ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[BraveCanadian]

Actually, looking closer, they're including pre-season

The only defence I think possible of Chelios' PIMs is perhaps he took a way more penalties when the games were no longer close, but that seems like a huge stretch.

Yeah, a stretch to put it mildly.

I told you guys pages ago: Chelios was a bonehead and I stand by it!

Great player all the same but a bonehead.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hall seems better in the regular season to me. Both had competition from all time greats (Plante/Sawchuk and Hasek/Roy), but Hall has a far better All-Star record. (Not saying that means Hall should be ranked higher, but just that this is closer than you stated).

Hall didn't really "compete" against Sawchuk. Sawchuk was no longer the goalie he once was, while Hall was racking up his All-Star nods.

Remove all Europeans from the awards leaderboards (to make it a fair playing field), and Brodeur likely has 7-8 Vezina trophies. He was the leading non-Euro goalie in 1997, 1998, 2001, and 2006, often by a fair margin. Brodeur's "resume" would look a lot better if he won the Vezina in 1997, 1998, 2001, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2007, 2008, wouldn't it? He was the leading non-Euro vote getter for the award in 8/11 seasons between 1997 and 2008.

He also likely wins either the 1998 or 2003 Hart Trophy, or both. Brodeur was the leading non-Euro vote getting in 1998. Only Wayne Gretzky was close among forwards and he played for a non-playoff team. Brodeur was the leading non-Euro vote getter for the Hart in 2003, and it wasn't close.

 

[seventieslord]

Brodeur is basically Glenn Hall with more playoff success, in my opinion, and should be ranked accordingly.

They might have actually performed equally well in the playoffs, with team and opponent strength being the reasons for the "success".

Drop Your Gloves credits him with 34 fights in the 1980s. I'm not sure which is more accurate. Regardless, a lot of his PIMs aren't coming from fights.

that's what I thought.

Top 5 sure that is really tough.

Top 10 though?

Lidstrom doesn't come into the picture until the mid-90s as a top flight defender. XXXXX wasn't in the league until what..89, 90? And by that point the XXXXX, Potvins etc. are all gone as prime players. You replace them with Lidstrom and XXXXX etc. but after those who was consistently better from 5 through 10?

A lot of guys who won't be drafted for a while - pure defensive guys.

People are seriously starting to annoy me with the mentioning of undrafteds. Jesus Christ, it's not that hard. Get rid of their name until they are selected, and then debate your topic all you want.

As far as I know, he isn't drafted.

Hall seems better in the regular season to me. Both had competition from all time greats (Plante/Sawchuk and Hasek/Roy), but Hall has a far better All-Star record. (Not saying that means Hall should be ranked higher, but just that this is closer than you stated).

all-star teams aren't perfectly comparable from the O6 era to today, since there are flashes in the pans each year who make it harder for the true greats, the guys who would be the only six in the league if there were still six teams, to earn all-star nods.

As it applies to Brodeur, though, I'm not sure. In 1996, for example, he was definitely better than the two guys voted ahead of him, but he was voted ahead of two guys definitely better than him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As far as I know, he isn't drafted.

From some of the posts in the HOH section, he might be on Cognition/VI's team.

As it applies to Brodeur, though, I'm not sure. In 1996, for example, he was definitely better than the two guys voted ahead of him, but he was voted ahead of two guys definitely better than him.

Until this season, 1996 was the only year of Brodeur's career that the Devils missed the playoffs(though they would have been a 4th seed in the West with the same number of points).

Even Hasek in his prime wasn't winning Vezinas when his team missed the playoffs. Edit: Take 1996 for example. Hasek and Brodeur may have been the two best goalies in the league that year, but both missed the playoffs, a big reason for the wacky Vezina voting that year.

So I don't think 1996 tells us much in an "all time" sense.

Double Edit: The "flash in the pan" thing you said is definitely worth noting for goaltenders. In the O6 period, there was 6 jobs for goalies in the league and you were basically property of your team for life. So if the team owning your rights didn't give you a chance, you weren't in the league. In fact, there's one very famous example of a guy in Hall's era who didn't get his chance until late in life because of this.

There are several actual Vezina winners, including Canadians, who I'm not sure would even be in the league if there were only 6 teams with lifetime rights.

 

[seventieslord]

Hall didn't really "compete" against Sawchuk. Sawchuk was no longer the goalie he once was, while Hall was racking up his All-Star nods.

Remove all Europeans from the awards leaderboards (to make it a fair playing field), and Brodeur likely has 7-8 Vezina trophies. He was the leading non-Euro goalie in 1997, 1998, 2001, and 2006, often by a fair margin.

He also likely wins either the 1998 or 2003 Hart Trophy, or both. Brodeur was the leading non-Euro vote getting in 1998. Only Wayne Gretzky was close among forwards and he played for a non-playoff team. Brodeur was the leading non-Euro vote getter for the Hart in 2003, and it wasn't close.

oh please. that is only valid if there are goalies in Europe who can come in and take an all-star spot away from Hall. There weren't.

 

[DoMakc]

As far as I know, he isn't drafted.

if we believe Bruins' fans in 70ies, he was (is?) decent goalie, but he couldn't do anything against Esposito.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

if we believe Bruins' fans in 70ies, he was (is?) decent goalie, but he couldn't do anything against Esposito.

It was before my time, but my Dad has told me about that sign/banner more times than I can count.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

oh please. that is only valid if there are goalies in Europe who can come in and take an all-star spot away from Hall. There weren't.

It's 100% valid, unless you think adding Europeans to the league had no effect on the talent pool - a line of thinking that seems traditional here, and one which I am finding less merit in by the day.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Double Edit: The "flash in the pan" thing you said is definitely worth noting for goaltenders. In the O6 period, there was 6 jobs for goalies in the league and you were basically property of your team for life. So if the team owning your rights didn't give you a chance, you weren't in the league. In fact, there's one very famous example of a guy in Hall's era who didn't get his chance until late in life because of this.

There are several actual Vezina winners, including Canadians, who I'm not sure would even be in the league if there were only 6 teams with lifetime rights.

Yeah.. one thing the bigger league does for sure is give more opportunities for players to just get the chance to show what they could do.

And it also gives more opportunities for those flashes in the pan to occur, in my opinion. Just on the basis of their being more front line spots available etc.

 

[seventieslord]

Even Hasek in his prime wasn't winning Vezinas when his team missed the playoffs. Edit: Take 1996 for example. Hasek and Brodeur may have been the two best goalies in the league that year, but both missed the playoffs, a big reason for the wacky Vezina voting that year.

The only thing I can tell you for sure about that year is that Hasek was the best. There are about 9 goalies with a claim at the #2-10 spots and Brodeur is among them. (If I had to choose, I'd put him in the 6th-7th range)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Yeah.. one thing the bigger league does for sure is give more opportunities for players to just get the chance to show what they could do.

And it also gives more opportunities for those flashes in the pan to occur, in my opinion. Just on the basis of their being more front line spots available etc.

The flash of the pan effect affects goaltenders far more than any other position, in my opinion:

1) More jobs available for defenseman and forwards made it much more likely that talented players would get to show what they could do.

2) The nature of goaltending lends itself to "flashes in the pan" far more often than any other position.

Edit: Just to be clear, this is what I'm saying:

Modern goalies do face more competition on a season by season basis. So their season by-season rankings suffer compared to goalies from the pre-Europe/6 team era. Patrick Roy is the best example - often just out of the Top 6 in save % in Colorado (so he looks worse than the worst goalie in the O6), but 2nd behind Hasek in cumulative save % over a longer period of time (I believe his entire career in Colorado).

 

[seventieslord]

It's 100% valid, unless you think adding Europeans to the league had no effect on the talent pool - a line of thinking that seems traditional here, and one which I am finding less merit in by the day.

If that's how you feel, come join me in the Gretzky thread... please.

I don't see how it makes the point about Brodeur valid, though. Hall was the best goalie in the world those years, Brodeur wasn't. The world is what matters. the size of the talent pool should of course be considered, but I don't see what removing players accomplishes.

Yeah.. one thing the bigger league does for sure is give more opportunities for players to just get the chance to show what they could do.

And it also gives more opportunities for those flashes in the pan to occur, in my opinion. Just on the basis of their being more front line spots available etc.

Yeah, but if I understand you correctly, you seem to think this phenomena extends to forwards too. I see no merit in that. Due to the nature of the positions, goalies can be wildly inconsistent from year to year and that has led to some sketchy results when it comes time to assess who has played the best for the past 50-75 games.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Yeah, but if I understand you correctly, you seem to think this phenomena extends to forwards too. I see no merit in that. Due to the nature of the positions, goalies can be wildly inconsistent from year to year and that has led to some sketchy results when it comes time to assess who has played the best for the past 50-75 games.

Well, you're entitled to your opinion of course, but I can think of one modern consistent all-star that is a good example to the contrary.

 

[markrander87]

IMO, Harvey, Lidstrom, and Chelios are equal defensively in most aspects of the game, 10/10s defensively, if you will. Harvey combines physical intimidation and discipline in a way the other two don't, however, which makes more valuable to some extent (the relative values of physical play and discipline in the ATD vary greatly from GM to GM, but we all agree they are factors).

I think you are highly underrating Robinsons defensive game. He was voted Best defensive defenseman in 1976,1979 and 1981. With no data for the years inbetween.

 

[Derick*]

It's 100% valid, unless you think adding Europeans to the league had no effect on the talent pool - a line of thinking that seems traditional here, and one which I am finding less merit in by the day.

But if you're going to say that, then, you have to take into consideration the size of the talent pool in North America (which has gone up dramatically) and modern training and techniques... which removes us from the HoH board's principle of comparing players to their peers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If that's how you feel, come join me in the Gretzky thread... please.

I don't see how it makes the point about Brodeur valid, though. Hall was the best goalie in the world those years, Brodeur wasn't. The world is what matters. the size of the talent pool should of course be considered, but I don't see what removing players accomplishes.

First, I realize you are espousing the majority view here. Now to vehemently disagree:

So the worldwide talent pool doesn't matter? The logical conclusion of this is that Canada produces 1/2 as much talent today as in 1960, because only half the league is still Canadian. Or perhaps the average Canadian hockey player is half as good today as in 1960, because half the league is European?

Yeah, but if I understand you correctly, you seem to think this phenomena extends to forwards too. I see no merit in that. Due to the nature of the positions, goalies can be wildly inconsistent from year to year and that has led to some sketchy results when it comes time to assess who has played the best for the past 50-75 games.

Agree with you here - league size really only needs to be taken into account when looking at goalies. IMO, a 6 team league is sufficient in size that all the truly elite forwards and defensemen got chances. (Though evaluating #4/5 defensemen in the Original 6 era becomes sketchy IMO).

However, the Euro thing absolutely is valid for forwards and defensemen too.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think you are highly underrating Robinsons defensive game. He was voted Best defensive defenseman in 1976,1979 and 1981. With no data for the years inbetween.

You're probably right.

For some reason, I always think of Robinson as a more balanced guy than he was.

He definitely seems to be in the top tier defensively, while not quite as good offensively as I used to think of him.

 

[BraveCanadian]

So the worldwide talent pool doesn't matter? The logical conclusion of this is that Canada produces 1/2 as much talent today as in 1960, because only half the league is still Canadian. Or perhaps the average Canadian hockey player is half as good today as in 1960, because half the league is European?

Yeah this is the problem with the logic in the talent pool debate that I have seen brought up a few times recently.

The theory that it doesn't really matter when comparing results falls apart very quickly because you are basically forced to concede that Canada is doing much worse developing talent or that the worldwide talent pool does matter.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

The Pittsburgh Bankers are proud to select LW Valeri Kharlamov

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But if you're going to say that, then, you have to take into consideration the size of the talent pool in North America (which has gone up dramatically) and modern training and techniques... which removes us from the HoH board's principle of comparing players to their peers.

I think considering the effect of the increased Canadian population on the potential talent pool is perfectly valid. I don't bother thinking about it when talking about the truly elite, but I would take the 20th best Canadian in 2010 over the 20th best in 1960 without a doubt, considering the population of Canada basically doubled.

Talent level is a lot different from training methods. In the ATD, I assume every player selected is able to take advantage of modern training methods. Just like every coach is aware of modern system.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The Pittsburgh Bankers are proud to select LW Valeri Kharlamov

I used to think he was a better LW than Ted Lindsay! I don't go that far anymore (though I still think Lindsay tends to be overrated), but Kharalmov is definitely worthy of being the 3rd LW selected.

 

[Derick*]

First, I realize you are espousing the majority view here. Now to vehemently disagree:

So the worldwide talent pool doesn't matter? The logical conclusion of this is that Canada produces 1/2 as much talent today as in 1960, because only half the league is still Canadian. Or perhaps the average Canadian hockey player is half as good today as in 1960, because half the league is European?



Agree with you here - league size really only needs to be taken into account when looking at goalies. IMO, a 6 team league is sufficient in size that all the truly elite forwards and defensemen got chances. (Though evaluating #4/5 defensemen in the Original 6 era becomes sketchy IMO).

However, the Euro thing absolutely is valid for forwards and defensemen too.

But isn't the whole point that we're not comparing players absolutely, but relative to all the other players on Earth at the time?

If you want to count talent pool size you can't just count it by continents. If you want to say we have to high players from toady to lower standards because of Europe, you have to say "the Canadian players from today come from a pool of hockey development twice the size the kids from the 80s were coming from, so it stands to reason that not only are they being hurt by competing with Euros, they also wouldn't have half of the Canadian competitors that they do now."

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Well, you're entitled to your opinion of course, but I can think of one modern consistent all-star that is a good example to the contrary.

I know who you're talking about, and it's an interesting thought. Still think he would have been playing in the AHL in the 1960s and if he was truly a late bloomer, he'd still get his chance in the NHL. Though he would have had to prove himself in the AHL first.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

This was a very tough pick for me. I narrowed it down to 4 players, but I just felt that Valeri Kharlamov was the greatest russian player of all-time and couldn't pass on him. Having Kharlamov on the left wing with Newsy Lalonde at center will be an excellent combination.

 

[Derick*]

I think considering the effect of the increased Canadian population on the potential talent pool is perfectly valid. I don't bother thinking about it when talking about the truly elite, but I would take the 20th best Canadian in 2010 over the 20th best in 1960 without a doubt, considering the population of Canada basically doubled.

Talent level is a lot different from training methods. In the ATD, I assume every player selected is able to take advantage of modern training methods. Just like every coach is aware of modern system.

If you want to accept the principle that that can be taken into consideration, you can't just accept it at the back of your head as some kind of vague tie-breaker type thing. It would dramatically change the standards you and every serious poster here uses to evaluate players.

A player from the 1960s who went 2, 2, 4, 4, 5, 6, 6, 6, 7 in top 10 scoring would be unanimously considered better around here than a player retiring today that went 3, 3, 7, 7, 8, 9, 9, 9, 9 but if we adjusted for talent pool size we have to take out about two-thirds (for Canada's increased population and for Europe) of the second player's competition and the second is easily better.