ATD 2011 Draft Thread V
- Thread starter jarek
- Start date
- Status
EagleBelfour
Registered User
Absolutely not. Truthfully, how many full games have you watch Vladimir Krutov played, and what was your assesment of his play/endurance.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Krutov was 5'9" and I've seen his weight listed as anything from 181 to 195 pounds.
That's medically overweight, though not obese. He was notorious for being "stocky."
And yet he wasn't out of shape in the USSR, not at all - he was one of the fastest players on the ice!
It's very strange. Of course, Krutov could have just had a very unique body type.
That's medically overweight, though not obese. He was notorious for being "stocky."
And yet he wasn't out of shape in the USSR, not at all - he was one of the fastest players on the ice!
It's very strange. Of course, Krutov could have just had a very unique body type.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I think Markus Naslund is a solid pick right now. If he had any amount of playoff success, he'd probably be a Hall of Famer.
With all the new GMs coming in this time, the stock of dead puck era forwards has definitely risen. Gone are the days when you can steal Paul Kariya around pick 300 or Markus Naslund around 450.
With all the new GMs coming in this time, the stock of dead puck era forwards has definitely risen. Gone are the days when you can steal Paul Kariya around pick 300 or Markus Naslund around 450.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
I left my selection with sturminator, who picks right after me. So PM him after MadArcand picks.
If MadArcand takes my guy, don't expect a selection from me until at least 11AM EST.
If MadArcand takes my guy, don't expect a selection from me until at least 11AM EST.
VMBM
And it didn't even bring me down
My 20 cents on Krutov...
I don't quite understand why he is singled out of all the Soviet greats as having been a likely drug user - even if he is the biggest suspect of the bunch. There has been talk about the Soviet players using illegal substances already since the Seventies (at least). Many old Finnish players have either hinted or have been quite frank about it; not just that the Soviet players - especially some defensemen - were 'inhumanly' strong on the ice, but also the deteriorating health of some old USSR players has been seen as some sort of proof of this.
As far as Krutov's role on the KLM line goes, I remember something of those times (1980s) and me and most of my mates ranked them in this order: Makarov, Krutov, Larionov. It can very well be that we were too young to appreciate Larionov's (supposedly) superior hockey mind and two-way play. But then again, I have seen numerous games from the Eighties in the past few years and I still rank them as so.
During the 1987 Canada Cup finals, the 'color commentator' Ron Reusch talks about Krutov having already surpassed Makarov as the best Soviet forward. I'm not a huge fan of Reusch, and I'm not even sure that Krutov was ever better than Makarov (except for some single tournaments), but that says something about Krutov and his level of play around 1987 anyway. And when someone occasionally replaced Larionov on the top line, like Victor Tyumenev did in the 1985-86 CSKA-NHL series, it did not seem to have any negative effect whatsoever; the line was as devastating as ever. Of course, it was only one short series, but anyway...
Even though he didn't have Makarov's finesse, Krutov was almost as dangerous 1-on-1 and could create his own scoring chances. I do think that he was slightly more inconsistent than his linemates, though.
I don't quite understand why he is singled out of all the Soviet greats as having been a likely drug user - even if he is the biggest suspect of the bunch. There has been talk about the Soviet players using illegal substances already since the Seventies (at least). Many old Finnish players have either hinted or have been quite frank about it; not just that the Soviet players - especially some defensemen - were 'inhumanly' strong on the ice, but also the deteriorating health of some old USSR players has been seen as some sort of proof of this.
As far as Krutov's role on the KLM line goes, I remember something of those times (1980s) and me and most of my mates ranked them in this order: Makarov, Krutov, Larionov. It can very well be that we were too young to appreciate Larionov's (supposedly) superior hockey mind and two-way play. But then again, I have seen numerous games from the Eighties in the past few years and I still rank them as so.
During the 1987 Canada Cup finals, the 'color commentator' Ron Reusch talks about Krutov having already surpassed Makarov as the best Soviet forward. I'm not a huge fan of Reusch, and I'm not even sure that Krutov was ever better than Makarov (except for some single tournaments), but that says something about Krutov and his level of play around 1987 anyway. And when someone occasionally replaced Larionov on the top line, like Victor Tyumenev did in the 1985-86 CSKA-NHL series, it did not seem to have any negative effect whatsoever; the line was as devastating as ever. Of course, it was only one short series, but anyway...
Even though he didn't have Makarov's finesse, Krutov was almost as dangerous 1-on-1 and could create his own scoring chances. I do think that he was slightly more inconsistent than his linemates, though.
Last edited:
Dreakmur
Registered User
One of those guys had to go head to head with both Gretzky and Lemieux. That same guy led his team in scoring by some pretty wide margins.
Modano was not better in the play-offs.
MadArcand
Whaletarded
First, next time I'd appreciate getting a PM when I'm on the clock.
Second, so damn hard deciding on pick. There's a lot great RWs and centers availiable, but I've decided to go with
Ott Heller, D
Second, so damn hard deciding on pick. There's a lot great RWs and centers availiable, but I've decided to go with
Ott Heller, D
VMBM
And it didn't even bring me down
And how credible is the drug testing in today's NHL, BTW?
Not naming any names, but the appereance (face/jaw) of some players have seemed to change quite a bit after they started playing in the NHL, and there has been some talk about it. A negative side effect of the NHL becoming more and more business-like/more competitive - or just vicious rumours?
Whatever, it does not seem fair that Krutov would have to 'carry the weight' for all... you either treat him as one of the best wingers in the world in the 1980s (which he was) or, heck, ban him altogether.
Not naming any names, but the appereance (face/jaw) of some players have seemed to change quite a bit after they started playing in the NHL, and there has been some talk about it. A negative side effect of the NHL becoming more and more business-like/more competitive - or just vicious rumours?
Whatever, it does not seem fair that Krutov would have to 'carry the weight' for all... you either treat him as one of the best wingers in the world in the 1980s (which he was) or, heck, ban him altogether.
Last edited:
Hard to argue. 3 straight 1st team all star selections (would have been a 2nd teamer in 2001 if not injured...41 goals in 70 games). Being a Canuck fan I appreciated how good he was nightly, on a decent, but not great team. Remember he never had a legit 1st line centre to play with when in his prime.
Last edited:
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Devil listpicks defenseman Babe Pratt.
The Gwinnett Gladiators select Norse god and center Frank Frederickson.
The Gwinnett Gladiators select Norse god and center Frank Frederickson.
VanIslander
A 19-year ATDer on HfBoards
EagleBelfour
Registered User
Guys, could I ask someone to please help me for my Cecil Dillon bio. I'm pretty happy and excited about the stuff I've found from newspaper on him, but my biography will be incomplete, as I can't find any reference in books (Google Book left me down this time). I'm not asking anyone to write down anything, but it would be VERY appreciate if someone could scan me their little biography in the Ultimate Hockey book, Rangers Top-100 book and the Trail of the Stanley Cup. Obviously, as a token of my great appreciation, the helper(s) will forever be immortalized in my biography, in the 'Biography Contributor' section 
Guys, could I ask someone to please help me for my Cecil Dillon bio. I'm pretty happy and excited about the stuff I've found from newspaper on him, but my biography will be incomplete, as I can't find any reference in books (Google Book left me down this time). I'm not asking anyone to write down anything, but it would be VERY appreciate if someone could scan me their little biography in the Ultimate Hockey book, Rangers Top-100 book and the Trail of the Stanley Cup. Obviously, as a token of my great appreciation, the helper(s) will forever be immortalized in my biography, in the 'Biography Contributor' section
I'll help you out alittle later after i get home from work today. I'm very interested in learning about Cecil Dillon myself
Sturminator
Love is a duel
I'm very pleased to select Frederickson here. We wanted to start our 2nd line at this point and with a large number of possibilities on the board as the pick approached, I did some feverish research to narrow down my preferences. I have to admit that I knew very little about Frederickson, myself, before putting him through the wringer to see what I could squeeze out, but after researching Frederickson and comparing him to a number of his undrafted contemporaries from out west (I think western forwards are probably the best value at this point, though with Keats and Frederickson now gone, that is changing rapidly), I became convinced that Frank was the best of the bunch. I am also pleased to have a chance to maybe fill in some of the blanks about a great player who has remained relatively faceless thus far in the ATD process.
I'm going to start with a statistical analysis. Jarek will have to forgive me for using Duke Keats as the foil in this analysis, but I did it before Keats was selected on the assumption that I would end up having to choose between them. Don't worry...this is not slanderous to Keats, but I think the comparison is fairly enlightening, because Keats is a guy about whom a lot more is known. I will also use a specific system for "converting" split-league scoring finishes into their modern equivalent, which I believe is the best and fairest method available to us.
- I start off by only evaluating top-5 finishes in goals, assists and points. I think this fairly reflects the fact that scoring talent was split fairly evenly (and I believe it was) between the east and west during this era.
- For top-5 split-league finishes, in converting them to a modern equivalent, I use the following system:
This done to mathematically represent the fact that, for example, a 1st place finish in a split-league scenario can realisitically represent either a 1st or a 2nd place finish in a consolidated format. A 2nd place finish can be either 3rd or 4th place, etc. I round up for the highest scoring finish, round down for the second highest, round up for the third highest, etc. I think this is the most rational system possible, though granularity based on known facts must also enter the equation at some point.
Ok...onto the statistical analysis. Jarek will again have to forgive me, but Duke Keats is really the perfect foil to Frederickson for a variety of reasons. They were born within three months of each other, both played their best years out west and competed against one another during the final two seasons of the western leagues after the PCHA folded in 1924, everybody migrated to the WCHL for the next season, the WCHL renamed itself the WHL in 1925 and then collapsed, itself, after the 25-26 season. Both men have one superdominant season out west - 21-22 for Keats and 22-23 for Frederickson. Both men, at the age of 31, also came over to the newly consolidated NHL and played with varying levels of success. At any rate, I hope everyone will recognize that the following comparison is not an attempt at competition with jarek, but rather simply the most apt comparison available.
Frank Frederickson's top-5 scoring placements - with modern conversions:
- Goals: [3rd (20-21), 4th (21-22), 1st (22-23), 3rd (23-24) -- PCHA years] ; [3rd (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [5th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th
- Assists: [4th (20-21), 2nd (21-22), 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24) -- PCHA years] ; [3rd (26-27), 8th (28-29) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 8th
- Points: [1st (20-21), 3rd (21-22), 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24) -- PCHA years] ; [5th (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [4th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th
Frederickson's scoring record seems to indicate that he was a fairly balanced scorer, with a stronger emphasis on playmaking than goalscoring. His PCHA finishes of 1st, 2nd, 2nd in assists are pretty much validated by his 3rd place placement in assists during his first NHL season. His points more of less follow his assists record, and the PCHA dominance (including the 22-23 season in which he roflstomped the league, scoring 55 points when the 2nd place finisher, Mickey MacKay, put up 40) is pretty well validated by his 4th place points finish in his first consolidated NHL season. It is, on the whole, I think a pretty impressive resume for an offensive center at this point in the draft.
Duke Keats' top-5 scoring placements - with modern conversions:
- Goals: [1st (21-22), 4th (22-23), 5th (23-24), 2nd (24-25), 4th (25-26) -- WCHL and WHL years] ; [10th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th
- Assists: [1st (21-22), 4th (22-23), 2nd (23-24) -- WCHL and WHL years] ; [8th (26-27), 7th (27-28) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 4th, 7th, 7th, 8th
- Points: [1st (21-22), 2nd (22-23), 3rd (23-24), 4th (24-25) -- WCHL and WHL years] ; [9th (26-27), 10th (27-28) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th
I was a bit shocked by Keats' scoring record because the book on him is that he was a brainy playmaking pivot, but the numbers tell a different story. I find it odd that Keats would have this reputation when he only placed top-5 in assists in three out of five seasons spent out west. Anyway, the Duke seems to have been a fairly balanced scorer, as well, but with more of an emphasis on goalscoring than playmaking.
Comparing the results shows pretty plainly, I think, that Frederickson was the superior offensive player. He was the better playmaker by a fairly wide margin and the better goalscorer by a smaller margin. Frederickson's very high level of play in his first NHL season (which saw him finish 3rd in Hart voting) is also pretty telling, and should make it clear that his dominance out west was not compiled against "soft" competition. Keats would also have scoring success in his first two seasons in the NHL, but nothing on the level of Frederickson's 26-27 performance.
A closer look at both players' super dominant seasons out west is also enlightening. Frederickson's big season was 22-23 when he crushed the PCHA scoring race with 55 points with Mickey MacKay in second place at 40 points, an undrafted in 3rd, Frank Foyston in 4th , an undrafted in 5th and an underrated guy (who I also compared numerically to Frederickson) who will be drafted very soon in 6th. Keats' big 21-22 season in the WCHL is rather less convincing. The Duke scored 55 points vs. a second place finish of 33 points, but all of the other players on the leaderboard are undrafteds, and the best of the bunch won't be taken for another hundred picks, or so. Now I realize that using ATD draft position as a barometer of offensive prowess is a very shady form of analysis, but I think the difference in competition is quite clear in this case.
At any rate, going by the numbers, Frederickson beats Keats pretty handily, especially in playmaking. I'll leave Duke Keats alone now. The rest of what I have on Frederickson is descriptive newspaper clippings which should help to flesh out who he was as a player and a person.
I'm going to start with a statistical analysis. Jarek will have to forgive me for using Duke Keats as the foil in this analysis, but I did it before Keats was selected on the assumption that I would end up having to choose between them. Don't worry...this is not slanderous to Keats, but I think the comparison is fairly enlightening, because Keats is a guy about whom a lot more is known. I will also use a specific system for "converting" split-league scoring finishes into their modern equivalent, which I believe is the best and fairest method available to us.
- I start off by only evaluating top-5 finishes in goals, assists and points. I think this fairly reflects the fact that scoring talent was split fairly evenly (and I believe it was) between the east and west during this era.
- For top-5 split-league finishes, in converting them to a modern equivalent, I use the following system:
This done to mathematically represent the fact that, for example, a 1st place finish in a split-league scenario can realisitically represent either a 1st or a 2nd place finish in a consolidated format. A 2nd place finish can be either 3rd or 4th place, etc. I round up for the highest scoring finish, round down for the second highest, round up for the third highest, etc. I think this is the most rational system possible, though granularity based on known facts must also enter the equation at some point.
Ok...onto the statistical analysis. Jarek will again have to forgive me, but Duke Keats is really the perfect foil to Frederickson for a variety of reasons. They were born within three months of each other, both played their best years out west and competed against one another during the final two seasons of the western leagues after the PCHA folded in 1924, everybody migrated to the WCHL for the next season, the WCHL renamed itself the WHL in 1925 and then collapsed, itself, after the 25-26 season. Both men have one superdominant season out west - 21-22 for Keats and 22-23 for Frederickson. Both men, at the age of 31, also came over to the newly consolidated NHL and played with varying levels of success. At any rate, I hope everyone will recognize that the following comparison is not an attempt at competition with jarek, but rather simply the most apt comparison available.
Frank Frederickson's top-5 scoring placements - with modern conversions:
- Goals: [3rd (20-21), 4th (21-22), 1st (22-23), 3rd (23-24) -- PCHA years] ; [3rd (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [5th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 5th, 5th, 6th, 6th, 7th
- Assists: [4th (20-21), 2nd (21-22), 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24) -- PCHA years] ; [3rd (26-27), 8th (28-29) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, 8th, 8th
- Points: [1st (20-21), 3rd (21-22), 1st (22-23), 2nd (23-24) -- PCHA years] ; [5th (24-25) -- WCHL] ; [4th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 9th
Frederickson's scoring record seems to indicate that he was a fairly balanced scorer, with a stronger emphasis on playmaking than goalscoring. His PCHA finishes of 1st, 2nd, 2nd in assists are pretty much validated by his 3rd place placement in assists during his first NHL season. His points more of less follow his assists record, and the PCHA dominance (including the 22-23 season in which he roflstomped the league, scoring 55 points when the 2nd place finisher, Mickey MacKay, put up 40) is pretty well validated by his 4th place points finish in his first consolidated NHL season. It is, on the whole, I think a pretty impressive resume for an offensive center at this point in the draft.
Duke Keats' top-5 scoring placements - with modern conversions:
- Goals: [1st (21-22), 4th (22-23), 5th (23-24), 2nd (24-25), 4th (25-26) -- WCHL and WHL years] ; [10th (26-27) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 4th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th
- Assists: [1st (21-22), 4th (22-23), 2nd (23-24) -- WCHL and WHL years] ; [8th (26-27), 7th (27-28) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 4th, 7th, 7th, 8th
- Points: [1st (21-22), 2nd (22-23), 3rd (23-24), 4th (24-25) -- WCHL and WHL years] ; [9th (26-27), 10th (27-28) -- consolidated NHL] : modern equivalent: 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th, 9th, 10th
I was a bit shocked by Keats' scoring record because the book on him is that he was a brainy playmaking pivot, but the numbers tell a different story. I find it odd that Keats would have this reputation when he only placed top-5 in assists in three out of five seasons spent out west. Anyway, the Duke seems to have been a fairly balanced scorer, as well, but with more of an emphasis on goalscoring than playmaking.
Comparing the results shows pretty plainly, I think, that Frederickson was the superior offensive player. He was the better playmaker by a fairly wide margin and the better goalscorer by a smaller margin. Frederickson's very high level of play in his first NHL season (which saw him finish 3rd in Hart voting) is also pretty telling, and should make it clear that his dominance out west was not compiled against "soft" competition. Keats would also have scoring success in his first two seasons in the NHL, but nothing on the level of Frederickson's 26-27 performance.
A closer look at both players' super dominant seasons out west is also enlightening. Frederickson's big season was 22-23 when he crushed the PCHA scoring race with 55 points with Mickey MacKay in second place at 40 points, an undrafted in 3rd, Frank Foyston in 4th , an undrafted in 5th and an underrated guy (who I also compared numerically to Frederickson) who will be drafted very soon in 6th. Keats' big 21-22 season in the WCHL is rather less convincing. The Duke scored 55 points vs. a second place finish of 33 points, but all of the other players on the leaderboard are undrafteds, and the best of the bunch won't be taken for another hundred picks, or so. Now I realize that using ATD draft position as a barometer of offensive prowess is a very shady form of analysis, but I think the difference in competition is quite clear in this case.
At any rate, going by the numbers, Frederickson beats Keats pretty handily, especially in playmaking. I'll leave Duke Keats alone now. The rest of what I have on Frederickson is descriptive newspaper clippings which should help to flesh out who he was as a player and a person.
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
Duke Keats' years in other league where he dominated leaderboard HAS to be recognized. If we are to take Bower's AHL years as serious business, then why can't we also take Keats' dominant years in other pro leagues as serious as well? When you are the highest scoring player in your league, and it's not even close, AND you also proved that you can be a dominant scorer in more competitive scenarios as well, the fact remains that the hockey you played in those less competitive leagues should count as well.
Keats twice led the Alberta Big-4 Hockey League in goals and points, and assists once. In 1919-1920, he led in points 32-22, goals 18-11, and assists 14-12. In 1920-1921, he led in points 29-25, goals 23-18, and was tied for 4th in assists, the leader's 10 to his 6. I'm not saying we should count these as standard scoring finishes, as the competition level is important, but to outright throw them out entirely is totally and blatantly wrong and quite frankly irresponsible. The fact is, this was also a pro league, and some good names did play in them. His dominance must count for something here.
Also, Keats played two years in the NHA before the Big-4 league, which you seem to have missed.. he placed 4th in points, 5th in goals and 4th in assists in 1915-1916, and had 16 goals and 18 points in 1916-1917, despite missing about 7 games (he played 13, most guys played 19-20). This was the year where Keats was stolen by the military from Toronto to play for the army team. He still managed to finish 10th in goals and 12th in points despite this.
Keats twice led the Alberta Big-4 Hockey League in goals and points, and assists once. In 1919-1920, he led in points 32-22, goals 18-11, and assists 14-12. In 1920-1921, he led in points 29-25, goals 23-18, and was tied for 4th in assists, the leader's 10 to his 6. I'm not saying we should count these as standard scoring finishes, as the competition level is important, but to outright throw them out entirely is totally and blatantly wrong and quite frankly irresponsible. The fact is, this was also a pro league, and some good names did play in them. His dominance must count for something here.
Also, Keats played two years in the NHA before the Big-4 league, which you seem to have missed.. he placed 4th in points, 5th in goals and 4th in assists in 1915-1916, and had 16 goals and 18 points in 1916-1917, despite missing about 7 games (he played 13, most guys played 19-20). This was the year where Keats was stolen by the military from Toronto to play for the army team. He still managed to finish 10th in goals and 12th in points despite this.
Velociraptor
Registered User
I'm really worried now, Frederickson and Federko were two of three I wanted at 285.
jarek
Registered User
- Aug 15, 2009
- 10,004
- 238
Another interesting thing about the Keats vs. Fredrickson debate, is that Fredrickson never made any PCHA all star teams. The really telling thing is that he didn't even make any all star teams in his one super dominant year in the PCHA, despite blowing the competition out of the water. Mackay made the first team that year, despite getting outscored badly, and it seems like Foyston made the second team. Keats, in the WCHL and WHL, made the first all star team 5 years in a row, every year he was there, despite not always leading the league in scoring. This gives much validation to the previous quote I posted about his sterling defensive play, found here:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...NAAAAIBAJ&pg=5338,1552914&dq=duke+keats&hl=en
The reason that he wasn't as successful as Fredrickson in the NHL is probably because as he aged, he put on too much weight and by 1928, was too slow to make a really huge impact anymore, but still he managed to do pretty well for himself in scoring. I do not believe that he was slow before these years, as the aforementioned article mentioned that he was "quick on his skates", this in 1923, so it was probably a symptom of getting older and fatter.
Keep in mind also that the NHA and it appears the Big-4 league did not have all star teams as far as I'm aware (I did find one case a long time ago of a guy being on the 2nd team in the NHA, but that's it), so it's impossible to know how well he would have done among his peers in this regard, but considering the glowing praise on his overall game in the article up top, I think it's safe to say that he probably would have made the 2nd team at least in the NHA, at least the first year, just based off those intangibles alone. I did find one article from 1917 that was along the lines of "he pestered everyone in sight with backchecking", so it's probably true that he came into the league as a strong back checker, and it wasn't just a skill that he picked up as he grew older. I am working to find more and more on Keats' game away from the puck, and I'm hoping to provide a pretty convincing case that Keats should be distinctly ahead of Fredrickson on an all time list, seeing as how Fredrickson is also a guy I wanted, but a little later on.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...NAAAAIBAJ&pg=5338,1552914&dq=duke+keats&hl=en
The reason that he wasn't as successful as Fredrickson in the NHL is probably because as he aged, he put on too much weight and by 1928, was too slow to make a really huge impact anymore, but still he managed to do pretty well for himself in scoring. I do not believe that he was slow before these years, as the aforementioned article mentioned that he was "quick on his skates", this in 1923, so it was probably a symptom of getting older and fatter.
Keep in mind also that the NHA and it appears the Big-4 league did not have all star teams as far as I'm aware (I did find one case a long time ago of a guy being on the 2nd team in the NHA, but that's it), so it's impossible to know how well he would have done among his peers in this regard, but considering the glowing praise on his overall game in the article up top, I think it's safe to say that he probably would have made the 2nd team at least in the NHA, at least the first year, just based off those intangibles alone. I did find one article from 1917 that was along the lines of "he pestered everyone in sight with backchecking", so it's probably true that he came into the league as a strong back checker, and it wasn't just a skill that he picked up as he grew older. I am working to find more and more on Keats' game away from the puck, and I'm hoping to provide a pretty convincing case that Keats should be distinctly ahead of Fredrickson on an all time list, seeing as how Fredrickson is also a guy I wanted, but a little later on.
Sturminator
Love is a duel
Ummm...what? I will refer you to BM67's post on the PCHA all-stars, which is simply copied from the Trail. Frank Frederickson was a 1st team all-star every season he played in the PCHA, including his rookie year, beating out guys like MacKay, Foyston and the soon-to-be-drafted scoring star in the process. He was also a 1st team all-star in the WHL in 25-26, despite not placing in the top-5 in any scoring category.
You're right that I missed Keats' NHA career, which adds something to his legacy, or at least the one full season that he was able to play. Regarding minor league track record (and the minor leagues is exactly what the Big-4 was), part of me wants to agree with you, but mostly I think you're opening a pandora's box by introducing performances from leagues which were clearly inferior to the best competition in the world. I am not one of the GMs who sees Bower's AHL years as adding anything to his legacy other than non-peak longevity. I could just as easily introduce information about how ludicrously dominant Frank Frederickson was as an amateur and in the 1920 Olympics and say "well, he was a 1st team all-star in the PCHA the moment he stepped on the ice, so obviously he was just as good as an amateur." But honestly...why? No one here cares about how players performed in bush leagues. We care about their legacy against the best competition in the world, or at least (in the case of some Europeans) the best that was available to them at the time.
To be honest, Keats' superdominant 21-22 season in the WCHL is pretty suspect, as well, for strength of competition reasons which I have already gone over. I don't think it compares well, at all, to Frederickson lapping the field in the PCHA in 22-23. I think we start to see Keats' true peak offensive value when the WCHL fills out more with top offensive players, starting in 22-23. Taking his one 5th place NHA season and his couple of Big-4 seasons into account may increase Keats' longevity value somewhat, but I don't think it increases his peak value, much, at all. I'm just not a big fan of counting bush league and amateur statistics in the ATD.
At any rate, I'm done debating Keats vs. Frederickson as that was only a necessary tool to begin with. I think it's very clear that Frederickson's peak offensive value is a good deal better than Keats', whatever other qualities they may have possessed.
edit: holy crap...lots of undrafteds. Can't believe I did that.
Last edited:
BillyShoe1721
Terriers
As TDMM said, he's probably the worst defensively of any drafted defensemen so far. I didn't draft him for his stalwart defense, I drafted him to move the puck, provide offense, and be my PPQB. Will he be the worst defensively of any defenseman drafted in this? Absolutely not. Good defensively was a reach on my part, admittedly. But as my quotes suggest, he has improved significantly as his career progressed, and got a really bad wrap around the league as being terrible defensively, and hasn't broken from that mold despite improving. It's a label that's just stuck with him, unfortunately. Vecens, a guy who has probably watched him more than any of us, said the same thing awhile ago.
Velociraptor
Registered User
The Vancouver Velocity select Neil Colville
Colville joined the Rangers' farm team in 1934 and quickly made his way to the pros by 1936, centreing the "Bread Line" with his brother and **********, where he played until World War II. During the war, he and his brother were stationed in Ottawa and played on the army's Ottawa Commandos team, winning the Allan Cup in 1942.
After the war, they both returned the Rangers, this time as defencemen, the first pairs of brothers to ever do so in the NHL. Neil was just as good at defence as he was on offense, becoming the first player to be named to All-Star Teams as both a forward and a defenceman.
Colville joined the Rangers' farm team in 1934 and quickly made his way to the pros by 1936, centreing the "Bread Line" with his brother and **********, where he played until World War II. During the war, he and his brother were stationed in Ottawa and played on the army's Ottawa Commandos team, winning the Allan Cup in 1942.
After the war, they both returned the Rangers, this time as defencemen, the first pairs of brothers to ever do so in the NHL. Neil was just as good at defence as he was on offense, becoming the first player to be named to All-Star Teams as both a forward and a defenceman.
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
ROFL! You mean like the 38 and 30-point chasms Modano led his teams by in the 1996 and 1997 seasons? A couple years later he also led 2nd-place Hull by 23 and 22 points. Then a couple years later, 28 and 30-point leads again. I count three other times he had a lead of at least 10 points. The Best Federko did was 30, 28, 18, 15, 14, 11. And once in that period he was outscored by 23. How is this more impressive than having six seasons of leading your team by 22+ points? Particularly when 22points in the 1980s is not like 22 in the DPE?
(it is a great, great Sunday morning when I get to wake up to see something that I don't have to argue with, becuase it is just plain factually incorrect and all I have to do is point out how incorrect it is!
)As for Gretzky and Lemieux, they're not important in a comparison of players who routinely finished 8th-20th in scoring. Everyone in that "class" had a couple players who they were practically guaranteed to finish behind. Modano had Jagr and Forsberg.
So you would take 101 points in 91 games (1.11), from back in the 1980s, when 75% of the league made the playoffs and scoring was 25% higher, with almost 100% of these matches occurring in mostly brutal Norris division matchups, over 145 points in 175 games (0.83), most of which were in the DPE, with just over half the teams in the league making the playoffs? That's...... interesting.
What are you going to try next? That Modano was not actually better defensively? Or that 8, 9, 9, 9, 10, 12, 18, 20 in the 80s is more impressive than 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 30 a decade and a half later?
Did the cocaine make them better or give them an unfair advantage?
Guys, could I ask someone to please help me for my Cecil Dillon bio. I'm pretty happy and excited about the stuff I've found from newspaper on him, but my biography will be incomplete, as I can't find any reference in books (Google Book left me down this time). I'm not asking anyone to write down anything, but it would be VERY appreciate if someone could scan me their little biography in the Ultimate Hockey book, Rangers Top-100 book and the Trail of the Stanley Cup. Obviously, as a token of my great appreciation, the helper(s) will forever be immortalized in my biography, in the 'Biography Contributor' section
I've wanted to draft him a few times, I've looked for good info, it's very rare. Even his bios just say he was a good scorer. We already know that from his numbers. There's nothing about his checking, defense, etc.
You are on the right track with this system. However, (and I don't think this particularly matters in a comparison between Keats and Fredrickson specifically but could matter at other times) there were three major leagues in 1922, 1923, and 1924, before the PCHA and WCHL merged. In 1923 and 1924 they played an interlocking schedule so were "almost" one league but had separate leaderboards.
So I think in those first three seasons you need to treat these players as though they finished highly in "one of three leagues", not just "one of two". Obviously you're smart enough to understand what that means your formula would have to look like.
Or, if you think the WCHL was weak for a couple years, then combine their leaderboard with that of the PCHA and consider it one league, then do the same thing you did.
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
HC Dynamo Pardubice @ Ocelari Trinec - Pardubice leads series 3-2Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Tappara Tampere @ Pelicans Lahti - Tappara leads series 2-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated:
-
Eisbaren Berlin @ Pinguins Bremerhaven - Eisbaren Berlin leads series 3-1Wagers: 1Staked: $15.00Event closes- Updated: