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.

MLD 2012 Montagu Allan QF: Zambia Mania vs. Montreal Orfuns

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-07-2012, 12:26 AM
  #26
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
I'm actually going to stick up for Staal here, Dreakmur. He doesn't play "physical" as far as outwardly hitting people, but he is absolutely in my opinion one of the strongest players along the boards in the NHL. He plays very physical without thunderous hits I guess is kind of my point.
Fair enough.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 01:06 AM
  #27
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Discipline II and Position

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
As I said in the other post, you have to use the size effectively to put it to good use.

As for the actual size, you can't compare guys from the 1990s to guys from the 1920s. Size is relative. This is a good time to use our adjusted size chart. It's not an exact science, but it should help here.

Paul Haynes was 5'10" and 160 lbs, and was born in 1910. His adjusted size woud be 6'1" and 190 lbs.

Don Smith was 5'7" and 160 lbs, and was born 1888. His adjusted size would be 6'0" and 200 lbs.

Charlie Sands was 5'9" and 160 lbs, and was born in 1911. His adjusted size would be 6'0" and 190 lbs..

Todd Marchant is modern, so no need to adjust his 5'10" and 180 lbs.

Paul Haynes, Don Smith, and Charlie Sands were all about average for their era, so thay should be considered average in the ATD. Same goes for both Barry Pederson and Mike Ridley. All 5 of these centers are about the same size here (about 6' and about 200 lbs). Todd Marchant is smaller. Jordan Staal and Robert Lang are bigger.

As I said before, though, size only matters if it gets used. Montreal has the size edge, but Zambia has the toughness, aggressiveness, and grit edges. I realize there is more to hockey than fighting, but just to demonstrate my point.... if our centers had a 4 on 4 brawl, Zambia's smaller foursome would easily come out on top.



Again, there's quite a bit of docmented evidence than Paul Haynes and Don Smith were excellent skaters (both fast and quick).



The best way to counter puck-moving defensemen is to pressude them with an aggressive forecheck. Our team is built for that - we have a lot of quick and aggressive forwards. Since your puck-moving defensemen are rather small, huge forecheckers are not really necessary to knock them off the puck.



First of all, we don't really need to match anybody against Jordan Staal. He's not even close to a significant offensive threat.

Doug Young was 5'10" and 190 lbs, and Walt Buswell was 5'11" and 170 lbs, and they both played in the 1930s. The average size back then was probably 5'8" or 5'9" and 160-170 lbs. Doug Young was a little taller than average, but quite a bit thicker. Walt Buswell was about average weight, but quite tall. Mike Green, Miroslav Dvorak, and Scott Hannan are all around average size. Green and Streit defiantely won't be clearing creases, but the rest are fine or better. Buswell is kind of lanky, so he's not built for it, but he was a great defensive guy, so he'd be solid. Dvorak, Young, and Hannan are all powerfully built guys, and will have no issue moving bodies around.

Furthermore, our "smallish" goalie was actually huge for his era. 5'11" in 1902 is like 6'4" or 6'5" today. Not only is our goalie nothing close to small, he's also vicious... we're talking Brian Hextall style crease-clearing.
Being the forerunner to Ron Hextall is not exactly the best possible endorsemrnt.

Charlie Sands had his most successful seasons at RW:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...sandsch01.html

Paul Haynes was dumped by the Maroons in late 1934. Team won the 1935 SC while Haynes was in Boston as the fourth center:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...haynepa01.html

behind Max Kaminsky of all centers.

Haynes was serviceable on so-so teams. Eddie Gerard, Cecil Hart systems fit his limited talents. Your coach is Bun Cook, old Ranger.

Forecheckers - you do not have enough forecheckers who can skate well enough. Todd Marchant and who else - perhaps Jimmy Ward? Jimmy Roberts was used in a trailer role by the Canadiens, Vanek is not known as a strong forechecker, Sands, as a winger, and Sandford benefitted from the smaller Boston rink.

With the exception of Brad Marsh the Orfuns defensemen can move the puck very effectively or better.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 01:16 AM
  #28
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,988
vCash: 500
Larose finishing 25th in points (which would be closer to 40th if the schedule was 100% balanced between expansion and O6 teams) is a higher peak than finishing 8th in points? huh?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 01:30 AM
  #29
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Context

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Yes, Paul Haynes and his career high of 27 PIMs and 164 total career PIMs shows a clear lack of discipline.

Furthermore, defending yourself in a brawl isn't the same as lack of disipline. Both of their "duels" were with noted goons.



Larose played in 2 of his 4 All-Star games because he played for the Canadiens. Like one of Sandford's, these are basically worthless.

For Larose's actual EARNED all-stars, he was in the much weaker West division, which was equally represented. There were some very good RWs in Larose's time but he never competed for votes with those guys. Here are the All-Star RWs from Larose's divison in his 2 All-Star games:
1969 - Ken Schinkel, Bill Hicke, and Jimmy Roberts.
1970 - Bill Goldsworthym, Jimmy Roberts, Gary Sabourin, Frank St. Marseille.

I'm sure people must be wondering who the LWs were in the early 50s who Sandford competed with for his 4 EARNED all-star teams.... here are a few good guys off the top of my head... Ted Lindsay, Dickie Moore, Doug Bentley, Sid Smith, Harry Watson, and Dean Prentice.



There's a big difference between 40 assists in the 1920s, the 1950s, the 1990s, and the 2000s. Raw point totals are basically irrelevant in this setting. Where they placed vs their peers is what matters.

Shane Corson's 31 goal season in 1990 is a good example. It sound way better than Ed Sandford's 16 goals in 1949. Look at it in context, and Sandford's season was actually better.

Corson was 44th in goals, and had 50% as many as 2nd place Steve Yzerman.
Sandford was 23rd in goals, and had 62% as many as 2nd place Ted Lindsay.



That's true, but I never questioned his defensive game. I said he was not an offensive threat, and he's not. That's why he should be used in a defensive role.

He is not equiped to handle top-6 duty. He is basically a zero in terms if playmaking, and his best goalscoring percentages are 58, 50, 48, 41
Yet the percentage of players involved in stick swinging incidents is very small, probably < 1% yet your team has admitted to 3 out of 24 or 12.5%.

Bentley was well past prime, while Moore and Prentice were pre prime. O6 era, 1/3 of the players every season played in the ASG regardless.

We are not comparing Sandford to Corson. Although the 1949 season is interesting since Ed Sanford played Center that season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BOS/1949.html

Again we are looking at a two position player who was out of the NHL by the age of 28.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 08:23 AM
  #30
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Being the forerunner to Ron Hextall is not exactly the best possible endorsemrnt.

Charlie Sands had his most successful seasons at RW:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...sandsch01.html

Paul Haynes was dumped by the Maroons in late 1934. Team won the 1935 SC while Haynes was in Boston as the fourth center:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...haynepa01.html

behind Max Kaminsky of all centers.

Haynes was serviceable on so-so teams. Eddie Gerard, Cecil Hart systems fit his limited talents. Your coach is Bun Cook, old Ranger.

Forecheckers - you do not have enough forecheckers who can skate well enough. Todd Marchant and who else - perhaps Jimmy Ward? Jimmy Roberts was used in a trailer role by the Canadiens, Vanek is not known as a strong forechecker, Sands, as a winger, and Sandford benefitted from the smaller Boston rink.

With the exception of Brad Marsh the Orfuns defensemen can move the puck very effectively or better.
Yeah, Haynes was dumped... And then went on to be on of the best playmakers in the league over the next half decade.

Forecheckers would be...
Haynes and Ward on the first line.
Smith, Sandford, and Wiseman on the second line.
Sands, Gilmour, and Sullivan on the 3rd line.
Marchant, Roberts, and Maloney on the 4th.
There is no shortage of forechecking forwards on Zambia.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 08:27 AM
  #31
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yet the percentage of players involved in stick swinging incidents is very small, probably < 1% yet your team has admitted to 3 out of 24 or 12.5%.

Bentley was well past prime, while Moore and Prentice were pre prime. O6 era, 1/3 of the players every season played in the ASG regardless.

We are not comparing Sandford to Corson. Although the 1949 season is interesting since Ed Sanford played Center that season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/BOS/1949.html

Again we are looking at a two position player who was out of the NHL by the age of 28.
Sands and Sandford excelled at every forward position. That's a positive, not a negative!

Why aren't we comparing Corson and Sandford? They serve the same role on the same line...

It would have been nice if they played past 28, but if they can accomplish more in 10 years than somebody else can in 20, they are still the better player.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 09:32 AM
  #32
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Comparables

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Sands and Sandford excelled at every forward position. That's a positive, not a negative!

Why aren't we comparing Corson and Sandford? They serve the same role on the same line...

It would have been nice if they played past 28, but if they can accomplish more in 10 years than somebody else can in 20, they are still the better player.
There is a bit, significant bit, of exaggeration about Haynes, Sandford and Sands

Paul Haynes was a junior boxing champion at Loyola,a private high school. Not Senior, not Golden Gloves, not City of Montreal. Equivalent of leading a minor Bantam A league in scoring.

Playing the adjusted scoring game is interesting for Haynes:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...haynepa01.html

You have a nice 90 pt adjusted season but that is app 50% better than any other adjusted season for Haynes and roughly five times his valley seasons when adjusted. Hardley a sign of excelling.

Charlie Sands :

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...sandsch01.html

playing the adjusted game, again you have a peak of 52 points with some 20 point seasons surrounding weak playmaking skills.
So you have a non-playmaking center playing out of position.

Ed Sandford :

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...sandfed01.html


Playing the adjusted game again, you have a player that has one season better than Ron Murphy, not drafted in the MLD but Sandford lacks the overall longevity or consistency.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...murphro01.html

Throw in Real Chevrefils - 1956-57 2nd AST

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...murphro01.html

and you have an interesting choice, talent with baggage, longevity, or short career with one promising and one 2nd AST season.

Shayne Corson, compared to any of the above, using adjusted numbers has 3 seasons, of 60+ points, more than the above combined, plus Corson's playoff numbers were better than his regular season:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...corsosh01.html

Sandford had one outlier playoff season skewing his numbers upwards while Sands and Haynes were below.

The Orfuns top three centers were significantly better playoff performers than the Mania top 3 centers.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 10:24 AM
  #33
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 500
Do you know the exact math that goes into adjusting point totals?

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 10:31 AM
  #34
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,115
vCash: 500
I'm not going to go through your post line by line, but it's interesting you skip right from Charlie Sands' adjusted 52 point season to his 20s, completely ignoring his 50 and 48 adjusted point seasons

Your criticism of players from the 30s doesnt acknowledge the drastic effect that role had in affecting point totals. It was common for two-way guys to have their scoring decrease by 75% when they moved from scoring to checking lines. At the time - scoring lines scored and checking lines checked. The most famous example of this I can think of is Ken Mosdell from the 1940s:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...mosdeke01.html. I obviously don't think players should get credit for numbers they didn't put up, but I also don't think they should be criticized for being inconsistent when their point totals fluctuate due to changing roles, as was common during the era

I think guys who clearly showed they could excel at both roles should be considered "two way players" under the modern game.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-07-2012 at 10:42 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 11:03 AM
  #35
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,988
vCash: 500
Although I still find the assertion that Larose "peaked higher" than Sandford to be bordering on ridiculous, there are definitely redeeming qualities in Larose's favour that may make him a more attractive player:

- peak seasons aside, his adjusted production is very similar
- he played in the NHL almost twice as long*
- his defensive reputation is just as strong or stronger (isn't it?)
- he was a contributor to very strong teams, winning five cups,
- his production with a weaker team for one season in his prime suggests that being on a stronger team hindered his production, and his numbers don't truly reflect his talent level.

* now the asterisk is, expansion obviously contributed to him playing in the NHL for longer, as it did for a multitude of other players. The question is, how much did it help? As of 1968, he was a part-time Hab who actually spent 10 games in the minors. Without the trade to Minnesota that apparently revitalized him and made him an attractive acquisition once again for the habs, does he get stuck in the minors forever? (probably not, but it's something his GM should at least have to answer for)

The Ron Murphy comparison is also interesting. Murphy did outproduce Sandford and for much longer, but hasn't been a very popular MLD/AAA player. Part of it is because we know so little about what non-offense value he brought to the table. If he was your standard up-and-down winger who played responsible and reasonably physical hockey, then he was just as valuable as Sandford but for longer (save for one spike playoff).

Sandford seems like a really poor man's Harry Watson but I'm having a hard time determining just how poor.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 11:07 AM
  #36
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,115
vCash: 500
How many All Star games did Ron Murphy get into based on merit? Sandford got into 4.

Edit: just looked it up. The answer appears to be none.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 11:13 AM
  #37
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
How many All Star games did Ron Murphy get into based on merit? Sandford got into 4.

Edit: just looked it up. The answer appears to be none.
haha, i swear I meant to include that at the end of that post. The all-star games are the red herring here. If you completely ignore them, then you really start to wonder if he was any better than Murphy. If you don't, then it starts to look more like he was.

Keep in mind this was a pretty weak time for forwards beyond the top few (recall the example of Harry Watson consistently finishing top-20 in goals despite relatively brutal percentage scores), and getting into the ASG was only an indication of being in the league's top-20-or-so forwards.

I'm not trying to say it is meaningless, it means something, but how much, exactly?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 12:31 PM
  #38
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Claude Larose

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Although I still find the assertion that Larose "peaked higher" than Sandford to be bordering on ridiculous, there are definitely redeeming qualities in Larose's favour that may make him a more attractive player:

- peak seasons aside, his adjusted production is very similar
- he played in the NHL almost twice as long*
- his defensive reputation is just as strong or stronger (isn't it?)
- he was a contributor to very strong teams, winning five cups,
- his production with a weaker team for one season in his prime suggests that being on a stronger team hindered his production, and his numbers don't truly reflect his talent level.

* now the asterisk is, expansion obviously contributed to him playing in the NHL for longer, as it did for a multitude of other players. The question is, how much did it help? As of 1968, he was a part-time Hab who actually spent 10 games in the minors. Without the trade to Minnesota that apparently revitalized him and made him an attractive acquisition once again for the habs, does he get stuck in the minors forever? (probably not, but it's something his GM should at least have to answer for)

The Ron Murphy comparison is also interesting. Murphy did outproduce Sandford and for much longer, but hasn't been a very popular MLD/AAA player. Part of it is because we know so little about what non-offense value he brought to the table. If he was your standard up-and-down winger who played responsible and reasonably physical hockey, then he was just as valuable as Sandford but for longer (save for one spike playoff).

Sandford seems like a really poor man's Harry Watson but I'm having a hard time determining just how poor.
Claude Larose was sent to the minors for 10 games during the 1967-68 to rehab an injury. The Canadiens post 1967 expansion had Bobby Rousseau, Claude Provost plus a maturing Yvan Cournoyer on RW plus a promising Mickey Redmond. He came back and contributed a solid playoff for a 4th RW - 5 pts in 12 games.

Factor out the injury season - 1967-68 and Larose strings together a five year peak that Sanford cannot match. Sanford gets the benefit of the same consideration for his injury season, 1949-50.

Sanford is getting a lot of mileage from one playoff spike that was strong but not as strong as Marcel Bonin in 1959. Bonin had better regular seasons with SC teams - Detroit and Montreal:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...boninma01.html

Poor man's Harry Watson? More accurate description would be a lite, non-winning version of Harry Watson, Marcel Bonin.

Sanford did not last with a SC team - Detroit, quickly moved to Chicago, then out of the league in a season.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 12:40 PM
  #39
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
1930s

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm not going to go through your post line by line, but it's interesting you skip right from Charlie Sands' adjusted 52 point season to his 20s, completely ignoring his 50 and 48 adjusted point seasons

Your criticism of players from the 30s doesnt acknowledge the drastic effect that role had in affecting point totals. It was common for two-way guys to have their scoring decrease by 75% when they moved from scoring to checking lines. At the time - scoring lines scored and checking lines checked. The most famous example of this I can think of is Ken Mosdell from the 1940s:
http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...mosdeke01.html. I obviously don't think players should get credit for numbers they didn't put up, but I also don't think they should be criticized for being inconsistent when their point totals fluctuate due to changing roles, as was common during the era

I think guys who clearly showed they could excel at both roles should be considered "two way players" under the modern game.
1930's - Johnny Gottselig and Mush March from the Hawks were flatliners in this regard.They excelled. There would be others from other teams. Sands and Haynes were basically filler or moveable parts type players who did not excel. Eddie Wiseman would be an example of a player reaching the Gottselig/March level but he is not being put at center.

Ken Mosdell, 1940s' a stint in the minors and injuries not roles impacted his numbers.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 12:42 PM
  #40
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
1930's - Johnny Gottselig and Mush March from the Hawks were flatliners in this regard.They excelled. There would be others from other teams. Sands and Haynes were basically filler or moveable parts type players who did not excel. Eddie Wiseman would be an example of a player reaching the Gottselig/March level but he is not being put at center.

Ken Mosdell, 1940s' a stint in the minors and injuries not roles impacted his numbers.
Gottselig and March spent most of their careers on the top scoring line of an offensively challenged team.

Not comparable in any way. My point was specifically about guys who were moved from scoring to checking lines. Pit Lepine is another good example

Quote:
Sanford is getting a lot of mileage from one playoff spike that was strong but not as strong as Marcel Bonin in 1959. Bonin had better regular seasons with SC teams - Detroit and Montreal
The commission appointed by the HHOF committee disagrees with you, as they awarded Sandford the retroactive Conn Smythe for his big playoffs. Of course, that is only one small part of his resume.

I also don't know why you are bringing up Bonin, who is always drafted in the main draft


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-07-2012 at 12:52 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 12:58 PM
  #41
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,527
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Gottselig and March spent most of their careers on the top scoring line of an offensively challenged team.
Gottselig spent the heart of his career playing behind Paul Thompson.

Chicago was a bit of a different case, because they tended to spread out the scoring more than most teams. Toronto, Detroit, and other teams would give their top line the best opportunities to score, but Chicago rolled three lines more evenly, starting in the 1929-30 season. Look at the scoring distributions of the forwards within teams.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 01:36 PM
  #42
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,115
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Gottselig spent the heart of his career playing behind Paul Thompson.

Chicago was a bit of a different case, because they tended to spread out the scoring more than most teams. Toronto, Detroit, and other teams would give their top line the best opportunities to score, but Chicago rolled three lines more evenly, starting in the 1929-30 season. Look at the scoring distributions of the forwards within teams.
Right. Refreshing my memory with the Marsh profile i made earlier in the year, Marsh was basically the "glue guy" of the top line with Thompson and Romnes, though those two were later replaced by Gottselig and Dahlstrom. Regardless, neither played significant time as a pure checker

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 01:48 PM
  #43
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Claude Larose was sent to the minors for 10 games during the 1967-68 to rehab an injury. The Canadiens post 1967 expansion had Bobby Rousseau, Claude Provost plus a maturing Yvan Cournoyer on RW plus a promising Mickey Redmond. He came back and contributed a solid playoff for a 4th RW - 5 pts in 12 games.

Factor out the injury season - 1967-68 and Larose strings together a five year peak that Sanford cannot match. Sanford gets the benefit of the same consideration for his injury season, 1949-50.
If you are referring to 1965 through 1970, yeah, I can see that his production was fairly close to a Sanford level on the aggregate.

My beef was with you saying he "peaked higher" when he obviously didn't, though you have shone light on the fact that they are much closer than anyone apparently ever thought before.

Quote:
Sanford is getting a lot of mileage from one playoff spike that was strong
That is true, he does.

Quote:
Poor man's Harry Watson? More accurate description would be a lite, non-winning version of Harry Watson, Marcel Bonin.
that sounds like just a rewording of what I said.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 02:25 PM
  #44
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,903
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Sanford is getting a lot of mileage from one playoff spike that was strong.
That is true, but he's got a lot of other good things on his resume - 2nd team all-star and 4 earned all-star games.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 03:01 PM
  #45
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Team Success

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Gottselig and March spent most of their careers on the top scoring line of an offensively challenged team.

Not comparable in any way. My point was specifically about guys who were moved from scoring to checking lines. Pit Lepine is another good example



The commission appointed by the HHOF committee disagrees with you, as they awarded Sandford the retroactive Conn Smythe for his big playoffs. Of course, that is only one small part of his resume.

I also don't know why you are bringing up Bonin, who is always drafted in the main draft
Pit Lepine was as good offensively as his wingers. His defensive game was a constant.

The retro Conn Smythe is rather iffy. Ed Sanford had a great semi final against Detroit then disappeared in the last three games against Montreal 0G/0A:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin/hsppogames.cgi

Bonin shows the impact a player in the 450-550 GP range could have on team success. Like Larose, Bonin was sent down for a few games at the start of a regular season - 1958-59, before coming back then having a solid or great playoff.

That Bonin gets drafted in the ATD while Sandford does not shows the perception of value that Sandford actually carries and that counting ASG appearances is not an indicator.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 03:01 PM
  #46
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,988
vCash: 500
Just a note, not really an indictment of Sandford, but can you believe where he and Nick Mickoski used to be selected?

Sandford: 708, 608, 621, 677, 740
Mickoski: 1117, 1050, 877, 1125, 1088

Why was this happening? In any case, it’s good to see they both got the rises and falls they deserved (relative to eachother, at least)

If I erase canon from my head as best as I can, and forget that Sandford is a veteran of five ATDs, I can’t really see what would make me take him over Mickoski. (yeah, the all-star games are one thing)

And it’s not like these two players would be difficult to compare, either: Their careers overlapped entirely.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 03:11 PM
  #47
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Relative

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
If you are referring to 1965 through 1970, yeah, I can see that his production was fairly close to a Sanford level on the aggregate.

My beef was with you saying he "peaked higher" when he obviously didn't, though you have shone light on the fact that they are much closer than anyone apparently ever thought before.



That is true, he does.



that sounds like just a rewording of what I said.
Yes., 1965-70. Peak? Again factor in opportunity - Sandford was basically a 1st second liner all the time while Larose was a 3rd/4th liner with Montreal and a 1st/2nd with Minnesota. Overall Larose looks better and better.

Re Harry Watson. You had Sandford approaching the grey area, potential HHOF, Duff/Prentice level. I put him at the lower end of the grouping at the Bonin/Murphy level.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 03:32 PM
  #48
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,964
vCash: 500
Danny Lewicki/Johnny Wilson

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Just a note, not really an indictment of Sandford, but can you believe where he and Nick Mickoski used to be selected?

Sandford: 708, 608, 621, 677, 740
Mickoski: 1117, 1050, 877, 1125, 1088

Why was this happening? In any case, itís good to see they both got the rises and falls they deserved (relative to eachother, at least)

If I erase canon from my head as best as I can, and forget that Sandford is a veteran of five ATDs, I canít really see what would make me take him over Mickoski. (yeah, the all-star games are one thing)

And itís not like these two players would be difficult to compare, either: Their careers overlapped entirely.
Mickoski had a longer career with weaker teams. Throw in Danny Lewicki who replaced Sandford on the 2nd AST for 1954-55:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lewicda01.html

and Johnny Wilson:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...wilsojo01.html

Then look at the 1955-56 Chicago Black Hawks:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1956.html

LWs were Mickoski, Johnny Wilson, Harry Watson, Ed Sandford. Watson was 32 years old, while the other 3 ranged from 26-28.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 04:37 PM
  #49
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,988
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yes., 1965-70. Peak? Again factor in opportunity - Sandford was basically a 1st second liner all the time while Larose was a 3rd/4th liner with Montreal and a 1st/2nd with Minnesota. Overall Larose looks better and better.
If you look at the four seasons in which he had more than 25 points, it appears he was a first liner in just one: 1954.

In 1949 he was a center and clearly behind Ronty. In 1953 he was most likely playing behind Chevrefils. In 1954 I think he definitely was.

Quote:
Re Harry Watson. You had Sandford approaching the grey area, potential HHOF, Duff/Prentice level. I put him at the lower end of the grouping at the Bonin/Murphy level.
No, not at all. Considering Watson, one of my favourite historical players, is an admittedly very weak HHOFer, and I called Sandford ďa very poor manís Harry WatsonĒ, I donít have him approaching any gray, potential HHOF area. Duff and Prentice are on a whole other level, much more established offensively and with similar defensive and physical abilities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Mickoski had a longer career with weaker teams. Throw in Danny Lewicki who replaced Sandford on the 2nd AST for 1954-55:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...lewicda01.html
Lewicki was small, soft, offense-only and not known for defense. Apples and oranges. Not interested in him.

Quote:
and Johnny Wilson:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...wilsojo01.html

Then look at the 1955-56 Chicago Black Hawks:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/teams/CBH/1956.html

LWs were Mickoski, Johnny Wilson, Harry Watson, Ed Sandford. Watson was 32 years old, while the other 3 ranged from 26-28.
Thatís kind of amazing that they had all four of those guys at once, considering I see them as somewhat of a prototype for two-way 2nd line O6 LWs. I think Watson is sort of the ďkingĒ of that group of players, followed by Wilson, and then after that I donít think weíve properly sorted out the likes of Mickoski, Sandford and throw Ron Murphy into that mix as well.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-07-2012, 05:25 PM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,115
vCash: 500
If Mickoski and Sandford played at the same time, isn't it pretty important that Sandford has a 4-1 edge in earned All Star games? Shows who people who watched them valued more. I had Mickoski last draft, and the objective evidence in favor of Sandford is quite a bit stronger.

That said, we are missing what's most important. Compared to both of them, Shane Corson is a no talent ass clown

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 10:19 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.