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
07-27-2010, 09:08 AM
  #76
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
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.
Gelinas isn't bloody mediocre defensively, he was quality two-way forward, highly respected, and I provided quotes proving that!

Gelinas has adjusted career +/- of +113, good enough for 148th overall. That's not bloody mediocre! And for the record, Erixon is 716th with +19...

Erixon was utterly nonexistant offensively, while Gelinas was once again good offensive contributor, both in regular season and playoffs. He has 747 adjusted points, that's hardly offensively mediocre or irrelevant for a two-way forward, which he bloody well was.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 09:15 AM
  #77
tony d
The Future
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 36,478
vCash: 500
Time for me to get into the comparison battle once again with a look at the defense, goaltending and coaching of our teams:

Defense Pairing 1:

Jykri Lumme is perhaps one of the better offensive defensemen in this league. As Madarcand pointed out he was often one of the top defenseman on his team. That was recognized even further as Lumme won the Vancouver Canuck's top defenseman award 4 times.

Jeff Beukeboom brings a physical presence to our top defensive pairing, this should help our top line a lot.

For your team:

Hy Buller had a short but decent NHL career. Still unsure if his short career warrants a spot as a top pairing guy even in a MLD.

John Van Boxmeer appears to your powerplay quarterback. He appears to be a good choice for the role.

Second Pairing

Bruce Driver is a guy that probably should have went in the All-Time Draft. To get him for our 2nd defensive pairing is a steal. Driver is going to help our team a lot.

Mike O'connell is another good top 4 defenseman. Not as good as Driver but still solid.

For your team:

Gord Fraser appears to be your Jeff Beukeboom. A physical defenseman, not that long of a NHL career however.

Mario Marois turned out to be better than I remembered, I wouldn't take him over Driver or O'connell but still a solid find for you guys.

Defensive Pairing 3:

Sylvan Cote is a solid 2-way defenseman, he'll be able to chip in offensively but on the 3rd pairing he'll be expected to play defensively which I think he will quite well.

Barry Gibbs, as I said in Round 1, was a pick we made near the end of the draft. Looking at ATOI and his career numbers Gibbs actually was a solid player.

For your team:

Warren Godfrey is exactly the type of player that you want for your 3rd defensive pairing, for all that don't you guys already have a defense-only defenseman in Gord Fraser?

Dale Tallon gets a bum rap as he is seen as a low-level consolation prize as he went #2 to Vancouver in the draft that got Buffalo Gilbert Perrault. That said Tallon's career was solid as well.

Goaltending

Pete Peeters was a guy we nabbed in the 1st 2 rounds. While he didn't win a Stanley Cup, he was always a solid goalie, winning a Vezina along the way.

Tomas Vokoun is a what-if. If he played for a team such as Washington or Philly would he be even better than what he is now? He's often cited as a top 7-10 goalie in the NHL, this while playing for the Florida Panthers.

For our opponents:

Evgeni Nabokov. I'm probably as big a fan of his as anyone on these boards but his lack of playoff success concerns me. You can say that Peeters didn't have much playoff success either but I would say that the teams Peeters had weren't as nearly as talented as those of Nabokov's.

Earl Robertson's selection is a questionable one. Sure he is the only goalie among the 4 being debated here to have won a Cup but other than that his regular season record was lacklustre. Only having 1 above .500 season.

Coaching:

Peter Laviolette is a Stanley Cup winning coach who almost won 1 with Philly last year. He's at worst a top-5 coach in the NHL.

Bun Cook, for you guys, is a good coach. He won 6 AHL titles as coach. Still you have to wonder why even in a NHL that had only 6 teams at the time why a team didn't take a chance on Bun Cook.

As to who wins the battles:

Defense: Close because of the large # of defensive defenseman but the inclusion of Lumme and Driver and their ability to play the point gives the advantage on defense to us.

Goaltending: Easy advantage for us.

Coaching: Close but I'll go with Laviolette's NHL experience over Cook's lack of big league experience.

Conclusion:

I expect another good series, to Leafsforever and dreamkur good luck and thanks for a fair and well-argued series here.


Last edited by tony d: 07-27-2010 at 09:56 AM.
tony d is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 09:22 AM
  #78
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Gelinas isn't bloody mediocre defensively, he was quality two-way forward, highly respected, and I provided quotes proving that!

Gelinas has adjusted career +/- of +113, good enough for 148th overall. That's not bloody mediocre! And for the record, Erixon is 716th with +19...

Erixon was utterly nonexistant offensively, while Gelinas was once again good offensive contributor, both in regular season and playoffs. He has 747 adjusted points, that's hardly offensively mediocre or irrelevant for a two-way forward, which he bloody well was.
Gelinas was 18th in Selke voting once, and never received another vote. That means he is mediocre at best.

+/- is a useless stat.

Gelinas is not a good offensive contributor either. If you take his best 6-year span, 1996-2001, and compare it to the league, he's 55th in goals and 79th in points.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 09:31 AM
  #79
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 500
Why did we even bother to make bios if people are just going to ignore them?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 09:42 AM
  #80
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,608
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Gelinas was 18th in Selke voting once, and never received another vote. That means he is mediocre at best.
That's ********, at very least.

Quote:
+/- is a useless stat.
ADJUSTED +/- is hardly useless.

Quote:
Gelinas is not a good offensive contributor either. If you take his best 6-year span, 1996-2001, and compare it to the league, he's 55th in goals and 79th in points.
That's top 6 numbers for a player who wasn't top 6 that often. He's 53rd in goals and 66th in points over the course of his career too, and he was top 6 even less overall.

Erixon is OTOH the enviable 203rd over his career years. Goals? 293rd... What's that? 7th to 10th line numbers?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 09:54 AM
  #81
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
That's ********, at very least.
I'm not making it up..... Gelinas received no Selke recognition aside from his 18th place finish.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
ADJUSTED +/- is hardly useless.
Why would adjusting a useless stat make it better?

The whole concept of +/- is pointless. It doesn't track anything.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
That's top 6 numbers for a player who wasn't top 6 that often. He's 53rd in goals and 66th in points over the course of his career too, and he was top 6 even less overall.
Actually, over Gelinas' career, he was 84th in points and 59th in goals. Of course, since not many careers overlap with his, you should look at points per game too... and Gelinas is 100th in points per game and 79th in goals per game.

Do you really believe that is impressive?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Erixon is OTOH the enviable 203rd over his career years. Goals? 293rd... What's that? 7th to 10th line numbers?
Yet he still managed to rack up all those Selke votes.... he must have been really, really good defensively, eh?

Erixon could have 0 career points and still be better overall than Gelinas. He's a defensive player who is elite in that role.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 09:57 AM
  #82
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,608
vCash: 500
This isn't really worth arguing, anyone even remotely sane can see who is the better player, and it's not Erixon.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 10:50 AM
  #83
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
This isn't really worth arguing, anyone even remotely sane can see who is the better player, and it's not Erixon.
I guess we should move on then.

Let's go to the defense, shall we?

Jyrki Lumme:
Being voted the best defenseman on a team that has all crappy defensemen isn't really impressive. His best competition was an aging Dave Babych. Asside from that he beat out guys like Dana Murzyn and Gerald Diduck.

What really matters is how he compares to the rest of the league. He was never an all-star and he never got a single Norris vote. Furthermore, for a guy who was a skilled defenseman, his offensive finishes are rather modest.

Personally, I think he's a steady, safe, puck-moving defenseman, and he fits in on a first pairing here. He's just nothing special.

Jeff Beukkeboom:
Agreed he will provide some muscle, and will be a good balance to Lumme. I'm not sure, though, that he is good enough to get first pairing minutes.

Once again, he was never an all-star and he never received a single Norris vote.

Bruce Driver:
I think he's a solid two-way puck-mover, but he's definately nothing special. Just like Lumme, Driver played a lot of his career on a New Jersey team with an absolutely dreadful group of defensemen.

And again, he was never an all-star and never reveived a single Norris vote.

Mike O'Connell:
He was a pretty solid offensive defenseman and powerplay specialist.

He was a 1-time All-Star,but never recieved a single Norris vote.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 10:51 AM
  #84
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,599
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
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.
In fact, the best wing Yashin had in his time in Ottawa (with the exception of occasional stretches with Alfredsson) was...Shawn McEachern, who was usually his winger from 1997 on.
McEachern was a solid all-around winger, but his biggest strength was his speed, like the Courtnalls.

Re: the use of ATOI: I think it's pretty useful, but strength of competition (from teammates) plays a role. It would take a little longer to calculate, but I think a cool way to present it would be a "Wins" and "Losses" column, where a player gets a win over a teammate when they play more ice time.

Example: Bruce Driver's ATOI "fight card" from 1987 to 1994

Player "Wins" "Losses"
Ken Daneyko 8 0
Slava Fetisov 5 0
Tommy Albelin 4 1
Randy Velischek 4 0
Craig Wolanin 4 0
Alexei Kasatonov 4 0
Joe Cirella 2 1
Scott Stevens 0 3
Eric Weinrich 2 0
Scott Niedermayer 2 0
Tom Kurvers 1 1
Total 36 6

And John van Boxmeer's ATOI "fight card" from 1976 to 1983

Player "Wins" "Losses"
Larry Playfair 4 0
Mike Ramsey 3 1
Bill Hajt 3 1
Richie Dunn 2 1
Bryan Lefley 2 0
Dennis Owchar 2 0
Don Awrey 1 1
Tom Edur 1 1
Mike Kitchen 1 1
Barry Beck 0 2
Jim Schoenfeld 0 2
Mike Christie 1 0
Jerry Korab 1 0
Hannu Virta 1 0
Guy Lapointe 0 1
Serge Savard 0 1
Larry Robinson 0 1
Tracy Pratt 0 1
Jim McElmury 0 1
Phil Housley 0 1
Total 22 16

Although this takes a little time to calculate, so it may not be practical for comparisons.


Last edited by overpass: 07-27-2010 at 11:28 AM.
overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 12:09 PM
  #85
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Carpenter has a 7th in Selke voting and nothing else (not even a single vote).
Probably because by the time he became a defensive specialist, he didn't score enough to be considered for the Selke. The mid-late 90s were when the Selke went to the scoring line forward who was most responsible in his own end, not to actual defensive-first forwards.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
I would very much like TDMM's opinion on that, he saw them both a lot.

...
Rolston's offensive highs are way way below Carpenter's. And as I said, I want TDMM's opinion on their defensive play.
Rolston was traded from NJ when he was still a young player and returned after his prime, so it's not really a fair comparison. He was always responsible in his own end, right from the start (his speed really helped), but nothing special until he got to Boston I don't think.

Carpenter was an elite checking center for the last few years of his career. He didn't get Selke consideration, because he was such an offensive black hole at the time, and that did matter, especially in the mid to late 90s.

I'm not sure how guys like Carpenter translate in this. He started off as a pretty good scorer who wasn't much into defending and Jacques Lemaire morphed him into his favorite checking center with next to zero offense.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-27-2010 at 12:38 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 12:24 PM
  #86
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,634
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.
Average TOI definitely means something. But players who play on crappy teams are at a huge advantage for TOI. Take Bruce Driver, since I saw a lot of him. I love Bruce Driver; one of my favorite players when I first started really getting into hockey. But Bruce Driver was a #1 on those awful Devils teams out of necessity - they simply had nobody better. A hockey team with Driver as their #1 wasn't going to win anything.

Edit: Looks like I'm not the only one who realized how crappy Driver's teams were.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 07-27-2010 at 12:34 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 04:07 PM
  #87
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,962
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Probably because by the time he became a defensive specialist, he didn't score enough to be considered for the Selke. The mid-late 90s were when the Selke went to the scoring line forward who was most responsible in his own end, not to actual defensive-first forwards.

Carpenter was an elite checking center for the last few years of his career. He didn't get Selke consideration, because he was such an offensive black hole at the time, and that did matter, especially in the mid to late 90s.
That explains why he wouldn't win it, and probably why he was never a major threat, but not why he only got votes in 1 season.

If he was really elite defensively, he would have got some votes... probably not a lot, but something. Many other poor offensive players were racking up minor Selke consideration, but not Carpenter.....

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 04:17 PM
  #88
Velociraptor
Registered User
 
Velociraptor's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Maritimes
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,673
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
This isn't really worth arguing, anyone even remotely sane can see who is the better player, and it's not Erixon.
Keep in mind Gelinas for the most part played 70 games upwards a season, and Erixon played an injury-plague career with no glaring point totals, but nobody could ever realize his true NHL potential because of his shortened seasons. Erixon was a good two-way player.

Gelinas and Erixon are both conventional players who lacked game-breaking offense, Gelinas was also a substandard defensive player, however that's where Erixon gains the slight edge. He was a serviceable two-way forward who demonstrated the game of hockey in an acceptable way offensively, and a remarkable way defensively.

Jan Erixon > Martin Gelinas

Velociraptor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 04:24 PM
  #89
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
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're overstating things.

Driver played 5 seasons with Slava Fetisov, 4 with Alexei Kasatonov, and 2 with a young Scott Niedermayer as the team started to turn the corner, and still never had less TOI than any of them. In this 8-year period overpass analyzed, they were a playoff team six times.

Quote:
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....
Norris voting is a GREAT place to start... for ATD players. Unfortunately at this time we are looking at the same types of things as we are with top-10 finishes - that is, you have a bunch of guys with a vote here or there, and a bunch of guys who never got any votes, and a couple votes doesn't automatically mean anything, just like a top-10 finish dosen't automatically mean anything.

Quote:
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.
The fact that they were all obviously better players would be a good place to start.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
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.
You are right. Whatever offense Gelinas would have provided in this MLD over an 82-game season, I think it would have been about 4X as much as Erixon provided.

A strictly defensive comparison is unfair and useless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
Hy Buller had a short but decent NHL career. Still unsure if his short career warrants a spot as a top pairing guy even in a MLD.
It does. Especially when you consider he was a phenom in the AHL, and kept out of the NHL due to antisemitism.

Quote:
Bruce Driver is a guy that probably should have went in the All-Time Draft. .
....that's going too far.

Quote:
Gord Fraser appears to be your Jeff Beukeboom. A physical defenseman, not that long of a NHL career however.
Gord Fraser was a star in other top leagues too.

Quote:
Mario Marois turned out to be better than I remembered, I wouldn't take him over Driver or O'connell but still a solid find for you guys.
I would take him over O'Connell, but not over Driver.

Quote:
Barry Gibbs, as I said in Round 1, was a pick we made near the end of the draft. Looking at ATOI and his career numbers Gibbs actually was a solid player.
You are right that Gibbs has been massively overlooked here in the past.

Quote:
Earl Robertson's selection is a questionable one. Sure he is the only goalie among the 4 being debated here to have won a Cup but other than that his regular season record was lacklustre. Only having 1 above .500 season.
He was top-5 in Hart voting twice too. It doesn't sound like it was his fault his teams were bad.

Quote:
Bun Cook, for you guys, is a good coach. He won 6 AHL titles as coach. Still you have to wonder why even in a NHL that had only 6 teams at the time why a team didn't take a chance on Bun Cook.
Actually, there's no evidence that I know of that says he was kept out of the NHL on merit. Either teams kept sticking with the guys they had out of familiarity, of Cook didn't want to go anywhere else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
+/- is a useless stat.
But adjusted +/- is not. Not when taken over a massive career in a variety of situations. It's a fact that Gelinas' teams did a lot better with him on the ice, than without him.

For example, you don't know this by looking at Kovalchuk's career -75 but he has been 52 goals better than his teams over his career.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 04:54 PM
  #90
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
You're overstating things.

Driver played 5 seasons with Slava Fetisov, 4 with Alexei Kasatonov, and 2 with a young Scott Niedermayer as the team started to turn the corner, and still never had less TOI than any of them. In this 8-year period overpass analyzed, they were a playoff team six times.
None of those 3 defensemen were in their primes though. Fetisov, in particular, was considered a major disappointment in NJ.

I agree that Driver has been massively overlooked in the past, when he slipped to the AAA. He was the captain of NJ before Scott Stevens arrived.

Quote:
I would take him over O'Connell, but not over Driver.
Well, Marois did finish 8th in Norris voting in 86-87 with multiple votes. I'll let the GMs here argue about what that means.

Quote:
But adjusted +/- is not. Not when taken over a massive career in a variety of situations. It's a fact that Gelinas' teams did a lot better with him on the ice, than without him.

For example, you don't know this by looking at Kovalchuk's career -75 but he has been 52 goals better than his teams over his career.
I'm not sure if Kovalchuk is the best example of the merits of adjusted +/-. He's been better than his teams because he is such a prolific offensive player - but you can already tell that he's a prolific offensive player by looking at his other stats.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 05:25 PM
  #91
Dwight
The French Tickler
 
Dwight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: West Island
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,821
vCash: 500
Hy Buller was Jewish? This I didn't know

Dwight is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 10:44 PM
  #92
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.
Depending on what you classify as "old" and "new, but there are just as many top-20 spots available in virtually every year.

Does the % comparison deserve to be looked at? Sure. In a debate, soley dedicated to it. Perhaps with a poll option, so the ATD GMs can analyze and vote and see what the majority stick with it. Here? A current battle between two teams in a minor league draft is not really the most suitable place for a thing that has such far reaching magnititude.

We drafted this team, largely off the rankings and votings. Why? Because we believe in it. We believe in drafting players who were the best of their era's in certain dimensions that we can find. And that's what we did. We're not oldie supremasists- look at the number of modern players on our team. We just think that elite in one era is better than, well, quite a bit below that in another, for the most part. Whatever happened to all era's are equal, more or less? (with some exceptions, such as the very early days of hockey).

A serious debate for another time. For this, we are confident in why we drafted these players, we are confident in this system, and we are confident in being clearly better in that contributing to a victory. Don't agree? Show it in the votes.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 11:25 PM
  #93
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Depending on what you classify as "old" and "new, but there are just as many top-20 spots available in virtually every year.

Does the % comparison deserve to be looked at? Sure. In a debate, soley dedicated to it. Perhaps with a poll option, so the ATD GMs can analyze and vote and see what the majority stick with it. Here? A current battle between two teams in a minor league draft is not really the most suitable place for a thing that has such far reaching magnititude.

We drafted this team, largely off the rankings and votings. Why? Because we believe in it. We believe in drafting players who were the best of their era's in certain dimensions that we can find. And that's what we did. We're not oldie supremasists- look at the number of modern players on our team. We just think that elite in one era is better than, well, quite a bit below that in another, for the most part. Whatever happened to all era's are equal, more or less? (with some exceptions, such as the very early days of hockey).

A serious debate for another time. For this, we are confident in why we drafted these players, we are confident in this system, and we are confident in being clearly better in that contributing to a victory. Don't agree? Show it in the votes.
My take is that rankings do a better job at helping us evaluated the very best of the league. I don't think the percentage system accounts for outliers at the very top so well. The ranking system also has the advantage that you don't have to have passed a semi-high-level math course to figure it out, and it works well enough for the guys on top.

Personally, I consider top 10 rankings from the O6 era and top 20 rankings from the modern era to be particularly meaningful. Maybe top 25-30 in the recent decade after the Euros came over. Anything below that, and there is too much noise from players having career years, etc, and you probably are better off with the percentage system.

For pre-consolidation guys, the percentage system might work better, at least once you get past the top 5 scorers or so.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 11:26 PM
  #94
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
Basing an arguement on how one performs on their team compared to how another performs on their team is absurd to me, unless they are playing for the exact same teams.

Is it good, sure, it's nice. But it is NOT something to base most of your arguement on, because of the many and crucial other factors that have nothing to do with the players themselves and how they perform!

I'll use a food analogy comparison here- using team numbers like that should be a "cherry on top". It should not be your base, because it is too small and weak and insignificant to do that. It should not be your "frosting", because it just isn't as appealing as frosting it is and doesn't draw people in well.. It should be placed at the end, not the beginning, once you have a good base set, or else it will be rendered worthless by being buried in the real good stuff or be insigificant with not enough of the good stuff there. And it can be often ignored and avoided if one wants, really, because it isn't very significant. (yes, I just ate some cake topped with cherries...but I think it apploes well here)

Quote:
He came to Isles and instantly turned a team that was out of playoffs and below .400 for many years into playoff team.
He's a good player. Is he really the only reason?

Quote:
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.
Depends on who had the better offensive individuals on that teams. Teams can suck for a lot of other reasons besides they don't have the stars to score.

Quote:
Alfredsson, Hossa, McEachern, Bonk, Peca, Satan... sure some of them aren't stars or anything, but it's not a pile of crap either.
Are any of those players really going to cut it well in an all-time sense for offensive reasons if you cut off their careers at when they ended playing with Yashin? (again, Alfie and Hossa had yet to put up any of the offensive numbers, really, that makes them ATD players, and none of those guys are really ATD or MLD worth, for offense)

Quote:
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.
Kozlov is a actually a decent MLD player, first off. (Unless I'm confused on which one you are referring to). Nedved was long before Savard was anything. Bure also beat Jaroma Iginla in the year you refer to- does Iginla such because of that?, Conroy had a career year wheras Savard was injury hampered. McEachern is UNFAIR and bias, because you did use PPG as part of your arguement for Yashin. Savard was injured in the year you refer to- he had 52 points in 45 games while McEachern had 55 points in 85 games. Ya, McEachern sure did outdo Savard offensively (Savard, by the way, was 2nd in PPG that year- by far better than any PPG finish anyone on the Hurricanes managed, if one puts much stock into that, which I don't personally do)

Can't seam to find what year McAmmond did that to Savard, though I would imagine it could be explained by similar methods...

Quote:
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.
Savard peaked and starting doing what he did to make him MLD worthy when Yashin was in his twilight. He tooks a while to build to that- what is so wrong with that?

Quote:
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?
No. But starting on a semi-decent or just south of average team that actually has some good players that makes you down on the depth charge is certainly a disadvantage vs starting on one of the worst teams ever where you get all the ice-time you could want because you're pretty much the only good player on the team.

Quote:
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.
Difference- Yashin didn't play against a team as good as ours for most of his career. And frankly, one should step up the offense on an MLD first line, rather than settle for players somewhat better than the often junk Yashin had. A 20th peak in assists just doesn't cut it for me for a primary MLD playmaker. Sure, Yashin can create offense himself, but will he be able to do it well enough against our team? He's probably the only player on your top line with MLD 1st line level offense.

Quote:
Yet people pull being chased out of MTL as something against Turgeon...
I never have, I haven't really seen that done with anyone here.

Quote:
There's more to their roles than just goals.
Sure. There's more to Richer than goals too. Your lacklustre arguements tell me you can't really think of a way to bring him down, or make your top-line wingers appear better than him.

Quote:
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.
You think he's better defensively than MacAdam? He was responsible, but MacAdam very much built his reputation on that. Was he tougher than MacAdam? A better character? A better leader? "All fronts" is very broad, and you have shown nothing that suggests that him being better on all fronts is "not debatable"- you've focused on offense in their head to head matchup, and even that's debatable since neither is impressive. This is the MLD- very few things are "not debatable", and you can't just shrug out of most things by saying "it's not debtable, and I don't have to prove that." I'll call you on that one almost every time.

Quote:
Semantics. I can show you quotes from hockey cards that will make you stare wildly in disbelief. It's not a terribly legit source.
It's not the most ideal source, but hockey cards today are different from those than back then I'm sure, and I presume hockey cards are today are what you are basing this off of. I'm not going to call Romnes as good as a selke finalist defensively because his hockey card calls him one of the best defensively of his time, but I don't think saying good defensively is really a stretch.

Quote:
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.
Ya..that doesn't cut it. Those 60 players existed back then. You know what they were doing? Toiling in the minor leagues or 2nd lines because they weren't good enough to crack top lines, for the most part. Who's to say that so many of them would automatically have finished ahead of those top-10 guys if given the chance? Coaches aren't idiots, after all (), they aren't going to give ice-time to inferior players than the one's in the league doing well.

35th=10th is just modern supremacy to me, at this time. Especially when you're using a blanket satement on that. (I know you'll jump in here with percentages seventies, and I know that they may make it look like that in some scenarios. I highly doubt this is always the case like MadArcand applies, and there is much debate to be had about that in another place in another day).

Quote:
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.
Top-15 finishes are "crap"? Alright then. By your flawed metric though, Gelinas is then probably much worst than crap offensively then.

Quote:
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...
Gagne but up a 7th in points and 1st in points in the WCHL. That's one finish where Lukac isn't as impressive certainl. Then he went and put up in a 3rd and 6th in points in leagues that were perhaps and undoubtedly the best in the time. Lukac has more longevity with the Czech league finishes, but of the finishes, they aren't for the most part particularly more impressive than Gagne's (other than the 7th in the WCHL, a ways behind).

Quote:
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...
Were those two forwards in their prime in 1980, as it seems Lukac was...? Fetisov is a defenceman- not usually a benchmark we use when looking at forwards. Solid, but certainly not "wow"?

Quote:
Being top 30 in Whitney's era is the top 33% of 1st line players. That's being top 8 in Romnes' era...
Romnes was also better than the number of forwards playing in lesser leagues and lines at the time who couldn't play in those top line roles with so few spots, but would have in a 30-team league....

Quote:
Certainly more than having two great war years seasons and then finishing migthy 19th, the equal of a 70ish finish in Whitney's era...
As dreak mentioned, certainly not the worst war seasons by far. And that's by your, highly questionable to me, metric.

Quote:
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.
Toughness is in it's own dimension to me- not as important as offense and defense, but above things like "speed". You can have 3 guys of average speed in this and no one will question you. You can have 3 guys with average toughness (not tough but not soft) in this, and you will be questioned because you will be running into very tough players who can really throw you off. Toughness is more important than speed to me, by a fair margin.

Quote:
Gagne is refered to as "diminutive". Dunno about you, but when I hear that, I think of Fleury at best.
Was it really meant to mean more than on the small size? But frankly, I trust the certain, factual measurements more than that, and really he wasn't that small by the facts.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 11:35 PM
  #95
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,790
vCash: 500
[QUOTE=MadArcand;27114416]Let us compare the third lines.

Quote:
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.
His best selke finish, another top-10 selke finish, and a 14th selke finish, came as a centre, based on face-offs. He is more often remembered as a winger because that's where he played more and that's what he's played recently, but he can play centre.

Quote:
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...
As I said, he isn't there for offense, and this is a third line we are talking about. We don't critize Gainey because he brings no offense to speak of, now do we? (different levels and such, but same point).


Quote:
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.
But Gelinas isn't a good offensive player at all, and isb't nearly as good defensively.

So what if he's multiple times better in points? If a player scores 5 points and another scores 1 in full season, you can say that player is 5 times better offensively- but in reality he's only 4 points better, and both evidently suck offensively, aren't there to play offensively, and won't score much. Maybe not entirely the case here, but the point remains clear- who care if Gelinas is better offensively if neither is really likely to score anything? Erixon won't score anything in this series, but what is Gelinas going to score, really? 1 point maybe? An off-shot at 2? Who cares about such a difference?

Erixon, however, is much better defensively, and I feel will be able to shut down guys much better than Gelinas- much morse useful with the ice-time they get.


Quote:
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.

Rolston is clearly better than Carpenter, and I wager Erixon is better than Gelinas too. Gelinas wasn't spectacular in any regard really as far as I can see., and that hurts him with such a limited role. Erixon is spectacular for an MLD level defensively, and is just much better in his role than Gelinas is.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 11:41 PM
  #96
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,790
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
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
What's misbuilt about it? The third line's job is simple- shutdown. It's not there to score. The fourth line is a bit more balanced- bring some good two-way play with defensivey ability as well.

Why the heck aren't Rolston and Blanchford true shutdown guys? Rolston is a classic- MLD third liner. He has some decent scoring, but most of it's impressiveness comes in the shorthanded department, not ES. Blanchford had one pretty good finish, but isn't really impressive offensively otherwise, but he has 2 retro selke's and seem to be quite good leader- can certainly be used in a shutdown role.

Conroy has a good 9th in assists to his credit- he's not an offensive blackhole, he can play some two-way. Gould is different, but he's just not as good as Rolston or Blanchford.

Interesting that you say "your 4th line is better than ours", then talk about strength of the bottom-6 and say "slight edge Carolina", when the post is assumably only about 4th lines...

It wants to be a two-way line. What's misbalanced about that? Liscombe isn't a laibility defensively, at least not that I'm aware of. Conroy is inbetween, Liscombe and GOuld offset's what the other lacks. Works for me. Liscombe is also there to be a good scorer in case of injury or otherwise, and get some PP time too- but he needs ES minutes.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 11:49 PM
  #97
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,790
vCash: 500
On defense: Dreak is right- you base your ENTIRE ARGUEMENT on ICE-TIME!? That really grinds me. It's ridiculous. Teams, situations, are DIFFERENT for every player. How one performs on their team is NOT a fair and equal way to compare players. You put a cherry on a plate and left it alone and think that's good enough?

It also grinds me that you give yourself a goaltending advantage, say it's clear, and then say NOTHING TO PROVE IT. This is the MLD- few things are not debtable, and goaltending practically always is. Look at how late Don Edwards went last time and look where he is now...the general perception of a goalie, and the draft position of a goalie, which people already know, is NOT acceptable in determing which goalie is better. Now, onto the person who actually uses facts...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
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.
Am I the only one who sees no reason why Peeters is better than Nabakov looking at that? (this is Vezina voting BTW, I'm fairly sure). I'd like to see more on the playoffs from both sides, but as far as I know, Peeters isn't drafted as a playoff stud.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
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
Prove it! You just stated that, and then didn't back it up! Like I said, I am going to call you on that in the MLD. I'm fairly sure Vokoun's voting record is not nearly as impressive (he's been snubbed a couple of years, but still) And Robertson isn't a slouch of a back-up either- I think he's might be the only guy on either team with two top-5's in hart voting, correct me if I'm wrong.

Leafs Forever is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:17 AM
  #98
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,702
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
None of those 3 defensemen were in their primes though. Fetisov, in particular, was considered a major disappointment in NJ.

I agree that Driver has been massively overlooked in the past, when he slipped to the AAA. He was the captain of NJ before Scott Stevens arrived.
They're all HHOFers (Kasatonov should be) - that Driver was getting more ice time than a 20-22-year old Niedermayer and a 29-32-year old Fetisov and Kasatonov, at 27-31, is still pretty good.

Quote:
Well, Marois did finish 8th in Norris voting in 86-87 with multiple votes. I'll let the GMs here argue about what that means.
Perfect example of how you can make a mistake picking one thing and throwing out the rest, i.e. "Marois had one season where he got Norris consideration, Driver didn't, therefore, Marois is better". I hate arguments that are that simplistic.

Quote:
I'm not sure if Kovalchuk is the best example of the merits of adjusted +/-. He's been better than his teams because he is such a prolific offensive player - but you can already tell that he's a prolific offensive player by looking at his other stats.
That is my point, though. You watch Kovalchuk and you think, "is he actually helping the team playing that way?", as in, is all that offense worth it? And apparently it is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Depending on what you classify as "old" and "new, but there are just as many top-20 spots available in virtually every year.

Does the % comparison deserve to be looked at? Sure. In a debate, soley dedicated to it. Perhaps with a poll option, so the ATD GMs can analyze and vote and see what the majority stick with it. Here? A current battle between two teams in a minor league draft is not really the most suitable place for a thing that has such far reaching magnititude.
LOL. No one needs to have a vote and determine what should become convention. I'm encouraging you to put more thought into your assessments.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
My take is that rankings do a better job at helping us evaluated the very best of the league. I don't think the percentage system accounts for outliers at the very top so well. The ranking system also has the advantage that you don't have to have passed a semi-high-level math course to figure it out, and it works well enough for the guys on top.
So it becomes even more important in the MLD than in the ATD, because players with more than one season in the top-10 or top-20 are drying up by now, and many of them did nothing outside those years. They shouldn't be, by default, the next best options for the AAA draft, though I think for LF and Dreakmur, they probably are.

as for outliers at the top - HO did a system just like BM67's, except it took the average of 2, 3, and 4 instead of just 2. I think it's a definite improvement, but it's also more time consuming and to use it on a regular basis when assessing MLD players is probably not going to give you better enough results to justify the work.

Quote:
Personally, I consider top 10 rankings from the O6 era and top 20 rankings from the modern era to be particularly meaningful. Maybe top 25-30 in the recent decade after the Euros came over. Anything below that, and there is too much noise from players having career years, etc, and you probably are better off with the percentage system.

For pre-consolidation guys, the percentage system might work better, at least once you get past the top 5 scorers or so.
Yeah, it's not that bad for the ATD but I'm seeing it taken to brutal proportions in the MLD. Most of the guys whose offensive resumes are easily explained by rattling off a list of top-10 or top-20 finishes are long gone. There is much more depth required to really understand who the best offensive players left are.

And using rankings like dogma at this point makes a mockery of us as historians.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Sure. There's more to Richer than goals too. Your lacklustre arguements tell me you can't really think of a way to bring him down, or make your top-line wingers appear better than him.
You guys are going to ride that Pelletier quote as long as it will take you. Richer was one-dimensional for most of his career. You're not getting a guy who is any better than average without the puck here.


Quote:
You think he's better defensively than MacAdam? He was responsible, but MacAdam very much built his reputation on that. Was he tougher than MacAdam? A better character? A better leader? "All fronts" is very broad, and you have shown nothing that suggests that him being better on all fronts
I have to agree. Despite MacAdam's better peak, Courtnall is the better offensive player, but MacAdam has the defense and leadership on him.

Quote:
Ya..that doesn't cut it. Those 60 players existed back then. You know what they were doing? Toiling in the minor leagues or 2nd lines because they weren't good enough to crack top lines, for the most part.
Do you come around the HOH section much? Those 60 players did not exist back then. Smaller talent pool means that 60th then and 60th now are very different things. Just like 20th then and 20th now.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
Erixon is spectacular for an MLD level defensively, and is just much better in his role than Gelinas is.
Clearly you strove to get the best defensive players for the 3rd line, and clearly they strove to get the best overall players. I think they win this one hands-down, based on the way I like to build 3rd lines. Gelinas is easily a better and more accomplished all-around player than Erixon.

Over a full season, at even strength, maybe your line only allows 40 goals, but I doubt it even scores 15. Their line might allow 60, but it could also score 35. I don't see either line having a major overall edge.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:21 AM
  #99
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
They're all HHOFers (Kasatonov should be) - that Driver was getting more ice time than a 20-22-year old Niedermayer and a 29-32-year old Fetisov and Kasatonov, at 27-31, is still pretty good.
The only one of the three that looked like anything close to a HOFer was Kasatonov. Fetisov did not adjust to the NHL-style of play, really ever. Bowman basically switched to a more Russian style of play in Detroit to get the most out of him.

And there's no way an offense-only (at the time) defenseman like Niedermayer was getting much ice time under Jacques Lemaire.

Quote:
That is my point, though. You watch Kovalchuk and you think, "is he actually helping the team playing that way?", as in, is all that offense worth it? And apparently it is.
At least compared to his almost-as-bad-defensively-and-nothing-close-offensively teammates in Atlanta.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:24 AM
  #100
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 40,634
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

You guys are going to ride that Pelletier quote as long as it will take you. Richer was one-dimensional for most of his career. You're not getting a guy who is any better than average without the puck here.
I mostly agree. Richer become a good two-way winger for a couple of seasons under Lemaire, but he hated playing that way.

TheDevilMadeMe 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 06:06 PM.

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.