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
07-28-2010, 12:58 AM
  #101
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
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.
It's not all Vezina voting. Peeters reveived some all-star voted before the Vezina was converted to a vote. I just used his all-star votes from those seasons to sub in as "best goalie votes".

Peeters really had 1st, 10th, and 11th in Vezina voting. He was 4th and 5th in All-Star voting before the Vezina was voted on.

Regardless, Nabokov's 2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, and 6th in Vezina voting is quite a bit more impressive.

We've already gone over Nabokov's play-offs haven't we? Here's what you really need to know: During his time in San Jose, he faced more shots per game in the play-offs, but his G.A.A. and Save % both go down.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 12:59 AM
  #102
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
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.
Not like that was Marois's only good season, however.

Quote:
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.
I agree with that- a "perhaps". However, a serious debate dedicated to it does in my mind.

Quote:
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.
I dislike one-hit wonders, which is what you describe. When we are talking about repeated top-20 finishers, however, if'ts another story.

We're defending Hamill and Romnes here, who both were elite for multiple years and pretty good outside that in goals and assists respectively- not one-hit wonders.

Quote:
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.
Where are we cutting the line though with what really matters at all?

Quote:
And using rankings like dogma at this point makes a mockery of us as historians.
I explained things, and I stand by things. I'm honestly a bit offended by this- I can't get help get the sense like you are talking down to us just because we are disagreeing with you on this. I have questioned the use of percentage system, and do not really agree with it's usage at this point, but I won't be calling usage
a "mockery of us as historians."

We like players who were much more elite in their era's than players who were rather far from it practically all the time, for the most part. Apparently, that's a mockery to history now...

Perhaps I am being stubborn. Stubborn and historians are pretty hand in hand, however, based on what I know of them.

Quote:
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.
Even not accounting for that defense, Richer was nost just a guy who scored goals well, and that's all one can say. He performed in the playoffs superbly (and showed a playmaking touch in them in his best run)

Quote:
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.
Not terribly much. There weren't 60 hockey players back then? Sure, 60th then is probably different than 60th now. However..

An interesting perspective, considering I think that is going to undoubtedly favor modern players. It's not exactly the old players fault that the talent pool was smaller- it's not their fault that Europeans didn't develop as fast or as soon, they couldn't control population, and they can't control the hockey development process. Should we really just be hammering them for having a smaller talent pool without a second thought, even though that was much beyond their control?


Quote:
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.
However, one has to consider 3 lines in context with the rest of the team here.

I wanted a much more defensive oriented 3rd line both because, well, players who were particularly good at both aspects are hard to find, and I wasn't the most confident in the defense from our top-6 (not bad certainly, but not good either). However, the Carolina top-6 isn't really good in that either- similar to us, just featuring a guy to be the defensive consience. The defense from their third line, however, seems to lack lustre- at least compared to ours.

I have yet to see anything showing Gelinas as such. I think selke voting shows us clearly who was the bettter defensive player between Erixon and Gelinas, and by a good margin. Neither is particularly tough as far as I know, and Gelinas, though has some quotes for defensive play, isn't likely anything beyond good, while Erixon is fantastic that sense. Is Gelinas really and good offensively in this, his role considered? Again, he may be magnitiudes better than Erixon here- but then, that would matter more if we talking about top-6 players- but we aren't. No one has yet to show what makes Gelinas at all impressive in this. And again, how many points is he likely to put up here?

It's a similar situation with Carpenter, though he has more proving his defence.

And as Dreak mentioned, Trottier, though quite impressive defensively, his offense falls into the same category that has been constantly hammered against us, though even more so given his elite or near-elite finish comes only once.. And I question the real offensive ability of his linemates.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:03 AM
  #103
Leafs Forever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,795
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
It's not all Vezina voting. Peeters reveived some all-star voted before the Vezina was converted to a vote. I just used his all-star votes from those seasons to sub in as "best goalie votes".

Peeters really had 1st, 10th, and 11th in Vezina voting. He was 4th and 5th in All-Star voting before the Vezina was voted on.

Regardless, Nabokov's 2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, and 6th in Vezina voting is quite a bit more impressive.

We've already gone over Nabokov's play-offs haven't we? Here's what you really need to know: During his time in San Jose, he faced more shots per game in the play-offs, but his G.A.A. and Save % both go down.
I stand corrected then.

I mean a detailed comparison, Peeters vs Nabakov. Peeters s% and G.A.A. become worse in the playoffs, but s% was only around for half his career, and I don't know what is the era normality in either cases as far as rises and falls in those goaltending categories when switching from regular season to playoffs.

Leafs Forever is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:13 AM
  #104
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.
Actually, we picked Rolston and Blachford because they can play solid defense as well as contribute on offense. I think it's pretty fair to think Rolston is the best offensive player between these lines ,and, if not, he's close to it. His short-handed scoring ability is pretty dominant.

Wait a second here...... they win this hands down, yet both lines are going to have the exact same goal differential?

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:24 AM
  #105
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
I stand corrected then.

I mean a detailed comparison, Peeters vs Nabakov. Peeters s% and G.A.A. become worse in the playoffs, but s% was only around for half his career, and I don't know what is the era normality in either cases as far as rises and falls in those goaltending categories when switching from regular season to playoffs.
Pete Peeters:
-save % goes up very sightly in the play-offs
-goals against average goes up by nearly 10% in the play-offs
-he's 100 games better than .500 in the regular season, but only .500 in the play-offs.

Evgeni Nabokov:
-save % goes up very slightly
-goals against average goes down slightly
-he's 100 games better than .500 in the regualr season, and only 2 games better in the play-offs.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:49 AM
  #106
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
Not terribly much. There weren't 60 hockey players back then? Sure, 60th then is probably different than 60th now. However..

An interesting perspective, considering I think that is going to undoubtedly favor modern players. It's not exactly the old players fault that the talent pool was smaller- it's not their fault that Europeans didn't develop as fast or as soon, they couldn't control population, and they can't control the hockey development process. Should we really just be hammering them for having a smaller talent pool without a second thought, even though that was much beyond their control?
It's not the old players' fault the talent pool was smaller, but it was - and if the 20th-best guy then was only about as good as the 60th-best guy now (relative to some sort of reference point) then we should reflect that in our drafting.

There have been plenty of discussions regarding size of talent pool over the years. You should read them. TDMM has been involved in a lot of them and can probably direct you there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
Wait a second here...... they win this hands down, yet both lines are going to have the exact same goal differential?
No, They win the Gelinas/Erixon comparison. I'd never pick Erixon over Gelinas just for the extra defense.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 02:35 AM
  #107
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Let me preface this by stating that you're constantly building strawmen, and I'm tired of tearing them down.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
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)
Strawman #1. I'm not using Yashin being always his teams' leader as the main argument in his favor. His peak, his adjusted numbers, his international numbers, etc. are all in his favor, and aside from assist finishes, Savard isn't really better or comparable at absolutely anything at all here.

Quote:
He's a good player. Is he really the only reason?
Strawman #2. I never stated he was the only reason (though he was certainly major and probably the most important factor in it).


Quote:
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)
Why are we 'cutting off their career' instead of doing the logical thing and take a look at how they performed when they played with Yashin?

Quote:
Can't seam to find what year McAmmond did that to Savard, though I would imagine it could be explained by similar methods...
McAmmond outscored Savard in 2001-02 in CGY. McAmmond was also 0.7 PPG that season while Savard was 0.6, so no, it can't be explained by similar stat manipulation.


Quote:
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?
What's good about that, for Christ's sake? Being crappy for majority of your career and then finally improving doesn't mean he should be judged solely by his peak and his suckitude prior to that should be ignored.

You also ignore the very point of my post you quote there - that Savard only ever led his teams when faced with atrocious competition on there.

Quote:
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.
You're kidding, right? Yashin played against plenty of better teams than yours, stacked with ATDers.

Quote:
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.
Lo and behold, yet another bloody strawman! I stated in the very first post on the lines that Richer is the best winger there. You're putting words in my mouth again, as usual.

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 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.
Was he faster? Better playmaker? Defensively they're about equal. It may be debatable if that makes you happy, whatever.

Quote:
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.
I can accept Romnes as good defensively - it puts him at Ridley's level, really.

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. 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).
This argument is asinine. Talent pool increases, and thus there is more parity in relation to absolute numbers. You can't seriously think the difference between an O6 top 10 forward and an AHLer back then is the same as between a top 10 forward today and a lower end 1st liner (for that's how the absolute numbers fall).

Quote:
Top-15 finishes are "crap"? Alright then. By your flawed metric though, Gelinas is then probably much worst than crap offensively then.
What top 15 finishes?
Doc Romnes has following top 20s in points: 19th, 4th, 18th. One, let me repeat, ONE top 15 finish. In just assists, 4th, 3rd, 7th, 15th. I think by giving your guys 5 quality seasons (3 great, 2 good) I was being too generous.

Hamill you say? 15th, 19th, 15th, 20th in points. 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 15th in goals. Jolly gee, could it be it's once again below the threshold I set? I *was* being too generous!

Quote:
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).
What sort of nonsense is that? If we agree that WCHL and Czechoslovak league are comparable in regards to their level in comparison to the NHL, then the fact that Lukac's finishes in CS are much better than Gagne's in WCHL cannot be denied.

And honestly, can you claim Gagne comparable with a straight face?


Quote:
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"?
But, but, but... it's TOP 20! The holy grail of LF and Dreakmur!

Seriously, it's good but no 'wow' indeed. More than can be said about the international accomplishments of your whole 2nd line, though.

Quote:
As dreak mentioned, certainly not the worst war seasons by far. And that's by your, highly questionable to me, metric.
Not worst just 2nd worst, eh?


Quote:
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.
I think skating is at the very least as important as toughness. And you didn't draft Derek Boogard ahead of Erixon because 'defense and toughness are both dimensions', or ahead of Savard with same reasoning, did you?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 02:43 AM
  #108
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
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).
If you're willing to accept the fact that your third line will be absolute non-factor offensively...

Quote:
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.
Absurd. Gelinas is about 4-times the offensive player than Erixon, while Erixon most certainly isn't 4-times better defensively - for that, Gelinas would have to be a defensive sieve below Bure level.

Also, you're saying that Gelinas, a consistent solid offensive performer with penchant for stepping it up in the playoffs will be offensive non-factor here? REALLY?!

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 02:47 AM
  #109
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
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.
You're wasting Rolston's offensive ability on that line. Rolston being excellent on PK doesn't make him a shutdown center at all either. In fact, I never ever heard him referred to in such words. There's a difference between being a good PKer and defensive player and shutdown center.

Where did I say your 4th line is better? Another strawman. Liscombe and Irvine are barely comparable due to completely different roles, yet Irvine on our 4th makes more sense than a misplaced one-dimensional offensive player on yours. Conroy is a bit ahead of Fisher, but Beaudro is much better than Gould. I don't think your line is 'better'.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 03:25 AM
  #110
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 25,690
vCash: 500
Quote:
This argument is asinine. Talent pool increases, and thus there is more parity in relation to absolute numbers. You can't seriously think the difference between an O6 top 10 forward and an AHLer back then is the same as between a top 10 forward today and a lower end 1st liner (for that's how the absolute numbers fall).
Very true.

Quote:
Irvine on our 4th makes more sense than a misplaced one-dimensional offensive player on yours
Good point.

I like Liscombe as an offensive guy myself (had him three AAAs ago) but I couldn't find a thing about him; he appears to be offense-only.

Quote:
Also, you're saying that Gelinas, a consistent solid offensive performer with penchant for stepping it up in the playoffs will be offensive non-factor here? REALLY?!
Good point.

Quote:
What top 15 finishes?
Doc Romnes has following top 20s in points: 19th, 4th, 18th. One, let me repeat, ONE top 15 finish. In just assists, 4th, 3rd, 7th, 15th. I think by giving your guys 5 quality seasons (3 great, 2 good) I was being too generous.

Hamill you say? 15th, 19th, 15th, 20th in points. 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 15th in goals. Jolly gee, could it be it's once again below the threshold I set? I *was* being too generous!
They put a lot of stock into the pure goals and assists finishes, which makes some sense for a couple of reasons, but you did illustrate that that can be flawed when looking at players so heavily biased one way or the other.

For example, if Romnes is indeed the best playmaker and worst goalscorer on either line and Hamill the best goalscorer and worst playmaker, is this better or worse than guys who are in-between? Judging this is difficult.

seventieslord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 03:26 AM
  #111
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Absurd. Gelinas is about 4-times the offensive player than Erixon, while Erixon most certainly isn't 4-times better defensively - for that, Gelinas would have to be a defensive sieve below Bure level.
If I'm looking at both players in a vacuum, and ignoring team concepts and roles, I think I would have to agree that Gelinas is the better player. However, in a 3rd line role, which consists mainly of defensive responsibilities, I'll take Erixon every day of the week.

Which guy would I rather have responsible for matching up against opposing top lines? Which guy would I rather have killing penalties? Which guy would I rather have defending a lead? I'd take Erixon in all those scinarios... and it's not close.

Again, in a vacuum, if I needed to score a goal, I'd take Gelinas. Now, if we take them out of the vacuum and put them on a team, I wouldn't take either of them to score a goal. I'll use Hamill, Liscombe, MacAdam, Courtnall, or Whitney when I need to score. Gelinas and Erixon are both on the bench.....

Certain players fill certain roles. As a defensive specialist, Erixon's lack of an offensive game doesn't really matter. All that matters is his ability to do the jobs he's supposed to do - kill penalties, defend leads, and play good defensively. In that role, he is better than Gelinas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Also, you're saying that Gelinas, a consistent solid offensive performer with penchant for stepping it up in the playoffs will be offensive non-factor here? REALLY?!
He had one amazing play-off run with Calgary. Asside from that, he was not a good play-off producer.

His play-off scoring rates (including his Calgary run) drop by over 25%.....

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 03:29 AM
  #112
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post
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?
Your post is ridiculous. It's once again a strawman, driven ad-absurdum.

Quote:
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...
Peeters' peak is above other goalies here. I'll also compare your #1 to our backup, since most people today tend to put them at about same level:

Save% finishes - note that Peeters misses his four best seasons here:
Peeters: 2nd, 4th, 12th, 14th, 18th, 18th
Nabokov: 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 12th
Vokoun: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 11th, 12th, 16th, 19th

GAA finishes:
Peeters: 1st, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th
Nabokov: 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th
Vokoun: 8th, 11th, 14th, 16th, 16th, 20th

Wins finishes:
Peeters: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 8th, 12th, 13th, 13th
Nabokov: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 11th,
Vokoun: 3rd, 6th, 13th, 16th, 17th, 17th

Shutouts finishes:
Peeters: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th, 12th, 12th, 13th, 19th
Nabokov: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 20th
Vokoun: 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 19th

Do the stats and top 20s lie this time when it doesn't fit you?

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 03:41 AM
  #113
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
If I'm looking at both players in a vacuum, and ignoring team concepts and roles, I think I would have to agree that Gelinas is the better player. However, in a 3rd line role, which consists mainly of defensive responsibilities, I'll take Erixon every day of the week.

Which guy would I rather have responsible for matching up against opposing top lines? Which guy would I rather have killing penalties? Which guy would I rather have defending a lead? I'd take Erixon in all those scinarios... and it's not close.

Again, in a vacuum, if I needed to score a goal, I'd take Gelinas. Now, if we take them out of the vacuum and put them on a team, I wouldn't take either of them to score a goal. I'll use Hamill, Liscombe, MacAdam, Courtnall, or Whitney when I need to score. Gelinas and Erixon are both on the bench.....

Certain players fill certain roles. As a defensive specialist, Erixon's lack of an offensive game doesn't really matter. All that matters is his ability to do the jobs he's supposed to do - kill penalties, defend leads, and play good defensively. In that role, he is better than Gelinas.
But see, we're not playing Gelinas in pure defensive shutdown role here. Yes, Erixon is better as pure defense shutdown guy, but much worse as complete player overall. Our 3rd and 4th lines are both built same way, to play two-way hockey, not just pure shutdown, and to play with a ton of energy, grit and determination. Gelinas is ideal fit here for us.

Quote:
He had one amazing play-off run with Calgary. Asside from that, he was not a good play-off producer.

His play-off scoring rates (including his Calgary run) drop by over 25%.....
He's very often cited as important player on Oilers' last cup run and Canucks' '94 run, and I saw him myself for the Canes in '02, and he was clutch and important for us too.

He's not going to set the world on fire, but he'll always play his best and will contribute at key moments.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 03:43 AM
  #114
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I like Liscombe as an offensive guy myself (had him three AAAs ago) but I couldn't find a thing about him; he appears to be offense-only.
He is offense only, which is why he's being used as an offensive/powerplay specialist. He's there to add a little extra punch to the offense.

Our 4th isn't built to be strong in one area, but it is build to be decent in all areas. We feel they can play in any situation. With Conroy and Gould, they are good enough defensively to survive against anybody, and with Liscombe on the other side, there is enough bite to create some trouble going the other way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
They put a lot of stock into the pure goals and assists finishes, which makes some sense for a couple of reasons, but you did illustrate that that can be flawed when looking at players so heavily biased one way or the other.

For example, if Romnes is indeed the best playmaker and worst goalscorer on either line and Hamill the best goalscorer and worst playmaker, is this better or worse than guys who are in-between? Judging this is difficult.
Personally, I like the idea of matching a strong playmaker with a strong goalscorer. I'd rather have one elite playmaker than 2 decent ones, and I'd rather have one elite goalscorer than 2 decent ones. Lucky for us, Gagne gives us a decent one of both.

I've always been a fan of clearly defined roles.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 03:45 AM
  #115
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I've always been a fan of clearly defined roles.
Just keep in mind that a line relying on heavy specialization of roles will be easier to shut down.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 03:45 AM
  #116
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
What top 15 finishes?
Doc Romnes has following top 20s in points: 19th, 4th, 18th. One, let me repeat, ONE top 15 finish. In just assists, 4th, 3rd, 7th, 15th. I think by giving your guys 5 quality seasons (3 great, 2 good) I was being too generous.

Hamill you say? 15th, 19th, 15th, 20th in points. 2nd, 3rd, 9th, 15th in goals. Jolly gee, could it be it's once again below the threshold I set? I *was* being too generous!
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

For example, if Romnes is indeed the best playmaker and worst goalscorer on either line and Hamill the best goalscorer and worst playmaker, is this better or worse than guys who are in-between? Judging this is difficult.
And this is why I always say that points are the best approximation of overall offense - at least post-WW2, when the goals/assists ratio approached what it is in modern times. I'm pretty sure that post-expansion, the ratio of goals/assists stayed constant, so in that case, points is an excellent approximation of total offense. Then you separate goals and assists to see what kind of player you have. Hamill's goals and points finishes point to the fact that he was an atrocious playmaker.

Prior to WW2, points finishes favor goal-scorers more, the farther we go back.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leafs Forever View Post

Not terribly much. There weren't 60 hockey players back then? Sure, 60th then is probably different than 60th now. However..
Come on, it's basic math and I've used it in this very MLD. 6 teams = 6x3 = 18 first line players. 6x3x2 = 36 scoring line players if we assume each team had 2 scoring lines.

_____________________________

As for Gelinas vs. Erixon, Gelinas is the better overall player, but Erixon is the better shutdown player. Depends on what you are going for.

Peeters vs. Nabokov = Nabokov clearly has the better voting record, while likely facing tougher competition. But Peeters clearly has the best stats. I guess it depends on what you value.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 03:49 AM
  #117
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 42,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post

There have been plenty of discussions regarding size of talent pool over the years. You should read them. TDMM has been involved in a lot of them and can probably direct you there.
After we're finally eliminated from the MLD (or win the thing! ), I'm planning on doing a couple of studies about the effects of the increase in the talent pool since World War 2.

No, that isn't a reason to vote for my opponent.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 04:16 AM
  #118
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Your post is ridiculous. It's once again a strawman, driven ad-absurdum.
You just love repeating words don't you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Peeters' peak is above other goalies here. I'll also compare your #1 to our backup, since most people today tend to put them at about same level
Depends how you define peak. If it's 2 years, then Peeters is better. If it's 5 years, then nabokov is better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Save% finishes - note that Peeters misses his four best seasons here:
Peeters: 2nd, 4th, 12th, 14th, 18th, 18th
Nabokov: 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 12th
Vokoun: 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 11th, 12th, 16th, 19th
I'll even help you out here....

Here are the save % finishes that you missed on Peeters:
1980 - 5th
1981 - 5th
1984 - 3rd

Anything past 15th in basically worthless.

You're left with:
Peeters - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 12th, 14th
Nabokov - 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 12th
Vokoun - 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 5th, 11th, 12th

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
GAA finishes:
Peeters: 1st, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 4th, 5th, 7th, 9th, 11th, 12th, 13th
Nabokov: 3rd, 6th, 7th, 10th, 12th, 13th, 14th
Vokoun: 8th, 11th, 14th, 16th, 16th, 20th

Wins finishes:
Peeters: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 8th, 12th, 13th, 13th
Nabokov: 1st, 2nd, 2nd, 3rd, 8th, 11th,
Vokoun: 3rd, 6th, 13th, 16th, 17th, 17th

Shutouts finishes:
Peeters: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 7th, 9th, 12th, 12th, 13th, 19th
Nabokov: 2nd, 3rd, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 7th, 20th
Vokoun: 3rd, 6th, 6th, 7th, 9th, 19th
GAA, Wins, and Shutouts are basically pointless stats here. All of them are strongly influenced by the team in front of the goalie (which explains why Vokoun is worst in all 3).

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Do the stats and top 20s lie this time when it doesn't fit you?
Since save percentage is the only really usefull stat that you provided, we should use it.

Combine Peeters' better save percentage finishes and Nabokov's better voting finishes, and the gap should be small one way or another, right?

Personally, I feel the voting carries more weight, so I beleive Nabokov was the better regular season goalie. I'm sure you'll disagree and feel that the save % carries more weight, and you'll beleive Peeters was better. Really, neither one of us is wrong, but we're both biased.... and neither of us get a vote, so it doesn't matter anyway.

It's up to the voters. Who has the slight edge?

Vezina Voting:
Peeters - 1st, 4th*, 5th*, 10th, 11th
Nabokov - 2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th

*= all-star votes because vezina wasn't voted on

Save Percentage:
Peeters - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 12th, 14th
Nabokov - 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 12th

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 04:19 AM
  #119
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Just keep in mind that a line relying on heavy specialization of roles will be easier to shut down.
Maybe, maybe not.

Being more predictable might make it easier, but the fact that they are better at their roles makes it harder. Overall, it balances out.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 05:03 AM
  #120
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
You just love repeating words don't you?
What else can I say when he takes your false argument and repeats it even if I shot it down already before?

Quote:
I'll even help you out here....

Here are the save % finishes that you missed on Peeters:
1980 - 5th
1981 - 5th
1984 - 3rd
But my finishes miss 1980, 81, 82 & 83...

Quote:
Anything past 15th in basically worthless.
Just not when it helps prop up the Hamills and Romnes' of the world, with their 19th place finishes...

Quote:
GAA, Wins, and Shutouts are basically pointless stats here. All of them are strongly influenced by the team in front of the goalie (which explains why Vokoun is worst in all 3).
Shutouts aren't particularly affected by the team, but yes, all those stats don't carry much weight. I just listed them all so you couldn't accuse me of hiding stats where Nabokov places better (no wonder since he played on powerhouses).

Quote:
Personally, I feel the voting carries more weight, so I beleive Nabokov was the better regular season goalie. I'm sure you'll disagree and feel that the save % carries more weight, and you'll beleive Peeters was better. Really, neither one of us is wrong, but we're both biased.... and neither of us get a vote, so it doesn't matter anyway.

It's up to the voters. Who has the slight edge?

Vezina Voting:
Peeters - 1st, 4th*, 5th*, 10th, 11th
Nabokov - 2nd, 4th, 4th, 4th, 5th, 6th

*= all-star votes because vezina wasn't voted on

Save Percentage:
Peeters - 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 5th, 12th, 14th
Nabokov - 6th, 7th, 8th, 10th, 12th
I'd add Hart votes to the mix. It's not fair to ignore Peeters' Hart runner-up.

And don't omit Vokoun. Stats-wise, he compares very well, and having a backup roughly at level of your starter or at worst very close to it is something that shouldn't be discounted.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 07:03 AM
  #121
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
But my finishes miss 1980, 81, 82 & 83....
Typo on my end. He was 3rd in 1983. He wasn't in the top 10 in 1982.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
Just not when it helps prop up the Hamills and Romnes' of the world, with their 19th place finishes....
First of all, I haven't posted any 19th place finishes for either one of those guys. I posted a 14th for each guy and nothing higher.

Second, the reason 15th in is my cut-off is because there are only 30 teams in the league. If you're 16th, you're bellow average.... Scoring numbers don't work that way - mainly because there are many more skaters than goalies. Being the 5th best goalie in the Orginal Six is also being the 2nd worst starter! Peeters played in a 22 team league at times, so the 15th best goalie is only 7 away from the bottom.

I'm actually working on a save percentage measurement that should be a better comparison for this, but I'm not even close to done yet. (find the average save % for each season, and then you can rank guys by how far or bellow the average they were). With this style, league size won't make any difference..... everyone is measured compared to the average.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
I'd add Hart votes to the mix. It's not fair to ignore Peeters' Hart runner-up.
I think that was Peeters' only Hart season where he received Hart consideration.

Here is Nabokov's Hart record:
Hart Voting – 18th(2001), 23rd(2004), 7th(2008), 16th(2009), 23rd(2010)
Hart Voting among Goalies – 6th(2001), 8th(2004), 2nd(2008), 4th(2009), 6th(2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
And don't omit Vokoun. Stats-wise, he compares very well, and having a backup roughly at level of your starter or at worst very close to it is something that shouldn't be discounted.
Thomas Vokoun might be as good as Nabokov in the NHL today, but in the ATD, Nabokov's accomplishments are much, much more impressive.

Unless you plan on playing Vokoun, I'm not going to waste my time attacking him


Last edited by Dreakmur: 07-28-2010 at 07:09 AM.
Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 07:44 AM
  #122
MadArcand
We do not sow
 
MadArcand's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Pyke
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,745
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreakmur View Post
I think that was Peeters' only Hart season where he received Hart consideration.

Here is Nabokov's Hart record:
Hart Voting – 18th(2001), 23rd(2004), 7th(2008), 16th(2009), 23rd(2010)
Hart Voting among Goalies – 6th(2001), 8th(2004), 2nd(2008), 4th(2009), 6th(2010)
I hope you're no insinuating that a 7th and bunch of laughable afterthought/homer votes make Nabokov even remotely close to Peeters finishing 2nd to Gretzky's 196-point season?


Quote:
Thomas Vokoun might be as good as Nabokov in the NHL today, but in the ATD, Nabokov's accomplishments are much, much more impressive.

Unless you plan on playing Vokoun, I'm not going to waste my time attacking him
'Much, much' more? Not really.

Also, backups aren't just a choice. What if Nabokov goes down for you? We have a backup roughly at the level of your starter, and like it or not, it is a strength.

MadArcand is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 08:18 AM
  #123
tony d
ATD 2015
 
tony d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Behind A Tree
Country: Canada
Posts: 39,626
vCash: 500
As for my take on the 2 main arguments here:

- In the Gelinas vs. Erixon battle:

Erixon may have been a better defensive guy I'd still take Gelinas, not just for his grit but because of his offensive ability. When you can draft a guy who scored 300 goals for your 3rd line then you're getting a good player.

- In the Peeters/Nabokov battle:

Peeters got 8 shutouts in a season during the 80's. While Nabokov did eclispe that in 2003-2004 with 9, I think that by that time defense played a larger role in the game. I wonder how many shutouts Nabokov would have got in the season Peeters got 8 shutouts if he had been playing.

tony d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 08:57 AM
  #124
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
I hope you're no insinuating that a 7th and bunch of laughable afterthought/homer votes make Nabokov even remotely close to Peeters finishing 2nd to Gretzky's 196-point season?
I love when people throw the "homer vote" thing around when they don't even know who voted. Since 2010 is the only season where he received a single vote, that's the only season it could possibly apply anyway. There isn't even an argument against the other season (not that there's a good one against 2010)

Top-20s in Hart voting are actually pretty impressive - especially considering all the other Sharks that take votes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MadArcand View Post
'Much, much' more? Not really.

Also, backups aren't just a choice. What if Nabokov goes down for you? We have a backup roughly at the level of your starter, and like it or not, it is a strength.
Nabokov's resume-building years basically double Vokoun's. He's been an elite goalie since 2000, and Vokoun only became one after the lock-out. Even if you think Vokoun is as good as Nabokov (now, in the NHL) he's only been that good for half as long as Nabokov.....

If Nabavok goes down, we have a Stanley Cup-winning goalie who's got a 2nd Team all-star, 2 top-5s in Hart voting and really improves his game in the play-offs.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 09:03 AM
  #125
Dreakmur
Registered User
 
Dreakmur's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Orillia, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,251
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
Erixon may have been a better defensive guy I'd still take Gelinas, not just for his grit but because of his offensive ability. When you can draft a guy who scored 300 goals for your 3rd line then you're getting a good player.
Erixon was without a doubt the better defensive guy.

The only argument is whether Gelinas' offense makes up for that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tony d View Post
Peeters got 8 shutouts in a season during the 80's. While Nabokov did eclispe that in 2003-2004 with 9, I think that by that time defense played a larger role in the game. I wonder how many shutouts Nabokov would have got in the season Peeters got 8 shutouts if he had been playing.
Shut-outs are pretty much a useless stat.

Dreakmur is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:41 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.