Regarding Dreak's project, I'd like to see the specific formulas and a list of the sources of data, at the very least. Before we have that, we can't really debate the merits of his system.
The stats were all taken from Hockeylog, and double-checked at Hockey-Reference.
Formulas are simple (just made up easy numbers to demonstrate).
If the NHA played 24 games, and the PCHA played 18 games, then then I either adjusted the NHA by 0.75 or the PCHA by 1.3333.
If the NHA scored 4 goals per game, and the PCHA scored 5 goals per game, I adjusted the NHA by 1.25 or the PCHA by 0.8.
If the NHA handed out 0.5 assists per goal, and PCHA 0.75, then I adjusted the NHA by 1.5 and the PCHA by 0.6667.
What did I say about Nighbor? I didn't think he was good enough offensively to be picked so high that GM's were building their forward group around him, but he has a place in the top 50.
There is no reason for Hawkey town to be bummed about not getting Clancy when IMO there are two D on the board better - and others who are comparable.
Hmm..
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
I'm trying to figure out why he has broke the top 50 for two years in a row now, personally.
He was my second line center..and to not be a fan of him at 40..you must really hate Clarke.
Good to see I'm not the only one who considers the uncritical use of "reconstructed assists" to be a questionable practice.
You do know that the official stats for the early years of the NHL are "reconstructed"?
If you have a copy of either of the 1983 Encyclopedias compare the stats from now and then. There were no official assists for the first NHL season until about 2000.
Frank Nighbor's NHL stats line:
Hollander Encyclopedia 1983 GP 348 G 136 A 60 Pts 196
NHL Guide & Record Book 1994-95 GP 348 G 136 A 60 Pts 196
Total Hockey 2000 GP 349 G 139 A 98 Pts 237
That last is what you find at Hockey-Reference.com today.
You do know that the official stats for the early years of the NHL are "reconstructed"?
If you have a copy of either of the 1983 Encyclopedias compare the stats from now and then. There were no official assists for the first NHL season until about 2000.
Frank Nighbor's NHL stats line:
Hollander Encyclopedia 1983 GP 348 G 136 A 60 Pts 196
NHL Guide & Record Book 1994-95 GP 348 G 136 A 60 Pts 196
Total Hockey 2000 GP 349 G 139 A 98 Pts 237
That last is what you find at Hockey-Reference.com today.
Are they reconstructed from box scores that actually did record assists, or SIHR-style going through game reports and looking for the guy who passed the puck to the goal scorer? Asking because I honestly don't know
You do know that the official stats for the early years of the NHL are "reconstructed"?
If you have a copy of either of the 1983 Encyclopedias compare the stats from now and then. There were no official assists for the first NHL season until about 2000.
Frank Nighbor's NHL stats line:
Hollander Encyclopedia 1983 GP 348 G 136 A 60 Pts 196
NHL Guide & Record Book 1994-95 GP 348 G 136 A 60 Pts 196
Total Hockey 2000 GP 349 G 139 A 98 Pts 237
That last is what you find at Hockey-Reference.com today.
Man that last game Nighbor had would must have been pretty impressive to gain 38 assists!
You're making me seem like the anti-christ. I don't understand this sudden surge up the rankings for Clancy.
This is about where Clancy has been ranked on the History of Hockey board for years and for good reason, IMO. He usually goes lower in the ATD than his "ranking" because GMs are terrified to build around a defenseman who is so small.
This is about where Clancy has been ranked on the History of Hockey board for years and for good reason, IMO. He usually goes lower in the ATD than his "ranking" because GMs are terrified to build around a defenseman who is so small.
And I don't really get why. Apps was considered huge in his day and was just 6"0..isn't it pretty fair to say that Clancy's height adjusted would be at the very least average in today's day and age?
The way I see it , in 2012 , quotes are pretty much useless , with all the videos , youtubes , live games on TV , complete and deep statistics , but in the early 1900s , quotes value are much higher and statistics , while of course always important , cannot be counted on like the stats of today.This is why you have to take quotes into account in those days , and Nighbor's games was praised in a major way , even his offensive game.What does it mean? I am not exatcly sure , but we can at least be sure he was one of the best offensive players of his time , and not just a defensive star.For the moment I have no proof that Nighbor would be a major offensive threat at the ATD level , but I still think that his offense is 1st line material , even in the ATD.Of course he won't finish in the top 10 ATD scoring , but that doesn't mean he can't create a good bunch of offense while being ( probably ) top 2 in defensive play.
Nighbor is also a dynasty cornerstone , a championship player who has what it takes to bring the team he is on deep in the playoff.
And I don't really get why. Apps was considered huge in his day and was just 6"0..isn't it pretty fair to say that Clancy's height adjusted would be at the very least average in today's day and age?
Not quite. Was listed at 5'7 (could have been more 5'6), even in the 1930's that was miniscule for a defenceman. I think adjusted for today he would be a Kris Russel type (5'10 180ish lbs).
Ah..I remember you saying something similar about Nighbor last draft.
I hope Domakc can change your mind then with a really solid bio!
Unfortunally i don't have enough time or sources to outdo the great seventies' bio
Clancy was better defencively that any offencive defenceman available, better skater, and much better fit than other ones, a great leader too. I rate him much higher than other offencive defenceman on board.
Not quite. Was listed at 5'7 (could have been more 5'6), even in the 1930's that was miniscule for a defenceman. I think adjusted for today he would be a Kris Russel type (5'10 180ish lbs).
Fair..still not THAT small that it should truly hurt his value much. Way too talented as a whole to fall significantly and I think you can be quite successful building around someone like Clancy.
Unfortunally i don't have enough time or sources to outdo the great seventies' bio
Clancy was better defencively that any offencive defenceman available, better skater, and much better fit than other ones, a great leader too. I rate him much higher than other offencive defenceman on board.
There are defensemen left who were better offensively than Clancy, though none likely had his all-round game.
I think Clancy was easily the best defenseman around , if I needed a defenseman at 41th I would have picked him , if you adjusted his size he is still small but not THAT small.Clancy also win the cup last year as the n1 defenseman in a 40 team draft , and I think seventieslord got extremely good value where he picked him.
when i was researching nighbor in 2010 i found an article i think of ottawa citizen circa 1945, about collection of stats of older players. i don't know when stats were officially recorded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24
Man that last game Nighbor had would must have been pretty impressive to gain 38 assists!
i found on hockey summary project a goal by nighbor on 1-31-1920 in which he assisted twice on his own goal.
HSP has 6a on that goal.
i have also found in a newspaper a goal from '36 which had 4a.
Not quite. Was listed at 5'7 (could have been more 5'6), even in the 1930's that was miniscule for a defenceman. I think adjusted for today he would be a Kris Russel type (5'10 180ish lbs).
There are defensemen left who were better offensively than Clancy, though none likely had his all-round game.
I think that's what he was alluding at. Saying that his defensive game and leadership played a significant role in him liking him more than anyone else, offense aside.
Unfortunally i don't have enough time or sources to outdo the great seventies' bio
Clancy was better defencively that any offencive defenceman available, better skater, and much better fit than other ones, a great leader too. I rate him much higher than other offencive defenceman on board.
Go check the Top 60 project defenseman in the round Clancy was discussed and try to find some info on him in a couple of post that you could add to seventieslord bio.Maybe seventieslord addressed what would be there but you never know , I don't remember Clancy's bio that well from last year , I will re-read it soon.
You've still got an undersized #1 who is going to have to eat up a lot of minutes. Can get you in trouble if you're matched up with some of the top powerforwards in the ATD league..
And I don't really get why. Apps was considered huge in his day and was just 6"0..isn't it pretty fair to say that Clancy's height adjusted would be at the very least average in today's day and age?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
There are defensemen left who were better offensively than Clancy, though none likely had his all-round game.
i think clancy and pilote are fairly comparable.
small, but very feisty (and had many PIM) and good both ways. both were among the very best offensive d-men of their eras. clancy was very fast, while pilote was great on PP.
Are they reconstructed from box scores that actually did record assists, or SIHR-style going through game reports and looking for the guy who passed the puck to the goal scorer? Asking because I honestly don't know
Some of both, but probably more of the latter. I recall the guy running hockeydb complaining that they wouldn't "show their work" as such.
The assist totals are certainly different for most of the 1917-30 period at least.
I recall someone mentioning that no assists were recorded in NHL games in Hamilton.
You've still got an undersized #1 who is going to have to eat up a lot of minutes. Can get you in trouble if you're matched up with some of the top powerforwards in the ATD league..
I think we're falling into the well worn tracks a bit with that thinking.
Clancy might be slightly undersized once you take his era into consideration, but you can just as easily say that those power forwards are going to have trouble catching/keeping up with him. The usual thing for those kind of forwards to do is toss it in the corner and then go get it. What do they do when Clancy beats them to the puck 9/10 times and is gone before they arrive?
It all depends on how the team is built around him and the style of play they utilize.
Size doesn't do you much good if you can't get there in time to use it. Also some smaller guys just aren't intimidated at all by bigger players.
You're making me seem like the anti-christ. I don't understand this sudden surge up the rankings for Clancy.
.
