Again didn't Vernon do this when Detroit won the cup in 96-97, also Niemi stepped in for Huet when Chicago won the cup. Your arguement is flawed. There are already real life examples showing us that if need be the back up can step in and take his team to the finals.
Osgood and Vernon were more like 1A and 1B than starter and back-up. It's not like Vernon was the 40th best goalie in the league.
Niemi was an emerging young goalie, who was also a 1B rather than a back-up. Like Vernon, he was better than a lot of regular starters.
Quote:
Off the top of my head there was Leighton back in 09-10 for the Flyers as well.
If your team is as stacked as the Flyers were, you can ride a crappy goalie pretty far. The problem is that none of the teams here are significantly better than any of the others. Unless you have a terrible starting goalie, the disadvantage of dropping to your back-up is too big to overcome.
Quote:
From your rationale a back up goalie has as much value as a spare defenseman... Is that the case?
If your #1 defenseman gets injured in the play-offs, you are just as dead in the play-offs..... regardless of the replacement.
Did something start that we're in the business of predicting when and how many games players miss? Like, do we all get a power up that we get to play whenever we want to during the playoffs to injure the oppositions best player?
I know backup goalies are important parts of the regular season to give the starter the rest, but are we really assuming that anyone's starters won't be in in the playoffs?
I'll repeat myself then - I view lower Selke vote totals like that as evidence that a handful of writers thought the plyayer deserved recognition - or that he was among the top defensive players in the league that given year.
And no, I don't think Rolston's 10th is necessarily better than his 15th, when we are dealing with such small vote numbers. (before looking at how many votes he got).
Anyway, I shouldn't have jumped down your throat when you said Erixon is arguably the 6th best defensive LW of the time frame. So sorry for my tone. I just think there are a lot of players you can make that argument for once you get past Gainey, Ramsay, Marcotte (who you didn't look at), Tikkanen, and Lehtinen.
Marcotte I did look at, but the system cruelly cut him off before he could make an impact in the study. He shows up great for a guy whose career was winding down when the selke was introduced, obviously.
Did something start that we're in the business of predicting when and how many games players miss? Like, do we all get a power up that we get to play whenever we want to during the playoffs to injure the oppositions best player?
I know backup goalies are important parts of the regular season to give the starter the rest, but are we really assuming that anyone's starters won't be in in the playoffs?
That was my point to start. Back-ups won't play in the play-offs..... unless the started has a long injury history.
That was my point to start. Back-ups won't play in the play-offs..... unless the started has a long injury history.
Even then, who is to say that said starter wouldn't miss his games during the regular season?
Accounting for games missed due to injury is a waste of time. Injuries already impact a player's legacy by affecting their points placements, award voting, etc. Why does it need to be double counted?
All right, as my first spare (might use him in the lineup, we'll see how things shake out), I'm selecting Corb Denneny, F. Dreakmur's bio from about a year and a half ago is here: http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...&postcount=118
It paints him as a versatile player capable of playing all forward positions with skill and speed. Iain Fyffe has been doing a research study on who should and shouldn't be in the HHOF over on his Hockey Historysis site, and he finds Denneny as meritorious based on:
There are 21 players on the list, all of whom have been drafted except one, and that player didn't play his first pro game til the age of 27.
Seriously looked at him for my 4th line. But, wanted Holik down the middle and having him dressed as anything but a centre is wrong from my researching. Having him as F as a spare is fine though.
__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Erixon's lack of points wouldn't have hurt him in Selke voting as much at the time as it would have later when voting standards appeared to change from best defensive forward to best two-way forward.
Here are the point totals of the top 3 in Selke voting through the end of Erixon's career.
Iain's meritorious players project is really interesting, but it puts far to much emphasis on longevity for my liking
It appears to, yes.
I’m also concerned it might give a little too much credit to seasons spent outside the top league of the time. But I imagine it is based on a relativity formula derived from real results, so maybe I’m out of line to say that.
In a system like his, if your goal is to assign an “all-time greatness” score to a player rather than just “career value accumulated” you do need to do something to credit them for their peak.
I secretly experimented with this sort of thing last draft myself when looking at forwards. I often looked at the sum players’ best 10 percentage scores or something like that, but the results didn’t always “feel” right. I made a quick sheet where I could just plug their 10 scores in, and it would weigh their best more than their 2nd best, and so on, with the 10th-best being least important, thus giving more credit for peak while not ignoring longevity/pretending their 6th-10th-best seasons never happened. I can’t even remember how much weight I gave the higher up seasons (knowing me, it was probably 20-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-10, all over 146) but I remember liking what it spit out.
As far as Denneny goes, applying a system like this to his best seasons and those of the forwards ahead of him probably wouldn’t change that he’s “19th in his era” but it might separate the true stars at the top, from the guys like Odie Cleghorn, and the Odie Cleghorns from Denneny just a bit more, to better numerically reflect the gap that exists in an all-time context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24
Did something start that we're in the business of predicting when and how many games players miss? Like, do we all get a power up that we get to play whenever we want to during the playoffs to injure the oppositions best player?
I know backup goalies are important parts of the regular season to give the starter the rest, but are we really assuming that anyone's starters won't be in in the playoffs?
I think in the regular season since we’re dealing with a microcosm of a player’s career (or, at the very least, their prime), it is fair to speculate on how many games a skater is likely to miss over the ATD season.
I think that it’s also fair to speculate how many ATD games a goalie will handle, based on:
- Where they fall into the ATD pecking order (best goalies play the most)
- Their injury history
- Their real life usage relative to era
But to answer your question, as far as playoffs go, most teams in history rode their starter all the way through. So I don’t know how we can say any team won’t have the opportunity to do otherwise. In actuality, a goalie will probably get injured somewhere, but who is to say who it is? Just pick the one who’s most likely to get hurt (even though his actual chances of getting hurt are probably 5%) and say it’s him?
I think there are two exceptions to the above, where backups come into play:
- If you’re a team whose goalies are really close in skill level, like the few who drafted their starter late and picked up a backup shortly after, you will probably end up in a 45-37 type breakdown in the regular season, and it’s reasonable to expect that in a 1A/1B situation like that, your coach would go with the hot hand. In these playoff matchups, it’s probably worth discussing both goalies on the team.
- If you have a goalie who is going to get picked apart in the playoffs or could potentially falter, it is good to have a guy that you can point to and say IF that were to happen, look who is waiting on the bench.
But as far as claiming someone’s starter will get injured, that’s lunacy. It’s a random occurrence with little to suggest that it’s significantly more likely to happen to one player than another.
Erixon's lack of points wouldn't have hurt him in Selke voting as much at the time as it would have later when voting standards appeared to change from best defensive forward to best two-way forward.
Here are the point totals of the top 3 in Selke voting through the end of Erixon's career.
Year
1st
2nd
3rd
77-78
31
71
54
78-79
38
47
57
79-80
33
60
43
80-81
47
59
45
81-82
51
45
51
82-83
85
104
40
83-84
42
111
113
84-85
33
37
100
85-86
99
60
56
86-87
70
45
50
87-88
38
70
26
88-89
56
78
38
89-90
25
55
63
90-91
45
69
101
91-92
39
86
52
92-93
127
49
52
You're right that it wouldn't have hurt him as much as it would today. But still, 22 of the 30 finalists during his career had 45 points, and his career high was 30.
An analysis of the GP totals by the finalists (or even the top-10) would be interesting too.
That was my point to start. Back-ups won't play in the play-offs..... unless the started has a long injury history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24
Did something start that we're in the business of predicting when and how many games players miss? Like, do we all get a power up that we get to play whenever we want to during the playoffs to injure the oppositions best player?
I know backup goalies are important parts of the regular season to give the starter the rest, but are we really assuming that anyone's starters won't be in in the playoffs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur
Osgood and Vernon were more like 1A and 1B than starter and back-up. It's not like Vernon was the 40th best goalie in the league.
Niemi was an emerging young goalie, who was also a 1B rather than a back-up. Like Vernon, he was better than a lot of regular starters.
If your team is as stacked as the Flyers were, you can ride a crappy goalie pretty far. The problem is that none of the teams here are significantly better than any of the others. Unless you have a terrible starting goalie, the disadvantage of dropping to your back-up is too big to overcome.
If your #1 defenseman gets injured in the play-offs, you are just as dead in the play-offs..... regardless of the replacement.
All of you are completely missing my point. Let me try and spell it out.
We cannot predict when or if a starter would get injured.
If my starter was to get injured in the playoffs I would prefer to have Vernon step in.
We can not strictly value back up goaltenders as using them for X amount of regular season games. We have to account for the simple fact that a goalie can get injured during the playoffs and the back ups playoff history will account for that.
If we do not account for back up goalies potentially having to step in and play in the playoffs what value does Tim Thomas Conn Smythe hold? or any other back up goalies playoff resume?
Clearly from my examples teams can advance far into the playoffs if their starter gets injured, that's why it is important to have a strong back up.
Also putting words in my mouth like this
Quote:
but are we really assuming that anyone's starters won't be in in the playoffs?
is ridiculous. Please show me where I said that a starting goalie is guaranteed to get injured during the playoffs? Have you ever heard of an insurance policy?
And a very strong chance of adding another elite finish this season.
I've been waiting for someone to grab him. He and Cujo are the two modern guys who are (IMO) much, much better than their lack of allstar selections would suggest. Lundqvist's trophy case just doesn't represent how consistently excellent he's been his entire career.
Whether the Rangers are good, bad, or mediocre, Lundqvist always seems to be saving their bacon. He's awesome, he's consistent, he has nice hair. He is the starting goalie on arrbez's imaginary "NHL TOTAL BEAUTY SQUAD". What more could you ask for?
All of you are completely missing my point. Let me try and spell it out.
We cannot predict when or if a starter would get injured.
If my starter was to get injured in the playoffs I would prefer to have Vernon step in.
We can not strictly value back up goaltenders as using them for X amount of regular season games. We have to account for the simple fact that a goalie can get injured during the playoffs and the back ups playoff history will account for that.
If we do not account for back up goalies potentially having to step in and play in the playoffs what value does Tim Thomas Conn Smythe hold? or any other back up goalies playoff resume?
Clearly from my examples teams can advance far into the playoffs if their starter gets injured, that's why it is important to have a strong back up.
Also putting words in my mouth like this
is ridiculous. Please show me where I said that a starting goalie is guaranteed to get injured during the playoffs? Have you ever heard of an insurance policy?
Oh mark I'm not callin you out chill. I'm just asking where the conversation came for more than anything.
I've been waiting for someone to grab him. He and Cujo are the two modern guys who are (IMO) much, much better than their lack of allstar selections would suggest.
Whether the Rangers are good, bad, or mediocre, Lundqvist always seems to be saving their bacon. He's awesome, he's consistent, he has nice hair. What more could you ask for?
don't forget that he plays guitar and has a killer smile!
It's funny, I thought after Luongo went that he should be the next goalie, but at the same time I don't mean that to say they're very close right now.
- Same 11-points above the league sv% average as Luongo, but for only about 2/3 as long (yes, that includes this mostly-completed season. prior to this season Luongo was a +12 and Henrik a +10)
- 8 points below league average sv% in his playoff career, which is only 60% as long as Luongo's right now (remember, Beezer and Luongo were +11 and +2 in bigger sample sizes)
- never a postseason all-star, like Beezer and Luongo have been twice, but he's been 3rd, and he's sure to be one this year.
Strangely, both Luongo and Lundqvist have save percentages that are often claimed to be inflated. I call that a wash if we're comparing these two.
So, for now: Beezer > Luongo >> Lundqvist (even though Lundqvist is a good pick now)
You're right that it wouldn't have hurt him as much as it would today. But still, 22 of the 30 finalists during his career had 45 points, and his career high was 30.
An analysis of the GP totals by the finalists (or even the top-10) would be interesting too.
yeah, but how much of that is because Erixon was among the worst forwards offensively to take a regular shift? Even if the Selke didn't take offense into account at all, you'd expect most of the finalists to be better than him offensively.
I imagine the guy getting 100 points and being a finalist is Kurri?
yeah, but how much of that is because Erixon was among the worst forwards offensively to take a regular shift? Even if the Selke didn't take offense into account at all, you'd expect most of the finalists to be better than him offensively.
You’re confusing “one of the worst in the ATD” with “one of the worst in the NHL"…
258 forwards played 40+ games in 1988, the year Erixon had 26 points in 70 games and placed 3rd in selke voting.
With 0.33 ESPPG, Erixon was 169th. On the bottom half but far from the lowest.
When adding up all the GP and ESP logged by these 258 forwards, the average was 0.44 ESPPG.
offensively, this was a below average season for him.
Quote:
I imagine the guy getting 100 points and being a finalist is Kurri?
You’re confusing “one of the worst in the ATD” with “one of the worst in the NHL"…
258 forwards played 40+ games in 1988, the year Erixon had 26 points in 70 games and placed 3rd in selke voting.
With 0.33 ESPPG, Erixon was 169th. On the bottom half but far from the lowest.
When adding up all the GP and ESP logged by these 258 forwards, the average was 0.44 ESPPG.
offensively, this was a below average season for him.
How many of those guys below Erixon took a regular shift? I would imagine a large number of them were 4th line goons. Perhaps I should have said "one of the worst forwards offensively in the NHL to take a regular shift?" I mean, for a guy with Erixon's offense to stay in the NHL as long as he did, he either needs to be elite defensively (which he was) or a goon, and the goons don't get as much ice time.
Edit: With 21 teams, 258 forwards comes out to 12.28 forwards per team.
Erixon's 169 divided by 21 teams = 8.04. On an average NHL team, Erixon's per game even strength offense (the metric most favorable to him) would have him 8th of 12 forwards. Would 3 of the 4 forwards below him be 4th line goons? On at least some teams, they would be.
Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 03-09-2012 at 06:16 PM.
The strength of the Big 4/WCHL/WHA and Duke Keats' competition for scoring finishes
Much earlier, someone questioned the competition Duke Keats faced in the WCHL, so I decided to do a season by season account of his competition. I meant to get to it earlier, but technical problems prevented it from happening until now.
Keats' first professional season was 1915-16 at the age of 21.
1916 NHA
1. Didier Pitre 39
2. Joe Malone 35
3. Newsy Lalonde 34 4. Duke Keats 29
5. Cy Denneny 28
6. Gord Roberts 25
7. Frank Nighbor 24
1917 NHA
Keats was 5th in points per game, but only played 2/3 of the season, finishing 12th in scoring at the end of the year. I would imagine he left early to fight in World War 1.
Keats was a top 5 scorer in the NHA in his first two seasons
Keats missed 1918 and 1919 (aged 23-24) to fight in World War I.
1920 Big 4 1. Duke Keats 32
2. Keats' RW 22
3. Keats' LW 18
4. Herb Gardiner 17
5. Won't be drafted 14
1921 Big 4 1. Duke Keats 29
2. Keats' LW 25
3. Keats' former RW 21
4. Undrafted HHOFer 20
5. Won't be drafted 20
I think it's pretty clear the Big 4 was a fairly weak league, but Keats dominated it like you would expect
1922 WCHL 1. Duke Keats 56
2. George Hay (24 yo) 34
3. Joe Simpson (29 yo) 34
4. Keat's LW (different guy) 33
5. Keats' former RW 31
6. Dick Irvin (30 yo) 27
7. Keats' RW 21
7. Will be drafted 21
No typo, Keats was really that far ahead of everyone. Not as good as the NHA or PCHA, but George Hay, Joe Simpson, and Dick Irvin were all in their prime.
1923 WCHL
1. Keat's RW 43 in 29 games (1.48 PPG) 2. Duke Keats 37 in 25 games (1.48 PPG)
3. George Hay (25 yo) 36 in 30 games (1.20 PPG)
4. Newsy Lalonde (35 yo) 35
5. undrafted HHOFer 32
6. Joe Simpson 29
7. Keats' LW 28
8. Bill Cook (28 yo) 25
1922-23 was Bill Cook's first professional season (at the age of 28).
1924 WCHL
1. Bill Cook 40
2. Undrafted HHOFer 34 3. Duke Keats 31
3. George Hay 31
5. Keats' former RW 26
6. Won't be drafted 25
7. Bernie Morris (34 yo) 23
The PCHA folded after the season and its talent was absorbed into the WCHL. The 1925 and 1926 WCHL was probably stronger than the NHL at that point.
1925 WCHL
1. Mickey MacKay 33
1. undrafted HHOFer 33 3. Duke Keats (29 yo) 32
4. Bill Cook (29 yo) 32
5. Frank Fredrickson (29 yo) 30
6. Frank Boucher (24 yo) 28
7. Keats' LW 23
8. Joe Simpson 23
9. George Hay 22 (in 20 of 28 games)
1926 WHL
1. Bill Cook 44
2. Dick Irvin 36
3. Corb Denneny (32 yo) 34
4. Keats' RW 33
5. George Hay 31 6. Duke Keats 29
7. Undrafted HHOFer 25
8. Frank Fredrickson 24
9. Frank Boucher 22
10. Keat's former RW 22
The WHL folded after the season. 1926-27 is the first year of the consolidated NHL
1927 Consolidated NHL
1. Bill Cook*-NYR 37
2. Dick Irvin*-CBH 36
3. Howie Morenz*-MTL 32 4. Frank Fredrickson*-TOT 31
5. Babe Dye*-CBH 30 6. Frank Boucher*-NYR 28
Ace Bailey*-TOR 28
8. Billy Burch*-NYA 27 9. Undrafted HHOFer *-BOS 24
Duke Keats*-TOT 24
1928 Consolidated NHL
1. Howie Morenz*-MTL 51
2. Aurele Joliat*-MTL 39 3. Frank Boucher*-NYR 35
George Hay*-DTC 35
5. Nels Stewart*-MTM 34 6. Keats' former teammate 30
7. Bun Cook*-NYR 28
8. XXX 26
9. Frank Finnigan-OTS 25 10. Bill Cook*-NYR 24
Duke Keats*-TOT 24
Keats was 31 in 1925-26 and clearly on the downswing of his career as you can see from his decline the previous season in the WHL.
I bolded the top 10 NHL scorers in the first two seasons after consolidation who played with Keats in the WCHL/WHL. It is more than half of them.
Conclusion: Duke Keats was a borderline top 5 offensive player in the world for about a decade. When you consider his intangibles - elite physical game, solid leadership and defensive play, he was probably top 5 forward in the world for the greater part of a decade.
If anyone has a way to get a hold of Leaf Lander like facebook or txt please tell him we need a confirmation on the trade from yesterday. Him and I had a lot of PM's going back and forth, and it could have been confusing. I don't want to take his pick without knowing it's a deal for sure.
Ugh.. to be dead, dead honest with you, I don't even remember when or where I said that. Can you dig up the post?
EDIT: Found it. I guess I was out of line with that comment, but I definitely think that Keats seriously bridges the gap with his intangibles (of which Bentley has none). Regular season offense probably isn't too far off, either. Where Bentley starts to dominate Keats offensively is in the playoffs, and that pretty much makes it a no contest, at least offensively. Whether the defensive/physical edge that Keats has over him bridges the gap entirely solely depends on how you view his Big-4/WCHL years, as well as the extent of how good his physicality and defense really is.
I think the only real reason Keats doesn't go as high as a Bentley is because he didn't spend the majority of his prime years in a no-contest top league. If he peaked 10 years later and put up the same type of offense while providing the same intangibles, he's probably in the conversation for that 15th-20th best center, no?
