ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[BenchBrawl]

( EagleBelfour )

With our second selection, the 77th overall in this year draft, the Detroit Falcons are extremely please The Nokomis Flash

Elmer Lach, C

I'm very sad to have miss on Sergei Makarov. It's not the first time, nor will it be the last time that a fellow GM snatch a coveted player just before my turn. Move on ...

---

I still have a full biography, and things to learn on Lach, but in a couple points:

The good:
- Elmer Lach, even at this level, is an elite playmaker. He saw the ice as good as the very best, and he was recognize as one of the smartest player of his generation
- Lach was a strong and fast skater. Considering I want to use Harvey's strong transitional game and smart, Lach's speed and smart is a perfect combination
- Lach was a very good playoff performer through his career
- He was at the least a very fine defensive forward. Was he good, great or elite? I don't have the answer right and will looking for one
- Lach never was recognize as a physical force, but even at 5'9'', he was far from a pushover. He had great physical strength, especially from the hips down, which give him great balance on his skates and was hard to move
- A team player, a great leader
- Awards: Two Art Ross trophy (one during the War), 5 AS selection (One during the War), One Hart Trophy (during the War), but also 2nd and 3rd place finish

The Cons:
- Injury deprive Lach of a top-50 kind of career. He got some freak injuries, like a fractured skull, but also a broken jaw, cheekbone, arm and at last, a fractured legs which ended his career. He was the leading scorer in the 1946-47 season before another injury pried him away from a third Art Ross trophy

 

[BigDucky]

Was the next gm pm'ed?

 

[BenchBrawl]

I just did

 

[Sturminator]

Anyway, we have decided to go with

(On the Left)

Boris Mikhailov, RW

Nice recovery. In terms of "ATD value", I have Makarov and Mikhailov on about the same level, on account of Mikhailov's physicality and leadership, though I would place Makarov higher in an absolute sense on a top-100 list.

That's a sweet card. Mikhailov looks a lot like Clooney in that photo, and Esposito just strange.

 

[seventieslord]

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?

Well look at that, you didn't drive me bonkers. Kudos!

Yes, his offensive contributions relative to his team stayed the same. Honestly, I'd argue that his offensive contributions were less those years because they were war years with the talent level dropping, meaning it was more likely that he should have to take on a larger role. But he was also starting to age, so the way things went is probably exactly what one would expect.

I don't get the impression that you're just stating facts and trying to learn... that last stat was more "throwing it against the wall and seeing if it woult stick."

He spent most of his career on Ballard Leafs, an abomination of a franchise. He still had only three minus seasons - for .425, .381 and .300 (last overall) Leafs teams.

To add to this - I think this may be the first time I disagree with overpass, for two reasons:

1) if Salming was not playing the tough minutes, who on earth would have been?
2) Salming played a ton of minutes, an estimated 29.04 per game over his ten-year peak from 1975-1984. you simply can't play that many minutes without spending a significant amount of time against the opposition's best. It's really highly improbable that you can play 30 minutes and miss the 20-25 that the other team's superstars played. That's why I generally say for all intents and purposes, more minutes = harder minutes.s

I have Cook roughly equal to Jagr and ahead of Lafleur and Bossy... I have Makarov roughly equal to Lafleur and ahead of Bossy...

That's fair and defendable.

And for the love of god, people, update your roster posts! YEAH, I'M TALKING TO YOU SEVENTIES!!!

Just for that I'm waiting at least another week.

Teams that react are teams that lose...

Winning teams set the pace and make others follow.

I agree with this.

Hmmm ... why?

Damn you're so edgy since the start of this draft!

Yep, jarek's a spaz

Sorry guys but this threads over.

I think I just won HFboards.

For all you new GM's, consult ATD2010.

I was waiting to see your reaction to this. lol

I have it on good authority that teams without generational players don't affect point totals so Lapointe is among the best ever at ES too.

Did you ever think that Montrael was so good because they were so deep that a guy like Lapointe was actually their 3rd best defenseman?

Do you mind if I steal some of that for the bio I work up?

I think everyone can quit asking this, the answer is always yes. We are a team here, and no one's info is "proprietary", we don't hoard it.

A lot of people don't ask and just credit the original member. I don't even mind if they do that or not. Once I've put it together here, it becomes public property IMHO.

 

[BraveCanadian]

To add to this - I think this may be the first time I disagree with overpass, for two reasons:

1) if Salming was not playing the tough minutes, who on earth would have been?
2) Salming played a ton of minutes, an estimated 29.04 per game over his ten-year peak from 1975-1984. you simply can't play that many minutes without spending a significant amount of time against the opposition's best. It's really highly improbable that you can play 30 minutes and miss the 20-25 that the other team's superstars played.

Salming was definitely a beast on those Leaf teams.. even later on in his career he was really strong.

I was too young for a real good opinion of his absolute peak years but even when I was old enough to comprehend properly he was a damn good defenseman.

Did you ever think that Montrael was so good because they were so deep that a guy like Lapointe was actually their 3rd best defenseman?

I agree playing on a good team helps. That has been my point all along.

I think everyone can quit asking this, the answer is always yes. We are a team here, and no one's info is "proprietary", we don't hoard it.

I know he will say yes, I'm just being polite!

 

[arrbez]

Announcement

Gentlemen, I have some kinda crappy news:

I'll be working in Tanzania for a month, starting on the 12th of February. I already knew that, and it wasn't supposed to be an issue for the ATD because I was going to be in Dar es Salaam (the capital) with wireless internet where I was staying.

I've just learned that things have changed, and I'll be in a more rural area. There'll still be internet cafes, but I doubt I'll be able to spend time on this nightly like I was planning to. Honestly, I could be online every day, or I could be online like once a week. I have no idea.

So, basically, I think I need to find a co-GM. If anyone has any suggestions for people to ask, let me know.

Worst case scenario, I do the best I can by myself. If my internet connectivity is as sparse as I suspect it might be, I'll just let my turns get auto-skipped and I'll make my picks whenever I'm on.

So yeah, if you know anyone who could co-GM, let me know! I guess I have about a week to solve this, so hopefully I'll figure something out in that time.

 

[seventieslord]

OK, I have fixed the OP with updated picks, a team name change (Trinec Steelers are now Chicago Steelers), two username changes (Boy Wonder of course, and Anton Carter is now DaveG again) and fixed the trade that was mis-listed that TDMM mentioned yesterday.

please let me know if anything looks off.

 

[seventieslord]

I agree playing on a good team helps. That has been my point all along.

That's not what I said. I said he helped them be a good team. You made the implication that being on a good team made his point totals higher - which can be arguable but needs some actual proof. At this point, it is just as arguable that his point totals were hurt by being on the Habs, and would have been higher on a lesser team that would have given him 30 minutes a game because they had less depth. It can easily work both ways and until some sort of proof is shown, that theory should really be put to bed.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That's not what I said. I said he helped them be a good team. You made the implication that being on a good team made his point totals higher - which can be arguable but needs some actual proof. At this point, it is just as arguable that his point totals were hurt by being on the Habs, and would have been higher on a lesser team that would have given him 30 minutes a game because they had less depth. It can easily work both ways and until some sort of proof is shown, that theory should really be put to bed.

Actually overpass is the one who made a little note that his ES numbers were questionable because he played on the dynasty Habs as part of the Big 3. Strangely he didn't have the same note attached to Savard, who Lapointe was almost certainly better than offensively after Savards injuries, or Robinson.

Up, down.. whatever. The point is that the team can affect them. In this case they might be up because of the overwhelming nature of the team. They might be down because of their depth. Heck maybe in this unique case they cancel each other out.. who knows? We can't quantify it.

In Steven's case they were certainly down in large part due to the team's changing style of play and his role in that, as an example. As TDMM pointed out he basically got dropped from the PP for the most part to consrve himself for defensive play - not because he could no longer do it but because his role changed.

The players you play with, the role/responsibilities you have on your team, and the team's style of play definitely affect point totals.

Very difficult to decide where the break even point is between having overpowering depth and being relied upon more (and it probably varies a lot dependent on an individual's skills and how a team's style mesh) but it is certainly a factor to consider.

 

[jarek]

Well look at that, you didn't drive me bonkers. Kudos!

Yes, his offensive contributions relative to his team stayed the same. Honestly, I'd argue that his offensive contributions were less those years because they were war years with the talent level dropping, meaning it was more likely that he should have to take on a larger role. But he was also starting to age, so the way things went is probably exactly what one would expect.

I don't get the impression that you're just stating facts and trying to learn... that last stat was more "throwing it against the wall and seeing if it woult stick."

Well, I'm also just trying to test the field over what people think about certain stats here and there. And for what it's worth, I don't think age had anything to do with him getting less offense or whatever. By 1945, people were saying he was as good as he ever was, and that he had "many good years" left in him - then he retired.

I think by the '40s, hockey had started wearing on him. He left on a very bitter note because of the Shore incident, but I imagine that killing Morenz continued to weigh more and more heavily upon him. His son admitted that he never forgave himself for killing Morenz, even on his death bed.

One quote I did find about him is that coming into the 40s, he said he was "sick and tired" of playing second fiddle all the time (getting on the 2nd AST instead of 1st), so perhaps he was trying to improve his game (not necessarily offensively, although I'd argue that he did improve offensively slightly). A quick look at GA figures for those years: in 42-43, Blackhawks allowed 180 goals, which was exactly the league average at the time, and in 43-44, they allowed 187, which was less than the league average of 204. Back to those previous years, in 33-34, the Ranges allowed 113 GA compared to league average of 115, and in 34-35, they allowed 139 to league average of 120. Obviously, there are many factors involved here, but considering that Seibert was his team's #1 defenseman all the time (and thus played 60 minute hockey, basically), and that the Rangers goalie at the time was a hell of a lot better than the guy Chicago had (at least to my knowledge), I'd say over his career that Seibert improved his defensive game more and more. I guess you'll call this a stretch or whatever, but I think it's pretty interesting.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Lapointe was a star regardless of his teammates.He was easily a n.1 defenseman talent and the best offensive defenseman on those habs team , even if Robinson wasn't bad , it's clear Lapointe was the real puckmoving defenseman.

 

[jarek]

I would also argue that those Rangers teams Seibert played for were a lot better than the Chicago teams he ever played for, even considering the war. I mean, there were like 2 good ATD forwards on the Chicago team.. the Rangers team had no less than 4, and at least *4* ATD calibre defensemen. So the fact that the Rangers teams allowed more goals against (compared to league average) and were 2nd in scoring both years, and the fact those Chicago teams were worse offensively (in the case of 43-44, much worse), but better defensively relative to the league, I'd say that makes things look pretty damn good for war years Seibert.

I think the reason for this is likely because Seibert played less minutes for the Rangers because there were better players on the team than in Chicago. His coach in Chicago basically said he played 60 minute hockey for them. AT THE VERY LEAST.. this is something to think about in terms of his defensive impact.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Anyway, we have decided to go with

Boris Mikhailov, RW

Very nice pick, I had him #2 on my list, behind Lach. Do you plan on putting Lemieux with Mikhailov? I see Mikhailov as a very good finisher when there's someone who can feed him the puck. I don't think Lemieux is the right guy.

The reason I decided on Lach over Mikhailov is also that I'm unsure if Mikhailov had the wheel that Lach owns (Havn't found evidence, I definitely can be wrong).Also, second time in a row that Makarov and Mikhailov goes back-to-back. People miss on Makarov and then turn on the net best thing that comes out of Russia!

Thank You for announcing my pick Reen. Lach is by no means a steal at this point, just a good player that should be taken around this spot. I could have gone different way, as there's a bunch of forward that are about equal in value. However, Lach fits the style I want my team to have and complement Harvey's wit and transition play very well.

I should be back in about 10 hours. Hopefully I can pick again tomorrow.

 

[Dwight]

We plan to use Mikhailov to anchor our 2nd line. Lemieux is good enough to take lesser wingers and make them better.

 

[seventieslord]

Up, down.. whatever. The point is that the team can affect them. In this case they might be up because of the overwhelming nature of the team. They might be down because of their depth. Heck maybe in this unique case they cancel each other out.. who knows? We can't quantify it.

That's pretty much my point. I don't think we can quantify it, but IF we can, meaning it exists, we should try to quantify it. You should be the one spearheading this endeavor if you believe in it so strongly. You make it sound like it should be obvious but no quantification has yet been provided. And if it hasn't, and no one else sees it as significant enough to study, why should it hold any importance with us? You act like it's cut and dried most often, as though good teams' players' totals need to be bumped down and poor team players up. it's not even close to that simple, there's so much more at play, and if you know this, why do you push that issue so much?

Well, I'm also just trying to test the field over what people think about certain stats here and there. And for what it's worth, I don't think age had anything to do with him getting less offense or whatever. By 1945, people were saying he was as good as he ever was, and that he had "many good years" left in him - then he retired.

Yep, sounds like "throwing it at the wall and seeing if it sticks", to me!

As for 1944 and 1945, maybe he did have some good years left. But also he'd have looked a lot more dominant (and was more dominant) against that poor class of players.

 

[seventieslord]

We plan to use Mikhailov to anchor our 2nd line. Lemieux is good enough to take lesser wingers and make them better.

I would do the same thing.

 

[vecens24]

Not sure if arrbez put this on another thread or what, but I'll be co-GMing with him.

 

[overpass]

Re: my comments on Salming and Lapointe's ES numbers. In both cases I was referring to their adjusted plus-minus.

Lapointe's adjusted plus-minus was worse than any other defenceman drafted so far. But I don't hold that against him much, because it's implicitly comparing him to Savard and Robinson a lot of the time. The extreme team context makes it hard to know how much stock to put in the on/off ice numbers. It's also hard to know how much to credit Lapointe for his team's awesome special teams, but he did have the largest role of any player on special teams.

I said I thought Savard was better at ES. That's not just from the numbers - I know playing with Robinson probably helped his numbers. He has a better defensive reputation than Lapointe, and was also a tremendous skater and puckmover.

Salming's plus-minus numbers (both raw numbers and compared to teammates) are weird. They were awesome from about 1974 to 1980. OK up to about 1983. And then they were terrible for a couple of years. I could be reading too much into this, because plus-minus can have a lot of random variation, but there really looks like a trend.

Possible causes of the trend:
1. Salming's game was declining. In support of this, he never made a postseason all-star team after 1980, he took a lot of heat from the papers in the early 1980s for turnovers and not being strong enough along the boards, and his GM who was being pushed out of Toronto at that time slammed him pretty hard in his book, saying Toronto couldn't win with him as a #1 defenceman. I think Salming certainly declined to some degree around this time.

2. Salming started playing tougher minutes around 1983. Around this time the Leafs had drafted some offensively talented defencemen and brought them up to the NHL. So looking at the seasons in which Salming went -34 and -26, he was probably playing pretty heavy defensive minutes with all those kids around. That implies that he was not playing heavy defensive minutes earlier, at least not like a Stevens, Chelios, or Lidstrom - so I would take that into account when comparing his plus-minus numbers to theirs.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The Chicago Steelers are going to select Sergei Fedorov.

(I am at work and just popped in to make this pick, can someone please PM the next GM for me?)

 

[BigDucky]

The Detroit Riots select Marcel Dionne.

 

[Derick*]

Ah hell. I wanted Fedorov.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hey overpass thanks for adding the info on Lapointe!

He looks like he at the very least holds his own in that company, and like you said, especially on special teams.

I guess both his and Savard's ES totals have to be taken with a small grain of salt since the Montreal team was so strong vs. its competition those years imo.. oh wait! I have it on good authority that teams without generational players don't affect point totals so Lapointe is among the best ever at ES too.

Do you mind if I steal some of that for the bio I work up?

Strength of forwards definitely affects defenseman scoring numbers - more than the numbers of other forwards from the team. This is more observation than anything else.

I will make our pick, but first, a story...about a young man with a dream, and how those dreams were crushed by an evil, evil man

Hilarious. Looks like 3 GMs in a row all had designs on Makarov. Lucky Nayld.

By the way, Mikhailov is a solid consolation pick. I don't think he's as good as Makarov, but he's probably easier to build around.

 

[Velociraptor]

I will make our pick, but first, a story...about a young man with a dream, and how those dreams were crushed by an evil, evil man

Although nice pick with Mikhailov, I'm not the most familiar with both players, but I know that Mikhailov was a huge piece of that Summit Series squad, and his play and presence in some of those games were exceptional, not a huge drop off from Makarov. Fairly comparable players, maybe with Makarov's explosiveness he gets a slight nod, but you still get a great offensively blessed Russian, with many capabilities.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Lapointe was a star regardless of his teammates.He was easily a n.1 defenseman talent and the best offensive defenseman on those habs team , even if Robinson wasn't bad , it's clear Lapointe was the real puckmoving defenseman.

From what I've read, Robinson was at least as good as Lapointe, maybe better at moving the puck at even strength.

Lapointe was definitely the primary PP QB.