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.

MLD 2010 Mickey Ion Semi Final: #1 Toronto Marlies vs. #5 Carolina Hurricanes

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-26-2010, 03:04 PM
  #26
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Second lines:

I would like to see sources for Romnes' alleged strong two-way game (not that I don't believe you, but would like to see it for myself - LoH mentions nothing at all about his defensive game). His playmaking finishes are impressive, but he doesn't bring much in the goalscoring department. Ridley was very consistent two-way center for a longer time, and while lacking the playmaking peak of Romnes he makes up for it by being the better goalscorer here.

Hamill brings a lot of hitting to go with a short peak as quality finisher. Good enough. Art Gagne was tiny. His size may be a hindrance here. He brings good offense though.

Lukac was a beast of a goalscorer, one of the best Czechoslovak ones ever, and among Slovak ones, only Bondra beats him in that regard. Like Bondra, he was also very fast skater with very hard slapshot. Unlike Bondra, he provided more rounded offensive game. Lukac also learned to play solid two-way game later in his career. He delivered internationally as well, being over PPG in best-on-best competitions (two OGs and CC).

Ray Whitney is another speedster here, with consistent offensive game - he peaked at 10th in goals and 12th (twice) in assists, but was top 30 numerous times, while playing for no offensive juggernauts of teams:
goals: 10th, 24th
assists: 12th, 12th, 27th, 28th
points: 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th, 28th, 30th
More of a playmaker, obviously, but that's just as well, since Lukac is the finisher here.

Overall, I think Lukac is the best offensive player on the second lines, with Whitney coming in second. Hamill and Romnes have great peaks in their respective departments, and Gagne rounds out the line well enough. We have a strong two-way center with good playmaking yet still able to score some goals, an elite goalscorer and quality playmaking winger who can also score. One edge we have here is speed - Whitney and Lukac are speed demons, and between them and the Courtnalls on the first line, your defense will run ragged. Your line is the more physical, and depending on Romnes' two-way game similar defensively.

Edge: slightly Carolina
Click Romnes' bio, and you can read the quote about his defensive play.

Ridley is actually a better playmaker than goalscorer. His offensive peak saw him ranked about 40th in goals, and 30th in assists - neither one is impressive. His defensive play is still a mystery, since I have yet to find a quote about it, and we know he's very soft.

Where are you getting some of this stuff about Lukac? If you have information about him, you should share the quotes. You say he's a speed demon with a very hard shot, yet there's no quote. You say he brings a well-rounded offensive game as well as a solid defensive game, yet there's no quote. He put up some impressive offensive numbers in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world, but didn't put up very good finishes on the international stage.

Hamill actually played in the best league in the world, and over a 6 year span he was one of the best goalscorers in that league. He's better than "good enough".

Whitney is not a speedster - I've watched pretty much alll of his career. I'd give him credit for quick and elusive, but he's not that fast. He is not a one-on-one type of player; he takes the space he's given, but uses time to create a multi-player attack. Also, I find it odd that Art Gagne's size might cause problems, but Whitney's won't... maybe it's just me.

Gange actually played bigger than his size. He was a gritty competitior who never let himself be pushed around. In addition to that he was a very good offensive player - both as a scorer and a playmaker.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:13 PM
  #27
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
In addition to that he was a very good offensive player - both as a scorer and a playmaker.
Unfair comparison if you're comparing a post-expansion player to a pre-expansion guy.

"The Age Of Specialization" has ensured that players who show up on both the goals and assists leaderboards are rarer than ever. Smaller leagues made it almost impossible to be one of the league's top assist-getters if you were already one of the league's best goalscorers. And vice versa.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:14 PM
  #28
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Those other two years at 9th and 15th were 70% and 65% of 2nd place. That's just in goals, mind you, he was not a good playmaker at all. Whitney has had great seasons in both areas. You should also be sure to mention that Hamill's best goalscoring seasons were 1943 (a war year), 1942 (a slightly lesser year for competition, whether due to war or not), and 1946 & 1947 (two war-recovery years). He falls drastically off the map beyond that - 44% is his best goalscoring year aside from those.

Whitney has had goalscoring years of 66, 64, 64, 59, 52, and 50%. And goalscoring isn't even his strength. I am not going to go into his playmaking numbers compared to Hamill as there is little point.
You do realize that when you add more team to the league, more players to each team, and more games to the schedule, that inflates the percentages of the mediocre players, which is what Ray Whitney has always need, right? These percentages are just as flawed, if not, more flawed that all the other techniques that we have used.

The fact is Red Hamill was one of the best goalscorers on the planet for a 6 year period. Whitney has never come close to that.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:17 PM
  #29
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
You do realize that when you add more team to the league, more players to each team, and more games to the schedule, that inflates the percentages of the mediocre players, which is what Ray Whitney has always need, right? These percentages are just as flawed, if not, more flawed that all the other techniques that we have used.
And I have yet to hear a good argument for why 10th place with 55% is more impressive than 25th place with 65%.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:19 PM
  #30
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Unfair comparison if you're comparing a post-expansion player to a pre-expansion guy.

"The Age Of Specialization" has ensured that players who show up on both the goals and assists leaderboards are rarer than ever. Smaller leagues made it almost impossible to be one of the league's top assist-getters if you were already one of the league's best goalscorers. And vice versa.
What the hell are you talking about?

If it was "almost impossible" for Gagne to get high goal finishes and assists finishes at the same time, and he still did it, why it is unfair?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:21 PM
  #31
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
And I have yet to hear a good argument for why 10th place with 55% is more impressive than 25th place with 65%.
Because one guy is 10th best in the world and the other guy is 25th.....

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:36 PM
  #32
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
What the hell are you talking about?

If it was "almost impossible" for Gagne to get high goal finishes and assists finishes at the same time, and he still did it, why it is unfair?
Sorry, impossible not to be, is what that should have said.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:37 PM
  #33
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Because one guy is 10th best in the world and the other guy is 25th.....
Wow, you really like the rankings method. I've created a monster.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:45 PM
  #34
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
And I have yet to hear a good argument for why 10th place with 55% is more impressive than 25th place with 65%.
I have mixed feelings about the percentage system. In the ATD, it seemed like a good tool to get a handle on whether a pre-1929 player was actually anything special or just looked good because of lack of competition.

But at the MLD level, it really does seem to be giving lots of credit to the mediocre modern players over mediocre older players. Obviously, the talent pool is a lot larger now, but there might be other factors involved, such as league size, when you get this far down.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:49 PM
  #35
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
And I have yet to hear a good argument for why 10th place with 55% is more impressive than 25th place with 65%.
Why is it that the % method always seems to favour modern players? I can see why to a degree, but it never seems to go the other way at all.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:59 PM
  #36
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
You do realize that when you add more team to the league, more players to each team, and more games to the schedule, that inflates the percentages of the mediocre players, which is what Ray Whitney has always need, right? These percentages are just as flawed, if not, more flawed that all the other techniques that we have used.

The fact is Red Hamill was one of the best goalscorers on the planet for a 6 year period. Whitney has never come close to that.
The former is actually a good point. With so many extra first line roles in larger leagues, it means that those lesser stars get more ice-time and thus, close the percentage difference. Unlike in olden days, you don't have to be a top-10 or so player to get the most ice-time on your team. It starts off to drop-off like that, I suppose, because there are about 24 extra top-line prime ice-time roles today than in the original 6, wheras in the original 6, lesser stars get snubbed to 2nd line duty, and given less time and opportunity to shorten the percentages.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 04:14 PM
  #37
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Why is it that the % method always seems to favour modern players? I can see why to a degree, but it never seems to go the other way at all.
It's pretty obvious that modern depth players should be favored to an extent - the modern league has a deeper talent pool, especially after the Euros came over em mass in the early 90s.

The question then is - are modern players favored too much? It looks like they might be, but I'm not sure.

There are major variables involved that affect the stats of depth players aka MLD-level guys: the talent pool and league size. For the percentage system to be a better method than what we've been using, it should be primarily affected by the depth of talent pool, and not league size (which has nothing to do with how good players actually were).

One way of testing the percentage system would be to see if it matches up with what should intuitively be true.

Roughly, the 20th best player in 1980 should be equal to somewhere between the 35th to 50th best player in 2010 (depending on whether you think the increase in Canada's population contributed to expanding the talent pool or if the expansion was just due to the Euros and Americans joining the league).

However, there really shouldn't be that much difference between 1960 (by which time the NHL had fully recovered from the war) and 1980. Some difference due to the increase in Canada's population, sure. But it shouldn't be dramatic.

So that's the question. When does the percentage system start "favoring" modern players? If it's around 1967, then the system is being artificially skewed by league size and should probably be thrown out, at least as a comparison between eras (it would still be a useful tool for those tricky pre-consolidation guys). If doesn't start "favoring" modern players until around 1990, then the percentage system probably really is measuring the increased talent pool of the league.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 04:16 PM
  #38
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Oh god, so many things I absolutely, extremely disagree with. I shouldn't do this (as I'm pretty damn drunk right now), but I just can't wait to dispel some of those myths and fabrications for tomorrow.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 04:18 PM
  #39
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,492
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Oh god, so many things I absolutely, extremely disagree with. I shouldn't do this (as I'm pretty damn drunk right now), but I just can't wait to dispel some of those myths and fabrications for tomorrow.
YES! Drunk, angry hockey arguments! This is what the MLD has been missing!

By the way, its' really funny to be on my computer at 5PM and see things like this. Time zone differences and all.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 04:38 PM
  #40
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Care to explain what's so impressive about leading the sad-sack Islanders in that department for 5 seasons? Or the sad sack Ottawa Senators for most of his time here? The only good teams he led in PPG in were the 1999 and 2001 Ottawa Senators- the rest were pretty much medocre or worse.
Weee! Sad sack teams! What an excuse! '97 Sens, playoff team, 7-game 1st round loss. '98 Sens, playoff team, lost in conference semis. '99 Sens, .628 team, how sad. '01 Sens, .665 team, outright tragic. '02 Isles, .585 team, 7-game 1st round loss, atrocious! '03 Isles, .506 playoff team. '04 Isles, .555 playoff team. '07 Isles, .561 playoff team.

Such a pile of good-for-nothing, sub-.250 sad-sack teams, eh?

Quote:
On the other hand, Savard played on pretty medocre teams himself up till the 2006 Thrashers, but his teams never reached the lows of those some of those Senators teams. And of course the Bruins got pretty good soon after he arrived.
So wait, Yashin being the leader on mediocre teams is bad, yet Savard not being the leader on mediocre teams is somehow better? I don't follow this logic. Probably because there ain't any.

But wait, Savard's teams were below .500 about 75% of time, the exact opposite of Yashin's... he did actually accomplish the marvelous feat of failing to lead lesser teams where his counterpart always led his, greater teams!

As for lows, it's most certainly Yashin's fault that expansion Sens sucked. Who else to blame than their only offensive player who actually delivered!?

Quote:
And I daresay he had more competition for such metrics. Who was Yashin really competing with in NYI? Alfredsson only came in a couple of seasons after Yashin and hadn't bloomed yet. Hossa only came in around when the Senators got good, and he wasn't as his best yet, and he isn't at the level of Savard's competition. First Marc Savard had Gretzky (38, but still enough to beat em out), then Iginla in prime form, then Heatley and Kovalchuk, all ATD top-6 scoring worthy (Alfredsson is more of a glue-guy/defensive consience in a top-6 role). When Marc Savard got to Boston and the competition dried up, getting the same benefit Yashin did, he started to lead his team in scoring. How is this "fair" exactly? This metric, to me, is poor and bias.
Uh right, because Savard's sucky numbers in NYR and CGY were mighty threat to Iggy and Gretzky (the hell!?). And because Savard's incredible competition in his best seasons in Boston in the likes of Sturm and Krejci truly shoves the likes of Alfredsson and McEachern in Ottawa or Satan and hell even Peca in NYI aside. Just incredible players, and what a feat to lead your team in scoring ahead of bloody 3rd liner material Sturm!

Quote:
I'm not big on the adjusted points metric, and am not entirely sure how it works. Does it account for games played, since Yashin has played around 70 more games than Savard? Is it really a perfect way to adjust for differences in league scoring rates? How about team scoring rates?
The difference is a lot more than the 70 games would account for.

Quote:
Why doesn't their speed reflect into more offense if it's so deadly? Russ's playmaking is nowhere near the level of Yashin's goalscoring- that isn't a good compliment in my mind. Sure, they make up for some of Yashin's intangible problems, but offensively, with both lacking and a lack of playmaking, I don't see the click. Yes, Courtnall had a nice year being a complimentary players there- what else have they got?
So a gritty puckwinner and scorer, a scorer/all around offensive center and defensively responsible playmaker don't click? Right.

Quote:
Definitely the most talented winger, by far, and the only one to crack top-10 in a major offensive metric- and he did so twice. (3 times if you look at ES goals).
Was also so great by far, that he was ran out of town.

Quote:
What makes Russ Courtnall a better offensive player than Al MacAdam? Because he had one solid year with Mike Modano? What makes a player who's only top-20 finish was a 20th in assists better than one who has a 12th in points and 14th in goals? Both were fairly consistent but not impressive scorers outside of those years. Both good two-way players. I see no reason why Russ Courtnall would be considered better than Al Macadam.
Because he led his teams in points as much as MacAdam did? Because he scored on a more consistent basis for longer? Because MacAdam rode Bobby Smith's coattails en route to his best seasons? Because MacAdam's offensive numbers are generally unimpressive outside his peak?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 04:50 PM
  #41
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
The back of his hockey card calls him one of the best defensive players in the national hockey league.
The backs of Rob Brown hockey cards I have here imply he was an incredible offensive player and pest - which is obvious ********. Others imply Kariya was incredible defensively - which is even more obvious pile of crap.

Quote:
What makes Ridley at all comparable to Romnes peak? His finishes are unimpressive, and I frankly I don't see how any added bonuses outside of it would come close to beating Romnes 3, 4, 7 in assists, and 4th in points- and those aren't his only finishes in the top-20, either. Reding up on Ridley, he seems like good, but not grear, two-way guy- doesn't seem better than Romnes either. Not to mention Romnes was a strong playoff performer (though Ridley doesn't seem bad in that regard) I think Romnes has at least a good edge here, if not better.
Ridley's peak isn't close to Romnes', sure. Romnes' overall body of work isn't much, though, and Ridley's consistency is nothing to scoff at. Peak isn't the be all end all, otherwise Yashin makes Savard look like ECHLer with his 2nd in Hart.

Quote:
Brings toughness in general too- more than good enough. Art Gagne may have been on the small side, but he was fesity and fierece and won't get pushed around just because of it.
At that size, he would have to be as feisty and fierce as Theof Fleury to be a factor in physical play. I don't see that.

Quote:
Yes, Lukac is a pretty good scorer here. Art Gagne is no slouch either, also shining very well ina lesser league.
I don't think he shone as much, nor in as good league, TBH.

Quote:
Impressive consitency, but nothing near the peak of Hamill's 2nd, 3rd in goals, and he too has a couple of other decent years (9th and 15th in goals) that would certainly at least compare to if not best Whitney's depth finishes, even on a percentage scale. In addition, Whitney isn't really an intangible guy either, while Red Hamill is the perfect tough guy who doesn't take a lot of penalties, giving him a good intangible edge. This, and peak scoring levels combined, I feel, gives Hamill an edge on Whitney.
2nd and 3rd in war years and barely anything outside that vs. remarkable consistency in all-around offense. Hardly an edge.

Quote:
Lukac certainly depends quite a bit on how much one values the Czech league scoring in the 80s and late 70s. Art Gagne may not reach the heights of Lukac, but he has some very consistent scoring in various leagues, including the WCHL which I don't see as weaker than the Czech leagues- 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 11th in goals, 1st, 5th, 6th, 7th in assists and 1st, 3rd, 6th, 7th in points across 3 leagues (WCHL, a third tier but still good league at the time, WHL, a merger of the two western leagues and certainly equal to if not stronger than the NHL at the time likely, and then the NHL, where he had a nice year in 1928 with no other league around). Certainly these finishes aren't exactly accurate given the other leagues around in a number of these finishes, but that flies for Lukac too, doesn't it? I could see the statement though.
I think Lukac being over PPG in best-on-best international competition is enough proof of his superiority, even if better finishes in better league aren't...

Quote:
Whitney, however, as the 2nd best offensive player here I don't see. Both Hamill and Romnes crush him in peaks, and have a couple of other solid finishes outside their top-10s to add to their consitency. Whitney may have been a rather consistent and good scorer, but that doesn't make up that gap at the top in my mind.
Once again you go by the holy peak and ignore much better consistency in face of tougher opposition.

Quote:
As far as the speed, again, why doesn't it translate to more offense in the part of Whitney? And our defense may not be particularly fast, but we don't have any slow-foots either.
What more offense should Whitney generate? On mediocre Panthers or dreadful BJs? He was top-30 player several times on those teams. Once with a better team in Carolina, he's been close to PPG at high age. What more could he do?

Quote:
Lukac likely has an edge on RW, but I don't see it as making up the edges I feel the Marlies have at LW and C, which I have explained. Lukac may be the best player in this comparison, but I think Ridley is likely the worst. In addition, again I feel our line is built better too. Who is providing the toughness for the top line here? Hamill is the perfect player to bring toughness in the line. and Gagne brings some nice complimentary grit. Who exactly is going to stop Hamill when he gets in Lukac's face and knocks him down, as he likely well when these lines do spend time against eachother? I could see the Hurricanes second line getting rather pushes around as a result. The lines are likely defensively similar.
Hamill can't even catch Lukac. Ridley is the worst? Because he was remarkably consistent instead of being a flash in the pan?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 04:53 PM
  #42
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Savard has a better peak than Yashin, and he has better dominance versus his peers... and he accomplished it all despite his size. As for durability, Yashin, not including the season he chose to sit out, missed large parts of 3 other seasons, so he's hardly an iron man.
Yet he still played 70 games more.

As for better peak, please. The day Savard almost wins the Hart hell will freeze over.

Quote:
The Courtnalls are abolsutely not 1st line players - not even close. Geoff peaked as about the 35th best offesive player in the league, and Russ peaked at about 45th. That is completely unimpressive, and not 1st line material.

MacAdam, for the sake of comparison, peaked at 30th. He also led Team Canada in scoring in a World Championship.
MacAdam, for comparison, also sucked outside his peak. The Courtnalls were first line players most of their careers.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 05:06 PM
  #43
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Click Romnes' bio, and you can read the quote about his defensive play.

Ridley is actually a better playmaker than goalscorer. His offensive peak saw him ranked about 40th in goals, and 30th in assists - neither one is impressive. His defensive play is still a mystery, since I have yet to find a quote about it, and we know he's very soft.
I saw nothing about Ridley being very soft. No quotes on Ridley? Pelletier calls him "A fine two way player" in his bio.

Quote:
Where are you getting some of this stuff about Lukac? If you have information about him, you should share the quotes. You say he's a speed demon with a very hard shot, yet there's no quote. You say he brings a well-rounded offensive game as well as a solid defensive game, yet there's no quote. He put up some impressive offensive numbers in the 3rd or 4th best league in the world, but didn't put up very good finishes on the international stage.
Over PPG on international stage is not very good? When slotten in 2nd/3rd line due to nationality to boot?

I can link you to sources about Lukac, but can you read Slovak or Czech?

"later, after a one-year stint in Dukla Jihlava, under coach Nevesely, Vincent Lukac changed his style of play and become a player that fulfilled his defensive duties exceptionally, while still not forgetting his goalscoring talents"

"Most often he skated like a bullet into the slot and without much ado fired the puck with a slapshot past the goalie's head. He was perfect at hitting the top corners."

"fast-legged bomber"

-his Slovak hall of fame bio

Quote:
Hamill actually played in the best league in the world, and over a 6 year span he was one of the best goalscorers in that league. He's better than "good enough".
He was one of the best in one dimension in weak years. Hardly a superstar.

Quote:
Whitney is not a speedster - I've watched pretty much alll of his career. I'd give him credit for quick and elusive, but he's not that fast. He is not a one-on-one type of player; he takes the space he's given, but uses time to create a multi-player attack. Also, I find it odd that Art Gagne's size might cause problems, but Whitney's won't... maybe it's just me.
Whitney is a fast dangler, how is he not a one-on-one player at all?

Gagne's been diminituve, Whitney's just smallish.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 05:08 PM
  #44
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,584
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
YES! Drunk, angry hockey arguments! This is what the MLD has been missing!

By the way, its' really funny to be on my computer at 5PM and see things like this. Time zone differences and all.
It's just midnight here.

The silliness about the 3rd lines that LF posted in response to tony's post I'll leave for tomorrow though, for a full-fledged line analysis post.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 05:42 PM
  #45
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Weee! Sad sack teams! What an excuse! '97 Sens, playoff team, 7-game 1st round loss. '98 Sens, playoff team, lost in conference semis. '99 Sens, .628 team, how sad. '01 Sens, .665 team, outright tragic. '02 Isles, .585 team, 7-game 1st round loss, atrocious! '03 Isles, .506 playoff team. '04 Isles, .555 playoff team. '07 Isles, .561 playoff team.

Such a pile of good-for-nothing, sub-.250 sad-sack teams, eh?
I said the '99 sens and '01 sens were good. 3/7 years in Ottawa were dreadful, .250 or below teams. Perhaps not sad sack for most of his time there (close to it though), but certainly medocre. .'97 sens were also .470 win percentage, '98 a measly .506- interesting that you only whip that out when it favours you. Those are medocre or south of it regular season teams (and you spoke of him leading his team in the regular season, not the playoffs)

'Moving on to the Isles, you forget the '06 Isles, with .479%. None of those other teams were particularly good, especially the .506 '03 Isles. Leading teams like the '99 or '01 Senators is good, leading average or a bit above average teams aren't necessarily.

Quote:
So wait, Yashin being the leader on mediocre teams is bad, yet Savard not being the leader on mediocre teams is somehow better? I don't follow this logic. Probably because there ain't any.
I didn't say it was really better. Though he never played on teams nearly as bad as those starting Senators, which make up 25% of his resume. And Savard has played on good Boston teams, though more so for defensive reason.

Quote:
But wait, Savard's teams were below .500 about 75% of time, the exact opposite of Yashin's... he did actually accomplish the marvelous feat of failing to lead lesser teams where his counterpart always led his, greater teams!
Of course when talking about being a leading scoer on a team, it probably is better to look at the other best individuals.

Quote:
As for lows, it's most certainly Yashin's fault that expansion Sens sucked. Who else to blame than their only offensive player who actually delivered!?
I'm not blaming, or saying that's the case. However, when you say "Yashin is good because he led his teams in PPG!", which includes him leading 3 absolutely dreadful Senators teams, I'm speaking up.

Quote:
Uh right, because Savard's sucky numbers in NYR and CGY were mighty threat to Iggy and Gretzky (the hell!?). And because Savard's incredible competition in his best seasons in Boston in the likes of Sturm and Krejci truly shoves the likes of Alfredsson and McEachern in Ottawa or Satan and hell even Peca in NYI aside. Just incredible players, and what a feat to lead your team in scoring ahead of bloody 3rd liner material Sturm!
Did I not say I disliked this metric? And you fail to see the point in that Savard was generally facing much stronger individuals then Yashin was. Who is McEachern? Never heard of him. Alfredsson joined in around half way through Yashin's tenture and wasn't good yet. You insult who Savard was beating out with frequency- why don't you name some of the superstuds Yashin apparently was? Alfie and Hossa both weren't yet in the prime form that makes them ATD worthy.

Are we supposed to be impressed that Yashin scored more points than the likes of Daigle, McEachern (who?), Dackell, Parrish, the infamous Jason Blake, and Trent Hunter, and non-prime Alfie and Hossa?

I never said he was incredible for leading them. Why? Because I think the "He led his team!" metric is poor and often bias. Yet this is the metric which you based much of your post comparing the two centres on.

Quote:
The difference is a lot more than the 70 games would account for.
The gap is around 136 points. 70 games is enough to put a very nice dent in that for Savard- the rest, well again, I'm not big on the adjusted points metric and am rather unsure on it. Does it account for Yashin being the big man on campus right from the get-go while Savard started out as a third wheel?

Quote:
So a gritty puckwinner and scorer, a scorer/all around offensive center and defensively responsible playmaker don't click? Right.
A grtty puckwinner and ok scorer, a great scorer/all-around offensive centre, and a defensively responsible guy who is supposed to be the playmaker for those two and yet his highest finish is only a 20th in assists, don't click. That's right.

Quote:
Was also so great by far, that he was ran out of town.
Because he wasn't a superstar like Guy Lafeur or Jean Beliveau. He was good in Montreal, he just wasn't great, and so he got ran out of town. Is Larry Murphy a bad player because he got booed out of Toronto?

A 6th and 7th in goals as well as 3 top-5's in ES goals, in a modern era no less, aren't something any of your wingers can touch.

Quote:
Because he led his teams in points as much as MacAdam did? Because he scored on a more consistent basis for longer? Because MacAdam rode Bobby Smith's coattails en route to his best seasons? Because MacAdam's offensive numbers are generally unimpressive outside his peak?
You know what I think of leading a team in points already. MacAdam scored on a 60+ point pace for 7 straight years outside of one. He was consistent. Longer, I don't see as impressive when talking about guys this low on the offensive ladder. Courtnall played with Modano for his best year. And Courtnall's numbers are supposed to wow me outside his peak of 20th assists?

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 06:12 PM
  #46
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
The backs of Rob Brown hockey cards I have here imply he was an incredible offensive player and pest - which is obvious ********. Others imply Kariya was incredible defensively - which is even more obvious pile of crap.
The card doesn't "imply" it states that he was one of the best defensive players in the NHL.

Quote:
Ridley's peak isn't close to Romnes', sure. Romnes' overall body of work isn't much, though, and Ridley's consistency is nothing to scoff at. Peak isn't the be all end all, otherwise Yashin makes Savard look like ECHLer with his 2nd in Hart.
"Isn't much" though? Find me a lot of 2nd line centre's with better assist finishes than Romnes in this draft, if that work "isn't much". And It's not like Romnes got all these great top-10 finishes and then rolled up- he has some other solid finishes outside the top-10. Show us all what's so impressive about being around the 35th best scorer in your prime.

Sure, if you look at one year peak, Yashin has a fair edge. Anything beyond that and that's a vast exaggeration. I don't like one-year wonders, but when I describe peak with our players, it's more than one year, and they usually have other good finishes to back it up.

Quote:
At that size, he would have to be as feisty and fierce as Theof Fleury to be a factor in physical play. I don't see that.
Not physical necessarily, but certainly gritty and feisty.

Quote:
I don't think he shone as much, nor in as good league, TBH.
Do you think the PCHA is a good league? Do you think the NHL is a good league?
Two of his best seasons came in a league likely as good as if not better than the PCHA, another in the NHL after the western leagues folded. He had some other good years in the third tier WCHL, but it was likely a lot closer to the NHL and a PCHA of the time than the Czech league.

Quote:
2nd and 3rd in war years and barely anything outside that vs. remarkable consistency in all-around offense. Hardly an edge.
A 9th and a 15th in goals is hardly "barely anything".

Quote:
I think Lukac being over PPG in best-on-best international competition is enough proof of his superiority, even if better finishes in better league aren't...
Care to provide context? (placements, perhaps how many points against what teams).

What makes the Czech league better than the NHL, a merged WCHL and PCHA, and/or the WCHL, exactly? Better finishes sure, and he likely is better than Gagne, but let's not act like the Czech league is something special.

Quote:
Once again you go by the holy peak and ignore much better consistency in face of tougher opposition.
Define good "consistency". Doc Romnes and Red Hamill were placed fairly consistently high up there in assists and goals respectively, in their rather shorter than Whitney careers (helped, undoubtedly, by the differences in era's). How good is being outside the top-20 consistently, really?

Quote:
What more offense should Whitney generate? On mediocre Panthers or dreadful BJs? He was top-30 player several times on those teams. Once with a better team in Carolina, he's been close to PPG at high age. What more could he do?
Other players certainly do more i nsimilar scenarios. The point I was trying to make was, a specific attribute shouldn't really count for much except in certain scenarios. I don't care if a guy has a hard shot, I care if he scores goals with is. I don't care if a guy is a great stickhandler, I care if he produces points with those skills. Unless it's a strength vs weakness thing (as in, speedy guys going up against slow-players) I don't tend to factor these specific skills in- I care much more about how it translates into offense.

Quote:
Hamill can't even catch Lukac. Ridley is the worst? Because he was remarkably consistent instead of being a flash in the pan?
A flash in the pan is a player, to me, who had one good year then kind of disappears. Romnes and Hamill don't suffer from this, and have numerous good years as well. Being consistently 35th or so in scoring isn't impressive to me- is it really impressive to you?

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 06:26 PM
  #47
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Leafs Forever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,781
vCash: 500
Quote:
Yet he still played 70 games more.

As for better peak, please. The day Savard almost wins the Hart hell will freeze over.
He never said Savard was iron man himself.

If you look at one year, sure Yashin has a beter peak. Look further than that, and things look in Savard's favour.

Savard having a season of calibre to Yashin's best isn't really "Hell Freezing over". In the year in question (at least, I think that's the year in question), Yashin came 2nd in goals and 6th in points- Savard has had 3rd in assist, 8th in points season- not a huge leap he could make that stretch. I'm not entirely sure what the circumstances are were for the hart nomination, but though it doesn't matter, Savard coming close to a hart would not be "hell freezing over".

Quote:
MacAdam, for comparison, also sucked outside his peak. The Courtnalls were first line players most of their careers.
First liners in their careers do not mean first liners here, especiailly when we're talking about modern players. I agree, MacAdam isn't a first liner offensively outside of the peak- but he's a great character, intangible, and glue guy. One courtnall on a first line wouldn't be so bad doing that, but when you've got two of them and no particularly good scoring between them, you are in trouble.

Quote:
I saw nothing about Ridley being very soft. No quotes on Ridley? Pelletier calls him "A fine two way player" in his bio.
I dunno about Ridley being soft either- Dreak may have something more on that. He does indeed seem to have a good two-way game.

Quote:
Over PPG on international stage is not very good? When slotten in 2nd/3rd line due to nationality to boot?
Context, please.

Quote:
He was one of the best in one dimension in weak years. Hardly a superstar.
In "one dimension"? Hamill wasa very tough player in his day.. Plenty of quotes illustrating toughness- since you haven't read em evidently, I'll show you-

Quote:
Born in Toronto on January 11th, 1917, Robert "Red" Hamill was about as tough as they come. He was sort of an early day Wendel Clark-type of hockey player.-Joe Pelletier
Quote:
Hamill went on to record a career high 28 goals that first full season with the Hawks in 1942-43, although his reputation was clearly being made for his hard hitting style. Still, it was impressive that only teammate Doug Bentley (33 goals)and Montreal's Joe Benoit (30 goals) scored more than Hamill.-Joe Pelletier
Quote:
The tough, hard-hitting winger divided his time between the Bruins and the IAHL Hershey Bears for the next three seasons before being sold to Chicago in December 1941.

With a brief interruption for military service (the 1944-45 season) Hamill played the next eight years with the Black Hawks. He was a consistent, if not prolific scorer and played with enough grit to earn him ice time up until the 1950-51 season. After spending most of that year in the USHL, he went into coaching.-loh
Quote:
Hamill scored 128 goals and 94 assists for 222 points in 419 NHL games. He picked up only 160 penalty minutes, which suggests even though he had a zest for the rugged part of the game, he was very clean. Still, this is a surprisngly low total when newspaper archive searches turn up repeated stories of him in wild battles.-Joe Pelletier
Hamill wasn't one-dimensional. A "superstar?" Probably not, but more than "good enough". His finishes were war weakened, but you won't find many, if any, second line LW's with two top-5 goal scoring finishes.

Quote:
Gagne's been diminituve, Whitney's just smallish.
Are you accounting for the fact players were generally much smaller in Gagne's time when you sat that?

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 06:27 PM
  #48
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,122
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Why is it that the % method always seems to favour modern players? I can see why to a degree, but it never seems to go the other way at all.
Why is it that the ranking method always seems to favour old players? It never seems to go the other way at all...

- "Who is Shawn Mceachern?" Lol.

- TDMM's points about the percentage system merit much more discussion. I think it can be affected by league size (a detailed study would likely show this) but we are still talking about first line caliber players in most cases. League size clearly made an impact on a large number of players who had no hope of competing from a ranking or percentage-based metric before 1967. The same guys who were 3rd-15th in scoring previously continued to post about the same rankings and percentages, but players previously buried began to keep up with them and show that, in a more equitable landscape, one where lineup spots better reflected the depth of talent available, they could rack up similar totals.

There is much more to be said on this topic. But your blind obsession with rankings is tiresome.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 12:29 AM
  #49
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
I saw nothing about Ridley being very soft. No quotes on Ridley? Pelletier calls him "A fine two way player" in his bio.
Pat Burns hated Ridley because he was a *****, which is why they sent him packing so quickly out of Toronto.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Over PPG on international stage is not very good? When slotten in 2nd/3rd line due to nationality to boot?
If he's a 2nd/3rd liner, then he's not really as good as you think, is he?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
I can link you to sources about Lukac, but can you read Slovak or Czech?

"later, after a one-year stint in Dukla Jihlava, under coach Nevesely, Vincent Lukac changed his style of play and become a player that fulfilled his defensive duties exceptionally, while still not forgetting his goalscoring talents"

"Most often he skated like a bullet into the slot and without much ado fired the puck with a slapshot past the goalie's head. He was perfect at hitting the top corners."

"fast-legged bomber"

-his Slovak hall of fame bio
Fair enough. He is fast and has a good shot.

So after his year in Dukla Jihlava, he changed his style of play? He played 10 years before that and only 3 after, which means he spent the majority of his career as a poor defensive player. The change later means he won't be a complete disaster, but I don't think it's enough to call him a 2-way player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
He was one of the best in one dimension in weak years. Hardly a superstar.
He was actually one of the best in 2 areas - goalscoring and physical play.

As for the competition, it was still the best league in the world.... by far. Despite what 70s thinks, 1942, 1943, 1946, and 1947 were not very weak. 1943 was the weakest of them all, and almost no high quality NHLers were gone. Most of the NHLers who served only lost the 1944 and 1945 seasons.... which included Red Hamill.

Also, since Hamill served in the war, how does he benefit from the "recovery years" after all the players return?

Over that 6 year period, he was the second best goalscorer in the world....

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Gagne's been diminituve, Whitney's just smallish.
5'7" and 160 lbs is actually pretty standard for somebody who was born before 1900. That's would be the same as somebody who is 5'11" and 200 lbs today... which is quite a bit bigger than Ray Whitney.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 01:38 AM
  #50
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,923
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Neither are really that good offensively to my knowledge, and it's really a battle of defense in this one. If Pelletier's bio is to be believed, it was only reall in New Jersey he became that shutdown defensive centre. What is there to belive Carpenter is better than Rolston? What's his selke voting? Can you show his offense better?
Carpenter has a 7th in Selke voting and nothing else (not even a single vote).

Dreakmur 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 10:27 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.