HFBoards

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

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

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-27-2010, 01:44 AM
  #51
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
As for the competition, it was still the best league in the world.... by far.
If what you're saying is that accomplishments have to be worth the same in every season if the league was "the best in the world", regardless of how watered down it was, then you have blinders on. The war years cannot be looked at like other seasons. There were known superior players simply not playing. There was simply a lower total of accomplishments being amassed in this time.

Quote:
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.
OK, then give me a six-year period (and remove the two weakest ones) that would classify as weaker than 1942-1947.

Quote:
Also, since Hamill served in the war, how does he benefit from the "recovery years" after all the players return?
Everyone benefitted. There are many reasons this could be; I suspect it is because some potential players were killed in the war and never got a start. Regardless, one look at the guys who showed up in the scoring leaders in 1946-1948 and what became of their careers shows that they aren't much better than the war players whose accomplishments we correctly downgrade.

More evidence: league scoring level. It peaked in 1945, the most watered-down year, and didn't regulate until about 1950, the year that the NHL appears to have truly corrected the talent gap.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 01:44 AM
  #52
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Carpenter has a 7th in Selke voting and nothing else (not even a single vote).
He also has one of the worst career adjusted +/- of all-time.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 01:57 AM
  #53
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
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.
OK first of all, how is leading your team every single freakin' season in the NHL somehow not good? Your whole argument here is rather absurd.

He came to Isles and instantly turned a team that was out of playoffs and below .400 for many years into playoff team.


Quote:
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.
But on average Savard's teams were worse. It's not an argument in Savard's favor at all. Failing to lead lesser teams when your counterpart leads every team he's been ever on, regardless of quality, is not an advantage.

Quote:
Of course when talking about being a leading scoer on a team, it probably is better to look at the other best individuals.

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.
I wouldn't brag about not knowing who McEachern was...

Alfredsson, Hossa, McEachern, Bonk, Peca, Satan... sure some of them aren't stars or anything, but it's not a pile of crap either.

Savard was beaten by the likes of Nedved, Valeri Bure, Conroy, McAmmond, Kozlov and McEachern (OLOLOLOLOL), aside from the usual suspects ala Iginla, Kovalchuk, Heatley, Hossa or Gretzky.

Players that Yashin beat in scoring were beating Savard, and only players Savard beat for team lead were the likes of Sturm or Krejci. Dislike the metric all you want, but it says something for the Yashin-Savard comparison, and it ain't pretty for Savard.

Quote:
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?
Their careers overlap a lot. Savard starting out as third wheel is an advantage now? Yashin being a star from the start is somehow bad thing now? Seriously?

Quote:
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.
The line certainly *does* click. Yashin doesn't need a pure playmaker, who did he have all his seasons in that role? Alfredsson wasn't that much better then than Russ Courtnall. The Courtnalls are better wings than what Yashin had most of his career.

Quote:
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?
Yet people pull being chased out of MTL as something against Turgeon...

Quote:
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.
There's more to their roles than just goals.

Quote:
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?
60+ in his era is decidedly unimpressive. Courtnall's numbers aren't supposed to wow you, but he obviously brings more than MacAdam on all fronts, and it's really not debatable.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 02:15 AM
  #54
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
The card doesn't "imply" it states that he was one of the best defensive players in the NHL.
Semantics. I can show you quotes from hockey cards that will make you stare wildly in disbelief. It's not a terribly legit source.

Quote:
"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.
You once again scream 'peak'! But in e.g. 8-team league, there will be 24 1st-line players. In a 28-team league, there will be 84 of them. Finishing 35th out of 84 is largely equal to finishing 10th out of 24. One set of numbers just looks prettier due to circumstances.

Quote:
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.
Romnes and Hamill have impressive 3-year peaks, 2 solid seasons and then crap. It's hardly some long-term consistency, even if we ignore the circumstances of Hamill's peak.

Quote:
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.
WCHL was what, 3rd best at best. So was the Czechoslovak league in its time. Lukac's finishes there were just so much more impressive than Gagne's in WCHL...


Quote:
Care to provide context? (placements, perhaps how many points against what teams).
Silver medal in Olympics, 10th in scoring there. 1980, 20th, but that was one point behind Maltsev, two behind Kharlamov and as much as Fetisov, in less games to boot. 1984 CC, I can't find detailed player scoring stats...

Quote:
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?
Being top 30 in Whitney's era is the top 33% of 1st line players. That's being top 8 in Romnes' era...


Quote:
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?
Certainly more than having two great war years seasons and then finishing migthy 19th, the equal of a 70ish finish in Whitney's era...

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 02:21 AM
  #55
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
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-
By one-dimensional, I obviously meant no defensive game to speak of, opposite of two-way. Toughness is a supporting attribute rather than additional dimension to me, akin to great speed.

Quote:
Are you accounting for the fact players were generally much smaller in Gagne's time when you sat that?
Gagne is refered to as "diminutive". Dunno about you, but when I hear that, I think of Fleury at best.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 02:27 AM
  #56
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Pat Burns hated Ridley because he was a *****, which is why they sent him packing so quickly out of Toronto.
This is what Pelletier says about it:
"Ridley was traded to the Toronto Maple Leafs in a big 1994 draft day swap that saw the two teams exchange first round picks. Ridley, who rarely missed a handful of games in his NHL career, was starting to develop a chronic back problem. He would play in all 48 games of the lock-out shortened 1994-95 season, but often in pain. His offensive contributions were affected by his pain - just 10 goals.

The Leafs "dumped" the injured center in a July 1995 trade with Vancouver in exchange for Sergio Momesso. "

Sounds more like injury than softness to me.


Quote:
If he's a 2nd/3rd liner, then he's not really as good as you think, is he?
Due to nationality? Czech coaches always underplayed Slovak players in the NT. Also he played 2nd line behind some ATD staples, so that's hardly an indictment here.

Quote:
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.
Poor is stretching it. Also, it's hard to evaluate players that evolve ala Scott Stevens, but Lukac both learned to play quality defense while retaining his scoring touch, so it should be easier to evaluate than a complete switch.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 02:41 AM
  #57
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Let us compare the third lines.

Brian Rolston at center? I don't think he's particularly effective there. He has speed, defensive acumen and a cannon of a shot, but he'd make a much better winger, and he played wing for most of his career as far as I remember.

Jan Erixon is a player I always liked. He brings quality defensive game, but absolutely no offense at all to speak of. I can find only sparse info about Blachford, but really nothing that makes him better than Beaudro, who is on our 4th line...

Bob Carpenter had an interesting career, morphing from very good offensive center who didn't give a damn about defense into a quality shutdown center who was an important part of Devils' first Cup. It makes him hard to evaluate, and I'm unsure as to how Stevenesque careers get treated here. But it has to be said that his best at offense was far above anything Rolston ever did, and his best at defense was comparable at least.

Gelinas was gritty, good defensively, good skater and solid scorer. Compared in Erixon, what he lacks in defense he more than makes up in other areas. Whereas Erixon is offensive blackhole, Gelinas was a consistent scorer who led his teams in goals at times, and was incredibly clutch in playoffs.

Trottier is likely the best player on either of these lines, exceptional defensively, provides quality offense and ton of physical play.

Whereas Rolston can be reasonably compared to Carpenter, I think Gelinas and Trottier are just much better than their counterparts. Offensively, it's not even close. Defensively, depending on just how good Blachford was, it can be anything from edge to us to edge to you.

Overall, clear edge Carolina

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 02:51 AM
  #58
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Fourth line time:

Liscombe is another player who had his prime in war years. A great peak though, and he will provide fine offense on 4th line. Gould brings solid defensive game and decent scoring. Craig Conroy provides very good defensive play combined with pretty good scoring ability.

I actually think you should've gone with Erixon - Conroy - Gould for a true, quality shutdown line, instead of diluting 3rd line's offense with Erixon and 4th line's defense with Liscombe.

Anyway, Fisher is quickly becoming a modern day version of Conroy, but not quite there yet. Beaudro is to me a better player than Gould. Irvine brings toughness and some scoring, but he's not at Liscombe's level of offense at all.

Overall, I think your bottom 6 is misbuilt, and while your offense on 4th line is better than ours, our line is tougher and equal of yours defensively. We have a great energy/defensive line here, you have a line with scorer, defensive forward and two-way guy, a line that can't decide whether to be defensive (but then Liscombe is liability) or offensive (that's where Gould is slowing them down).

The quality of players is largely even here, but when I look at how the lines click, it's slight edge Carolina

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 03:06 AM
  #59
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Defense time.

Top pairing:
Buller is an interesting case, and frankly a flash in the pan. Came into the NHL, immediately made 2nd all-star team with his quality passing and great physical play, then was out of the league in two more years. Boxmeer provides good offense and solid defense here.

Beukeboom is the physical force on our D, exceptional hitter traditionally paired with smooth skating, offensive D-man, aka Lumme in our case.

ATOI:
Buller: N/A
Van Boxmeer: 8th, 6th, 5th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 4th
Beukeboom: 7th, 5th, 10th, 7th, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 5th, 4th
Lumme: 7th, 5th, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th

In all, you guys really like your flashes in the pan and place major importance in peak, eh? I don't think too much of Buller overall. Van Boxmeer is good, but overall in quality akin maybe to O'Connell at best, who is on our second pairing... clear edge Carolina here.

2nd pairing:
Gord Fraser brings a lot of physicality and solid offense. Very little NHL playoff experience, but otherwise he seems fine. Marois is another rough guy with good offense.

Both our rearguards here were two-way, capable of playing at both ends of ice very well. O'Connell also brings exceptional skating to the fold.

ATOI:
Fraser: N/A
Marois: 6th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 7th
Driver: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 3rd
O'Connell: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 4th, 5th

Your defense is shaping up to be really tough and physical but not particularly fast. Offensively, our pairing is better. Defensively, it's about even. Your pairing is much more physical here, but also clearly worse off in skating department. There is much more playoff experience and success on our side here. Overall, slight edge Carolina

3rd pairing:
Godfrey is steady, stay-at-home guy with good playoff experience. Tallon brings yet more physical play combined with offense, but not much defense, but then Godfrey covers for him.

Cote is all-around guy, while Gibbs was a career #1 defensive guy.

ATOI:
Godfrey: N/A
Tallon: 1st, 5th, 4th, (can't find his 1974 and 1975 placement, but I assume them to be easily top 4), 1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 7th
Gibbs: 1st, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st
Cote: 7th, 8th, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 2nd, 5th, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 4th

Our pairing has the defensive edge here, and it's about even offensively. Overall slight edge Carolina

I think our defense is more balanced. Your defense as whole strikes me as very physical, with good offensive capabilities but not overtly mobile - and we have plethora of fast forwards who should be able to exploit that.


Last edited by MadArcand: 07-27-2010 at 03:36 AM.
MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 03:29 AM
  #60
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
If what you're saying is that accomplishments have to be worth the same in every season if the league was "the best in the world", regardless of how watered down it was, then you have blinders on. The war years cannot be looked at like other seasons. There were known superior players simply not playing. There was simply a lower total of accomplishments being amassed in this time.
I'm not saying they are exactly the same as every other year, but I they aren't substantially weaker.

Outside 1944 and 1945, which superior players missed time?

The the Krauts left a year sooner than most players.

In 1946, a few players missed some time, but not sure exactly why.
Ken Reardon played about half the season.
Bryan Hextall, Roy Conacher, and Sid Abel all missed most of the season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
OK, then give me a six-year period (and remove the two weakest ones) that would classify as weaker than 1942-1947.
1944 and 1945 are definately the weakest years in NHL history. Years before and after, though they are slightly weaker than average, aren't even close to the main war years.

1968-1973 = post expansion
1972-1979 = WHA stole talent
1980-1986 = post expansion again

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Everyone benefitted. There are many reasons this could be; I suspect it is because some potential players were killed in the war and never got a start. Regardless, one look at the guys who showed up in the scoring leaders in 1946-1948 and what became of their careers shows that they aren't much better than the war players whose accomplishments we correctly downgrade.

More evidence: league scoring level. It peaked in 1945, the most watered-down year, and didn't regulate until about 1950, the year that the NHL appears to have truly corrected the talent gap.
There's no reason that the post war scoring leaders should be punished. Your only argument is, "the leaders were different, so something must be up". Maybe nothing was up....maybe it was just a fluke. Otherwise, you should explain why the scoring leaders might have been different.....

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 03:42 AM
  #61
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Goaltending:
Peeters is head and shoulders above Nabokov here. In fact, our backup Vokoun is quite possibly better than your starter as well. Robertson is another flash in the pan with impressive peak.

There is no dancing around it, with your starter being at best at level of our backup, it's pretty much huge edge Carolina

Coaching:
Bun Cook was great minor league coach, reminds me of Berenson we faced in round 1. Laviolette is proven and successful NHL coach. Edge Carolina here as well...

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 04:37 AM
  #62
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Let us compare the third lines.

Brian Rolston at center? I don't think he's particularly effective there. He has speed, defensive acumen and a cannon of a shot, but he'd make a much better winger, and he played wing for most of his career as far as I remember.
Rolston received most of his top-end Selke recognition as a center.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Jan Erixon is a player I always liked. He brings quality defensive game, but absolutely no offense at all to speak of. I can find only sparse info about Blachford, but really nothing that makes him better than Beaudro, who is on our 4th line....
Based on Selke voting Erixon is among the very best defensive players in this draft. He's not here to bring offense. He's here to play defense and kill penalties.

Blachford captained a dynasty. When he retired, they lost the Cup... then when he came out of retirement, they won the Cup back..... then when he retired again, they lost it for good. Also, he was awarded 2 Retro Selkes. He also put up a 5th in scoring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Bob Carpenter had an interesting career, morphing from very good offensive center who didn't give a damn about defense into a quality shutdown center who was an important part of Devils' first Cup. It makes him hard to evaluate, and I'm unsure as to how Stevenesque careers get treated here. But it has to be said that his best at offense was far above anything Rolston ever did, and his best at defense was comparable at least.
Carpenter has a 7th in Selke voting, and that's it. Defensively, he's not even close to Rolston.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Gelinas was gritty, good defensively, good skater and solid scorer. Compared in Erixon, what he lacks in defense he more than makes up in other areas. Whereas Erixon is offensive blackhole, Gelinas was a consistent scorer who led his teams in goals at times, and was incredibly clutch in playoffs.
Gelinas was gritty....

He was not good defensively - 18th in Selke voting and nothing else.

He was a good skater? He's actually kind of average.....

He is not really much of a scorer either. One decent season doesn't make you a solid scorer.

Gelinas was only a clutch in the playoffs once - outside of 2002, he was a pretty mediocre play-off performer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Trottier is likely the best player on either of these lines, exceptional defensively, provides quality offense and ton of physical play.
Wait a minute....

Red Hamill is a flash-in-the-pan, but Trottier provides quality offense?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Whereas Rolston can be reasonably compared to Carpenter, I think Gelinas and Trottier are just much better than their counterparts. Offensively, it's not even close. Defensively, depending on just how good Blachford was, it can be anything from edge to us to edge to you.

Overall, clear edge Carolina
Trottier is probably better than Blachford, but Rolston and Erixon are lightyears better than Gelinas and Carpenter.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 04:54 AM
  #63
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Goaltending:
Peeters is head and shoulders above Nabokov here. In fact, our backup Vokoun is quite possibly better than your starter as well. Robertson is another flash in the pan with impressive peak.

There is no dancing around it, with your starter being at best at level of our backup, it's pretty much huge edge Carolina
Again, you keep calling our guys "flashes in the pan", but when it comes to goaltending, you're giving yourself a "huge edge".

Based on voting, Peeters was the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 10th best goalie in the league. Nabokov was the 2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, and 6th best. Looks like you're placing a whole lot of value on that one 1st.

As for the play-offs, Peeters doesn't appear to be anything special. Actually, his play-off record is very comparable to Nabokov's.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 04:57 AM
  #64
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Defense time.

Top pairing:
Buller is an interesting case, and frankly a flash in the pan. Came into the NHL, immediately made 2nd all-star team with his quality passing and great physical play, then was out of the league in two more years. Boxmeer provides good offense and solid defense here.

Beukeboom is the physical force on our D, exceptional hitter traditionally paired with smooth skating, offensive D-man, aka Lumme in our case.

ATOI:
Buller: N/A
Van Boxmeer: 8th, 6th, 5th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 4th
Beukeboom: 7th, 5th, 10th, 7th, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 5th, 4th
Lumme: 7th, 5th, 3rd, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th

In all, you guys really like your flashes in the pan and place major importance in peak, eh? I don't think too much of Buller overall. Van Boxmeer is good, but overall in quality akin maybe to O'Connell at best, who is on our second pairing... clear edge Carolina here.

2nd pairing:
Gord Fraser brings a lot of physicality and solid offense. Very little NHL playoff experience, but otherwise he seems fine. Marois is another rough guy with good offense.

Both our rearguards here were two-way, capable of playing at both ends of ice very well. O'Connell also brings exceptional skating to the fold.

ATOI:
Fraser: N/A
Marois: 6th, 4th, 5th, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 1st, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 7th
Driver: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 3rd
O'Connell: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 2nd, 4th, 4th, 5th

Your defense is shaping up to be really tough and physical but not particularly fast. Offensively, our pairing is better. Defensively, it's about even. Your pairing is much more physical here, but also clearly worse off in skating department. There is much more playoff experience and success on our side here. Overall, slight edge Carolina

3rd pairing:
Godfrey is steady, stay-at-home guy with good playoff experience. Tallon brings yet more physical play combined with offense, but not much defense, but then Godfrey covers for him.

Cote is all-around guy, while Gibbs was a career #1 defensive guy.

ATOI:
Godfrey: N/A
Tallon: 1st, 5th, 4th, (can't find his 1974 and 1975 placement, but I assume them to be easily top 4), 1st, 4th, 4th, 4th, 7th
Gibbs: 1st, 3rd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st, 1st
Cote: 7th, 8th, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 2nd, 5th, 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 4th, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 4th

Our pairing has the defensive edge here, and it's about even offensively. Overall slight edge Carolina

I think our defense is more balanced. Your defense as whole strikes me as very physical, with good offensive capabilities but not overtly mobile - and we have plethora of fast forwards who should be able to exploit that.
Please tell me this is a joke....

You're seriously using ATOI as your only measure for defense?

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 05:38 AM
  #65
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Where did I say that? It's just there to show the role they're used to play...
You also completely ignored the point that our backup is your #1's equal...
More about the forwards once I'm back on the computer

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 05:40 AM
  #66
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Please tell me this is a joke....

You're seriously using ATOI as your only measure for defense?
It's a great start. Coaches aren't idiots, they play their best and most valuable players more often.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I'm not saying they are exactly the same as every other year, but I they aren't substantially weaker.

Outside 1944 and 1945, which superior players missed time?

The the Krauts left a year sooner than most players.

In 1946, a few players missed some time, but not sure exactly why.
Ken Reardon played about half the season.
Bryan Hextall, Roy Conacher, and Sid Abel all missed most of the season.
Right there you have three players who'd have outscored Hamill. When your case is based entirely on rankings year-by-year, three rankings makes an awful lot of difference.



Quote:
1944 and 1945 are definately the weakest years in NHL history. Years before and after, though they are slightly weaker than average, aren't even close to the main war years.
You are right, but they are still the next-worst.

Quote:
1968-1973 = post expansion
1972-1979 = WHA stole talent
1980-1986 = post expansion again
Not at all. I'd really be interested in what logic was used to determine this. Top-end talent? The worst players? in-between?

The 1968-1973 period was not a bad period at all. The talent pool had more than justified expansion for years. Pete Mahovlich, Wayne Cashman, Andre Boudrias, Red Berenson, and countless others became top-line players just as valuable as the guys they couldn't displace just a couple years before.

the 1972-1979 period was watered down, but if you look at the top scorers during those times, they still dominated before and after that time.

Same with 1980-1986 - especially. You are really reaching if you include this time.

I mean, really, think about what you're saying. You like adhering to rankings-based systems, and you claim that the 1980-1986 period was weaker than 1942-1947 minus 1944 and 1945! So is a guy who was 5th in 1942 or 1947 better than a guy who was 5th in 1981 or 1984??

I'm not going to touch the thought that the worst players were relatively worse in those times. Maybe they were, maybe they weren't, but determining how bad each class of player was will be boring and painful.

but as for star players - yikes, open your eyes.

top scorers, 1968-1973: http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

top scorers, 1974-1979: http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

top scorers, 1980-1985: http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

top scorers, 1946-1949: http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

(taking out 1944 and 1945 would be too time consuming, and my point is really about the recovery years so I will just use this 4-year period)

Look at the last period. Look at the names that come up between 11th and 30th: Alex Kaleta, Bud Poile, Joe Carveth, Pete Horeck, George Gee, Jim Conacher, Adam Brown. There is just no parallel to these players in any of the other eras. They came around, had one good season, and were gone pretty fast.

Quote:
There's no reason that the post war scoring leaders should be punished. Your only argument is, "the leaders were different, so something must be up". Maybe nothing was up....maybe it was just a fluke. Otherwise, you should explain why the scoring leaders might have been different.....
That's a major cop-out. You should able to see that the players who filled in these gaps came out of nowhere, and then had very short careers as they were phased out as competition got better.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 05:42 AM
  #67
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,377
vCash: 500
About Ridley:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hockey Scouting report 1995-96
Ridley is a crunch-time player. He will protect the puck with his body or work like crazy to get the puck free. He pays the toll in the traffic areas. He is a very disciplined player. For someone as involved as he is, he takes only a tiny number of bad penalties... He has missed few games, but not because he doesn't get hurt. he just plays hurt.
I took this specifically from this edition so that if there was anything about softness it would mention it.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 06:21 AM
  #68
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
It's a great start. Coaches aren't idiots, they play their best and most valuable players more often.
Just like word is a great start to a novel....

Some coaches are idiots, but I suppose that's not the point.

A player's ability is not the only thing that determines ATOI.... which actually makes it a pretty dumb place to start. John Van Boxmeer player behind Larry Robinson, Guy Lapointe, Serge Savard, and Don Awrey in Montreal. Then he went to play with Jim Schoenfeld, Mike Ramsey, Bill Hajt, and Phil Housley in Buffalo. Compare that to the group of sieves Bruce Driver played with in New Jersey, and ATOI is basically useless.

You'd think something like Norris voting would be the place to start. Carolina has 6 modern defensemen, and they combine for a grand total of zero top-10s in Norris voting. Actually, 5 of Carolina's modern defensemen have never received a single Norris vote....

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Right there you have three players who'd have outscored Hamill. When your case is based entirely on rankings year-by-year, three rankings makes an awful lot of difference.
What you mean is "could" have... and based on the fact that he outscored all three of them in the 2 years prior to the war, I'm not sure why you think it's such a formality.


Last edited by Dreakmur: 07-27-2010 at 07:31 AM.
Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 06:22 AM
  #69
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
About Ridley:



I took this specifically from this edition so that if there was anything about softness it would mention it.
From his Legend of Hockey bio:

"Pat Burns, didn't like what he considered to be Ridley's soft style of play"

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 06:57 AM
  #70
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Carpenter has a 7th in Selke voting, and that's it. Defensively, he's not even close to Rolston.
I would very much like TDMM's opinion on that, he saw them both a lot.

Quote:
Gelinas was gritty....

He was not good defensively - 18th in Selke voting and nothing else.

He was a good skater? He's actually kind of average.....

He is not really much of a scorer either. One decent season doesn't make you a solid scorer.

Gelinas was only a clutch in the playoffs once - outside of 2002, he was a pretty mediocre play-off performer.
LOH greatly disagrees with you on pretty much all your points:
"Early in 1997-98 he was sent to the Carolina Hurricanes where his speed and leadership helped keep the team competitive over the last four years. After two years of playing a more defensive role, Gelinas notched 23 goals in 2000-01 and helped his club give the defending Stanley Cup champion New Jersey Devils a tough six game battle in the opening round of the post-season."

"Upon his arrival with the Flames, Gelinas continued his strong two-way play and was a key player in Calgary's run to the Stanley Cup Final in 2004 against the eventual Cup champions from Tampa Bay."

Pelletier doesn't agree either:
"He was joined by Joe Murphy and Adam Graves on the fast skating, hard hitting and extremely popular energy line known as The Kid Line. They would play a significant role in leading the Oilers to their 5th Stanley Cup in 7 years."

"He was able to mesh his speed and physical game with a couple of 30 goal seasons."

At third line here, he's still a pretty damn good scorer, especially if compared to Erixon whose career high in points Gelinas topped twice just by goals alone...


Quote:
Wait a minute....

Red Hamill is a flash-in-the-pan, but Trottier provides quality offense?
2nd line vs. 3rd, plus I never said Hamill is inadequate, just not as good as our 2nd line wings.

Quote:
Trottier is probably better than Blachford, but Rolston and Erixon are lightyears better than Gelinas and Carpenter.
In no world is Erixon better than Gelinas. It's Geli that's lightyears ahead of him.

Rolston's offensive highs are way way below Carpenter's. And as I said, I want TDMM's opinion on their defensive play.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 07:27 AM
  #71
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
I would very much like TDMM's opinion on that, he saw them both a lot.
No offense to TDMM, but we don't need his opinion.

The Selke votes tell the story pretty clearly. Bobby Carpenter was not among the best defensive players in the league, and Rolston is/was.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
LOH greatly disagrees with you on pretty much all your points:
"Early in 1997-98 he was sent to the Carolina Hurricanes where his speed and leadership helped keep the team competitive over the last four years. After two years of playing a more defensive role, Gelinas notched 23 goals in 2000-01 and helped his club give the defending Stanley Cup champion New Jersey Devils a tough six game battle in the opening round of the post-season."

"Upon his arrival with the Flames, Gelinas continued his strong two-way play and was a key player in Calgary's run to the Stanley Cup Final in 2004 against the eventual Cup champions from Tampa Bay."

Pelletier doesn't agree either:
"He was joined by Joe Murphy and Adam Graves on the fast skating, hard hitting and extremely popular energy line known as The Kid Line. They would play a significant role in leading the Oilers to their 5th Stanley Cup in 7 years."

"He was able to mesh his speed and physical game with a couple of 30 goal seasons."

At third line here, he's still a pretty damn good scorer, especially if compared to Erixon whose career high in points Gelinas topped twice just by goals alone...
Again, the Selke votes tell the story - Gelinas was nothing special defensively. Sure he was a decent all-around player, but at the MLD level, it's nothing better than mediocre.

With his offensive production, the numbers tell the story. He did not put up impressive offensive numbers. He only had one good offensive season, and it wasn't even that good. He's better offensively than Erixon, but it's still basically meaningless.

As I said already, Jan Erixon, based on the Selke voting, is one of the best defensive players in the LMD. He is definately better than Gelinas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Rolston's offensive highs are way way below Carpenter's. And as I said, I want TDMM's opinion on their defensive play.
Bob Carpenter has one good offensive finish - that's it.

Take his first 5 seasons, which were his best 5, and compare them to the league.
- 37th in scoring
- 65th in points per game

Brian Rolston, during his career, leads the entire league in short-handed goals in both the regular season and play-offs. Also, in the 1994 Olympics, he was 2nd in the tournament for goals.

Again, TDMM is just one person. His opinion doesn't carry nearly as mugh weight as the Selke voting records. (no offense )

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 07:37 AM
  #72
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
You put immense weight at stats and votes, do you?

Yes Erixon is superior defensively to Gelinas, no question. But as overall player, he's far less. A player with career high of 30 points and 8 goals is not even in the same stratosphere as Gelinas offensively. And yes Gelinas was 2nd/3rd liner and yes his numbers aren't some sort of Whitney numbers, but they still murder those of Erixon and dance on their grave.

Rolston might have an edge on Carpenter. Even so, Gelinas and Trottier are better than their counterparts, sorry.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 07:45 AM
  #73
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
You put immense weight at stats and votes, do you?
Why wouldn't I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Yes Erixon is superior defensively to Gelinas, no question. But as overall player, he's far less. A player with career high of 30 points and 8 goals is not even in the same stratosphere as Gelinas offensively. And yes Gelinas was 2nd/3rd liner and yes his numbers aren't some sort of Whitney numbers, but they still murder those of Erixon and dance on their grave.
Erixon is much, much, much superior to Gelinas defensively.

Gelinas is not a good offensive player. Yes, he's less bad than Erixon, but he's still going to provide almost no offense at the MLD level.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 07:53 AM
  #74
MadArcand
Whaletarded
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Seat of the Empire
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 5,240
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Erixon is much, much, much superior to Gelinas defensively.

Gelinas is not a good offensive player. Yes, he's less bad than Erixon, but he's still going to provide almost no offense at the MLD level.
That's absurd. Gelinas is several times the offensive player that Erixon is. His offensive superiority is greater than Erixon's defensive superiority.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 07:59 AM
  #75
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,074
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
That's absurd. Gelinas is several times the offensive player that Erixon is. His offensive superiority is greater than Erixon's defensive superiority.
Jan Erixon is an elite defensive player. Gelinas isn't even close to elite at anything - mediocre defensively, and mediocre, at best, offensively.


Next argument up:
Darcy Tucker scored more than Bob Gainey, which makes him better overall.

Dreakmur is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:21 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

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