MLD 2017 semi-final: Richmond Sockeyes vs. Kelowna Packers
- Thread starter VanIslander
- Start date
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
First of all, kuddos to hedberg, as his line-up is indisputedly pretty good!
That said,...
Prodgers and Ley are the only two blueliners who would have made my squad;
Neither goalie would have, but Martin would have gotten a long, hard look;
Robinson might have been offered a job if the team was gonna draft another coach as assistant;
None of the Sockeyes 4th liners would've made the cut!
Martin-Pappin produced an NHL staggering 1,300 points in under seven seasons with a linemate more like 6-time 30-goal scorer Courtnall than a clutch Drury.
If anybody prefers Hall-Allison-Thomas to Boudrias-Irvin-Hebenton then speak now or forever hold your peace.
If we'd been co-GMs again Hedberg, we'd at most have drafted from your squad: Vickers, Smith, Prodger, Ley and maybe Martin.
That said,...
Prodgers and Ley are the only two blueliners who would have made my squad;
Neither goalie would have, but Martin would have gotten a long, hard look;
Robinson might have been offered a job if the team was gonna draft another coach as assistant;
None of the Sockeyes 4th liners would've made the cut!
Martin-Pappin produced an NHL staggering 1,300 points in under seven seasons with a linemate more like 6-time 30-goal scorer Courtnall than a clutch Drury.
If anybody prefers Hall-Allison-Thomas to Boudrias-Irvin-Hebenton then speak now or forever hold your peace.
If we'd been co-GMs again Hedberg, we'd at most have drafted from your squad: Vickers, Smith, Prodger, Ley and maybe Martin.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
since I currently find it easier to respond to comments others have made, than to make my own:
Really? Vlasic wouldn't make your team over Kronwall?
And if Kaberle and Brown wouldn't make your team, that's a big problem for your squad. Specialists are a necessary evil, and you can't just expect a good PP to materialize out of thin air from the players you have.
Just to give an idea of how much ahead of everyone else these two guys are offensively (and how much better Richmond's PP stands to be), here are the 7-year VsXD scores for these 12 defensemen:
Kaberle 81
Brown 77
Kronwall 72
Hamrlik 71
Patrick 69
Plager 57
Dailey 56
Prodgers 46
Young 45
Vlasic 44
Ley 42
Lake 32
Even if you put your most experienced scoring defensemen on your 1st unit (which, according to the roster thread, you didn't even do), you would be icing a 2nd unit caliber pairing (Kronwall, Patrick). Which maybe wouldn't be so bad, except that your opponent has two legitimate 1st unit threats manning their 1st unit points, and Hamrlik on the 2nd.
You can say whatever you want about their all-around games but those guys are gonna kill you on the PP and you don't have an answer for them. This will continue to be your downfall until you give in and occasionally draft a defenseman that you once saw make a defensive mistake.
I think Martin's the best goalie in this draft, but I think it's arguable either Moran or Rollins is better, so whatever. But I expected a harsher criticism considering what you said just last year:
Seth Martin, in contrast, is a question mark: He has 8 wins in 30 NHL games played (granted, for an expansion club), and while he was pulled in both of his two only NHL playoff games, he is renowned for his amateur play with the Trail Smoke Eaters in international play... I don't call that even, I call that a clear advantage to Normie Smith, especially in the playoffs!
Did I successfully tune you in?
Agree. I think he's a really underqualified head coach here. Perhaps the least qualified. But, an elite assistant.
I find Lonsberry pretty meh (except as a penalty killer), but there's no reason to consider Stemkowski out of his league here. He's got the offense (especially at even strength), the defense, the physicality, the size and the clutch play you covet so much. His only downfall is that there are about a dozen centers all of approximately equal value, some of who are taken, some who aren't, and it's not easy to make the case that he outright stands above them, but he absolutely belongs among them and belongs here. Aside from cups, I see no reason to call Doug Risebrough a better player to the definitive degree that you do. It seems they possess many of the same attributes, with Stemkowski's prime advantage being that he's about twice as good a scorer. And Goldsworthy is a scoring line caliber player slumming it on the 4th line. He's not a classic 4th liner (Tremblay is), but he's a better player. If what you're saying is you wouldn't have taken Goldsworthy on your 4th line, that's a fair comment. I'd avoid him, too. But if you wouldn't have taken him in this draft period, you're off your rocker.
I don't quite get the point of the statement, but if we're comparing 3rd lines, here's my take:
- Clint Smith is barely better a scorer than Martin, and brings nothing else to the table. He's here on the 3rd line as offensive overkill, which is an odd strategy because the first two lines were also built very much for offense. I thought him unnecessary. I'd take Martin 10 times out of 10.
- Barney Stanley and Jim Pappin are similar in offensive exploits, but then consider one played with Cyclone Taylor and the gap seems large. Plus, Stanley's all-around game is really underdeveloped, the only reason I suspect he has one at all is because he played D later in his career, but we know nothing else about him. Advantage Pappin. Advantage chemistry, too.
- Courtnall and Drury are yet two more guys who are more or less offensive equals. Drury is better at everything non-offensive, though, even if Courtnall has some spark and clutchness to him. Drury is definitely better overall, but it's not enough to swing the pendulum. I'd definitely prefer to have Kelowna's 3rd line.
Both Allison and Irvin are woefully underqualified as scorers on a 2nd line in this extremely deep MLD. It's fortunate that neither team gets to hammer the other for this. Their best 3 seasons and the rest of their careers match up very closely:
Irvin: 1927, 1926, 1917
Allison: 2001, 1998, 2002
These three seasons are practically equal in terms of their impressiveness. And from there, there is a massive dropoff to their next best. Allison's 1999 and 2006 are marginally better than Irvin's 1924 and 1925, and he achieved this missing a part of the schedule both years.
From there, the next best seasons you can point to for either player are 1922 and 1923 for Irvin, and 1997 and 2000 for Allison. In these four seasons, they were non-factors who scored 28-48% of the league leaders. Allison had an excuse though, missing half the schedule in 2000 when he was actually an elite player. Irvin, well, he just wasn't that good.
All in all, these two guys would score about the same in an MLD setting, with Allison missing 20% of the schedule and making up for it by being better per-game. I don't think Irvin has any significant defensive ability to counter him, either.
Hall vs. Boudrias? Hall has probably proven himself the better scorer by now, but Boudrias just oozes intangibles. I could pass up Hall and take a similar one-dimensional scorer, but pass up Boudrias and you soon fall down a black hole that has you deciding between Murray Craven and Cory Stillman.
Thomas vs. Hebenton? Thomas has a sizeable edge as a scorer but Hebenton is the better defensive player. Hebenton was probably not necessary on a line that already had Boudrias and hurts the line's offensive potential just a little too much. Thomas will be more impactful here.
Still, that's just piece by piece. As a whole, I think I take the Irvin line because VI took care of intangibles on this line, at least as best as one can in the MLD. I'm saying this while acknowledging it's a very small line. The inclusion of Hebenton over an offensive ringer hurts more than it helps, but this is better than having no intangibles on the line at all. (sorry Thomas, don't mean to imply you're a weak softie, you're not, you've got grit, but you can't be IT on a scoring line, there should be one guy doing more little things out there than you).
First of all, kuddos to hedberg, as his line-up is indisputedly pretty good!
That said,...
Prodgers and Ley are the only two blueliners who would have made my squad;
Really? Vlasic wouldn't make your team over Kronwall?
And if Kaberle and Brown wouldn't make your team, that's a big problem for your squad. Specialists are a necessary evil, and you can't just expect a good PP to materialize out of thin air from the players you have.
Just to give an idea of how much ahead of everyone else these two guys are offensively (and how much better Richmond's PP stands to be), here are the 7-year VsXD scores for these 12 defensemen:
Kaberle 81
Brown 77
Kronwall 72
Hamrlik 71
Patrick 69
Plager 57
Dailey 56
Prodgers 46
Young 45
Vlasic 44
Ley 42
Lake 32
Even if you put your most experienced scoring defensemen on your 1st unit (which, according to the roster thread, you didn't even do), you would be icing a 2nd unit caliber pairing (Kronwall, Patrick). Which maybe wouldn't be so bad, except that your opponent has two legitimate 1st unit threats manning their 1st unit points, and Hamrlik on the 2nd.
You can say whatever you want about their all-around games but those guys are gonna kill you on the PP and you don't have an answer for them. This will continue to be your downfall until you give in and occasionally draft a defenseman that you once saw make a defensive mistake.
I think Martin's the best goalie in this draft, but I think it's arguable either Moran or Rollins is better, so whatever. But I expected a harsher criticism considering what you said just last year:
Seth Martin, in contrast, is a question mark: He has 8 wins in 30 NHL games played (granted, for an expansion club), and while he was pulled in both of his two only NHL playoff games, he is renowned for his amateur play with the Trail Smoke Eaters in international play... I don't call that even, I call that a clear advantage to Normie Smith, especially in the playoffs!
Did I successfully tune you in?
Agree. I think he's a really underqualified head coach here. Perhaps the least qualified. But, an elite assistant.
I find Lonsberry pretty meh (except as a penalty killer), but there's no reason to consider Stemkowski out of his league here. He's got the offense (especially at even strength), the defense, the physicality, the size and the clutch play you covet so much. His only downfall is that there are about a dozen centers all of approximately equal value, some of who are taken, some who aren't, and it's not easy to make the case that he outright stands above them, but he absolutely belongs among them and belongs here. Aside from cups, I see no reason to call Doug Risebrough a better player to the definitive degree that you do. It seems they possess many of the same attributes, with Stemkowski's prime advantage being that he's about twice as good a scorer. And Goldsworthy is a scoring line caliber player slumming it on the 4th line. He's not a classic 4th liner (Tremblay is), but he's a better player. If what you're saying is you wouldn't have taken Goldsworthy on your 4th line, that's a fair comment. I'd avoid him, too. But if you wouldn't have taken him in this draft period, you're off your rocker.
I don't quite get the point of the statement, but if we're comparing 3rd lines, here's my take:
- Clint Smith is barely better a scorer than Martin, and brings nothing else to the table. He's here on the 3rd line as offensive overkill, which is an odd strategy because the first two lines were also built very much for offense. I thought him unnecessary. I'd take Martin 10 times out of 10.
- Barney Stanley and Jim Pappin are similar in offensive exploits, but then consider one played with Cyclone Taylor and the gap seems large. Plus, Stanley's all-around game is really underdeveloped, the only reason I suspect he has one at all is because he played D later in his career, but we know nothing else about him. Advantage Pappin. Advantage chemistry, too.
- Courtnall and Drury are yet two more guys who are more or less offensive equals. Drury is better at everything non-offensive, though, even if Courtnall has some spark and clutchness to him. Drury is definitely better overall, but it's not enough to swing the pendulum. I'd definitely prefer to have Kelowna's 3rd line.
If anybody prefers Hall-Allison-Thomas to Boudrias-Irvin-Hebenton then speak now or forever hold your peace.
Both Allison and Irvin are woefully underqualified as scorers on a 2nd line in this extremely deep MLD. It's fortunate that neither team gets to hammer the other for this. Their best 3 seasons and the rest of their careers match up very closely:
Irvin: 1927, 1926, 1917
Allison: 2001, 1998, 2002
These three seasons are practically equal in terms of their impressiveness. And from there, there is a massive dropoff to their next best. Allison's 1999 and 2006 are marginally better than Irvin's 1924 and 1925, and he achieved this missing a part of the schedule both years.
From there, the next best seasons you can point to for either player are 1922 and 1923 for Irvin, and 1997 and 2000 for Allison. In these four seasons, they were non-factors who scored 28-48% of the league leaders. Allison had an excuse though, missing half the schedule in 2000 when he was actually an elite player. Irvin, well, he just wasn't that good.
All in all, these two guys would score about the same in an MLD setting, with Allison missing 20% of the schedule and making up for it by being better per-game. I don't think Irvin has any significant defensive ability to counter him, either.
Hall vs. Boudrias? Hall has probably proven himself the better scorer by now, but Boudrias just oozes intangibles. I could pass up Hall and take a similar one-dimensional scorer, but pass up Boudrias and you soon fall down a black hole that has you deciding between Murray Craven and Cory Stillman.
Thomas vs. Hebenton? Thomas has a sizeable edge as a scorer but Hebenton is the better defensive player. Hebenton was probably not necessary on a line that already had Boudrias and hurts the line's offensive potential just a little too much. Thomas will be more impactful here.
Still, that's just piece by piece. As a whole, I think I take the Irvin line because VI took care of intangibles on this line, at least as best as one can in the MLD. I'm saying this while acknowledging it's a very small line. The inclusion of Hebenton over an offensive ringer hurts more than it helps, but this is better than having no intangibles on the line at all. (sorry Thomas, don't mean to imply you're a weak softie, you're not, you've got grit, but you can't be IT on a scoring line, there should be one guy doing more little things out there than you).
I think most of that comes down to team philosophy though? I know you'd never an active guy like Vlasic
It's interesting you pick arguably my two worst offensive defenders as the ones you'd like. Richmond is built to utilize its defenders more to move the puck up the ice, win the possession battle overall. Seventies emphasizes how the VsX scores significantly favor the offensive potential of my defenders.
Allison is? His Vsx7, using Hockey Outsider's formula that accounts for injuries, is almost the same as Savard's. I'd question his ability to stay healthy, but he'll produce when playing.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
The crunched stat is certainly modern era-biased when applied to defensemen and used to conclude that a team has or doesn't have enough puck-moving support from the blueline.
Notice how Prodgers and Ley aren't modern NHL defensemen and to have Lake at the bottom of that list shows how ABSURD it is
to rely on that as evidence of relative greatness in helping team offense!!
Anyone who thinks Vlasic is anywhere near Lake in terms of role in helping a team offensively (even in terms of first passes out of their own zone) has blinders on.
Just to give an idea? You are relying entirely your judgement on that stat.
Notice how Prodgers and Ley aren't modern NHL defensemen and to have Lake at the bottom of that list shows how ABSURD it is
to rely on that as evidence of relative greatness in helping team offense!!Anyone who thinks Vlasic is anywhere near Lake in terms of role in helping a team offensively (even in terms of first passes out of their own zone) has blinders on.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
The crunched stat is certainly modern era-biased when applied to defensemen and used to conclude that a team has or doesn't have enough puck-moving support from the blueline.
Just to give an idea? You are relying entirely your judgement on that stat.
Notice how Prodgers and Ley aren't modern NHL defensemen and to have Lake at the bottom of that list shows how ABSURD it is
Anyone who thinks Vlasic is anywhere near Lake in terms of role in helping a team offensively (even in terms of first passes out of their own zone) has blinders on.
OK, prove you know what this statistic means. Explain why it is era-biased.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
That may be, but there's at least some degree of "what if" built into that stat, and based on raw VsX, his prime is below a good deal of MLD centers: Yashin, Lacroix, Smith, Martin, Savard, Unger, Maruk, Pederson, Apps... and more in the range of Briere, Holik, Gomez, Jordan, Chapman, Denneny, Irvin and Boudrias (if one considers him a center).
I mean ok, the word "woefully" was used way too freely here. There's nothing woeful about his few peak seasons. But if he's got the (at best) 10th best offensive prime by a center in this draft (with 8 others in the merely arguable range), he's not a great 2nd liner, particularly when you start to evaluate what else the rest of them bring to the table - and not just in non-offense skils, but yes, those too - but in additional seasons beyond their best 7, in playoff history, etc.
But, for at least 3 seasons, he was really a force. No doubt.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Seriously?
The role of defenseman in team success was TRANSFORMED with Bobby Orr. Let that sink in for a second. Then look at who scores high on the crunched stat you cite (and seem to rely on as the end all and be all).
Fred Lake had GREAT offensive-support skills. Read his bio.
I get quickly annoyed at reductionist thinking. If you want to talk about hockey history, this forum is becoming less and less of a forum for it. I can count on one hand the number of posters on this board this year who taught me anything about hockey history. *Sigh*
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
yep, didn't think you understood, and I was right.
(sorry to hear you didn't read any of my ATD bios from this year, only pissed on my posts summarizing them)
Last edited:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
VI, you said exactly what I thought you'd say. With my hasty snarky reply out of the way, let me give you the diplomatic version:
It's obvious that Bobby Orr revolutionized the defense position. To treat someone in this section as though they do not know or understand this, is the height of naivete.
As anyone can see after a brief review of historical statistics, in the post-Orr era, defensemen showed up higher in the scoring leaders more frequently, and with a higher percentage of the league leader's total. This is why VsX would be a terrible way to attempt to gauge the offensive level of defensemen from pre-Orr to post-Orr.
You would have these 7-year scores:
Lidstrom: 70
Bourque: 78
Park: 63
Pilote: 56
Kelly: 67
Shore: 61
Cleghorn: 55
These are what these defensemen would score if you compared their offense to that of the elite mortal forwards of their day: Crosby, Ovechkin, Messier, Yzerman, Perreault, Lafleur, Mikita, Hull, Richard, Beliveau, Morenz, Conacher, Malone, Lalonde. This is obviously unfair, because defensemen in the modern era have taken a more active role in the creation of offense. I realize that all of the above is nothing but an expansion of what you just said.
BUT....
VsXD is not the same thing. Instead of comparing the offense of Defensemen X to the top forwards of the day, it compares them to the top defensemen. So you get 7-year scores like this:
Lidstrom: 109
Bourque: 111
Park: 106
Pilote: 126
Kelly: 147
Shore: 119
Cleghorn: 106
So, for example, instead of Cleghorn having a level of offensive contribution 30% below that of Ray Bourque, he's just 4.5% behind. Kelly has only the 3rd highest score in the top list, and runs away with the top score in the bottom list. Pilote is nearly the lowest score in the top list, and easily 2nd highest in the bottom list. See how it works now?
Times have changed, but we're well ahead of you on that. VsXD is currently the best way to account for that. It's not perfect and can always do with some tweaking, of course.
I should poing out, however, that I posted incorrect data earlier. I had been looking at an old spreadsheet for Lake, in which I hadn't yet extended VsXD coverage back to 1907 (Lake was the only player this affectd). Lake's scores in his 7 seasons as a defenseman with Ottawa: 79, 63, 60, 54, 44, 40, 0. For a total of 49. Not so far off the map that he can't be a passable 2nd unit player, but way off from what you are expect of him by placing him on the 1st unit.
What you're trying to tell us, is that Fred Lake (who scored, on average, about 50% of the rate of Cleghorn/Cameron/Ross/Hall, NOT about 50% of the rate of Taylor/Malone/Lalonde/Smith) is a viable 1st unit PP option! He wasn't even a significant offensive contributor in real life, and you expect him to be one in a draft featuring many of the best players of all-time. This is simply not realistic.
Warren Freaking Godfrey scores 46 in his best 7 years... Cy Wentworth scores 48! Lionel Hitchman scores 46. You would not consider those players PP options in an ATD or MLD. Lake's partner Hamby Shore scores 64, and was clearly a bigger piece of the offensive puzzle. This shouldn't be surprising. Lake played the more conservative defensive position, rushed less often and was not cited as a significant offensive force (as a defenseman) in any source I've seen.
There are some in our community who want more evidence before they say will agree that a defenseman can be good on the PP: offensive numbers frequently among the best of their peers is just one piece of the puzzle, but they'd prefer to read actual PP quotes or see specifics that show the player could really drive offense. I'm much more forgiving - for a player from Lake's time, I could settle for just the numbers. But he doesn't have them... and you've gotta at least have that.
tl;dr version: I'm not saying Lake isn't a good PP option because he wasn't close offensively to the best forwards of his era as you thought, it's because he wasn't close offensively to the best defensemen of his era.
It's obvious that Bobby Orr revolutionized the defense position. To treat someone in this section as though they do not know or understand this, is the height of naivete.
As anyone can see after a brief review of historical statistics, in the post-Orr era, defensemen showed up higher in the scoring leaders more frequently, and with a higher percentage of the league leader's total. This is why VsX would be a terrible way to attempt to gauge the offensive level of defensemen from pre-Orr to post-Orr.
You would have these 7-year scores:
Lidstrom: 70
Bourque: 78
Park: 63
Pilote: 56
Kelly: 67
Shore: 61
Cleghorn: 55
These are what these defensemen would score if you compared their offense to that of the elite mortal forwards of their day: Crosby, Ovechkin, Messier, Yzerman, Perreault, Lafleur, Mikita, Hull, Richard, Beliveau, Morenz, Conacher, Malone, Lalonde. This is obviously unfair, because defensemen in the modern era have taken a more active role in the creation of offense. I realize that all of the above is nothing but an expansion of what you just said.
BUT....
VsXD is not the same thing. Instead of comparing the offense of Defensemen X to the top forwards of the day, it compares them to the top defensemen. So you get 7-year scores like this:
Lidstrom: 109
Bourque: 111
Park: 106
Pilote: 126
Kelly: 147
Shore: 119
Cleghorn: 106
So, for example, instead of Cleghorn having a level of offensive contribution 30% below that of Ray Bourque, he's just 4.5% behind. Kelly has only the 3rd highest score in the top list, and runs away with the top score in the bottom list. Pilote is nearly the lowest score in the top list, and easily 2nd highest in the bottom list. See how it works now?
Times have changed, but we're well ahead of you on that. VsXD is currently the best way to account for that. It's not perfect and can always do with some tweaking, of course.
I should poing out, however, that I posted incorrect data earlier. I had been looking at an old spreadsheet for Lake, in which I hadn't yet extended VsXD coverage back to 1907 (Lake was the only player this affectd). Lake's scores in his 7 seasons as a defenseman with Ottawa: 79, 63, 60, 54, 44, 40, 0. For a total of 49. Not so far off the map that he can't be a passable 2nd unit player, but way off from what you are expect of him by placing him on the 1st unit.
What you're trying to tell us, is that Fred Lake (who scored, on average, about 50% of the rate of Cleghorn/Cameron/Ross/Hall, NOT about 50% of the rate of Taylor/Malone/Lalonde/Smith) is a viable 1st unit PP option! He wasn't even a significant offensive contributor in real life, and you expect him to be one in a draft featuring many of the best players of all-time. This is simply not realistic.
Warren Freaking Godfrey scores 46 in his best 7 years... Cy Wentworth scores 48! Lionel Hitchman scores 46. You would not consider those players PP options in an ATD or MLD. Lake's partner Hamby Shore scores 64, and was clearly a bigger piece of the offensive puzzle. This shouldn't be surprising. Lake played the more conservative defensive position, rushed less often and was not cited as a significant offensive force (as a defenseman) in any source I've seen.
There are some in our community who want more evidence before they say will agree that a defenseman can be good on the PP: offensive numbers frequently among the best of their peers is just one piece of the puzzle, but they'd prefer to read actual PP quotes or see specifics that show the player could really drive offense. I'm much more forgiving - for a player from Lake's time, I could settle for just the numbers. But he doesn't have them... and you've gotta at least have that.
tl;dr version: I'm not saying Lake isn't a good PP option because he wasn't close offensively to the best forwards of his era as you thought, it's because he wasn't close offensively to the best defensemen of his era.
Last edited:
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
*sigh* I never said that.
.... 
And you double-downed on the reductionistic thinking and simply assumed I didn't understand how much that one crunched stat totally shows a blueliner's contributions to offense.I just don't think points reflects offensive contribution in pre-Orr eras where many great teams did not have rushing defensemen. Great teams did not need high-point-producing defensemen, especially given how assists were not thrown around like candy in the two-assists-for-every-goal-automatically-given modern era. I said "puck-moving support from the blueline" is not entirely gauged by that crunched stat. Nothing you've posted shows an understanding of that.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
*sigh* I never said that.
I just don't think points reflects offensive contribution in pre-Orr eras where many great teams did not have rushing defensemen. Great teams did not need high-point-producing defensemen, especially given how assists were not thrown around like candy in the two-assists-for-every-goal-automatically-given modern era. I said "puck-moving support from the blueline" is not entirely gauged by that crunched stat. Nothing you've posted shows an understanding of that.
Even in eras when assists weren't handed out as frequently, and defensemen played a smaller part in scoring, the defensemen who contributed most to offense eventually got their share of points to show for it.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
What VI is saying is something I've started thinking about since last the ATD two years ago. That points aren't and shouldn't be treated as a direct reflection of a defenseman's offensive abilities.
Take, for example, Drew Doughty, whose VsX7D is a modest 74.4. However, one of the first things many people commenting on Doughty talk about is his ability to move the puck:
THN:
McKeen's 2011:
The Hockey Writers:
Kevin Shattenkirk:
I believe, at least in Doughty's case, a big reason for his inability to put up huge offensive seasons is because the team as a whole has lacked that offensive ability during his time there. This, in my opinion, is the single biggest flaw of any individual scoring statistic that currently exists - none of them account for team situation.
Beyond that, we also need to take into account what people say about a player. If everyone says the guy has an unbelievable first pass, great shot, the ability to efficiently get out of the zone and start a rush on a consistent basis, etc., then you have got to give him extra credit beyond what the score tells you, in my mind.
---
Now, why does this matter for Fred Lake? The numbers for Lake, clearly, aren't impressive. Beyond that, he can't even claim to have been in the same situation, at least in Ottawa, with regards to team scoring. In the 3 years that I have the data available for (09, 10, 11), Ottawa finished 1st, 3rd, 1st in goals scored, 143%, 93%, and 134%, respectively, of first place.
It's entirely possible that Lake was a superb passer and the inconsistent recording of assists during that time hurt him badly. It would be difficult to prove that though. There is only one quote in the available Lake bio that talks about his offensive ability:
I'm not personally seeing it with Lake. The guys who had the offensive skills generally were very well regarded for them in contemporary articles. Think about Cleghorn and Cameron, two players the press never failed to talk about how good offensively they were when given the chance. While he was indeed a good defensive player, I don't think he was ever more than an average offensive player.
Take, for example, Drew Doughty, whose VsX7D is a modest 74.4. However, one of the first things many people commenting on Doughty talk about is his ability to move the puck:
THN:
McKeen's 2011:
The Hockey Writers:
Kevin Shattenkirk:
I believe, at least in Doughty's case, a big reason for his inability to put up huge offensive seasons is because the team as a whole has lacked that offensive ability during his time there. This, in my opinion, is the single biggest flaw of any individual scoring statistic that currently exists - none of them account for team situation.
Beyond that, we also need to take into account what people say about a player. If everyone says the guy has an unbelievable first pass, great shot, the ability to efficiently get out of the zone and start a rush on a consistent basis, etc., then you have got to give him extra credit beyond what the score tells you, in my mind.
---
Now, why does this matter for Fred Lake? The numbers for Lake, clearly, aren't impressive. Beyond that, he can't even claim to have been in the same situation, at least in Ottawa, with regards to team scoring. In the 3 years that I have the data available for (09, 10, 11), Ottawa finished 1st, 3rd, 1st in goals scored, 143%, 93%, and 134%, respectively, of first place.
It's entirely possible that Lake was a superb passer and the inconsistent recording of assists during that time hurt him badly. It would be difficult to prove that though. There is only one quote in the available Lake bio that talks about his offensive ability:
I'm not personally seeing it with Lake. The guys who had the offensive skills generally were very well regarded for them in contemporary articles. Think about Cleghorn and Cameron, two players the press never failed to talk about how good offensively they were when given the chance. While he was indeed a good defensive player, I don't think he was ever more than an average offensive player.
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,360
Jarek is correct about the differences between moving the puck skillfully, and producing offense.
But since the above debate is about the relative strength of power play units, I'm not sure it applies.
But since the above debate is about the relative strength of power play units, I'm not sure it applies.
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,360
Anyway, I think the upshot is that the voters will need further proof that Lake will have a positive impact on the power play. Keeping, in mind that, in the one quote describing him as having a "good shot", the references to him being a great "point man", would refer to the position corresponding with a conservative, stay at home defenseman today.
And also that if the standard is one quote, we can use this:
I'd just shuffle the units to get Kronwall up there.
And also that if the standard is one quote, we can use this:
for Derian Hatcher.
I'd just shuffle the units to get Kronwall up there.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Sounds good.
PP1: Sterner - Johansson - Maclean - Kronwall - Daily
PP2: Boudrias - Irvin - Hebenton - Patrick - Young
Johnny Engine
Moderator
- Jul 29, 2009
- 4,979
- 2,360
Richmond wins in 6 games, on the backs of Marc Savard, Goldie Prodgers, and Seth Martin.
Kelowna's first line of Sterner, Tumba and Maclean have a very good performance in the loss.
Kelowna's first line of Sterner, Tumba and Maclean have a very good performance in the loss.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
-
-
Series Winner Boston Bruins vs Toronto Maple LeafsWagers: 6Staked: $2,110.00Event closes
- Updated: