You could do that if you believe that the G:A stat is a flawless predictor of how good a player is at skating, shooting and passing.
I don't think anyone thinks that. but it does tell us with reasonable reliability how much of a shooter, passer, or balanced scorer they are. My point is that most players could be passed off as balanced scorers if one was so inclined, leaving only the 10% at each fringe being described as "goals biased" or "assists biased" - basically I was saying it was a somewhat empty statement.
I don't think anyone thinks that. but it does tell us with reasonable reliability how much of a shooter, passer, or balanced scorer they are. My point is that most players could be passed off as balanced scorers if one was so inclined, leaving only the 10% at each fringe being described as "goals biased" or "assists biased" - basically I was saying it was a somewhat empty statement.
It's also a bit of a strawman. You've taken some generally known information about Young -- he was known for being fast, a gifted playmaker, and a pretty good shooter to boot -- and attached it to a dubiously relevant stat, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say when the stat doesn't prove anything.
I'm not really sure what you want from me here. Are you questioning Young's skill set or his statistical profile?
Quote:
How demonstrated is it? Not really scrutinizing at this point, but trying to understand. Last year it seemed VI was using one game as evidence. Was there more?
I forgot to respond to this earlier. I'm positive that he played some D in both Minnesota and Philadelphia. Without doing a significant amount of work, I quickly verified games in 1980, 1981 and 1985. I don't think there were tons of games overall, not enough to list him as a C/D, but it definitely wasn't a one-off or novelty move. Two coaches in different organizations (including an unforgiving young Keenan) saw him as a viable option to play back rather than call up a minor leaguer. The fact that one of those was a Game 7 tells you something about the level of confidence Sonmor had in him, and strongly suggests that he must have done it sometime before (either that, or Sonmor was out of his mind!). I can't think of a way to pin down a better estimate other than to read all his game summaries.
In any event the St.John's Monsters selects a good goal scorer to put on a line with the playmaker, Dale Mccourt. He is 5 time 30 goal scorer, Tony Tanti.
Next has been pmed.
__________________
Kudos to the Ottawa Senators for the great season despite injuries to their 3 best players.
In any event the St.John's Monsters selects a good goal scorer to put on a line with the playmaker, Dale Mccourt. He is 5 time 30 goal scorer, Tony Tanti.
Next has been pmed.
I knew I shouldnt have waited.... Good pick, the best offensive guy left.
- Oops, lack of undivided attention there caused the Mantha slip up. When I was looking at it, even I was surprised...so I should have done my due diligence, I'll make corrections to that post as to not mislead when I get a minute.
- I just eyeballed Luke Richardson's numbers...if it does come out to 18+ minutes then it does. In which case, I think he's plenty qualified to be a very good third pairing guy at this level. He was just a no frills defensive guy, could be used as a babysitter for a more adventurous defenseman. I think he would be out of place at the ATD level (where he went in 2011), but I don't think being a #6 at the MLD level would have been out of sorts for him either...important distinction that being a #6 at the MLD level does not necessarily make you a #1 at the AAA level, certainly. Defensemen have their limitations. Some could be, most won't be.
For Richardson in particular, he's not your top shutdown guy, but he's a guy you put out there and nothing happens for a minute. Which I know the value of first hand. It's such a relief sometimes to put a guy out there that will just give you a minute to think. And I think in his prime (or his noteworthy career using the carved selects that you chose), he was just that. Not very fleet of foot as I recall, very physical though, had no trouble banking one out of the zone, dependable, a good leader, a good influence. I think he's about as solid as they come in terms of dependable third pairing guys especially at a level such as this. The offensive stardom is severely limited here (I mean, I'm ready to throw down in fisticuffs for Greg Adams, for crying out loud...), these are the type of guys Richardson would go against throughout his career. And as you hinted at, his plus/minus (not a very useful stat, but for sake of argument) is really lopsided from playing as a teenager in the late 80's on some "bleh" teams, playing for Edmonton after they shut the lights out and went home and then expansion Columbus. You can't expect a guy that doesn't produce offensive to play any sort of minutes on a team that has a negative 50 or 70 goal diff. and expect him to come out smelling like roses.
- Greg Adams was a guy high on my list. I was put off by what Pelletier said about the rest of his game and wanted to do some video investigation myself but never got around to it (most of my hockey-devoted time yesterday was spent on that Brimsek/Broda/Durnan post in HoH). He would have been a really good fit for this team and I blew it. 9x 20-goal scorer, the most 20-goal seasons left out there I think...I thought I remembered him being a two-way winger, but any time there's video available, I like to try to double-check myself. Just ran out of time.
- Oops, lack of undivided attention there caused the Mantha slip up. When I was looking at it, even I was surprised...so I should have done my due diligence, I'll make corrections to that post as to not mislead when I get a minute.
- I just eyeballed Luke Richardson's numbers...if it does come out to 18+ minutes then it does. In which case, I think he's plenty qualified to be a very good third pairing guy at this level. He was just a no frills defensive guy, could be used as a babysitter for a more adventurous defenseman. I think he would be out of place at the ATD level (where he went in 2011), but I don't think being a #6 at the MLD level would have been out of sorts for him either...important distinction that being a #6 at the MLD level does not necessarily make you a #1 at the AAA level, certainly. Defensemen have their limitations. Some could be, most won't be.
For Richardson in particular, he's not your top shutdown guy, but he's a guy you put out there and nothing happens for a minute. Which I know the value of first hand. It's such a relief sometimes to put a guy out there that will just give you a minute to think. And I think in his prime (or his noteworthy career using the carved selects that you chose), he was just that. Not very fleet of foot as I recall, very physical though, had no trouble banking one out of the zone, dependable, a good leader, a good influence. I think he's about as solid as they come in terms of dependable third pairing guys especially at a level such as this. The offensive stardom is severely limited here (I mean, I'm ready to throw down in fisticuffs for Greg Adams, for crying out loud...), these are the type of guys Richardson would go against throughout his career. And as you hinted at, his plus/minus (not a very useful stat, but for sake of argument) is really lopsided from playing as a teenager in the late 80's on some "bleh" teams, playing for Edmonton after they shut the lights out and went home and then expansion Columbus. You can't expect a guy that doesn't produce offensive to play any sort of minutes on a team that has a negative 50 or 70 goal diff. and expect him to come out smelling like roses.
- Greg Adams was a guy high on my list. I was put off by what Pelletier said about the rest of his game and wanted to do some video investigation myself but never got around to it (most of my hockey-devoted time yesterday was spent on that Brimsek/Broda/Durnan post in HoH). He would have been a really good fit for this team and I blew it. 9x 20-goal scorer, the most 20-goal seasons left out there I think...I thought I remembered him being a two-way winger, but any time there's video available, I like to try to double-check myself. Just ran out of time.
I think of Richardson as more of a spare considering the defensemen that are left. I was planning to pick him in the later rounds or even in the AA.
Well, until I know to whom you're referring specifically, I'll reserve judgment. Are there better defensemen still available? Yes. Is Richardson more than capable of handling second and third liners at this level? Oh my goodness, yes. He made a 1400 game career out of it that spanned three eras.
I forgot to mention last night, you really do have a way with words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey
It's also a bit of a strawman. You've taken some generally known information about Young -- he was known for being fast, a gifted playmaker, and a pretty good shooter to boot -- and attached it to a dubiously relevant stat, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to say when the stat doesn't prove anything.
I'm not really sure what you want from me here. Are you questioning Young's skill set or his statistical profile?
Maybe I'm just reading too much into what you said. You called him "offensively versatile" because he scores goals and is a good playmaker. I noticed that he is more or less "average" from a goals:assists ratio and therefore is not a player one could pigeonhole into a "just a goalscorer" or "just a playmaker" bucket, but so could 80% of players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Farkas
And as you hinted at, his plus/minus (not a very useful stat, but for sake of argument) is really lopsided from playing as a teenager in the late 80's on some "bleh" teams
Just for the record, I wasn't referring to his +/- at all... I totally realize a no-offense, all-defense guy who almost always played for bad teams will have a bad +/-. I'm just saying that his 18.3 minute career average is deceptively low due to a high career GP total, and if you pare off the early and late years where he was a poor man's Luke Schenn, and "just a good guy to have in the dressing room", respectively, it's a more respectable 19.5 which falls closer to the range of what other similar guys are being taken with now.
Well, until I know to whom you're referring specifically, I'll reserve judgment. Are there better defensemen still available? Yes. Is Richardson more than capable of handling second and third liners at this level? Oh my goodness, yes. He made a 1400 game career out of it that spanned three eras.
Actually he is probably a bottom pairing defenseman at this level, I just happen to like some guys better. So maybe it was just too early to take him.
tony, you're right, we never sent a PM, sorry, it won't happen again.
Technically tony and BBS had both seen their clocks expire by the time tony took Tanti, but I assume tony PM'd BBS, who has now had four hours fair notice himself. chaos is autoskipped due to two pending skipped picks. Technically VR was skipped 40 minutes ago, so we're on to Johnny Engine.
In any event the St.John's Monsters selects a good goal scorer to put on a line with the playmaker, Dale Mccourt. He is 5 time 30 goal scorer, Tony Tanti.
Next has been pmed.
Nice pick. He's one the best goal scorers in the entire draft, and was definitely the best available goal scorer when you took him. I thought about taking him in the first round when I took Sanderson, but I've had Tanti before, and wanted a guy who was a more rounded offensive player with more longevity.
Tanti was right there in the next class of wingers for us, after Robinson, Sanderson, Sykora, Prospal, Semin and a couple others I think I forgot. He's got 1st line skill for this draft and we tossed him around but he just didn't fit with what we already had. Good value pick.
Solid defensive minded rearguard made a living on the pk an had one notable finish in AST voting before he was done in by allergic reactions to his equipment.
I was planning to pick Tanti with this pick so well done Tony. I wanted Lamoureux instead of Boucher as well, I'm having BudsBuster luck right now.
Also that's very interesting about Adams. I'd have taken him awhile ago if I knew he wasn't just a one-dimensional guy. Those some serious wingers you guys have so far.
I'm going to wait for people to catch up a bit, mostly because I haven't talked or thought ATD with grantsabbath in a day or 2. I may make my pick before that, though.
Well, I don't want to be the meatball sandwich at a vegan pasta party here...I also wanted to pick Tanti, but thought that Anderson played more of a two-way game. So I went with him.
Well, I don't want to be the meatball sandwich at a vegan pasta party here...I also wanted to pick Tanti, but thought that Anderson played more of a two-way game. So I went with him.
LOL! Now you're just trying too hard!
I don't think much separates them. They might have been 1, maybe 2 players apart on my list coming into this. I think Tanti seems to have a slight peak offensive edge, but he fell from his peak a little less gracefully than Anderson. Anderson, from what I read when I took him 2 years ago, had "some" two-way game ("when he feels like it" is what it said) so that's a little bonus I guess. Both can play both sides too, which is important in this RW-deficient draft of ours. They could go either way.
edit: I advised Johnny Engine that he's skipped, and Billy that he's on the clock for 3 more hours.
Ok, since it's technically BillyShoe's pick now, I'm going to keep things moving by grabbing Boris Mironov. A big minute guy who put up good offensive stats for the DPE.
Is there going to be a point where we step back and regulate where we are in the draft? I wouldn't want to get to the point where every GM has a ragtag collection of odd picks to make up.
Is there going to be a point where we step back and regulate where we are in the draft? I wouldn't want to get to the point where every GM has a ragtag collection of odd picks to make up.
I'm open to anything the people want, but can you please clarify what it is you're suggesting?
Perhaps just pick a day to stop the clock and do make-ups?
we could do that... if there are actually a few people with missed picks. but then, all you have to do is show up here once a day and you'd never fall behind, right?
would slowing down the clock work too? I'm not trying to make the draft go at a breakneck pace, I only have it at 4 hours because I feel that most people are "go go go draft draft draft" but it certainly doesn't have to be that way.
I did bring up the idea of having a clock that doesn't run for 8 hours a day too, so I am interested in a clock that is both efficient and not unforgiving to peoples' lives and schedules. But no one seems to want to weigh in on that!
I did bring up the idea of having a clock that doesn't run for 8 hours a day too, so I am interested in a clock that is both efficient and not unforgiving to peoples' lives and schedules. But no one seems to want to weigh in on that!
