ATD 2013 Draft Draft Thread IV | Page 40 | HFBoards - NHL Message Board and Forum for National Hockey League
Toggle sidebar

ATD 2013 Draft Draft Thread IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sturminator said:
What's this? How are you calculating these numbers, exactly? These look like per-game numbers. If that is the case, you need to make that clear, dreak. Here are the numbers I have:

Pierre Turgeon:
89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52

...which are very good, most similar to Roenick, though a bit better. Nevertheless, a far cry from the numbers you posted.
Click to expand...

They are not per game numbers, they are the V#2 numbers (outliers eliminated).
 
BraveCanadian said:
I honestly think that Al Arbour was getting through to him in '93.

You're right though after getting gooned by Hunter (which I will always despise him for by the way, he should have been thrown out of the NHL), Turgeon was worse than ever.
Click to expand...

What an awful play that was. Nevertheless, when deciding who was the more valuable player, it would be hard for me to choose between Turgeon and Hunter.
 
TheDevilMadeMe said:
Turgeon was basically ruined by Dale Hunter's cheap shot in 1993, IMO. He was something of a perimeter player before then, but really started to play like a scared girl afterwards. I wanted a hard working center next to Kovalchuk, so Turgeon wasn't on my radar at all.
Click to expand...
I'm hoping to see him match up with this team in the first round: ;)

John Tonelli, LW- Mario Lemieux, C-Rick Middleton, RW
John LeClair, LW- Mats Sundin, C- Alex Mogilny, RW
xxxxxxxxxxxx-Dale Hunter, C-​
Click to expand...
 
monster_bertuzzi said:
Is there a difference between Reinhart and Reed Larson?
Click to expand...


A few that I can see:

-********* Larson didn’t have a problem staying healthy

-********* Larson had MUCH more of a physical edge to his game

-********* Larson did not play a lot of forward that inflated his TOI numbers (like Reinhart)

-********* Although he played on lesser teams, he earned a lot more TOI than Reinhart did, which I think transcends the team effect.

-********* Larson’s offensive numbers are much less PP-dependent. Exactly half of Reinhart’s points came from the PP – and from his exceptionally heavy PP usage in particular. Larson’s at a more reasonable 39%.

-********* Larson’s also pretty rare as far as defensemen go, in that he could really score goals. 1/3 of his points were goals, as opposed to just under ¼ for Reinhart. Finding a defenseman who can score goals like Larson is hard. Finding a defenseman who can put up assists like Reinhart… not as hard.

-********* Reinhart’s playoff record is obviously far superior though, FWIW.


BraveCanadian said:
The main reason I took Shero besides loving his absent minded professor / hockey innovator genius schtick was that he explicitly gave his star players a little bit of latitude within his system.

He criticized the Russians for being too strict in that regard and keeping the reins too tight.

When you have guys like Jagr and Stewart I figured they would appreciate the flexibility as a way to help them buy in and play within a team concept at the same time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, definitely not criticizing it or anything… I’m a big Shero fan, he won me my title. And I realize that the order coaches are selected isn’t going to follow an exact list of how “good†they were, it will be much more about team needs than you’d see with players.

Plus, the degree of variance in the opinions about them is much higher than for players.

TheDevilMadeMe said:
Gary Bergman, D
Click to expand...


Good pick, only thing I want to say about it is that the TOI stats are a little favourable to Bergman because of the fact he was earning those minutes on mediocre to bad teams.


monster_bertuzzi said:
A good reason to wait to pick a second line C is because people like this are available....
Click to expand...

Absolutely… steal of the draft.
*
Plus, they did a better job surrounding him than I did. Iginla/Hay > Cashman/Adams, even with league size taken into account (32 team draft vs. 40). In this particular case Turgeon doesn’t even have to be the best player on his line (which he absolutely could do)
*
Sum of best 6 percentage scores for offensively-oriented NHL centers taken since pick #100, as well as where the next two undrafteds sit:
*
Cowley 585
Stastny 577
Thornton 572
Oates 565
Hawerchuk 563
Ratelle 558
Savard 558
Barry 545
Stewart 544
Lindros 535
Perreault 512 (or 527 after 3% small arena credit)
Turgeon 520
Roenick 511
Lafontaine 509
Sundin 509
Modano 509
Sittler 506
Sedin 500
Malkin 498
(undrafted) 496
Datsyuk 485
Federko 484
Lemaire 482
Richards 478
Weiland 478
Damphousse 476
(undrafted) 475
Mahovlich 465
Primeau 465
Spezza 464
Staal 452
MacLeish 449
Nieuwendyk 447
McKenney 433
Stamkos 321
*
Other notes:
*
-********* This is based on my own file which uses different benchmarks in a few seasons, which is of course not meant to benefit any one player, and helps 1970-1975 and 1980-1995 players the most (as in making sure they don’t get punished unfairly). It also accounts for war years in a “common sense†way – crediting the player, just not disproportionately so. I understand there are a few incarnations going around, but I doubt employing any of them would cause this list to really look materially different.

-********* The majority of these guys, being centers, are pretty heavy on the assists compared to goals. Turgeon is much more balanced offensively than most of these guys, which is added offensive value.

-********* Most of these players, including a few not very far ahead of Turgeon, had far superior linemates. Ratelle, Savard, Stewart, Lindros and Perreault stand out immediately. With a Gilbert/Larmer/LeClair/Siebert/Martin as a longtime linemate, what would Turgeon’s best 6 scores look like?

-********* This only counts 6 best seasons, but Turgeon had 13 consecutive noteworthy seasons from 1989-2001. Speaking strictly in terms of 7th-10th best seasons, Turgeon would only be behind Hawerchuk, Stewart and Oates on this list. This is a testament to his excellent season-to-season consistency.

-********* Lastly, what could perhaps be termed as Turgeon’s 112 most dominant games of all were played in the 1998 and 2000 seasons, which, due to GP totals of 52 and 60, do not rank among his best 6 seasons by percentage score. The type of system I employed above is absolutely unforgiving to that, but that doesn’t mean we should be. That’s still 112 games (about a season and a half) played at a 93-104% level. I realize some of these guys had injury problems, but Turgeon is much more unique in this case, being injured in his two best per-game seasons (and it’s not like ¾ of a season is a small sample size, either) As a result, he’s lacking the gaudy totals in those two seasons but it is not a stretch to say that he was a 30-game injury in 1999-00 away from being in the HHOF. All he needed in those 30 games was 31 points (his pace indicated that 38 was more likely) and he’d have an Art Ross, and there’s no way they leave out an Art Ross winner with 1300+ games and points.
*
He’s a healthier, much less visually dazzling and ultimately more effective version of Pat Lafontaine, who was taken 150 picks ago. People talk about Lafontaine like he could have been top-3 in scoring every season but just kept getting injured, but in reality he only has three top-10s in PPG – 2nd, 3rd, 5th. Turgeon put up five of those – 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th. 9th. In their best seasons, does playing with Mogilny (instead of Derek King) make up the 16 point edge Lafontaine had? Good question!
 
Dreakmur said:
They are not per game numbers, they are the V#2 numbers (outliers eliminated).
Click to expand...

Bullsh!t. Mine are the Vs2 numbers with #2 outliers eliminated when there is more than a 10% gap between #2 and #3. Your definition of outlier is evidently as soft as your second line center.

I know which system you're using. You're using seventies' ridiculous system in which Gretzky, Lemieux, their grandmothers and everyone they ever skated with are automatically removed, and then another player is removed (as the theoretical non-G/L world #1 scorer), and then the percentages are compared. This is a terrible system...so bad seventies has hardly bothered to defend it, because he's smart enough to understand what a trainwreck it really is.

Must I always check your numbers, dreak?
 
Sturminator said:
Bullsh!t. Mine are the Vs2 numbers with #2 outliers eliminated when there is more than a 10% gap between #2 and #3. Your definition of outlier is evidently as soft as your second line center.
Click to expand...

I used that exact system.

I know which system you're using. You're using seventies' ridiculous system in which Gretzky, Lemieux, their grandmothers and everyone they ever skated with are automatically removed, and then another player is removed (as the theoretical non-G/L world #1 scorer), and then the percentages are compared. This is a terrible system...so bad seventies has hardly bothered to defend it, because he's smart enough to understand what a trainwreck it really is.
Click to expand...

Nope. I'm using your system.

Must I always check your numbers, dreak?
Click to expand...

You should probably check your ego next.
 
Dreakmur said:
Sedin...
Click to expand...

We're really not going to stoop to a level where we're going to disparage other people's players to make ours look better, are we?

We can't just look at this pick as it is: Pierre Turgeon matches up extremely well offensively to other players who were selected over 100 picks ago. We've insulated him well to where he'll get the best out of his skills, meaning it's something of a steal because of what we have built around him. He wouldn't have fit with all the other teams, but on our team he's an excellent fit.

It is what it is.
 
seventieslord said:
A few that I can see:

-********* Larson didn’t have a problem staying healthy

-********* Larson had MUCH more of a physical edge to his game

-********* Larson did not play a lot of forward that inflated his TOI numbers (like Reinhart)

-********* Although he played on lesser teams, he earned a lot more TOI than Reinhart did, which I think transcends the team effect.

-********* Larson’s offensive numbers are much less PP-dependent. Exactly half of Reinhart’s points came from the PP – and from his exceptionally heavy PP usage in particular. Larson’s at a more reasonable 39%.

-********* Larson’s also pretty rare as far as defensemen go, in that he could really score goals. 1/3 of his points were goals, as opposed to just under ¼ for Reinhart. Finding a defenseman who can score goals like Larson is hard. Finding a defenseman who can put up assists like Reinhart… not as hard.

-********* Reinhart’s playoff record is obviously far superior though, FWIW.
.
Click to expand...

Reinhart also has a better defensive reputation than Larson, though that isn't saying much.
 
monster_bertuzzi said:
Is kind of a *****, but is at least big and strong in the corners.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Anybody who has watched him play is quite aware of his ability to protect the puck and cycle down low.

Turgeon on the otherhand wouldn't no a cycle from a hole in his head.


Also I'd like to point out Sedin will see a lot of minutes against 3rd pairings compared to a 2nd line C like Turgeon who has to deal with a top pairing.


Also thank you MB. I knew after using my first 3 picks on forwards I'd need to build a solid 6 man unit.
 
Dreakmur said:
Both are soft. Does it matter who is a little bit softer than the other?

As I said before, it's all about surrounding them correctly. We'll see if Sedin gets to play with somebody like Jarome Iginla.
Click to expand...

Considering you are comparing my 3rd line to your 2nd I'd sure hope not.
 
Dreakmur said:
Nope. I'm using your system.
Click to expand...

Then you suck at basic division. I have triple-checked my numbers. Yours are simply false. From Hockey-Reference:

1988-89:

1. Lemieux - 199
2. Gretzky - 168
3. Yzerman - 155
...Turgeon - 88
[88/168 = 52]

1989-90:

1. Gretzky - 142
2. Messier - 129
3. Yzerman - 127
...Turgeon - 106
[106/129 = 82]

1990-91:

1. Gretzky - 163
2. Hull - 131
3. Oates - 115
...Turgeon - 79
[79/115 = 69]

1991-92:

1. Lemieux - 131
2. Gretzky - 123
3. Stevens - 121
...Turgeon - 95
[95/123 = 77]

1992-93:

1. Lemieux - 160
2. Lafontaine - 148
3. Oates - 142
...Turgeon - 132
[132/148 = 89]

1993-94:

1. Gretzky - 130
2. Fedorov - 120
3. Oates - 112
...Turgeon - 94
[94/120 = 78]

1994-95:

1. Lindros - 70
2. Jagr - 70
3. Zhamnov - 65
...Turgeon - 47
[47/70 = 67]

1995-96:

1. Lemieux - 161
2. Jagr - 149
3. Sakic - 120
...Turgeon - 96
[96/120 = 80]

1996-97:

1. Lemieux - 122
2. Selanne - 109
3. Kariya - 99
...Turgeon - 85
[85/109 = 78]

1997-98:

1. Jagr - 102
2. Forsberg - 91
3. Bure - 90
...Turgeon - 68
[68/91 = 75]

1998-99:

1. Jagr - 127
2. Selanne - 107
3. Kariya - 101
...Turgeon - 65
[65/107 = 61]

1999-00:

1. Jagr - 96
2. Bure - 94
3. Recchi - 91
...Turgeon - 66
[66/94 = 70]

2000-01:

1. Jagr - 121
2. Sakic - 118
3. Elias - 96
...Turgeon - 82
[82/96 = 85]

Total:

89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52

My numbers are exactly right following the method. I have no idea what happened with yours, but they are off.
 
Sturminator said:
Then you suck at basic division. I have triple-checked my numbers. Yours are simply false. From Hockey-Reference:

1988-89:

1. Lemieux - 199
2. Gretzky - 168
3. Yzerman - 155
...Turgeon - 88
[88/168 = 52]

1989-90:

1. Gretzky - 142
2. Messier - 129
3. Yzerman - 127
...Turgeon - 106
[106/129 = 82]

1990-91:

1. Gretzky - 163
2. Hull - 131
3. Oates - 115
...Turgeon - 79
[79/115 = 69]

1991-92:

1. Lemieux - 131
2. Gretzky - 123
3. Stevens - 121
...Turgeon - 95
[95/123 = 77]

1992-93:

1. Lemieux - 160
2. Lafontaine - 148
3. Oates - 142
...Turgeon - 132
[132/148 = 89]

1993-94:

1. Gretzky - 130
2. Fedorov - 120
3. Oates - 112
...Turgeon - 94
[94/120 = 78]

1994-95:

1. Lindros - 70
2. Jagr - 70
3. Zhamnov - 65
...Turgeon - 47
[47/70 = 67]

1995-96:

1. Lemieux - 161
2. Jagr - 149
3. Sakic - 120
...Turgeon - 96
[96/120 = 80]

1996-97:

1. Lemieux - 122
2. Selanne - 109
3. Kariya - 99
...Turgeon - 85
[85/109 = 78]

1997-98:

1. Jagr - 102
2. Forsberg - 91
3. Bure - 90
...Turgeon - 68
[68/91 = 75]

1998-99:

1. Jagr - 127
2. Selanne - 107
3. Kariya - 101
...Turgeon - 65
[65/107 = 61]

1999-00:

1. Jagr - 96
2. Bure - 94
3. Recchi - 91
...Turgeon - 66
[66/94 = 70]

2000-01:

1. Jagr - 121
2. Sakic - 118
3. Elias - 96
...Turgeon - 82
[82/96 = 85]

Total:

89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61, 52

My numbers are exactly right following the method. I have no idea what happened with yours, but they are off.
Click to expand...

Given the wackiness of 1989:

1. Mario Lemieux*-PIT 199
2. Wayne Gretzky*-LAK 168
3. Steve Yzerman*-DET 155
4. XXX-LAK 150
5. XXX-PIT 115

I think it's reasonable to use 5th place as the standard. If so, you have (88/115 = 77) meaning Turgeon's 52 turns to a 77. That would give you:

89, 85, 82, 80, 78, 78, 77, 77, 75, 70, 69, 67, 61
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)

Latest posts

Ad

Ad

Top Bottom