ATD 2022 DRAFT THREAD I

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Bobby Hull: the most caricaturized player in ATD history.

Some of that "caricature" comes from his own teammates!

Maybe the reason that Sports Illustrated has so much on the Black Hawks is because Montreal and Toronto had cultures where their players didn't constantly blab to the press! Kind of refreshing seeing how honest the old Black Hawks players were, especially when they took shots at each other.

 

[overpass]

Maybe he just matured as he got older. Or maybe he had better coaching. Probably a bit of both.

Good point re: coaching. If he didn't pass the puck enough in Chicago, there's a good chance he was just doing what his coach asked him to do.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Who is up now?

@Dreakmur is up with @nabby12 on deck.

IE and RB are doing a really good job of keeping the OP up to date.

 

[VanIslander]

Forsberg loves to pass, is one of the great tic-tac-toe players.

Yeah, he is incredible in traffic in the so-called Dead Puck Era. But he was first off Gretzky's lips as a possible next-best "great playmaker".

 

[The Macho King]

I feel like there's this conflation with a "puck dominant player" and "playmaker" being contradictory.

It isn't. They create shots for others by holding onto the puck. This is the type of player where if you have two of them, there's a "only one puck" problem. Plenty of guys are versatile enough that they can kind of fill both roles. Yzerman is a guy I can think of that probably wouldn't have chemistry problems along those lines. But others may have more issues - Hull is the most notable, but there are plenty of others as well.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Good point re: coaching. If he didn't pass the puck enough in Chicago, there's a good chance he was just doing what his coach asked him to do.

I think it's more like the young hotshot Chicago stars got their Cup-winning coach fired and replaced by a guy who just let them do whatever they hell they wanted for most of the 1960s. But maybe that's just my interpretation.

The rich bounty of mutiny

(That's one SI article that I actually do remember)

 

[BenchBrawl]

Some of that "caricature" comes from his own teammates!

Maybe the reason that Sports Illustrated has so much on the Black Hawks is because Montreal and Toronto had cultures where their players didn't constantly blab to the press! Kind of refreshing seeing how honest the old Black Hawks players were, especially when they took shots at each other.

Sure. But games are available to watch, we can make our own judgment.

Saying Hull can't pass the puck is asinine. I've read it countless times on here.

 

[tabness]

All of those knocks you mention are debated here. It's why a guy like Geoffrion (or Denneny) go where they go despite a stat page that indicates they should go higher. We instinctively contextualize a lot of those raw numbers.

The "advanced stats crew"(tm) often does not perform that same contextualization. And the data itself is questionable because it's based off of inaccurate publicly available data.

But even more importantly - I come to this part of the forums to get away from the advanced stat nerds.

Fair enough lol, and yes seen the same phenomenon on the main boards, I just don't think everyone using these analytics can be painted with same brush, lots of scouts use these to augment viewing.

 

[The Macho King]

Sure. But games are available to watch, we can make our own judgment.

IDK - you can watch some games, but I do think there's a difference in watching a team for 70 games a season versus catching 3 or 4.

Hedman had one really bad game this year where he was like a -5 or some shit. If that's the only game (or one of the few games) of the Lightning you watched, you'd probably carry some incorrect assumptions about his play this year.

 

[The Macho King]

Fair enough lol, and yes seen the same phenomenon on the main boards, I just don't think everyone using these analytics can be painted with same brush, lots of scouts use these to augment viewing.

I draw a pretty hard line between the stats teams use (which - most importantly - they collect their own data for) and what's available publicly. If Brisebois says "we're getting this player because our analytics like him", I'll take that at face value versus if JFresh puts up a play card saying Zach Aston Reese is actually a top 10 player in the NHL.

 

[BenchBrawl]

IDK - you can watch some games, but I do think there's a difference in watching a team for 70 games a season versus catching 3 or 4.

Hedman had one really bad game this year where he was like a -5 or some shit. If that's the only game (or one of the few games) of the Lightning you watched, you'd probably carry some incorrect assumptions about his play this year.

Watching a single game can be pretty eye opening. Just watch it like a scout would, without getting too impressed with results.

 

[VanIslander]

I watched nearly Forsberg's entire career and his passing was more remarkable than his passing by f'in youtube and other "highlight" packages focus on goals more than passes.

I mean, the top-100 Gretzky passes should be a video. Instead, you find 65% of videos focusing on his slightly above average slapstick or dump-in or from the office GOALS.

Gretzky & Forsberg should be judged based on their passing, not biased youtube vids.

 

[tabness]

Watching a single game can be pretty eye opening. Just watch it like a scout would, without getting too impressed with results.

Right, generally only a few viewings are necessary to get a sense of how a player plays, his skillset, and how he fits in to his team's style/system, the results (and analytics) can just be used to fill out the rest.

 

[The Macho King]

Watching a single game can be pretty eye opening. Just watch it like a scout would, without getting too impressed with results.

Oh don't get me wrong I don't think it's valueless. Especially when identifying physical skills. Just that I'm hesitant to make too many conclusions of things like chemistry on very limited viewings.

 

[Sturminator]

It’s not like Hull was incapable of passing the puck. Look what he did with the Jets. He showed a lot more to his game than end to end rushes in the WHA.

Hull placed top-10 (top-6, actually) in assists five times during his NHL career, as well. Even ignoring the WHA days, Bobby put up healthy assist rates (especially at even strength) despite skating with forgettable linemates. He'd have been much easier to defend if he were truly a one-trick pony.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Right, generally only a few viewings are necessary to get a sense of how a player plays, his skillset, and how he fits in to his team's style/system, the results (and analytics) can just be used to fill out the rest.

Yes, for that moment in time. The time of the games matters. If you watch Scott Stevens games from the late 1980s, it's a vastly different thing from Scott Stevens of the late 1990s. Same with Steve Yzerman.

And probably the same with Bobby Hull in 1965 vs 1975

 

[BenchBrawl]

Oh don't get me wrong I don't think it's valueless. Especially when identifying physical skills. Just that I'm hesitant to make too many conclusions of things like chemistry on very limited viewings.

Of course. My comment on Hull-Espo wasn't entirely based on me watching a game. In his three years with Chicago, Espo was the 4th ES scorer in the NHL (Hull and Mikita ahead of him). His PP points were much lower because he was behind Mikita in the pecking order and didn't see as much PP time.

 

[VanIslander]

Gretzky is by far the ASSIST leader in NHL history, and the one thing we know is he holds onto the puck extra long.

As does Hull, Jagr, Forsberg,... all seeing themselves as "playmakers".

This ain't rocket science.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yes, for that moment in time. The time of the games matters. If you watch Scott Stevens games from the late 1980s, it's a vastly different thing from Scott Stevens of the late 1990s. Same with Steve Yzerman.

And probably the same with Bobby Hull in 1965 vs 1975

I'm sure that even by 1965 Hull was a different player than he was in the early-1960s. It's not a pure dichotomy where he goes from Hull 1.0 to Hull 2.0. Probably he got to 1.5 in between and so on.

 

[The Macho King]

Of course. My comment on Hull-Espo wasn't entirely based on me watching a game. In his three years with Chicago, Espo was the 4th ES scorer in the NHL (Hull and Mikita ahead of him). His PP points were much lower because he was behind Mikita in the pecking order and didn't see as much PP time.

Yeah - and there's enough proof of concept to show that Hull-Espo worked. But for some reason the "mucker" role is much more often a LW thing, so it's really hard to find a fit that doesn't stand out like a sore thumb from a talent perspective.

I also don't know why Espo is so hard to build around. He's not a puck dominant player, and play-driving wingers should be able to carry a lot of the load. I suppose the downside is his cement skates so there's some rush issues. I could imagine him working really well with a guy like Jagr though (although you obviously are giving up a ton on the other way with that set up).

 

[BenchBrawl]

Yeah - and there's enough proof of concept to show that Hull-Espo worked. But for some reason the "mucker" role is much more often a LW thing, so it's really hard to find a fit that doesn't stand out like a sore thumb from a talent perspective.

I also don't know why Espo is so hard to build around. He's not a puck dominant player, and play-driving wingers should be able to carry a lot of the load. I suppose the downside is his cement skates so there's some rush issues. I could imagine him working really well with a guy like Jagr though (although you obviously are giving up a ton on the other way with that set up).

Canadiens1958 (R.I.P.) had an insight into why Bobby Hull and Phil Esposito worked, just as Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito worked. It's because Espo, being a bad skater, needed a great skater to carry the puck for him. In Boston, this was done by Orr, a defenseman. In Chicago, it was done by Hull, his LW. No reason a winger can't fill the role of the puck-transitioner.

In that sense, Espo was spoiled, since he almost always played with some of the greatest skaters in history.

 

[VanIslander]

Hull 1965 vs. 1975.?

Vs. 1975 .... ?!!!

He owned the mighty Soviets in 1974 then scored 77 points in 1975 in the higher-paying WHA.

Hull may be the 5th best player of all time.
(He may only be a marginal top-10 player, the gap is that small)

 

[Sturminator]

Yeah - and there's enough proof of concept to show that Hull-Espo worked. But for some reason the "mucker" role is much more often a LW thing, so it's really hard to find a fit that doesn't stand out like a sore thumb from a talent perspective.

I also don't know why Espo is so hard to build around. He's not a puck dominant player, and play-driving wingers should be able to carry a lot of the load. I suppose the downside is his cement skates so there's some rush issues. I could imagine him working really well with a guy like Jagr though (although you obviously are giving up a ton on the other way with that set up).

The LW-as-grinder meme probably has a lot to do with the fact that most centers (and hockey players, generally), are left-handed, and therefore pass to the RW on their forehand.

Esposito's challenge mainly comes from the fact that he fulfills none of the defensive duties normally associated with playing center, and from the fact that almost everything about the 70s Bruins is distorted by the presence of Bobby Orr, and it's hard to know how the individual players would look outside of that context.

 

[The Macho King]

Canadiens1958 (R.I.P.) had an insight into why Bobby Hull and Phil Esposito worked, just like Bobby Orr and Phil Esposito worked. It's because Espo, being a bad skater, needed a great skater to carry the puck for him. In Boston, this was done by Orr, a defenseman. In Chicago, it was done by Hull, his LW. No reason a winger can't fill the role of the puck-transitioner.

In that sense, Espo was spoiled, since he almost always played with some of the greatest skaters in history.

That was my impression, so it checks. I just don't see the "hard to build around" issue. I mean - you have to put some thought into his wingers, I guess - which you don't really need to do with guys like Trottier or whatever. And I suppose you don't want a traditional sniper on his wing a la Kurri or Geoffrion. But beyond that it doesn't seem *too* bad. And he dragged around some wingers to great seasons in Boston (although obviously Orr played a role in that), so he knows how to use them and isn't a guy you have to worry trying to do it all on his own.

Unless I'm missing something.

 

[The Macho King]

The LW-as-grinder meme probably has a lot to do with the fact that most centers (and hockey players, generally), are left-handed, and therefore pass to the RW on their forehand.

Esposito's challenge mainly comes from the fact that he fulfills none of the defensive duties normally associated with playing center, and from the fact that almost everything about the 70s Bruins is distorted by the presence of Bobby Orr, and it's hard to know how the individual players would look outside of that context.

For a few undrafteds I can see that being a bigger issue, but with Espo we have some good data in both Chicago and New York to give us an idea of what he was. Obviously he's boosted by Orr. Who wouldn't be. But there's enough there that isn't too big of an issue, is there?

And yeah - the lack of defense is obviously a problem, but we don't say "oh geez it's so hard to build around Mario Lemieux."