ATD 2011 Draft Thread II

[BraveCanadian]

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.

When you think about the pay in the AHL back in the 60s and the backlog of hopefuls trying to crack into a 6 team league.. I can only imagine how many guys gave it up to go get a job.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

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.

I honestly beileve if Valeri Kharlamov had the chance to play in the NHL he would be considered a top 15-30 player of all-time. He was that good and an extremely talented player. But of course we'll never know.

 

[markrander87]

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.

9th all-time in defenseman scoring AHEAD of Chelios, while playing 300 less games.

Multiple quotes and videos describing his signature end to end rushes and brilliant passing..


EDIT: Whats the ruling for posting videos with undrafted names and players playing?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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."

I just assume that the best athletes from Canada tend to be drawn towards hockey at a similar rate since at least WW2.

I was actually goign to do a study on the HOH board, estimating the relative size of the talent pool over time, based on the size of the Canadian population and the % of the league that came from outside of Canada.

Then I realized that Canada's population is aging, and really only 18-40 year olds should count. Also, immigrants aren't necessarily born into Canadian hockey culture. And much of Canada's increase in population comes from living longer and immigration. So I pretty much abandoned the project.

I still find it useful to remove Europeans from the leaderboards to "even out" the competition, though it only significantly affects several players (Brodeur being one of the more noteworthy).

 

[Derick*]

When you think about the pay in the AHL back in the 60s and the backlog of hopefuls trying to crack into a 6 team league.. I can only imagine how many guys gave it up to go get a job.

How many allstar skaters today might not have been in a 6 team league past their mid20s? The ones on the Canucks, the one on the Red Wings... that's all I can think of.

 

[Leafs Forever]

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.

I just assume that the best athletes from Canada tend to be drawn towards hockey at a similar rate since at least WW2.

I was actually goign to do a study on the HOH board, estimating the relative size of the talent pool over time, based on the size of the Canadian population and the % of the league that came from outside of Canada.

Then I realized that Canada's population is aging, and really only 18-40 year olds should count. Also, immigrants aren't necessarily born into Canadian hockey culture. And much of Canada's increase in population comes from living longer and immigration. So I pretty much abandoned the project.

I still find it useful to remove Europeans from the leaderboards to "even out" the competition, though it only significantly affects several players (Brodeur being one of the more noteworthy).

There is something in considering talent pools, and yet there is something in the fact one was the best goalie of the worlld regardless of era. Removing europeans outright just on the extremer side to me.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

9th all-time in defenseman scoring AHEAD of Chelios, while playing 300 less games.

To be fair, Robinson's career perfectly overlapped with the highest scoring period in history (late 70s through the 80s), while Chelios played a large portion of his career in the dead puck era. So the gap isn't as big as those numbers make it appear.

Multiple quotes and videos describing his signature end to end rushes and brilliant passing..

Well aware of all that. It's why I used to overrate his offense. I didn't realize just how far he was behind Potvin, for instance.

He seemed to play a much "safer game" than I had thought, while still being able to rush the puck up ice when needed.

EDIT: Whats the ruling for posting videos with undrafted names and players playing?

I assume it's okay. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to post any videos, because of course there are going to be undrafted NHLers playing in any video clip!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I honestly beileve if Valeri Kharlamov had the chance to play in the NHL he would be considered a top 15-30 player of all-time. He was that good and an extremely talented player. But of course we'll never know.

It really depends on if he would have still gotten into those car crashes....

The biggest knock against Kharlamov is lack of longevity.

 

[Hedberg]

To be fair, Robinson's career perfectly overlapped with the highest scoring period in history (late 70s through the 80s), while Chelios played a large portion of his career in the dead puck era. So the gap isn't as big as those numbers make it appear.

Plus over Chelios' last 267 games (the difference in his and Robinson's career), he only had 41 points.

 

[markrander87]

He seemed to play a much "safer game" than I had thought, while still being able to rush the puck up ice when needed.

Could this possible relate to how much time Robinson spent on the ice? Do we have any figures for time on ice in that era?

Robinson is 13th all-time for Total Goals On-Ice Against and 6th all-time in Total Goals On-Ice for.


Also we now have you saying he is in the top tier defensively of all-time and I beleive it was overpass or Sturm saying his Even strength numbers are right on par with Bourque's.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

There is something in considering talent pools, and yet there is something in the fact one was the best goalie of the worlld regardless of era. Removing europeans outright just on the extremer side to me.

Right. I don't actually credit Brodeur with 8 Vezinas and 2 Harts. That would be extremist.

But again, I don't really rank players based on counting there awards (though it is a factor). Part of my Hall/Brodeur comparison is that, despite both racking up a lot of awards, neither had a period of absolute dominance like Sawchuk, Plante, Roy, or Hasek.

In fact, Hall seems to have gotten a lot of his nods for being a Brodeur - playing far more games than any of his highend contemporaries (something that has always factored into awards, and rightfully so in my personal opinion). Edit: Plante, Hall's main competition during the time, was asthmatic and I believe was rested from time to time in the regular season because of this. And another great goalie at the time played quite a bit fewer regular season games per season than Plante

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I honestly beileve if Valeri Kharlamov had the chance to play in the NHL he would be considered a top 15-30 player of all-time. He was that good and an extremely talented player. But of course we'll never know.

He was the straw that stirred the drink on one of the greatest teams ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Could this possible relate to how much time Robinson spent on the ice? Do we have any figures for time on ice in that era?

Robinson is 13th all-time for Total Goals On-Ice Against and 6th all-time in Total Goals On-Ice for.


Also we now have you saying he is in the top tier defensively of all-time and I beleive it was overpass or Sturm saying his Even strength numbers are right on par with Bourque's.

I'm not sure if Robinson is at the top tier defensively. The absolute top tier in this should be reserved for but a few names. And Robinson's defensive game definitely took at least a small hit when the dynasty ended, while Chelios, Harvey, and Lidstrom were defensively dominant for a long time.

But Robinson is certainly near the top defensively.

Despite disagreeing with much of what you said, you are reminding me why Robinson is almost universally considered ahead of the Chelios/Park tier of defensemen.

 

[Dreakmur]

The Pittsburgh Bankers are proud to select LW Valeri Kharlamov

I recently had Kharlamov in the LC draft. I picked him because I wanted to learn exactly how good he was, and I figured the best way to do that was to make a detailed biography on him.

After creating, I think, the most extensive Kharlamov bio in any ATD, I still have no idea how good he was.

If you rank him by the enecdotal evidence, he should be drafted with the likes of Maurice Richard. The quotes are definately very powerfully in his favour.

If you rank him by the statistical evidence, however, he should be drafted in the early 100s. He was a top end player in Russia, but he hardly dominated the scoring.

I've got no idea where the truth is, but I think it has to be somewhere in the middle, which means anywhere between 50 and 60 is a fair spot for him to go. I think Kharlamov is likely he best playmaking LW, so he's actually a pretty good place to start building a line.

I hope you plan to do some research on this one, and I look forward to whatever you can show about him.

 

[seventieslord]

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?

You'll have to phrase this in a different way, because I have no idea what you mean.



--------------------------

jkrx listpicks Scott Stevens, D.

 

[seventieslord]

EDIT: Whats the ruling for posting videos with undrafted names and players playing?

I assume it's okay. Otherwise, we wouldn't be able to post any videos, because of course there are going to be undrafted NHLers playing in any video clip!

At the same time, let's not post Lemieux making Ray Bourque look silly when you just took him 4th overall...

To be fair, Robinson's career perfectly overlapped with the highest scoring period in history (late 70s through the 80s), while Chelios played a large portion of his career in the dead puck era. So the gap isn't as big as those numbers make it appear.

Almost all of Chelios' offense comes from higher-scoring years, though.

Could this possible relate to how much time Robinson spent on the ice? Do we have any figures for time on ice in that era?

These are just accurate estimates, but Robinson appears to have averaged 24.98 minutes over his very long career.

In his peak 10 years, 1977-1986, that figure was 27.89 per game.

For comparison's sake, Bourque's career and best-10 figures are 28.21 and 29.38.

Potvin: 27.78 and 28.81.

Of course, with all three players, as their team's undisputed #1 defenseman, their ice time will be somewhat dependent on how capable the #2 and #3 guys are of taking some minutes, and Robinson obviously had better #2 and 3 guys most years.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You'll have to phrase this in a different way, because I have no idea what you mean.

The NHL is about 50% Canadian now, was effectively 100% in the 1960s (with an American here or there). If the 20th best player in the world was as good in 1960 as the 20th best player today, that's like saying the 20th best Canadian in 1960 is as good as the 10th best Canadian today, on average.

jkrx listpicks Scott Stevens, D.

If you just look at Stevens when he was on the Devils, he's also one of the very few "10/10s" defensively IMO. Of course, he provided very little offense with the Devils. More well-rounded earlier in his career, but I think the elite defensive version was more of an impact player.

I'm in the minority here who would take Stevens over MacInnis, but it's close.

No shortage of leadership on jkrx's team with both Stevens and Yzerman in the fold. Now the only question: Which one do you make captain?

 

[JFA87-66-99]

I recently had Kharlamov in the LC draft. I picked him because I wanted to learn exactly how good he was, and I figured the best way to do that was to make a detailed biography on him.

After creating, I think, the most extensive Kharlamov bio in any ATD, I still have no idea how good he was.

If you rank him by the enecdotal evidence, he should be drafted with the likes of Maurice Richard. The quotes are definately very powerfully in his favour.

If you rank him by the statistical evidence, however, he should be drafted in the early 100s. He was a top end player in Russia, but he hardly dominated the scoring.

I've got no idea where the truth is, but I think it has to be somewhere in the middle, which means anywhere between 50 and 60 is a fair spot for him to go. I think Kharlamov is likely he best playmaking LW, so he's actually a pretty good place to start building a line.

I hope you plan to do some research on this one, and I look forward to whatever you can show about him.

Well my dad always talked about him growing up & saying how unbeilavable he was. He saw him play many many times. As far as statistical dominance in russia it really tough to get a read on him that way. His game was about more than just scoring goals & getting assists. The best players in russia dont always put up huge stats in there leagues. The best research you can use is how he would dominate in tournaments & such here in North America. Ask any canadien who saw him play in the 1972 summit series or the 1974 tourney & they mostly just rave about him. The maple leafs wanted to sign him for a million dollars back in the 70's. I do plan on doing some more research on him, but I do have some pretty good insight on him. I think getting him at the 47th overall pick was a very good pick. Any idea were I could view your bio on him? Thanks

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Bill Cook production during the playoff dropped , and his prime top finishes are not equal to Lafleur , what else is there to say?

Wtf? Bill Cook was one of the better playoff performers of the 20s/30s...

*
Play-off Points – 2nd(1928), 3rd(1933), 5th(1932), 8th(1934)
Play-off Goals – 2nd(1928), 3rd(1933), 4th(1932), 6th(1931), 8th(1927)
Play-off Assists – 1st(1928), 3rd(1932), 4th(1934), 6th(1933)

Cook's NHL prime was from 1927 to 1935. Here is where he ranks within those years:

2nd in Play-off Points
3rd in Play-off Goals
3rd in Play-off Assists
*Dreakmur

It's still a work-in-progress, and will be until the G&M archive comes back online, but here's my bio for Syl Apps Sr.

I like how you use your bios to argue rather than just aimlessly compile info.

I recently had Kharlamov in the LC draft. I picked him because I wanted to learn exactly how good he was, and I figured the best way to do that was to make a detailed biography on him.

After creating, I think, the most extensive Kharlamov bio in any ATD, I still have no idea how good he was.

If you rank him by the enecdotal evidence, he should be drafted with the likes of Maurice Richard. The quotes are definately very powerfully in his favour.

If you rank him by the statistical evidence, however, he should be drafted in the early 100s. He was a top end player in Russia, but he hardly dominated the scoring.

I've got no idea where the truth is, but I think it has to be somewhere in the middle, which means anywhere between 50 and 60 is a fair spot for him to go. I think Kharlamov is likely he best playmaking LW, so he's actually a pretty good place to start building a line.

Wasn't I the one who first posed that exact argument (in similar words) to you?

 

[overpass]

Could this possible relate to how much time Robinson spent on the ice? Do we have any figures for time on ice in that era?

Robinson is 13th all-time for Total Goals On-Ice Against and 6th all-time in Total Goals On-Ice for.


Also we now have you saying he is in the top tier defensively of all-time and I beleive it was overpass or Sturm saying his Even strength numbers are right on par with Bourque's.

In Robinson's prime, his on-ice ESGF were higher than any non-Orr defenceman since expansion. Some of that is because he played with high-scoring forwards, although much of his prime extended past the dynasty years in Montreal. Looking only at Robinson's even strength points to dilute the effect of teammates, he had almost as many even strength points in his prime as Bourque and Potvin, and more than Lidstrom or MacInnis, who were more conservative at even strength.

Chelios has the lowest numbers of any post-expansion D-man drafted so far in ESGF and ESP, even after scoring adjustments, which I think reflects the fact that he wasn't as good a puck-mover and in the transition game as Robinson and the rest.

Chelios scored more points on the power play than Robinson, but less than any other drafted post-expansion defenceman. And his team's weren't particularly successful on the power play either. When he was the best PP defenceman on his team - by my estimation in 89, 90, 92, 93, 94 - his team's PP were always below-average. After that Chicago brought in a better PP defenceman, and the PP was much improved with Chelios as the second-best PP defenceman.

This is why I'm not terribly impressed with Chelios offensively at an ATD level, no matter what his scoring finishes were. Replacement level is a lot higher here, and you have to earn those offensive minutes.

I'll put up a post soon with the numbers for all modern defencemen so you guys can see where I'm coming from here.

Edit: I see Stevens was taken. Stevens seems very similar to Chelios to me. His ES scoring was pretty similar. He didn't get the PP time in his later years, but I'm not sure Chelios should get a lot of PP time here either. Stevens is also a strong contender for the best defensive defenceman of the last couple of decades. Nobody was matched harder against the opponents' best, and he played a huge percentage of his team's penalty kill.

If you just look at Stevens when he was on the Devils, he's also one of the very few "10/10s" defensively IMO. Of course, he provided very little offense with the Devils. More well-rounded earlier in his career, but I think the elite defensive version was more of an impact player.

I'm in the minority here who would take Stevens over MacInnis, but it's close.

Where do you stand on Stevens vs Chelios?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Wtf? Bill Cook was one of the better playoff performers of the 20s/30s...

*
Play-off Points – 2nd(1928), 3rd(1933), 5th(1932), 8th(1934)
Play-off Goals – 2nd(1928), 3rd(1933), 4th(1932), 6th(1931), 8th(1927)
Play-off Assists – 1st(1928), 3rd(1932), 4th(1934), 6th(1933)

Cook's NHL prime was from 1927 to 1935. Here is where he ranks within those years:

2nd in Play-off Points
3rd in Play-off Goals
3rd in Play-off Assists

Solid playoff record, but it still pales in comparison to Lafleur, at least offensively.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Solid playoff record, but it still pales in comparison to Lafleur, at least offensively.

I didn't say anything about Lafleur. I was only responding to the first part of the sentence....

Lafleur is solidly a top-25 player of all-time IMO, and definitely better than Cook (and Jagr, for that matter).

 

[markrander87]

In Robinson's prime, his on-ice ESGF were higher than any non-Orr defenceman since expansion. Some of that is because he played with high-scoring forwards, although much of his prime extended past the dynasty years in Montreal. Looking only at Robinson's even strength points to dilute the effect of teammates, he had almost as many even strength points in his prime as Bourque and Potvin, and more than Lidstrom or MacInnis, who were more conservative at even strength.

Chelios has the lowest numbers of any post-expansion D-man drafted so far in ESGF and ESP, even after scoring adjustments, which I think reflects the fact that he wasn't as good a puck-mover and in the transition game as Robinson and the rest.
.

Very great info, thanks a lot!

Im not trying to cause an arguement over this. But in Russia isnt Kharlamov considered a better player then Fetisov. Im failing to see why fetisov is always drafted ahead of him. If we account for war years effecting players playing in the NHL at that time, surely we have to hold some weight in Kharlamov not being allowed to play in the NHL.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Very great info, thanks a lot!

Im not trying to cause an arguement over this. But in Russia isnt Kharlamov considered a better player then Fetisov. Im failing to see why fetisov is always drafted ahead of him. If we account for war years effecting players playing in the NHL at that time, surely we have to hold some weight in Kharlamov not being allowed to play in the NHL.

Kharlamov has 2 strikes against him:

1) His stats aren't as good as his reputation. Fetisov has statistical backing. Of course, a huge part of this is that stats from the Soviet league are much more reliable in the 1980s than they were in the 1970s.

2) He's brittle, and I'm sure that scares some GMs off. If I drafted Kharlamov, I'd definitely make sure to have a tough guy on the ice at all times with him.

IMO, there are multiple Soviets who have a case as "the best Soviet player of all-time." Fetisov and Kharalmov are two of them.

 

[Dreakmur]

Well my dad always talked about him growing up & saying how unbeilavable he was. He saw him play many many times. As far as statistical dominance in russia it really tough to get a read on him that way. His game was about more than just scoring goals & getting assists. The best players in russia dont always put up huge stats in there leagues. The best research you can use is how he would dominate in tournaments & such here in North America. Ask any canadien who saw him play in the 1972 summit series or the 1974 tourney & they mostly just rave about him. The maple leafs wanted to sign him for a million dollars back in the 70's. I do plan on doing some more research on him, but I do have some pretty good insight on him. I think getting him at the 47th overall pick was a very good pick. Any idea were I could view your bio on him? Thanks

Just like his domestic play, his international stats are good.... they just don't match what people seem to remember of him. Just like he did in league play, Kharlamov put up solid point total, but didn't dominate internationally either.

Here's all the information I was able to gather:
http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=28108183&postcount=31

*His domestic scoring finishes might be a little off. There were no leaderboards, so I just went through each team's roster and found all the players who played, then looked up their stats each season and made my own leaderboards. I don't think I missed anybody, but if I did, Kharlamov's stats would only go down.