- Statistics and voting results are also important part of a player resume. My opinion is you need balance between numbers and writings to form a great opinion on a player. Every year we look at AS and trophy voting results, and we are puzzled by many selections. The same can be apply to any era.
Not in the same way it can’t. We have the benefit of seeing today’s players, not to mention some serious advanced statistics. Even for guys from 1968-1998 we know things like +/-, ice time, and how their teams performed in different situations. We know practically NOTHING about these guys from the 1930s – the all-star voting is something that we have to trust significantly more than we do for more modern players.
Quote:
- I wouldn't say it's a 'strawman setup'. Even after I PM'ed you saying that I thought you were going too far with the comparison (Abel vs. Wiebe) and that I would prefer you making comparison with whom you truly believe were equal players, you confirmed me that you truly thought that Art Wiebe might have been the better player of the two, because of his three career AS voting. At this point, our views on what information we should base a player's legacy on are way too far to come an agreement, or even a middle ground.
I said it was possible but not probable.
The fact is Weibe received all-star recognition to a similar degree as Taffy Abel.
There were contradictions in your messages you still didn’t address. Such as:
- How can you use a strong team to degrade Portland’s better voting record, and then use a weak team as an excuse for another player getting more votes?
- Who stole all-star votes from Abel in Chicago? It should have smooth sailing there for him when he was out of Johnson’s shadow.
- You claimed that playing on strong defensive teams was a plus for Abel. It is, but it doesn’t separate him from any of the other players we discussed. They all spent the vast majority of their years on teams ranging from a bit above average defensively, to a lot above average.
- You haven’t shown me a situation of modern players who are contemporaries where one had 2, 3, or 4 times as many all-star votes in his career but was the inferior player. Why should we believe this was the case back in the 30s?
Quote:
- And for the X number of time, you may dismiss this point but Abel played is prime hockey before the All-Star voting and his legacy definitely lies with the New York Rangers first and foremost. You cannot take his 'stats' at face value.
Why does his legacy lie with the New York Rangers? They were barely above average defensively while he was there. In Chicago he was arguably the best of a no-name bunch that Gardiner led to an excellent defensive record. While there, he was eligible for all-star votes. Are we supposed to believe he had all these potential all-star votes before that while anchoring a defense that was nothing special overall?
Abel’s your player and he’s canonized as a top-600 ATD pick so it doesn’t surprise me that you think it’s absurd that I’d assume he would receive no all-star recognition prior to 1931. But realistically anyone should agree it is even more absurd to assume that he would receive all-star recognition those years. Nothing in the seasons directly following them indicate that he would have been. Just being big and strong doesn’t make you an all-star.
Quote:
Statistics apart, quotes on Abel are far more elogious on him than any players mention via PM, and that by quite a margin. You may not care, but I do.
That is blatantly untrue. There is more written to support Portland’s greatness than Abel’s, and every bit as much about at least one of the other two.
Originally posted by BillyShoes
And probably JFA taking Gainey, but oddly enough he has him on his 2nd line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18
I was going through the roster thread last night and thought that was a very odd choice, especially considering who his other 2nd liners are.
This should be in the draft advice thread but since you guys mentioned it, What do you reccomend, Those lines weren't exactly set in stone, but I'm always willing to take advice. Send me a PM, If you guys want
Not in the same way it can’t. We have the benefit of seeing today’s players, not to mention some serious advanced statistics. Even for guys from 1968-1998 we know things like +/-, ice time, and how their teams performed in different situations. We know practically NOTHING about these guys from the 1930s – the all-star voting is something that we have to trust significantly more than we do for more modern players.
To add to this, not only do we need to rely more on awards voting pre-1967, we have reason to believe the voting is more accurate than today. With fewer teams, every writer was going to get a pretty good sample of viewing of every team in the league. I view awards voting from 1931-1967 as perhaps the single best source we have.
Quote:
Why does his legacy lie with the New York Rangers? They were barely above average defensively while he was there. In Chicago he was arguably the best of a no-name bunch that Gardiner led to an excellent defensive record. While there, he was eligible for all-star votes. Are we supposed to believe he had all these potential all-star votes before that while anchoring a defense that was nothing special overall?
I think it's reasonable to assume Abel was probably better in his 20s (in New York before the AS teams) than in his 30s. It would be nice if someone did a detailed look at all te defensemen of the 1920s, but that's probably beyond the scope of the ATD.
Quote:
That is blatantly untrue. There is more written to support Portland’s greatness than Abel’s, and every bit as much about at least one of the other two.
Is there? I've read a lot of articles about the 1928 playoffs while researching Ching Johnson and the 1934 playoffs while researching Charlie Gardiner, and Abel was highly praised as the #2 of each team both times.
1) Imagine we suddenly had full detailed all-star voting for 1927-1930… and Taffy Abel was nowhere to be found. Would you think less of him? I think you have to admit that you would. Which means that your opinion of him right now is hinging on the “hope” that he was “maybe” considered a star prior to 1931, enough to earn a few votes, something that can’t be proven.
2) With that said – practically every player from that era is drafted in order of the all-star recognition they received. From Shore to Clancy to Ching to Conacher, to Coulter, and on from there, the correlation is almost direct. It should follow, then, that the next-most recognized players from those times should be the next selections in the draft, to reflect what appeared to be the “pecking order” of the time. Why is Abel the player who gets to buck that trend?
I think it's reasonable to assume Abel was probably better in his 20s (in New York before the AS teams) than in his 30s. It would be nice if someone did a detailed look at all te defensemen of the 1920s, but that's probably beyond the scope of the ATD.
I agree, he probably was. But even if he was, there's no guarantee he does any better those seasons, than the token votes he earned in 1931 and 1932.
Quote:
Is there? I've read a lot of articles about the 1928 playoffs while researching Ching Johnson and the 1934 playoffs while researching Charlie Gardiner, and Abel was highly praised as the #2 of each team both times.
I didn't think so, but that could be incorrect. I'm just going by what EB presented to me, which is at this point not a strong case compared to Portland and *******, but there could be more out there he hasn't seen.
You won't change his mind. I believe 70's is the only one using solely statistics and voting results to form an opinion on a player, although he will vehemently disagree on that statement. When I'll see the dozen of quotes praising the play of Art Wiebe and calling him an All-Star defenceman for near a decade, I'll take his 3 career AS voting seriously. To each their own, but I personally don't like it.
I remember taking a few hours looking through google news to find information on Art Chapman last draft, and I think enough info is available to form a good opinion on how he played the game. Is there a decent biography of him available? One LoH quote doesn't fully cut it for me, but with a couple of newspaper clips I would buy him as a good defensive player. I remember writing down a 'scouting report' on him after my research, but I don't remember if I post it in the draft thread last year.
EDIT: FOUND IT!
Art Chapman is the player I do not own that I researched the most. I think he's a little unappreciated, but here's my honest opinion on him:
- Playmaking: Most definitely the best playmaker available at this point. Mark own Paul Ronty among other are close, but Chapman 1,1,2,5 in a decent era for playmaker is extremely impressive. Don't let the overall competition fool you though: he catch Frank Boucher one prime year, Bill Cowley at his start oh his career, Howie Morenz in Chicago among others. Herbie Lewis and Larry Aurie is probably is best competition during prime years (whom he beat handedly).
- Goalscoring: Terrible goalcscorer, and it's not even close. It's the biggest drawback for a guy I wanted to play on my top-6. I think I could of pull it off in between Krutov and Sloan, but even in this great context for him with 2nd PP time, he couldn't of cracked double digit in goal. Likely the best playmaker taken at this point, likely the worst goalscorer taken at this point.
- Physically: I havn't found any real evidence, good or bad. He was described as lanky, do own decent size. My feel while reading numerous newspaper is that he was not not physical, perimeter player. Most probably underaverage on this regard. This is perhaps the only part of his game that I don't have a strong read, if Mark wants to do the leg work.
- Speed: He was indeed a speedy skater. The extent of it is still unknown to me, but it's between decent-to-good. He was described once as speedy, and a newspaper of the day reporter Red Dutton (in 1938 as he was a manager) racing against Chapman and another forward (Dutton says he won the race). He's decent-to-above average in this context, which is a nice plus.
- Defensively: From what I've read, but let this LoH quote about his defensive play fool you, or at least, don't let him cloud your judgement into makinfg him a great defensive forward. He likely was not bad defensively, but I found a quote of 1937 stating: XXX is the best skater and defensive player of the line over Art Chapman and Sweeney Schriner, but his offensive exploit is not as good as them. From what I know, XXX is not known as a defensive player (fast research and you'll discover whom I'm talking about) and Schriner definitely not. So I'm still unsure about that LoH quote about him playing too defensively. Perhaps Chapman played a perimeter game, skating inside the blueline, feeding his linemate with great passes and being the first on the backcheck I don't know, but he was not great defensively by anymean.
- Longevity: Bad longevity for a player in the top-500. Chapman prime and peak goes from the 1934-35 season to the 1937-38 season. He's go one 'decent' season in Boston, one 'decent' season in NYA in 1939 and the rest is mediocre to say the least.
- Playoff experience: Like most NYA of that time, the playoff experience of Chapman is very underwhelming, but I think it's a notch worst with Chapman, with 5 assists and 6 points in 26 games. He's got 3 assists in 5 games in 1935. The rest is 1 goal and 2 assists in 23 games.
- Intangible: This is surprising, but I've read in different newspaper in 1937, 1938 and 1939 and Art Chapman was the captain of the New York Americans (most report say it's Dave Schriner). Chapman definitely was a captain in those season, but I don't know if it was duel captainship or he replace Schriner due to injury in all three season (very unlikely). A little more research could elucidate that mystery. He probably was a decent-to-good leader.
So that's it! That my unbias view of Art Chapman. I've spent hours looking at him in the newspaper, so I would say my read on him is pretty reliable. He was not a Top-350 pick like he was taken last draft, but he seems like nice value near the top-500. I'm just still unsure how he should be use in this context. He's not enough of a goalscorer to be playing on a top-6 role (very borderline in a 40 team draft) and he's not great enough defensively to play on a defensive, shutdown line. I feel his niche, where he would thrive, is on a two-way, third line with decent goalscorer at his wing.
Edit#2: Wow, I'm terrible at grammar!
I'd take Chapman's production with the grain of salt - his production spike correlates with Schriner's first season, the first season without Schriner was a disaster, especially in assists department (ok, it was his last one, but still). And from his description, it doesn't sound like he was offencive catalyst on his line.
I'd take Chapman's production with the grain of salt - his production spike correlates with Schriner's first season, the first season without Schriner was a disaster, especially in assists department (ok, it was his last one, but still). And from his description, it doesn't sound like he was offencive catalyst on his line.
Not in the same way it can’t. We have the benefit of seeing today’s players, not to mention some serious advanced statistics. Even for guys from 1968-1998 we know things like +/-, ice time, and how their teams performed in different situations. We know practically NOTHING about these guys from the 1930s – the all-star voting is something that we have to trust significantly more than we do for more modern players.
- This is the exact reason why I would trust multiple quotes over someone getting a fraction of award voting
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
I said it was possible but not probable.
The fact is Weibe received all-star recognition to a similar degree as Taffy Abel.
There were contradictions in your messages you still didn’t address. Such as:
- How can you use a strong team to degrade Portland’s better voting record, and then use a weak team as an excuse for another player getting more votes?
- Who stole all-star votes from Abel in Chicago? It should have smooth sailing there for him when he was out of Johnson’s shadow.
- You claimed that playing on strong defensive teams was a plus for Abel. It is, but it doesn’t separate him from any of the other players we discussed. They all spent the vast majority of their years on teams ranging from a bit above average defensively, to a lot above average.
- You haven’t shown me a situation of modern players who are contemporaries where one had 2, 3, or 4 times as many all-star votes in his career but was the inferior player. Why should we believe this was the case back in the 30s?
- Weibe is so insignificant historically compare to Abel that I'm very much tired of that comparision. If you don't think Abel is significantly better, we have nothing to talk about. Move on
- I didn't use a strong team as an excuse, but a rare historical occurance where a a Top-5 and Top-20 defenceman of All-Time (Shore and Clapper) were playing in front of him in Boston. I actually believe those were the best seasons of Portland, and give him great credit for them
- Cy Wentworth, who I believe was arguably the best defensive defenceman of his era (Shore and Johnson in the mix, obviously). Abel played a bruising kind of defence, compare to the cerebral one of Wentworth, but both players were stay-at-home defenceman with little scoring touch. There shouldn't be any doubt who was the superior defensive player of the two.
- Difference is: Abel was an intrinsic part of what made his team good defensively, not the other you mentionned. Portland played his best hockey behind Shore and Clapper. Cannot name undrafted at this point.
- Copy-paste: you may dismiss this point but Abel played is prime hockey before the All-Star voting and his legacy definitely lies with the New York Rangers first and foremost. You cannot take his 'stats' at face value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
Why does his legacy lie with the New York Rangers? They were barely above average defensively while he was there. In Chicago he was arguably the best of a no-name bunch that Gardiner led to an excellent defensive record. While there, he was eligible for all-star votes. Are we supposed to believe he had all these potential all-star votes before that while anchoring a defense that was nothing special overall?
- Because the numerous quotes I have on Abel tell this story. I know you don't like them, but it's my way to judge players we never had a change to see. And for the record, while I havn't research throughfully every season of Abel, I don't believe he was stolen of any All-Star selection before the AS voting era, although I believe he wouldn't of been close in a few occasion. Hopefully you don't believe I'm trying to sell Abel as an All-Star defenceman, but more as a good 3rd pairing defenceman with important skillset to a team success. I think most have understand my view on Abel.
- In Chicago, Cy Wentworth say 'hi'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
Abel’s your player and he’s canonized as a top-600 ATD pick so it doesn’t surprise me that you think it’s absurd that I’d assume he would receive no all-star recognition prior to 1931. But realistically anyone should agree it is even more absurd to assume that he would receive all-star recognition those years. Nothing in the seasons directly following them indicate that he would have been. Just being big and strong doesn’t make you an all-star.
- I know it's probably far fetched in your mind that other GM than you can see past the 'ATD Cannon' and make a mind of their own, but let me reassure you that there's more than a few of us. I think I've shown that Abel best seasons were before the AS voting and was viewed as an important member of the New York Rangers. I'm not speculating on how many votes that gets him, obviously we can't do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord
That is blatantly untrue. There is more written to support Portland’s greatness than Abel’s, and every bit as much about at least one of the other two.
Was there more on your own Portland's biography that we should know of? I'm not in your mind, I cannot automatically know what you've read on Jack Portland if you don't write it down for us to read. Obviously, I will definitely take a closer look on any new materials you will write down and I'm open to change my mind. As far as the other two: combine they don't have half the materials I have on Abel.
I'd take Chapman's production with the grain of salt - his production spike correlates with Schriner's first season, the first season without Schriner was a disaster, especially in assists department (ok, it was his last one, but still). And from his description, it doesn't sound like he was offencive catalyst on his line.
Well, the HSP is out there, someone should take a look at those 5 seasons and see how many goals Schriner took part in without Chapman and vice versa.
1) Imagine we suddenly had full detailed all-star voting for 1927-1930… and Taffy Abel was nowhere to be found. Would you think less of him? I think you have to admit that you would. Which means that your opinion of him right now is hinging on the “hope” that he was “maybe” considered a star prior to 1931, enough to earn a few votes, something that can’t be proven.
2) With that said – practically every player from that era is drafted in order of the all-star recognition they received. From Shore to Clancy to Ching to Conacher, to Coulter, and on from there, the correlation is almost direct. It should follow, then, that the next-most recognized players from those times should be the next selections in the draft, to reflect what appeared to be the “pecking order” of the time. Why is Abel the player who gets to buck that trend?
1) That's where we disagree and probably will always do: I'm not 'hanging on hopes and maybes' from 1927-to-1931. The numerous quotes I have on him already tells the story. You don't take them seriously: I do. Also, there was so few votes and voters in the 1930's compare to to today, that I believe, while a good way to recognize All-Star defenceman, is far from a perfect science to place in order defenceman #5 and +.
2) I cannot agree with this again. You're cannot compare Hall of Famers, who received significant amount of voting through more than a decade, to a tier of players who receive little voting here and there though their career. After a while, does little voting results means less and less. It goes in pair with the explanation I gave with point #1.
I'd take Chapman's production with the grain of salt - his production spike correlates with Schriner's first season, the first season without Schriner was a disaster, especially in assists department (ok, it was his last one, but still). And from his description, it doesn't sound like he was offencive catalyst on his line.
Rarely do a playmaker succeed without good goalscorer on his line. You need to be an 'elite' playmaker to do so, which Chapman isn't. One thing I cannot contest about Chapman, is that in his peak years he was a great playmaker.
- This is the exact reason why I would trust multiple quotes over someone getting a fraction of award voting
If only that was what you’re doing. But it’s not. You’re trusting multiple quotes over multiple quotes AND all-star voting.
Quote:
I didn't use a strong team as an excuse, but a rare historical occurance where a a Top-5 and Top-20 defenceman of All-Time (Shore and Clapper) were playing in front of him in Boston. I actually believe those were the best seasons of Portland, and give him great credit for them
No, I didn’t see it as an excuse, but more of a downplaying of the voting. I think you find it less impressive that he was playing as the #3 on the team behind those two, as though being a #1 elsewhere without all-star votes would be better.
Which brings me to another point you hadn’t yet addressed – how do you know for sure who played with who? Portland was said to have played with Eddie Shore (which would have made him a “1st pairing” defenseman) but you use the term “playing behind” when referring to Clapper (and Hollett, originally)
Quote:
- Because the numerous quotes I have on Abel tell this story. I know you don't like them, but it's my way to judge players we never had a change to see. And for the record, while I havn't research throughfully every season of Abel, I don't believe he was stolen of any All-Star selection before the AS voting era, although I believe he wouldn't of been close in a few occasion. Hopefully you don't believe I'm trying to sell Abel as an All-Star defenceman, but more as a good 3rd pairing defenceman with important skillset to a team success. I think most have understand my view on Abel.
- In Chicago, Cy Wentworth say 'hi'.
But that is yet another thing from that PM that is not addressed. No one was getting any all-star votes of significance in Chicago. In the 1931, 1932 and 1933 seasons, Wentworth had a combined 8 all-star voting points, Abel had 7 and a guy named Teddy Graham had 7. that's it for Chicago. No one was "stealing" votes from Abel that he deserved. They just weren't voting for Blackhawks at all. Which is interesting because they showed up well in goals against totals. Maybe it means Gardiner was considered the sole reason?
Quote:
- I know it's probably far fetched in your mind that other GM than you can see past the 'ATD Cannon' and make a mind of their own, but let me reassure you that there's more than a few of us. I think I've shown that Abel best seasons were before the AS voting and was viewed as an important member of the New York Rangers. I'm not speculating on how many votes that gets him, obviously we can't do that.
- How does being an important member of his team separate him from any defenseman being drafted right now? Or in 300 more picks from now, for that matter?
- You can’t seriously tell me that if all our memories of past drafts were erased and we were all given a year to research all available information independently and form lists, then came together to draft teams, Abel would go in the 400s. Obviously Canon plays a major part here.
Quote:
Was there more on your own Portland's biography that we should know of? I'm not in your mind, I cannot automatically know what you've read on Jack Portland if you don't write it down for us to read. Obviously, I will definitely take a closer look on any new materials you will write down and I'm open to change my mind. As far as the other two: combine they don't have half the materials I have on Abel.
No, I don’t have anything else. I don’t remember if I stopped with google once I reached the end, or once I felt I had enough. There was more information of substance in there than you have shown me about Abel. If the information you pasted into the PM with me is all you have, that is very weak. Lines like “such stars as Frank Boucher and Bill and Bun Cook, Ching Johnson and Taffy Abel” are extremely weak, I don’t know why you would expect anyone to be impressed by them.
Maybe it means Gardiner was considered the sole reason?
Charlie Gardiner was definitely thought to be the guy carrying an unimpressive defense in Chicago, though Tommy Gorman's trapping system definitely helped
To add to this, not only do we need to rely more on awards voting pre-1967, we have reason to believe the voting is more accurate than today. With fewer teams, every writer was going to get a pretty good sample of viewing of every team in the league. I view awards voting from 1931-1967 as perhaps the single best source we have.
I think it's reasonable to assume Abel was probably better in his 20s (in New York before the AS teams) than in his 30s. It would be nice if someone did a detailed look at all te defensemen of the 1920s, but that's probably beyond the scope of the ATD.
Is there? I've read a lot of articles about the 1928 playoffs while researching Ching Johnson and the 1934 playoffs while researching Charlie Gardiner, and Abel was highly praised as the #2 of each team both times.
- How many players do voters had the right to put on their ballot every year? 2 or 4? I'm kind of confuse with the voting in the 1930's! If it was 2, or even 4, why there was over 12 players getting All-Star recognition every year? If the voters had a pretty good sample of viewing for every teams, there should be a nearly consensus of the All-Star players every year, no?
- There shouldn't be a doubt with the quotes I provided that Abel was better with the NYR than CHI. How old he was doesn't factor in the judgement I'm making
- I really should get going with my Abel biography. I really didn't accomplish any ATD related work this week, as I'm planning my trip to Europe. Hopefully I'll get it done before the weekend
1) That's where we disagree and probably will always do: I'm not 'hanging on hopes and maybes' from 1927-to-1931. The numerous quotes I have on him already tells the story.
And which quotes are those? The ones in your linked bio, that came almost entirely from three secondary sources (LOH, UH, GHL), that dreakmur split up to make it look like more extensive research was done?
Or the ones you posted to me in the PM that include fluff like “such stars as Frank Boucher and Bill and Bun Cook, Ching Johnson and Taffy Abel”
Either way, that is not impressive.
Quote:
You don't take them seriously: I do..
I agree that the further down you go, the less “biblical” one has to follow the all-star votes, but the difference in voting in these cases is way too much. Especially when he doesn’t bring an excess of anything in his skill set that the other two in particular don’t.
Quote:
2) I cannot agree with this again. You're cannot compare Hall of Famers, who received significant amount of voting through more than a decade, to a tier of players who receive little voting here and there though their career. After a while, does little voting results means less and less. It goes in pair with the explanation I gave with point #1.
Stop telling me I don’t take quotes seriously. I do. But as of now what has been provided is very weak and much of it is secondary sources all parroting eachother. The best and most reliable description of Abel as a player that we have is the Frank Boucher quote, and I’m not sure it’s even that complimentary.
- I really should get going with my Abel biography. I really didn't accomplish any ATD related work this week, as I'm planning my trip to Europe. Hopefully I'll get it done before the weekend
That would help.
It would take many more and/or much more complimentary quotes to overcome the difference in all-star recognition, IMO.
If only that was what you’re doing. But it’s not. You’re trusting multiple quotes over multiple quotes AND all-star voting.
No, I didn’t see it as an excuse, but more of a downplaying of the voting. I think you find it less impressive that he was playing as the #3 on the team behind those two, as though being a #1 elsewhere without all-star votes would be better.
Which brings me to another point you hadn’t yet addressed – how do you know for sure who played with who? Portland was said to have played with Eddie Shore (which would have made him a “1st pairing” defenseman) but you use the term “playing behind” when referring to Clapper (and Hollett, originally)
But that is yet another thing from that PM that is not addressed. No one was getting any all-star votes of significance in Chicago. In the 1931, 1932 and 1933 seasons, Wentworth had a combined 8 all-star voting points, Abel had 7 and a guy named Teddy Graham had 7. that's it for Chicago. No one was "stealing" votes from Abel that he deserved. They just weren't voting for Blackhawks at all. Which is interesting because they showed up well in goals against totals. Maybe it means Gardiner was considered the sole reason?
- How does being an important member of his team separate him from any defenseman being drafted right now? Or in 300 more picks from now, for that matter?
- You can’t seriously tell me that if all our memories of past drafts were erased and we were all given a year to research all available information independently and form lists, then came together to draft teams, Abel would go in the 400s. Obviously Canon plays a major part here.
No, I don’t have anything else. I don’t remember if I stopped with google once I reached the end, or once I felt I had enough. There was more information of substance in there than you have shown me about Abel. If the information you pasted into the PM with me is all you have, that is very weak. Lines like “such stars as Frank Boucher and Bill and Bun Cook, Ching Johnson and Taffy Abel” are extremely weak, I don’t know why you would expect anyone to be impressed by them.
Last time I'm replying back. Not that I don't care about the discussion, but I've been sitting in front of my computer since 5PM.
- Only Jack Portland come close to the amount of information I have on Abel. The other one mention via PM are not close. There a reason why Portland got a deserving jump, while the other one are still undrafted.
- I'm giving Portland all the credits he deserve with his time in Boston. I don't know why you don't believe so.
- I was not aware that Shore was playing with Portland, although I would split Clapper and Shore if I had them. I believe that Hollett was not better than Portland during those seasons. Hollett legacy lie elsewhere.
- That's actually a fair point. When doing my biography on Abel, I will try to do a year to year evaluation, and see where his time in Chicago stands.
- He was more important to his team than any defenceman that will be picked from now on and before. Some will also use 'important member' for a #4 defenceman or a third liners. I'm trying to cautiously using my word in this conversation.
- Why not? You may not believe this, but I looked at all my options on defence before picking Abel at 513. I don't need ATD cannon to tell me that Abel was the best defenceman remaining for the skillset I was looking for with my #5 defenceman. Also, what makes you better than myself or any other GM in this draft to 'erase' from your memory the past ATD selection order?
- Right now I'm judging Jack Portland on the biography you made. I cannot invent quotes. And nitpicking one quote doesn't help the debate.
- Only Jack Portland come close to the amount of information I have on Abel. The other one mention via PM are not close. There a reason why Portland got a deserving jump, while the other one are still undrafted.
Armstrong was another I didn’t want to allude to strongly to at the time. Not a contemporary of Abel, but same principle applies.
The other two will get huge jumps, just not as much as Portland. Don’t worry about them, they’ll do just fine. And since canon is important, the next time around when someone is looking for a #5 and they’re comparing all these guys, suddenly it gets more “believable” to them that they could take the other guys over Abel.
Quote:
- He was more important to his team than any defenceman that will be picked from now on and before. Some will also use 'important member' for a #4 defenceman or a third liners. I'm trying to cautiously using my word in this conversation.
Well, yeah, they will, but that’s not what I meant. There are still plenty of guys with strings of seasons as #1 defensemen out there, and yeah, they won’t all be the next picks. I can’t account for some #3-4 guys getting taken around this time…
Quote:
- Why not? You may not believe this, but I looked at all my options on defence before picking Abel at 513. I don't need ATD cannon to tell me that Abel was the best defenceman remaining for the skillset I was looking for with my #5 defenceman. Also, what makes you better than myself or any other GM in this draft to 'erase' from your memory the past ATD selection order?
That’s quite the leap you’re making there. I’m not claiming to be better at anything. But as an observer looking at the information I have available to me, this looks clear as day.
Quote:
- Right now I'm judging Jack Portland on the biography you made. I cannot invent quotes. And nitpicking one quote doesn't help the debate.
Then all I can say is that you’re not being honest with yourself. Dreakmur’s bio is full of fluff. The quotes you PM’d to me are more fluff. There is very little to build a case for a player there.
Honestly, I don't see how Portland is better than more recent players still available...
He probably isn't. There are definitely some well overdue modern players. The 700 pick gap that existed between Abel and Portland was far from the only glaring problem with our draft list heading into this year's instalment.
He probably isn't. There are definitely some well overdue modern players. The 700 pick gap that existed between Abel and Portland was far from the only glaring problem with our draft list heading into this year's instalment.
I don't even think it's a problem. There is a glut of big stay at home defencemen that are not shutdown guys. There is an element of interchangeability to them. Some will be ATD depth guys, others will be MLD shutdown guys, who gets what spot is happenstance and not much should be read into the gaps between them.
I don't even think it's a problem. There is a glut of big stay at home defencemen that are not shutdown guys. There is an element of interchangeability to them. Some will be ATD depth guys, others will be MLD shutdown guys, who gets what spot is happenstance and not much should be read into the gaps between them.
This is pretty much it. There are a ton of comparable bottom-pairing guys, and unless everyone waits until round 20 to get them, there's going to be big gaps between them. Each of those guys brings something a little different to the table, so it makes sense to grab the guy you want a little earlier, even if he has the same relative value as someone taken 5 rounds later. Then again, there have been a few guys who I think went way too high in general.
Honestly, I don't see how Portland is better than more recent players still available...
Who said he was? When I took Portland, I had about 10 defensemen in the same tier. About half of those guys are still around, and they are about equal to him.
I chose Portland because I needed his skillset. With Lidstrom, Murphy, and Numminen, I needed to add some muscle, and I needed a crease clearer for the second pairing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho
I don't even think it's a problem. There is a glut of big stay at home defencemen that are not shutdown guys. There is an element of interchangeability to them. Some will be ATD depth guys, others will be MLD shutdown guys, who gets what spot is happenstance and not much should be read into the gaps between them.
Shouldn't the guys with significant all-star recognition go before the guys with none?
