ATD 2015 - Draft Thread IV

[Hawkey Town 18]

Ok, your Jim Coleman Conference regular season results:


*tiebreaker decided between Quebec and Detroit based upon 1st place votes. Quebec wins (2-0).

I know this wasn't discussed, but for the future I think that the first tie-breaker should just be which team was ranked higher more times. With 27 franchises voting this year we would always have an answer.

Would some more voting breakdown be made available?


I.e. Flyers got 1, 1, 2, 2, 4, 5, 5, 6.... as an example.

Who voting for who is up to individuals if they wanna talk about it obviously but X number of #1, #2 etc. votes would be cool to see.

That's usually released after the playoffs are over.

Don't we at least need total points to determine who has home ice in the Finals?

I liked both them and Kenora more than the average voter, it seems.

I had Kenora a lot higher than the group too, Newfoundland slightly higher as well but not as big a discrepancy as Kenora which appears to be my largest for any team so far.

 

[Sturminator]

Don't we at least need total points to determine who has home ice in the Finals?

seventies and I can determine that without releasing the full point totals before the draft is over.

I know this wasn't discussed, but for the future I think that the first tie-breaker should just be which team was ranked higher more times. With 27 franchises voting this year we would always have an answer.

This is also a sensible solution...probably more sensible that my own as 1st place votes are a more random variable.

 

[seventieslord]

I'm working on your results and I'll have them later today.

 

[Dr Pepper]

Kitchener in the first round?

Should be a good one, hopefully I can at least make it a close series.

 

[Sturminator]

Ok, seventies has convinced me to accept the set of votes I had thrown out. They don't change the conference standings in any way, but that gets us up to 28 voting franchises.

I'll post the Coleman playoff matchups as soon as seventies has the Fisher results up.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Kenora and West Island are lower than I thought, Philly and Belfast a little higher!

West Island in particular I thought had a top 2 seed all but wrapped up.

 

[seventieslord]

Red Fisher

Place | Team | Conf. finish
1 | Macon Whoopie | (1st)
2 | Vancouver Millionaires | (3rd)
3 | Kentucky Thoroughblades | (6th)
4 | Boston Bandits | (7th)
5 | Connecticut College Camels | (8th)
6 | Quebec Nordiques | (10th)
7 | Stockholm Full Throttle | (12th)
8 | Cleveland Barons | (16th)

there were nice sized gaps from 1-2 and from 2-3. But 3-7 was very small. 7 was twice as close to 3, as 3 was to 2.

Jim Robson

Place | Team | Conf. finish
1 | New Jersey Swamp Devils | (2nd)
2 | Halifax Citadels | (4th)
3 | Les Renards d'Orléans | (5th)
4 | Orlando Solar Bears | (9th)
5 | Chatham Maroons | (11th)
6 | Hershey Bears | (13th)
7 | Toronto Maple Leafs | (14th)*
8 | Anaheim Axes | (15th)*

again, nice sized gaps from 1-2 and 2-3, also from 3-4. Then not much dropoff from 4 to 5 to 6 to 7. (5-6 was the closest divisional race I had).

The closest conference races were for 11th (half a point) and 1st (1 point).

Enjoy the playoffs, folks.

 

[monster_bertuzzi]

Stockholm 7th?!? That seems like rookie hazing, they are a better club than a 7th place finish.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Darn, thought i might be a little higher based on having the best coaching and goal tending combo and one of the better defensive groups....going to be tough sledding as usual! Good luck to everyone.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Stockholm 7th?!? That seems like rookie hazing, they are a better club than a 7th place finish.

I also had them quite a bit higher than 7th

 

[tony d]

Me too, I had Stockholm among the top teams in my division.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Stockholm 7th?!? That seems like rookie hazing, they are a better club than a 7th place finish.

I also had them quite a bit higher than 7th

When I voted, I thought the middle of the Red Fisher Conference was the hardest to sort out. That said, there is one vet team that I think the voters gave quite a bit too much credit to, but we'll see what happens in the playoffs.

 

[jarek]

I'm pretty satisfied with 3rd. I'll probably just come out and say that I think Philadelphia likely was the strongest team in the division and I wouldn't be surprised if they win the division in the playoffs.

 

[Sdrawkcab321]

dead last


Didnt think I did that bad lol. Oh well. First year was more of a learning experience. #tanknation

 

[markrander87]

Red Fisher

Place | Team | Conf. finish
1 | Macon Whoopie | (1st)
2 | Vancouver Millionaires | (3rd)
3 | Kentucky Thoroughblades | (6th)
4 | Boston Bandits | (7th)
5 | Connecticut College Camels | (8th)
6 | Quebec Nordiques | (10th)
7 | Stockholm Full Throttle | (12th)
8 | Cleveland Barons | (16th)

there were nice sized gaps from 1-2 and from 2-3. But 3-7 was very small. 7 was twice as close to 3, as 3 was to 2.

Jim Robson

Place | Team | Conf. finish
1 | New Jersey Swamp Devils | (2nd)
2 | Halifax Citadels | (4th)
3 | Les Renards d'Orléans | (5th)
4 | Orlando Solar Bears | (9th)
5 | Chatham Maroons | (11th)
6 | Hershey Bears | (13th)
7 | Toronto Maple Leafs | (14th)*
8 | Anaheim Axes | (15th)*

again, nice sized gaps from 1-2 and 2-3, also from 3-4. Then not much dropoff from 4 to 5 to 6 to 7. (5-6 was the closest divisional race I had).

The closest conference races were for 11th (half a point) and 1st (1 point).

Enjoy the playoffs, folks.

Wow, thanks a lot guys. Looking forward to the playoffs. The home ice advantage is going to be a huge asset to my team.

 

[Iceman]

When I voted, I thought the middle of the Red Fisher Conference was the hardest to sort out. That said, there is one vet team that I think the voters gave quite a bit too much credit to, but we'll see what happens in the playoffs.

You're own?

 

[ImporterExporter]

I know it's a trend, one i'm not sure how much has been discussed but i really am going to dive hard into real life goal tending and how it relates to SC winners. There have been some low end goalies who defy the odds to a degree in the ATD. I have generally been under the impression through minor talks that most veteran GM's say that it is either a #1 Dman or G that is the lynch pin to Cup winning formulas. I don't know without looking in depth at every team that had say a top 5 G throughout the years, whether or not they simply built poor teams or whether the voting process has limited the value on G's that were massive parts to many real life Cup winners.

Here are list of winners in the ATD and where they ranked in the All time G rankings here on these forums. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1487867

Those are rough rankings and in no way are absolute but it gives us a good idea where players stack up all time vs their peers.

ATD#6 - Johnny Bower (ranked 19th)
ATD#7 - Glenn Hall (ranked 4th)
ATD#8 - Turk Broda (ranked 13th)
ATD#9 - Chuck Rayner (ranked 28th)
ATD#10 - Grant Fuhr (ranked 25th)
ATD#11 - Grant Fuhr (25th)
ATD#12 - Terry Sawchuk (ranked 5th)
ATD2010 - Charlie Gardiner (ranked 11th)
ATD2011 - Tony Esposito (ranked 16th)
ATD2012 - Tiny Thompson (ranked 21st)
ATD2013 - Georges Vezina (ranked 10th)
ATD2014 - Grant Fuhr (25th)

12 ATD's - 202 ranked points = 16.8 average ranking of winning goalies in the ATD (so basically an average G/performance is the winning formula).

The only 2 clear cut top 10 G's all time to win are Glenn Hall and Terry Sawchuk, once each. Grant Fuhr a low end to very low end (depending on draft size) has won 3 Cups. Chuck Rayner and Tiny Thompson again, very low end to below average each have a win. There are 2 borderline top 10 G's with a win each in Vezina and Gardiner.

I'm going to get a spreadsheet put together of every Cup winning G in the NHL era as well as pre NHL years just to see how many G's who were elite or near elite in their era, were winning SC's.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I know it's a trend, one i'm not sure how much has been discussed but i really am going to dive hard into real life goal tending and how it relates to SC winners. There have been some low end goalies who defy the odds to a degree in the ATD. I have generally been under the impression through minor talks that most veteran GM's say that it is either a #1 Dman or G that is the lynch pin to Cup winning formulas. I don't know without looking in depth at every team that had say a top 5 G throughout the years, whether or not they simply built poor teams or whether the voting process has limited the value on G's that were massive parts to many real life Cup winners.

Here are list of winners in the ATD and where they ranked in the All time G rankings here on these forums. http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?t=1487867

Those are rough rankings and in no way are absolute but it gives us a good idea where players stack up all time vs their peers.

ATD#6 - Johnny Bower (ranked 19th)
ATD#7 - Glenn Hall (ranked 4th)
ATD#8 - Turk Broda (ranked 13th)
ATD#9 - Chuck Rayner (ranked 28th)
ATD#10 - Grant Fuhr (ranked 25th)
ATD#11 - Grant Fuhr (25th)
ATD#12 - Terry Sawchuk (ranked 5th)
ATD2010 - Charlie Gardiner (ranked 11th)
ATD2011 - Tony Esposito (ranked 16th)
ATD2012 - Tiny Thompson (ranked 21st)
ATD2013 - Georges Vezina (ranked 10th)
ATD2014 - Grant Fuhr (25th)

12 ATD's - 202 ranked points = 16.8 average ranking of winning goalies in the ATD (so basically an average G/performance is the winning formula).

The only 2 clear cut top 10 G's all time to win are Glenn Hall and Terry Sawchuk, once each. Grant Fuhr a low end to very low end (depending on draft size) has won 3 Cups. Chuck Rayner and Tiny Thompson again, very low end to below average each have a win. There are 2 borderline top 10 G's with a win each in Vezina and Gardiner.

I'm going to get a spreadsheet put together of every Cup winning G in the NHL era as well as pre NHL years just to see how many G's who were elite or near elite in their era, were winning SC's.

I would suggest you look at the Top 4 teams every year. It will give you a much larger sample size, and let's be honest, generally there is very little separating the top tier teams. This way it's like you're looking at strong Cup contenders instead of just winners.

 

[Sturminator]

Again, reconstructing the past under our current assumptions doesn't work very well. At the time they were drafted, the only goalies on ATD champions considered low-end were:

ATD#9 - Chuck Rayner (ranked 28th)
ATD2012 - Tiny Thompson (ranked 21st)
ATD2014 - Grant Fuhr (25th)

The low-end goalies are pretty much balanced out by the high-end ones: Glenn Hall and Terry Sawchuk.

Grant Fuhr back in ATD's #10/11 was considered a good value pick in rounds 5/6 where he was taken. He was basically a middle-of-the-road netminder by the standards of the era, and it is mainly middling goaltenders who have backstopped ATD champions. We're still dealing with a small sample size in a really dynamic system, though, so it's unclear if any conclusions can be drawn.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Winning the ATD is largely about getting good value for your players and if you draft a goalie early, you are less likely to get good value for him.

Positional supply and demand - the demand for starting goalies is just 1 per team.

The "middling" starters in the ATD are still consensus HHOFers and the worst starting goalies in a 32 team draft are borderline HHOFers.

_____________

Edit: Teams can definitely win by drafting goalies early, but it's "safer" not to. If you wait a little too long to draft a #1 D or #1 C, it's a lot easier to get screwed than if you wait awhile to draft a goalie.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I know Sturm and I won the ATD in large part because of the good value we got with Vezina.Wasn't he also the "Conn Smythe winner" of our run?

 

[markrander87]

Winning the ATD is largely about getting good value for your players and if you draft a goalie early, you are less likely to get good value for him.

Positional supply and demand - the demand for starting goalies is just 1 per team.

The "middling" starters in the ATD are still consensus HHOFers and the worst starting goalies in a 32 team draft are borderline HHOFers.

_____________

Edit: Teams can definitely win by drafting goalies early, but it's "safer" not to. If you wait a little too long to draft a #1 D or #1 C, it's a lot easier to get screwed than if you wait awhile to draft a goalie.

If I drafted a high end goalie I'd list him at the top of my roster...

 

[ImporterExporter]

Correlating real life to results here is something i'm interested in.

The problem and continued "argument" i hear is well middling goalies are still consensus HOF'ers. I hear it every time. But ranking them in a vacuum like that is completely wrong IMHO and goes against how people view skaters. I have plenty of verifiable HOF's among my F group this year and that won't stop me or anyone else saying they are among the lower end group of F's in the draft (i went G and D heavy early).

You have to look at how the G's are stacked against their peers here in the ATD. Are you telling me that a top 3 G isn't a massive advantage over Grant Fuhr or Chuck Rayner?

If you don't think there is, then how seriously should i take Wayne Gretzky vs the 20th something ranked C of all time? Is Mark Howe not a massive downgrade from Bobby Orr? Or are we going to use the whole well you only need G argument?

G's are absolutely under appreciated here when correlating how elite net minders fared in real life and the difference they made in the postseason. A rough look at the voting process proves that. I'll let my findings do the talking when it's all said and done. But it's not an argument that will sway people much based on past results.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Correlating real life to results here is something i'm interested in.

The problem and continued "argument" i hear is well middling goalies are still consensus HOF'ers. I hear it every time. But ranking them in a vacuum like that is completely wrong IMHO and goes against how people view skaters. I have plenty of verifiable HOF's among my F group this year and that won't stop me or anyone else saying they are among the lower end group of F's in the draft (i went G and D heavy early).

You have to look at how the G's are stacked against their peers here in the ATD. Are you telling me that a top 3 G isn't a massive advantage over Grant Fuhr or Chuck Rayner?

If you don't think there is, then how seriously should i take Wayne Gretzky vs the 20th something ranked C of all time? Is Mark Howe not a massive downgrade from Bobby Orr? Or are we going to use the whole well you only need G argument?

G's are absolutely under appreciated here when correlating how elite net minders fared in real life and the difference they made in the postseason. A rough look at the voting process proves that. I'll let my findings do the talking when it's all said and done. But it's not an argument that will sway people much based on past results.

The 20th best center of all-time is drafted by the beginning of the 3rd round at the latest, and often at the end of the 2nd round. The 20th best goalie of all time is drafted in the 6th or 7th round.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Value is key in evaluating teams? I mean on a large scale, really? Whether or not you got Grant Fuhr at a good value to me is irrelevant. He's a low end ATD goalie, especially in leagues with less than 30 teams. Yet he's dominated the ATD.

Shouldn't who you have on your roster, and how it gels, and whether or not it is coheasive be the main factors?