensemen on the ice as much as possible. As a pairing they could not play 60 minutes but in the following pairing format:
#1 and #4, #2 and #3 it was possible to approach sixty minutes for the first two. This could produce situations where the first pairing #'s 1 and 4 would play app 31 minutes each, while the second pairing could play app 29 minutes each. This would not mean that the #4 was suddenly the #2 defenseman.
Post expansion produced interesting defensive pairings. Most of the defensmen available to the expansion teams were old, experienced whose time had to be managed. A Team with three old defencemen could break-in two young defensemen using the following rotation:
Old #'s 1,2,3, New #'s 4,5.
Basic rotation: 1/4,2/5/3/4,1/5,2/4,35, dropping down to 1/2, or 2/3 0r 1.3 at times. Point is that #'s 4 and 5 would see more TOI but that did not make them the #1 and #2.
The basic point is that TOI or ETOI(estimated) has to reflect how the game was played/coached.
There are two situations O6/post 1967 expansion that I will use to illustrate.
O6 basically saw teams play with 4 defensemen with the 5th playing a swing role, rotating thru based on circumstances.
Rank the dmen 1,2,3,4, in terms of the team hierarchy. The coach would want his best two defensemen on the ice as much as possible. As a pairing they could not play 60 minutes but in the following pairing format:
#1 and #4, #2 and #3 it was possible to approach sixty minutes for the first two. This could produce situations where the first pairing #'s 1 and 4 would play app 31 minutes each, while the second pairing could play app 29 minutes each. This would not mean that the #4 was suddenly the #2 defenseman.
Post expansion produced interesting defensive pairings. Most of the defensmen available to the expansion teams were old, experienced whose time had to be managed. A Team with three old defencemen could break-in two young defensemen using the following rotation:
Old #'s 1,2,3, New #'s 4,5.
Basic rotation: 1/4,2/5/3/4,1/5,2/4,35, dropping down to 1/2, or 2/3 0r 1.3 at times. Point is that #'s 4 and 5 would see more TOI but that did not make them the #1 and #2.
those situations are actually very rare in the modern game. Look at Don Sweeney as an example. He played with Bourque and you'd think that his TOI would come out 2nd on the team even though he was a #3-4 defenseman. But no, his TOI was actually 3rd-4th just like it belonged in the team hierarchy. The fact is, the superior player will always get more special teams time, and extra ES shifts with other partners (last minute, for example). Dallas Smith, as another example, was not near Orr's ice time despite being his partner.
those situations are actually very rare in the modern game. Look at Don Sweeney as an example. He played with Bourque and you'd think that his TOI would come out 2nd on the team even though he was a #3-4 defenseman. But no, his TOI was actually 3rd-4th just like it belonged in the team hierarchy. The fact is, the superior player will always get more special teams time, and extra ES shifts with other partners (last minute, for example). Dallas Smith, as another example, was not near Orr's ice time despite being his partner.
Take the modern game to mean the short shift game which changed the way the game was played/coached and included extra players on the roster.
Your analogies do not touch the O6 nor the post 1967 expansion. Boston was not an expansion team.
The players in the MLD that are effected are from the two eras above as specified.
#1 and #4, #2 and #3 it was possible to approach sixty minutes for the first two. This could produce situations where the first pairing #'s 1 and 4 would play app 31 minutes each, while the second pairing could play app 29 minutes each. This would not mean that the #4 was suddenly the #2 defenseman.
So in trying to get the #2 man the most minutes behind the #1 man, your hypothetical coach instead gives the #4 the most minutes behind the #1? That sounds like bad coaching.
Can you provide an actual example of this happening, instead of just making up numbers?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958
Basic rotation: 1/4,2/5/3/4,1/5,2/4,35, dropping down to 1/2, or 2/3 0r 1.3 at times. Point is that #'s 4 and 5 would see more TOI but that did not make them the #1 and #2.
Is there a useful definition of a #1 defenceman other than one that the coach plays the most? If he's not the #1, why does he play the most? That is, if a coach designs a rotation such that his purported #1 does not play the most, he should reject that rotation and design a new one.
Yet certain GMs pan the picks.
