ATD 2011 Draft Thread III

[BraveCanadian]

Agree. If you MUST post adjusted size, you should do it with a big asterisk, and post the player's real size too.

God, I wish I never invented that formula. As good as it works on a cursory basis, a few people have taken far too much of a liking to it. No matter how many times I remind them that it is NOT official in any way.

Yeah its kind of ridiculous. I think everyone already knows that players have gotten bigger on average as time has gone on..

Those rankings were based on goalies with over 1500 minutes played. Teams used their goalie tandems excessively so this was always from a field of at least 25 goalies, sometimes as many as 35. He was not just better than average, but always at least in the top 1/3 as I said.

Yeah tandems were pretty much standard then so you're right that would increase the pool a lot depending where the cutoff was..

Not trying to downplay Parent really, I was considering taking him instead of Broda. I think he was awesome, especially his peak. I just think Broda had a better overall career as well as being a money goalie when it was on the line.

And not in an all-time sense, but more particularly where he was selected among defensemen.

Yeah, in the draft a particular player or position (like the run on defensemen here) can change where a player goes substantially based on need. But I did mean among defensemen.

 

[seventieslord]

Regina is pleased to select one of the most unique players of all-time, in that he was very physical, yet exceptionally clean as well.

Often correctly called a beneficiary of Orr and Esposito later in his career, with whom he placed top-13 in scoring five times, he was also a very good scorer before that, with nine seasons in the top-15 before those two players made an impact in Boston. Anyway you slice it, he was one of the league's most consistent scorers both before and after, and displayed remarkable longevity.

His cleanliness will serve as a formidable ying to Mark Messier's nasty yang... if they play together, that is. He may just form the basis for a balanced 2nd line. Time will tell.

Jareks and Gentlemen, I present to you:

Johnny Bucyk, LW

 

[BraveCanadian]

They can tell us a lot; It's just important to understand context and look at who else was on the ice and what impact they'd have had.

I'm not saying that they can't tell us a lot.. I'm just saying that we have to be especially careful to find the context. Particularly with those unit type stats.

For really old players that is very difficult, and we end up with stats and virtually no context except flattering (for the most part) quotes and anecdotes.

For example, your favourite analysis of Bobby Clarke shows pretty definitively that in his peak seasons he was the best defensive forward of all time while at the same time providing high level offense.

Still its arguable because it is based on a group stat, and it could be that it was the synergy of them all (but still especially Clarke) that made him so good. In fact in a team game it is almost a certainty.

On the flip side using the R-on and R-off of Gretzky in 88-89 showed a stat based on unit stats where his impact on the team was almost completely downplayed but anyone who watched hockey during that time knows that it was immense. 50 or 100 years from now if someone uses that same method to look at Gretzky they will have a completely incorrect view of his play that season based on the stat. And these are players that we still have people available to saw them first hand.

The farther back we go the more difficult that context and first hand observation is to find and marry with the stats to be able to say something definitively.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Johnny Bucyk, LW

Nice pick. He did get a lift late in his career from playing with those other superstars but he was a very good player in his own right.

He's a big guy too.

 

[seventieslord]

On the flip side using the R-on and R-off of Gretzky in 88-89 showed a stat based on unit stats where his impact on the team was almost completely downplayed but anyone who watched hockey during that time knows that it was immense. 50 or 100 years from now if someone uses that same method to look at Gretzky they will have a completely incorrect view of his play that season based on the stat. And these are players that we still have people available to saw them first hand.

Hey, like it or not, that thread was very illuminating. A lot of context was provided that both explained why Gretzky's numbers looked like that, but a lot was also provided to demonstrate that he was victimized defensively too. It definitely underscored the importance of remembering there are two sides of the rink and NO player should ever be judged solely by what they do in just one of them.

 

[BraveCanadian]

Hey, like it or not, that thread was very illuminating. A lot of context was provided that both explained why Gretzky's numbers looked like that, but a lot was also provided to demonstrate that he was victimized defensively too. It definitely underscored the importance of remembering there are two sides of the rink and NO player should ever be judged solely by what they do in just one of them.

That is the whole issue though.. *he* wasn't.

Whatever unit of players he was playing with was.. I'm the first guy to like a two-way player more than a one-way guy but when you have an offensive guy that is capable of 100 ES points and 168 overall.. you let em go and someone else keeps the fort.

The real question is.. why wasn't someone keeping the fort? Or were they just that bad?

 

[overpass]

We need to be careful not to gloss over the actual facts with broad statistical analysis, especially now that so much specific information is available to us. In Denneny's case, he doesn't even need the broad analysis. He was the leading scorer on three Cup winners. That's enough to tell me that he brought his A game in the postseason.

But seriously...there are a lot of bad statistics out there, and sweeping, career-wide playoff PPG stats are among the worst. I am also not a big fan of GF/GA statistics which completely ignore known and significant external factors. I will offer an example which will surely annoy overpass, but is nonetheless telling:

If you read the bio overpass did on Chris Pronger, you will see that he rates Pronger, by virtue of power play efficiency statistics with Pronger on the ice, as one of the best PP defensemen of the last decade, and adds this comment in summation:



Although I have a lot of respect for overpass as a hockey mind, this is an abuse of statistics. Why? Because Chris Pronger has spent almost his entire career as the second best power play defenseman on his own team. He was paired on the powerplay (and often at even strength) with Al MacInnis in St. Louis and then with xxxxxx (although normally not at even strength) in Anaheim. Of course Pronger's power play goals-on-ice-for numbers look great. He has had an inordinate amount of help.

A specific two year sequence of events in Pronger's career is rather telling. Pronger played the top pairing in St. Louis with MacInnis for a long time, and that was a very effective power play. Then Pronger misses almost the entire season in 02-03 and the Blues' power play actually improves - scoring 80 goals vs. a league average of 60. The next season, MacInnis misses the whole year and Pronger is the team's #1 quarterback. The Blues score 61 goals on the powerplay vs. a league average of 57: barely above average. The Oilers with Pronger as #1 PP quarterback were also barely above average on the powerplay, scoring 88 goals vs. a league average of 85. There are really three seasons in Pronger's career in which he has been his team's best powerplay quarterback, and in only one of them (last year in Philly) was the team significantly above average in PP efficiency. I'm not sure what happened last year in Philly. Maybe Pronger played great on the PP? But the two seasons prior to that when he carried the load, his teams were quite average in that department.

I am not here to tell you that Chris Pronger can't quarterback a powerplay. He handles and distributes the puck well, though he is not elite in either area, and although he has a big shot, it is too slow to be of much value on the man advantage. The numbers presented by overpass, without context, make Pronger look like an elite powerplay quarterback, only a touch below Lidstrom...but the truth is something else, and I think anyone who has seen him knows it. In an ATD sense, he is certainly not a good #1 powerplay quarterback.

I'm not trying to pick on you, overpass - this was just the best example of "statistical smoke" (to use GBC's old saw) I could think of off the top of my head. There are many more examples of such obfuscatory statistics in the player bios, not to mention a great volume of fluffy text (again, not specifically targeting overpass here). We really need to approach statistics in as sober and balanced a manner as possible, and make specific distinctions when they are known.

No offence taken. The relationship between individual numbers and team success in hockey is indeed a complicated one. I've posted a lot of numbers which include some adjustment for context. But those numbers can never be completely adjusted for context in hockey. It's a team game. So they need to be looked at critically and in context.

Regarding your specific point, I do think Lidstrom has been better on the power play than Pronger, maybe I wasn't clear enough there. But Pronger's high number of power play points are the main reason I rate him as highly as I do. His coaches have given him a lot of playing time on the power play. He's put up a lot of points there.

The team numbers shouldn't be attributed entirely to the individual players, not at all. But it's useful to know whether a player has been compiling points on a below-average power play because the team doesn't have anyone better, or if they have been part of a unit that helps the team win. A better power play also often means more talent on the team and more competition for spots on the power play - although I'm not sure how much this applies to Pronger.

nik noted that Edmonton's power play improved with Pronger. I'll add that St Louis's power play went from average/below-average in the mid-90s to excellent in the late 90s and early 00s, roughly coinciding with Pronger taking a large role on the PP. And Anaheim's power play went from league-average to among the best in the league when Pronger arrived. These examples may show the value of having two very good to excellent players on the points of a power play to some degree, but Pronger was a part of that.

I agree that Lidstrom is a more valuable power play piece in this setting, but I think Pronger can have a lot of value there also. I'm sure you'll let me know when the teams are complete if you don't think I have used Pronger correctly, but I'm confident I can put him in a position to help the team.

 

[matsblue13]

The Niagara City Blues will be selecting.....Billy Smith G

Perhaps the best clutch goaltender of all time, Battlin' Billy Smith was a major reason for 4 consecutive Stanley Cup championships on Long Island with the N.Y. Islanders.


His most celebrated Stanley Cup championships might have come in 1983. His 2-0 performance in game 1 of the 1983 finals against Edmonton is considered one of the greatest classics of all time. He would go on to shut out Wayne Gretzky during the entire series and was named playoff MVP.

In 1979-80, Smith became the undisputed first string goalie for the Islanders and went on to be a pillar of strength during the Islanders' domination of the Stanley Cup. In 1981-82 he enjoyed his greatest individual season. That year the cagey puck stopper registered 32 wins, was awarded the Vezina Trophy as the NHL's top goaltender and was selected to the NHL's First All-Star Team. In 1982-83, Smith shared the William Jennings Trophy with Roland Melanson after recording the lowest goals against average in the NHL. Later that season "Battlin' Billy" (he was as notorious for physically defending his crease from opposing players as he was for protecting his goal from opposing pucks) was the key to the Islanders' defeat of the Edmonton Oilers to win their fourth consecutive Stanley Cup. He had been brilliant in the post-season and was presented the Conn Smythe Trophy as the playoffs' Most Valuable Player

Although the Islanders soon went into a rebuilding period, Smith continued to perform at a high level until his retirement after the 1988-89 campaign. He finished with a career goals against average of 3.17 and 22 shutouts, very respectable numbers for someone who played the entire decade of the high scoring 1980s.

More importantly than numbers, Smith is considered to be one of the NHL's greatest playoff goaltenders of all time. Smith twice posted 15 post season wins and recorded a stingy 2.73 goals against average and five shutouts in 132 NHL playoff games. For 5 straight playoffs he led the entire NHL in appearances and wins, and three of those years he led in shutouts and GAA.

Perhaps if he had been given a chance to play more in the regular season he would have won more individual honors and bolstered his all time numbers so that he would be hailed even more so as one of the all time greats. But his playoff performances alone have cemented his place among the immortals.

All quotes taken from the Hockey Legends Blogspot

 

[BraveCanadian]

I agree that Lidstrom is a more valuable power play piece in this setting, but I think Pronger can have a lot of value there also. I'm sure you'll let me know when the teams are complete if you don't think I have used Pronger correctly, but I'm confident I can put him in a position to help the team.

To be fair though Lidstrom's powerplay has featured Coffey and Rafalski Schneider etc. too.. thats what makes these things hard!

Coffey in his prime had Gretzky and Mario et al. to feed the puck to. Orr had Esposito and on and on.. Lapointe/Robinson had Lafleur.

Obviously all these guys who had great powerplays, well, had great powerplays!

It is very hard to isolate individual contribution in hockey.

 

[jarek]

Bathgate. That is all. His numbers do not come close to reflecting how good he was offensively. I would say Earl Seibert too (go read the new stuff I added!), but you guys already know that!

The important thing my new stuff adds for Seibert is that even when he was with the Rangers, a decidedly strong team, he was still a key cog in the offensive wheel for that team. I think this is something that people may not have known.

 

[BenchBrawl]

wow Billy Smith already? I thought I could pick him up at 158th , I think he was drafted something like 162th last ATD.Really strange.

 

[seventieslord]

That is the whole issue though.. *he* wasn't.

Whatever unit of players he was playing with was.. I'm the first guy to like a two-way player more than a one-way guy but when you have an offensive guy that is capable of 100 ES points and 168 overall.. you let em go and someone else keeps the fort.

The real question is.. why wasn't someone keeping the fort? Or were they just that bad?

I'm not getting into this again... for my response, refer back to that thread... hahaha

wow Billy Smith already? I thought I could pick him up at 158th , I think he was drafted something like 162th last ATD.Really strange.

I don't agree with him going this early either; however, from ATD2-9, he was selected at #41-74. And from 90-118 in the last three drafts as well. So you shouldn't be too surprised.

 

[BraveCanadian]

I'm not getting into this again... for my response, refer back to that thread... hahaha

Same!

I don't agree with him going this early either; however, from ATD2-9, he was selected at #41-74. And from 90-118 in the last three drafts as well. So you shouldn't be too surprised.

Guys are going to shift around a bit depending on need in something like this..

 

[BenchBrawl]

Bah for every player drafted that early there's another that is going to be available later so I'm not that worried...yet.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I haven't had internet for 2 full days.... OMG!

Time to catch up.

While I don't think he's quite the BPA, he is among the top handful. He is, however, the best fit by far, and I think I need a player like him.

We're happy to select a well-rounded complete player who brings a little bit of everything...

Norm Ullman !!!

Good to see Abel, Ullman, and Delvecchio go in that order. I did a lot of research on the three of them when I picked Howe last time, and this is the order they should go in IMO. Also, I agree with you - Ullman has the perfect skillset to center Bathgate.

That said, Delvecchio's playoff record still murders Sundin's.

On top of that, Joliat played at a time when there was much more compeitition.

I really can't agree that competition in the 1930s was better than the 2000s

Besides, Joliat's biggest competition was his own linemate, who likely helped his scoring numbers, at least a little bit.

Ovechkin has(d?) the luxury of dominating pretty weak Southeast division. Moore played on much deeper team and didn't get so much quality icetime, had much more defencive responsibilities.

This rumor again? This is demonstrably false. Ovechkin has actually put up better numbers against the rest of the league than the Southeast in a few seasons.

The Guelph Platers use their 3rd pick to select two time Vezina winner and five time Stanley Cup champion: Turk Broda

Better goalie than Bower or Durnan, IMO. Such an outstanding playoff performer. This is where rankings of goalies vary widely.

Check out the recent CBC Sports/NHLPA player poll to see how highly regarded Crosby is by his peers. He was voted #1 or #2 in quite a few categories.

Player's opinions are funny. I found a 2010 SI poll, where Crosby finished 8th as "best player in the league." Ovechkin was 1st by a wide margin with 51% of the vote. (I believe Lidstrom was second with a bit over 10%).

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I didn't expect this guy to still be on the board at pick 105 (especially with the premium on defensemen).

GM hungryhungryhippy selects, for the second draft in a row, defenseman Jean-Claude Tremblay. JC is an ace in the #1 spot, and belongs right next to guys like Leetch and Lapointe in this league, and I look forward to debating with anyone who doubts that for a second.

The Rundown...

Very good pick now (arguably BDA), but no way was he as good as Leetch. From what I've read of him, his defense seems very similar to peak Leetch - good positionally, smart, and fast, but relatively soft. Prone to the occasional brainfart. And Leetch was a step up offensively.

Still a very good pick right now. His puckmoving really was key to the 1960s Canadiens, who really didn't have anyone else to do that job.

stop with this adjusted size BS please, especially in the bio, Tremblay had average size for his era, so you should be happy with it.

I agree. A good ATD bio should be able to be used as a historical reference, and the "adjusted size" thing just looks silly to neutral observers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

i have wondered for quite a while why parent is not ranked about the same as dryden.

Parent only has 2 First Team All Stars. That's why.

imo, pronger was better on PP than his teammate in anaheim.

I agree. Pronger's teammate in Anaheim (Niedermayer) was more of a "rover" than a traditional pointman. He doesn't have the shot and really isn't that great at keeping the puck in the zone.

Niedermayer is definitely the better puck mover than Pronger, but I always thought Pronger was better at the point.

33 defensemen went in the top-100 and yet he wasn't among them. Gooood pick.

Eh, this is about where Niedermayer should go, IMO. His 3 season peak was outstanding, but he wasn't anything all that great outside of it.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Scott Niedermayer is the only player in hockey history to have won a Stanley Cup, Olympic gold medal, World Championship, World Cup, Memorial Cup and World Junior title. He's the only player in hockey history to have won four Stanley Cups and two gold medals. He also has a Norris trophy and Conn Smythe trophy. He was a winner.

Honestly, does anyone here actually care that Niedermayer won the Memorial Cup and World Jr. title?

Niedermayer often looked like a defenseman with unparalleled skating ability, and he made it look effortless. That carried over to the power play, where Niedermayer's command on the point was glorious: That smooth skating and puck control near the blue line; the way he'd sail against the current while the other players prepared for either a pass or a shot. His influence can be seen in the way players like Mike Green(notes) help run the power play. He didn't reinvent the wheel; he just showed how smoothly it could ride.

Funny, I never thought Niedermayer was that great on the point of the PP. His best attribute is his skating, which isn't as important at holding the point.

He's an elite, legend-for-his-era defenseman; what would his stats have looked like in a different era? Could he have reached Coffey-like numbers in a more freewheeling era on a more freewheeling team like the Oilers? The Devils of the Dead Puck era was no place to rack up blueline numbers, not in Lou's house.

You've got to be kidding me. Niedermayer wasn't even the best offensive defenseman on NJ for quite a few of those years.

Untapped potential aside, Niedermayer was also an essential part of one of the best defensive teams of the last 20 years. And he's most fondly remembered for his goal as a 21-year-old in Game 2 of the 1995 Stanley Cup Finals against the Detroit Red Wings, Niedermayer helped the team on its way to a sweep with a calling-card tally on a brilliant end-to-end rush.

Truly, an all-time great.

Any untapped potential of Niedermayer was his own fault. He had the best coaches in the league in NJ at developing defensemen.

 

[seventieslord]

Good to see Abel, Ullman, and Delvecchio go in that order. I did a lot of research on the three of them when I picked Howe last time, and this is the order they should go in IMO. Also, I agree with you - Ullman has the perfect skillset to center Bathgate.

That said, Delvecchio's playoff record still murders Sundin's.

Good to see Delvecchio go 3rd, yes. But I'm still not convinced Abel was better than Ullman. There's so much, perhaps more, out there that supports Ullman's non-offense skills. While they have the same peak offensive value, Ullman has significantly more longevity in that regard, and in a better era too (not in and directly following WW2).

From there we get to linemates and I know it's an ongoing debate but IMO Ullman probably had a tougher time being a 2nd line center behind Howe's line, with scrub linemates and facing lesser checkers, than he would have had being a 1st line center with Howe for a linemate, facing top checkers.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Interesting.



I think you have to take into account they played in the exact same era at the exact same time and Dryden ended up with 3 more FAST's, 1 more SAST, and a better hart record (while Parent got the extra Conn Smythe). The people watching them game-in game-out evidently found Dryden better.

You could say that voters may have been bias towards Montreal for whatever reason, but that wouldn't explain why Parent didn't rack up any SAST's behind Dryden.

Exactly. Saying that Parent should be closer to Dryden because save percentages reconstructed well after the fact reeks too much of historical revisionism for me.

I actually agree that Parent probably wasn't much worse than Dryden, but I also don't thing the different between any of the goalies already selected is really all that huge.

 

[seventieslord]

Honestly, does anyone here actually care that Niedermayer won the Memorial Cup and World Jr. title?

I do not.

 

[Velociraptor]

I don't agree with him going this early either; however, from ATD2-9, he was selected at #41-74. And from 90-118 in the last three drafts as well. So you shouldn't be too surprised.

I think matsblue has been doing his research

Question for the original all time drafter, as I'm too lazy to figure out, (With the exception of ATD 2011) What was the earliest Mats Sundin was ever drafted? (Just wondering, no flaming purposes intended)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Now that I've yet again reminded everyone of just how unspecial Niedermayer was before his peak - I do want to say that we sometimes underrate his peak.

Brodeur, Niedermayer, and Crosby are the three players who benefit most if you do the "remove the Euros from the leaderboards" game. Niedermayer was the leading non-Euro vote getter for 3 straight Norris trophies (and he missed a full year right in the middle with the last lockout too!)

And Crosby was the leading non-Euro point getter 3 times in the Art Ross race.

 

[seventieslord]

but I also don't thing the different between any of the goalies already selected is really all that huge.

...so do we spread them all out from 10 to 100 on an all-time list just so it looks "clean"? Or should they all be packed from 30-60?

 

[Hedberg]

Now that I've yet again reminded everyone of just how unspecial Niedermayer was before his peak - I do want to say that we sometimes underrate his peak.

Brodeur, Niedermayer, and Crosby are the three players who benefit most if you do the "remove the Euros from the leaderboards" game. Niedermayer was the leading non-Euro vote getter for 3 straight Norris trophies (and he missed a full year right in the middle with the last lockout too!)

And Crosby was the leading non-Euro point getter 3 times in the Art Ross race.

I can't get behind this "remove Europeans" idea. Maybe I could see "remove Russians (and some Czechs)", but the other Europeans were always free to come to the NHL, they're development just wasn't as good. Using the "remove Europeans" logic, you should probably remove Americans too considering there were hardly any impact Americans in the NHL until the 1980s.