Toggle sidebar

ATD 2017 Draft Thread II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, Malkin would probably be worst 1st line center by far.

However - and this sounds almost heretical to me - I think by now he's in the Lindros territory value-wise, and might've even surpassed him.
 
Some of the highlights of Pavel Datsyuk's resume...

Hart Voting: 3, 9

All Star Voting: 2, 3, 4, 5, 7

Selke Voting: 1, 1, 1, 3, 3, 3, 5, 9


7yr Vs.X compared to other Centers already selected (HO's table)
Lach: 86.1 (not adjusted for War years)
Delvecchio: 84.8
Datsyuk: 82.5
Gilmour: 82.0
Fedorov: 80.8
Kennedy: 78.8
Smith: 78.0
Keon: 74.3

Datsyuk is no slouch in the playoffs, but some of these guys are clearly better (Gilmour, Fedorov, Kennedy, Keon)
 
MadArcand said:
Well, Malkin would probably be worst 1st line center by far.

However - and this sounds almost heretical to me - I think by now he's in the Lindros territory value-wise, and might've even surpassed him.
Click to expand...

Assuming you agree with Cowley's ranking on the HOH list, I see no reason why Malkin shouldn't be right there beside him by this point.

That would make him 27th-28th, which I have to assume would make him far from the worst 1st line center, let alone by far (if he was even on a 1st line, which he isn't).

Anyway you slice it, Regina waited a long time to take a center and lacks a true #1, which is why it was very important that we took our 2nd one right after our 1st one to catch up. None in the top-26 sounds bad. Two in the top-33 sounds great.
 
seventieslord said:
Assuming you agree with Cowley's ranking on the HOH list, I see no reason why Malkin shouldn't be right there beside him by this point.

That would make him 27th-28th, which I have to assume would make him far from the worst 1st line center, let alone by far (if he was even on a 1st line, which he isn't).

Anyway you slice it, Regina waited a long time to take a center and lacks a true #1, which is why it was very important that we took our 2nd one right after our 1st one to catch up. None in the top-26 sounds bad. Two in the top-33 sounds great.
Click to expand...

If you go by the rankings, the 27th-28th best center in a 25 team draft would make him the worst 1st line center if he was put in that role. I don't really see much use in these rankings, however. What matters is the role these guys are being used in, and how effective they will be in fulfilling those roles, relative to the other teams in the draft.

If we start distilling players down to a rank, it really downplays the fact that we are building teams. You cannot have the best at each position - ultimately you're going to have strengths in some areas and weaknesses in other areas. That is inevitable. Thus, pushing rankings as a way of evaluating players on teams, to me, is pretty useless.
 
seventieslord said:
Assuming you agree with Cowley's ranking on the HOH list, I see no reason why Malkin shouldn't be right there beside him by this point.

That would make him 27th-28th, which I have to assume would make him far from the worst 1st line center, let alone by far (if he was even on a 1st line, which he isn't).

Anyway you slice it, Regina waited a long time to take a center and lacks a true #1, which is why it was very important that we took our 2nd one right after our 1st one to catch up. None in the top-26 sounds bad. Two in the top-33 sounds great.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure Doug Gilmour is in my top 33 C's of all time anymore.
 
jarek said:
If you go by the rankings, the 27th-28th best center in a 25 team draft would make him the worst 1st line center if he was put in that role. I don't really see much use in these rankings, however. What matters is the role these guys are being used in, and how effective they will be in fulfilling those roles, relative to the other teams in the draft.
Click to expand...

Except no it wouldn't, because it never, ever ends up that way. A few guys will inevitably grab a couple top-20 guys, and a few others will put their best center on the 2nd line.If you have the 28th best center in a 25 team draft I absolutely guarantee you he would not be the worst, and nothing is "by far" when comparing the 25th best center to the 26th or 27th or 28th.
 
seventieslord said:
Except no it wouldn't, because it never, ever ends up that way. A few guys will inevitably grab a couple top-20 guys, and a few others will put their best center on the 2nd line.If you have the 28th best center in a 25 team draft I absolutely guarantee you he would not be the worst, and nothing is "by far" when comparing the 25th best center to the 26th or 27th or 28th.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on all counts - you're just proving my point about how utterly useless ranks are once team building becomes a factor. :)
 
Trying to determine Lionel Conacher's AS/Norris record...

1925-26: Tied for 9th in Hart Voting, Dmen Hart voting as follows:

Cleghorn: 75
Clancy: 28
Conacher: 24
Undrafted: 14
Undrafted: 13

Equates to roughly a 3rd/4th AS/Norris finish


1928-29: 7th in Hart voting (points not available) Shore and an Undrafted are the only Dmen ahead of him. Could be as high as a 3rd, but without the points it's tough to tell...I'd conservatively call this a 4th/6th AS/Norris finish


1932-33: AS Teams split between LD and RD; Conacher is named 2nd Team AS at LD, King Clancy is the 2nd Team AS at RD; however, interestingly Conacher and Clancy both got votes at LD and RD, and both finished in 3rd place behind the other. Here's the summary:

1st LD: Clancy -1
1st RD: Clancy - 3, Conacher - 3
2nd LD: Conacher - 8, Clancy - 7
2nd RD: Clancy - 10, Conacher - 7

Combined 1st: Clancy - 4, Conacher - 3
Combined 2nd: Clancy -17, Conacher - 15

As both Clancy and Conacher received votes for both sides, we can be pretty confident who the top 4 Dmen were this season. I would but Conacher last of that group, so this one counts as a 4th AS/Norris finish


1933-34: Conacher finishes runner-up for the Hart to Joliat (Clancy finishes 3rd, point finishes are 62 - 56 -51 respectively)

Again Conacher and Clancy receive votes at both positions:

1st LD: Conacher - 17, Clancy - 4
1st RD: Clancy - 17, Conacher - 3
2nd LD: Conacher - 7, Clancy - 2
2nd RD: Clancy - 6, Conacher - 3

Combined 1st: Clancy - 21, Conacher - 20
Combined 2nd: Clancy - 8, Conacher - 10

These two are about dead even as far as AS voting, but the higher Hart finish puts Conacher over the top, and this equates to a 1st AS/Norris finish, and Conacher's best season.


1935-36: Shore + Undrafted are the 1st Teamers, Goodfellow + Seibert are the 2nd Teamers, looking beyond that...

Conacher: 5 votes 2nd team LD ; 1 vote 2nd team RD
C. Johnson: 4 votes 1st team LD ; 3 votes 2nd team LD ; 1 vote 2nd team RD
Undrafted: 3 votes 1st team RD ; 3 votes 2nd team RD ; 1 vote 2nd team LD
Undrafted: 4 votes 1st team LD ; 2 votes 2nd team LD ; 5 votes 2nd team RD

No one else received any substantial votes. I would put Conacher last of this group, making this an 8th AS/Norris finish.


1936-37: Conacher finishes 2nd in Hart voting, 20 points behind the winner, and only 1 point ahead of Goodfellow

AS Voting as follows:

Hart Winner: 19 votes 1st team LD
Conacher: 2 votes 1st team LD ; 10 votes 2nd team LD ; 1 vote 2nd team RD
Goodfellow: 13 votes 1st team RD ; 5 votes 2nd team RD ; 2 votes 2nd team LD

It's really tough to tell who was better between Conacher and Goodfellow this year. Conacher obviously lost a lot of 1st team votes at LD to the Hart winner, but he was a clear favorite after that (for 2nd team the next closest guy had only 2 votes). Goodfellow's record is clearly better, but his competition was obviously worse. Their Hart voting is nearly identical. This one is just too close to call, I will count it as a 2nd/3rd AS/Norris finish


Total record: 1 , 2/3 , 3/4 , 4 , 4/6 , 8
 
jarek said:
I agree with you on all counts - you're just proving my point about how utterly useless ranks are once team building becomes a factor. :)
Click to expand...

No, the rankings are useful as a shorthand to know who's better in a vaccuum, and yes, of course that doesn't mean theyre better for your team.

But speaking strictly of value in a vaccuum, if you have the 28th best at a position in a 25 team draft, they will not be the lowest ranked player at their position. It's never the way the draft shakes out. Your statement If you go by the rankings, the 27th-28th best center in a 25 team draft would make him the worst 1st line center if he was put in that role, was incorrect, and would only be correct if we all took turns taking first line centers, which isn't how a draft works.
 
Hawkey Town 18 said:
Trying to determine Lionel Conacher's AS/Norris record...

1925-26: Tied for 9th in Hart Voting, Dmen Hart voting as follows:

Cleghorn: 75
Clancy: 28
Conacher: 24
Undrafted: 14
Undrafted: 13

Equates to roughly a 3rd/4th AS/Norris finish


1928-29: 7th in Hart voting (points not available) Shore and an Undrafted are the only Dmen ahead of him. Could be as high as a 3rd, but without the points it's tough to tell...I'd conservatively call this a 4th/6th AS/Norris finish


1932-33: AS Teams split between LD and RD; Conacher is named 2nd Team AS at LD, King Clancy is the 2nd Team AS at RD; however, interestingly Conacher and Clancy both got votes at LD and RD, and both finished in 3rd place behind the other. Here's the summary:

1st LD: Clancy -1
1st RD: Clancy - 3, Conacher - 3
2nd LD: Conacher - 8, Clancy - 7
2nd RD: Clancy - 10, Conacher - 7

Combined 1st: Clancy - 4, Conacher - 3
Combined 2nd: Clancy -17, Conacher - 15

As both Clancy and Conacher received votes for both sides, we can be pretty confident who the top 4 Dmen were this season. I would but Conacher last of that group, so this one counts as a 4th AS/Norris finish


1933-34: Conacher finishes runner-up for the Hart to Joliat (Clancy finishes 3rd, point finishes are 62 - 56 -51 respectively)

Again Conacher and Clancy receive votes at both positions:

1st LD: Conacher - 17, Clancy - 4
1st RD: Clancy - 17, Conacher - 3
2nd LD: Conacher - 7, Clancy - 2
2nd RD: Clancy - 6, Conacher - 3

Combined 1st: Clancy - 21, Conacher - 20
Combined 2nd: Clancy - 8, Conacher - 10

These two are about dead even as far as AS voting, but the higher Hart finish puts Conacher over the top, and this equates to a 1st AS/Norris finish, and Conacher's best season.


1935-36: Shore + Undrafted are the 1st Teamers, Goodfellow + Seibert are the 2nd Teamers, looking beyond that...

Conacher: 5 votes 2nd team LD ; 1 vote 2nd team RD
C. Johnson: 4 votes 1st team LD ; 3 votes 2nd team LD ; 1 vote 2nd team RD
Undrafted: 3 votes 1st team RD ; 3 votes 2nd team RD ; 1 vote 2nd team LD
Undrafted: 4 votes 1st team LD ; 2 votes 2nd team LD ; 5 votes 2nd team RD

No one else received any substantial votes. I would put Conacher last of this group, making this an 8th AS/Norris finish.


1936-37: Conacher finishes 2nd in Hart voting, 20 points behind the winner, and only 1 point ahead of Goodfellow

AS Voting as follows:

Hart Winner: 19 votes 1st team LD
Conacher: 2 votes 1st team LD ; 10 votes 2nd team LD ; 1 vote 2nd team RD
Goodfellow: 13 votes 1st team RD ; 5 votes 2nd team RD ; 2 votes 2nd team LD

It's really tough to tell who was better between Conacher and Goodfellow this year. Conacher obviously lost a lot of 1st team votes at LD to the Hart winner, but he was a clear favorite after that (for 2nd team the next closest guy had only 2 votes). Goodfellow's record is clearly better, but his competition was obviously worse. Their Hart voting is nearly identical. This one is just too close to call, I will count it as a 2nd/3rd AS/Norris finish


Total record: 1 , 2/3 , 3/4 , 4 , 4/6 , 8
Click to expand...

I agree with your assessments of the pre-all-star era. I would even call them what they are in hart votes: 3rd and 3rd.

In 1933, he was pretty clearly 3rd in total voting points, so I'd put him there.

He was 8th in 1935 as well. I think you missed that.

In 1936, I agree that's an 8th.

In 1937, he was a 2nd team all-star and a distant 4th in overall voting... gotta call this a 4th.

Results: 1, 3, 3, 3, 4, 8, 8.
 
seventieslord said:
I know everyone's different, I'm just quoting the HOH list for simplicity.
Click to expand...

I know, but I would rank Delvecchio, Lindros, Francis, Thornton, and now Malkin higher than Gilmour.

For what its worth, it works both ways...I think Gilmour is better than someone ranked higher than he was on that list - Dave Keon.
 
MadArcand said:
Maybe?

I just know Malkin most certainly didn't do enough over last two seasons to leapfrog a whole bunch of two-way stalwarts like Keon, Gilmour, Francis or Fedorov, and certainly didn't pass Thornton either.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't call Keon a "two-way stalwart". We're going to be drafting players 200 picks from now better than him offensively. I wouldn't draft him as anything more than an elite checking center.
 
monster_bertuzzi said:
I know, but I would rank Delvecchio, Lindros, Francis, Thornton, and now Malkin higher than Gilmour.

For what its worth, it works both ways...I think Gilmour is better than someone ranked higher than he was on that list - Dave Keon.
Click to expand...
That's as "extreme" as to think Fedorov belongs in this company. :sarcasm: Crazy! How could you think such a thing?

You must have been born yesterday.
 
seventieslord said:
No, the rankings are useful as a shorthand to know who's better in a vaccuum, and yes, of course that doesn't mean theyre better for your team.

But speaking strictly of value in a vaccuum, if you have the 28th best at a position in a 25 team draft, they will not be the lowest ranked player at their position. It's never the way the draft shakes out. Your statement If you go by the rankings, the 27th-28th best center in a 25 team draft would make him the worst 1st line center if he was put in that role, was incorrect, and would only be correct if we all took turns taking first line centers, which isn't how a draft works.
Click to expand...

I see what you're saying.

As to your first point, who is better in a vacuum at 1C, for example, is pretty irrelevant. Who are the other two players on the line? I'd prefer to look at a line as a whole to determine which is superior. Identifying any individual on that line being better than his counterpart is worthless to me.
 
monster_bertuzzi said:
I know, but I would rank Delvecchio, Lindros, Francis, Thornton, and now Malkin higher than Gilmour.

For what its worth, it works both ways...I think Gilmour is better than someone ranked higher than he was on that list - Dave Keon.
Click to expand...

The book has been closed on Francis/Gilmour for years now. The arguments have been heard, and Gilmour has been taken before Francis for 10 straight drafts now, by an average of 22 spots. He also beat out Francis in the HOH project by a convincing margin.

Delvecchio, well, I honestly can't see what would make him better. Not peak offense, not defense, not grit/leadership, not the playoffs. I guess the fact that he can also play LW helps?...

Lindros and Malkin are, of course, cases of higher peaks vs. Longevity, and offense vs. defense, which is what Thornton would fall into as well, so it's completely reasonable to come to different conclusions on those ones.
 
seventieslord said:
The book has been closed on Francis/Gilmour for years now. The arguments have been heard, and Gilmour has been taken before Francis for 10 straight drafts now, by an average of 22 spots. He also beat out Francis in the HOH project by a convincing margin.

Delvecchio, well, I honestly can't see what would make him better. Not peak offense, not defense, not grit/leadership, not the playoffs. I guess the fact that he can also play LW helps?...

Lindros and Malkin are, of course, cases of higher peaks vs. Longevity, and offense vs. defense, which is what Thornton would fall into as well, so it's completely reasonable to come to different conclusions on those ones.
Click to expand...

Killer has great intangibles and thats why he (understandably) goes very high routinely in the ATD. I'm not saying there is some gap in tier between guys like Francis, Delvecchio, and Gilmour or anything - there isnt, it's just how I would rank them..
 
First off good luck to jarek on his upcoming surgery, hope to see you back here when you're ready.

Time to review recent picks:

- Shea Weber: Very good pick; Thought about picking him when I went with Murphy. The guy got way to much flak when he got traded to Montreal. He's been among the best defensemen in the NHL over the past few yrs. Should be a good partner for Montreal.

- Joe Thornton: Good pick and I do like the Joliat-Thornton-Richard line a lot. Thornton and Richard should put up some great offense for sure.

- Hooley Smith: As I said yesterday I was trying to trade up to pick him. Would have fit in well next to Kharlamov and Boucher on my 1st line.

- Lionel Conacher: Solid pick, I believe I had him a few yrs. ago. Should form a good defensive 1st pairing with Chris Chelios.

- Butch Bouchard: Good pick, had him last yr. Really liked what I read about him.

- Pavel Datsyuk: You look to be going offensive with your 2nd pairing after your offensive 1st line. Dats will chip in offensively as well.

- Bert Olmstead: Good pick, would fit in well on your 1st line with mikita and Bossy if you go that route.

- Dave Keon: Might not offer you all that much in terms of offense when compared to other #2 centres but defensively he's going to be 1 of the best 2nd line centres.

- Bill Cowley: Very good pick, offensively he'll be a very good 1. Defensively not so much but hey he's a 1st line centre so you're not drafting him for his defense. Would have got serious consideration from me at 143.

- Evgeni malkin: Very good choice here, Are you going to play him with Lafleur or on the 2nd line? Wherever you play him he's going to be good.

Anyway those are my thoughts on recent picks, I'm here now so when I come up I'll be able to pick right away as the 3 guys I want at 143 are still available.
 
Last edited:
VanIslander said:
But it's "extreme" to think Fedorov belongs anywhere near them, eh? :shakehead
Click to expand...

You really can't let that word go, eh?

I think Fedorov belongs "near" those guys if you define "near" really loosely with Francis and Delvecchio.

I think he's practically equal with Gilmour in terms of value and though some agree with me, it's a minority opionion, and ultimately the HOH project overrode that sentiment, putting him three spots ahead. Your assessment of Fedorov (that he should be taken 140th-160th*) would not put him "near" those guys. It would put him 40-60 spots after Delvecchio this year, 29-49 spots after Gilmour, and 12-32 spots after Francis. Yes, that's extreme. Being selected after Delvecchio and Francis at all would be extreme, let alone by those margins.

*it should also be noted that you said you wouldn't consider drafting Fedorov yourself until the 200 range. I don't use the word "extreme" lightly here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Top Bottom