View Single Post
05-16-2013, 12:13 PM
Cake or Death
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Chief View Post
Iíd like to thank you for the info youíve provided as well. Very illuminating stuff!

The funny thing is that in most of these types of conversations, I tend to be defending the players from hockey's earlier eras but, here, I find myself defending the modern day players more.

Anyway, as far as adjusted stats go, I think they are valuable to give someone with less knowledge of an era, an illustration of just how good that particular player was in his era. Itís like saying, this player was the Steven Stamkos of his day. I may be stating the obvious, but I think people need to remember that thatís different than saying the guyís production was the same as Stamkosí. Adjusted stats inflate playersí stats from earlier eras by virtue of calculations, which isnít the same as actually producing points on the ice.
One thing I actually do remember, was when Gretzky entered the league, there were comparisons with him to Boucher from older people calling him the new Boucher. The clean play, great passing, and dominant, highly creative thinking of the gamewere something they both shared. Even when Boucher coached the Rangers Cup win in 1940, another marker in his favor, I remembered reading that Boucher created the PK box and was the first coach to pull his goalie. Definite similarities with him in Gretzky in how they seemed to have saw and executed the game at a very high level, mixed with amazing skill.

Originally Posted by Chief View Post
As an example: If you look at Boucherís 1st 10 seasons with the Rangers, he played in 456 out of a possible 460 regular season games. If he played during Messierís 10 year Ranger career, he would have been looking at 788 regular season games and I donít think you can just assume that a player would play that many more games at a high level. And thatís not even taking into account modern day playoffs which are a marathon event unto themselves.

Not to mention forwards in Boucher's era accumulated virtually twice the icetime of modern-day players because there were only 2 forward lines on the rosters (I'm right about that, aren't I?). A player who gets twice as much icetime has an obvious great opportunity to score.
The longer modern season is definitely rough. But there are strong counter points too. The old school guys didn't have the same level of travel, medical, often played hurt because they made way less. In fact many of them had second jobs off season. I remember Gordie Howe talking about the differences and saying he'd won the scoring title one season and got a Red Wings team jacket as a bonus lol. The guys today have it way more plush, too.

  Reply With Quote