HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

Foster Hewitt Divisional Semifinals: Inglewood vs. Cincinatti

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-17-2012, 03:17 PM
  #26
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Show me where I said Mikita was going to outscore Gretzky?
You didn't.. what I said was that I didn't think it would be a good idea for you to send your best offensive player out against your opponent's best offensive player who is miles ahead offensively..

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 04:02 PM
  #27
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I am just finding it hard to see how we give Lemieux a chemistry bonus, when he had chemistry with everyone, and made almost everyone he played with an offensive star. You can give a chemistry bonus to Stevens, sure, but that is a bonus from being an MLD-caliber player to an ATD-caliber player IMO.
Yeah...I agree. Stevens is horribly overrated in the ATD, not that it's at all relevant to this series.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 04:06 PM
  #28
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
You didn't.. what I said was that I didn't think it would be a good idea for you to send your best offensive player out against your opponent's best offensive player who is miles ahead offensively..
I'm more then comfortable with my first line out against their first:

STAN MIKITA

Best on faceoffs 2nd 1971
Best on faceoffs 1st 1974
Best on faceoffs 2nd 1976
Best on faceoffs 3rd 1979
Best playmaker 1st 1974
Best playmaker 3rd 1976
Best stickhandler 1st 1976
Smartest player 1st 1974
Smartest player 1st 1976



I'd rather Pulford and Poulins line, but I have no problem with my first out against his first either.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 04:06 PM
  #29
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
The only chemistry boost I give Lafontaine and Mogilny is that I assume compatible skill sets. Lafontaine wasnt much of a playmaker for most of his career but proved he could take that role when playing with Mogilny. I don't think playing together makes either better than his "on paper" resume
Which means it's still a below-average second line.

By the way, mark...if you're really going to be out of it at the end of the voting period, I will volunteer to defend your team. I happen to like your team, for what it's worth, and I'd hate to see it not get a robust defense here. Let me know if you're interested.

Where are you going in Europe, by the way?

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 04:11 PM
  #30
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
you wanted to know why I wouldn't give Lemieux/Stevens a chemistry bonus, I answered.
For both you and Sturm: as someone who owns a throw back Stevens jersey I agree. He's pretty overrated here. Perfect fit with Lemieux those years, but there are quite a few others where that's true too.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 04:15 PM
  #31
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Which means it's still a below-average second line.

By the way, mark...if you're really going to be out of it at the end of the voting period, I will volunteer to defend your team. I happen to like your team, for what it's worth, and I'd hate to see it not get a robust defense here. Let me know if you're interested.

Where are you going in Europe, by the way?

Absolutely if you would want to, i'd appreciate that thank you.

Sports related for the first week and then staying an extra week with a few friends to travel afterwards.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-17-2012, 05:01 PM
  #32
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Gretzky was actually quite a fantastic goalscorer, and it pains me to see time and again, GMs not taking advantage of that by putting some playmaking on his wing.
Well he didn't need a playmaker on his left side in real life, right?

When you look at it, Gretzky's goal scoring benefited more from the blueline than it did from his LWers. Outside of maybe Orr, no other player has ever dominated at even strength on the rush like Gretzky did, and support from the back end is a huge part of what made him so successful.

To that end, I think I've put together arguably the best puck-moving blueline in the draft, particularly at even strength. It's something I really wanted to have on a Gretzky-led team.

Not only can this group make nasty breakout passes, they can join the rush as well as any, and they can do this without anyone having to play sheltered minutes. I think Gretzky has more transition support from the blueline here than he's ever had before in the ATD, and I think Leetch and Boucher in particular will really benefit as goal scorers playing give-and-go and trailing on the rush.

This ability to turn the puck around quickly is a great boon to the Lafontaine line as well. Lafontaine and Mogilny are both players who excelled when playing at top speed, and were noticeably better when playing with linemates who could play at their level (something that was unfortunately rare for them, particularly Lafontaine). Unless I'm forgetting someone, I don't think either of them ever had an elite puck-mover feeding them the puck at even strength, and certainly nobody who could join the rush regularly. Combined with Northcott's speed and all-around game, I think the two of them are in a far better position to succeed here than they ever were in real life. Not just because of the obvious fact that everyone has better team mates in the ATD, but from a stylistic perspective as well.


I'll have more to say later on when I have more time, including getting in to specifics.


Good luck Mark!


Last edited by arrbez: 04-17-2012 at 05:45 PM.
arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 08:44 AM
  #33
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
I'm a little concerned with Inglewoods top 4 and there lack of a shut down pairing. Who does he plan on having out against my top 2 lines?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 09:52 AM
  #34
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,829
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
I'm a little concerned with Inglewoods top 4 and there lack of a shut down pairing. Who does he plan on having out against my top 2 lines?
http://memegenerator.net/instance/18867488


Last edited by Jafar: 04-18-2012 at 10:03 AM.
Jafar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 11:33 AM
  #35
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
I'm not sure if you agreeing with me or mocking me?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 11:40 AM
  #36
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
I'm not sure if you agreeing with me or mocking me?
mark you don't always need some "uber-shutdown pairing." arrbez has Moose Johnson paired with Leetch, and Watson with Boucher. Both are strong defensive defensemen. Paired with those two, who are not bad defensively, those pairing will be fine to defend your forwards. Not saying they're necessarily going to win or lose him the series, but you're not going to run roughshod over either of his top 2 pairings.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 11:56 AM
  #37
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
mark you don't always need some "uber-shutdown pairing." arrbez has Moose Johnson paired with Leetch, and Watson with Boucher. Both are strong defensive defensemen. Paired with those two, who are not bad defensively, those pairing will be fine to defend your forwards. Not saying they're necessarily going to win or lose him the series, but you're not going to run roughshod over either of his top 2 pairings.
Why are you speaking to me like i'm a child? Clearly his team doesn't have a "shut down pairing" did I say it will cost him the series? Of course not, but with two teams who are so close in talent something like that could make a difference.

Am I not suppose to make points like this? Isn't this the whole point of the playoffs? He waited till round 3 to draft his number one who is offensive minded Brian Leetch.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 12:14 PM
  #38
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Why are you speaking to me like i'm a child? Clearly his team doesn't have a "shut down pairing" did I say it will cost him the series? Of course not, but with two teams who are so close in talent something like that could make a difference.

Am I not suppose to make points like this? Isn't this the whole point of the playoffs? He waited till round 3 to draft his number one who is offensive minded Brian Leetch.
I don't think I'm speaking to you like a child, I just think you're cluttering the thread and throwing stuff against a wall to see what sticks. Both of his pairings will be fine against your offense. Like I said, it's not like he's going to be able to completely shut out a line, but he's not going to be below average either. Especially considering I expect him to have a heavy amount of puck-possession this series with his strong puck-moving defensemen plus Gretzky.

The whole point of the playoffs isn't to make points and see what makes sense after. The point is to figure out a winner. The discussion time frame's points are to tell people where your strengths and weaknesses lie, where you think your opponents strengths and weaknesses lie, and try to make an argument based off of that. You shouldn't just throw random statements out there without any evidence to back it up. Leetch's draft position isn't evidence.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 12:32 PM
  #39
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
I don't really see the need for one super shutdown pairing, either. It can work, but it's hardly a necessity. That being said, there may be some chinks in the armor of Inglewood's defense. Watson is a player who I think has been consistently (though not terribly) overrated in the ATD up to this point. Here is his AST voting record:

Quote:
Jimmy Watson:

1974-75: 14th
1975-76: 6th
1976-77: 10th
1977-78: 9th
1979-80: 12th
For a guy who got as much exposure as he did as the #1 defenseman on a mini-dynasty, those are pretty meh numbers. Watson also had a relatively short career, playing only eight healthy seasons. In the end, he looks like a slightly above average #4 who (like many defensemen in his range) has been a bit overrated to this point.

The other stay-at-home part of Inglewood's top-4, Moose Johnson, is a curious character. He was a PCHA 1st team all-star for eight consecutive seasons, and yet got very little praise from contemporary sources. Charles Coleman picks him as one of his top four defensemen of the era, but Coleman never saw Johnson play. One of the issues with Johnson is strength of competition. The PCHA had a lot of strong forwards, but was not known as a league with a lot of great defensemen. Moose competed against a fit Lester Patrick for basically all of his prime, but in order to be sure of the value of being one of the two best defensemen in the league, we need to know who the 3rd best guy is. And this is somewhat problematic because the "other" great defenseman in the league, Frank Patrick, played very little in 1914-15 and 1915-16. 1916-17 seems to have been the last big season for both of the Patrick boys, and in Moose's last two 1st AST seasons, he shares the honors with Bobby Rowe. These seasons are a little bit problematic because we don't really know how good the second best guy was, nevermind third best.

So, as I see it, Moose should get full credit for his all-star appearances in 1911-12, 1912-13, 1913-14 and 1916-17. In the other four 1st AST seasons, the value of that selection is more questionable because we can't say definitively that he was better than a known great player in his prime. Anyway, he was still obviously the greatest defenseman in PCHA history. I think the main reason he doesn't get credited more by contemporary sources is because he toiled for most of his career on pretty crappy Portland Rosebuds teams, and laid a bit of an egg in his only Cup Finals appearance (outside of the Cup Challenge era when he played for the Wanderers) in 1916. I won't have time to process a full thread for 1916 in time to make this information relevant to this draft, but here are the game reports from that Cup Finals:

Game one

Game two

Game three

Game four

Game five

To summarize, Johnson had a freakout at Newsy Lalonde in game three and got sent with a teammate to the bench, giving the Habs a two-man advantage that allowed them to ice the game. In game four, he threatened to sit out due to a contract dispute, didn't play in the first period and then was pulled quickly in the second period when he was ineffective. In game five, in a tied third period with the Cup on the line, Goldie Prodgers undressed him for the series-winning goal. It's just one series, but Johnson's disappointing performance as a defenseman (he had been a wing in Montreal) on hockey's biggest stage likely accounts at least in part for his relatively low standing among contemporary hockey pundits. How much of that is deserved is open for debate. I think it diminishes him somewhat, but it's still just one series.

Ultimately, I think Johnson is still a good #2, though like Watson, maybe a somewhat overrated one at this point. I don't care about his fingers, but the issue of him using a stick that would be nowhere close to regulation in the modern game is another concern, considering how important reach was to his performance. Overall, I think Inglewood's blueline is still good, but is maybe a bit more vulnerable than it looks on paper.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 12:52 PM
  #40
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Random thoughts on the series:

- both of Inglewood's scoringlines matchup well on paper against the Bathgate line in that they have big, strong, defensive left wings. Of course, neither Watson nor Northcott is elite defensively by ATD standards, and Bathgate is the kind of player who I wouldn't want to check with just a single shadow unsupported by other defensive linemates - so the matchup is probably better on paper than it will be on the ice. Problem here is that Inglewood's third line is very strong at center and on the right wing, but Lonsberry is nobody you want matching against Bathgate. When I said earlier that I think it would be wise for opponents to send their best checkers to shut down Bathgate, I meant it. Unless Inglewood rotates one of the top two LWs down to the third line, this looks like a good situation for Andy to succeed. MacLeish is good enough to work well with Bathgate moving up the ice if he's not facing much checking pressure, himself.

- that being said, Gretzky - Kurri is a terrifying combination no matter how you slice it, and Inglewood has a small advantage in goal. If the Inglewood third line stays as-is, Brind'Amour - Ellis does match up well against Howe - Mikita with MacDonald not really needing a lot of checking attention at even strength, anyway.

- I am not the biggest fan of the Inglewood second line simply because Lafontaine and Mogilny both have quite thin offensive resumes at this level (although Northcott is an excellent second line glue guy), but the Jacks do have a rather large advantage in George Boucher on that second pairing. Boucher's presence will ensure that Gretzky - Kurri always gets good service from the blueline, and he will start a lot of attacks for the second line when he's supporting that unit.

- Wayne Gretzky is my pick for the greatest player of all-time, including Bobby Orr. I like Gretzky better because of what an incredible winner the guy was. He had all the talent in the world, but came out and played every shift like he was fighting for his job. Gretzky didn't just elevate his linemates; he elevated his entire team, and is the greatest leader I have ever seen in any team sport outside of maybe Joe Montana. I don't think Wayne tends to get enough credit for his intangibles in the ATD.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 12:58 PM
  #41
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
I don't think I'm speaking to you like a child, I just think you're cluttering the thread and throwing stuff against a wall to see what sticks. Both of his pairings will be fine against your offense. Like I said, it's not like he's going to be able to completely shut out a line, but he's not going to be below average either. Especially considering I expect him to have a heavy amount of puck-possession this series with his strong puck-moving defensemen plus Gretzky.

The whole point of the playoffs isn't to make points and see what makes sense after. The point is to figure out a winner. The discussion time frame's points are to tell people where your strengths and weaknesses lie, where you think your opponents strengths and weaknesses lie, and try to make an argument based off of that. You shouldn't just throw random statements out there without any evidence to back it up. Leetch's draft position isn't evidence.


How would you like me to word it then?

I have the clear cut advantage for our top pairings?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 12:59 PM
  #42
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
How would you like me to word it then?

I have the clear cut advantage for our top pairings?
I'd agree you have a clear cut advantage on the top pairing.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 01:02 PM
  #43
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
If you believe in "adjusting size", is Moose Johnson any smaller than Zdeno Chara? That guy has a ridiculously long reach, and even with a regulation size stick, I don't see why Johnson's wouldn't be any less than that. I think the whole fingers + illegal stick thing is completely irrelevant.

As far as Johnson's reputation, he was, as far as I know, the very first player ever to receive a career award (in this case, a plaque) for his contributions to the PCHA. Lester Patrick had a ceremony held prior to a game one season to give Johnson an award for being the best defenseman in PCHA history. Obviously, we already knew that, but it isn't often that people go to those types of lengths to celebrate something like that, so I really think that we're dealing with a very special player here.

jarek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 01:11 PM
  #44
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator
Inglewood has a small advantage in goal.
I'm not convinced much separates these goalies

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 01:12 PM
  #45
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,511
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
If you believe in "adjusting size", is Moose Johnson any smaller than Zdeno Chara? That guy has a ridiculously long reach, and even with a regulation size stick, I don't see why Johnson's wouldn't be any less than that. I think the whole fingers + illegal stick thing is completely irrelevant.

As far as Johnson's reputation, he was, as far as I know, the very first player ever to receive a career award (in this case, a plaque) for his contributions to the PCHA. Lester Patrick had a ceremony held prior to a game one season to give Johnson an award for being the best defenseman in PCHA history. Obviously, we already knew that, but it isn't often that people go to those types of lengths to celebrate something like that, so I really think that we're dealing with a very special player here.
If Johnson was the Chara of his day, who would you compare Dan Bain to? Hod and Bruce Stuart? George and Howard McNamara? Harry Mummery? Silas Griffis? Art Ross? Barney Stanley? Duke Keats? All were Johnson's size or larger.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 01:13 PM
  #46
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,809
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
If you believe in "adjusting size", is Moose Johnson any smaller than Zdeno Chara? That guy has a ridiculously long reach, and even with a regulation size stick, I don't see why Johnson's wouldn't be any less than that. I think the whole fingers + illegal stick thing is completely irrelevant.

As far as Johnson's reputation, he was, as far as I know, the very first player ever to receive a career award (in this case, a plaque) for his contributions to the PCHA. Lester Patrick had a ceremony held prior to a game one season to give Johnson an award for being the best defenseman in PCHA history. Obviously, we already knew that, but it isn't often that people go to those types of lengths to celebrate something like that, so I really think that we're dealing with a very special player here.
Moose Johnson was 5'11; large for his era, but not excessively so.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 01:14 PM
  #47
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
If you believe in "adjusting size", is Moose Johnson any smaller than Zdeno Chara?
He was 5'11 as far as I know, which makes him big for the era, but not ridiculously so. I don't think you can put him anywhere close to Chara category when the biggest player of his era (Bruce Stuart) stood fully three inches taller. Moose was a big guy. I'm sure he'd be a solid 6'3 - 6'4 in the modern game, but he wouldn't be enormous unless my information on his height is simply wrong.

Stick length is relevant because Moose was a hook checker, and is the only defenseman who I know of that regularly used the technique. An extra long stick would have increased the arc of his hook quite a bit. He said so, himself, of his stick that "they couldn't take it away from me because it was my livelihood." I don't think we should overdue it in correcting for Johnson's stick, but any player who relied heavily on a piece of grossly non-regulation equipment is going to be a little bit questionable, I think. The fundament of Johnson's career is excellent, but there are a lot of little things at the margins which take off some of his shine, I think.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 01:21 PM
  #48
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,558
vCash: 500
pretty sure Jarek was just mistaken about Johnson's size and didn't realize he was just 'average big', not huge. I agree with Sturm, I think the adjustment for players in those times should be in the 4-5" range. Johnson is probably 6'3" or 6'4" adjusted.

I know it's unofficial and has never been put to any real scrutiny, but my size adjustment formula is really simple and seems to pass the eye test:

if the player was born before 1890: add 5 inches
before 1910: add 4 inches
before 1930: add 3 inches
before 1950: add 2 inches
before 1970: add 1 inch

I remember making a short list of the tallest "adjusted" players of all-time and it looked very reasonable. It featured a couple of the tallest players from every era, while respecting a guy like Chara for "actually" being that tall.

I know he's not in the ATD this time, but Slim Halderson, 6'3" in Johnson's time, would be one of the tallest adjusted top-1000 players of all-time - maybe #2 of all-time.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 01:22 PM
  #49
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Was Jimmy Watson known for his foot speed (I honestly don't know) I know Boucher is known to have not the greatest foot speed (I had him 2 years ago)

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-18-2012, 01:25 PM
  #50
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,573
vCash: 500
Moose Johnson was born 5 years before Herb Gardiner and was a single inch taller, with Gardiner weighing 5 more pounds (according to HR)

I'm not sure where Jarek was going with all of that.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:01 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.