ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[Leafs Forever]

If you ignore Bathgate's questionable playoff record (I won't say bad, just questionable, those Rangers teams were often badly outmatched by far superior opponents) and complete lack of a defensive game.

Don't get me wrong, Bathgate was a very solid pick where you got him. But I think it's gross hyberbole to say he stacks up well with Lafleur.

Edit: Again I'm just one person. I definitely rank Bathgate lower and Makarov higher than they are both placed on the last HOH Top 100.

To be fair on that point, none of the RW's he mentioned really have anything of good substance to their defensive games on either- just a couple of small things that don't do much more than prove they weren't completely inept.

 

[Dreakmur]

Makarov is top-50 to me..

That's pretty high for him... you've got him ahead of guys like Frank Makovlich, Bill Cook, Bernie Georrfrion, and Charlie Conacher?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To be fair on that point, none of the RW's he mentioned really have anything of good substance to their defensive games on either- just a couple of small things that don't do much more than prove they weren't completely inept.

There's a difference between doing nothing more than expected (i.e. being competent) and doing nothing defensively. I think Geoffrion and Makarov were both guys who did what was expected of a wing defensively, not necessarily more.

I could be wrong about Bathgate (please, dreak, prove me wrong), but from what I've read he's a nothing defensively. Which is fine - you can still win with guys like that if you compliment them correctly (as Toronto obviously did that one season).

 

[jarek]

That's pretty high for him... you've got him ahead of guys like Frank Makovlich, Bill Cook, Bernie Georrfrion, and Charlie Conacher?

I may. It's really hard to ignore his ridiculous scoring dominance in the RSL. It's pretty close to Howe level dominance for 10 years.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's pretty high for him... you've got him ahead of guys like Frank Makovlich, Bill Cook, Bernie Georrfrion, and Charlie Conacher?

I think Makarov = Kharlamov.

Is that a copout answer?

 

[Dreakmur]

If you ignore Bathgate's questionable playoff record (I won't say bad, just questionable, those Rangers teams were often badly outmatched by far superior opponents) and complete lack of a defensive game.

Don't get me wrong, Bathgate was a very solid pick where you got him. But I think it's gross hyberbole to say he stacks up well with Lafleur.

Which one of Cook, Conacher, Geoffrion, or Lafleur has any kind of defensive game? Cook might have had one, but I'm not sure there's any real solid evidence of it.

Bathgate did have some really strong play-off years. I'd never say he's a great play-off performer, but he definately isn't a poor one either. Of the above, I'd only consider Geoffrion a great play-off performer. Lalfeur had the best play-off years, but he also had the worst ones.

Lafleur played for the most dominant dynasty in NHL history, whil Bathgate played for one of the league's doormats. Even still, Bathgate's regular season scoring accomplishments are quite a bit better than Lafleur's.

 

[Dreakmur]

There's a difference between doing nothing more than expected (i.e. being competent) and doing nothing defensively. I think Geoffrion and Makarov were both guys who did what was expected of a wing defensively, not necessarily more.

I could be wrong about Bathgate (please, dreak, prove me wrong), but from what I've read he's a nothing defensively. Which is fine - you can still win with guys like that if you compliment them correctly (as Toronto obviously did that one season).

From what you've read where? I've only seen one quote about him being poor defensively. It's in a Joe Pelletier article. Outside of that, I've seen nothing.

Really, with so little evidence either way, he was close to average defensively. I'd agree in the ATD, he's definately below average defensively. The same applies to just about every winger drafted so far.

 

[seventieslord]

Seibert did, though. In the two early 30's years, he contributed to roughly 18% of the offense, and in the two 40's years, where the team scored about 70 more goals, his contributions remained the same. So, this is a case where the player's contributions stayed consistent regardless of the amount of goals scored. That's a good thing, isn't it? I would also add that in every case, he was the team's leading point getter on defense.

- I don't know if this was intentional or not, but you are distorting the facts.

In the 1934 and 1935 seasons, the season was 48 games long as opposed to 50. So right off the bat, this is distorted. Also, the league average was 2.42 and 2.52 GPG. In 1943 and 1944, in 50 game seasons, the league averages were 3.62 and 4.08. So the average team would have scored 74 more goals per season in the '43 and '44 seasons than they did in the '34 and '35 seasons, so actually, the Hawks were slightly worse offensively compared to the league average later on. The example therefore proves nothing.

Let's not forget that these 1943 and 1944 seasons that you're focusing on so heavily, are war-weakened seasons, particularly 1944. If you did actually prove Seibert's production was the same on a more high-powered team relative to the league, the question would still be - "what league"? You have to take 1944 with a major grain of salt.

I don't know why Seibert needs such overselling. He is what he is, and he's great.

Probably because the most extreme examples make the result easiest to see. In this case, very easy.. and you have brought up Orr's effect on the rest of his team yourself on several occasions.

No, the most extreme examples are just that. Extreme examples. they are not at all common. You attempt to apply this to cicrumstances where players played on the Dynasty habs or Isles too, you don't just use Orr and Gretzky.

Nice dodge. Mr. "I have an answer for everything but lets split hairs to avoid admitting that teams do affect players".

then actually do some work and PROVE IT if it's so easy to see that just being on a better team makes a player's offensive stats higher as a rule.

In fact, yes, they did score more points because they were on Boston. Because Orr was on Boston. The logo on the front of the shirt is not the part of the team I am talking about, obviously.

Players affect other players. Particularly the generational talents. We agree on this. But you claim that teams do.

Again, there is no number for it. I know you hate that. But yes, a good goaltender lets players feel confident taking some extra risk.

Oh, please. As if this has ever shown up in noticeably higher offensive stats.

You need to relocate your shoulder after that reach.

Yes, I know, that is what I said.

His role and his use by his coaches changed to suit the system they were implementing.

And apparently they also had fewer PP opportunities. But Stevens wasn't reliant on the PP for the majority of his offense in 94. He was on the ice for 153 TGF and only 38 PPGF.

I don't see his offensive ceiling changing a lot over one year like you tried to make the case for..

No, a switch controlling his offensive ability didn't just get tripped in the 1994 offseason. But it started at that point. Couple this with a massive drop in PP ice time (there are PP assists too, you know) and a changed focus at ES as described by TDMM, and you have the offensive results he had. You're trying to attribute it all to his change in mindset and it's simply not, it's a combination of the three.

How did this even start? Discussion of a defenseman's offensive capabilities in relation to their production, I think. I don't know how it got to this part, as it's irrelevant by now. The answer is really the same as it was for the undrafted player you mentioned earlier. Maybe he'd have done better, maybe not. Our assessment of his offensive ability during this time is in all likelihood a blend of what was, and what could have been, except in this case there was clearly give and take that must be considered too. (he was never elite at both ends at the same time)

I don't know how many Boston games I saw in the 80s off hand, but I am guessing more than you since I am older.. and where is this general perception tracked?

XXXXX wasn't really a two-way guy from my memory, just up and down the wing.. and his line was relied on to score.

Wow, are we talking about the same guy? The one I'm talking about was a two-way guy. Remember, I said "80s", not "80s and 90s".

My point is that you were saying his finishes would equate to him being among the top 13 offensive defensemen in point totals and I don't think anyone was trying to say he was at that level.

I am sure there are other early era defensemen who have a lot of high finishes that aren't held to that standard when we try to fast forward them to a modern setting for comparison.

If his finishes were interpreted that way, then yes, that is what it could imply. (of course there would be others interpreted the same way, and they'd bump him down further, but he'd still get overrated offensively in the end) - the whole point was, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 in the 30s is not the same as 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6 in the 2000s because, as I demonstrated, the nature of the leaderboards in both eras is such that the #6 guy could have 55% of #1 in the 30s, and 80% in the 90s. My job here is to maintain focus on context for all players and you are ripping me for it. What do you think I'm doing? Posturing?

Yes, there are other early era defensemen with similar finishes and I will ensure that no overselling of their offense takes place on my watch too.

Stevens was definitely capable of being a 70 point defenseman after 1994. But... he wasn't capable of being a 70 point defenseman while being as dominant defensively as he became. It was a conscience decision (after being asked by his coaches) to forgo the offense to concentrate on being the most dominant defensive defenseman in the league.

Stevens rarely crossed from his own side of the red line at even strength, except to keep the puck in the zone when possession wasn't an issue.

He played kind of like a (hard hitting) safety in American football.

And judging from 3 Cups and 4 finals in the next 9 years, I'd say he made the right decision.

Edit: But they are right - Stevens was taken off of the Devils PP almost entirely after 93-94 to conserve all his energy for being a wrecking ball.

This is basically an extension of what I was saying, I should have been more clear. Although I don't believe he had 70-point potential in the years following 1994... this would make him the #4, #2, and in a couple cases, #1 scoring defenseman in the NHL by a decent margin. (his scoring finishes prior to this were 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10 and if we assume that he can maintain that place in the pecking order for 5 more years, we're looking at seasons of 50-55 points.)

A #1 defenceman is so important in this draft, I understand some people taking the BDA before the BPA. The only draft I didn't won my division is the time when I didn't have a true #1 defenceman. You can get away with low-end #1 D (the Lapointe, Savard, Howe etc...) if you are able to construct a strong D-core that make sense, just like I did when I won the ATD. I didn't had any of the defenceman selected yet, but the Top-4 was very strong.

Hey bud, how many times are you going to remind us of the times you won your division?

The Minnesota Fighting Saints are pleased to select the best right winger of the 1980's: Sergei Makarov, rw

Really? Better than Bossy? I'm all ears because I think Bossy gets overrated thanks to his per-game stats, but the perceived gap between these two is generally pretty wide.

 

[seventieslord]

That's pretty high for him... you've got him ahead of guys like Frank Makovlich, Bill Cook, Bernie Georrfrion, and Charlie Conacher?

he BETTER not have him ahead of Cook!

 

[jarek]

- I don't know if this was intentional or not, but you are distorting the facts.

In the 1934 and 1935 seasons, the season was 48 games long as opposed to 50. So right off the bat, this is distorted. Also, the league average was 2.42 and 2.52 GPG. In 1943 and 1944, in 50 game seasons, the league averages were 3.62 and 4.08. So the average team would have scored 74 more goals per season in the '43 and '44 seasons than they did in the '34 and '35 seasons, so actually, the Hawks were slightly worse offensively compared to the league average later on. The example therefore proves nothing.

Let's not forget that these 1943 and 1944 seasons that you're focusing on so heavily, are war-weakened seasons, particularly 1944. If you did actually prove Seibert's production was the same on a more high-powered team relative to the league, the question would still be - "what league"? You have to take 1944 with a major grain of salt.

I don't know why Seibert needs such overselling. He is what he is, and he's great.

Can you explain to me why league scoring levels matters when I'm looking at Seibert within his own team in a vaccuum?

 

[Reds4Life]

Sergei Makarov is the best soviet forward IMHO. Czech coaches from that era seem to think so as well.

 

[Dreakmur]

I may. It's really hard to ignore his ridiculous scoring dominance in the RSL. It's pretty close to Howe level dominance for 10 years.

Who he was playing against matters. There's no doubt that there were some great Russians, but almost every one of them was playing with Makarov. As much as he dominated the Soviet League, he should have done the same on the international stage, right? Well, he didn't....

Speaking of 10 years primes and Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate went head to head with Howe during his prime, and he scored 96% as much as Howe.

 

[Dreakmur]

he BETTER not have him ahead of Cook!

You can only have so many wingers in the top-50, right? If he's top-50, he's either ahead of somebody like Cook, or there's way too many wingers.

 

[jarek]

Who he was playing against matters. There's no doubt that there were some great Russians, but almost every one of them was playing with Makarov. As much as he dominated the Soviet League, he should have done the same on the international stage, right? Well, he didn't....

Speaking of 10 years primes and Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate went head to head with Howe during his prime, and he scored 96% as much as Howe.

That's where intangibles really come into play for me. Out of all my searching and scraping, I found absolutely nothing on Bathgate other than he was a great scorer. I couldn't even confirm if he was really fast or not. Makarov was blazing fast, and he seemed to be respectable defensively (TDMM says Makarov was used on the PK a lot). Makarov is the kind of player who elevated his linemates to ridiculous heights because of how gifted he was offensively and what he did with those gifts. I don't think Bathgate really did that on quite the same level. Makarov basically created the K in the KLM line, as evidenced by his colossal failure when not playing with Makarov.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Who he was playing against matters. There's no doubt that there were some great Russians, but almost every one of them was playing with Makarov. As much as he dominated the Soviet League, he should have done the same on the international stage, right? Well, he didn't....

Makarov obviously wasn't close to as good as Gretzky or Lemieux, but he was as good as any other forward of the era on international ice. Incredibly small sample sizes though.

Speaking of 10 years primes and Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate went head to head with Howe during his prime, and he scored 96% as much as Howe.

What 10 year period are you using? Edit: If it's the same period that Henri Richard led the league in even strength points, Howe was just a bit past his scoring prime.

 

[jarek]

Who he was playing against matters. There's no doubt that there were some great Russians, but almost every one of them was playing with Makarov. As much as he dominated the Soviet League, he should have done the same on the international stage, right? Well, he didn't....

Speaking of 10 years primes and Gordie Howe, Andy Bathgate went head to head with Howe during his prime, and he scored 96% as much as Howe.

And 81% of his points per game. <3

 

[Dreakmur]

Makarov obviously wasn't close to as good as Gretzky or Lemieux, but he was as good as any other forward of the era on international ice. Incredibly small sample sizes though.

I'm not talking about leading tournaments, I'm talking about leading the Russian team. Makarov as the Soviet scoring leader was not very common.

What 10 year period are you using?

I'm using Bathgate's 10 year peak of 1956 to 1965.

This does exclude Howe's 4 straight scoring titles, but he still won 4 Hart Trophy's and 2 Art Ross Trophy's over this period. He was also a top-5 scorer as well as an all-star every year of this sample.

 

[seventieslord]

Can you explain to me why league scoring levels matters when I'm looking at Seibert within his own team in a vaccuum?

It's not hard, bro. League scores more, teams score more, players all score more. if his percentage of points didn't stay the same, then someone else would be taking that "share" of them.

If there were suddenly 92% more goals to go around for all players, then of course he's going to get points on his share of them. But it's plainly obvious that if there are 92% more goals than before, then goals are worth 48% less than they used to be. (100/192)

To put it yet another way, if every team scored about 75 more goals, then every player would have had, on average, a certain percentage more points. You could say the exact same thing about the majority of them, that you said about Seibert.

This is one of those things that I really just shouldn't get into you with. I've seen this before... Your next reply is probably going to drive me bonkers.

 

[Dreakmur]

And 81% of his points per game. <3

Nice try, but he actually played fewer games than Howe over that time.

96% of Points
97% of Points per Game

 

[jarek]

Nice try, but he actually played fewer games than Howe over that time.

96% of Points
97% of Points per Game

Whoops, nevermind. I was looking at goals.

 

[jarek]

It's not hard, bro. League scores more, teams score more, players all score more. if his percentage of points didn't stay the same, then someone else would be taking that "share" of them.

If there were suddenly 92% more goals to go around for all players, then of course he's going to get points on his share of them. But it's plainly obvious that if there are 92% more goals than before, then goals are worth 48% less than they used to be. (100/192)

To put it yet another way, if every team scored about 75 more goals, then every player would have had, on average, a certain percentage more points. You could say the exact same thing about the majority of them, that you said about Seibert.

This is one of those things that I really just shouldn't get into you with. I've seen this before... Your next reply is probably going to drive me bonkers.

Alright, I get what you're saying. Scoring levels rose, so his points would have naturally increased because of that. I get that. What I'm trying to say is, his overall contributions to offense remained consistent (around 18%), regardless of the year. As I showed, Clancy's varied widely for the two years that I looked at. The anecdotes back up my consistency theory.. I read a lot of quotes about him being a "consistent" scorer. What's even more impressive is the fact that he did this while being the only good defenseman on the team, by a very, very large margin.

Also, as far as overselling, I'm not overselling anything. I'm stating facts, it's up to you guys to take them however you want. This is about learning, right? Well, I'm trying to learn about my player from every angle possible. What's so wrong about that?

 

[Dreakmur]

Whoops, nevermind. I was looking at goals.

See why Bathgate's so good now?

 

[jarek]

See why Bathgate's so good now?

Sell me on his intangibles and I might consider him Makarov's equal.. MIGHT..

 

[overpass]

Catching up...

Love the Richard and Forsberg picks. Richard was my top forward back at 51, and Forsberg was right there.

I see Mark Howe was picked. I've done my share of arguing on his behalf in the past, it's nice to see him get recognition. Here are a couple of great newspaper articles that give you an idea of how he played, if anyone is interested.

Check out my Pronger bio. Highlights - Pronger's track record of team success, and a Lidstrom - Pronger comparison.

I've also updated the earlier post I made with adjusted stats for defencemen. Added numbers for Salming, Leetch, Lapointe, Howe, and Savard, and added a little analysis as well.

 

[Dreakmur]

Sell me on his intangibles and I might consider him Makarov's equal.. MIGHT..

He could beat the **** out of Makarov.... that's not in question, is it?