ATD 2011 Draft Thread IV

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do you guys think I could put Roberts on the point beside Orr?

Gary Roberts? Why on Earth would you want to do that? If he's useful at all on an ATD PP, it's using his physicality in the corners and crashing the net. Not sure how effective he'd be on the point. He wasn't a guy known for his slapshot or passing ability.

 

[Derick*]

Okay then what about Abel?

Roberts - Petrov - Hextall
Abel - Orr

 

[seventieslord]

At this point, I can only assume that the writers of Ultimate Hockey didn't have access to full awards voting records when they wrote the book. It's quite possible - the book was written during the infancy of the Internet, when very few newspapers (or any?) had archives online.

That's right. I'm not accusing them of outright ignoring the facts. But they didn't have access to good enough facts to make this conclusion. Actually, it's always been known who the runners-up have been, so there's still no excuse on the cleghorn front.

I think if they did enough research into 1924 and 1926 then they'd have seen enough evidence to give Cleghorn that award and not Boucher.

But then, they never said these were meant to be taken seriously - they are for fun. It's a travesty that they come into play in this draft. All they are worth is this:

In my opinion, Georges Boucher was the NHL's best defenseman in 1924

But these "retro awards" get subconsciously elevated almost to the status of real awards sometimes. It's getting annoying.

That's really more than enough time spent now, picking apart the work of historians whose credentials are no better than a handful of us, except that they are published.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Gary Roberts on the point?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To be fair Lionel Conacher was 2nd in Hart voting and a 2nd Team All-Star one year, so it isn't a given that being 2nd in Hart voting should net you the Norris.

True. And I'm pretty sure he isn't the only case.

Hart voting in the early years really followed the "most valuable" description religiously and often went to a guy adjudged a lesser player based on All-Star Teams (which unfortunately didn't exist until 30-31).

 

[Derick*]

Yeah I dunno what I was thinking. I kind of wasn't thinking about his particular attributes and just remembering that I wanted a LW on the point and that Orr used a forward usually.

What about Abel?

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Yeah I dunno what I was thinking. I kind of wasn't thinking about his particular attributes and just remembering that I wanted a LW on the point and that Orr used a forward usually.

What about Abel?

I would draft an offensive defenceman and use him as a quarterback with Orr.

 

[Derick*]

Orr spent most of his career with a forward on his left on the powerplay.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Okay then what about Abel?

Roberts - Petrov - Hextall
Abel - Orr

It's much better than Roberts on the point - at least Abel was a skilled passer and quite responsible defensively - but Abel is another guy whose value largely comes from his physical play and boardwork.

Ideally, you would get an offensive defenseman or forward who actually played the point to play the point on the PP. Or at least a forward with the right attributes. I personally think Abel CAN play the point, but you're wasting some of his effectiveness up there.

(Ideally... Gary Roberts would be nowhere near a first unit PP, but that's another story altogether)

 

[seventieslord]

So how many seasons are you saying he played offense,and what seasons exactly? I have him only playing a few seasons on the wing later in his career. He played the bulk of his career on defense. He clearly is one of the better offensive d-men of his generation so what are you basically trying to say? I know he wasn't as good as your selection Cleghorn but offensively I think he was better even if it was a small margin. Like I said when I picked Cameron I was going for the best offensive d-men and I think I accomplished that. Sure there's other defensemen who are comparable offensively but the stats from that era show otherwise. Unless your saying Cameron played all those season at forward. I'm talking about the top 20 scoring leaders from 1909-1925, he was the only defensemen to make the list even if you take those 2 seasons on offense away

I think you mean that list is up to 1926, not 1925. I don't have THC handy, but I doubt they'd use 1925 as a cutoff and not the merger.

Assuming I'm correct, yes, Cameron played forward for the last three seasons of that time - his entire time in the top western leagues (WCHL/WHL) - so all those points should be removed from his points scored as a defenseman. I believe he was exclusively a defenseman before that, or, if he wasn't, he didn't play enough forward to "invalidate" his point totals as a defenseman. (unless later proven otherwise)

Cleghorn is not my pick.

All I was saying is that claiming he's the only defenseman in the top-20 all-time scorers up to 1926 isn't necessarily the best way to prove anything because that includes 52 points scored as a forward.

To be fair Lionel Conacher was 2nd in Hart voting and a 2nd Team All-Star one year, so it isn't a given that being 2nd in Hart voting should net you the Norris.

Correct, it's not. But, in that seven season period where hart voting exists before all-star teams, it is the most compelling evidence we have.

 

[Derick*]

Why shouldn't Roberts be on any top PP unit? Because physical play and board work aren't as necessary?

As for the point, I'll try to look for a passing/shooting LW or point defenseman but I'll use Abel if necessary. Thanks.

 

[tony d]

Great pick on Roberts. Me and Dave where looking at him for a future pick.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

I think you mean that list is up to 1926, not 1925. I don't have THC handy, but I doubt they'd use 1925 as a cutoff and not the merger.

Assuming I'm correct, yes, Cameron played forward for the last three seasons of that time - his entire time in the top western leagues (WCHL/WHL) - so all those points should be removed from his points scored as a defenseman. I believe he was exclusively a defenseman before that, or, if he wasn't, he didn't play enough forward to "invalidate" his point totals as a defenseman. (unless later proven otherwise)

Cleghorn is not my pick.

All I was saying is that claiming he's the only defenseman in the top-20 all-time scorers up to 1926 isn't necessarily the best way to prove anything because that includes 52 points scored as a forward.



Correct, it's not. But, in that seven season period where hart voting exists before all-star teams, it is the most compelling evidence we have.

Seventies,
That what I did. I subtracted the 2 seasons playing offense using the Society Of Hockey stats. He still checks in at #19 on the list, and he's the only defensemen to do so. So how does that not prove anything as far as him being an elite offensive d-men. I beileve he had 40 points playing offense in those 2 seasons. And again I'm just going up to 1925.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Why shouldn't Roberts be on any top PP unit? Because physical play and board work aren't as necessary?

You can find guys who can do all that like Abel (boardwork) and Hextall (physical play in front of the net) without giving up as much scoring ability as Roberts does.

 

[Derick*]

I know who I'm going to use as my fifth on the powerplay, oh boy, can't wait to draft him.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Orr spent most of his career with a forward on his left on the powerplay.

He could adapt. In the end its your call dude.

 

[Sturminator]

There's no reason to assume that the NHL stats from that era are any better than the NHA stats.

I dunno about that. Cleghorn's offensive statistics from the NHA smell pretty funny in light of the fact that his production takes a nosedive in the NHL, where Boucher outscores him by quite a bit with both men in their primes (I count Cleghorn's prime as essentially ending when he leaves Montreal).

From the inaugural NHL season (1917-18) to 1924-25 (which conveniently seems to mark the end of both player's offensive peaks), Boucher outscores Cleghorn 132 to 115...that's 15% more points. Even factoring in the time Boucher spent as a "utility player" for the two year period pre 20-21 (in which he wasn't scoring at a huge clip, anyway), Georges is the more productive offensive defenseman, and this is before we take into account the fact that Boucher was primarily a playmaker in an era that was brutal for playmakers while Cleghorn was primarily a goal-scorer.

Cleghorn has a couple of huge NHA seasons to his credit (21 goals and 33 points), but...

In his 7 NHL seasons as a defenseman pre-merger, Boucher's rankings in scoring among blueliners are, stated in order of impressiveness, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5.

...have you seriously forgotten that Georges Boucher played two very productive seasons in the NHA, himself...seasons in which he actually outscored Harry Cameron, among others? Also, even without the "lost" seasons, your math is all jacked up. The East/West merger didn't happen until the 26/27 season. When we count his NHL and NHA service, George Boucher actually played eleven seasons before the merger. And don't tell me that only seven of them were as a defenseman; you are not the authority on that here. I don't know if I've ever seen you this sloppy before.

At any rate, factoring in Boucher's NHA seasons which you forgot, the comparison gets a lot closer. In fact, the only thing Cleghorn seems to have over Boucher is a couple of big seasons in the NHA, because he was easily the worst offensive defenseman of the two in the NHL. And are you actually going all the way back to the inaugural NHA season (10-11) in compiling these defenseman scoring numbers for Cleghorn? I dunno...I haven't checked your numbers. Do you realise how crazy and massively distorting that would be? Before 13-14, when Harry Cameron started to peak, remind me again just who it was that Cleghorn was competing against among NHA defensemen.

It's like comparing Gary Suter's offense to Lidstrom's.

Your numerical analysis is coming apart at the seams here, seventies. I don't think now is the time for hyperbole.

*edit: have to throw out Boucher's 17-18 season for a fair comparison because Cleghorn didn't play that year*

 

[BenchBrawl]

It's like comparing Gary Suter's offense to Lidstrom's.

Don't understand that one , and since I have both players I'm interested

 

[Sturminator]

Don't understand that one , and since I have both players I'm interested

If one is to take that statement seriously, it would be a huge and unrealistic compliment to Suter.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Don't understand that one , and since I have both players I'm interested

Just so we're on the same thinking train - you think Suter has comparable offence to Lidstrom?

 

[Velociraptor]

Don't understand that one , and since I have both players I'm interested

Are you actually confused as to how much higher of an offensive caliber Lidstrom is compared to Suter?

I know GM's tend to get biased over their players, Suter had a 91 point season yes. But Lidstrom was consistent, stayed away from injuries and is easily one of the smartest two-way defenseman ever.

That's why Gary Suter doesn't go 13th overall

 

[BenchBrawl]

woah woah woah that's not what I said at all , I just didnt read seventieslord post correctly and was wondering what he meant.

Of course Lidstrom is better.That's why I took him 12th and took Suter 238th lol

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Suter's highest scoring years were also in the much higher scoring era of the late 80's/early 90's. Not a knock on Suter, who was a great offensive defenceman in his own, but not Lidstrom.

The best news Reen is you have them both.

 

[Velociraptor]

- It was twice that Cleghorn was runner up for the hart (1924, 1926)

- I'm pretty sure UH gave him a bevy of retro Norrises. Not that you should really care.

- If you're trying to imply Cameron played some forward in the NHA, I've never seen that myself. He just really was that good offensively while there. But in the west, he was definitely a forward.

What is UH? Excuse my igorance

and yeah I have no idea if Cameron played up front in the NHA, but I was implying that he did in fact play forward in Saskatoon. Specifically 1926-1927.

 

[seventieslord]

I dunno about that. Cleghorn's offensive statistics from the NHA smell pretty funny in light of the fact that his production takes a nosedive in the NHL, where Boucher outscores him by quite a bit with both men in their primes (I count Cleghorn's prime as essentially ending when he leaves Montreal).

Meaning what, exactly? That he wasn't a defenseman? I read about him playing some forward in his first season, that's it.

From the inaugural NHL season (1917-18) to 1924-25 (which conveniently seems to mark the end of both player's offensive peaks), Boucher outscores Cleghorn 132 to 115...that's 15% more points. Even factoring in the time Boucher spent as a "utility player" for the two year period pre 20-21 (in which he wasn't scoring at a huge clip, anyway), Georges is the more productive offensive defenseman, and this is before we take into account the fact that Boucher was primarily a playmaker in an era that was brutal for playmakers while Cleghorn was primarily a goal-scorer.

Boucher's six years younger! What kind of fair comparison is that?

My information says Boucher was a forward in the 1918 and 1919 seasons, and a defenseman after that.

...have you seriously forgotten that Georges Boucher played two very productive seasons in the NHA, himself...seasons in which he actually outscored Harry Cameron, among others?

I did "forget" that, actually, since to my knowledge, Boucher was not a defenseman back then, either. So these seasons would not be admissible in a discussion about the best offensive defenseman. Correct me if I'm wrong but back it up.

Also, even without the "lost" seasons, your math is all jacked up. The East/West merger didn't happen until the 26/27 season. When we count his NHL and NHA service, George Boucher actually played eleven seasons before the merger. And don't tell me that only seven of them were as a defenseman; you are not the authority on that here. I don't know if I've ever seen you this sloppy before.

My math is not "jacked up" at all.

Until you prove otherwise:

he had two seasons in the NHA as a forward: 16 17

then he had two seasons in the NHL as a forward, or primarily a forward, or as a utility guy: 18 19

then he had those 7 pre-merger seasons as a top-5 scoring defensemen I was referring to: 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 (I now count 11 pre-merger seasons, 7 of which he was a defenseman in)

then he had those three post-merger seasons where he was aging and 9th-11th in defense scoring: 27 28 29

then he had three where he was not a factor offensively: 30 31 32

At any rate, factoring in Boucher's NHA seasons which you forgot, the comparison gets a lot closer. In fact, the only thing Cleghorn seems to have over Boucher is a couple of big seasons in the NHA, because he was easily the worst offensive defenseman of the two in the NHL. And are you actually going all the way back to the inaugural NHA season (10-11) in compiling these defenseman scoring numbers for Cleghorn? I dunno...I haven't checked your numbers. Do you realise how crazy and massively distorting that would be? Before 13-14, when Harry Cameron started to peak, remind me again just who it was that Cleghorn was competing against among NHA defensemen.

we're talking about a span of three seasons, then?

In 1911, he was just 5th so this didn't add a lot to his case anyway. But Taylor was 1st.

In 1912, he was 3rd behind Ross and a soon-to-be drafted HHOFer. Two more ATD players rounded out the top-5.

In 1913, he was 1st, with Cameron and Ross close behind as well as two other HHOFers/ATDers in the top-5.

Your numerical analysis is coming apart at the seams here, seventies. I don't think now is the time for hyperbole.

There's no need to act like a dick. Especially when you are this positive that the evidence is on your side. Let that do your smack talking for you.

There's no hyperbole about it. It's two guys who have similar offensive values at their very best, but one guy did it for a lot longer.

For Christ's sake, this wasn't meant to be an intensive study at all, and I have no interest in either player at this time, but it should be common sense that a guy who was an elite offensive defenseman (lets say top-3 in a pre-merger league) in nine seasons, has a better offensive case than a guy who did it for five.