ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[jarek]

Even before I picked Robinson, I was baffled on why Fetisov is placed infront of him.

Fetisov get's way too much credit for non-Nhl accomplishments. He played on a stacked CSKA Moscow team and finished Top scorer in defenseman for a league with such small competiton against him.



If the roles were reversed would Fetisov have a better career and legacy then Robinson if he played for the Habs? Would he of had the all-time best plus minus?



This BS about getting adjusted to the NA game doesn't cut it, his best year offensively was his first year in the NHL.

Then how do you propose we judge accomplishments from great international players?

 

[arrbez]

Fetisov get's way too much credit for non-Nhl accomplishments. He played on a stacked CSKA Moscow team and finished Top scorer in defenseman for a league with such small competiton against him.

Another way to look at it:

He was arguably the best player on a Soviet National Team that was very, very competitive against Team Canada and the NHL Allstars during the 80's. And he was certainly their best defenseman. He's the near-unanimous best-ever defenseman from (historically) the second best hockey-playing country ever. And again, he's arguably the best Russian player of all time. Against NHL competition, Fetisov played like a superstar. He wouldn't be ranked so highly if he was nothing special internationally. But on top of completely dominating the Soviet League, he lived up to his billing against the NHL's best all through the 80's. I wasn't around to watch those tournaments live in the 1980's, but I've never heard anyone who watched say Fetisov was anything less than elite.

BTW, if you're gonna dock Fetisov marks for playing on stacked teams, how about Larry Robinson? Fact is, there are a lot of guys in this draft who were surrounded by superstars for most or all of their primes.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

Another way to look at it:

He was arguably the best player on a Soviet National Team that was very, very competitive against Team Canada and the NHL Allstars during the 80's. And he was certainly their best defenseman. He's the near-unanimous best-ever defenseman from (historically) the second best hockey-playing country ever. And again, he's arguably the best Russian player of all time. Against NHL competition, Fetisov played like a superstar. He wouldn't be ranked so highly if he was nothing special internationally. But on top of completely dominating the Soviet League, he lived up to his billing against the NHL's best all through the 80's. I wasn't around to watch those tournaments live in the 1980's, but I've never heard anyone who watched say Fetisov was anything less than elite.

BTW, if you're gonna dock Fetisov marks for playing on stacked teams, how about Larry Robinson?

I love Fetisov and he certaintly was a great defensemen in his prime. Was this the highest he's ever been selected in the ATD at #22 overall, I thought I always remember him dropping in the late 20's. Could be wrong i just didn't go back in check. But I love the fact he's getting the respect he deserves

 

[seventieslord]

I'll contend this...you think he's been better than Lidstrom and/or Brodeur?

Well, clearly not Lidstrom, so yes, he must think he is better than Brodeur... and why not?

how much do you know about nighbor, or are you just relying on THN?


i don't see any reason THN has great credibility. imo, most of their lists are not very good in their rankings of players who played in the same era. imo, THN's top 60 since 67 was terrible.

every time they publish a top ___ list, many posters in both the history forum and the NHL forum ridicule the rankings.

yzerman was 78th on the '98 top 100 list, 28th among post-expansion players, but by late '07, rose to 7th best since expansion, ahead of bourque, hasek, lafleur, potvin, jagr, trottier, clarke, esposito, lidstrom, etc.
sakic, who was very comparable, was ranked 20th.


1 player who played entirely after expansion, was rated 54th among players of all eras on the top 100 list (22nd among post-expansion players), but did not appear on the top 60 since 67 list, even though he added to his career after '98.

top 60 since 67 also ranked a 2nd year player above a future HHOFer who won the hart, pearson and was a big part of 3 cups. also ranked a career 2nd liner who may not make HHOF ahead of a future HHOFer who won multiple vezinas and was a vezina finalist several more times.


i would bet that i researched nighbor more than THN's panel did. i read literally hundreds of newspaper reports that spanned about 50 years.

THN ranked several of nighbor's teammates above him, (probably based only on stats) even though it is very clear from reports from the time and from later years and also from hart voting that nighbor was superior.

very good points, nik.

Even before I picked Robinson, I was baffled on why Fetisov is placed infront of him.

I don't think he really is, is he? They are more or less equal. For example, Robinson was 31st on the 2009 HOH list and Fetisov was 33rd. So where do you get that he's "placed in front of him"? Because one GM found him worthy of being picked over Robinson? If that's all it is, let it go.

Fetisov get's way too much credit for non-Nhl accomplishments. He played on a stacked CSKA Moscow team and finished Top scorer in defenseman for a league with such small competiton against him.

It's more about his time against NHLers during his time, really.

If the roles were reversed would Fetisov have a better career and legacy then Robinson if he played for the Habs? Would he of had the all-time best plus minus?

I would say, almost certainly.

This BS about getting adjusted to the NA game doesn't cut it, his best year offensively was his first year in the NHL.

It's not BS, the system the soviets had going ensured that most players were done being elite by age 30.

He actually had a better offensive season in 1996, at age 37, with the same amount of points in fewer games in a lower-scoring league.

And his two 42-point seasons are the only two years he got PP time that I would say was significant.

 

[arrbez]

It's not BS, the system the soviets had going ensured that most players were done being elite by age 30.

I think this is an important thing to note. We can't talk about specific players yet, but with very few exceptions almost every great Soviet player saw a pretty significant decline around age 30. It seems like the coaches just ran them into the ground.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

The Ottawa Senators are pleased to select

2000 Hart Trophy Winner
Second best player of the 00s (according to Senators GM overpass)
3-time Conn Smythe Trophy Finalist (according to Senators GM overpass)
A dominant shutdown defenceman who makes a great first pass, can run a power play, and has been among the best playoff performers in the world.

Chris Pronger, D

Wow. And I thought I'd have a shot at him at #72. Well, back to the drawing board for me.

In reality, I've only ever seen 2 players in my time of watching hockey be able to slow down a game and make it work at their level. Pronger is one of them, and another will likely be drafted within the next 10-15 picks.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

crap

i was hoping to get pronger. imo, pronger is very much underrated both here and in norris and all star voting.

Add me to the list of people who was hoping to get Pronger with my next pick.

I really don't see how he can be rated ahead of Brodeur for the last decade, though. He was maddeningly inconsistent and considered a playoff choker before the lockout.

Still, I really don't see him as much worse than MacInnis or Stevens at this point. Less consistency than them for sure, but he's rapidly closing in.

I have 3 lists from sturm. Let me sort them out and I'll post his pick.

 

[Hedberg]

hedberg... I can't believe you went and put in all those bold tags... jeez!

It actually didn't take too long (about EB's estimate of 2 minutes).

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

I think this is an important thing to note. We can't talk about specific players yet, but with very few exceptions almost every great Soviet player saw a pretty significant decline around age 30. It seems like the coaches just ran them into the ground.

Now, here's a question I just thought of: if we're evaluating one or more of these Russian coaches, do they get penalized for this? Now, the quick answer is obviously no, since it's a single regular season and playoff, which they seemed to excel at. Not to mention, the seasons are likely to be a lot shorter here. However, in the ATD we don't look at things that way and the career value of players holds a lot of weight, so would this fall under that career value category?

There's probably more to discuss on the matter, when the time is right, of course, but I thought I'd pose that one before I forgot it.

 

[overpass]

Here are the adjusted stats I use for the top 10 post-expansion defencemen drafted here. If you don't like adjusted stats, feel free to skip this.

Even Strength

Player | Year | GP | $ESGF/S | $ESGA/S | R-ON | R-OFF | AEV+/-/S | $ESP/S
Bobby Orr | 68-75 | 560 | 151 | 70 | 2.17 | 1.05 | 75 | 77
Ray Bourque | 83-96 | 1016 | 100 | 68 | 1.46 | 0.96 | 36 | 44
Denis Potvin | 75-85 | 779 | 102 | 64 | 1.59 | 1.15 | 23 | 43
Nicklas Lidstrom | 98-10 | 961 | 99 | 70 | 1.42 | 1.09 | 20 | 35
Larry Robinson | 77-86 | 731 | 120 | 72 | 1.67 | 1.16 | 30 | 40
Al MacInnis | 89-03 | 1043 | 95 | 67 | 1.42 | 1.05 | 22 | 34
Brad Park | 72-82 | 838 | 109 | 71 | 1.52 | 1.11 | 25 | 43
Chris Chelios | 88-97 | 722 | 89 | 64 | 1.40 | 1.11 | 15 | 30
Paul Coffey | 82-95 | 1004 | 115 | 90 | 1.28 | 1.11 | 12 | 53
Scott Stevens | 91-03 | 996 | 95 | 68 | 1.39 | 1.10 | 16 | 31
Chris Pronger | 98-10 | 823 | 88 | 64 | 1.37 | 1.00 | 24 | 31
Borje Salming | 74-83 | 732 | 103 | 82 | 1.25 | 0.92 | 30 | 38
Brian Leetch | 89-97 | 632 | 94 | 79 | 1.19 | 1.03 | 12 | 40
Guy Lapointe | 72-79 | 568 | 118 | 74 | 1.60 | 1.35 | 7 | 39
Mark Howe | 80-89 | 706 | 96 | 66 | 1.46 | 0.97 | 33 | 38
Serge Savard | 71-79 | 587 | 121 | 67 | 1.82 | 1.31 | 21 | 30

$ESGF/S: On-ice even strength goals for per season, adjusted for scoring level.
$ESGA/S: On-ice even strength goals for per season, adjusted for scoring level.
R-ON: Even strength goal ratio with the player on the ice.
R-OFF: Even strength goal ratio with the player off the ice.
AEV+/-/S: Adjusted even strength plus-minus per season. Note that this and R-ON/OFF are affected by the role the player is used in, it's harder to do well in this when used in a defensive role.
$ESP/S: Even strength points per season.

Analysis: Orr, then everyone else. Probably Bourque #2, then Robinson. Stevens and Chelios can get a break because they were playing the toughest competition. These numbers are a little tough on Coffey - they include a few off-years, they're regular season only, etc.

While it's hard to rank players overall with these numbers, you can see how they did it. Coffey had a lot of goals for and against. Pronger and Chelios were on the other end of the spectrum, with fewer goals for and against. From their $ESP/S, some guys were more conservative, like Chelios, Stevens, MacInnis, Pronger, Lidstrom

Howe and Salming's numbers are surprisinly high. Were they playing shutdown minutes? Maybe not, but I doubt they were playing sheltered minutes either. I'm a little more confident in Howe's numbers, as Salming's plus-minus fell off after 1980.

Power Play

Player | Years | GP | PP% | TmPP+ | $PPG | $PPA | $PPP
Bobby Orr | 68-75 | 560 | 97% | 1.55 | 12 | 39 | 51
Ray Bourque | 83-96 | 1016 | 89% | 1.10 | 9 | 30 | 39
Denis Potvin | 75-85 | 779 | 92% | 1.30 | 11 | 30 | 41
Nicklas Lidstrom | 98-10 | 961 | 77% | 1.27 | 8 | 29 | 38
Larry Robinson | 77-86 | 731 | 66% | 1.20 | 6 | 20 | 26
Brad Park | 70-82 | 838 | 87% | 1.19 | 8 | 24 | 33
Al MacInnis | 89-03 | 1043 | 88% | 1.20 | 11 | 32 | 42
Chris Chelios | 88-97 | 722 | 79% | 0.99 | 5 | 25 | 30
Paul Coffey | 82-95 | 1004 | 85% | 1.16 | 9 | 33 | 42
Scott Stevens | 91-03 | 996 | 32% | 0.93 | 2 | 8 | 10
Chris Pronger | 98-10 | 823 | 75% | 1.18 | 7 | 27 | 35
Borje Salming | 74-83 | 732 | 72% | 1.04 | 4 | 23 | 27
Brian Leetch | 89-97 | 632 | 91% | 1.18 | 9 | 33 | 41
Guy Lapointe | 72-79 | 568 | 73% | 1.34 | 9 | 23 | 31
Mark Howe | 80-89 | 706 | 64% | 0.99 | 5 | 16 | 21
Serge Savard | 71-79 | 587 | 32% | 1.36 | 3 | 8 | 11

PP%: Percentage of team's power play goals that the player was on the ice for.
TmPP+: Success of team's power play. 1.00 is average, higher is better. Includes shorthanded goals against.
$PPG/S: Power play goals per season, adjusted for scoring level and team PP opportunities.
$PPA/S: Power play assists per season, adjusted for scoring level and team PP opportunities.
$PPP/S: Power play points per season, adjusted for scoring level and team PP opportunities.

Analysis: Tier 1: Orr. Tier 2: Potvin, Coffey, MacInnis, Bourque, Lidstrom, Leetch. Tier 3: Park, Pronger, Lapointe. Tier 4: Salming, Chelios, Robinson, Howe...and then Savard and Stevens, who would be at the bottom even including his earlier seasons. He did score 16 PPG in one season playing mostly as a forward in front of the net, so at least he was versatile.

Penalty Kill

Player | Years | GP | PK% | TmPK+
Bobby Orr | 68-75 | 560 | 65% | 0.75
Ray Bourque | 83-96 | 1016 | 58% | 0.85
Denis Potvin | 75-85 | 779 | 56% | 0.74
Nicklas Lidstrom | 98-10 | 961 | 59% | 0.81
Larry Robinson | 77-86 | 731 | 58% | 0.83
Al MacInnis | 89-03 | 1043 | 43% | 0.92
Brad Park | 72-82 | 710 | 51% | 0.83
Chris Chelios | 88-97 | 722 | 60% | 0.85
Paul Coffey | 82-95 | 1004 | 32% | 0.83
Scott Stevens | 91-03 | 996 | 65% | 0.88
Chris Pronger | 98-10 | 823 | 58% | 0.87
Borje Salming | 74-83 | 732 | 57% | 1.05
Brian Leetch | 89-97 | 632 | 51% | 0.95
Guy Lapointe | 72-79 | 568 | 62% | 0.74
Mark Howe | 80-89 | 706 | 44% | 0.86
Serge Savard | 71-79 | 587 | 66% | 0.74

PP%: Percentage of team's power play goals against that the player was on the ice for.
TmPK+: Success of team's penalty kill. 1.00 is average, lower is better. Includes shorthanded goals for.

Analysis: Pretty cool that all these guys played on teams with very strong penalty kills, and it makes me think that there's some validity to looking at the team numbers for an individual in this case.

The numbers can't really separate these guys much, but I'd say that Park, Leetch, and Howe were maybe notch below the rest, with MacInnis and Coffey below that. Note: Howe played some forward on the PK at times and was a very dangerous shorthanded scorer, so bonus points for versatility.

Durability

Player | Years | RegGP% | PlGP%
Bobby Orr | 68-75 | 90% | 100%
Ray Bourque | 83-96 | 93% | 95%
Denis Potvin | 75-85 | 89% | 99%
Nicklas Lidstrom | 98-10 | 98% | 99%
Larry Robinson | 77-86 | 91% | 100%
Al MacInnis | 89-03 | 87% | 96%
Brad Park | 70-82 | 82% | 98%
Chris Chelios | 88-97 | 93% | 94%
Paul Coffey | 82-95 | 92% | 90%
Scott Stevens | 91-03 | 97% | 100%
Chris Pronger | 98-10 | 84% | 98%

RegGP%: Percentage of regular season games played.
PlGP%: Percentage of playoff games played.

Analysis: You can see that everyone plays in the playoffs.

Sorry about the alphabet soup of acronyms, it's not easy labeling tables of stats. Hopefully anyone who's interested can find what they're looking for. Also, I've done my best to pick a representative prime for each defenceman, but it's probably not perfect. I don't mean to suggest that nothing outside those years has value - I'm just looking at their primes.

I think Pronger stands up pretty well to the other defencemen here. His weakness has been regular season durability, but otherwise he fits in. Very few post-expansion defencemen drafted after this point have this all-around profile - most will have at least one weakness like Stevens on the power play or Coffey on the penalty kill.

Quick player capsules, based on the stats above

Bobby Orr: Best at everything.
Ray Bourque: Elite at everything - probably second best at even strength, and top-tier on both special teams.
Denis Potvin: Elite on both special teams, very good at even strength.
Nicklas Lidstrom: Same as Potvin. Actually very similar numbers, even if the style was different. But more conservative at even strength than Potvin.
Larry Robinson: IMO 3rd best at even strength, as a huge, mobile shutdown defender. Elite on PK, but not on PP.
Al MacInnis: Elite on PP. A step down from most on the PK. Even-strength numbers are strong, but probably played a more offensive role than most here. Not a big offensive force at ES, considering reputation - he was more conservative there.
Brad Park: Very good in all situations. Just a step down from the top tier on both special teams, IMO.
Chris Chelios: Elite penalty killer. Even strength numbers are very good considering shutdown role. Good but not great on PP, fairly conservative at ES.
Paul Coffey: Awesome ES puck mover. Bled goals-against, so his numbers weren't that great overall. Probably had better defence in playoffs. Great on the PP, not so much on the PK.
Scott Stevens: Same as Chelios, but stopped playing on PP in his prime.
Chris Pronger: Very good numbers across the board, if not quite elite anywhere.
Borje Salming: Great EV numbers, especially from 74-80. I doubt he was in a shutdown role, considering he often played with an offensive D-man. His numbers fell off in the 80s, probably partly because of his own play and partly because the Leafs brought in a bunch of kids. A step down on both special teams. Maybe not his fault his team's PK was bad, but maybe he doesn't play as much on a better PK.
Brian Leetch: First-class PP quarterback. Excellent puck-mover at ES, but lots of goals against - and this isn't even considering his worst defensive years. Surprising decent PK numbers, although the Rangers PK fell apart after 1997 with Leetch's defensive game.
Guy Lapointe: Hard to know what to make of his ES on/off numbers with the Big 3 situation. I think he was probably the weakest of the 3 at ES, but was very good on both special teams, especially the PP.
Mark Howe: Terrific at even strength, where his skating and smarts allowed him to excel. One of the weaker options both on the PP and PK, surprisingly. Didn't have the size/strength to be great on the PK or the shot to be great on the PP, although he was good at both.
Serge Savard: Elite penalty killer, excellent at even strength. Not a PP factor.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The Gwinnett Gladiators listpick one of the best playmakers of all-time:

Frank Boucher, C

 

[vancityluongo]

I had a feeling that's who Sturm and Rick would take. Nice pick.

 

[Dreakmur]

Nice work man!

Mind if I use part of this for my Bourque bio?

 

[overpass]

Re: Second best player of the decade, yeah, I think it's 1. Lidstrom 2. Pronger. I think the difference is durability and consistency - Pronger at his best has been better than Lidstrom, and IMO about as good on average. But he's been inconsistent and missed a lot more regular season games.

I was also considering Stevens and Clapper, but when they were picked the choice got easier. I knew Pronger wouldn't last to #83 again for sure, and suspected he wouldn't last another 10 picks.

 

[Dreakmur]

The Gwinnett Gladiators listpick one of the best playmakers of all-time:

Frank Boucher, C

****...

 

[seventieslord]

Now, here's a question I just thought of: if we're evaluating one or more of these Russian coaches, do they get penalized for this? Now, the quick answer is obviously no, since it's a single regular season and playoff, which they seemed to excel at. Not to mention, the seasons are likely to be a lot shorter here. However, in the ATD we don't look at things that way and the career value of players holds a lot of weight, so would this fall under that career value category?

There's probably more to discuss on the matter, when the time is right, of course, but I thought I'd pose that one before I forgot it.

It was really just one coach who was notorious for burning out a whole generation of Russian greats. The burnout was not nearly as bad with his predecessor a generation before.

 

[Dreakmur]

I was also considering Stevens and Clapper, but when they were picked the choice got easier. I knew Pronger wouldn't last to #83 again for sure, and suspected he wouldn't last another 10 picks.

He should last another 10, but you'e right that he probably wouldn't. I have 4 defensemen who are significantly ahead of Pronger on my list. When they get picks, we'll have a discussion

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think this is an important thing to note. We can't talk about specific players yet, but with very few exceptions almost every great Soviet player saw a pretty significant decline around age 30. It seems like the coaches just ran them into the ground.

This doesn't make sense to me. How?

Most players of his vintage were slowing down (offensively at least) by 30ish at that time regardless of where they played or were coached.

I don't think Russian coaches had any more to do with it than the Canadiens coaches did for Lafleur or the Isles staff did for Trottier etc.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I had a feeling that's who Sturm and Rick would take. Nice pick.

Believe me, you were more sure about it than Sturm was.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

jesus ****ing christ you drop drafted names in every single ****ing post, i'm probably one of the least sensitive people about the rule but it's funny to read post after post of you naming undrafted players/coaches like you're completely oblivious

 

[Dreakmur]

jesus ****ing christ you drop drafted names in every single ****ing post, i'm probably one of the least sensitive people about the rule but it's funny to read post after post of you naming undrafted players/coaches like you're completely oblivious

I send polite PM reminders to people to delete the names. It works well

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Re: Second best player of the decade, yeah, I think it's 1. Lidstrom 2. Pronger. I think the difference is durability and consistency - Pronger at his best has been better than Lidstrom, and IMO about as good on average. But he's been inconsistent and missed a lot more regular season games.

I was also considering Stevens and Clapper, but when they were picked the choice got easier. I knew Pronger wouldn't last to #83 again for sure, and suspected he wouldn't last another 10 picks.

Definitely disagree with this. Pronger has a lot more trouble with fast forwards than Lidstrom has with big forwards. He's also still prone to the occasional brainfart, as evidenced by abandoning the front of the net to physically attack a forward in the corner on one of the goals against Canada in the Olympics.

On special teams, I think they are close on the PK (Pronger better in front of the net, Lidstrom better positionally), but Lidstrom is the better PP QB.

On the other hand, I do think that when people talk about Lidstrom's poor competition for awards, it's largely because of Pronger's injury history. Pronger should have been Lidstrom's main competition for the Norris over his career, he just didn't because of injuries and a bit of inconsistency.

 

[overpass]

Definitely disagree with this. Pronger has a lot more trouble with fast forwards than Lidstrom has with big forwards. He's also still prone to the occasional brainfart, as evidenced by abandoning the front of the net to physically attack a forward in the corner on one of the goals against Canada in the Olympics.

On special teams, I think they are close on the PK (Pronger better in front of the net, Lidstrom better positionally), but Lidstrom is the better PP QB.

On the other hand, I do think that when people talk about Lidstrom's poor competition for awards, it's largely because of Pronger's injury history. Pronger should have been Lidstrom's main competition for the Norris over his career, he just didn't because of injuries and a bit of inconsistency.

I think Pronger was better down low, especially along the boards and in the corners, largely because of his extra 6 inches and 30 pounds. This gave him the edge pre-lockout when players didn't attack with speed as often.

Yes, Lidstrom is and has been better on the PP. But Pronger is underrated there, he's been among the best in the league for a long time back there.

Nice work man!

Mind if I use part of this for my Bourque bio?

Sure, use whatever you want.

 

[arrbez]

This doesn't make sense to me. How?

Most players of his vintage were slowing down (offensively at least) by 30ish at that time regardless of where they played or were coached.

I don't think Russian coaches had any more to do with it than the Canadiens coaches did for Lafleur or Al Arbour did for Trottier etc.

It's true, a lot of offensive guys from the 1980's didn't do much after age 30 either. Who knows, maybe something was in the water back then?

But I don't think there's any doubt that the Russians trained harder than NHLers, and I think they went at it for 10 or 11 months of the year. Maybe their training had nothing to do with it at all? But at any rate, the end results were still the same.

 

[BraveCanadian]

jesus ****ing christ you drop drafted names in every single ****ing post, i'm probably one of the least sensitive people about the rule but it's funny to read post after post of you naming undrafted players/coaches like you're completely oblivious

Yeah, and geez, look at our avatars.

Won't someone please think of the children!?