HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
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
09-09-2012, 08:33 AM
  #101
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Pontificating

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
And what would the effect be? If all players would be impacted equally, then the rankings for that era just stay the same.... and Moran remains an elite goalie.



Al Rollins had two seasons with a respectable GAA. Both of those seasons were with the defensive juggernaught Maple Leafs. Once we went to a weaker team, his GAA was no longer respectable.

Dominik Hasek is the best goalie of all time. I don't think he should be the measuring stick, but he still played for defensive-minded teams.

Roy Worters was also an exceptional goalie, but he still only managed to put up a handful of seasons with a respectable GAA. He was regarded as an elite goalie, and maybe even the best of his time, but he often had poor GAAs.

As for the reason that Paddy Moran slipped to the MLD, I would say that it was simply a lack of knowledge about him. Now that a proper bio has been done on the guy, he'll never fall to the MLD again.



Especially when they prove how useless your raw stats are....



This draft ignores upside. There is no projection.
You don't know what the future holds any more than anybody else does. For that reason, it was decided long ago that the ATDs and MLDs will ignore any future a player may or may not have.

The fact that Quick will probably add to his resume over the next few years is meaningless. He hasn't done it yet, so we ignore it. That's why I said it's best to just assume they are dead.



The biographies that TDMM and I created show exactly what our players can do.

Here's your quick analysis of each team's top-6 forwards....

Vanek-Haynes-Ward vs. Courtnall-Pederson-Harris
- the centers are close, but Pederson's edge in offensive skills outweigh Haynes' well-rounded play
- Vanek is a much better scorer than Courtnall, and that's pretty much all they bring to the table
- Ward is much better than Harris in every aspect of the game I can think of

Sandford-Smith-Wiseman vs. Corson-Staal-Courtnall
- Smith's scoring power outweight's Staal's defensive skills
- Sandford and Corson are quite comparable
- Wiseman is a much better offensive player than Courtnall
Pontificating again.Unsupported pronouncements from the mount.

Yet you are projecting Moran back into the ATD and TDMM is projecting him as a possible top 40. The results are definitely set in advance. Soviet election style. Waste of time. Your contradictions are rather obvious.

Pederson also received Selke consideration a few times, brought toughness - 21 career fights and was a playmaker who had an incredible upward bump in his playoff performance.Big edge to Pederson.

Vanek is a slightly better goal scorer than Geoff Courtnall, nowhere near the playmaker that Courtnall was, Vanek G>A, Courtnall G<A. Courtnall was much better defensively and brought toughness and corner work, 9 seasons with 100+ PIMs. Vanek is slightly better than soft. Advantage Courtnall.

Ward, adjusted slightly better than Harris during the regular season but had a huge drop in his playoff performance.Raw, Ward RS 274PTS/527 games, PO 8PTS/36 games. Harris 558PTS/897 Games, 38PTS/ 71 PO games. No adjustment will change the significant drop in Ward's PO performance. Wash, slight edge Harris.

Sanford was a Boston Garden small rink performer. Supported by at least 2-3 HHOF quality defensemen - Boivin,Flaman,Quackenbush. Washed out in Detroit very quickly - bigger rink,moved to Chicago in a trade of washed up players and then left the NHL. Corson could skate and play effectively on a standard NHL rink. Big edge to Corson.

Donald Smith. Hockey journeyman, moved from team to team at the pro level almost every year. Your bio is full of contradictions. One quote calls him a clean player, yet one speaks of his fighting prowess and another mentions his stick swinging.

Most telling is that Lester Patrick wanted to cut his salary. Clear indication that his liabilities far out weighed his contributions. That he regularly changed teams supports this view. Staal may not have his scoring, since he never played with scoring linemates but he has played Kopitar at worst even head to head and is viewed as a keeper, something that no one could say about Donald Smith.

Russ Courtnall and Eddie Wiseman are a wash. Both could score, were good playmakers for RWs, solid defensively, could not be intimidated.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 09:55 AM
  #102
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,262
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Finally catching on. Other GMs drafted Hy Buller and Hugh Bolton. who played fewer games in the fifties than the equivalent of four seasons. I did not because there were better players available at that position.

Point is that my picks Karlsson and Quick face ageism discrimination while Bolton and Buller actually get venerated as good picks. Karlsson's achievements already are worth more than Buller's or Bolton's by any metric imaginable but he gets marked down unfairly because of the length of his career.
I actually criticized the Bolton pick with this very specific point, "he only played 3 full seasons. Would you think an active player who only played 3 full seasons was a good pick?" I think someone else even compared him to Letang

As for Buller, he had a long career as a top player in the O6-era AHL before his brief NHL career. GMs are divided as to how much to credit him for that. I know my co-GM gives him a lot more credit than I do.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 10:20 AM
  #103
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Talent

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I actually criticized the Bolton pick with this very specific point, "he only played 3 full seasons. Would you think an active player who only played 3 full seasons was a good pick?" I think someone else even compared him to Letang

As for Buller, he had a long career as a top player in the O6-era AHL before his brief NHL career. GMs are divided as to how much to credit him for that. I know my co-GM gives him a lot more credit than I do.
Point is that GMs should have the ability to recognize talent regardless of the number of seasons played and judge it strictly as such.

Allan "Scotty" Davidson is a prime example. Two year career ended by WWI. Great pick, should be a ATD player. Moose Watson never played in the NHL but gets a lot of favourable projection for no logical reason.

In the same light Frank Mathers and Steve Kraftcheck had longer and better AHL careers. While Murray Henderson and Frank Eddolls had longer and better NHL or total careers. So the Bolton and Buller picks may be challenged on a strict talent basis.

Still Davidson is not a victim of ageism but my players are. I can evaluate Davidson and others strictly on talent. The other GMs inevitably fall in the age argument when talking about my young or still active players.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-09-2012 at 10:34 AM. Reason: addition
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 06:26 PM
  #104
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yet you are projecting Moran back into the ATD and TDMM is projecting him as a possible top 40. The results are definitely set in advance. Soviet election style. Waste of time. Your contradictions are rather obvious.
You do understand that there is a difference between making assumptions about what a player may or may not accomplish in the future and making an assumption about where a player will be drafted in future drafts, right?

Quote:
Pederson also received Selke consideration a few times, brought toughness - 21 career fights and was a playmaker who had an incredible upward bump in his playoff performance.Big edge to Pederson.
A handful of Selke votes through a whole career doesn't show very much without some anecdodat evidence to back it up.

Toughness appears to be on a similar level.

As for Pederson's play-offs, you are going a bit overboard, but you are correct in pointing out that he is likely a better play-off scorer than Haynes.

While I will agree that Pederson is better than Haynes, I think it's important to also point out that Pederson is by far his line's best player, while Haynes is probably his lines weakest.

Quote:
Vanek is a slightly better goal scorer than Geoff Courtnall, nowhere near the playmaker that Courtnall was, Vanek G>A, Courtnall G<A. Courtnall was much better defensively and brought toughness and corner work, 9 seasons with 100+ PIMs. Vanek is slightly better than soft. Advantage Courtnall.
Vanek is a much better scorer than Geoff Courtnall. Courtnall's best seasons are 15th and 17th in league goalscoring, and his next best season wasn't even close to a top-20. That means that Vanek has 4 seasons that are more impressive than anything Courtnall ever accomplished. Their goalscoring abilities are not even close.

Quote:
Ward, adjusted slightly better than Harris during the regular season but had a huge drop in his playoff performance.Raw, Ward RS 274PTS/527 games, PO 8PTS/36 games. Harris 558PTS/897 Games, 38PTS/ 71 PO games. No adjustment will change the significant drop in Ward's PO performance. Wash, slight edge Harris.
Harris's best offensive season landed him 32nd in league scoring. He was never again in the top-40. Even if you're looking at offense only, Ward is the far superior player.

That completely ignores the fact that Ward's offensive abilities were probably the weakest part of his game.

Quote:
Sanford was a Boston Garden small rink performer. Supported by at least 2-3 HHOF quality defensemen - Boivin,Flaman,Quackenbush. Washed out in Detroit very quickly - bigger rink,moved to Chicago in a trade of washed up players and then left the NHL. Corson could skate and play effectively on a standard NHL rink. Big edge to Corson.
Corson had a longer career, but at their best, Sandford was easily the better of the two. If you like longevity, Corson is your man. If you like peak, you go for Sandford.

If I was in your shoes, however, and my #1 goalie and #1 defenseman were essenstially one-year-wonders, I wouldn't really be pushing too much to convince people that longevity was important.

Quote:
Donald Smith. Hockey journeyman, moved from team to team at the pro level almost every year. Your bio is full of contradictions. One quote calls him a clean player, yet one speaks of his fighting prowess and another mentions his stick swinging.
Donald Smith was a key player everywhere he went. Like your 1st line winger, Geoff Courtnall, players don't move around because they are not wanted - they move around because they are wanted. In the early eras especially, players moved all over the place to follow the money.

Just because he was known as a clean player doesn't mean he didn't defend himself when needed. Regardless of what you take from the quotes, you can't deny his offensive abilities. You're a big raw numbers guy, so here are Donald Smith's - 191 goals in 185 games.

Quote:
Russ Courtnall and Eddie Wiseman are a wash. Both could score, were good playmakers for RWs, solid defensively, could not be intimidated.
Russ Courtnall could score.... just not well enough to ever crack the top-20 in the league.

He was a better playmaker than scorer, but Wiseman is a much better playmaker.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 08:10 PM
  #105
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Perceptions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
You do understand that there is a difference between making assumptions about what a player may or may not accomplish in the future and making an assumption about where a player will be drafted in future drafts, right?



A handful of Selke votes through a whole career doesn't show very much without some anecdodat evidence to back it up.

Toughness appears to be on a similar level.

As for Pederson's play-offs, you are going a bit overboard, but you are correct in pointing out that he is likely a better play-off scorer than Haynes.

While I will agree that Pederson is better than Haynes, I think it's important to also point out that Pederson is by far his line's best player, while Haynes is probably his lines weakest.



Vanek is a much better scorer than Geoff Courtnall. Courtnall's best seasons are 15th and 17th in league goalscoring, and his next best season wasn't even close to a top-20. That means that Vanek has 4 seasons that are more impressive than anything Courtnall ever accomplished. Their goalscoring abilities are not even close.



Harris's best offensive season landed him 32nd in league scoring. He was never again in the top-40. Even if you're looking at offense only, Ward is the far superior player.

That completely ignores the fact that Ward's offensive abilities were probably the weakest part of his game.



Corson had a longer career, but at their best, Sandford was easily the better of the two. If you like longevity, Corson is your man. If you like peak, you go for Sandford.

If I was in your shoes, however, and my #1 goalie and #1 defenseman were essenstially one-year-wonders, I wouldn't really be pushing too much to convince people that longevity was important.



Donald Smith was a key player everywhere he went. Like your 1st line winger, Geoff Courtnall, players don't move around because they are not wanted - they move around because they are wanted. In the early eras especially, players moved all over the place to follow the money.

Just because he was known as a clean player doesn't mean he didn't defend himself when needed. Regardless of what you take from the quotes, you can't deny his offensive abilities. You're a big raw numbers guy, so here are Donald Smith's - 191 goals in 185 games.



Russ Courtnall could score.... just not well enough to ever crack the top-20 in the league.

He was a better playmaker than scorer, but Wiseman is a much better playmaker.
Soviets claimed they were a democracy also.

You focus only on scoring, ignoring the complete game that a good line requires. Vanek only brings scoring, Geoff Courtnall brings board work, toughness defense. Harris brings a complete game. Point is that a line has to be complete. No one criticizes the Cashman/ Esposito/Hodge line because Cashman did not rank highly in the league scoring. The Orfuns' first line is as complete as possible for this level.

Barry Pederson's defensive attributes. He was regularly assigned the number one center with the Canucks - Hawerchuk, Savard, Gretzky, Peter Stastny etc and post Kasper injury Bruins:

Dale Hawerchuk:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mPmqk3G6j4

Trust you can support similar defensive claims about your players with specifics as opposed to generalities.

Donald Smith was Odie Cleghorn very light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odie_Cleghorn

PCHA season he was at the Sibby Nichols level, above Ken Mallen. Neither was drafted in the MLD. Smith never played on a SC winner.
He moved around because his numbers were readily replaceable. Benefitted from playing with HHOFers - Rowe,Lalonde,Pitre, and others.Far from your claim of a key player.

With Pederson and Staal we have the strength down the middle vital to winning.

Your ageism is becoming a joke.

Start with goalies. The following dynasties were based on young goalies stepping up or replacing veterans. Sawchuk in Detroit, Plante in Montreal, Dryden in Montreal, Smith with the Islanders, Fuhr with the Oilers. The you have goalies that won young en route to great careers, Roy, Brodeur.

Karlsson as #1 is well matched and surrounded by veterans. Similar to other great defensemen who impressed early Chelios had the same partner with the Canadiens.

Great teams blend youth and longevity. 1958 - Canadiens after winning their third cup renewed the team. Dropping veterans like St. Laurent and Olmstead. Our team is very solid and well structured.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 09:11 PM
  #106
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
You focus only on scoring, ignoring the complete game that a good line requires. Vanek only brings scoring, Geoff Courtnall brings board work, toughness defense. Harris brings a complete game. Point is that a line has to be complete. No one criticizes the Cashman/ Esposito/Hodge line because Cashman did not rank highly in the league scoring. The Orfuns' first line is as complete as possible for this level.
Haynes and Ward bring all the intangibles needed for the line. Vanek plays the slot and scores the goal.

Quote:
Barry Pederson's defensive attributes. He was regularly assigned the number one center with the Canucks - Hawerchuk, Savard, Gretzky, Peter Stastny etc and post Kasper injury Bruins:
In vancouver, he started with the match-ups, but he quickly lost that job to more capable players as he proved he couldn't do it. In boston, he immediately lost the job when the best option returned.

Even if your claims are true, which the statistical evidence doesn't fully suppoer, what does it actially prove? It proves that he was the best option, but once again we come back to context. Who were the other options on your team? How did you compare to the rest of the league?

Quote:
Trust you can support similar defensive claims about your players with specifics as opposed to generalities.
I realize it might not be the most conventional place to put stuff like that, but I'd start by first looking in the profiles we linked to each player.

Quote:
Donald Smith was Odie Cleghorn very light:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odie_Cleghorn

PCHA season he was at the Sibby Nichols level, above Ken Mallen. Neither was drafted in the MLD. Smith never played on a SC winner.
He moved around because his numbers were readily replaceable. Benefitted from playing with HHOFers - Rowe,Lalonde,Pitre, and others.Far from your claim of a key player.
Odie Cleghorn is a borderline 1st liner in the main draft, so it's hard to believe I need to defend that comparison.

His season in the PCHA was similar to Sibby Nichols, but Smith was able to play at that level for more than twice as long.

As for Bobby Rowe, I'm sure the one season he played with Smith had a huge impact on his career. With Lalonde, Smith did finish behind him in 1913, but then led the Habs in scoring the next season. He led his team in scoring half-a-dozen times over his career, so he definately was the key player that I am portraying him to be. Don't take my word though - there are some contemporary reports in his biography.

Quote:
Your ageism is becoming a joke.
You can call it whatever you want, but a one-season wonder is what he is.

Quote:
Start with goalies. The following dynasties were based on young goalies stepping up or replacing veterans. Sawchuk in Detroit, Plante in Montreal, Dryden in Montreal, Smith with the Islanders, Fuhr with the Oilers. The you have goalies that won young en route to great careers, Roy, Brodeur.
This has nothing to do with young and old. It has to do with Jonathan Quick having a 4 year career that contains 3 years of filler and only 1 year of something relevant to an all-time draft.

He's not young... he's just not very good in an all-time context.

Quote:
Karlsson as #1 is well matched and surrounded by veterans. Similar to other great defensemen who impressed early Chelios had the same partner with the Canadiens.
Again, Karlsson isn't a "rookie" in this draft. He's just a guy who had a 3 year career that contains 1 great season, 1 ok season, and 1 bad season.

Quote:
Great teams blend youth and longevity. 1958 - Canadiens after winning their third cup renewed the team. Dropping veterans like St. Laurent and Olmstead. Our team is very solid and well structured.
There are no "young players" in this draft - just players who haven't accomplished very much yet.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 10:22 PM
  #107
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Facts

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Haynes and Ward bring all the intangibles needed for the line. Vanek plays the slot and scores the goal.



In vancouver, he started with the match-ups, but he quickly lost that job to more capable players as he proved he couldn't do it. In boston, he immediately lost the job when the best option returned.

Even if your claims are true, which the statistical evidence doesn't fully suppoer, what does it actially prove? It proves that he was the best option, but once again we come back to context. Who were the other options on your team? How did you compare to the rest of the league?



I realize it might not be the most conventional place to put stuff like that, but I'd start by first looking in the profiles we linked to each player.



Odie Cleghorn is a borderline 1st liner in the main draft, so it's hard to believe I need to defend that comparison.

His season in the PCHA was similar to Sibby Nichols, but Smith was able to play at that level for more than twice as long.

As for Bobby Rowe, I'm sure the one season he played with Smith had a huge impact on his career. With Lalonde, Smith did finish behind him in 1913, but then led the Habs in scoring the next season. He led his team in scoring half-a-dozen times over his career, so he definately was the key player that I am portraying him to be. Don't take my word though - there are some contemporary reports in his biography.



You can call it whatever you want, but a one-season wonder is what he is.



This has nothing to do with young and old. It has to do with Jonathan Quick having a 4 year career that contains 3 years of filler and only 1 year of something relevant to an all-time draft.

He's not young... he's just not very good in an all-time context.



Again, Karlsson isn't a "rookie" in this draft. He's just a guy who had a 3 year career that contains 1 great season, 1 ok season, and 1 bad season.



There are no "young players" in this draft - just players who haven't accomplished very much yet.
Start with Don Smith. Factually wrong. 1913-14 Newsy Lalonde was the leading goal scorer despite playing 6 fewer games than Smith. Lalonde was injured in February.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1913%E2%80%9314_NHA_season

Outscored Smith handily regardless. Pitre was in Vancouver for a year and Gardiner was also hurt in February. Healthy team in 1914-15, Pitre returned from Vancouver, Smith was moved to the Wanderers since there were better options.

Barry Pederson was moved back to the offensive role when Kasper returned since Kasper did not have the offensive skills.Post 1986-87 with the Canucks, after Patrick Sundstrom was moved to the Devils. Pederson was the only defensive center alternative.Check the rosters for the Canucks during his stay.

Jonathan Quick took a 15th place team to a SC championship. Other retired MLD goalies never managed such a feat and most needed the stars to align properly for them to win a SC championship.

Paddy Moran had to beat two weak challenges Sydney and Halifax,but no PCHA team. McNeil and Karakas had to be relieved in the playoffs due to injury or poor performance.Johnston was a back-up.

The best comparable to Jonathan Quick is Normie Smith - 2 SCs in only three full NHL seasons plus two half seasons and a few games.
Yet Normie Smith is an ATD regular goalie - 2012 drafted #661 by Chaosrevolver. Again ageism is the only explanation for your persistent denials of Quicks accomplishments.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 10:31 PM
  #108
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Start with Don Smith. Factually wrong. 1913-14 Newsy Lalonde was the leading goal scorer despite playing 6 fewer games than Smith. Lalonde was injured in February.
Swing and miss.....

Don Smith scored 28 points, and Newsy Lalonde scored 27. You are correct that Lalonde missed time, but that doesn't change who the leading scorer was.

Quote:
Barry Pederson was moved back to the offensive role when Kasper returned since Kasper did not have the offensive skills.Post 1986-87 with the Canucks, after Patrick Sundstrom was moved to the Devils. Pederson was the only defensive center alternative.Check the rosters for the Canucks during his stay.
I did check the roster. I also checked the stats, which show that Pederson was the match-up guy in year one, but he was used less in year 2, and even less in year 3.

Quote:
Jonathan Quick took a 15th place team to a SC championship. Other retired MLD goalies never managed such a feat and most needed the stars to align properly for them to win a SC championship.
That's a great season. How good was his 2nd best season? 3rd best, 4th best, 5th best, etc?

Quote:
Paddy Moran had to beat two weak challenges Sydney and Halifax,but no PCHA team. McNeil and Karakas had to be relieved in the playoffs due to injury or poor performance.Johnston was a back-up.
Paddy Moran was an elite goaltender for a long period of time. That outweights a single great season.

Quote:
The best comparable to Jonathan Quick is Normie Smith - 2 SCs in only three full NHL seasons plus two half seasons and a few games.
Yet Normie Smith is an ATD regular goalie - 2012 drafted #661 by Chaosrevolver. Again ageism is the only explanation for your persistent denials of Quicks accomplishments.
It is true that Jonathan Quick and Normie Smith are comparables. Unfortunately, though, Paddy Moran is much better than both of them.

You can cherry-pick all the worst ATD picks you want, but it doesn't prove anything about your player. All your doing is showing why they ATD picks were so bad.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 11:07 PM
  #109
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Adjusted ATD Picks

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It is true that Jonathan Quick and Normie Smith are comparables. Unfortunately, though, Paddy Moran is much better than both of them.

You can cherry-pick all the worst ATD picks you want, but it doesn't prove anything about your player. All your doing is showing why they ATD picks were so bad.
Like I wrote pontificating plus juggling. Using adjusted numbers when it favours you then switching to raw when it favours you. Lalonde's adjusted numbers to a full season yields app. a 38 to 28 pt advantage compared to Donald Smith. Your boy looks even worse. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.

Issue is criteria and accomplishments. In the 2012 ATD you picked Roger Crozier as a back-up to Martin Brodeur. Slightly longer career than Quick, both have a Conn Smythe, Quick as a winner. Yet Paddy Moran was available. Whence the sudden Paddy Moran epiphany? The same data was available about Moran at that time. No resurrection in the interim. You are just promoting what you have. .

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-09-2012, 11:46 PM
  #110
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Like I wrote pontificating plus juggling. Using adjusted numbers when it favours you then switching to raw when it favours you. Lalonde's adjusted numbers to a full season yields app. a 38 to 28 pt advantage compared to Donald Smith. Your boy looks even worse. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
Leading the team in PPG is not the same as leading the team in scoring.

Yeah, "my boy" getting outscored by hack like News Lalonde sure makes him look bad.

Quote:
Issue is criteria and accomplishments. In the 2012 ATD you picked Roger Crozier as a back-up to Martin Brodeur. Slightly longer career than Quick, both have a Conn Smythe, Quick as a winner. Yet Paddy Moran was available. Whence the sudden Paddy Moran epiphany? The same data was available about Moran at that time. No resurrection in the interim. You are just promoting what you have. .
With the benefit of hindsight, Roger Crozier was not a great pick when I made the selection. With Brodeur, I honestly wasn't worried about doing any research for my back-up. Having said that, Roger Crozier's career is over twice as long as Quick's.


At the start of this draft, TDMM and I threw together a few lists. We had our "best" list as well as a "needs a good bio" list. Paddy Moran was on the "needs a good bio" list, and he also came up as a maybe for the "best" list. I decided to take a look through the newspaper archives, and both TDMM and I were completely blown away by what we were able to find.

You are correct that the info was available, but nobody, including myself, ever took the time to compile it. Nobody knew how good the guy was. Now that the information has been assemled into a reasonably good bio, his stock has justifiably risen significantly.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:19 AM
  #111
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Ultimate Ironies

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Leading the team in PPG is not the same as leading the team in scoring.

Yeah, "my boy" getting outscored by hack like News Lalonde sure makes him look bad.



With the benefit of hindsight, Roger Crozier was not a great pick when I made the selection. With Brodeur, I honestly wasn't worried about doing any research for my back-up. Having said that, Roger Crozier's career is over twice as long as Quick's.


At the start of this draft, TDMM and I threw together a few lists. We had our "best" list as well as a "needs a good bio" list. Paddy Moran was on the "needs a good bio" list, and he also came up as a maybe for the "best" list. I decided to take a look through the newspaper archives, and both TDMM and I were completely blown away by what we were able to find.

You are correct that the info was available, but nobody, including myself, ever took the time to compile it. Nobody knew how good the guy was. Now that the information has been assemled into a reasonably good bio, his stock has justifiably risen significantly.
The ultimate ironies.

180 degree shift in your position. Now raw stats have great value.

Then you have the moving goalposts combined with insufficient research time argument. Extending the Moran excuse logically, your ageism is simply a function of not taking the time to properly research the contributions and accomplishments of young players or short NHL/NHA/PCHA career players. The information is also readily available. Such players deserve the same academic research courtesy as the allegedly "forgotten" players like Moran. Yet you and some other fantasy snobs are strongly opposed to this because it disrupts your preconceived template that helped structure your teams.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 09:52 AM
  #112
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,572
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The ultimate ironies.

180 degree shift in your position. Now raw stats have great value.
Actually, it's just that you are having serious comprehension problems.

As I said before (this post), when players played in the same league at the same time, there's no need to adjust.

Quote:
Then you have the moving goalposts combined with insufficient research time argument. So Extending the Moran excuse logically, your ageism is simply a function of not taking the time to properly research the contributions and accomplishments of young players or short NHL/NHA/PCHA career players. The information is also readily available. Such players deserve the same academic research courtesy as the allegedly "forgotten" players like Moran. Yet you and some other fantasy snobs are strongly opposed to this because it disrupts your preconceived template that helped structure your teams.
What academic research needs to be done on your recent players? We have their statistsics. We have their voting records. We have read contemporary opinions and we've actually seen them play themselves. What's missing?

Academic research shows that Jonathan Quick had one amazing season, but nothing else of significance in a career than lasted only 4 seasons. You can play the victim card all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that many of your key players have career that are incomplete, and therefore short, and therefore less impressive.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 10:34 AM
  #113
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Comparables

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post

As I said before (this post), when players played in the same league at the same time, there's no need to adjust.



What academic research needs to be done on your recent players? We have their statistsics. We have their voting records. We have read contemporary opinions and we've actually seen them play themselves. What's missing?

Academic research shows that Jonathan Quick had one amazing season, but nothing else of significance in a career than lasted only 4 seasons. You can play the victim card all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that many of your key players have career that are incomplete, and therefore short, and therefore less impressive.
Comparable is being made in an All-Time context. So the actual difference has to be viewed in a historic sense 1913-14 Lalonde / Smith vs 1961-62 Beliveau / Backstrom. Your claim is that Donald Smith is worthy of top two center status. Compared to the 1961-62 season when Ralph Backstrom - third line center had to step up for an injured Jean Beliveau. Adjusted to a full season Ralph Backstrom did the job. While Donald Smith did not. So he is not as worthy of top two center status as Backstrom was.

Re the young players or short career players. Again historic context.
Look at the impact Allan "Scotty" Davidson had in a two year NHA career and compact to the impact of young or short career players today. Discussed the Normie Smith vs Jonathan Quick situation. Then you have the various defensemen from the O6 era - Hy Buller, Hugh Bolton vs the young defensemen on various teams. - Drew Doughty, Mike Green, Erik Karlsson, Kris Letang.

Then we have the active ATD players. Crosby, Stamkos, Malkin, Ovechkin,. Similar career length as the MLD draftees that you have a bias against. Is the talent/ achievement gap between Crosby and Jordan Staal or Kopitar greater than the talent gap between Bobby Hull and Ed Sandford?, Howie Morenz and Paul Haynes? Is the talent / achievement gap between Nicklas Lidstrom and Erik Karlsson greater than the same gap between Doug Harvey and Hugh Bolton?

Again your points are not based on such analysis supported by research but they are the result of an age bias.

No comprehension issues. Just a recognition of major flaws in your positions.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 10:47 AM
  #114
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Zambia Mania Bottom 6 Forwards.

Third Line - Donut Line
Hole in the middle - no center. Charlie Sands is a viable RW but out of place as a center.Steve Sullivan is an overachiever, solid offensive and defensive game, plays hard in all parts of the rink. Billy Gilmour had had a short but impressive career and is out of place on the third line if his career bio is to be accepted at face value. Another stick man.

Fourth Line. Two excellent defensive players with a bit of offence- Todd Marchant and Jimmy Roberts, burdened by a turtle at LW Dan Maloney.

The structure of the bottom two lines reflects how the four lines are put together. Weaknesses in the structure of each line will be exploited by appropriate match-ups.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 11:03 AM
  #115
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,262
vCash: 500
The beauty of our third line is versatility. Gilmour can play both wings, Sands split his career bascially evenly between C and RW (with occasional time at LW I think), and Sullivan is known for being able to play all 3 forward positions.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 11:07 AM
  #116
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Zambia Mania - Defense

Walter Buswell, Doug Young are solid 1930s defensemen. Not spectacular but reliable. Comparable to Rick Green and Brad Marsh.

Miroslav Dvorak, solid but had a tendency to chase the big hit in the neutral zone. See the Kaminsky hit video posted previously in this thread.

Merk Streit. Offensive upside but a defensive liability. Gets by on talent as opposed to technique and savvy.

Scott Hannan and Al Hamilton. Not the best skaters. Low average.Also low average in terms of on ice geometry, so positioning is not a strong point.

Mike Green promising but sidetracked the last two seasons by injuries. Interesting relationship with Alex Ovechkin. There seems to be a reciprocal offensive relationship where each drives the others offence, creating open ice and opportunities.

The Mania does not have an Alex Ovechkin quality player to interact with Mike Green. So the anticipated offence from Mike Green should be discounted seriously. Does not compare to other young defensemen selected in the MLD - Doughty, Karlsson and Letang are stand alone players. All three are better defensively, with a better overall game.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 11:12 AM
  #117
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,262
vCash: 500
Mike Green needs Ovechkin, but Letang is a stand alone player????

You're using a video where Dvorak rocked Kharlamov to end a scoring chance as a criticism?

Mark Streit was clearly not a defensive liability when he led Switzerland in ice time when they shut out Canada, or when he badly outperformed his Islanders teammates in +/-. Sure he's better offensively than defensively, but he's no Mike Green in his own zone.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-10-2012 at 11:20 AM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 11:27 AM
  #118
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Here's some interesting information about Paddy Moran: the HHOF committee inducted him before any of his peers!

These are the first 10 goalies inducted into the HHOF:

1945: Charles Robert "Chuck" Gardiner
1945: Georges Vezina
1958: Alex Connell
1958: Frederick Hugh Lehman
1958: Patrick Joseph "Paddy" Moran
1959: Cecil "Tiny" Thompson
1961: George Hainsworth
1961: Percy LeSueur
1962: William Milton "Riley" Hern
1962: John Bower "Bouse" Hutton


I bolded the goalies who had the majority of their primes coming before World War I.

Moran was one of the first 5 goalies inducted into the Hall. His contemporary Leseuer had to wait a few years, and contemporaries Hern and Hutton had to wait for the mass induction of 1962, when 27 players got in at once.
I thought this was an interesting point to make, considering C1958's position on the HHOF committee is usually that they can do no wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Links to complete stats for all the Orfuns player stats were clearly posted in the appropriate thread. Summary of the offensive skills of the forwards and defensemen follows. Regular season, no overlap or duplication, actual numbers.

Goal scoring abilities. All twelve forwards have at least two twenty goal seasons regardless of era. As a group, the team features 55, 20 + goal seasons.Ten of the twelve forwards have at least 1, 30+ goal seasons, total of 20 such seasons. Three of the forwards have 40+ seasons, total of four such seasons. Danny Grant has a fifty goal season.

No other team features such scoring depth or balance amongst its forwards.

Offensive abilities of the defensemen. Five of the defensemen have 40+ point seasons to their credit with a peak of 79 from Erik Karlsson. Total of 14, such seasons. Also four of the defensemen have 10+ goal seasons, while one, Sylvain Cote has a 21 goal season.

The transition, support games and the PP will be strong points.
Having a 40+ point season does not perpetually make a player a "40 point defenseman". Spikes happen, often directly correllated to spikes in PP usage.

Same with having a 30+ goal season. Ten of your forwards did it at laest once - how many did it at least twice? How many did it three times?

I'm really surprised that you tout your team's offensive depth and balance when its pop gun offense is probably the easiest thing to criticize about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Vanek and Green. Point is that I have not attacked them on this level because I am able to recognize that good is good when it comes to talent. Good is not a synonym for accomplishments. Good is a stand alone characteristic in hockey. Accomplishments are a function of longevity. Do not confuse the two.
Good is good. I agree. But you still have to translate that to on-ice accomplishments. For example, all things equal, if two players were just as "good" in real terms, but one did it for 4 years and the other did it for 12 years (without ever exceeding the peak level of play of the four year player) then obviously you go with the guy with longevity, and you don't think twice.

Don't pretend it doesn't matter. Establishing a track record proves that your performances are repeatable and consistent. That goes a long way over an ATD season.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 11:58 AM
  #119
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Hhof

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I thought this was an interesting point to make, considering C1958's position on the HHOF committee is usually that they can do no wrong.



Having a 40+ point season does not perpetually make a player a "40 point defenseman". Spikes happen, often directly correllated to spikes in PP usage.

Same with having a 30+ goal season. Ten of your forwards did it at laest once - how many did it at least twice? How many did it three times?

I'm really surprised that you tout your team's offensive depth and balance when its pop gun offense is probably the easiest thing to criticize about it.



Good is good. I agree. But you still have to translate that to on-ice accomplishments. For example, all things equal, if two players were just as "good" in real terms, but one did it for 4 years and the other did it for 12 years (without ever exceeding the peak level of play of the four year player) then obviously you go with the guy with longevity, and you don't think twice.

Don't pretend it doesn't matter. Establishing a track record proves that your performances are repeatable and consistent. That goes a long way over an ATD season.
Many HHOF inductees at the MLD level. Does not mean they do not deserve HHOF honours.Also the chronological order of induction is irrelevent. There is no template.

Pop gun offense? Care to back it up with numbers.

Good. Ah the old abstract /hypothetical. Step up with something concrete.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 12:06 PM
  #120
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Kris Letang

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Mike Green needs Ovechkin, but Letang is a stand alone player????

You're using a video where Dvorak rocked Kharlamov to end a scoring chance as a criticism?

Mark Streit was clearly not a defensive liability when he led Switzerland in ice time when they shut out Canada, or when he badly outperformed his Islanders teammates in +/-. Sure he's better offensively than defensively, but he's no Mike Green in his own zone.
Kris Letang produced more offence the last two seasons when Crosby was injured - missed 101 games and Malkin was injured - missed 45 games.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...letankr01.html

Check the numbers.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 12:09 PM
  #121
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Finally catching on. Other GMs drafted Hy Buller and Hugh Bolton. who played fewer games in the fifties than the equivalent of four seasons. I did not because there were better players available at that position.

Point is that my picks Karlsson and Quick face ageism discrimination while Bolton and Buller actually get venerated as good picks. Karlsson's achievements already are worth more than Buller's or Bolton's by any metric imaginable but he gets marked down unfairly because of the length of his career.
Karlsson's Norris season makes him a worthy MLD player but not the first pairing, super early pick that you made him, IMO. He obviously has the best "best season" out of any of the three defensemen you are comparing here. But his 2nd and 3rd best seasons are nothing special. Bolton and Buller's 2nd and 3rd best seasons are definitely better. Bolton is probably right in the same range as far as "all-time value" goes. Buller, with his extensive AHL career, is definitely well ahead of both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Pederson also received Selke consideration a few times, brought toughness - 21 career fights
wow! 21 fights!

Quote:
Vanek is a slightly better goal scorer than Geoff Courtnall, nowhere near the playmaker that Courtnall was, Vanek G>A, Courtnall G<A. Courtnall was much better defensively and brought toughness and corner work, 9 seasons with 100+ PIMs. Vanek is slightly better than soft. Advantage Courtnall.
Vanek has obviously been a more significant offensive performer in his 7-year career. He has had three seasons as good as Courtnall's best. Even in playmaking, his three best adjusted totals almost perfectly match Courtnall's three best. Goalscoring is, of course, not close.

I realize Courtnall could be considered ahead depending on how one values longevity, though. (10 seasons over 50 adjusted points, six over 60)

Quote:
Sanford was a Boston Garden small rink performer. Supported by at least 2-3 HHOF quality defensemen - Boivin,Flaman,Quackenbush.
Couldn't that be said about almost any O6 forward who played 8 or more seasons? What's the point?

Quote:
Russ Courtnall and Eddie Wiseman are a wash. Both could score, were good playmakers for RWs, solid defensively, could not be intimidated.
I see no metric that would put Courtnall over Wiseman.

Wiseman's best 6 percentage scores total 436; Courtnall's total 370, despite this stat tending to favour post-expansion players by roughly 15%.

Wiseman rarely being one of the two best offensive players on his team is a concern, but the same concern applies to Courtnall.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Allan "Scotty" Davidson is a prime example. Two year career ended by WWI. Great pick, should be a ATD player. Moose Watson never played in the NHL but gets a lot of favourable projection for no logical reason.
one season 4th in NHA scoring (a half league) and two seasons played in total makes him an ATDer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
. Harris brings a complete game.
Ward's game looks pretty complete too, though. And his offensive record is far better. He played on a line with superior players, but Harris usually did too.

Quote:
Great teams blend youth and longevity.
No one is an "age" in the ATD.

You need to look at this as if the hockey continuum stops right now and historians are piecing together the record hundreds of years later. By that futuristic standpoint, all players are approximately the same "age" and they are judged solely by what they did on the ice.

the ageism claims are getting old.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Like I wrote pontificating plus juggling. Using adjusted numbers when it favours you then switching to raw when it favours you. Lalonde's adjusted numbers to a full season yields app. a 38 to 28 pt advantage compared to Donald Smith. Your boy looks even worse. I was giving him the benefit of the doubt.
....that is not how adjusted numbers work.


Last edited by seventieslord: 09-10-2012 at 02:54 PM.
seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 12:31 PM
  #122
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Pop gun offense? Care to back it up with numbers.

Good. Ah the old abstract /hypothetical. Step up with something concrete.
OK.

top-9 forwards in this series who played in the post-expansion NHL and their best 6 "vs. #2" scores by my calculations:

Pederson 97 88 72 66 62 59 (444)
Grant 74 73 73 67 67 61 (415)

Sullivan 84 78 69 67 59 55 (412)
Ridley 81 67 64 63 62 58 (395)
Vanek 74 74 63 60 58 49 (378)
G.Courtnall 73 68 63 58 58 57 (377)
R.Courtnall 71 70 66 57 56 50 (370)
Harris 59 58 55 52 50 49 (323)
Corson 60 59 51 50 48 45 (313)
Larose 60 58 45 44 42 39 (249)
Staal 52 45 45 37 30 26 (235)


your guys keep up pretty well at the top, but the six weakest are all Orfuns.

top-9 forwards in this series who played in the pre-expansion NHL or pre-NHL:

Wiseman 91 75 73 70 64 63 (436)
Ward 78 76 76 75 62 52 (419)
Haynes 93 86 70 60 58 23 (390)
Smith 76 70 64 62 58 44 (374)
Sands 67 58 57 51 50 41 (324)
Sandford 70 55 49 46 42 36 (298)
Gilmour 32 26 25 (83)

slotting in the pre-expansion guys with post-expansion is tougher because, all things being equal, I think they discriminate against early guys by about 15%. In addition to that, linemate situations make it harder to judge who was the catalyst the most often (I think the difference between one O6 player's situation and another can tend to be much larger than the difference between two modern players' situations)

If I was to try to rank these guys based on offensive potential in this series, I would go as follows:

Pederson
Wiseman

Ward
Haynes
Grant
Sullivan

Smith
Ridley
Vanek
G.Courtnall
R.Courtnall


Sands
Sandford
Staal

Corson
Harris
Larose


Gilmour

Having four of the weakest five offensively out of the 18 doesn't look good for you. After Pederson and a Danny Grant that you have to be really generous towards - thanks, Marcel Dionne - there is little there that would scare the opposition.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 02:48 PM
  #123
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Numbers

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
OK.

top-9 forwards in this series who played in the post-expansion NHL and their best 6 "vs. #2" scores by my calculations:

Pederson 97 88 72 66 62 59 (444)
Grant 74 73 73 67 67 61 (415)

Sullivan 84 78 69 67 59 55 (412)
Ridley 81 67 64 63 62 58 (395)
Vanek 74 74 63 60 58 49 (378)
G.Courtnall 73 68 63 58 58 57 (377)
R.Courtnall 71 70 66 57 56 50 (370)
Harris 59 58 55 52 50 49 (323)
Corson 60 59 51 50 48 45 (313)
Larose 60 58 45 44 42 39 (249)
Staal 52 45 45 37 30 26 (235)


your guys keep up pretty well at the top, but the six weakest are all Orfuns.

top-9 forwards in this series who played in the pre-expansion NHL or pre-NHL:

Wiseman 91 75 73 70 64 63 (436)
Ward 78 76 76 75 62 52 (419)
Haynes 93 86 70 60 58 23 (390)
Smith 76 70 64 62 58 44 (374)
Sands 67 58 57 51 50 41 (324)
Sandford 70 55 49 46 42 36 (298)
Gilmour 32 26 25 (83)

slotting in the pre-expansion guys with post-expansion is tougher because, all things being equal, I think they discriminate against early guys by about 15%. In addition to that, linemate situations make it harder to judge who was the catalyst the most often (I think the difference between one O6 player's situation and another can tend to be much larger than the difference between two modern players' situations)

If I was to try to rank these guys based on offensive potential in this series, I would go as follows:

Pederson
Wiseman

Ward
Haynes
Grant
Sullivan

Smith
Ridley
Vanek
G.Courtnall
R.Courtnall


Sands
Sandford
Staal

Corson
Harris
Larose


Gilmour

Having four of the weakest five offensively out of the 18 doesn't look good for you. After Pederson and a Danny Grant that you have to be really generous towards - thanks, Marcel Dionne - there is little there that would scare the opposition.
Tally the numbers for the top 9 of each team and we have Orfuns 3121 vs Mania 3123. Plus the Orfuns have the two top centers, the position that generates offense amongst the forwards. While the Mania has by far the weakest - Gilmour who would drag a teams offense.

Add the 4th line and defensemen's contribution and the Orfuns offense is more than sufficient.


Last edited by Canadiens1958: 09-10-2012 at 02:49 PM. Reason: typo
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 03:19 PM
  #124
Canadiens1958
Moderator
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,454
vCash: 500
Points II

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Karlsson's Norris season makes him a worthy MLD player but not the first pairing, super early pick that you made him, IMO. He obviously has the best "best season" out of any of the three defensemen you are comparing here. But his 2nd and 3rd best seasons are nothing special. Bolton and Buller's 2nd and 3rd best seasons are definitely better. Bolton is probably right in the same range as far as "all-time value" goes. Buller, with his extensive AHL career, is definitely well ahead of both.



Sanford was a Boston Garden small rink performer. Supported by at least 2-3 HHOF quality defensemen - Boivin,Flaman,Quackenbush.
Couldn't that be said about almost any O6 forward who played 8 or more seasons? What's the point?

No one is an "age" in the ATD.

You need to look at this as if the hockey continuum stops right now and historians are piecing together the record hundreds of years later. By that futuristic standpoint, all players are approximately the same "age" and they are judged solely by what they did on the ice.
Buller profiles as a first pairing? The issue is match-ups.

There were much better AHL defensemen - Frank Eddolls, Frank Mathers to name a couple who were vastly superior overall when their AHL and NHL numbers are combined. Also better NHL defensemen who were not drafted - Murray Henderson.

Small rink players. Sandford played on the smaller Boston Garden rink for half the season. So he could get to the defensemen faster on a dump in, take better and quicker angles to the net, pick-up his check easier. These advantages were lost on a standard NHL rink. Certain Bruin players could adjust to both, others could not. Look at the stats of Bronco Horvath, a weak skater, while with the Bruins and elsewhere.

True. Which is my point whether they are playing today or in any era.


Last edited by seventieslord: 09-10-2012 at 04:08 PM.
Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:02 PM
  #125
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,325
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Tally the numbers for the top 9 of each team and we have Orfuns 3121 vs Mania 3123.
The only problem with that, is that their top-9 forwards are almost entirely pre-expansion players, and the reason those two lists are separate is, as I said, because percentage scores tend to favour modern players by about 15%. If you were to give 15% credit to all their pre-expansion players they would hold an edge in the 12% range.

Also - and this is important - three of your weakest four are in your top-6 including one on the top line.

Quote:
Plus the Orfuns have the two top centers, the position that generates offense amongst the forwards. While the Mania has by far the weakest - Gilmour who would drag a teams offense.
I disagree that you have the two top centers, and the standings indicate that a lot more people probably disagree as well.

While it is probably impossible to spin Billy Gilmour in any way other than he is the weakest offensive player in either team’s top 9 (although I would love to see them attempt it), his score of 89, if taken literally, would mean that the player holding the next-lowest score (Jordan Staal) is about 2.6 times as likely to generate offense. That is simply not realistic. Gilmour’s score breaks the mold somewhat.

Quote:
Add the 4th line and defensemen's contribution and the Orfuns offense is more than sufficient.
As I demonstrated last draft, the offensive differences from 4th line to 4th line, unless one drafts a line of enforcers or specifically seeks out offensive ringers, is almost negligible. Keep in mind that the 4th line will play 8-12 minutes a game and will not play on the power play.

Adjusted ESP/season, counting best 6 seasons

Jim Roberts: 31 (probably skewed down somewhat thanks to pinch hitting)
Todd Marchant: 41
Dan Maloney: 45
Erik Cole: 56
Robert Lang: 59
Mud Bruneteau: 40-46 (depends on what his PP/ES breakdown was)

In your case you did, in fact, go after offensive ringers. While Cole plays a 4th line type of game, Lang and Bruneteau are primarily scorers. So you can claim to have an offensive edge on the 4th line. But, to what effect? Your 4th line may enjoy an offensive edge in the 8-12 minutes that it plays against Zambia’s 4th line, but how many extra goals is that in the series? Two, maybe? And if your 4th line isn’t out there causing a ruckus, keeping opponents honest, and generating momentum for other lines to build on, then is it a useful 4th line?

As for defensemen… here are all the instances of defensemen in this series scoring at least 75% of the #2 defenseman in the NHL (by my system which occasionally changes the #2 depending on large gaps between them and “the pack”)

Karlsson 147
Green 129
Green 114
Streit 95
Streit 88
Green 86
Streit 83
Young 81
Letang 81
Letang 79
Murray 79
Buswell 77

There is some offensive consistency among your guys (especially Murray and Cote) but as for who has the guys who have put up big numbers, your opponents have 7 of the 8 biggest seasons (and 8 of 12)

This is also based on 7 defensemen for you, and 5 defensemen for your opponents (as there is no easy way to translate Dvorak into such a comparison)

Defenseman offense can be so PP-driven, however, and the PP is a whole other discussion. If we are just talking about which defensemen are going to be able to get the puck to the forwards in everyday situations with regularity, based on the ES points generated throughout their careers, we have 3 tiers of players here:

- The puck movers (29-41 ESP/season): Karlsson, M.Green, Streit, Letang

- The average guys (17-22 ESP/season): Murray, Cote, Sweeney, Hannan, R.Green

- Brad Marsh (12 ESP/season)

Your opponents likely know Buswell and Young better than we do, but I think they’d agree that they are in the middle tier with those guys. Likely Dvorak as well.

What does that all mean? The distribution is pretty much even. I don’t see that either team has significant edge offensive ability on their blueline. It’s interesting to note that the four “puck movers” have just 216-443 NHL games each (in other words, these per-game averages aren’t as impressive as if they had been maintained for longer), and if they had 900-1100 like the guys in the next tier, their numbers would be a lot closer to theirs. So although one would still prefer to consider these the four blueline catalysts in this series, their far less-established track records will likely mean that there will be some puckhandling adventures mixed in with those tape-to-tape passes and the gap in their abilities is certainly not in the 100% range as those figures imply.


Last edited by seventieslord: 09-10-2012 at 04:17 PM.
seventieslord is online now   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 01:55 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.