HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 - Draft Thread V

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-28-2013, 02:40 PM
  #226
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JFA87-66-99 View Post
What does my clock expire? I'm gonna be awhile still at work
6:21 PM EST, about 3 hours and 40 minutes from now.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:42 PM
  #227
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
What makes him so special? I'm asking you because you obviously saw him play. He must have been pretty special to get his number retired, but other than that, his resume is pretty unimpressive - never broke 60 points in a high scoring era, only played in one All Star Game, finished 7th in postsason All Star voting the only season he got more than a single vote, never got a single vote for the Selke, never killed penalties.
Nystrom was like clockwork - he never took a single shift off, never failed to finish a check, never backed down from a fight, never stopped hustling or grinding no matter the situation. He played hurt, was never discouraged, never complained, was an example to the younger players and came through in the clutch. He probably has the highest "character" of any single player I have ever seen.

Heh...the above sounds like a bunch of hyperbole, doesn't it? It probably is, to some extent, but that is how many Islanders fans feel about Bob Nystrom. In spite of his obvious lack of real, discernable talent, or hands, or skating ability, there was something about him that was great, an indefinable quality which was somehow important to the success of those teams. That is the funny thing about destiny and winning. There have probably been other Bob Nystroms who toiled in silence for crap teams and were never noticed, and I would talk those guys up if I could, but I'm not really sure who they were. Bob Nystrom got the opportunity to show what a great hockey player he was in spite of his relative lack of talent, and he took it.

I can't give you a better explanation than that. All this mushy **** is exactly why I have avoided talking about the Islanders in the past. I loved that team entirely too much for rationality to come easily when discussing them.

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:42 PM
  #228
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
In Amonte's case, I'm not so sure. The bio Reen just posted on him has a lot of what I think is new information (and some old stuff I already knew like how he and Mortal_Kombat didn't get along in New York, which led to the infamous trade) on Amonte which roughly corresponds with my recollection of him as a Ranger and then later as a legitimate bad-team star in Chicago, though that's really not my argument to make. Gaborik isn't as well-rounded as the others, sure, but I don't think that can explain a 300 pick gap (or whatever it is) between he and Cournoyer, for example, who wasn't exactly the embodiment of intangibles, himself.

At any rate, offensive production is obviously only one aspect of a player's total value (though for scoringline forwards it is also clearly the most important aspect), and I'm the last person who you're going to catch ignoring intangibles. Be that as it may, I have still found a harder look into the offensive production of NHL scoringliners to be a pretty illuminating exercise.
Honestly, Cournoyer probably isn't a better regular season player than Amonte, but he was so good in the playoffs so consistently and so many times, that I think it's fair to say that it was more than just statistical noise, and Cournoyer was, in fact, a great playoff performer. I know there are game accounts on how other teams had to shadow him with their speediest forwards so he didn't just burn them with his speed in the playoffs.

Lemaire and Anderson were great playoff performers and brought more than just offense on top of it (especially Lemaire).

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:48 PM
  #229
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Am I a victim of an EB bio?

He sounded like he fit what I was trying to make my defense look like this year to me.

My impression was he was pretty decent all around but with an edge at times.
You're not a victim of my biography on Bert Corbeau. 70's is definitely the biggest 'hater' (for lack of better word) of Bert Corbeau around these boards. I respectfully disagree with his assessment of Corbeau. Him & me had a lengthly discussion on Corbeau when I drafted him two drafts ago, and we never ended up making a compromise. We definitely view Corbeau in different regards.

I see Bert Corbeau as good #4 defenceman in a 32-teams draft. His biggest strength his it's physicality & bodychecking abilities in this draft, which are close to elite. Corbeau is an all-around defenceman, but he was better offensively than defensively IMO. I wouldn't trust him to be the best defensive conscience between his partner & him if use on a second pairing. He was probably below-average in term of speed. He's fine on a 2ndPP(#4) & 2ndPK IMO.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I wouldn't phrase it like that, but you probably ended up overrating Corbeau if you just read EB's bio of him, yes. EB is really good at gathering information, formatting it, and putting it all together in one place where it is easy to access, and he is among the most honest GMs about the faults of his players. He is not, however, particularly good at presenting the information in such a way that it is easy to digest without a clear understanding of the context. In Corbeau's case...I think the bio is pretty flattering, and I agree with TDMM that Big Bert should not be anywhere near an ATD 1st unit powerplay. He'd be below-average as a 2nd unit guy, IMO, but on a 1st unit he's a big, fluttering red flag of do not want.
You're right that I may not be the best to put the information into context. I'm a gatherer. Especially with the apparition of Google Archives & me buying a throng of books from Jarek a few years back (although I'm always traveling), people should assume that if it's not written in my biography, the information is unavailable (good or bad).

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Oilers of the mid 80's, Habs of the late 70's, Leafs of the mid 60's are all arguably better.
But all these teams are impossible to build in the ATD. Can you imagine trying to draft Guy Lafleur, Larry Robinson, Ken Dryden, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe, Yvan Cournoyer, Jacques Lemaire, Steve Shutt, Bob Gainey etc ....

EagleBelfour is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 02:56 PM
  #230
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,900
vCash: 500
My thoughts with Corbeau is that yes, there is a lot to like about his hitting, and he was a regular for the 1919 Cup win. But where would he be drafted if it weren't for the one-liner from Ultimate Hockey, calling him the "best hitter of the 1920s" or something like that?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:00 PM
  #231
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
My thoughts with Corbeau is that yes, there is a lot to like about his hitting, and he was a regular for the 1919 Cup win. But where would he be drafted if it weren't for the one-liner from Ultimate Hockey, calling him the "best hitter of the 1920s" or something like that?
The most thing I gathered on Bert Corbeau was his physicality + bodychecking ability. It's definitely the one aspect of the game you can't really attack him on.

EDIT: I remember there's a book on Bert Corbeau out there, but it's a rare issue. Never was able to even see it on sale on Amazon or eBay.

EagleBelfour is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:06 PM
  #232
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
The most thing I gathered on Bert Corbeau was his physicality + bodychecking ability. It's definitely the one aspect of the game you can't really attack him on.
Definitely, but I don't know if that's enough to make him a top 4 defenseman at this level.

Quote:
EDIT: I remember there's a book on Bert Corbeau out there, but it's a rare issue. Never was able to even see it on sale on Amazon or eBay.
Do you know what it's called? It is interesting that he was considered important enough to write a book about.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:09 PM
  #233
papershoes
Registered User
 
papershoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kenora, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think the Oilers and Habs dynasties would be impossible to reunite here. The mid 60s Leafs would be possible but difficult - you'd have to trade your 1st rounder away, get Horton and Mahovlich in the second, then... wait, nevermind, forgot about Red Kelly. I'm not sure if it's possible to get Kelly and the rest of the 60s Leafs, because Kellys' drafted on what he did in Detroit.

The Islanders might be possible - you'd have to trade a crap ton of depth to get 2 first rounders to use on Potvin and Trottier, then cross your fingers that Bossy falls like he did this year. You'd have to really work hard to get Gillies and Tonelli of all people though.
I toiled with drafting an 80's Oilers theme team one ATD, even started my draft with Gretzky, Messier, and Coffey...but, it proved very difficult to continue with the theme after that (though I did manage to snag Sather as well). When I look back, despite the lack of depth, I really liked that version of the Thistles...

papershoes is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:11 PM
  #234
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by papershoes View Post
I toiled with drafting an 80's Oilers theme team one ATD, even started my draft with Gretzky, Messier, and Coffey...but, it proved very difficult to continue with the theme after that (though I did manage to snag Sather as well). When I look back, despite the lack of depth, I really liked that version of the Thistles...
Yeah, that's probably the closest anyone has ever come, but IIRC, you couldn't get Kurri and Anderson because you had to trade so much depth away to move up and get Messier and Coffey. Was that ATD11? I feel it was one of the drafts I followed without participating.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:13 PM
  #235
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,136
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
You're not a victim of my biography on Bert Corbeau. 70's is definitely the biggest 'hater' (for lack of better word) of Bert Corbeau around these boards. I respectfully disagree with his assessment of Corbeau. Him & me had a lengthly discussion on Corbeau when I drafted him two drafts ago, and we never ended up making a compromise. We definitely view Corbeau in different regards.
I didn't mean anything bad by that comment EB -- I just relied on your previous bio for a lot of my decision on drafting him.

Quote:
I see Bert Corbeau as good #4 defenceman in a 32-teams draft. His biggest strength his it's physicality & bodychecking abilities in this draft, which are close to elite. Corbeau is an all-around defenceman, but he was better offensively than defensively IMO. I wouldn't trust him to be the best defensive conscience between his partner & him if use on a second pairing. He was probably below-average in term of speed. He's fine on a 2ndPP(#4) & 2ndPK IMO.
He was my 4th defenseman drafted but I have my two top defensemen split on my top two pairs and my 3/4 split as well. Trying to even things out a bit while matching skills.

I'm probably going to catch flak because I have him playing with Cleghorn at even strength but he is on my second units for special teams right now (depending who I draft into the 6th spot).

I am trying to have a (mostly) very physical defense this year in front of Tretiak so I thought he fit what I was trying to do quite well.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:18 PM
  #236
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,319
vCash: 500
Please, android chrome browser, don’t let this post be full of stars when I hit send…
*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Eh...they may be close at this point, but a four round gap between them is still madness. Of course, Richards should not go in the 10th round, but that is another conversation.
*
Oh, nice… finally the Richards backlash starts! I have been in disbelief at how high he’s been picked for the last 3 drafts. More on that later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
3) Turgeon was not a particularly good even-strength player on the Island. He didn't really fit into Arbour's checking system, wasn't in the slightest bit physical, and basically took every shift like he was on a powerplay - pecking around the perimeter and trying to make a pretty backdoor pass or set up a one-timer while his linemates did all the work. This was stylistically not what Isles fans were accustomed to, but it is also a legitimate gripe about Turgeon's play. I would say that Turgeon was only New York's best even-strength player in one of his three years on the Island (the one huge scoring season). Other than that, ***** was definitely better.
*
Well, I can definitely see what you mean about 1992 and 1994. Turgeon was still their best ES scorer by wide margin, but not as wide a margin that he paced the team in PP scoring:
*
Turgeon: 138 GP, 113 ESP (0.82), 61 PPP (0.44), 174 pts
Player A: 162 GP, 107 ESP (0.66), 26 PPP (0.16), 133 pts
Player B: 155 GP, 102 ESP (0.66), 35 PPP (0.23), 137 Pts
Player C: 158 GP, 87 ESP (0.55), 61 PPP (0.39), 148 Pts
Player D: 149 GP, 94 ESP (0.63), 51 PPP (0.34), 145 Pts
*
On the PP these other 4 players (the only 4 other noteworthy offensive players on the team) averaged .277 PPG on the PP, and Turgeon scored .442, or 60% more. At ES, they averaged .625 PPG and he averaged .819, or “just” 31% more. He was definitely the ES offensive star of the team (as I’m sure you knew). Whether Stumpy’s “digging and checking” actually overcame the drastic ES point difference is a subjective matter, but I’d personally be on the side that it doesn’t.
*
Over the course of these two seasons he led the team in G, A, Pts, ESA, ESP, PPA, and PPP. He was one off the lead for ESG (in 11 fewer games) and the guy he was feeding on the PP naturally ended up with 8 more PPG (0.03 more per game). In per-game numbers he runs away with everything but PPG, of course.
*
Obviously if you include 1993 he runs away with the lead in 8 of the 9 categories and ties for the PP goal lead (in 14 fewer games) but this was not about 1993.
*
I’m not sure if this is typical for the premier offensive player of a team or not. What I do know is that when you look at his career-long numbers in comparison to other similar players (as I did two drafts ago), Turgeon did not prove to be a player who needed the PP to produce any more than the average star center did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
3 top 10 finishes for Richards vs 2 for Turgeon plus a Conn Smythe for Richards, plus while Richards isn't an intangibles beast by any stretch (it was hilarious seeing one of his previous owners try to portray him as such), he's still better than Turgeon in things that don't involve putting up points. Turgeon may very well be ahead of Richards (he definitely beats him in longevity as an impact player, which I'm sure VS2 scores would show), but is it really by that much?

I think both guys are near the top of the "Hall of Very Good" class of centers.
*
I believe that was HHH, right? I called him out on that.
*
Anyway, yeah, I do think it is by a lot. For one thing, as has already been shown, Turgeon does come out ahead based on 7 best seasons, and it is by a margin of 7.5%. So if you wanted to be extremely simplistic about it, you could say Turgeon is 7.5% more offensively potent than Richards. But that’s simplistic and it’s an absolute bare minimum.
*
1.****** 1993 has to be looked at more closely. When Richards’ 79 point season in 2004 comes out ahead of Turgeon’s 132 points in 1993, something is wrong. Just using math and the league scoring levels, 79 points in 2004 equates to 111 in 2003. I know that something’s up with that season, but does it account for such a huge difference? I doubt it even accounts for half of it. So there’s already a disservice being done to Turgeon when people say that their 3 best seasons are about even. Turgeon definitely peaked higher. I guarantee that when a percentage or adjusted points system is “standardized” and accepted, it will demonstrate this in a way the current system just doesn’t.
2.****** These comparisons are about compiling points and don’t tell the whole story of how much they were actually producing while playing. Richards missed 10 games in 2011 but has otherwise been perfectly healthy over his 9 best seasons. Turgeon missed a few horribly-timed games in what would have likely been his three best seasons (110, 103, 95 scores, all a good chunk above his current 89 peak) and currently they represent his 7th, 9th and 10th best seasons in terms of how many raw points he compiled compared to the leader.
*
Using the scores you guys are quoting (not my sheet), Turgeon’s best 7 seasons on a “percentage score per 100 games” basis* (adjusted to season length since he played 80, 82, 84 and 48 game seasons) are 135, 125, 116, 110, 110, 110, 108 (115 average, when properly weighted by GP in these seasons) . Richards’ are 111, 108, 105, 104, 89, 87, 83 (97.5 average). A much more accurate way to describe the difference between their production than “Turgeon is 7.5% more productive than Richards” would be “Turgeon is 18% more productive than Richards, but will miss 13-14% of his games, while Richards will miss just 2-3% of his.” (A 10 season analysis would conclude he is 20% more productive and that they’d miss 3% and 10% of their games. *To put into a digestible format, imagine them as perhaps 60 points in 80 games, and 66 points in 74 games) In either case, the more productive player is much more valuable. GVT seems to demonstrate that too, when you have Crosby in 2011 coming out 3rd in GVT among centers despite being 16th in points among them.
*
*yes, I realize “per 100 games” is stupid, I don’t want to do the work all over again, but any unit of measurement would work the same.
*
3.****** Three other factors that work in Turgeon’s favour are goals, (38.6% of his points are goals compared to 31.2% for Richards), PP time (Richards has been less productive on the PP on a per-unit basis but has spent a disproportionately high amount of time there – 77%, top-50 all-time, boosting his PP and overall point totals, which definitely matters in separate comparisons of lines and PP units) and linemates (Richards has proven to be a good point collector without a star winger, but his best two seasons and 5th best were with Martin St. Louis, a player far better than Turgeon ever had on his line)

I mean, even the playoff thing has started to even out as Richards has gotten into more games and seen his average regress to the mean. Currently Turgeon has 20 more points in 26 more games. (55% of his games were DPE, 41% for Richards). And although this might be partially a situational thing, Turgeon is currently over 200 (raw and adjusted) +/- points up on Richards for his career, playing on teams that were 2% below average without him and 25% better than average with him (Richards’ teams were 9% below average without him on the ice at ES, 6% below average with him)
*
Side note, the comparison in part 2, how it would apply to Henrik Sedin, is that he averaged 99.4 “percentage score per 100 games” so based on best 7 seasons, about 16% less than Turgeon on a per-game basis (with half as many goals) but he would never miss a game, and Turgeon would miss about 11. (this is a weighted per-game metric but Turgeon is still a few percent ahead in raw stats over best 7 years anyway, with 6 more notable seasons) Without any shred of a doubt I would gladly take Pierre Turgeon on my ATD team over Brad Richards and Henrik Sedin, both of whom have become highly overrated here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Thanks. The way "adjusted points" treat 1992-93 sticks out like a sore thumb.
*
Are you sure about that? Just a quick look at the points versus adjusted points shows that in 1993, 20% of Turgeon’s point total was lopped off to arrive at his adjusted total. In 1983, when I look at Denis Savard, 19% of his total is lopped off to arrive at his adjusted total. And league scoring in 1983 was 7% higher than in 1993, so there has to be something else at work causing 1993 totals to be “punished” more harshly here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Actually, I generally use top-7 as my first guideline when evaluating postwar players, because I think seven years has been an average length peak for a good while now. I am somewhat more forgiving for prewar guys, though it depends a lot on the setting. Not that I'm a normal person...but I think there is a good deal of rationality to this. Ten years is a long peak, and five years is short. Seven just feels right to me, so I tend to use that as the magic number of seasons that I look at when making my first evaluations. Anyone whose peak tapers off before they hit seven seasons gets knocked in my calculations, and anyone whose peak lasts longer gets diminishing rewards for every season after seven.

This is one of the greatest areas of methodological "disagreement" between seventies and I. He seems to reward players as much for their 12th best season as for their 1st, but that's probably just a product of watching Mats Sundin be "really very good" for so long. I don't see much reason to value comparative stats for seasons 8+ as much as I do for the period of time that covers a normal athletic peak, so I guess I probably like Richards more than some do. I'm not Richards' biggest fan by any means, but I think he has reached an average length peak by this point and can be fairly compared to other ATDers without getting knocked too much for inferior longevity.

Longevity is nice and I am not a fan of short-peak players, but in a one season setting like the ATD, I tend to view longevity as a kind of intangible (like health and season-to-season consistency) rather than a first-order criteria when evaluating players. I guess that means Pierre Turgeon has at least one "intangible" by my criteria, which sounds kind of wrong, but that's generally how I see things.
*
I don’t know what you mean when you say we disagree greatly on this. I don’t think that’s the case at all.
*
-********* I have most often used 6 seasons as a peak period for comparison (usually best 6, not best consecutive 6). TDMM would vouch for this as he’s been in many lower drafts with me as well. Preferring 7 vs. preferring 6 is not a huge difference in philosophy, and using 6 over 7 would make me less longevity friendly.
-********* I agree that extra greatness beyond a generally accepted peak length (5, 6, 7 years) is worth something, but less.
-********* I definitely do not reward a player as much for their 12th best season as for their first, but I know you were just being hyperbolic for effect. When analyzing players’ offense in my last ATD, I actually plugged their top-10 percentage scores into a formula that weighted them (I think 20, 18, 17, 16, 15, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10) and then divided by 146 to yield a weighted average that favours peak. Not as heavily as some might favour it, but it still did. So if I were to claim a low peak, high longevity guy to be better than a higher peak player, he’d have to really win the longevity battle.
-********* I am closer to you on the whole “what does it mean to have a good 8th-12th best season?” question than you probably realize. I think that this type of extended peak does somewhat increase a player’s offensive potential in an ATD season, but not significantly. I think that more importantly, it manifests itself in the form of greater game-to-game consistency. For example, using what I said above, suppose Turgeon gets 66 points, maybe he has points in 52 games and 14 pointless games, but Richards has 60 points, close to the same total, but is more streaky and PP-dependent, and actually has points in just 36 games with 24 pointless games. Maybe that’s a drastic example, but that’s about how I see it. I mean, suppose Richards actually did have 7 seasons as good as Turgeon’s 7 best right now. Would they just be even? There has to be some accounting for the fact that Turgeon did it for 50% longer. Right? (and the possibility exists that Richards is done as a top producer now anyway, as he had his lowest PPG in a decade last year, didn’t come close to leading his team, and is so far even lower this year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Elias was 9th from 1999 to 2004. Elias was 9th, 7 points behind 4th, over the 5 years before the 2004 lockout, and of course is in the top 5 in playoff scoring for multiple 6 year periods, including a 1st.

The biggest thing about Elias being held back would be TOI. He was 3rd in points in 2001 but only 107th in TOI. He was 6th in points in 2004 but only 103rd in TOI. He was 10th in points in 2012 but only 94th in TOI.
*
Surely you mean among forwards, right? Because to include all defensemen in that TOI ranking would be pretty misleading.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:19 PM
  #237
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Definitely, but I don't know if that's enough to make him a top 4 defenseman at this level.



Do you know what it's called? It is interesting that he was considered important enough to write a book about.
- I think I've made my case with my biography. It would be an interesting (albeit time consuming) exercice to try and name 128 better defenceman than Corbeau.

- http://www.habseyesontheprize.com/20...f-bert-corbeau

EagleBelfour is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:20 PM
  #238
papershoes
Registered User
 
papershoes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Kenora, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,707
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yeah, that's probably the closest anyone has ever come, but IIRC, you couldn't get Kurri and Anderson because you had to trade so much depth away to move up and get Messier and Coffey. Was that ATD11? I feel it was one of the drafts I followed without participating.
It was ATD #11. And, your right, when Kurri went at pick 53, that was the end of my Oilers reunion tour. Looking back at the trade thread, I made some absolutely crazy trades that draft (probably the reason we now have trade committees)

papershoes is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:24 PM
  #239
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,413
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I didn't mean anything bad by that comment EB -- I just relied on your previous bio for a lot of my decision on drafting him.



He was my 4th defenseman drafted but I have my two top defensemen split on my top two pairs and my 3/4 split as well. Trying to even things out a bit while matching skills.

I'm probably going to catch flak because I have him playing with Cleghorn at even strength but he is on my second units for special teams right now (depending who I draft into the 6th spot).

I am trying to have a (mostly) very physical defense this year in front of Tretiak so I thought he fit what I was trying to do quite well.
- Don't worry, I don't think what you wrote was meant in a diminutive way towards me

- You're using Bert Corbeau on your 1st pairing at ES? I really wouldn't go that far!

EagleBelfour is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:24 PM
  #240
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,007
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think Gaborik and Amonte might be similar in regular season point production to Lemaire, Cournoyer, and Anderson, but I would take the latter three well ahead of them as overall players.
Perhaps you might want to check out my Amonte bio , I think I provided a lot of informations about his intangibles and in my mind he has been underrated , or just wait I'll post a shorter version in the main thread in a couple of minutes.

BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:26 PM
  #241
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by papershoes View Post
It was ATD #11. And, your right, when Kurri went at pick 53, that was the end of my Oilers reunion tour. Looking back at the trade thread, I made some absolutely crazy trades that draft (probably the reason we now have trade committees)
You were definitely part of the reason we cracked down on trades, but not the only reason. I think the fact that the best 4 teams of ATD2010 (including my team) all made at least one lopsided trade in their favor was a big part of it.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:27 PM
  #242
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 8,162
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Honestly, Cournoyer probably isn't a better regular season player than Amonte, but he was so good in the playoffs so consistently and so many times, that I think it's fair to say that it was more than just statistical noise, and Cournoyer was, in fact, a great playoff performer. I know there are game accounts on how other teams had to shadow him with their speediest forwards so he didn't just burn them with his speed in the playoffs.

Lemaire and Anderson were great playoff performers and brought more than just offense on top of it (especially Lemaire).
Oh, I fully agree with all of the above. Regular season scoring achievements are the best measure of "talent" and "production" that we have for scoringline forwards, but they cannot measure all of the other things that are important for a hockey player. Perhaps it is only a matter of opportunity, but like Bob Nystrom, Cournoyer, Lemaire and Anderson got the opportunity to show what they could do when the chips were down, and they came through. This is part of history and their careers, and it is obviously important.

To be honest, however, I think in the ATD we sometimes let the glare of playoff glory blind us to the actual ability of the players. In many ways, this is less about Marian Gaborik than it is about Paul Kariya. I mean...Glenn Anderson was a star in the NHL, and he was a winner. But Paul Kariya was a superstar. Why do he and Anderson typically get drafted within 10-20 picks of one another? Are Anderson's playoff heroics so great that they make him as valuable as a guy like Kariya, who was, in all honesty, vastly more talented?

Sturminator is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:27 PM
  #243
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jafar View Post
Perhaps you might want to check out my Amonte bio , I think I provided a lot of informations about his intangibles and in my mind he has been underrated , or just wait I'll post a shorter version in the main thread in a couple of minutes.
Yeah, you're not going to convince me he was anywhere close to Lemaire defensively, to Anderson physically, or to any of the three in the playoffs.

Edit: But yes, he was probably underrated to an extent.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 02-28-2013 at 03:33 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:28 PM
  #244
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,900
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Oh, I fully agree with all of the above. Regular season scoring achievements are the best measure of "talent" and "production" that we have for scoringline forwards, but they cannot measure all of the other things that are important for a hockey player. Perhaps it is only a matter of opportunity, but like Bob Nystrom, Cournoyer, Lemaire and Anderson got the opportunity to show what they could do when the chips were down, and they came through. This is part of history and their careers, and it is obviously important.

To be honest, however, I think in the ATD we sometimes let the glare of playoff glory blind us to the actual ability of the players. In many ways, this is less about Marian Gaborik than it is about Paul Kariya. I mean...Glenn Anderson was a star in the NHL, and he was a winner. But Paul Kariya was a superstar. Why do he and Anderson typically get drafted within 10-20 picks of one another? Are Anderson's playoff heroics so great that they make him as valuable as a guy like Kariya, who was, in all honesty, vastly more talented?
Anderson is something of a "power forward light" or "puck winner light" isn't he? There's always a premium on those guys. I might just be nitpicking here; I kind of agree on your overall point.

Actually, I don't think there is any longer an overemphasis on playoffs in the ATD - you almost never see people talking about the playoffs in comparisons between players once they are actually compared. I think the draft positions are somewhat a relic of ATD canon. I look fondly back on my first entry in ATD12 and how I was able to get Kariya in the 300s and Markus Naslund in the 400s, probably because GMs were terrified of drafting offensive-minded modern players who never won the Cup.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:33 PM
  #245
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 27,319
vCash: 500
Sorry, again, about the stars.
*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
The VsTop18 numbers are kinder to 70's players Cournoyer, Lemaire and Taylor, for reasons which are up for debate. I have my own theory as to why that might be so, but I'm interested in input from the rest of the crowd. It's obviously up to each GM to determine if the results of this study are insightful or worthless quackery on my part. They perhaps shed light into a few shadowy corners of the ATD - on a few players who have been persistently over or underrated as a result of canon, prejudice or lack of information. Or perhaps not...
As others have already said in different ways, I think that the 70s guys look better using that method because the 18th scorer was not as good then as they are now. For a few reasons: WHA, Europe, overall talent pool size, and of course league size plays a part. Comparing to 18th in the 70s is the marquee player of a bad team, or the 3rd/4th best scorer on a dominant team. 18th nowadays is the marquee player of an above average team, or the 2nd or maybe 3rd best scorer on a team with great top-end depth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
What makes him so special? I'm asking you because you obviously saw him play. He must have been pretty special to get his number retired, but other than that, his resume is pretty unimpressive - never broke 60 points in a high scoring era, only played in one All Star Game, finished 7th in postsason All Star voting the only season he got more than a single vote, never got a single vote for the Selke, never killed penalties.
*
I don’t dispute anything Sturm says about him, but I have a feeling that his cup winning OT goal has a lot to do with his jersey retirement.
*
Stuff like that can be said about a lot of guys who are drafted for 3rd/4th line ATD (and MLD) roles. It’s really difficult to quantify, and in a lot of cases the tiebreaker almost has to be who can move up in the lineup if they have to (i.e. who proved they can “also” be a scorer if need be?)

Quote:
Originally Posted by EagleBelfour View Post
You're not a victim of my biography on Bert Corbeau. 70's is definitely the biggest 'hater' (for lack of better word) of Bert Corbeau around these boards.
*
The correct term is “pirate”.
*
Quote:
me buying a throng of books from Jarek a few years back
*
What? He told me that was Stoneberg!

seventieslord is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:33 PM
  #246
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,007
vCash: 800
About Tony Amonte's intangibles:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/16/sp...k-growing.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Messier
"He's like a kamikaze, the way he goes to the net with abandon," Messier said. "He's one of our hardest workers. An unbelievable talent, with a great disposition to go with it."
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/11/11/sp...k-goes-on.html
Quote:
Amonte, starved for goals and forced to content himself with the unglamorous, often unrecorded contributions of a grinder
http://www.lcshockey.com/issues/76/76award.asp
Quote:
And it wasn't just that he was scoring goals, it was how he scored them. Amonte took charge of games and dominated with his speed and determination. He came through with the big goals in the big games and he did all the little things to make himself and his team better. When he wasn't blasting shots on net or streaking in on breakaways, Amonte became a much more aggressive hitter and took care of business in the defensive end, racking up an incredible +35. The guy did it all.
http://www.lcshockey.com/issues/103/103right.asp
Quote:
4. Tony Amonte, Chicago Blackhawks: When discussing the best all-around forwards in the game, the usual names come up: Peter Forsberg, Ron Francis, Mike Modano, Steve Yzerman, Sergei Fedorov. Well, it's about time that people start to realize that Amonte belongs in that group.

While his skating and scoring always gets the majority of the attention, Amonte is a tremendous defensive player. A tireless worker without the puck, Amonte uses his fearsome speed to pressure the play all over the ice and seldom misses an opportunity to finish a check. Once the puck does get turned over, Amonte's speed again comes into play, making him one of the most dangerous transition players in the game.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1...ck-tony-amonte
Quote:
But Graham says Amonte has become one of his most responsible defensive players, not a bad admission coming from the 1991 winner of the Frank Selke Trophy, awarded to the forward who best excels at defense.

"Tony has always been able to score," says Graham. "The biggest thing he has been able to accomplish is becoming a strong defensive player. He didn't have that when he first got here. That's the key to his whole success. He does the little things defensively and gets all kinds of scoring chances because of it. That's part of rounding out your game."
http://www.lcshockey.com/issues/111/111all.asp
Quote:
He works the defensive zone like a demon, he hits, he scores goals, he sticks up for his teammates, and oh yeah, he can skate really, really fast. It's gotta be the hair. Amonte is simply one of the coolest players in the NHL.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...n-battle-hawks
Quote:
When Blackhawks captain Tony Amonte steps onto the ice, he is a personification of the city in which he plays.

"I always think of Tony Amonte as a blue-collar superstar," says Nashville coach Barry Trotz. "He has world-class, elite skills. He has a lot of flair and flash and pizzazz. "To go with his high skills, he has a very strong work ethic. He always comes to play and battle. He never takes the night off."
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2...ks-free-agents
Quote:
But factor defensive play, durability and attitude into the Amonte equation and he becomes much harder for the Hawks to replace. His streak of 369 straight games is the longest in the NHL.
http://www.lcshockey.com/sept02/topright.asp
Quote:
Amonte could score 10 goals and he'd still be a tremendous addition to any club. No one works harder. He plays every shift like it's his last. He's not some pretty boy goal scorer living off the sweat of his teammates. Amonte does all his own dirty work. And you know he's gonna show up every night. Amonte hasn't missed a game in five years, and he's only missed two contests over the past eight seasons. Death and taxes aren't so reliable.
http://slam.canoe.ca/Slam/Hockey/NHL...47764-sun.html
Quote:
"He's a very talented player, very quick. He works hard all the time ... He's happy to be first in there on the forecheck," said the Flames captain, adding Amonte is more than just a flashy scorer. "Before you play with him, you just think that he's very talented and fast and everything and (don't) really get to appreciate how much he digs and grinds and competes."


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 02-28-2013 at 03:39 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:40 PM
  #247
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 44,900
vCash: 500
From all that, I gather than he became very good defensively for a scoring line player about halfway through his career, which is good, but doesn't put him in Lemaire's class as a defensive player (I'm not sure if you're trying to say he's in Lemaire's class; if you're not then I guess you're not).

He was traded away from New York in 1994, largely because he was a fairly one-dimensional scorer and their incoming coach hated guys like that, but I guess he rounded out more in Chicago.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:42 PM
  #248
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,007
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
From all that, I gather than he became very good defensively for a scoring line player about halfway through his career, which is good, but doesn't put him in Lemaire's class as a defensive player (I'm not sure if you're trying to say he's in Lemaire's class; if you're not then I guess you're not).

He was traded away from New York in 1994, largely because he was a one-dimensional scorer and their incoming coach hated guys like that, but I guess he rounded out more in Chicago.
Perhaps not , my point was to say that Amonte's reputation as one dimensional fast scorer is erroneous and I think I provided an overwhelming amount of evidance to back up his all-around play.

He'll fit perfectly with Klukay and Luce on the right side , Amonte did it all.

Oh and also , halfway through his career? He came in Chicago at 23 years and retired at 36 , not exactly what I would call halfway through his career.

BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:44 PM
  #249
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,136
vCash: 500
My recollection is that Amonte wasn't much of a defensive player early in his career.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
02-28-2013, 03:47 PM
  #250
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 12,007
vCash: 800
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
My recollection is that Amonte wasn't much of a defensive player early in his career.
Perhaps not in New York , but it seems he was in Chicago , which was a big majority of his career.

BenchBrawl is offline  
Closed Thread

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 02:45 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.