View Single Post
04-09-2013, 12:36 AM
Just a Fool
Rhiessan71's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,602
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
well judging by his posts it seems the former is more true than the latter but that besides the point here.
Era's change, priorities required by players change and said players HAVE to be judged on what they did, when they did it, how they did it and who was capable/available to do it against.

I'm pretty consistent in my distinctions of teh differetn eras and the diffculty in treating them as quite similar or quite close.
Oh, reeeaaallly? Lets read on shall we...

1915 with many leagues is different than a post 1930 pretty much considalted NHL.

WW2 years, and Richards 50 in 50, is different than the late 40's and mid 60's.

Rapid expansion and the WHA makes for a vastly different league than say in 1965.

And finally and perhaps most importantly, or not to some, the large change and increase of the NHL talent pool, both in terms of quantity which seems to comes slightly quicker than the the quality of non Canadian NHLers which is the primary makeup of the NHL pre 1980.

I don't attach actual ratios or numbers to this as it's not an exact science and there are other variables at play as well.

But unless one thinks that Canadian talent has decreased by quite a bit, the top 10 Canadians in goals, assist and points that is the norm in the 70's, for example can probably be compared to the top 10 Canadians in the post 95ish era and throw in the other 10 non Canadians to make a top 20.

For example, assuming all things are equal (and they never are exactly) there is a top 10 points leaders for any given year in the 70's.

That list is comprised almost exclusively, and it might be exclusive going off memory here, of Canadian players.

Skip forward to most post 95 years and when we get to the 10th top scoring Canadian there are usually close to 10 non Canadian ahead of him. It's probably slightly less on aggregate post 95 but for the sake of this example let's say it's 10 and 10.

Wouldn't the 10 in the 70's be pretty similar to the 20 in the post 95?

The 10th Canadian surely can't be compared as exactly the same in both years can they or even really close?

A more specific example is for the Russian Dmen on the top 60 list and their NHL contemporaries, mostly in the 70's and 80's.

If they (Vasiliev (25th), Fetisov (8th) and Kastatonov (39th) had played in the NHL would guys like Savard, Lapointe ect... be rated as high?

Perhaps but it's doubtfull all 5 guys would be because they would be direct peers now. Maybe savard never gets a top 5 Norris vote or only 1 or 2 years, he would slip down probably.
It's times like these that I just think it's downright unfair of me to even engage you.

In a post, just the other freakin day for pete's sake, you made it quite clear that you don't even consider Fetisov or Kasatonov 70's D-men.
I saw where you were going from a mile away and made sure you specified why they weren't 70's D-men. I set the hook or in this case the foot and you just swallowed it whole my friend.
Savard's 4 top 5 Norris finishes came between '75-'79, Lapointe's between '72-'79.
If you don't even consider Fets and Kats 70's D-men, then how can you now say that they would have been "direct peers" to them and would/may have downgraded their reputation accordingly???

Consistent in your distinctions indeed.

This is what happens to later guys like Nieds and Zubov that play in a fully integrated league and become each others peers.
No it isn't!
We have plenty of comparables to both of these guys and NO ONE is going to confuse them with any of the following players...

And how you can even bring up Nieds is ridiculous, he gets plenty of credit, hence his #33 ranking. Within 5 spots of Savard I might add which seems pretty damned right to me.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote