ATD 2012 - Draft Thread VII

[Leafs Forever]

I'll take Bobby Rowe, D/RW

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'll take Bobby Rowe, D/RW

Good pick. He was on my list of #6 defensemen when I picked Armstrong. I went with Armstrong's known physical play

 

[jarek]

I’m saying their offense wouldn’t completely disappear, or that every goal that they collaborated with Tavares for just wouldn’t happen. You said they’d be “SOL†and that’s not the case. Are you flip flopping here?

I agree with you that their point production wouldn't disappear. I guess saying they'd be SOL was the wrong way of putting it.

Players who generate 70 points on their own? Very difficult. Players who can score 70 if they develop chemistry with an elite player? Not that hard.

So if that chemistry exists, and 70 points is very high end production (and it is).. why does an improvement need to occur at all, especially since it isn't a guaranteed thing, which is what they have now?

You’ll see… they are interchangeable plugs. They had to get to the second sorriest franchise in the NHL to become regulars. They played a combined 8 AHL seasons after playing out their junior/college years before catching on.

Gee.. I find that really hard to swallow, dude. Bozak was playing between two guys who have been top-10 in scoring for almost the entire season, and he hasn't even cracked 40 points yet. Moulson and Parenteau have been playing with a guy who isn't very far ahead of either of them offensively. If you think Tavares, primarily a goal scorer, has artificially increased the point totals of Moulson and Parenteau to levels they would never be able to achieve on their own, then why hasn't the same thing occurred with Bozak playing between two guys who have been better than Tavares offensively this year?

I think you might need to admit that you're wrong on this one, and accept that Moulson and Parenteau are late bloomers who have bucked the so-called trend.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is the discussion about the current NY Islanders relevant to the ATD?

 

[Hedberg]

The Winnipeg Saints select RW Jimmy Peters

 

[jarek]

Is the discussion about the current NY Islanders relevant to the ATD?

Yes. You can use it as a reference when you start talking about other players who may have supposedly benefited from playing with better linemates.. or something.

 

[vecens24]

While waiting to select, I finished up a Jack Walker Biography. 1700 words on one of hockey's early stars.

There are many quotes comparing him to Frank Nighbor level defensively. He was that good. Credited with creating the "hook check".

Also, I was a little bit happy with what I found with his offense. I'd say he's below what a second liner should be in that regard, but not by a terrible amount. If you were creating a two-way shutdown second line like I did here, you should have no problem having him there now and I would think that he'll put up some points. Defintiely in the lower end of second liners though, if not the lowest, but it won't be by a crazy amount. He was defintiely known as one of the top stick handlers of his time, and had a hard shot, but it's accuracy wasn't as strong as many back then (I noticed a few references to him missing the net), which I think leads to inconsistency, which is why you see him being among the lower end offensive players. Due to his stick handling ability, I also think that if assists were kept better in his day, his numbers wouldn't look as bad.

Defintiely tough despite his size as well, so I will feel confident with him going up against some of the bigger RWs in my division.

Finally, I defintiely think he should be credited as a F, as opposed to a LW. I found too many references to him playing different positions overall (any reference I found I placed in the bio). I would have no problem lining him up at any spot on my forward units and I would expect his production to be the same personally.

Here it is:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=46025771&postcount=210

 

[vecens24]

Damnit, I thought Dave Kerr was still around but I checked the thread at the last minute only to see BBS picked him about 60 slots ago lol.

Going to be a second here.

With Pick I think 701, I'm taking backup goalie Charlie Hodge.

Billy did pretty much the definitive bio on Hodge last year, and I don't think I have any chance of improving upon it. Here it is:

http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=32004690&postcount=773

MadArcand PMd.

 

[Sturminator]

There are many quotes comparing him to Frank Nighbor level defensively. He was that good. Credited with creating the "hook check".

He almost certainly was not as good defensively as Nighbor. There is exactly one quote in that bio that directly compares him to Nighbor, and it is from Ultimate Hockey, which is a thoroughly discredited source. Inventing a thing is not the same as perfecting it. Frank Boucher was probably the first modern playmaking center, and is said to have invented the drop pass; that does not make him as good as Gretzky.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I thought Bun Cook invented the drop pass?

(doesn't change the point though)

 

[jarek]

He almost certainly was not as good defensively as Nighbor. There is exactly one quote in that bio that directly compares him to Nighbor, and it is from Ultimate Hockey, which is a thoroughly discredited source. Inventing a thing is not the same as perfecting it. Frank Boucher was probably the first modern playmaking center, and is said to have invented the drop pass; that does not make him as good as Gretzky.

Is there a reason why UH has been discredited?

 

[Sturminator]

he finished 6th, and you think he deserved to be higher? Over those four years I don't recall him being known as much more than a lowe-end top-10 guy, at best.

Yeah, I don't really buy the argument that he deserved to go higher either. The only people I've seen make it are Habs fans. The description of Markov as "Lidstrom light" works from a stylistic perspective. He was a puckmover who mostly headmanned the puck and didn't carry it a whole lot (like Lidstrom or Stapleton), and was a terrific PP QB. But none of that means he is better than the voting indicates.

There are a lot of parallels between Boyle/Markov and Tremblay/Stapleton. Boyle plays a lot like Tremblay did, and Markov a lot like Stapleton. At their respective peaks, they were all similarly effective, and had similar weaknesses. With the exception of Markov, they were also all outstanding playoff performers.

aside: I wonder if there is something in the idea that puckmoving defensemen are more important or somehow "get better" in the postseason. We see this effect a lot. Paul Reinhart and Bryan Leetch are two more examples of puckmovers who were particularly good playoff performers.

The main difference between these four players is simply length of peak. Interestingly, they all seem to be fringe players between two roles in the ATD. Tremblay is a fringe #1/#2. He can be a solid low-end #1 if you give him a strong partner, or an excellent #2. Stapleton is a fringe #2/#3 and Boyle is a fringe #3/#4. Markov is, I think, a fringe #5/#6. Hopefully, he can make a full recovery and continue to add to his resume. I believe that Markov was legitimately a top-5ish defenseman in the league at his peak, and if he can get back to that level and perform for another 4-5 seasons like that...yeah, he could be a hall of famer. It's unlikely, but stranger things have happened.

 

[Sturminator]

Is there a reason why UH has been discredited?

I don't remember the specifics, but UH has been exposed as having details about certain players wrong on numerous occasions. It was slightly scandalous in the earlier drafts once we figured out just how unreliable a source UH really is.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is there a reason why UH has been discredited?

Their Retroactive awards often contradict awards voting data, sometimes badly. I get the impression that their awards are based off nothing more than finding a single decent newspaper quote about a player.

Edit: maybe that's a bit harsh, but there have been quite a few times that UH will say something about a player, not backed up by LOH, we can't find anything about it in newspapers, and perhaps the Hart or All Star data contradicts.

And you just wonder where they got their information

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I don't remember the specifics, but UH has been exposed as having details about certain players wrong on numerous occasions. It was slightly scandalous in the earlier drafts once we figured out just how unreliable a source UH really is.

I definitely rank UH below LOH and the Trail as second hand sources go. Pelletier makes errors sometimes, but I don't think GHL is as egregious as UH.

 

[vecens24]

He almost certainly was not as good defensively as Nighbor. There is exactly one quote in that bio that directly compares him to Nighbor, and it is from Ultimate Hockey, which is a thoroughly discredited source. Inventing a thing is not the same as perfecting it. Frank Boucher was probably the first modern playmaking center, and is said to have invented the drop pass; that does not make him as good as Gretzky.

I should have worded it differently.

I think Nighbor is better. I'm not going to ever dispute that. However from what I've read so far, I think that Nighbor is 1, and Walker is 2. And I think there is a difference in their abilities, but I don't see it as being as pronounced as you do. Trail of the Stanley Cup says this (not sure how you missed this in the bio):

This fine player is best remembered for his uncanny skill as a hook check artist and in this respect he was rival of Frank Nighbor.

A Pittsburgh Press article also compares the two:

and out on the coast he taught it to Frank Nighbor, brilliant veteran forward of the Ottawa club. Nighbor, a player of precisely the same mental and physical type as Walker, developed and improved on Walker's basic idea of sweeping his stick along the ice to foremost exponent of a style of play that is now used by scores of forwards

Another reason I see Nighbor as being more adept, but there not being a big difference between them.

 

[Sturminator]

LOLWUT?

I wasn't bloody smearing Boyle. In fact, I called Markov poor man's Boyle, as I hold Boyle in significantly higher esteem. Hell, my whole point was that being an inferior version of Boyle hardly makes you HHOFer, yet you somehow manage to misconstrue it as me belittling Boyle??

For ****'s sake...

Well allright. I'm sorry I misunderstood your point. You have a way sometimes of making it seem like you think many modern players are really terrible, but maybe I just read too much into your statements.

My point was not that Markov is as good as Boyle from a career perspective. He clearly is not, but I think that is simply because he hasn't had as long of a peak. Both players at their best were about equal, and are good enough to be hall of famers with sufficient length of peak. In all likelihood, neither one will get there. Boyle got too late a start on his NHL career, and Markov will have to come all the way back from a bad injury, which is no sure thing.

 

[jarek]

I see about UH. I do remember a few head scratchers from that book, but overall I thought it was a fairly decent source.

 

[Dwight]

And there's Stamkos with #50.

It's amazing how he's not only leading the league in goals, but also dominating it. Nobody else is within 10 goals of him right now. What a stud.

 

[arrbez]

Fair enough.. and yeah, Komisarek did used to be a good player for two years, eh? Must have been nice.

Sounds good right about now. Then again, the Leafs are charging hard for a lottery pick now. Watch your back Montreal, you have to win eventually!

And there's Stamkos with #50.

It's amazing how he's not only leading the league in goals, but also dominating it. Nobody else is within 10 goals of him right now. What a stud.

Stammer is unreal. Between the blonde shag and the knee-down one timer, he's looking more and more like Brett Hull these days. He could challenge 60 if he keeps tearing it up like this.

 

[Velociraptor]

New thread up guys, you won't have to worry about constantly wondering who's available and who isn't! I won't be able to update it during the nighttime 12 AM EDT until around 2 PM EDT during the week as I have class and work, but I will be around most other times to update the thread.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

It's amazing Stamkos can light up the Richard race by such a wide margin considering the league feels like it's back in grinding dead puck this season.

 

[vecens24]

New thread up guys, you won't have to worry about constantly wondering who's available and who isn't! I won't be able to update it during the nighttime 12 AM EDT until around 2 PM EDT during the week as I have class and work, but I will be around most other times to update the thread.

Yep...I should also be good to start updating as much as possible as well after tomorrow at 1:30. SPring Break will be nice.

 

[arrbez]

aside: I wonder if there is something in the idea that puckmoving defensemen are more important or somehow "get better" in the postseason. We see this effect a lot.

The elusive puck-moving defenseman always seems to bring huge value at the trade deadline, and for good reason by the looks of it. Having a guy who's money at getting the puck into transition is probably more valuable than ever in the face of harder playoff forechecking.

It could be that a guy who doesn't move the puck well is just going to look worse in the playoffs against tighter checking, so the guys who do it really well stand out more?