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 Mickey Ion Finals: Medicine Hat Tricks vs Winston-Salem Polar Twins

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-05-2012, 12:59 AM
  #26
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seventieslord
2008 is more or less McCabe's 2004. Both 2nd team all-stars. McCabe as a two-way player; Campbell more offensive-geared.
I think there was a perception afterwards that McCabe's big PP goal totals we're at least something of a product of Kaberle. Campbell did more on his own I think.

By the way, McCabe was on out short list of "all round #1 defensemen" going into this, so don't think I don't think this is far apart.

Quote:
Yes, of course he should get credit for doing what he did... which was to be the #3 (#4 in the playoffs) defenseman of a cup winner.

But... why does he go from playing 3.5 more minutes per game than #4 Hjalmarsson in the regular season, to 1.5 fewer in the playoffs? That kind of thing never happened with McCabe.... the opposite was more likely to happen.
Campbell was Chicago's 3rd most important defensman in the playoffs. He carried their puck possession game when Keith wasn't on the ice.

His ice time was cut down because he was coming back from a serious injury.

Quote:
Yes, and the same can be said for a number of defensemen in that list I posted. And not just Calle Johansson-types who were excellent defensively and not conducive to easy comparisons, but Korab-types who had a McCabeish style.

When you look at that list based on empirical evidence, McCabe comes out pretty darn close to the top and Campbell quite close to the bottom, and that is based just on prime years. It's almost like with Campbell you have to "believe" there's something more than the empirical evidence, but with players of his type it's usually the opposite.
I'm not sure what list you're talking about.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 01:25 AM
  #27
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,884
vCash: 500
I generally try to steer clear of super-posts that cover too much territory at once, so I'll split my response to the last series-related post in half. This one will cover first line comparisons, while the next will have to do with the middle 6.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
- In the beginning of the clip, he's carrying the puck down the right side and then lines up on the left side for the faceoff. In any event, it's not terribly worrisome to have a left wing move to the other wing, especially when it provides a shooting advantage. It's not like taking a natural wing and stuffing him at center. The only outstanding reason why a C/LW in the NHL today couldn't also play the right side is because of his handedness and the disadvantage in board play which is so prominent in the North American game. It's not that the two wings are so wholly different in their responsibilities.
I guess there are no strict "rules" to this thing, but what you just described doesn't strike me as sufficient justification for moving a player to a new position for the playoffs and expecting him to keep up his productivity. The two wings are most definitely two different positions.

It's one thing with Giroux playing his original position, but you're taking a center who had an unknown amount of experience at LW and moving him to RW? On your first line? Ok, glad it's you and not me.


Quote:
- Not attacking Nilsson's softness, just his uncanny ability to get hurt playing against men.
I call B.S. Several of your comments, including the one quoted, insinuated that he is soft. I'm not sure if you see Swedish+injuries=soft or what, but you're barking up the wrong tree if you think Nilsson isn't game for a physical matchup.


Quote:
There's some very tough customers on this side, a number of which came from a very rugged era in NHL history. He might not be "soft" but he is brittle.
There was no more rugged era than that in which Nilsson played, the post-WHA, pre-enforcer period where you had guys like Potvin and Robinson running people through the boards. Nilsson went right into the jaws of those defenses and scored a point per game on them. It's not like he was sitting out games with concussions and broken fingers -- the injuries that kept him out were of a catastrophic nature, shredded ligaments and shattered ankles, things that nobody can skate through. Otherwise he quietly and effectively skated through years of targeted violence so extreme that Bobby Hull sat out a game in protest -- and that was in the "soft" WHA.

In any case, we know how much time Nilsson will miss, about 28%, or 2 games. In the other 5 games he will be the best center in the series. Given my center depth, I'll take that tradeoff.

Quote:
Personally, I'm a tiny bit confused as to where your numbers on Bodnar missing so much time are from...

I have it as playing 667 out of 750 (including losing every game in a trade scenario, so give or take a game or two possibly). That's 89% of regular season tilts.
You're right, I made a mistake -- if I had to guess, in copying hockey-reference's GP column I probably counted his 1954 as three different seasons. Your numbers above are correct.


Quote:
So Nilsson played in 50% (at best) of the games he could have played in at the NHL level...granted, he stayed healthier in a lesser, less physical league...but that's to be somewhat expected.
I submit that it is unwise to be so dismissive of non-NHL leagues considering you have two non-NHL'ers on your first line. Or shall we "adjust" their career GP to 0%?

Quote:
- I mentioned Bodnar's postseason failings already. ... Kozhevnikov is probably even better than we even know about him...but even at face value, looks to be "very good" or better at this level.
Whoa, slow your roll there. I'd say the combination of these players is a problem waiting to happen for you.

Kozhevnikov had 4 good seasons out of 12 (not holding his comebacks against him) and in those other 8 seasons he fell off the face of the earth. His scoring in those 8 seasons was on par with guys who aren't even given consideration for the AA draft. So you get Good Kozhevnikov for a third of your games, and Invisible Kozhevnikov for two-thirds.

Now look at Bodnar's consistency. Maybe 5 seasons befitting a first-line MLD'er, and 7 that ranged from subpar to terrible (again I'm not even taking WWII into consideration here). So you get Good Bodnar for maybe 3 games here.

To make the point explicit: a team that relies heavily on its first line will get poor performances from its center for 4 games and total invisibility from its RW for 5 games. If you're lucky you MIGHT get that line at 100% twice in the series. And what happens when those bad games coincide? Kerr is a good winger but he's not Gretzky.

Compare with my first line -- Scanlan was apparently as good at the end of his career as in his prime, Kehoe is as steady and consistent as they come, and Nilsson never slowed down except to injury. In the event that Nilsson is out, he will be replaced by a healthy top-9er like Bernier or Juneau, who won't simply disappear. It is quite possible that, in spite of having less first-line talent, mine could end up out scoring yours in at least 2 or 3 games here. And that is a disaster given your top-heavy game plan.

Of course, I have my own streaky scorers, but they're not THE make-us-or-break-us scoring unit.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:05 AM
  #28
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
- I'm sure they were good enough to skate against largely depth players for most of their careers.
If you believe this is the case, please prove it. Best I can tell, Brown and Maxwell were top-pairing guys on good teams in their primes. Langlois wasn't necessarily a top-pairing player, but he was skating against Original Six teams whose second lines were filled with players who would be first-liners in the expansion era. I'm not sure where you got Butcher as a bottom-pairing guy but I'm pretty sure that's not true, other than in his twilight years.


Quote:
Brown (described in his profile as a "spare" defender)
He was the 7th guy I drafted. IE, the "spare" slot before I drew up lines. He was hardly a spare, skating with Howell and Park on the top pairing.


Quote:
I never attacked your center depth. It's better than mine. My team is largely a board play/defensive team. I needed quality wingers and versatility for my gameplan to be successful. The depth lines score off the cycle, not from free-wheeling rushes.
It not an issue of how they score, but of how MUCH they score.

In fact, it's even broader than that. Even a slight advantage in puck possession, over a 7 game series, tends to tilt the matchup rather dramatically. Defensive players get burned out if their team doesn't have the puck, and it's a safe bet that your bottom 9 won't generate many big offensive games. How long are they going to bend before they break? Sooner or later, the large edge in offensive skill will cause a breakthrough.

Quote:
-It made sense to me that in a Minor League Draft, that I wouldn't be able to get elite offensive talent...how could you? So, I got some the finest offensive players I could find (and have gotten credit for doing a credible job with my first unit, including having the best transitional and best overall d-man in the league) and then went in search of players whose job it was to shutdown ATD players because then I knew they would have no trouble with any caliber MLD players.

... I can't stress the point enough, Andre Pronovost was assigned to shutdown Gordie Howe...there's going to come a time in this series when he lines up next to Joe Juneau and then he's going to whisper to Terry Crisp, "who is this?"
Frankly, I think you've underestimated the quality of competition in this league. Charlie Burns was also assigned to shut down Howe; do you think he's going to be "run roughshod" by Gus Bodnar and Patrice Bergeron?

We drafted from the same pool of players. My players came by their offensive numbers by beating ATD'ers too -- defenders who in most cases were better than yours. That dynamic applies to both teams equally.

Quote:
At no time will this team be caught off-guard defensively, no point.
You realize Brian Campbell is your #1 defenseman, right?

Quote:
I'm not sure how the box scores read in the mind's of the voters for my previous series...but we didn't need more than 2.5 goals per game in these playoffs to get to this point.
If that's the strategy you want to project, that Winston-Salem will win the series if they average more than 2 goals, I'm happy to say I agree.

Of course, you're getting that number on the assumption that your first line isn't susceptible to extended cold streaks, so who knows what the real target will be.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:52 PM
  #29
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
If it is cherrypicking, it's contextual cherry-picking. The game opened up for the type of d-man that Campbell is on the other side of the lockout. It's evident in his success-followed-by-ice-time history. I'm sure ice time and production increases occured for players like Rafalski, Mark Streit, even Marc-Andre Bergeron because of the rule changes as well. Without it, who knows, maybe Streit is still a swingman or a #6, but now he's a #1 d-man...Bergeron is riding buses probably...it had an impact. We can't all be brutish, rip-the-big-shot, chase-the-big-hit-around-the-rink d-men - ones that populated the C&G era. Someone has to start the play or carry it up the ice without getting distracted.
Yes, it is possible and even probable that differences in the way the game is called made it easier for players such as Campbell to thrive.

However – you seem to want to give him a “free pass” for the time before that.

That is not fair to other players who proved they could thrive both before and after the changes. By giving Campbell a free pass you’re telling players like McCabe “it doesn’t matter that you were also good before the lockout”.

Quote:
While McCabe has been getting more minutes for longer, that can be circumstantial...as I've noted, McCabe gets these minutes on poor teams a lot...presumably, he's not beating out very good players for this ice time. It's not a knock on McCabe, per se, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy for ice time almost...McCabe has to play more because he's much better than his replacements...because his replacements are the only guys that responded to the ad in the paper...

I mean, he got big minutes on the '98 Islanders? Ok great. Bryan Berard, Kenny Jonsson, Scott Lachance, Rich Pilon, Doug Houda...

The 1999 Canucks have a better defense in retrospect given that young Ohlund and young Jovanovski were on the squad...that's a solid D core...fair is fair. They were 25th out of 27 in goals against that year, but that's probably more attributable to goaltending...

2000 Hawks? Anders Eriksson, Jamie Allison, Boris Mironov, Brad Brown, Sylvain Cote, Doug Zmolek. It's a wonder they didn't do better...

Now for those pre-lockout Leafs teams, the meat of the McCabe career sandwich...Kaberle, Yushkevich, Dave Manson, Danny Markov, Cory Cross, Nathan Dempsey, Wade Belak, Jyrki Lumme (at the end of his run), Anders Eriksson, Svehla, Aki-Petteri Berg, Ric Jackman, the impenetrable Klee-fense, Karel Pilar, Marchment...

Obviously, players come and go from that group...there's some solid guys in there, sure. But when you're talking about legit top-four d-men...what have you? Kaberle, Yushkevich, Svehla...? Am I missing anyone? I'd say Lumme, but this was the very end for him...I don't recall him aging as well as say a Numminen, for instance. Anyway, that's over a four year stretch...

On the other side of the lockout...Kaberle, Klee, Alex Khavanov, Aki Berg, Belak, Staffan Kronwall/Luke Richardson/Andy Wozniewski/Carlo Colaiacovo.

The fact that he was limited to 26, 27, 28 minutes every night is beyond me...that means those other guys were out there for 30+ minutes per night...who else could go out there in a relatively close game? Of course McCabe is going to get these tough matchups...what else could they do? Belak could drop his gloves and hope the scorer trips over them or maybe Aki Berg could jump out from behind the net with a scary mask on....ooooo...

Before the lockout...Campbell was going against (well, with) Dmitri Kalinin, Henrik Tallinder, Alexei Zhitnik, James Patrick, Rory Fitzpatrick and Jay McKee. You have one fringe NHLer at the time - Fitzpatrick. Kalinin was good on Buffalo and then when he left, he turned south and left for more money back home...Patrick was old, sure. Zhitnik ends up looking worse in retrospect, but he was a big part of those Sabres teams, as you know.

The next year, Patrick out, Numminen in...Zhitnik out, Toni Lydman in...and that's it. I'd say the competition probably got slightly harder...Campbell penetrated the lineup and thrived. Next year, more of the same, Fitzpatrick out, another fringe NHLer in (Nathan Paetsch)...Jaroslav Spacek in for Jay McKee. So, no change. Same basic lineup in 2008 as well. Real NHLers. Good ones. Tallinder and Lydman were really good defensive players there.

With Chicago...you're talking Duncan Keith, Brent Seabrook, Niklas Hjalmarsson, Brent Sopel, Dustin Byfuglien, Cam Barker...you have two #1 d-men, and if you consider Byfuglien one also (I can't stand him, but it helps my argument to say 3, but I won't...) that's 3...Hammer is a very good 2nd pairing guy in this league...Barker is garbage, that's it...

Florida has a younger defense, so we'll let history sort that out for us...Kulikov and Gudbranson are studs though. If we're still doing this in 15 years, we'll be drafting them in one of these things...
Forgive me, but this all sounds incredibly biased.

Kenny Jonsson should be an ATD 3rd pairing defenseman, and Berard will be in the AAA. This is not a scrub defense. It was the best thing about those 1998 Isles.

For the 1999 canucks, you already admit it was pretty good and you even forgot Aucoin.

The 2000 Hawks, strangely, were among the more successful of his unsuccessful teams. I’ll give you that one; it’s a pretty poor defense corps. Regardless, they did have a good MLD defenseman in Cote and a good AAA defenseman in Mironov. Obviously the other four names you mentioned are just horrible.

The list of pre-lockout Leafs that you provided is quite strong. It shouldn’t surprise you for me to say that, either. Relatively speaking, that team was very successful. Svehla is a legit ATDer, Yushkevich and Kaberle are very strong MLDers, Manson and Lumme are both good MLDers and Marchment a AAAer (Lumme was picked too high) but granted, they weren’t at their best in Toronto. Klee was a pretty heralded “solid veteran” pickup comparable to a Jay McKee. (neither has been taken in a AAA/AA/A draft but both have gotten pretty close to the top of my list as we approach the bottom of that barrel) Regardless, the top three names certainly don’t just represent a list of newspaper ad respondents.

In 2006, the Leafs’ defense beyond McCabe and Kaberle was brutal, admittedly. When for the majority of the season your 3rd and 4th-best defensemen are Klee and Khavanov you’re going to play your #1 and #2 an awful lot. So it’s true Kaberle and McCabe got more minutes than they otherwise would have. Regardless, they were clear #1 defensemen at the time and would have finished among the leaders regardless. And let me stress, the team wasn’t bad. They barely missed the playoffs with 90 points and a -13 goal differential. (as I mentioned before, the 2006-2008 Leafs lost just 3 more hockey games than they won, including OT losses purely as losses and excluding shootouts, which are random).

This criticism you heap on McCabe for getting all this ice time on a team with no one else to take it can be heaped on Campbell just as legitimately. This was a team that was very comparable to 2012 Florida, and I’d personally say visibly better. Who else was going to take that ice time? Journeyman Garrison was already getting more than he ever had. Kulikov was just 21 and was getting 2 more minutes than ever before. Mike Weaver was a career 17 minute player and that wasn’t going to change much at age 33. Jovanovski, as we know, has lost it. Gudbranson has a VERY long way to go. You can’t really call Kaberle “competition” for McCabe, since they were joined at the hip, but remove Kaberle and Garrison, and the 4-6 on these teams is very similar. We’re talking Weaver vs. Klee (for the record, Klee was 33 and a career 20 minute defenseman on strong teams as of then) and Khavanov vs. Kulikov (and Khavanov was 34 and a career 20 minute defenseman for very strong teams as of then). Honestly, both Campbell and McCabe had very little competition for minutes, but I personally think McCabe had a little more. We don’t have to let history sort 2012 out; we know that Kulikov and Gudbranson offered little more than potential.

I said the pre-lockout Sabres didn’t have a “name” defense and I stand by that. You’re throwing names around like it’s proof that they were strong, but it’s proof that they weren’t. This is what I mean when I say it’s biased. You say “Kaberle, Yushkevich, Dave Manson, Danny Markov, Cory Cross, Nathan Dempsey, Wade Belak, Jyrki Lumme (at the end of his run), Anders Eriksson, Svehla, Aki-Petteri Berg, Ric Jackman, the impenetrable Klee-fense, Karel Pilar, Marchment – garbage! Dmitri Kalinin, Henrik Tallinder, Alexei Zhitnik, James Patrick, Rory Fitzpatrick and Jay McKee – strong! I’m not seeing a major difference here. Zhitnik was their best and was a McCabe-lite or sort of a physical Kaberle – he cancels out with Kaberle. Beyond that, you expect me to believe 38-40 year old Patrick (who is an ATDer but not at all because of his twilight) Kalinin, Tallinder, and McKee make a better defense than Yushky/Svehla (they were traded for eachother), and late Lumme, Manson, Marchment? Kalinin and McKee have never been mentioned or drafted at any sub-AAA level, and Tallinder was a B-draft mention once (pick 1741). No. It is the opposite. There was generally more competition for icetime on the pre-lockout Leafs than on the Sabres. Mainly because Yushky/Svehla is much better than anything on the Buffalo side, and the other names more or less wash. This can’t be explained away with any other reasoning other than Campbell wasn’t good enough and McCabe was.

This takes us back to the following: what’s worse? Being a top pairing defenseman with mediocre competition, or being a #6-8 defenseman with mediocre competition?

Yes they got stronger in 2006 and the rules helped him. For the reasons you described. Lydman is a phenomenal defensive player who deserves to be picked soon. Still, he was just a #5 on that team. McCabe was never that low on a team’s depth chart, or even #4. And it’s still not like this defense is any more than marginally better than the pre-lockout Leafs on which he thrived. I agree there was not much of a change to 2007, and he took on a great role. Good for him, and I give him appropriate credit for that season, but at the same time it does wash out with a strong McCabe season, it doesn’t put him “ahead”.

With Chicago, yes, playing behind is Keith is obvious. Playing behind Seabrook though? Now I’m not saying that he should have been on the 1st pairing with Keith because I understand that wouldn’t be a very complementary skillset and Keith/Seabrook is, but… in many cases if your “true” 2nd best defenseman is on the 2nd pairing he usually ends up getting the 2nd most minutes. Seabrook played more than Campbell in Chicago though, by about 45 seconds over three seasons. Now if your answer to this is, Seabrook was better and more valuable than Campbell in Chicago I’d probably agree. As for the rest of that corps, Hjalmarsson is a pretty good 2nd pairing guy. Pretty much like Klee or Khavanov. He’s certainly not evidence of “competition for minutes”. Sopel is a career 19 minute guy. You’ll have to explain to me how he’s evidence of a good player Campbell beat out for minutes while guys like Klee, Khavanov, and late career Lumme and Manson aren’t the same for McCabe.

Quote:
Basically, if we're splitting hairs about 2.5 minutes because McCabe's coach had the choice of putting out Nathan Dempsey and Cory Cross in the last 3 minutes of a game or McCabe and anything...while Campbell's coaches had the choice of real top-4 d-men (Tallinder, Lydman, Zhitnik at the time, McKee) or real Norris candidates (Keith, Seabrook, Byfuglien) all this time...well, then, I guess I'm looking at this wrong.
First, 2.5 minutes is huge. That’s about two depth chart spots on average.

Second, that was a bit disingenuous. Nathan Dempsey and Cory Cross were never the next best option after McCabe, or even legitimately close to it. Tallinder, Lydman and Zhitnik were Buffalo’s actual best choices. (and as for Chicago, we all know Byfuglien wasn’t really a Norris candidate even in Atlanta/Winnipeg and even further away in Chicago).

Quote:
Sure seems that way, doesn't it? You reference "luck" later on in your post. Maybe Campbell is just lucky that everywhere he goes, massive amounts of success happen. One's an accident, two's a trend, three's an epidemic...what's four? I'll say an ATD-worthy d-man at the least...
Define “massive amounts of success”. Lumping in last year as evidence of massive amounts of success is simply incorrect. 2006-2008 Buffalo was more or less on par with 2001-2004 Toronto. Chicago won a cup (and good for him and them) but he was the playoff #4 for them.

San Jose is a mixed bag. They went on a huge tear after getting him (positive) but they were 2nd round losers which is a slight disappointment for a 2nd place team (negative).

Quote:
Fraud? I don't want to steal away from the conversation at hand, but can I get the cliff's notes on these fraud charges? Unless you mean, the Panthers defrauded the Blackhawks in the Brian Campbell trade which propelled the Panthers to the playoffs for the first time in more than a decade...then I understand just fine. /intentionally obtuse
Here are the cliff’s notes as I posted them in the chat thread back in April:

They will probably win their division, but with more OT/shootout loss points than anyone else in the league, and a -24 goal differential. No one in that division actually has a positive goal differential.

This brings me back to how ridiculous it is to reward the winner of a terrible division with a 3rd place spot. They are only 3rd because they got to play these other bad teams, more than other teams did. the fact that the division has negative goal differentials across the board means the other teams ran the table against them (because the divisional goal differential in all games within the division is obviously zero). If the schedule was truly balanced, all teams in the southeast would have a few fewer points than they do, and all other teams would have a couple more, and the division would look as bad as it actually is, instead of all teams having their point totals padded by games against eachother.

Quote:
I'll defer to you on this point then if you did the leg work. I was incorrect, point retracted. Any determination on McCabe's regular partners (outside of Kaberle) in that pre-lockout stretch?
No, I wasn’t paying too much attention. I was just watching for how often 15 and 24 were together for even strength goals for and against. The only thing that popped out at me was how much Kaberle and Svehla were an item in 2003.

Quote:
I don't want that to be my point at all (that it's worthless to be a #1 d-man on a bad team...*glancing up at the Jay Bouwmeester jersey hanging on my wall* no not at all...) it's that you throw the two and a half minutes (or whatever it is) around and, as I said above, it's just not worth what it looks like. One guy is a top pairing d-man on bad teams for most of his career, playing ahead of bad competition.
First point, you’re overstating how “bad” McCabe’s teams were over his career. Obviously the 01-04 Leafs were good, but average them in with 11 other years of hockey and the GF:GA ratio of his teams, weighted for his career, is 0.99. And you’re definitely overstating the competition piece, at least as it relates to Campbell.

Quote:
One guy is a top pairing d-man on a few teams and played like a hundred playoff games in 7 years...and I think was top-10 for the Norris 3 times, was a 4x all-star
“number of playoff games played” has to be a pretty small piece of what goes into evaluating a player.

McCabe was also top-10 for the Norris twice with two seasons that wash out with Campbell’s best, and his level of play in whatever you believe was his 3rd best was certainly comparable to Campbell’s 9th-place 2007 finish playing just 21 minutes. And the all-star game part makes perfect sense, does it not?

McCabe was “unlucky” enough to have best-on-best tournaments cancel his potential all-star games (one of which was an absolute lock) and injuries another. But it works both ways. Of course, in one of those seasons he was actually in the 2006 tourney, even if he wasn’t any good there. And he was 30. Campbell’s age 30 season was 2010. Was he even on Canada’s radar? At all?

Quote:
...the way it seems to work here, Campbell might have been better off being drafted in 2004 (without moving his age) so people could go "well, in 7 years, he was top-10 for the Norris 3 times, and a 4x all-star and a Cup winner..." I think he'd be in the ATD already...but because the same coaches that know better than us held him out of that clutch and grab garbage because it didn't suit him, he's penalized.
Is that what happened, though? I mean, let’s be honest, had he cracked that illustrious 2002-2004 Buffalo lineup, he wouldn’t have been the only sub-6’0” offensive defenseman in the NHL.

Quote:
And maybe that's fair, maybe...but it seems like some other players get a free pass for not being good enough for a long time and then getting to the show (Tim Thomas, for instance) and then Campbell emerges and it's like luck and fraud and fruity coco puffs and the whole thing...but really, it just so happened that two of his crucial developmental years saw the league played in a quagmire of slush and a size 14 skates and 76" wingspans...what did we want to happen?
Please don’t misrepresent my position. I never said Campbell was lucky. Florida was lucky.

Quote:
2004 ES ATOI leaders among D (top 10):
- Willie Mitchell - 6'3/210 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Sergei Gonchar - 6'2/210 / just below HHOF caliber
- Scott Hannan - 6'1/225 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Scott Niedermayer - HHOF d-man
- Ruslan Salei - 6'2/215 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Roman Hamrlik - 6'2/210 - big, physical two-way d-man
- Mattias Ohlund - 6'4/230 - big, physical defensive-minded d-man
- Scott Stevens - 6'2/220 - big, physical, defensive d-man
- Nicklas Lidstrom - HHOF d-man
- Adrian Aucion - 6'2/215 - McCabe-ish

So basically...you were either a big, physical d-man...or you were a HHOFer (or both, in the case of Stevens).

Now look at where we're at (same criteria as above):
- Brian Campbell - I think you know him now, smooth-skating offensive d-man
- Duncan Keith - Smooth-skating offensive d-man
- Dan Girardi - Defensive d-man, but not very big. He'd be the smallest defensive d-man on that list above
- Ryan McDonagh - Not a monster like Stevens or anything...he wouldn't look out of place on the list above to be fair...not right in line, but not far off...
- Erik Karlsson - smooth-skating offensive d-man
- Marc-Edouard Vlasic - smooth skating, defensive d-man, maybe like 6', 6'1, 200
- Jay Bouwmeester - smooth skating, defensive-minded d-man - big guy, but doesn't use it...
- Ryan Suter - defensive d-man, 6'/195
- Shea Weber - Ok, McCabe-ish...big guy, chases the big hit, takes the big shot.
- Dustin Byfuglien - McCabe-ish...offensive d-man, horrid defensively
- Dan Boyle - smooth-skating offensive d-man

Well...you can read...it's not what it used to be.
Did you include Boyle (who appears to have been 11th) by accident or to strengthen the case? Regardless:

It does look different, but not to the degree that you overstate it. The difference is more in the way you describe each of them, than the actual makeup of the lists.

Remove Salei and Mitchell from the first list and Campbell and Vlasic from the bottom list and there hasn’t really been much turnaround in the rest of the top-10s (11).

Gonchar-Niedermayer-Lidstrom-Aucoin to Boyle-Karlsson-Bouemeester-Keith doesn’t represent a major ideology shift, nor does Hannan-Hamrlik-Ohlund-Stevens to Girardi-McDonagh-Suter-Weber-Byfuglien (obviously).

Quote:
In closing - on the other side of the great divide, when it opened up, Campbell wasn't handed anything. He rose through the ranks and became more prominent than McCabe ever was and had more success than McCabe ever had...
Yes, good for him for rising through the ranks, he deserves credit for that and for the success he attains. The logical breakdown is where that makes him better than a guy who achieved pretty much the same personal successes and rose through the ranks much faster – and has a much longer and more established track record currently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Yeah I'm going to tend to agree with Mike Farkas about Campbell. I think he's been underrated for a while. I honestly feel he was a top 4 defenseman in the NHL last year (right behind the three Norris finalists, ahead of Girardi and Pietrangelo). So, so, so valuable to that Florida team (that by no means is a "fraud").
I’m really surprised Florida’s 2012 season being a fraud is not more of a mainstream opinion. I’m even more surprised that you outright dismiss it so casually.

Take a look at hockey-reference.com’s “simple rating system” which ranks the teams based on their goal differential versus strength of schedule. Florida was 24th overall at -0.33.

To dismiss the idea that they were a fraud so easily, is to look only at the point total that they finished with, and ignore the other factors, like that they got there extremely ugly (18 OT/shootout losses, -24 goal differential) and with the softest schedule (the entire division had negative goal differentials, indicating the other divisions all owned them)

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2012.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Florida didn't look like a fraud in the playoffs.

IMO, Jason Garrison can thank Campbell for his big contract, but we'll see if I'm right.
He can thank Campbell and extra PP time. He had just 5 more ESP than the season before (11% more ES minutes should lead to 11% more ESP, so the “Campbell effect” at ES was likely 3-4 points) ; the perceived spike was due to getting 9 more PP points. Allthough having Campbell next to you at ES or on the PP is going to lead to more points, going from 3 to 12 PP points can likely be traced mostly to the rise in PP time from 113 minutes to 194.

Keep in mind it wasn’t like that was a season for the ages or anything… he had 33 points, 31st among defensemen and 43rd at even strength. Still I agree that if you can trace 3-4 ESP and 4-5 PPP to the addition of Campbell, then Garrison should be sending him fresh baked cookies, because with 24-26 points there’s no way he gets that contract. Campbell likely got him over that tipping point.

On a side note, it’s honestly amazing what some teams will shell out the big bucks based on. I was shocked PA Parenteau got only $4M; it looked like the teams viewed a UFA in context for a change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm not sure what list you're talking about.
“the big defensemen study” from late in this year’s ATD.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=583

It ranks a number of similar modern defensemen by their adjusted prime ice time weighed with the strength of the teams that gave them all this ice time. It also provides some other numbers for consideration that don’t affect the order in which it’s lists. Campbell looks pretty mediocre on it. Basically when you look at McCabe on there, there’s a feeling of “yeah, what makes him significantly worse than Ramage? Or at least Korab, and Jovanovski. And certainly Zhitnik, Kubina, Hamrlik and Aucoin.” But Campbell’s way down the list, not too far ahead of others I’ve appropriately criticized for not being typically utilized heavily by strong teams, like Persson and Visnovsky.

Ultimately, It’s shorthand, yes, but I get the sense that the numbers can only lie to us to a certain degree. Are they lying enough that there are other subjective factors to be weighed in that would put Campbell ahead?

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:08 PM
  #30
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,643
vCash: 500
Kenny Jonsson isn't getting drafted for what he did on the 1998 Islanders. Based on his NHL career alone (which is apparently all that matters when it comes to Mark Streit, haha), he'd be lucky to be drafted in the AAA. For whatever reason, he exploded after leaving the NHL.

Quote:
“the big defensemen study” from late in this year’s ATD.

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=583

It ranks a number of similar modern defensemen by their adjusted prime ice time weighed with the strength of the teams that gave them all this ice time. It also provides some other numbers for consideration that don’t affect the order in which it’s lists. Campbell looks pretty mediocre on it. Basically when you look at McCabe on there, there’s a feeling of “yeah, what makes him significantly worse than Ramage? Or at least Korab, and Jovanovski. And certainly Zhitnik, Kubina, Hamrlik and Aucoin.” But Campbell’s way down the list, not too far ahead of others I’ve appropriately criticized for not being typically utilized heavily by strong teams, like Persson and Visnovsky.

Ultimately, It’s shorthand, yes, but I get the sense that the numbers can only lie to us to a certain degree. Are they lying enough that there are other subjective factors to be weighed in that would put Campbell ahead?
The study includes Campbell's average minutes and role from 2003-2012. We all know that he was a bit player before the lockout. I think he's had a large enough sample size since to know how good he is now. I always look at a player's prime and really don't care that much what he did before or after, so long as the prime is long enough.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:00 PM
  #31
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
Not sure why the WHA is being called soft. I've only read the Rebel League, but that and thinking about the situation makes it obvious there were incentives to be more violent, not less.

Also re Nilsson, unless someone much bigger breaks his ankle like Potvin did I wouldn't worry about him showing up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rebel League
Bill Goldthorpe on attempting to rough up "The Hot Line"
After a minute, Goldthorpe came to the bench with sweat dripping off his mug and rasped to Talbot, "Coach, I can't stay with them," "Try staying in your lane then," Talbot advised.

After the next shift, Goldthorpe returned to the bench, again out of breath and covered in sweat, and said to Talbot, "**** it. That didn't work either."

Anders on Ulf
"Ulfie was the brains of our line," says Hedberg. "He made it work with his vision and his ability to distribute the puck. He had no physique and he wasn't much of a skater, but he was very, very competitive. Peter Forsberg is a better skater, but I see the competitiveness there. They'll be a step behind the play and they'll whack and hack their way back into the play. They both have that edge."

Hull before speaking out publicly for the first time in '74-75
"Hull remembers one game in San Diego around the middle of their first season together when the Jets beat the Mariners 9-7. Nilsson picked up five assists and finished the game looking, in Hull's gentle turn of phrase, like "ground hamburger."

Nilsson's description
"It was bad, really bad," says Nilsson. "Guys would get suspended for two or three games now for some of the things they did, and they barely got a penalty in our league."

Hull again
"They took a real ****-kicking that first year," Hull says. "They talk about toughness and competitiveness. I really think that those two guys were the toughest players I ever played with."

Ted Green
"I've played and been around a lot of great players, but I have a great deal of respect for Ulf Nilsson and Anders Hedberg," says Green. "They had to play through a lot of crap and they had the strength of character to do it without changing their game. I'm not sure how they survived. A lot of Canadians wouldn't have taken that abuse and played the game the ways these guys did. It's because of them the NHL is such a global game now.

Mark Howe
"Those guys used to take a beating, but they came right back at you," says Mark Howe. "They were the ones who knocked us off our perch and I have a lot of respect for Anders and Ulfie. They changed the game."

Hull also sat out a game on October 24, 1975 and held a teary-eyed presser the next day in protest of the violence in the WHA

Rob Scuderi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:26 PM
  #32
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,600
vCash: 500
Brian Campbell's development is an interesting topic, especially considering the
pre-lockout and post-lockout eras.

He was an unbelievable player in junior. Not a high pick because everyone was looking for big d-men. But when Ottawa won the Memorial Cup he played huge minutes, covered an incredible amount of ice, and was clearly the best and most valuable player on that team.

Campbell had trouble cracking the NIL pre-lockout. I don't remember much about him from that time. But after the lockout he basically picked up where he had left off in junior and made his mark on the NHL.

Compare him to, say, Rafalski,St Louis, and Boyle. All were able to star before the lockout, but took a while to become stars? Was it because teams were unfairly biased against small players, or because small players took longer to adjust to the league and develop in that context? Similarly, did Campbell not get a fair chance or did he just need a few years to develop?

Even in today's NHL Ryan Ellis isn't exactly on the fast track.


Last edited by overpass: 10-05-2012 at 05:32 PM.
overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:38 PM
  #33
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,884
vCash: 500
I'm glad to see those quotes substantiating Nilsson's toughness and character. It's a shame that the early Swedes' struggles aren't more widely chronicled.

Edit: added those passages to his bio for future reference.


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 10-05-2012 at 05:44 PM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 05:56 PM
  #34
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I'm glad to see those quotes substantiating Nilsson's toughness and character. It's a shame that the early Swedes' struggles aren't more widely chronicled.

Edit: added those passages to his bio for future reference.
Borje Salming's struggles in the NHL are widely known; Pelletier even calls him "the most important hockey player of all time." For whatever reason, the struggles of the WHA guys are much less known. Obviously part of that is because Salming played in the NHL. Maybe it was partly because Hedberg and Nilsson took a ton of abuse, but didn't dish it out like Salming did.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 06:07 PM
  #35
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Borje Salming's struggles in the NHL are widely known; Pelletier even calls him "the most important hockey player of all time." For whatever reason, the struggles of the WHA guys are much less known. Obviously part of that is because Salming played in the NHL. Maybe it was partly because Hedberg and Nilsson took a ton of abuse, but didn't dish it out like Salming did.
And, of course, Salming was the best of the group so his name comes up more often than the others, and he has the Toronto media boost on top of that. Not too many people remember these MLD'ers after a couple of decades, unless they were particularly colorful, and that seems even more true of players who were seen as threats by Canadians and expats by Swedes. There's really not a lot of influential voices out there to advocate for them, other than their former teammates, fans and coaches. And even then, maybe not all were big fans of the cultural shift.


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 10-05-2012 at 06:15 PM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 06:21 PM
  #36
Rob Scuderi
Registered User
 
Rob Scuderi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 2,762
vCash: 500
I honestly think every single Swede coming to NA was given that treatment. Hedberg or Nilsson mention Salming and Thommie Bergman were really big helps for them, but they were certainly still forerunners.

Even in "The Game," Dryden talks about how during one game the Habs are playing some team with a Swede and basically this is a signal for his teammates for the rest of the game. The belief at the time was ALL Swedes don't like being hit, so we must constantly hit them. The problem is, if you give anyone that treatment after awhile it sort of becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I think that's where Ted Green's quote is key. How many Canucks or Americans could withstand that special attention for seasons at a time and just sit there and take it?

Rob Scuderi is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 07:36 PM
  #37
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Kenny Jonsson isn't getting drafted for what he did on the 1998 Islanders. Based on his NHL career alone (which is apparently all that matters when it comes to Mark Streit, haha), he'd be lucky to be drafted in the AAA. For whatever reason, he exploded after leaving the NHL.
I would take him in the MLD based just on his NHL career. He was very solid.

Quote:
The study includes Campbell's average minutes and role from 2003-2012. We all know that he was a bit player before the lockout. .
True. I had to include that in order to have a prime size more similar to everyone else. In otherwords, I couldn't cherrypick for his benefit.

If these numbers were run after 2 more seasons then it would include those and knock off those first two. He'd look better, but I don't think he'd make it to the top half of that list, either.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 10:51 AM
  #38
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,166
vCash: 500
I'll follow-up with Campbell vs. McCabe as time permits. I just want to first deal with the Conference Final matchup here and then let the voters decide the fate...

- Re: switching wings. Really not a big deal, similar responsibilities in this system anyhow. This provides a shooting advantage, one that would have been granted to him in the Soviet system. He grew up with the off-wing shot, this wouldn't be new territory at all. Seamless transition, much ado about nothing.

- I'm not sure that I agree that the 70's were the most rugged era in history. I'd guess the time around the formation of the major pro leagues where Sprague Cleghorn's and Eddie Shore's were all but eviscerating people where they stood is the most rugged and above all, dangerous. Many of my d-men grew up in that era, so I'm confident in that their truculence will rule the day.

- So we're tearing apart Kozhevnikov because he was forcefully held back by the nature of the Communist party? Using the "if you remove all of his good seasons, he'd be bad" argument? That's really not gonna look too good for your top-six when we remove the best four seasons of Ulf Nilsson, Bronco Horvath, Joe Juneau and the like...especially when you consider they all had more free-range to actually be better longer if not for their own limitations. Kozhevnikov was not liked by his coaches. Which isn't to say that isn't somewhat his fault or even mostly his fault...but he wouldn't be treated with such disdain anywhere else...I'm surprised I saw the "he didn't do anything good outsiide of his good seasons" argument though...

- Kehoe is steady and consistent in the regular season, which has long passed. Kehoe is the ghost of playoffs past...so yes, steady and consistently invisible...

I think it's an overstatement that my game would crash down around me because of this purported disappearing act that most of my team will go through (not yours, of course, just mine) in just this series (not the others, or the whole regular season) - all of a sudden, now, and only now, these guys will be maimed or otherwise rendered ineffective. It's an interesting claim I guess...maybe the voters will have their own beliefs about my team's demise...perhaps the Spanish Flu will wipe out the locker room by chance...or my arena will burn down forcing me to wander over to your arena for all 7 games or less...a gaggle of clumsy movers may drop a piano on Brian Campbell on his way to practice...anything is possible!

- Maybe Maxwell played some top pairing minutes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was going against top competition regularly. Especially given his lack of PK experience, I wouldn't guess he was matched up against the elite because he couldn't be trusted to kill penalties...I see a couple seasons where he may have been on the second PK unit...but that's hardly a ringing endorsement that he was going against top competition...Arnie Brown, in the years he actually played with Howell or Park, sure...but I don't know the extent of that off-hand...

Quote:
It not an issue of how they score, but of how MUCH they score.

In fact, it's even broader than that. Even a slight advantage in puck possession, over a 7 game series, tends to tilt the matchup rather dramatically. Defensive players get burned out if their team doesn't have the puck, and it's a safe bet that your bottom 9 won't generate many big offensive games. How long are they going to bend before they break? Sooner or later, the large edge in offensive skill will cause a breakthrough.
I'll quote that because I couldn't bring myself to type it. Not much for coaching tactics, huh? Is all I could say to that...it's very much an issue of how they score, that's the very nature of the game. That's what the team was built for. If you gave the 2003 Minnesota Wild the blueprints of the 1984 Oilers and said, "do what they do!" you have a last place team, even if they do score a few extra goals...a goal prevented is more valuable than a goal scored anyhow. And we can prevent them. And given our unyielding affection for board play and the cycle and the ability to win faceoffs, it'll be difficult to muster the type of the puck possession that you boast of...I'm not sure how long Joe Juneau or Ulf Nilsson plan to hold off Percy Traub or Bill Brydge, but I'd wonder how long (or how far?) those players can bend before breaking, not my team as a whole...

- Charlie Burns may have been assigned to shut down Howe. That's one guy on your fourth line. I have two of the most defensively responsible lines in the whole league AND then a Selke-winner (the only one in the league, right?). The defensive mismatch is large. I'll take ATD-level defense vs. MLD-level offense any day of the week.

- With Brad Maxwell and Jocelyn Guevremont making up half of your top-four d-men, meaning they'll be playing in upwards of 45 minutes a night (you'll have to excuse the drool from Dubbie Kerr and Wayne Babych)...I'm surprised, from your glass house, you'd be throwing stones at Brian Campbell. A player who has matured tremendously over his career and has been very capable defensively the last couple years. Surely, the responsibility of lugging the Florida Panthers to a division title didn't come exclusively from his ability to make break-out passes...his growing use on the PK is noteworthy and helps to justify the maturity he's shown on the rink. There doesn't seem to be anything that Campbell can't do...he keeps getting heaps of ice time and keeps maturing and handling it so well...

- I wouldn't guess that your offense is a lock to succeed in this series (at all) because this offense doesn't look worlds different from the other offenses that have been strangled by this team throughout the regular season and through the playoffs...but, again, we'll see what the voters believe. Maybe they'll buy the "none of my players were good outside of their good seasons" argument and you'll sweep!

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 11:48 AM
  #39
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,724
vCash: 500
Thought I'd pipe in again...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
- Charlie Burns may have been assigned to shut down Howe. That's one guy on your fourth line. I have two of the most defensively responsible lines in the whole league AND then a Selke-winner (the only one in the league, right?). The defensive mismatch is large. I'll take ATD-level defense vs. MLD-level offense any day of the week.
You guys could end up going in circles on this forever, so here's an unbiased observer's take on how I'd rank the bottom six players based on career-long demonstrated defensive ability:

bolded is Winston-Salem.

Charlie Burns

Dave Tippett
Terry Crisp
Rob Zamuner

Andre Pronovost
Lorne Henning

Buzz Boll
Dustin Brown
Jim Riley


Scott Young
Serge Bernier
Shorty Green

Quote:
Surely, the responsibility of lugging the Florida Panthers to a division title didn't come exclusively from his ability to make break-out passes...
you can call it a division title if you like, because it was, but it should be said that it's possible to win a division title without actually being the best team in your division and it's also possible that the best team in a division was really only about 9th-10th best in the conference.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:25 PM
  #40
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,166
vCash: 500
Well, whether that's the "right" way or not, it doesn't really matter because it's pretty much exactly what I said. As a whole my bottom six is stronger, more defensively oriented - I even think Scott Young is underrated by that (given that he played defense in his career, and I thought he got some scant Selke love at one point or another, but I could be mistaken). And all the way at the bottom is the only HHOFer on the list, which isn't to say anything about his defensive play, which - admittedly - is probably ranked accordingly.

Legitimate question: Why is there that gap of four years where Charlie Burns is no longer playing at the NHL level just before expansion? He gets knocked down to the WHL, what's the story behind that? Anything?

Quote:
you can call it a division title if you like, because it was
Terrific!

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:55 PM
  #41
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Legitimate question: Why is there that gap of four years where Charlie Burns is no longer playing at the NHL level just before expansion? He gets knocked down to the WHL, what's the story behind that? Anything?
It was tough to stay up in the NHL when there was just a handful of checking line jobs. It got to the point where he was not good enough to play when there were just 6 teams, but good enough to play when there were 12, despite being 4 years older. It happened to at least a few players.

Quote:
Terrific!
easy now; you sound like you're ignoring context for the benefit of your argument. Please be reasonable.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 05:20 PM
  #42
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,166
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It was tough to stay up in the NHL when there was just a handful of checking line jobs. It got to the point where he was not good enough to play when there were just 6 teams, but good enough to play when there were 12, despite being 4 years older. It happened to at least a few players.



easy now; you sound like you're ignoring context for the benefit of your argument. Please be reasonable.
Thanks for that on Burns. Is it fair to assume that some of the most talent per capita - so to speak - accumulated right in that time just before expansion? Thus, allowing expansion to occur, in some respects?

And I know, I'm just fooling regarding my response to your division winner thing. I know what kind of stigma it carries with it, I'm being intentionally obtuse on that particular matter. It doesn't take away from what Campbell has accomplished though. Which is a battle I'll resume with you as time allows. I've had fun with it so far.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 05:30 PM
  #43
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
Thanks for that on Burns. Is it fair to assume that some of the most talent per capita - so to speak - accumulated right in that time just before expansion? Thus, allowing expansion to occur, in some respects?
I personally think it was more linear, from the time they went down to 6 teams until 1967. The talent was there to expand earlier, but by 1967 that glut of players able to compete at the NHL level had finally reached critical mass or whatever you want to call it.

I tend to say the last few years before expansion were the highest caliber ever for the NHL, basically in terms of comparing the size of the talent pool to the number of NHL jobs available. I have no hard numbers to support this; it's just intuition.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 05:39 PM
  #44
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I personally think it was more linear, from the time they went down to 6 teams until 1967. The talent was there to expand earlier, but by 1967 that glut of players able to compete at the NHL level had finally reached critical mass or whatever you want to call it.

I tend to say the last few years before expansion were the highest caliber ever for the NHL, basically in terms of comparing the size of the talent pool to the number of NHL jobs available. I have no hard numbers to support this; it's just intuition.
I basically agree with this. IMO, the depth of talent had far exceeded the number of jobs from the early 60s to expansion.

Keep in mind that much of the 50s was spent catching up from the drain on the talent pool that World War 2 caused. By the late 50s/early 60s, I think it had caught up and then some.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 05:46 PM
  #45
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I basically agree with this. IMO, the depth of talent had far exceeded the number of jobs from the early 60s to expansion.

Keep in mind that much of the 50s was spent catching up from the drain on the talent pool that World War 2 caused. By the late 50s/early 60s, I think it had caught up and then some.
I agree with all this.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 06:14 PM
  #46
Mike Farkas
Hockey's Future Staff
Moron!
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 5,166
vCash: 500
That's how I interpreted things in my - still fledgling - studies in the historical aspects of the game. Thought I'd just confirm that. Thanks, gents.

Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 10:29 AM
  #47
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
- Re: switching wings. Really not a big deal, similar responsibilities in this system anyhow. This provides a shooting advantage, one that would have been granted to him in the Soviet system. He grew up with the off-wing shot, this wouldn't be new territory at all. Seamless transition, much ado about nothing.
If that were the case, players would switch wings all the time, no big deal. Yet almost all of them (including Kozhevnikov) show clear limitations as to what positions they can play.

You want to take a guy who never demonstrably played RW and put him at RW on your first line? Be my guest.

Quote:
- I'm not sure that I agree that the 70's were the most rugged era in history. I'd guess the time around the formation of the major pro leagues where Sprague Cleghorn's and Eddie Shore's were all but eviscerating people where they stood is the most rugged and above all, dangerous. Many of my d-men grew up in that era, so I'm confident in that their truculence will rule the day.
This would make a good thread. Both of those eras were characterized by violent incidents. I'd argue that the 70s were more violent on a night-by-night basis, whereas the early era was prone to isolated incidents that were almost comically violent (ie, Cleghorn beating the tar out of Hooley Smith at a restaurant after the game, players getting in stick fights with fans, etc). Any way you want to look at it, both eras were a bit out of control.


Quote:
So we're tearing apart Kozhevnikov because he was forcefully held back by the nature of the Communist party? Using the "if you remove all of his good seasons, he'd be bad" argument? That's really not gonna look too good for your top-six when we remove the best four seasons of Ulf Nilsson, Bronco Horvath, Joe Juneau and the like...especially when you consider they all had more free-range to actually be better longer if not for their own limitations.
First of all, remove Nilsson's four best seasons and you're still left with a good career. Remove Juneau's best seasons and you have a serviceable PK specialist. Neither of them fell apart outside a 3-year peak.

Kozhevnikov and Horvath make a good comparison. Both were elbow-to-elbow with first-tier HOF'ers in their best seasons, and both fell completely off the face of the earth when they declined. I'd absolutely agree that Horvath is going to have an inconsistent series, as well he should based on his historic record; the difference is that he's on my second line, playing his natural position... not out of position on the first line.


Quote:
- Kehoe is steady and consistent in the regular season, which has long passed. Kehoe is the ghost of playoffs past...so yes, steady and consistently invisible...
As far as I know, both regular season and playoff performance are factored into the voting here. Does Kehoe get "playoff bonus points" for being a clutch scorer... no. But he was still a steady and extremely consistent regular season scorer and should get due credit for that.

The second RW in my lineup who hasn't even been mentioned, Gary Dornhoefer, is the one I'd worry about scoring the killer goals if I were you.

Quote:
- Maybe Maxwell played some top pairing minutes, but that doesn't necessarily mean he was going against top competition regularly.
See his bio. He was, by far, the #1 minute muncher on a division winner and conference champion.


Quote:
Arnie Brown, in the years he actually played with Howell or Park, sure...but I don't know the extent of that off-hand...
Brown paired with Howell when he won the Norris and Park when he was runner-up to Orr. And he even pulled down some Norris and AS votes (marginal totals, mind you) despite playing on the same pairing as Norris contenders. So clearly he was not only up against top competition, but looked pretty good to the writers.

Quote:
- With Brad Maxwell and Jocelyn Guevremont making up half of your top-four d-men, meaning they'll be playing in upwards of 45 minutes a night (you'll have to excuse the drool from Dubbie Kerr and Wayne Babych)...I'm surprised, from your glass house, you'd be throwing stones at Brian Campbell.
I'm not the one making claims that my team will "NEVER" be caught off-guard defensively while putting a Campbell type player in the #1 defensive slot.

Will Maxwell and Guevremont get caught off guard at times? Of course they will. Be honest, so will Campbell. Nobody is going to confuse any of these players with Rod Langway for crying out loud.

Quote:
I'll quote that because I couldn't bring myself to type it. Not much for coaching tactics, huh? Is all I could say to that...it's very much an issue of how they score, that's the very nature of the game. That's what the team was built for. If you gave the 2003 Minnesota Wild the blueprints of the 1984 Oilers and said, "do what they do!" you have a last place team, even if they do score a few extra goals...a goal prevented is more valuable than a goal scored anyhow. And we can prevent them. And given our unyielding affection for board play and the cycle and the ability to win faceoffs, it'll be difficult to muster the type of the puck possession that you boast of...I'm not sure how long Joe Juneau or Ulf Nilsson plan to hold off Percy Traub or Bill Brydge, but I'd wonder how long (or how far?) those players can bend before breaking, not my team as a whole...
Let me focus the point a little, maybe it will be more clear what I'm getting at.

Obviously your team is more defensively inclined, and mine is more offensively inclined. No question about that. But when the roles are reversed -- when my team is asked to play defense, and yours is asked to play offense -- my team is demonstrably deeper and more capable of playing effectively in both directions.

Take your defense corps for example. Obviously Campbell and Tallon can move the puck, and Brydge is an adequate support scorer. But Traub, Trapp and Graham are offensive non-factors. Being in the 5-10 range among WCHL defensemen among a bunch of never-drafteds and A-level guys doesn't cut it at this level. Literally half your defense is going to struggle to move the puck.

Flip the coin. I have three defensive specialists (Brown, Langlois, Butcher) so ignore them for now. Guevremont became a solid two-way defenseman in Buffalo, as noted in multiple sources in his bio. Maxwell was a poor man's Rob Blake, obviously not a shutdown specialist but a feared hitter and respectable on D. Ellett was not a great defensive player but he wasn't awful either... the word "decent" applies here.

So, take it on balance. My defense is much better rounded offensively, and respectable defensively. Yours is much stronger in their own end, but there are holes in their ability to get the puck up the ice. What happens when these teams collide? Possession time starts to tilt toward the group that is actually able to do something with the puck when they get it.

The same principle applies to the forward group. You have a strong first line but you have openly acknowledged that you don't expect the other 3 lines to do anything more than chip in the odd goal. Given the issues that have been discussed here with both Bodnar and Kozhevnikov, you NEED support scoring to win at this stage of the playoffs. But you aren't going to get that from this forward group.

My team is definitely going to produce offensively -- as noted earlier, my 2C compares to your 1RW, let alone your depth scoring -- but there are respectable defensive players up and down the lineup. This isn't a one-way team by any stretch. Every line has players capable of getting back to help secure possession, and capable of doing something productive once they get it. That's the difference in the series.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 10:57 AM
  #48
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,724
vCash: 500
Quote:
This would make a good thread. Both of those eras were characterized by violent incidents. I'd argue that the 70s were more violent on a night-by-night basis, whereas the early era was prone to isolated incidents that were almost comically violent (ie, Cleghorn beating the tar out of Hooley Smith at a restaurant after the game, players getting in stick fights with fans, etc). Any way you want to look at it, both eras were a bit out of control.
I think this is a good way to put it, and I think you're right. PIM totals seem to back you up, too.

I mean honestly, the way some people talk about guys like Cleghorn and Shore, you'd think they had 5000 PIMs a season.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 02:23 PM
  #49
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 33,884
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas
then went in search of players whose job it was to shutdown ATD players because then I knew they would have no trouble with any caliber MLD players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas View Post
I'll take ATD-level defense vs. MLD-level offense any day of the week.
Since this has become a sort of campaign slogan for my opponent...

Medicine Hat Tricks
Player2010 Placement2011 Placement
Brian Campbell MLD #192 MLD #31
Bill Brydge AAA #156 MLD #106
Percy Traub AAA #118 MLD #169
Ted Graham undrafted MLD #253
Bob Trapp AAA #72 MLD #54
Dale Tallon MLD #348 MLD #97
Risto Siltanen MLD #242 MLD #85
Coddy Winters MLD #175 MLD #293
Bryan Watson AAA #190 MLD #345

Winston-Salem Polar Twins
Player2010 Placement2011 Placement
Brad MaxwellATD #633ATD #686
Arnie BrownMLD #290MLD #144
Albert LangloisAAA #53ATD #882
Jocelyn GuevremontMLD #287MLD #10
Dave EllettMLD #225ATD #776
Garth ButcherMLD #381MLD #143
Udo KiesslingMLD #165ATD #869
Dolly SwiftATD #824MLD #82


At least we're agreed about an ATD-level defense


If you're curious about the forwards, here are the ATD placements (in order) from 2010 and 2011. Winston-Salem players in bold, Medicine Hat players in italics.

ATD 2010: Dornhoefer (545), Nilsson (617), Burns (715), Horvath (720)

ATD 2011: Nilsson (468), Dornhoefer (557), Burns (641), Kerr (748), Horvath (806), Scanlan (838), Bernier (895), Kehoe (938), Juneau (1000) Henning (1003)



In ATD terms, my team enjoys just a slight advantage.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 03:09 PM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,643
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Since this has become a sort of campaign slogan for my opponent...

Medicine Hat Tricks
Player2010 Placement2011 Placement
Brian Campbell MLD #192 MLD #31
Bill Brydge AAA #156 MLD #106
Percy Traub AAA #118 MLD #169
Ted Graham undrafted MLD #253
Bob Trapp AAA #72 MLD #54
Dale Tallon MLD #348 MLD #97
Risto Siltanen MLD #242 MLD #85
Coddy Winters MLD #175 MLD #293
Bryan Watson AAA #190 MLD #345

Winston-Salem Polar Twins
Player2010 Placement2011 Placement
Brad MaxwellATD #633ATD #686
Arnie BrownMLD #290MLD #144
Albert LangloisAAA #53ATD #882
Jocelyn GuevremontMLD #287MLD #10
Dave EllettMLD #225ATD #776
Garth ButcherMLD #381MLD #143
Udo KiesslingMLD #165ATD #869
Dolly SwiftATD #824MLD #82


At least we're agreed about an ATD-level defense


If you're curious about the forwards, here are the ATD placements (in order) from 2010 and 2011. Winston-Salem players in bold, Medicine Hat players in italics.

ATD 2010: Dornhoefer (545), Nilsson (617), Burns (715), Horvath (720)

ATD 2011: Nilsson (468), Dornhoefer (557), Burns (641), Kerr (748), Horvath (806), Scanlan (838), Bernier (895), Kehoe (938), Juneau (1000) Henning (1003)



In ATD terms, my team enjoys just a slight advantage.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that arguing based on past fantasy draft position isn't really an argument at all.

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 07:51 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.