ATD 2017 Draft Thread IV

[VanIslander]

I really dislike the idea of calling Marleau "well rounded" at the ATD level.

Agreed.

At this level of competition his greatest assets shine: SPEED on transition, SOFT HANDS around the net and HOCKEY SENSE. Those skills are worthy of any powerplay unit (though ATD 2nd PP ideally) and any line where there's a creative passer and a forechecking digger.

Marleau is not physical and not a creative playmaker. His defensive awareness could be a 2nd PK unit at the ATD level but he'd be no more than average, and most aptly a stop-gap measure.

He's not well rounded. He's a talented PIECE that needs the right puzzle to fit into. I think of him as an ATD tweener: not top-6 production but not Bottom-6 intangibles. A decent depth secondary scorer and special teams contributor. Great on an ATD utility line at 4th line LW or extra skater.

(Of course, his career ain't over. There's gas in them there tank and time to show more greatness.)

 

[seventieslord]

I think of him as an ATD tweener: not top-6 production but not Bottom-6 intangibles. A decent depth secondary scorer and special teams contributor. Great on an ATD utility line at 4th line LW or extra skater.

I think this pretty much nails it.

 

[jarek]

I apologize if I wasn't clear; the relationship is that Ramsay needed to sacrifice significant offense to even garner a top 3 Selke vote. One of his stronger Selke years came with a 14th place finish, but his actual win- and the rest of his top 5 voting finishes- were all much lower. I believe it's absolutely worth factoring into Ramsay's ATD effectiveness. That he had to go from the top 20 to the 60s (!) in ES production to even sniff a Selke most years is telling.

Why do you have this idea that Ramsay's ES production is in any way tied to his Selke finishes? You're attempting to force causality where none exists.

Ramsay, in those high Selke seasons, garnered those votes because his defensive play warranted them. That in most of those seasons he also didn't score much at ES had nothing to do with that.

 

[seventieslord]

Based on ESP finishes. As mentioned, Ramsay's high was a pair of 14ths; Luce has a 10th, a 16th, a 19th and several others in the top 30. Ramsay, meanwhile, had the rest of his outside of the 2x 14th place finishes in the 40s or lower. It's not really close.

Assuming those finishes are accurate, thank you for demonstrating the dangers of using "finishes" as an accurate measure.

Ramsay's best ESVsX seasons:

78
73
68
67
62
61
56

Luce's best:

79
75
74
69
61
54
53

How is this "not really close"?

 

[seventieslord]

You're attempting to force causality where none exists.

exactly.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Rod Seiling, D to finish my bottom pairing. His stay at home style should be a good fit at the lone guy back in the 2-2-1 system.

 

[PatrikOverAuston]

Why do you have this idea that Ramsay's ES production is in any way tied to his Selke finishes? You're attempting to force causality where none exists.

So it's a coincidence? That's the explanation here? If we're going to ignore that that very clear relationship exists, no trend of any sort is safe.

"Why do goal scorers score more with a playmaker? Eh, coincidence. Why do defensive defensemen score less than those who earn more powerplay time? Coincidence."

I don't think I'm proposing anything too earth-shattering here- the years where Ramsay focused less on the puck and more on the man, he scored less. That is the definition of common sense.

Assuming those finishes are accurate, thank you for demonstrating the dangers of using "finishes" as an accurate measure.

The greater danger is favouring a flat range of numbers with no context over statistics that do actually convey them. I appreciate VsX as a way of comparing players across eras, but Luce holds a very obvious edge in a very simple category from a period during which they were not only teammates but linemates. In that regard, no, they are not close, and context indicates that.

 

[jarek]

So it's a coincidence? That's the explanation here? If we're going to ignore that that very clear relationship exists, no trend of any sort is safe.

"Why do goal scorers score more with a playmaker? Eh, coincidence. Why do defensive defensemen score less than those who earn more powerplay time? Coincidence."

I don't think I'm proposing anything too earth-shattering here- the years where Ramsay focused less on the puck and more on the man, he scored less. That is the definition of common sense.

Great, aside from the Selke votes, can you actually prove this?

First of all, let's ignore the fact that the Selke didn't exist until 1978 - this skips over, from a totals perspective, 3 of his 4 best offensive seasons.

In fact, I think you're completely out to lunch here. From 1978-1985 (his entire career in which the Selke existed), he finished top-7 in Selke voting every single year. Only twice did he finish outside of the top-3, 1983 and 1984, and in those seasons he scored 29 and 26 points, respectively.

I'm just going to assume you had a brain fart and completely forgot that the Selke didn't exist until 1978. That's the only explanation that actually makes sense.

To be honest, seventies, I'm disappointed you didn't catch this yourself.

The greater danger is favouring a flat range of numbers with no context over statistics that do actually convey them. I appreciate VsX as a way of comparing players across eras, but Luce holds a very obvious edge in a very simple category from a period during which they were not only teammates but linemates. In that regard, no, they are not close, and context indicates that.

Couldn't you then just use total ES numbers?

Counting the numbers from 1972-1980 (their time in Buffalo together):

Ramsay: 385 ES points
Luce: 417 ES points

During the time they were teammates, Luce scored 8.3% more points than Ramsay. Seems pretty close to me..

This is actually slightly unfair to Ramsay because it includes his first two seasons at ages 20 and 21, and Ramsay only played 57 games in his first season.

From an ES PPG perspective:

Ramsay: 55.7
Luce: 59.1

This is only a difference of 6.1%.

 

[Dreakmur]

Mullen being 22% or whatever number we arrive at better than Ramsay (and I believe it would be higher in the ATD as Ramsay will be focused on checking at the expense of offense) would persist regardless of the ice-time.

My point is that in reducing his ice-time even further- there is a difference between the second and third line- will obviously come with a reduced number of points. It has to. The same would happen to Mullen, but he'd still be 20%+ better an ES scorer. As I said, I don't know why we're debating that.



That wasn't the question though. The question was, who is the better ES scorer? We know it's Mullen. They obviously serve different roles, and a team could easily have both on their third line if they so chose, but Mullen would still be the better producer.



Based on ESP finishes. As mentioned, Ramsay's high was a pair of 14ths; Luce has a 10th, a 16th, a 19th and several others in the top 30. Ramsay, meanwhile, had the rest of his outside of the 2x 14th place finishes in the 40s or lower. It's not really close.



I apologize if I wasn't clear; the relationship is that Ramsay needed to sacrifice significant offense to even garner a top 3 Selke vote. One of his stronger Selke years came with a 14th place finish, but his actual win- and the rest of his top 5 voting finishes- were all much lower. I believe it's absolutely worth factoring into Ramsay's ATD effectiveness. That he had to go from the top 20 to the 60s (!) in ES production to even sniff a Selke most years is telling.

Yes, Mullen is a better offensive player. That is not the discussion here.

The question is, how much better is he, and does that make up for the difference in defensive abilities.

As has been discussed, Mullen scored about 20% more than Ramsay. He did that in an offensive role, with good offensive line mates, right? If he is not going to be in an offensive role here, nor is he going to have good offensive line mates, do we think his offensive production is going to same?

Ramsay played his career in a defensive role and he had much less offensive line mates. His line mates on his ATD team are probably betters an his real life ones. Is his production going to dip, and if so, as much as Mullen?

 

[PatrikOverAuston]

Great, aside from the Selke votes, can you actually prove this?

You mean, "besides from the chief award given for defensive proficiency by a forward"? The burden would appear to be on you to show there isn't a relationship.

First of all, let's ignore the fact that the Selke didn't exist until 1978 - this skips over, from a totals perspective, 3 of his 4 best offensive seasons.

In fact, I think you're completely out to lunch here. From 1978-1985 (his entire career in which the Selke existed), he finished top-7 in Selke voting every single year. Only twice did he finish outside of the top-3, 1983 and 1984, and in those seasons he scored 29 and 26 points, respectively.

1983 saw him miss substantial time, but that he still garnered a 7th place vote share with all of 26 ESP should tell you where his efforts were when on the ice.

In 1984, the Selke winner- Jarvis- himself had only 42 total points. Jarvis would net 37 the next year and be Selke runner-up to... you guessed it, Ramsay. He was another player who did not actually win until he sacrificed almost all of his offense for the defensive side of the game. Yet another example of a player who needed to ignore scoring to be truly "elite" defensively.

I'm just going to assume you had a brain fart and completely forgot that the Selke didn't exist until 1978. That's the only explanation that actually makes sense.

We talked about this before- while I forgot about it initially, I factored that in when discussing his overall Selke record. He did not win a Selke with 58 or 54 ESP, but rather the year he had 30. That at his absolute worst ESP-wise he was still garnering top ten Selke votes gives you an idea of what voters thought about his play when scoring versus not.

Couldn't you then just use total ES numbers?

Counting the numbers from 1972-1980 (their time in Buffalo together):

Ramsay: 385 ES points
Luce: 417 ES points

During the time they were teammates, Luce scored 8.3% more points than Ramsay. Seems pretty close to me..

This is actually slightly unfair to Ramsay because it includes his first two seasons at ages 20 and 21, and Ramsay only played 57 games in his first season.

From an ES PPG perspective:

Ramsay: 55.7
Luce: 59.1

This is only a difference of 6.1%.

If we're going to use total numbers like that with no context as to scoring finishes or situation, a recent selection in Lynn Patrick should probably go 300 picks higher than he does today, and you should have grabbed him for your second line well ahead of Parise. After all, his VsX7 is one of the top 100 ever and puts him on-par with Goulet (109th overall) Hextall (101st overall) and Hossa (143rd overall).

If you don't agree with that, then using a lump sum EV ESP isn't the right approach either.

 

[seventieslord]

If you read up on Ramsay (check dreakmur's bio) you'll see that he was always elite defensively, start to finish. One of the most consistent players ever.

This crap about his ES points and selke votes is just a big red herring. This is really the first time I've ever seen someone claim that fewer points gets you more selke recognition...

 

[jarek]

You mean, "besides from the chief award given for defensive proficiency by a forward"? The burden would appear to be on you to show there isn't a relationship.

1983 saw him miss substantial time, but that he still garnered a 7th place vote share with all of 26 ESP should tell you where his efforts were when on the ice.

In 1984, the Selke winner- Jarvis- himself had only 42 total points. Jarvis would net 37 the next year and be Selke runner-up to... you guessed it, Ramsay. He was another player who did not actually win until he sacrificed almost all of his offense for the defensive side of the game. Yet another example of a player who needed to ignore scoring to be truly "elite" defensively.

We talked about this before- while I forgot about it initially, I factored that in when discussing his overall Selke record. He did not win a Selke with 58 or 54 ESP, but rather the year he had 30. That at his absolute worst ESP-wise he was still garnering top ten Selke votes gives you an idea of what voters thought about his play when scoring versus not.

OK then, let's try this exercise.

1978-1985, Selke trophy voting and the players' respective offensive production.

1978:
Gainey, 31
Ramsay, 71
Marcotte, 54
Clarke, 89
Luce, 61

1979:
Gainey, 38
Marcotte, 47
Ramsay, 57
Luce, 61
xxx, 16
Gillies, 91
xxx, 34
xxx, 45
Jarvis, 23
Clarke, 73

1980:
Gainey, 33
Ramsay, 60
Luce, 43
xxx, 61
Tkaczuk, 37

1981:
Gainey, 47
Ramsay, 59
xxx, 45
Kasper, 56
Bourne, 76
xxx, 73
Taylor, 112
Trottier, 103
Bridgman, 51
xxx, 21

1982:
Kasper, 51
Gainey, 45
Ramsay, 51
Jarvis, 48
Tonelli, 93
xxx, 26
Hunter, 72
xxx, 87
xxx, 69
Keon, 34

1983:
Clarke, 85
Kurri, 104
xxx, 40
xxx, 61
xxx, 58
Gainey, 30
Ramsay, 29
Tonelli, 71
Middleton, 96
xxx, 88

1984:
Jarvis, 42
Trottier, 111
Kurri, 113
Middleton, 105
Ramsay, 26
Tonelli, 67
Hunter, 79
Goulet, 121
Gainey, 39
xxx, 116

1985:
Ramsay, 33
Jarvis, 37
Tonelli, 100
Kurri, 135
Carbonneau, 57
Sutter, 74
Poulin, 74
xxx, 102
Gainey, 32
xxx, 66

In a world where scoring directly correlated with amount of Selke consideration, this should be directly reflected in the actual Selke results. However, if you were to actually plot Selke finish to point totals for the vast majority of years, the data would be all over the place.

There simply is very little correlation. The closest are 1981 and 1982, somewhat resembling a reverse correlation between scoring and Selke finish.

Unless you want to say this applies only to Ramsay. Because the voters, specifically with Ramsay, were paying attention to how many points he got each year when deciding how to vote for him for the Selke trophy. Just him.

If we're going to use total numbers like that with no context as to scoring finishes or situation, a recent selection in Lynn Patrick should probably go 300 picks higher than he does today, and you should have grabbed him for your second line well ahead of Parise.

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

If you don't agree with that, then using a lump sum EV ESP isn't the right approach either.

Why isn't it? By your own admission, they played on the exact same line. If THAT isn't an appropriate situation to use total points, I don't know what is.

I'd love for you to explain why total points isn't appropriate when comparing two linemates.

 

[Sprague Cleghorn]

Since jarek pointed me how to actually search up game reports on google news archive, I've spent quite a bit of time looking for some stuff. Here I found stuff on the Mackell - McKenney - Toppazzini line. Some info like how Mackell played RW in Toronto. Also, according to this guy, Mckenney seems to be a better LW than C.

link: https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=QBJtjoHflPwC&dat=19580407&printsec=frontpage&hl=en, page 9

 

[jarek]

Johnny is skipped.

Given Worters' incomplete playoff record, getting a guy with a proven playoff track record is probably a good idea, so I'll take Gump Worsley.

He should also be good enough to take some starts in the regular season without costing my team any games if Worters needs some rest.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Sorry, should have left a list.

Bruce Stuart

 

[seventieslord]

Brian Rolston, LW/C

He'll play LW at even strength and center on the 2nd pk unit.

 

[jarek]

rmartin65 list picks Brad Marchand, LW.

 

[seventieslord]

ROSTER UPDATES NEEDED: I don't want to go into too much detail (I risk burdening someone with unmeetable expectations and/or spoiling the surprise), but we have a very unique opportunity in this year's ATD to take advantage of a very generous offer. But I need a bit of help from everyone. We need our rosters in the roster thread (at least the starting lineups) to be complete, and to all be in similar formats. I'll do the rest. The physical formatting is fine, it's close enough to uniform, but what I do need is for everyone to have their special teams units completed and for us to all have our captaincy outlined in the same way. Only 8 teams in the league have all 4 of their special teams units posted in the roster thread, AND have a captain and TWO assistants noted. Below I have outlined who needs to get this done. I know a couple #12 forwards and #6 defensemen are not yet filled - that will of course be taken care of as the draft progresses. But if you see your team name below, please go in the roster thread and make your updates, then reply here to advise that you have.

This is going to be tremendous, believe me. But I do need some cooperation from everyone to make it go smoothly.

Teams that need special teams units listed:

Chicago
MHC
Amarillo
Borg Collective

Teams that need to designate a captain and two assistants:

Southern Shore
Hartford
Toledo
Toronto MA (one too many assistants)
Miami
Montreal (one too many assistants)
Vancouver (one too many assistants)

Teams that need to do both:

Pittsburgh
Indiana (one too many assistants)
Toronto ML
Brockville
West Lafayette (one too many assistants)
EHC Borussia

 

[seventieslord]

rmartin65 list picks Brad Marchand, LW.

He's not ready yet.... completely skipped the MLD. I know he's having a good season but...

He's in his 7th season right now. So was Jamie Benn last year. At that point, Benn made his meteoric rise to ATD status. And Benn is a significantly better player than Marchand. He had a significantly better resume than Marchand does now, at the time when he was taken early in MLD 2015 and had only played six seasons.

 

[895]

ROSTER UPDATES NEEDED: I don't want to go into too much detail (I risk burdening someone with unmeetable expectations and/or spoiling the surprise), but we have a very unique opportunity in this year's ATD to take advantage of a very generous offer. But I need a bit of help from everyone. We need our rosters in the roster thread (at least the starting lineups) to be complete, and to all be in similar formats. I'll do the rest. The physical formatting is fine, it's close enough to uniform, but what I do need is for everyone to have their special teams units completed and for us to all have our captaincy outlined in the same way. Only 8 teams in the league have all 4 of their special teams units posted in the roster thread, AND have a captain and TWO assistants noted. Below I have outlined who needs to get this done. I know a couple #12 forwards and #6 defensemen are not yet filled - that will of course be taken care of as the draft progresses. But if you see your team name below, please go in the roster thread and make your updates, then reply here to advise that you have.

This is going to be tremendous, believe me. But I do need some cooperation from everyone to make it go smoothly.

Teams that need special teams units listed:

Chicago
MHC
Amarillo
Borg Collective

Teams that need to designate a captain and two assistants:

Southern Shore
Hartford
Toledo
Toronto MA (one too many assistants)
Miami
Montreal (one too many assistants)
Vancouver (one too many assistants)

Teams that need to do both:

Pittsburgh
Indiana (one too many assistants)
Toronto ML
Brockville
West Lafayette (one too many assistants)
EHC Borussia

Mmm you're not thinking of using EHM or something to sim a season are you?

 

[seventieslord]

Mmm you're not thinking of using EHM or something to sim a season are you?

no. I only vaguely know what that is, and I doubt I'd agree with whatever attributes get assigned to the players - and I doubt many of you would agree with me or with EHM.

And I won't field any more questions about what is or isn't happening. This should remain a secret and I don't want to accidentally help you guys narrow it down.

 

[seventieslord]

I couldn't resist.

well, duh

Seriously though, we will update ours when we finish our starting lineup.

Does your last starter pick affect who will be on your special teams units and which player loses an "A"? Honest question.

 

[Stoneberg]

Does your last starter pick affect who will be on your special teams units and which player loses an "A"? Honest question.

It may still affect special teams, we will iron out the A's. It will be resolved with one of our next two picks.

 

[PatrikOverAuston]

If you read up on Ramsay (check dreakmur's bio) you'll see that he was always elite defensively, start to finish. One of the most consistent players ever.

Consistently good? Sure. Recognized for his elite play in the form of Selke votes? Only when he sacrificed enough offense. That's not a knock, just a truth- if you are going to focus more on D, you spend less time attacking. I don't get why that's controversial.

This crap about his ES points and selke votes is just a big red herring.

I don't understand how a very fundamental aspect about the sport we all love is "crap".

This is really the first time I've ever seen someone claim that fewer points gets you more selke recognition...

An accomplished historian like you obviously knows the purpose of the Selke has shifted in its time. We now look at it more as the award for the scorer who plays the best defense, with the odd John Madden sneaking in. Back then? Not so much.

OK then, let's try this exercise.

1978-1985, Selke trophy voting and the players' respective offensive production

...

In a world where scoring directly correlated with amount of Selke consideration, this should be directly reflected in the actual Selke results. However, if you were to actually plot Selke finish to point totals for the vast majority of years, the data would be all over the place.

Okay, let's do that:

Anddd this would appear to be pretty straight-forward- less points, more Selke votes.

There simply is very little correlation. The closest are 1981 and 1982, somewhat resembling a reverse correlation between scoring and Selke finish.

And thus this would appear to be incorrect.

Unless you want to say this applies only to Ramsay. Because the voters, specifically with Ramsay, were paying attention to how many points he got each year when deciding how to vote for him for the Selke trophy. Just him.

I'll say it again: play more defense, thus making yourself more likely to be recognized for your defensive play, score less points. It happened to Clarke as well. His Selke came in his fifth-highest scoring season, FYI.

What on earth does that have to do with anything?

Quite a bit- a flat number or sum of numbers gives you very little insight what a player actually did in-season. VsX doesn't tell you that, and neither does a lump ESP total. Finishes do. That's the magic of context.

Why isn't it? By your own admission, they played on the exact same line. If THAT isn't an appropriate situation to use total points, I don't know what is.

I'd love for you to explain why total points isn't appropriate when comparing two linemates.

Then why did one have significantly better ES scoring finishes? Could it be one was simply a better scorer at ES, or is this another "coincidence"?

 

[Namba 17]

Are you taking a starter in round 25?

I can't rule it out.