Before the draft I wondered how much players who added a good regular season and/or playoffs in 2011-2012 to their careers would affect the first round and with Campbell, Karlsson, and Parise being 20% of the first round, it's certainly been a factor.
Campbell would have been a viable low end bottom pairing defenseman in the ATD even without this past season. This past season is enough to make him a solid #5 in the main draft IMO
I think Parise's last season is enough to make him a viable top 6 glue guy in the MLD. Don't think he would have been without this past year.
I'd like to keep the individual player voting as something that's positive. The worst picks will face heat in the assassination and playoff process.
I'd like to see that in the ATD. Kindness, maturity, professionalism, and good sportsmanship are not dirty words. As he said there's plenty of opportunity for that in the assassination and playoff process.
Just a thought, feel free to shoot it down based on ATD/MLD precedent.
Canadiens1958 is in his first draft and appears to have misunderstood the way modern players are evaluated in this game. Would it be fair to allow him a mulligan and opportunity to take a different player with his 1st pick?
Personally I feel that would be the sportsmanlike thing to do.
Thank you for the thought but let's see how the rest of my team comes together.
Remember that 300 games is 300 games whether it is today or pre 70 game schedule and players have to score and defend regardless of era. Find another eligible player who could score and defend sufficiently to win a Norris while being a RHS. Chelios was the first RHS Norris winner in 1989 followed by Blake and MacInnis, now Karlsson.
I think seeing Parise as a ''glue guy'' isn't unreasonable per definition , but you got to give Parise credit for his 5th Hart trophy voting , which means he isn't some Clarke Gillies type of glue guy here.He is an all around player , which gives him the glue guy duty , but he can still score.Scoring five 30 goals seasons in this era is a proof of goal scoring talent and consistancy.He is definitely not a 1st line playmaker that's for sure.
To be honest I don't doubt there's plenty of guys that could be argued over Parise , but I can't invest as much time on this draft as with the other ones.
His career is definitely on the very short side and I'm not that high on short career guys for these drafts , but I think Parise brings a package and an interesting peak with him.
Good list. His name is actuallly Sven Tumba though. He changed his surname.
I put all three because his family name is recorded some places and we don't want someone to control-f search and draft him again in the AAA 2012 draft or anything!
Karlsson - Can't say I wasn't thinking about him, I see him as a better J*** ****** on an all-time basis if his career ended today. I would've mentioned him to Dwight as a bottom-pairing guy, but C1958 might be able to surprise us all and have him in a Coffey-type role pioneering a strong offensive squad.
McNamara - Don't know a whole lot about him, but from what I have read, if we decided to start out on the blueline, I think we would've went with him.
Parise - good pick, I think as TDMM said, one of the better glue guys at LW left, and is also a potent goal scorer.
Last edited by seventieslord: 07-17-2012 at 10:30 AM.
McNamara - Don't know a whole lot about him, but from what I have read, if we decided to start out on the blueline, I think we would've went with him.
Hopefully, VI can shed light on exactly how much forward he actually played. Based on a little bit of searching, it looks like he was made a full time forward in 1915. Also, it looks like he also played forward on and off before that time.
That would certainly explain why his brother was inducted into the HHOF with significantly less impressive offensive accomplishments.
Nice pick, guys. I'm not sure quite what to make of the photo in that bio...
Haha…. Whoops, that was me a couple years ago experimenting with photobucket and wondering why my browser wouldn’t show the updated photo over the new one.
Or…. Herb Jordan was also a spaceman. You decide.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
While I was certainly an advocate of picking Moran, don't give me too much credit. You did about 95% of the profile yourself.
We originally wanted to start our team with either Brian Campbell or Paddy Moran. Definitely happy with the way things turned out
Moran was my #1 pick for goalie… I think so, anyway. I only did about a half hour of research last week. I wasn’t going to start with a goalie though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24
Yeah, I mean personally I don't see much of a reasoning to combine them. We have the Master Thread stickied at the top of the page for a reason.
Agree. Keep them separate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24
That's not how the ATD/MLD works though. It goes by what he has achieved to this point.
Correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe
Karlsson was an NHL rookie at 19. Frankly, I think it's cheap to count his SEL games before coming to the NHL, but if you do, he barely qualifies for the 300 game requirement
216 NHL + 13 playoff = 229 games
52 SEL + 17 playoff = 69 games
9 WC games
:: IIHF Awards
Best Scorer (Goals, WOG) 1992
Best Scorer (Goals) 1990
All Stars 1990
:: USSR Awards
MVP 1990
Best Scorer (Goals) 1988
Best Line 1988
Best Line 1990
All Stars 1990
Not a fan of this one… needs more selling. Sometimes I think that VI relentlessly pimping this guy is the only thing keeping him from falling out of the top-1200.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedberg
Connecticut selects RW Brian Bellows
485 G, 537 A, 1022 pts in 1118 NHL GP
1990 2nd Team All-Star
Played in 1984, 1988, 1992 All-Star Games
1993 Stanley Cup Champion
In my research last week I threw him to the top of my list for offensive wingers, but surprisingly by the time I had looked at another 150 players, he was down to 5th.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander
All in all, he doesn't look out of place in this draft, but time will show how (un)deserving he is in terms of top line duty, not to mention first round pick status, in an all-time context.
I agree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hedberg
I'd like to keep the individual player voting as something that's positive. The worst picks will face heat in the assassination and playoff process.
I agree. When we did the voting last year it was 95% positive, with the last voting piece being that you pick the 5 worst picks of the draft. In the end the ones who earned the most “worst” votes were named, and it is positive in the end because it serves as a warning for future GMs: Don’t draft this guy this high next time… or maybe not at all!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velociraptor
My thoughts on recent picks:
Karlsson - Can't say I wasn't thinking about him, I see him as a better J*** ****** on an all-time basis if his career ended today. I would've mentioned him to Dwight as a bottom-pairing guy, but C1958 might be able to surprise us all and have him in a Coffey-type role pioneering a strong offensive squad..
Not sure what made you think it was OK to mention J*** ******.
One can argue that guy is better based on longevity, but they don’t really compare as players in absolute terms. The other guy was a good PP opportunist who caught lightning in a bottle for one season by being the 5th man on a very dominant powerplay (54% more effective than the league average PP). Karlsson drove his team’s offense and was their undisputed MVP. Karlsson’s ONE great season was infinitely better than this other guy.
I don't see why it should. I thought it was just a nation's highest level domestic league. I don't really care that much though
I agree, I don't care all that much.
Also, I noticed based on the rules as they are worded, maybe there isn't actually a 300 GP rule in this draft? Only that you need at least one "active in 2012" player with 300 GP.
Not a fan of this one… needs more selling. Sometimes I think that VI relentlessly pimping this guy is the only thing keeping him from falling out of the top-1200.
Vecens needed some convincing as well but I think the case is there. I still have to hit Kings of the Ice for some flowery quotes when I get home but I think Khomutov is worthy.
Alright, I will start off my team with 1100+ Game, 500+ point, 23+ minute, all situation defenseman, Bryan McCabe.
Little separates McCabe's numbers and overall resume from a number of defensemen selected in the 400-600 range in the MLD. My defenseman study from the closing week of ATD 2012 indicates as much.
I'll also select the diminutive speedster and hero of the 1931 playoffs, Johnny "Black Cat" Gagnon.
Gagnon has remarkable percentage scores for a pre-expansion winger available at this time: 80, 80, 77, 74, 60, 52, 52 in his best 7 seasons. This is almost as good as any post-expansion winger available, and as you know, percentage scores for similar players seem to look a lot lower for pre-expansion guys.
Gagnon did have Howie Morenz as a linemate, but only until 1934. Three of Gagnon's five best seasons were without Morenz.
Alright, I will start off my team with 1100+ Game, 500+ point, 23+ minute, all situation defenseman, Bryan McCabe.
Little separates McCabe's numbers and overall resume from a number of defensemen selected in the 400-600 range in the MLD. My defenseman study from the closing week of ATD 2012 indicates as much.
Most predictable pick of the draft
If be interested in an objective comparison between Kaberle and McCabe.
These are their Norris and All Star finishes (min 1 vote):
Bryan McCabe
Norris 4, 9
AS 4, 9, 15, 22
Tomas Kaberle
Norris 11, 13, 17
AS 13, 13, ?
? = we don't have full AS records 1 season when Kaberle recorded Norris votes
A divisional matchup of Campbell vs Kaberle could be interesting especially since research is readily available. McCabe can only meet one of them in the Finals.
I'm assuming this is an all encompassing thread re: MLD. So I'll ask it here, I suppose...
First-timer inquiry: Re: Perception. I tried to look back at previous lists but didn't get a real clear indication. This is a rather abstract question, but I'm not sure if I can figure it out...I know the answer certainly WRT the ATD, but MLD I'm not positive...
What's considered more valuable (and we're talking much later in the draft) - a player that's been say a 2nd or 3rd liner with no definitive greatness, or a 5/6 defender with very little to back him up statistically that played in the league for less than 10 years or whatever (maybe in the forward's case, it's 5 or 6 with no real fanfare) - OR - a player that dominated a "lower" league back when there was only 6 NHL teams. I understand the PCHL and such leagues being important in the pre-NHL days, but with the NHL intact (though with limited jobs) and the AHL - for instance - behind it, is it more impressive to be - maybe - an above average NHLer from 2006-2012 or a fairly dominant AHLer from, say, 1946-1958? Just from a perspective standpoint...is there any indication on which would be more impressive, or is it a case by case basis thing...?
Sorry for the long, possibly complicated question...
Just speaking personally as a newbie, but it would take a lot for me to be impressed with an AHL'er from any era. An awful lot of guys go back to the fish factory rather than play in the bus leagues, so the quality of play at a lower level is always going to be suspect.
If we're talking about a guy who was consistently a top player in the AHL for years on end during the Original Six and had a plausible reason for being passed over other than talent, maybe. But that would be a major exception to the rule from what I've seen so far.
If be interested in an objective comparison between Kaberle and McCabe.
These are their Norris and All Star finishes (min 1 vote):
Bryan McCabe
Norris 4, 9
AS 4, 9, 15, 22
Tomas Kaberle
Norris 11, 13, 17
AS 13, 13, ?
? = we don't have full AS records 1 season when Kaberle recorded Norris votes
I think I did something similar before, maybe it was last MLD, but I think it was just based on their time as Leafs.
I found it... I did talk about their whole careers:
Quote:
Tough to put into such easy terms. You have to understand the "nuances" and "angles". Bryan McCabe was a rare RHS defenseman who...
never mind, I don't have the time for impressions right now.
But yeah, there's more to it than that. Here are my thoughts:
There are three levels to it.
Raw defensive ability:
Kaberle played defense like Lidstrom, just not nearly as good. He was positional and he much preferred to pokecheck. McCabe was a bit more of a puckchaser. It was much more often I'd see a guy tap in a goal when Kaberle should have been covering/clearing him than McCabe. I would say McCabe's raw, non-physical, non-puck defensive abilities were just a tad greater when they were in their primes.
Physical defensive ability:
McCabe was far superior in this regard. He was a very good bodychecker at the start of his career, and a hard worker in the corners. He had a mean streak and he would battle very hard in front of the net. He was very strong physically and that willingness and ability to clear the crease made him quite useful. Kaberle, on the other hand, is one of the softest prominent defensemen of this generation.
Puck defensive ability:
There is no doubt that McCabe was more prone to giveaways and panic. Sometimes he looked great with the puck, other times he looked like Aki 2.0. He was not as accurate a passer and was not as great a breakout player (I consider breakout ability part of defensive ability because if you don't do it successfully then are forced to defend some more). On the other hand, Kaberle rarely had a miscue with the puck on his stick, and even when he did, he had this ability to recover/retrieve it. Very underrated ability that gets overlooked when he's so soft (same as McCabe's physical defensive abilities get overlooked because of a few high profile brainfarts) At times it appeared Kaberle was "covering" for McCabe because of his recovery abilities, but that is just one side of it.
Overall, I would give McCabe a very slight edge at prevention of goals against. It's not huge or anything though.
Statistically, they are pretty similar. They have the exact same career adjusted ESGA/GP: 0.91. They had about the same stats defensively while playing together. McCabe's on/off was 1.08/0.94 with Kaberle and 1.08/0.95 without, including years on the Leafs when Kaberle was an off-ice comparable for him. Kaberle was 1.10/0.93 when playing with McCabe (indicating they were practically joined at the hip) and 1.01/0.99 without. It seems McCabe had the same results with and without Kaberle (and has now done it for over 200 more games and for more minutes per game) but Kaberle did not have the same results without McCabe.
As kind of an addendum to that, at 33 and 34 McCabe was still a 23 minute #2 defenseman. Kaberle at 32 won a cup as a #5, and was buried at #6 on a bad Montreal team at 33.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl
jesus ****ing christ this is happening again
I knew I should've taken Mccabe before , my fault
Haha!
If you listen to vecens and TDMM, this was very predictable, as was me just missing my deadline... you should have gotten here during that three-minute window
I'm assuming this is an all encompassing thread re: MLD. So I'll ask it here, I suppose...
First-timer inquiry: Re: Perception. I tried to look back at previous lists but didn't get a real clear indication. This is a rather abstract question, but I'm not sure if I can figure it out...I know the answer certainly WRT the ATD, but MLD I'm not positive...
What's considered more valuable (and we're talking much later in the draft) - a player that's been say a 2nd or 3rd liner with no definitive greatness, or a 5/6 defender with very little to back him up statistically that played in the league for less than 10 years or whatever (maybe in the forward's case, it's 5 or 6 with no real fanfare) - OR - a player that dominated a "lower" league back when there was only 6 NHL teams. I understand the PCHL and such leagues being important in the pre-NHL days, but with the NHL intact (though with limited jobs) and the AHL - for instance - behind it, is it more impressive to be - maybe - an above average NHLer from 2006-2012 or a fairly dominant AHLer from, say, 1946-1958? Just from a perspective standpoint...is there any indication on which would be more impressive, or is it a case by case basis thing...?
Sorry for the long, possibly complicated question...
Yes, very complicated, and very case-by-case.
Some would never take a chance on an AHLer.
Some (Iain Fyffe being one of them) think that they were just caught up in a numbers game and if there were even just 8 teams in the O6 then the 12 best AHL forwards of the era would have had long, productive 800 point careers there.
No one can say with 100% certainty.
I think a part of it is trying to understand where a player "ranked" on a global scale and then making an attempt to "multiply" that out to a modern standpoint.
Example: some AHL defenseman was a six-time all-star in the late 40s and early 50s. It is reasonable to conclude that, with no significant European competition, no quality players tucked away in other minor pro leagues, and the best talent mostly in the NHL, depending on the depth of the parent club, that this player was probably the 20th-30th-best defenseman in the world.
The next step is to have some sort of multiplier that you can use as a representation of how much bigger the talent pool feeding the NHL has become. Typically it's accepted that it's currently twice the size since 1987 or so, since the number of Canadians has stayed more or less the same. It's probably safe to say that it at least doubled between 1950 and 1987. So you have a 4X multiplier to work with. 20th-30th in 1950 = 80th-120th in modern times. You're looking at a guy who would be a #3-4 defenseman in today's game. Does that compare to the players currently available, who were #1 defensemen on their own teams as many as nine times? I'd say no.
I think this is a much easier exercise with defensemen and goalies than with forwards, unfortunately, since forwards are judged mainly on production, and predicting what their stats would have been in the O6 era is really tough (you can't just say "this O6 AHL center who won 5 scoring titles, I think he could have put up Keon numbers without the defense, maybe at a Paul Ronty level or so")
and all the above is just food for thought. maybe you will devise your own way. maybe there's reason to believe that defensemen wasn't 20th-30th best in the world, but 10th! maybe he was just 40th-50th. Maybe the multiplier should be 8X! maybe just 1.2X. We're all ballparking it as best as we can and trying to back it up as best as we can.
I'm assuming this is an all encompassing thread re: MLD. So I'll ask it here, I suppose...
First-timer inquiry: Re: Perception. I tried to look back at previous lists but didn't get a real clear indication. This is a rather abstract question, but I'm not sure if I can figure it out...I know the answer certainly WRT the ATD, but MLD I'm not positive...
What's considered more valuable (and we're talking much later in the draft) - a player that's been say a 2nd or 3rd liner with no definitive greatness, or a 5/6 defender with very little to back him up statistically that played in the league for less than 10 years or whatever (maybe in the forward's case, it's 5 or 6 with no real fanfare) - OR - a player that dominated a "lower" league back when there was only 6 NHL teams. I understand the PCHL and such leagues being important in the pre-NHL days, but with the NHL intact (though with limited jobs) and the AHL - for instance - behind it, is it more impressive to be - maybe - an above average NHLer from 2006-2012 or a fairly dominant AHLer from, say, 1946-1958? Just from a perspective standpoint...is there any indication on which would be more impressive, or is it a case by case basis thing...?
Sorry for the long, possibly complicated question...
Its complicated alright and it all depends on the player. I'll say this, an domination or near dominating player in the AHL during the O6 era is more impressive than an average 3rd liner in the modern era. It depends on the player though.
What's considered more valuable (and we're talking much later in the draft) - a player that's been say a 2nd or 3rd liner with no definitive greatness, or a 5/6 defender with very little to back him up statistically that played in the league for less than 10 years or whatever (maybe in the forward's case, it's 5 or 6 with no real fanfare) - OR - a player that dominated a "lower" league back when there was only 6 NHL teams. I understand the PCHL and such leagues being important in the pre-NHL days, but with the NHL intact (though with limited jobs) and the AHL - for instance - behind it, is it more impressive to be - maybe - an above average NHLer from 2006-2012 or a fairly dominant AHLer from, say, 1946-1958? Just from a perspective standpoint...is there any indication on which would be more impressive, or is it a case by case basis thing...?
THE TOP LEAGUE OF ANY ERA IS WHAT MATTERS MOST. hOW DID A GUY COMPETE AGAINST THE BEST OF HIS ERA? Since the 1920's it's been the NHL, though for two decades the world of hockey admitted that European national teams were comparable (Soviets, Czechoslovakians) and so international tourneys of the 70's and 80's were often considered highest echelon competition for the era. Earlier leagues like the WHL, WCHA, PCHA, NHA had top-level talent and before that the Canadian amateurs of Montreal, Ottawa and Winnipeg were beating each other for the Stanley Cup, the biggest prize in hockey even back then.
The AHL has never been a top tier league for any era and as such I for one have never researcher any career AHLer for the all-time great drafts. Of course, as a question mark, it might be worth getting an extra skater later on of a some guy who excelled at the next-best level but for some reason didn't make the big stage (eg., due to racism, geography, politics or Original 6 team depth).
