Thanks for announcing the pick, Sturm. Bowie is another guy competing for the title of best to ever play the game prior to World War 1. One thing Bowie doesn't compete in - goal scoring. He absolutely was the best goal scorer of his generation by an enormous margin.
Dont let Bowie's amateur status fool you - amateurs and pros played in the same league - Bowie just refused to take money for it.
Bowie scored 238 goals in 80 games playing in the best pre-World War 1 league in the world. 2nd place? 109 in 67 games. Not a typo.
Bowie was definitely a shoot-first guy, but SIHR's reconstructed assist numbers show him among the best playmakers of the era. I've been critical of those numbers before, but I think they show that Bowie was at minimum competent at getting the puck to teammates when need be.
Charles Coleman, author of trail of the Stanley Cup listed Bowie as one of his 1893-1926 all star forwards along with Frank Nighbor and Joe Malone. He was listed over Cy Denneny, Tommy Phillips, Didier Pitre, Frank Fredrickson, Frank Foyston, etc.
As a goal scoring center, Bowie's tough to build around, but I think I have the perfect linemates for him in Martin St Louis. Here's Nalyd's profile from last year:
Nalyd mentioned that Bowie seems to have played a Maurice Richard style, where he would do anything to score goals. (he was not, however, physically intimidating like the Rocket).
Yes I love the Russell Bowie pick. A great goal-scorer who gets forgotten about at times. I think he's arguably a 150-200 player of all-time, and certaintly up there when looking at all-time greats before World War 1.
maybe i'm an idiot but, i have absolutely no clue what vs#2 means - can someone decipher these values? i'm just curious since i have bill barber.
thanks
vs#2 is a percentage of the players points total compared to the guy that finished 2nd in scoring that season, Barber's points divided by the #2's total. The Barber numbers above are using the #3 scorer rather than the #2.
Here is a chart showing his point totals, adjusted points from hockey-reference, and his percentage scores compared to the number 1 through 4 guys in the scoring race.
224. Brave Canadian - Guelph Platers - Si Griffis, D
Round 8
225. Brave Canadian - Guelph Platers - Grant Fuhr, G
226. TheDevilMadeMe - New Jersey Swamp Devils - Russell Bowie, C
227. Reds4Life - Detroit Reds - Tim Kerr, RW
228. vecens24 - Hamilton Mustangs - Vladimir Krutov, LW
229. tony d - Garnish Cougars - Sergei Gonchar, D
230. JFA87-66-99 - Pittsburgh Bankers - Vladimir Konstantinov, D
231. nik jr - Ak Bars Kazan - Toe Blake, coach
Damn guys , quite a run you had while I was sleeping , don't remember such a great run in this draft.
Vezina is who I was talking about when I said I wasn't sure if Esposito was the best G available.
I like the Suter pick , had him last year but I think there's a couple of Ds that are very very close to him that could be add later on but probably not with the same hitting talent.
Fuhr isn't bad , but he's kind of a mystery to me.
I don't particularly like the Gonchar pick , but I'm biased in the fact I don't particularly like Gonchar at all.
Bowie is a good pick at this point but it's hard to built around him.
Kerr it always depend what you want to do with him , but what is he worth at even strenght?
I guess this is about where Konstantinov should go?
I find it kind of amusing to see people question the value of Provost here, and then the next wingers taken are Propp and Cook.
By the way, in case you meant me at all, I was not questioning Provost’s value. I am right there with you as far as his defensive value goes. My position was just that Zetterberg has a good offensive edge and Provost a good defensive edge. At this point, as far as overall value goes, it’s a toss-up.
By the way, overpass PM’d me some data about Provost’s linemates this morning based on which forwards had points with him on ES goals. It seems he played with Richard in the year that you said he didn’t, but also a lot less overall than I thought.
- In the 1956, 57, 58, 59 and 60 seasons he played with undrafteds.
o 1956, he matched his linemates’ production level
o 1957 was too much of a mixed bag to conclude anything
o 1958 he outscored his undrafted linemates by a decent amount
o 1959 he outscored the same undrafted linemates handily
o 1960 one undrafted linemate was on par with him, the other, as usual, lagged behind
- I wasn’t provided data for 1961, probably because on a GP and pts basis, the year was a writeoff for Provost
- In 1962 he definitely played lots with Richard. As mentioned, Richard outscored him at ES on a per-game basis pretty handily.
- In 1963, he definitely played with Richard and Moore. He matched the aging Moore’s production level, but Richard easily paced them both.
- In 1964, he went down to a lower line with two undrafteds. They outscored him insignificantly.
- In 1965, he was with Richard and an undrafted. When Richard was injured, whoever he played with he didn’t collaborate on many points with. As mentioned, Richard outscored him at ES on a per-game basis pretty handily.
- 1966 is tough to gauge because it looks like he was mostly with Richard but also spent significant time with Beliveau. Richard outscored him per-game at ES though.
- In 1967 his points went way down but he was playing with Richard. Richard outscored him at ES so badly that it’s difficult to imagine any scenario other than Richard was getting double shifted and provost wasn’t.
- In 1968 and 1969 he played with a couple of undrafteds. Over these two seasons they outscored him at ES, 77 and 76 to 62, but I think one of them was getting time with Beliveau as well.
You can make of this what you will. I just wanted to end the speculation on both our parts and get to some facts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator
Well, the MacLean's 1925 all-time list had him in first, though it is unclear how much that was influenced by Vezina's great 1924 Cup campaign and by the fact that he was already dying of tuberculosis at the time the list was made (it is also not clear if anyone knew yet that he was dying).
It could also just be that it’s MacLean’s, which is not a hockey publication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator
TDMM listpicks Russell Bowie, C. Next GM has been PMed.
And the ATD title goes to….
Quote:
Originally Posted by papershoes
maybe i'm an idiot but, i have absolutely no clue what vs#2 means - can someone decipher these values? i'm just curious since i have bill barber.
Fuhr isn't bad , but he's kind of a mystery to me.
A guy with his kind of resume doesn't have a lot of mystery to him.. the stats oriented guys just get bent out of shape because his first hand anecdotes, reputation based on the opinion of actual hockey people, and his results don't jive with their numbers exactly.
I am far from the only person to have lionized Provost's defensive play. If you're curious about the opinions of the other History section posters who have seen him play, you can look in this thread:
It seems to have been pretty much the consensus among contemporary observers that Provost and Keon were in a class by themselves as defensive forwards in that generation. Your continued hammering on the fact that Provost played RW is something of a straw man, as he is regularly compared favorably to the best defensive forwards of all time, at any position.
Notice how most everyone that watched them play talked about how people were underrating Henri Richard's contributions? And the pro-Provost side doesn't actually back-up claims. Just pure conjecture.
A guy with his kind of resume doesn't have a lot of mystery to him.. the stats oriented guys just get bent out of shape because his first hand anecdotes, reputation based on the opinion of actual hockey people, and his results don't jive with their numbers exactly.
With the way I see my team being built, I am going to need a guy with Fuhr's temperament.
He was a real good even strength scorer as well. Really the only knock on Kerr is his lack of speed.
Re: Kerr: and along with speed a total lack of defensive game. Also for being a big body he's not great along the boards. Kerr is one of the best PP weapons in the entire draft and if you can get a strong cycle going with him he's very good at even strength because he's near impossible to push out of the slot. Also an underrated aspect is his ability to take face offs. He's a guy with definite weaknesses but if you can build the right set of guys around him he's really really valuable.
He was a real good even strength scorer as well. Really the only knock on Kerr is his lack of speed.
yeah I don't question his garbage goal at EV abilities , just his overall play on an ev line.
I think a couple of weeks ago there was a discussion on which players were the best in front of the net and blabla , Kerr is probably as good as it gets in the 200s.
Thanks for announcing the pick, Sturm. Bowie is another guy competing for the title of best to ever play the game prior to World War 1. One thing Bowie doesn't compete in - goal scoring. He absolutely was the best goal scorer of his generation by an enormous margin.
Dont let Bowie's amateur status fool you - amateurs and pros played in the same league - Bowie just refused to take money for it.
Bowie scored 238 goals in 80 games playing in the best pre-World War 1 league in the world. 2nd place? 109 in 67 games. Not a typo.
Bowie was definitely a shoot-first guy, but SIHR's reconstructed assist numbers show him among the best playmakers of the era. I've been critical of those numbers before, but I think they show that Bowie was at minimum competent at getting the puck to teammates when need be.
Charles Coleman, author of trail of the Stanley Cup listed Bowie as one of his 1893-1926 all star forwards along with Frank Nighbor and Joe Malone. He was listed over Cy Denneny, Tommy Phillips, Didier Pitre, Frank Fredrickson, Frank Foyston, etc.
As a goal scoring center, Bowie's tough to build around, but I think I have the perfect linemates for him in Martin St Louis. Here's Nalyd's profile from last year:
Nalyd mentioned that Bowie seems to have played a Maurice Richard style, where he would do anything to score goals. (he was not, however, physically intimidating like the Rocket).
Didn't you say that the playmaking numbers for my second line center were awful for this?
Now reconstructed numbers that you have criticized in the past are good enough to show competency for your guy? (I'm not saying I necessarily doubt he was btw)
I mean St Louis is obviously going to help a lot in that regard I just find this interesting..
How would you now compare your guy to Barry as a playmaker?
I was hoping to get Fredrickson at 259...if my guy doesn't make it to there I'm screwed.
You are not screwed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever
Well, offensively at least, I suppose we are basing it off one playoff performance. Still, it was one of those playoff performances for the ages,
Really, because he had five points? Do we even know the context of those points at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl
nice little pick , I think he's better than Thompson.I'm not sure if he was really the best G available though.
Well, judging him against Vezina is rather difficult with completely different types of data sets in favour of each, but I think he’s definitely better than Thompson.
And Durnan. And Smith. And definitely has a case to be made over Gardiner and Brimsek too.
Depending on when you catch me, the guy could be as high as 12th. He was a workhorse who was always in the top few goalies in the league for sv%. Hockey-reference.com’s goalie points shares are pretty much just a combination of GAA/sv% and how many minutes they maintained it for. Espo was top-3 in goalie point shares every season from 1970 to 1981 except 1977, when he was 6th. He is 4th all-time. He pretty much has a Martin Brodeur regular season career, but a Tiny Thompson playoff career.
I don’t think that anyone really looks only at a goalie’s playoff performances, though, when in a playoff matchup, otherwise we could claim Turk Broda and Terry Sawchuk have an edge on Dominik Hasek, or even that Parent is better than Hall. It should factor into your judgment somewhat, but only somewhat. The expected performance of any ATD player in the playoffs should be mostly (but not entirely) related to their regular season resume which constitutes 80-90% of their career GP. Besides, far too often playoff records are the products of team performance anyway.
With all that said, I think JFA has a goalie that has about a 50% shot at being the better goalie in any playoff matchup here. (but one of the finest regular season goalies in the league, which can lead to more favourable/winnable playoff matchups)
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi
If I knew I could get a goalie like Tony Esposito around here I wouldn't have went with Dryden at 42.
Every time someone says this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFA87-66-99
Also seventies did a really wonderful bio on him last year that really sold me on Tony Esposito being about a top 20 goalie of all-time.
If that’s all I did, I didn’t do as well as I thought/hoped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl
WOW!!! what a steal , how did he fell so much compared to last year it's unbelievable
Didn't people bet on where he would fall? who won?
There were no newbies in this draft to fulfill the prophecy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian
Really the only knock on Kerr is his lack of speed.
And of course what that lack of speed means to his defensive ability.
The Millionares select RW Gordie Drillon, he will fit nicely into the plans for our top 6.
If you plan to play him with Schmidt, I think Schmidt's defensive abilities will complement him very well. If you plan on playing him with Cowley, then I would definitely want to find a very solid defensive left winger to go on that line.
If you plan to play him with Schmidt, I think Schmidt's defensive abilities will complement him very well. If you plan on playing him with Cowley, then I would definitely want to find a very solid defensive left winger to go on that line.
Is this the toughest level of competition the ATD has ever seen ( I know there's some big guys missing , but with all the GM getting more and more experienced , and no newbies to capitalize on ( except me ) , does this ATD has a case? )
Is this the toughest level of competition the ATD has ever seen ( I know there's some big guys missing , but with all the GM getting more and more experienced , and no newbies to capitalize on , does this ATD has a case? )
Didn't you say that the playmaking numbers for my second line center were awful for this?
Now reconstructed numbers that you have criticized in the past are good enough to show competency for your guy? (I'm not saying I necessarily doubt he was)
I mean St Louis is obviously going to help a lot in that regard I just find this interesting..
How would you now compare your guy to Barry as a playmaker?
I think Barry and Bowie are both capable of getting the puck to teammates (unlike some of the wings in this draft or a certain center I drafted in the past). but neither should be the primary playmaker on an ATD line.
That's why I drafted St Louis first - he's one of the few wings in this who can make Bowie effective. I'd draft a playmaking win for Barry if I were you.
jackson and drillon played on a line with apps for a while, iirc. schmidt was a lot better defensively than apps (not b/c apps was bad defensively).
both drillon and cowley were really bad defensively, so i would not want to put them together. cowley's lack of D may be moderated by his puck possession ability, though.
) , does this ATD has a case? )
