HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

All-Time Draft #12, Part III

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-19-2009, 01:53 PM
  #1001
Johnny Engine
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,266
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
More hyperbole on the players front.

Dragging Henri into this is just fallacy. Henri was a great player, on a different level than the Duffs and Hadfields of this world. They are a few tiers below, and while one of them proved to be an effective winger on a great 1st line, the other proved a good second line defensive player.
The inclusion of Henri works perfectly, because with respect to line placement he's about equal to Duff. A better player? Yes, but there have always been better players at center than wing.

To compare it to the ATD, Beliveau and Mahovlich are both at the same level as elite first liners (both arguably 3rd best at their positions), but if you think Mahovlich even approaches Beliveau as a player, you're dreaming.

Johnny Engine is offline  
Old
10-19-2009, 01:53 PM
  #1002
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
To be fair, if you look at his stats, we could make the assumption that Worters HAD to be incredible for his teams to win ANY games. Look at '28 and '29.

'28 - 19 wins, 11 of which were shutouts. He had to be amazing for his team to win because they couldn't score.

'29 - 16 wins, 13 shutouts. Same thing as above.

'36 playoffs - His only 2 wins were shutouts, and then allowed 11 goals in 3 other games. His teams just couldn't score, and likely didn't play well defensively either.
Actually, in 1928, of his 19 wins, 6 were SO. 5 were ties. It was better in 1929, where only 4 or so of his 13 shutouts were ties.

I do find it odd, though, that this argument is being used, as it was a trend quite prominent during Hainsworth's 1929 season. On the outsite, Hainsworth had 22 wins and 22 SO, and only 5 were ties(a better rate than Worters as well), so 17 of his 22 wins were because he shut the door. Yet you'll never see Hainsworth get any credit for that, or anything he did in the 1929 season, for that matter.

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
10-19-2009, 01:55 PM
  #1003
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Actually, in 1928, of his 19 wins, 6 were SO. 5 were ties. It was better in 1929, where only 4 or so of his 13 shutouts were ties.

I do find it odd, though, that this argument is being used, as it was a trend quite prominent during Hainsworth's 1929 season. On the outsite, Hainsworth had 22 wins and 22 SO, and only 5 were ties(a better rate than Worters as well), so 17 of his 22 wins were because he shut the door. Yet you'll never see Hainsworth get any credit for that, or anything he did in the 1929 season, for that matter.
Well, my gripe is that Hainsworth played on way better teams, right? It is unfortunate that we don't have the scores for those games on hand.

jarek is offline  
Old
10-19-2009, 02:01 PM
  #1004
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,500
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Like I said, I'm done with arguing about Duff.

However, it is incredibly disappointing that you see Duff as nothing more than a second line checker. Beastly playoff numbers, 5 top-20s in goals, and he's nothing more than a second line checker. Also, the whole chemistry thing here with a single player is completely overblown. So Ratelle suddenly wouldn't play as good with a guy who was for all intents and purposes, better at everything than the guy he actually played with in real life? They both played similar games, except Duff was just flat out better. 2nd line checker.. lol. That one is very funny.
Gah, I'm done too. You just repeat same stuff (see bold) and maintain your position stubbornly in face of any evidence to the contrary. Not that I do much else.

Just FYI, second line checker ain't belittling, more of a compliment in a way. Not many elite defensive players can play second line minutes and provide second line-level contributions to offense.

Let's just agree to disagree on this bloody-long-wait-until-my-pick-induced argument.

MadArcand is online now  
Old
10-19-2009, 02:06 PM
  #1005
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Richard's lack of size is why he was never given significant powerplay time. True, the 50s Canadians were absolutely stacked, but the 60s dynasty wasn't nearly as stacked.

Maybe I should put it another way - Richard is dominant at both ends of the ice at even strength. And he's proven that he can dominate the game at even strength. He has not done that on the power play, so maybe it would be better putting him on the 2nd PP unit and having him play half the even strength game.

No evidence he would be bad on the powerplay, just that there is evidence he is a dominant even strength guy, whereas this evidence doesn't exist for the powerplay.

That said, he's not a bad choice for the powerplay, obviously. He does, however, come with a question mark and at the very least needs a winger with size of there (which you might have already taken care of).

Or wait, weren't you doing that crazy thing where he drops back and plays the point on the PP? If so, his lack of size becomes less of an issue. Of course, the crazy strategy itself comes with questions.
No I'm done with that strategy. Rather than use up a pick for a guy who's main function on my team is to stand in front of the net on the PP I'm going to go in another direction. Plus I want my best players on the ice.

As for size being an issue, I don't think it will. This isn't the 50s-60s where a smaller player could be taken advantage of while on a PP(I can only imagine how brutal the PKers of those days were). There's plenty of small players who will see PP time, guys like Kariya, Fleury, St. Louis, Bentley, etc. Plus, he will have at least one big winger there in Didier Pitre. The other winger, be in Peter Stastny or someone else promoted to the top PP unit(So I can best use Stastny's playmaking), remains to be seen.

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
10-19-2009, 02:06 PM
  #1006
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Gah, I'm done too. You just repeat same stuff (see bold) and maintain your position stubbornly in face of any evidence to the contrary. Not that I do much else.

Just FYI, second line checker ain't belittling, more of a compliment in a way. Not many elite defensive players can play second line minutes and provide second line-level contributions to offense.

Let's just agree to disagree on this bloody-long-wait-until-my-pick-induced argument.
For what it's worth, seventies and I acknowledged the question marks of Dick Duff on the first line and got Roberts, who we feel is a much better fit to take his spot. Our actual 2nd line of Duff - Ullman - Morris I think is going to be one of the best two-way lines in the draft.

jarek is offline  
Old
10-19-2009, 02:10 PM
  #1007
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,787
vCash: 500
I'm posting the new draft thread pronto. Maybe in the next one, I should ask that the GMs refrain from arguing in circles.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
10-19-2009, 02:15 PM
  #1008
Gibsons Finest
Beast
 
Gibsons Finest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Saskatoon/Brandon
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,228
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jareklajkosz View Post
Well, my gripe is that Hainsworth played on way better teams, right? It is unfortunate that we don't have the scores for those games on hand.
Hockey-Reference has them up. I'm not sure how accurate they are, but everything seems to be in order, so I go from there.

As for Hainsworth playing on a way better team, did he? In 1929 his Canadiens scored only 18 more goals than Worters' Americans. Considering the era it's a nice chunk more, but nothing crazy like many would think. Defensively, I won't say that the Americans were better, but they did have the better defenseman between the two teams. There wasn't as much past Mantha as one would think, either, on those Canadiens teams.

Gibsons Finest is offline  
Old
10-19-2009, 02:20 PM
  #1009
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Ryan Getzlaf View Post
Hockey-Reference has them up. I'm not sure how accurate they are, but everything seems to be in order, so I go from there.

As for Hainsworth playing on a way better team, did he? In 1929 his Canadiens scored only 18 more goals than Worters' Americans. Considering the era it's a nice chunk more, but nothing crazy like many would think. Defensively, I won't say that the Americans were better, but they did have the better defenseman between the two teams. There wasn't as much past Mantha as one would think, either, on those Canadiens teams.
Hmm.. so would it be fair to say that those two teams were on about equal levels? I still remember Hainsworth's teams being better.

jarek 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 07:34 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.