HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2013 Lineup Assassination Thread - Bob Cole Division

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-28-2013, 06:11 PM
  #126
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Ken Reardon is a solid, though injury prone #1.
This is a typo, right?

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:21 PM
  #127
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
This is a typo, right?
Yes, obviously. And a pretty big typo at that Fixed it.

I think Reardon's an average #2, so playing next to a bargain #1, it's obviously a below average top pairing. But I do think Gerard and Reardon compliment each other very well, and the main thing the pairing is missing is offense.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:44 PM
  #128
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yes, obviously. And a pretty big typo at that Fixed it.

I think Reardon's an average #2, so playing next to a bargain #1, it's obviously a below average top pairing. But I do think Gerard and Reardon compliment each other very well, and the main thing the pairing is missing is offense.
Thanks for the review, and I will touch on it when I have the time. Onne quick comment is I hope Reardon doesn't get penalized on both ends for his shorter career.

Either he is an excellent #2 and will mist 12-15 games, or he is a good #2 and will not miss any.

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:53 PM
  #129
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Thanks for the review, and I will touch on it when I have the time. Onne quick comment is I hope Reardon doesn't get penalized on both ends for his shorter career.

Either he is an excellent #2 and will mist 12-15 games, or he is a good #2 and will not miss any.
Probably true.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 06:58 PM
  #130
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Thanks for the review, and I will touch on it when I have the time. Onne quick comment is I hope Reardon doesn't get penalized on both ends for his shorter career.
How would he get penalized twice?

Quote:
Either he is an excellent #2 and will mist 12-15 games, or he is a good #2 and will not miss any.
I don't think he's anything above an average #2, but feel free to make a case.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 07:02 PM
  #131
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,907
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Fourth Line:
I really, really liked the Langenbrunner pick. Honestly, he was not even on our radar, but he definitely should have been. McVeigh and Sutter are kind of "meh", but it's a 4th line, and it's pretty decent.
Why exactly do you like Langenbrunner so much? His scoring isn't anything spectacular(VsX scores of 57, 53, 50, 53, 63, 56 with 27.9% of that coming on the PP), and despite being known as an "exemplary forechecker and penalty killer", he was never on a top penalty killing unit, and in fact, he only killed penalties for 6 of his NHL seasons, with SHTOI/G ranks among forwards of 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5. He played behind some great penalty killers, but that is not exemplary penalty killing to me. He's got some clutch scoring with a 5th and 1st in playoff points. That leaves the shadow part, and he's got a 10th(which corresponds to his best offensive year) and 17th in Selke voting. He's definitely a good 4th liner, but I don't see him as elite or anything. TDMM should be able to shed some light on this-was Langenbrunner used as a shadow/was he that good of a forechecker?

BillyShoe1721 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 07:05 PM
  #132
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
How would he get penalized twice?



I don't think he's anything above an average #2, but feel free to make a case.
I think Reardon is an average #2 overall - I think his ranking around #50 on the HOH defensemen project is essentially correct. But that ranking already takes his injury history into account. If we're going to assume he'll miss 15-20 games of an ATD season due to his injury history, we should judge Reardon more on his per-game rate of performance.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 07:10 PM
  #133
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillyShoe1721 View Post
Why exactly do you like Langenbrunner so much? His scoring isn't anything spectacular(VsX scores of 57, 53, 50, 53, 63, 56 with 27.9% of that coming on the PP), and despite being known as an "exemplary forechecker and penalty killer", he was never on a top penalty killing unit, and in fact, he only killed penalties for 6 of his NHL seasons, with SHTOI/G ranks among forwards of 4, 3, 4, 5, 4, 5. He played behind some great penalty killers, but that is not exemplary penalty killing to me. He's got some clutch scoring with a 5th and 1st in playoff points. That leaves the shadow part, and he's got a 10th(which corresponds to his best offensive year) and 17th in Selke voting. He's definitely a good 4th liner, but I don't see him as elite or anything. TDMM should be able to shed some light on this-was Langenbrunner used as a shadow/was he that good of a forechecker?
Langenbrunner was most commonly used in the NHL as a real life "second line glue guy," first for Joe Nieuwendyk in both Dallas and NJ, then briefly for Patrick Elias in NJ, then for Parise-Zajac-Langenbrunner, a line that is one of the best I ever saw at cycling the puck.

He would sometimes be moved to checking lines to add grit and counterattacking ability, as he was in 2003, when he often played with Pandolfo and Madden and cashed in on the chances they created with their defense.

He was good defensively, but I don't think he was ever used as a shadow.

Edit: Keep in mind that his Vs2 scores are going to underrate his offense somewhat, as he played for the Hitchcock-coached stars, then played for NJ when they were back to being a defensive team with Pat Burns and later Claude Julien.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 08:37 PM
  #134
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think Reardon is an average #2 overall - I think his ranking around #50 on the HOH defensemen project is essentially correct. But that ranking already takes his injury history into account. If we're going to assume he'll miss 15-20 games of an ATD season due to his injury history, we should judge Reardon more on his per-game rate of performance.
Honestly, I didn't realize he missed as many games as he did. I'm surprised nobody mentioned it when I owned him a couple drafted ago. With that ignorance, I wasn't really even thinking he'd miss many games here.

You're right that, he's a better per-game player than the 51st he was voted in the defense project. The question is, though, does that make him more or less valuable? Missing a quarter of the season is a big hole to fill, especially when the blueline isn't strong to begin with. I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm just thinking out loud....

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 08:56 PM
  #135
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Honestly, I didn't realize he missed as many games as he did. I'm surprised nobody mentioned it when I owned him a couple drafted ago. With that ignorance, I wasn't really even thinking he'd miss many games here.

You're right that, he's a better per-game player than the 51st he was voted in the defense project. The question is, though, does that make him more or less valuable? Missing a quarter of the season is a big hole to fill, especially when the blueline isn't strong to begin with. I'm not sure what the answer is - I'm just thinking out loud....
Yeah, I have no idea. I remember getting into it with MXD pretty good about Reardon in the defenseman project on HOH.

If you want to look at Reardon's per-game rate of performance, he's probably similar to his contemporary Jack Stewart, although not quite the same style. The fact that Reardon got the All-Star record he had even though he missed games every season says a lot about his high level of play when he did play. But not only did he miss a lot of games each season, he also retired young because his body was just used up. If you want to view him that way... yeah, this defense is quite a bit better when he's in the lineup and pretty screwed when he isn't

On a per-season level of performance, Reardon falls below Stewart and into the range of an average #2 like we picture him.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 03-28-2013 at 09:02 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 09:13 PM
  #136
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,652
vCash: 500
I like using the overall projection, and just assuming guys with health issues are playing the whole time at a lower level, especially in the playoffs. In this case that would be to consider Reardon about as about an average, maybe slightly below average #2. Most ATD teams are so close in quality that completely taking away a player that plays a large role is pretty much an automatic loss, and boosting up a guy from an average #2 Dman to a low-end #1 is an automatic win. I think the overall projection is a much fairer way to compare teams.

It is more difficult with guys like Orr and Lemieux, who are still among the best of the best after adjusting for injuries, but I still think it's possible.

Another tactic I like to use is to try to gauge how much abuse these guys will be taking based on their opponents and how much protection they get on their own team. I should point out though, that even against a soft team with great protection they will still get some deduction for injuries because usually it has a lot to do with their own style of play.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 10:48 PM
  #137
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,522
vCash: 500
Hershey Bears Review

Coaching and Leadership

Art Ross is a hard man for me to get a read on. His style is easy - he loved hard nosed, physical, and sometimes dirty hockey. But past that, it really is hard for me to evaluate how good he was. He was a major innovator with power play attacks, puck possession, kitty-bar-the-door early trapping, etc, which leads me to think he could probably coach either offensive or defensive hockey. But how well? I just can't help but be concerned that he was the long-time coach of the 1930s Bruins, who are right up there with the 1960s Blackhawks as the biggest playoff underachievers of all time. Maybe Ross is like Roger Neilson - a brilliant strategist and innovator, but maybe not the best bench boss? I don't know - we know that about Neilson and for Ross, it's more speculation.

I love Gordie Howe as an all-round player, but don't like him as an ATD captain. Sid Abel and then Ted Lindsay were the inspirational leaders of the Red Wings dynasty. After Lindsay was traded, Red Kelly was given the captaincy, and Howe didn't get it until after Kelly was traded. Then after only 4 years, Howe lost the captaincy to Alex Delvecchio, who kept it for over a decade. That does't scream ATD captain to me, despite how talented Howe. The assistants aren't very strong either - as far as I know, Herbie Lewis was only an NHL captain for a year and Mark Howe never was. I honestly don't know who you have as a better option either - Ron Sutter might be the best natural leader you have, and you don't want to give your captaincy to a 4th liner. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but it's really surprising to me that leadership would actually be a weakness on a team co-GMed by VI.

Forwards

Gordie Howe is arguably the best player of all time, certainly the most well rounded forward who is in the conversation for best of all time. Dionne is a good first line center in the regular season at least. I like that Dionne can both score and pass. Gordie Howe was a great goal scorer, but it's often not recognized that he was also the best playmaking wing of all time, so it's good to have a center like Dionne who can both score and pass.

Luc Robitaille can clean up any garbage created by Dionne and Howe, but honestly, I think you could have been better served with a more physical player there. As is, Gordie Howe is the only physical presence and puck winner on the line, something he's more than capable of doing, but as your best offensive player, it will take him away from the scoring areas sometimes. You could also run into a bit of trouble in the playoffs if teams start taking runs at Dionne and Howe has to bail him out. Don't get me wrong - Howe can take anyone, even at this level, but again, as your best offensive player and a true superstar even at this level, I really would prefer it if he had another player on the line who could handle some of the physical stuff - not because Howe can't handle it, but because if he's handling the rough stuff, the puck isn't on his stick. Regardless, it's still a great line, I'm just thinking of a way it could be even better.

Second line has great chemistry, seems below average in talent. Bun Cook is an excellent second line glue guy, but the other two guys seem below average for their roles. Neither is out of place on a second line, just below average.

Great two-way third line that played together in real life. I'd classify only Herbie Lewis as a very good defensive player at this level, so this isn't really a classic checking line, but his linemates bring strong two-way games, and this line could really pot some goals against a scoring line that lacks a defensive conscience.

4th line is okay as a gritty checking line - I actually like Ron Sutter the best of the 3 for his role.

Spares are fine, despite our disagreement about Khomutov

Defense

Mark Howe isn't a top special teams player at this level, but he's a great two-way defenseman at even strength and every bit as good at even strength as most of the classic #1s picked in the second round. His speed is his biggest asset. Moose Johnson is a great partner. Moose isn't much of a puck handler, but he doesn't have to be, and he's just such a well-rounded shut down defenseman. Above average top pairing at even strength.

I'm not as big a fan of Larry Murphy as others, as he never really had a prime as a dominant defenseman in the NHL. Still, I see him in the class of low-end #2 / elite #3 tweeners, so as a #3, you are ahead of the game.

I think the defensive depth after the top 3 is weak though. Would anyone draft George McNamara if he wasn't in the Hall of Fame? Obviously, being an NHL-era HHOF is a big deal, but Iain Fyffe recently raised the possibility that George was inducted largely because of what he did as a coach after retiring as a player. George was gigantic and a physical beast, but I'd like him a lot better on a bottom pairing. I could see this pairing having trouble handling opposing forward who come at them with speed.

Sell me on your bottom pairing. I know they were real life partners who won Cups together before World War I, and I know Hamby Shore put up good offensive numbers. But I'm struggling to figure out how good they actually were.

Howard McNamara was huge like his brother, and seems to have been a legit defenseman for his huge season. I still wonder where he'd be drafted if he had a different last name, but leading a split league in points among D even once as a huge physical guy is still pretty solid.

Goaltending

I think Hugh Lehman is every bit Tony Esposito's equal in both the regular season and playoffs. That's kind of cutting with a two edged sword - I think he's an very solid starter in the regular season even at this level (better than Hainsworth), but I think he (like Esposito) had a couple of poor playoffs that bring his value down at least a little bit.

Not a fan of Tom Paton in the ATD at all. The guy was 29 years old when the first Winter Carnival was held in 1883, 39 years old when the Stanley Cup was first awarded in 1892, and 46 years old (and 7 years retired) when the hockey net with a crossbar was invented in 1899. Sure, he was the best goalie in the world in the late 1880s and early 1890s, but how competitive was the sport at that time? Can anyone here even name another goalie who was playing at the time? How does guarding a "goal" that consisted of two upright pylons with no crossbar and a referee watching to see if it went between the pylons too high or not, translate into playing goalie in front of an actual goal cage?

Special Teams

You should make some!

From what I can gather, your first PP will be above average, with excellent forwards (Robitaille is at his best picking up garbage goals and nothing more needs to be said about Dionne-Howe), but with fairly weak pointmen keeping it from being excellent (Larry Murphy is ideal as the second best point man on a top PP and Mark Howe is probably best on a second PP, but you don't have any other options).

Your second PP looks to be quite weak with below average forwards, and really no defensemen with skill past Howe and Murphy and maybe Hamby Shore. Langenbrunner is probably going to need to play on the point - he wasn't great at it, but I really don't see any better options.

PK seems okay, but not outstanding. Moose Johnson is an excellent penalty killer in every way, but Mark Howe and McNamara are just okay, and I'm really not even sure who the 4th penalty killing defenseman would be; I guess Fred Lake?

On the PK, I guess Herbie Lewis - Ron Sutter is the best option up front, with Gordie Howe on the second unit - not sure who should take faceoffs for the second unit.

Overall

I like:
  • Dionne and Howe are highly talented, and should have great offensive chemistry, and along with Robitaille, should be outstanding on the powerplay
  • Your top defensive pairing is excellent at even strength all over the ice, and Larry Murphy is a strong #3 even if I think he's a little overrated
  • Your third line is one of the stronger two-way lines in this league
Potential issues:
  • Huge dropoff among your defensemen after your top 3
  • If anyone can singlehandedly carry the physical burden of a top line while also being its superstar offensively, it's Gordie Howe, but even Howe takes himself out of scoring position when he's chasing the puck.
  • Second line works, but probably below average in overall talent
  • Larry Murphy is going to have to carry a huge load in terms of QBing the PP, and I'm not sure if he's up for it.
  • I might be missing something since you haven't made special teams, but they seem like they'll probably lack depth, especially the second PP.
  • I know other GMs disagree, but I'm not a fan of Tom Paton at this level, even as a backup.
  • Your team seems to lack high-end leadership. On the other hand, I don't see any potential problem players, so maybe it evens out and doesn't matter.

Please do:
  • Sell me on your bottom pairing!


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 03-28-2013 at 11:05 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 11:42 PM
  #138
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,638
vCash: 500
A nice find on Ted Kennedy:

Quote:
For his part, Ted Kennedy proved a steal – and Smythe eventually came to admire him, calling him the “greatest competitor in hockey.” He played just 2 games in the 1942-43 season, but would end up playing parts of 14 seasons for the Leafs, 5 times scoring 20 or more goals and 50 or more points. In his first full season, he produced 49 points in 49 games. He followed that up with 54 points in 1944-45 to emerge at age 19. He was an important piece of the Leafs’ puzzle, as he could score, make plays, and was becoming one of the better checking forwards in the league. In the playoffs that year, Kennedy also gained a reputation for turning in clutch performances.
http://thehockeywriters.com/tml-capt...-1955-1956-57/

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 11:48 PM
  #139
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
Is that not just a link to basically a blog? It isn't contemporary is it?

That in mind if you actually click on their link in the article at least SI's Michael Farber says:

"Teeder Kennedy went on just to win five Stanley Cups and a Hart Trophy for the hated Maple Leafs. Kennedy also became the greatest faceoff man in the history of the NHL. Eddolls played 57 games over parts of three seasons for Montreal, scoring five goals and 14 points."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hoc...tso_canadiens/

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-28-2013, 11:55 PM
  #140
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Is that not just a link to basically a blog? It isn't contemporary is it?

That in mind if you actually click on their link in the article at least SI's Michael Farber says:

"Teeder Kennedy went on just to win five Stanley Cups and a Hart Trophy for the hated Maple Leafs. Kennedy also became the greatest faceoff man in the history of the NHL. Eddolls played 57 games over parts of three seasons for Montreal, scoring five goals and 14 points."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/hoc...tso_canadiens/
It's an article written, with his sources at the bottom of the page...How's that any different from what we do?

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 12:00 AM
  #141
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultimate Hockey
Theodore Kennedy was an exceptional play-maker, and always seemed to know where and when to set up his man. As well as being an excellent defensive center, he was thought by many sportwriters of the day to have been the best face-off man in the NHL.

Although Kennedy was not the most dominant ''skills'' player in the league, he consistently ranked near the top of the scoring race.
another quote, this from EB's bio in 2010

http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...9&postcount=25

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 12:04 AM
  #142
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
It's an article written, with his sources at the bottom of the page...How's that any different from what we do?
It isn't any different. That is why I was a little disappointed when you said it was a "good find".

None of the sources at the bottom make reference to his checking specifically from what I see skimming them. Maybe I overlooked it.

It does mention the source for the faceoffs claim though, and the link I copied does also have an SI author mentioning it too.

Anyways no big deal, don't people know that Teeder was a good back checker already?

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 12:08 AM
  #143
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,522
vCash: 500
When doing some brief research into Derek Sanderson (who I was considering drafting at the point), I came across references to Sanderson being one of, if not, the best faceoff men of his time. Sanderson said he learned how to dominate on faceoffs by watching film of Ted Kennedy.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 12:09 AM
  #144
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,638
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
It isn't any different. That is why I was a little disappointed when you said it was a "good find".

None of the sources at the bottom make reference to his checking specifically from what I see skimming them. Maybe I overlooked it.

It does mention the source for the faceoffs claim though, and the link I copied does also have an SI author mentioning it too.

Anyways no big deal, don't people know that Teeder was a good back checker already?
Sorry, I guess it's not a "good find" however this article here:



Quote:
Ted Kennedy, Detroit's Sid Abel, compared a hockey team to a well-running watch, and ... Included were a on the much-discussed 70game NHL schedule, the case of "How Toronto ... ButKennedy is a whole forward lineby himself, a big help to the defense and tops at killing penalties. ... He's the best player in hockey today:'
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/csmonito...e&pqatl=google

It's one of those PPV and what I quoted is what shows up before you click the link...this to me is a tremendous find, does anybody know how to read more of the article??



This is what it looks like....

Scraping the Ice

Pay-Per-View -
Christian Science Monitor - Feb 7, 1950
Ted Kennedy, Detroit's Sid Abel, compared a hockey team to a well-running watch, and ... Included were a on the much-discussed 70game NHL schedule, the case of "How Toronto ... ButKennedy is a whole forward lineby himself, a big help to the defense and tops at killing penalties. ... He's the best player in hockey today:'

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 12:21 AM
  #145
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,741
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
When doing some brief research into Derek Sanderson (who I was considering drafting at the point), I came across references to Sanderson being one of, if not, the best faceoff men of his time. Sanderson said he learned how to dominate on faceoffs by watching film of Ted Kennedy.
That is cool. I like links through history like that.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 01:13 AM
  #146
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,638
vCash: 500
After an extensive amount of research on Ted Kennedy, I came to realize he played the majority of his career with very low end wingers. He was known to make those around him better and will anchor our 2nd line, which with our 4th line will take every defensive zone draw, allowing my 1st and 3rd line to take every offensive zone draw:

Cincinnati Fireworks




GM: Markrander87
Coach: Mike Kennan
Captain: Ted Kennedy
Alternate Captains: Mike Grant, Eddie Gerard, Ted Lindsay

Ted Lindsay (A)- Denis Savard - Charlie Conacher
Harry Watson - Ted Kennedy (C) - Bobby Rousseau
Patrick Marleau - Henrik Sedin - Wilf Paiement
Sami Pahlsson - Steve Kasper - Cully Wilson


Eddie Gerard (A) - Ken Reardon
Gennady Tsygankov - Mike Grant (A)
Bill Hajt - Lennart Svedberg

George Hainsworth
Rogie Vachon

markrander87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 01:32 AM
  #147
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,522
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by markrander87 View Post
After an extensive amount of research on Ted Kennedy, I came to realize he played the majority of his career with very low end wingers. He was known to make those around him better and will anchor our 2nd line, which with our 4th line will take every defensive zone draw, allowing my 1st and 3rd line to take every offensive zone draw:

Cincinnati Fireworks




GM: Markrander87
Coach: Mike Kennan
Captain: Ted Kennedy
Alternate Captains: Mike Grant, Eddie Gerard, Ted Lindsay

Ted Lindsay (A)- Denis Savard - Charlie Conacher
Harry Watson - Ted Kennedy (C) - Bobby Rousseau
Patrick Marleau - Henrik Sedin - Wilf Paiement
Sami Pahlsson - Steve Kasper - Cully Wilson


Eddie Gerard (A) - Ken Reardon
Gennady Tsygankov - Mike Grant (A)
Bill Hajt - Lennart Svedberg

George Hainsworth
Rogie Vachon
Gee, I wonder where you got this idea from...

It isn't perfect - both Lindsay and Conacher had their best years with a center who hung back, and that's definitely not Denis Savard. But I think this set up puts both of them in the best position to succeed offensively. I think we found out this draft that Conacher was actually a very fast skater, and that's nice with Lindsay.

The second line is a good matchup line against most teams, but again, would struggle against a physical left wing.

Marleau is the biggest weakness I see on your forwards like this, but he isn't that bad.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 01:45 AM
  #148
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,652
vCash: 500
Something that hasn't been mentioned about Cincinnati that I think needs to be addressed is that Savard and Keenan had a pretty bad relationship when they were both in Chicago. Here's a quote from an article I found on SI Fan Nation that was taken from the Chicago Sun Times
Quote:
When Keenan was coach and later general manager of the Hawks for a four-year period starting in 1988, Savard was finishing out a Hall of Fame playing career. Savard's playing style didn't fit Keenan's coaching style, and that surfaced in a variety of ways. Keenan reduced Savard's ice time, stripped him of his captaincy and finally traded him to the Montreal Canadiens for Chris Chelios.

There is plenty more info available with a quick google search of Kennan Savard.

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 03:51 AM
  #149
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 Dreakmur View Post
The pro leagues were shallow, so it's tough to take too much out of his statistics there, but he wasn't in the pro leagues until 1902-03. He played in the CAHL from 1898 through 1902.

My question about the all-star teams is based on my understanding that there were no published all-star teams before the 1905. If there were no all-star teams, how does he get named to one?
Your own bio has Stuart as a WPHL all-star in 1903, so you tell me, dreak. All-star teams from this kind of a league aren't really all that meaningful, though. From this era, primary sources calling player X a star are the best indicator we have of performance at any given time.

Quote:
The whole point is that you said a 7 year peak was normal for Conacher's era, so we shouldn't dock him for lacking longevity....
Leave Britney alone!

Quote:
yet you dock Hod Stuart for lacking longevity.
This conversation is bordering on the iconic at this point. I believe this was the first post in the ATD which argued that Stuart's career should not be considered short:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Outsider View Post
Also, Hod Stuart is in the Hall of Fame, but not the Worldwide Hockey Hall of Fame. (I think the latter is more credible). One voter stated, “The actual Hall of Fame was easily swayed by tragic deaths in its early years. Hod Staurt, Hobey Baker, Scotty Davidson. In my opinion none of these deserve induction based on their playing careers; they may have been great had they continued to play, but they did not.”
In fairness to Stuart, we should look at the whole conversation (which can be found here in the entry for 1950):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Worldwide Hockey Hall of Fame
Hod Stuart, one of the original members of the Hall of Fame, only gained one vote from the committee. The committee was split on Stuart’s worthiness due to his tragic death in 1907 at age 27. (He dove from a rock into a lake, broke his neck and drowned). Stuart’s legacy, unknown to all but a handful of hockey people, was the engraving of the Stanley Cup with the player’s names. Every player who has his name engraved on team sport’s only individual legacy to its champions owes a debt of gratitude to Stuart. The 1907 Montreal Wanderers inscribed the names of the entire team inside the silver bowl, and no one was going to demand it be buffed out after Stuart’s death.

In the Canadian magazine MacLeans, a panel of hockey experts in 1925 concluded Stuart was on the all-time team at defense. Westerners and former players Lester Patrick (Victoria) and Harry Scott (Calgary) listed Stuart as the best defenseman of all-time. Said Morey Holzman, “He was a great defenseman, no doubt about it, but I feel he did not play long enough to merit inclusion. He created a scandal in Pittsburgh while playing in the IHL, and was by most accounts, the best defenseman in the first decade of the 1900s, but I wonder if we would have voted in Wayne Gretzky had he died in 1981. Or Gordie Howe if he would not have survived the Kennedy hit in 1950.”

Iain Fyffe concurred. “The actual Hall of Fame was easily swayed by tragic deaths in its early years. Hod Stuart, Hobey Baker, Scotty Davidson. In my opinion none of these deserve induction based on their playing careers; they may have been great had they continued to play, but they did not. Even Frank McGee, to me, had too short a career for the World Wide Hockey Hall of Fame.”

Joe Pelletier disagreed, drawing parallels to Bobby Orr. “Stuart played from 1895 through 1907 - 12 seasons,” Pelletier said. “Lets eliminate those early years where the statistics are all but missing and when he was still a teenager. We'll just look at when he joined the Ottawa Silver Seven in 1898, and he would have been 18 or 19 years old. Over the next NINE seasons he would go on a spectacular career that had earned him the reputation as the best defenseman or rover in all of hockey, and some even said the best hockey player in the world. Then he tragically died. “Bobby Orr had a very similar career. Looking at approximately the same ages, Orr quickly established himself as the best in the world. His career would be basically over after eight seasons.

“Our Hall will be forever empty without him.”
It's a fairly two-sided dialogue in the end, and it should be noted that while the WWHHOF is an interesting resource, they rarely offer much in the way of dialogues like the above to justify their selections. They also had problems with consistency and turnout and changed their minds a fair bit in the course of the process. By the way, Hod Stuart peaked at 14 of the required 15 votes in their 1980 elections.

The fact that they excluded Stuart because his career was too short (a nine year career in that era too short?!) but put in Joe Primeau (seven year NHL career and 3-4 year peak about thirty years later) on the first ballot is an embarassment to their process. It is far from a definitive source. Here's a bit of internal criticism of the process vis-a-vis old-time players:

Quote:
1953

Some of the committee members became restless because the early game’s stars were not being elected in rapid fashion. The viewpoint was best expressed by Jason Kasiorek, who said, “I think our problem is not that we don't feel the majority of these players are worthy of induction, but we do disagree in the order we feel they should be elected.”

Lloyd Davis captured the mood of the majority when he said he was not convinced that the true greats of the game would eventually become enshrined.
Although I really enjoy poking around that website and reading their opinions (what little they offer in terms of dialogue), in the end I think that committee's methods and results are no better than those of the real hall. Among other things, they seem to have put in Bobrov, Malacek, Johansson and Sologubov almost entirely based on the second or thirdhand anecdotes of Arthur Chidlovski (who wasn't even a sperm yet when Malacek was playing) and yet puzzlingly leave out Fetisov, Vasiliev and Makarov, to name a few. While I value chidlovski's insights into European players, any committee that casts ten times more Hall votes for Nikolai Sologubov than it does for Andy Bathgate (1985 results) is either posturing in order to seem "different" from the guys in Toronto or simply out to ****ing lunch. To be honest, I think the quality of research and dialogue right here on this board is arguably better than what those guys came up with.
So...mea culpa. I probably started the line of thinking (though really, I was just passing on Pelletier's argument) that Stuart had a normal length career and peak, and should not be penalized in any way. And I eventually made hay with it, as Stuart was my #3 defenseman the first time I won one of these things. This argument seems to have been largely accepted, and has made its way down through the years to arguments like this one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur
Let's get a grip on this "career" thing. I can understand it for guys who only played a couple years, but Hod Stuart played 9 sesons. 8 of those seasons he was considered one of the best in the world.
...and I think at this point, we have gone too far. It was probably too far even when Pelletier made the argument, which essentially whitewashes Stuart's entire career into a single lump of seasons and ignores that he likely was not a star from the first moment he got on the ice. Based on the information provided in your bio, Stuart was considered a great player from 1904 to 1907. This is the timeframe for which we have contemporary press clippings calling him a great player. I don't really understand how you can think that he was considered great way back in 1900 when we have no information on his career at that point other than his scoring in a bush league.

Now, my personal opinion is that the press is often one year behind the times in terms of catching a player's development, and that Stuart's all-star placement in the WPHL in 1903 suggests that he may have begun peaking in that season. I'm willing to give him at least half credit for that year. So that would put him at 4-5 peak seasons, and another few where he was developing. Basically, a Ken Reardon-like career in terms of the timing and longevity. Without more information about what he was doing before 1904, I think this is the most balanced, and least distorted view of how his career progressed. It's not a full peak even for his generation, but as it is with Reardon, it's a long enough one to be considered great in an all-time sense and not just a flash in the pan. Now, how Hod compares to Reardon in terms of talent is anyone's guess. I consider them peers, but everybody has to make that judgment for himself.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-29-2013, 07:47 AM
  #150
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,078
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
Your own bio has Stuart as a WPHL all-star in 1903, so you tell me, dreak. All-star teams from this kind of a league aren't really all that meaningful, though. From this era, primary sources calling player X a star are the best indicator we have of performance at any given time.
I meant from the Canadian leagues. The point remains the same - how can you penalize a guy for not being an all-star during seasons that none were even named?

Quote:
This conversation is bordering on the iconic at this point. I believe this was the first post in the ATD which argued that Stuart's career should not be considered short:



So...mea culpa. I probably started the line of thinking (though really, I was just passing on Pelletier's argument) that Stuart had a normal length career and peak, and should not be penalized in any way. And I eventually made hay with it, as Stuart was my #3 defenseman the first time I won one of these things. This argument seems to have been largely accepted, and has made its way down through the years to arguments like this one:
That's all fine, but a little consistency would be nice.

Quote:
...and I think at this point, we have gone too far. It was probably too far even when Pelletier made the argument, which essentially whitewashes Stuart's entire career into a single lump of seasons and ignores that he likely was not a star from the first moment he got on the ice. Based on the information provided in your bio, Stuart was considered a great player from 1904 to 1907. This is the timeframe for which we have contemporary press clippings calling him a great player. I don't really understand how you can think that he was considered great way back in 1900 when we have no information on his career at that point other than his scoring in a bush league.
1900 wasn't that bad. Just off the top of my head, Stuart played against at least Harvey Pulford, Mike Grant, and Dickie Boon.

Quote:
Now, my personal opinion is that the press is often one year behind the times in terms of catching a player's development, and that Stuart's all-star placement in the WPHL in 1903 suggests that he may have begun peaking in that season. I'm willing to give him at least half credit for that year. So that would put him at 4-5 peak seasons, and another few where he was developing. Basically, a Ken Reardon-like career in terms of the timing and longevity. Without more information about what he was doing before 1904, I think this is the most balanced, and least distorted view of how his career progressed. It's not a full peak even for his generation, but as it is with Reardon, it's a long enough one to be considered great in an all-time sense and not just a flash in the pan. Now, how Hod compares to Reardon in terms of talent is anyone's guess. I consider them peers, but everybody has to make that judgment for himself.
I'm sorry, but you can't just ignore seasons where he was dominant offensively.

Was he as good as he would later become? Maybe not, but he was still damn good, and to just sweep them away if completely ridiculous.

Dreakmur is online now   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 02:16 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.