ATD 2013 - Draft Thread III

[Elvis P]

delete

 

[Sturminator]

I disagree because Hatcher had a lot more to his game...

You disagree that he was arguably the era's biggest beneficiary, or that he would have had it tougher in another time?

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

I think it was more specific defensive players who were given more latitude in the attack. The way forwards checked was also somewhat peculiar by modern standards. Ottawa is the only system that regularly involved attacking defensemen as far as I know, but that may have been more a product of Frank Nighbor's genius than any grand strategic formula.

We can have a more meaningful discussion about these themes in a few rounds.

Based on my research in the last two ATDs, I can say with 100% certainty that Vancouver's system was very similar to Ottawa's with Mickey MacKay used in a role similar to Nighbor's.

On that note, I noticed in the dishing the dirt thread when you were analyzing the hook check you noticed that it was usually passed from player to player and that there was a break in the chain with Frank Boucher. MacKay is likely that link. And a big reason Vancouver couldn't beat Ottawa was likely that the student was never a match for the master.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

You disagree that he was arguably the era's biggest beneficiary, or that he would have had it tougher in another time?

Both. To a degree. Did he benefit? Yes. Would he have been quite as effective across all other eras? No. But I think the effect is overrated because he had a pretty complete defensive game, he just highlighted the aspect that was most beneficial in the era he played in.

 

[Sturminator]

Based on my research in the last two ATDs, I can say with 100% certainty that Vancouver's system was very similar to Ottawa's with Mickey MacKay used in a role similar to Nighbor's.

On that note, I noticed in the dishing the dirt thread when you were analyzing the hook check you noticed that it was usually passed from player to player and that there was a break in the chain with Frank Boucher. MacKay is likely that link. And a big reason Vancouver couldn't beat Ottawa was likely that the student was never a match for the master.

That is an excellent point, and you are right that Frank Boucher probably learned the hook check from Mickey MacKay in Vancouver. You may also be right that all of the teams which revolved around a high-end hook-checker at center had defensemen who were more active in the attack. The Cup champion Maroons team with Hooley Smith at center also got a lot of production out of Conacher and Wentworth, their top two defensemen at the time.

It is worth investigating a bit more the correlation between hook-checkers at center ice and team scoring from the defense. This would, of course, make Eddie Shore something of an exception to the rule, which is not really surprising.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

It is worth investigating a bit more the correlation between hook-checkers at center ice and team scoring from the defense. This would, of course, make Eddie Shore something of an exception to the rule, which is not really surprising.

Shore is a player who fascinates me. If a reason for lack of playoff success other than he was highly susceptible to pests can be found, he could in my mind be a peer of Lemieux.

 

[tony d]

Just started the new thread.

 

[VanIslander]

Who was it that said Hatcher was like Pronger with a bum knee and a broken stick?

Derian was well suited to the clutch-and-grab Dead Puck Era when - unlike today's NHL - interference penalties were not called when defensemen made contact with forwards without the puck around the crease. He was lost in Philly in the new NHL, but, since he was older then, it isn't very significant.

The fact is he WAS effective in his era and has solid defensive defenseman skills of protecting his own zone, being physical, taking the body, certainly preventing rushes to the net by puck carriers. He's a solid 4/5 dman role on any team in this draft, who could anchor a second pairing.

AS a longtime North Stars fan, I have watched a lot of Hatcher. I thought him light years ahead of Zubov in terms of play without the puck. They were like night and day. If you needed glasses and weren't wearing them, you'd still know who was who with fuzzy, blurry vision just by how distinctly different they played.

As for Hatcher's captaincy. Yeah, he officially held the 'C" but it was Joe Nieuwendyk's team. When Joe went down with injury early in the postseason the year before they won the cup the play-by-play announcer said that was the end of the Stars cup run hopes that year, that the real leader of the Stars was out of the game. I concurred. It was obvious on the ice and on the bench.