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.
Is there a weight adjustment as well?
EDIT: Maybe just figure out his actual lbs/inch of height and just add weight in the same proportion?
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)
Watson's footspeed was ok. He was neither a great nor a poor skater. Boucher's footspeed is not a problem. Did you not pay attention to the research I did last draft? It's all still in the Dirt thread. Boucher appears to have been a good skater before seriously injuring his knee in 1924.
I would be interesting to adjust both height and weight for both he and Gardiner.
Going by hockey-reference and the adjustments seventies gave...
Moose Johnson: 6'4", 198lbs
Herb Gardiner: 6'2", 201lbs
Gardiner gets short changed here because he just misses seventies' cutoff by two years and Johnson just makes it by three years. He should probably be a little closer in height to Johnson and have a little more weight on him. It doesn't really matter though...these two are close enough to be called the same size. An inch here or 5 pounds there isn't going to make a huge difference.
Sadly, nobody knows much about Gardiner's full career.
I have made several posts showing that he was regarded as on eof the top players in every league he's played in.
His Hart in 27 as a 35 year old and then 2nd AST in 28 as a 36 year old is very solid evidence to support these claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawkey Town 18
Going by hockey-reference and the adjustments seventies gave...
Moose Johnson: 6'4", 198lbs
Herb Gardiner: 6'2", 201lbs
Gardiner gets short changed here because he just misses seventies' cutoff by two years and Johnson just makes it by three years. He should probably be a little closer in height to Johnson and have a little more weight on him. It doesn't really matter though...these two are close enough to be called the same size. An inch here or 5 pounds there isn't going to make a huge difference.
EDIT: Maybe just figure out his actual lbs/inch of height and just add weight in the same proportion?
along with the inches added to height was 10 pounds per inch. But I am not a 100% believer in that either, it's just a simplified ballpark way of doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian
Oh no.. adjusted size rears its ugly head again... just keep it out of the bios please!!
EDIT ( I do totally get ballparking them to get a sense of it in comparisons though )
I think HHH was the only one doing that, thankfully.
That wouln't be much of a comparison. Moose Johnson was an absolute beast for a long time.
Thanks for stopping by, another great contribution. Even with the shortage of insformation we have Gardiner has by far the better peak.
Either way Gardiner is my number 3.
I think that if the Boucher - Watson are out against the Mikita line they would run into some trouble with their speed.
Also in terms of overall 3rd lines i'm not impressed with the wingers flanking Rod the bod. Rod is a great 3rd line centre but those wingers are fairly below average.
Also in terms of overall 3rd lines i'm not impressed with the wingers flanking Rod the bod. Rod is a great 3rd line centre but those wingers are fairly below average.
Ron Ellis is a very good, tough, two-way 3rd line winger. He's not elite, but he's very good in his role. Lonsberry...yeah, he's really more of a 4th liner, IMO, but you are really underrating Ron Ellis here.
Also I realize Bernie Nicholls may have played some point on th epowerplay, but seeing him on a first unit PP on the point sticks out to me as a sore thumb.
Again I know with Gretzky-Kurri and Leetch Inglewood has a good PP, but overall the tandem of Bathgate - MacInnis with Mikita will function better. The majority of offense from a PP is derived from the point and Bathgate - MacInnis >> Nicholls - Leetch.
Also in terms of PK does anybody want to dispute
Bob Pulford - Dave Poulin Jacques Laperierre - Herb Gardiner > Johnson - Watson - Brind'Amour - Northcott
Also I'd like to point out Dave Poulin who was used to shadow both Gretzky and Lemieux, it is worth considering that he was one of the best at this. If I have the time I will try and look up the articles on google archives.
Bob Pulford - Dave Poulin Jacques Laperierre - Herb Gardiner > Johnson - Watson - Brind'Amour - Northcott
No, your top unit PK is definitely better, especially considering that Laperriere is among the elite PKing defensemen in hockey history (don't know if everyone knows that).
No, your top unit PK is definitely much better, especially considering that Laperriere is among the elite PKing defensemen in hockey history (don't know if everyone knows that).
Yeah. MacInnis and Laperriere are both players who get a ton of their value from a specific specialty team.
Ron Ellis is a very good, tough, two-way 3rd line winger. He's not elite, but he's very good in his role. Lonsberry...yeah, he's really more of a 4th liner, IMO, but you are really underrating Ron Ellis here.
Big time. You forgot to mention he is an extremely strong ES scorer. I would probably go as far as to say he’s an elite 3rd line RW. When you consider his defense and ES offense, I’m not sure who would be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87
Also I realize Bernie Nicholls may have played some point on th epowerplay, but seeing him on a first unit PP on the point sticks out to me as a sore thumb..
Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t. I have no idea how to properly evaluate forwards on the point on the PP. I’m not sure anyone knows how to do it. We all know by now the shortlist of players who can do it, and we use that to determine whether they are a plausible ATD pointman – as in just a yes/no answer - but from there how do we determine the quality of work they are going to do?
With forwards we can look at how many PP points they tended to produce in a season, but with guys like Nicholls, how do we know how many were produced from the point and how many were from up front? And how do we reasonably compare this to the opposing team’s point men if they are defensemen? Is it really apples to apples?
Last MLD, TDMM had Steve Sullivan on the point on his PP and I had no idea how to compare him to my own guy, who was actually a defenseman. IIRC, TDMM didn’t have a good answer for that, either. I mean, practically all forwards are better offensively than practically all defensemen, particularly once you're down at that level, but that doesn't mean that a forward is automatically a better PP option than a defenseman, right? if it did, we'd all have five forward units.
So ES they are deemed useless? Not sure where you are going with this.
Neither is a Guy Lapointe, but both MacInnis' and Laperriere's value is somewhat more weighted towards special teams than the average top pairing defenseman. I don't think Devil is making an unfair statement here; it doesn't mean they're useless at even strength.
Big time. You forgot to mention he is an extremely strong ES scorer. I would probably go as far as to say he’s an elite 3rd line RW. When you consider his defense and ES offense, I’m not sure who would be better.
Ron Ellis always seems to go later than he should. Among players in his role (two-way or defensive 3rd line right wingers), I would definitely put him behind Provost and Armstrong. After that, it gets hard. Ellis vs. Lehtinen, Rousseau, Marcotte and Westfall...yeah, that's pretty close.
You're welcome. Thanks for being predictable in your barbed response.
Asside from bias, you have no legitimate reason to claim that Gardiner's peak was better, let alone far better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
If you define "peak" as "best single season," I don't think Moose has a season that compares to Herb's Hart winning year.
Haha thank you for responding to that for me, I literally laughed out loud that Gardiners best two seasons (Which I posted as peak) are far better then Johnsons is due to my "bias".
If we are suppose to believe Johnson would have bettered a Hart and then 2nd AST selection in 2 of his years then we may as well pack up and leave.
Big time. You forgot to mention he is an extremely strong ES scorer. I would probably go as far as to say he’s an elite 3rd line RW. When you consider his defense and ES offense, I’m not sure who would be better.
.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator
Ron Ellis always seems to go later than he should. Among players in his role (two-way or defensive 3rd line right wingers), I would definitely put him behind Provost and Armstrong. After that, it gets hard. Ellis vs. Lehtinen, Rousseau, Marcotte and Westfall...yeah, that's pretty close.
Take a 2nd look at Ellis in the playoffs.
Does Overpass have a chart showing ESP for both Pulford and Ellis?
Watson's footspeed was ok. He was neither a great nor a poor skater. Boucher's footspeed is not a problem. Did you not pay attention to the research I did last draft? It's all still in the Dirt thread. Boucher appears to have been a good skater before seriously injuring his knee in 1924.
Considering how dominant Boucher was offensively before that knee injury, I think it's almost common sense that he was a strong skater. Either that or he must have been, litterally, the greatest stick handler of all time.
From what I've read, Watson was a also very good skater. Specifically, he had great lateral mobility for a lanky guy. It's one of the reasons I think he makes a great #4, particularly to go with an elite offensive #3 like Boucher.
He didn't have the offensive game to be a superstar or collect many Allstar votes (and deservedly so). But I don't think it's coincidence that his only semi-notable offensive season (36 points) was also the year he got notable allstar votes. And playing in 5 allstar games as a ~25 point defenseman is actually really impressive when you think about it.
The more I read about him, the more I like Watson's defensive game. Scotty Bowman and Fred Shero loved the guy. Shero had him pegged as a future Norris winner had injuries not taken their toll. Bowman selected him to Team Canada 1976, where I believe he opened the tournament in the starting lineup. When Watson was knocked out of the tournament after blocking a shot with his face in the second game (severe eye injury), Bowman chose to play the remaining five game with just 5 D instead of dressing one of the spares (Burrows or Vadnais I believe).
This draft is full of "no-nonsense stay-at-home" types. But Watson was more than that. He was about as close to a mistake-free player as they come in the defensive end, and I think he has a somewhat unique skillset in that sense. A shut-down defenseman who can handle both a speed and power game isn't always an easy thing to come by.
-elite positionally
-excellent mobility and a good first pass
-played physically while taking very few penalties (no small feat on those Flyers squads!)
-noted as a calming presence on the ice, and a great leader to boot
Sure, I'd love to have Nik Lidstrom there instead. But In terms of skill-set, what more would you want for a guy paired with George Boucher? Jimmy Watson may not be an elite #4 in a vacuum, but I believe he's a fantastic fit in his current role.
