ATD 2011 Draft Thread VII

[TheDevilMadeMe]

It's not as different as you make it out to be, but yes, I am aware of the difference here. Belfour was definitely the better regular season goalie, though they are not nearly as far apart in that aspect as their draft positions would indicate, and Barrasso has easily the better postseason credentials. Belfour was a good playoff player, himself, but was never a realistic Conn Smythe candidate, which Barrasso was twice. The Eagle was probably no better than the 4th best performer on that Dallas Cup winner after Modano (who should have won the Conn Smythe), Nieuwendyk and Hatcher.

Taken on the whole, they are really quite close.

Heh, I think Belfour was quite clearly the better overall postseason performer. Not that you are overrating Barrasso, just underrating Belfour I think.

Belfour had a couple of relatively poor efforts earlier in his career, but after that was consistently strong in the postseason. Barrasso was incredibly up and down in the playoffs after his two Cups. Belfour never had lows that low.

And I think you are really underrating Belfour's performances in Dallas. He "outdueled" an excellent Patrick Roy twice in the playoffs in the late 90s. Many people also thought he would win the Smythe if Dallas won in 2000.

To me, their playoffs are similar to their regular seasons - similar highs, but Barrasso had more frequent and lower lows.

And I know you aren't a fan of goalie stats at all (even less than me), but Belfour has one of the best "playoff peaks" of all time in the late 90s, determined by GVT. I bring it up as relevant, because it confirms how I viewed him - as unbeatable as anybody once the postseason started.

(A good pick now obviously, but no Belfour).

As a Devils fan, this sounds weird I guess, but I think the gap between Belfour and Barrasso is bigger than the gap between Brodeur and Belfour.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

To properly insulate Turgeon on the 2nd line and form a cohesive unit, this was the guy we needed. A strong offensive player, he came out on top in all of my offensive percentage-based comparisons even though I am particularly hard on pre-merger players (I always divide by #1, not #2, and in 1922-1924 I divide by 125% of the league leader)

There was a player who had better offense, but he's highly one-dimensional. This player was known as a fireball on the ice, a battler, a digger, and a leader. He played both center and wing in a HHOF career spent in the PCHA and NHL.

Jack "Jolly Jawn" Adams.

But did he play right wing? I have him listed as a LW/C

 

[jarek]

He's moving Cashman to right wing.

 

[VanIslander]

This player was known as a fireball on the ice, a battler, a digger, and a leader. He played both center and wing in a HHOF career spent in the PCHA and NHL.

Jack "Jolly Jawn" Adams.

I always had the impression that he was one of the players inducted more for their good rep from off the ice accomplishments. He went on to be a significant coach. Information on his playing days greatness doesn't seem to be great, but his later rep is solid. Yes, he could have been inducted as a builder, but there are 40/60, 50/50, 60/40 playing-to-developing ratio careers that seem to get the nod in the player category, perhaps as more of an honour. Anyway, I'm cynical about a few player inductees, and he's one of them. Is he going to be on your 3rd duo or a top-4 role?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I'm meeting him next week and will see if I can get some information. Otherwise I might meet up with the other guy I talked about who played against both your guys a bit more and see what he has to say. I take a players word over my own most of the time, specially when I'm not 100% sure.

That's awesome. I'm really interested in what he has to say. Hopefully he tells the dirt (if there is any).

 

[seventieslord]

That's correct, Cashman was actually a natural RW, and the game that he plays isn't limited to one wing so I am comfortable with that.

 

[seventieslord]

I always had the impression that he was one of the players inducted more for their good rep from off the ice accomplishments. He went on to be a significant coach. Information on his playing days greatness doesn't seem to be great, but his later rep is solid. Yes, he could have been inducted as a builder, but there are 40/60, 50/50, 60/40 playing-to-developing ratio careers that seem to get the nod in the player category, perhaps as more of an honour. Anyway, I'm cynical about a few player inductees, and he's one of them. Is he going to be on your 3rd duo or a top-4 role?

He's a forward; he'll be a 2nd line LW. Based on the way I evaluate offense historically, he did have among the best credentials left.

He's one of the weaker HHOFers of the NHL era, this is why he's available down in the 400s when just 230-ish players are in the hall.

(with that said, he is very underrated like a lot of pre-merger players and does deserve to get selected higher, particularly because he can play the wing)

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

That's correct, Cashman was actually a natural RW, and the game that he plays isn't limited to one wing so I am comfortable with that.

Patrik Elias is a "natural" center too, but he's not very good at it at the NHL level.

Not that I don't believe you, but can you provide some references to Cashman's ability to play RW at the NHL level before the draft is over. It definitely increases his value to find out he could play both wings.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He's a forward; he'll be a 2nd line LW. Based on the way I evaluate offense historically, he did have among the best credentials left.

He's one of the weaker HHOFers of the NHL era, this is why he's available down in the 400s when just 230-ish players are in the hall.

(with that said, he is very underrated like a lot of pre-merger players and does deserve to get selected higher, particularly because he can play the wing)

Pretty much agree with what you say here. He was at or near the top of my list if I wanted to start a brutish 3rd line.

 

[Reds4Life]

I think the year of the reports is going to be really important here. Some people say tough, some say soft.. I have no idea what to think.

He wasn't soft per se, but if physcially abused, he'd get rattled. He was tough on himself, training harder than basically anyone in his time. For example he ran a lot in winter, practised shooting with pucks made of steel, which resulted in incredibly hard shot etc. He is definitely the best Czechoslovak sniper ever IMHO.

Hlinka definitely wasn't soft, but was he aggressive enough to be the primary puck winner of an ATD line? That's what I want to know and what I have no idea about.

I don't think that's possible to say for sure. He played on a bigger rink, European style. He wasn't particularly aggressive, but on the other hand, he never gave up on a play as far as I can tell.

 

[Sturminator]

Heh, I think Belfour was quite clearly the better overall postseason performer. Not that you are overrating Barrasso, just underrating Belfour I think.

Belfour had a couple of relatively poor efforts earlier in his career, but after that was consistently strong in the postseason. Barrasso was incredibly up and down in the playoffs after his two Cups. Belfour never had lows that low.

And I think you are really underrating Belfour's performances in Dallas. He "outdueled" an excellent Patrick Roy twice in the playoffs in the late 90s. Many people also thought he would win the Smythe if Dallas won in 2000.

To me, their playoffs are similar to their regular seasons - similar highs, but Barrasso had more frequent and lower lows.

I think you are underrating "the politics of glory", as Bill James put it, in this comparison. Simply put, being the best when your team wins a championship counts for considerably more than being great in a losing effort. Results do count. Barrasso was the best goalie in the playoffs twice when his teams won the Cup. Belfour never was, as Hasek was clearly superior in 99. There is a big difference here.

Barrasso had ups and downs (especially early in his career, which is somewhat understandable when one breaks into the NHL and wins a Vezina at 18), but he was dominant when it counted and without him his teams would have won at least one Cup fewer (in 1992 it is almost certain) than they actually did. The same cannot be said of Belfour.

And you're right...I don't care much, at all, for GVT stats. Regular season goalie stats are somewhat useful in my mind, though I much prefer Vezina voting when available, but I judge goalies on results and first-hand testimony more than anything else, and have a generally dim view of all attempts I've seen to seperate goalie performance from team defensive performance.

 

[jarek]

He wasn't soft per se, but if physcially abused, he'd get rattled. He was tough on himself, training harder than basically anyone in his time. For example he ran a lot in winter, practised shooting with pucks made of steel, which resulted in incredibly hard shot etc. He is definitely the best Czechoslovak sniper ever IMHO.



I don't think that's possible to say for sure. He played on a bigger rink, European style. He wasn't particularly aggressive, but on the other hand, he never gave up on a play as far as I can tell.

Haha, that's basically what I said. He'll play in the trenches, but when he starts taking abuse, he'll fold somewhat. Again, I think I did a good job insulating that.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

Good pick with Adams. Good things were said about him when I was reading about Vancouver teams hd played on.

 

[BM67]

The Detroit Red Wings select:

Ivan Hlinka, C
​

Golden Stick voting: 1971: 8th; 1972: 9th; 1974: 4th; 1975: 8th; 1976: 4th; 1977: 2nd; 1978: 1st; 1979: 7th; 1981: 7th

 

[jarek]

Golden Stick voting: 1971: 8th; 1972: 9th; 1974: 4th; 1975: 8th; 1976: 4th; 1977: 2nd; 1978: 1st; 1979: 7th; 1981: 7th

Do you have the same thing for Novy and Martinec?

 

[Derick*]

I'm up after Matsblue. Anyone take a list?

 

[BraveCanadian]

I think you are underrating "the politics of glory", as Bill James put it, in this comparison. Simply put, being the best when your team wins a championship counts for considerably more than being great in a losing effort. Results do count. Barrasso was the best goalie in the playoffs twice when his teams won the Cup. Belfour never was, as Hasek was clearly superior in 99. There is a big difference here.

That might be true that Hasek was better, but Belfour was good enough to not allow a big enough gap between himself and a prime Hasek for Dallas to lose. They won.

And Belfour was 1.67 with a .930 that year.. how much better can a goalie be?

Barrasso had ups and downs (especially early in his career, which is somewhat understandable when one breaks into the NHL and wins a Vezina at 18), but he was dominant when it counted and without him his teams would have won at least one Cup fewer (in 1992 it is almost certain) than they actually did. The same cannot be said of Belfour.

What happened to Barrasso against a woefully outmatched Isles team when they went for the dynasty?

.768 in game 6 with a chance to close
.800 in game 7.

Smoked by Glenn Healy who was facing big guns. (also shameless plug, go Al Arbour! wooo!)

 

[jarek]

mats has until 9:47 PM EST.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Golden Stick voting: 1971: 8th; 1972: 9th; 1974: 4th; 1975: 8th; 1976: 4th; 1977: 2nd; 1978: 1st; 1979: 7th; 1981: 7th

I assume you mean Golden Hockey Stick, for the best player in Czechoslovakia. The Golden Stick (without the word "Hockey" in it) is a different award, given to the best player in Europe starting in the late 70s I think. This was finally put to rest in the last AAA draft by Dreakmur I think, after I was like "how the hell can XXX be behind Makarov in Golden Stick voting?"

Is full Golden Hockey Stick voting listed somewhere? It really should be on the HOH board like the Soviet Player of the Year voting.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

What happened to Barrasso against a woefully outmatched Isles team when they went for the dynasty?

.768 in game 6 with a chance to close
.800 in game 7.

Smoked by Glenn Healy who was facing big guns. (also shameless plug, go Al Arbour! wooo!)

That's what I'm talking about. Belfour didn't perform quite up to his Vezina-calibre level in Chicago as a young goalie, but I don't think he ever outright blew series like Barrasso did* more than once (in the years after the 2 Cup wins when Barrasso was excellent).

*to the extent that a goalie can blow a series by himself. I know that Al Arbour outcoaching Bowman was a huge side story in 1993 and a big reason we think Arbour really was that good and not just a dynasty coach.

That's why I said that Belfour and Gardiner were the last goalies without real weaknesses in this, in my opinion. (Okay, lack of longevity for Gardiner, but I think that's calculated into how good we consider him, rather than a weakness itself). Perhaps I should have added George Vezina to that list - the more I read about him, the more I like him.

 

[BraveCanadian]

That's what I'm talking about. Belfour didn't perform quite up to his Vezina-calibre level in Chicago as a young goalie, but I don't think he ever outright blew series like Barrasso did* more than once (in the years after the 2 Cup wins when Barrasso was excellent).

*to the extent that a goalie can blow a series by himself. I know that Al Arbour outcoaching Bowman was a huge side story in 1993 and a big reason we think Arbour really was that good and not just a dynasty coach.

That's why I said that Belfour and Gardiner were the last goalies without real weaknesses in this, in my opinion. (Okay, lack of longevity for Gardiner, but I think that's calculated into how good we consider him, rather than a weakness itself). Perhaps I should have added George Vezina to that list - the more I read about him, the more I like him.

Yeah I think Barrasso was a great value where he was picked but , even though Belfour was a fruitloop, I'd take him over Barrasso any day.

Barrasso can get the job done though and that counts for a lot too. Good pick at this point.

 

[overpass]

Yeah I think Barrasso was a great value where he was picked but , even though Belfour was a fruitloop, I'd take him over Barrasso any day.

Barrasso can get the job done though and that counts for a lot too. Good pick at this point.

One thing that's similar about Belfour and Barrasso is that both had a poor season or two in their prime.

Belfour had an awful 2001-02 season, before bouncing back for a couple of very good years in Toronto. And Barrasso had a few below-average seasons throughout his career.

 

[arrbez]

Not surprised at all you picked him here.

Have you seen this article from his rookie year? It speaks highly of his ability to move the puck out of his own end.

On the other hand, I haven't seen a lot on his defensive abilities. The Reardon - Bouchard pairing was Montreal's main shutdown pairing, I thought Harmon was more of a puck mover.

I can't find any of the old bios I made (I've picked Harmon at least twice in this), but I do recall quite a few quotes about his defensive play. You'll probably have to take my word on that though, since I don't have the time or internets to really do much digging. Does it seem like HFBoards archives less stuff now? I have a harder time finding my old posts now for some reason.

At any rate, I think it says a lot about Harmon's defensive game that he was a second-team allstar in a season where he wasn't anywhere near the top of the defensive scoring table at 15th, which was nothing special in a 6-team league). There were a number of notable (ie: in this draft) guys who outscored him by quite a bit but didn't make the allstar team that year. It was the league's 3 highest-scoring defensemen, and Glen Harmon on the allstar team.

 

[jarek]

mats is skipped.

Cognition takes Nolan, Owen, RW.

PM'ing next.

 

[nik jr]

i think 70s has seen a game or 2 of harmon and may be able to say something about him.