ATD 2011 Draft Thread XI - The Aftermath

[BraveCanadian]

New Jersey Swamp Devils vs. Guelph Storm

Guelph Storm.. sacrilege!

 

[seventieslord]

Guelph Storm.. sacrilege!

whoops.

 

[Leaf Lander]

resent my votes hope this doesn't change too many series...

 

[vecens24]

One thing that I don't think would be a bad idea for next year is if we keep it at 40 teams is that we shouldn't consider the divisional playoffs the "playoffs" as far as player performance is concerned. I think this year there was way too much emphasis on who is a good playoff performer and who is only average. This isn't because I got knocked out or anything (honestly I think it's 50-50 I get out of the first round without it). I just think there was far too much playoff emphasis.

 

[VanIslander]

One thing that I don't think would be a bad idea for next year is if we keep it at 40 teams is that we shouldn't consider the divisional playoffs the "playoffs" as far as player performance is concerned. I think this year there was way too much emphasis on who is a good playoff performer and who is only average. This isn't because I got knocked out or anything (honestly I think it's 50-50 I get out of the first round without it). I just think there was far too much playoff emphasis.

Traditionally, the idea was the regular season ranking was the tribute to regular season performances. Being a top-3 seed in a division is an accomplishment in and of itself! It says you built one of the best line-ups in terms of regular season play (career numbers, art ross trophies, top-10 season finishes, etc). The playoffs is ANOTHER kind of evaluation, where playoff and international competition tourneys become more important.

Don't think the playoffs is the end all and be all. The regular season rankings is one accomplishment, winning the division in the playoffs is another.

In fact, if anything, there should be more upsets then is seen in the ATD if votes were always so compartmentalized between regular season and playoffs. Yet usually the 1st and 2nd seeds make it to the divisional final! MUCH more often than they do in the NHL!! If anything, there needs to be more consideration of playoff performance in playoff voting, and regular season performances in regular season ranking. After all, the playoffs are just as important as the regular season in terms of significance and legacy. It's better to celebrate each in their own realm than to blur the difference, isn't it?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think everyone considers regular season performances in voting in the playoffs. Otherwise, people would be drafting Claude Lemieux, ESA Tikkanen, and Fleming MacKell (look at that, I pimped my guy!) over some guys who rightfully go in the second or third round.

 

[jarek]

VI has a point, though. Guys like Joe Thornton deserve to get slammed for their playoff deficiencies. Why should we assume things just get all rosey for him in a TOUGHER league? If anything, it should be even worse..

 

[BraveCanadian]

Regarding the regular season/playoff debate: I tried to draft guys that were good at both regular season and playoffs. ie. The best team to get the job done start to finish. I also chose guys who I felt would be most appropriate for their roles as best I could.

It is hurting me quite a bit in some ways because I have been kind of pounded in some arguments with players who have a ton of regular season finishes in comparison to my players - particularly older players where anyone who was anyone had good looking finishes for years.

Unfortunately, I didn't end up having as much time as I would have liked to delve more deeply into older era players during the draft so I had to stick more to guys I was already familiar with when building my team.

All in all I think I've done ok, and I do think that some people can see my line of thinking about my team more as a whole, like I do, rather than its individual parts. And man, my appreciation of some of my guys has gone up even more by reading some of the old newspaper articles about them. Some of it was a trip down memory lane.

TDMM has us in tough now though because his team is constructed very similar to our own and he has some good advantages over us in some areas (as we do in a couple areas too).

 

[BraveCanadian]

VI has a point, though. Guys like Joe Thornton deserve to get slammed for their playoff deficiencies. Why should we assume things just get all rosey for him in a TOUGHER league? If anything, it should be even worse..

Yeah this is kind of what I was bringing up in my series with mark.

Our second lines were exactly the contrast this discussion is about.

His had the better regular season finishes and almost no playoff record and mine had ok regular season finishes and (especially MacLeish) a much better playoff record.

From players like Thornton (so far in his career), we *know* regular season success doesn't always translate. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't.

So I do think that playoff or best on best performances have to enter into the equation in our voting.

 

[vecens24]

I just think the divisional playoffs are an entirely different battle. Like if teams didn't make the divisional playoffs out of the regular season rankings I'd understand. But I just think the whole system is way too playoff based, and that was just one suggestion I could think of.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Other GMs look at it differently and vote accordingly, but I generally don't care if a player was bad in the playoffs, I care WHY he was bad .

 

[VanIslander]

IDEA: Have the GMs vote at the end of the regular season an additional ranking of all the divisional number one seeds. Then crown that #1 of the #1s the President's Trophy winner! (And name the trophy after a president from hockey history. It probably wouldn't be called the Gary Bettman Trophy.)

That would emphasize the assembly of a fantastic regular season performing squad as an accomplishment in and of itself. It would require an additional round of voting but taking an extra couple of days to do it would be worthwhile. Having the discussion and decision of regular season versus playoff performances is a factor that ought to come up each and every draft. It's part of the reality of hockey and certainly in terms of a player's legacy.

 

[jarek]

In terms of playoff stats vs. regular season stats, there does need to be some context involved. If a player was just coming off a 10 point regular season in his rookie year, and had 2 points in 10 playoff games, it is reasonable to discard this year in evaluating this player, especially if he saw success later on. If his playoff career is full of these kinds of circumstances, then some form of weight should be given to the regular season performance of such a player in the playoffs. These are guys I would describe as having incomplete playoff records. Guys like Thornton.. honestly, his regular season should be completely disregarded (or severely discounted) when it comes to playoff time.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

IDEA: Have the GMs vote at the end of the regular season an additional ranking of all the divisional number one seeds. Then crown that #1 of the #1s the President's Trophy winner! (And name the trophy after a president from hockey history. It probably wouldn't be called the Gary Bettman Trophy.)

That would emphasize the assembly of a fantastic regular season performing squad as an accomplishment in and of itself. It would require an additional round of voting but taking an extra couple of days to do it would be worthwhile. Having the discussion and decision of regular season versus playoff performances is a factor that ought to come up each and every draft. It's part of the reality of hockey and certainly in terms of a player's legacy.

Would a new thread be created for the #1 seeds to argue among themselves about the merits of each team like we have in the playoffs now? Heh.

I do think something should be done to make the regular season more meaningful. In the current format, the "regular season" is basically the 2 week lineup assassination thread and then 3 or so days of voting, and then the playoffs start.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Can google find everything on hfboards, or does the lack of indexing by hfboards mean that at least some of the research done during this ATD is going to be lost?

 

[overpass]

Can google find everything on hfboards, or does the lack of indexing by hfboards mean that at least some of the research done during this ATD is going to be lost?

Google has always worked for me. Hope that continues, there was a lot of good research.

 

[seventieslord]

I've always assumed that the indexing would eventually be updated.

 

[vancityluongo]

I like the idea of a President's Trophy. But no to voting twice (we wouldn't get numbers), tabulate it all at once.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

One thought I have is that guys who are role players who step up in the playoffs have the amazing hurdle of being crappy players in the ATD. Like Claude Lemieux, he's a borderline 4th liner in an ATD, sure he steps up, but given the huge talent burden against him, how much can he step up and how much can he impact?

Conversely, Joe Thornton is so skilled that even though he steps down in the playoffs, would that step down really be that much more than it is IRL?

 

[Dreakmur]

One thought I have is that guys who are role players who step up in the playoffs have the amazing hurdle of being crappy players in the ATD. Like Claude Lemieux, he's a borderline 4th liner in an ATD, sure he steps up, but given the huge talent burden against him, how much can he step up and how much can he impact?

Conversely, Joe Thornton is so skilled that even though he steps down in the playoffs, would that step down really be that much more than it is IRL?

Exactly.

Joe Thornton at 50% is still way better than Claude Lemieux at 200%. Same with a guy ike Marcel Dionne - even if you think he less effective in the play-offs, that's still relative to his regular season, which is far superior to almost every center.

On the other hand, Ted Kennedy really plays well in the play-offs, but he just wasn't that good. Even if you think he's 200% as effective in the play-offs, that's still not as good as a lot of other guys.

I'd take Dionne at 50% over Kennedy at 200% any day of the week.

 

[jarek]

Exactly.

Joe Thornton at 50% is still way better than Claude Lemieux at 200%. Same with a guy ike Marcel Dionne - even if you think he less effective in the play-offs, that's still relative to his regular season, which is far superior to almost every center.

On the other hand, Ted Kennedy really plays well in the play-offs, but he just wasn't that good. Even if you think he's 200% as effective in the play-offs, that's still not as good as a lot of other guys.

I'd take Dionne at 50% over Kennedy at 200% any day of the week.

I'd like to see a statistical analysis of that last bit.

You guys bring up a good point, and I would never say that Claude Lemieux > Joe Thornton in the playoffs. I just think playoff credentials aren't taken anywhere near as seriously as they should be here. I think Glenn Anderson is a much better example to compare to Joe Thornton, and I think in the playoffs, a case can be made that Anderson = Thornton.

 

[seventieslord]

I agree with both of you to an extent. It's not blasphemy to claim that Anderson is, in the playoffs, better than Thornton. But those are extreme cases in terms of how much better and worse they get in the postseason and they're not so far apart as regular season players. Claude Lemieux or Trevor Linden, on the other hand...

 

[BraveCanadian]

I agree with both of you to an extent. It's not blasphemy to claim that Anderson is, in the playoffs, better than Thornton. But those are extreme cases in terms of how much better and worse they get in the postseason and they're not so far apart as regular season players. Claude Lemieux or Trevor Linden, on the other hand...

I think we need to keep in mind that, in general, even if you are maintaining your production in the playoffs you are doing better in many cases.

You aren't playing any of the weaker teams and your opponents are spending the time breaking down your game more thoroughly when they are facing you 7 games in a row.

If you are able to maintain your production rate you're doing better over a large enough sample. If you improve over a large enough sample you're finding a whole new gear.

 

[seventieslord]

In accordance with my commitment to keep these playoffs moving at a reasonable pace, and because these series have now been open for 3 full days and more, it is time to start voting. Consider today and tomorrow voting days. PMs will be sent as well.

 

[seventieslord]

I think we need to keep in mind that, in general, even if you are maintaining your production in the playoffs you are doing better in many cases.

You aren't playing any of the weaker teams and your opponents are spending the time breaking down your game more thoroughly when they are facing you 7 games in a row.

If you are able to maintain your production rate you're doing better over a large enough sample. If you improve over a large enough sample you're finding a whole new gear.

I think everyone realizes this.

A player's scoring dropping 10-15% in the playoffs is par for the course.

With the exception of the 1930s, where 30% was par for the course.