ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[seventieslord]

Heh...the old second round run on defensemen has really become an ATD tradition, hasn't it? It's like watching a car crash in ultra slow-motion. Six blueliners in the last nine picks and a couple guys I've got outside of the top-100 all-time (in an absolute sense...not in terms of bizarro ATD value) picked in the sixties. Mercy.

And me without any defensemen...this blows.

No kidding hey? At this point I feel extremely lucky to have selected a #1 defenseman at a slot that is actually right where his all-time ranking would be.

If I took the winger I wanted, I'd be lamenting the same thing right now. Instead, I lament not having a winger (but less than half the teams actually do)

 

[jarek]

As far as Seibert, I think the anecdotes indicate he was more important to his team's offense than his numbers suggest, but at the same time, I can understand that he didn't actually put up the numbers. Being on weak teams probably hurt this aspect of his game, but yeah.. I'm not gonna call him elite offensively, but he was definitely very good. I don't think anyone is really underrating him here.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Yikes it's going to be slim-pickins for defenceman by the late 100's.

 

[BenchBrawl]

When the talent level of dmen will fall maybe people will start drafting forwards lol

It will be very difficult not to have any holes in a 40 teams draft.

 

[jarek]

When the talent level of dmen will fall maybe people will start drafting forwards lol

IMO, it did a long time ago. Howe, Lapointe, Savard, all going sooner than they should, IMO.

 

[BenchBrawl]

It's in moment like this you appreciate having Lidstrom , because your next dmen will be way inferior.

 

[jarek]

It's in moment like this you appreciate having Lidstrom , because your next dmen will be way inferior.

Or Seibert.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Or Seibert.

Or donut boy.

I knew Horton wasn't the BPA at #41 but the crazy run of defenceman i knew would happen meant i had to take a defenceman there.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I'm anxious to pick everytime I see a player drafted. 158th
I wish I could sleep until my turn , like when you're a kid and you try to sleep before chrismas but you end up suffering from insomnia.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The Swamp Devils decide not to take part in this run of defensemen.

Over the years I have been blessed with a great number of superstars. But game in, and game out, Henri Richard was the most valuable player I ever had

-Frank Selke, Sr

(Among the drafted players who Selke managed were: Rocket, Beliveau, Harvey, Geoffrion, Plante, Apps, Kennedy, Clancy (I'm sure I'm forgetting some)

Henri Richard might not have been the most important player on the Habs in any one year, but an argument can be made that over his entire career he was. In fact, as I've noted above, Frank Selke Sr. even said as much.

NJ selects Henri Richard, C

-11 Stanley Cups, 5 of them centering his brother Maurice at even strength.

-From 1955-56 to 1966-67, (over a period of 12 years), Henri Richard was the best even strength scorer in the league. Post-prime Howe was 2nd, Beliveau and Bathgate tied for 3rd. Richard falls below them on overall leaderboards because one of the best PP players of all time (Beliveau) usually played the full PP during this time (as was customary).

-Henri Richard scored these points while being arguably the best even strength shut down center in the league.

-Richard's coach always had him out there for the first shift after every PP or PK to control momentum for the Canadiens and generally matched him against the opponent's best center.

Henri is always there. Every time I pick up the puck he's coming at me from somewhere. He's been hit quite a few times; by me, by our defense, but he doesn't stop. It's frustrating when you outweigh a guy by 20 pounds, knock him down and he's up and gone before you are

Henri Richard. That son of a ***** was the best centre I ever played against. He was good on faceoffs. He was fast. The little ******* could score. He was a tough little guy and I respected him. Henri was the most underrated player on the Canadiens.

Looks like Henri Richard brought his own puck to the rink again

In Larry Robinson's book, he tells a story about how after Philly (led by Bobby Clarke) beat Montreal in Game 1 in the `73 semis, (Richard's coach) pointed at Bobby Clarke then said to Richard simply "He's yours." Richard completely shut down Clarke the rest of the series.

In all the years I played in the league, there was only one player I hated. Henri Richard!

In all the years I played in the league, I was never afraid of (undrafted burly star defenseman)

Full bio to be posted in the bio thread when I have time.

 

[jarek]

A steal, and not a very small one either. Glad to finally see a forward go.

 

[Hedberg]

Nice to see the Richards re-united.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Henri was one of the marquee forwards I was talkin about and he shou;d have went long before Mark Howe/Guy Lapointe etc. Great pick TDMM.

 

[jarek]

Henri was one of the marquee forwards I was talkin about and he shou;d have went long before Mark Howe/Guy Lapointe etc. Great pick TDMM.

Wholeheartedly agree.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Henri was one of the marquee forwards I was talkin about and he shou;d have went long before Mark Howe/Guy Lapointe etc. Great pick TDMM.

We'll see what I can do on the backend but having one of the best two-way centers of all time definitely makes the job easier for the defensemen I will draft.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

We'll see what I can do on the backend but having one of the best two-way centers of all time definitely makes the job easier for the defensemen I will draft.

Love the Esposito quotes about him. ''The little b a s tard won every draw and was tough.''

 

[BenchBrawl]

Always dreamed of doing that EDIT: wait I fail , doesn't even work.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I'd like to thank my fellow gms for letting the most irreplaceable part of my plan available.

The Minnesota Fighting Saints are pleased to select 71st overall Dickie Moore, lw

 

[Dreakmur]

There goes my list

Henri Richard and Dickie Moore.

Now I really need to think about this

My pick is on the block now -- anyone interested, PM me within the next 20 minutes... since I'm out the door again.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Well, then demonstrate that just being on a better team makes a player's numbers better. Linemates matter, that much is obvious. Does just being on a good team matter? You seem to think so. Prove it!

Yeah because I've never seen you make the argument that a player can benefit from having other players take the top checkers off them (as an example)

I guess that more than one line on the Bruins wouldn't benefit from having Orr play half the game? or that the same effect (to a lesser degree) would be true of many top defenseman across more than one line of forwards?

A great goaltender can't benefit how the whole team plays?

I'm sorry there is no "how much we collectively play better together than apart" statistic collected but I think at some point common sense has to prevail here.

The question is though.. how much can a certain individual (Like Orr for sure) take of the credit for the team being better? I think I can safely say that many Bruins during Orrs day had better totals simply because they were on Orrs team.. wouldn't you?

1) Stevens was not capable of 70 points anymore even if he was getting PP time
2) Stevens' PP time dropped considerable after 1994 (frm 4.3 minutes per game 1987-1994, to 1.4 minutes per game 1995-2002) so much of his lower numbers wasn't due to him "buying into" anything at all, but the coach's usage. Unless you believe he got as much PP time as he asked for, and stopped asking

I believe exactly what I said: he was used differently and started transitioning his game to a more defensive one in line with the team goals.

Unless you're really going to tell me he went from being a 78 point scorer in 93-94 to a guy on pace for 38 in one year.

He certainly wasn't washed up at that point so I don't get how you're going to argue that.

I think that is a stretch.

This makes no sense. First you say the style of play a team uses matters. I say I agree, and cite a 1980s winger as proof (as in, it's well-known that his team played a defensive style and he's better than his numbers show) - you then add that people don't consider this when tearing down 1980s offensive totals. I don't see the connection here. One of the main arguments is "well, the 1980s were so offensive, you have to understand every team played an offensive style" - so if Boston's defensive style causes this player to be underrated, how can other teams' offensive styles be used to defend others?

People paint it all with the same brush. And you'll have a hard time convincing me that the certain winger you are talking about had a lot of defensive shackles on him. He didn't.

it's just not comparable to actually finishing top-10 13 times and top-5 8 times in a modern sense. A guy who did that would have almost 1000 points.

Only 12 defenseman in the history of hockey have 900+ points.

Only one defenseman who started his career since 1990 has over 900 points.

What is the standard here?

 

[BM67]

1) Stevens was not capable of 70 points anymore even if he was getting PP time
2) Stevens' PP time dropped considerable after 1994 (frm 4.3 minutes per game 1987-1994, to 1.4 minutes per game 1995-2002) so much of his lower numbers wasn't due to him "buying into" anything at all, but the coach's usage. Unless you believe he got as much PP time as he asked for, and stopped asking

The Devils didn't spend that much time on the PP, so of course his PP time would drop even without any change in usage. He probably lost a minute of PP time just by being on the Devils, and of course the entire league spent less time on the PP during the dead puck era.

The Devils peak in number of PPs was at 90.1% of the league average, and 78.4% of the league high during his Devils career.

PP *next lowest if Devils lowest

Year| Adv| Rnk| Low*| Avg| High| %ofLow*| %ofAvg| %ofHigh
87-88| 479| 3| 347| 437| 500| 138.0| 109.6| 95.8
88-89| 466| 2| 334| 403| 491| 139.5| 115.6| 94.9
89-90| 337| 20| 330| 367| 442| 102.1| 91.8| 76.2
90-91| 347| t15| 317| 366| 403| 109.5| 94.8| 86.1
91-92| 338| 22| 339| 402| 467| 99.7| 84.1| 72.4
92-93| 400| 23| 399| 443| 510| 100.3| 90.1| 78.4
93-94| 333| 26| 369| 407| 459| 90.2| 81.8| 72.5
94-95| 164| 26| 172| 209| 259| 95.3| 78.5| 63.3
95-96| 368| 24| 356| 413| 477| 103.4| 89.1| 77.1
96-97| 288| 25| 287| 336| 406| 100.3| 85.7| 70.9
97-98| 333| 26| 350| 380| 483| 95.1| 87.6| 68.9
98-99| 304| 26| 301| 359| 438| 101.0| 84.7| 69.4
99-00| 274| 28| 287| 331| 377| 95.5| 82.8| 72.7
00-01| 310| 30| 318| 376| 435| 97.5| 82.4| 71.3
01-02| 261| 30| 283| 338| 391| 92.2| 77.2| 66.8
02-03| 303| 30| 308| 363| 420| 98.4| 83.5| 72.1
03-04| 312| 27| 300| 348| 426| 100.4| 89.7| 73.2
05-06| 439| 27| 411| 480| 541| 106.8| 91.5| 81.1

Here are the teams Stevens was on for the first 4 years of the table. Two of the %ofHigh are higher than the highest %ofAvg for his Devils years.

Year| Adv|Low*| Avg| High| %ofLow*| %ofAvg| %ofHigh
87-88| 437|347| 437| 500| 125.9| 100.0| 87.4
88-89| 443|334| 403| 491| 132.6| 109.9| 90.2
89-90| 412|330| 367| 442| 124.8| 112.3| 93.2
90-91| 348|317| 366| 403| 109.8| 95.1| 86.4

 

[jarek]

I might have found a way to account for team differences for players.

I looked at only 2 years, 33-34 and 34-35, but here goes:

Seibert, 33-34, scored 23 points, his team scored 120 goals, so Seibert got in on roughly 19% of the Rangers' goals.

Clancy, 33-34, has 28 points (led the league in D scoring), Toronto scored 173 goals, so Clancy got in on 16% of the scoring.

The following year, Seibert scored 25 points, the Rangers had 138 goals, for an 18% goal involvement rate.

Clancy had 21 points on Toronto's 157 goals, for a 13% involvement rate. An undrafted player (probably one who nobody would hesitate to say was better than Seibert offensively), had 26 points for Toronto (~17%).

Both Clancy and Seibert were their team's defacto number 1s, so ice time differences should be negligible at best.

... Good god, Seibert led Chicago's defensemen in scoring in 35-36, despite playing only 15 games for them.

I looked at 42-43 and 43-44 to check out his offensive involvement, and it appeared to stay consistent from those earlier years.

In 42-43 Seibert's 32 points accounted for 18% of the team's 179 goals.
In 43-44, 19% (33 points to 178 goals).

 

[jarek]

OK, so Seibert was basically Chicago's only good defenseman the entire time he was there. He regularly outscored every other defenseman on the team, and in a few cases, he outscored the rest of the D *COMBINED*. The most hilarious being in 42-43 and 43-44 where he outscored the rest of the D by 32-23 and 33-17 margins, respectively.

 

[nik jr]

Oh man..

Vancouver Sun, Oct. 30, 1939

Although Apps was the scoring star the big attraction for the crowd was the inimitable Shore. The big Boston defenseman, who recently purchased the Springfield club in the International American League, brought a great roar from the crowd when he danced a lively "shag" to music from an orchestra in the Forum just before the start of the final period.

The spectators found the sight of the usually grim Shore doing a dance on skates amusing, and clapped for more. Eddie obliged and brought down the house.

in the history section's intangibles thread, i posted the results of a poll from 1934. 1 of the questions:

greatest box office attraction: Eddie Shore 24, TML 6, NYR 1, Howie Morenz 1

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.

how does a report from 1944, when the NHL was full of minor leaguers, have relevance for 1938?

i read all the game reports in the montreal gazette, and seibert was not mentioned as the best player.

based on contemporary sources and numbers, seibert did not lack offensive ability.

 

[jarek]

Well, are you going to say the coach of the team was wrong?

... Seibert was the biggest factor in Chicago's Cinderella Stanley Cup victory in 1938 ... Kings of the Ice elaborates: "The biggest reason we won," coach Bill Stewart asserted, "was that we had Earl Seibert on our defense. The big guy played about 55 minutes a game."

You're basically refuting both Kings of the Ice, Ultimate Hockey, AND Seibert's coach. I hope you have a pretty impressive argument.