Again I find the whole process absurd because we are in a forum that has 9 other ATDs and several MLDs that you can go and read the lists of. There are no secrets here. In the midst of the draft it's best not to mention someone, but the MLD is a long way away.
All-Time Draft #10, Part 4
- Thread starter BM67
- Start date
Hats off to all
I just want to commend everyone for a very well done draft. From the comment the clock starting ticking in early October (October 4, I believe), to the end of the draft (November 17), it took 45 days. I don't know how long it used to take, but the five previous drafts that I was part of usually took 55-60 days. (I remember tracking ATD 4, which took a whopping three months). We finished about a week-and-a-half faster than we usually need.
I remember one weekend in ATD 6 when we had 15 picks on a Saturday and 17 on a Sunday. And I marvelled at how quickly that went. 15 to 17 picks a day is now the norm.
We had a mostly veteran crop of GMs who know how this thing effectively runs by now. I think we went seven rounds late in the draft without a skipped pick. We didn't have a lot of rookies, but the rookies who were part of this learned quickly what was expected of them, and I hope they'll continue to be part of this. They've earned my respect. GMs usually PMed lists if they were going to be away. Co-GMs were usually ready to pick when it was their turn. And GMs didn't delay the process to get any negotiations finished.
This thing is about celebrating the history of the game, but I can tell you that it's a lot more fun when we aren't waiting lengthy periods of time for guys to pick.
I just want to commend everyone for a very well done draft. From the comment the clock starting ticking in early October (October 4, I believe), to the end of the draft (November 17), it took 45 days. I don't know how long it used to take, but the five previous drafts that I was part of usually took 55-60 days. (I remember tracking ATD 4, which took a whopping three months). We finished about a week-and-a-half faster than we usually need.
I remember one weekend in ATD 6 when we had 15 picks on a Saturday and 17 on a Sunday. And I marvelled at how quickly that went. 15 to 17 picks a day is now the norm.
We had a mostly veteran crop of GMs who know how this thing effectively runs by now. I think we went seven rounds late in the draft without a skipped pick. We didn't have a lot of rookies, but the rookies who were part of this learned quickly what was expected of them, and I hope they'll continue to be part of this. They've earned my respect. GMs usually PMed lists if they were going to be away. Co-GMs were usually ready to pick when it was their turn. And GMs didn't delay the process to get any negotiations finished.
This thing is about celebrating the history of the game, but I can tell you that it's a lot more fun when we aren't waiting lengthy periods of time for guys to pick.
I think if you look up and down this draft you'll see fewer "mistakes" or strange picks than we've ever had. It'll be nearly impossible to rank these teams accurately.
There were a lot fewer mistakes than last draft, but that might have to do with the absence of a few GMs from ATD 9.
camperjr
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2007
- 2,292
- 2
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
camperjr, you did all your screwing up in MLD9.* You got it all out of your system there, and have put together a decent team in your first real draft. I'm finished evaluating top-3 lines and goalies at this point and you're not doing too bad.
*you also made a few superb picks there too.
*you also made a few superb picks there too.
Last edited:
AlanHoff
Registered User
- Sep 26, 2008
- 226
- 0
GBC and the rest of you guys...Thanks for the "rookie" compliment, I have tried my best to do everything the right way throughout the draft...I really enjoyed this and hope to be part for the next however many we do if you would like to have me back as a GM...I've learned alot and am already looking forward to the MLD...I guess now its just up to the voters to decide how far this rookie can go in the playoffs
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Everything looks great, VI. My only concern is that if we put too much pressure on eliminated GMs to vote, they may just vote and do nothing else. They may not read the matchups, analyze anything at all, and then place a vote that counts for as much as a vote from those who contributed more. I would prefer that we had a policy where if you don't feel you are in a position to pick a winner, you just don't vote.
camperjr
Registered User
- Feb 19, 2007
- 2,292
- 2
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
The list is of pre-WWII careers, guys who had at least a few significant years in the 1930's or earlier.
distribution:
Devils 14
Nighthawks 12
Secrets 11
Aeros 7
Scouts 7
Spiders 7
Thistles 7
Falcons 7
Golden Seals 6
Iceland 6
Pats 6
Clippers 6
Bisons 5
Mets 5
Rocket 5
Smoke Eaters 5
Maroons 4
Red Wings 4
Lada 4
Marlboros 4
Canadiens 3
.
.
several teams with a couple
143 picks
distribution:
Devils 14
Nighthawks 12
Secrets 11
Aeros 7
Scouts 7
Spiders 7
Thistles 7
Falcons 7
Golden Seals 6
Iceland 6
Pats 6
Clippers 6
Bisons 5
Mets 5
Rocket 5
Smoke Eaters 5
Maroons 4
Red Wings 4
Lada 4
Marlboros 4
Canadiens 3
.
.
several teams with a couple
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,811
- 16,548
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Both the average, as well as the median, number of pre-WW2 players per team is 5. Being at 6 myself, I am quite comfortable with that. I think the three teams with 11 or more have too many, and the seven teams with three or fewer, don't have enough.
Realistically, the pre-WW2 era is about 50 years long, and there have been 70 years since then, which means that in theory 42% of our players should be pre-WW2 players. Due to various factors such as splinter leagues, competition levels, lower GP per schedule, fewer players (meaning that if there are just 30 players in a league, being top-10 isn't as impressive as when there are 500 players, even if the 30 are the 30 best), and other random factors I think we naturally select a lower percentage than that. Some, but not all, of that drop is justified. We were at 22% in this draft, assuming VI got all the players right, and we should probably be somewhere in the middle - closer to 32%, or an average of about 8 per team.
We've come a long way in giving credit to the oldies, but have we come far enough?
Your thoughts?
Realistically, the pre-WW2 era is about 50 years long, and there have been 70 years since then, which means that in theory 42% of our players should be pre-WW2 players. Due to various factors such as splinter leagues, competition levels, lower GP per schedule, fewer players (meaning that if there are just 30 players in a league, being top-10 isn't as impressive as when there are 500 players, even if the 30 are the 30 best), and other random factors I think we naturally select a lower percentage than that. Some, but not all, of that drop is justified. We were at 22% in this draft, assuming VI got all the players right, and we should probably be somewhere in the middle - closer to 32%, or an average of about 8 per team.
We've come a long way in giving credit to the oldies, but have we come far enough?
Your thoughts?
Last edited:
Spitfire11
Registered User
I have 6 listed there plus Herbie Lewis, Hec Kilrea, and Sid Abel should be added and Harry Watson should be removed for a grand total of 8. Probably double my previous high.
The pre-war players have been more than fairly represented, IMO.
The pre-war players have been more than fairly represented, IMO.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Yes, Lewis and Kilrea should be added and Watson removed. I would not add Abel, though - his career started in 1939. He's a postwar player.
MXD
Original #4
- Oct 27, 2005
- 50,811
- 16,548
The game was different back then, but if you want a team with a very old-school style, you have to draft old-school players.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
Personally, I'd say that it's being a bit generous by just dividing the years that encompass the pre-WWII era by the total number of years hockey has been around then account for those other factors, because I think that the developmental years of the game should be discounted. You can't just create a cutoff for when the game was developmental or not, but I think their should be an increase in the expectation for the number of players justifiably selected through the first 10 or 15 years of the game.
I might not be clear in what I'm trying to say, so lets take Soviet Hockey for a second. We discount older Soviet accomplishments because they played during the formative years of Soviet hockey, but it isn't an even process. Bobrov is the only player from the early 1950s to be selected in the ATD, then there are a couple more who peaked during the late 50s/early 60s (Sologubov/Tregubov, etc.), then more who peaked during the mid-sixties, until there are a pile of players who peaked around the time of the Summit Series. To me, the reasons for doing this are very justifiable.
I think we should expect the same type of progression through the late 1800s and early 1900s as the game developed and more people started to play the game. With the Soviets, it's easier to do because we have their ability relative to Canadian players as a rough gauge. But, IMO, the same should be done with respect to the developmental era in Canada.
It's also worth noting that about half of the 143 pre-WWII players (I did a quick count, nothing too exact but it seems right) peaked between 1925 (post Western league collapse) and WWII. To me that distribution seems about right, 50% for the latter 15-20 years and 50% for the prior 30.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
pitseleh, the reason we discount the oldtime Soviets of the fifties isn't because it was developmental per se, but that they were not the best of their era: third tier Canadian teams were competitive against the Soviet's greatest of that time in international competitions.
If we looked at developmental considerations across eras then we wouldn't even be speaking of fast skaters in the thirties because today's players can skate rings around the old timers, the game has simply become much faster (HHOFers often mention that, how much faster the game is today).
The fact is that assessments of greatness are made relative to era in the ATDs, in this draft more so than last draft, and last draft more so than previous drafts, as we get better and better at it.
Players who were best of the best, who beat the best, in 1904-07 or 1911-1915 or 1922-28, are great players in hockey history. Full stop.
If we looked at developmental considerations across eras then we wouldn't even be speaking of fast skaters in the thirties because today's players can skate rings around the old timers, the game has simply become much faster (HHOFers often mention that, how much faster the game is today).
The fact is that assessments of greatness are made relative to era in the ATDs, in this draft more so than last draft, and last draft more so than previous drafts, as we get better and better at it.
Players who were best of the best, who beat the best, in 1904-07 or 1911-1915 or 1922-28, are great players in hockey history. Full stop.
That's a valid point about the Soviets, but I still think that there needs to be some accounting for the fact that the game was taken from its infancy to a real competitive sport. We discount WWII era accomplishments even though the players were the best hockey players playing hockey because there were great players who weren't playing in the league, and I don't see it as being much different than that.
I know it takes us down a bit of a slippery slope with respect to the development of the sport and athletes as a whole, but to me there is a big difference between the development of the sport from a brand new game to a professional sport and between different eras of being a professional sport. That's why I draw the analogy to Soviet hockey. Professional hockey was rather scattered from 1904 until about 1910 when you had the NHA and PCHA spring up as amalgamated professional leagues. Now obviously you can't just pinpoint a time at which the game matured, but I think we should account for the fact that the entire environment around hockey was very different back then.
Otherwise, where do we draw the line? Should players who played during James Creighton and the first McGill team's era be drafted if they were the best of that time?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
It's clear what you're saying... it's the same thing I was trying to get at when I suggested that some of the drop (in how many players we select from the earliest days) is justified. I'm not saying it's definitely wrong, but more or less questioning it and raising some food for thought.
Which is why I won't take Bobrov. I'm not sure he was even one of the top-10 LWs in the world at any point. In a Russian vaccuum, he's the most dominant player ever.
It seems that the majority of us think that the further back you go, the less significant it was to be the best and to beat the best.
Sure, if we can find information supporting it and can sell it to our fellow GMs. Look at my 7th D-man in MLD9. based on VI criteria, he's a #1 D-man in the MLD. The fact that he played from 1887-1994 is what holds him back.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Here is the problem with "evaluating players' greatness relative to the full continuum of hockey" (or whatever my exact quote was earlier): it involves a double variable.
First: how great was player X relative to the others of his period?
Second: how great was period Y relative to the historical zenith of professional hockey?
Throw what you've got on a player through the ringer twice and out comes your answer. Of course, as many of us cannot even agree on what period was the true zenith of professional hockey (for me, it is either the early 60's or the late 80's), perhaps the equation actually involves a triple variable? I dunno.
And...following the scientific method...there is yet another problem here. Evaluating players relative to the others of the period works for all players but one. Much like a test that fails to yield valid results because every question is answered correctly, the very best player of an era cannot really be evaluated in this way. We only know that he was the best, but how good that was is still an open question. If you put Wayne Gretzky, exactly as he was in his prime, in the 1904 ICHL, it wouldn't matter how much he dominated, he'd likely be a mid round pick, at best, because of assumptions made about competitive era. The "compare player to his peers" metric is non-functional for individuals of truly singular dominance.
We will never know what Malecek or Bobrov could have done against the best of the best. They were off the charts in their own isolated context, but that ultimately tells us very little, and we end up making the judgment based on gut feeling more than anything else.
First: how great was player X relative to the others of his period?
Second: how great was period Y relative to the historical zenith of professional hockey?
Throw what you've got on a player through the ringer twice and out comes your answer. Of course, as many of us cannot even agree on what period was the true zenith of professional hockey (for me, it is either the early 60's or the late 80's), perhaps the equation actually involves a triple variable? I dunno.
And...following the scientific method...there is yet another problem here. Evaluating players relative to the others of the period works for all players but one. Much like a test that fails to yield valid results because every question is answered correctly, the very best player of an era cannot really be evaluated in this way. We only know that he was the best, but how good that was is still an open question. If you put Wayne Gretzky, exactly as he was in his prime, in the 1904 ICHL, it wouldn't matter how much he dominated, he'd likely be a mid round pick, at best, because of assumptions made about competitive era. The "compare player to his peers" metric is non-functional for individuals of truly singular dominance.
We will never know what Malecek or Bobrov could have done against the best of the best. They were off the charts in their own isolated context, but that ultimately tells us very little, and we end up making the judgment based on gut feeling more than anything else.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
The thing with Bobrov is that he was SO GOOD that NHLers who saw him play said he COULD play in the NHL. Rocket Richard I recall reading somewhere was one who said so. I think Bobrov goes too high in the ATDs and so I never have been able to draft him. He's a potential scoring line left winger with question marks; he's an unquestionably solid back line, lesser minutes pick imo.
I know the stat junkies won't like this answer but: give weight to what the hockey world thought of players back then. Look at newspaper articles, memoirs and hockey history books. And don't draw the line to exclude HHOFers. The hockey hall of fame selection committee in 1945 would certainly have seen and heard about the oldtimers they were inducting. While there are some marginal HHOF selections made out of deference to the coaches and general managers they became later, the fact is that HHOFers belong in the ATD. To exclude an entire generation of those players is wrongheaded. Where to draw the line? I say make sure to include hall of famers from the earliest days of stanley cup hockey (1894-1909). That still leaves open whether these should be first liners, fourth liners or extra skaters in an all-time context. THAT determination is made by each of us, often changing over time. For sure, the more I read about hockey history, the more I respect the past.
oldest living nhlers
quite the thread i recommend reading it
http://www.hockeydb.com/vb/archive/index.php/t-17380.html
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
That is quite the interesting thread. I also recommend that others take a look.
However, could this be posted in the chat thread instead of this one or at least have the quoted section with player names removed? Most of them are undrafted, and I see at least three that are potential MLD players. I have a feeling that the MLD will go deeper than ever before and we should still enforce a gag order on player names, in the drafting thread at the very least.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
GAME 5 - Cape Breton Eagles @ Baie-Comeau Drakkar - Baie-Comeau Drakkar leads series 3-1Wagers: 3Staked: $225.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Game 3 Rochester Americans @ Syracuse Crunch - Series tied 1-1Wagers: 5Staked: $1,285.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
