ATD 2011 Draft Thread IV

[seventieslord]

Hey 70's, to return on the Tony Esposito debate, I would really love you to take the time to read this:

http://brodeurisafraud.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-tony-esposito-lost-in-playoffs.html

and give me your opinion on the article + the back-and-forth debate afterwards. I've read it from top to bottom and taught they nailed pretty good Esposito overall performances in the playoffs. It definitely dosn't paint the picture you want to sell on Tony-O though. I'm not trying to bash Tony-O some more, I just want to get a clear picture on him, because as of now I really don't believe he was even average in the playoffs.

Yeah, that article's from 2008. I've been following TCG longer than that, so I've read it before. But I will read it again for you. I'll reply to whatever points catch my eye.

TCG's article basically says exactly what my viewpoint is.

The first guy Bruce makes an incorrect assumption that Espo played in an expansion division - he did not. The schedule was completely balanced when Chicago moved over to that division. The alignment was just window dressing and for playoff seeding, as everyone played everyone else the same number of times. This has been established before.

Next, Bruce makes the assertion that the Hawks' GAA went up, on average, 54% in series that they lost, Before you get carried away with this number, you must remember three things. 1) As TCG pointed out, just once did he lose against a team with fewer regular season points. So it's only natural you will allow more goals against better teams - that's why they're better! 2) These better teams obviously took more shots. Espo didn't just start allowing 54% more goals per block of shots. Did they take 54% more shots than the Hawks were used to in the regular season? Not likely that much. But it would certainly have been something higher. Bruce's quick study does not account for that at all. I have the results for this in a book but I'm not sure it's worth digging up. 3) Better teams aside, this is an analysis of just a dozen losing series. Of course you're not as good in your losses, as you are in your wins. For Espo's career GAA to be what it is in the playoffs, he'd have to have been about 2.24 in the series that he won. This is not surprising. But of course who wants to credit him for the series he won? I'm sure similar stats can be drawn up for a lot of goalies and there would be some interesting results in there.

Bruce's next chart about playoff scoring dropping is correct in principle; however, the goaltenders being used for the chart played the majority of their careers on strong teams; they generally didn't face a team that should beat them until at least round 3. In the four round playoff system, a higher percentage of their games came against weaker teams and not powerhouses, whom Esposito played half his playoff games against.

Shot totals were available at this time; I'm not sure why one of these two didn't pick up a copy of THC; the discussion would have gone a lot differently. I see now that TCG discussed the regular season shots, which were sparse at the time, and known for only three seasons. The playoffs are in that book, in their entirety.Esposito's career playoff shots against per game is actually the 2nd-highest among all goalies who have been, or will be drafted as starters here:

1. Bower 32.74
2. Esposito 31.71
3. Worsley 31.38
4. Sawchuk 29.98

In the end, TCG is correct to point out that the Hawks, all things being equal, still did allow more goals than they should have in those losing series. Everyone deserves a portion of that blame, including Esposito. But narrowing his playoff record down to that, ignores the series that he won, as well as the ones that he lost in which he was actually good.

Show me a goalie who, in the playoffs, faced more shots, from tougher teams than he faced in the regular season, and allowed fewer goals, yet still lost. That's not going to happen on a regular basis. Espo's Hawks bombed in general. Don't forget, when you count ALL his playoff games (as you should in any comparison), Esposito's sv% edge in the playoffs versus his contemporaries is 10th out of 24 post-1953 goalies likely to be ATD starters.

Efforts are made when voting on the regular season rankings, to completely isolate the players' regular season records and vote on them separately. (my last first round opponent disagreed with that, but I don't). The reason this is ok in the regular season, is that the regular season comprises generally 75-90% of a player's career games: They are very representative of what the player's performance is going to be in the ATD. Over a number of games that high, there is usually not a major issue with competition level, in terms of always facing a disproportionately strong or weak caliber of team.

For those exact reasons, it should not be OK to "just" look at playoff resumes as the determining factor in playoff performance in the ATD. For example, does anyone *really* think that Darryl Sittler will be a better playoff performer than Marcel Dionne in this? Playoff records are important to consider, but at some point common sense regarding the skills of the players has to come into play. A less obvious example is Turk Broda vs. Terry Sawchuk. Overall, Broda was definitely better in the playoffs. Does his GM get to claim a goaltending edge? I don't think so. Over a very large sample of games, Sawchuk clearly showed he was the better goalie, even if his "clutch" factor isn't as great.

So basically the point is, Esposito is not a "liability" as a playoff goalie in the ATD. To put it in another way, if I was to rank all the ATD's drafted goalies based solely on regular season performance, it might look like this:

Hasek
Plante
Hall
Roy
Dryden
Sawchuk
Tretiak
Esposito
Brodeur
Benedict
Belfour
Parent
Brimsek
Thompson
Gardiner
Durnan
Bower
Holecek
Worsley
Hainsworth
Broda
Fuhr
Smith

but if it was based solely on the playoffs, it might look like this:

Roy
Broda
Plante
Smith
Dryden
Hasek
Parent
Bower
Benedict
Brodeur
Belfour
Fuhr
Sawchuk
Holecek
Gardiner
Tretiak
Worsley
Esposito
Thompson
Hainsworth
Brimsek
Durnan
Hall

The above is ok. The below is completely not fair. No one who has Chuck Gardiner, with a better playoff record, than Glenn Hall, should be able to claim a goaltending advantage over the latter.

In the playoffs, It makes a lot more sense to consider that you're most likely to see what you were most likely to see throughout the player's career - which is the regular season level of performance - but of course with a healthy dose of their playoff tendencies thrown in for good measure. So in a playoff series, these goalies might be ranked as follows, or more or less identical to what their all-time rankings do or should look like, since their all-time rankings are already based on their regular season and playoff performances:

Hasek
Plante
Roy
Dryden
Sawchuk
Hall
Brodeur
Benedict
Tretiak
Bower
Parent
Belfour
Broda
Brimsek
Esposito
Holecek
Gardiner
Thompson
Durnan
Worsley
Hainsworth
Smith
Fuhr

(nobody start a debate with me about these rankings, these were done quickly and are for illustrative purposes only)

 

[jarek]

As fun as this is, my impression of Olmstead is that he was good defensively, not as good as Dickie Moore.

Olmstead famously bodychecked Gordie Howe at the end of Howe's 49 goal season to prevent Howe from tying Rocket Richard's 50 goal record.

Basically, Olmstead was perfectly willing and able to throw his weight around in both offensive and defensive roles.

But he wasn't a real difference maker on defense, largely do to poor skating. Still likely a plus defensive player.

Isn't that a largely situational example? I'd body check a guy too if it prevented him from tying my teammate in scoring. I'd love to see more general comments.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

The newest Pirate is Vladimir Lutchenko.

He was the cornerstone of the great USSR teams' defense in the 1970s, effective in the 1972 Summit Series, the 1974 Series, the 1976 Canada Cup bronze medal, eight world championships and ten Soviet league titles, in addition to two Olympic golds. He was a Soviet all-star for seven years in a row: 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977.

Not that I don't like Lutchenko, but that title goes to Valery Vasiliev.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

This is a bit of an off the board pick, but I will select a guy who TDMM really convinced me belongs in the top-200. Out of all the Czech players to have ever played, this guy has more Golden Hockey Sticks than all the Czech players to have ever played, save 2. Those guys happen to be some clowns named Hasek and Jagr.

I will select Vladimir Martinec, RW. He will be the start of my 2nd line. When the powerful Denneny goes off the ice and to the bench, my opponents will be dazed and confused when Martinec comes on the ice, a man who plays in about the complete opposite way of Denneny. Teams are going to have a very diverse checking system in place to be able to deal with two lines build in completely different ways. PM'ing next.

I hate you. A lot.

 

[Sturminator]

As fun as this is, my impression of Olmstead is that he was good defensively, not as good as Dickie Moore.

Olmstead famously bodychecked Gordie Howe at the end of Howe's 49 goal season to prevent Howe from tying Rocket Richard's 50 goal record.

Basically, Olmstead was perfectly willing and able to throw his weight around in both offensive and defensive roles.

But he wasn't a real difference maker on defense, largely do to poor skating. Still likely a plus defensive player.

Yeah...I think that's about right. Olmstead is probably pretty useful against big RW powerforwards - guys like Cook and Conacher. Not saying he'll beat them, but he's got the physicality to scrap with them in the trenches. Against speedsters like Cournoyer, I don't think his defense is a plus, at all. Depends very much upon the matchup. I like Olmstead, though I can hardly get my head around his suggestion that Bert and Bucyk are near equals. That's just...wrong.

 

[BillyShoe1721]

Officially the worst post I have ever read on HFboards. Clearly you have never played a game of hockey before in your life. Are the corners in the offensive zone somehow shaped differently than those in the defensive zone? (Give me a break LOL)

When someone refers to corner play of a winger, they're very likely referring to the offensive zone. Wingers don't play much in the corners in their own defensive zone, it's not their defensive responsibility. It's be like taking Alexander Ragulin's ability to work in front of the net and saying that it applies to screening the opponent's goalie in the offensive zone.

 

[markrander87]

Yeah yeah my team so far is all one-season wonders and mysterious players. And it's certainly not built to work together.

Apparently accoring to BoyWonder we need proof for everything, so I guess you'll be needing proof regarding Broadbent who outside of his one season only had one more season which was a 10th...

Gardiner, please I couldnt find anything regarding him. Do me a favour and blow my mind with him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The playoffs are in that book, in their entirety.Esposito's career playoff shots against per game is actually the 2nd-highest among all goalies who have been, or will be drafted as starters here:

1. Bower 32.74
2. Esposito 31.71
3. Worsley 31.38
4. Sawchuk 29.98

Am I misunderstanding this list, or are we supposed to believe that Johnny Bower faced more shots per game in the playoffs than any starting goalie in the ATD?

I've questioned the reliability of reconstructed save % before, but this list should really raise a red flag to everyone.

We're expected to believe that Johnny Bower, who played for arguably the best defensive team of all time (top 3 defense of Tim Horton, Allan Stanley, and Carl Brewer, Dave Keon as the #1 center, among others, the most defensive-minded coach of his era) actually faced more shots per playoff game than any other comparable goalie? Something doesn't add up.

 

[Derick*]

Is Hasek really below Dryden and Smith in the playoffs or are you making the Joe Thornton Fallacy and rating someone's playoff lower than someone with worse playoff performances in order to punish them for their good regular season performance?

 

[jarek]

Am I misunderstanding this list, or are we supposed to believe that Johnny Bower faced more shots per game in the playoffs than any starting goalie in the ATD?

I've questioned the reliability of reconstructed save % before, but this list should really raise a red flag to everyone.

We're expected to believe that Johnny Bower, who played for arguably the best defensive team of all time (top 3 defense of Tim Horton, Allan Stanley, and Carl Brewer, Dave Keon as the #1 center, among others, the most defensive-minded coach of his era) actually faced more shots per playoff game than any other comparable goalie? Something doesn't add up.

In my readings of the NYT, the Leafs regularly gave up 30+ shots through to Bower. This was the regular season though. I always felt that the defense in front of Bower has been completely blown out of proportion, I don't think it was as good as people think it is.

 

[jkrx]

As far as I remember, Olmstead were never complimented on his defense. He was pretty average in that department.

 

[Velociraptor]

:O Is there some context here? Lawlz.

He selected Esposito. And he was pointing out all of his positives, just poking at some fun seeing if he'll retract his statement or not

 

[jarek]

As far as I remember, Olmstead were never complimented on his defense. He was pretty average in that department.

From you, I can believe it, since you're old enough to have actually watched Olmstead during his prime.

 

[markrander87]

When someone refers to corner play of a winger, they're very likely referring to the offensive zone. Wingers don't play much in the corners in their own defensive zone, it's not their defensive responsibility. It's be like taking Alexander Ragulin's ability to work in front of the net and saying that it applies to screening the opponent's goalie in the offensive zone.

I went without saying this(Assumed everybody would already understand this point) to clarify, yes you are correct in wingers do not spend too much time in corners in their own end, although it does happen more then you would think. Key components of a defensive winger like winning battles along the boards, chiiping the puck past pinching defenseman etc... just fall to the waste side in this. Obviously we have no stat to quantify this.

If one was described as "The best Mucker in the league" and a " ferocious, antagonistic checker" common sense (Apparently does not count around here) should show he wins battles along the boards and inreturn wins key battles in getting the puck out of his own end.

Cognition this is for you. Stats clearly dont come close to showing how valuable certain players like this are to a team. GM's like BoyWonder are oblivious to subtle factors of ths sport which will win or lose you a hockey game.

 

[seventieslord]

I know atleast three guys (who werent pure snipers thogh) I wouldve taken over Kovalchuk.

Sure, I can think of a lot of forwards I'd take over him myself.

but Sturm is probably right that he was the best goalscorer left, if you isolate that skill entirely.

...Not that I keep a list yet anyway.

exactly!

I'm just frustrated because Sabre was online last night and you told me you had your pick but didn't PM me your list. :/ All last night..

So, the draft got held up a bit.

aaaaaaaand.............. ?

Me too.

All we know is that he was great for one season. He wasn't anything special after his Hart year, but he was getting up there in age. How good was he in the Western Leagues before coming to the NHL and winning the Hart at a fairly old age? I have no idea.

He was at least an all-star in the West, along with Eddie Shore and another HHOFer. That's something. So likely one of the world's 8 best defensemen for 3 years prior to joining the NHL, at which point he went to #1 for a year and possibly fell off the map afterwards.

Maybe a modern day Babe Dye in some ways - a better skater but with less hockey sense and lacking the playoff success.

Interesting comparison. I should note that Dye doesn't really have playoff success, either - he was a retro smythe winner in 1922, and never had a playoff point before or after that.

Vlociraptor got a stronger top 5 I believe. Mr. Buggs and MadArcand have good ones too.

Strongest top goes to Seventies I think. Maybe Dreakmur when he finalizes it.

Bucyk - Messier - Selänne
Clancy - Day
Esposito

Modo is stronger too. So is TDMMs.

Thanks for the props. I think I've picked well in my spots so far and managed to get good value at the positions as I've filled them.

More than anything though, this is a function of my first six picks actually being my top-6. Usually I would have a 2nd line forward and a 2nd pairing anchor instead of the above configuration.

Let's compare shall we:

Geoffrion>Selanne
Robinson>Clancy
Parent>Esposito

Is there any arguements there??

Didnt think so

Obviously Messier>Sittler

Day is slightly better than Stanley (As Seventies already stated he had a tough time deciding between the two)

Bucyk and Olmstead are a toss up. It really depends on what there role is on the line.

And it's pretty obvious (to me at least) Seventies already stated he picked Selanne to be on his 2nd line.

No, not necessarily. For now he's on line 1, until I see who's available and who I can get.

as for the comparison, we can pretty much toss out Parent/Espo/Day/Stanley as their respective edges are a wash.

Bucyk is not just a toss-up with Olmstead; you'd have a really hard time convincing anyone else of that. Bucyk is significantly better.

What it really breaks down to, if you want it to be as simple as possible, is - do the advantages Messier and Bucyk hold outweigh the advantages Geoffrion and Robinson hold? I'll let others field that.

Broadbent is a one season wonder.

Well, I think you're right about that.

http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=25668000&postcount=20

Came across this post while viewing last years playoff match-ups. Seventies, is Tony Esposito a top-8 goaltender this year?

I don't get it.

You are pointing out that I defended Tony Esposito last year, even when he was not my own goalie.

What's the point?

As fun as this is, my impression of Olmstead is that he was good defensively, not as good as Dickie Moore.

Same here.

 

[overpass]

Thanks for the props man, but I'm still scrambling for a D-partner for Cleghorn, had a lot of trouble finding a right hand shot to complement first pairing chemistry with him.

My first line is ferocious offensively, may not have the speed. But at the top of every other category IMO.

FYI Cleghorn played right D. See my Gerard bio for evidence.

 

[jarek]

I'm not oblivious to the subtle factors that win hockey games. I've watched hockey my entire life. I value those intangibles a ton. It's your mistake to assume I know nothing of this. The fact is, I'd like to see more of Olmstead's defensive play. IF he was strong defensively, it would have been talked about. If you can't find anything about it, good or bad, then clearly he just did what he was supposed to do and that was the end of it. It's simple.

 

[Sturminator]

Am I misunderstanding this list, or are we supposed to believe that Johnny Bower faced more shots per game in the playoffs than any starting goalie in the ATD?

I've questioned the reliability of reconstructed save % before, but this list should really raise a red flag to everyone.

We're expected to believe that Johnny Bower, who played for arguably the best defensive team of all time (top 3 defense of Tim Horton, Allan Stanley, and Carl Brewer, Dave Keon as the #1 center, among others, the most defensive-minded coach of his era) actually faced more shots per playoff game than any other comparable goalie? Something doesn't add up.

Even modern goalie stats, reliably compiled by a team of crack NHL scorekeepers...are crap. Statistics simply do a very poor job of describing a goalie's performance, and are especially suspect in the playoffs where major distortions due to statistical significance come into play. I am extremely suspicious of all statistical analysis involving goalkeepers, and of the aforementioned website, in general. In my opinion, awards (not the old Vezina) and first-hand accounts of a goaltender's performance are the only useful tools in evaluating their value.

When presented with statistical arguments about goalies, I pretty much just shrug my shoulders and tune out. That's why I was always unconvinced by the entirely statistical arguments made in favor of Clint Benedict early in his "ATD career" - that is, before I dug into the source documents, myself, and discovered that yes, Benedict was, in fact, a tremendous goalie, statistics be damned.

 

[jkrx]

Sure, I can think of a lot of forwards I'd take over him myself.

but Sturm is probably right that he was the best goalscorer left, if you isolate that skill entirely.

I agree but maybe I had a point with that post but can't for the life of me remember what it was...

 

[Derick*]

Even modern goalie stats, reliably compiled by a team of crack NHL scorekeepers...are crap. Statistics simply do a very poor job of describing a goalie's performance, and are especially suspect in the playoffs where major distortions due to statistical significance come into play. I am extremely suspicious of all statistical analysis involving goalkeepers, and of the aforementioned website, in general. In my opinion, awards (not the old Vezina) and first-hand accounts of a goaltender's performance are the only useful tools in evaluating their value.

When presented with statistical arguments about goalies, I pretty much just shrug my shoulders and tune out. That's why I was always unconvinced by the entirely statistical arguments made in favor of Clint Benedict early in his "ATD career" - that is, before I dug into the source documents, myself, and discovered that yes, Benedict was, in fact, a tremendous goalie, statistics be damned.

But so many of the people who vote for awards are going by statistics themselves, and far worse statistics and in a far less logical way than most official statisticians.

And there's nothing to say they're looking at it very objectively.

 

[Velociraptor]

I don't get it.

You are pointing out that I defended Tony Esposito last year, even when he was not my own goalie.

What's the point?

I totally read that wrong sorry seventies, thought it was top-8 you had disagreed with, my baaaaaad, Carry on!

 

[Velociraptor]

FYI Cleghorn played right D. See my Gerard bio for evidence.

Awesome, that makes things much easier on me. Left-handed defenseman are so much easier to come by.

 

[seventieslord]

When someone refers to corner play of a winger, they're very likely referring to the offensive zone. Wingers don't play much in the corners in their own defensive zone, it's not their defensive responsibility.

As I frequent winger, I can confirm that this is true. Which means mark and Boy Wonder are arguing over mostly nothing.

Am I misunderstanding this list, or are we supposed to believe that Johnny Bower faced more shots per game in the playoffs than any starting goalie in the ATD?

I've questioned the reliability of reconstructed save % before, but this list should really raise a red flag to everyone.

We're expected to believe that Johnny Bower, who played for arguably the best defensive team of all time (top 3 defense of Tim Horton, Allan Stanley, and Carl Brewer, Dave Keon as the #1 center, among others, the most defensive-minded coach of his era) actually faced more shots per playoff game than any other comparable goalie? Something doesn't add up.

Yes.

Think about it - it's possible that shots were counted poorly. What's simply not feasible is that they were so badly overcounted for Bower and not for anyone else (Sawchuk 29.98, Hall 31.90 (crap! I forgot Hall earlier!), Plante 27.72)

If they were being badly counted, it was happening across the board and even among the noise, there is still more than enough data to conclude that Bower was definitely facing the most shots among these goalies.

Of course, this says nothing of shot quality.

Is Hasek really below Dryden and Smith in the playoffs or are you making the Joe Thornton Fallacy and rating someone's playoff lower than someone with worse playoff performances in order to punish them for their good regular season performance?

Individually, they were outstanding from a playoff sv% standpoint. Maybe not quite Hasek level. But *some* cup-counting has to come into play if it is that close.

Remember, that list was based *only* on the playoffs to highlight the fallacy of focusing *only* on playoffs in a playoff matchup.

Even modern goalie stats, reliably compiled by a team of crack NHL scorekeepers...are crap. Statistics simply do a very poor job of describing a goalie's performance, and are especially suspect in the playoffs where major distortions due to statistical significance come into play.

As it applies to the piece that started this discussion - during this time it was often the same four teams in the playoffs all the time. That's very undistorted.

When presented with statistical arguments about goalies, I pretty much just shrug my shoulders and tune out. That's why I was always unconvinced by the entirely statistical arguments made in favor of Clint Benedict early in his "ATD career" - that is, before I dug into the source documents, myself, and discovered that yes, Benedict was, in fact, a tremendous goalie, statistics be damned.

He's not a very good example. Clint Benedict played long before stats were tracked. If shot data existed, it could have been useful. As it is, his GAA is the best statistical information we have so naturally it's not of much use. However, his year-to-year statistical dominance is so strong that it would be foolish to just overlook it. For example, one season his GAA was a full 2 goals below the league average. Even if there were no newspaper reports, It is impossible to imagine how that could happen without him being the league's best goalie.

 

[Sturminator]

He was at least an all-star in the West, along with Eddie Shore and another HHOFer. That's something. So likely one of the world's 8 best defensemen for 3 years prior to joining the NHL, at which point he went to #1 for a year and possibly fell off the map afterwards.

From what I've seen of source documents from out west, Gardiner had a very good career in the western leagues. He's still a little bit faceless to us, but I think good scholarship would probably raise his value in the ATD.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

In my readings of the NYT, the Leafs regularly gave up 30+ shots through to Bower. This was the regular season though. I always felt that the defense in front of Bower has been completely blown out of proportion, I don't think it was as good as people think it is.

Interesting. I can think of 4 possible explanations:

1) For whatever reason, teams in general gave up a ton of shots in the 1960s. Based on the low scoring levels, I'd say this was extremely unlikely. Did all teams tend to give up this many shots or just Toronto?

What this would mean: Raw shot totals aren't really comparable across eras. Not a big deal. But again, I find this unlikely.

2) Toronto's defensive system allowed lots of long, low percentage shots.

What this would mean: Bower's high save percentage numbers aren't necessarily indicative of his level of play. Typical criticism of the save % stat in general.

3) Since shots and save % weren't official stats, what counted as a "save" varied wildly from arena to arena. See the recent Washington Capitals always owning the leaderboards in the "hits" category. This would be easy to determine - did Bower get credited with facing more shots at home than on the road?

What this would mean: Reconstructed save % is basically worthless as a whole if the definition of a shot varied that wildly from arena to area.

4) Toronto's defense wasn't as good as advertised.

What this would mean: The defensive ability of Tim Horton, Allan Stanley, Carl Brewer, etc is historically overrated. This is possible but... really flies in the face of canon.

Thoughts?