View Single Post
07-28-2014, 04:09 AM
Sens Rule
Registered User
Sens Rule's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,756
vCash: 500
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
If you eliminated 80% of the worst players with this talent pool that's what you would have. Back in the O6 they didn't have a talent pool near this size though. You basically agreed to that already so this exercise you've done doesn't work the way you've proposed.

Didn't you notice that only half of the goalies you listed are Canadian? Back in the O6 the small Canadian-only talent pool didn't provide a Lundqvist or Rask. For the goalies why don't you randomly cut the current Canadian NHL goalies in half and pick from them as your starters in this current 6 team league? That would be more close to reality.

It's not about Horton, he could be every bit as good now as he was then. The problem for him would be that there are 10 or 20 other guys who are just as good competing with him. I never said Horton couldn't adjust either, it's not about that. He could probably adjust fine to being a pro hockey player now. The question would he still be the exact same elite spot even though the talent pool grew multiple times combined with new elite competition from the US and Europe?

Again, you already proposed that the talent pool probably grew at a similar rate as the NHL. If you really believe this then randomly taking 6 teams from the current NHL and making them play each other over a season and it would be the same as what Horton faced.

Why would it only be more depth players?

The best would still be the best? Okay, when I was in school we'd have a track meet and I was a pretty good sprinter. I'd win that event at my school, I was "the best" and felt pretty good. Next I go to a regional track meet and I come in 3rd. Okay, maybe I'm not the best anymore. My time is good enough to get me to the provincial track meet where I come dead last. Is the best simply the best? Doesn't it matter who you're competing with?

The people who routinely have Horton in the top 25 dmen of all time are the same people who think the way you are right now. You can't reinforce flawed thinking with a flawed thought and say that's proof.

I think Gretzky is one of, if not, the greatest offensive player of all-time. His goal scoring abilities dropped off too much to just explain away though, using his age when he was only in his mid-30's or injuries when he was playing full seasons. There was more going on there than just that.

There is far less time and space today and players have to be way more precise with passing, shooting, etc. I have watched games from the O6 and it's night and day.

That's still not my point though. Take away all the training, nutritional, equipment, and coaching advantages from current day players. Take away all the frozen pond and free thought (creativity) advantages away from the players from the past. What are we left with if they were to all grow up at the same time and have the same advantages? One group is huge and the other is a lot smaller. That's what we're left with.
Regarding Gretzky. Sure he declined a great deal in his early 30's. To a mere mortal superstar from an unprecedented career. How good was Jordan on the Wizards? No better then Gretzky in his 2nd and 3rd last seasons.

Gretzky was the focus of every bit of attention from his childhood. He averaged around a 100 games a season of pro hockey from age 17-32 and probably played 25-26 minutes on average a game. He was a truly elite athlete and that is forgotten because of his stature and slim build. But still he had a slum build. He was really good at mot being hit, but he was the target of every team and every player and he rarely ever missed time to injury. He played ridiculously hard minutes in every situation. Physically, mentally that drains you.

Gretzky scored 92 and 87 goals. I say if he was interested in scoring goals in his prime years after that rather then winning Cups and being the greatest playmaker ever he would have topped 100 goals. In 85/86 he wanted to get 2 assists a game and he got 163 assists and 215 points.... The records. He also got 52 goals. One can look at that as a decline in goal scoring ability. However I believe if Gretzky had wanted to focus on scoring 100 goals that season instead, he would have done it.

Looking at Gretzky and his decline and thinking that it gas to do whatsoever with harder competition for him to face or better goalies is completely wrongheaded. For a dozen plus years Gretzky could basically school every other elite player ever. He was in another dimension only populated by Orr and Mario. And neither of them did it healthy or for as long as Gretzky. Mario had a bad back, but he also had many times to heal up and get healthier everywhere else.

Gretzky could still score goals when it mattered most during and after his decline. Like in 92/93 playoffs or getting 10 goals for the Rangers in 3 rounds.

Gretzky declined because he played incredible amounts of hockey at the highest level and those miles add up. Plus he is human not a cyborg. He is inevitably going to age. He didn't have Gordie Howe's physique or build. No one does. He played 20 seasons and led the league in assists in year 19. Competition level vs Gretzky is the silliest argument of all time.

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote