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.

MLD2011 Sir Montagu Allan Final (1) Eden Hall Warriors vs. (2) Philadelphia Quakers

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-31-2011, 12:02 PM
  #26
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
Holik did kill penalties, just not in NJ. John Madden and Jay Pandolfo had monopolies on the #1 PK unit for NJ, where they regularly killed 3 minutes a game and the next highest guy usually didn't even have 2. That leads me to believe(and you can probably confirm this) that the units went Madden-Pandolfo, then some combination of Elias/Brylin/Nemchinov then Madden-Pandolfo again. Once Holik left NJ, his PK TOI/G finishes were: 5, 4, 4, 5, and 4.
Holik was in NJ not killing penalties long before Madden and Pandolfo arrived, but those were the Devils PK units once they were all together.

Getting spot duty on a terrible Rangers PK is not exactly impressive. Over the course of his career, Holik killed a similar amount of penalties as Jaromir Jagr.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 12:12 PM
  #27
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Dahlen was famous for baiting other players into hitting him, so he could pass to the open man; doesn't sound like "shying away" to me.

If you want someone who can punch your guys in the face, Jack Evans, Garth Butcher, or Randy McKay will be happy to. You don't need someone willing to drop the gloves on every line, especially in the playoffs. But you do need the ability to win puck battles.
You do need the ability to win puck battles. I have that in Green and Ftorek's combined ability. As I illustrated before, the catalyst of my 2nd line Nicklas Backstrom doesn't need a guy in the corners for his line to function correctly, we've seen it in real life. He actually played his best in the playoffs with the 3rd member of his line that I would consider least willing to go into the corners.

Quote:
Ftorek might be willing, but is he able? We have specific reason to believe his size was a detriment to him once he left the wide open WHA and moved to the NHL. If he tries to go into the corner hard with Jack Evans, he's going to get pasted.
It never stopped Ftorek before, and I don't see why it will now. He certainly faced players that were as or were more physical than Jack Evans, and it didn't stop him from going into the corners again. Combined with Green's grittiness and pest ability, I don't see puck winning being a problem on my 1st line. You and vecens seemed to be convinced otherwise and I don't see any other way to convince you because I've supplied multiple quotes about his intensity, willingness to go into the corners despite his size, and ability to avoid hits.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 12:30 PM
  #28
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Yes he clearly was "willing" to go into corners" in the WHA which was more wide open and less physical. We actually have shown evidence that his size DID cause a problem for him once he hit the NHL. Don't you think that him not being able to go into the corners and be effective BECAUSE of big physical Defensemen had something to do with that?

And by the way, I'll stop being hostile whenever you start showing your opponents' players respect. You've done this same ******** for three consecutive series' now. Your act is starting to get old and it's absolutely ridiculous.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 12:34 PM
  #29
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Yes he clearly was "willing" to go into corners" in the WHA which was more wide open and less physical. We actually have shown evidence that his size DID cause a problem for him once he hit the NHL. Don't you think that him not being able to go into the corners and be effective BECAUSE of big physical Defensemen had something to do with that?
It will have some effect, sure. Were there not big, physical defensemen in the WHA? Does the WHA being a wide open league really have much to do with play in the corners? I think it has more to do with the run and gun style, play going back and forth with a lot of odd man rushes and whatnot, not really about digging in the corners. Just how I see it.

Quote:
And by the way, I'll stop being hostile whenever you start showing your opponents' players respect. You've done this same ******** for three consecutive series' now. Your act is starting to get old and it's absolutely ridiculous.
If my act is so ridiculous, why did I win both series? I call things as I see them. Am I wrong sometimes? Sure. And when I'm wrong, I admit it.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 12:42 PM
  #30
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
My point with Ftorek is that he didn't have to do it nearly as often in the WHA. Once he got to the NhL, an he had to go to the corners more, his lack of skill in that area showed up a lot more than it did in the WHA. So yeah, maybe he did have to go to the corners sometimes and that made him look good, but we literally HAVE SHOWN YOU PROOF his size became an issue in the NHL. Where do you think that issue is going to rear it's ugly head most for you? Certainly not in middle of the ice.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 12:49 PM
  #31
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
And You won the first two series' by drafting a solid team. It had nothing to do with you acquitting your team well whenever you say automatically you have the advantage at every spot on the ice.

vecens24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 12:50 PM
  #32
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
My point with Ftorek is that he didn't have to do it nearly as often in the WHA. Once he got to the NhL, an he had to go to the corners more, his lack of skill in that area showed up a lot more than it did in the WHA. So yeah, maybe he did have to go to the corners sometimes and that made him look good, but we literally HAVE SHOWN YOU PROOF his size became an issue in the NHL. Where do you think that issue is going to rear it's ugly head most for you? Certainly not in middle of the ice.
I don't think we're really getting anywhere with debating this issue anymore. Neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. Ftorek's size is going to limit his effectiveness in this area, but still not to the point where he won't be at least decent at it. Is that fair?

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 01:15 PM
  #33
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
First Lines comparison

I had to go back to this post, since there was so much wrong with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
1st Lines

Green-Ftorek-McDougall

vs.

Mickoski-McGimsie-Drozdetsky

Green and Mickoski are pretty similar players. They're the hard workers on this line designed to get the puck to their more skilled teammates. I adjusted Mickoski's games played to 834, making his career adjusted PPG .5324. Green's is .5831. Remove Green's last season where he was a non-factor, and it goes up to .6464. Advantge to Redvers. But, Mickoski did it in the NHL for longer in a more competitive era. At the same time, Red Green has a very impressive NOHA career that has to be accounted for.
Why does Green get his worst season removed and Mickoski doesn't?

Quote:
Points

Green: 81, 56, 47(total 184)
Mickoski: 58, 53, 52(total 163)
This is absolute garbage and I can't believe you thought I'd let you get away with it after I pointed out in your previous series that you can't just take VS2 numbers of guys who played in split leagues and compare them with guys who played in the consolidated NHL. Green's seasons before the 1926 consolidation need to be VS1 if you are going to compare them to guys who played in the consolidated NHL!

These are their actual points percentage numbers:

Mickoski: 58, 53, 52, 49, 49, 42, 39 (total = 342)
Green: 74, 55, 39, 31, 18, 0, 0 (total = 217)

I wonder why you stopped after their best three seasons.

Even their best three seasons come out only 168-163 in favor of Green when you do the math right.

That said, I think Green is the slightly better offensive player for 2 reasons:

1) His best season was better (though not by as much as your funny math tried to show)
2) He did have that one great season in the NOHA before coming to the NHL.

Away from the puck, Mickoski owns Green. Mickoski has a fine two-way game that Green doesn't have at all. And while Green is something of a physical presence, he doesn't hold a candle to Mickoski when it comes to battling for the puck.

Overall, I'd lean towards Mickoski as the better player, but even if they are equal in a vacuum, Mickoski is much better at the role they play on this line - the battling winger for a smurf of a center.

Quote:
That brings us to Robbie Ftorek and Billy McGimsie. Both are very strong skaters and stickhandlers. Both are rather small as well. Since I can't win any debate with Ftorek as my center because everyone here hates the WHA, I'm not going to waste my time. McGimsie appears to be better offensively, but I have some questions. TDMM, who was McGimsie's competition in 02-03 and 03-04 when he led the league in goals? And who were some of the other players that were near the top of the points table in the other years? I honestly don't know the answer, I'd like to know. I also think it's important to note that McGimsie was playing in, at best, the 2nd beast league at the time. His Rat Portage teams were twice beaten by eastern team and were not as good as their opponents. But, Ftorek is a grittier player, and provides better two-way play. Robbie also provides more leadership in the locker room. I'm going to wait until TDMM answers my questions before passing judgement. It appears McGimsie's offense gives him an edge despite Ftorek bringing more intangibles to the table, but we'll see.
Nice to see you retract some of this after I showed that McGimsie is almost certainly a better offensive player than your "star," McDougall. But I still feel compelled to chastise you for a particularly outrageous statement:

I honestly can't believe you used the "Rat Portage lost to the team in the East twice" line of reasoning to disparage McGimsie:

1) McGimsie scored 3 of his teams 4 goals one of the two times they lost, so he personally seemed to do well against the "increased competition" from the East.

2) More importantly, the Thistles actually beat their Eastern opponent and won the Cup with McGimsie on the team! It's what they are famous for! You seriously thought I'd let you get away with pointing out that McGimsie's team lost twice while ignoring the time they won?

Also, one quote about Ftorek being "hard working" and "fiesty" is all you have about his "grit." Good for him. We'll see if he can do it against the tight-checking style of Eden Hall's defense, something he never had to face in the WHA. I buy Ftorek as a decent defensive presence (no better than Mickoski), but as a guy who will be effective in the physical game? No way.

Quote:
That brings us to the two all stars of the line, Drozdetsky and McDougall, maybe the 2 best RWers in the draft. Do we know why Tikhonov didn't like Drozdetsky? Was it his attitude? Was he an offense-only player? Was he selfish? Or just because Tikhonov was nuts?
As far as I know, there is no information available as to what Drozdetsky did or if he did do anything. There is a lot of information available that Tikhonov was, in fact, nuts.

Quote:
Drozdetsky's peak is impressive. How does it stack up to McDougall's? Drozdetsky finished 3rd in Soviet scoring twice, which is impressive. McDougall led his league in scoring once, was 3rd twice, and was 1st in goals/game another year. Certainly, Drozdetsky played in a much more competitive era, but is it enough to make up for McDougall's more impressive finishes? McDougall the 2nd highest scoring player of his era, being three one hundreths of a goal/game behind Haviland Routh. I can't help but think McDougall is a better offensive player. Neither player brings much in terms of intangibles to the table.
Here are their percentages:

McDougall VS1: 100, 86 (of Cam Davidson), 53 (of Haviland Routh), 39 (of Harry Trihey)
Drozdetsky VS1: 74 (to Makarov), 70 (to Makarov), 59 (to Makarov)

Sergei Makarov was a much better offensive player than anyone McDougall competed against in the 1890s. Just for reference, here are Drozdetsky's #2 numbers (against competition likely closer to McDougall's):

Drozdetsky VS2: 95 (to Kapustin), 89 (to Krutov), 62 (to Kozhevnikov)

The only thing I'm sure of is that Sergei Makarov was, by far, the best offensive player either competed against. Other than that, who knows? These are two of the best offensive wingers in the draft. Personally, I prefer Drozdetsky because he was playing against more known commodities and has a great record in International tournaments, while McDougall doesn't have a record in clutch play. But that's a personal preference; I don't think either guy has a real advantage over the other.

Quote:
Overall, I'd call 1st lines are a very slight advantage to Philadelphia, for now. I'm willing to change this statement if McGimsie's offensive finishes were ahead of quality opponents or a group of nobodies. Green and Mickoski pretty much are a wash, I'll give McGimsie a slight advantage over Ftorek for now, and I think McDougall is better than Drozdetsky. I'd also say Philadelphia's group is a little better defensively due to Ftorek being the best defensive player on either line. Each line contains one two-way player and two average defensive players. But, Ftorek is better defensively than Mickoski considering his 6th in Selke voting.
Raise your hand if you're surprised Billy called an advantage for his line. I especially like how a single 6th place vote for Ftorek makes him a better defensive conscience than Mickoski who spent his career playing on checking lines before the award even existed. Anyway, this is how I see it:
  • C: McGimsie is much more talented than Ftorek - I showed that he is almost certainly a better overall offensive player than Philadelphia's "star" McDougall
  • LW: Mickoski is at least as good an overall player as Red Green, and he's much better suited to the role as a digger to a small center
  • RW: Too close to call between two offense-only guys
  • Overall: With the advantages at LW and C, Eden Hall has a moderately large advantage.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 08-31-2011 at 02:30 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 01:23 PM
  #34
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
3rd Lines

Krushelnyski-Pivonka-Kallur

vs.

Kapanen-Sullivan-Petterson

I'll start off by saying I'm a big Sami Kapanen fan. He was awesome in his time with the Flyers, a strong team player with great speed. Speaking only of his time in Philadelphia, I seem to remember his hands were not that great. He would use his great speed to get in position to score, but couldn't finish it off. But if you look at his time in Carolina, he had good offensive production. It seems like his hands almost disappeared when he came to Philadelphia, going from 69 points to 31, 30, and 34 in the years that should have been his prime, his late 20s and early 30s. I see Kapanen is on your 2nd PK unit, and I think he's a bit out of place there. He was only a PKer in Philadelphia, and his ranks are 3, 3, 2, and 4. He was out for a total of 15 power play goals against in his time in Carolina, never being a real factor on the PK. 84.5% of the power play goals against he was out for came in just 37.4% of his games. As I said, I think he's out of place there. Krushelnyski has 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, and 5. Kapanen has the superior career adjusted PPG, .6052 to .5229. One thing to note here is that Kapanen was getting top lines minutes in Carolina, whereas Krushelnyski was not. Here are Kapanen's overall TOI finishes in Carolina(among players at his position): 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. Keeping in mind that he barely killed penalties in Carolina, that's almost all ES and PP time. The role that Kapanen played in Philadelphia is the one he's playing here, 3rd line. During Kapanen's time in Carolina(97-98 to 01-02), Kapanen had 296 points. 109 of them(36.8%) came on the power play. Kapanen isn't getting any power play time here. I don't believe we have any stats about how many power play points Krushelnyski had, but I'm not positive about that. Whatever they are, I'm pretty sure it's not as many as Kapanen had. Kapanen had one homer vote for Selke, finishing 59th. I don't count that as anything. Krushelnyski doesn't have any either. I think Krushelnyski might be a little better defensively because he actually played as a checker for a larger portion of his career compared to Kapanen, and has the stronger PK resume.

If my opponents would be so willing, would you care to do some of the comparisons? I'm going out and will be back later and I can't keep up with arguing two guys and doing the heavy lifting of comparisons.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 01:46 PM
  #35
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
I'm not going to respond to every point, but:

Quote:
I'm going to need a legit source for this or for Iain to validate this to believe it.
Seriously? Iain posted the stats when I drafted McGimsie and now you need him to confirm to assume I'm not just making crap up by re-posting the stats that he provided?

Are you trying to be a dick?

Quote:
So you admit that McGimsie had no depth of competition in this league? I see 3 total relevant players that he had to compete with for finishes, one of them being a defenseman.
Define, "relevant," because last I checked there were more HHOFers who played in McGimsie's league than McDougall's...

In fact, did a single forward in McDougall's league make the HHOF? Drinkwater and Grant were defensemen. Alf Smith made the Hall, but he barely competed against McDougall.

Quote:
Again, see my note about quality and depth of competition. You accuse me of statistical smoke, and you're using it yourself here. That 39% is as deceiving a number as it gets. McDougall led the league in goals/game!
I have always used full season percentages when using the method, even if it hurts my players (see Zigmund Palffy in the ATD). It's a valid method. You can disagree with it, but it's not the same as your ridiculous insistence that #2 in a league that didn't contain all the world's best players is the same as #2 in a consolidated NHL. Which is what you are saying when you use VS2 numbers for pre-1926 seasons.

Quote:
See my note above about depth of competition. McGimsie basically had to compete against 2 forwards for scoring finishes, and one of them is another MLD forward! McDougall was competing against 6 legitimate ATD forwards, and one that shifted positions. I don't see how one could argue McGimsie's league is close to McDougall's in terms of competition.
Okay, maybe this needs to be made clear: our ATD, while an interesting and educational exercise, is still a fantasy world. If your only evidence for a player's greatness is past draft position, that's really no better than having no evidence at all.

Quote:
Yet again, see my note about the depth and quality of competition. Who cares who was seen as a "superstar"? Why does that matter at all?
How can you argue that it doesn't matter who was seen as a better player by those who actually saw them? Anyway, McGimsie was overshadowed by Tommy Phillips, a much better player than Graham Drinkwater and Mike Grant, the two guys overshadowing McDougall.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 02:08 PM
  #36
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
Talk about selective use of a profile!! Convenient that you would choose to take that quote in my profile, but you ominously decided not to bring up these:
Actually, I got the quote from Pelletier. I'm pretty sure that it's not in your profile
Quote:
Your brutes have to be able to catch Ftorek first. As I noted earlier, Ftorek did not back down from people, and the following shows that he was able to avoid physical contact as well.
In the WHA...

Quote:
Ftorek never had a bodyguard during his time in the WHA as far as I know, and he survived pretty well there.
In the WHA...

Quote:
I can play the same game with Billy McGimsie. In Mickoski's bio, I see the following words: "had size", "difficult to bump off the puck", "digger", "diligent worker", and "labored long and hard against last night". What exactly there makes Mickoski tough? It makes him a corner guy, but what there says that he will be sticking up for McGimsie or Drozdetsky when Bill Juzda, Jim Dorey, or Alex Smith is throwing them around? Juzda was a bone crushing hitter, Dorey was built like a caveman, thrived on the roughness of a game, and was described as an alley fighter. Smith thrived on a physical game as well.
1) McGimsie was less of a midget for his era than Ftorek. He was only 10 pounds lighter than Ftorek, playing in an era when the average human being was much smaller.

2) We have specific evidence that Ftorek's lack of size was an issue in the NHL, something that it was not in the WHA. There is no evidence that McGimsie couldn't compete in a better league, as he did just fine in Cup Challenges.

3) Again, you don't need a pugilist on every line, but every line will be involved in puck battles many times per game.

Quote:
Because Backstrom is the main problem with the Capitals come playoff time and the offense is the reason why they can't win the playoffs. I literally laughed when I read that. The Capitals can't succeed in the playoffs because their defense is absolutely horrendous, and their goaltending is sub-par. Backstrom is the engine that makes this line go.
I don't know about anyone else, but I literally laughed when I saw the bolded statement.

Quote:
So, let's take a look at how Backstrom has had success in his career. He passes it to a sniper(Tanti) while the 3rd guy on the line doesn't really figure much in the scoring, other than getting deflections off Ovechkin's shots or being on the receiving end of spectacular plays by the other two to get a tap-in goal. Backstrom doesn't need a puckwinner on his line to be successful. According to behindthenet.ca, here are the guys that played 3rd wheel to Ovechkin and Backstrom since Backstrom entered the NHL: Viktor Kozlov(certainly not a physical presence at all), Viktor Kozlov, Mike Knuble, and Mike Knuble. Backstrom's 2nd and 3rd best seasons were with Kozlov, and 1st and 4th were with Knuble. He had 157 points with Kozlov, and 166 with Knuble. I think that difference is easily more than explained by the fact that Backstrom played his first 2 years with Kozlov and his last 2 with Knuble. He simply got better as a player in those last 2 years than he was in his first two. I'm sure you'll be quick to point out the change in system that Boudreau implemented in 10-11 that hindered his offense. But, we don't know by how much, and I still think the fact that it's that close in his first 2 years compared to his next 2 equates to him making significant strides as a player more than anything. Nicklas Backstrom doesn't need a puck winner on his line to succeed. You say it won't work in the playoffs? Here are his numbers in the playoffs with each guy:

With Laich+Semin(07-08): 7GM, 4G, 2A, 6PTS(.857PPG)
With Kozlov+Ovechkin(08-09): 14GM, 3G, 12A, 15PTS(1.071PPG)
With Knuble+Ovechkin(09-10 and 10-11): 16GM, 5G, 6A, 11PTS (.6875PPG)

SO, Backstrom had his best playoff performance playing with the least physical 3rd member of his line of all the years if I'm equating Semin to Ovechkin in 07-08, which I think is fair since they play the same role on the line.
I don't know what amuses me more:

1) Using Nicklas Backstrom and the Washington Capitals as a model of what it takes to succeed in the playoffs

OR

2) Arguing that nobody on Backstrom's real-life line provides a physical presence:



Quote:
Yes, Dahlen is a great digger, maybe the best in the draft. He's also not a bodyguard. You seem to be hellbent on the fact that Ftorek is going to get eaten alive by your Butcher and Tex. Who's going to protect that wuss Ribeiro? He's soft as tissue paper and a complete puss to be honest.
That "complete puss" Ribeiro has had a fairly successful career in the NHL, twice finishing Top 20 in points against the modern talent pool. There is a legitimate question of whether Ftorek can handle NHL play - after the WHA folded, Ftorek only had one season in the NHL where he wasn't hampered by injury for more than 25 games.

I think we need to give WHA players a bit of a benefit of the doubt and assume they could succeed in the NHL if they are set up for success. But I don't think you have really set Ftorek up properly for success - not when Red Green is counted on to carry the physical load for the line, other than when Ftorek has to help him out.

Quote:
Dahlen has a grand total of 4 fights in his entire NHL career, and surprisingly low PIM totals for someone that was such a good digger and supposed power forward. That leaves Marian Stastny, and I don't think anyone would call him a physical presence. So, when Jim Dorey takes Ribeiro's head off, who is going to do something about it?
1) Eden Hall's powerplay will punish Philadelphia for undisciplined play.

2) Ribeiro won't be in position to be hit as often as Ftorek will, as Dahlen will own the boards and the front of the net. You seem to be counting on Ftorek to help Red Green in the toughest areas of the ice.

3) Garth Butcher, Jack Evans, and Randy McKay are perfectly willing and able to beat the snot out of Jim Dorey. Evans is obviously better on the ice than in the box, but Butcher and McKay will have no problems teaching Dorey a lesson on his next shift if need be.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 08-31-2011 at 02:32 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 02:23 PM
  #37
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,224
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
And by the way, I'll stop being hostile whenever you start showing your opponents' players respect. You've done this same ******** for three consecutive series' now. Your act is starting to get old and it's absolutely ridiculous.
I didn't want to say anything because I didn't even replied in my last series , but since you put it on the table I find his tactics to be quite shady and borderline dishonest.I can understand loving your players and team a little bit more ( researched it more , more info on it ... ) and defending them while attacking the other team weaknesses , but hiding key info while comparing players , downgrading every opponants forces or weaknesses to the fullest and overall giving your team advantages in every category with ''degrees of domination'' on his part was shameless.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 08-31-2011 at 02:33 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 02:55 PM
  #38
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
2nd Line comparison

I'll make this quick.

Offensive upside = Even

Tanti > Dahlen, Backstrom > Ribeiro, Sands <<<< Stastny

The offensive gap between Charlie Sands and Marian Stastny is enormous, and makes up for the smaller gaps at the other two positions.

Actual offensive production = Advantage Eden Hall

Not every goal can be scored off the rush. The ability to win battles for the puck is important to scoring goals, especially in the playoffs. Ulf Dahlen is one of the best puck winners at the MLD level, while Philadelphia doesn't have anyone on the second line who is known to be strong in the corners.

Billy's strategy for his second line seems to rest of some bizarre idea that Nicklas Backstrom of the Washington Capitals is proof that you can win in the playoffs without winning battles for the puck.

Defense = Advantage Philadelphia

I'd rank the players defensively like this:

Very good = Charlie Sands
Pretty good = Nicklas Backstrom, Ulf Dahlen
Nonfactors = Mike Ribeiro, Marian Stastny
Poor = Tony Tanti

I think the Sands/Backstrom combo is good enough to make up for Tanti. It's not like Ribeiro and Stastny are great defensive players, themselves.

Overall = Close

Does the greater actual offensive production of Eden Hall outweigh the defensive advantage of Philadelphia's second line? Who knows.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 03:25 PM
  #39
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
3rd Lines

I see Kapanen is on your 2nd PK unit, and I think he's a bit out of place there. He was only a PKer in Philadelphia, and his ranks are 3, 3, 2, and 4. He was out for a total of 15 power play goals against in his time in Carolina, never being a real factor on the PK. 84.5% of the power play goals against he was out for came in just 37.4% of his games. As I said, I think he's out of place there
...
Here are Kapanen's overall TOI finishes in Carolina(among players at his position): 1, 1, 1, 1, 1. Keeping in mind that he barely killed penalties in Carolina, that's almost all ES and PP time. The role that Kapanen played in Philadelphia is the one he's playing here, 3rd line.
I think you answered your own question. Kapanen was already leading his team in ice time in Carolina without killing penalties; how much more ice time do you want to give him? Carolina's coach obviously felt that Kapanen's offensive upside was more important to his team than his ability to kill penalties.

As you indicated, he is playing the same role for Eden Hall as he played for Philadelphia, a role that I think he's better suited for.

Quote:
I think Krushelnyski might be a little better defensively because he actually played as a checker for a larger portion of his career compared to Kapanen, and has the stronger PK resume.
I could just as easily say that the only reason Krush "played as a checker for a larger portion of his career" is because he didn't have the talent to play in a more offensive role. In a 21-30 team league, offensive talent is a rarer commodity than hard work.

Quote:
If my opponents would be so willing, would you care to do some of the comparisons? I'm going out and will be back later and I can't keep up with arguing two guys and doing the heavy lifting of comparisons.
I'll probably get to lower lines tomorrow, though I'll continue to feel free to respond to anything you post.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 03:59 PM
  #40
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I'm not going to respond to every point, but:



Seriously? Iain posted the stats when I drafted McGimsie and now you need him to confirm to assume I'm not just making crap up by re-posting the stats that he provided?

Are you trying to be a dick?
I never saw him post them. My apologies that I don't remember every single post. I thought he PMed them to your or something.

Quote:
Define, "relevant," because last I checked there were more HHOFers who played in McGimsie's league than McDougall's...

In fact, did a single forward in McDougall's league make the HHOF? Drinkwater and Grant were defensemen. Alf Smith made the Hall, but he barely competed against McDougall.
Trihey is in the HOF. There are some very odd inductions into the HHOF from the early years of the NHL where the guys that got in have worse credentials that guy that haven't.

Quote:
Okay, maybe this needs to be made clear: our ATD, while an interesting and educational exercise, is still a fantasy world. If your only evidence for a player's greatness is past draft position, that's really no better than having no evidence at all.
So you think the ATD canon is wrong? Not saying that it isn't, it very well may be, but is there something that really suggests that those guys all don't belong in the ATD?

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 04:11 PM
  #41
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Actually, I got the quote from Pelletier. I'm pretty sure that it's not in your profile
Pelletier is in my profile, I think I just cut that part out for obvious reasons.
Quote:
1) McGimsie was less of a midget for his era than Ftorek. He was only 10 pounds lighter than Ftorek, playing in an era when the average human being was much smaller.

2) We have specific evidence that Ftorek's lack of size was an issue in the NHL, something that it was not in the WHA. There is no evidence that McGimsie couldn't compete in a better league, as he did just fine in Cup Challenges.

3) Again, you don't need a pugilist on every line, but every line will be involved in puck battles many times per game.
I'm done with this topic.

Quote:
I don't know about anyone else, but I literally laughed when I saw the bolded statement.
That's in reference to my line(Tanti-Backstrom-Sands). Backstrom is the engine of that line. To suggest Backstrom is the engine of the Ovechkin-Backstrom-whoever line is crazy.

Quote:

I don't know what amuses me more:

1) Using Nicklas Backstrom and the Washington Capitals as a model of what it takes to succeed in the playoffs

OR

2) Arguing that nobody on Backstrom's real-life line provides a physical presence:

They're not the model of success, but their forwards are not the problem of why they don't win in the playoffs. Their defense and goaltending are much bigger problems as to why they can't succeed in the playoffs compared to the forwards. In the offensive zone, Ovechkin spends the majority of his time hovering in the slot and at the tops of the circles looking for passes to rip shots home. From what I've seen of him, he doesn't cycle that much. He certainly can forecheck, but he likes to stay in scoring positions from what I've seen.

Quote:
1) Eden Hall's powerplay will punish Philadelphia for undisciplined play.
Jim Dorey is really the only player on our team I'd call undisciplined. Juzda was very physical, but didn't take that many penalties.

Quote:
2) Ribeiro won't be in position to be hit as often as Ftorek will, as Dahlen will own the boards and the front of the net. You seem to be counting on Ftorek to help Red Green in the toughest areas of the ice.
I'm done with the Ftorek and Green debate, I've said all I can.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 04:15 PM
  #42
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReenMachine View Post
I didn't want to say anything because I didn't even replied in my last series , but since you put it on the table I find his tactics to be quite shady and borderline dishonest.I can understand loving your players and team a little bit more ( researched it more , more info on it ... ) and defending them while attacking the other team weaknesses , but hiding key info while comparing players , downgrading every opponants forces or weaknesses to the fullest and overall giving your team advantages in every category with ''degrees of domination'' on his part was shameless.
I want to win. If I come off as being a jerk, I don't intend to, but I put a lot of time into this and I want to win. I'm competitive almost to a fault.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 04:17 PM
  #43
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post

Trihey is in the HOF. There are some very odd inductions into the HHOF from the early years of the NHL where the guys that got in have worse credentials that guy that haven't.
Trihey was only on the leaderboards for 1 season that McDougall played - McDougall's final season when he played only 2 games.

Agree that there are odd inductions from the early years, but it seems that as a whole, the HHOF committee respected McGimsie's league more than they did McDougall's. The HHOF committee seems to have relatively little respect for players who played before 1900. Is it era related bias, since the Hall didn't exist until 1945? Maybe.

But IMO, the HHOF, while far from perfect, is a better source than a single year's ATD list. Though neither is very good on its own, IMO.

Quote:
So you think the ATD canon is wrong? Not saying that it isn't, it very well may be, but is there something that really suggests that those guys all don't belong in the ATD?
It's hardly "canon" when markrander picks Dolly Swift much higher than he was ever picked (though perhaps about where he deserved to be picked).

ATD canon is not necessarily wrong, but it's not necessarily right, either. I think in the first 400-500 picks, we've reached some sort of consensus, but it's a free-for-all after that.

Especially when it comes to spares, where we pick guys more for their roles than how good they were - notice the run on mediocre multi-positional players when we start selecting spares - or just make lazy picks like when I picked Alexei Zhitnik as my spare defenseman.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 04:23 PM
  #44
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post

That's in reference to my line(Tanti-Backstrom-Sands). Backstrom is the engine of that line. To suggest Backstrom is the engine of the Ovechkin-Backstrom-whoever line is crazy.
Oh of course, haha. Obviously, Backstrom is the engine of your current second line.

Quote:
They're not the model of success, but their forwards are not the problem of why they don't win in the playoffs. Their defense and goaltending are much bigger problems as to why they can't succeed in the playoffs compared to the forwards. In the offensive zone, Ovechkin spends the majority of his time hovering in the slot and at the tops of the circles looking for passes to rip shots home. From what I've seen of him, he doesn't cycle that much. He certainly can forecheck, but he likes to stay in scoring positions from what I've seen.
It's kind of offtopic, but I think the forwards don't escape blame. I've seen Ovechkin spend too much time hovering in scoring positions waiting for teammates to win battles, but I've also seen him try to do to much - run around hitting everything in sight, fighting every battle himself... perhaps since his soft teammates aren't doing it enough.

I don't think Backstrom has been bad in the playoffs (Semin on the other hand...), but I don't think he's been great enough to model a line based on his situation.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 04:30 PM
  #45
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
It's kind of offtopic, but I think the forwards don't escape blame. I've seen Ovechkin spend too much time hovering in scoring positions waiting for teammates to win battles, but I've also seen him try to do to much - run around hitting everything in sight, fighting every battle himself... perhaps since his soft teammates aren't doing it enough.

I don't think Backstrom has been bad in the playoffs (Semin on the other hand...), but I don't think he's been great enough to model a line based on his situation.
The forwards have not been good, no. Especially compared to their production in the regular season. My point with all that linemate stuff was that Backstrom played his best in the playoffs with Ovechkin and Kozlov. Why? Who knows, but that was his best playoff season.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 05:34 PM
  #46
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
I believe it was you guys that said you wanted to get Pivonka to center your 3rd line, so you must think fairly high of him. I see he's on your 3rd PK unit. Here are his relevant finishes: 6, 3, 5, 3, 4, 4, 3. Pivonka's are 3, 5, 3, 3, 5, 3, 5. Pivonka's are better, but they should be considering Pivonka is on my 2nd unit and Sullivan is on your 3rd. Sullivan has a better career adjusted PPG(.828 to .679). Both were primary playmakers, here are a breakdown of assist and point finishes and percentages.

Pivonka

Assists: 13, 16, 24, 38
Points: 28, 32, 40

Vs2 Assists: 74***, 66, 56*, 56
Vs2 Points: 65, 54**, 53

*2nd place Oates was 15 assists ahead of 3rd place
**2nd place Jagr was 29 points ahead of 3rd place
***there was a tie for 1st, so that's a vs3

Sullivan

Assists: 9, 23, 44
Points: 16, 33, 38

Vs2 Assists: 89***, 77, 60**
Vs2 Points: 84, 69, 64*

*2nd place Sakic was 22 points ahead of 3rd place Elias
**tie for 1st place between Oates and Jagr, so it's a Vs3
***tie for 1st place between St. Louis and Gomez, so it's a Vs3

It's important to note era here, Sullivan played in an era where everyone was much closer together, while Pivonka played in a very high scoring era where it was more difficult to achieve good numbers. Vs2 numbers in the dead puck era can be very deceiving. It's difficult to call these, I'll see what my opponents and the peanut gallery think.

That takes us to Anders Kallur and Ronald Pettersson, two Swedes. Pettersson looks like a guy that does a lot of things pretty well, but isn't elite at anything. What was his competition like? 60s Sweden isn't really known as being the strongest league, and I really don't know much about his competition. His skill set looks like it would be fit for a PKer, but is there anything that actually says he was a PKer? There are things that hint at it like being a team player and hard working, but I don't see anything that says he actually killed penalties. Kallur was an elite PKer and shorthanded threat on the Islanders dynasty teams. Did Pettersson ever lead his league in goals or win the Swedish Player of the Year Award? Kallur did. I don't know which league was better, but I would tend to think that late 70s Sweden was better than late 50s, early 60s Sweden. Kallur also has a 7th and 10th in Selke voting to add to his resume. I think Kallur is the more effective player overall.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 06:22 PM
  #47
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BiLLY_ShOE1721 View Post
I believe it was you guys that said you wanted to get Pivonka to center your 3rd line, so you must think fairly high of him.
We wanted Pivonka because we wanted a big two-way center in case we matched up against a team with lots of size down the middle in the playoffs. We ended up getting a good backup plan, Jeff Carter, who has had a much better peak than Pivonka, but without the career value. Since Philadelphia does not have much size up the middle, Carter stays on the bench when everyone is healthy.

Quote:
Sullivan has a better career adjusted PPG(.828 to .679). Both were primary playmakers, here are a breakdown of assist and point finishes and percentages.

Pivonka

Assists: 13, 16, 24, 38
Points: 28, 32, 40

Vs2 Assists: 74***, 66, 56*, 56
Vs2 Points: 65, 54**, 53

*2nd place Oates was 15 assists ahead of 3rd place
**2nd place Jagr was 29 points ahead of 3rd place
***there was a tie for 1st, so that's a vs3

Sullivan

Assists: 9, 23, 44
Points: 16, 33, 38

Vs2 Assists: 89***, 77, 60**
Vs2 Points: 84, 69, 64*

*2nd place Sakic was 22 points ahead of 3rd place Elias
**tie for 1st place between Oates and Jagr, so it's a Vs3
***tie for 1st place between St. Louis and Gomez, so it's a Vs3

It's important to note era here, Sullivan played in an era where everyone was much closer together, while Pivonka played in a very high scoring era where it was more difficult to achieve good numbers. Vs2 numbers in the dead puck era can be very deceiving. It's difficult to call these, I'll see what my opponents and the peanut gallery think.
Let me get this straight - Sullivan has a much career career adjusted points per game, and much higher percentage scores, yet it's "difficult to call?"

Why are Vs2 numbers in the dead puck era "deceiving" - because they illustrate how good your opponent's player actually is?

Is the reason you used a three season cutoff because Pivonka only has 3 seasons that meet the 50% standard? I have Sullivan with 7 such seasons:

84, 78*, 69, 67, 64**, 59, 53

*: Vs3, Sakic was 2 and outscored 3rd by 22 points
**: Vs3, Jagr was 2 and outscored 3rd by 17 points

Sullivan is a better offensive player than Pivonka and it isn't particularly close. Both have similar defensive reputations of "very good for scorers," but neither was elite. Both were hard workers, but Pivonka was much larger than Sullivan and therefore better at protecting the puck, so that's definitely a plus for him.

Quote:
That takes us to Anders Kallur and Ronald Pettersson, two Swedes. Pettersson looks like a guy that does a lot of things pretty well, but isn't elite at anything.
Basically. Pettersson is a kind of jack-of-all trades. Big, fast, hard worker, decent offensively and defensively.

Quote:
What was his competition like? 60s Sweden isn't really known as being the strongest league, and I really don't know much about his competition. His skill set looks like it would be fit for a PKer, but is there anything that actually says he was a PKer? There are things that hint at it like being a team player and hard working, but I don't see anything that says he actually killed penalties.
If there is information on Team Sweden's penalty killing units in the 50s and 60s, I have no idea where it is. Last I checked, there is no comprehensive statistical database for the World Championships, unfortunately, so we can't even check for SHGs.

Quote:
Kallur was an elite PKer and shorthanded threat on the Islanders dynasty teams.
Are we comparing PK units now or even strength third lines? Kallur is on your top PK pair and should be compared against Tippett when it comes to PK ability, not Pettersson.
Quote:
Did Pettersson ever lead his league in goals or win the Swedish Player of the Year Award? Kallur did. I don't know which league was better, but I would tend to think that late 70s Sweden was better than late 50s, early 60s Sweden.
Pettersson won the Guldpucken award for the best player in the Swedish Elite League in 1960 and Kallur won it in 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guldpucken

I wouldn't be so swift to assume that the SEL was better in the late 70s. By that point, Sweden's best player, Salming, was in the NHL and not competing for the award.

It should be noted that Sweden won Gold at the World Championships in 1953, 1955, and 1962, a major reason why I think the 50s Soviets are so overrated in the ATD (and the Swedes of the period likely underrated). Between 1963 and 1986, only the USSR and CSSR won the Worlds.

Quote:
Kallur also has a 7th and 10th in Selke voting to add to his resume. I think Kallur is the more effective player overall.
Kallur is definitely the better defensive player between the two. I think he's the best defensive player on either third line. Eden Hall's best defensive guys are on our 4th line. I really don't care to spend the time going through their SEL finishes to try to figure out who was better offensively there, so we'll just say the major difference between them is that Kallur is better defensively.

The one advantage Pettersson has over Kallur is that he's much larger - especially when you take era into account. This is good, as it helps offset the fact that Sullivan is a midget.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 06:31 PM
  #48
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
Third lines

Offense = Advantage Eden Hall

Kapanen = Krushelnyski
Sullivan > Pivonka
Pettersson = Kallur

The big difference is at center

Defense = Advantage Philadelphia

Kapanen = Krushelnyski
Sullivan = Pivonka
Pettersson < Kallur

The big difference is at right wing

Size = Advantage Philadelphia

Krushelnyski, Pivonka, and Pettersson are all large players capable of battling for the puck, though none of them are overly physical.

Kallur is average.

Sullivan and Kapanen are battlers, but are small in size.

Speed = Advantage Eden Hall

Eden Hall has the fastest third line in the draft. Philadelphia's third line doesn't seem fast or slow.

Overall: I'm happy having a third line that is a bit better offensively than Philadelphia's, while being a bit behind defensively, since our 4th line is the one that will be used in strictly shutdown situations (defensive draws, holding on to a lead, etc).


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 08-31-2011 at 07:33 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-31-2011, 07:22 PM
  #49
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,720
vCash: 500
Fourth lines

The value of a 4th line is determined more by how it is going to be used than strictly the value of the personnel on the line. Eden Hall's 4th line will be used as a grinding, shutdown line similarly to how Detroit used their own Grind Line in the past

Offense = small advantage Philadelphia

Dudley and Johnson are the best offensive players on either team's 4th line so why only a small advantage to Philadelphia? With few exceptions, the offensive effectiveness of a line depends largely on the ability of the center to distribute the puck, and Yelle is an offensive nobody.

Defense = big advantage Eden Hall

Yelle is a very good defensive player, but Patey is even better. Tippett and McKay are excellent checkers, while Philadelphia's wings are not known for their defensive ability, are they?

Grit = advantage Eden Hall (amount depending on how gritty Johnson is)

Always important for fourth lines.

Randy McKay (EH) is a true heavyweight, racking up 1731 PIMs over a 15 year career. A member of the aptly named "Crash Line" in 1995, he grew into a bigger role, but never changed his style.

Dudley (Phila) seems like the next most gritty player, more of a middleweight, but definitely a 4th line style guy.

Patey (EH) played an aggressive style, as well.

Johnson (Phila) seems like a hard worker, but has low PIMs. Can you provide more info about his grit?

Yelle and Tippett are not soft players, but are not here for grit. More like penalty killing specialists.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
09-01-2011, 12:48 PM
  #50
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
 
BillyShoe1721's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Country: United States
Posts: 16,692
vCash: 8400
Send a message via AIM to BillyShoe1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Let me get this straight - Sullivan has a much career career adjusted points per game, and much higher percentage scores, yet it's "difficult to call?"

Why are Vs2 numbers in the dead puck era "deceiving" - because they illustrate how good your opponent's player actually is?

Is the reason you used a three season cutoff because Pivonka only has 3 seasons that meet the 50% standard? I have Sullivan with 7 such seasons:

84, 78*, 69, 67, 64**, 59, 53

*: Vs3, Sakic was 2 and outscored 3rd by 22 points
**: Vs3, Jagr was 2 and outscored 3rd by 17 points

Sullivan is a better offensive player than Pivonka and it isn't particularly close. Both have similar defensive reputations of "very good for scorers," but neither was elite. Both were hard workers, but Pivonka was much larger than Sullivan and therefore better at protecting the puck, so that's definitely a plus for him.
I cut it off at 3 years because I'd already calculated Pivonka's assist totals for those years. More laziness on my part than anything. Dead puck percentages are deceiving because the scoring was down, significantly, and everyone was lumped together. The elite players didn't have the ability to really set themselves apart from the rest of the talent pool because of the rules in place. For example, let's look at Sullivan's 4 best seasons, 99-00 to 02-03. Here are the differences in point totals from the guy in 1st to the guy in 25th: 25, 42(Jagr and Sakic were 1-2 and were both 20+ points ahead of number 3), 27, and 34. Here are the gaps from 1-25 in Pivonka's 4 best years: 81(Gretzky was way ahead in 1st, 2nd place Hull was 47 points ahead), 49, 63(Lemieux was 12 points ahead of 2nd place LaFontaine, who was 51 points ahead of 25th), and 76(Lemieux and Jagr were way ahead, 3rd place was still 35 points ahead of 25th). During the dead puck era, the elite players couldn't separate themselves from the pack in terms of point totals.

Quote:
Are we comparing PK units now or even strength third lines? Kallur is on your top PK pair and should be compared against Tippett when it comes to PK ability, not Pettersson.
We'll wait until comparing PK units then.

Quote:
Pettersson won the Guldpucken award for the best player in the Swedish Elite League in 1960 and Kallur won it in 1979. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guldpucken
Indeed. I got crossed up looking at Pettersson's Wikipedia article because it said the Guldpucken was for the best player in the Swedish playoffs, and Kallur's LOH profile said he won the Swedish Player of the Year award for the SEL. I thought there was a sort of Hart Trophy/Conn Smythe thing, but I guess not.

Quote:
I wouldn't be so swift to assume that the SEL was better in the late 70s. By that point, Sweden's best player, Salming, was in the NHL and not competing for the award.
Kallur's best competition that I see is Mats Naslund and a young Anders Eldebrink. Did Pettersson compete against any guys of that caliber?

Quote:
The one advantage Pettersson has over Kallur is that he's much larger - especially when you take era into account. This is good, as it helps offset the fact that Sullivan is a midget.
Kapanen is also a midget.

BillyShoe1721 is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:32 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.