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
09-10-2012, 04:15 PM
  #126
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Buller profiles as a first pairing? The issue is match-ups.
I’m not speculating on exactly where he belongs in the MLD, but I am quite sure he belongs. A decade of being one of the handful of best defensemen outside of the NHL when there was only room for 30, is a good achievement.

Quote:
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.
Eddolls and Henderson didn’t come close to an all-star team so we’ll have to disagree on whether they were better NHL defensemen.

As for the AHLers, this is a point I have been making for a long time too. Mathers is one of quite a few for whom a good case for the MLD can be built. The fact that guys like Mathers are being left behind, perhaps, unfairly, says nothing about Buller.

Quote:
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.
That has nothing to do with my point. You used the fact that he had some HHOF defensemen on his team. Please tell me – who didn’t???

Quote:
True. Which is my point whether they are playing today or in any era.
Then you shouldn’t be surprised that people see the careers of Quick and Karlsson as rather incomplete.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:21 PM
  #127
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
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.
Well, for one, you only list 3 seasons for Gilmour, when his career lasted 8 years.

For another, "points" from that era heavily favored goal scorers and Gilmour was a much better playmaker than goal scorer. In the two seasons for which SIHR reconstructed assists from newspaper accounts (1907-08 and 1908-09), Gilmour has 80% and 75% of #2 in assists, while only scoring 19% and 30% in goals. This backs up the general perception of those who saw him play that Gilmour was one of the true stars of the era, despite his shoddy goal totals


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-10-2012 at 04:29 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:34 PM
  #128
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Well, for one, you only list 3 seasons for Gilmour, when his career lasted 8 years.

For another, "points" from that era heavily favored goal scorers and Gilmour was a much better playmaker than goal scorer. In the two seasons for which SIHR reconstructed assists from newspaper accounts (1907-08 and 1908-09), Gilmour has 80% and 75% of #2 in assists, while being way behind in goals. This backs up the general perception of those who saw him play that Gilmour was one of the true stars of the era
ok, but you're the guy who convinced me to stop looking at goals and assists in a vaccuum in the first place. Points are much more important, and points are what I was talking about, right? I think you've also pooh-pooh'd thsoe reconstructed assists on numerous occasions in the past, is that correct?

Also, it was 7 years, unless you're counting junior or his two-game comeback from 1916. I used three years because he only had three seasons in a top league: 1903, 1908, and 1909.

He played a game in the 1905 FAHL, a league for which I'd be generous and count for a player this old, but it was just one game and he didn't score a point. Same with 1906 in the ECHA. I guess I should have included a "token" score for his one point in 1916 but I didn't think it would matter to anyone.

That leaves us with his university years. What do you suggest we do for those? 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907. If we assume he was probably as good as he was in 03, 08, and 09, then we could "assign" him scores of appoximately 28, which would make his six season "score" approximately 167. Which would better reflect his upside in comparison to these other top-9 forwards.

I'm only trying to be fair here.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:37 PM
  #129
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
To add to the Billy Gilmour commentary above, I just don't think you can really compare the offense of the early era "glue guys" to today. It's a point Sturminator made in his critique of Russell Bowie - roles were more specialized then, so you had the more defensive minded forwards constantly feeding the stars.

None of this is to sell Gilmour as anything but a weak goal scorer, but I really doubt was as weak as his percentage behind the leaders would seem to show. This would also apply to Fred Scanlan, another player considered a star by contemporary sources - Scanlan's goal totals are dreadfully low too, but he's best known for doing all the dirty work for Harry Trihey.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:45 PM
  #130
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
To add to the Billy Gilmour commentary above, I just don't think you can really compare the offense of the early era "glue guys" to today. It's a point Sturminator made in his critique of Russell Bowie - roles were more specialized then, so you had the more defensive minded forwards constantly feeding the stars.

None of this is to sell Gilmour as anything but a weak goal scorer, but I really doubt was as weak as his percentage behind the leaders would seem to show. This would also apply to Fred Scanlan, another player considered a star by contemporary sources - Scanlan's goal totals are dreadfully low too, but he's best known for doing all the dirty work for Harry Trihey.
Not really, that's kind of an assumption based on the wording of a few quotes. it's a fair assumption, but not rock solid.

I also realize that if assists were handed out like in modern times, "playmakers" like Billy gilmour would look better in points standings. I use quotes because 7 assists in two seasons is ultimately a shaky foundation.

also, I wanted to ask because I honestly don't know. Which HHOF committee members were old enough to watch Gilmour play? There had to be a few.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:46 PM
  #131
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
ok, but you're the guy who convinced me to stop looking at goals and assists in a vaccuum in the first place. Points are much more important, and points are what I was talking about, right? I think you've also pooh-pooh'd thsoe reconstructed assists on numerous occasions in the past, is that correct?
I poo-pooed reconstructed assists as evidence of all-time great playmaking, though I do think they are a rough estimate of some kind of playmaking. I guess I've softened my stance on them somewhat.

And yes, points are more important than goals and assists. But something has to be done to take into account an era where 1st place in goals has 40 and 1st place in assists has 6.

Where Gilmour (and other non goal scorers) really get ***** is that assists are only available for 2 seasons of his career - so he (a better playmaker than goal scorer, at least relative to peers) has his offense judged entirely by his goal totals in other years.

Quote:
Also, it was 7 years, unless you're counting junior or his two-game comeback from 1916. I used three years because he only had three seasons in a top league: 1903, 1908, and 1909.

He played a game in the 1905 FAHL, a league for which I'd be generous and count for a player this old, but it was just one game and he didn't score a point. Same with 1906 in the ECHA. I guess I should have included a "token" score for his one point in 1916 but I didn't think it would matter to anyone.

That leaves us with his university years. What do you suggest we do for those? 1904, 1905, 1906, 1907. If we assume he was probably as good as he was in 03, 08, and 09, then we could "assign" him scores of appoximately 28, which would make his six season "score" approximately 167. Which would better reflect his upside in comparison to these other top-9 forwards.

I'm only trying to be fair here.
Yeah, should probably be 7.

I think a direct statistical comparison is probably impossible. But if you have to do one, I might just compare his 3 ECHA seasons with the three best seasons of others and just note he played 4 more seasons at probably a similar level.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 04:56 PM
  #132
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Not really, that's kind of an assumption based on the wording of a few quotes. it's a fair assumption, but not rock solid.

I also realize that if assists were handed out like in modern times, "playmakers" like Billy gilmour would look better in points standings. I use quotes because 7 assists in two seasons is ultimately a shaky foundation.
Ha, you sound like me. If it weren't for the anecdotes singing his praise and the several All-Star Teams Gilmour got over guys who badly outflanked him, I wouldn't take his two seasons of assist stats nearly as seriously.

Quote:
also, I wanted to ask because I honestly don't know. Which HHOF committee members were old enough to watch Gilmour play? There had to be a few.
[/quote]

I don't know either. I'll have to check

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 05:50 PM
  #133
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,001
vCash: 500
Certain Assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.



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.



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.
Thank you for the detailed resonse.

We do not share certain assumptions.

The pre expansion players are getting an artificial double perhaps triple boost - games, era( all inclusive from quality of opposition to roster sizes).

Factor in availability at the draft. From the O6 Ron Murphy was not an attractive alternative.

Composition of lines. Canadiens would regularly play a weaker player with the star line. 1960-61 Don Marshall, Jean-Guy Gendron and a rookie Gilles Tremblay rotated thru with Beliveau and Richard.Many other examples of successful teams doing so. Opposition has to burn a checking forward or juggle their lines.

Study the history of 4th lines. 1959 and 1960 Canadiens and Leafs pioneered the use of 4th lines. No goons or energy players, just depth talent. Net benefit, fresher top two lines, greater diversity, pressure on depth challenged opponents. The 8-12 minutes assumption does not hold for my fourth line.

The offensive numbers for defensemen are interesting but they are based on first pairing minutes for Streit and Green.Streit is a third pairing dman here. So do you support the assumptions of the model and settle for very weak defense or cut back on the minutes and the offense. Not an issue with my defense. I could role all three pairings or seven dmen an get the same offensive and defensive results.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:03 PM
  #134
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The pre expansion players are getting an artificial double perhaps triple boost - games, era( all inclusive from quality of opposition to roster sizes).
You have to adjust for schedule length… there’s just no other way. Otherwise you are penalizing them for playing when seasons are shorter. What’s the sense in that?

Quote:
Factor in availability at the draft. From the O6 Ron Murphy was not an attractive alternative.
Was this random sentence meant for another post? I don’t understand at all.

Quote:
Composition of lines. Canadiens would regularly play a weaker player with the star line. 1960-61 Don Marshall, Jean-Guy Gendron and a rookie Gilles Tremblay rotated thru with Beliveau and Richard.Many other examples of successful teams doing so. Opposition has to burn a checking forward or juggle their lines.
Yes, I know that there is no rule that says your three best forwards need to be on your first line and so on. Obviously. But in an exercise where we’re talking about the top three lines (and a first line typically plays the most and has the most offensive responsibility, with the third line being the opposite) it is certainly worth noting that you’re giving less talented players more icetime than more talented ones.

Quote:
The offensive numbers for defensemen are interesting but they are based on first pairing minutes for Streit and Green.Streit is a third pairing dman here. So do you support the assumptions of the model and settle for very weak defense or cut back on the minutes and the offense. Not an issue with my defense. I could role all three pairings or seven dmen an get the same offensive and defensive results.
Funny you should mention that. Go look up how much icetime Streit got in 2007 and 2008.

2008 in particular has to be some kind of a record when you look at his points and icetime. It definitely paints a picture of what type of player he really is. To Zambia’s credit, they have him on the 3rd pairing and on the PP so they know what they are doing.

All the numbers on your own team are based on greater responsibilities than they will earn in a competitive MLD, so the point is moot. I don’t see a difference in even strength puck movement from one team to the other overall. You should be happy; this is one area where you are the equal of your opponents.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:15 PM
  #135
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You have to adjust for schedule length… there’s just no other way. Otherwise you are penalizing them for playing when seasons are shorter. What’s the sense in that?



Was this random sentence meant for another post? I don’t understand at all.



Yes, I know that there is no rule that says your three best forwards need to be on your first line and so on. Obviously. But in an exercise where we’re talking about the top three lines (and a first line typically plays the most and has the most offensive responsibility, with the third line being the opposite) it is certainly worth noting that you’re giving less talented players more icetime than more talented ones.



Funny you should mention that. Go look up how much icetime Streit got in 2007 and 2008.

2008 in particular has to be some kind of a record when you look at his points and icetime. It definitely paints a picture of what type of player he really is. To Zambia’s credit, they have him on the 3rd pairing and on the PP so they know what they are doing.

All the numbers on your own team are based on greater responsibilities than they will earn in a competitive MLD, so the point is moot. I don’t see a difference in even strength puck movement from one team to the other overall. You should be happy; this is one area where you are the equal of your opponents.
Why does 2008 "point a picture of who Streit really was," but 2009 and 2010 don't? 2009 and 2010 were clearly his best NHL seasons.

2009:
25:13 TOI, 2nd place had 21:36.
+5 in a team with a -79 overall goal differential

2010:
25:42 TOI, 2nd place among players who played more than 20 games had 20:49
Even on a team with a -42 overall goal differential

The fact that Streit was used as a PP specialist in 2007-08 shouldn't take away the other things he did


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-10-2012 at 06:20 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:28 PM
  #136
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
I just noticed this, but did you confuse "Allan Montagu" (nonexistent person) with Montagu Allan again, seventies?!

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:39 PM
  #137
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Why does 2008 "point a picture of who Streit really was," but 2009 and 2010 don't? 2009 and 2010 were clearly his best NHL seasons.

2009:
25:13 TOI, 2nd place had 21:36.
+5 in a team with a -79 overall goal differential

2010:
25:42 TOI, 2nd place among players who played more than 20 games had 20:49
Even on a team with a -42 overall goal differential

The fact that Streit was used as a PP specialist in 2007-08 shouldn't take away the other things he did
A question Dreakmur likes to ask is “who was he earning that icetime over?” Have there been worse post-lockout defense corps at the 2-6 spots than the 2009 and 2010 NY Islanders?

His +/- on such a bad team is noteworthy, though.

That said, it’s not like he was facing the best competition. Or the worst. He was in the middle for QoC, on a team that apparently didn’t do much matching up (as their Rel QoC scores don’t have the usual wide distribution you would see) – He did, however, have easily the highest zone starts both times, which had to help. Also as a player used in offensive situations he was probably on the ice quite a lot with the only line the team had that was capable of outscoring the oppositon, so maybe it's not as startling as it appears on the surface.

Regardless, 2009 and 2010 were his best seasons, yes. 2008 was an awesome “specialist” season, better than campbell’s 2006, even.

You could call 2006 an adjustment year. I’m concerned that in 2007, at age 29 he was a 14-minute defenseman for a decent, but non-playoff team. They didn’t play him as much as Mathieu Dandenault, Francis Bouillon, Mike Komisarek or Craig Rivet. Anyway, I’m not calling into question his 2009 and 2010 years. They fall in that “mr. everything for a horrible team” category (which Barry Gibbs, Robert Picard, Eric Brewer, Jocelyn Guevremont, Dave Ellett and Bruce Driver all had a couple of – McSorley even had one), and they aren’t worthless. He didn’t deserve any all-star votes, but you guys know that too. But it really appears he was a late bloomer, because he was so much more valuable at ages 31-32 than at ages 29-30, and what does that say about ages 20-27? I know you guys like to say there is more to his resume than 2006-2012, but how sure can we be of that?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:39 PM
  #138
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
I just noticed this, but did you confuse "Allan Montagu" (nonexistent person) with Montagu Allan again, seventies?!
....crap. Yes. I do that all the time.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:40 PM
  #139
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
....crap. Yes. I do that all the time.
Lol I blame myself for not being around as much recently. That will be rectified this week.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 06:52 PM
  #140
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
You could call 2006 an adjustment year. I’m concerned that in 2007, at age 29 he was a 14-minute defenseman for a decent, but non-playoff team. They didn’t play him as much as Mathieu Dandenault, Francis Bouillon, Mike Komisarek or Craig Rivet. Anyway, I’m not calling into question his 2009 and 2010 years. They fall in that “mr. everything for a horrible team” category (which Barry Gibbs, Robert Picard, Eric Brewer, Jocelyn Guevremont, Dave Ellett and Bruce Driver all had a couple of – McSorley even had one), and they aren’t worthless. He didn’t deserve any all-star votes, but you guys know that too. But it really appears he was a late bloomer, because he was so much more valuable at ages 31-32 than at ages 29-30, and what does that say about ages 20-27? I know you guys like to say there is more to his resume than 2006-2012, but how sure can we be of that?
My guess is that Streit had trouble adjusting to the long NHL schedule, so coaches limited his ice time at first. He already proved he could excel against NHL-level talent in short tournaments in the 2005 World Championships and 2006 Olympics.

As for his 2009 and 2010 seasons, my own opinion is that they are examples of a guy actually being underrated because his team was so bad. He plays the exact same way for a better team, he might have gotten more votes, not less. So no, I wouldn't agree that he didn't deserve to receive any All Star votes those seasons. But there is no way to prove either of us right, so I would go with what the record actually says

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 07:03 PM
  #141
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,001
vCash: 500
Mark Streit

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
My guess is that Streit had trouble adjusting to the long NHL schedule, so coaches limited his ice time at first. He already proved he could excel against NHL-level talent in short tournaments in the 2005 World Championships and 2006 Olympics.

As for his 2009 and 2010 seasons, my own opinion is that they are examples of a guy actually being underrated because his team was so bad. He plays the exact same way for a better team, he might have gotten more votes, not less. So no, I wouldn't agree that he didn't deserve to receive any All Star votes those seasons. But there is no way to prove either of us right, so I would go with what the record actually says
Smaller NHL ice surface than the international sized rink requires quicker reads and execution. The longer schedule compacted into short segments 3 games in 4 nights, 2 in 3 are a factor but not as much as the rink size and execution.

Of course we assume that all can adapt to rink size and schedule length easily. The opposite is true whether for present day players or pre O6 era players.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 07:07 PM
  #142
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Smaller NHL ice surface than the international sized rink requires quicker reads and execution. The longer schedule compacted into short segments 3 games in 4 nights, 2 in 3 are a factor but not as much as the rink size and execution.

Of course we assume that all can adapt to rink size and schedule length easily. The opposite is true whether for present day players or pre O6 era players.
Right, I can agree that this was also likely a factor in Streit's long adjustment period

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 07:41 PM
  #143
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
As for his 2009 and 2010 seasons, my own opinion is that they are examples of a guy actually being underrated because his team was so bad. He plays the exact same way for a better team, he might have gotten more votes, not less. So no, I wouldn't agree that he didn't deserve to receive any All Star votes those seasons. But there is no way to prove either of us right, so I would go with what the record actually says
We're smarter than that, though.

And talking about him being overrated or underrated because of his team is probably overcomplicating things. there are definitely arguments for and against both positions (for example, on an even worse team he might stand out as an outstanding player even more. or on a better team, maybe he gets 50 points but is also +40?) and I don't see that either is more valid.

With that said, if I had to make a case for his team over/underrating him, I would say it overrated him. How many teams were so shallow that they'd have made him the 4th most utilized PP defenseman in the league in 2009, and the most (by a VERY wide margin) in 2010? Team situation led to different usage, which led to more points led to more norris recognition.

It's unfortunate that the last two are so correlated but unfortunately they are. You've gone on record many times as saying modern all-star/norris voting overrates offensive defensemen, because a very small minority of writers - who may have seen them once or not at all - throw them a token 2nd or 3rd-place vote. And I agree that this is the case.

(in 2009 it was 15/133, in 2010 it was 3/133)

Streit is one of the most challenging players of all-time to properly evaluate, IMO.

I want to get to the bottom of how good every player is on a historical scale and need to be able to view each piece of information about them in the proper context. The fact that three writers threw him a vote in 2010 really tells me nothing. With modern players that we can watch play (and view a multitude of underlying statistics for) we need to dig deeper than a few all-star/norris votes and not pretend that they trump what happened on the ice. Streit is one of the poster children for this type of analysis, and Ehrhoff would be another great example.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 07:51 PM
  #144
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,001
vCash: 500
Sidebar

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
We're smarter than that, though.

And talking about him being overrated or underrated because of his team is probably overcomplicating things. there are definitely arguments for and against both positions (for example, on an even worse team he might stand out as an outstanding player even more. or on a better team, maybe he gets 50 points but is also +40?) and I don't see that either is more valid.

With that said, if I had to make a case for his team over/underrating him, I would say it overrated him. How many teams were so shallow that they'd have made him the 4th most utilized PP defenseman in the league in 2009, and the most (by a VERY wide margin) in 2010? Team situation led to different usage, which led to more points led to more norris recognition.

It's unfortunate that the last two are so correlated but unfortunately they are. You've gone on record many times as saying modern all-star/norris voting overrates offensive defensemen, because a very small minority of writers - who may have seen them once or not at all - throw them a token 2nd or 3rd-place vote. And I agree that this is the case.

(in 2009 it was 15/133, in 2010 it was 3/133)

Streit is one of the most challenging players of all-time to properly evaluate, IMO.

I want to get to the bottom of how good every player is on a historical scale and need to be able to view each piece of information about them in the proper context. The fact that three writers threw him a vote in 2010 really tells me nothing. With modern players that we can watch play (and view a multitude of underlying statistics for) we need to dig deeper than a few all-star/norris votes and not pretend that they trump what happened on the ice. Streit is one of the poster children for this type of analysis, and Ehrhoff would be another great example.
Do what the teams do. Ignore all individual awards and honours in the evaluation process. Step two ignore all media opinions about player evaluations.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 08:02 PM
  #145
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Given how hard it is for defensemen on non-playoff teams to get votes, I think you'd be hard pressed to say Streit was overrated by the voters. I get what you mean about getting massive amounts of PP time, but what about the fact that he didn't have any decent forwards to get the puck to?

Islanders leading scorers:

2008-09:

1. Streit 16-40-56 +5
2. Okposo 18-21-39 -6
3. Weight 10-28-38 -15
4. Guerin 16-20-36 -15
5. Nielson 9-24-33 -4

2009-10

1. Tavares 24-30-54 -15
2. Okposo 19-33-52 -22
3. Streit 11-38-49 0
4. Moulson 30-18-48 -1
5. Nielson 12-26-38 +4

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-10-2012, 08:06 PM
  #146
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventieslord
I want to get to the bottom of how good every player is on a historical scale and need to be able to view each piece of information about them in the proper context. The fact that three writers threw him a vote in 2010 really tells me nothing. With modern players that we can watch play (and view a multitude of underlying statistics for) we need to dig deeper than a few all-star/norris votes and not pretend that they trump what happened on the ice. Streit is one of the poster children for this type of analysis, and Ehrhoff would be another great example.
Streit's 2010 was clearly underrated by the writers because his team didn't make the playoffs, just like his 2008 was overrated (he actually recovered more votes in 2008).

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 12:01 PM
  #147
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,538
vCash: 500
Do the Mania GMs have any idea why Ed Sanford stopped playing NHL hockey at age 27? It's strange for a player who was supposedly playing at an All-Star level earlier in his career to leave the league at such a young age.

Was it because his all-star performances came against a weak forward group, and he was pushed out by a stronger group of young forwards that was entering the league?

Was it an injury? Poor conditioning?

Or did he just not want to play for Chicago?

A few other young, high scoring forwards from that period had trouble sticking in the NHL into the late 50s. Paul Ronty, Bep Guidolin, Danny Lewicki, Dutch Reibel. Were they unable to keep up as the quality of play rose?


Last edited by overpass: 09-11-2012 at 12:17 PM.
overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 12:47 PM
  #148
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,032
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Do what the teams do. Ignore all individual awards and honours in the evaluation process. Step two ignore all media opinions about player evaluations.
- For post-lockout players who have not regularly received more than token votes for awards (which includes players like Streit and Ehrhoff), I 100% agree. We have seen them and we have much better stats with which we can see the big picture than relying on the opinions of 2-11% of hockey writers.
- For post lockout players who have received significant recognition, I still agree but at the same time the significant recognition was almost certainly merited.
- For pre-lockout players who the majority of us have seen, we should still have enough advanced statistics (particularly ice time era players) and first hand experience watching them to understand their greatness, but token award voting starts to become more important.
- For pre-1998 players who some of us did not see regularly, token award voting becomes even more important, even if it is still a relatively minor aspect.
- For post-expansion players up to 1990, who the majority of us are not old enough to have watched regularly and critically analyze, it becomes that much more important. Not only for the above reason, but also because the writers would have had better knowledge of the players (12-21 teams, not 30) And estimated TOI becomes quite important.
- For pre-expansion players, all-star/Norris voting is probably THE most important objective measure we have for them, so even token award support has to carry some weight. Also, 1) defensemen didn’t score a lot of points and not a lot of defensemen stood out from a “hockey card stats” perspective so there was little chance of point totals skewing perceptions of which players were the best overall, and 2) all the voters saw all the players presumably 14 times a year.

In recent years, more all-star and Norris voting records have been unearthed from 1930 to 1980, and that has been a really helpful tool, allowing our draft lists to better reflect which players recognized as the better players in the league more often. I can think of a half dozen players off the top of my head that it has helped, and a half dozen others who have shown to not be all that special.

But that has also extended to some post-lockout results and I think we should know better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Given how hard it is for defensemen on non-playoff teams to get votes, I think you'd be hard pressed to say Streit was overrated by the voters. I get what you mean about getting massive amounts of PP time, but what about the fact that he didn't have any decent forwards to get the puck to?

Islanders leading scorers:

2008-09:

1. Streit 16-40-56 +5
2. Okposo 18-21-39 -6
3. Weight 10-28-38 -15
4. Guerin 16-20-36 -15
5. Nielson 9-24-33 -4

2009-10

1. Tavares 24-30-54 -15
2. Okposo 19-33-52 -22
3. Streit 11-38-49 0
4. Moulson 30-18-48 -1
5. Nielson 12-26-38 +4
It kinda falls into the whole “someone has to score on a bad team” saying. But of course, he is a great PP pointman, that is obvious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Streit's 2010 was clearly underrated by the writers because his team didn't make the playoffs, just like his 2008 was overrated (he actually recovered more votes in 2008).
Well, 2008 was obviously overrated, as no 17 minute defenseman should ever be considered top-5 in the NHL by anyone. There is no exception.

2010 underrated? Please explain. Should more than three writers have thought he was top-5 in the NHL that year? Looking at the names that finished ahead of him, I’m more surprised three writers saw fit to mention Streit’s name over at least two of them, than the other way around.

In any case, it’s disingenuous to refer to 3 votes from 133 voters in modern times, as anything meaningful. It’s fluff. One could at least refer to it as somewhat meaningful but acknowledge that there are better ways to judge a player than by using 3 votes. (same goes for a guy like Ehrhoff, if 9 and 12 writers in 2011 didn’t incorrectly name him a top-5 defenseman, we’d just be looking at a guy with 5 seasons as a #1-3 defenseman on good teams, which is a decent 5-year performance but doesn’t set him apart from a bevy of undrafted defensemen. The fact that he was selected as high as he was in the last two drafts is a symptom of overreliance on token voting for a post-lockout player)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 01:16 PM
  #149
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
- For post-lockout players who have not regularly received more than token votes for awards (which includes players like Streit and Ehrhoff), I 100% agree. We have seen them and we have much better stats with which we can see the big picture than relying on the opinions of 2-11% of hockey writers.
15 writers named Streit on their Norris ballot and 21 named him on their All Star ballot in 2009, hardly "token" voting. Yes, that was the best season of his career.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventieslord
It kinda falls into the whole “someone has to score on a bad team” saying. But of course, he is a great PP pointman, that is obvious.
So your favorite measures of defenseman performance - ice time and adjusted plus minus - suddenly fail to be applicable when it comes to Mark Streit, who for two year absolutely owned in both measures? Why is that?

Quote:
Well, 2008 was obviously overrated, as no 17 minute defenseman should ever be considered top-5 in the NHL by anyone. There is no exception.

2010 underrated? Please explain. Should more than three writers have thought he was top-5 in the NHL that year? Looking at the names that finished ahead of him, I’m more surprised three writers saw fit to mention Streit’s name over at least two of them, than the other way around.
Agree about 2008, but it's not surprising, given the number of points he put up. We both know that a small number of writers view the Norris as an Art Ross for defensemen.

As for 2010, hockey is a subjective game and writers votes are always all over the place. You know this. Given Streit's stats, especially compared to his teammates, do you really think Streit wouldn't have gotten more votes if his team made the playoffs? Was he playing at a lower level than Yandle was when Yandle finished 5th in Norris voting? I don't know. I like to think that for most players, there all star records even out to about what they should be, so long as you keep trends in voting in mind

Quote:
In any case, it’s disingenuous to refer to 3 votes from 133 voters in modern times, as anything meaningful. It’s fluff. One could at least refer to it as somewhat meaningful but acknowledge that there are better ways to judge a player than by using 3 votes. (same goes for a guy like Ehrhoff, if 9 and 12 writers in 2011 didn’t incorrectly name him a top-5 defenseman, we’d just be looking at a guy with 5 seasons as a #1-3 defenseman on good teams, which is a decent 5-year performance but doesn’t set him apart from a bevy of undrafted defensemen. The fact that he was selected as high as he was in the last two drafts is a symptom of overreliance on token voting for a post-lockout player)
Unless you apply the same standard to older players, this is awfully close to nitpicking modern players while glossing over the flaws of older guys. We all know the trends in voting - the voters usually have favored offense over defense since expansion.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 09-11-2012 at 01:25 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-11-2012, 01:32 PM
  #150
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Do the Mania GMs have any idea why Ed Sanford stopped playing NHL hockey at age 27? It's strange for a player who was supposedly playing at an All-Star level earlier in his career to leave the league at such a young age.

Was it because his all-star performances came against a weak forward group, and he was pushed out by a stronger group of young forwards that was entering the league?

Was it an injury? Poor conditioning?

Or did he just not want to play for Chicago?

A few other young, high scoring forwards from that period had trouble sticking in the NHL into the late 50s. Paul Ronty, Bep Guidolin, Danny Lewicki, Dutch Reibel. Were they unable to keep up as the quality of play rose?
Reibel publicly stated his heart wasn't into it after the trade to Chicago.

My guess is it's a little of everything - Sandford wouldnt be the only player to retire rather than play for the Black Hawks or the Rangers of the era. I would guess it went like this - he was declining somewhat (normal for a forward to decline around 28, especially one who played a rough game), a more talented pool of younger players was taking scoring line jobs, and he didn't see the point of continuing his career as a role player for a bottom feeder for an O6-era paycheck.

Of course, that's just an educated guess. If I have time later, I'll try to find info about his retirement on google archives

There is definitely something to the idea that the quality of play rose quite a bit from the early to mid 50s, but the players who were supplanted tended to be declining anyway - but once they started declining, they were out.

TheDevilMadeMe 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 10:37 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.