ATD 2011 Lineup Advice Thread II

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Trihey was definitely center for what he was most famous.

 

[Hedberg]

I don't recall Primeau ever playing LW

In Detroit at the beginning of his career.

 

[vancityluongo]

Trihey was tiny right?

Not too sure off the top of my head, but being the captain of the "Fighting Irish" means he must've made up for any lack of size, right?

 

[arrbez]

Not too sure off the top of my head, but being the captain of the "Fighting Irish" means he must've made up for any lack of size, right?

Maybe he was just a mean drunk?

 

[jarek]

You should use liapkin like I am using Boyle - have him stay on later and maybe play the full thing sometimes, bit definitely have another option for mop up duty. Even the beat NHL PP guys usually go off after the first 1:30 or 1:40.

Liapkin can go off for Seibert when necessary. I just want to keep Seibert fresh for even strength and PK'ing. I'm under no illusion that I've convinced others that Seibert was some sort of offensive whiz, so I'd like to maximize his non-PP minutes.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

You lose primeau's face-off ability with him on wing

 

[Leafs Forever]

I've been avoiding this due to number of options, but I suppose it's time to try and take care of this:

PP1:

xxxxx-Nels Stewart-Martin St. Louis
Pierre Pilote-XXXXXXX

Candidates: Ron Francis(can play point), Babe Siebert(LW/D), Art Ross

This one's tricky for me since both Siebert and Francis can play both forward and defense on this PP. Do I put Siebert at forward for digging purposes, Francis there for some increased offense and passing down-low? And whichever one I choose, who do I use on the point?

Plus, not using Siebert here could free him up for increased PK duties.

PP2:
XXXX-Bernie Morris-Dave Taylor
XXXX-XXXXX

Candidates: Harry P. Watson. Bernie Nicholls(can play point), whoever doesn't make it in above, Doug Barkley, maybe Gerard Gallant.

This one I also struggle with. Siebert, Taylor, or Watson could potentially be the "net prescence", I think, with their skill set, though I don't think any were particularly well known for it to be fair. Nicholls probably represents the best offensive player I can put on here(besides the cast-away from PP1), but I'm not sure if he should go forward or D as well. (Depends on if Taylor can be bought as the net prescence).

Thoughts?

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Hmm. I'm on my way out the door, but this might be the only time since I've been involved in this that Siebert can be effectively used up front.

 

[jkrx]

Any thoughts on this bottom-6?

Craig Ramsay - Troy Murray - Jimmy Peters
Keith Primeau - Harry Trihey - Corey Perry

You don't want Primeau on the wing. This turns him into a locker room cancer and was the main reason he wanted out of Detroit.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

LF, you should definitely put Seibert on the first unit at LW imo, he was an absolute beast in the corners and I think he'd be useful on the first unit with Stewart in front of the net, who he also has chemistry with as an offensive duo. St. Louis is too small to be effective as a puck-getter on that unit, and you want to maximize Stewart's goal scoring abilities in front of the net.

 

[vecens24]

I guess that could work. I'd still feel a lot more comfortable with Harmon next to sologubov, but then I like to give my bottom pair really limited minutes.

The problem with a Sologubov-Harmon pair is then their lack of size. That pairing would get brutalized regularly due to a lack of strength. Tregubov and Regher are perfect respective partners for each of them because they're both bigger stronger guys. Besides, I do like having three capable pairings anyway because in this all-time context I think it's very important to keep people fresh and not tired.

 

[arrbez]

The problem with a Sologubov-Harmon pair is then their lack of size. That pairing would get brutalized regularly due to a lack of strength. Tregubov and Regher are perfect respective partners for each of them because they're both bigger stronger guys. Besides, I do like having three capable pairings anyway because in this all-time context I think it's very important to keep people fresh and not tired.

Hey, let's ease up on the smear campaign on our own players

I don't see size as much of an issue. Harmon is maybe an inch undersized, at 5'9 in the 1940's. Sologubov is listed at 5'10, 180lbs, which looks like a pretty decent size for his era (it's what Tim Horton is listed at, for instance).

And both were said to be great hitters, which hints at good strength and a willingness to play physical.

I don't forsee any size issues at all if we were to use them as a pairing.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

Adjusted sizes, modern era equivalence of...

Sologubov: 6'1" 210 pounds
Harmon: 6'0" 195 pounds

 

[BenchBrawl]

what's funny about adjusted size is that sometimes the average of the league is differant during the time of a single player career lol

I'm sorry but as far as ReenMachine's opinion ( which is only 1 out of 40 so don't worry ) are concerned size isn't adjustable.

Also concerning Primeau , I was about to draft him but decided ( rightfully so I think ) to take Kasper instead of him , but when I researched him a bit it was pretty clear you just can't really take his Detroit days to justify playing him on LW , especially since there are rumors that this is the single reason he wanted out of there.

Primeau's value is when playing him against big centers because he can moderately handle any ''part'' of a hockey game.He's a pretty complete player but more suited to be a 3rd or 4th center than a Top 6 Winger.

 

[BenchBrawl]

About adjusted size:

I remember during the dead puck era with the hooking ''allowed'' and the toughness in front of both nets teams were generally drafting bigger players , surely during this era a couple of borderline NHLer small-size player didn't make it to the big league due this tendance while they could have make it during today's game , and the same is true with borderline big players today , especially big slow defensemen that maybe we'll never see because of this.

If player A is big in one era and medium in another era ( 2 eras that he did play in I mean ) why should we call him a big-medium player? There's no differance between the player size during both eras , so if he's 6-1 190 , and that he played with that package during 2 eras , he should be forced to play with that package in the ATD-era.

So the fact that the average of the league is just a tendency created by both the league and the style of play , and also the rules , and the fact that the best players are capable of jumping from one era to the other , shouldn't be enough to justify completely removing any sort of adjusted size in this thing ?

 

[VanIslander]

D/W Jack Marks was 6'1, 180 lbs, tough and fast, in 1906. How would that adjust for size?

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

There's nothing wrong with the adjusted size formula seventies came up with, though seemingly simplistic, I think he put some pretty good thought into, and I've been using it long enough to know that it works perfectly fine. I rarely notice any discrepancies that don't pass the "common-sense test".

The exact figure of size doesn't really matter, plus or minus 1 inch or 10 pounds means very little, and the size adjustments are definitely accurate within that (much more accurate I'd say). The purpose of the adjustment isn't to figure out a guy's exact height and weight, it's to easily demonstrate his general size and body frame in a modern context that most people are familiar with. So that when people see Glen Harmon's size, they realize that 5'9 165 pounds in his day was not nearly as dwarfish as it is today. When you put it into a modern context (6'0 195 pounds), people immediately understand how his size compares to contemporaries.

It's better to have a standard, and for the most part, accurate formula, than to leave judgments of size to the varying arbitrary opinions of different people who might not have the best grasp on size relativity.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

6'6 230 pounds, though the older adjustments (DOB before 1890) are the only ones that are slightly less accurate, because I've found that the weight adjustment is almost always 5-10 pounds too much.

Regardless, the specifics don't matter, we get the idea that he was very tall, and probably even a little bit larger than the typical big forward (6'4 220). Think Chris Pronger. So I'd feel safe betting the credibility of the adjustment formula that you won't be able to find more than 3 or 4 guys from the very early 1900s, playing at a similar level of hockey, who were over 6 feet.

EDIT: but according to Hockey-reference he was 6'0, not 6'1

 

[overpass]

In Detroit at the beginning of his career.

And for Canada in 1998.

 

[Nalyd Psycho]

About adjusted size:

I remember during the dead puck era with the hooking ''allowed'' and the toughness in front of both nets teams were generally drafting bigger players , surely during this era a couple of borderline NHLer small-size player didn't make it to the big league due this tendance while they could have make it during today's game , and the same is true with borderline big players today , especially big slow defensemen that maybe we'll never see because of this.

If player A is big in one era and medium in another era ( 2 eras that he did play in I mean ) why should we call him a big-medium player? There's no differance between the player size during both eras , so if he's 6-1 190 , and that he played with that package during 2 eras , he should be forced to play with that package in the ATD-era.

So the fact that the average of the league is just a tendency created by both the league and the style of play , and also the rules , and the fact that the best players are capable of jumping from one era to the other , shouldn't be enough to justify completely removing any sort of adjusted size in this thing ?

Adjust based on average male height and weight rather than average NHLers height and weight.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Adjust based on average male height and weight rather than average NHLers height and weight.

Agree. It's the only logical way to do

 

[markrander87]

Thoughts on who I should make my bottom pair out of the 3: Schneider,Turner,Shmyr.

 

[jarek]

Schneider and Shmyr, IMO. Turner belongs in the MLD.

 

[Velociraptor]

Schneider and Shmyr, IMO. Turner belongs in the MLD.

Agreed, Turner is vastly overrated due to dynasty years on the Canadiens, I see no real assets that he wields.

 

[seventieslord]

what's funny about adjusted size is that sometimes the average of the league is differant during the time of a single player career lol

Why would that matter? Of course the average size would change over a player's career... by fractions of an inch. Considering this important would be the pinnacle of micromanagement.

Agree. It's the only logical way to do

Not if the size of the average top level hockey player has gone up considerably faster than the size of the average full-grown male.

In today's hockey world, the biggest and bulkiest are going to rise to the top. It doesn't appear that was the way it was back then. It's important to judge all aspects of a player in relation to their peers, including their size. The player's non-hockey playing brother and next door neighbour is NOT their peer. Other hockey players are.