ATD2011 Sam Pollock Semi: (1) McGuire's Monsters vs. (4) Vancouver Maroons

[Dreakmur]

I tried to argue the same thing with Liapkin, and I'm more and more believing the same for Hollett as well. The truly bad defensive players were called out as such, and the information is well documented.

Flash Hollett played quite a bit of time on forward, so that woul explain the lack of votes. Also, since he played forward, he likely scored as a forward, which make his offensive achievements less impressive, which also explains the lack of votes.

 

[jarek]

So we should just draft our defensemen based on points an forget about the rest? Yandle for Norris, right?

Oh, and Hollett was called out for being poor defensively... In a quote in the Egan bio

No, but don't call a guy bad defensively if there isn't conclusive proof.

 

[Dreakmur]

No, but don't call a guy bad defensively if there isn't conclusive proof.

I don't think you can get conclusive proof on most guys, but you should at least have some good evidence.

 

[jarek]

I don't think you can get conclusive proof on most guys, but you should at least have some good evidence.

If a guy truly was terrible defensively, it really isn't very difficult to find people saying that.

 

[Dreakmur]

If a guy truly was terrible defensively, it really isn't very difficult to find people saying that.

Agreed.

Even with multiple quotes, though, I wouldn't call that "conclusive" proof.

 

[Dreakmur]

- dreak, the powerplay icetime breakdown for your forwards doesn't seem terribly coherent. The last time I saw your powerplay teams, you had Ullman and Dunderdale both playing the "goalscorer in the middle" role on the powerplay, but that doesn't jive assuming 7 minutes of man advantage when they are playing a combined 9 minutes per game. I consider 5 minutes of powerplay icetime to be really pushing it for any forward outside of the truly elite. Dunderdale simply isn't elite and Bathgate is out of position. Neither player seems an appropriate candidate for this level of workload in his role. According to the table, you're playing them more on the powerplay than Ray Bourque, which kind of boggles my mind.

It's not coherent because I'm not using just two standard units. I already said in the assassination thread that my defensemen will remain in their pairings, but the forwards will rotate. This will create different looks and match-ups that are harder to read for the PK units.

As long as I have a puck-winner, a playmaker, and a scorer, the chemistry will be good.

Bathgate is one of the best PP players in the draft, so there's no doubt he should be getting this many minutes. Also, how is he out of position?

I would agree that Dunderdale is not elite, but he's likely my 3rd best offensive player, and he's not getting any defensive ice time, so he can handle the extra minutes here.

I'm playing them both more than Bourque because he plays enough already. I also have lots of good options on the point, so there's no need to stretch his ice time.

 

[Sturminator]

Bathgate is one of the best PP players in the draft, so there's no doubt he should be getting this many minutes. Also, how is he out of position?

Strange question given the previous conversation about Bathgate spending his entire career playing the point on the powerplay. I'm not sure Bathgate is among the ATD elite playing a different role than the one he actually had during his playing career. I have a dim view of trying to redefine player roles at this level. When the competition gets harder, players tend to do best when allowed to stay in their comfort zones. Others may have a different opinion on this.

 

[Sturminator]

His comeback season was, at best, his 6th best season.

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Ted Green only played seven healthy seasons in the NHL. I actually remember Ted Green's comeback season, not in great granular detail as I wasn't ever a Bruins fan, but I remember how surprised and impressed everyone was that Green had returned and played well. I highly doubt that Green was better than that in his first couple of seasons given his early reputation as a goon. The biggest difference between Green in 1968-69 and Green afterwards is that he was no longer playing on the first unit powerplay with Bobby Orr.

 

[Dreakmur]

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. Ted Green only played seven healthy seasons in the NHL. I actually remember Ted Green's comeback season, not in great granular detail as I wasn't ever a Bruins fan, but I remember how surprised and impressed everyone was that Green had returned and played well. I highly doubt that Green was better than that in his first couple of seasons given his early reputation as a goon. The biggest difference between Green in 1968-69 and Green afterwards is that he was no longer playing on the first unit powerplay with Bobby Orr.

Green was voted a top-10 defenseman 5 times during his career. 1971 was not one of those years.

Based on +/-, theres no way Ted Green played a significant amount of time playing with Bobby Orr in 1969.

Strange question given the previous conversation about Bathgate spending his entire career playing the point on the powerplay. I'm not sure Bathgate is among the ATD elite playing a different role than the one he actually had during his playing career. I have a dim view of trying to redefine player roles at this level. When the competition gets harder, players tend to do best when allowed to stay in their comfort zones. Others may have a different opinion on this.

He's a full time right winger who often played the point on the powerplay. Just becaue he played a second position doesn't mean he forgots how to play the first.

 

[Sturminator]

Green was voted a top-10 defenseman 5 times during his career. 1971 was not one of those years.

I'm sorry...what?!

I suppose you're going to tell me now that Ted Green's single Norris vote in 1967, which placed him in 10th in a season in which he missed about a third of the games, is something more than a complete throwout. A guy named Arnie Brown was also tied with Green in 10th place in Norris voting that year with a single first place vote.

Other than 1968-69, Green's best season was probably 1964-65, and I've already said that he was a top pairing defenseman in Boston that season. You're going to have to cough up your source for the all-star voting here, because I find some of it laughable. Ted Green 10th place in all-star voting in 1966? That's nice, but he only played 27 games that season. It must have been a single homer vote, much like his 10th place Norris finish in 1967. I'm starting to question seriously the integrity of the information you post on these players. Green's three best season were clearly 1964-65 (his first really good year), 1967-68 and 1968-69 - and yes, he was a top-10 defenseman in those three years. I consider his comeback season in 1970-71 to be probably his fourth best year. He was nothing much special early in his career.

Based on +/-, theres no way Ted Green played a significant amount of time playing with Bobby Orr in 1969.

Green got 80% powerplay icetime in 1968-69 (from overpass' numbers). Orr got 87%. Simple math here.

He's a full time right winger who often played the point on the powerplay. Just becaue he played a second position doesn't mean he forgots how to play the first.

Even strength and powerplay roles are quite different. Playing the wing on even strength and playing the half boards on the powerplay are not at all the same thing.

 

[Dreakmur]

I'm sorry...what?!

I suppose you're going to tell me now that Ted Green's single Norris vote in 1967, which placed him in 10th in a season in which he missed about a third of the games, is something more than a complete throwout. A guy named Arnie Brown was also tied with Green in 10th place in Norris voting that year with a single first place vote.

Other than 1968-69, Green's best season was probably 1964-65, and I've already said that he was a top pairing defenseman in Boston that season. You're going to have to cough up your source for the all-star voting here, because I find some of it laughable. Ted Green 10th place in all-star voting in 1966? That's nice, but he only played 27 games that season. It must have been a single homer vote, much like his 10th place Norris finish in 1967. I'm starting to question seriously the integrity of the information you post on these players. Green's three best season were clearly 1964-65 (his first really good year), 1967-68 and 1968-69 - and yes, he was a top-10 defenseman in those three years. I consider his comeback season in 1970-71 to be probably his fourth best year. He was nothing much special early in his career.



Green got 80% powerplay icetime in 1968-69 (from overpass' numbers). Orr got 87%. Simple math here.



Even strength and powerplay roles are quite different. Playing the wing on even strength and playing the half boards on the powerplay are not at all the same thing.

I got all my voting results from the hfboards thread with all those results. Feel free to check it out.

Also, and I can't check this on my phone, I'm pretty sure he had at least 5 better offensive seasons than 1971. Feel free to check the bio.

Green's +- compared to Orr's, means it was impossible for them to be even strength partners.

Just because you have a man advantage doesn't mean the whole game changes. Basically, you get more time and space. How is that bad for Bathgate?

 

[Dreakmur]

HHH, when will you be posting your lineup.
? I'd like to get started tomorrow if possible.

 

[hungryhungryhippy]

I'll post it probably sometime tomorrow, and if not then definitely monday

 

[Dreakmur]

I'll post it probably sometime tomorrow, and if not then definitely monday

Ok. I'll probably do some one on one comparisons.

 

[Sturminator]

I got all my voting results from the hfboards thread with all those results. Feel free to check it out.

I know the thread well, but I still have no clue where you found the 1966 all-star voting in that thread.

Also, and I can't check this on my phone, I'm pretty sure he had at least 5 better offensive seasons than 1971. Feel free to check the bio.

Ted Green had four significant offensive seasons in the NHL, and 1970-71 was one of them. Here is his scoring in those four seasons:

1964-65: 8-27-35
1967-68: 7-36-43
1968-69: 8-38-46
1970-71: 5-37-42

He never topped 20 points outside of those seasons. Like I said, Green's comeback year was probably his fourth best season in the NHL, but he was not a top unit penalty killer at that time, nor was he in his 1968-69 all-star season. Other than 1967-68, the 1964-65 season is probably the only time Green was ever a top unit penalty killer.

 

[Dreakmur]

I know the thread well, but I still have no clue where you found the 1966 all-star voting in that thread.



Ted Green had four significant offensive seasons in the NHL, and 1970-71 was one of them. Here is his scoring in those four seasons:

1964-65: 8-27-35
1967-68: 7-36-43
1968-69: 8-38-46
1970-71: 5-37-42

He never topped 20 points outside of those seasons. Like I said, Green's comeback year was probably his fourth best season in the NHL, but he was not a top unit penalty killer at that time, nor was he in his 1968-69 all-star season. Other than 1967-68, the 1964-65 season is probably the only time Green was ever a top unit penalty killer.

The all star votes are in the thread. I was able to find them, so you can do the same.

1971 was his 4th best season for points as a defensenan, but by that time he was playing on a stacked offendie team. Green was top-10 in goals 5 times in the 60, before boston got good, and that is more impressive than what he did in 71.

Again, you are just guessing at Green's pk time. You don't know he wasn't a top pker in the 60s, and you already admitted that. It is unfair to make assumptions about players.

 

[jarek]

The all star votes are in the thread. I was able to find them, so you can do the same.

1971 was his 4th best season for points as a defensenan, but by that time he was playing on a stacked offendie team. Green was top-10 in goals 5 times in the 60, before boston got good, and that is more impressive than what he did in 71.

Again, you are just guessing at Green's pk time. You don't know he wasn't a top pker in the 60s, and you already admitted that. It is unfair to make assumptions about players.

I think it's unreasonable to ask a voter on your series to go do your research for you. If they are that easy to obtain, then go post them here.

 

[Dreakmur]

I think it's unreasonable to ask a voter on your series to go do your research for you. If they are that easy to obtain, then go post them here.

I already have them posted. He seems to think I'm lying, so I told him where to find the results I used.

 

[Sturminator]

1971 was his 4th best season for points as a defensenan...

Third best, and actually quite close to his two best seasons offensively.

Again, you are just guessing at Green's pk time. You don't know he wasn't a top pker in the 60s, and you already admitted that. It is unfair to make assumptions about players.

You know, I'm really not trying to be unfair here. All we know of Green is that he was a top unit PKer in 1 of the 4 seasons for which we have data on him. I don't have to guess at anything to make the point that his resume doesn't really suggest that he should be a top unit PKer in the ATD. It's no more "fair" to assume that Green was a top unit PKer than it is to assume that he wasn't, and in fact the odds are against it given that he was Boston's #3, at best, before 1964-65 when Doug Mohns was traded. There is no certainty with imperfect data, but that doesn't preclude us from trying to make reasonable judgments.

The simple fact of the matter is that Green would have to have been a top unit penalty killer for all of the seasons on which we have no data in order to even be considered an average top unit PKer in the ATD, and I think you'd be the first to point out that it would be "unfair to make such assumptions".

 

[Sturminator]

I already have them posted. He seems to think I'm lying, so I told him where to find the results I used.

Good lord. I don't think you're lying, but I'd like to see the information for myself, because I find it very hard to believe that a guy who only played 27 out of 70 games would be considered top-10 in anything by anyone other than a total homer. I'm not questioning the results that you posted, merely the value of them. Much more than I suspect you of lying, I suspect you of posting Green's "top-10 all-star voting" results in 1966 based on a single homer vote, much like you did with his Norris results for 1967, and then holding that nonsense up as evidence that he was a top-10 defenseman in a year in which he played less than half of the schedule.

There is a difference between being disingenuous and lying. I am accusing you of the former, not the latter.

How about you simply post where you found the information so we can all have a look at it?

 

[Dreakmur]

Good lord. I don't think you're lying, but I'd like to see the information for myself, because I find it very hard to believe that a guy who only played 27 out of 70 games would be considered top-10 in anything by anyone other than a total homer. I'm not questioning the results that you posted, merely the value of them. Much more than I suspect you of lying, I suspect you of posting Green's "top-10 all-star voting" results in 1966 based on a single homer vote, much like you did with his Norris results for 1967, and then holding that nonsense up as evidence that he was a top-10 defenseman in a year in which he played less than half of the schedule.

There is a difference between being disingenuous and lying. I am accusing you of the former, not the latter.

How about you simply post where you found the information so we can all have a look at it?

If I had access to a real computer, I might post it, but I've got nothing but my phone untill thursday night.

 

[Dreakmur]

Third best, and actually quite close to his two best seasons offensively.

The simple fact of the matter is that Green would have to have been a top unit penalty killer for all of the seasons on which we have no data in order to even be considered an average top unit PKer in the ATD, and I think you'd be the first to point out that it would be "unfair to make such assumptions".

If you look at raw point totals, you are correct about 71 being as good as his other seasons. If you look at placements and percentages, and if you also account for team offense, it's his 6th best offensie season.

As for the pk, Green's game translates well to the role of pker. He was definately a regular pker, whether it was 1st or 2nd unit isn't overly important, especially considering his pk time would be reduced substantially due to him being unavailabe to kill penalties.

 

[seventieslord]

A couple of comments on the special teams matchup here:

- triple H, why aren't you using Brad Richards on the point of your powerplay? It's probably his single greatest skill as a hockey player.

Ditto.

I tried to argue the same thing with Liapkin, and I'm more and more believing the same for Hollett as well. The truly bad defensive players were called out as such, and the information is well documented.

OK, who were the truly bad defensive defensemen of the 1940s? That information must be just everywhere.

Green's +- compared to Orr's, means it was impossible for them to be even strength partners.

I believe Sturm's assertion all along was just that he played on the first PP unit with Orr:

The biggest difference between Green in 1968-69 and Green afterwards is that he was no longer playing on the first unit powerplay with Bobby Orr.

 

[Dreakmur]

I believe Sturm's assertion all along was just that he played on the first PP unit with Orr:

I do to

The biggest difference between Green in 1968-69 and Green afterwards is that he was no longer playing on the first unit powerplay with Bobby Orr.

That definately helped Green, but don't forget that Bobby Orr was not quite the dominant offensive force that he would become in the 70s. In 1969, Orr scored 64 points, and Green scored 46.

 

[Dreakmur]

Well I've got a real computer for the next half hour, and since my opponent hasn't posted his line-up yet, I'll do some one on one comparisons.


Bill Cook vs. Andy Bathgate
Offensively: Andy Bathgate, as I mentioned before, was the best offensive player in the world for an extended peroids of time - both his 5 year peak and 10 year peak. I'm some people disagree with me giving Bathgate a slight bonus for playing on a garbage team, but even if you do, that just means Bathgate was basically equal to Gordie Howe and Jean Beliveau over both period of time.

Bill Cook's 10 year peak is a little harder to measure. His prime would consist of his last 3 WHL seasons and his first 7 NHL seasons. In his 7 NHL seasons, Howie Morenz was by far the best offensive player. Bill Cook and Frank Boucher were pretty even in 2nd/3rd. If you consider the 3 years out west, Bill Cook would jump ahead of Boucher, but Morenz maintains his offensive gap.

Bill Cook's 5 year peak, is actually very impressive. He and Howie Morenz are basically equal over that period of time. Of course, you have Frank Boucher close behind in 3rd. Again, Cook benefits from his linemates, so I'd give Morenz a small edge, but it's still very impressive for Cook.

Offensively, Andy Bathgate is better than Bill Cook.

Defensively: Neither guy brings anything defensively to the table. I'm kind of proud that my Bill Cook bio has been recycled for the last few drafts, but also kind of disappointed - I wish somebody would add to it. There's still nothing there about his defensive play.

Neither guy has the edge defensively.

Physically: As much as I've been pleasantly surprised to find a lot of evidence to supprort Bathgate being good fighter and tough compeitior, he doesn't compare to Bill Cook in the physical play department. Bathgate definately is not the wuss people seem to think he is. He didn't like to fight, but he was actually quite good when he was provoked. He was strong on the puck, but he was not much of a bodychecker. That's where Cook gets the edge here - he was a very aggressive hitter, so he adds an element of intimidation.

Physically, Bill Cook is better than Andy Bathgate.

Overall: Bathgate is better offensively, but Cook brings more physical play. For a first line player, I would think offensive ability is more importat, so I'd give Bathgate the edge here.