HFBoards

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

ATD 2013 Lineup Assassination Thread - Jim Robson Division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-29-2013, 03:56 PM
  #26
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 Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I think the 1st unit is better than okay, not one of the best in the draft, but above average...Bossy is an elite power play player, and Housley might be too (especially with limited ES minutes), at worst he's high-end. Duncan is above average on the point as well. Fredrickson/Gilmour are nothing special, but not out of place either.
I don't think Duncan is above average on an ATD 1st unit PP, but other than that, I agree. Bossy and Housley are both excellent weapons, and the rest of the pieces are fine. It's a good top powerplay unit.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 04:15 PM
  #27
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I don't think Duncan is above average on an ATD 1st unit PP, but other than that, I agree. Bossy and Housley are both excellent weapons, and the rest of the pieces are fine. It's a good top powerplay unit.
Thanks for the feedback. I think Duncan is a judgement call, there's definitely no direct information about him on a powerplay unit, so I'm fine with you having that opinion.

A little more info...We know he was a very good offensive player, and had a tremendous peak, leading all players in the PCHA in points and goals as a defenseman one season. The one thing that there seems to be a lot of support for is his rushing ability, so at the very least, between Duncan and Housley, this unit will be very good at gaining the zone. His play once they are set up in the opposing end is what's open to interpretation.

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 01:04 PM
  #28
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Not sure if this belongs here or in the lineup advice thread, but would re-arranging my top 2 lines to the below configuration work against an opponent that is very 1st line heavy?

Shutdown Line: Dumart - Gilmour - Nevin
Scoring Line: Thompson - Fredrickson - Bossy

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 01:15 PM
  #29
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 Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Not sure if this belongs here or in the lineup advice thread, but would re-arranging my top 2 lines to the below configuration work against an opponent that is very 1st line heavy?

Shutdown Line: Dumart - Gilmour - Nevin
Scoring Line: Thompson - Fredrickson - Bossy
It really depends on the LW you are facing, but yes, I think this would work just fine in the right circumstances. Thompson - Frederickson are definitely good enough not to waste Bossy's offensive abilities, which would be the biggest concern with such a switch. Bossy showed pretty well when Trottier was injured that he could carry a line by himself, anyway, but I like that you've got good offensive players next to him in this scenario.

It probably doesn't matter much in your conference, though. Kharlamov, Mahovlich, Malone, Blake and Jackson are the only scary LWs you may end up facing before the finals. The bulk of the talent at LW is concentrated in the other conference, for whatever wierd reason.


Last edited by Sturminator: 03-30-2013 at 01:48 PM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 02:27 PM
  #30
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Shamrocks review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Chicago Shamrocks


Head Coach: Hap Day
Assistant Coach: Frank Patrick
Captain: Bob Nevin
Alternate Captains: Doug Gilmour, Ching Johnson


Woody Dumart - Doug Gilmour - Mike Bossy
Paul Thompson - Frank Fredrickson - Bob Nevin
Gilles Tremblay - Ivan Hlinka - John MacLean
Dennis Hull - Craig Conroy - Ryan Kesler

Ching Johnson - Carl Brewer
Art Duncan - Jack Crawford
Phil Housley - Al Arbour

Jacques Plante
Peter "Pekka" Lindmark

Extra: Chris Drury, Viktor Shalimov, Brian Campbell


Power Play
Frank Fredrickson - Doug Gilmour - Mike Bossy
Art Duncan - Phil Housley

Paul Thompson - Ivan Hlinka - John MacLean
Carl Brewer - Phil Housley/Dennis Hull


Penalty Kill
Bob Nevin - Craig Conroy
Ching Johnson - Jack Crawford
Jacques Plante

Gilles Tremblay - Ryan Kesler
Carl Brewer - Al Arbour
Jacques Plante

* Dumart-Gilmour will be put out at the end of PK's to expose tired forwards, and will fill in as extras when the above PKers are in the box.

PK Extra D: Art Duncan


Forward Minutes
Player ES PP PK Total
Dumart 15 0 1 16
Gilmour 15 4 1 20
Bossy 15 5 0 20
Thompson 13 3 0 16
Fredrickson 13 4 0 17
Nevin 13 0 3 16
Tremblay 11 0 3 14
Hlinka 11 3 0 14
MacLean 11 2 0 13
Hull 7 1 0 8
Conroy 7 0 3 10
Kesler 7 0 3 10
TOTAL 138 22 14 174

Defense Minutes
Player ES PP PK Total
Johnson 18.5 0 4 22.5
Brewer 18.5 2.5 3 24
Duncan 16.5 4.5 0 21
Crawford 16.5 0 4 20.5
Housley 11 6 0 17
Arbour 11 0 3 14
TOTAL 92 13 14 119


Brief Description
A defensive minded team backed by an elite goaltender. The lines will match up straight across...1st vs. 1st, 2nd vs. 2nd, etc. Probably less offense up front than some teams, but great puckmoving Dmen on the 2nd and 3rd pairs and a lethal powerplay should help.

Hap Day does not really care about offense at all, so that is one reason the offensive minded Frank Patrick is here. He is also a big player's coach, which should be helpful with the sometimes free spirited Brewer.
Coaching and leadership

I love what I've read about Hap Day this time around. I would have had no place for a defensive-minded coach at all on my team due to style, but my opinoin is that he's the clear cut 2nd best coach who coached before 1950 after Lester Patrick, and there's at least an argument for Day as the 5th best of all time. He really seemed to consistently outcoach both Dick Irvin and Jack Adams in the playoffs during the dynasty years. I like that Day (unlike some defensive coaches) made exceptions for key players (Babe Pratt during WW2, Apps/Drillion before the war) if it would help his team.

Frank Patrick is the player's coach that guys can ***** to when Day is being too tyrannical in practice.

Leadership is okay, but doesn't stand out as spectacular; any reason you made Nevin captain over Gilmour?

Forwards

You seem to have gone with the philosophy of drafting Mike Bossy and a bunch of more defensive-minded forwards. It's not a bad strategy; in a lot of ways that's what the NY Islanders were. Bossy is a great first line RW who used to go too early, but you obviously got good value on him in the 2nd round. I'm not sure if he's quite good enough to carry a line offensively at this level, but he's close. Gilmour is one of those modern two-way centers like Fedorov who might be a little overrated because we have vivid memories of his intangibles. His offense record is pretty weak as a first line center in this, though he's definitely one of those guys who (like Bossy) raises his game in the playoffs. Gilmour's something of a poor man's Trottier, though he lacks Trottier's size and strength. I think you overdrafted Woody Dumart a little bit - I don't really see him as a natural first liner at all. Great defensive player though, and he's not just a defensive player, so he won't kill the scoring This line won't wow anyone offensively and normally I would say it would really struggle if Bossy wasn't scoring, but Bossy is one of the most consistent scorers of all time, and basically was never shut down in the playoffs, so that's a good place to be. In a strength-vs-strength match up (which is what you seem to be going for), the line could really tear apart opposing scoring lines who lack defensive ability.

Fredrickson and Thompson seem like they are about average offensively, probably a bit average defensively for second liners. Nevin is a fantastic defensive player and very good in corners. He's usually used as a third liner, but I'm happy that we've recently had a re-evaluation of some guys (like Nevin and my own George Armstrong) who are usually placed on third lines because of D but are actually better offensively than guys who are often used as scoring line glue guys. I don't think Nevin is a great scoring line glue guy, but he's a good one.

Hlinka is a solid center for a third scoring line - he was known for being highly skilled for a big man. Wish I we knew something of his intangibles beyond his leadership though. Tremblay is a great two-way third liner when healthy, obviously not great when injured, which he was frequently. As a Devils fan, it's hard for me to place John MacLean, but to be honest, he seems like more of a 4th liner at this level.

Strong and well-rounded 4th line.

Drury and Shalimov are pretty well rounded spares.

One thing I do notice overall is that you lack physical play from your forwards. You have tons of gritty guys who will battle for pucks, but you don't really have anyone who will wear the defense down and I don't think any of your forwards are going to intimidate anyone.

Defense

Despite the fact that you don't have anything close to a true #1, I actually really like your top pairing at even strength. Both are very strong defensive players, Brewer with finesse and guile, Ching Johnson with brute force. I honestly don't see much if anything separating Ching from Jack Stewart. They will be extremely annoying to play against, as not only were both Ching and Brewer famous for holding their opponents without getting penalties, they play for a coach in Hap Day whose 40s dynasty perfected clutch-and-grab-and-get-away-with-it hockey. Brewer wasn't very good on the PP because of a weak shot, but he's a good puck mover at even strength.

I see Jack Crawford as a defensive-minded #3 on par with Brad McCrimmon, Derian Hatcher, and Lionel Hitchman. Art Duncan is a very good offensive-minded #4 - I think leading the PCHA in scoring that one year is a fine accomplishment, but one that can be easily overrated, as the PCHA had fallen to the third best league in the world by that point. They complement each other well and probably come out to just a bit above average. It's a minor concern - but they are both right-handed shots. Crawford, as a guy without much puck skill seems like a guy who would be lost on his off-side. Duncan can probably play both sides, but my research into Lloyd Cook showed that Cook always played LD and Duncan RD, so it would be a bit of an adjustment for Duncan.

Housley is a guy I'll probably never draft in the ATD. You're using him correctly - defensive-minded partner, limited even strength minutes, lots of PP minutes. But it's a lot of work to shelter a guy who is probably only an average as a #1 PP QB in the ATD. But then when your top pairing is Johnson/Brewer, you're going to need help on the PP.

It's a shame nobody is using Brian Campbell on their bottom pairing - he's definitely deserving, but a Housley-Campbell pairing would be a nightmare.

Goaltending

Plante is one of the best ever. There is an argument at least that in a playoff-heavy format like this one, his reliability in the playoffs makes him a better choice than Hasek, but I don't think he's quite at that level in the regular season. Plante's puck moving ability will help out your top pairing.

Plante suffered from asthma, so expect Lindmark to play frequently in the second came of back-to-backs. He's okay for that role, probably a bit below average as a backup, but I do think he deserves to be a back up here.

Special Teams

Mike Bossy is an awesome PP player, but Gilmour and Fredrickson seem a little bit below par for a first unit. The pointmen are good, but not outstanding. It seems like a fairly average first PP unit overall, though Mike Bossy could very well carry it a bit higher.

Second PP seems pretty weak, with nobody above average, and John MacLean and whoever plays the points when Housley/Duncan aren't there as below average.

Pretty strong PK - Ching Johnson seems like an outstanding penalty killer. Conroy seems kind of weak for a top penalty killing center (I'd prefer Gilmour there, but that would be a lot of minutes for Gilimour, so I dunno), but other than that, the unit is solid. And Plante obviously helps a lot here.

Overall

I like
  • Lots of defensive depth, maybe the best defensive group of forwards in the ATD, from top to bottom.
  • The top line will really exploit first lines that are weak defensively in head-to-head matchups and Hap Day is a good coach to get them out there when you want.
  • The top pairing will be strong defensively at even strength and is a perfect fit for Day's clutch-and-grab style. Neither defenseman is a #1, but that's largely due to a lack of power play ability by either one.
  • If your skaters can keep things close, Plante will be a difference-maker.
  • You should have better coaching that most teams in this.

I have concerns about
  • After Mike Bossy, you really lack offensive oomph. This is somewhat counterbalanced by depth of scoring, but there is still something to be said for high-end scoring, and Bossy is really your only high-end scorer.
  • The second line is pretty good defensively, but could lose matchups to other second lines if those lines can also play defense, but have better scorers.
  • Not much depth on the powerplay

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 05:22 PM
  #31
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Thanks for the review TDMM. I agree with most of what was said, and will just make a few comments...

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
[U]
Leadership is okay, but doesn't stand out as spectacular; any reason you made Nevin captain over Gilmour?
I had no clue on who to pick between Nevin and Gilmour...Nevin was a captain for longer, but Gilmour's teams were probably more successful. I asked in the lineup advice thread and I think the only person that responded said Nevin, so I went with him. I would definitely be interested in hearing arguments for Gilmour.

I would agree with someone saying our high-end leadership is just okay (basically just looking at the captain), but I think as a team we have a ton and it is spread throughout the lineup...
1st Line: Gilmour - Capt TOR, CHI
2nd Line: Nevin - Capt NYR
3rd Line: Hlinka - Capt Czech National Team, and Club Team
1st D Pair: Johnson - Not a capt, but several good quotes about leadership
2nd D Pair: Duncan - Capt VAN, DET


Quote:
I think you overdrafted Woody Dumart a little bit - I don't really see him as a natural first liner at all. Great defensive player though, and he's not just a defensive player, so he won't kill the scoring
Do you think Dumart was overdrafted value-wise relative to players of a different type or do you think there were better players available that could play the same role? If it is the former, I'm fine with that. If it is the latter, we may have a disagreement. I did quite a bit of research on LW's that could play a defensive/glue-guy role on a 1st line before I made that pick and I think Dumart was the best guy left, and much better than a guy like Clark Gilles who was drafted shortly thereafter.

Quote:
Fredrickson and Thompson seem like they are about average offensively, probably a bit average defensively for second liners.
Is there something missing here? It kinda reads weird to me...Usually when someone says "a bit" it's "a bit above average" or "a bit below average."


Quote:
One thing I do notice overall is that you lack physical play from your forwards. You have tons of gritty guys who will battle for pucks, but you don't really have anyone who will wear the defense down and I don't think any of your forwards are going to intimidate anyone.
I'm fine with this...I don't think we will be intimidated, but we won't be intimidating anyone else. Another way to say it is that we can probably take advantage of softer opponents, but not completely throw them off their game.


Quote:
It's a shame nobody is using Brian Campbell on their bottom pairing - he's definitely deserving, but a Housley-Campbell pairing would be a nightmare.
The thinking here was that Campbell can fill in for Housley if Day decides to bench him to send a message, as he was known to do.

Quote:
Pretty strong PK - Ching Johnson seems like an outstanding penalty killer. Conroy seems kind of weak for a top penalty killing center (I'd prefer Gilmour there, but that would be a lot of minutes for Gilimour, so I dunno), but other than that, the unit is solid. And Plante obviously helps a lot here.
As you said, I have a ton of defensive forwards...Do you think it would be a good idea to just roll 3 forward pairs evenly?

Gilmour-Nevin, Conroy-Gilles, Kesler-Dumart for about 40 seconds each per kill? This is probably similar to how a lot of teams do it today.


EDIT: Forgot to post some stuff about MacLean...I will do so in a bit


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 04-09-2013 at 03:00 PM.
Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-30-2013, 05:35 PM
  #32
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
I think John MacLean can play on a 3rd line. Here's a comparison to some guys who, it seems like many consider above average 3rd liners.

10 Best Adjusted ES Points
John MacLean: 56, 54, 53, 53, 49, 45, 45, 43, 40, 40
Owen Nolan: __60, 52, 52, 49, 47, 46, 43, 41, 41, 40
Shane Doan: __57, 57, 55, 52, 50, 49, 48, 47, 47, 42
Rick Tocchet: _63, 58, 57, 53, 51, 47, 44, 44, 42, 42

MacLean is the weakest of the bunch, but he's really not that far behind (especially with Nolan, they are almost even), and he also played for a pretty defensive minded team.


Last edited by Hawkey Town 18: 04-01-2013 at 08:58 PM.
Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 07:02 PM
  #33
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
I think John MacLean can play on a 3rd line. Here's a comparison to some guys who, it seems like many consider above average 3rd liners.

10 Best Adjusted ES Points
John MacLean: 56, 54, 53, 53, 49, 45, 45, 43, 40, 40
Owen Nolan: __60, 52, 52, 49, 47, 46, 43, 41, 41, 40
Shane Doan: __57, 57, 55, 52, 50, 49, 48, 47, 47, 42
Rick Tocchet: _63, 58, 57, 53, 51, 47, 44, 44, 42, 42

MacLean is the weakest of the bunch, but he's really not that far behind (especially with Nolan, they are almost even), and he also played for a pretty defensive minded team.
My issue with MacLean is more that his defense, while solid, isn't really what you'd expect from a third liner.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 07:07 PM
  #34
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
My issue with MacLean is more that his defense, while solid, isn't really what you'd expect from a third liner.
I see what you mean, but I don't think that's much of an issue with my team as my 1st and 2nd lines are the two strongest defensively and will be matching up straight across with opponents. MacLean's defense should be fine in handling other 3rd lines.

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-02-2013, 11:50 PM
  #35
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Montreal Canadiens review

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jafar View Post
MONTREAL CANADIENS





GM: Jafar
Captain: Mikhailov
Assistant: Bourque
Assistant: Coulter


HEAD COACH

Tommy Gorman

ROSTER

Busher Jackson - Frank Boucher - Boris Mikhailov
Shane Doan - Jeremy Roenick - Helmut Balderis
Joe Klukay - Don Luce - Tony Amonte
Sergei Kapustin - Troy Murray - Mario Tremblay

Raymond Bourque - Art Coulter
Jimmy Thomson - Gus Mortson
Bobby Rowe - Mathieu Schneider

Georges Vézina
Al Rollins

Jason Spezza , Rick Ley , Steve Thomas , Georges Laraque

PP1: Jackson - Boucher - Mikhailov
Schneider - Bourque

PP2: Kapustin - Roenick - Balderis
Mortson - Thomson

PK1: Klukay - Luce
Bourque - Coulter

PK2: Murray - Boucher
Thomson-Mortson

PK3: Tremblay - Amonte


Coaching and Leadership

Great profile of Tommy Gorman - he appears to have been quite the innovator when it came to what qualified as a short-shift game of the era and in fore-checking. The impression I get of Gorman's system was that it was something of an "offensive zone trap," a type of defensive system where the goal was to keep the team from being able to get out of their own zone with any effectiveness, but not really pressing the attack yourself. Different from the standard neutral zone trap in that the goal was to trap the opponents in their own end, rather than trapping them in the neutral zone and counterattacking. Something of an early version of what last year's LA Kings played actually.

As far as his standing among ATD coaches, I still have trouble putting Gorman as anywhere above average due to his short time as a coach though.

Strong leadership on your team with Mikhailov, Bourque, and Coulter all deserving letters and Doan providing strong secondary leadership.

Forwards

Nobody on the first line stands out as outstanding for his position, but you might be the only team in the draft with none of your first liners below average for his position. All and all, it's a strong first line with Boucher providing two-way play, and the wings providing various levels of grit.

The second line is basically the Balderis show. I still have a tough time placing Balderis, but my gut tells me he's basically Kovalchuk's equal. He's not as good as Bure, right? Anyway, Balderis is a fine second line scorer to build around, although maybe not the easiest. You did a good job of finding him two guys who don't need to have the puck a lot to be effective, though Doan and Roenick could struggle to keep up with Balderis in transition. I see Roenick as a fairly average second line center, somewhat below average in offense, but making up for it with grit and a decent defensive game. I always thought of Doan as losing something when going from the right to left side, but apparently now he has legit NHL experience playing both sides. He's a solid second line glue guy, but not a particularly strong one.

Overall, the strength of the second line largely depends on how often Balderis can get loose. If another team can really key on him in transition, they line could have trouble. If he gets loose, they'll be quite effective. It's a solid second line, but not outstanding..

Don Luce is a great two-way third liner, and Klukay is an outstanding checker (though he won't score all that much). Tony Amonte apparently brings a solid two-way game and some serious speed in the counterattack. This line will be very good at checking lines with dominant RWs and then counter-attacking. I don't see Amonte as very effective checking some of the stronger LWs out there, however.

solid 4th line. Murray and Tremblay are solid two-way guys, and Kapustin brings offense and grit.

Spezza is a good offensively oriented spare. I guess Steve Thomas is alright. Georges Laraque needs to be seated in the press box on a regular basis.

Defense

Strong first pairing. I have Bourque as my pick for third best defenseman of all-time, behind Orr and Harvey. Coulter is a great defense-first #2.

Second pairing is above average, but not outstanding, and they obviously have known chemistry. Just a nitpick, but you have them playing on the wrong sides.

Bobby Rowe is a very good defensive-minded #5. Schneider is passable as an offensively oriented #6 - I'd try to find a way to give Rowe more ES minutes than Schneider though - Schneider's lack of defense could hurt you if given too many minutes. Again to nitpick, but you have them playing on the wrong sides.

Rick Ley is a good defensive-minded spare. If either Bourque or Schneider gets injured, it could really hurt your PP. I'd seriously consider dropping Laraque and getting a spare defenseman who can play on the PP.

Goaltending

Georges Vezina might have been the steal of the draft. IMO, he stands alone as the #10 goalie of all time. I guess if you really value peak, you could rank Charlie Gardiner over him, but I think it's becoming harder and harder to prefer Benedict to Vezina.

Al Rollins is a strong backup

Special Teams

Above average 1st PP. The forwards are solid. Bourque is in the category of best PP QBs of all-time not named Bobby Orr. Schneider is probably weak for a 1st unit PP guy, but not as weak as Bourque is strong. Neither guy is a RH shot, which does hurt their effectiveness a bit.

Second PP seems below average, because I think the Gold Dust twins were more defensive than offensive. Forwards are about average - good job replacing Doan with Kapustin on the PP.

Awesome first PK - one of the true elite 1st units in the draft.

Solid second PK.

I honestly think that Doan-Mikhailov would be a better 3rd option than Tremblay-Amonte. Pretty sure Mikhailov took faceoffs for the Soviets on their PK.

Overall

I like:
  • A first line with no real weaknesses
  • Top 4 defensemen are strong, especially in their own zone.
  • Overall, you might be the only team in the draft with a first unit with no real weaknesses - and that includes goal.
  • Outstanding top PK unit

Potential issues:
  • After Bourque, there is a big dropoff in offense coming from your defensemen
  • If a team can somehow stymie Balderis in transition, your secondary scoring takes a big hit.
  • You don't really have a RW to match up against a dominant scoring LW.
  • It's a small issue, but whereas your first unit doesn't have any weaknesses, Bourque is their only real standout strength.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 07:19 AM
  #36
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
As I haven't heard from Reen in a week, I guess I'll answer for this team. If he comes here, he can give his own answers, which will probably be different from mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Great profile of Tommy Gorman - he appears to have been quite the innovator when it came to what qualified as a short-shift game of the era and in fore-checking. The impression I get of Gorman's system was that it was something of an "offensive zone trap," a type of defensive system where the goal was to keep the team from being able to get out of their own zone with any effectiveness, but not really pressing the attack yourself. Different from the standard neutral zone trap in that the goal was to trap the opponents in their own end, rather than trapping them in the neutral zone and counterattacking. Something of an early version of what last year's LA Kings played actually.

As far as his standing among ATD coaches, I still have trouble putting Gorman as anywhere above average due to his short time as a coach though.
Gorman's forechecking scheme is maybe the single biggest systematic innovation in hockey history; it changed the face of north american hockey in short order after his teams swept the field with it, and it likely led to at least one rule change, that being the creation of icing, which looks like it started showing up in 1938 according to the passage in Reen's profile. Gorman's Chicago and Montreal teams, neither of which was considered a Cup contender on talent, were über dominant in the playoffs running that system, going a combined 11-3-1 over Gorman's back-to-back Cup runs, with their only loss coming in the game when Gardiner gave up a bad goal from center ice in the 3rd period of a tie game. Gorman wasn't a coach for a really long time and part of that time he was coaching the sad sack Americans, but he's the owner of maybe the best "coaching peak" in history.

I think the forwards on this team fit well into his system. Mikhailov, Jackson, Roenick, Doan, Luce, Klukay, Murray, Tremblay, Kapustin...this team is loaded with skilled, tough and aggressive forwards who will make life difficult for defenses even when the team cannot carry the puck through the neutral zone in transition. A few of these guys (specifically Klukay, Luce and Roenick) were among the best forecheckers of their respective generations. One of the biggest strengths of this team, in my opinion, is how well-integrated it is between system and personnel.

Quote:
Overall, the strength of the second line largely depends on how often Balderis can get loose. If another team can really key on him in transition, they line could have trouble. If he gets loose, they'll be quite effective. It's a solid second line, but not outstanding..
Specifically the Balderis line...I imagine Helmut will be the primary puck carrier in transition, and when he cannot gain the zone, he'll have the option to dump the puck forward to Doan and Roenick, both of whom are aggressive, physical forecheckers. One of the biggest strengths of this team is that it looks unlikely to bog down when pressured in transition.

Overall, I agree with your opinion on the talent of the second line (Balderis ~ Kovalchuk, Roenick ~ average, etc.), but I think you underestimate how well this line will get in on the forecheck even when Balderis cannot do it all on his own.

Quote:
Second pairing is above average, but not outstanding, and they obviously have known chemistry. Just a nitpick, but you have them playing on the wrong sides.
I think you are underrating these two defensemen. Jimmy Thomson was a top-6 defenseman in the NHL (based on AST voting and his one merited all-star game selection in a year for which we don't have voting past the top-4) for seven consecutive seasons, and Gus Mortson has an impressive resume of his own outside of the 1st AST season, with five merited all-star game selections, in total, and another couple seasons (1947 and 1948) where he placed top-10 in AST voting but played in the all-star game for the Cup winner. These guys were the top pairing for a defensive-minded dynasty team. Thomson is good enough to be a below-average #2 and Mortson good enough to be a below average #3. As a second pairing, they are way above average. They're among the best second pairings in the draft.

Quote:
Bobby Rowe is a very good defensive-minded #5. Schneider is passable as an offensively oriented #6 - I'd try to find a way to give Rowe more ES minutes than Schneider though - Schneider's lack of defense could hurt you if given too many minutes. Again to nitpick, but you have them playing on the wrong sides.

Rick Ley is a good defensive-minded spare. If either Bourque or Schneider gets injured, it could really hurt your PP. I'd seriously consider dropping Laraque and getting a spare defenseman who can play on the PP.
What are the odds that Ray Bourque gets hurt? I drafted Schneider for this team, so I'll comment on my reasons for doing so. This franchise has a very strong and deep top-5 defense, and specifically a #5 guy who can handle 2nd pairing minutes. My idea was to give all of the top-4 defensemen occasional shifts with Rowe (Coulter after powerplays, and the others just mixed based on who needs a break), and to give Schneider really sheltered minutes at even strength. Montreal has the blueline to pull that off, and if he's playing soft minutes, Schneider's defensive issues aren't that important and the odds of him getting hurt are low.

Quote:
Second PP seems below average, because I think the Gold Dust twins were more defensive than offensive. Forwards are about average - good job replacing Doan with Kapustin on the PP.
You seem to have a low opinion of Thomson and Mortson for some odd reason, especially Thomson, who I think was a small steal where Reen took him. These weren't just defensive guys. Jimmy Thomson was an excellent playmaker - the guy finished top-20 in leaguewide (not just defensemen) assists five times: 6th, 8th, 16th, 16th, 18th, and I seriously doubt he was doing it all at even-strength. Mortson was a pretty good offensive defenseman, as well, who was known for his big shot. Actually, I think Thomson - Mortson on second units straight across is one of the real strengths of this team.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 11:20 AM
  #37
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reds4Life View Post
Detroit Red Wings

Coach: Scotty Bowman

Captain: Jacques Lemaire

Alexander Yakushev - Syl Apps Sr - Bill Guerin
Gary Roberts - Sidney Crosby(A)- Rick Tocchet
Nick Metz - Evgeni Malkin - Boris Mayorov
John Madden - Jacques Lemaire(C) - Tomas Holmstrom
Ryan Getzlaf
Jiri Sejba

Dallas Smith - Eddie Shore
Zinetula Bilyaletdinov - Rob Blake(A)
Sandis Ozolinsh - Oldrich "Olin" Machac
Ed Jovanovski
Erik Karlsson

Tim Thomas
Göran Högosta


PP1:
Yakushev - Apps - Crosby
Blake - Shore

PP2:
Roberts/Guerin - Malkin - Holmstrom
Ozolinsh - Machac

PK1:
Madden - Lemaire
Shore - Machac

PK2:
Metz - Crosby
Blake - Bilyaletdinov

Let's try my luck on my selection for the most intriguingly built team of this years draft!

1st line: With your wealth distributed among 4 lines nonetheless, you obviously will end up with a below-average first line. With Syl Apps, I would like at least one crash-&bang type of the player who will be in front of the net. I think Bill Guerin fits well enough the bill. Alex Yakushev is a lanky offensive player, always liked what he brings to a team. It's a below average first line, but it fits and I like it.

2nd line: Holy cow, no one is better to take liberty on Sid the Kid! Crosby is such a terrific player, close to being perfect (when healthy). The best skater I ever saw play from my own two eyes. I would of love to find him at least one winger who had some offensive flair to play with him. I don't mind either Tocchet or Roberts there (actually, I mind a bit about Tocchet!), but it would of been good to see Crosby with a talented goalscorer on his side. Crosby can generate a lot of offense on his own, so I guess he can do that.

3rd line: I don't mind that line, although it look a bit awkward. Nick Metz is the defensive conscience, while Mayorov, and especially Malkin, play offensively and take advantage of weaker opposition.

4th line: Well, Jacques Lemaire on a fourth line, I've seen it all! And the captain to boot! Although not an offensive player by any means, it feels like this line is a waste of Lemaire offensive flair, with two players absolutely terrible on the offense. Tomas Holmstrom is not a ATD regular, unless you in despair need of a 1stPP 'in front of the net' kinda guy.

Ok with that said, here's what I would do with your offensive lines:

Alex Yakushev - Syl Apps - Bill Guerin - Unchanged
Evgeni Malkin - Sidney Crosby - Rick Tocchet - Better O player with Crosby, know each other well. Could put Mayorov instead of Tocchet, but Tocchet will bring fear to opposing forwards who might want to take liberty on Crosby
John Madden - Jacques Lemaire - Nick Metz - A true shutdown line. Metz is a 'potent' goalscorer, so you don't completely waste Lemaire offensive output
Gary Roberts - Ryan Getzlaf - Boris Mayorov - Some crash&bang, excellent offensive output for a 4th line

It looks much better IMO, and all four line are good and serve a purpose. I wish I could pur Roberts next to Crosby and Tocchet on the fourth line, where he belongs, but IMO it's still a vast improvement. Just my suggestion though

1st pairing: Eddie Shore is arguably the 2nd best defencemn of All-Time. He bring absolutely everything to the table. He's fearless. Dallas Smith is an extremely weak link. I know he played 1st line minute at ES in real life with Orr, but I still hate the idea of seeing him at that position. However, there's nothing you can do, as I guess I still prefer him over Bilay for that role.

2nd pairing: A good second pairing. Rob Blake is a good #2 defenceman in this draft, pretty much a Eddie Shore (very) lite. Bilay is a steady #4 defenceman.

3rd pairing: Two offensive-first player on that 3rd pairing could put them in trouble against good offensive third line. Jovanovski and Karlsson are not good option to replace them in the lineup.

Goaltenders: I don't think Tim Thomas is good enough to be a #1 goaltender in the ATD. A great, great peak of a few seasons, but lack longevity for a starter. I guess that means when he's on, Thomas will play great for you, but when he's off ... lookout. If you wanna have Tim Thomas as a starter, you shall have a great backup IMO ... Who? Honestly, never heard that name before.

Coach: Scotty Bowman can coach any team, and he's smart enough t ofigure out the best way to make this 'interesting' lineup work. Good thing you have the best coach of All-Time, he will have his hand full trying to come up with interesting strategies

PP: The name on the first unit sounds good, but your lacking a true goalscorer, something you unfortunately don't possesses. It's not a bad 1stPP, considering the D. The 2ndPP also lack punch, although you have two good shooter and a great front of the net guy.

PK: I'm not sure what Machac is doing on a first PK, but I might be wrong. Overall, although not elite, it looks like effective PK units.


Why they will win: (using my suggest lineup)
- Great offensive depth from all offensive line
- Eddie Shore, who can turn around a game by his own
- Scotty Bowman, the master behind the bench

Why they will lose:
- Horrendous duo of goalkeeper
- Dallas Smith overwhelm and the overall lack of defensive depth after Shore & Blake
- Underwhelming first line

Good luck in this year draft Reds!

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 11:51 AM
  #38
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jafar View Post
MONTREAL CANADIENS





GM: Jafar
Captain: Mikhailov
Assistant: Bourque
Assistant: Coulter


HEAD COACH

Tommy Gorman

ROSTER

Busher Jackson - Frank Boucher - Boris Mikhailov
Shane Doan - Jeremy Roenick - Helmut Balderis
Joe Klukay - Don Luce - Tony Amonte
Sergei Kapustin - Troy Murray - Mario Tremblay

Raymond Bourque - Art Coulter
Jimmy Thomson - Gus Mortson
Bobby Rowe - Mathieu Schneider

Georges Vézina
Al Rollins

Jason Spezza , Rick Ley , Steve Thomas , Georges Laraque

PP1: Jackson - Boucher - Mikhailov
Schneider - Bourque

PP2: Kapustin - Roenick - Balderis
Mortson - Thomson

PK1: Klukay - Luce
Bourque - Coulter

PK2: Murray - Boucher
Thomson-Mortson

PK3: Tremblay - Amonte



Coaching

I think Gorman is a little above average as a coach, but not a top 10 guy. His forechecking system fits your team's personnel very well.

Leadership

Not much to say...you've got loads.

Forwards
1st Line: A strong line, Boucher is the playmaker and defensive conscience, and two gritty wings should be able to forecheck well.

2nd Line: IMO this is the weakest part of your team. Balderis is good on the RW, but Roenick and Doan are below average for their roles. I do think Roenick was a great pick where you took him and has been underrated in the ATD, I just think TDMM and Sturm are underestimating how good an average 2nd Line C is. I would say that guys like Fredrickson, Sundin, Lemaire, Primeau are average, and Roenick is at best in the next tier down with guys like Sittler, Lafontaine, Zetterberg.

3rd Line: A good 3rd line that will be very good but not great at shutting down top lines. Luce and Amonte provide some offensive threat. As was said above, high-end LW's could be an issue.

4th Line: Good, but nothing special.

Defense
1st Pair: A strong pair. An elite #1 and average #2 should be better than most first pairs.

2nd Pair: I think that this is a strong, above average, 2nd pairing. Sturm, I do think that you are overrating these guys some. Comparing Thomson to Jack Crawford, who I see as an average #3...
AS Thomson: 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6/7**
AS Crawford: 1, 3, 5, 5, 6*, 6*, 7, 8, 8,
**this is a guess for the year that he was not top 4 but played in the AS game
*War Years, also missed games to injury both years
The AS records are very close. I definitely think Thomson should be seen as better than Crawford, because of the dynasty and tougher competition, but I don't think the gap is huge. I think if Crawford is an average #3 then Thomson should be an above average #3.

I see Mortson as an above average #4. Sturm called him a below average #3...Not going to go as in-depth on this one, but again looking at Jack Crawford, is Mortson really that close to Crawford where he is just one step down. I don't think he is.

3rd Pairing: Wish there was a linked bio for Rowe, but I think of him as a high-end #5. Schneider is nothing special as a #6, but Rowe makes this a strong, above average, 3rd pairing.

Goaltending
Vezina was one of the best picks of the draft, maybe the best pick. I have him battling it out for #10 all-time with Gardiner, and a small but clear step above Benedict.

Special Teams
Powerplay: Above average first unit, 2nd unit is average to slightly below average.

Penalty Kill: Very strong, with a high-end/elite 1st unit and a strong 2nd unit

Overall

This team is a strong entry, with good personnel to play their coaches style. Defense, goaltending, 1st line, and PKing are this team's strengths. The only real weakness I see is the 2nd line. I think if someone is going to beat this team, exposing that 2nd line will be the key, while somehow keeping everything else in check. Definitely one of the better entries that I am not at all happy to have in my division, good job Reen/Sturm.

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 01:00 PM
  #39
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
A couple of all-star comparisons regarding the 2nd pairing defensemen here. Note: with the exception of Bill White and Jim Schoenfeld, all of the below defensemen have parts of their primes in years in which they played in the all-star game as a non-Cup-winner, but fell outside of the very limited range of end-of-season voting results we have for those years. Estimating value for these years then becomes a rather tedious task of analyzing the value of each all-star appearance in each season (because the format of the all-star game and number of players per team changed a few times over this era, as well). I have done my best to fairly judge the values here. I'll give an example of my methodology:

Quote:
Both Bob Goldham and Gus Mortson played on the 1st Team of the 1952 all-star game. We only have top-4 voting for this season, and neither of them are in the top-4, which consists of Harvey, Kelly, Buller and Thomson. If we remove those four players (two of whom - Thomson and Buller - were on the 2nd team), the rest of the 1st team all-star game defensemen are Goldham, Mortson, Quackenbush and Reise. In theory, these are the 5th through 8th best defensemen in that season. The average of 5th - 8th is 6.5. Being generous, we round this to 6th, and award the four defensemen above an end of season finish roughly equivalent to 6th place.

Tom Johnson was on the 2nd Team of the all-star game this year. After the top-8 players, the remaining 2nd teamers are Johnson, Bouchard and Flaman. The average of 9th -11th is 10th, so Bouchard, Johnson and Flaman are all awarded a 10th place finish on the season.
Now, this is all inexact work, and it is likely inaccurate in some way. All we really know about what happened after the all-star game is that Thomson and Buller passed the 1st teamers and made it into the end of year top-4. But we have to do something with these guys, or else we end up discounting a whole generation of defensemen simply because we lack deeper data in this period, which would be foolish. This is the best way I have come up with.

------------------------------------------

Tom Johnson: 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ~ [2st Team ASG: 1951-52]

Jimmy Thomson: 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6 ~ [ASG: 1952-53]

Bill White: 3, 3, 4, 7, 7, 7, 9

------------------------------------------

Gus Mortson: 1, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 9 // = 1st, [1st Team ASG: 1951-52] ~ 6th, [ASG: 1952-53] ~ 6th, 7th, [2nd Team ASG: 1950-51] ~ 8th, 9th

Jim Schoenfeld: 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Bob Goldham: 3, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8 // = 3rd, 5th, [1st Team ASG: 1951-52] ~ 6th, 7th, [ASG: 1949] ~ 7th, 8th

------------------------------------------

I have done a lot of work analyzing the all-star results of defensemen throughout hockey history (or at least since the all-star voting has existed), and didn't pull my earlier list out of thin air. I will eventually post the full results of my study when it is complete and I have the time. I put the above groups of guys in the same tiers in my earlier list for a good reason, and I stand by that judgment. Jim Schoenfeld, for example, looks a bit weaker than Gus Mortson by raw results when you look at the above, but Schoenfeld played in an era that was a good deal tougher, and I think that pretty much balances out the difference.

Anyway, there are all kinds of arguments at the margins about all of the above defensemen (and really, every player in the draft), but I think their voting results are ultimately the baseline from which we must judge them. Like I said, Thomson and Mortson are really a #2 and a #3 (both a bit below the average in those roles) as far as I can tell. Those two playing the role of #3 and #4 is arguably the single best unit on this team. Even ignoring the obvious chemistry (which I don't think is that big a deal), I think it's an excellent 2nd pairing.


Last edited by Sturminator: 05-12-2013 at 06:43 AM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 01:07 PM
  #40
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 Hawkey Town 18 View Post
2nd Pair: I think that this is a strong, above average, 2nd pairing. Sturm, I do think that you are overrating these guys some. Comparing Thomson to Jack Crawford, who I see as an average #3...
AS Thomson: 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6/7**
AS Crawford: 1, 3, 5, 5, 6*, 6*, 7, 8, 8,
**this is a guess for the year that he was not top 4 but played in the AS game
*War Years, also missed games to injury both years
The AS records are very close. I definitely think Thomson should be seen as better than Crawford, because of the dynasty and tougher competition, but I don't think the gap is huge. I think if Crawford is an average #3 then Thomson should be an above average #3.
Jack Crawford is an awful choice to use as the baseline of any comparison to any other defenseman. Why on earth would you choose him here? You could make the same comparison between Crawford and a whole bunch of guys who are considered #2 defensemen in the ATD in order to show that they are #3s. Does this make Tom Johnson and Bill White #3s, as well? How many #2 defensemen are there in the ATD? Crawford's all-star record is among the most distorted in history because of the era in which he competed, which was quite weak even outside of the extremely narrow (and I think inaccurate) two-year definition of war years that you have chosen.

edit: seriously, HT, you are obviously misunderstanding something here. I intentionally underrated Crawford relative to his AST finishes when I made that list because I think the era in which he played (even outside of the war years) sucked. Using Jack Crawford as a cudgel against the defensemen around him would lead us to a situation where there are many fewer "#2" or "#3" defensemen in the ATD than there are actual roster slots for those players. Aren't you the guy who said we were being too hard on #3s after seeing my list? You are repeating the same mistake here. You are perfectly free to argue that I have underrated Crawford in my list (perhaps I have), but please do not use him, of all people, as a measuring stick for any other player. You could not have made a worse choice here.

edit edit: lol...I only just now noticed that you own Crawford, HT. So does Crawford make Carl Brewer an above-average #3, as well?

AS Crawford: 1, 3, 5, 5, 6*, 6*, 7, 8, 8
AS __Brewer: 2, 3, 3, 4, 5

Seriously...if you want to go there, just argue that Jack Crawford is underrated. We could tear down almost everybody but the #1 defensemen by comparing them to Crawford's raw AST finishes. It might be amusing, but it's not even close to sensible.


Last edited by Sturminator: 04-03-2013 at 01:49 PM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 02:08 PM
  #41
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,138
vCash: 500
Ok, I see your point, Jack Crawford was not a good comparable. I don't think you were saying I was, but just to be clear, I was not trying to promote Crawford. I only used him because I knew his numbers from owning him, and I think average #3 is a ranking that most people already had him at.

While you are beginning to win me over some, I also think that you could have chosen better comparables in your analysis of Thomson. Tom Johnson is traditionally thought of as having an underrated AS record because he was stuck behind Harvey for all those years. Bill White is a very defensive defenseman who tend to be underrated by voters that weigh offensive stats too heavily. I think they are worth mentioning, but I would also like to see a comparison to a couple other players who were more similar to Thomson before making my final decision on where he ranks.

The Mortson comparison was fine. I also had Goldham and Schoenfeld as above average #4's, but after going back and looking at the post you made a few days ago ranking all the Dmen that is probably underrating them some. I think you had them at least one tier too high, as I don't think they are on par with some of the other names in that group. I would put them in either the low-end #3 or high-end #4 category, so I will agree that I underrated Mortson some by only calling him only an above average #4.

Hawkey Town 18 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 02:15 PM
  #42
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,827
vCash: 50
Just to say that I'm there but definitely not enough time to answer both reviews in depth for today.I will do it in the next 2 days , but wanted to thanks TDMM and HT for the reviews and sturm for debating a bit.

Just wanted to throw it out there immediately , in my opinion Thomson is a very strong n3.


Last edited by Jafar: 04-03-2013 at 02:24 PM.
Jafar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 03:17 PM
  #43
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 Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Ok, I see your point, Jack Crawford was not a good comparable. I don't think you were saying I was, but just to be clear, I was not trying to promote Crawford. I only used him because I knew his numbers from owning him, and I think average #3 is a ranking that most people already had him at.
I actually think Crawford is a bit above the average for a #3, but it's not important.

Quote:
While you are beginning to win me over some, I also think that you could have chosen better comparables in your analysis of Thomson. Tom Johnson is traditionally thought of as having an underrated AS record because he was stuck behind Harvey for all those years. Bill White is a very defensive defenseman who tend to be underrated by voters that weigh offensive stats too heavily. I think they are worth mentioning, but I would also like to see a comparison to a couple other players who were more similar to Thomson before making my final decision on where he ranks.
You are using "marginal" arguments here, but yours are not the only ones. If we want to go there, Thomson was the clear #1 defenseman on three Cup winners, and a top pairing player on a 4th. He was the best defenseman on a dynasty team that was built around its defense...if we want to use marginal arguments, that is.

White got plenty of exposure on a great Chicago team at his peak, and his AST record from his years on the expansion Kings is probably a bit overrated. Expansion conference players were largely rated against one another in the early years after expansion, and White was a 1st year expansion player in LA. I don't see much reason to believe that White is underrated by his AST voting results. It's generally the bad team defensive defensemen who get overlooked, not guys like White on the elite teams.

I don't know if Tom Johnson is "traditionally" thought of as being underrated, but I don't feel like getting into that now. Maybe there are better comparables?

AS Wilson___: 1, 4, 4, 5, 6, 8, 14

AS Thomson: 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 6

AS Stanley__: 3, 3, 3, 6, 6*, 10, 10 (*1955 All-star game)

--------------------------------------

AS Stapleton_: 4, 4, 4, 7, 8, 12, 13, 13 + [top defenseman in WHL x1]

AS Zubov____: 3, 5, 6, 8, 8, 8, 10, 11, 13, 13

AS Desjardins: 4, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11

--------------------------------------

AS McCrimmon: 4, 6, 7, 8, 13

etc.

Thomson and Stanley were more or less contemporaries. Wilson's best season is the best and his era the toughest, but he may have been a bit overrated by his offensive stats and he falls off badly after his 6th best season in an era where we should expect him to have a little bit longer peak than the O6 guys (he has some "negative longevity"). Stapleton was an offensive guy, and I think a bit underrated because he played probably one real prime season in the WHA, but he is what he is. McCrimmon was a defensive guy on good teams who was probably never really a #1 (almost always played with a better partner like MacInnis).

You should know the story of Zubov and Desjardins.

I'm not going to post the AST numbers for every defenseman in history here, but this should give some perspective. I think these players are ranked appropriately. We can piddle around the margins if you like, but Thomson, Wilson and Stanley are almost certainly all in the top-64 defensemen of all time, which would make them low-end #2s, at worst. I think they're in a category just a bit better than the three I've got directly below them, which would make them some flavor of below-average, but not at the bottom of the #2s.

It seems that Reen is back, and I'm not going to bother with his team if he's here, but his individual players are another matter, and I'd rather not see them needlessly underrated.


Last edited by Sturminator: 04-04-2013 at 08:01 AM.
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 03:30 PM
  #44
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
You seem to have a low opinion of Thomson and Mortson for some odd reason, especially Thomson, who I think was a small steal where Reen took him. These weren't just defensive guys. Jimmy Thomson was an excellent playmaker - the guy finished top-20 in leaguewide (not just defensemen) assists five times: 6th, 8th, 16th, 16th, 18th, and I seriously doubt he was doing it all at even-strength. Mortson was a pretty good offensive defenseman, as well, who was known for his big shot. Actually, I think Thomson - Mortson on second units straight across is one of the real strengths of this team.
Maybe I was underrating them offensively - I guess they're pretty good on a second PP. I still don't really buy Thomson as a low-end #2 though - that would put him on par with Harry Howell, Bill White, and Fern Flaman; is he really on their level?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 03:36 PM
  #45
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Maybe I was underrating them offensively - I guess they're pretty good on a second PP. I still don't really buy Thomson as a low-end #2 though - that would put him on par with Harry Howell, Bill White, and Fern Flaman; is he really on their level?
If he's not, he's damn close. No question between the 60th and 70th best defenceman of All-Time. I was very surprise his name didn't pop out in the HOH Top-60 defenceman project.

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 03:40 PM
  #46
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Ok, I see your point, Jack Crawford was not a good comparable. I don't think you were saying I was, but just to be clear, I was not trying to promote Crawford. I only used him because I knew his numbers from owning him, and I think average #3 is a ranking that most people already had him at.

While you are beginning to win me over some, I also think that you could have chosen better comparables in your analysis of Thomson. Tom Johnson is traditionally thought of as having an underrated AS record because he was stuck behind Harvey for all those years. Bill White is a very defensive defenseman who tend to be underrated by voters that weigh offensive stats too heavily. I think they are worth mentioning, but I would also like to see a comparison to a couple other players who were more similar to Thomson before making my final decision on where he ranks.

The Mortson comparison was fine. I also had Goldham and Schoenfeld as above average #4's, but after going back and looking at the post you made a few days ago ranking all the Dmen that is probably underrating them some. I think you had them at least one tier too high, as I don't think they are on par with some of the other names in that group. I would put them in either the low-end #3 or high-end #4 category, so I will agree that I underrated Mortson some by only calling him only an above average #4.
Yes, there is very specific evidence that Tom Johnson was underrated by his awards record - he was stuck behind Harvey with no PP time; the one year Harvey was injured Johnson lept over a prime Bill Gadsby to win the Norris; and now this draft we have specific information from the year before the Norris win where NHL coaches voted Johnson the most underrated player in the NHL. For some reason, Sturm chooses to ignore the evidence, and I don't think that's going to change, but it's why Tom Johnson was ranked where he was on the defenseman project.

But Sturminator is pretty consistent about not second guessing awards records, so it's not really something to get into about specific players.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 03:43 PM
  #47
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
If he's not, he's damn close. No question between the 60th and 70th best defenceman of All-Time. I was very surprise his name didn't pop out in the HOH Top-60 defenceman project.
So why did the HHOF Veteran's Committee induct Harry Watson over either of the Gold Dust Twins when they wanted to get another representative from the 40s dynasty? I guess there's an argument for Thomson close to 70 but I don't see him in the high 60s. I remember the project well, and Howell/Flaman/White were the next in line to be added after the top 60 was completed.

I mean, Thomson maybe should have come up compared to some of the guys who did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator
You are using "marginal" arguments here, but yours are not the only ones. If we want to go there, Thomson was the clear #1 defenseman on three Cup winners, and a top pairing player on a 4th. He was the best defenseman on a dynasty team that was built around its defense...if we want to use marginal arguments, that is.
This is similar to the argument in favor of Jimmy Watson from the 70s Flyers.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 03:55 PM
  #48
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,218
vCash: 873
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So why did the HHOF Veteran's Committee induct Harry Watson over either of the Gold Dust Twins when they wanted to get another representative from the 40s dynasty? I guess there's an argument for Thomson close to 70 but I don't see him in the high 60s. I remember the project well, and Howell/Flaman/White were the next in line to be added after the top 60 was completed.
I really don't like using the HHOF as an argument for or against a player. There's so few voters, no transparency, no explanation on the inclusion etc ... You cannot use the argument that Leo Boivin & Dick Duf etc ... are not HHOF caliber, but then turn around and use the fact that the HHOF chose Harry Watson over Jim Thomson as an argument against Thomson.

EagleBelfour is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 04:01 PM
  #49
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,801
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
I really don't like using the HHOF as an argument for or against a player. There's so few voters, no transparency, no explanation on the inclusion etc ... You cannot use the argument that Leo Boivin & Dick Duf etc ... are not HHOF caliber, but then turn around and use the fact that the HHOF chose Harry Watson over Jim Thomson as an argument against Thomson.
I think it's somewhat arrogant to totally dismiss the HHOF committee and their picks, rather than trying to figure out why they picked who they did. We have a pretty good idea of why they picked Duff - he was the only player who was part of both the Montreal and Toronto dynasties of the 60s, and he was a good soldier, etc.

I just find it curious that when they were specifically looking for players to induct from the 1940s (after Don Cherry among others whined that there weren't enough players from the 1940s in the Hall - perhaps unaware that maybe there was a reason that the 40s had less than their share of players), that Thomson wasn't one who was inducted.

Maybe the Vet's committee is totally full of crap, but the actual HHOF voters who saw them play didn't vote for them, either.

Edit: I mean, Thomson does seem above average as a #3 and perhaps he's even "high end," but I do still see him a step down from the Flaman/Howell/White trio who themselves seem to be in the 60-65 range of defensemen and by definition the cut off for "low end #2s." I also thought Thomson's competition in the late 40s was basically crap; am I wrong there?


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 04-03-2013 at 04:07 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-03-2013, 04:10 PM
  #50
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 TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So why did the HHOF Veteran's Committee induct Harry Watson over either of the Gold Dust Twins when they wanted to get another representative from the 40s dynasty?
Thomson was one of the first guys who agitated for a players' union, and he and Conn Smythe had a falling out. Smythe was notorious for holding long grudges and he sat on the HOF committee for ages. Interesting, actually, that Reen's team has two of the guys (Thomson and Jackson) who Smythe hated most. It would be unreasonable to expect him to have much of a shot at the hall under these circumstances. He was a much better and more important player to those Leafs teams than Harry Watson, that's for sure. I thought you knew that.

Quote:
I guess there's an argument for Thomson close to 70 but I don't see him in the high 60s. I remember the project well, and Howell/Flaman/White were the next in line to be added after the top 60 was completed.
The order of players coming up to vote based on original lists is the single worst methodological aspect of the top-x projects, and you know that. It's the reason Frank Nighbor was rated so low in the original project in spite of the fact that all of the well-informed posters knew he was much better than his original ranking. If a guy gets caught low on the original lists because people don't know enough about him, how is that any argument against his career? You can't seriously hold that against Thomson here. He should have been at least up for debate in the late 50's.

Quote:
This is similar to the argument in favor of Jimmy Watson from the 70s Flyers.
Except Thomson was actually an all-star and consistently one of the best defensemen in the league for most of a decade. Watson was obviously nowhere close to that level of importance to his team.

You really like Stanley, TDMM, and call him a steal just a bit after Thomson was drafted. You evidently think Stanley was a #2 defenseman who could have been drafted a round earlier. Tell me why Stanley was better than Thomson.

Sturminator 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 02:51 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.