All-Time Draft #12, Part IV

[Sens Rule]

Isn't that less valuable in the ATD than in real life, considering that his backup is going to be pretty good? In fact, his backup could very well be a better regular season goalie than him.

Fuhr's backup was pretty good in his prime.

 

[Sens Rule]

The reason it was slammed was because it was such a large contract for quite some time, and Rafalski isn't exactly young(nor was he there). IMO it's also not hard for him to look pretty good in Detroit when he plays with the best defensive defenseman in the game. A lot of scrubs have looked decent filling the same role. But yes, he's a very talented offensive defenseman, and with the right partner he could be a very valuable addition.

But has he met the attributes his long and high $$$ contract asked for? I think he has.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

The reason it was slammed was because it was such a large contract for quite some time, and Rafalski isn't exactly young(nor was he there). IMO it's also not hard for him to look pretty good in Detroit when he plays with the best defensive defenseman in the game. A lot of scrubs have looked decent filling the same role. But yes, he's a very talented offensive defenseman, and with the right partner he could be a very valuable addition.

He was also coming off an absolutely dreadful playoffs, where he was getting owned by Lecavalier so badly that the Devils coaching staff had to switch the defensive pairings to hide him from Vinny, which turned the series around. Then he was no better against Ottawa - pretty sure Rafalski was the guy Ottawa kept trying to get Heatley out against.

Like I said, his weakness is one on one play, especially vs. bigger forwards. With a guy like Stevens or Lidstrom, he's not going to be 1 on 1 very often. He's very good at following a defensive system.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

But has he met the attributes his long and high $$$ contract asked for? I think he has.

No. He's been very good, and the Red Wings obviously don't regret it one bit, but he's being paid $6 million to be a PP specialist and a #3(at this point) defenseman, and he has the rest of this season and two after on that contract. If you're being paid $6 million a season, you probably should bring more to the table than that. In comparison, Scott Niedermayer makes the exact same amount. When you also consider that Rafalski is in the top-10 defensemen in terms of salary, then definitely he has not lived up to that contract.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

Explain.

I see them as quite different. One played on a terrible team and earned plenty of individual praise. One played on a very good team and earned a grand total of zero in terms of individual praise (as in hart votes or all-star teams). His three Jennings trophies from back when it was called something else don't count.



What? Where did you get this idea?

I don't hate any of those guys. Gardiner and Holecek both made my last top-120. Smith made the list last time around, and I pushed hard for him to make that final cut into the top-100 (do you remember this?) and he was an agonizing final cut from this year's top-120.

What's wrong with my placement of Holecek? I'm pretty sure that by having him in my top-120 I ranked him higher than most people would. Is there something wrong with this?

Gardiner does get overrated. So does Hainsworth. Worters, and to a lesser extent, Thompson, get underrated. Then there's Alec Connell. All from the 1930s. If you agree with me that Hainsworth is overrated and shouldn't make the top-20 (and I'm pretty sure I remember you saying he wouldn't make your list this year), then who from that era should? Nobody? When 4 goalies from the 1950-1970 era and three from 1985-present are in the top-10? Doesn't seem right. Someone had to have been the best of that time. I think it was Worters. I have shown many times why. Followed closely by Gardiner, then Thompson, then Hainsworth, then Connell. A few of them had to be among the top-20 ever. It could be argued that by placing my top-3 of that time in the 17th, 18th, and 20th spots, that I still underrepresented that era. Am I being unreasonable?

If you separate the history of hockey into six sections (pre merger, post merger, early O6, late O6, expansion, modern), my top-rated goalies from each era are 1st, 2nd, 4th, 7th, 11th, and.... 17th. The 17th is of course Worters, the best of the early NHL era. You think I'm overpimping the guy, a breakdown of my list says otherwise. We have historically undervalued the goalies of this time, probably because there's not much to choose from between the four best and everyone has their own ideas about why one should be higher.



Keep in mind we never compared hart votes from goalies in different eras (like the absure Dutton/Lidstrom comparison). Pit and I have both shown what type of hart consideration goalies received, specifically in Worters' time.

Giacomin is to Worters what Thornton is to Kovalchuk. One, you know is bad in the playoffs. The other, you don't know either way. I would like my odds with Worters, personally.



He's my 3rd favourite player of all-time, but I'd have a hard time taking him as a regular, even with 32 teams. He's definitely clutch. Never top-10 in goals, but top-10 in GWG 3 times. Was the career OT goal leader. Scored an OT goal for the Leafs in the playoffs. Also set up and scored other big late goals in 1999, 2000, and 2001. He will also fight the likes of Jason Wiemer and get pummelled because he's a good team guy.

Very Good read and I like how you put it. Maybe I'm underating Roy 'The Shrimp' Worters. I'd be very interested in seeing your top 120 player list if possible.

 

[seventieslord]

Very Good read and I like how you put it. Maybe I'm underating Roy 'The Shrimp' Worters. I'd be very interested in seeing your top 120 player list if possible.

I could post it tonight when I get home. It is circa February, but still mostly an accurate representation of what I think. If nothing else, it will give us something else to talk about.

 

[Evil Sather]

one of the very few (if any??) FCs I've selected, C/LW Vincent Damphousse

 

[God Bless Canada]

one of the very few (if any??) FCs I've selected, C/LW Vincent Damphousse

There goes Plan B. Love what he brings to the table. Plays multiple positions. Can play on a second or third line. Good size. He can score goals and set them up. Only thing he lacks is an extra gear.

 

[papershoes]

the kenora thistles are pleased to select, and unsung hero from a habs dynasty...

yvon lambert (lw)​

Yvon Lambert is best remembered as two-way grinding forward with the Montreal Canadiens, but it was the Detroit Red Wings who drafted him in 1970. The Wings were foolish to allow Lambert to slip through the now-extinct NHL reverse draft that saw Lambert join the Habs organization.

Lambert's explosion couldn't have come at a better time. Jobs were opening up in the NHL because of the arrival of the WHA and subsequent player defections to the new league. Lambert was promoted to the Canadiens in 1973-74. He had a quiet rookie season but by his sophomore year he had established himself as "the French xxx xxx" - a hard-as-nails, rugged performer who excelled in the corners and in front of the net during power plays. Often playing with the effective line of xxx xxx and xxx xxx, Lambert became one of the league's most unheralded power forwards.

Lambert's most famous moment came in the much heralded 1979 playoff series with the Boston Bruins. The Bruins, coached by Don Cherry, were leading late in the game when they were called for having two many men on the ice. Habs superstar and Bruins-killer Guy Lafleur tied the score to force overtime in game 7. Lambert scored the series winning goal in one of the most entertaining playoff series of all time.

Lambert spent eight seasons in Montreal, earning four Stanley Cup victories.

In 683 NHL games, Lambert earned 206 goals, 273 assists for 479 points. Surprisingly he picked up only 390 penalty minutes.

 

[vancityluongo]

Geez I have been deciding between Reed Larson and my pick all evening and now I see Larson's long gone.

Anyway, the Whalers fill a need for an offensive, good skating defenseman who can handle defense very well and is a proven playoff performer. That means Brian Rafalski, D.

Good pick. I had two guys in mind that I really hoped would fall to my next pick, Vadnais and Rafalski. Not even close.

the kenora thistles are pleased to select, and unsung hero from a habs dynasty...

yvon lambert (lw)​

Grrr. That's another solid pick, another guy I considered.

I think Hedberg is a steal here. I debated between him & mosienko in round 11. Great 2 way player. Put up fantastic numbers in the WHA & would have in the NHL also if on a freewheeling team like the Oilers. As it was he was an excellent 2 way player for the Rangers. For some reason, guys here love the pre-NHL oldtimers, Russians who never played in the NHL & guys who excelled in the water down 70's NHL but ignore guys who came over from Europe to the WHA

Thanks. I knew I needed to take him right away, IMO he was the BRWA, and with that hole on my second line, I shouldn't risk someone taking him.

 

[pitseleh]

b/c he would not cover much of the net, especially the top of the net. in worters time, players probably scored over the shoulder or glove far, far less than they do now. worters would also be more vulnerable to screens.

vezina and hainsworth would be small goalies, but worters would be a tiny goalie.

Once you go down that road though, you open up a huge can of worms. We accept that players were dominant in their eras despite extraneous factors that might make them less effective in the context of hockey today. It's no different than assuming that Clint Benedict would still dominate despite no longer being the only goalie who went down on his knees or that Moose Johnson would adapt to using a much shorter stick.

70's pimping of Worters and criticism of Hainesworth are odd bookends of opinion, considering how much the two had in common. Of course, part of 70's pimping of Worters looks more complimentary than it really is because he just hates Fuhr, Smith and apparently Gardiner and Holecek, as well. The arguments against Fuhr and Smith I sort of understand (though having watched both men play, I disagree) and I do think Gardiner gets a bit overrated, but the placement of Holecek I really don't get.

For what it's worth, I'm not saying he's as good as those guys, though I do think that he belongs with the next tier of goalies selected.

Hart voting in that era is just hard to take at anything approaching face value. Red Dutton has more top-5 Hart placements than Nick Lidstrom. And that means what, exactly?

I'd say that comparison isn't relevant because it's quite obvious that there has been a systematic bias against defensemen finishing high in voting for the Hart trophy relative to where they were ranked prior to the introduction of the Norris. No such shift in voting has occurred for goalies (at least as far as I can tell). This decade, almost every season there have been one or two goalies in the top-5 for Hart voting. That's not the case for defensemen.

 

[Evil Sather]

There goes Plan B. Love what he brings to the table. Plays multiple positions. Can play on a second or third line. Good size. He can score goals and set them up. Only thing he lacks is an extra gear.

Forward group shaped up quite nicely. I think I can actually roll the 3 lines against any line of any opponent all game long:

Bun Cook - Dale Hawerchuk - Bill Cook
Dean Prentice - Stan Mikita - Steve Larmer
Jere Lehtinen - Vincent Damphousse - Dave Taylor

 

[arrbez]

i'll be out tonight, who can take a list in case i come up?

 

[nik jr]

Hmm learn something new every day I guess. Kind of verifys a theory I've had about that era(well, before 29-30, anyway), that they basically just shot whenever they could. I don't see how it'd be any other way for a team to allow 30 shots and be near the lowest in the league.

that is my impression from watching old games. it makes me wonder about shot quality, especially in a league with only a few teams.

Nice, nice pick. I loved how that signing was slammed when Detroit signed him, on the HFboards. IMO he has been better on Detroit than he was in New Jersey.

No. He's been very good, and the Red Wings obviously don't regret it one bit, but he's being paid $6 million to be a PP specialist and a #3(at this point) defenseman, and he has the rest of this season and two after on that contract. If you're being paid $6 million a season, you probably should bring more to the table than that. In comparison, Scott Niedermayer makes the exact same amount. When you also consider that Rafalski is in the top-10 defensemen in terms of salary, then definitely he has not lived up to that contract.

i hated the signing at the time.

imo, DRW lost to anaheim in '07 b/c they were unable to stop anaheim's F's from crashing the net. i thought the main need was a physical defensive d-man. but holland signed a soft offensive d-man for 6M until he is almost 40.

i don't think rafalski was necessary to winning in '08, but winning the cup is worth almost anything, so it cannot really be considered a bad signing.

He was also coming off an absolutely dreadful playoffs, where he was getting owned by Lecavalier so badly that the Devils coaching staff had to switch the defensive pairings to hide him from Vinny, which turned the series around. Then he was no better against Ottawa - pretty sure Rafalski was the guy Ottawa kept trying to get Heatley out against.

Like I said, his weakness is one on one play, especially vs. bigger forwards. With a guy like Stevens or Lidstrom, he's not going to be 1 on 1 very often. He's very good at following a defensive system.

i have noticed that as well, since rafalski's time in NJ. and it has been the same in detroit. he tends to get manhandled in the corners and on the forecheck, especially by large F's.

i was shocked, though, the number of times he has been beat wide by opposing F's.

but as long as he's paired with a strong defensive player, he is a good bottom pair d-man who usually plays solid D, has very good offensive ability, and is a great PP QB.

 

[pitseleh]

that is my impression from watching old games. it makes me wonder about shot quality, especially in a league with only a few teams.

I think shot quality was definitely much lower than it is today. I also think that there was a lot more back and forth action and less neutral zone play which meant there was more time for SOG.

I have an article that discusses SV% from the 28/29 season. At the 16 game mark, Worters was leading the league in SV% at .976 having faced 675 shots against. That's 42.2 SA/game.

 

[seventieslord]

that is my impression from watching old games. it makes me wonder about shot quality, especially in a league with only a few teams.

We were talking about the times of Worters and Hainsworth. Have you seen games from that era? I'd love to see footage, but very very little of it exists.

In case you were talking about those times, I'd like to point out that there were 10 teams in the NHL for most of the 1930s.

 

[JFA87-66-99]

I have God bless canada's pick so as soon as Halifax makes there pick I'll have the next 2 selections ready

 

[JFA87-66-99]

I could post it tonight when I get home. It is circa February, but still mostly an accurate representation of what I think. If nothing else, it will give us something else to talk about.

Nice! look forward to it.

 

[vancityluongo]

Whoa, we've only had 15 picks since I made mine? I knew we were going at a slow pace, but I was honestly about to get a list ready right now because I just assumed that 5 pages of discussion must mean at least 20-25 picks. This is quite a turnaround from that huge streak we had going for a bit.

 

[The Mighty Duck Man]

i hated the signing at the time.

imo, DRW lost to anaheim in '07 b/c they were unable to stop anaheim's F's from crashing the net. i thought the main need was a physical defensive d-man. but holland signed a soft offensive d-man for 6M until he is almost 40.

i don't think rafalski was necessary to winning in '08, but winning the cup is worth almost anything, so it cannot really be considered a bad signing.

Exactly. Has he lived up to his contract? No, not really? Was it a bad signing? No way, they won the cup, that makes it worthwhile right there.

 

[nik jr]

Once you go down that road though, you open up a huge can of worms. We accept that players were dominant in their eras despite extraneous factors that might make them less effective in the context of hockey today. It's no different than assuming that Clint Benedict would still dominate despite no longer being the only goalie who went down on his knees or that Moose Johnson would adapt to using a much shorter stick.

according to Doctor No's site, the NHL changed the rule to allow goalies to leave their feet in its 1st season. most of benedict's career, and all of his cup wins were after the rule change.

according to the books "A Breed Apart" and "Hockey Stories on and off the Ice," other goalies did imitate benedict, which precipitated the rule change.

so benedict played at most only 5 seasons while circumventing the rules, and since other goalies copied him, it was less than 5.


i think we have to question both benedict and moose johnson, (especially johnson). but there is an important distinction.

other players did imitate benedict, and others could have used sticks like johnson's (some probably did), so it is a different thing than worters height.


moose johnson relying on a stick that would now be illegal is a problem for him, imo.

 

[Sens Rule]

Forward group shaped up quite nicely. I think I can actually roll the 3 lines against any line of any opponent all game long:

Bun Cook - Dale Hawerchuk - Bill Cook
Dean Prentice - Stan Mikita - Steve Larmer
Jere Lehtinen - Vincent Damphousse - Dave Taylor

Kevin Stevens - Bobby Clarke - Daniel Alfredsson
Pete Mahovolich - Adam Oates - Brett Hull
Vic Hadfield - Jeremy Roenick - Alexander Mogilny

Which is better?

 

[nik jr]

We were talking about the times of Worters and Hainsworth. Have you seen games from that era? I'd love to see footage, but very very little of it exists.

In case you were talking about those times, I'd like to point out that there were 10 teams in the NHL for most of the 1930s.

i may have a minute or two from the '20s. i have seen a few minutes from the '30s. shot quality was low from all i have seen from the original 6.
not much open ice, and the puck generally did not stay in the offensive zone long.

here is a video from '39:




in a small league with low parity, a team with tight D which allows few PPs, and which also has a dominant offense could create drastically different shot quality from one team to another.

that probably happened to an extent during WW2, when montreal kept many stars, but NYR lost so many players and became a terrible team.

 

[seventieslord]

Kevin Stevens - Bobby Clarke - Daniel Alfredsson
Pete Mahovolich - Adam Oates - Brett Hull
Vic Hadfield - Jeremy Roenick - Alexander Mogilny

Which is better?

I'd go with Evil Sather's lineup, although both could stand to be a little more cohesive.

As for your lineup:

- Your best defensive RW, by a wide margin, is Alfredsson. I know you're in love with him and Clarke together, but Alfie makes an excellent defensive RW. Mogilny is a bargain basement top-6 forward and really shouldn't be on a 3rd or 4th line. Swap the two, and you have a dynamic combination on the 3rd line. Everything Mogilny lacks, Clarke and Stevens compensate for. It's the best way to maximize the strengths in your lineup. So much grit on the first line will only see diminishing returns, IMO.

- Roenick is, unfortunately, your weakest defensive center, not that he's extremely bad, but both Oates and Clarke are better. Generally you want your 3rd unit to be strong defensively. You can't put Clarke down there; it would be a waste. You can't put Oates down there; it's a waste and he and Hull should be a package deal. So you're stuck with Roenick as a 3rd-liner, OR getting another 3rd line center - Roenick makes an outstanding 4th-liner.

- Hadfield has been beaten to death today, but he's an OK glue guy. Swapping him with Mahovlich allows you to have the classic "scorer, playmaker, puckwinner" combo on line 2. Mahovlich had his moments defensively and would make the 3rd line seem a bit more cohesive.

 

[MXD]

Kevin Stevens - Bobby Clarke - Daniel Alfredsson
Pete Mahovolich - Adam Oates - Brett Hull
Vic Hadfield - Jeremy Roenick - Alexander Mogilny

Which is better?

Wow, your older guy is actually younger than my younger... player, overall.