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.

ATD 2013 Draft Draft Thread IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-26-2013, 01:07 PM
  #976
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
What's this? How are you calculating these numbers, exactly? These look like per-game numbers. If that is the case, you need to make that clear, dreak. Here are the numbers I have:

Pierre Turgeon:
89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52

...which are very good, most similar to Roenick, though a bit better. Nevertheless, a far cry from the numbers you posted.
They are not per game numbers, they are the V#2 numbers (outliers eliminated).

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:07 PM
  #977
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,966
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
They are not per game numbers, they are the V#2 numbers (outliers eliminated).
70's outliers or real ones?

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:09 PM
  #978
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
70's outliers or real ones?
If there's a huge drop from 2nd to 3rd, then I use 3rd.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:16 PM
  #979
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I honestly think that Al Arbour was getting through to him in '93.

You're right though after getting gooned by Hunter (which I will always despise him for by the way, he should have been thrown out of the NHL), Turgeon was worse than ever.
What an awful play that was. Nevertheless, when deciding who was the more valuable player, it would be hard for me to choose between Turgeon and Hunter.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:17 PM
  #980
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,484
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Turgeon was basically ruined by Dale Hunter's cheap shot in 1993, IMO. He was something of a perimeter player before then, but really started to play like a scared girl afterwards. I wanted a hard working center next to Kovalchuk, so Turgeon wasn't on my radar at all.
I'm hoping to see him match up with this team in the first round:

Quote:
John Tonelli, LW- Mario Lemieux, C-Rick Middleton, RW
John LeClair, LW- Mats Sundin, C- Alex Mogilny, RW
xxxxxxxxxxxx-Dale Hunter, C-

Hawkman is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:20 PM
  #981
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Is there a difference between Reinhart and Reed Larson?

A few that I can see:

-********* Larson didn’t have a problem staying healthy

-********* Larson had MUCH more of a physical edge to his game

-********* Larson did not play a lot of forward that inflated his TOI numbers (like Reinhart)

-********* Although he played on lesser teams, he earned a lot more TOI than Reinhart did, which I think transcends the team effect.

-********* Larson’s offensive numbers are much less PP-dependent. Exactly half of Reinhart’s points came from the PP – and from his exceptionally heavy PP usage in particular. Larson’s at a more reasonable 39%.

-********* Larson’s also pretty rare as far as defensemen go, in that he could really score goals. 1/3 of his points were goals, as opposed to just under ¼ for Reinhart. Finding a defenseman who can score goals like Larson is hard. Finding a defenseman who can put up assists like Reinhart… not as hard.

-********* Reinhart’s playoff record is obviously far superior though, FWIW.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
The main reason I took Shero besides loving his absent minded professor / hockey innovator genius schtick was that he explicitly gave his star players a little bit of latitude within his system.

He criticized the Russians for being too strict in that regard and keeping the reins too tight.

When you have guys like Jagr and Stewart I figured they would appreciate the flexibility as a way to help them buy in and play within a team concept at the same time.
Yeah, definitely not criticizing it or anything… I’m a big Shero fan, he won me my title. And I realize that the order coaches are selected isn’t going to follow an exact list of how “good” they were, it will be much more about team needs than you’d see with players.

Plus, the degree of variance in the opinions about them is much higher than for players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Gary Bergman, D

Good pick, only thing I want to say about it is that the TOI stats are a little favourable to Bergman because of the fact he was earning those minutes on mediocre to bad teams.


Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
A good reason to wait to pick a second line C is because people like this are available....
Absolutely… steal of the draft.
*
Plus, they did a better job surrounding him than I did. Iginla/Hay > Cashman/Adams, even with league size taken into account (32 team draft vs. 40). In this particular case Turgeon doesn’t even have to be the best player on his line (which he absolutely could do)
*
Sum of best 6 percentage scores for offensively-oriented NHL centers taken since pick #100, as well as where the next two undrafteds sit:
*
Cowley 585
Stastny 577
Thornton 572
Oates 565
Hawerchuk 563
Ratelle 558
Savard 558
Barry 545
Stewart 544
Lindros 535
Perreault 512 (or 527 after 3% small arena credit)
Turgeon 520
Roenick 511
Lafontaine 509
Sundin 509
Modano 509
Sittler 506
Sedin 500
Malkin 498
(undrafted) 496
Datsyuk 485
Federko 484
Lemaire 482
Richards 478
Weiland 478
Damphousse 476
(undrafted) 475
Mahovlich 465
Primeau 465
Spezza 464
Staal 452
MacLeish 449
Nieuwendyk 447
McKenney 433
Stamkos 321
*
Other notes:
*
-********* This is based on my own file which uses different benchmarks in a few seasons, which is of course not meant to benefit any one player, and helps 1970-1975 and 1980-1995 players the most (as in making sure they don’t get punished unfairly). It also accounts for war years in a “common sense” way – crediting the player, just not disproportionately so. I understand there are a few incarnations going around, but I doubt employing any of them would cause this list to really look materially different.

-********* The majority of these guys, being centers, are pretty heavy on the assists compared to goals. Turgeon is much more balanced offensively than most of these guys, which is added offensive value.

-********* Most of these players, including a few not very far ahead of Turgeon, had far superior linemates. Ratelle, Savard, Stewart, Lindros and Perreault stand out immediately. With a Gilbert/Larmer/LeClair/Siebert/Martin as a longtime linemate, what would Turgeon’s best 6 scores look like?

-********* This only counts 6 best seasons, but Turgeon had 13 consecutive noteworthy seasons from 1989-2001. Speaking strictly in terms of 7th-10th best seasons, Turgeon would only be behind Hawerchuk, Stewart and Oates on this list. This is a testament to his excellent season-to-season consistency.

-********* Lastly, what could perhaps be termed as Turgeon’s 112 most dominant games of all were played in the 1998 and 2000 seasons, which, due to GP totals of 52 and 60, do not rank among his best 6 seasons by percentage score. The type of system I employed above is absolutely unforgiving to that, but that doesn’t mean we should be. That’s still 112 games (about a season and a half) played at a 93-104% level. I realize some of these guys had injury problems, but Turgeon is much more unique in this case, being injured in his two best per-game seasons (and it’s not like ¾ of a season is a small sample size, either) As a result, he’s lacking the gaudy totals in those two seasons but it is not a stretch to say that he was a 30-game injury in 1999-00 away from being in the HHOF. All he needed in those 30 games was 31 points (his pace indicated that 38 was more likely) and he’d have an Art Ross, and there’s no way they leave out an Art Ross winner with 1300+ games and points.
*
He’s a healthier, much less visually dazzling and ultimately more effective version of Pat Lafontaine, who was taken 150 picks ago. People talk about Lafontaine like he could have been top-3 in scoring every season but just kept getting injured, but in reality he only has three top-10s in PPG – 2nd, 3rd, 5th. Turgeon put up five of those – 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th. 9th. In their best seasons, does playing with Mogilny (instead of Derek King) make up the 16 point edge Lafontaine had? Good question!

seventieslord is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:23 PM
  #982
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,592
vCash: 500
Turgeon is soft.

markrander87 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:28 PM
  #983
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
They are not per game numbers, they are the V#2 numbers (outliers eliminated).
Bullsh!t. Mine are the Vs2 numbers with #2 outliers eliminated when there is more than a 10% gap between #2 and #3. Your definition of outlier is evidently as soft as your second line center.

I know which system you're using. You're using seventies' ridiculous system in which Gretzky, Lemieux, their grandmothers and everyone they ever skated with are automatically removed, and then another player is removed (as the theoretical non-G/L world #1 scorer), and then the percentages are compared. This is a terrible system...so bad seventies has hardly bothered to defend it, because he's smart enough to understand what a trainwreck it really is.

Must I always check your numbers, dreak?

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:28 PM
  #984
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Turgeon is soft.
Sedin...

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:32 PM
  #985
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Sedin...
Is kind of a *****, but is at least big and strong in the corners.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:32 PM
  #986
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Sedin...
See above. Sturm sniffed that out pretty quickly didn't he

markrander87 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:34 PM
  #987
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Bullsh!t. Mine are the Vs2 numbers with #2 outliers eliminated when there is more than a 10% gap between #2 and #3. Your definition of outlier is evidently as soft as your second line center.
I used that exact system.

Quote:
I know which system you're using. You're using seventies' ridiculous system in which Gretzky, Lemieux, their grandmothers and everyone they ever skated with are automatically removed, and then another player is removed (as the theoretical non-G/L world #1 scorer), and then the percentages are compared. This is a terrible system...so bad seventies has hardly bothered to defend it, because he's smart enough to understand what a trainwreck it really is.
Nope. I'm using your system.

Quote:
Must I always check your numbers, dreak?
You should probably check your ego next.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:35 PM
  #988
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Sedin...
We're really not going to stoop to a level where we're going to disparage other people's players to make ours look better, are we?

We can't just look at this pick as it is: Pierre Turgeon matches up extremely well offensively to other players who were selected over 100 picks ago. We've insulated him well to where he'll get the best out of his skills, meaning it's something of a steal because of what we have built around him. He wouldn't have fit with all the other teams, but on our team he's an excellent fit.

It is what it is.

vecens24 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:37 PM
  #989
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
A few that I can see:

-********* Larson didn’t have a problem staying healthy

-********* Larson had MUCH more of a physical edge to his game

-********* Larson did not play a lot of forward that inflated his TOI numbers (like Reinhart)

-********* Although he played on lesser teams, he earned a lot more TOI than Reinhart did, which I think transcends the team effect.

-********* Larson’s offensive numbers are much less PP-dependent. Exactly half of Reinhart’s points came from the PP – and from his exceptionally heavy PP usage in particular. Larson’s at a more reasonable 39%.

-********* Larson’s also pretty rare as far as defensemen go, in that he could really score goals. 1/3 of his points were goals, as opposed to just under ¼ for Reinhart. Finding a defenseman who can score goals like Larson is hard. Finding a defenseman who can put up assists like Reinhart… not as hard.

-********* Reinhart’s playoff record is obviously far superior though, FWIW.
.
Reinhart also has a better defensive reputation than Larson, though that isn't saying much.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:38 PM
  #990
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Is kind of a *****, but is at least big and strong in the corners.
Both are soft. Does it matter who is a little bit softer than the other?

As I said before, it's all about surrounding them correctly. We'll see if Sedin gets to play with somebody like Jarome Iginla.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:44 PM
  #991
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Is kind of a *****, but is at least big and strong in the corners.
Exactly. Anybody who has watched him play is quite aware of his ability to protect the puck and cycle down low.

Turgeon on the otherhand wouldn't no a cycle from a hole in his head.


Also I'd like to point out Sedin will see a lot of minutes against 3rd pairings compared to a 2nd line C like Turgeon who has to deal with a top pairing.


Also thank you MB. I knew after using my first 3 picks on forwards I'd need to build a solid 6 man unit.

markrander87 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:46 PM
  #992
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,592
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Both are soft. Does it matter who is a little bit softer than the other?

As I said before, it's all about surrounding them correctly. We'll see if Sedin gets to play with somebody like Jarome Iginla.
Considering you are comparing my 3rd line to your 2nd I'd sure hope not.

markrander87 is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:52 PM
  #993
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,931
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Considering you are comparing my 3rd line to your 2nd I'd sure hope not.
I'm comparing my 3rd center to your 3rd center.... who you landed like 200 picks ago.

Dreakmur is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 01:58 PM
  #994
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 29,595
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I'm comparing my 3rd center to your 3rd center.... who you landed like 200 picks ago.
Sedin holds his own. Playmaking finishes are off the charts (especially if we're factoring in this season in a month as well).

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 02:04 PM
  #995
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Nope. I'm using your system.
Then you suck at basic division. I have triple-checked my numbers. Yours are simply false. From Hockey-Reference:

1988-89:

1. Lemieux - 199
2. Gretzky - 168
3. Yzerman - 155
...Turgeon - 88
[88/168 = 52]

1989-90:

1. Gretzky - 142
2. Messier - 129
3. Yzerman - 127
...Turgeon - 106
[106/129 = 82]

1990-91:

1. Gretzky - 163
2. Hull - 131
3. Oates - 115
...Turgeon - 79
[79/115 = 69]

1991-92:

1. Lemieux - 131
2. Gretzky - 123
3. Stevens - 121
...Turgeon - 95
[95/123 = 77]

1992-93:

1. Lemieux - 160
2. Lafontaine - 148
3. Oates - 142
...Turgeon - 132
[132/148 = 89]

1993-94:

1. Gretzky - 130
2. Fedorov - 120
3. Oates - 112
...Turgeon - 94
[94/120 = 78]

1994-95:

1. Lindros - 70
2. Jagr - 70
3. Zhamnov - 65
...Turgeon - 47
[47/70 = 67]

1995-96:

1. Lemieux - 161
2. Jagr - 149
3. Sakic - 120
...Turgeon - 96
[96/120 = 80]

1996-97:

1. Lemieux - 122
2. Selanne - 109
3. Kariya - 99
...Turgeon - 85
[85/109 = 78]

1997-98:

1. Jagr - 102
2. Forsberg - 91
3. Bure - 90
...Turgeon - 68
[68/91 = 75]

1998-99:

1. Jagr - 127
2. Selanne - 107
3. Kariya - 101
...Turgeon - 65
[65/107 = 61]

1999-00:

1. Jagr - 96
2. Bure - 94
3. Recchi - 91
...Turgeon - 66
[66/94 = 70]

2000-01:

1. Jagr - 121
2. Sakic - 118
3. Elias - 96
...Turgeon - 82
[82/96 = 85]

Total:

89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52

My numbers are exactly right following the method. I have no idea what happened with yours, but they are off.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-26-2013, 02:07 PM
  #996
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,832
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Then you suck at basic division. I have triple-checked my numbers. Yours are simply false. From Hockey-Reference:

1988-89:

1. Lemieux - 199
2. Gretzky - 168
3. Yzerman - 155
...Turgeon - 88
[88/168 = 52]

1989-90:

1. Gretzky - 142
2. Messier - 129
3. Yzerman - 127
...Turgeon - 106
[106/129 = 82]

1990-91:

1. Gretzky - 163
2. Hull - 131
3. Oates - 115
...Turgeon - 79
[79/115 = 69]

1991-92:

1. Lemieux - 131
2. Gretzky - 123
3. Stevens - 121
...Turgeon - 95
[95/123 = 77]

1992-93:

1. Lemieux - 160
2. Lafontaine - 148
3. Oates - 142
...Turgeon - 132
[132/148 = 89]

1993-94:

1. Gretzky - 130
2. Fedorov - 120
3. Oates - 112
...Turgeon - 94
[94/120 = 78]

1994-95:

1. Lindros - 70
2. Jagr - 70
3. Zhamnov - 65
...Turgeon - 47
[47/70 = 67]

1995-96:

1. Lemieux - 161
2. Jagr - 149
3. Sakic - 120
...Turgeon - 96
[96/120 = 80]

1996-97:

1. Lemieux - 122
2. Selanne - 109
3. Kariya - 99
...Turgeon - 85
[85/109 = 78]

1997-98:

1. Jagr - 102
2. Forsberg - 91
3. Bure - 90
...Turgeon - 68
[68/91 = 75]

1998-99:

1. Jagr - 127
2. Selanne - 107
3. Kariya - 101
...Turgeon - 65
[65/107 = 61]

1999-00:

1. Jagr - 96
2. Bure - 94
3. Recchi - 91
...Turgeon - 66
[66/94 = 70]

2000-01:

1. Jagr - 121
2. Sakic - 118
3. Elias - 96
...Turgeon - 82
[82/96 = 85]

Total:

89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52

My numbers are exactly right following the method. I have no idea what happened with yours, but they are off.
Given the wackiness of 1989:

1. Mario Lemieux*-PIT 199
2. Wayne Gretzky*-LAK 168
3. Steve Yzerman*-DET 155
4. XXX-LAK 150
5. XXX-PIT 115

I think it's reasonable to use 5th place as the standard. If so, you have (88/115 = 77) meaning Turgeon's 52 turns to a 77. That would give you:

89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-26-2013 at 02:29 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Closed Thread

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 02:36 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.