The MLD 2012 Assassination Thread

[Iain Fyffe]

Using any of your methods will not make Danny Poland an NHL star or player regardless of how his contemporaries did when they made the NHL.

The bolded part is true, but not for the reasons you think it is. Players like Danny Poland are a massive red herring.

Poland had one season in junior hockey in which he compares favourably to some future NHLers also of junior age (who were in fact younger than Poland was - never underestimate the importance of age on junior hockey numbers).

Harry Watson, in contrast, had several seasons in senior hockey in which he compares favourably to some future NHLers of senior age.

These are not the same thing, remotely. I was very careful to lay out the specifics of what I was talking about, and you went ahead and ignored them anyway. One good year in junior (especially with an age advantage) does not equate to several good seasons in senior.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Age etc

The bolded part is true, but not for the reasons you think it is. Players like Danny Poland are a massive red herring.

Poland had one season in junior hockey in which he compares favourably to some future NHLers also of junior age (who were in fact younger than Poland was - never underestimate the importance of age on junior hockey numbers).

Harry Watson, in contrast, had several seasons in senior hockey in which he compares favourably to some future NHLers of senior age.

These are not the same thing, remotely. I was very careful to lay out the specifics of what I was talking about, and you went ahead and ignored them anyway. One good year in junior (especially with an age advantage) does not equate to several good seasons in senior.

Age has always been a factor but not the factor you pretend it is. Total days after birth, difference between players, by the junior level is a very small single digit factor in the overall picture. An interesting example would be the "Trois Denis" line in the QMJHL - Denis Savard, Denis Cyr, Denis Tremblay.

The history of hockey is full of players from junior, senior, university, minor league levels who had several good seasons or dominated at a level who never made the NHL. What contemporaries did in the NHL does not change the fact that Harry Watson was at the end of the day an excellent Sr A player and that was it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Usual

So, then, you can only be saying that players who did not play in the same league together can never be compared to each other? How does one undertake a project such as this one without being able to compare players from different times?


You provide no detail here. How does the evolution of hockey and the resulting timeline result in th 1960 OHA being anywhere near the level of the 1923 OHA? In fact, following the evolution of the game shows you exactly why the 1960 OHA is so much weaker, relative to the top league at the time, than the 1923 version.


No it bloody well doesn't. Not by itself. A player who manages a few games in the NHL for whatever reason cannot be said to outshine a star player in the high minor leagues, simply because one played a bit in the NHL and the other didn't. That's far too simplistic.

First bolded is simply false. Your interpretation.

Second bolded.1923 to 1960 OHA Sr, regardless of your views there is one constant - both were viable options for promising juniors.

Third bolded. Retreating from your initial analogy of a season as a substitute. Still you are presenting an abstract scenario that cannot be evaluated. Fact remains that if a player like Les Colwill could play one season in the NHL :

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/c/colwile01.html

could make it the why didn't others play as long, say Guyle Fielder? If the answer comes down to choice then there is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt or extra credit. Circumstances position has little merit once examined closely.

 

[seventieslord]

Brian McCabe. Basic point is that even the worst possible NHL team has #1and #2 defenseman.

Very true. I agree we should be careful giving too much praise to a player who was a top pairing defenseman on a horrible team. McCabe on the other hand….

McCabe was not a #1 or #2 until he reached the Maple Leafs.

Not true. McCabe was the Isles’ #2 in 1997 (based on TOI estimate), their #1 until being traded in 1998 (based on actual TOI), the Canucks’ #2 in 1999, and the Hawks’ #2 in 2000. Anecdotes from these times indicate he was also their heavy lifter defensively.

Yes, 1997-2000 are the “so what, he was on a bad team†years, so they don’t add the same value as 2001-2004 in particular, when he was the anchor of a very strong team, or 2006 and 2007 when he was co-anchor of a team that was pretty good and sunk by bad goaltending.

Basic issue with McCabe has been finding a partner for him that works as a pairing. Happened in Toronto. MCCabe and Shmyr could be problematic if Shmyr takes the big hit approach. McCabe is not known for covering for his partner and Shmyr is not fast enough to cover for McCabe who has a history of getting caught out of position.

Shmyr does not have a history of being caught going for a hit. His reputation was that he was the WHA’s best defensive defenseman. So that doesn’t concern me.

Its funny that the players Watson faced was worse than some of the swedish players being slammed here, yet Watson should be recogniced for dominating them.

No, absolutely not. I don’t expect you to care that Watson scored 50 points in 5 games, I expect that you notice who his teammates are and how badly he outscored them.

Ultimately though, it is a rather small part of the case for Watson, when he played way more games than that in Senior hockey against excellent competition that went on to NHL careers.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Age has always been a factor but not the factor you pretend it is.

I don't pretend anything, I only use the results of my research. Are you saying that age is not as important a factor as my extensive research has shown it to be? Because that's what I base my comments on: research into the subject. Please disprove my research if you can. Thoroughly and systematically, of course.

Total days after birth, difference between players, by the junior level is a very small single digit factor in the overall picture. An interesting example would be the "Trois Denis" line in the QMJHL - Denis Savard, Denis Cyr, Denis Tremblay.

Okay, so age isn't an important factor when evaluating players who are exactly the same age? Is that your point here?

In three years of junior together Savard always had by far the most points of the three, followed by Cyr and then Tremblay. In terms of success at the NHL level, it's obviously Savard-Cyr-Tremblay in that same order. Not sure what your point here is other than junior scoring records can be a good indicator of future NHL success.

The history of hockey is full of players from junior, senior, university, minor league levels who had several good seasons or dominated at a level who never made the NHL. What contemporaries did in the NHL does not change the fact that Harry Watson was at the end of the day an excellent Sr A player and that was it.

You're pretending that Senior A has the same meaning in 1960 as it does in 1923. There were no minor leagues in the early 1920s. Players jumped straight from the better senior leagues (such as the OHA) directly to the NHL.

Look at the 1923/24 NHL, and identify the players that came into the league in the past five seasons. 0% of these players played minor pro immediately before joining the NHL; 90% played senior hockey, and 10% played junior.

Now look at the 1960/61 NHL, and identify the players that came into the league in the past five seasons. 60% of these players played minor pro immediately before joining the NHL; 5% played senior an 35% played junior.

Senior hockey went from contributing 90% of NHL players directly in the early 1920s to 5% in the early 1960s, and you think the two are equivalent?

 

[Iain Fyffe]

First bolded is simply false. Your interpretation.

Not at all. How is it difference from comparing an NHL player from 2012 to one from 1950? They obviously never played against each other, or even against any of the same players. There is no means of direct comparison. So how do you compare them?

Second bolded.1923 to 1960 OHA Sr, regardless of your views there is one constant - both were viable options for promising juniors.

No, as demonstrated in my last post the most promising juniors went directly to the NHL, or to a minor pro league. In the 1960s senior hockey was home mostly to players who had no real prospects of a NHL career in any form.

Third bolded. Retreating from your initial analogy of a season as a substitute. Still you are presenting an abstract scenario that cannot be evaluated.

Retreating from what? That's an entirely new point.

could make it the why didn't others play as long, say Guyle Fielder? If the answer comes down to choice then there is no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt or extra credit.

There are reasons, obviously, which involve looking at details. Your suggestion, however, was apparently that anyone who played even one season as a part-timer in the NHL should be considered superior to someone who did not play a full NHL season, regardless of what these players might have done in other leagues.

My point was that this is naive and simplistic, which you seem to agree with, since you're interested in looking at reasons.

Circumstances position has little merit once examined closely.

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Harry Watson

Not at all. How is it difference from comparing an NHL player from 2012 to one from 1950? They obviously never played against each other, or even against any of the same players. There is no means of direct comparison. So how do you compare them?


No, as demonstrated in my last post the most promising juniors went directly to the NHL, or to a minor pro league. In the 1960s senior hockey was home mostly to players who had no real prospects of a NHL career in any form.


Retreating from what? That's an entirely new point.


There are reasons, obviously, which involve looking at details. Your suggestion, however, was apparently that anyone who played even one season as a part-timer in the NHL should be considered superior to someone who did not play a full NHL season, regardless of what these players might have done in other leagues.

My point was that this is naive and simplistic, which you seem to agree with, since you're interested in looking at reasons.


I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.

Pre bolded.

None of this changes anything about Harry Watson. Neither you or anyone else has addressed the key issue - was his skating good enough for the NHL level, was his defense solid enough for the NHL level. Scorers are commonplace at the various levels below the NHL since 1917.

Bolded. Simple circumstances position means the circumstances of being in an organization with depth at a specific position. Example a center in Montreal behind Beliveau, H. Richard, Backstrom, Goyette.

 

[Hobnobs]

Not at all. How is it difference from comparing an NHL player from 2012 to one from 1950? They obviously never played against each other, or even against any of the same players. There is no means of direct comparison. So how do you compare them?

Against their peers and not directly against eachother, then you cross reference that with strength of competition, teammates and league?

 

[seventieslord]

Against their peers and not directly against eachother, then you cross reference that with strength of competition, teammates and league?

that sounds about right, which, I believe, is Iain's point.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

None of this changes anything about Harry Watson. Neither you or anyone else has addressed the key issue - was his skating good enough for the NHL level, was his defense solid enough for the NHL level. Scorers are commonplace at the various levels below the NHL since 1917.

Rather a different issue than 1960s OHA = 1920s OHA though, isn't it? The NHL rule book defines where the goalposts are to be placed. Please stop frigging around with them.

Against their peers and not directly against eachother, then you cross reference that with strength of competition, teammates and league?

Indeed. My question was a rhetorical one.

that sounds about right, which, I believe, is Iain's point.

It is.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Harry Watson II

I don't pretend anything, I only use the results of my research. Are you saying that age is not as important a factor as my extensive research has shown it to be? Because that's what I base my comments on: research into the subject. Please disprove my research if you can. Thoroughly and systematically, of course.


Okay, so age isn't an important factor when evaluating players who are exactly the same age? Is that your point here?

In three years of junior together Savard always had by far the most points of the three, followed by Cyr and then Tremblay. In terms of success at the NHL level, it's obviously Savard-Cyr-Tremblay in that same order. Not sure what your point here is other than junior scoring records can be a good indicator of future NHL success.


You're pretending that Senior A has the same meaning in 1960 as it does in 1923. There were no minor leagues in the early 1920s. Players jumped straight from the better senior leagues (such as the OHA) directly to the NHL.

Look at the 1923/24 NHL, and identify the players that came into the league in the past five seasons. 0% of these players played minor pro immediately before joining the NHL; 90% played senior hockey, and 10% played junior.

Now look at the 1960/61 NHL, and identify the players that came into the league in the past five seasons. 60% of these players played minor pro immediately before joining the NHL; 5% played senior an 35% played junior.

Senior hockey went from contributing 90% of NHL players directly in the early 1920s to 5% in the early 1960s, and you think the two are equivalent?

None of this proves anything about Harry Watson or his ability to play in the NHL. See the previous post.

Previously you limited your age to the 17-19 year old group. Now it is extensive which means it goes beyond 19 and before 17 or what?
Taking three players at 18 born Jan 1, July 1 and Dec 31 the difference age wise is a small single digit number. All the other evaluations for skills, aptitudes and performance have to wash for age to be a factor.

Alex Ovechkin, if he was born three days earlier, still gets drafted #1 overall in 2003 instead of 2004:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/o/ovechal01.html

even though he is app 4 - 17 1/2 months younger than the top 5 picks, 4 -1984, 1- 1985, Nathan Horton.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

None of this proves anything about Harry Watson or his ability to play in the NHL. See the previous post.

You brought age and junior stats into the discussion when you brought up Danny Poland as an example.

Taking three players at 18 born Jan 1, July 1 and Dec 31 the difference age wise is a small single digit number. All the other evaluations for skills, aptitudes and performance have to wash for age to be a factor.

That's not true. In order for age to be the sole deciding factor, everything else would have to be a wash. Otherwise it's just one factor, albeit an important one.

Since this discussion is about projecting a player's future, you have to consider where the player is, and where he can be expected to go. Younger players can be expected to go farther from where they are now, so even if they're behind an older player now, they can still be expected to be ahead when reaching maturity as a player.

Alex Ovechkin, if he was born three days earlier, still gets drafted #1 overall in 2003 instead of 2004

Uh, sure? Where did I say "draft the youngest player available?" It's "give appropriate weight to a player's age when evaluating him." Please stop pretending that I've ever suggested a player's age is the only thing that matters. That's ludicrous.

This discussion really belongs in the St. Louis thread, though.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Harry Watson III

You brought age and junior stats into the discussion when you brought up Danny Poland as an example.


That's not true. In order for age to be the sole deciding factor, everything else would have to be a wash. Otherwise it's just one factor, albeit an important one.

Since this discussion is about projecting a player's future, you have to consider where the player is, and where he can be expected to go. Younger players can be expected to go farther from where they are now, so even if they're behind an older player now, they can still be expected to be ahead when reaching maturity as a player.


Uh, sure? Where did I say "draft the youngest player available?" It's "give appropriate weight to a player's age when evaluating him." Please stop pretending that I've ever suggested a player's age is the only thing that matters. That's ludicrous.

This discussion really belongs in the St. Louis thread, though.

Age was introduced re Harry Watson and as such you have not addressed it in context other than the vague comparison to Carson Cooper but you stopped short of including the other factors - skating, defense, etc that are not evident in the scoring data. Do this and you might advance the Harry Watson debate.

Bolded - I made this point previously in post #411 which you are now parroting. Conversely the second bolde no one has ever claimed that you said that. The fact remains that Alexander Ovechkin gets drafted #1 overall whether he is the oldest or the youngest.

Third bolded, interesting suggestion but we have to deal with your claim that you are having problems getting appropriate data - Alberta Jr A, other Jr A leagues, maybe Midget AAA across Canada, etc. So your research could use more data before it is complete. Premature to discuss it or try to prove or disprove anything about it.
My recognition that it was incomplete was accurate.

Now if you want to complete it at minimal or no financial cost that is another issue.

Hint #1. The answer may be found in your home town. PM me if you wish.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Age was introduced re Harry Watson and as such you have not addressed it in context other than the vague comparison to Carson Cooper but you stopped short of including the other factors - skating, defense, etc that are not evident in the scoring data. Do this and you might advance the Harry Watson debate.

Go ahead - compare Cooper and Watson in their skating and defence, without falling back on "Cooper played in the NHL and Watson didn't, therefore his skating and defence must have been better."

Bolded - I made this point previously in post #411 which you are now parroting.

No, read it again. You said that in order for age to be a factor, everything else must be a wash. This is incorrect. A player can be ahead of another in terms of his development, but when his age is considered his the player behind can be the better bet for the future. Age is always a factor in the evaluation.

Conversely the second bolde no one has ever claimed that you said that. The fact remains that Alexander Ovechkin gets drafted #1 overall whether he is the oldest or the youngest.

Yes, because when you consider everything about the player, including his age, he's the best prospect that year.

Third bolded, interesting suggestion but we have to deal with your claim that you are having problems getting appropriate data - Alberta Jr A, other Jr A leagues, maybe Midget AAA across Canada, etc. So your research could use more data before it is complete. Premature to discuss it or try to prove or disprove anything about it.
My recognition that it was incomplete was accurate.

No, it's incomplete with respect to Junior A players. It's complete with respect to major junior players, and NCAA players, and others. Historical data for Junior A leagues would be needed to complete the work for Junior A.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Harry Watson IV

Go ahead - compare Cooper and Watson in their skating and defence, without falling back on "Cooper played in the NHL and Watson didn't, therefore his skating and defence must have been better."


No, read it again. You said that in order for age to be a factor, everything else must be a wash. This is incorrect. A player can be ahead of another in terms of his development, but when his age is considered his the player behind can be the better bet for the future. Age is always a factor in the evaluation.


Yes, because when you consider everything about the player, including his age, he's the best prospect that year.


No, it's incomplete with respect to Junior A players. It's complete with respect to major junior players, and NCAA players, and others. Historical data for Junior A leagues would be needed to complete the work for Junior A.

I'm not pimping either. Those who are are free to do so. No obligation to do their work for them.

So you have Midget AAA data across Canada? Overlaps in age with Jr A while Jr A is an option in regions without AAA hockey of any kind. If you do not then completeness is an issue.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I'm not pimping either. Those who are are free to do so. No obligation to do their work for them.

You're trying to downplay Watson by making this argument. Do you have anything to support it, other than he must not have been as good since he didn't play in the NHL?

So you have Midget AAA data across Canada? Overlaps in age with Jr A while Jr A is an option in regions without AAA hockey of any kind. If you do not then completeness is an issue.

Yep, I'd like to get the Junior A done at least since there are a few such players drafted every year. Midget AAA is not as important, since my work is with respect to the NHL entry draft.

But again, I already have the vast majority of players covered already. Junior A is incomplete, and US high school is incomplete (should do Minnesota, the data should be available somewhere).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Harry Watson V

You're trying to downplay Watson by making this argument. Do you have anything to support it, other than he must not have been as good since he didn't play in the NHL?


Yep, I'd like to get the Junior A done at least since there are a few such players drafted every year. Midget AAA is not as important, since my work is with respect to the NHL entry draft.

But again, I already have the vast majority of players covered already. Junior A is incomplete, and US high school is incomplete (should do Minnesota, the data should be available somewhere).

First bolded - waiting for someone to support Watson's talent.

Second bolded - if Midget AAA is not as important then there is a flaw in your work since Midget AAA is a major catalyst to the NHL entry draft because it directs players to the various options = CHL, USHL, JrA, NCAA, US Prep schools, Canadian Prep Schools.

Third bolded - US High School is not even properly defined. You have the regular public high schools and you have the private prep schools that accept Canadian and other foreign players.

The more you post about your data the more the weaknesses come to the surface. A work in progress is not something that I wish to examine since it is far from complete.

 

[seventieslord]

Building off of VI's post on the 23rd. Assuming it was accurate, this should be accurate:

Assassinations received:

Lokomotif Yaroslavl (0.5)
Regina Capitals (0.5)
Medicine Hat Tricks (1)
Sherbrooke Castors (1)
Pittsburgh Hornets (1)
Raleigh Icecaps (1)
Montreal Maroons (1.25)
Brynäs IF (1.25)
Winnipeg Monarchs (1.25)
Pittsburgh Duquesne (1.25)
Chicago Blaze (2)
Winston-Salem Polar Twins (2)
Connecticut Whale (2)
Yarmouth Mariners (2)
Zambia Mania (2)
Montreal Orfuns (3)

Assassinations given:

TheDevilMadeMe (5)
BillyShoe1721 (5)
tony d (4)
tarheelhockey (2)
Hedberg (1.5)
Canadiens1958 (1.5)
VanIslander (1)
Dave G (1)
Dreakmur (1)
seventieslord (1)
​

1/2 not accounted for, but I guess that's pretty close.

Updated to include a ew very small reviews done by C1958, counted as 1/4. (post 292, 289, 288, 92/89)

are we done? or do we want to do this for another day or two?

I am getting the PMs ready to send out regarding tomorrow. Who is my vote-collecting volunteer for the Ion Division? vecens24? BBS?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Assassinations given:

TheDevilMadeMe (5)
BillyShoe1721 (5)
tony d (4)
VanIslander (1)
Dave G (1)
Dreakmur (1)
tarheelhockey (1)
Hedberg (1)
Canadiens1952 (1/2)

Leaving you all in the dust again!

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Seriously though, tony gave 4 assassinations and only got 1/2 back? We suck

Someone assassinate that man!

 

[Hobnobs]

Have at her guys:

Chicago Blaze

Steve Thomas-Billy Taylor (A)-Ray Sheppard
Cory Stillman -Erich Kuhnhackl-Cliff Koroll
Andrew Brunette-Kelly Kisio (A)-Tony Granato
Eric Vail-Alexei Guryshev-Martin Havlat

Dave Semenko and Frank Rankin (Extras)

Jeff Brown-Joe Jerwa(C)
John Van Boxmeer-Bob Turner
Bruce Driver-Billy Coutu

Yuri Fedorov and Dave Lewis (Extras)

Ryan Miller
Gerry Mcneil

Coach: Marc Crawford

Special Teams:

PP 1: Thomas-Taylor-Sheppard-Brown-Jerwa
PP2: Vail-Kuhnhackl-Granato-Van Boxmeer-Driver

PK 1: Granato-Kisio-Jerwa-Driver
PK 2: Brunette-Koroll-Van Boxmeer-Turner

Forwards

1st unit: two goal scorers and a playmaking center. Thomas is the corner guy and Sheppard had a pretty mean laser. I like this unit.

2nd: Same thing here really.

3rd: A powerful offensive checking unit imo. As far as I know only Kisio brings it down a bit as far as offense is concerned but this unit is a defensive one so its no big deal. Brrunettes playmaking is pretty underrated and I bet this unit could be a deciding factor in a game 7.

4th: a 4th unit which I think is based on controlling the puck and having Havlat racing out of his zone on faceoffs. Speed and stickskill.

Defense:

I dont think the defense is anything that stands out. Its a solid unit with Jeff Brown as the obvious offense guy. I think this is a stable and calm defense that will provide just what his forwards corp needs.

Goalies:

Ryan Millers stock dropped a bit after last season but he obviously a great goalie to have here. Can play 80-90% of the games during the season and still be great in the playoffs.

Coach:

Im not a fan of Crawford and I think his resume is pretty weak when looking at the teams he has coached. A vendetta kind of guy who can cost his team games.

Edit: Tony reminded me of Kisios offensive record and Ill retract the statement I made about him. That line can do some serious damage.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

Second bolded - if Midget AAA is not as important then there is a flaw in your work since Midget AAA is a major catalyst to the NHL entry draft because it directs players to the various options = CHL, USHL, JrA, NCAA, US Prep schools, Canadian Prep Schools.

It's not as important for my purposes because players are not drafted out of Midget AAA - they are drafted out of the next level. It might be interesting to know where the player came from, but ultimately the system only cares about what the player actually did at the level he's being drafted from, not why he ended up at that level.

Third bolded - US High School is not even properly defined. You have the regular public high schools and you have the private prep schools that accept Canadian and other foreign players.

Indeed. It's not properly defined since I haven't actually done any work on it, because I haven't been able to find complete historical stats suited to my purpose.

The more you post about your data the more the weaknesses come to the surface. A work in progress is not something that I wish to examine since it is far from complete.

Then please, stop examining it. The weaknesses are all out there already, illustrated in my own work. The parts that are complete work very well, but there are still holes caused by insufficient data for relatively small groups of players.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Mark Jankowski

It's not as important for my purposes because players are not drafted out of Midget AAA - they are drafted out of the next level. It might be interesting to know where the player came from, but ultimately the system only cares about what the player actually did at the level he's being drafted from, not why he ended up at that level.


Indeed. It's not properly defined since I haven't actually done any work on it, because I haven't been able to find complete historical stats suited to my purpose.


Then please, stop examining it. The weaknesses are all out there already, illustrated in my own work. The parts that are complete work very well, but there are still holes caused by insufficient data for relatively small groups of players.

Mark Jankowski, 2012 NHL Entry Draft first round draft pick - Calgary,Stanstead College, born Sept 13, 1994 was Midget AAA eligible:

http://www.hockeysfuture.com/prospects/mark_jankowski/

his DOB fits in between the the 1994 DOBs of the 5, 1994 Lac St.Louis Lions Midget AAA players:

http://www.lsllions.com/content/view/22/37/

Jankowski was not eligible to play Midget AAA in Quebec because of residency restrictions. BTW he was also drafted in the OHL Entry draft in 2012. Stanstead College is a private school, not bound by residency restrictions. The league they play in is at best parallel(generous) to the Quebec Midget AAA.

Perhaps it is time to review your Midget AAA views.

Point is that you present them as definitive counters to my points.
You cannot have it both ways.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

If you guys want to continue discussing this tangent, can you please take it to either the chat room or the dishing the dirt thread?

This thread is for assassinating MLD teams

Thanks.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

I put my response in the appropriate thread.