ATD 2022 DRAFT THREAD I

[Dreakmur]

Given the exercise of comparing playoff, performances was already completed, it's absolutely the responsibility of the person trying to argue against that their player deserves more recognition for their performance. He hasn't posted anything remotely convincing the Eddie Shore's playoff legacy is remotely comparable to the performances Orr and Lemieux had during their careers.

You posted Orr’a two peak years, which absolutely are better than Shore’s two peak years. What about 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th beat years?

I’m not trying to say Shore’s peak is better than Orr… but his peak was totally fine, and he has much better longevity as a playoff contributor and I think I that closes the gap. Same goes for Lemieux.

I suppose that gets to the main question of how we evaluate players on the playoffs here. Sure we can’t ignore the playoffs, but are they just their playoff record? I think it has to be a mix of both. A player raising their game in the playoffs is great, but how much do they raise it and what are they raising it from? I don’t many ATD players are substantially different in the playoffs than the regular season, and the vast majority of the reputation comes from the good fortune of being on a good team that goes on long numerous long playoff runs.

 

[Dreakmur]

Shore was 8th in team playoff scoring both years his team won the cup.

He was tied for the team lead in 1929 and 6th in 1939.

 

[VanIslander]

Downplaying playoff performances?

That is so round 5 candidates.

 

[ChiTownPhilly]

I'm not saying nabby is there just yet. Waiting for the morning to see if someone was interested was OK in this case IMO.

It's not my show... but perhaps I can bring the perspective of a (hopefully) more neutral observer.

If the individual on-the-clock is sitting back, hoping for offers to come in, then yes, I'd agree that it's kind of a Rooster Move. However, if he's feverishly working the lines trying to make something happen at his own initiative, then that's another thing.

The only people who are in a position to know this are nabby, and the people with whom he's exchanging PMs. And, since we all have a right to have our PMs remain 'P,' then it's something of an un-knowable, for now.

 

[BenchBrawl]

It's not my show... but perhaps I can bring the perspective of a (hopefully) more neutral observer.

If the individual on-the-clock is sitting back, hoping for offers to come in, then yes, I'd agree that it's kind of a Rooster Move. However, if he's feverishly working the lines trying to make something happen at his own initiative, then that's another thing.

The only people who are in a position to know this are nabby, and the people with whom he's exchanging PMs. And, since we all have a right to have our PMs remain 'P,' then it's something of an un-knowable, for now.

Of course. The spirit is different.

 

[ResilientBeast]

You posted Orr’a two peak years, which absolutely are better than Shore’s two peak years. What about 3rd, 4th, 5th, 10th beat years?

I’m not trying to say Shore’s peak is better than Orr… but his peak was totally fine, and he has much better longevity as a playoff contributor and I think I that closes the gap. Same goes for Lemieux.

I suppose that gets to the main question of how we evaluate players on the playoffs here. Sure we can’t ignore the playoffs, but are they just their playoff record? I think it has to be a mix of both. A player raising their game in the playoffs is great, but how much do they raise it and what are they raising it from? I don’t many ATD players are substantially different in the playoffs than the regular season, and the vast majority of the reputation comes from the good fortune of being on a good team that goes on long numerous long playoff runs.

Because you mentioned Shore's two peak years?

Shore has 11 playoff runs, Orr has 8 I don't know how much I care about longevity as a player with regards to playoff performance. We already penalize Orr for his knees giving out and his career done by 30, I wouldn't factor that also into their playoff performances and somehow use that to justify the huge difference in their peak performances in the playoffs.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Everyone committed to be available for this draft starting Monday. Any picks before then are great, but we can’t complain if they aren’t made. I have a pretty busy day today myself. Depending on when my pick comes up I may not make it until tomorrow.

 

[VanIslander]

Eddie's two cups.

In 1929 three Bruins scored multiple goals and Shore had 1 goal, 1 assist.

In his 1939 cup, Shore was 8th in scoring, ... 14,11,9... the top three waaay more in scoring than his 4 assists.

The emperor has a jock strap.

 

[BenchBrawl]

Eddie Shore is a Top 5 name to come out of the FIRST HALF of hockey history. Let's not reduce him to a few problems.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I will agree that Shore's record gets royally f***ed over because of the archaic playoff system the NHL had in the late 20s into the 30s. Making the best two teams play in the first round

Like honestly who thought this was a good idea?

1928-29: The first-place teams in the two divisions play each other in a best-of-five series. The second-place teams in the two divisions play each other in a two-game, total-goals series – as do the two third-place teams. The winners of these latter two series then play each other in a best-of-three series for the right to meet the winner of the series between the two first-place teams. This Stanley Cup Final is a best-of-three.

This went largely unchanged until 38/39

Edit: but ultimately even in a more conventional setup they'd have to win against that team anyway but still woof

In a more visual way the setup was

Series A: Team #1 in Canadian Division vs. Team #1 in American Division (best-of-five)
Series B: Team #2 in Canadian Division vs. Team #2 in American Division (two-game, total-goals)
Series C: Team #3 in Canadian Division vs. Team #3 in American Division (two-game, total-goals)
Series D: Winner of Series B vs. Winner of Series C (best-of-three)
Series E: Winner of Series A vs. Winner of Series D (best-of-three) for Stanley Cup

 

[VanIslander]

Eddie Shore is a Top 5 name to come out of the FIRST HALF of hockey history. Let's not reduce him to a few problems.

He may be the least of the 4 other undrafted.

 

[ResilientBeast]

I will agree that Shore's record gets royally f***ed over because of the archaic playoff system the NHL had in the late 20s into the 30s. Making the best two teams play in the first round

Like honestly who thought this was a good idea?



This went largely unchanged until 38/39

Edit: but ultimately even in a more conventional setup they'd have to win against that team anyway but still woof

In a more visual way the setup was

Series A: Team #1 in Canadian Division vs. Team #1 in American Division (best-of-five)
Series B: Team #2 in Canadian Division vs. Team #2 in American Division (two-game, total-goals)
Series C: Team #3 in Canadian Division vs. Team #3 in American Division (two-game, total-goals)
Series D: Winner of Series B vs. Winner of Series C (best-of-three)
Series E: Winner of Series A vs. Winner of Series D (best-of-three) for Stanley Cup

And looking at this, quoting playoff scoring finishes from this era requires so much context and can't just be thrown out because this is a mess.

1938-39 Shore played 12 games (the most possible this season)

The first round was two 3 game series between NYA/Tor (2 games) & MTL/DET (3 games)

Then in the second round DET/TOR played a 3 game series while BOS/NYR played a 7 game series

The cup finals would be a best of 7 that ended in 5 games.

Boston - 12 games
Toronto - 10 games
NYR - 7 games
Detroit - 6 games
NYA - 2 games

And different amounts of games in a playoff run is totally normal, but this is not remotely a fair comparison to more modern playoff brackets. So just quoting Shore's finishes is absolutely misleading.

 

[VanIslander]

Huh?

Did he not tie several others in 1939 with 4 points,... 8th tied on the team, way behind 14,11,9... the top three waaay more in scoring than his 4. (This is all just his own team)

 

[ResilientBeast]

Huh?

Did he not tie several others in 1939 with 4 points,... 8th tied on the team, way behind 14,11,9... the top three waaay more in scoring than his 4. (This is all just his own team)

Yes, I realize I keep saying undrafteds

Shore tied 2 teammates with 4 points in 12 games

4 others tied them in points with (much) fewer games

 

[Dreakmur]

And looking at this, quoting playoff scoring finishes from this era requires so much context and can't just be thrown out because this is a mess.

1938-39 Shore played 12 games (the most possible this season)

The first round was two 3 game series between NYA/Tor (2 games) & MTL/DET (3 games)

Then in the second round DET/TOR played a 3 game series while BOS/NYR played a 7 game series

The cup finals would be a best of 7 that ended in 5 games.

Boston - 12 games
Toronto - 10 games
NYR - 7 games
Detroit - 6 games
NYA - 2 games

And different amounts of games in a playoff run is totally normal, but this is not remotely a fair comparison to more modern playoff brackets. So just quoting Shore's finishes is absolutely misleading.

As I said in an earlier post, guys who rank high in points are almost always the guys who just happen to play for the team that played the most games. This isn’t new and it surely isn’t unique to Shore.

Thats exactly why I look at playoffs the way I do. Regular season baseline and then adjust from there based on playoffs. 90% of players in the draft are the same in the playoffs than the regular season. I don’t see a guy yet drafted who is substantially better or worse than they were in the regular season.

 

[The Macho King]

Eddie Shore is a Top 5 name to come out of the FIRST HALF of hockey history. Let's not reduce him to a few problems.

I don't think he is being reduced. We are in rarified air at this point - and among the #1D drafted so far, only him and Bourque have any questions about their playoffs, and Bourques is generally recognized as a team failing rather than an individual one.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I don't think he is being reduced. We are in rarified air at this point - and among the #1D drafted so far, only him and Bourque have any questions about their playoffs, and Bourques is generally recognized as a team failing rather than an individual one.

I think the same can be said of Hull

Edit: I think it's fair to dock these players in the leadership category because of this

 

[The Macho King]

As I said in an earlier post, guys who rank high in points are almost always the guys who just happen to play for the team that played the most games. This isn’t new and it surely isn’t unique to Shore.

Thats exactly why I look at playoffs the way I do. Regular season baseline and then adjust from there based on playoffs. 90% of players in the draft are the same in the playoffs than the regular season. I don’t see a guy yet drafted who is substantially better or worse than they were in the regular season.

I just can't jive with this logic. Regular season and playoffs are not the same. We go from most games not mattering (especially in the loser point era) to every game mattering. Players react to that differently and elevate or drop based on that. Mistakes are magnified - as are successes.

And Shore is a guy who will make mistakes (be they penalties or generally lower production). That absolutely counts for something.

 

[The Macho King]

I think the same can be said of Hull

Was limiting the discussion to D but yes also true of Hull.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I don't think he is being reduced. We are in rarified air at this point - and among the #1D drafted so far, only him and Bourque have any questions about their playoffs, and Bourques is generally recognized as a team failing rather than an individual one.

2 pages going on every year about Shore's warts. At some point, may as well let him drop to the 3rd round. Those polarizing issues hurt a player significantly to the point where his value is reduced. On top of that, it plays right in the hand of the so-called "anti-creativity" crowd that several people have complained about, since it overvalues "all-arounders", which are more likely to make for a prototypical team.

Not saying Shore's flaws don't count obviously, but there's consequences to a point getting hammered consistently and disproportionately versus his strengths.

 

[The Macho King]

2 pages going on every year about Shore's warts. At some point, may as well let him drop to the 3rd round. Those polarizing issues hurts a player significantly to the point where his value is reduced. On top of that, it plays right in the hand of the so-called "anti-creativity" crowd that several people have complained about, since it overvalues "flawless" players.

I mean - maybe the answer is that his warts matter, especially around a bunch of players (notably #1D in this range) don't have those warts.

Doesn't help that the draft stalled which just gives more time for the pile up.

 

[BenchBrawl]

I mean - maybe the answer is that his warts matter, especially around a bunch of players (notably #1D in this range) don't have those warts.

Doesn't help that the draft stalled which just gives more time for the pile up.

They matter but in reality Shore should always get drafted before he does based on his legacy and historical name recognition. So I think they matter too much, hence my intervention.

 

[BenchBrawl]

It also doesn't help that when I think of great playoff performers from the late-1920s-1930s, only one or two names pops up. Then i think of any other eras and the names are piling up. This is an anomaly. I don't think it's any accident that the two greatest players from that era are consistently underrated and underranked in the ATD.

 

[rmartin65]

As I said in an earlier post, guys who rank high in points are almost always the guys who just happen to play for the team that played the most games. This isn’t new and it surely isn’t unique to Shore.

Thats exactly why I look at playoffs the way I do. Regular season baseline and then adjust from there based on playoffs. 90% of players in the draft are the same in the playoffs than the regular season. I don’t see a guy yet drafted who is substantially better or worse than they were in the regular season.

I'd argue Richard is a player whose record looks substantially better due to the playoffs.

 

[The Macho King]

It also doesn't help that when I think of great playoff performers from the late-1920s-1930s, only one or two names pops up. Then i think of any other eras and the names are piling up. This is an anomaly. I don't think it's any accident that the two greatest players from that era are consistently underrated and underranked in the ATD.

Interesting idea. It is an era without a "dynasty" - pretty much the only one until the cap era (but cap era has 4 times as many teams so it's a bit more forgivable). I think we generally consider that a fairly strong era.

I could be convinced but I'd need a bit of a deeper dive into actual performances.