ATD 2021 Draft Thread III

[tinyzombies]

Tyler Toffoli sure looks good at LW. I don't think forwards moving around matters a whole lot unless you are moving them to center. Look at Team Canada, it usually doesn't matter where a star player plays (again, unless it's moving to center - another ball of wax). Especially if that player is a hustler and can play stop/start on the wing, and if they have some size for LW, etc.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Tyler Toffoli sure looks good at LW. I don't think forwards moving around matters a whole lot unless you are moving them to center. Look at Team Canada, it usually doesn't matter where a star player plays (again, unless it's moving to center - another ball of wax).

Fine, then I'll play Bobby Hull at RW. Come on, aesthetics should get the last call, if nothing else.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Lemieux proved he could play LW well, should we start putting him there without expecting a drop in value? He'd be more valuable as a LWer, a weaker position. It's the ATD tradition; you play players where they were at their peak, or accept the knock on value (the LWers like Zetterberg). You can't be surprised by this. There's a reason I was desperately looking for a RW and didn't pick Giroux.

I think it is important to keep players at their "primary" position where possible.

There are some players that have notable achievements at more than one position where it is safe to say they can give you their normal value at both positions, but I think that is much less clear for others.

For example on my own team, my understanding is that Thompson was converted by his coach and played RW for years before getting out of New York. In Chicago he finally got to play more and he was a star LW. Maybe he could have put up those same seasons playing RW if he'd had the playing time in New York, but we don't know that.

So his position here should be LW.

I'll bring it up again in regards to Mackay, a player who I really like and have drafted in the past. I feel some of his value as a defensive forward and a playmaker are tied up in the comparisons with Nighbor, and I think both of those aspects generally benefit from being a C.

 

[tinyzombies]

Fine, then I'll play Bobby Hull at RW. Come on, aesthetics should get the last call, if nothing else.

Bobby Hull could easily play RW and would have the angle on his shot. I know ATD frowns on that, so I play ball, but I don't agree. Depends on the traits of the player. Especially superstars- you could probably move Orr to center and he'd dominate there too.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I think it is important to keep players at their "primary" position where possible.

There are some players that have notable achievements at more than one position where it is safe to say they can give you their normal value at both positions, but I think that is much less clear for others.

For example on my own team, my understanding is that Thompson was converted by his coach and played RW for years before getting out of New York. In Chicago he finally got to play more and he was a star LW. Maybe he could have put up those same seasons playing RW if he'd had the playing time in New York, but we don't know that.

So his position here should be LW.

I'll bring it up again in regards to Mackay, a player who I really like and have drafted in the past. I feel some of his value as a defensive forward and a playmaker are tied up in the comparisons with Nighbor, and I think both of those aspects generally benefit from being a C.

Again 3 of his best seasons were already on the wing using him, as a C and crediting those achievements to him as a center was wrong

I'm correcting the mistake

 

[tinyzombies]

It makes sense seeing as this is a history project and the goal isn't just building a team, it's to understand the players better.

 

[ResilientBeast]

From my own pick announcement post

1914-15 - C, eastern rules LW (according to Trail)
1915-16 - C
1916-17 - C
1917-18 - C, eastern rules RW/LW
1918-19 - R
1920-21- R
1921-22 - R, part time W. Eastern rules C
1922-23 - MacKay starts the season on D, plays about 8-10 games from there (early Nov-early Jan) before playing wing/RW regularly beside Boucher
1923-24 - W
1924-25 - W
1925-26 - W
1926-27 - Chicago is doing some weird stuff with their roster if you look at the personnel it kinda makes sense (when they get picked we can talk about it) C/W
1927-28 - W/C

Bolded are from seasons he was definitely a winger
5 x PCHA First Team All-Star (1915, 1917, 1919, 1922, 1923)
3 x PCHA Second Team All-Star (1916, 1918, 1921)
WCHL First Team All-Star (1925)

Scoring:
PCHA Points – 2nd(1915), 2nd(1922), 2nd(1923), 3rd(1924), 6th(1917), 9th(1918), 10th(1916), 10th(1919), 10th(1921)
PCHA Goals – 1st(1915), 1st(1924), 2nd(1923), 5th(1922), 6th(1917), 9th(1918), 9th(1921), 10th(1919)
PCHA Assists – 1st(1922), 2nd(1915), 2nd(1923), 3rd(1916), 6th(1924), 8th(1921)

WCHL Points – 2nd(1925)
WCHL Goals – 1st(1925)

 

[BenchBrawl]

From my own pick announcement post

1914-15 - C, eastern rules LW (according to Trail)
1915-16 - C
1916-17 - C
1917-18 - C, eastern rules RW/LW
1918-19 - R
1920-21- R
1921-22 - R, part time W. Eastern rules C
1922-23 - MacKay starts the season on D, plays about 8-10 games from there (early Nov-early Jan) before playing wing/RW regularly beside Boucher
1923-24 - W
1924-25 - W
1925-26 - W
1926-27 - Chicago is doing some weird stuff with their roster if you look at the personnel it kinda makes sense (when they get picked we can talk about it) C/W
1927-28 - W/C

Bolded are from seasons he was definitely a winger
5 x PCHA First Team All-Star (1915, 1917, 1919, 1922, 1923)
3 x PCHA Second Team All-Star (1916, 1918, 1921)
WCHL First Team All-Star (1925)

Scoring:
PCHA Points – 2nd(1915), 2nd(1922), 2nd(1923), 3rd(1924), 6th(1917), 9th(1918), 10th(1916), 10th(1919), 10th(1921)
PCHA Goals – 1st(1915), 1st(1924), 2nd(1923), 5th(1922), 6th(1917), 9th(1918), 9th(1921), 10th(1919)
PCHA Assists – 1st(1922), 2nd(1915), 2nd(1923), 3rd(1916), 6th(1924), 8th(1921)

WCHL Points – 2nd(1925)
WCHL Goals – 1st(1925)

He was talking about his praise as a defensive player. That's actually a good question to dig for you, whether the defensive praise translated at wing in his later years.

 

[overpass]

You're in the Hall of Fame!?

Either that, or I did not quote myself in my roster post...

 

[ResilientBeast]

He was talking about his praise as a defensive player. That's actually a good question to dig for you, whether the defensive praise translated at wing in his later years.

Yes but he wasn't drafted just because of his defensive accumen.

As a C I have no doubt given how the PCHA played that his role as the C necessitated him playing the more defensive role while Taylor led the offence.

But MacKay's offence when on the wing playing 6 man hockey was clearly superior and is part of why he gets drafted this high.

So if this is the standard required of me to defend the pick, he's either a shitty offensive center or incapable of checking from the wing.

Him being considered a center was the mistake that's being fixed.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yes but he wasn't drafted just because of his defensive accumen.

As a C I have no doubt given how the PCHA played that his role as the C necessitated him playing the more defensive role while Taylor led the offence.

But MacKay's offence when on the wing playing 6 man hockey was clearly superior and is part of why he gets drafted this high.

So if this is the standard required of me to defend the pick, he's either a shitty offensive center or incapable of checking from the wing.

Him being considered a center was the mistake that's being fixed.

I don't care about your team lol I was speaking in general.

 

[Dreakmur]

Lemieux proved he could play LW well, should we start putting him there without expecting a drop in value? He'd be more valuable as a LWer, a weaker position. It's the ATD tradition; you play players where they were at their peak, or accept the knock on value because it's still worth it (the LWers like Zetterberg). You can't be surprised by this. There's a reason I was desperately looking for a RW and didn't pick Giroux.

Nobody knocks any of those players. Zetterberg and Abel both get full credit at LW because they demonstrated an ability to play there effectively.

Lemieux played like 10 games on the wing.

Giroux played 3 seasons at RW, including 3 point-per-game game playoff runs.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Nobody knocks any of those players. Zetterberg and Abel both get full credit at LW because they demonstrated an ability to play there effectively.

Lemieux played like 10 games on the wing.

Giroux played 3 seasons at RW, including 3 point-per-game game playoff runs.

 

[Leaf Lander]

LL has selected via messenger:

Darryl Sittler, C

Thanks nice to pick Sittler was a great leader who played in every situation while possessing equal amounts of skill and toughness

 

[BenchBrawl]

Nobody knocks any of those players. Zetterberg and Abel both get full credit at LW because they demonstrated an ability to play there effectively.

Lemieux played like 10 games on the wing.

Giroux played 3 seasons at RW, including 3 point-per-game game playoff runs.

Have it your way, voters will decide. I don't buy it, just like I don't give full value to neither Abel nor Zetterberg at LW.

I thought Lemieux played almost full-time LW in 1997, probably hallucinated it. It was just an example out of many, doesn't change my point.

 

[ImporterExporter]

There is a difference between "playing there" and "excelling there".

If Giroux is at RW, he is not getting maximum offensive value because that's not where his maximum output came at.

Moving goalposts is not a good look in the ATD.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Have it your way, voters will decide. I don't buy it, just like I don't give full value to neither Abel nor Zetterberg at LW.

I thought Lemieux played almost full-time LW in 1997, probably hallucinated it. It was just an example out of many, doesn't change my point.

Lemieux obviously played wing at a very high level in 1987, and I do think you're right, he fairly often played "wing" and let other centers take the draw because of his back.

That being said, no one would think of putting him at any position other than center, would they?

 

[rmartin65]

After saying this I realized he also spent a good chunk at LW too when Kucherov was healthy. I'd say he is mainly a C but I don't think he loses too much value on either W. Theres enough proof of concept there I think.

Hasn't Stamkos said he doesn't like (or was it feel comfortable?) on the wing?

 

[BenchBrawl]

Lemieux obviously played wing at a very high level in 1987, and I do think you're right, he fairly often played "wing" and let other centers take the draw because of his back.

That being said, no one would think of putting him at any position other than center, would they?

That's my point.

 

[nabby12]

Montreal Maroons select Lionel Hitchman and Red Horner.

 

[ResilientBeast]

He was talking about his praise as a defensive player. That's actually a good question to dig for you, whether the defensive praise translated at wing in his later years.

Here we go, Vancouver vs Ottawa - Boucher is clearly listed at C across from Nighbor

If at the faceoff, MacKay is hook checking Denenny a noted LW he would have to have lined up at RW across from him. I could give another reason but it would require naming undrafteds

The Calgary Daily Herald (1908-1939); Calgary, Alberta [Calgary, Alberta]20 Mar 1923: 16.
At the face-off Cy Dennny seized the puck and got as far as the Vancouver blue line where MacKay’s hook check cut short his progress…Ottawa came back strongly with brilliant two men and three men attacks which went to pieces on MacKay’s defence.

Despite being a winger, the 5/6 quotes I've dug up indicate that MacKay was the defensive conscience over Boucher

Edit:

The Calgary Daily Herald (1908-1939); Calgary, Alberta [Calgary, Alberta]06 Nov 1924: 4.
Vancouver fans sat back and howled for forwards that could score while XXX, Frank Boucher and the MacKay followed instructions to the letter, paid more attention to back checking than to attacking saw their goal averages suffer but the games won until the team found itself in the final for the Stanley Cup.

 

[The Macho King]

Hasn't Stamkos said he doesn't like (or was it feel comfortable?) on the wing?

That was back in around 2015. About two seasons ago he went with the "I'll go wherever helps the team."

 

[rmartin65]

That was back in around 2015. About two seasons ago he went with the "I'll go wherever helps the team."

Thanks for the heads up. I’m keeping him at C, but it’s nice to have a little flexibility.

 

[The Macho King]

Thanks for the heads up. I’m keeping him at C, but it’s nice to have a little flexibility.

And the bulk of his accomplishments are there so I think that's the right call. A few more seasons of elite play and I think you'll have a more widely accepted swiss army knife player as far as position but he still played 10 of his 13 seasons at full time C so that makes sense.

 

[ResilientBeast]

And the bulk of his accomplishments are there so I think that's the right call. A few more seasons of elite play and I think you'll have a more widely accepted swiss army knife player as far as position but he still played 10 of his 13 seasons at full time C so that makes sense.

Daily Faceoff his him on RW for the Lightning right now. Does that match what you've seen?