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#8 Don Cherry Semi-Final: #1 Aurora Tigers vs. #5 New York Rangers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-30-2007, 11:34 AM
  #26
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
- Wisent already answered this question, but I'll further illuminate the situation. Ragulin was born in 1941 (hard year to be born in the Soviet Union), putting him at 31 years old in 1972. Players didn't have quite the same longevity back then (though it wasn't the 30's, either), but suffice it to say, Ragulin wasn't exactly an old man, and in fact the Canadian press was shocked that he hung up his skates after 1973 and didn't appear in the 74 Summit Series. Aside from having fewer offensive responsibilities, the Ragulin you see in 1972 isn't a substantially different player from the one you'd have seen five years previous. When you start off that slow, you don't really lose much by your early thirties.
Training methods, it seems, were extremely tough on players in the Eastern Bloc - for a lack of a better word. They'd hit their prime maybe a little earlier, but they were basically done around +-30. I think we should still focus on the longevity of some Eastern players... I mean, their training was what gave them the skill, so why not include the drawback as well?

This very fact also explains why I have Boris Mikhailov in such high esteem : he was arguably the best russian player (not withstanding Tretiak) ... well, during the Habs '70 dynasty (76-80)... but was 32/36 at that time, and was probably the "toughest European on himself" (it makes sense?)... So he was the best at an age where many Eastern Euro are already retired.



Quote:
At any rate, for about 4-5 years Suchy was the Francis M. "King" Clancy (for some reason I find Clancy's whole name funny) of European hockey, only without the sweet nickname, the aggression or quite the skill level.
That weird... I always saw Suchy as a rich-man Reijo Ruotsalainen. Now he's a poor man's King Clancy. So that makes him the missing link between Plexi and King.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2007, 11:51 AM
  #27
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
jeez, Sturminator, pick on his team a little bit too eh?


I don't see any character issues at all on this team. I have some swashbucklers, but that's not necessarily a bad thing. All my guys showed up in the playoffs, and that's the biggest character test of all in my books. Guys like Esposito and Hull may be cocky, but that's because they know they're good, and the proved it year after year when it came down to crunch time.

I don't really understand the critisism of Esposito as captain here. He always plays big on the big stage, and he has a charisma and ability to motivate that few possess. He wasn't the captain in Boston because Bucyk had already been there for 75 years. He the de-facto captain of the Summit Series (galvanizing not only his team, but his country), and as you say, he brought a winning attitude to a losing franchise in New York, and carried them to the finals in his late 30's. I just don't understand what the issue is.

As for Tiny Thompson, I think you may be alone in your thinking a little bit. I'm not saying he's a top-15 guy, but I feel (as do most others) that he's very servicable. Sure, the Vezina trophy didn't necessarily mean a whole lot back then, but he was also a 4 time allstar, credited with a retro Conn Smyth, and had a GAA that dropped 20 points in the playoffs. I'm not saying he's going to win the series for me, but between him and perhaps the best backup in the draft, I don't think goaltending is going to lose it for me.

However, it is nice to know that after tearing such a huge strip off my team you still think they'll win


Last edited by arrbez: 11-30-2007 at 12:35 PM.
arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2007, 12:13 PM
  #28
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Training methods, it seems, were extremely tough on players in the Eastern Bloc - for a lack of a better word. They'd hit their prime maybe a little earlier, but they were basically done around +-30.
Something I've noticed as well. And you're right, apart from Mikhailov that does seem to be the trend. Very few Soviet stars made it to 35 at a high level. Yakushev, Firsov, Lutschenko, Starshinov were all off the national team around age 30.

Igor Larionov was 29 when he made his NHL debut, and he was never as good as his "value" is on here. I havn't see a ton of the guy with the USSR, but I'll take people's word for it that he was better than the decent NHL second liner I remember. Diddo with Fetisov, who's heralded as a top-10 defender by many (and I don't deny that), but was never THAT calibre in the NHL despite the fact that most great defencemen can keep up their level of play well into their 30's. Same with Makarov. Same with Kasatonov. Good in the NHL, but not nearly as good as their status in these drafts would suggest. It seems clear that spending a decade on the Soviet national team really took it out of the players.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2007, 03:37 PM
  #29
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
jeez, Sturminator, pick on his team a little bit too eh?

However, it is nice to know that after tearing such a huge strip off my team you still think they'll win
I think your team is extremely talented, arrbez. Flawed, but talented. It will take a great team to beat the Tigers and at first blush, I don't think New York is that team. I'll take a shot or two at the Rangers this weekend for you, allright.

- I may be alone in my opinion on Thompson, and if that is the case, then so be it. It's just one man's opinion.

- Phil Esposito was certainly a money player, and you'll never, ever, hear me criticize him as a choke artist, because he was not. Nevertheless, I think you've managed to recreate a large part of the mess that existed in Boston by putting Esposito, Hodge and Sinden back together. Praise Jesus that you didn't take Don Cherry or Espo would be triple shifting to start every period. If Cashman was a problem child, I don't know about it.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2007, 03:49 PM
  #30
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Something I've noticed as well. And you're right, apart from Mikhailov that does seem to be the trend. Very few Soviet stars made it to 35 at a high level. Yakushev, Firsov, Lutschenko, Starshinov were all off the national team around age 30.

Igor Larionov was 29 when he made his NHL debut, and he was never as good as his "value" is on here. I havn't see a ton of the guy with the USSR, but I'll take people's word for it that he was better than the decent NHL second liner I remember. Diddo with Fetisov, who's heralded as a top-10 defender by many (and I don't deny that), but was never THAT calibre in the NHL despite the fact that most great defencemen can keep up their level of play well into their 30's. Same with Makarov. Same with Kasatonov. Good in the NHL, but not nearly as good as their status in these drafts would suggest. It seems clear that spending a decade on the Soviet national team really took it out of the players.
Vasiliev made it to 33 at a high level. He and Mikhailov are the only ones that I can think of who made it much past thirty. Those Soviets trained year-round and the methods were often pretty brutal. They were extremely well-conditioned athletes who could skate hard until the final whistle, which was a big part of their advantage as a team, but that did tend to take its toll on the players as individuals.

I didn't mention it while Flin Flon was still in the running because I thought it would be inappropriate, but Krutov probably used steroids. Follow this link - question seven a bit more than halfway down. Is it undeniable proof? No, but it makes a ton of sense. Krutov was at his absolute peak just before making the jump to the NHL. He was two-time defending scoring champion of the Soviet league (87 and 88) and won the MVP in 1987, in addition to his exploits in the Canada Cup. He was also known as a player who, in spite of his size, was almost inhumanly strong on the puck. And then he comes to Vancouver and sucks royally. Not only is he lazy and unmotivated, but he is slow and weak. I don't buy that a failure to adjust to western life accounts for Krutov's precipitous decline. I'm not sure there has ever been a player in hockey history who has declined so fast while still in his twenties without injury. No, Krutov was a juicer, and I wouldn't touch him in this draft.

There's a lot to the story of European hockey that hasn't come to light yet.


Last edited by Sturminator: 12-01-2007 at 08:50 AM. Reason: fixed the link
Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2007, 10:04 PM
  #31
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I didn't mention it while Flin Flon was still in the running because I thought it would be inappropriate, but Krutov probably used steroids. Follow this link - question seven a bit more than halfway down. Is it undeniable proof? No, but it makes a ton of sense. Krutov was at his absolute peak just before making the jump to the NHL. He was two-time defending scoring champion of the Soviet league (87 and 88) and won the MVP in 1987, in addition to his exploits in the Canada Cup. He was also known as a player who, in spite of his size, was almost inhumanly strong on the puck. And then he comes to Vancouver and sucks royally. Not only is he lazy and unmotivated, but he is slow and weak. I don't buy that a failure to adjust to western life accounts for Krutov's precipitous decline. I'm not sure there has ever been a player in hockey history who has declined so fast while still in his twenties without injury. No, Krutov was a juicer, and I wouldn't touch him in this draft.
Huh, it never even crossed my mind...but having seen some of the women on the East German swim team, I guess it's really not too far out of the question

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-30-2007, 11:51 PM
  #32
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Huh, it never even crossed my mind...but having seen some of the women on the East German swim team, I guess it's really not too far out of the question
Humm... The ones from Top Secret?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2007, 03:34 AM
  #33
Jungosi
Registered User
 
Jungosi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Rendsburg / Germany
Country: Germany
Posts: 881
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Jungosi
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Humm... The ones from Top Secret?


But it's true. Athletes from eastern Germany were usually done for at around 30. Especially in contact sports like handball or sporrts like gymnastics. I know a few former athletes from there. They have all problems with their back or knees or whatever.

Jungosi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2007, 07:43 AM
  #34
Wisent
Registered User
 
Wisent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Mannheim
Country: Germany
Posts: 3,667
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
Huh, it never even crossed my mind...but having seen some of the women on the East German swim team, I guess it's really not too far out of the question
I would not be surprised at all if he was. I donīt want to make any accusations here. Just as an example from what I have been folowing. When Germany started in 90 with a combined team for teh first tiime in years, Many cases of doping were found. And some athletes claimed that it was program to do it there. There are obviously cases anywhere but I have yet to remember the magnitude of cases that came out of closed states. The entire middle and long distance runners from China in the 90s (women), nearly entire cross country teams from Russia (women as well) (OK, there was this Finland incident as well). In the early 90s top-athletes from the former GDR where penalized for doping when it was not possible to hide it effectively anymore. Given the time, I would not be surprised if Krutov took something as well, considering his inhumane strength before and the quick decline after going to the NHL.

And I can say Jungosi is right as well. To that came incredible traininggs, I am not saying that athletes didn't train everywhere, but read the 24/7 trainig programs that was uusual for an athlete in the USSR and the GDR. It is insane. I have talked to some and they usually were a wreck when they reached their 30s.

Probably some of you have read the Tarasov book. For those of you who didn`t I recommend you give it a try, if for nothing else than to see the daily live of a hockey player in those days.

Wisent is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2007, 08:51 AM
  #35
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,574
vCash: 500
I've fixed the link, by the way. It takes you where I intended it to go now, rather than to an obscure article about a Cup final in the 30's.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-01-2007, 09:03 AM
  #36
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jungosi View Post


But it's true. Athletes from eastern Germany were usually done for at around 30. Especially in contact sports like handball or sporrts like gymnastics. I know a few former athletes from there. They have all problems with their back or knees or whatever.
Muscles develops too much for what their joints can stand.

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 12:04 AM
  #37
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,951
vCash: 500
Bottom 6 v. Bottom 6
Herbie Lewis was a nice little player, but to trumpet that he was in and around the top-10 in scoring in a 6 team league with teams having rosters in the teens player wise (his 1935 Red Wings had by my count 15 regulars) while everyone on my bottom 6 had to deal with a 20+ team league is a little disingenuous. The top 10 in a league where around 100-120 people is easier attain them, for example, a top 10 in1980 where you can figure on about 450-500 regular players.

You have one guy (Paiemant) on your bottom 6 who had over 80 points, which is one more than I have. But that's okay because that's the regular season, and my guys emerge thereafter. No one on your squad had ONE playoff like Bob Bourne did in 1983: he led the Islanders juggernaut that year in playoff scoring, ABOVE Trottier, Bossy, Potvin, et al. In their four cup years he had 74 points in 74 games, nice numbers for someone who didn't ever have top line anything.

Were any of your guys relentless bangers (hmm LOL) like a Bobby Nystrom, anyone who can boast four overtime playoff winners? A Chris Drury with fifteen playoff winning goals? Shane Doan, nice of a guy he is, is a playoff non-entity. Kris Draper hasn't done a whole hell of a lot overall despite playing tons of playoff games other than needing a new face after Claude Lemieux was done with him . Paul Henderson has three super-famous goals (these are to his credit), but also a whole lot of nothing else.

Goalies
In a heated battle in the playoffs I'd rather have Billy Smith's bravado than a guy who had to take a 10 game break during the season because his constitution wasn't secure, especially against a team of diggers and forecheckers cycling down low like mine. Thompson's stats are nice, but it would have been nice for him to have more than one Cup when his Bruins teams were so dominant and he was so good, relatively. Again, four cups + 1 Smythe + 19 series victories in a row > 1 cup, no idea on a retro Smythe as I don't own that book, I'll take your word for it but it means less to me than the actual award because it's conjecture..

Forecheck, forecheck, forecheck
Jan Suchy is a nice player and absolutely IMO a 2nd pairing guy -- he's just a bad match for my wings, not many of my guys are going to try to deke him and rush goals will have to come from trap n transition generally speaking. Dump n pound, repeat. Ragulin, as said, is quite slow, but the one line I have with the best speed is the top one, and I like my chances with him against Propp or Punch. Kevin Hatcher... he'll play fine 80% of the time, be spectacular 5%, and just make horrible boneheaded plays that end up in your net the other 15%, and there are no good times for that sort of thing. The other thing is other than Suchy, you really have no rushers on the backend, Chelios could do it but it's a lot to ask in addition to his other duties.

Other thoughts:
- Your first line is great chemistry wise, but as GBC has often said, chemistry has decreased as an edge by this time, if it's much of a factor at all. In isolation, Hodge and Cashman are two of the weakest 1st liners left, if not the weakest. Hodge was widely considered to be an Espo creation.
Also, how great are they going to be without Bobby Orr playing the point? Suchy might be your best bet back there to play with them, but that particular 5-man unit won't inspire any visions of defensive greatness; a clogging, counter team with rushing D Howe and Goodfellow could create some bad situations for you.

- It'll be interesting to see who Oates is matched up against; he's going to be at a physical disadvantage to any of my centers, but he was seemingly always at disadvantage physically.

- Kluklay-Oates-Hull is damn solid.

- As terrifying as your first PP unit is, your 2nd is equally underwhelming. While that doesn't cancel out entirely, you're going to be leaning on a couple guys A LOT.

- Still have the best player in the series in Jean Beliveau.

- As good as Suchy is in that role, Goodfellow is better.

- Sinden + Espo + Hodge? Again? Yeesh. Sinden also only really coached for five years + the Summit. He had good results + the Summit, but it's just an observation. Don't know how much he adds, and what he adds, how much of that is subtracted from infighting? Then again, I lost last year to a team with Mark Messier coached by Roger Nielson (LOL he got him firedaments) so who knows.

Evil Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 01:03 AM
  #38
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather View Post
Bottom 6 v. Bottom 6
Herbie Lewis was a nice little player, but to trumpet that he was in and around the top-10 in scoring in a 6 team league with teams having rosters in the teens player wise (his 1935 Red Wings had by my count 15 regulars) while everyone on my bottom 6 had to deal with a 20+ team league is a little disingenuous. The top 10 in a league where around 100-120 people is easier attain them, for example, a top 10 in1980 where you can figure on about 450-500 regular players.
I'm not sure how well this argument works. Criticism based on league size when talking about Cup wins for Leafs/Habs/Red Wings players during the original six era...ok...but criticism of top-10 scoring finishes is a different animal. Depression-era hockey was played at a very high level as hockey and baseball were the only sports that could really earn you a living during that period and consequently a greater proportion of the great North American athletes gravitated towards those two sports (just ask Lionel Conacher).

It cuts both ways - smaller league and roster size meant that there was less competition for scoring titles and whatnot, but it also meant that there was less dilution of talent (and thus better defensemen and goalies from shift-to-shift), as only the true cream of the crop were able to make it to the NHL, which to a large extent explains the size and quality of the "senior leagues" in this era. I don't count a top-10 scoring finish in the 30's quite as high as I count one in the 80's, but it's not a big difference. Herbie Lewis was an excellent 2-way player.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 01:10 AM
  #39
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,951
vCash: 500
It can't possibly be proportional. It IS a big difference. The amount of regular players as competition increases four to five fold but your criteria (top 10 is top 10) stays the same? I didn't say it was FOUR TO FIVE TIMES HARDER in 1980, but it's not the same achievement.

I didn't compare the numbers specifically; I think that relatively speaking Herbie Lewis was a better scorer than anyone on my bottom six was. That's not in question. But when we're talking about relative achievements you can say stuff like "he was in the upper echelon of scoring in his time", but you can't specifically cite "top ten" when one sample size is nearly 500% larger.

You want to treat it proportionately? Say the top 10% of each league were equally good -- you're fighting an extra 60-80 players in the 80swho are ostensibly equally good to make that top ten (assuming top 20% are relatively equal and they seperate themselves with slightly better skill, better chemistry, better teams, better systems, what have you). But I don't want to get too hung up on this topic as it's but one aspect argued about.


Last edited by Evil Sather: 12-03-2007 at 01:20 AM.
Evil Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 01:57 AM
  #40
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,233
vCash: 500
Actually, I'd say that the top 10% in the 30's was better than the top 10% in the 80's. Simply because the bottom 50% of the 80's would never have played more than a few games as an injury call up in the 30's. It's not a matter of percentages. It's a matter of raw numbers. More players means more players that wouldn't play if there were less players.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 08:07 AM
  #41
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,574
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Actually, I'd say that the top 10% in the 30's was better than the top 10% in the 80's. Simply because the bottom 50% of the 80's would never have played more than a few games as an injury call up in the 30's. It's not a matter of percentages. It's a matter of raw numbers. More players means more players that wouldn't play if there were less players.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather
You want to treat it proportionately? Say the top 10% of each league were equally good -- you're fighting an extra 60-80 players in the 80swho are ostensibly equally good to make that top ten (assuming top 20% are relatively equal and they seperate themselves with slightly better skill, better chemistry, better teams, better systems, what have you). But I don't want to get too hung up on this topic as it's but one aspect argued about.
And here we have the crux of the problem. The top whatever percent of players in the 30's was a better group than the same percentage in the 80's, but the top-10 (which is a raw number rather than a percentage) represents a greater percentage of the league in 1935 than it does in 1985. So what do we make of all this?

In my opinion, the quality of North American talent in the NHL hasn't really changed much since the thirties, but the influx of high-end European players has changed the complexion of the league and made scoring races more competitive. If the NHL were still only a North American league, I think there would be little difference between the top-10 in comparing these two eras. The ten best Canadian (with a couple of Americans thrown in) forwards in 1935 are a bit behind the 1985 vintage, but were probably just as good as the ten best now, but the ten best now do not all end up at the top of the league scoring tables because of those pesky Europeans.

A top-10 scoring finish in 2007 is marginally more impressive to me than one in 1937, but not because the league is bigger. To be honest, I get pretty detailed when I look at top-10 scoring finishes - to the point of looking at all of the specific players on the list for any given year. So to me, each specific season is different when evaluating the value of a top-10 scoring finish.

For example...the top-10 scorers in 1960-61:

1. Geoffrion
2. Beliveau
3. Mahovlich
4. Bathgate
5. Howe
6. Ullman
7. Kelly
8. Moore
9. H. Richard
10. Delvecchio

That is, shall we say, a pretty strong list.

Here are the top-10 scorers just nine years later in 1969-1970:

1. Orr
2. Esposito
3. Mikita
4. Goyette
5. Tkaczuk
6. Ratelle
7. Berenson
8. Parise
9. Howe
10. McKenzie
10. F. Mahovlich
10. Balon

No offense to Phil Goyette, Walt Tkaczuk, Red Berenson, J.P. Parise, John McKenzie or Dave Balon, but does anyone think they'd have cracked the top-10 at the beginning of the decade? There's a reason they called it the Golden Age. By the time the 60's were over, Canadian talent was simply on a downswing.

Many of the early 60's greats had retired and Howe and Mahovlich were getting old. In 69-70, Bobby Hull played injured and he'd jump to the WHA after just two more seasons. Sad, but true; the Canadians who complained about how the country had been producing more thugs than hockey players in the years before the Summit Series were right, and I think Team Canada 1962 would have mopped the ice with the 1972 Soviet team, but Team Canada 1972 (especially without Hull or a healthy Orr or Howe) was not nearly as good.

The 80's and the late 50's/early 60's are probably the two eras with the highest level of scoring competition, but the 30's certainly weren't bad, and actually compare quite well to the 70's, for example, though the 80's was clearly an era of greater overall talent, especially among the forwards.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 09:29 AM
  #42
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 22,719
vCash: 500
Being in the Top-10 was maybe somewhat tougher (ie, you had to be more talented), but as weird as it seems, being nominated to All-Star Teams was maybe tougher in the post-expansion. Gordie Howe got nominated on off-years, same thing with Rocket (well, when we consider their top production)... Today, a universal Top-10 talent at C (let's throw Vincent Lecavalier's name) could miss the AST should he only have an average year. At worst, Vinny is probably the 2nd best C in the league, but let's say Sid racks up the points next year, Vinny has a reasonable season (between 90 and 100 pts with the Bolts), but Bree-Air tears up the league, ends up with 115 pts... No way Vinny earns (or should earn) an AST berth. Parity works both-sides. Maybe the talent pool is weaker, but the very good C has a shot of having a better season than the All-Star C, simply because they're both better than their competition.

This said... extremely close one... And I'm going for the upset!

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 11:48 AM
  #43
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather View Post
Bottom 6 v. Bottom 6
Herbie Lewis was a nice little player, but to trumpet that he was in and around the top-10 in scoring in a 6 team league with teams having rosters in the teens player wise (his 1935 Red Wings had by my count 15 regulars) while everyone on my bottom 6 had to deal with a 20+ team league is a little disingenuous. The top 10 in a league where around 100-120 people is easier attain them, for example, a top 10 in1980 where you can figure on about 450-500 regular players.

You have one guy (Paiemant) on your bottom 6 who had over 80 points, which is one more than I have. But that's okay because that's the regular season, and my guys emerge thereafter. No one on your squad had ONE playoff like Bob Bourne did in 1983: he led the Islanders juggernaut that year in playoff scoring, ABOVE Trottier, Bossy, Potvin, et al. In their four cup years he had 74 points in 74 games, nice numbers for someone who didn't ever have top line anything.

Were any of your guys relentless bangers (hmm LOL) like a Bobby Nystrom, anyone who can boast four overtime playoff winners? A Chris Drury with fifteen playoff winning goals? Shane Doan, nice of a guy he is, is a playoff non-entity. Kris Draper hasn't done a whole hell of a lot overall despite playing tons of playoff games other than needing a new face after Claude Lemieux was done with him . Paul Henderson has three super-famous goals (these are to his credit), but also a whole lot of nothing else.

Goalies
In a heated battle in the playoffs I'd rather have Billy Smith's bravado than a guy who had to take a 10 game break during the season because his constitution wasn't secure, especially against a team of diggers and forecheckers cycling down low like mine. Thompson's stats are nice, but it would have been nice for him to have more than one Cup when his Bruins teams were so dominant and he was so good, relatively. Again, four cups + 1 Smythe + 19 series victories in a row > 1 cup, no idea on a retro Smythe as I don't own that book, I'll take your word for it but it means less to me than the actual award because it's conjecture..

Forecheck, forecheck, forecheck
Jan Suchy is a nice player and absolutely IMO a 2nd pairing guy -- he's just a bad match for my wings, not many of my guys are going to try to deke him and rush goals will have to come from trap n transition generally speaking. Dump n pound, repeat. Ragulin, as said, is quite slow, but the one line I have with the best speed is the top one, and I like my chances with him against Propp or Punch. Kevin Hatcher... he'll play fine 80% of the time, be spectacular 5%, and just make horrible boneheaded plays that end up in your net the other 15%, and there are no good times for that sort of thing. The other thing is other than Suchy, you really have no rushers on the backend, Chelios could do it but it's a lot to ask in addition to his other duties.

Other thoughts:
- Your first line is great chemistry wise, but as GBC has often said, chemistry has decreased as an edge by this time, if it's much of a factor at all. In isolation, Hodge and Cashman are two of the weakest 1st liners left, if not the weakest. Hodge was widely considered to be an Espo creation.
Also, how great are they going to be without Bobby Orr playing the point? Suchy might be your best bet back there to play with them, but that particular 5-man unit won't inspire any visions of defensive greatness; a clogging, counter team with rushing D Howe and Goodfellow could create some bad situations for you.

- It'll be interesting to see who Oates is matched up against; he's going to be at a physical disadvantage to any of my centers, but he was seemingly always at disadvantage physically.

- Kluklay-Oates-Hull is damn solid.

- As terrifying as your first PP unit is, your 2nd is equally underwhelming. While that doesn't cancel out entirely, you're going to be leaning on a couple guys A LOT.

- Still have the best player in the series in Jean Beliveau.

- As good as Suchy is in that role, Goodfellow is better.

- Sinden + Espo + Hodge? Again? Yeesh. Sinden also only really coached for five years + the Summit. He had good results + the Summit, but it's just an observation. Don't know how much he adds, and what he adds, how much of that is subtracted from infighting? Then again, I lost last year to a team with Mark Messier coached by Roger Nielson (LOL he got him firedaments) so who knows.
Yipes, a bit late...but better late than never eh?

I'm not sure what your issue with Herbie Lewis is. If being one of the better scorers in the 30's is worth nothing, then how about being one of the better defensemen in the 1910's? You have Joe Hall on your top pair. This guy retired from pro hockey before the institution of the forward pass. If a guy who puts up points in the 1930's (a time generally regarded as the beginning of the modern era) isn't worth much, then how a guy who played 20 years earlier with far, far less legitimate competition should be worth that much less. Sounds like a big liability on the top pairing to me.

And how about Ebbie Goodfellow? Same era as Lewis (same team, actually). Why should his accomplishments including a wartime Hart trophy count for anything? That's your #2 and #3 defensemen down the toilet because they played in the supposed dark ages of hockey.

All I'm saying is you can't have it both ways, in this case.

The fact is, Herbie Lewis was a far better offensive player than anyone on your bottom six. And unless we just entirely discredit an era (one that included Morenz, Shore, etc), then he should be regarded as such.

Vladimir Shadrin was also significantly better offensively than any of your bottom six guys. He was a PPG in the Summit Series, lead the olympics in scoring, and was a consistant producer in the WC's and Soviet league play.

Paiement isn't an elite offensive weapon (and trust me, he's not there to carry the offense), but he's no worse than anyone on your 3rd or 4th line, and had a higher peak while playing on some downright awfull teams.

I think it's pretty clear that my team does have more offense from top to bottom.

I'd get to the rest of this, but I'm off to work. hopefully tonight.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 01:01 PM
  #44
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,951
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
I'm not sure what your issue with Herbie Lewis is. If being one of the better scorers in the 30's is worth nothing... If a guy who puts up points in the 1930's (a time generally regarded as the beginning of the modern era) isn't worth much...
When did I ever say that? Or say anything about the "Dark Ages of hockey"? A direct quote would be absolutely ideal and back up everything you said! Wait, what's that? Oh, it's you putting words in my mouth! Things I neither said, nor inferred. I said making the top ten in scoring in a 100 player league (something he did all of twice, finishing 6th and 9th, if we're going to be so exacting) isn't the achievement it is in a 500 player league. It's not. It's also not a fair point to bring up as I don't have anyone comparison wise who played in Lewis' era in my bottom six which was more my point.

I said Herbie Lewis is a nice little player. He had a couple nice playoffs in 34 and 35. I like him a lot on a 3rd line. I also said he's the best scorer on each of our bottom sixes. But he's not an elite scorer, something YOU are inferring with the top-10 thing and pointing out I don't have anyone in that stratosphere. Again, by all means quote me from this thread, you'll be able to see if I edit my responses. I'm waiting.

Quote:
And how about Ebbie Goodfellow? Same era as Lewis (same team, actually). Why should his accomplishments including a wartime Hart trophy count for anything?
Never said that. 1939-1940 wasn't quite the talent vaccum that 1944 was, scoring is just about equal is the pre-war years and you know that -- most players stayed until around 1943. I'd consider a 1940 Hart Trophy just as worthwhile as a 1935 Trophy. Nobody is discrediting an era, the greats were great. And Herbie had a couple years where he bordered on great. But lets not make more of it than what it is.

Quote:
Vladimir Shadrin was also significantly better offensively than any of your bottom six guys. He was a PPG in the Summit Series, lead the olympics in scoring, and was a consistant producer in the WC's and Soviet league play.
In the playoffs, I'd rather have Bob Bourne, for evidence cited.


And really, all of this has been over a really minor point. The fact that you're so focused on such minutiae makes me feel better about this matchup.

Evil Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 05:46 PM
  #45
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather View Post
And really, all of this has been over a really minor point. The fact that you're so focused on such minutiae makes me feel better about this matchup.
You made the original point, I'm just making a counter argument.


I felt that saying I have the better offense (and then backing it up facts, like a 3rd line that's far better offensively than yours) is a little bigger than minutia, but to each his own

I have about 15 minutes before I leave for school tonight, so I guess I'll summarize as best I can:

I have the better offensive team, period. You can try to poke holes in in the 1930's scoring records or pretend that Soviets don't count, but it's a fact.

I have a better defense corps. I'll give you the bottom pair, but as far as the top-4 goes (ie: the guys playing 90% of the game), I think it goes to me pretty easily.

I have home ice advantage, and I think this series is an excellent matchup for my squad. My defense is ideal against a forechecking team. The fact that your whole offensive gameplan seems to be built around forechecking my #4 defender (all based upon the demonstratedly false premise that he's "pillow soft") gives me confidence in this regard. I remember when Nicklas "lumberjack" Lidstrom and Larry "maniac" Murphy shut down the Legion of Doom in the '97 playoffs. I'm not saying Suchy is Lidstrom, but simply that a smart defenseman with the ability to control the pace of the game (as Suchy is) can certainly stand up to a strong forecheck, and they don't have to be a big bruiser to do it.

On offense, I'm drooling over the idea of having my #1 line pounding the puck down low against a spazztacular penalty machine like Joe Hall. I think my PP is going to see a lot of icetime because of Hall in this series, and I think it's going to be deadly. Combine the best crease man ever (Esposito), probably the best one-timer ever (Hull), and one of the greatest playmakers ever (Oates), and I think Billy Smith is in for some long nights ahead.

I'd love to write more (although I'm sure all the voting is done anyways), but I'm off to school. Cheers.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-03-2007, 07:04 PM
  #46
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,951
vCash: 500
The Rangers would like to announce that Joe Hall, in fear of his "spazztastic" nature will be scratched in games in Boston and Jerry "King Kong" Korab will take his place on the top pairing. We feel we won't lose much defensively at all and will stay just as tough without the PIMs, as Korab will be on strict orders to play as conservative a game as possible -- we have Howe for rushing the puck. On games in the Garden, Hall will be reinserted but paired with Lester Patrick and given duty at specially selected times against the lower 2 lines of Aurora.

Quote:
Originally Posted by arrbez View Post
I have a better defense corps. I'll give you the bottom pair, but as far as the top-4 goes (ie: the guys playing 90% of the game), I think it goes to me pretty easily.
Your bottom pair plays 6 minutes a night? Yikes. I plan on mine playing about 14-16.

Quote:
My defense is ideal against a forechecking team.
But how are your forwards against a trap and transition plan? Jacques Martin is one of the finest in that regard, and several of your forwards, especially your top line might not have the footspeed to catch back up.

Quote:
The fact that your whole offensive gameplan seems to be built around forechecking my #4 defender (all based upon the demonstratedly false premise that he's "pillow soft") gives me confidence in this regard. I remember when Nicklas "lumberjack" Lidstrom and Larry "maniac" Murphy shut down the Legion of Doom in the '97 playoffs. I'm not saying Suchy is Lidstrom, but simply that a smart defenseman with the ability to control the pace of the game (as Suchy is) can certainly stand up to a strong forecheck, and they don't have to be a big bruiser to do it.
Excellent. Mark Howe, Ebbie Goodfellow, and Lester Patrick were all very smart and I look forward to them negating the Esposito line, with that line of thinking. One of the reasons Murphy-Lidstrom shutting down the LoD line is so easy to recall is because it's generally an aberration -- big, strong forechecking forwards typically are a strategic favorite against smaller, more skilled defensemen.

Quote:
On offense, I'm drooling over the idea of having my #1 line pounding the puck down low against a spazztacular penalty machine like Joe Hall.
Time for a new gameplan.

Quote:
I think my PP is going to see a lot of icetime because of Hall in this series, and I think it's going to be deadly.
Whoops. Speaking of spazzing defensemen, Chris Chelios averages nearly 2 PIM per game, as does Ted Harris in the playoffs. Wonder how Tiny Thompson's nerves are going to handle Lemieux, Beliveau, Forsberg, and Punch being on his doorstep while point shots are flying form Howe and Lester Patrick. His losing playoff record doesn't inspire a ton of confidence.

I agree the voting is done. I think the Aurora "Paper" Tigers will win vote wise. Isn't going to stop me from pounding away at your overrated team .

Evil Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2007, 12:30 PM
  #47
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather View Post
Your bottom pair plays 6 minutes a night? Yikes. I plan on mine playing about 14-16.
Are we still talking even strength here?

If we estimate that around 8:00-10:00 minutes of the game is spent on special teams, then your third pair will have as much or more icetime as your second pair if you plan on giving them 15:00 a game.

In terms of total icetime, obviously Hatcher will have more than 6 minutes (all those powerplays I plan to be on, you know )

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2007, 12:34 PM
  #48
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,610
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Sather View Post
I agree the voting is done. I think the Aurora "Paper" Tigers will win vote wise. Isn't going to stop me from pounding away at your overrated team .
Does anyone get the feeling that perhaps this sentence is an indication of where the ATD is headed?

I think I have the better team (and clearly you think you do), but with only half the GM's voting this round, you never know. Don't throw in the towell before the final whistle goes.

Ideally, I'd like to remain on speaking terms with any GM I eliminate, or and GM who eliminates me. This is all friendly, after all...right?

I don't mean to sound like a dick here, but did I come off as this bitter and petty? I hope not, but maybe I did...


Last edited by arrbez: 12-04-2007 at 12:40 PM.
arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2007, 01:51 PM
  #49
Evil Sather
YOU KILL THE JOE
 
Evil Sather's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: YOU MAKE SOME MO
Posts: 1,951
vCash: 500
I'm fine with you if that's what you're asking. IMO we both went beyond the "polite discourse" that is generally assumed between opponents because I couldn't respond at all for a week and by that time the voting was in, so we basically had free passes to be more... aggressive than we might normally have been.

I had a whole other huge post written up yesterday expounding on a lot of things (my forwards, much more elaboration on the goalie battle, etc.) but at this point there really is no point. I kind of conceed I lost my ability to argue for an upset by being AWOL for so long (and I truly think I could have swayed people, to be honest), but if I pull out a victory I'll be pretty shocked.

Evil Sather is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
12-04-2007, 01:56 PM
  #50
raleh
Registered User
 
raleh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dartmouth, NS
Posts: 1,764
vCash: 500
Hey guys,

write up will be done by the end of the day. Soon as I get off work I'll have all the games up.

raleh is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:14 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. Đ2015 All Rights Reserved.