ATD #11 Draft Summary

[MXD]

Let me get this straight, MXD: you're telling me that the only guy, Clapper, who can play in any role in the draft (any forward line, any defence pairing) is a bad second round pick? Yikes.

Clapper can be a scoring line winger. He can be a two-way line winger. He can be a physical line winger. He can be an offensive defenceman, a defensive defenceman, a physical defenceman. He can log mbig minutes on top special teams units. He's one of the best leaders in the draft.

He's far from the worst pick in the second round.

It's just that any team that would use Clapper as a regular winger would be completely nuts, so the fact he is a legit scoring line 2-way winger is pretty much irrelevant (I'd rank his career as a forward inferior to Cecil Dillon).

As for defense, I know Clapper is all that. The problem is -- you have a guy like Sprague Cleghorn can do the exact same thing (and, in all honestly, was better offensively) that was still on the board when Clapper was picked. I guess Clapper COULD, in theory, play on the PK at F, but would you REALLY use Clapper that way??

 

[God Bless Canada]

It's just that any team that would use Clapper as a regular winger would be completely nuts, so the fact he is a legit scoring line 2-way winger is pretty much irrelevant (I'd rank his career as a forward inferior to Cecil Dillon).

As for defense, I know Clapper is all that. The problem is -- you have a guy like Sprague Cleghorn can do the exact same thing (and, in all honestly, was better offensively) that was still on the board when Clapper was picked. I guess Clapper COULD, in theory, play on the PK at F, but would you REALLY use Clapper that way??

It gives us options. It gives us a guy who, if we're in a pinch, we can move up to the RW spot. If we run into a mid-game injury, he can play RW. He won't play a regular shift at RW, he might not play a full game at RW, but he gives us that option. And he can play any RW slot.

That's where guys like Mohns, Clapper, Colville and Siebert become so valuable: their ability to move back and forth in a pinch.

Dit Clapper was a two-time all-star (likely would have had at least one more if all-star teams were around prior to 1931) at RW. And that's going up against Cook and Conacher for competition. The competition really softened up after 1935. In fact, I'd say that from 1936 to 1944 (the gap between Cook/Conacher/Clapper and the breakthrough of Richard), it was the weakest competition ever for RW. I'm a big fan of Hextall, Dillon and Bauer, but it wasn't stiff competition. Clapper was a better RW than Dillon. Significantly better.

Was he the best player available at that point? Not quite. But he was damn close. And he was the MVPA. (Most valuable player available). Nobody, absolutely nobody, who was available at that point brings as much to the table as Dit Clapper. And a lot of guys picked before him don't bring as much to the table as Dit Clapper.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

As for defense, I know Clapper is all that. The problem is -- you have a guy like Sprague Cleghorn can do the exact same thing (and, in all honestly, was better offensively) that was still on the board when Clapper was picked. I guess Clapper COULD, in theory, play on the PK at F, but would you REALLY use Clapper that way??

Except that Clapper is a leader, while Cleghorn is a disturbance and a penalty liability.

 

[seventieslord]

He may cause a disturbance, but penalty liability, that's a myth.

this is where Cleghorn ranked in the league in PIMs, despite playing 45-60 minutes a game.

NHA:

1911: 23rd, would be 17th if he played all the games (possibly lower if other players who missed games played the full season)
1912: 5th, 5th
1913: 14th, 11th
1914: 30th, 30th
1915: 16th, 14th
1916: 36th, 17th
1917: 8th, 7th

In the NHL:

1919: 13th
1920: 2nd
1921: 12th
1922: 1st
1923: 11th
1924: 6th
1925: 3rd
1926: 10th
1927: 13th
1928: 93rd

That's an average of just 17th. To be possibly the dirtiest, most hated, and most effective defender but only get the 17th-most PIMs, is excellent bang for the buck. Getting the most PIMs with his style, reputation, and effectiveness, would be par for the course, but he didn't.

There were players who had higher averages than that. Not that I calculated this for every single player, but I saw the same names ahead of him over and over again.

Keep in mind, too, that his leagues were 3-10 teams during these seasons. In a 30 team league you add more players which doesn't change the scoring leaders or MVP candidates, but you can bet some of them would challenge for the PIM lead. 5th in goals in a 6-team league is 5th in goals in a 30-team league, but 5th in PIMs in a 6-team league isn't the same with 30 teams, if you get what I'm saying.

 

[seventieslord]

PIM/GP

Here are some drafted players from the same era as Cleghorn for comparison, plus some average and sportsmanlike players just for fun:

Hall: 3.84
Corbeau: 3.14
Ross: 3.10
Mummery: 2.96
Randall: 2.84
Keats: 2.78
Lalonde: 2.53
******: 2.27
Cleghorn: 2.15
Broadbent: 2.10
Hyland: 2.03
Dunderdale: 1.96
Adams: 1.93
B. Boucher: 1.92
G. Boucher: 1.91
*****: 1.86
Noble: 1.78
Crawford: 1.64
Gerard: 1.48
Pitre: 1.32
Darragh: 1.32
Cameron: 1.31
Prodger: 1.17
Denneny: 1.13
O.Cleghorn 1.03
Taylor: 1.00
Berlinquette: 0.83
MacKay: 0.79
Nighbor: 0.75
Malone: 0.75
Foyston: 0.54

 

[MXD]

Except that Clapper is a leader, while Cleghorn is a disturbance and a penalty liability.

Well, I completely get the disturbance point. And 70ies answered for the penalty liability point.

I don't think that quite makes it for the rather huge gap in offensive production.

But hey... I happen to be one of Clapper's biggest detractor, as evidenced by the HOH Top-100. Clapper might get a bonus in the ATD, considering the positive intangibles that he brought to the game. And intangibles have to be factored in a little more in ATD than in HOH Top-100 (.. I think). I was a Pierre Pilote detractor for a while (although I will probably never draft him in subsequent drafts) and I changed my views on him. The same thing might happen to Clapper. I might have to look into his career as a forward a bit more, 'cause I think that's where the biggest discrepancy between my opinion and.... others opinion remains. As I said earlier, I think Clapper (as a forward) is compared disfavorably to Cecil Dillon ; as a player (takes into account his career as a forward and as a D-Men), I think his slightly longer sustained success at D is what makes him, ultimately, a better player than Ebbie Goodfellow (before considering any kind of intangibles...).

EDIT : Dillon faced the same kind of competition in the first part of his career. Might be even worst considering the best RW of that era (Bill Cook) was his teammate. Playing 2nd line minutes with Murray Murdoch and an unpicked player isn't exactly like playing 1st line minutes with Cooney Weiland (or Marty Barry later on) and a superior unpicked player (or was he picked?). It might be said that I think Dillon is terribly underrated as well. Clapper is, overall, a much better player than Dillon when you factor the part of his career as a D-Men. Clapper is also a guy that gets a bonus due to his absolutely amazing longevity, which is pretty much unparallelled in the era he played in.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Well, I completely get the disturbance point. And 70ies answered for the penalty liability point.

I don't think that quite makes it for the rather huge gap in offensive production.

But hey... I happen to be one of Clapper's biggest detractor, as evidenced by the HOH Top-100. Clapper might get a bonus in the ATD, considering the positive intangibles that he brought to the game. And intangibles have to be factored in a little more in ATD than in HOH Top-100 (.. I think). I was a Pierre Pilote detractor for a while (although I will probably never draft him in subsequent drafts) and I changed my views on him. The same thing might happen to Clapper. I might have to look into his career as a forward a bit more, 'cause I think that's where the biggest discrepancy between my opinion and.... others opinion remains. As I said earlier, I think Clapper (as a forward) is compared disfavorably to Cecil Dillon ; as a player (takes into account his career as a forward and as a D-Men), I think his slightly longer sustained success at D is what makes him, ultimately, a better player than Ebbie Goodfellow (before considering any kind of intangibles...).

EDIT : Dillon faced the same kind of competition in the first part of his career. Might be even worst considering the best RW of that era (Bill Cook) was his teammate. Playing 2nd line minutes with Murray Murdoch and an unpicked player isn't exactly like playing 1st line minutes with Cooney Weiland (or Marty Barry later on) and a superior unpicked player (or was he picked?). It might be said that I think Dillon is terribly underrated as well. Clapper is, overall, a much better player than Dillon when you factor the part of his career as a D-Men. Clapper is also a guy that gets a bonus due to his absolutely amazing longevity, which is pretty much unparallelled in the era he played in.

I actually agree about the Dillon/Clapper comparison.

One point to make about Cleghorn's offence is that he was a D/LW.

 

[seventieslord]

I actually agree about the Dillon/Clapper comparison.

One point to make about Cleghorn's offence is that he was a D/LW.

Cleghorn started as a winger very briefly in his first season and was made a defenseman permanently after that.

Something tells me that he may have been moved up briefly in the middle of a season later on in his career, but I forget where/if I read that.

If that is true, that would still be small parts of two seasons. It wouldn't be enough to even call him "D/LW".

 

[VanIslander]

Cleghorn and his defensive partner (whom you guys deem unworthy of ATD selection) were a top pairing for a great team for a decade.

Disturbance? penalty liability? THAT was the era of such rough and tumble play!

 

[Dreakmur]

Cleghorn and his defensive partner (whom you guys deem unworthy of ATD selection) were a top pairing for a great team for a decade.

Disturbance? penalty liability? THAT was the era of such rough and tumble play!

Regardless of era, Cleghorn was rarely among the PIM leaders. Considering he is one of the most feared guys ever to play, that's amazing.

He terrified people without being a liabiltiy!

 

[VanIslander]

Regardless of era, Cleghorn was rarely among the PIM leaders. Considering he is one of the most feared guys ever to play, that's amazing.

He terrified people without being a liabiltiy!

he had several VIOLENT episodes resulting in suspensions and even criminal charges filed

he may not have been in the penalty box as much as some, but he was one of the most violent in the history of the game: when he crossed the line he jumped across it!

 

[Dreakmur]

he had several VIOLENT episodes resulting in suspensions and even criminal charges filed

he may not have been in the penalty box as much as some, but he was one of the most violent in the history of the game: when he crossed the line he jumped across it!

How many times was he suspended?

 

[seventieslord]

he had several VIOLENT episodes resulting in suspensions and even criminal charges filed

he may not have been in the penalty box as much as some, but he was one of the most violent in the history of the game: when he crossed the line he jumped across it!

He had one suspension and was charged once that I know of. That could qualify him as a "possible" disturbance. But the penalty liability thing is not accurate.

 

[nik jr]

How many times was he suspended?

i don't know how many times but i can only think of 1.

he was suspended by his own team for beating hitchman in the head with his stick.

he was almost arrested for attacking newsy lalonde with his stick.

i think cleghorn was not suspended for injuring 3 ottawa players and their GM. (apparently, cleghorn had been traded from ottawa and wanted revenge.)
according to joe pelletier's site, cleghorn was fairly close to being banned from the NHL after that.

clleghorn's wife filed domestic abuse charges against him for beating her with a crutch.



those kind of incidents were not uncommon in cleghorn's time. but cleghorn was a psycho.

cleghorn was a very good defensive player, a great skater and a great scorer. like eddie shore, his temper and penalties are his only weakness.

 

[Dreakmur]

i don't know how many times but i can only think of 1.

he was suspended by his own team for beating hitchman in the head with his stick.

he was almost arrested for attacking newsy lalonde with his stick.

i think cleghorn was not suspended for injuring 3 ottawa players and their GM. (apparently, cleghorn had been traded from ottawa and wanted revenge.)
according to joe pelletier's site, cleghorn was fairly close to being banned from the NHL after that.

clleghorn's wife filed domestic abuse charges against him for beating her with a crutch.



those kind of incidents were not uncommon in cleghorn's time. but cleghorn was a psycho.

cleghorn was a very good defensive player, a great skater and a great scorer. like eddie shore, his temper and penalties are his only weakness.

So he was suspended once and almost suspended a second time? He was never suspended by the league....

Incidents away from the rink are meaningless. So he hit his wife with a crutch? What does that have to do with anything on ice?

 

[nik jr]

So he was suspended once and almost suspended a second time? He was never suspended by the league....

yes, but suspensions were rare despite the brutality of the game.


i actually do not really know how to deal with things like this. in the early decades of hockey, it was apparently not unknown to have a game-plan based on injuring the opponents with sticks to the head. a couple of times, that led to deaths.

Incidents away from the rink are meaningless. So he hit his wife with a crutch? What does that have to do with anything on ice?

cleghorn had terrible self-control. he was not just violent towards his opponents.

 

[Dreakmur]

yes, but suspensions were rare despite the brutality of the game.


i actually do not really know how to deal with things like this. in the early decades of hockey, it was apparently not unknown to have a game-plan based on injuring the opponents with sticks to the head. a couple of times, that led to deaths.

He was never suspended in his own era, so that means he would rarely, if ever, be suspended in an ATD format.

If everyone else was hitting people in the heads with sticks then Cleghorn wasn't outside the norm. He was no better or worse than most others, so why is he centered out as a distraction? Just like Gordie Howe using his stick and elbows, Cleghorn played within the rules of his own era.

Not only was Cleghorn not a detriment to his team, he was a fully complete player who led by example. He was captain on two cup-winning teams, and that's no fluke.

cleghorn had terrible self-control. he was not just violent towards his opponents.

He's not the only one to beat his wife.

 

[nik jr]

He was never suspended in his own era, so that means he would rarely, if ever, be suspended in an ATD format.

cleghorn was suspended in his era. how many players were seriously considered for expulsion from the NHL?


i guess suspensions are like injuries in ATD. sometimes they happen, but they seem to be fairly random.

If everyone else was hitting people in the heads with sticks then Cleghorn wasn't outside the norm. He was no better or worse than most others, so why is he centered out as a distraction? Just like Gordie Howe using his stick and elbows, Cleghorn played within the rules of his own era.

Not only was Cleghorn not a detriment to his team, he was a fully complete player who led by example. He was captain on two cup-winning teams, and that's no fluke.

cleghorn isn't centered out as a distraction. many players had similar problems.

 

[Dreakmur]

cleghorn was suspended in his era. how many players were seriously considered for expulsion from the NHL?

Cleghorn was never suspended by the league(that I can find). Just because he has a reputation for being brutal doesn't mean he would be suspended in the ATD format.

Scott Stevens, when he played for New Jersey, would be a fair comparison. He was alsways feared for his physical play, but he was rarely penalized, and never suspended.

i guess suspensions are like injuries in ATD. sometimes they happen, but they seem to be fairly random.

Injuries and suspensions should be treated the same.

If a player is injured often, he should be viewed as injury prone. If a player was hurt once or twice, it's no big deal. Everyone gets hurt a few times, so it's not outside the norm.

If a player was only suspended once - never by the league - is he a suspension prone? I don't think so....

Chris Pronger, for example, who has been suspended a dozen times, is suspension prone.

 

[God Bless Canada]

On the Cleghorn front: he took a lot of penalties. 70s, your findings are scewered because he finished 90-something in PIMs one year. Where is he without that one season?

I've always thought that PIMs can be a bit of an unreliable stat. There are two types of penalties: good penalties and bad penalties. Lots of penalties are bad penalties. Undisciplined penalties are bad. Stick foul penalties are almost always bad. Penalties in the offensive zone are always bad. Ever notice how teams tend to usually convert on fouls from undisciplined play, penalties that occur in the offensive zone, and penalties such as too many men, or that dumb clearing the puck over the glass foul?

There are good penalties. Penalties that legitimately prevent a goal from being scored are good penalties. Those are always killed off. Penalties that stem from sticking up for a teammate are good penalties. Ever seen a power play goal that stemmed from an instigator? No. Why? Instigators usually come from sticking up for a teammate. Any team that's worth a damn will kill off an instigator penalty, or any other penalty that comes from sticking up for a teammate.

Penalties can be tough to judge because of how games are called. Different infractions are called at different points in the game's history. Incidents that are called fighting now weren't always called fighting in the past. Infractions that result in 10-minute misconducts and game misconducts now didn't always result in misconducts in the past.

As for Cleghorn's suspension: that's another tough thing to judge. How did the league administer supplementary discipline in the 20s? Hard to say. Did things that result in suspensions now result in suspensions when Cleghorn was playing. The one thing that does stand out is he was suspended by his team for an extended period of time. That's alarming.

Was he dirty? Yeah, he was. By anyone's standard. But was he also a powerful, fast, highly-skilled, aggressive and tough defenceman who could control the pace of the game from the blue-line? Absolutely.

I think the world of Cleghorn. He's a top 20 defenceman on my list, without question. But I think some of you guys are way too reliant on numbers in your evaluations (good or bad), and you're trying to box accomplishments/incidents from the 20s into today's standards.

 

[seventieslord]

On the Cleghorn front: he took a lot of penalties. 70s, your findings are scewered because he finished 90-something in PIMs one year. Where is he without that one season?

His seasonal average would be 13th instead of 17th. He'd have 2.34 PIM/GP, moving him up exactly one spot on the list.

You could do that with any player on the list - remove their most docile or aggressive season and their career average would change.

So what's your point?

I've always thought that PIMs can be a bit of an unreliable stat. There are two types of penalties: good penalties and bad penalties. Lots of penalties are bad penalties. Undisciplined penalties are bad. Stick foul penalties are almost always bad. Penalties in the offensive zone are always bad. Ever notice how teams tend to usually convert on fouls from undisciplined play, penalties that occur in the offensive zone, and penalties such as too many men, or that dumb clearing the puck over the glass foul?

There are good penalties. Penalties that legitimately prevent a goal from being scored are good penalties. Those are always killed off. Penalties that stem from sticking up for a teammate are good penalties. Ever seen a power play goal that stemmed from an instigator? No. Why? Instigators usually come from sticking up for a teammate. Any team that's worth a damn will kill off an instigator penalty, or any other penalty that comes from sticking up for a teammate.

Penalties can be tough to judge because of how games are called. Different infractions are called at different points in the game's history. Incidents that are called fighting now weren't always called fighting in the past. Infractions that result in 10-minute misconducts and game misconducts now didn't always result in misconducts in the past.

You're going off on a tangent now.

With any player, some of their PIMs are going to come from minors. Some from majors. Some from misconducts. Some good, some bad. For modern players, and for games where video evidence exists, we have the ability to make judgments as to what types of penalties a player tends to take.

No such evidence exists for older players. You'll hear things like "he was the roughest player in his time", or maybe just "he was engaged in a lot of battles" or perhaps "he didn't look for trouble but could take care of himself" - that's all we have to go by. That and PIMs. It doesn't really give us a good idea of what kind of penalties he took. There are no player bios out there that say "he always took lazy hooking and holding penalties".

So, how could we possibly attempt to make any kind of their assessment other than using penalty minutes and the sparse accounts of their physical play?

As for Cleghorn's suspension: that's another tough thing to judge. How did the league administer supplementary discipline in the 20s? Hard to say. Did things that result in suspensions now result in suspensions when Cleghorn was playing. The one thing that does stand out is he was suspended by his team for an extended period of time. That's alarming.

Where on Earth did you get that idea?

Sprague was suspended March 8th, 1923, following the first game of the playoffs against Ottawa. Ottawa won the next game and Montreal was eliminated. Sprague was back the next season and played the whole year.

He missed one game.

Was he dirty? Yeah, he was. By anyone's standard. But was he also a powerful, fast, highly-skilled, aggressive and tough defenceman who could control the pace of the game from the blue-line? Absolutely. I think the world of Cleghorn. He's a top 20 defenceman on my list, without question.

Knocking on the door of the top-10.

But I think some of you guys are way too reliant on numbers in your evaluations (good or bad), and you're trying to box accomplishments/incidents from the 20s into today's standards.

Ummm, not at all. Why do you think I compared Cleghorn's PIM/GP totals to those of his contemporaries, why do you think I showed where he ranked in PIMs each of his NHA and NHL seasons? The intent is not to somehow translate it into today's standards. Everything is relative in the ATD. If Cleghorn got a high number of PIMs in his time, but far from the most, then he's not a major penalty liability. And why would we use anything but a player's PIM totals to make that judgment?

 

[Dreakmur]

On the Cleghorn front: he took a lot of penalties.

Compared to what?

First of all, Cleghorn played his whole career during the PCHA/WHL era. That's basically like a second conference, so when Cleghorn is 10th in the league, he's actually just 10th in his conference. That makes the 10th closer to 15-20th.

Second, Cleghorn didn't play on teams that rolled the lines. In the 10s, 20s, and even 30s, the starting players would play basically the entire game. Even though teams may have had a handful of spares, those guys barely got a chance to play, let alone take penalties. Essentially, the only players putting up points or penalties were the starters.... and that has to be accounted for. In a 6 team league, there would only be 30 real players.... and 17th out of 30 doesn't really look all that bad now, does it?

 

[BM67]

One thing about Cleghorn and other players from that era, match and misconduct penalties were not included in the players PIM totals. Sprague certainly got his fair share of those.

 

[Dreakmur]

One thing about Cleghorn and other players from that era, match and misconduct penalties were not included in the players PIM totals. Sprague certainly got his fair share of those.

Maybe so, but is there actual proof that supports that?


I haven't found actual proof that Cleghorn got more penalties, more misconducts, or more suspensions than the average player of his era.

 

[seventieslord]

One thing about Cleghorn and other players from that era, match and misconduct penalties were not included in the players PIM totals. Sprague certainly got his fair share of those.

Maybe so, but is there actual proof that supports that?


I haven't found actual proof that Cleghorn got more penalties, more misconducts, or more suspensions than the average player of his era.

You both have valid points. My take is this: Surely he got some misconducts, and surely other players did too. We have no real evidence to suggest that any player took more or less misconducts than anyone else.

The only thing we could assume, logically, is that if one player has double the PIM/GP that another player has without misconducts counted, that their misconducts would also be proportional to that ratio and if they were included in penalty minute totals you'd still see the one player with double the PIMs of the other. So while it would be nice if that was included in the total, the information that we have available tells just enough of the story.

(I'm not sure if BM was saying that adding in misconducts would add to the case that a player was a penalty liability or not, but misconducts usually just "pad" PIM totals anyway. They don't give the other team a power play.)