HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2012 - Draft Thread VII

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-06-2012, 12:18 PM
  #226
jkrx
Registered User
 
jkrx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
Don't worry about it, that happened to VI and his grandsons all the time last year...
So, now I'm accused of using fake accounts?

jkrx is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:18 PM
  #227
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkrx View Post
So, now I'm accused of using fake accounts?
He's joking, dude.

jarek is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:18 PM
  #228
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
I just don't see Stamkos as accomplished enough to use as a scoring line C at this level, considering C is the deepest position

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:18 PM
  #229
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
I can buy Stamkos as a 4th liner/PP specialist at this point, depending on the coach. There are some coaches in this who were very hard on young players, and Stamkos is essentially a "rookie" (albeit a tremendously talented one) in ATD terms.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:20 PM
  #230
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I just don't see Stamkos as accomplished enough to use as a scoring line C at this level, considering C is the deepest position
Why not? He would absolutely be the worst 2nd line C in this thing (or a really good 4th scoring line C), but he's definitely capable. Watch him play - he's really dominant. He doesn't have the career value yet, but he's absolutely got a pretty strong peak right now.

jarek is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:22 PM
  #231
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,423
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think Timonen is a Lidstrom-lite kind of player - plays relatively conservatively at even strength, providing supporting offense but not getting all that involved in the attack.

And honestly, I prefer that on my bottom pairing to a guy involved in the attack who might be a defensive liability
It depends upon how your bottom lines are composed, I suppose. If you've got mostly pure checkers on the lower units, then a guy like Timonen makes a lot of sense, though he's not ideal as the primary puckmover for more offensively-inclined bottom lines.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:26 PM
  #232
DaveG
Global Moderator
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Raleigh NC
Country: United States
Posts: 36,566
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I just don't see Stamkos as accomplished enough to use as a scoring line C at this level, considering C is the deepest position
I most definitely buy him as a depth scoring/PP specialist type. He is statistically the most prolific goal scoring center since the lockout in terms of GPG ahead of Crosby, Malkin, Staal, and Lacavalier in that order.

The only difference is he doesn't bring the same other aspects of his game (or at least hasn't yet established them) that I would say the others have. Crosby's definitely a better two-way guy and a much better playmaker. Malkin's a better playmaker with solid playoff history. Staal and Vinny are both more physical and far more established in the post-season, as well as better two-way guys.

DaveG is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:27 PM
  #233
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,410
vCash: 500
He's got him on a line with Glen Skov who is listed as C/LW. Does this help cover up Stamkos as a defensive liability? Maybe Skov can assume the center's responsibilites in the defensive zone and they can switch in the offensive zone?

Hawkey Town 18 is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:37 PM
  #234
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 45,407
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
He's got him on a line with Glen Skov who is listed as C/LW. Does this help cover up Stamkos as a defensive liability? Maybe Skov can assume the center's responsibilites in the defensive zone and they can switch in the offensive zone?
Skov is as close to a zero offense forward as you can get in this thing. I often use my fourth line as a dumping ground for special teams guys, but Skov next to Stamkos is fairly extreme

TheDevilMadeMe is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:43 PM
  #235
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,201
vCash: 500
I think that a player's offensive peak determines his potential ATD peak. So sometimes he could be as explosive as, say, a Selanne or Bure.

But how long that peak was, how good his off-peak years were, and how long his next-best off-peak period was sustained, determine how to interpret the above italicized "sometimes". With Stammer, the answers to the above are "so far, 3 years, an uneventful rookie season, and NIL". So he is the kind of guy who will be VERY inconsistent in an imaginary ATD season.

There are a lot of ways to look at it but I prefer that way. Yes, I could see him on a 4th line where he will occasionally be a liability and other times explode for a beautiful goal, and then as a PP specialist where his pluses are hugely magnified.

seventieslord is online now  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:50 PM
  #236
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think that a player's offensive peak determines his potential ATD peak. So sometimes he could be as explosive as, say, a Selanne or Bure.

But how long that peak was, how good his off-peak years were, and how long his next-best off-peak period was sustained, determine how to interpret the above italicized "sometimes". With Stammer, the answers to the above are "so far, 3 years, an uneventful rookie season, and NIL". So he is the kind of guy who will be VERY inconsistent in an imaginary ATD season.

There are a lot of ways to look at it but I prefer that way. Yes, I could see him on a 4th line where he will occasionally be a liability and other times explode for a beautiful goal, and then as a PP specialist where his pluses are hugely magnified.
I really agree with this. Caring about longevity in an imaginary ATD setting, where we want to believe our players will be at their best, doesn't really seem to make much sense unless you believe that longevity counts for consistency during the ATD season. It becomes incredibly difficult, however, to determine how much longevity counts for. No number that you attribute it to will be anything other than completely arbitrary. I think the best and probably fairest method is, If a player played 20 years for example, had a 5 year peak at his best, had 10 other solid seasons and 5 throw away years, you can say that for 25% of the season he will play at his absolute best, 50% of the season he'll be as good as he was during his solid years, and then 25% will be negligible (that's probably fair.. I would say that for star players, except for the guys at the absolute high end of the spectrum, they probably have about 15-20 insignificant games during the season). The problem is that, what if you have a guy who, hypothetically, played 40 years, was spectacular for 20 of them and did next to nothing for the other 20? Can you really say that he'd be great for half the season and then be **** for the other half? Hard to say how to evaluate this, but I think this is generally a good approach with common sense applied.

jarek is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:56 PM
  #237
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 5,410
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
I really agree with this. Caring about longevity in an imaginary ATD setting, where we want to believe our players will be at their best, doesn't really seem to make much sense unless you believe that longevity counts for consistency during the ATD season. It becomes incredibly difficult, however, to determine how much longevity counts for. No number that you attribute it to will be anything other than completely arbitrary. I think the best and probably fairest method is, If a player played 20 years for example, had a 5 year peak at his best, had 10 other solid seasons and 5 throw away years, you can say that for 25% of the season he will play at his absolute best, 50% of the season he'll be as good as he was during his solid years, and then 25% will be negligible (that's probably fair.. I would say that for star players, except for the guys at the absolute high end of the spectrum, they probably have about 15-20 insignificant games during the season). The problem is that, what if you have a guy who, hypothetically, played 40 years, was spectacular for 20 of them and did next to nothing for the other 20? Can you really say that he'd be great for half the season and then be **** for the other half? Hard to say how to evaluate this, but I think this is generally a good approach with common sense applied.
If you go with this method there has to be some kind of standard career length (which would change by era), so a player with elite longevity doesn't get punished by the percentage method.

In your hypothetical scenario if the standard career was 25 years then that player would be spectacular 80% of the time, if it was 20 years he would be incredibly consistent, etc.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 12:58 PM
  #238
Wrigley
Jake & Elwood
 
Wrigley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 7,916
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think that a player's offensive peak determines his potential ATD peak. So sometimes he could be as explosive as, say, a Selanne or Bure. But how long that peak was, how good his off-peak years were, and how long his next-best off-peak period was sustained, determine how to interpret the above italicized "sometimes". ...
I agree you have to have a good career. You could win a major award and be a bench player/substitute in the MLD if you don't have more than 1 good year. Off topic, I'm glad you guys use the post-season all star voting, because I've seen someone who is consistently described as just a great enforcer that played in 5 all star games. The all star games don't mean much to me. You can make it, because of injuries. In recent years, many players beg off so many players make it that wouldn't otherwise.

Wrigley is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:00 PM
  #239
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18 View Post
If you go with this method there has to be some kind of standard career length (which would change by era), so a player with elite longevity doesn't get punished by the percentage method.

In your hypothetical scenario if the standard career was 25 years then that player would be spectacular 80% of the time, if it was 20 years he would be incredibly consistent, etc.
You are absolutely right. Guys like Delvecchio, Sundin and Howe absolutely have to be recognized in this method as guys with well above average longevity. Sundin, for example, literally did not have a single season that I would call bad or mediocre until he got to Vancouver (it's actually pretty remarkable that he managed to string together 16* consecutive 70+ point seasons in his career). Delvecchio is very much the same.

*47 in 47 games in '94-'95. No reason to punish him for getting injured, it's pretty obvious he would have hit at least 70 points this year.

jarek is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:03 PM
  #240
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,231
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post

*47 in 47 games in '94-'95. No reason to punish him for getting injured, it's pretty obvious he would have hit at least 70 points this year.
It was lockout season, man.

MadArcand is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:07 PM
  #241
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,201
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Made Me View Post
I've seen someone who is consistently described as just a great enforcer that played in 5 all star games.
I guarantee you that whoever you're talking about didn't get there on merit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
It was lockout season, man.
LOL

seventieslord is online now  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:08 PM
  #242
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
It was lockout season, man.
Hey, that's even more of a reason to not punish him for it!

Is there an emoticon that gets across the feeling of feeling like a ****ing clown? Maybe one of these?

jarek is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:11 PM
  #243
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
It was lockout season, man.
edmonton had the worst GA in '95.

sundin would have scored 23p in that game he missed vs edmonton.

nik jr is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:13 PM
  #244
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,073
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
edmonton had the worst GA in '95.

sundin would have scored 23p in that game he missed vs edmonton.
You made it sound like they were letting in 6-7 goals per game.. it wasn't all THAT bad.. well, OK, it was bad.. just not THAT bad..

jarek is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:14 PM
  #245
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,798
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
You made it sound like they were letting in 6-7 goals per game.. it wasn't all THAT bad.. well, OK, it was bad.. just not THAT bad..
i just think that teach emoticon is funny.

nik jr is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:15 PM
  #246
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
 
chaosrevolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 15,439
vCash: 500
I will select Coach - Jaroslav Pitner

chaosrevolver is online now  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:50 PM
  #247
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,899
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
You are absolutely right. Guys like Delvecchio, Sundin and Howe absolutely have to be recognized in this method as guys with well above average longevity. Sundin, for example, literally did not have a single season that I would call bad or mediocre until he got to Vancouver (it's actually pretty remarkable that he managed to string together 16* consecutive 70+ point seasons in his career). Delvecchio is very much the same.

*47 in 47 games in '94-'95. No reason to punish him for getting injured, it's pretty obvious he would have hit at least 70 points this year.

Quote:
Hey, that's even more of a reason to not punish him for it!

Is there an emoticon that gets across the feeling of feeling like a ****ing clown? Maybe one of these?
...


http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/36gu00/

markrander87 is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:53 PM
  #248
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,073
vCash: 500
I don't actually talk to seventies on MSN.. actually, I don't talk to him much at all anymore, period.

jarek is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:54 PM
  #249
Dwight
The French Tickler
 
Dwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,175
vCash: 500
Glad to see the Stamkos pick sparked some discussion, as that was the goal. Truth be told, I had Stammer on my radar several rounds back, as a couple members here can attest to.

One thing that's important to realize about my lineup is that it's not done. What I may do is something like this:

XXXXX - Stamkos - Schmautz
Extra: Skov

Where I add a LW who is solid defensively, but also has some offensive upside to his game.

But the main reason I picked Stamkos is, as I said, to be a PP specialist. My team is good enough defensively so that his defensive ineptitude is very much minimized, but I still think we could use some offensive firepower on that 2nd PP unit. I may use Stamkos at centre there, or even on the point if he ever truly excelled there (which I seem to remember that he did).

All in all, though his career is very short, his offensive stats come close to, match, or exceed many in this draft.

3 (including one on the way) top 2's in goals
1, soon to be 2 (most likely) Rocket Richard trophies, with likely 2 50 goal seasons attached to that
2 top 2's in PP goals
A 1st in GWG
3 top 5's in points
1x 2nd team all-star

Though I'm not suggesting anything (I can't stress this enough), Stamkos did lead the league in PP goals on ice for last season, so that does lead me to believe he was used on the PK, but probably not for defensive prowess.

As a final note: lots of people say that "Stamkos is only good for goals". Good, that's all I really wanted him for.

Or I may just keep it as is, and use the line at even strength sparingly.


Last edited by Dwight: 03-06-2012 at 01:59 PM.
Dwight is offline  
Old
03-06-2012, 01:56 PM
  #250
jarek
Registered User
 
jarek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 7,073
vCash: 500
Stamkos is at his best on the half boards on the PP. His shot is absolutely lethal.

jarek is offline  
Closed Thread

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 10:08 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2016 All Rights Reserved.