View Single Post
Old
09-01-2009, 12:28 AM
  #84
FissionFire
Registered User
 
FissionFire's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Country: United States
Posts: 10,711
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
The Howe goal is an interesting story, a very cute and disingenuous effort at discrediting Henri Richard by someone who has tried to discredit a player because of his lack of PK goals.Not referring to DS who like me is a Henri Richard fan.

The summary from the Howe goal:

http://www.flyershistory.com/cgi-bin....cgi?H19630020

Notice in the third period immediately after Gordie Howe scores his historic goal, the Canadiens come right back and seconds later Henri Richard gets the first assist on the clinching goal in a 6-4 win.
Way to jump off the deep end. That link wasn't intended to discredit Richard. I merely posted it to provide the story BM67 referred to for people to read. I highly doubt anyone would read about one goal and draw a conclusion about an entire career. I mean who in their right mind would take a very small sample size and apply it to an entire career? Oh wait....

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Champions produce on ice not on paper.
Yet here you are, trying to tear down Clint Benedict. Inconsistent much or just promoting your private agenda again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
That Keon is not being considered reflects more on the process.
You don't like the process, then leave. This is the 4th time you've complained about it in the debate threads, plus the PM. Everyone had a chance to provide input on the process before Round 1 even began and I put a list submission deadline. Do you know how many posts you made then suggesting better ideas? ZERO. So ****, you had your chance and didn't take it. Write all your little improvements down and bring them to the next discussion thread before the next update. I've had enough of the passive-aggressive sniping so stop it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
I just do not think the criteria for Hart voting was much different for these two players at all, nor do I think Lindsay has a decided statistical advantage given the fact that he was given much more PP time(Or at least, it is not so large given the fact that I consider Henri Richard one of the greatest defensive forwards of all time, as opposed to Lindsay, who was merely good defensively)
On this point I doubt we'll ever agree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
I often look at Henri Richard and wonder just how great he would have been had he not been stuck behind Beliveau with the lesser linemates and lesser PP time. PP time is always a huge + for player statistics, and Henri Richard's coaches loved using him ES to shut down opposing forward lines. Heck, he outperformed Beliveau at ES.
if only....could have....might have.....this is the same logic people apply to players who have shortened careers or injury plagued seasons. Maybe Richard outproduces Beliveau. Maybe the extra minutes take away from his even strength effectiveness. Not every player continues to excel with an expanded role. Of course, as a first line center he'd also be facing the other teams top defensive players, something that he did far less of playing second fiddle to Beliveau. So better linemates + tougher defensive forwards/defenseman + more PP time = Probably not a significant improvement statistically. Or maybe a huge jump. Or a huge drop. There is evidence supporting all three possibilites throughout hockey history so it's impossible to predict what "could have" happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Sure, the voters gave Henri the 2nd team spot when he was a surefire pick. But there were a few other years in which he deserved it(Or at least was very close).

59-60 for example. He was outscored by Beliveau and Horvath, yet played 10 more games than Beliveau and was better defensively. Truly, defensive specialists are not given the credit they deserve in these earlier years.
They aren't given credit in any era really, but I'd hardly call that season a slam dunk snub. The Beliveau and Horvath selections were both very defensible and arguably the logic picks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Sure, He missed several games a few years, and thus, was not given the same credit. But on a per game basis, I would take HR over Ullman a few years. Being up against Mikita and Beliveau hurt his chances a few years as well. Lindsay by comparison had awful competition at LW for all star selections many years.
There you go giving credit for games not played again, or as commonly known the per game stat. If anything, Richard missing a game would hurt his team considerably by losing it's top ES offensive and defensive player. Him missing games isn't a plus, but a huge minus. A player not getting postseason awards because of missing games isn't something earth shattering. If voting was done on a per-game basis Chris Pronger would have a few more Norris trophies probably and Jagr would have Pronger's Hart. Thing is missing games IS a big penalty in voting, and rightly so. You are worse than the worst player on your team when you don't play.

Competition is exactly why I never compared Lindsay and Richard using All-Star voting. Not sure why you brought it up. I merely stated that Lindsay had better numbers to back him up.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Granted, while I slag Lindsay down and do not think he belongs in the top 25, I defend him if he is still around for the top 35, but I do not think he is a far cry ahead of Henri Richard. Certainly not 30 spots.
You are right. 30 spots isn't enough IMO. Lindsay was top 10 in goals 10 times (9 times top 6), top 10 in assists 8 times (also led the league twice), and top 10 in points 8 times (6 times top 5 + an Art Ross). Sure, his PP time helped but enough to explain this gigantic gap? Whatever gap Richard has in defensive play is nowhere close to the offensive gap between them. I don't see how you can tell me Lindsay and Richard are even close.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
Keon and Ullman? Sure. But there are extenuating circumstances as to why each is not rated as highly(Keon was slightly better defensively, but not as good offensively. Ullman the opposite. not near as good defensively, but in the same area offensively). Henri Richard was at least as good, and IMO, better than Fedorov defensively, and Fedorov had a much shorter prime. D Bentley I can only go by accounts of his defensive play, but he was rated similarly, which is why I think so highly of him.
You prove my point. All those players are comparable to Richard. A 20-30 spot game to me indicates a player is clearly better, and with Richard that is not that case. You can make a solid case for Keon, Ullman, Fedorov, or Nighbor as being the equivalent (or slightly better/worse) than Richard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
If you do not see a 20-30 spot gap between Richard and those players, then I do not possibly see how you can advocate a 20-30 spot gap between him and Ted Lindsay. I consider him closer to Lindsay than Keon or Ullman.
A case can be made that Keon was Richard's equal (or slightly better/worse). You can't really make the same case for Richard to Lindsay without delving into the hypotheticals. The only facet of the game that Richard could be argued to be better than Lindsay in is defense, and that's not a slam dunk by any means. I've yet to see anyone come up with any proof that Richard was clearly ahead of Lindsay in any other facet of the game.

FissionFire is offline   Reply With Quote