ATD 2022 DRAFT THREAD I

[Sturminator]

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

Three quotes, actually. That's more than two, and less than four.

You've got a very sanguine view of your own abilities as a researcher. Sadly, nobody but you has any way of evaluating your methods or findings (or in this case, lack of findings) other than through the source material you present. You have presented nothing here. In fact, "nothing" is your entire argument. We're somehow supposed to accept that this is somehow dispositive.

Again, the information on Jackson's physicality is already out there. Refute it if you can. The voters can use their own judgment in determining its meaning, and the value of "I couldn't find more of X, therefore Y" arguments made by obviously unbiased parties.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

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

First off, it's possible I overstated the case against Jackson. Reading through again, Jackson does look like someone who made big hits in the offensive zone on a regular basis, which does count for something. My reading of Jackson is that he would likely be very active and effective in an aggressive dump-and-chase scheme (indeed, that's how I used him when I drafted him as a dime store Ted Lindsay across from Gordie Howe on my first ATD winner). So maybe we actually disagree less on this than our original argument.

But given the harsh criticism for Jackson away from the puck, I do find it hard to believe that he was regularly battling for pucks in the neutral zone, etc.

Also, look at the specific praise Jackson's linemates on the Kid Line received:

• Jackson's undrafted center was praised as the "glue" of the line, without which, it couldn't function. When a player spends his best years with another player who is specifically praised for doing the little things, it's kind of backhanded damning the other guys.
• Charlie Conacher was called the "policeman" of the line, which means Jackson wasn't. So we know Jackson wasn't the toughest guy on his line, even if he was tough.

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.

Appreciate the cheap shot, but anyway, Cook is praised to high heavens by basically everyone for an indominable will to win, doing everything it takes, etc, while Jackson... well, wasn't. Cook was on the lists of the "most physical" players of the era, etc, Jackson wasn't.

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.

We know that Jackson - X - Conacher was eventually broken up, at least partly due to lack of backchecking.

But most damning is this:
The Calgary Daily Herald - Google News Archive Search

The Jackson - Apps - X line was broken up due to lack of backchecking.

And one of the most damning quotes I've ever seen: "It seems X was no better a backchecker than Jackson." Given that X is widely considered one of the worst defensive players of all-time, that's not a good look for Jackson.

 

[ResilientBeast]

Three quotes, actually. That's more than two, and less than four.

You've got a very sanguine view of your own abilities as a researcher. Sadly, nobody but you has any way of evaluating your methods or findings (or in this case, lack of findings). Again, the information on Jackson's physicality is already out there. Refute it if you can. The voters can use their own judgment in determining its meaning, and the value of "I couldn't find X, therefore Y" arguments made by obviously unbiased parties.

Three about his physicality?

This one is definitely about his physicality (edited to remove undrafteds)

5.5.1932 - The Border Cities Star:

The Border Cities Star - Google News Archive Search

Harvey "Busher" Jackson, slick-haired young winger of Toronto Maple Leafs, chosen by 12 of 32 sports writers in National Hockey League cities for the left-wing berth on the Canadian all-star team, is the youngest player in the circuit today. Too, he is one of the most promising youngsters in the pro game.

......

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.

This isn't talking about his being physically aggressive, this is clearly referring him being aggressive offensively scoring a goal

30.12.1940 - Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:

Saskatoon Star-Phoenix - Google News Archive Search

Handsome Harvey Jackson zipped into New York Americans' dressing room and said to no one in particular: "I'm a kid again and I feel like scoring a lotta goals."

That bore out what the Manhattan hockey mob has been talking about for two weeks - the rejuvenation of the Busher. He's flying again like the Jackson who shone as a member of the kid line with Toronto Maple Leafs.

...

Friday night, with Thurier out with a knee injury, Jackson made a play to Hunt for the Americans' first goal. His aggressiveness earned the praise of Manager "Red" Dutton.

"We wuz robbed," said Dutton, "but that Jackson was a pip."

It's well balanced? This doesn't actually say anything about Jackson's physical game

13.2.1954 - Montreal Gazette:

He (Joliat) picked an all star team (at the request of W.A. Howard, a writer for Canadian National Magazine) confined to players who played against him during his 16 years as a professional. He puts xxx or xxx in goal; Shore and xxx on defense; Nighbor at centre; with Cook and Jackson on the wings. It's a well balanced unit.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Seems that in the HOH Top 200 project I called Jackson "a power forward who was terrible defensively" so I guess I was sold on his physicality in the offensive zone at some point

Though again, he doesn't seem have have as much "power" as Charlie Conacher in terms of intimidation; his "power" seems to have been more of a "plowing through guys to score" at least in my reading.

Don't get me wrong, that is a useful skill. Makarov will definitely have more room out there if Jackson knocks some guy on his ass.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I hope you guys appreciate that I stopped watching TV and put down the smartphone to pick up my laptop to make the above post (the one with actual sources). My girlfriend/partner was confused.

 

[Sturminator]

Appreciate the cheap shot, but anyway, Cook is praised to high heavens by basically everyone for an indominable will to win, doing everything it takes, etc, while Jackson... well, wasn't. Cook was on the lists of the "most physical" players of the era, etc, Jackson wasn't.

Was that a cheap shot? I'm certainly not above such acts, but if I caught you with the stick, it was unintentional.

The point is that you're questioning Jackson's physical play away from the goal mouth, but ignoring the fact that descriptions of the "little details of hockey" like board work from this era are as rare as hen's teeth. In fact, I'm not sure I've ever seen a description of this aspect of hockey from that era, other than specific and dramatic plays from individual game reports, which are of little value. The writers just didn't focus on that sort of thing. The same thing is true of special teams work. Was Bill Cook a good net guy on the power play? Uhhh...probably? But we don't know for sure because nobody bothered to get into the weeds with that sort of description back in the 1930s. For all we know, he could have played the point. A lot of blanks have to be filled in by assumption, and there's no reason to subject players to different standards.

I don't actually doubt that Cook was physical all over the ice, good along the boards, etc. The point is that there aren't actually any specific accounts of his work in these areas. Why we should take Jackson to task for this sort of thing while exempting others from the same scrutiny is beyond me. Was Jackson a big, strong, aggressive player? Yes. Do we know anything else about how he specifically used those gifts? No, and the same is true for everybody else from that era.

 

[VanIslander]

I hope you guys appreciate that I stopped watching TV and put down the smartphone to pick up my laptop to make the above post (the one with actual sources). My girlfriend/partner was confused.

What is TV?

My elementary school students don't know "DVD" , "CD" or any reference to record, vinyl, 45.

 

[Professor What]

What is TV?

My elementary school students don't know "DVD" , "CD" or any reference to record, vinyl, 45.

That's sad right there. Vinyl rules.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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.

Off topic, but I read about Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" in high school. (Full disclosure - I'm pretty sure I didn't read the book, but at least a good summary of it). It's an incredible, persuasive approach to logical thinking. I think the world would be a (slightly) better place if this was taught in high schools or maybe first year at university - if nothing else, it serves as a really good check against confirmation bias. (End rant).

 

[ImporterExporter]

It seems like an odd battle to have more than a passing debate on.

There is enough evidence to suggest Jackson (and the entire line he played on) was likely below average to poor defensively. Are there dozens of detailed quotes on this? No. But multiple passages speak to this notion and it's not just once source/person.

However, that time period is difficult to find a plethora of information about a nuanced trait. Pre consolidation, I've found to be much easier to research. Same with the 06 era.

Based on what I've seen to date, I'd wager Jackson is an above average, physical presence offensively speaking. He's not Gordie Howe or even Charlie Conacher but it would seem there is enough contemporary mentions of his physicality to come to that conclusion. He's certainly not going to get pushed around to bodied into submission. As long as you stay in the general area of above average for this trait, I think you're going to get nods from fellow GM's evaluating the player/team. If some think he's a bit more/less than that, I'm not going to go crazy personally.

At the very least, I hope we can lower the knives that have seemingly come out.

 

[VanIslander]

Karl Popper is 1st/2nd year Philosophy major material. If you haven't read him by your senior year, you ain't a Philosophy major. (I was.)

ToTodayi think... my Probability & Statistics 12 course (the most useful high school class) is needed in this gambling-risk world.

 

[Sturminator]

Seems that in the HOH Top 200 project I called Jackson "a power forward who was terrible defensively" so I guess I was sold on his physicality in the offensive zone at some point

If Jackson was a center, I'd be a lot more concerned. A little checking indifference from wings who win scoring titles (ok, one scoring title...I don't think it was called the Art Ross back then) is par for the course. And like Dreak said, if Jackson was a good checker, he's have been drafted 50 picks ago.

 

[Johnny Engine]

I’m feeling wild and free today, so I’m going to take Marcel Dionne, falling out of the top 100 for some reason (I know why, you don’t have to explain it to me), as my second line Centre. With Beliveau on hand he doesn’t have to lead anything, and on PP1 he’ll be feeding passes into the slot for both Beliveau and Bossy.

 

[ImporterExporter]

I’m feeling wild and free today, so I’m going to take Marcel Dionne, falling out of the top 100 for some reason (I know why, you don’t have to explain it to me), as my second line Centre. With Beliveau on hand he doesn’t have to lead anything, and on PP1 he’ll be feeding passes into the slot for both Beliveau and Bossy.

I figured he had to go soon given his general placement inside the top 100 and as you said, as the Robin to Beliveau's Batman, I think this is a real solid pick now Johnny.

 

[VanIslander]

Dionne is a nose-to-the-net skater.

I thought about pairing him with my playmaking Selanne.

In no universe should Dionne and Bossy be on the same line.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I’m feeling wild and free today, so I’m going to take Marcel Dionne, falling out of the top 100 for some reason (I know why, you don’t have to explain it to me), as my second line Centre. With Beliveau on hand he doesn’t have to lead anything, and on PP1 he’ll be feeding passes into the slot for both Beliveau and Bossy.

I was waiting for @Voight to trade up for him

 

[Sturminator]

It seems like an odd battle to have more than a passing debate on.

There is enough evidence to suggest Jackson (and the entire line he played on) was likely below average to poor defensively. Are there dozens of detailed quotes on this? No. But multiple passages speak to this notion and it's not just once source/person

This is fair. The defensive indifference of the wings on the Kid Line is pretty well known, and I'm not disputing that. Jackson was a scoring winger who didn't do a whole lot of checking. Yep.

However, that time period is difficult to find a plethora of information about a nuanced trait. Pre consolidation, I've found to be much easier to research. Same with the 06 era

Strange, isn't it? I've noticed the same thing. It's why this board took so long to come around on things like Howie Morenz's back-checking. The years between consolidation and the second world war are like the dark ages of hockey reporting. There is information out there, but good, holistic descriptions of players are considerably rarer than they are in other periods of hockey. I have no idea why.

Based on what I've seen to date, I'd wager Jackson is an above average, physical presence offensively speaking. He's not Gordie Howe or even Charlie Conacher but it would seem there is enough contemporary mentions of his physicality to come to that conclusion. He's certainly not going to get pushed around to bodied into submission. As long as you stay in the general area of above average for this trait, I think you're going to get nods from fellow GM's evaluating the player/team. If some think he's a bit more/less than that, I'm not going to go crazy personally.

Also fair.

 

[VanIslander]

Charlie was a hot head who fought anyone at the drop of a hat to protect his teammates. Shore said that was his weakness. Ironic coming from a fly-off-the-handle performer himself.

 

[tabness]

Dionne was one of the centers that didn't fit my team, so underrated, great pick.

Off topic, but I read about Karl Popper's "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" in high school. (Full disclosure - I'm pretty sure I didn't read the book, but at least a good summary of it). It's an incredible, persuasive approach to logical thinking. I think the world would be a (slightly) better place if this was taught in high schools or maybe first year at university - if nothing else, it serves as a really good check against confirmation bias. (End rant).

What!? I feel the only way to go with the draft debate is a (gross caricature) of Feyerabend, use whatever methods needed to draw the conclusions you need lol!

 

[ImporterExporter]

This is fair. The defensive indifference of the wings on the Kid Line is pretty well known, and I'm not disputing that. Jackson was a scoring winger who didn't do a whole lot of checking. Yep.


Strange, isn't it? I've noticed the same thing. It's why this board took so long to come around on things like Howie Morenz's back-checking. The years between consolidation and the second world war are like the dark ages of hockey reporting. There is information out there, but good, holistic descriptions of players are considerably rarer than they are in other periods of hockey. I have no idea why.

Also fair.

The 1930's might be the toughest decade to find detailed information on a few specific traits, as it seemingly was the era where newspapers started transitioning to more of a AP style of writing, generalized game reports, rather than the in depth, almost minute by minute novels we saw in the 1900-1920's range.

I know you remember the bio I did on a certain NYR LW last year, and while I was pleased with the detailed information (most of it not unearthed prior) on his PK/defensive abilities, which should move the needle a little on him in the years to come for ATD purposes, the fore checking aspect in hockey is not something that gets mentioned much, unless of course the player is repeatedly doing it at a high level.

You definitely still see a good bit on fighting and general physicality but due to the rules and style of play, I honestly don't think that era saw the same style of fore checking we came to read more about in later era's. That's the feel I get anyway. It's certainly not scientific by any means.

 

[Sturminator]

You definitely still see a good bit on fighting and general physicality but due to the rules and style of play, I honestly don't think that era saw the same style of fore checking we came to read more about in later era's. That's the feel I get anyway. It's certainly not scientific by any means.

Regarding fore checking, there was a very specific inflection point that had to do with one specific team and coach during the 1930s which we can discuss when he gets drafted. I don't think the term "fore checking" even existed before that team and its somewhat legendary, though now obscure, Cup run.

Yet another difficulty in conducting research of this era of hockey. So much of the terminology we use today simply didn't exist back then, and words that seem wacky by modern standards (like "peppery" and "raw-boned" as descriptions for aggression and strength, respectively) were commonplace descriptors. It's very difficult work.

 

[VanIslander]

The 1930's might be the toughest decade to find detailed information on a few specific traits, as it seemingly was the era where newspapers started transitioning to more of a AP style of writing, generalized game reports, rather than the in depth, almost minute by minute novels we saw in the 1900-1920's range.

Wow. Props. Few actually have read enough to notice it.

The "Associated Press" gave me my only $1700 paycheque for a single newspaper article (about sick building syndrome, thankfully my sources were in Arizona & Winnipeg 'cuz i double dipped financially, back in the 90's).

But biographies and autobiographies were all the rage from the 30's thru the 60's. So there's that.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

That's sad right there. Vinyl rules.

Not to be a hipster about this (seriously - I hate hipsters) but for most of my time in university, I had Fridays off. Once a month or so, I'd go to downtown Toronto and walk west along Queen Street (starting at University, and going a bit past Bathurst). There were a bunch of small, independent vinyl record stores. I was able to find dozens - maybe more than 100 - great classic rock, progressive rock, and early heavy metal albums over the years. Usually they were $5 to $10. Often the covers were stained or discoloured, and the records themselves had some popping - but that was part of the charm.

Now, vinyl is popular again. I've taken a look on Amazon, and a few of the retailers in Toronto. All of the records are immaculate - freshly manufactured, 180 grams or thicker, picture discs, and remastered. But they lose some of the appeal that way. (Not to mention the price - good luck finding vinyl records for under $25, and they're often much more than that). I like vinyl records largely for nostalgic reasons, and it's tough to get excited by a $40 version of Led Zeppelin II (I find the new records no less sterile than MP3's, and the slightly higher sound quality usually doesn't make up for the inconvenience of having to flip it over every 20 minutes). And if I'm going to display the albums as wall art (which I do), I'd rather display something with character (including some fading or scratches) than something fresh and shiny.

 

[VanIslander]

I did too HO ...

when i lived right across the street from Ernest Hemingway's old home just north of Bathhurst & St.Clair (the best Filipino bakery and Italian shoe store were just west of there).

I bought vinyl in T.O. in '96 and '97.

I have no memory whatsoever of what happened to them. Probably ditched in moving, as my newspaper journalist career took me to five cities/towns.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Not to be a hipster about this (seriously - I hate hipsters) but for most of my time in university, I had Fridays off. Once a month or so, I'd go to downtown Toronto and walk west along Queen Street (starting at University, and going a bit past Bathurst). There were a bunch of small, independent vinyl record stores. I was able to find dozens - maybe more than 100 - great classic rock, progressive rock, and early heavy metal albums over the years. Usually they were $5 to $10. Often the covers were stained or discoloured, and the records themselves had some popping - but that was part of the charm.

Now, vinyl is popular again. I've taken a look on Amazon, and a few of the retailers in Toronto. All of the records are immaculate - freshly manufactured, 180 grams or thicker, picture discs, and remastered. But they lose some of the appeal that way. (Not to mention the price - good luck finding vinyl records for under $25, and they're often much more than that). I like vinyl records largely for nostalgic reasons, and it's tough to get excited by a $40 version of Led Zeppelin II (I find the new records no less sterile than MP3's, and the slightly higher sound quality usually doesn't make up for the inconvenience of having to flip it over every 20 minutes). And if I'm going to display the albums as wall art (which I do), I'd rather display something with character (including some fading or scratches) than something fresh and shiny.

I've been collecting vinyl for about the last decade now. It's my preferred method for listening to music, especially the older tunes (pre cassette/CD era). I started buying before the market exploded and have some 1st pressings that are worth some pretty good dough vs what I paid at the time (Michael Jackson's "Thriller" Half Speed Mastered Recording, RadioHead's "OK Computer", Nirvana's "Bleach", various classics from the 60's and 70's as well as stuff my parents gave me that date back as far as the 50's).

Yeah, its certainly less convenient than the auto-play and high-fi tech that exists now, but I guess I'm just an old soul and appreciate the sound quality those guys and gals managed before the tech was readily available to manufacture a lot of the sounds via a slick computer.