ATD 2011 Draft Thread IV

[JFA87-66-99]

So Harry Cameron moved up to offense when he joined Saskatoon in 1923. He had 40 points combined in those 2 season while playing mostly offense. From 1909-1925 he's credited with 264 points putting him at 12th place on the top 20 lists I talked about earlier. So take those 40 points away and he still cracks the top 20 list only at #19. Thats if he scores 0 points in those 2 seasons if he was still on defense which wouldn't have happened. So he is still the only defensemen to crack this list then

 

[BenchBrawl]

I wasn't actually referring to you Reen Machine? Yes everybody builds there teams diffrently. I figured with everyone taking defensemen then I might as well have a stacked offense. I'm more like an 80's style Oilers team, I'm addicted to offense & scoring and I felt that Datsyuk was one of the BPA.

But Datsyuk ( 3rd line C ) is gonna pay his 3rd line position by seeing less ice time and playing with the 3rd pairing , which is not likely to have a solid 2-way guy , and also a 3rd lien center plays a lot less than a number 2 D.But I'm not criticizing you , just arguing differant team philosophy

I choosed to have a big 3 on D before having a goalie and I choosed a 2nd line center before taking the missing left winger on Gretzky's line , you could argue against me on these one for sure.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It still remain that your opinion on Krutov remain, well, an opinion and not a fact. I think it's unfair to discredit a player base on an unproven fact.

You have no actual evidence. You have a handful of circumstantial events that may or may not point to something.

The majority of what we judge every player on in the ATD is an "unproven fact" then.

Other than arguments based entirely on stats sheets, there is some level of inference used based on the available information. So unless we want the ATD to turn entirely into a boring argument about statistics, we have to use a standard a proof looser than a court of law.

I think it's more likely than not that Krutov was a product of steroids in a way that his linemates were not. I still haven't figured out what I think that should make his legacy in the ATD, however.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is there anyway you can justify taking Eric Desjardins ahead of Gary Suter?
It's funny because they both respectively played 1143 nd 1145 games.

Eric Desjardins:
6-1 205 lbs
all-star team ( 2nd , 2nd )
80 pts in 168 playoff games
575 pts in 1143 games
1 cup

Gary Suter:
6-0 215 lbs
Calder Trophy
all-star team ( 1st , 2nd )
Top 10 assist ( 6th )
73 pts in 108 playoff games
844 pts in 1145 games
1 cup

First off, Gary Suter was never a 1st Team All-Star. He was a 2nd Team All-Star just once. I don't know where you got that from. Edit: Oh, he was a 1st Team All-Rookie team.... that's.... nice I guess.

Second of all, he played in a much higher scoring era, though he was still better offensively than Desjardins.

Third of all, Desjardins was the #1 defenseman on his Cup winner, while Suter only played 5 games due to injuries when he won the Cup.

Both are solid #3s in this - it depends on what you are looking for. Suter was a much more high risk/ high reward guy - very good offensively, very tough and extremely nasty hitter - but known for going out of position for both. The fact that he was only a 2nd team All Star once (in the year he led the league in points by a defenseman!) tells you what you need to know about his defensive positioning.

Desjardins was a much safer player - an extremely lite version of Lidstrom. Lower upside than Suter definitely, no real weaknesses.

Depends on what you're looking for. I was certainly considering them both as the #3 on the Swamp Devils.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think you guys underrate Harry Cameron. He was one of the best offensive defenseman of all-time. I'm sure you guys have the book "Hockey Compendium". In the book they break down the the top 20 scorers from 1909-1925, 1909-1940, 1909-1951,1909-1967,1909-1979,1909-2001. The book states that from 1909-1926 he was the only defensemen to crack the top 20 scoring list actually 12th place, and out of all these lists that only Harry Cameron, Bobby Orr, Bill Gadsby, Ray Bourque and Paul Coffey are the only other defensemen to make these lists. That's pretty good company when looking at offensive d-men. I'm still researching more about Harry Cameron but he also gets credit for 4 retro Norris trophies. Anyways guys I'm really enjoying this draft with 40 teams and everyone is doing a great job. Could anyone direct me to an old Harry cameron Bio somewhere. Thanks

Cameron was an excellent offensive defenseman. I've seen him compared to Brian Leetch, but I wouldn't go that far. His downside is that his defensive ability was quite average, it appears. And he loathed training, so I have serious questions as to whether he has the stamina to be an ATD #1.

 

[Sturminator]

You said he's definately one of the two best offensive defensemen of his generation. I can except that, but he was probably better offensively than Cleghorn. Cleghorn was better at everything else.

It's actually a three-way debate as to who was the best offensive defenseman of that generation between Cameron, Cleghorn and Boucher (sort of surprised you forgot him but the numbers bear this out). Cleghorn has the most impressive NHA stats of the bunch, but the worst NHL stats, and I tend not to count NHA stats for quite as much. It's actually pretty hard to distinguish one from the other offensively.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I have trouble saying early NHL stats were more reliable. That era was a touch screwy. Also remember that Boucher played a fair amount of wing.

 

[Leafs Forever]

I have trouble saying early NHL stats were more reliable. That era was a touch screwy. Also remember that Boucher played a fair amount of wing.

He did before 1920, but after that where he makes his real offensive legacy, that wasn't really the case.

 

[Derick*]

Wow guys! This started moving a lot faster than before, sorry for holding it up. I'll pick in a few minutes, just let me see who's still available from my short list.

 

[Derick*]

With the 240th pick, the San Jose Sharks select: Gary Roberts, LW

With the 241st pick, the San Jose Sharks select: Bobby Baun, D

 

[Reds4Life]

Chicago Steelers select Jean-Guy Talbot, D.

Talbot was well known for being a sound passer. He was also known for having a clean but rather physical style of play which ultimately helped the Habs win Stanley Cups.

 

[BenchBrawl]

First off, Gary Suter was never a 1st Team All-Star. He was a 2nd Team All-Star just once. I don't know where you got that from. Edit: Oh, he was a 1st Team All-Rookie team.... that's.... nice I guess.

Second of all, he played in a much higher scoring era, though he was still better offensively than Desjardins.

Third of all, Desjardins was the #1 defenseman on his Cup winner, while Suter only played 5 games due to injuries when he won the Cup.

Both are solid #3s in this - it depends on what you are looking for. Suter was a much more high risk/ high reward guy - very good offensively, very tough and extremely nasty hitter - but known for going out of position for both. The fact that he was only a 2nd team All Star once (in the year he led the league in points by a defenseman!) tells you what you need to know about his defensive positioning.

Desjardins was a much safer player - an extremely lite version of Lidstrom. Lower upside than Suter definitely, no real weaknesses.

Depends on what you're looking for. I was certainly considering them both as the #3 on the Swamp Devils.

Yeah , a certain statistical website gave me this 1st all star team , maybe it was wrote rookie all star and didnt saw it , anyway , I was going to take Desjardins before he was taken , then had to research some more and actually realised how awesome gary suter was , and then wondered if I wasn't better off with him afterall.I think I am , Lidstrom & Konstantinov are a safe pairing , and it's gonna be way easier to find a defensive 4th D than a Suter-lite one.I also like the nasty hits of suter.To be honest they're pretty equal , just different , all things considered.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Cameron was an excellent offensive defenseman. I've seen him compared to Brian Leetch, but I wouldn't go that far. His downside is that his defensive ability was quite average, it appears. And he loathed training, so I have serious questions as to whether he has the stamina to be an ATD #1.

He might be if he had help from a solid n2 , but I don't think there's any solid ATD n2 dman left in the draft.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

He did before 1920, but after that where he makes his real offensive legacy, that wasn't really the case.

I need some proof that he didn't after on rw retired and the other two top wingers began to decline with no replacement

 

[Sturminator]

He did before 1920, but after that where he makes his real offensive legacy, that wasn't really the case.

Thanks LF. Yes, Boucher wasn't a full time defenseman until 20-21 after Cleghorn left Ottawa, but it is exactly at this point that his offense peaks, so the time spent as Ottawa's "utility player" doesn't seem to have helped Boucher's offensive legacy, at all. Here is a nice article from just before the beginning of the 20-21 season which describes Boucher's original role on the Sens.

Should Star This Season

This will be Boucher's fifth season with the Ottawas. George broke in fresh from the ranks of the New Edinburgh club and has been one of the most valuable men in the Ottawa squad. Last year he filled almost every position on the team. He figured on the Ottawa defense and did dazzling work in the deciding games of the first half when Sprague Cleghorn was out of action, and he subsequently replaced Capt. Eddie Gerard with equal success. In the world series against Seattle, through the games both in Ottawa and Toronto, Boucher was probably the brightest star on the Ottawa team. He should be one of the most effective men in the National League this winter. His versatility is a great asset to the Ottawas, as he goes up to the line or back to the defense without a murmur.

Also of interest in the above is that in the eyes of the Ottawa paper of record, Boucher was considered the best player in the finals on that 1920 Ottawa Cup winner. This is yet another body blow to the already mostly discredited judgments of the Retro Smythe project, who of course awarded the imaginary trophy to a winger who I've always considered highly questionable.

 

[jarek]

Anyways, uh, yeah, I have Billy's list, so PM me when Home Nugget picks. Sorry!

 

[seventieslord]

Actually he played mostly defense maybe a little offense but not much to change the stats completely. Yea retro Norris's are questionable but I would not write them off as a joke like you say. Somebody actually went back and did the work to figure out who most likely would have won it. You said he's definately one of the two best offensive defensemen of his generation. I can except that, but he was probably better offensively than Cleghorn. Cleghorn was better at evevrything else.

But that's the thing, dude, the work was shoddy. In seasons where actual empirical info suggesting who was perceived as the best exists, they go against it. There are two seasons where Cleghorn is the real Hart trophy runner-up, yet for whatever reason they give the retro Norris to Georges Boucher. Do you agree with that?

I personally say that Cleghorn was the best defenseman those seasons, and not Boucher. You are free to disagree with such an assertion, but your reasoning better not be "because Ultimate Hockey said so" because they didn't substantiate those retro awards with anything, nor did they say they expected them to be taken seriously at all.

And yes, Cameron's time as a forward made a great impact on his career numbers. He played 3 seasons in the west, all at forward, and they comprise 28% of his top-level pro games. His offense in the east had started to dry up the season before. He was 33-36 years old. As a forward, he had 52 points those three seasons. It likely would have been less than half that many if he was a defenseman. That's a big difference in his career point total.

edit: wait, are you saying he was not a forward these years? That's strange because he didn't make the all-star teams on defense, and he'd have been the league defense scoring leaders, so then you'd have a lot of explaining to do for why that happened...

 

[Sturminator]

I need some proof that he didn't after on rw retired and the other two top wingers began to decline with no replacement

First of all, Boucher was already past his offensive peak and skating on a bad knee by the time Cy Denneny started to slow down. The hole in Ottawa was at right wing - that is, until Hooley Smith showed up (and was later traded for his replacement in Punch Broadbent plus a bunch of cash).

At any rate, Clancy joins the Sens in 21-22 and spends time all over the place early on, taking over Boucher's old "utility" role, while Boucher fills Cleghorn's shoes. Based on the Ottawa game reports I have read through from this period (and that's a lot), Boucher seems to have done spot work relieving Nighbor at center (which was an extremely defensive role, anyway, especially later in Nighbor's career when he was essentially a third defenseman), but that's it. Gerard did spot work at left wing and Clancy spent a lot of time on the right wing until Hooley Smith came along. Clancy is actually listed as a starter at wing with some regularity for a couple of years there.

All three Ottawa defensemen spent some time in the forward line, but Boucher's role as a forward seems to have been the most defensive of the three. Spelling Nighbor occasionally at center seems quite unlikely to have inflated his offensive numbers.

 

[Velociraptor]

But that's the thing, dude, the work was shoddy. In seasons where actual empirical info suggesting who was perceived as the best exists, they go against it. There are two seasons where Cleghorn is the real Hart trophy runner-up, yet for whatever reason they give the retro Norris to Georges Boucher. Do you agree with that?

I personally say that Cleghorn was the best defenseman those seasons, and not Boucher. You are free to disagree with such an assertion, but your reasoning better not be "because Ultimate Hockey said so" because they didn't substantiate those retro awards with anything, nor did they say they expected them to be taken seriously at all.

And yes, Cameron's time as a forward made a great impact on his career numbers. He played 3 seasons in the west, all at forward, and they comprise 28% of his top-level pro games. His offense in the east had started to dry up the season before. He was 33-36 years old. As a forward, he had 52 points those three seasons. It likely would have been less than half that many if he was a defenseman. That's a big difference in his career point total.

Just a biased Cleghorn owner with his two cents.

Going with what 70's said, Cleghorn was an offensively inclined defenseman, who played nearly every aspect of the game well. Cameron was a good offensive defenseman, but his high stats indicate his years as a forward. Cleghorn had a 21 goal season in the NHA! and two 16-goal seasons, and one 17-goal season. He was one of the earliest incarnations of an offensive defenseman.

I'm shocked Sprague Cleghorn has zero Norris Trophies to his name, there is definitely something suspicious about retro Norris Trophies, it must be based on a sole category, which continues to confuse me because there wasn't much Cleghorn could not do. He did finish 2nd in Hart voting one year though. http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=18925269&postcount=224

 

[seventieslord]

It's actually a three-way debate as to who was the best offensive defenseman of that generation between Cameron, Cleghorn and Boucher (sort of surprised you forgot him but the numbers bear this out). Cleghorn has the most impressive NHA stats of the bunch, but the worst NHL stats, and I tend not to count NHA stats for quite as much. It's actually pretty hard to distinguish one from the other offensively.

There's no reason to assume that the NHL stats from that era are any better than the NHA stats.

Does Boucher really have the offensive resume to join in this debate for best offensive defenseman of the period?

In his 7 NHL seasons as a defenseman pre-merger, Boucher's rankings in scoring among blueliners are, stated in order of impressiveness, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5. These are of course pre-merger so they could be essentially doubled if trying to compare to a post-merger league. Post-merger, an aging Boucher finished 9th, 11th, and 11th.

Cleghorn was almost never out of the top-4; he actually did it for 13 times in 16 seasons: 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4, 4, 5. These are pre-merger seasons too, so they are apples to apples with Boucher.

percentage-based comparisons would help to indicate which of the 1sts was most impressive, as well as sort out the 2nd place finishes better as well - but is that really necessary?

It's like comparing Gary Suter's offense to Lidstrom's.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

But that's the thing, dude, the work was shoddy. In seasons where actual empirical info suggesting who was perceived as the best exists, they go against it. There are two seasons where Cleghorn is the real Hart trophy runner-up, yet for whatever reason they give the retro Norris to Georges Boucher. Do you agree with that?

I personally say that Cleghorn was the best defenseman those seasons, and not Boucher. You are free to disagree with such an assertion, but your reasoning better not be "because Ultimate Hockey said so" because they didn't substantiate those retro awards with anything, nor did they say they expected them to be taken seriously at all.

At this point, I can only assume that the writers of Ultimate Hockey didn't have access to full awards voting records when they wrote the book. It's quite possible - the book was written during the infancy of the Internet, when very few newspapers (or any?) had archives online.

It's not just the early eras, either. Bill Quackenbush was the leader in All Star voting twice - (once unanimous!) and didn't receive a single "Retro Norris!"

I have also read primary source material that Eddie Gerard was considered a better overall defenseman than Georges Boucher (or Harry Cameron), yet he only gets awarded a single retro Norris, while Boucher gets 4?

Ultimate Hockey is a great resource in many ways, so I have a hard time concluding that the scholarship was that sloppy. So they must not have had access to much of the material (including voting records) that the internet makes it so easy for us to access.

 

[seventieslord]

Just a biased Cleghorn owner with his two cents.

Going with what 70's said, Cleghorn was an offensively inclined defenseman, who played nearly every aspect of the game well. Cameron was a good offensive defenseman, but his high stats indicate his years as a forward. Cleghorn had a 21 goal season in the NHA! and two 16-goal seasons, and one 17-goal season. He was one of the earliest incarnations of an offensive defenseman.

I'm shocked Sprague Cleghorn has zero Norris Trophies to his name, there is definitely something suspicious about retro Norris Trophies, it must be based on a sole category, which continues to confuse me because there wasn't much Cleghorn could not do. He did finish 2nd in Hart voting one year though. http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=18925269&postcount=224

- It was twice that Cleghorn was runner up for the hart (1924, 1926)

- I'm pretty sure UH gave him a bevy of retro Norrises. Not that you should really care.

- If you're trying to imply Cameron played some forward in the NHA, I've never seen that myself. He just really was that good offensively while there. But in the west, he was definitely a forward.

 

[Derick*]

Do you guys think I could put Roberts on the point beside Orr?

 

[JFA87-66-99]

But that's the thing, dude, the work was shoddy. In seasons where actual empirical info suggesting who was perceived as the best exists, they go against it. There are two seasons where Cleghorn is the real Hart trophy runner-up, yet for whatever reason they give the retro Norris to Georges Boucher. Do you agree with that?

I personally say that Cleghorn was the best defenseman those seasons, and not Boucher. You are free to disagree with such an assertion, but your reasoning better not be "because Ultimate Hockey said so" because they didn't substantiate those retro awards with anything, nor did they say they expected them to be taken seriously at all.

And yes, Cameron's time as a forward made a great impact on his career numbers. He played 3 seasons in the west, all at forward, and they comprise 28% of his top-level pro games. His offense in the east had started to dry up the season before. He was 33-36 years old. As a forward, he had 52 points those three seasons. It likely would have been less than half that many if he was a defenseman. That's a big difference in his career point total.

edit: wait, are you saying he was not a forward these years? That's strange because he didn't make the all-star teams on defense, and he'd have been the league defense scoring leaders, so then you'd have a lot of explaining to do for why that happened...

So Harry Cameron moved up to offense when he joined Saskatoon in 1923. He had 40 points combined in those 2 season while playing mostly offense. From 1909-1925 he's credited with 264 points putting him at 12th place on the top 20 lists I talked about earlier. So take those 40 points away and he still cracks the top 20 list only at #19. Thats if he scores 0 points in those 2 seasons if he was still on defense which wouldn't have happened. So he is still the only defensemen to crack this list then

So how many seasons are you saying he played offense,and what seasons exactly? I have him only playing a few seasons on the wing later in his career. He played the bulk of his career on defense. He clearly is one of the better offensive d-men of his generation so what are you basically trying to say? I know he wasn't as good as your selection Cleghorn but offensively I think he was better even if it was a small margin. Like I said when I picked Cameron I was going for the best offensive d-men and I think I accomplished that. Sure there's other defensemen who are comparable offensively but the stats from that era show otherwise. Unless your saying Cameron played all those season at forward. I'm talking about the top 20 scoring leaders from 1909-1925, he was the only defensemen to make the list even if you take those 2 seasons on offense away

 

[BM67]

To be fair Lionel Conacher was 2nd in Hart voting and a 2nd Team All-Star one year, so it isn't a given that being 2nd in Hart voting should net you the Norris.