ATD 2017 Draft Thread II

[Sprague Cleghorn]

This would be helpful to look at, but could not just replace the current system as it doesn't punish players at all for missing games. As we all know it's more difficult to maintain a certain scoring pace over 80 games than it is over 50.

EDIT: There would also need to be some kind of minimum number of games played...we wouldn't want to be using a season of 15 games for a modern player



Sturm can comment on this, but my guess is that one of them is a weighted average and the other just an average. If my memory serves the weighting system was something like this (sorted from best season to worst with the best on the far left)...

18, 19, 20, 19, 18, 17, 16

Yes, this wasn't meant as a way to replace the current system, but possibly to be an extension of it.

And I didn't use someone's 7 best PPG seasons, but what I think were the 7 seasons used to calculate their cummulative vsx score. For example, Crosby's 2011-12 season is definitely part of one of his 7 best PPG seasons, but it's obviously not one of his best 7 overall seasons. When I was crunching the numbers for the guys above, I used their 7 best overall seasons (or what I think was used for their regular vsx totals) and not a "Crosby 2011-12 type of season".

 

[Ben Grimm]

I'm the lone team with a goalie in my division

If Dreak's Martin Brodeur, the Borgs' Glenn Hall, or 70s' Patrick Roy come out of our division and play your division, I'll be .

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Yes, this wasn't meant as a way to replace the current system, but possibly to be an extension of it.

And I didn't use someone's 7 best PPG seasons, but what I think were the 7 seasons used to calculate their cummulative vsx score. For example, Crosby's 2011-12 season is definitely part of one of his 7 best PPG seasons, but it's obviously not one of his best 7 overall seasons. When I was crunching the numbers for the guys above, I used their 7 best overall seasons (or what I think was used for their regular vsx totals) and not a "Crosby 2011-12 type of season".

I would even be ok counting the best 7 ppg seasons as long as they met a certain minimum number of games played. Just thinking off the top of my head...maybe a good minimum would be the same percentage of games the smallest lockout season was compared to a full season. For example, if the smallest lockout season was 45 games and a regular season was 82, then all qualifying seasons should have at least 54.8% of the total seasons games played (45/82=54.8%). IMO this percentage should be adjusted to be higher for actual lockout seasons, so we aren't counting a 25 game season for someone in 2013.

 

[tony d]

Excellent work bringing in toughness like that Tony.

Thanks. It was needed on the team for sure and I'm glad to get both Neely and Coulter.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

I would even be ok counting the best 7 ppg seasons as long as they met a certain minimum number of games played. Just thinking off the top of my head...maybe a good minimum would be the same percentage of games the smallest lockout season was compared to a full season. For example, if the smallest lockout season was 45 games and a regular season was 82, then all qualifying seasons should have at least 54.8% of the total seasons games played (45/82=54.8%). IMO this percentage should be adjusted to be higher for actual lockout seasons, so we aren't counting a 25 game season for someone in 2013.

Wouldnt that require an entirely new system? Thatd be a whole lot of work.

What I was proposing was just to look at what Sturm calculated for a cummulative 7 year vsx score, and try to calculate what this score would be on a "per game" basis (per game is not an accurate word here, but I dont know what's the accurate word here). Its quicker for the time being

 

[jarek]

Wouldnt that require an entirely new system? Thatd be a whole lot of work.

What I was proposing was just to look at what Sturm calculated for a cummulative 7 year vsx score, and try to calculate what this score would be on a "per game" basis (per game is not an accurate word here, but I dont know what's the accurate word here). Its quicker for the time being

I suppose the best way to describe it would be a more accurate reflection of the player's offensive ability. I don't really think it should be taken literally though, as I do not believe in rewarding a player for something they didn't do.

 

[Dreakmur]

Couldn't PPG be easily resolved? Using Howe for example, I'm assuming his 7 best seasons were 1951-1954, 1956-57 and 1963. In these 7 seasons, Howe played 100% of his possible games. Then, taking Howe's VsX score on page 5 of the VsX thread, 127.2, we can see he accumulated a score of 127.2 while playing 100% of his possible games. In other words, a "VsX PPG" of 1.272.

This could account for guys who are underrated by a cummulative VsX score due to being always inured (Lindros). Doing the same thing for Lindros, in his 7 best years (1994-1999, 2002), he played a possible 81.5% of his games. Lindros' 7 year VsX is 85.4, which yields a "VsX PPG" of 1.05.

A couple more examples:

Gretzky (1982-87, 1991): 155.1/98.4 = 1.58
Lemieux (1986, 1988-89, 1992-93, 1996-97): 120.4/89.0 = 1.35
Dionne (1975, 1977, 1979, 1980-82, 1985): 103.2/99.6 = 1.04
Geoffrion (1952, 1954-56, 1959-61): 1.04

Even though Dionne has a 18.2 point advantage over Lindros in cummulative vsx, Lindros' "vsx PPG" is actually superior to that of Dionne. This could help players that weren't healthy to be compared more fairly to those that were. Let me know what you guys think of it.

Also, I noticed there were two different VSX scores: those that were posted by Sturminator on page 4 and 5, and those by HO on the last page. I know that Sturm's data only goes up to 2013, while HO's are updated to 2016, but Howe's VSX scores differ from 127.2 to 125.5, which makes no sense since he obviously didn't play after 2013. Which numbers are the official ones? I used Sturm's numbers in my calculations above.

Guys that got hurt a lot are going to get hurt in this draft too.

 

[VanIslander]

Guys that got hurt a lot are going to get hurt in this draft too.

There's an above average probability. Maybe we should have a rolling dice or computer-generated equivalent for "injury-prone" players.

It'd add a real-world RISK with a pick. If you're lucky, you get them healthy. If not, of course one should use an extra player to fill roles.

Some GMs don't appreciate extra skaters, but if you have a suspension-prone and/or injury-prone player, you SHOULD account for that in your subsequent picks at that position (at the very least the extra skater, if not in fact other starter at that position later in the draft).

 

[King Forsberg]

Guys that got hurt a lot are going to get hurt in this draft too.

While I agree that's true, Is also say it varies based on the player. For a guy like Lindros, he may actually stay healthier here since he's not the main star on the team/line and he will be playing less minutes.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

While I agree that's true, Is also say it varies based on the player. For a guy like Lindros, he may actually stay healthier here since he's not the main star on the team/line and he will be playing less minutes.

Absolutely. For guys like Bobby Orr, Lindros, Forsberg etc. as long as you protect them in the ATD, I see no reason to believe they wont get in at least 70ish games during the ATD season.

 

[jarek]

I still don't understand why people assume a player will get injured during an ATD season.

 

[VanIslander]

Every team can handle one or two question marks, you know players who beg a question, like, "How would an NHA player perform if the best talent of the era wasn't split with the PCHA?", "How would a Soviet or Czechoslovakian have fared in the NHL (especially thouse who didn't compete against NHLers in the Summit series, Canada Cups, NHL touring series, Challenge Cup, etc)? And... "How likely is a player to be not injured when they been injury prone?"

I think a kariya - Lindros - Neely line would not be judged based solely on their healthy years, but also be DISCOUNTED somewhat (no formula for it) int he individual judgements of other GMs in the draft. A line could handle one of them, but three of them together on a line makes one look deeper in their line-up and ask: "Who else was drafted by this team that could step in and cover when needed?"

Again, we are drafting teams, and considerations like penalties, suspensions and injuries have to be factored in when assessing a team. How to do that can vary and isn't reducible to a formula (well, one could make one up, but most are unlikely to rely on it). It's good that we talk about injuries, penalties and suspensions because they are a FACT of hockey history! We are here to honor and discuss the history of the game, not just play some "injuries-switched-off" online game.

Many factors go into the value of a player, the success of a line and the fit of linemates in a line-up. Let's not turn a blind eye to any relevant consideration.

 

[jarek]

Every team can handle one or two question marks, you know players who beg a question, like, "How would an NHA player perform if the best talent of the era wasn't split with the PCHA?", "How would a Soviet or Czechoslovakian have fared in the NHL (especially thouse who didn't compete against NHLers in the Summit series, Canada Cups, NHL touring series, Challenge Cup, etc)? And... "How likely is a player to be not injured when they been injury prone?"

I think a kariya - Lindros - Neely line would not be judged based solely on their healthy years, but also be DISCOUNTED somewhat (no formula for it) int he individual judgements of other GMs in the draft. A line could handle one of them, but three of them together on a line makes one look deeper in their line-up and ask: "Who else was drafted by this team that could step in and cover when needed?"

Again, we are drafting teams, and considerations like penalties, suspensions and injuries have to be factored in when assessing a team. How to do that can vary and isn't reducible to a formula (well, one could make one up, but most are unlikely to rely on it). It's good that we talk about injuries, penalties and suspensions because they are a FACT of hockey history! We are here to honor and discuss the history of the game, not just play some "injuries-switched-off" online game.

The injuries were already factored in. Specifically, in the scoring leaderboards, awards voting, etc. Had these players not been injured in real life, then they undoubtedly would be drafted much higher than they currently are, because they'd have a greater legacy.

 

[Dreakmur]

Absolutely. For guys like Bobby Orr, Lindros, Forsberg etc. as long as you protect them in the ATD, I see no reason to believe they wont get in at least 70ish games during the ATD season.

I'm not saying they are going to be out for the season, but guys who missed like 30% of their career with injuries are going to miss 30% of the ATD season.

70ish games means you miss 12ish. That's not insignificant.

 

[Dreakmur]

I still don't understand why people assume a player will get injured during an ATD season.

I still don't understand why people think they can have it both ways.

With guys like Lindros.... either you evaluate him as a guy who accomplished what he did, ignoring the missed games and also ignoring how dominant he was when he played.... or you evaluate him as a dominant per-game player, and understand he'll miss some time here. It comes out as about equal - you either have a less dominant player for 82 games, or a beast for 65.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I still don't understand why people think they can have it both ways.

With guys like Lindros.... either you evaluate him as a guy who accomplished what he did, ignoring the missed games and also ignoring how dominant he was when he played.... or you evaluate him as a dominant per-game player, and understand he'll miss some time here. It comes out as about equal - you either have a less dominant player for 82 games, or a beast for 65.

This works for regular season but what about playoffs? Bobby Orr's team would surely lose every game you decide that he "misses"

For that reason I prefer the less dominant version who plays every game when deciding a series

 

[jarek]

I still don't understand why people think they can have it both ways.

With guys like Lindros.... either you evaluate him as a guy who accomplished what he did, ignoring the missed games and also ignoring how dominant he was when he played.... or you evaluate him as a dominant per-game player, and understand he'll miss some time here. It comes out as about equal - you either have a less dominant player for 82 games, or a beast for 65.

Alright.. let's say you evaluate him on a per-game basis. How many Hart trophies does he win? 3? 4?

Where does he get drafted? Surely you wouldn't be able to get him after pick 100 like you can right now.

It isn't all about points when it comes to guys that were injured a lot. They also missed out on a crapload of award recognition. Lindros without all the injuries, is probably a top-10 player all time.

All the injuries already worked their way into his legacy - his draft position. If you want to say he'll miss x amount of games in the ATD season, then I presume you have some kind of way to determine how award voting would have gone for him, as well as his scoring accomplishments, and approximately where he'd have been selected?

The alternative is so, so much simpler. You pretend he didn't play those games (because he didn't). You take the player at face value. You don't even have to do anything special to look at things this way because it's already right in front of you.

So yes, I prefer the less dominant player for 82 games because it makes things a whole lot simpler.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

This works for regular season but what about playoffs? Bobby Orr's team would surely lose every game you decide that he "misses"

For that reason I prefer the less dominant version who plays every game when deciding a series

Everything has to be factored in, During the games Bobby Orr doesnt play for LL's team - will he have a puck rushing/puck moving D on the lower units or as a spare that can step in and hold the fort? This kind of thing happens in real life and would happen during our season. Like VanIslander said - fourth line's and reserves matter for this exact reason.

 

[jarek]

Everything has to be factored in, During the games Bobby Orr doesnt play for LL's team - will he have a puck rushing/puck moving D on the lower units or as a spare that can step in and hold the fort? This kind of thing happens in real life and would happen during our season. Like VanIslander said - fourth line's and reserves matter for this exact reason.

If you do that, then you're double punishing a player for his injuries. Unless you're evaluating him on a per game basis, in which case, I presume you also have some means to determine exactly what his awards recognition and point totals would have looked like?

 

[Dreakmur]

Alright.. let's say you evaluate him on a per-game basis. How many Hart trophies does he win? 3? 4?

Where does he get drafted? Surely you wouldn't be able to get him after pick 100 like you can right now.

It isn't all about points when it comes to guys that were injured a lot. They also missed out on a crapload of award recognition. Lindros without all the injuries, is probably a top-10 player all time.

All the injuries already worked their way into his legacy - his draft position. If you want to say he'll miss x amount of games in the ATD season, then I presume you have some kind of way to determine how award voting would have gone for him, as well as his scoring accomplishments, and approximately where he'd have been selected?

The alternative is so, so much simpler. You pretend he didn't play those games (because he didn't). You take the player at face value. You don't even have to do anything special to look at things this way because it's already right in front of you.

Why do you always want to make things so complicated?

So yes, I prefer the less dominant player for 82 games because it makes things a whole lot simpler.

That's how YOU evaluate it, and there's nothing wrong with that.

 

[King Forsberg]

I sometimes feel like it's worth it to take injury prone players since once people see their name on the roster, they'll just vote for that team and ignore the injuries in a sense. Not a lot of voters would do this but as humans it's easy to just see say Bobby Orr on a roster and assume he'll be healthy AND playing at top level.

 

[895]

Eddie "$1,000,000,000" Belfour

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

The Chicago Shamrocks select Daniel Alfredsson, RW

Alfredsson will play on our top line with Denneny and Apps, leaving Datsyuk and Makarov to form the core of a dangerous 2nd line.

Denneny - Apps - Alfredsson
xxxxx - Datsyuk - Makarov

Below from TDMM's Bio...

Top 20 finishes
Goals: 9, 9, 9, 12
Assists: 8, 11, 13, 13, 13, 17
Points 4, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19

Award voting finishes
Hart: 5, 16, 17
All Star: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9
Selke (all forwards): 3, 10, 11, 15
Selke (wingers only): 2, 3, 4, 4 (these might be off by a rank or two if I incorrectly accounted for multi-positional guys, but I think they are right)

 

[Iceman]

Good tactical move Johnny.

In today's ATD you need two capable top lines.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

The Chicago Shamrocks select Daniel Alfredsson, RW

Alfredsson will play on our top line with Denneny and Apps, leaving Datsyuk and Makarov to form the core of a dangerous 2nd line.

Denneny - Apps - Alfredsson
xxxxx - Datsyuk - Makarov

Below from TDMM's Bio...

Top 20 finishes
Goals: 9, 9, 9, 12
Assists: 8, 11, 13, 13, 13, 17
Points 4, 7, 9, 15, 17, 19

Award voting finishes
Hart: 5, 16, 17
All Star: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9
Selke (all forwards): 3, 10, 11, 15
Selke (wingers only): 2, 3, 4, 4 (these might be off by a rank or two if I incorrectly accounted for multi-positional guys, but I think they are right)

you suck