To be fair, he has been good in the WCHs with a PPG, but pretty much terrible in the Olympics. 23 games, I think he has something like 6 points. Overall it kinda averages out, but I still don't think he's a strong international performer.
However I do think he's not a disaster in the NHL playoffs either. If you take out the last playoffs he was in at the end of his career (as a 37 year old), and the first playoffs he was in with the Jets in his rookie year (he played 17 regular season games that year), he has 78 games with 53 points, good enough for a .68 PPG average. Not as high as his .88 PPG average, but not a disaster by any stretch either.
Pretty much I'm trying to put Tkachuk is a really good position to succeed, with a physical line where he doesn't have to take all of the beating, and with the center with whom he had his best goal scoring year. When the playoffs come along, I just want some support scoring from him, which I think he is capable of. I'm not asking him to be the star of this team, which is what he was with the Blues. I think I have put him in the position to succeed here up to his capablities in the playoffs.
I think Bugg showed last time that Tkachuk's even strength offense was okay in the playoffs, but his power play offense (a big part of what he does in the regular season) basically went to nothing in the playoffs.
I think Bugg showed last time that Tkachuk's even strength offense was okay in the playoffs, but his power play offense (a big part of what he does in the regular season) basically went to nothing in the playoffs.
Well, it's a good thing that I can have Krutov in front of the net in the playoffs instead of Tkachuk and just let him concentrate on even strength capabilities. Right now I'm planning on having them split the duties around the net in the regular season, but having known that I can use Krutov more in the playoffs in that spot so that works well.
I think it was established last draft that he's not anywhere near as good as Reise.
4th, 5th, 8th, 12th in all-star voting for Egan, versus 3rd, 4th, 11th, and two more seasons in the 5th-9th range by making the ASG on merit (whatever BM67 was using in these years to reconstruct all-star voting for the 30s and 40s broke down around 1950, unfortunately).
Add that Reise was disadvantaged in voting by not having gaudy point totals (an advantage Egan had) and his contribution to multiple cups (as a #1a/1b and #2 if you trust all-star voting) and it is a slam dunk.
I think it was established last draft that he's not anywhere near as good as Reise.
4th, 5th, 8th, 12th in all-star voting for Egan, versus 3rd, 4th, 11th, and two more seasons in the 5th-9th range by making the ASG on merit (whatever BM67 was using in these years to reconstruct all-star voting for the 30s and 40s broke down around 1950, unfortunately).
Add that Reise was disadvantaged in voting by not having gaudy point totals (an advantage Egan had) and his contribution to multiple cups (as a #1a/1b and #2 if you trust all-star voting) and it is a slam dunk.
Don't forget that Reise got his recognition in a stronger era, too. Egan played in the same weak era that Jack Crawford played in. In case anyone couldn't figure it out, Egan was the "undrafted who will be drafted in the ATD more for his offense than his defense" that Sturm and I were talking about when discussing Crawford.
I think it was established last draft that he's not anywhere near as good as Reise.
4th, 5th, 8th, 12th in all-star voting for Egan, versus 3rd, 4th, 11th, and two more seasons in the 5th-9th range by making the ASG on merit (whatever BM67 was using in these years to reconstruct all-star voting for the 30s and 40s broke down around 1950, unfortunately).
Add that Reise was disadvantaged in voting by not having gaudy point totals (an advantage Egan had) and his contribution to multiple cups (as a #1a/1b and #2 if you trust all-star voting) and it is a slam dunk.
So? It's not like I passed up on Reise to draft him...
So? It's not like I passed up on Reise to draft him...
Totally agree. They just should not be a spot apart. And maybe 100% of that problem is that Reise deserves to go 50 spots higher. but there could be more to it.
I think what seventies is trying to say is that Reise should be taken a good bit higher than Egan. Not that Egan was a bad pick for where he was taken.
I had Reise above Egan on the list of D's to take with this pick. Of course I had Corbeau first but I somehow missed him being drafted already. Kinda like I almost drafted Fleury with previous pick before checking for 'Theo' too when 'Fleury' was giving me no results on the OP.
I liked Egan when I took him as my 6th defenceman in a 32 team draft back in ATD12. He could rush the puck, had a cannon for a shot, and was a very hard hitter when that was a more important part of playing D.
It's definitely fair to question his all-around defensive play/positioning/smarts. I think he needs to be on the pairing with the least defensive responsibilities.
I liked Egan when I took him as my 6th defenceman in a 32 team draft back in ATD12. He could rush the puck, had a cannon for a shot, and was a very hard hitter when that was a more important part of playing D.
It's definitely fair to question his all-around defensive play/positioning/smarts. I think he needs to be on the pairing with the least defensive responsibilities.
When you took Egan back then, that was when I realized we had underrated him. The pendulum may have swung a bit too far the other way now.
I think what seventies is trying to say is that Reise should be taken a good bit higher than Egan. Not that Egan was a bad pick for where he was taken.
Not really, when the point is to attempt to assign players a “score” based on how impressive their totals are in a historical context. 1987 is definitely a weird year when you look at how every non-Gretzky fared. The issue is not just in the top-5 scorers.
The number of 90, 80, and 70-point scorers went from an average of 21-33-56 in 1985 and 1986, to 13-23-52 in 1987, to an average of 17-34-57 in 1988 and 1989.
Point is, I have no problem with how the 1987 scores turn out.
Aren’t we talking about the effect of removing Bossy in 1986? If I did, the comparable would be one point higher, meaning minimal differences in the scores.
If you’re referring to 1989, I disagree that the rest of the leaderboard is below average. It looks like any other season in that range to me. The effect of bumping up those players’ scores is desired, the huge undesired effect I was referring to would be the embarrassingly low scores they would have if based on Wayne’s 169 (or even that 140 average)
On the surface, it looks like you are probably right that using 139 in 1982 is not a good idea. At the time I didn’t see it as a “crazy” enough result to break the pattern and “arbitrarily” remove it (see 1989 Yzerman, 1996 Jagr, 2006 Jagr) and one would think that this season to fall more “in line” with other seasons, a lower comparable would likely have to be used. But it actually falls in line with the other seasons pretty nicely:
year
90+
80+
70+
60+
1978
3
3
12
21
1979
4
6
10
23
1980
3
8
20
36
1981
4
8
18
30
1982
5
8
15
38
1983
4
12
24
56
1984
9
15
35
59
1985
6
12
26
39
1986
8
16
22
53
1987
10
19
43
71
1988
7
12
25
54
1989
9
22
42
69
1990
4
13
26
44
1991
9
14
26
49
1992
12
23
45
67
1993
6
11
22
44
1994
8
21
41
71
I know it can never be perfectly linear, and I wouldn’t want to try to “force” it to be, either, but I am satisfied with how this looks. It reflects that over this time, the number of players in the NHL capable of scoring at a level of x% of the #2 non-outlier has steadily increased. You can definitely pick out a couple odd spots, some are explainable (1980 was a spike, due to the absorption of the WHA), some aren’t (1987 is slightly but not obscenely out of line)
If I used 140 as the comparable in 1989, the numbers would look like this: 4, 6, 10, 29. Far too out of line with the seasons around it and, IMO, not reflective of how that season went.
A start would be taking the average of the #2-5 scorers that came across their scores “honestly” (Gretzky 168, Yzerman 155, Mullen 110, Kurri 102 = 134) Then we’d end up with 4, 7, 13, 34 – which I would still very much disagree with, but is more “right” than the above. Personally, I like that year the way I have it.
Lets look at 1987. The 71 players above 60% is tied for the highest in the 17 years on your table. 71st in scoring is 63 points. 63 points from 1985-1989 gets you: 70th, 85th, 71st, 71st, & 76th. 71st place is 63, 67, 63, 63 & 65 points. 60%+ equals: 76 pts, 73 pts, 63 pts, 72 pts, & 66 pts. That doesn't vary as much as your 60%+: 39, 53, 71, 54 & 69 players.
Leaving the #2 at #2 and 108 points would only move that to 65 points and 64 players for 1987. (That 64 players would still be the 4th highest for the 17 years.) I don't see anything out of line there, so you fixed something that wasn't broken. Maybe your tweak is better, but I'm doubtful at this point.
On the other hand with only 39 players making the 60%+ mark in 1985, with 2 outliers already removed, I'd think that might need a closer look.
One will need to look at other points in the data, and compare them to the straight #2 numbers to get a better picture, but just with the numbers above it looks like you didn't "fix" at least two years. I also wonder how many years have you gone too far, as I believe you have in 1989.
In 1989 the top 4 are way ahead of average, and the rest of the pack are slightly below average. So a line like 4, 7, 13, 34 is much more in line with reality than 9, 22, 42, 69, which makes it look like the leaders were below average and the pack were above.
Lets look at 1987. The 71 players above 60% is tied for the highest in the 17 years on your table. 71st in scoring is 63 points. 63 points from 1985-1989 gets you: 70th, 85th, 71st, 71st, & 76th. 71st place is 63, 67, 63, 63 & 65 points. 60%+ equals: 76 pts, 73 pts, 63 pts, 72 pts, & 66 pts. That doesn't vary as much as your 60%+: 39, 53, 71, 54 & 69 players.
Leaving the #2 at #2 and 108 points would only move that to 65 points and 64 players for 1987. (That 64 players would still be the 4th highest for the 17 years.) I don't see anything out of line there, so you fixed something that wasn't broken. Maybe your tweak is better, but I'm doubtful at this point.
On the other hand with only 39 players making the 60%+ mark in 1985, with 2 outliers already removed, I'd think that might need a closer look.
One will need to look at other points in the data, and compare them to the straight #2 numbers to get a better picture, but just with the numbers above it looks like you didn't "fix" at least two years. I also wonder how many years have you gone too far, as I believe you have in 1989.
In 1989 the top 4 are way ahead of average, and the rest of the pack are slightly below average. So a line like 4, 7, 13, 34 is much more in line with reality than 9, 22, 42, 69, which makes it look like the leaders were below average and the pack were above.
I see you took it to the other thread. I'll do the same.
And if you have him and come up against a Scotty Bowman coached team in this, you can bludgeon them to death with 1993.
One thing that Toe Blake and Scottie Bowman both have on Al Arbour is that they both succeeded in different eras with basically or completely different teams (the 50s Canadiens and 60s Canadiens had the same top 2 centers but a completely different construction otherwise).
Peca's a very good pick I think if you want a defensive specialist. IMO, he's the best combination of grit, shutdown ability, and leadership since Carbonneau.
One thing that Toe Blake and Scottie Bowman both have on Al Arbour is that they both succeeded in different eras with basically or completely different teams (the 50s Canadiens and 60s Canadiens had the same top 2 centers but a completely different construction otherwise).
I agree they should get some points for that, but I think that has more to do with opportunity than a difference in coaching talent between them and Arbour.
