MLD 2011 Draft Thread II

[MadArcand]

I don't get the Doughty hype either, but Berard was a pretty terrible NHL defenseman.

Once he was half-blind, definitely. Before that, I'd compare him to Campbell.

It's just that two season career doesn't really mean squat. The Caps' goalie I mentioned is a proof of that. I'll take a consistent if unspectacular Brad Stuart over a two-year wonder.

 

[Dreakmur]

I can't think of a single drafted MLD defenseman who was only top-4 in ES icetime on their team once. Even Tom Bladon, who we talked about as a specialist a few weeks back, has five instances by my count

You still can't think of one.... because according to NHL.com, Berard was top-4 in ES TOI/game every season he played from 1998 to 2004, which is 6 seasons in a row.

He was top-2 in overall ice time 5 times.

I'd say it would be wise to be careful how these stats are used.. namely, provide context. I think seventies did that with naming the players who played more than Berard (and that was quite damning in and of itself). I just don't think that the most ES TOI/G on your team among D means you were the best defensively.. or the best at anything really. A lot goes into those decisions, including things that have nothing to do with hockey.

That's if you believe his information. The numbers I found on NHL.com were not even close to what he provided in his post.

yeah.

no turning back now. He's a mentioned undrafted player.

That is what he should remain. A named undrafted player.

Keith Brown is now available and dropped. Drew Doughty "was" selected at pick #187 by Billy.

He was not selected, because the rules say he in not eligible. We made a mistake, and we know better for next draft. Stacking mistake upon mistake doesn't help.


If this actually goes through, you should probably start looking for somebody to take over my vacant GM spot.....

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Once he was half-blind, definitely. Before that, I'd compare him to Campbell.

It's just that two season career doesn't really mean squat. The Caps' goalie I mentioned is a proof of that. I'll take a consistent if unspectacular Brad Stuart over a two-year wonder.

Campbell was a 2nd team All-Star.

Brian Berard was just finally becoming a solid NHLer when the eye injury happened. I remember Berard's career - he was looking to be a bust and a lot of people thought the only reason he kept getting chances was because of where he was drafted. Finally was starting to look like a good top 4 defenseman and then the injury happened.

You still can't think of one.... because according to NHL.com, Berard was top-4 in ES TOI/game every season he played from 1998 to 2004, which is 6 seasons in a row.

He was top-2 in overall ice time 5 times.

You appear to be right about this one. The season before the eye injury, he averaged 23:35 minutes per game.

Edit: How much PP time did he have? 70s numbers were ES time, apparently:

He's been such a heavy PP specialist, in fact, that his TOI figures are inflated, and he was a never better than his team's #4-7 defenseman at even strength (which are all slots he occupied in teams' depth charts throughout his career), aside, strangely, from the last 2/3 of the 1999 season after coming to Toronto, when he received #1 minutes from Quinn. (But he became increasingly frustrating and was the #3 in the playoffs and #4 the next season until the injury)

It's not strange at all that 1998-99 was his best season from an ice-time perspective. He was 21 and finally rounding into becoming a solid defenseman. The eye injury happened in March, 2000, and he basically became a specialist after that.

 

[MadArcand]

Campbell was a 2nd team All-Star.

Brian Berard was just finally becoming a solid NHLer when the eye injury happened. I remember Berard's career - he was looking to be a bust and a lot of people thought the only reason he kept getting chances was because of where he was drafted. Finally was starting to look like a good top 4 defenseman and then the injury happened.

And Berard won the Calder. They both had similar level of ability, though.

Berard was 'looking to be a bust' about as much as McCabe back on Long Island, i.e. not really.

I'm not saying Berard is a stellar pick or anything, but he's a proven offensive specialist.

 

[Dreakmur]

You appear to be right about this one. The season before the eye injury, he averaged 23:35 minutes per game.

Edit: How much PP time did he have? 70s numbers were ES time, apparently:

I was using ES time. 6 seasons in a row top-4 in even strength ice time per game.

NHL.com doesn't have ice time figures for 1997, but baed on goals for and against figure, he was definately a top-4 guy that season as well (he was likely 3rd, but 4th at worst). Looks like that is actually 7 seasons in a row where he was top-4 in ES TOI.

I just added the thing about overall ice time. I think overall ice time is more important anyway.

It's not strange at all that 1998-99 was his best season from an ice-time perspective. He was 21 and finally rounding into becoming a solid defenseman. The eye injury happened in March, 2000, and he basically became a specialist after that.

Based on his NHL.com ice time figures, he didn't become a specialist untill 2006. He was a big-time PP minute guy for his whole career, but before then he was always a top-4 defenseman.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

And Berard won the Calder. They both had similar level of ability, though.

Berard was 'looking to be a bust' about as much as McCabe back on Long Island, i.e. not really.

I'm not saying Berard is a stellar pick or anything, but he's a proven offensive specialist.

Right, I don't know why I said he was looking like a bust. He didn't develop a defensive game as fast as people would like, but still put up good numbers for his first 3 seasons.

After those 3 seasons, he got the eye injury and came back as a mediocre specialist.

I don't know what you mean about he and Campbell "having similar levels of ability," unless you mean they were on a similar career track until Berard's eye injury hit him right as he was rounding out his game (which I would agree with).

 

[Dreakmur]

I think using TOI/G against a player is as dangerous as using it to prop up a player.

Using inaccurate TOI/G figures against a player is even more dangerous

 

[MadArcand]

I don't know what you mean about he and Campbell "having similar levels of ability," unless you mean they were on a similar career track until Berard's eye injury hit him right as he was rounding out his game (which I would agree with).

Sort of. Berard became impact player much younger. Campbell's first two post-lockout seasons were about on the level of Berard's first two seasons, then Campbell takes the lead.

I meant more their skillset - both were offensively geared, good skaters with questionable defensive game.

 

[seventieslord]

That is what he should remain. A named undrafted player.



He was not selected, because the rules say he in not eligible. We made a mistake, and we know better for next draft. Stacking mistake upon mistake doesn't help.


If this actually goes through, you should probably start looking for somebody to take over my vacant GM spot.....

It has gone through, and you are being extremely difficult and won't be missed.

I can go through the TOI numbers in detail tomorrow.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Sort of. Berard became impact player much younger. Campbell's first two post-lockout seasons were about on the level of Berard's first two seasons, then Campbell takes the lead.

I meant more their skillset - both were offensively geared, good skaters with questionable defensive game.

Berard never reached the level Campbell did in terms of being an impact player. Agree that their skillsets were similar, but Campbell was just a better overall player. Berard probably was on his way to becoming better before the injury, but...

 

[Dreakmur]

It has gone through, and you are being extremely difficult and won't be missed.

You say it's gone through, but that's not really your call. You just seem to think you're in charge....

I can go through the TOI numbers in detail tomorrow.

Don't need to. Here is what hs ice time looks like at NHL.com.....

Overall Ice Time:
1998 - 2nd, 3rd, or 4th
1999 - 1st
2000 - 5th
2002 - 4th
2003 - 3rd
2004 - 2nd
2006 - 2nd

Even Strength:
1997 - 3rd or 4th
1998 - 4th
1999 - 1st
2000 - 4th
2002 - 4th
2003 - 3rd
2004 - 2nd
2006 - 5th

He always played a lot of PP time, but he was also top-4 in even strength time almost every season. That is not what I would call a specialist.

 

[RustyRazor]

With pick #221, the Pittsburgh Hornets select Mike Sillinger, C.

The name Mike Sillinger is not often used in the same breath as Wayne Gretzky or Mario Lemieux. He was not a great goal scorer like Gordie Howe or Phil Esposito and he was not a dynamic player like Bobby Orr, yet Mike Sillinger does hold two NHL records that none of these greats ever accomplished. Though they may not be legendary records, they are unique in that it will be tough to break either one. What are these NHL records? Most teams played for (12) and most times traded (9).

He made stops in an amazing twelve different cities, was property of thirteen teams and was traded more times than most players put in years played. Yet, the oddity of this is that it was not a matter of Sillinger not being wanted, it was just the opposite; everyone wanted him. He had developed into a very useful journeyman and a valuable component to any organizations playoff run.

The reality is, he was picked up by many of those teams to help round out their rosters, and many felt Sillinger to be the final piece. In most circles that would be considered an honor, and that is exactly how Mike Sillinger took it. He was extremely proud of his accomplishments and though the focus was on his team, somewhere in between, we lost the fact that he earned 548 points and played in 1049 games, something which many players of this generation would be hard pressed to accomplish.

Sillinger's career accomplishments amount to a lot more than the answer to a trivia question. Now in his 17th season, he has tallied 226 goals and 300 assists. Considered one of the better two-way players in the league, he's been a reliable penalty killer throughout his career, also chipping in on the power play. Maybe most surprisingly, Sillinger seems to be peaking in his mid-30s. The NHL's new wide-open style of play has given the 5-foot-11, 195-pound center a chance to capitalize on his skating and puck-handling skills. Sillinger responded with a career-high 32 goals and 63 points in 2005-06, while playing for St. Louis and Nashville, earning him a three-year contract with the Islanders. He's in his second season with the Isles.

I'd hear people talk about me, they'd say, "He's a great leader, a great teammate, a good player, why has he been traded so much?" I think it just becomes a case where the organization is looking to trade their No. 9 for your No. 9, you know? I was never breaking banks in terms of salary, so that also makes you a tradable asset. Then once I started to establish myself as a solid, two-way player who could play in different situations, on the power play, killing penalties, I just became one of those guys that teams seemed to trade for.

For one thing, he was an amazing faceoff man, one of the very best since the NHL began tracking when he was 27. He had a 57.5% average since then, not too far behind Joe Nieuwendyk's gold standard of 59.3%.

With 548 points, he definitely had a touch with the puck. And he killed 31% of his team's penalties along the way. His best offensive seasons came with the post-lockout NY Islanders, showing that he was the kind of guy who could be a "bad team scorer" or a "good team checking guy".For one thing, he was an amazing faceoff man, one of the very best since the NHL began tracking when he was 27. He had a 57.5% average since then, not too far behind Joe Nieuwendyk's gold standard of 59.3%.

With 548 points, he definitely had a touch with the puck. And he killed 31% of his team's penalties along the way. His best offensive seasons came with the post-lockout NY Islanders, showing that he was the kind of guy who could be a "bad team scorer" or a "good team checking guy".

The well-travelled Sillinger is a faceoff wiz who is accustomed to a bottom-6 role. Silly will center the Hornets 4th line.

other bios completed:

Andre Pronovost bio...http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=35447065&postcount=85

Dallas Drake bio...http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=35447065&postcount=86

 

[tony d]

I draft my head coach here and draft coach Bryan Murray.

Murray has coached 5 teams in a 17-year period amassing over 600 career victories. He was the 1983-1984 Jack Adams Trophy Winner. He has 7 seasons of 40 or more wins.

My pm box is not working but vecens24 and TDMM you're up.

 

[Reds4Life]

With our skipped pick (#218), Red Wings select Vladimir Golikov, C.

 

[Stoneberg]

Mark and I are both swamped at work. We are aware we have a skipped pick to make up, just likely won't have time til later.

 

[vecens24]

God damnit Reds you scooped us. Thanks for the PM to all except Dave who actually did it.

We're actually taking what more than likely will be our assistant coach before our head coach:

John Muckler.

 

[jarek]

Yandle had a good season, there's no doubt about that. I wouldn't call it great in an all-time sense, but it was good, and the TOI is a big part of showing that (much more than the "hockey card stats", IMO). The massive gap between his PP and SH time shows what type of player he still is, and that type of player has no real shot at the norris, but I have a feeling that will change, as he is a more than competent ES guy now.

No, playing the most ES time doesn't mean you were the best defensively... (look at Yandle, for example!) but it's a strong indication that your overall contributions were valued the most by the coaches. "Generally", it also means you weren't bad defensively, because if you are, your coaches will keep you away from the most dangerous opposition players, and it's literally impossible to both do that and give you a ton of ES minutes.

I'm curious, though, about "things that have nothing to do with hockey"... what do you mean?

Loyalty, justifying salary, etc.

I don't think it's common, but it has happened in the past.

As far as Dreak's assessment that overall TOI/G is more important.. I disagree. Yandle is a good example of a guy whose overall TOI/G would indicate that he's an elite all around defensemen, which is not the case.

 

[Dreakmur]

As far as Dreak's assessment that overall TOI/G is more important.. I disagree. Yandle is a good example of a guy whose overall TOI/G would indicate that he's an elite all around defensemen, which is not the case.

First of all, Yandle doesn't even support the conlusion you used him to reach. He ranks quite a bit higher in ES ice time than he does overall. The fact that he doesn't kill penalties much is refected in his overall ice time, and that gives a better picture of how good he is.

TOI, whichever way you want to look at it, is dramatically impacted by the team a player plays on. Overall TOI/G is no more "misleasding" than ES, PP, SH, or whatever else kind of TOI you want to look at.

Overall TOI tells you how valuable he is to his team. ES tells you how valuable his is to his team.... at even strength. Which one is a better measure of the player's true overall value? (should I even have to asl that?)

 

[BenchBrawl]

just wanted to say I see 2 spelling mistake in the draft

Mark Napier

Bob Hartley

If anybody can correcte tem it will help in the next draft

thx

 

[jarek]

First of all, Yandle doesn't even support the conlusion you used him to reach. He ranks quite a bit higher in ES ice time than he does overall. The fact that he doesn't kill penalties much is refected in his overall ice time, and that gives a better picture of how good he is.

TOI, whichever way you want to look at it, is dramatically impacted by the team a player plays on. Overall TOI/G is no more "misleasding" than ES, PP, SH, or whatever else kind of TOI you want to look at.

Overall TOI tells you how valuable he is to his team. ES tells you how valuable his is to his team.... at even strength. Which one is a better measure of the player's true overall value? (should I even have to asl that?)

The whole point was using ES TOI/G to judge how comfortable a coach felt putting that player out there in potential defensive situations..

 

[DaveG]

just wanted to say I see 2 spelling mistake in the draft

Mark Napier

Bob Hartley

If anybody can correcte tem it will help in the next draft

thx

on it.

 

[Iain Fyffe]

At work and don't have my list with me but I don't want to hold things up. I have three picks coming to me, I'll post bios later.

224. Mats Ahlberg, C/LW

225. Fred Hucul, D

226. Atty Howard. LW/RW

 

[vecens24]

Probably going to be using a decent portion of our time on these two picks. So everyone sit back, relax, and have a couple cold ones.

 

[seventieslord]

Bryan Berard's ES Ice Time

When I read on my phone last night how drastically wrong dreakmur claimed my findings were, my first instinct was, "I can definitely be wrong, but I can't be THAT wrong". Here is what I found:

It appears that dreakmur, when using NHL.com, ignored a lot of cases where players came and went throughout the season. If one started the year with the team and one finished the year with the team, and both played more than Berard, I would count them combined, as one player ahead of Berard at ES. I don't think dreakmur counted these at all.

(all figures ES-based)

1997: Berard was 4th on NYI behind ********, McCabe, and Jonsson.

1998: Berard was 4th on NYI behind McCabe, ********, and Jonsson. I counted Vaske yesterday by accident, he played just 19 games.

1999: Berard got severely limited minutes in New York, but I was not counting that, I said he was #1 in Toronto and that's true.

2000: Berard was 4th on TOR behind Yushkevich, Kaberle, and ******.

2002: Berard was 3rd on NYR behind Leetch and ********. To call him 4th, I must have counted **** but he played 11 games, and 55 elsewhere.

2003: Berard was 3rd on BOS, behind Boynton and *'*******. (WTF? I must have counted ********, who played 10 games in Boston with more minutes than Berard, and 50 elsewhere) It should be noted, though, that Berard played 11 seconds per game more than the #5.

2004: Berard was 4th on CHI, behind Poapst, Klemm/Vandermeer, and Dempsey/*******. All played more than him when in the lineup but those pairs were not in the lineup at the same time.

2006: Berard was tied for 4th with Suchy on CBJ, behind Foote, Klesla, and Westcott.

2007: Berard only played 11 games. When he was in the lineup it appeared he played as a #5 behind Foote, Klesla, *******, and Eriksson (I realize this is not really significant in evaluating him)

2008: 7 defensemen played at least 46 games for NYI that year. Berard was 7th in ES TOI among them, a full minute behind 6th (Sutton)

To recap:

1st: 1
2nd: 0
3rd: 2
4th: 5
5th: 0
6th: 0
7th: 1

My research was sloppy yesterday and I apologize, as I got three years wrong (1998, 2002, 2003). My statement was also blatantly incorrect but that was mostly due to wording. I said "I can't think of a single drafted MLD defenseman who was only top-4 in ES icetime on their team once." But I had already acknowledged him as being top-4 in Toronto twice in a post earlier than that: "the last 2/3 of the 1999 season after coming to Toronto, when he received #1 minutes from Quinn. (But he became increasingly frustrating and was the #3 in the playoffs and #4 the next season until the injury)"

So, my statement, as I believed at the time, should have read that "I can't think of a single drafted MLD defenseman who was only top-3 in ES icetime on their team once." . That was still wrong because of my sloppy work on 2002 and 2003, but just to clarify, that's what I meant.

With all that said, Berard was still a specialist and I can't think of another drafted MLD defensemen who was only top-3 in ES icetime on their team 3 times or fewer (other than Bladon - 3, and of course, Doughty, who has only played three years, all as a #1). In other words, the statement, when revised, still applies to Berard - it's just not nearly as damning.

You say it's gone through, but that's not really your call. You just seem to think you're in charge....

That's the power vested in me as commissioner. I tried to do the right thing here. I'm not pleased with how it went either. But I gave you the chance to disagree with it. You didnt - not until the process had already been started - and I'm not going back on it after that point.

I'm sorry for the tone of my last remarks last night, but yeah, you can leave if you want. I'd prefer you stick it out here, but I won't be begging you to stay. What's done is done, though.

This actually went exactly as I originally thought. I thought you would be the one to complain, and, eventually, you were. By then it was too late to turn back, and I thought you'd threaten to quit... you did.

He always played a lot of PP time, but he was also top-4 in even strength time almost every season. That is not what I would call a specialist.

If that's not a specialist then the only way to define it going forward would be for defensemen who got some PP time and scored points, but were only 5th-6th at even strength. That's an extremely narrow definition, and one that would rarely apply to a player drafted in the MLD or AAA or AA draft.

Don't forget, either, that aside from Toronto, this was all done on crappy teams with a lot of mediocre defensemen that he really had no excuse for playing behind.

Relative to MLD defensemen (which is what mattes), he's a specialist - big time.

 

[Dreakmur]

The whole point was using ES TOI/G to judge how comfortable a coach felt putting that player out there in potential defensive situations..

Every situation is potentially defensive..... but I suppose I'm just nit-picking.



How does that show a player's overall value? It shows how much the coach trusts him defensively, but there's more to the game than that.

Also, using Yandle, his coach must really trust him defensively, because he had much better ES ice time than overall ice time.