ATD 2017 Draft Thread IV

[ImporterExporter]

Why does it matter? Generally it means the same thing to me, some people just use different words for it.

With Morenz, he wasn't necessarily the best at any one particular skill. However, he was exceptionally good at all of them. As a complete package, there are few better.

His speed/skating was elite, best of the era. No question about that. I certainly agree he was the most well rounded player of the late 20's/early 30's although I find his defense to be overrated, especially if people say it was elite. 7-8 different newspaper clippings and a few quotes from an entire era doesn't do it for me. Study a guy like Frank Nighbor and you could write a novel about his defensive abilities alone. Frank Boucher is another guy I think of more highly (defensively) when studying their careers. Same with Hooley Smith.

My contention of over value in regards to Morenz has to do with the level at which he supposedly destroyed everyone else in the NHL and left all challengers in the dust. I don't have a problem calling Morenz a GREAT player. Hell, if people want to put him in the top 15, fine. I disagree, but it's at least worth debating. As I said before, I have Howie just outside my top 20.

You mentioned peak over prime earlier as well.

I've evolved in my assessments of players, like most do, over the years. I've come to appreciate players who dominated or played close to that level for a long time over players who drop off outside a 5 year peak, unless the shorter peak is something truly remarkable like Bobby Orr or to a lesser degree Guy Lafleur.

I rank somebody like Messier higher than most because, while he didn't have as many Hart's as a few others in his range, or scoring titles, he was so good for so many years, and absolutely dominated in the postseason for a long time that it's hard for me to ignore. There is just so much more to look at and appreciate. Especially in an extremely physical sport.

I understand better now while players like Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux have all recently said Gordie Howe was the greatest hockey player of all time, even if most of us have him 3rd (a few put him 2nd). Not only was a player like Howe's peak incredible, he dominated the game of hockey for such an extended period of time it just makes your jaw drop, because it IS so rare to see.

 

[ImporterExporter]

This

Because it shows how drastic Morenz's performances dipped once the PCHA and WCHL folded.

If you want to bring up pre consolidation era playoff performers, all i need to do is say Frank Nighbor and Cyclone Taylor for starters.

 

[jarek]

His speed/skating was elite, best of the era. No question about that. I certainly agree he was the most well rounded player of the late 20's/early 30's although I find his defense to be overrated, especially if people say it was elite. 7-8 different newspaper clippings and a few quotes from an entire era doesn't do it for me. Study a guy like Frank Nighbor and you could write a novel about his defensive abilities alone. Frank Boucher is another guy I think of more highly (defensively) when studying their careers. Same with Hooley Smith.

My contention of over value in regards to Morenz has to do with the level at which he supposedly destroyed everyone else in the NHL and left all challengers in the dust. I don't have a problem calling Morenz a GREAT player. Hell, if people want to put him in the top 15, fine. I disagree, but it's at least worth debating. As I said before, I have Howie just outside my top 20.

You mentioned peak over prime earlier as well.

I've evolved in my assessments of players, like most do, over the years. I've come to appreciate players who dominated or played close to that level for a long time over players who drop off outside a 5 year peak, unless the shorter peak is something truly remarkable like Bobby Orr or to a lesser degree Guy Lafleur.

I rank somebody like Messier higher than most because, while he didn't have as many Hart's as a few others in his range, or scoring titles, he was so good for so many years, and absolutely dominated in the postseason for a long time that it's hard for me to ignore. There is just so much more to look at and appreciate. Especially in an extremely physical sport.

I understand better now while players like Gretzky, Orr, and Lemieux have all recently said Gordie Howe was the greatest hockey player of all time, even if most of us have him 3rd (a few put him 2nd). Not only was a player like Howe's peak incredible, he dominated the game of hockey for such an extended period of time it just makes your jaw drop, because it IS so rare to see.

What makes Hooley and Boucher better than him defensively anyways?

Also, the reason why I don't value much of anything that happens past a player's, say, 7th or so season because in the vast majority of cases, those seasons are just fluff. They usually aren't all-time great seasons. Unless you're a Ray Bourque or Gordie Howe where you're still near the top of the game in your 10th+ best season, I just don't see why I should care much about those seasons.

Because it shows how drastic Morenz's performances dipped once the PCHA and WCHL folded.

And why is this relevant? What exactly does it show?

 

[ImporterExporter]

What makes Hooley and Boucher better than him defensively anyways?

Also, the reason why I don't value much of anything that happens past a player's, say, 7th or so season because in the vast majority of cases, those seasons are just fluff. They usually aren't all-time great seasons. Unless you're a Ray Bourque or Gordie Howe where you're still near the top of the game in your 10th+ best season, I just don't see why I should care much about those seasons.


And why is this relevant? What exactly does it show?

You can find more evidence of Hooley Smith being an expert defensively. He and Boucher were direct descendants of the Frank Nighbor school of the sweeping hook check. With Morenz you have a handful of quotes saying he was a great backchecker, and that his speed was an asset getting back but there isn't a great deal of in depth defensive evidence. Lots of players have a slew of evidence that they back checked well, but that is only a small portion of being an able defensive force.

I find Morenz to be like Mikita in that they were both good but not great defensively and people tend to overrate both in that capacity.

And why is pointing out Morenz's lack of individual success AFTER the consolidation important?

Ugh, well it makes up all but 2 of his playoff runs, for one, and two, it shows that as a primary scorer he certainly wasn't blowing anyone in that time period (late 20's through mid 30's) away.

And if you want to delve into SC performances in the era before 1927, I can find a number of all time greats (I mentioned Nighbor and Taylor) and even role players (see Jack Walker) who posted better results.

 

[jarek]

You can find more evidence of Hooley Smith being an expert defensively. He and Boucher were direct descendants of the Frank Nighbor school of the sweeping hook check. With Morenz you have a handful of quotes saying he was a great backchecker, and that his speed was an asset getting back but there isn't a great deal of in depth defensive evidence. Lots of players have a slew of evidence that they back checked well, but that is only a small portion of being an able defensive force.

I find Morenz to be like Mikita in that they were both good but not great defensively and people tend to overrate both in that capacity.

And why is pointing out Morenz's lack of individual success AFTER the consolidation important?

Ugh, well it makes up all but 2 of his playoff runs, for one, and two, it shows that as a primary scorer he certainly wasn't blowing anyone in that time period (late 20's through mid 30's) away.

And if you want to delve into SC performances in the era before 1927, I can find a number of all time greats (I mentioned Nighbor and Taylor) and even role players (see Jack Walker) who posted better results.

Well seventies showed that, at least in his 5 best post season runs, he's pretty well up there in terms of scoring prowess.

Not only that, but he's an exceptional regular season scorer.

I feel like you're purposely looking over the areas where he really does excel in order to find holes. I get that you think he's overrated, but I think it's getting to the point of being unreasonable.

If you think he's overrated, why don't you identify who is better than him that typically isn't considered as such, and explain why you think that way?

 

[BenchBrawl]

In other news, can't wait for ATD2018 to start.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Well seventies showed that, at least in his 5 best post season runs, he's pretty well up there in terms of scoring prowess.

Not only that, but he's an exceptional regular season scorer.

I feel like you're purposely looking over the areas where he really does excel in order to find holes. I get that you think he's overrated, but I think it's getting to the point of being unreasonable.

If you think he's overrated, why don't you identify who is better than him that typically isn't considered as such, and explain why you think that way?

I'm the one who is essentially going line by line showing where hole exist. If you and others don't want to acknowledge them, I can't help that. Responding to my work with "I don't agree" or "you're being unfair" is everyone's prerogative, but doesn't hold up IMHO.

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=2181507

That study by 70's has more holes than Morenz's career (no offense 70's, I love ya bud). He even mentions so regarding the pre merger sample sizes. Not to mention, playoffs have changed so drastically in rules, format, length, etc, that just taking the 2nd (or occasionally 3rd place) place scorer and setting that as the benchmark doesn't make sense. Also as he mentions it really hinders Dmen prior to Bobby Orr. So, I have a hard time believing that list is an accurate representation of playoff scoring dominance compared to say the regular season version. Edit: See a Mark Messier who posted tremendous numbers during the Edmonton dynasty but had the "misfortune" of playing besides some guy named Wayne Gretzky for the first 4 wins.

As I pointed out, multiple times now, the only years where Morenz really, truly, had great all time worthy runs were pre consolidation. 1924 and 1925, unless you want to count 1931 where he had the most assists, but did nothing in the Cup final and only finished tied for 4 in scoring on his own team (tied with the legend Nick Wasnie and behind Gagnon, Georges Mantha and Pit Lepine). Sorry that doesn't scream all time worthy run, especially when your name is Howie Morenz.

And again, there is a major difference in many areas prior to the consolidation of hockey at the pro level. I personally like to separate everything pre 1927 into one pot and post consolidation into another. Plus you have to account for the allowance of forward passing, off sides, etc, etc. And his 2 runs in 1924 and 1925 are equaled or bettered by other players in the per consolidation era. That is a fact, one just has to look at the numbers available.

There were 3 times he didn't score a single point and another 2 where he had 1 single point. And it's hard to compare an era where a 1st round exist contains only a 2 game sample size. That's what makes playoff VsX tougher to sell.

I'm doing a comprehensive top 50 ranking (almost finished) and I studied A LOT of Morenz because I wanted to try and understand what made him so dominant as read about in one particular poll and a number of quotes. I'm not trying to punish him at all. What I have done is try and to look at all the angles. Not just points. Not just awards or all star nods. Not only teammates or competition. Wrap it all together and then come up with an analysis. I have him 21st all time, so it's not like I sent him tumbling down into the abyss. I just don't think he's quite as legendary as some of the folk hero legend tries to make him out to be.