ATD 2011 Lineup Advice Thread II

[Hawkey Town 18]

Can Alfredsson play a point on a 2nd PP unit in this? He did it for a few years in Ottawa with Redden.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Can Alfredsson play a point on a 2nd PP unit in this? He did it for a few years in Ottawa with Redden.

Yes, but better have a fast, defensively aware defenseman next to him.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Do these look like realistic minute projections for the regular season? In the playoffs, obviously, benches shorten and top lines and defensive pairs play more often, while 4th lines play much less.

Forward Minutes

name|ES|PP|SH|total
Phillips|16|0|2|18
H Richard|16|4-|1|21-
M Richard|16|4|0|20
Doan|12|0|2|14
Smith|11|3|0|14
Palffy|10|3+|0|13+
Lewis|12|0|3|15
Starshinov|11|4|0|15
Mayorov|11|0|0|11
MacKell|8|0|4|12
Handzus|8|0|2|10
Bertuzzi|7|3|0|10
total|138|21|14|173

Defensemen minutes

name|ES|PP|SH|total
Quackenbush|20|2+|4|26+
Coulter|18|2-|4|24-
Bilyaletdinov|15|0|3|18
Pratt|15|5-|2|22-
Ley|11|0|1|12
Boyle|13|5+|0|18+
total|91|14|14|120

 

[MXD]

Do these look like realistic minute projections for the regular season? In the playoffs, obviously, benches shorten and top lines and defensive pairs play more often, while 4th lines play much less.

Forward Minutes

name|ES|PP|SH|total
Phillips|16|0|2|18
H Richard|16|4-|1|21-
M Richard|16|4|0|20
Doan|12|0|2|14
Smith|11|3|0|14
Palffy|10|3+|0|13+
Lewis|12|0|3|15
Starshinov|11|4|0|15
Mayorov|11|0|0|11
MacKell|8|0|4|12
Handzus|8|0|2|10
Bertuzzi|7|3|0|10
total|138|21|14|173

Defensemen minutes

name|ES|PP|SH|total
Quackenbush|20|2+|4|26+
Coulter|18|2-|4|24-
Bilyaletdinov|15|0|3|18
Pratt|15|5-|2|22-
Ley|11|0|1|12
Boyle|13|5+|0|18+
total|91|14|14|120

I think it's disgraceful to have Fleming Mackell on a 4th line.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I think it's disgraceful to have Fleming Mackell on a 4th line.

Is that a complement or criticism? I can't tell... Heh

4th line minutes let him spend more time doing what he did best - kill penalties.

He's actually 9th in overall minutes ahead of mayorov and is capable of being called up to another line at either LW or C in case of injuries.

 

[MXD]

Is that a complement or criticism? I can't tell... Heh

4th line minutes let him spend more time doing what he did best - kill penalties.

He's actually 9th in overall minutes ahead of mayorov and is capable of being called up to another line at either LW or C in case of injuries.

I consider Mackell to be a fringe (... really fringe, but fringe nonetheless) 2nd liner in this draft.

 

[seventieslord]

I consider Mackell to be a fringe (... really fringe, but fringe nonetheless) 2nd liner in this draft.

...with three seasons with 60% as many points as the #2 scorer in the NHL.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

...with three seasons with 60% as many points as the #2 scorer in the NHL.

That compares him to a gordie Howe influenced Ted Lindsay. Vs #2 is not a good formula when 2 is so far ahead of 3.

Anyway, he's only seeing 2nd line duty if there is an injury.

 

[seventieslord]

That compares him to a gordie Howe influenced Ted Lindsay. Vs #2 is not a good formula when 2 is so far ahead of 3.

Anyway, he's only seeing 2nd line duty if there is an injury.

that really only applies to 1953, his 3rd-highest point total (44) - he'd be a 72% instead of a 62% that season if #3 is used instead, which wouldn't change what I said. The other years are perfect examples of how being a slave to rankings and ignoring percentages will cause one to vastly overrate a player's offensive potential. Case in point, three posts ago.

 

[MXD]

that really only applies to 1953, his 3rd-highest point total (44) - he'd be a 72% instead of a 62% that season if #3 is used instead, which wouldn't change what I said. The other years are perfect examples of how being a slave to rankings and ignoring percentages will cause one to vastly overrate a player's offensive potential. Case in point, three posts ago.

It depends how you categorize a 2nd C.
I haven't took time to rank the players, considering I joined the draft really, but really late. So yeah, it might not make sense. Still, I think that, with the right setting, he could be a 2nd C here, considering he didn't have much holes in his game.

I would never have drafted him for this role, but a team that's heavy on wingers and on D could use MacKell as a 2nd C, even if, in this draft, he's really a 3rd C.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Mackell spent half his career on a checking line and we all know that guys on checking lines in the 40s and early 50s didn't score worth crap. As soon as he was put in a scoring role, he blossomed offensively like Ken mosdell. I don't believe counting seasons using a formula really shows how good players like that are offensively.

 

[seventieslord]

It depends how you categorize a 2nd C.
I haven't took time to rank the players, considering I joined the draft really, but really late. So yeah, it might not make sense. Still, I think that, with the right setting, he could be a 2nd C here, considering he didn't have much holes in his game.

I would never have drafted him for this role, but a team that's heavy on wingers and on D could use MacKell as a 2nd C, even if, in this draft, he's really a 3rd C.

He could be a 2nd line LW probably.

Mackell spent half his career on a checking line and we all know that guys on checking lines in the 40s and early 50s didn't score worth crap. As soon as he was put in a scoring role, he blossomed offensively like Ken mosdell. I don't believe counting seasons using a formula really shows how good players like that are offensively.

so.... Ken Mosdell for a scoring line?

don't such statements inadvertently fail to credit other players for actually being scoring line players for a long time, as opposed to "maybe being capable of being one"?

 

[Leafs Forever]

Mackell spent half his career on a checking line and we all know that guys on checking lines in the 40s and early 50s didn't score worth crap. As soon as he was put in a scoring role, he blossomed offensively like Ken mosdell. I don't believe counting seasons using a formula really shows how good players like that are offensively.

That's one weakness and theory I got for %. The number of offensive roles in the 06 days meant that rankings would overrate some players considering lack of competition level (compared to modern times). However, I think the same thing may underrate them in % (compared to modern times), since their was only 18 top line spots and top PP spots and everyone else would be at quite a disadvantage to them. (as opposed to modern times, with many more of these spots available and thus much less percentage difference between scorers).

Granted, this hasn't been heavily looked into. I came up with this in shock of how good % made Sandstrom look to the point where I was skeptical of how fair % evaluations really are.

That's not to say % is meaningless, of course, just flawed; possibly as much as rankings. To add to that, there is also the added flaw in the #2 scorer that doesn't get brought up (Yes, #2 scorers are consistent, but they aren't all equivelent; I think, on a year to year sense, #2 scores can vary between 0-10% or so).

 

[seventieslord]

That's one weakness and theory I got for %. The number of offensive roles in the 06 days meant that rankings would overrate some players considering lack of competition level (compared to modern times). However, I think the same thing may underrate them in % (compared to modern times), since their was only 18 top line spots and top PP spots and everyone else would be at quite a disadvantage to them. (as opposed to modern times, with many more of these spots available and thus much less percentage difference between scorers).

Granted, this hasn't been heavily looked into. I came up with this in shock of how good % made Sandstrom look to the point where I was skeptical of how fair % evaluations really are.

That's not to say % is meaningless, of course, just flawed; possibly as much as rankings. To add to that, there is also the added flaw in the #2 scorer that doesn't get brought up (Yes, #2 scorers are consistent, but they aren't all equivelent; I think, on a year to year sense, #2 scores can vary between 0-10% or so).

Yes it can underrate them; however, the formula almost always makes sense intuitively and the talent pool has gotten larger just as the league has.

It's irrelevant when talking about Mackell anyway, because we're talking about years where he was 7th, 9th, 11th in points so he was one of those players getting the opportunity to have one of those top line spots; he just couldn't score anywhere close to the leaders aside from one season.

 

[seventieslord]

I came up with this in shock of how good % made Sandstrom look to the point where I was skeptical of how fair % evaluations really are.

Good compared to who, exactly? His percentage scores are not that good. Compared to other 3rd and 4th liners, sure.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

He could be a 2nd line LW probably.



so.... Ken Mosdell for a scoring line?

don't such statements inadvertently fail to credit other players for actually being scoring line players for a long time, as opposed to "maybe being capable of being one"?

I don't think that it's necessary fair to punish mosdell for being stuck behind Elmer Lach. Anyway, I would definitely be uncomfortable with MacKell as a scoring line center because he's completely unproven offensively in those other seasons. But unproven is better than incapable IMO.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Good compared to who, exactly? His percentage scores are not that good. Compared to other 3rd and 4th liners, sure.

Good to the people available at the time; and really the gap between how his % scorers went to how his rankings went; I was surprised at how low a ranking you can have with him and how good a % you can still have despite that.

 

[seventieslord]

Good to the people available at the time; and really the gap between how his % scorers went to how his rankings went; I was surprised at how low a ranking you can have with him and how good a % you can still have despite that.

Yeah, and?

if the #2 guy in one year and another year are the same, and player A has 70% and is 30th, and player B has 70% and is 40th, is there any reason to believe player A outperformed player B?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

I noticed during my comparison of Shane doan to other offensive players than scoring in the modern era gets very compressed once you get past top 30.

The 60th place scorer was often finishing just a few points back of 40th. Makes sense I guess but makes ranking players tough.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Yeah, and?

if the #2 guy in one year and another year are the same, and player A has 70% and is 30th, and player B has 70% and is 40th, is there any reason to believe player A outperformed player B?

I noticed during my comparison of Shane doan to other offensive players than scoring in the modern era gets very compressed once you get past top 30.

The 60th place scorer was often finishing just a few points back of 40th. Makes sense I guess but makes ranking players tough.

Exactly what TDMM said. 40 and 30 is one thing, but Sandstrom was wracking up good % finishes in the 50-70 range (if memory serves), which made me kind of skeptical. It's gets to a point that I start to think "Well what good is having a % that good if so many people are better than you..." again.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Is 40th really better 70th when only separated by a few points? Of course, the 40th best scorer in th O6 would be playing on a checking line or in the AHL.

 

[Leafs Forever]

Is 40th really better 70th when only separated by a few points? Of course, the 40th best scorer in th O6 would be playing on a checking line or in the AHL.

Slightly, yes. You could replace that stament with "So many guys better/at your level" and it's a similar affect.

 

[seventieslord]

Is 40th really better 70th when only separated by a few points?

This is why I don't really compare about the "complaint" that Sandstrom was scoring good percentages when finishing 70th.

Besids, the most anyone had in 70th throughout the 1980s was 69 points, and the highest score a 69-point season could get anyone in any season in the 80s, was 64%, which on its own is not great (and of course these two extremes were not in the same season - the 70th guy was usually about 50%)

(speaking of cluttered leaderboards... as of right now on NHL.com, there are two goals separating 11th from 28th, technically)

 

[Sturminator]

I'll let mark have an aneurysm about you calling Robinson only 85/100 defensively.

Heh. Compared to Doug Harvey, I think that's about right. A lot of people here either aren't aware of the fact or gloss over the fact that many of the great 2-way defensemen of the Norris era were actually caught out of position plenty, themselves, in their offensive primes. This is equally true of guys like Denis Potvin and Ray Bourque, who were actually criticized for being not present enough defensively early in their careers. Here is an interesting quote from Paul Coffey, himself, on the subject - from the Palm Beach Post - May 13, 1983:

"During the first game, when I was on the bench I found myself watching (defenseman Denis) Potvin a lot. I tried to see what he did without the puck, how he was always in position."

"My style is a lot like the way Potvin used to play," said Coffey, who was one of the Oilers' better players in Game 1, won 2-0 by the Islanders. He skated well and rushed up ice with the puck at every opportunity, trying to get the Oilers untracked.

"He is still very quick. A lot of people say he's not as fast as he used to be. Well, if that's true, he makes up for what he can't do with his legs with his head."

I find Coffey's comparison between his style of play and a young Denis Potvin pretty apt. Potvin came up during a time when every young defenseman with any skill wanted to be Bobby Orr (Brad Park talked at length about this and later learning to play "his" game rather than trying to be Bobby) and a lot of them were pretty big gamblers when they were young. Most people don't seem to get that the Denis Potvin who scored 100 points and the Denis Potvin who was a defensive rock for the dynasty Islanders were not the same player - far from it. Potvin's career arc as a defenseman actually quite resembles Steve Yzerman's as a forward.

At any rate, Larry Robinson loved to rush the puck in his younger days, and actually took a lot more chances up ice than he's normally understood to have done. Compared to elite conservative even strength defensemen like Harvey, Lidstrom, etc., I think an 85/100 defensively is about right for Big Bird. He was a terrific in his own zone, but it's just that he wasn't always in his own zone.

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

I am noticing that some teams list a Captain and 3 A's. Is this allowed? If so, why would you only list 2?