ATD 2017 Draft Thread IV

[ResilientBeast]

After some great research done on him in the past few years I really still don't see how Morenz is hard to build around.

I think it's become cannon from the old stuff that keeps getting perpetuated (I'm guilty of it to)

He's a first rounder I'd love to build around

 

[Voight]

I am just looking forward to staying low key and being a part of the great group of folks that makes up the ATD section these days. Really missed the draft and all the fireworks that go with it. You guys are some of the best members on this forum and it sucked not being here. But, I deserved my ban, and being on the outside gave me a lot of time to reflect and look around the forums from an outside perspective to see how much BS the mods and admin really have to deal with.

Again, congrats BB, and I'm just happy to be back. Won't let you guys down here!

Must've killed you when Doughty won the Norris last year

Eh, Jagr maybe, Crosby no way. I'd assume most of us have seen most of Messier's career and all of Crosby's, and there shouldn't be any doubt that Messier was the superior talent.

Going to sound like a homer here but Mikita is still in that conversation despite having less in terms of post season accomplishments.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

After some great research done on him in the past few years I really still don't see how Morenz is hard to build around.

Morenz is more goal-heavy than the average center, and could really use a fast, playmaking puck possession winger to play with him, and those guys are in short supply. See the Dink Carroll article where it was said that Joliat was the primary playmaker of that line (at the time, I think "playmaking" meant something like puck possession.

 

[jarek]

Morenz is more goal-heavy than the average center, and could really use a fast, playmaking puck possession winger to play with him, and those guys are in short supply. See the Dink Carroll article where it was said that Joliat was the primary playmaker of that line (at the time, I think "playmaking" meant something like puck possession.

I think this line of reasoning is hogwash. The only reason anyone believes this is because Morenz pretty much exclusively played with Joliat. Obviously I can't prove it, but Morenz was so good (often called the best in the world), that I think he would have had success with anyone. He became what he became (a goal scoring biased center), because he happened to play with a fantastic puck possession winger.

Even the goal scoring biased part should come into question when looking at top-10s:

Goals: 1, 2, 3, 3, 3, 4, 5, 5, 7
Assists: 1, 3, 3, 4, 6, 7

Clearly more goals oriented but still a very capable playmaker. His record is such that I think if he played with, say, Bill Cook his entire career, these finishes would be completely reversed.

I have the same issue, although slightly less so, with what people think about Phil Esposito. The guy finished top-2 in assists SEVEN times, and we're to believe that he's going to do nothing but score goals?

Even Cy Denneny doesn't get enough credit for his playmaking. He finished top-5 in assists 5 times, compared to 8 times in goals. He's far more balanced than the general consensus would have you believe.

 

[Dreakmur]

at the time, I think "playmaking" meant something like puck possession.

It was the most over-used and least understood phrase of the time?

The only term I now hate more than "puck possession" is "shot suppression".

 

[Johnny Engine]

It was the most over-used and least understood phrase of the time?

The only term I now hate more than "puck possession" is "shot suppression".

Perhaps you should have a complaint session where you mainstream obsession with attempts to freshen the progression of hockey discussion beyond the usual aggression and oppression of ideas that come from the eye test impression? That the stat crowd should make a confession that they don't understand things that are at the coach's discretion?

I may have used Rhyme Zone to write that.

 

[Dreakmur]

Perhaps you should have a complaint session where you mainstream obsession with attempts to freshen the progression of hockey discussion beyond the usual aggression and oppression of ideas that come from the eye test impression? That the stat crowd should make a confession that they don't understand things that are at the coach's discretion?

I may have used Rhyme Zone to write that.

Yeah, that's not at all what I meant. I love the stats. I hate idiots that use the buzz-words when they don't even know what they mean or what they actually measure.

Shot suppression, though, I think I really do hate that stat. It measures, what, lack of shots against, right? And that gets used as a defensive metric, right? If I'm a coach, I use my best defensive guys in defensive situations, and that leads to more shots against. I also use my worst defensive players in sheltered situations, which leads to fewer shots against.

 

[jarek]

Yeah, that's not at all what I meant. I love the stats. I hate idiots that use the buzz-words when they don't even know what they mean or what they actually measure.

Shot suppression, though, I think I really do hate that stat. It measures, what, lack of shots against, right? And that gets used as a defensive metric, right? If I'm a coach, I use my best defensive guys in defensive situations, and that leads to more shots against. I also use my worst defensive players in sheltered situations, which leads to fewer shots against.

I like the idea of corsi because it measures the *overall* impact of a player, both offensive and defensive. In theory, corsi should be able to tell you what the net gain of a player is.

I just don't think it works very well because hockey is such a team game, and other players on the ice can seriously hinder an otherwise excellent player in those kind of metrics.

On the flip side, a very good player can carry mediocre players against poor competition as well, thus boosting those metrics for them.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Yeah, that's not at all what I meant. I love the stats. I hate idiots that use the buzz-words when they don't even know what they mean or what they actually measure.

Shot suppression, though, I think I really do hate that stat. It measures, what, lack of shots against, right? And that gets used as a defensive metric, right? If I'm a coach, I use my best defensive guys in defensive situations, and that leads to more shots against. I also use my worst defensive players in sheltered situations, which leads to fewer shots against.

Yeah, I figured that's more what you meant, but I was trying to cram as many rhyming words into a sentence as possible... I'm actually surprised you got anything at all out of my last post

 

[Dreakmur]

I like the idea of corsi because it measures the *overall* impact of a player, both offensive and defensive. In theory, corsi should be able to tell you what the net gain of a player is.

I just don't think it works very well because hockey is such a team game, and other players on the ice can seriously hinder an otherwise excellent player in those kind of metrics.

On the flip side, a very good player can carry mediocre players against poor competition as well, thus boosting those metrics for them.

I like corsi as well, but as long as its understood that usage by the coach is going to greatly impact those numbers.

 

[jarek]

I like corsi as well, but as long as its understood that usage by the coach is going to greatly impact those numbers.

Yep.

Hockey isn't a game where the offensive and defensive components are completely and utterly separated. That's pretty much the main reason why these isolated stats work so well in baseball. Hockey is a very fluid game. You can shift from offense to defense on a dime. It's all integrated into the same sequence.

 

[seventieslord]

If I'm a coach, I use my best defensive guys in defensive situations, and that leads to more shots against.

... but fewer than what a bad defensive player would allow in the same situation.

I also use my worst defensive players in sheltered situations, which leads to fewer shots against.

....but more than what a good defensive player would allow in the same situation.

It sounds like all you're saying is that quality of competition matters, and yes, not enough people pay attention to that.

I was never fooled by the high adjusted +/- of certain sheltered, relatively low-TOI defensemen, and since adjusted stats have become more mainstream, I'm never fooled by these "possession" defensemen who play 18-20 minutes who seem to be the darlings of everyone on the main board.

 

[Dreakmur]

... but fewer than what a bad defensive player would allow in the same situation.

....but more than what a good defensive player would allow in the same situation.

Absolutely. If a coach rolled the lines, and every player had exactly equal roles and competition, you could use those stats to see who was the best and worst.

The reality, though, is that most NHL coaches use the guys they think are the best defensively in situations that will make them look bad statistically.

It sounds like all you're saying is that quality of competition matters, and yes, not enough people pay attention to that.

Not just competition, but game situations.

Guys who play 5 minutes per game on the PK are going to have a lot of shots against, and that gives them bad "shot suppression" numbers.

I was never fooled by the high adjusted +/- of certain sheltered, relatively low-TOI defensemen, and since adjusted stats have become more mainstream, I'm never fooled by these "possession" defensemen who play 18-20 minutes who seem to be the darlings of everyone on the main board.

I don't like +/-.... but I do like + and - separately.

I always laughed when people looked a somebody like Sammy Pahlsson and said he was bad defensively because he was -4. Look at the + and - separately, and you'll see why he was viewed as so good.

 

[Johnny Engine]

Guys who play 5 minutes per game on the PK are going to have a lot of shots against, and that gives them bad "shot suppression" numbers.

How often do you actually read or hear people talking about all-situations corsi like that? Most writers that I know of who deal in the subject focus on 5 on 5 play, or at very least treat special teams as a separate subject. And I also think that most fans just parrot those writers, saying a guy has "good corsi" after smarter, more rigorous thinkers have already broke down the numbers.

Not that you can't use all the qualcomp, zone starts, situational data, etc, and still miss a ton of nuance. But I don't know that I've ever heard someone make the argument you seem to be making here.

 

[Dreakmur]

How often do you actually read or hear people talking about all-situations corsi like that? Most writers that I know of who deal in the subject focus on 5 on 5 play, or at very least treat special teams as a separate subject. And I also think that most fans just parrot those writers, saying a guy has "good corsi" after smarter, more rigorous thinkers have already broke down the numbers.

Not that you can't use all the qualcomp, zone starts, situational data, etc, and still miss a ton of nuance. But I don't know that I've ever heard someone make the argument you seem to be making here.

Ignoring special teams is a good step, but it definitely does not eliminate all the differences created by in game situational usage.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Since we were talking about Morenz both here and on the history board, this is what I mean. Ranking the top 7 overall centers of all time as goalscorers, playmakers, and defensive players. Gaps intentional:

Goal scoring:

1. Lemieux
2. Gretzky

3. Morenz
4. Beliveau

5. Crosby
6. Mikita

7. Messier

Playmaking:

1. Gretzky

2. Lemieux

3. Mikita
4. Crosby
5. Beliveau

6. Messier

7. Morenz

Defensive play

1. Morenz

2. Messier

3. Beliveau
4. Crosby
5. Mikita

6. Gretzky
7. Lemieux

_________________

Morenz was a very good playmaker, but among the top 7 centers, he's easily the worst. He's also a worse playmaker than Clarke, Sakic, or Trottier, while being a much better goal scorer than any of them.

And given the number of goal scoring wingers out there who aren't good at much else, it does limit the options for a top line if you start with Morenz.

Don't get me wrong, Morenz holds his own as #1 C playmaker in the ATD, but his true strengths are goalscoring and two-way play (and his ability to break down teams with his speed, which is kind of absorbed into all-of-the-above).

On the other hand, a Morenz line can easily go strength-on-strength against anyone, due to Morenz' overall game.

_______________

I'm sure someone is about to come argue the order of my #3-5 no-gap players

 

[VanIslander]

Defensive play

1. Morenz

2. Messier

Even after reading Morenz's ATD bios I still doubt this. I've watched Messier throughout his career and the Mess of the Oilers was dirty as hell to make defensive plays! He caused turnovers by tripping, took away passing options by sucker punching, and worked every shift intensely to stop the other team when they had the puck. Messier was moved from LW to C early in his career as a coaching move to put him against Trottier because no one could defend against Trotts, and Mess did. I never saw Messier as an Oiler (don't get me started on him as a Canuck late in his career) dog a shift or float in the neutral zone awaiting a pass. He was 100% committed to upset the other team when they had the puck and more often than not he was successful in stopping offensive plays against.

I certainly don't buy the gap (a different tier of defensive effectiveness) of your post.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Even after reading Morenz's ATD bios I still doubt this. I've watched Messier throughout his career and the Mess of the Oilers was dirty as hell to make defensive plays! He caused turnovers by tripping, took away passing options by sucker punching, and worked every shift intensely to stop the other team when they had the puck. Messier was moved from LW to C early in his career as a coaching move to put him against Trottier because no one could defend against Trotts, and Mess did. I never saw Messier as an Oiler (don't get me started on him as a Canuck late in his career) dog a shift or float in the neutral zone awaiting a pass. He was 100% committed to upset the other team when they had the puck and more often than not he was successful in stopping offensive plays against.

I certainly don't buy the gap (a different tier of defensive effectiveness) of your post.

You might be right. My own visual assessment of Messier's defensive ability is closer to yours. But there are posters here who have a dimmer view of Messier's two-way ability. And it is a fact that Messier's Selke record isn't so hot, even compared to other two-way players of the era, like Trottier and Kurri.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I mostly agree with TDMM's rankings at first glance.Another important category from an ATD meta-game perspective is physicality, which shouldn't be lost in the defensive category because if you have three soft players who were very strong defensively, your line is still soft and won't be well received.If your center already covers the physicality of the entire line (e.g. is physical enough to support two soft wingers), you have much more freedom as to which winger you can pick.

Also, when talking about a 1st line (which is what we're talking about with these centers), I bet that a 1st line lacking a physical presence will be hurt more (in the eyes of voters) than a 1st line lacking a defensive presence.

This makes guys like Messier and Trottier even more valuable.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I mostly agree with TDMM's rankings at first glance.Another important category from an ATD meta-game perspective is physicality, which shouldn't be lost in the defensive category because if you have three soft players who were very strong defensively, your line is still soft and won't be well received.If your center already covers the physicality of the entire line (e.g. is physical enough to support two soft wingers), you have much more freedom as to which winger you can pick.

Also, when talking about a 1st line (which is what we're talking about with these centers), I bet that a 1st line lacking a physical presence will be hurt more (in the eyes of voters) than a 1st line lacking a defensive presence.

This makes guys like Messier and Trottier even more valuable.

True. Morenz seems physical enough to hold his own, but not physical enough to carry soft players like Messier at least was.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Morenz seems overrated to a degree. I thought that in my initial ventures in the HoH boards and ATD drafts. And over the years not much has changed. I mean I get that he was the most electrifying player in his day. His skating was unmatched (although in the years prior Cyclone Taylor was as good if not better by many accounts). His defense was a plus no doubt but it wasn't the best of the era.

Charlie Conacher, Bill Cook, and Nels Stewart seem to have been better pure goal scorers.

Frank Boucher was the gold standard as a playmaker and was elite defensively. Joe Primeau led the league 3 times in assists. Boucher's AS record is slightly better and was on Morenz's level as a scorer (especially when looking at the 10 year VsX version). Boucher has better longevity and superior performances in the postseason in my estimation.

Eddie Shore won the Hart trophy more times, vastly superior AS record (even if you give Morenz credit for 1, maybe 2 AS nods he would have had if the award been around before 1931). And Shore would have won 7-8 Norris trophies had the award existed.

I have no doubts that Morenz was an amazing player. But I think he benefits somewhat from a mythical, nostalgic view. People always bring up the 1950 media poll and Morenz being the overwhelming winner as the best player from the 1st half century. But i question that, given you had players in his very era that were determined more valuable more times (Shore), won goal scoring (Conacher, Cook), or assist titles more often (Boucher, Primeua). You can absolutely argue that there were a number of more talented defensive forwards. Now, most of those players had larger holes in their games, to be fair.

Plus being an eastern Canada born, Montreal Canadien player has its benefits when it comes to biases, especially in the early days of hockey. It's not a shock to me Eddie Shore didn't pick up the votes Morenz did, because he was a western Canada born, US based player, who had a nasty reputation on the ice.

Eddie Shore, to me dominated the game more so than Morenz whether looking at hardware or the numbers and it wasn't like he didn't go up against a few other all time great defensemen for supremacy at his position.

 

[VanIslander]

Morenz seems overrated to a degree. I thought that in my initial ventures in the HoH boards and ATD drafts.

...

Eddie Shore, to me dominated the game more so than Morenz whether looking at hardware or the numbers and it wasn't like he didn't go up against a few other all time great defensemen for supremacy at his position.

Eddie Shore has ALWAYS been drafted before Howie Morenz in the all-time drafts. And there's a gap of 10-15 picks between them most of the time.

 

[jarek]

Morenz seems overrated to a degree. I thought that in my initial ventures in the HoH boards and ATD drafts. And over the years not much has changed. I mean I get that he was the most electrifying player in his day. His skating was unmatched (although in the years prior Cyclone Taylor was as good if not better by many accounts). His defense was a plus no doubt but it wasn't the best of the era.

Charlie Conacher, Bill Cook, and Nels Stewart seem to have been better pure goal scorers.

Frank Boucher was the gold standard as a playmaker and was elite defensively. Joe Primeau led the league 3 times in assists. Boucher's AS record is slightly better and was on Morenz's level as a scorer (especially when looking at the 10 year VsX version). Boucher has better longevity and superior performances in the postseason in my estimation.

Eddie Shore won the Hart trophy more times, vastly superior AS record (even if you give Morenz credit for 1, maybe 2 AS nods he would have had if the award been around before 1931). And Shore would have won 7-8 Norris trophies had the award existed.

I have no doubts that Morenz was an amazing player. But I think he benefits somewhat from a mythical, nostalgic view. People always bring up the 1950 media poll and Morenz being the overwhelming winner as the best player from the 1st half century. But i question that, given you had players in his very era that were determined more valuable more times (Shore), won goal scoring (Conacher, Cook), or assist titles more often (Boucher, Primeua). You can absolutely argue that there were a number of more talented defensive forwards. Now, most of those players had larger holes in their games, to be fair.

Plus being an eastern Canada born, Montreal Canadien player has its benefits when it comes to biases, especially in the early days of hockey. It's not a shock to me Eddie Shore didn't pick up the votes Morenz did, because he was a western Canada born, US based player, who had a nasty reputation on the ice.

Eddie Shore, to me dominated the game more so than Morenz whether looking at hardware or the numbers and it wasn't like he didn't go up against a few other all time great defensemen for supremacy at his position.

Morenz wasn't the best in any one particular skill, even during his time, but good luck finding a more well rounded forward who was elite at everything. Only Gordie Howe comes to mind.

 

[ImporterExporter]

Eddie Shore has ALWAYS been drafted before Howie Morenz in the all-time drafts. And there's a gap of 10-15 picks between them most of the time.

I'm not talking about the ATD draft and where they are picked. Most agree that Shore was the better player AND defensemen tend to hold more value in the ATD anyway, so naturally Morenz will be drafted lower.

Morenz wasn't the best in any one particular skill, even during his time, but good luck finding a more well rounded forward who was elite at everything. Only Gordie Howe comes to mind.

We must have different definitions of elite then.

Morenz was not an elite playmaker. I'm not sure he was exactly an elite goal scorer either. He led the NHL in that category exactly once. Charlie Conacher and Bill Cook were elite.

And I surely don't think he was an elite defensive player either. Good? Yes. Maybe even great. But players from that era, that I think of more highly when it comes to defensive ability? Frank Nighbor for starters. Frank Boucher is another. Hooley Smith. Cooney Weiland.

His speed was elite. His overall points totals were elite. I just don't think of him as a top 20 player all time.

 

[BenchBrawl]

True. Morenz seems physical enough to hold his own, but not physical enough to carry soft players like Messier at least was.

Yeah I agree.

Robitaille-Morenz-Kane

Robitaille-Messier-Kane

I would prefer going to war with the Messier line.