ATD 2022 DRAFT THREAD I

[VanIslander]

Yeah,... a lot of elite skaters....

Have won cups with less than the best goalies.

You can't name 5 better goalies than ...

 

[tinyzombies]

I have never drafted Busher Jackson or Charlie Conacher because I read Frank Selke's autobiography (which i bought from @seventieslord about 15 years ago).

Selke strikes me as someone with an untrustworthy opinion- at least publicly. He said some strange things. A lot of those old guys did. Maybe a lot of it was to keep the players in their place. Of course, it's unfair to penalize them for not having hindsight about what we now know about how hockey and players are played/analyzed and the game has changed etc. I just take everything that guy said with a grain of salt.

 

[VanIslander]

Hasek, Hall.

Similiar stat/team reference ( Chicago & Buffalo) are beside the point.

 

[VanIslander]

Selke strikes me as someone with an untrustworthy opinion- at least publicly.

You do realize he was the GM both the Toronto Maple Leafs & the Montreal Canadiens.

 

[tinyzombies]

You do realize he was the GM both the Toronto Maple Leafs & the Montreal Canadiens.

So? Some of his public comments made him seem ignorant. But yes I'm aware of his accomplishments. He created the legacy of the Habs and played a large hand in building those choker Leaf teams of the 30s.

I dislike him in hindsight for trading Harvey and Plante, ok? There was no reason to hand Cups over to Chicago and Toronto, even if it was really the refs that gave Chicago that Cup.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Selke strikes me as someone with an untrustworthy opinion- at least publicly. He said some strange things. A lot of those old guys did. Maybe a lot of it was to keep the players in their place.

I'd be interested in seeing someone take the bathysphere into Busher Jackson's career, to see if the "defensive liability" brickbat launched at him is as much of a borderline canard as it has has proven to be with Charlie Conacher. Once I got through reviewing the Conacher issue, I will say that for me, Selke-testimony did not carry the weight that it once did.

Self-justifying. Self-serving. Alibiing ("not my fault"). In other words, subject to much of the same human nature that drives many of us. That's the plane on which I put Selke's testation- at least on issues that pertain to his proverbial front-lawn.

 

[Sturminator]

I'd be interested in seeing someone take the bathysphere into Busher Jackson's career, to see if the "defensive liability" brickbat launched at him is as much of a borderline canard as it has has proven to be with Charlie Conacher. Once I got through reviewing the Conacher issue, I will say that for me, Selke-testimony did not carry the weight that it once did.

Self-justifying. Self-serving. Alibiing ("not my fault"). In other words, subject to much of the same human nature that drives many of us. That's the plane on which I put Selke's testation- at least on issues that pertain to his proverbial front-lawn.

As far as I know, Jackson and Conacher end up getting painted with the same brush vis-a-vis Selke's comments about the Kid Line. If there is specific criticism of Jackson's game out there, I've never seen it. Selke definitely didn't care for Busher's off-ice lifestyle, and in fact managed to keep him out of the hall of fame until after the great left winger's death. That's an impressive grudge, if nothing else.

 

[ResilientBeast]

As far as I know, Jackson and Conacher end up getting painted with the same brush vis-a-vis Selke's comments about the Kid Line. If there is specific criticism of Jackson's game out there, I've never seen it. Selke definitely didn't care for Busher's off-ice lifestyle, and in fact managed to keep him out of the hall of fame until after the great left winger's death. That's an impressive grudge, if nothing else.

Jackson definitely doesn't have nearly as much intangiblenss as Conacher, I looked it up last year and you can find almost no mentions of it in contemporary newspapers

 

[Dreakmur]

Jackson definitely doesn't have nearly as much intangiblenss as Conacher, I looked it up last year and you can find almost no mentions of it in contemporary newspapers

If Busher Jackson wasn't bad defensively, he would have gone 50 picks ago.

Of course, if his current GM can find evidence that he isn't bad defensively, he'll have a steal and the player will go earlier next year.

 

[ResilientBeast]

If Busher Jackson wasn't bad defensively, he would have gone 50 picks ago.

Of course, if his current GM can find evidence that he isn't bad defensively, he'll have a steal and the player will go earlier next year.

He also wasn't particularly physical

 

[Sturminator]

He also wasn't particularly physical

Whoa there, pardner. That doesn't track with the actual information we have on Jackson. A few quotes from the bio I did on him...what is it?...nine years ago now.

"Something special- That extra bit of speed, the size and strength, packed into almost perfect physique."

"Jackson was a great rusher, with good size and a pure ability to score goals. He was famous for his backhand, which was lethal as he darted across the ice from the left side. With his physique and natural talent, Jackson avoided serious injuries even though he had a driving, entertaining style of play."

"The 180 pound winger is known for his aggressive fighting spirit. Fearless, the lad never backs up from an opponent. In a recent game with Montreal Maroons in Toronto, Harvey squared off with big Lionel Conacher when a free-for-all broke out in the last minute of play. But the hard-plugging Leaf forward earned an even break with the one-time amateur boxing champ of Canada."

Given the era in question, this is more than enough information to establish that yes, in fact, Jackson was a physical force on the ice. Here's the info on Charlie Conacher's physicality from the excellent bio Dreak did on him last year:

"He was a daring and explosive scorer who used his size 6'1" and 200 pounds in his heyday - to his advantage. He could beat goalies equally well with his booming shot or with a deft move from close range. Once he got moving, he was famous for bowling over anyone between him and the net..."

"Charlie was a big man and his hustling style netted him quite a few penalties as well as injuries while scuffling along the boards."

"Conacher played for ten more seasons, off and on, and his weakened body took the strain of his rugged style of play. Always a marked man, he stood the stunning body-checks, the falls and the boardings which his frame brought upon him."

"He was big, strong and fearless, and during an era when people were looking for heroes, Charlie provided fans with exactly that."

Quotes about intangibles are quite difficult to come by from this period of hockey history, as are quotes about special teams play. There's more than enough information out there already to establish that Jackson was a physical player. He wasn't quite the tank that Cook and Conacher were, but there's as much or more information about his physicality than there is for any forward of that era not named Cook or Conacher.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

Jackson definitely doesn't have nearly as much intangibles as Conacher, I looked it up last year and you can find almost no mentions of it in contemporary newspapers

Sometimes, I wonder if something like this was in play-

draft Jackson, dive into his career, and if nothing's discovered that permits overturning of the established narrative, then "time to move on, nothing to see here." When I turned the spotlight on C. Conacher, it wasn't ATD-motivated [I've never drafted the man, it never fell right for me], it was HoH project. My work on Conacher and (undrafted goaltender) were the most memorable parts of the project, for me.

 

[Sturminator]

If Busher Jackson wasn't bad defensively, he would have gone 50 picks ago.

Of course, if his current GM can find evidence that he isn't bad defensively, he'll have a steal and the player will go earlier next year.

I certainly don't think he was a good defensive player, but is there information singling out Jackson, or just more of the same criticism of his line's defensive problems? If we're talking about the line, how does this apply to Jackson more so than Conacher?

 

[ResilientBeast]

Whoa there, pardner. That doesn't track with the actual information we have on Jackson. A few quotes from the bio I did on him...what is it?...nine years ago now.


Given the era in question, this is more than enough information to establish that yes, in fact, Jackson was a physical force on the ice. Here's the info on Charlie Conacher's physicality from the excellent bio Dreak did on him last year:


Quotes about intangibles are quite difficult to come by from this period of hockey history, as are quotes about special teams play. There's more than enough information out there already to establish that Jackson was a physical player. He wasn't quite the tank that Cook and Conacher were, but there's as much or more information about his physicality than there is for any forward of that era not named Cook or Conacher.

I sifted through tons of newspapers last year when he was called out for maybe having a slightly inflated reputation based on a few quotes like the ones you posted. Jackson gets no mentions unless it's for scoring, other players get at least a little more

That first quote is good, but I'm inclined to believe that's slightly inflating how he played since I can't find anything else

This was my conclusion after researching mid-draft (after selecting him)

Ok after spending an hour combing through newspapers, Jackson certainly wasn't in the same class as these two in terms of physicality I haven't any great quotes besides that one that VanI posted.

So tough and strong, but doesn't seem to impose his will physically very often. Used his other tools like stickhandling, skating and shooting

Edit: I also find the ways Conacher and Jackson are spoke of in those two quotes quite indicative of the difference in styles. Jackson strikes me as more a hard charging guy who got physical on his way to the net while Conacher strikes me as the more prototypical power forward

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

That's an impressive grudge, if nothing else.

Speaking of grudges, (soon-to-be-drafted player) wasn't inducted into the Hall-of-Fame until (name of owner withheld) died. I have a feeling THAT wasn't entirely a coincidence.

 

[Sturminator]

I sifted through tons of newspapers last year when he was called out for maybe having a slightly inflated reputation based on a few quotes like the ones you posted. Jackson gets no mentions unless it's for scoring, other players get at least a little more

That first quote is good, but I'm inclined to believe that's slightly inflating how he played since I can't find anything else

This was my conclusion after researching mid-draft (after selecting him)

You'll perhaps forgive me for not caring about your inability to find new information, and your apparent lack of perspective on just how much data of the sort you were seeking is actually out there about any pre-war player. Apparently, I found more on Jackson's physicality nine years ago than you were able to last year. Oh well. Nobody's calling him some kind of wunderkind of a glue guy, but by the standards we've got for information from the pre-war era, there is enough to establish that he was a big, strong, aggressive, physical player. I don't think anyone's ever claimed he had more "intangibles" than that.

We can also get into the glaring difference between Busher's voting record and that of another star LW from his era (who was actually a slightly better scorer) when he gets drafted. The difference between them certainly wasn't scoring, so why did the voters like Busher so much more? I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

You raise your elbows if you like, my man, but I hope you're ready for the same. "I couldn't find anything new" isn't much of an argument. Among other things, it fails the "falsifiability" criteria for real, empirical research, as there's no way for others to judge the significance of your lack of additional material.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

As far as I know, Jackson and Conacher end up getting painted with the same brush vis-a-vis Selke's comments about the Kid Line. If there is specific criticism of Jackson's game out there, I've never seen it. Selke definitely didn't care for Busher's off-ice lifestyle, and in fact managed to keep him out of the hall of fame until after the great left winger's death. That's an impressive grudge, if nothing else.

There's a fair amount written about Jackson's nonexistent backchecking.

I've seen quite a bit more more specifically directly at Jackson than at Conacher

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Whoa there, pardner. That doesn't track with the actual information we have on Jackson. A few quotes from the bio I did on him...what is it?...nine years ago now.


Given the era in question, this is more than enough information to establish that yes, in fact, Jackson was a physical force on the ice. Here's the info on Charlie Conacher's physicality from the excellent bio Dreak did on him last year:


Quotes about intangibles are quite difficult to come by from this period of hockey history, as are quotes about special teams play. There's more than enough information out there already to establish that Jackson was a physical player. He wasn't quite the tank that Cook and Conacher were, but there's as much or more information about his physicality than there is for any forward of that era not named Cook or Conacher.

Eh.... Jackson was big and strong and fearless at crashing the net. It's something.

 

[Sturminator]

Eh.... Jackson was big and strong and fearless at crashing the net. It's something.

Where do you get that Jackson's physicality was only something he used around the net?

I suppose I should ask you for evidence of Bill Cook's board work now, eh? Big, strong, fearless, etc...lots of glowing descriptions of Cook's physicality, but show me where it says he was good along the boards. Don't set a standard you can't meet, yourself.

 

[Sturminator]

There's a fair amount written about Jackson's nonexistent backchecking.

I've seen quite a bit more more specifically directly at Jackson than at Conacher

I'd appreciate some actual evidence of this. I don't doubt your sincerity, but nebulous impressions aren't the going currency around here. I've read a lot of stuff in old newspapers, too, but I'm not going to present it as truth without a citation.

 

[ResilientBeast]

You'll perhaps forgive me for not caring about your inability to find new information, and your apparent lack of perspective on just how much data of the sort you were seeking is actually out there about any pre-war player. Apparently, I found more on Jackson's physicality nine years ago than you were able to last year. Oh well. Nobody's calling him some kind of wunderkind of a glue guy, but by the standards we've got for information from the pre-war era, there is enough to establish that he was a big, strong, aggressive, physical player. I don't think anyone's ever claimed he had more "intangibles" than that.

We can also get into the glaring difference between Busher's voting record and that of another star LW from his era (who was actually a slightly better scorer) when he gets drafted. The difference between them certainly wasn't scoring, so why did the voters like Busher so much more? I guess we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

You raise your elbows if you like, my man, but I hope you're ready for the same. "I couldn't find anything new" isn't much of an argument. Among other things, it fails the "falsifiability" criteria for real, empirical research, as there's no way for others to judge the significance of your lack of additional material.

I can find tons of information on players between the wars and have, it's tedious and time-consuming but it can be done. You're well within your right to argue that the inability for me to find new information does not constitute an argument.

Just because you say the information isn't out there because by the standards of the time and doesn't exist isn't an argument because I've read the newspaper scans. Looking in the right places the 30s aren't hard to explore and get good quality game summaries. And in those scans, Jackson gets no mentions besides scoring, if you can find some more information I'll happily change my mind.

 

[Sturminator]

I guess there's a meta-discussion that needs to be had (later, when more players are drafted) about the standards we use for evaluating hockey minutiae among pre-war players. This applies not only to "intangibles" like physicality and back-checking, but also to special teams performance, styles of play, etc. I'm perfectly willing to wade back into this fray, but it seems like it's already been done. Ah, well...plus ça change...

 

[VanIslander]

One reason i have never ever drafted Charlie Conacher or Busher Jackson (i have done this since '04) is because the very guy who brought them up from juniors (Frank Selke, in his autobiography) identifies them as the reason the talented Leafs of the 1930s only won one cup. They didn't want to backcheck, was his conclusion. They liked being stars in Toronto too much. They didn't try hard enough when away from the puck.

I posted a quote about this from the book i bought from @seventieslord (i bought 50+ books from him).

But the quote was posted in '08 or '09.
Ain't diggin' back unless there's a quick way.
(Donated my book library in '17. Damn smartphoned ever since.)

THE TWO GREATEST hockey autobiographies ever (that i've read) are by Frank Selke and Conn Smythe.
Get past their mutual love of raising chickens and there's gold in them there hills!!

 

[Sturminator]

Just because you say the information isn't out there because by the standards of the time and doesn't exist isn't an argument because I've read the newspaper scans.

Really? You've read "the scans", eh? Uhm...ok. I've read them, too, and my impression is that your argument is a wisp of smoke...impossible to verify, falsify, or evaluate by anyone but yourself. It's almost like you want a lecture on Karl Popper and what it means to make an empirical statement. Sigh...this is not the forum for that.

Nobody is saying the information in question is entirely non-existent, only that it is quite limited by modern standards. Hockey writers weren't nearly as focused on the little details when reporting the sport back then. There are already several sources supporting Jackson's size, strength and physicality...as much as for any forward of the era not named Cook or Conacher. They're right there in his old bio. The burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate this yet again.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Really? You've read "the scans", eh? Uhm...ok. I've read them, too, and my impression is that your argument is a wisp of smoke...impossible to verify, falsify, or evaluate by anyone but yourself. It's almost like you want a lecture on Karl Popper and what it means to make an empirical statement. Sigh...this is not the forum for that.

Nobody is saying the information in question is entirely non-existent, only that it is quite limited by modern standards. Hockey writers weren't nearly as focused on the little details when reporting the sport back then. There are already several sources supporting Jackson's size, strength and physicality...as much as for any forward of the era not named Cook or Conacher. They're right there in his old bio. The burden of proof is not on me to demonstrate this yet again.

It's incredible how most of your own rebuttal can be used against yourself. Your claim about the quality of material is impossible to verify yada yada. We've has some great bios made recently by @ImporterExporter (sorry to drag you into this) especially about contemporaries with tons of descriptions of play on things we consider "intangibles"

You have a single quote, if that quote was irrefutably true of his play I could find more.