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 Semifinal: Connecticut Whale vs. Regina Pats

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-24-2012, 09:43 PM
  #26
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,512
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I'll get to it if I can. It's tough. I think that we put Nicholson properly in his place (relative to Moran, Hern, Lesueur) so that part is at least settled (and he's already being selected appropriately relative to them, IMO) but then that doesn't mean that all four of them shouldn't be selected 10-15 goalies higher overall. Paton is tougher... obviously.

Iain's point allocation numbers have him well ahead, but he's even admitted that after reviewing what THH found about some of those games, that he should perhaps allocate more credit to the team’s other defensive players. I agree. At the same time, I was still happy to see accounts of Paton’s play; it finally brought him somewhat to life, and it’s not like he wasn’t regarded as a great goalie and it’s not like he didn’t make game-sealing saves at time.

I always believed in his value as allocated by Iain’s system (due to the fact that logic involved makes it difficult not to take it seriously and also because it’s a 3rd party objective source backed by heavy research), but with a big “plus or minus” attached to it, but I always maintained that even if you assume the absolute worst, he’s a great MLD goalie. After THH’s research I think he belongs more on the minus side of that ledger but that doesn’t change the conclusion. I mean, we’re not comparing him to Luongo, Vanbiesbrouck, Richter and Giacomin, this is Giguere, Ranford, Khabibulin, and Burke.

What does that all say about him vis-à-vis Nicholson? I guess, that he’s “likely” better, and “probably” significantly as well.. But there is a high/low range associated with both goalies that represents how good or mediocre they both could have actually been, and those two ranges do overlap to a large degree if you ask me.
The biggest issue with Iain's points allocation system - it doesn't take quality of the league or the talent pool into effect. I don't think anyone thinks Russel Bowie was somewhere between Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, but that's what the points allocation system shows.

The quality of hockey improved a lot between the 1900s when Bowie/Nicholsson/Moran/etc played and the 1980s when Gretzky played, but it also improved a lot between the 1880s/early 1890s and the 1900s.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-24-2012, 11:43 PM
  #27
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,265
vCash: 500
I really appreciate the amount of time and thought you've put into this series.

For more points:
Quote:
But he was a cup! And he was, like, the 12th or 13th-most important player too!
I forgot about his time with the Penguins

Quote:
Now, other people may see things differently, but typically you see 5-6 years being thrown around as an appropriate time frame for a “prime” where we get a true sense of what a player is capable of. Given the circumstances, you, different people and I may draw the line differently but I think it’s safe to say that most would draw that line beyond two years.
This may sound a bit callous, but I think when a player dies, evaluating that player is a bit different than someone who stopped playing hockey for other reasons.

Quote:
Basically if there was a player who was similar to Davidson at his best, but did it for a dozen years I would consider him infinitely more suited to be a physical presence on a line.
I think if Davidson had done it for a dozen years, he'd be in the bottom 6 on an ATD team, not in the MLD

Quote:
Basically, I think Campbell is a superior offensive player and therefore overall player, but I am not 100% convinced that he’s better for a bottom-six role. This one could go either way.
That's pretty much how I feel. I picked him because I though it would be a disaster if he slipped out of the MLD (while I may not have found much on him, I think it's important to keep him on people's radar in case someone can make a breakthrough - although he's totally deserving based upon what we know now)

Quote:
Overall conclusion: Offensively it appears they’re even. A 35% edge to Regina on the right side, a 10% edge to Connecticut on the left, and Campbell probably makes up the remainder at center. As far as playing the bottom six roles, Cotton and Jackson are better established than McDonald and Campbell, making their unit more effective overall. Hedberg – your thoughts?
I think it's fair to say your line has better "bottom six" traits. I think calling Blachford his era’s Peplinski is a diminishing the opinion of the times of Blachford, who is occasionally referred to as a star, something Peplinski never was. However, since stats were less important than the appearance of a player's performance during the time, it's possible a sportswriter from the 1900s would declare Peplinski a star if he witnessed him.

Quote:
Defense

Ugh, what a mess. I don’t see any players here that make great comparisons with eachother, with the exception of Gibbs and Brewer (Brewer is Gibbs-lite) and Brewer is not even in the starting lineup. Connecticut has no young, active players for me to compare to Doughty or Seabrook. I have no one who qualifies as a stay at home, zero offense, elite shutdown player like Willie Mitchell. Connecticut has no PCHA-era guy like Fraser, and Regina has no pre-Stanley Cup era guy like Cameron. Regina also has no European to compare to Eldebrink and no offensive specialist to compare to Olausson (preferring instead to go with two-way guys)
I tried working on a defensive analysis, but failed so I'm glad you came to a similar conclusion that they're radically different.

Quote:
Jonsson was the #1 defenseman on four terrible Isles teams, then, In the 2002, 03, and 04 seasons, the Isles began to emerge into a playoff team but could only do so with Jonsson in a lesser role.
I'm pretty sure the infusion of quality (relative) forwards from 02-04 had much more to do with the Islanders becoming a playoff team than Jonsson being relegated to #2 status. When only one forward crack the 50 point mark (compared to 5 in 01-02), Lidstrom wouldn't make the playoffs.

Quote:
Seabrook is well on his way to a “Mitchell + offense” career but right now Mitchell has two seasons worth of games on him (can you believe it’s just 2 seasons worth?!? Wow!) played at a slightly higher defensive level, edge Mitchell.
I think the key difference in their defence is Seabrook almost always plays with a Norris calibre partner while Mitchell's partner is usually no better than average (Bieksa, Voynov, etc).


Also, coaching hasn't been addressed, but I don't really see it a significant mismatch (although I doubt Emile Francis could skate very well on stilts).

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-25-2012, 10:41 AM
  #28
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,236
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The biggest issue with Iain's points allocation system - it doesn't take quality of the league or the talent pool into effect. I don't think anyone thinks Russel Bowie was somewhere between Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux, but that's what the points allocation system shows.

The quality of hockey improved a lot between the 1900s when Bowie/Nicholsson/Moran/etc played and the 1980s when Gretzky played, but it also improved a lot between the 1880s/early 1890s and the 1900s.
Those things are taken into account; the adjustments might just not be as drastic as you think they should be (or perhaps as they should be). Iain has commented that the league strength was the weakest in Paton's time so it is taken into account; it's just that the statistical dominance (GAA) was typically so strong that it even transcended that.

I remember looking at a few seasons from the early days and the 70s and 80s and tracking the number of players who met a certain TPAK threshold and concluded the results were mostly satisfactory. (i.e. it seemed to flow over time more or less along with the size of the talent pool)

Quote:
This may sound a bit callous, but I think when a player dies, evaluating that player is a bit different than someone who stopped playing hockey for other reasons.
No, it's me who sounds callous for not giving him a bit more of a "pass" for dying in the war. That's why I say "Given the circumstances, you, different people and I may draw the line differently"

Quote:
I'm pretty sure the infusion of quality (relative) forwards from 02-04 had much more to do with the Islanders becoming a playoff team than Jonsson being relegated to #2 status. When only one forward crack the 50 point mark (compared to 5 in 01-02), Lidstrom wouldn't make the playoffs.
It's possible. But at the same time, adding another Jonsson-caliber player plus another who outperformed him had to help. (it basically tripled their top-end defense strength)

Quote:
I think the key difference in their defence is Seabrook almost always plays with a Norris calibre partner while Mitchell's partner is usually no better than average (Bieksa, Voynov, etc).
That's true. And I'm not saying Seabrook is even in Mitchell's class defensively even with that advantage; I think that the record speaks for itself (you saw the study, right?)

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 06:07 AM
  #29
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 34,311
vCash: 562
Your winner, in 6 games, is the Connecticut Whale

series stars:
Andre Lacroix, Billy Nicholson, Brian Bellows, Tom Patton

DaveG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
09-29-2012, 04:04 PM
  #30
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 43,512
vCash: 500
damn, this one could have gone either way. I ended up sending my votes for the other division, wanted to think about this one more, then got swamped with work, and never got these votes in on time. The 6 game series makes it look like my vote wouldn't have made a difference in the final result though.

Strange to see Nicholson a bigger star than Paton this series, when Paton finished so much higher in regular season all star voting.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-30-2012, 12:59 AM
  #31
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 26,236
vCash: 500
good series, Hedberg, and good luck.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:27 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.