HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

MLD 2012 Montague Allan Finals: Zambia Mania vs Connecticut Whale

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-04-2012, 09:57 PM
  #26
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Agree, but Mitchell and Hannan both saw the toughest minutes on their teams. If you want to rank Mitchell a little higher because you think his results were a little better, that's fine. But we aren't talking an enormous gap in effectiveness, I don't think.
I totally agree with that

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Maybe to people who don't understand how votes are tabulated.
I think there is a strong bias towards offensive defenseman in Norris voting. While I think Streit has certainly been a top 15-20 defenceman, I'm less certain of top 10 (for all the difference it makes)

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I strongly disagree with the insinuation that the Professional Hockey Writers Association is no more informed about the NHL than the general public is about anything. They are "professionals" voting on their one specific area of expertise.
I find it hard to trust to much in the work of the PHWA members after reading their work. For example, in the Vancouver market many seem to know about the team they cover, but little else in the league (and this in a city where all games are over at 10pm rather than 1am). I think many PHWA don't have a significant breadth of knowledge about the entire league and many are aided greatly in their voting by basic stats.

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 11:09 AM
  #27
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Here's a simple question: Do you think the Professional Hockey Writers Association is more informed about the current NHL seasons they are covering than the average member of the American public is about politics?

Are you seriously arguing that levels of expertise and bias that go into forming an opinion don't matter?
I'm sorry, the conversation was never meant to be turned in this direction. The point was only about what percentage constitutes "fringe". Sorry.


Back to Streit, it seems that those votes are his "golden ticket" to MLD status.

If he was available, he would have the best offensive peak of any defenseman available, I will say that much. (66, 58, 52, 52 adjusted points). This was partially due to abnormally heavy PP use by a bad team, but the degree to which it could or should be downgraded is unknown.

If you set the voting aside for argumentís sake, itís really hard to separate him from the following modern defensemen with offensive peaks 63-88% as strong as his, numerous other decent NHL seasons, at least one season as the #1 on a +.500, playoff NHL team, and yes, varying degrees of defensive skill:

Tom Kurvers
Bryan Berard
Doug Lidster
Jeff Norton
Zarley Zalapski
Mark Hardy
Boris Mironov
Igor Kravchuk
Vladimir Malakhov


And the following players meet the above criteria, but were never #1 on a good team, but were #1 on less than good teams multiple times like Streit:

Moe Mantha
Mike McEwen

What separates him from these 11 players? In particular, what gives him the career edge over these guys? Does he have a better overall peak, or just a better offensive peak?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 12:44 PM
  #28
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedberg View Post
I totally agree with that


I think there is a strong bias towards offensive defenseman in Norris voting. While I think Streit has certainly been a top 15-20 defenceman, I'm less certain of top 10 (for all the difference it makes)
There definitely is a strong bias towards offensive defensemen; I wouldn't disagree there. You definitely can't compare the records of an offense-first guy with a defense-first guy.

Quote:
I find it hard to trust to much in the work of the PHWA members after reading their work. For example, in the Vancouver market many seem to know about the team they cover, but little else in the league (and this in a city where all games are over at 10pm rather than 1am). I think many PHWA don't have a significant breadth of knowledge about the entire league and many are aided greatly in their voting by basic stats.
I find that most Atlantic Division reporters are pretty well informed about what is happening within the division, have some idea about what's happening througout the rest of the conference, and little idea of what is happening out West. Maybe it's the condensced nature of the Atlantic division, but I always assumed that reporters in other divisions were the same.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-05-2012 at 08:40 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 12:53 PM
  #29
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I'm sorry, the conversation was never meant to be turned in this direction. The point was only about what percentage constitutes "fringe". Sorry.


Back to Streit, it seems that those votes are his "golden ticket" to MLD status.

If he was available, he would have the best offensive peak of any defenseman available, I will say that much. (66, 58, 52, 52 adjusted points). This was partially due to abnormally heavy PP use by a bad team, but the degree to which it could or should be downgraded is unknown.

If you set the voting aside for argument’s sake, it’s really hard to separate him from the following modern defensemen with offensive peaks 63-88% as strong as his, numerous other decent NHL seasons, at least one season as the #1 on a +.500, playoff NHL team, and yes, varying degrees of defensive skill:

Tom Kurvers
Bryan Berard
Doug Lidster
Jeff Norton
Zarley Zalapski
Mark Hardy
Boris Mironov
Igor Kravchuk
Vladimir Malakhov


And the following players meet the above criteria, but were never #1 on a good team, but were #1 on less than good teams multiple times like Streit:

Moe Mantha
Mike McEwen

What separates him from these 11 players? In particular, what gives him the career edge over these guys? Does he have a better overall peak, or just a better offensive peak?
Okay, let's ignore the perceptions of what a large number of people who watched them play thought for... some reason.

You're still starting your analysis by completely ignoring Streit's international resume, arguably the most important part of his resume. It's like you refuse to believe that Switzerland beat Canada in 2006 and came extremely close to beating them again in 2010.

Also, I would like an answer as to how many of those guys listed ever had a plus/minus of more than +80 better than their team? Yes, Streit has a better overall peak than those guys - I think his 2008-09 (definitely) and 2009-10 (probably) were elite seasons.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:15 PM
  #30
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Okay, let's ignore the perceptions of what a large number of people who watched them play thought for... some reason.
no, I'm asking you to set it aside, similar to the Ehrhoff conversation. "without those votes, are we even talking about him right now?" is a legitimate question. He should be able to stand on his own merits.

For example, there are very few norris and all-star votes in the crowd I listed and when did they play? mostly 1981-2001, when the competition on defense was stronger than ever, and when voters only got to cast three ballots. Would any voter call them top-3 at any time? Doubtful. Same with Streit.

Quote:
You're still starting your analysis by completely ignoring Streit's international resume, arguably the most important part of his resume. It's like you refuse to believe that Switzerland beat Canada in 2006 and came extremely close to beating them again in 2010.
good for him, but that's two games, and that's what a team did, not what Streit did.

As for the rest of his international career, obviously it means something but I fully admit it's hard to quantify. How good was he that whole time? It's really anyone's guess! As late as 2008 he was a #5 defenseman and PP specialist in the NHL. So it does cast some doubt on that.

Let's face it, if he came right into the NHL at 28 and was a #1 defenseman right away you'd say "that's probably how good he was all along". Right?

Quote:
Also, I would like an answer as to how many of those guys listed ever had a plus/minus of more than +80 better than their team? Yes, Streit has a better overall peak than those guys - I think his 2008-09 (definitely) and 2009-10 (probably) were elite seasons.
That's not how adjusted +/- is calculated but I know what you're trying to say. Streit had an adjusted +44 in 2009.

using overpass' sheet:

Kurvers had a +31 in 1989
Norton had a +34 in 1995, a +26 in 1994, and a +26 in 1996
Hardy had a +28 in 1989 and a +28 in 1992
Mironov had a +21 in 1999
Malakhov had a +38 in 1994 and a +24 in 1998

...so it is not unprecedented to approach that kind of figure.

As for whether it is a better overall peak, it could be. that is debatable. Because none of these guys were stellar defensively. But that's one season, and his other seasons don't approach that number. Furthermore, we also have a good idea of how he managed to get a number like that - it was through softer matchups and offensive situations (A lot of it was earned too, I'm sure). And of couse, considering most of the above are more along the lines of "offensive specialist" there are probably similar reasons behind their high showings as well, so don't take this as me discounting Streit while not discounting them. As apples-to-apples as possible, they all had a year where they had a similar point total and adjusted +/-, and then a number of other decent NHL seasons as top-3 guys or better.

Sometimes you get so obsessed with "peak" that it makes it appear you think 1-2 better seasons is all it takes to override a better career.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 02:26 PM
  #31
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

good for him, but that's two games, and that's what a team did, not what Streit did.
Switzerland played well against more than just Canada in the Olympics. They played a great team defense against everyone, including USA.

Streit was the #1 defenseman and captain on a team that overachieved in 2006 and 2010, showing great team defense and a never-die attitude. Now suddenly that doesn't matter? Why not?

Quote:
As for the rest of his international career, obviously it means something but I fully admit it's hard to quantify. How good was he that whole time? It's really anyone's guess! As late as 2008 he was a #5 defenseman and PP specialist in the NHL. So it does cast some doubt on that.
As early as 2005, he was leading the World Championships in scoring and as early as 2006, he was a huge part in booting Canada's ass from the Olympics!*

*I realize it was just a round robin game but it set the tone.

Quote:
Let's face it, if he came right into the NHL at 28 and was a #1 defenseman right away you'd say "that's probably how good he was all along". Right?
Let's see - He looked like an elite player in 2005 and 2006 internationally (in 2006 as an all-rounder), came to the NHL, had two seasons as a specialist, then two seasons as an all-rounder for a terrible team, and another tournament looking like an all-round force in 2010. I think the evidence strongly points to the two years in Montreal as an adjustment period, since they are pretty clearly the exception, not the rule. That is unless you think that International play doesn't matter.

Quote:
That's not how adjusted +/- is calculated but I know what you're trying to say. Streit had an adjusted +44 in 2009.

using overpass' sheet:

Kurvers had a +31 in 1989
Norton had a +34 in 1995, a +26 in 1994, and a +26 in 1996
Hardy had a +28 in 1989 and a +28 in 1992
Mironov had a +21 in 1999
Malakhov had a +38 in 1994 and a +24 in 1998

...so it is not unprecedented to approach that kind of figure.
How many of those guys led their teams in both minutes and scoring by a wide margin in their big plus season?

Quote:
As for whether it is a better overall peak, it could be. that is debatable. Because none of these guys were stellar defensively. But that's one season, and his other seasons don't approach that number.
His 2009-10 approaches it.

Quote:
Furthermore, we also have a good idea of how he managed to get a number like that - it was through softer matchups and offensive situations (A lot of it was earned too, I'm sure).
25+ minutes per game. In the past you said that it was impossible to shelter someone seeing that many minutes. Have you changed your mind here?


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-05-2012 at 02:35 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 03:35 PM
  #32
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Bottom pairings

I think the bottom pairings are pretty close.

Streit and Olausson are very similar players in real life and in their roles for their respective teams here. We've beaten to death the seasons for which Streit received awards recogntion. Olausson's only significant season in terms of awards voting was 1998-99, when he was the #3 defenseman on the Ducks in terms of ice time, but was the primary offensive support for Teemu Selanne and Paul Kariya, who carried that team into the playoffs.

Streit has a far superior international career. Streit's 8 points in 15 Olympic games and 40 points in 81 career World Championship A-pool games are quite impressive, considering his played on a Swiss team without much offensive support. Olausson barely got a chance to play for a stronger team Sweden (0 points in 4 Olympic games, 5 points in 19 WC games, but I don't know if he got much ice time). Still, Olausson's lack of opportunity internationally shouldn't take away what Streit did.

Olausson did win a Cup late in his career, but he was a bottom pairing defenseman on the stacked 2002 Red Wings by that point, so I don't think it adds much to his resume. Olausson's playoff numbers otherwise are pretty unimpressive for an offensive defenseman, though he was often on a low seed losing to a high seed in the first round. Streit obviously didn't have much opportunity in the playoffs.

Olausson has more longevity, especially as an NHL player, and that probably makes up for Streit's better international record and arguably better peak season or two.

How do you begin comparing James Stewart to Scott Hannan? From a skillset perspective, they seem very similar. Stewart was obviously more prominent in his day, winning the first Cup championships in 1893, but he was a part of a generation that didn't grow up playing competitive hockey (because competitive hockey didn't exist until they were well into their 20s), and I can't even name another defenseman playing at the time off the top of my head other than Allan Cameron.

In my opinion, trying to give a major advantage to either bottom pairing is splitting hairs. The one clear advantage for Zambia on the blueline is that we have a superior second pairing (or more specifically, we legit 1a and 1b pairings, while Connecticut has a 1 and a 2). If you don't value International play, then Olausson definitely had a better NHL career to date than Streit, but IMO, international play does matter.

I'm curious to know if anyone disagrees and actually thinks there is a big difference between these guys. I know 70s has trashed Olausson before much like he's trashing Streit now.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-05-2012 at 03:44 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 06:31 PM
  #33
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Switzerland played well against more than just Canada in the Olympics. They played a great team defense against everyone, including USA.

Streit was the #1 defenseman and captain on a team that overachieved in 2006 and 2010, showing great team defense and a never-die attitude. Now suddenly that doesn't matter? Why not?
It does, but we’re talking about a handful of games.

Quote:
Let's see - He looked like an elite player in 2005 and 2006 internationally (in 2006 as an all-rounder), came to the NHL, had two seasons as a specialist, then two seasons as an all-rounder for a terrible team, and another tournament looking like an all-round force in 2010. I think the evidence strongly points to the two years in Montreal as an adjustment period, since they are pretty clearly the exception, not the rule. That is unless you think that International play doesn't matter.
International play does matter, of course… but there are actually plenty of players who looked good at the worlds and then came over to the NHL and were very mediocre. Off the top of my head, Jorgen Jonsson, Jere Karalahti, Petteri Nummelin, and looking back further there were guys like Anders Eldebrink and Dusan Pasek. There isn’t necessarily a direct correlation between success at the two levels.

I think your assessment of how good he was from age 20 through 2005 is a tad rosy. At best those years are uncertain with a huge “give or take” attached (the very apex of that range being the assumption you’re making), and at worst, he was a mediocre player for a decade and then peaked at 31 by getting heavily relied on by a team with literally no one else to rely on.

Quote:
How many of those guys led their teams in both minutes and scoring by a wide margin in their big plus season?
Minutes? Most of them. Kurvers did, Norton did in one of his three, Mironov did following the Chelios trade, and Malakhov did both times.

Points? Kinda hard to do with Muller/McLean, Turgeon, Gretzky, Gilmour/Amonte, and Recchi/Damhpousse/Turgeon on your team, as opposed to the illustrious Okposo/injured Doug Weight combo.

And Weight was on pace to lead the team if he hadn’t been injured. Also, you know the old adage, “someone has to score on a bad team”. It applies to D-men too. Norm Maciver led the 1993 sens. Mike McMahon led 1968 defensemen in scoring on an anemic expansion team.

Quote:
His 2009-10 approaches it.
Not really, it was an adjusted +/- of +17, which is still pretty good though.

Quote:
25+ minutes per game. In the past you said that it was impossible to shelter someone seeing that many minutes. Have you changed your mind here?
It’s difficult, not impossible. And his minutes were not “sheltered” but they were softer than you’d think for a #1. They were easier than most #1 defensemen see, particularly those with 25 minutes. You can take a look at behindthenet.ca.


Last edited by seventieslord: 10-05-2012 at 11:13 PM.
seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-05-2012, 06:34 PM
  #34
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm curious to know if anyone disagrees and actually thinks there is a big difference between these guys. I know 70s has trashed Olausson before much like he's trashing Streit now.
I'm not a big fan. I liked him much less after my 2010 series with you than i did before that, and not much has changed. at the same time, like Streit, he's being used as a 3rd pairing specialist so it's hard to hate a guy in that role or claim he will be a liability.

I have to look into this one more when I have more time.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 10:42 AM
  #35
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Forwards

I don't have time to do this in detail, so if anyone else wants to, please jump in.
  • Andre Lacroix is the best pure offensive player in the series. Advantage Connecticut
  • Scotty Davidson has the worst offensive resume of any player on either top line. Advantage Zambia.
  • Bellows is probably the best all-round player on either second line. Advantage Connecticut.
  • Wiseman is the best offensive player on either second line. Advantage Zambia.
  • Zambia made the deliberate decision to draft two penalty-killing specialists (Marchant and Roberts) as we saw penalty killing as more important than the 5 minutes of ice time the 4th line will see in the playoffs at even strength. As a result, Connecticut has an advantage on the 4th lines at even strength.
  • Because of the 4th lines, Connecticut's offense is 4 lines deep, while Zambia's is 3 lines deep.
  • Zambia has 3 centers we can trust with defensive assignments - Haynes, Sands, and Marchant. Connecticut has only 1 center they can trust defensively - Hampson. I think this is a big advantage for Zambia, making it much easier to defend a lead and giving us several options for defensive zone draws.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 11:04 AM
  #36
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Powerplay

Lacroix gives Connecticut the best playmaker in the series down low.

Vanek gives Zambia the best PP net presence in the series. While he doesn't use his big body as effectively in the corners as he should, he's very effective. As THN says: "Is a natural goal-scorer, with plenty of size to fight through traffic and battle against big NHL defensemen in front of the net. A superior shot tipper, he owns the hands of a true sniper, and is usually in the right place at the right time. Can really shoot the biscuit. Passes well." I assume Davidson is Connecticut's net guy for the first unit, but his offensive resume just doesn't stack up. IMO, Bellows is a better choice than Davidson, but he's still not as established as a goal scorer in tight as Vanek.

Zambia has the advantage of having both a LH and a RH shot from the point. Mark Streit is a left-handed shot and Mike Green is a right-handed shot, so they are dangerous from a variety of angles from the point. Eldebrink and Olausson are great pointmen, but both are right-handed shots, which gives Zambia's penalty killers one less thing to worry about. Neither team is giving its PP pointmen a regular shift on the PK, so the first unit pointmen should be expected to play 75%+ of the PP.

Penalty killing

I don't think either team has an advantage on D. If Mitchell is a slight advantage for Connecticut, Maloney is an equal disadvantage.

Zambia has better penalty killing forwards. We sacrificed some effectiveness on the 4th line at even strength to get Marchant and Roberts for the PK.

Todd Marchant:
Peak Years: 1995-2010
4th in Short-handed goals, 88% of 2nd place Petr Bondra

He was on the ice for 45% of his team's PP goals against, 26th all-time among post-expansion forwards (as of 2009). And he did this over 1038 games, more than a lot of guys in front of him.

-28 career SHGs (24th all-time), despite playing in a generally defense-first era.
-5 times top 10 in SHGs (4 SHGs twice and 3 SHGs three times)
-tied the NHL record for 3 SHGs in a single playoff series

Jim Roberts:
Between 1965 and 1977, Roberts was 6th in Short-Handed Goals. He trailed, Derek Sanderson, Dave Keon, Ed Westfall, Bobby Clarke, and Phil Esposito. He was tied with Pete Mahovlich and Don Luce.

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass
Best penalty killing wingers by the numbers, 1968-2010
Player PKTime TeamPK+
Craig Ramsay 7.96 0.77
Ed Westfall 7.68 0.80
Bob Gainey 6.58 0.83
Don Marcotte 5.39 0.80
Kelly Miller 6.16 0.85
Bill Barber 3.71 0.80
Brian Rolston 4.48 0.86
Jari Kurri 4.14 0.86
Jim Roberts 4.87 0.88
Jay Pandolfo 4.92 0.89


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-09-2012 at 07:02 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 12:39 PM
  #37
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
[*]Bellows is probably the best all-round player on either second line. Advantage Connecticut. [*]Wiseman is the best offensive player on either second line. Advantage Zambia.
Wiseman is definately the best offensive player on either 2nd line. He has significantly better finishes, and he also has a very clear edge in percentages.

What makes Bellows a much better all-round player?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 03:19 PM
  #38
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Wiseman is definately the best offensive player on either 2nd line. He has significantly better finishes, and he also has a very clear edge in percentages.

What makes Bellows a much better all-round player?
I didn't say Bellows was a much better all-round player. I said he was probably better all-round. Bellows was known for his leadership and grit.

Agree that Wiseman is the best offensive player on either second line. That's why I said it. How big is the offensive difference?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 04:23 PM
  #39
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I didn't say Bellows was a much better all-round player. I said he was probably better all-round. Bellows was known for his leadership and grit.
Both Bellows and Wiseman were known to be gritty.

Quote:
How big is the offensive difference?
It's definately a distinct advantage for Wiseman. Obviously, the top-10 and top-20finishes are not going to be close. Surprisingly, howere, the percentages were in Wiseman's favour by a significant amount.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 05:58 PM
  #40
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Both Bellows and Wiseman were known to be gritty.



It's definately a distinct advantage for Wiseman. Obviously, the top-10 and top-20finishes are not going to be close. Surprisingly, howere, the percentages were in Wiseman's favour by a significant amount.
A couple things about that:

- If the Gretzky and Lemieux factors are taken care of (outliers and their beneficiaries removed) I don't see how Bellows could end up below Wiseman by a significant amount. I have him with 78, 70, 70, 67, 65, 65, 63, 62 in his best 8 seasons, and Wiseman with 91, 75, 73, 70, 64, 63, 60, 51. After adjusting for pre-to-post expansion, Wiseman would have an edge, though I wouldn't say "significant".

- the other thing is that Wiseman didn't seem to be a major catalyst to his teams that often. His percentages look great, but he was almost always behind others on his teams. In those 8 seasons with a 50+ percentage score, he was 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th on his team in scoring (and in 1940 was on pace to 4th had he played all year with New York). It's quite a wide disconnect between percentages and placements within teams, one that certainly jumped out at me when I was researching potential wingers.

None of this means that he was definitely worse than Bellows; it's just food for thought. For all I know, or currently care, he could actually be significantly better.

I think a good idea would be to see how he did compared to his actual linemates, if we know who they were from season to season.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-09-2012, 09:01 PM
  #41
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
- If the Gretzky and Lemieux factors are taken care of (outliers and their beneficiaries removed) I don't see how Bellows could end up below Wiseman by a significant amount. I have him with 78, 70, 70, 67, 65, 65, 63, 62 in his best 8 seasons, and Wiseman with 91, 75, 73, 70, 64, 63, 60, 51. After adjusting for pre-to-post expansion, Wiseman would have an edge, though I wouldn't say "significant".
I just eliminated Gretzky and Lemieux, and didn't bother with the beneficiaries.

Quote:
- the other thing is that Wiseman didn't seem to be a major catalyst to his teams that often. His percentages look great, but he was almost always behind others on his teams. In those 8 seasons with a 50+ percentage score, he was 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th on his team in scoring (and in 1940 was on pace to 4th had he played all year with New York). It's quite a wide disconnect between percentages and placements within teams, one that certainly jumped out at me when I was researching potential wingers.
Wiseman always seemed to be either on 2nd lines or on teams that went with 1 and 1A lines.

In Boston, Wiseman played with Bill Cowley and Roy Conacher. Cowley was the catalist, and Wiseman and Coancher were about even. The Krauts were the other line.

In New York, it looks like Wiseman played with Nels Stewart for the full time, and Tom Anderson for a lot of it. Wiseman and Stewart were basically co-catalists. Art Chapman, Lorn Carr, and Sweeney Schriner were the other line.

Quote:
None of this means that he was definitely worse than Bellows; it's just food for thought. For all I know, or currently care, he could actually be significantly better.
If you take away the Gretzky/Lemieux beneficaries, the percentages look a lot closer. If you take a combination of finsihes and percetnages, which I have always done, the gap is still very distinct.

Quote:
I think a good idea would be to see how he did compared to his actual linemates, if we know who they were from season to season.
2 seasons with Cowley and Conacher
Cowley: 86 points
Conacher: 75 points
Wiseman: 74 points

4 seasons with Stewart
Stewart: 130 points
Wiseman: 126 points

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:18 AM
  #42
Hedberg
MLD Glue Guy
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: BC, Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,185
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Vanek gives Zambia the best PP net presence in the series. While he doesn't use his big body as effectively in the corners as he should, he's very effective. As THN says: "Is a natural goal-scorer, with plenty of size to fight through traffic and battle against big NHL defensemen in front of the net. A superior shot tipper, he owns the hands of a true sniper, and is usually in the right place at the right time. Can really shoot the biscuit. Passes well." I assume Davidson is Connecticut's net guy for the first unit, but his offensive resume just doesn't stack up. IMO, Bellows is a better choice than Davidson, but he's still not as established as a goal scorer in tight as Vanek.
Simpson is the net guy on the first unit, who I think is actually a better net presence than Vanek (Vanek has way better hands though). Other than that, I think your points have been fair.

Hedberg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:51 AM
  #43
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedberg View Post
Simpson is the net guy on the first unit, who I think is actually a better net presence than Vanek (Vanek has way better hands though). Other than that, I think your points have been fair.
Why would Simpson be a better PP net presene than Vanek?

Vanek has been one of the absolute best PP scorers since the lock-out. His 96 PP goals are 5th in the league, which is only slightly behind Ovechkins lead of 111. He has never failed to score double-digit PP goals, and he has been 1st and 2nd in the league.

Simpson's level of success doesn't really even approach that. Considering who he played with, it's even less impressive. In his best season, Simpson was traded from Mario Lemieux's team to Wayne Gretzky's team.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 09:45 AM
  #44
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Why would Simpson be a better PP net presene than Vanek?

Vanek has been one of the absolute best PP scorers since the lock-out. His 96 PP goals are 5th in the league, which is only slightly behind Ovechkins lead of 111. He has never failed to score double-digit PP goals, and he has been 1st and 2nd in the league.

Simpson's level of success doesn't really even approach that. Considering who he played with, it's even less impressive. In his best season, Simpson was traded from Mario Lemieux's team to Wayne Gretzky's team.
I think what you just proved is that Vanek is a better overall PP scorer, which is difficult to disagree with. But what Hedberg was saying was also very difficult to disagree with, which is that Simpson is a better "net presence" on the PP. That was the guy's whole raison d'etre, really.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 11:58 AM
  #45
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think what you just proved is that Vanek is a better overall PP scorer, which is difficult to disagree with. But what Hedberg was saying was also very difficult to disagree with, which is that Simpson is a better "net presence" on the PP. That was the guy's whole raison d'etre, really.
Sure, Vanek has a much wider array of skills, but that doesn't mean he's not a primo net-front presence. He has been Buffalo's PP net presence since JP Dumont left after the 2006 season, and since he took that role he has been one of the most prolific PP scorers in the league. While he does score more than just those garbage goals, a very large percentage of his PP goals come from his spot in the slot. Vanek's a better tipper, and he's a better rebounder. Simpson is likely better at creating traffic, but Vanek's good at that too.


You say it's tough to disagree that Vanek is the better PP scorer. Since Vanek filled the same role as Simpson, doesn't the fact that he put up much better numbers show that he was better in the role?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:24 PM
  #46
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
So in sum:

Why Zambia should win:

1) Much better goaltending
2) 3 centers who can be trusted defensively (vs 1 for Connecticut)
3) Better second defensive pairing
4) Better penalty killing forwards

How Connecticut could win:

1) Best offensive player (Lacroix)
2) 4 lines that can score (vs 3 for Zambia)

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 03:54 PM
  #47
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
I never use the word "spares" and don't like the concept. I have a 7th defenseman and take for granted that OF COURSE he's part of the team and is dressed to play sometimes, as is usually the case in a 7-game series, and certainly over an entire postseason.

An extra forward also often sees ice time, due to injuries, suspensions, special skillsets and simply because the team needs a shake-up sometimes when trailing in a series. That happens so frequently in hockey playoffs that I expect that you all don't see extra skaters as window dressing but as legitimate parts of the squad.

Zhitnik is a 5th-6th-7th defenseman in an all-time context on any championship-calibre team, and I say that as a fan of his strengths: risk-taking rushes, slappers and physical bodychecks. I see him as part of the 5th-7th slot. The Canaries top-4 is set and reliable, the core, whereas Zhitnik brings his skills to the team when trailing, on the powerplay when a boost is needed, and in energy. His minutes would be sheltered to MAXIMIZE his skillset on a winning team (I know I know he was overplayed on a woeful Buffalo squad for years; I watched his career and always thought him overplayed. Of course, MLD 2012 somehow sees a playoff-awful and defensive-challenged Mike Green handling top pairing minutes for anti-historical reasons).

Russ Courtnall is an ideal fit for Spokane because he can substitute at center for Allison when needed or provide extra offense if trailing in the series by coming in for the powerplay and some scoring line regular shifts in a shuffle that would probably see Bell seated and whichever right winger is not scoring at the moment demoted in the line-up slots. Anyways, I expect a genius like coach Starsi to make the right decision on game day. He often made great decisions and led the Czechoslovakians over the Soviets several times in the 1970s. We drafted tthree Soviet coaches in the all-time draft but not the arguably greatest Czechoslovakian coach? I respect Hlinka, but his reputation is built on his playing first and foremost, and if one looked just at his coaching, he shouldn't be consistently drafted as an all-time great coach ahead of Starsi in the ATDs.
Since you are using this series to take a shot at our team, I'll have to respond.

Would you like our team better if the pairs were listed as

Dvorak-Young
Buswell-Green

Does it really make a difference how they are listed? We list Buswell-Green first because they play mostly with our scoring lines. But they are sheltered from the toughest defensive situations by Dvorak-Young.

We have been pretty clear that we have a 1A and 1B pair, one used in defensive situations, one in offensive situations.

It's not like teams haven't won Cups before with offensive-defensemen (Paul Coffey, Sandis Ozolinsh, etc).

This incredible bias you have against imperfect players you have actually seen is reaching absurd levels. You load your team with offense-first defensemen from bygone eras without providing a speck of evidence as to their defensive play. But no, it's only the modern guy, who gets trashed.

At least Mike Green did what he did against the best talent in the world. Karel Gut was known as an adventure defensively against Canadian amateurs and the Europeans who struggled to beat them.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-12-2012 at 04:02 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 04:04 PM
  #48
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Your Montagu Allan division champion, in 7 games, is Zambia!

Stars of the Series:

1. Paddy Moran
2. Andre Lacroix
3. Scotty Davidson
4. Kenny Jonsson

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 04:10 PM
  #49
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Of course, MLD 2012 somehow sees a playoff-awful and defensive-challenged Mike Green handling top pairing minutes for anti-historical reasons).
That's a load...

In 50 years, Mike Green will be looked at much more favourably than he is right now.

The guy is an absolute stud offensively. He's the only 2 x 1st All-Star in the MLD. He's so bad in the play-offs that he's only managed to put up 29 points in 50 games. He's so bad that he's top-10 in playoff scoring among Dmen over tha last 5 years.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 04:11 PM
  #50
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Pfew... that was close.

Great series, Hedberg. You ended the runs of my ATD12 team (my first good team) and beat my MLD2010 team in the finals. Normally I don't mind losing to a great team all that much, but I definitely prefer being 1-2 against you than 0-3!

I like seeing Paddy Moran the first star. Andre Lacroix is definitely a worthy second star. Ken Jonsson is worthy as one of several excellent defensemen on both teams.

I am curious to know what you guys liked so much about Scotty Davidson. Am I missing something about him?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:41 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.