HFBoards

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

ATD 2012 Lineup Advice Thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-23-2012, 02:53 AM
  #326
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,118
vCash: 500
Normally I would agree that Herb Gardiner's Hart isn't any more impressive than a modern Norris, but Carlyle's Norris trophy year was a particularly weak Norris season.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 02:56 AM
  #327
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
We're not even sure what that Hart means? Does it mean he was the best defenseman?
The most important player for his team? Does it mean he was the best defenseman? Not sure. But Carlyle's Norris doesn't really mean he was the best defenseman, especially since he very clearly wasn't anywhere near that.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:01 AM
  #328
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Normally I would agree that Herb Gardiner's Hart isn't any more impressive than a modern Norris, but Carlyle's Norris trophy year was a particularly weak Norris season.
Weren't Larry Robinson, Denis Potvin, and Brad Park 2nd, 3rd and 4th behind Randy Carlyle that season?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
The most important player for his team? Does it mean he was the best defenseman? Not sure. But Carlyle's Norris doesn't really mean he was the best defenseman, especially since he very clearly wasn't anywhere near that.
Gardiner's Hart means that he was his team's MVP, and that almost certainly means he was their best defenseman. How he stacks up against the defensemen on other teams is unknown.

Carlyle's Norris means exactly that he was the best defenseman. He was voted that by the people who watched him play that season.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:08 AM
  #329
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Carlyle's Norris means exactly that he was the best defenseman. He was voted that by the people who watched him play that season.
No, it means he was voted the best defenseman. Whether he really was one is up for debate - or, rather, ain't, as e.g. Potvin was much better. I believe Carlyle got a Norris out of pity for playing for a horrible team, and because the voters wanted a bit of change from the Potvin-Robinson hegemony. Norris voters aren't magically infallible.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:12 AM
  #330
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
Weren't Larry Robinson, Denis Potvin, and Brad Park 2nd, 3rd and 4th behind Randy Carlyle that season?
Randy Carlyle 120; Denis Potvin 113; Larry Robinson 100; Ray Bourque 53; Rod Langway 38;

There is your top-5 Norris voting for 1980-81. I have no idea why we should discount Carlyle's Norris.

Quote:
Gardiner's Hart means that he was his team's MVP, and that almost certainly means he was their best defenseman. How he stacks up against the defensemen on other teams is unknown.

Carlyle's Norris means exactly that he was the best defenseman. He was voted that by the people who watched him play that season.
This. Pre-war Harts are all of somewhat questionable value. They could mean more than a Norris, or they could mean less. I think the sensible thing to do is the assume a loose equivalency without more information.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:12 AM
  #331
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
No, it means he was voted the best defenseman. Whether he really was one is up for debate - or, rather, ain't, as e.g. Potvin was much better. I believe Carlyle got a Norris out of pity for playing for a horrible team, and because the voters wanted a bit of change from the Potvin-Robinson hegemony.
So the people who watched got it wrong.... and you, who didn't watch, is going to correct their mistake?

Quote:
Norris voters aren't magically infallible.
Neither are Hart voters....especially when there were many fewer voters.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:13 AM
  #332
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 MadArcand View Post
No, it means he was voted the best defenseman. Whether he really was one is up for debate - or, rather, ain't, as e.g. Potvin was much better. I believe Carlyle got a Norris out of pity for playing for a horrible team, and because the voters wanted a bit of change from the Potvin-Robinson hegemony. Norris voters aren't magically infallible.
This kind of "anti-historical" argument needs some kind of hard information to back it up. Otherwise, it's just talk from a person who was drinking from sippy cups when Carlyle won his Norris.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:14 AM
  #333
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Neither are Harts.
Touche.

Though Carlyle's Norris is just such an obvious eyesore.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:17 AM
  #334
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
This kind of "anti-historical" argument needs some kind of hard information to back it up. Otherwise, it's just talk from a person who was drinking from sippy cups when Carlyle won his Norris.
You mean aside from Carlyle being at best average defensively and barely outscoring the likes of Potvin and Murphy (who were better defensively)? Are we to worship every decision of bunch of random guys barely more qualified than e.g. you (if at all!) as absolute truth, even if it flies in the face of every statistical evidence available?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:19 AM
  #335
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,813
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
You mean aside from Carlyle being at best average defensively and barely outscoring the likes of Potvin and Murphy (who were better defensively)? Are we to worship every decision of bunch of random guys barely more qualified than e.g. you (if at all!) as absolute truth, even if it flies in the face of every statistical evidence available?
Barely outsored them.... with a lot less offensive support.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:19 AM
  #336
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
So the people who watched got it wrong.... and you, who didn't watch, is going to correct their mistake?
Haven't you been a vehement critic of Rod Langway's Norrises? Most of the same people who criticize Langway's Norrises also criticize Carlyle's.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:21 AM
  #337
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 MadArcand View Post
You mean aside from Carlyle being at best average defensively...
Who are you to comment on how well Carlyle played defensively that season?

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:24 AM
  #338
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Who are you to comment on how well Carlyle played defensively that season?
What kind of argument is that?

Why is a random writer, possibly some complete idiot on the level of Phil McGuire or Darren Dreger qualified to evaluate that?

Besides I've never seen Carlyle described as great defensively, have you?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:31 AM
  #339
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,118
vCash: 500
These three threads on Rod Langway from the History Board contain criticisms of Carlyle's Norris in addition to the Norrises that Langway won:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...arlyle+langway
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...arlyle+langway
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...arlyle+langway

The criticism basically boils down to "Potvin deserved it but the writers were looking for a fresh face."

This thread called "hindsight and awards voting" contains a criticism of Carlyle's Norris: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...arlyle+langway

This thread called "penalty killing and the Norris trophy" shows that Carlyle got solid PK minutes (19th among defensemen) when he won his trophy (more than Doug Wilson the following season): http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...arlyle+langway

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:37 AM
  #340
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 MadArcand View Post
What kind of argument is that?

Why is a random writer, possibly some complete idiot on the level of Phil McGuire or Darren Dreger qualified to evaluate that?

Besides I've never seen Carlyle described as great defensively, have you?
You don't get it, MadAr. We have to accept the historical record as it is. The burden of proof is on you if you want to overturn it, not on me. You coming here and criticizing Carlyle's Norris without the slightest shred of evidence is a perfect example of the hypercriticism of modern intangibles. This is exactly what we should stop doing in the ATD.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:42 AM
  #341
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
These three threads on Rod Langway from the History Board contain criticisms of Carlyle's Norris in addition to the Norrises that Langway won:

The criticism basically boils down to "Potvin deserved it but the writers were looking for a fresh face."

This thread called "hindsight and awards voting" contains a criticism of Carlyle's Norris:
It's all very shallow criticism, though, isn't it? I was a huge Islanders/Potvin fan at the time Carlyle won his Norris, and though 18 year old me probably thought it was a bad choice, I can't honestly say that I saw enough of the Penguins that season to make an informed judgment...nor can any of the guys in those threads, in all likelihood.

The criticism of Carlyle here is typically hollow "Hurr-durr...modern guy without perfect intangibles sucks" nonsense.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:45 AM
  #342
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
You don't get it, MadAr. We have to accept the historical record as it is. The burden of proof is on you if you want to overturn it, not on me. You coming here and criticizing Carlyle's Norris without the slightest shred of evidence is a perfect example of the hypercriticism of modern intangibles. This is exactly what we should stop doing in the ATD.
What kind of proof do you think one can produce?

Did Carlyle have statistically inferior season to several others? Yes. Is it a proof by itself? Not at all.

Does Carlyle have a rather average defensive reputation? Yes. Does that irrefutably prove that he wasn't magically playing way above his usual level that one season? No.

Sorry, I can't prove it. But I'm also not gonna take every award as perfectly deserved by default. To me, Carlyle was one of the top D-men that season, but I'd take Potvin's season any day of the week over his, and that's it. It's not my goal to convince you Carlyle's Norris was or wasn't deserved. I just think we should not take every award voting as holy gospel and that we should also utilize critical thought at least a wee little bit, especially when it seems something's fishy with the voting.

I wonder where I criticize modern intangibles though.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:53 AM
  #343
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,118
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
It's all very shallow criticism, though, isn't it? I was a huge Islanders/Potvin fan at the time Carlyle won his Norris, and though 18 year old me probably thought it was a bad choice, I can't honestly say that I saw enough of the Penguins that season to make an informed judgment...nor can any of the guys in those threads, in all likelihood.

The criticism of Carlyle here is typically hollow "Hurr-durr...modern guy without perfect intangibles sucks" nonsense.
I agree with you that modern players are traditionally nitpicked to death here and on the history board while the flaws of older players tend to get glossed over.

But I think we should take a critical view of all players, when it's possible. (For some time now, I've gone out of my way to "nitpick" older players to even the scales. I definitely pissed off some of the more conservative members of the defenseman project with some of my posts on Bill Gadsby and Lionel Conacher in particular).

Though you do have a point here. It's easy to criticize Carlyle, while taking the default position on Gardiner (he deserved the award unless proven otherwise).

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 03:59 AM
  #344
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 MadArcand View Post
What kind of proof do you think one can produce?
One could find newspaper articles talking about how Carlyle was undeserving or there was some sort of voting conspiracy in his favor. You know...like the evidence we have of blatant cheating on the part of Edmonton writers when Messier won his 2nd Hart, or the evidence I gathered about how Brimsek was clearly the best goalie in the world in 1942-43 when he was placed on the 2nd all-star team.

You act as if such a thing is impossible. I have no problem with overturning the historical record when we have a clear reason to do so. You have not provided one.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 04:02 AM
  #345
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
I agree with you that modern players are traditionally nitpicked to death here and on the history board while the flaws of older players tend to get glossed over.
Modern players with strong intangibles are also typically overrated here. It goes both ways. The intangibles of players we know well are consistently blown out of proportion, although in this case, I'm not even sure it's fair to describe Carlyle as a player we "know well". I'm one of the few GMs old enough to remember that season in theory, and I cannot claim any special knowledge sufficient to pass judgment on the Norris voting.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 05:10 AM
  #346
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,517
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
One could find newspaper articles talking about how Carlyle was undeserving or there was some sort of voting conspiracy in his favor. You know...like the evidence we have of blatant cheating on the part of Edmonton writers when Messier won his 2nd Hart, or the evidence I gathered about how Brimsek was clearly the best goalie in the world in 1942-43 when he was placed on the 2nd all-star team.

You act as if such a thing is impossible. I have no problem with overturning the historical record when we have a clear reason to do so. You have not provided one.
I did a very quick search, with Google news archives being fubar and most articles being not free to view. Found a 1999 (too late IMO) article from Boston Globe writer:


1982, a Pens' writer claims Carlyle's defensive play hardly factored into his Norris win:


Not much, but I don't particularly care, neither Gardiner nor Carlyle is on my team. I just believe Gardiner is much, much more complete and better player (see my bio of his from last ATD), and that equating his Hart with Carlyle's Norris is off the mark.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 05:29 AM
  #347
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
If he was really beloved, they would have built a statue of him. That's how they roll.
But does he have a bobblehead? That's the true litmus test.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 05:50 AM
  #348
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 MadArcand View Post
I did a very quick search, with Google news archives being fubar and most articles being not free to view. Found a 1999 (too late IMO) article from Boston Globe writer:

Not much, but I don't particularly care, neither Gardiner nor Carlyle is on my team. I just believe Gardiner is much, much more complete and better player (see my bio of his from last ATD), and that equating his Hart with Carlyle's Norris is off the mark.
I wouldn't put much faith in the Boston Globe article considering that Bourque was also in the race that season. The Pittsburgh article is more substantial, though. See, MadAr, there was evidence to back up your claims. It's still hardly open-and-shut that Carlyle didn't deserve his Norris, but you've at least provided us with some reason to question it besides +/- stats or whatever else one might make out of the statistics.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 06:52 AM
  #349
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,573
vCash: 500
Carlyle's Norris win is pretty weak, deserved or not. His 120 voting points is extremely low for the time, worth a maximum 24 of 63 first place votes. It wouldn't have gotten 3rd place in a few years. He finished 2nd in All-Star voting to Potvin (194 to 168), and received fewer Hart votes (2) than Robinson (7) and Potvin (4).

BM67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-23-2012, 08:03 AM
  #350
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,575
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post


This. Pre-war Harts are all of somewhat questionable value. They could mean more than a Norris, or they could mean less. I think the sensible thing to do is the assume a loose equivalency without more information.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post


Gardiner's Hart means that he was his team's MVP, and that almost certainly means he was their best defenseman. How he stacks up against the defensemen on other teams is unknown.Carlyle's Norris means exactly that he was the best defenseman. He was voted that by the people who watched him play that season.


So you're telling me for the last week, i've heard all of this talk about Worters Hart voting etc... and now Gardiners Hart get's brought up and this is the discussion?

markrander87 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 07:27 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.