ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[DoMakc]

And the most of the quoted players/coaches are undrafted.

 

[Sturminator]

Ovechkin's team, yes. An individual can do only so much.

This is your answer to the vast difference in playoff resume? That's real nice. Maybe you can get Andy Bathgate's owner to agree with you? Oh wait...no. Bathgate actually scored the Cup clinching goal for the Leafs once, so even his playoff record easily trumps Ovechkin's. Lack of opportunity is part of a player's legacy, like it or not.

Which is precisely why I think Kharlamov is tied with Lindsay for 2nd best LW.

And what of Frank Mahovlich, whose offensive peak is only slightly below Ovechkin's, but lasted twice as long? The guy is a nine time all-star, you know. He was also the leading scorer on Cup winners in Toronto and Montreal. Is he worse than Ovechkin because of a small (and it is small) difference in peak offensive value? Of course not. Ovechkin is not in the conversation for the top-4 left wings of all time. The highest any sane person could possibly have him is 5th.

Have you forgotten Ovechkin's Rocket Richard trophies?

Have you forgotten that the Richard Trophy did not exist during Moore's career (the Rocket was still playing), and that if it had, Dickie would have won one? Dickie also led the league in assists, but there is no trophy for that. Perhaps we should just make one up and give Dickie that trophy? I get the feeling you would do so if Ovechkin had ever led the league in assists. I mean, honestly...you tried using the Kharlamov Trophy as an argument. The Kharlamov Trophy?! I'm going to stop before I insult you.

As for the competition argument, Ovechkin is competing with more players than Moore. It is arguable at best that Moore faced tougher competition.

Actually, I may agree with you there. Dickie Moore's peak came at a time when the league had gotten a bit soft outside of Montreal. Detroit was strong and there were Bathgate and Gadsby in New York, but Boston, Chicago and Toronto were a mess. So you may have a point there, but then again, none of Ovechkin's competition at present is at the Howe/Bathgate level, and Moore's own team was so stacked that it probably hurt him in the Hart voting. Dickie's peak years on weaker teams probably would have yielded him a Hart or two, as they did for Bathgate.

Moore dominated the scoring?

Top10 finishes in scoring
Moore: 1,1,8,8
Ovechkin: 1, 2, 3, 3

Yes, Ovechkin's 3rd and 4th best seasons are better than Moore's, but have you forgotten that in Moore's best season he broke the all-time scoring record? Ovechkin hasn't gotten within 100 points of it.

I don't even have to post Hart trophy voting and it's apparent that Ovechkin is the better offensive player.

I shouldn't have to point out again the hypocricy of your dismissal of Kharlamov's MVP voting record and simultaneous flaunting of Ovechkin's. Your positions are transparently self-serving.

Of course Moore's credentials in playoffs are more impressive, but that does not make him a better player.

Moore's playoff credentials, and the fact that he was a much more well-rounded player, and the fact that his two best seasons was actually better than Ovechkin's...yeah, all of that counts for more than Ovechkin's better offensive performance in his 3rd and 4th best seasons. I mean, really man...do you actually believe that Ovie's 1, 2, 3, 3 is so much better than Moore's 1, 1 (*all time record*), 8, 8 that it outweighs everything else Moore has on his side?

 

[DoMakc]

Actually, I may agree with you there. Dickie Moore's peak came at a time when the league had gotten a bit soft outside of Montreal. Detroit was strong and there were Bathgate and Gadsby in New York, but Boston, Chicago and Toronto were a mess. So you may have a point there, but then again, none of Ovechkin's competition at present is at the Howe/Bathgate level, and Moore's own team was so stacked that it probably hurt him in the Hart voting. Dickie's peak years on weaker teams probably would have yielded him a Hart or two, as they did for Bathgate.

Ovechkin has(d?) the luxury of dominating pretty weak Southeast division. Moore played on much deeper team and didn't get so much quality icetime, had much more defencive responsibilities.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yes, Ovechkin's 3rd and 4th best seasons are better than Moore's, but have you forgotten that in Moore's best season he broke the all-time scoring record? Ovechkin hasn't gotten within 100 points of it.

Don't get me wrong , I pretty much agree with all your post and I'm far from an ovechkin fan , but there's something really wrong with this part.

 

[Reds4Life]

This is your answer to the vast difference in playoff resume? That's real nice. Maybe you can get Andy Bathgate's owner to agree with you? Oh wait...no. Bathgate actually scored the Cup clinching goal for the Leafs once, so even his playoff record easily trumps Ovechkin's. Lack of opportunity is part of a player's legacy, like it or not.

Ehm, I only said that Ovechkin is good in playoffs. His scoring goes UP in the playoffs. He was part of 45, 45 and 51% of his teams goals in the playoffs. In all his playoffs, he was top4 in playoff PPG every year he's made playoffs. That's it, I do not claim his playoff legacy beats Moore's.

And what of Frank Mahovlich, whose offensive peak is only slightly below Ovechkin's, but lasted twice as long? The guy is a nine time all-star, you know. He was also the leading scorer on Cup winners in Toronto and Montreal. Is he worse than Ovechkin because of a small (and it is small) difference in peak offensive value? Of course not. Ovechkin is not in the conversation for the top-4 left wings of all time. The highest any sane person could possibly have him is 5th.

What about Mahovlich? I never even mentioned him. He's probably ahead of Ovechkin.

Have you forgotten that the Richard Trophy did not exist during Moore's career (the Rocket was still playing), and that if it had, Dickie would have won one? Dickie also led the league in assists, but there is no trophy for that. Perhaps we should just make one up and give Dickie that trophy? I get the feeling you would do so if Ovechkin had ever led the league in assists.

Ovechkin still has more Rockets in less seasons.

I mean, honestly...you tried using the Kharlamov Trophy as an argument. The Kharlamov Trophy?! I'm going to stop before I insult you.

Are you kidding me? I merely listed that as his award, I've never used is as an argument, I'd like to you to stop making stuff up.

Actually, I may agree with you there. Dickie Moore's peak came at a time when the league had gotten a bit soft outside of Montreal. Detroit was strong and there were Bathgate and Gadsby in New York, but Boston, Chicago and Toronto were a mess. So you may have a point there, but then again, none of Ovechkin's competition at present is at the Howe/Bathgate level, and Moore's own team was so stacked that it probably hurt him in the Hart voting. Dickie's peak years on weaker teams probably would have yielded him a Hart or two, as they did for Bathgate.

I'll just quote Nalyd Psycho:
http://hfboards.com/archive/index.php/t-642108.html

Dickie Moore was never in a high pressure playoff game. There was never a game where Dickie Moore had to step up or Montreal lost. Their entire top 6 is in the hall of fame. If not Moore then Beliveau, Geoffrion, Richard and Richard are all able to step up and single handedly win, not to mention Harvey and Plante. And also, the competition was a bit of a joke back then. Chicago was finally getting out of it's mess but everyone on the team was past or before their prime. Toronto was in a slow rebuild. New York had a couple stars but was thinner then paper. Boston was a solid team but had no stars. Detroit had a great core but was failing to use it without Ivan, Detroit was the only team that could reasonably beat them without it being a choke job.

Ovechkin on the other hand, last night he had to step up and win the game for his team. Did he fail? Yes. But Varlamov/Theodore was not Jacques Plante. Dickie Moore was never in that kind of situation. (Except in St. Louis where he was comming out of retirement to play for an expansion team, no one would have been leaning on him.) And was Ovechkin somehow not clutch? No. He had a 1.5 ppg in the playoffs (1.39 in the regular season.) and hit 20 points in 2 rounds. That is an elite playoff performance.

Yes, Ovechkin's 3rd and 4th best seasons are better than Moore's, but have you forgotten that in Moore's best season he broke the all-time scoring record? Ovechkin hasn't gotten within 100 points of it.

His two best seasons are also better than Moore's.
Moore broke out scoring record, which no longer stands.
Ovechkin scored the most goals by left winger..ever.

I shouldn't have to point out again the hypocricy of your dismissal of Kharlamov's MVP voting record and simultaneous flaunting of Ovechkin's. Your positions are transparently self-serving.

It's not my problem you take every piece of information mentioned in a different post as evidence or argument.

Moore's playoff credentials, and the fact that he was a much more well-rounded player, and the fact that his two best seasons was actually better than Ovechkin's...yeah, all of that counts for more than Ovechkin's better offensive performance in his 3rd and 4th best seasons. I mean, really man...do you actually believe that Ovie's 1, 2, 3, 3 is so much better than Moore's 1, 1 (*all time record*), 8, 8 that it outweighs everything else Moore has on his side?

Moore's top10s are less impressive since he played in a much smaller league. There are 30 teams now, only 6 back then.
In my opinion Ovechkin's two best seasons are better than Moore's.

 

[Sturminator]

I'll just quote Nalyd Psycho:

Interestingly, in that thread most people seemed to agree that Ovechkin is behind Moore due to lack of playoff resume and all-around play. Ovechkin has added another very good season (though 09-10 was not as dominant as the two previous years) to his resume since then, but I doubt the people in that thread who sided with Moore would change their minds solely on the basis of last year.

His two best seasons are also better than Moore's.
Moore broke out scoring record, which no longer stands.
Ovechkin scored the most goals by left winger..ever.

Are you serious? You think breaking the left wing goal scoring record is more impressive than breaking the points record for all players?

It's not my problem you take every piece of information mentioned in a different post as evidence or argument.

What?! You made an argument against Kharlamov and then a contradictory argument against Moore...and now you're getting butthurt because I've pointed out your inconsistency. You have got to be kidding me.

 

[Reds4Life]

Interestingly, in that thread most people seemed to agree that Ovechkin is behind Moore due to lack of playoff resume and all-around play. Ovechkin has added another very good season (though 09-10 was not as dominant as the two previous years) to his resume since then, but I doubt the people in that thread who sided with Moore would change their minds solely on the basis of last year.

Doesn't matter, in any case Ovechkin is close to Moore, whether you have him ahead or behind is another question. But you (or someone else in this thread) made it sound like Ovechkin never got past 2nd round because he sucks in playoffs.

Are you serious? You think breaking the left wing goal scoring record is more impressive than breaking the points record for all players?

Would Moore break Gretzky's record? The fact that he broke scoring record X decades ago is nice, but it is no longer even close to a record. Ovechkin can't break all time scoring record, because there is only one Wayne. What he did is that he scored more goals than any other left winger ever. Record that still stands.

What?! You made an argument against Kharlamov and then a contradictory argument against Moore...and now you're getting butthurt because I've pointed out your inconsistency. You have got to be kidding me.

I only said "where are Kharlamov's playoff heroics". Kharlamov was the best, but he was not tearing up the league in scoring.

Moore won the scoring title twice and added two 8th places (in a 6 team league) and you called that "dominating". When in fact he played on a stacked team, and he was not considered the best player as evidenced by the Hart voting.

You have to be kidding me with the Kharlamov trophy, which I never used as argument yet you claimed I did.

 

[Sturminator]

Don't get me wrong , I pretty much agree with all your post and I'm far from an ovechkin fan , but there's something really wrong with this part.

What, the fact that Ovechkin has barely half of Gretzky's total? Sure...that was a bit unfair. But then again, Ovie is still 20 points shy of the greatest defenseman of that era.

 

[BraveCanadian]

The Guelph Platers use their 3rd pick to select two time Vezina winner and five time Stanley Cup champion: Turk Broda

 

[Reds4Life]

What, the fact that Ovechkin has barely half of Gretzky's total? Sure...that was a bit unfair. But then again, Ovie is still 20 points shy of the greatest defenseman of that era.

And the point is? It's like saying Ovechkin outscored Moore so Ovechkin > Moore.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Jarek select LW Cyrill Denneny

 

[Sturminator]

Doesn't matter, in any case Ovechkin is close to Moore, whether you have him ahead or behind is another question. But you (or someone else in this thread) made it sound like Ovechkin never got past 2nd round because he sucks in playoffs.

That wasn't me. I actually think he's been quite good in his limited opportunities. The Caps have a lot of problems, but Ovie aint one.

What he did is that he scored more goals than any other left winger ever. Record that still stands.

Which is not as impressive as scoring more points than anyone, ever, which Dickie Moore did.

I only said "where are Kharlamov's playoff heroics". Kharlamov was the best, but he was not tearing up the league in scoring.

No, you also said:

Kharlamov won goals and points scoring title only once = not really dominating performance.

You completely ignore Kharlamov's Soviet League MVP voting record, which over his six year peak is completely dominant. Perhaps you were just ignorant of this information? I don't know, but you ended up talking heavily out of both sides of your mouth. When Kharlamov was dominating MVP voting, you criticized him for not winning scoring titles, and when Moore was winning scoring titles, you criticized him for not getting more MVP votes. Which one is important to you? Neither?

You have to be kidding me with the Kharlamov trophy, which I never used as argument yet you claimed I did.

You were throwing **** at the wall to see what would stick. You aren't the only one. To be perfectly honest, I am getting generally sick of these enormous player bio posts, most of which present no new information, and almost all of which are tl;dr in the extreme. Yours is the worst of all simply because we have all seen Ovechkin play and do not need Barry ****ing Trotz's nose up his ass to know what his game is about. I would be very surprised if anyone actually read your Ovechkin profile, by the way.

Now that I've said my piece on that, I actually like your pick of Ovechkin and agree that he's better than Joliat, which puts me much more on your side that you seem to think. But I have little patience for irrational "my guy is amazing" arguments and comparisons which do not adequately take the careers of the compared players (in your case Kharlamov and Moore) into account.

 

[EagleBelfour]

To be perfectly honest, I am getting generally sick of these enormous player bio posts, most of which present no new information, and almost all of which are tl;dr in the extreme.

But, but ... It takes me a lot of time to do my bios!

 

[Reds4Life]

Which is not as impressive as scoring more points than anyone, ever, which Dickie Moore did.

This is very unfair to many players, including Ovechkin. You have no way of knowing that he'd not score 96 points that year too.
It is impossible for Ovechkin, and pretty much everyone else, to beat all-time scoring record now. Moore isn't beating Gretzky's record either.

No, you also said:

You completely ignore Kharlamov's Soviet League MVP voting record, which over his six year peak is completely dominant. Perhaps you were just ignorant of this information? I don't know, but you ended up talking heavily out of both sides of your mouth. When Kharlamov was dominating MVP voting, you criticized him for not winning scoring titles, and when Moore was winning scoring titles, you criticized him for not getting more MVP votes. Which one is important to you? Neither?

Both.
I just pointed out that while Kharlamov was the best player in that league, he was not winning scoring titles year in and year out. There were a bunch of "lesser" guys that scored more. So while he was the best player (as evidenced by MVP), he was not the best scorer very often. Kharlamov's CSKA played against inferior competition all season.

You were throwing **** at the wall to see what would stick. You aren't the only one. To be perfectly honest, I am getting generally sick of these enormous player bio posts, most of which present no new information, and almost all of which are tl;dr in the extreme. Yours is the worst of all simply because we have all seen Ovechkin play and do not need Barry ****ing Trotz's nose up his ass to know what his game is about. I would be very surprised if anyone actually read your Ovechkin profile, by the way.

Well pardon me for doing that Bio. Maybe the fact that you think you know everything about Ovechkin is why your attitude towards him is the way it is (ie no way is he better than Moore*). And you are not alone either. These modern, still active players are usually underappreciated in ATD for that reason alone. If I read a quote about a guy from 1930's (and no one here actually saw that player play), you have only the quote and if it says he was "great defensively" then it is taken as canon, despite the fact that the game has changed so much, it is assumed such player would easily adjust and is great defensively in any era and of course, in ATD.
How is that fair?

Now that I've said my piece on that, I actually like your pick of Ovechkin and agree that he's better than Joliat, which puts me much more on your side that you seem to think. But I have little patience for irrational "my guy is amazing" arguments and comparisons which do not adequately take the careers of the compared players (in your case Kharlamov and Moore) into account.

I never compared Ovechkin to Kharlamov, I only said that while Ovechkin does not have "playoff legacy" (read as: bunch of Stanley Cups) he is no slouch and is actually great in the playoffs. He was half of his team's offense in those playoffs. Who else has done that? Not many players.

Kharlamov did not face tough competition, other than Canada in the Summit Series. But, he was the best soviet player, so he is rightfully considered 2nd or 3rd best LW of all time.

As for Moore, he is a guy with a short peak, and as far as I am concerned, he did less than Ovechkin.

 

[Sturminator]

But, but ... It takes me a lot of time to do my bios!

I dunno Eagle. Maybe they're educational for some people, but I would prefer bios that focus on presenting new information.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Well pardon me for doing that Bio. Maybe the fact that you think you know everything about Ovechkin is why your attitude towards him is the way it is (ie no way is he better than Moore*). And you are not alone either. These modern, still active players are usually underappreciated in ATD for that reason alone. If I read a quote about a guy from 1930's (and no one here actually saw that player play), you have only the quote and if it says he was "great defensively" then it is taken as canon, despite the fact that the game has changed so much, it is assumed such player would easily adjust and is great defensively in any era and of course, in ATD.
How is that fair?

Just an aside.. I agree about this point. I see some quotes taken as literal fact and some called into question by statistics we mash together long, long after the fact.

Sometimes people on this board believe they actually know better than life long hockey people who saw players first hand, which I think is a very dangerous thing.

In certain cases it might even be true but I would be very, very hesitant to proclaim I, as someone who never even saw player X live, knew more about the brand of hockey brought by that player than a Hall of Famer who played with/against/coached player X for years for example.

Even if we find something we think runs against a players reputation I think that first hand observation is worth a lot in hockey because of how poor the stats available are.. so we have to guard against undoing canon and just replacing it with a different dogma.

I brought up something like this in the HOH board recently where Lidstrom was being torn down for his only perceived shortcoming - lack of physicality - vs. Harvey.

While that may be a valid criticism of Lidstrom vs. Harvey, I think we have to keep in mind that the vast majority of quotes regarding older players will be positive rather than negative because that is polite. I pointed out that Harvey might not have played as well at certain times hung over (nothing personal just trying to make a point, and was accused of being rude) but I believe that if their particular failings were reversed, it would be more an issue for the modern player. Over time the failings fade away and the accomplishments and anecdotal memories of outstanding players get played up.

I see this all the time with the "choker" label being washed away by a win or two over a career.

Players now are much more under the microscope than at any other time in the history of the NHL and I think we have to keep that in mind in comparisons as well.

 

[Sturminator]

Well pardon me for doing that Bio. Maybe the fact that you think you know everything about Ovechkin is why your attitude towards him is the way it is (ie no way is he better than Moore*). And you are not alone either. These modern, still active players are usually underappreciated in ATD for that reason alone. If I read a quote about a guy from 1930's (and no one here actually saw that player play), you have only the quote and if it says he was "great defensively" then it is taken as canon, despite the fact that the game has changed so much, it is assumed such player would easily adjust and is great defensively in any era and of course, in ATD.
How is that fair?

You know, I am actually one of the GMs who pushed the pendulum back towards giving modern players in the ATD a fair chance. It was I who first pointed out that we almost never hear about the weaknesses of old players because profiles of old-timers only focus on the positives. I am the guy who drafted Nicklas Lidstrom 16th overall in ATD#10 and got roundly criticized for it ("zomg! Lidstrom before Morenz! You are teh dumb!"), and then went on to win the championship. Joe Sakic was my second round pick in that ATD, by the way. I'm the last guy you should be criticizing for not giving modern players a fair shake.

I never compared Ovechkin to Kharlamov, I only said that while Ovechkin does not have "playoff legacy" (read as: bunch of Stanley Cups) he is no slouch and is actually great in the playoffs.

Actually, you specifically denigrated Kharlamov's "postseason" record.

Kharlamov did not face tough competition, other than Canada in the Summit Series. But, he was the best soviet player, so he is rightfully considered 2nd or 3rd best LW of all time.

Jesus man...you live in the Czech Republic and you're telling me that Kharlamov didn't face tough competition on international ice?! There is something deeply wrong with this picture. This is not a case of me not crediting modern players; this is a case of you not crediting old ones.

 

[EagleBelfour]

I dunno Eagle. Maybe they're educational for some people, but I would prefer bios that focus on presenting new information.

Maybe you just have too much knowledge .

I definitely learn a bunch of new informations on both Doug Harvey and Elmer Lach. I understand that it's pretty difficult to find new informations on the Top-100 hockey players, but I found myself 'twitching' my opinions on both players. Take an example of Elmer Lach: I knew that he was injured prone during his career, but I never actually taught it was that bad. However, I never viewed him as tough as he actually was. He was also a better defensively than I gave him credit for. I'm changing 100% my opinion on the guy, but as I said earlier, I'm 'twitching' my view.

Also, I'm trying this time around to find more personal information on these players. I find it very interesting to read on these players life. It's maybe not 'ATD Info', but I find it very interesting.

 

[Reds4Life]

You know, I am actually one of the GMs who pushed the pendulum back towards giving modern players in the ATD a fair chance. It was I who first pointed out that we almost never hear about the weaknesses of old players because profiles of old-timers only focus on the positives. I am the guy who drafted Nicklas Lidstrom 16th overall in ATD#10 and got roundly criticized for it ("zomg! Lidstrom before Morenz! You are teh dumb!"), and then went on to win the championship. Joe Sakic was my second round pick in that ATD, by the way. I'm the last guy you should be criticizing for not giving modern players a fair shake.

Fair enough.
I probably got the wrong impression from your posts then.

Actually, you specifically denigrated Kharlamov's "postseason" record.

What I meant was that Kharlamov never got the chance to play in the NHL, so he is untested in such playoffs ("where are his playoff heroics"). Not that he's not good or anything. I am actually a big Kharlamov supporter.

Jesus man...you live in the Czech Republic and you're telling me that Kharlamov didn't face tough competition on international ice?! There is something deeply wrong with this picture. This is not a case of me not crediting modern players; this is a case of you not crediting old ones.

I meant the Soviet league. Kharlamov played for CSKA, a far superior team to all other teams in that league.
In international play, it came down to Czechoslovakia vs Soviets, with Soviets winning more often than not. Other than Czechs, maybe Swedes were able to do some damage. Other than that, Soviets were by far the best team. (this is excluding Canada)

I am crediting old players, I just don't see how Moore's peak is better than Ovechkin's.

 

[EagleBelfour]

I just wanna ask again: Sturm, you've read both my biography on Doug Harvey and Elmer in full, and you havn't learned anything? I'm bowing to your knowledge: you're a true hockey historian. I'm honestly impress.

 

[Sturminator]

I meant the Soviet league. Kharlamov played for CSKA, a far superior team to all other teams in that league.

Ok, fair enough. I know what was going on in the Soviet league at the time. I am the guy who made this thread, which is still on the first page of the ATD forum. And you're absolutely right. CSKA was basically the national team, with the exception of Vasiliev and a couple of forwards, so you have to take the scoring numbers with a grain of salt. Actually Kharlamov on CSKA and Moore on those Habs teams are fairly similar in that they were both competing mostly against their own teammates for scoring titles and awards.

In international play, it came down to Czechoslovakia vs Soviets, with Soviets winning more often than not. Other than Czechs, maybe Swedes were able to do some damage. Other than that, Soviets were by far the best team. (this is excluding Canada)

Those Czech teams were stiff competition, though. They beat the Soviets three times, and there was a lot of hatred on the ice, especially in the early 70's shortly after the Prague Spring and the Soviet invasion. Every IIHF game was meaningful, and the Olympic games were also a big deal during that period, and Kharlamov was very dominant in that setting. Ovechkin has done nothing resembling what Kharlamov did in all those meaningful games. It's mostly due to lack of opportunity because I truly believe that Ovie is a gamer, but he simply hasn't done it yet.

I am crediting old players, I just don't see how Moore's peak is better than Ovechkin's.

Perhaps it is not, but it is close, and Moore has all-around game and playoff credentials strongly in his favor in comparison to Ovechkin, which is why I consider him the better overall player, to this point. There is a high likelihood that Ovechkin will overtake Moore in the next couple of years. It would only take one or two more seasons of typical Ovechkin play (with hopefully a good playoff run) for me to consider him better than Moore, but I just don't think he's quite there yet.

 

[Sturminator]

I just wanna ask again: Sturm, you've read both my biography on Doug Harvey and Elmer in full, and you havn't learned anything?

Actually, I learned plenty, but nothing which affects how they should be valued in the ATD. I actually did know almost all of that about Doug Harvey already (I won an ATD with Harvey as my best player, remember), but some of the details about Lach are new to me. I knew that he got beat up a lot, but didn't know the specifics: elbow skull, face, etc. I didn't know much about their junior careers, either, but then again I don't really care.

I dunno. Your profiles are actually very interesting from a historical perspective, and I appreciate them. You do a good job of humanizing the players, and I should really thank you for that, because it is in the best spirit of what the ATD is all about. I just have to skip the [quo te][/quo te] parts in the beginning of your bios, because it is stuff that is already clear to me. Yours are also far better than some, which seem filled to the brim with meaningless fluff.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Actually, I learned plenty, but nothing which affects how they should be valued in the ATD. I actually did know almost all of that about Doug Harvey already (I won an ATD with Harvey as my best player, remember), but some of the details about Lach are new to me. I knew that he got beat up a lot, but didn't know the specifics: elbow skull, face, etc. I didn't know much about their junior careers, either, but then again I don't really care.

I dunno. Your profiles are actually very interesting from a historical perspective, and I appreciate them. You do a good job of humanizing the players, and I should really thank you for that, because it is in the best spirit of what the ATD is all about. I just have to skip the [quo te][/quo te] parts in the beginning of your bios, because it is stuff that is already clear to me. Yours are also far better than some, which seem filled to the brim with meaningless fluff.

Ouf! That's exactly what I'm trying to do with my biographies. I feel relive that I'm going into the direction I want them to go. There's something new or interesting to find on all my bios, either your just someone trying to learn about the old players, or you're an experienced ATD'er like yourself.

Based on his Soviet League results, Firsov seems to have already gone into decline by 1972, and there were already two very good scoringline left wingers (one of whom was Kharlamov) on that Soviet team - arguably the two best Russian players of the series, actually. It may simply be the case that there was no place for Firsov on that team, which is no knock on Firsov; he was just old.

The more I read on Firsov, the more I'm sure he was left on the series, because of everything but his play on the ice, although he was surely on the decline at that time. I don't want to discuss it at lenght now, but keep that in mind. When I'll post my biography on Firsov (it's gonna take 2-3 days), we could discuss it if you're not convinced.

 

[EagleBelfour]

Woah, when you're in page 13 of Google results, you get some very weird results related to Anatoli Firsov:

Meanwhile, we'll have to take whatever corroborative succour we can from the book's candid verification that Maddin did indeed once steal the hockey jersey of Soviet hockey star Anatoli Firsov in order to enjoy "a few erotically charged secret slapshots before tossing it into the Forks for fear the KGB would catch me wearing it." In this matter at least, history is served.

... And it's not the first sexual references I've found related on Firsov. A PDF file of a Canadian magician wrote that one day, he stole Firsov underwear when he was taking a shower, and the smell of it was 'exotic'.

How crazy is that lol.

EDIT:

http://cgi.ebay.ca/2-Russian-Hockey-Films-V-Bobrov-and-A-Firsov-/310164322590

Who wants to buy it with me?

 

[matsblue13]

When ATD members compare players, they are comparing careers and impact, correct? There is absolutely no way anyone from the 30's to maybe 60's is BETTER than Ovie, yeah I haven't seen them play, but it's plain physics. I also agree with BraveCanadian. I can't understand a player's "greatness" if I haven't seen him play. I'm too young to remember watching Gretz and Lemieux play, so I stay away from any arguments about those two. I guess all we have is hearsay, statistics (which can be deceiving) and quotes. For the record, the "best" player I've seen play is Crosby, and Jagr with Rangers those first couple of years was great.