ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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.

Ugh that sucks, arrbez. Silly you, putting a job in front of the ATD.

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

Welcome aboard. There are definitely worse ways to be introduced to the ATD than co-GMing with one of the best and seemingly most easygoing GMs we have.

 

[seventieslord]

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.

PP ice time is a much bigger determinant, of course. Strength of forwards on the ice with the defenseman also helps. Strength of the team in general, well, I'm still waiting.

 

[Sturminator]

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 don't follow your logic, at all.

 

[Derick*]

Sid Abel is one of the most underrecognized elite players in the history of the game.

The fourth highest-scoring player of the six season period of 1946-47 to 1951-52, behind only Maurice Richard and Abel's linemates Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay, some may consider Sid Abel's numbers to be a product of his legendary teammates. Those who had the privilege to watch him, however, didn't. In fact, they saw fit to give him the Hart trophy as league-wide MVP in 1949, and put him on the post-season all-star team four times, two first and two second. This in an era where he had to compete simultaneously with three of the greatest forwards of all time.

He started his career as a left-wing and captained the Detroit Red Wings to a Stanley Cup in 1943, before Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay even made it to the scene. Once Howe and Lindsay had the opportunity to join Abel, he centered perhaps the most dangerous scoring line of all time, Detroit's famous "Production Line," under the strength of which the Red Wings would win two more Stanley Cups. As the center, he was most likely responsible for most of the non-offensive duties while this line was in action, and put up spectacular numbers regardless. History may remember Howe and Lindsay's names first, but in the year this line was put together, it was Abel who was given the Hart trophy by those who saw them play. Abel was the backbone to the legendary line, and one of the most dangerous players in the game as part of or without it.

​

Born on February 22, 1918 in Melville, Saskatchewan, Sidney Gerald (Sid) Abel began his NHL career in 1938 with the Detroit Red Wings. He spent nine full seasons and parts of two others in a Detroit uniform.

He was the first player to attain All-Star status at two different positions, center and left wing. He won the Hart Trophy as the league's most valuable player in the 1948-49 season. He was named captain of the Wings at the young age of 24. Sid's leadership was an integral part of the Wings 1943, 1950 and 1952 Stanley Cup winning teams.

Sid established himself as one of the league's great centers on Detroit's legendary Production Line. On that line, Sid centered two other future Hall of Famers - Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay.

Sid Abel excelled in a number of capacities during his extended hockey career. On the ice, he was an accomplished playmaking center and team leader who contributed to three Stanley Cup championships in Detroit.

In only his second full NHL season, he averaged more than a point per game playing on the Liniment Line with Don Grosso and Eddie Wares and was selected to the NHL Second All-Star Team. Abel's excellence contributed to the Wings' Stanley Cup championship run in the 1943 playoffs. That year he also served as the team's captain at the age of 24.

In 1946-47, he was teamed with wingers Gordie Howe and Ted Lindsay for the first time. The line clicked and began to dominate opposing defenses. In 1948-49, they were dubbed the "Production Line." Abel led all Detroit scorers and was the recipient of the Hart Trophy--only the second Detroit player so honored after Ebbie Goodfellow, in 1940. The next year, Abel set career highs with 34 goals and 69 points. That same year, Lindsay, Abel, and Howe finished 1-2-3 in the NHL scoring parade and the Red Wings won the Stanley Cup.

Along the way, Abel picked up the nickname "Boot Nose" after he taunted Maurice Richard and paid for his insult with a punch that broke his nose. Abel topped the 60-point mark for the second time in his career in 1950-51, then earned his third Stanley Cup ring with Detroit in the 1952 post-season.

That's why the San Jose Sharks are proud to select with the 80th overall pick, Sid Abel.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I'll be working in Tanzania for a month, starting on the 12th of February.

Are you going to climb Mount Kilimanjaro? Looking to do that at some point this year.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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?

It is obvious to anyone who plays sports that playing with better players makes their job easier.

It is obvious to anyone who watches a game that a successful team featuring better players or superior chemistry (or both) is better.

It is not obvious how to measure each individuals weight in a team endeavour as complex as hockey. It isn't obvious how you measure players chemistry together. It isn't obvious how to measure how a team playing a particular way can become greater than the sum of its parts.

This isn't baseball. Hockey stats are relatively horrible at describing the actual situations that happened. Like, so bad that they basically don't at all.

I can easily turn your question around and say that if you acknowledge there are many factors in play (which I obviously do), and I think pretty much anyone who compares the games of baseball and hockey would have to admit that the statistics available are of the simplistic variety in hockey and at the same time that hockey features more complex play.. why do you place so much weight on making sweeping conclusions based completely on those statistics without ever having seen the player?

 

[Derick*]

Bobby Orr. Dominik Hasek. Mario Lemieux. These are the types of names people think of when the subject of dominant peaks comes up. If the purpose of the HoH board is to bridge the gap of time, however, then one of our major goals should be to make it so that the name Bill Durnan is remembered with those.

Bill Durnan played seven seasons in the NHL. It may not sound like a long career to you, but to an athlete like Durnan, it was enough. Enough to win six Vezina trophies. While the last three of his Vezina trophies were given at a time when it was based on your team's goals against, he also won first team post-season all star each of those three seasons (and six times in his career). By the consensus method of substituting first ASTs for Vezinas in seasons where the Vezina was a team award, Bill Durnan (6) is tied with Dominik Hasek (6) for second only to Glen Hall (7) in most Vezina wins.

Before a rule-change made it impossible, Bill Durnan served time as captain of the Montreal Canadiens, and was considered as safe and reliable a leader in the dressing room as he was in net, leading the Habs to two Stanley Cups, one in 1944 and one in 1946.

That first season the Canadiens had the offensive services of the Punch Line - Elmer Lach, Rocket Richard and Toe Blake - but it was the often spectacular play of Durnan that took Montreal back to the Stanley Cup after 13 years of frustration. He led the league in games played, wins and goals-against average in the regular season and in the playoffs, when he allowed only 1.53 goals per game as the Canadiens skated to the title. Durnan was awarded the Vezina Trophy, the first rookie to win the award, and was selected to the league's First All-Star Team.

It's hard to imagine a better four-year introduction to the NHL than Durnan's. He won the Vezina Trophy for the four consecutive seasons and cemented himself on the First All-Star Team. Montreal won the Stanley Cup again in 1946 and finished first in the league after the regular season each year. Durnan suffered his only losing season in 1947-48. For the first and only time, he didn't lead the league in goals -against average and Montreal missed the playoffs. Broda, with the powerhouse Maple Leafs, took Durnan's spot on the First All-Star Team and had his name engraved on the Vezina Trophy as well as the Stanley Cup. Durnan returned to his winning ways in 1948-49, setting a modern league record with a shutout streak that lasted over 309 minutes and four games. In the next two seasons he was once again the best goalie in the league.

Bill Durnan had a short but absolutely brilliant career with the Montreal Canadiens.

Durnan had a very peculiar trait that helped him excel: he was ambidextrous. Instead of wearing a blocker, he would wear modified gloves on both hands. He would then switch which hand he used to hold the stick depending on which side of the rink the opposition was attacking from. Thus, the shooter would always be facing his big catching glove. He became known as Dr. Strange-Glove.

It wasn't a natural thing for Durnan though. A natural rightie, he worked very hard at it under the tutelage of church league coach Steve Faulkner.

"His idea of switching the stick hand really impressed me when I played against better teams, since the goalie always keeps his catching hand out toward the big part of the net," said Durnan. "At first it felt as though I was transferring a telephone pole from one hand to the other, but after a while I'd hardly realize I was doing it. Soon I noticed the opposition was unaware that I was switching hands, and later on when I was in the NHL it often took years before the other guys knew I was ambidextrous."

This is why the San Jose Sharks are proud to select, with the 81st overall pick, Bill Durnan.

 

[BraveCanadian]

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.

I think there might be an easy explanation for this one:

The Leafs weren't half bad in the mid to late 70s compared the Mickey Mouse show that started in the early 80s and got progressively worse.

 

[seventieslord]

It is obvious to anyone who plays sports that playing with better players makes their job easier.

It is obvious to anyone who watches a game that a successful team featuring better players or superior chemistry (or both) is better.

You're stating the obvious right now. But you're not saying anything about "it makes their offensive stats better" - have you backed off from that stance? Because that's the only thing I had a problem with.

I can easily turn your question around and say that if you acknowledge there are many factors in play (which I obviously do), and I think pretty much anyone who compares the games of baseball and hockey would have to admit that the statistics available are of the simplistic variety in hockey and at the same time that hockey features more complex play.. why do you place so much weight on making sweeping conclusions based completely on those statistics without ever having seen the player?

Talk about "sweeping conclusions"...

have you seen any of my player bios? I don't make stuff up out of thin air, you know.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Talk about "sweeping conclusions"...

have you seen any of my player bios? I don't make stuff up out of thin air, you know.

Well I do remember some dandies like 168 point Wayne Gretzky who had around 100 ES points not being a positive impact on the Kings and other such gems.. yeah.. is right..

You're stating the obvious right now. But you're not saying anything about "it makes their offensive stats better" - have you backed off from that stance? Because that's the only thing I had a problem with.

I think it can affect a player's totals either way.. after all I did give Stevens as an example of team factors working to lower totals too.

 

[Derick*]

Well I do remember some dandies like 168 point Wayne Gretzky who had around 100 ES points not being a positive impact on the Kings and other such gems.. yeah.. is right..



I think it can affect a player's totals either way.. after all I did give Stevens as an example of team factors working to lower totals too.

Except that's far from what he said.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Except that's far from what he said.

I guess that would depend on the definition. The statistic he used basically said the Kings were roughly as good with Gretzky on the ice as they were without him.

It ended up in a very similar debate to this one trying to equate team stats to individual performance and no one has any numbers to figure out the weighting on those.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

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.

You don't think Lemieux is capable of getting him the puck?

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Say it ain't so 7 straight selections with no defenceman...

 

[BenchBrawl]

He probably thinks Lemieux would keep it too often and make play on his own , even if he will pass him often and make plays to him , his importance and impact will be diminished.

 

[overpass]

Mikhailov seems like a good fit with Lemieux. While Mikhailov was good with the puck, he was also good off the puck. He wasn't the primary puck-carrier and playmaker on his line. Lemieux should have the puck the most (unless he has Gretzky setting him up), so Mikhailov should work well for him. Maybe better than, say, a player like Makarov who was more puck-dominant.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Mikhailov seems like a good fit with Lemieux. While Mikhailov was good with the puck, he was also good off the puck. He wasn't the primary puck-carrier and playmaker on his line. Lemieux should have the puck the most (unless he has Gretzky setting him up), so Mikhailov should work well for him. Maybe better than, say, a player like Makarov who was more puck-dominant.

I agree Mikhailov also has some real grit to him and is a guy that Lemieux needs. Someone who will go into the corner and battle for pucks.

 

[seventieslord]

Well I do remember some dandies like 168 point Wayne Gretzky who had around 100 ES points not being a positive impact on the Kings and other such gems.. yeah.. is right..

Except, as Cognition said, that's not what I was arguing. Yes, their results were barely better with Gretzky on the ice, and this was explained by other factors, such as ENG, partially, but not completely. The thread was very enlightening for all, including you, even if you don't care to admit it.

I think it can affect a player's totals either way.. after all I did give Stevens as an example of team factors working to lower totals too.

There's nothing wrong with the Stevens example. But that's taking it down to the micro level. I don't have a problem with that. But correct me if I'm wrong, you've made sweeping statements in the past like "yeah, but he played on the dynasty habs which inflated his numbers". Those statements I don't agree with. You could say "yeah, but he played on the same line as Lafleur which inflated his numbers"

Have I just misinterpreted your viewpoint? is this really all about linemates? Because linemates of course make a big difference for most players.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Just finished my bio on Henri Richard. It's probably my most thorough bio yet:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=30659601&postcount=34

Edit: If you only read one of my bios this year, read this one.

If you only read one section of this bio, read the section on toughness, very impressive, and I'm not sure it's all that well known how Henri was treated even more brutally than a normal rookie because of who his brother was. (It's not the most important part of what makes the player, but I find it fascinating).

 

[Hedberg]

fixed the trade that was mis-listed that TDMM mentioned yesterday.

I thought I had fixed that. Sorry.

 

[jarek]

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.

1. And what's wrong with that? Should we all act like drones and follow the same old **** that happens every draft? Is it cancerous to try to introduce new concepts?

2. I'm not sure how much more dominant he COULD have looked. The defensemen that were scoring a ton of points were scoring those points on much, much stronger offensive teams, and therefore had more opportunity. Don't even pretend that anyone but the most elite players weren't absolutely helped in their offensive production by being on better teams.

I don't follow your logic, at all.

Alright, basically, the Rangers teams he played on were better than the Chicago teams, BY FAR. However, while those Rangers teams scored a lot more goals, they also ALLOWED more relative to the rest of the league. Now, those Rangers teams had at least 4 elite defensemen, so it's logical to think that their ice times were pretty even, right?

When Seibert went to Chicago, he joined a much worse offensive team, but because he was basically the only good defenseman, he probably played most of the game. Would you refute that? His coach said that he played 55 minutes a game, and it is rather well known that the most elite players did play most of the game in that era. Now, those Chicago teams allowed, on average, FEWER goals against compared to the league goals against average. And while their offense was LOWER compared to the rest of the league than those Rangers teams, Seibert still contributed the same ratio of offense on either team.

To me, this says that he was actually extremely strong defensively, while still maintaining a very high level of offense. When you consider how low scoring his teams were over his entire career, and that the defensemen who were outscoring him were doing that on much better offensive teams, his offensive resume actually looks rather impressive. One man can only do so much offensively, and based on the anecdotes, it really sounded like he was the beginning and the end of the offense for Chicago. One quote said he was basically carrying the team on his back.

 

[overpass]

Just finished my bio on Henri Richard. It's probably my most thorough bio yet:

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=30659601&postcount=34

Great bio. Henri Richard was a fascinating player.

Nice to see the quotes from some of the longtime hockey observers around here. I've learned a lot from them and IMO they are as credible as a lot of the quotes from books and newspapers that get posted. Of course it's always good to have quotes from NHL managers, coaches, and players, and there's no shortage of those with Henri Richard.

I'm interested to see if you use Henri on more of an offensive line (like what he played with Dickie Moore and Maurice) or on a defensive line (like what he played later in the 60s). Of course he'll be a strong two-way player in any situation.

I have a bit of a soft spot for Henri Richard because he's one player that made me think I should pay more attention to the conventional wisdom. Back during the first HOH top 100 debates there were some people arguing that Richard was merely a supporting player on a dynasty, and I was sympathetic to the argument. But after I compiled the even strength scoring numbers and discussed it a bit, I realized Henri Richard was probably all that. The old-timers were right all along.

 

[Reds4Life]

Chicago Steelers are estatic to select another defenseman - Valeri Vasiliev.

 

[BigDucky]

Detroit Riots select Jack Stewart

 

[seventieslord]

1. And what's wrong with that? Should we all act like drones and follow the same old **** that happens every draft? Is it cancerous to try to introduce new concepts?

2. I'm not sure how much more dominant he COULD have looked. The defensemen that were scoring a ton of points were scoring those points on much, much stronger offensive teams, and therefore had more opportunity. Don't even pretend that anyone but the most elite players weren't absolutely helped in their offensive production by being on better teams.

1. it just seems kind of counterproductive (and maybe even destructive) to take the following approach to selling one of your players:

"Here's an interesting stat about him"
"actually, that doesn't have any merit because ____"
"oh, ok. Well, what about this? _______"
"nope. not sold. Because ________"
"oh. Well, There still is the matter of ________"
"Yeah, but _________ so that doesn't change anything"
"ok, then what about this?_______"

and so on.

That's what this feels like right now.

2. Just like any dominant player in the 1943 or 1944 season, if the league was better stocked, they'd all look a little or a lot less dominant. This is far from a cricticism of Seibert, it's just a fact.

If we're to believe your theory (that you supposedly backed off from last night) then we're to believe Seibert was just a team change away from putting up King Clancy or Eddie Shore numbers. That's not a defendable position. While you have showed that Seibert clearly could play an offensive style, the same quotes could be found on the other two, and conventional wisdom had them ahead to begin with, not to mention they actually produced more. If you really think that "percentage of team's points" is a good way to judge an offensive total, then take a look at the 1992-93 season and tell us who the league's best offensive defenseman is. Don't worry about naming this undrafted player. We won't mind

I realized Henri Richard was probably all that. The old-timers were right all along.

well... sorta. I don't think anyone would still rank him in the 20s, which is where the THN list had him.