View Single Post
08-07-2012, 03:08 AM
Theokritos's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 7,839
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Isn't "he was talented but should have scored more" just another way of saying "he was flashy but wasn't as good as he looked?"

Agree that he's underrated by people who don't know about his pre-NHL career in the USSR before his knee injury
Basically agree with you, the knee injury and the earlier career are the main arguments in favour of Kamensky.

But another argument could be: some players might have everything it takes to star in the NHL except that they're not very good at handling the more physical play there. I know that physical play is part of the NHL and I'm not saying it shouldn't be, but in the grand scheme of things the level of physicality is arbitrary or contingent. The NHL is the best league in the world not because of the physicality, it would still be the best league in the world if it was less physical. And in such a league it would be easier for skilled, but rather soft players.

Imagine a scenario: An international superleague is formed in the 1980s with the best NHL teams and the best Soviet teams competing for the Stanley Cup year in and year out. Level of play? Beyond NHL level, but the refereeing isn't as tolerant towards hard hitting in my scenario. Kamensky (even the post-injury Kamensky) would most likely have been more of a star in such a league than in the 1990s NHL, even though the level of play was higher. Does that make him a better player? I leave that to you. IMO it doesn't make him a worse player that he wasn't perfectly suited for the particular brand of hockey played in the NHL (as opposed to the level of hockey played in the NHL).

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote