View Single Post
08-04-2009, 04:24 PM
Registered User
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
When you post comments like the last paragraph, it completely undermines your credibility.

I think it's great that Hasek was a great player in Czechoslovakia. It doesn't change a damn thing in how I perceive the guy. Best player in Czechoslovakia? What percentage of those guys would have been good enough to make the show? Their best player in the mid-to-late 80s, Peter Stastny, was here already.

As I said in my Esposito post, World Championships don't do it for me. It's a short tournament that usually is determined by a best-of-one. In fact, I'll reiterate another statement I've made many times: hockey has the least relevant World Championship in professional sports. Any professional sport. They're not irrelevant. But it means the least of any sport.

I interviewed a top NHL player a few years ago just after he'd played in the World Championship for the first time. He said it was a great experience. And he hoped he would never play in it again. Any NHL player worth a damn will tell you the same thing.

World Championship accomplishments mean next-to-nothing to me in this process. It's not a best-on-best. It's never been a best-on-best. It'll never be a best-on-best, unless the tournament is moved to late June or early September, in which case, it would be a total joke.

I gushed about Summit earlier, for the reasons I detailed earlier. Best-on-best. Best of eight. (B*stard number, but it's better than a best-of-one). Played in both Canada and the USSR, employing the stark differences in the two games.

Canada Cup gives somewhat of an accurate reflection, because it's a best-on-best, but it would be better if it used a best of seven (or even a best of five) instead of a best of one or a best of three. Olympics in their current format would be a better indicator, too, if they didn't use a best-of-one. But it's unrealistic to expect anything else.

And yes, you are missing something. You play the regular season to qualify for the playoffs. Your season, both individually and as a team, is ultimately based on how you play in the playoffs. Regular season is exactly that. Regular. Playoffs are when you build your legacy.
Do you dismiss the Soviets in the 80s as well? Because the Czechs were behind only them internationally. Are you comparing a single player's recent experience with the World Champinships to the atmosphere in the 80s, with the Iron Curtain still in place? The Czechs also have fared well at the Olympics, so to flippantly write off the best goalie and often best player from Czechoslovakia during this time seems incredibly myopic.

Regular season is the best way of measuring these players, as you are dealing with a much more level playing field. If you are not fortunate enough to be on a good team you simply are not going to win many Cups, make it that far in the playoffs or make it to the playoffs at all. I believe it has been stated here numerous times that players should be judged more by their actual playoff performances, versus how well their teams did. Dionne does not lose most of his points simply because he does not have a Cup, but more significantly because he failed to individually perform in the playoffs. Right?

I fail to see Roy's playoff performances (minus team accomplishments) as significantly greater than Hasek's performances.... certainly not enough to make up for the huge difference in regular season play.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote