ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[jarek]

Cyclonic? Somehow I doubt that's really an apt description of Seibert, but it certainly is an amusing abuse of English. I get the feeling that in the past the cyclone was more popular metaphoric symbol than it is today.

Actually, I think it's probably appropriate based on everything else I'm finding. One account had him "ploughing" through the Boston defense to get to the net, many accounts of him rushing up the ice with the puck, I imagine it meant that he was a fast and powerful skater.

 

[Hedberg]

What happens if you dont respect your clock? you just lose the pick or...?

You're skipped and your clock for the next round is an hour shorter for each pick missed.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I don't disagree with that at all. Just in the last couple of drafts I've been quick to temper people's enthusiasm about earlier players finishing relatively high in something, yet having a comparitively weak number versus the #1 or #2 guy(s). This applies mostly to pre-expansion defensemen, and pre-merger players of all positions. the premise to that is, what good is being 5th, if 1st/2nd have almost twice as much?

I understand that completely, but the whole point of looking at finishes in the first place is to look at players performance relative to their competition and not by raw totals which change drastically over time.

Being behind by a big margin vs. Wayne Gretzky or in defenseman scoring vs. Bobby Orr isn't a bad thing at all, for example. Or being behind defensemen playing forward at times.

As soon as you start down the "relative to competition" path then you have to introduce factors like:

How strong was the team that each of the finishers played on relative to each other?

How strong was their team vs. the league average?

What role/responsibilities did the individuals have on the team?

What style of play did the teams employ?

All of those things and more could factor very largely into an individual's point standing.

All of which I know are a big "non-factor" in pretty much all these discussions here and on HOH, but they should be a factor.

The problem is we don't have numbers for those things because they can't even be quantified today meaningfully, and none of us have seen most of these older players play.. even in highlights.

Which is why people started using finishes in the first place.. we can't place tons of importance on finishes for some players and not for others unless we started some exhaustive analysis which we probably don't even have data to do.

This applies mostly to pre-expansion defensemen, and pre-merger players of all positions. the premise to that is, what good is being 5th, if 1st/2nd have almost twice as much?

Just to add to this.. this can work in reverse as well. What if #1 and #2 only looked so good because the competition in general was so weak? The argument cuts both ways.

 

[BenchBrawl]

You're skipped and your clock for the next round is an hour shorter for each pick missed.

but when do you take another player to compensate? at the end of the draft?

 

[jarek]

but when do you take another player to compensate? at the end of the draft?

Nope.. you just make up the pick as soon as you are able to.

 

[Velociraptor]

What's the time limit that advantage2006 has to pick? just out of curiosity.

 

[Hedberg]

but when do you take another player to compensate? at the end of the draft?

I should have worded it better, sorry. The pick isn't skipped entirely, just your window of having the right to the next pick. You can make it up any time.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't really mind anyway , I'll never use all my clock.

 

[Hedberg]

What's the time limit that advantage2006 has to pick? just out of curiosity.

I think he has just under 7 hours left.

 

[BenchBrawl]

12 hours is a pretty long time to make a pick even if you don't have any computer at work you can always leave a list.

 

[jarek]

Here's a beauty that confirms Seibert's importance to that Chicago cup run:

"Hawks are pinning their hopes of victory on their great defensive trio of clown, fool and Earl Seibert, who were largely responsible for the downfall of Detroit. fool, former Chicago goalie recalled by the club late in the season, literally "goaled" his team into the final round, while Seibert has been both the defensive and offensive sparkplug of the squad all season." - Montreal Gazette, Apr. 4, 1944

Wait til you guys read all the stuff I've found, I think it's pretty safe to say that he was very active in getting involved offensively, even if the stats don't necessarily always show it. On top of that, he liked to shoot the puck - A LOT. It seems like he had a very accurate shot, as he often scored from around the blue line or even further away than that.

 

[markrander87]

A couple quotes on Bernie Geoffrion:

http://ourhistory.canadiens.com/player/Bernard-Geoffrion

Drive and desire were the key elements of Geoffrion’s game. He played with his heart on his sleeve and thrived on pressure, coming up with highlight performances when the stakes were at their highest. Throwing caution to the wind, he played an “all-out, all the time” game, the only way he knew how.

As Geoffrion continued to develop, the team’s fortunes improved as well. With a powerful wrist shot and accurate backhand to complement his trademark slap shot, Geoffrion climbed to the upper echelons of the scoring list year after year.

While his legend was built around his nose for the net and his booming slap shot, Geoffrion was also a skilled passer and playmaker, usually picking up at least as many - if not more - assists as goals.

Some athletes shun the spotlight but Geoffrion thrived in it. Laughing, joking and ready to break into song at the drop of a hat, he was the most-recognized sports figure in Montreal.

keep things light in the dressing room and livened things up in hotel lobbies and railway coaches around the league. When Boom-Boom was in a good mood, so was everybody else

*****And thanks to Dreamkur

Originally Posted by Undrafted Coach
Boom Boom can do everything and do it well. Although he's not stylish, he's a strong skater and checker and he can stickhandle with the best of them.

 

[jarek]

mark, do a search for him in the Google News Archive, you'll end up spending a few hours on it but the information you'll likely find will be incredible.

 

[markrander87]

mark, do a search for him in the Google News Archive, you'll end up spending a few hours on it but the information you'll likely find will be incredible.

I went into Google news and put his name with only 7 results?

 

[Hedberg]

I went into Google news and put his name with only 7 results?

Did you go to Google News Archive?

http://news.google.com/archivesearch

 

[jarek]

Then you did it wrong.

http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=geoffrion&btnG=Search+Archives&scoring=a

Try that, and filter it by range of years at the top to get more relevant results.

 

[markrander87]

Wow, Good bye rest of afternoon at work.

Heres a great regarding Larry Robinson and his offensive abilities. Stating he was the most feared attacker on the Habs. Comparing him to Orr, he was such a great rusher because of his size and reach.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...=2613,4087013&dq=larry+robinson+offense&hl=en


http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...g=7183,731955&dq=larry+robinson+offense&hl=en

 

[jarek]

Seems like the only reason Seibert retired was Seibert himself. Everyone seemed to think he was still good to go for even longer than he did:

"If and when a hockey "Fall of Fame" is established in Canada - one guy who would seem to richly deserve entry is Earl Seibert, currently starring on defense for Detroit Red Wings. The swashbuckling Seibert has a brilliant 14-year record in the National Hockey League behind him and experts claim he's ever bit as good today as at any stage of his sparkling career. Earl is 33 years of age and, barring accidents, has many good years of hockey left in him. A deadly shot and noted as one of the most solid bodycheckers in the business, Seibert is among the few remaining defencemen who can carry the puck from end to end. He spurns modern methods of hurling the rubber into a corner and chasing it." - Maple Leaf, Feb. 10, 1945

This also seems to lean towards him not really liking the dump and chase style of hockey too much, preferring instead of rush the puck. With his speed, I can't blame him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In 1956 and 1957, New York ran into the powerhouse Montreal Canadiens. Among Rangers, Bathgate was 1st in goals and 2nd in points over those seasons - only Bill Gadsby had more points. That's nothing great, but it's nothing bad either.

1958, New York again lost in the first round. Bathgate was pretty much a beast though - he scored 5 goals and 8 points in just 6 games. That puts him among the leaders in goals, goals per game, and points per game.

1962, they again lost in the first round. This time, Bathgate wasn't very good. He scored just 3 points on 15 goals.

1964, this is the year he won the Cup, and he was one of Toronto's best players, and one of the play-offs leading scorers.

1965, the Leafs lost in the first round. This is the second time Bathgate has a poor play-off, but he was injured for a lot of the season, so I'm not sure if he was healthy. Anyone know?

1966, Red Wings lost in the finals. Bathgate probably has his best play-off, leading the way in goals.


Good Years: 1958, 1964, and 1966
Average Years: 1956, 1957
Bad Years: 1962
Questionable Years: 1965 (average if he was hurt, bad if he was healthy)

I woke up to 5 PMs about the ATD.

I wouldn't put too much stock into Bathgate winning the Cup with the Leafs. At least one long-term Leaf blames the acquisition of Bathgate for Toronto losing it's "winning" spirit. Granted, that is just one player, and maybe he was talking about how Bathgate couldn't fit into a defensive system (which all the disciples of Toronto's coach equated with winning).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

On another note, trying to research Seibert has been very frustrating because most of the articles on Google News are pay per view from NYT. :/

Let's try something. Try PMing me links to the articles, see if I can read them (I am in New York afterall, you might be behind an anti-Canada firewall) and I can PM you the article contents.

It might work, maybe not.

 

[SidGenoMario]

Someone picked Sundin? That's odd.

 

[Velociraptor]

Someone picked Sundin? That's odd.

He's a big fan, according to his s/n.

 

[seventieslord]

50 a month is nowhere NEAR enough for how many I'm finding. I'd go through 50 a week, AT LEAST. No, 50 a DAY!

With a limit incurred, you would just have to be smarter about it. Spend less time on in-game quotes and more on general all-encompassing descriptions, for example (although a plethora of the former can eventually outweigh a few of the latter)

I understand that completely, but the whole point of looking at finishes in the first place is to look at players performance relative to their competition and not by raw totals which change drastically over time.

You don't have to tell me that.

Being behind by a big margin vs. Wayne Gretzky or in defenseman scoring vs. Bobby Orr isn't a bad thing at all, for example. Or being behind defensemen playing forward at times.

I actually use the #2s in almost all cases, to avoid outliers like this. It works pretty much all the time, except for Lemieux's healthy seasons between 1987 and 1992.

As soon as you start down the "relative to competition" path then you have to introduce factors like:

How strong was the team that each of the finishers played on relative to each other?

How strong was their team vs. the league average?

Until you prove that it matters, I don't care.

What role/responsibilities did the individuals have on the team?

Being in a lesser role likely means that a player "could have" scored more in a greater role, but if they weren't in a greater role, they probably weren't the greater player. For example right now, all we are drafting is offensive forwards, they pretty much all had the same role, with minor variances.

What style of play did the teams employ?

minor factor that I think everyone already considers. For example, there's an 80s winger who is much better than his totals would imply.

Just to add to this.. this can work in reverse as well. What if #1 and #2 only looked so good because the competition in general was so weak? The argument cuts both ways.

there are very few cases of #1 and 2 being significantly better than the pack statistically. Gretzky and Lemieux from 1987-1992 are one. In one of Orr's big years, Park was an outlier from the rest of the pack. Probably a few WW1-era seasons with Nighbor, Lalonde and a couple others too. Not really a major consideration.

 

[advantage2006]

I want a guy who can move the puck on the back-end. Therefore, the Montreal AAA HC are proud to select:

D - Mark Howe

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Something screwy in the OP

To Vancouver Maroons: 3rd (#1057, 8th (#307)
To New Haven: 4th (#153), 5th (#168)

To Kenora: 2nd (#64) and 6th (#231)
To Minnesota: 2nd (#75) and 5th (#166)

To McGuire’s: Andy Bathgate (#64) and 6th (#231)
To Minnesota: 2nd (#75) and 5th (#166)