HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Comparing Players from different eras

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
01-15-2008, 01:29 PM
  #1
daver
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Country: Norfolk Island
Posts: 3,344
vCash: 500
Comparing Players from different eras

I see a lot of heated discussions about who are the best all-time players and inevitably someone says that if Player X from today was playing against competition from 30 years ago they would be twice as good because of advancements in training, equipment, etc...

Is it just me or does it go without saying that when comparing players from different eras it's a given that the game has changed over time and that dominance against other players from the same era is the best measuring stick?

Do people think other factors such as expansion and an increased base of players makes a signifigant difference in these discussions? For example, does the 1967 expansion to 12 teams mean the talent level was considerably watered down from the year before?

daver is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 02:05 PM
  #2
Weztex
Registered User
 
Weztex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,252
vCash: 500
You should PM that to bilros

To answer the question, if expansion watered down the talent, I think they only had a small effect on dominance since basically all the players share the same environment. One could argue that an 'expansion' conference like they had in 1967-68 have distort our overall view on dominance but that effect may have have last very short in the end. I mean, Eddie Joyal isn't much of a legendary figure today.

Using dominance is the best way to compare players from different eras. Everyone is aware Morenz wouldn't compete with a player like Zetterberg but it only shows that the latter is better trained...not more talented. In the end, Morenz is still the greatest player by accomplishing thing Zetterberg hasn't.

That concept should really be a given. Too much bandwidth is lost arguing over this.


Last edited by Weztex: 01-15-2008 at 02:17 PM.
Weztex is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 02:27 PM
  #3
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Weztex View Post
You should PM that to bilros
Rofl. Most sane people have already been having this argument with him to no avail. I am just grateful he was kicked out of the hockey history section permanently.


Basically, in order to compare players across Era's, you need to take everything into consideration.
Would Orr still lead the league in scoring in this day and age? Probably not because of the way the game is played. Would he still be the best player in the league? Highly likely. Hockey sense and Vision like his was timeless. Lemieux, Gretzky, Orr and Howe were a cut above the rest because of this inborn talent.

When comparing how players dominated their peers, you also need to take into account competition, era(scoring wise) and several other factors.

For example. Brad Park was a great defenseman. Likely universally regarded as better than, say, Pierre Pilote. Pilote has 3 Norris trohpies, Park has Zero, yet most knowledgeable hockey minds would choose Park first. Recognizing that Park would have 4 Norris trophies had his career not overlapped with Bourque.

The reverse effect comes into play with Lidstrom. He started winning his Norris trophies at a time when top defenseman were all retiring with nobody to fill their shoes. He likely would retire with only 3 Norris trophies had he begun his career in 1980 and ended in 2001, yet he would still be among the greatest of all time simply based upon his longevity and consistency.

The truth is, its all relative. Its impossible to just look at stats and assume.

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 02:29 PM
  #4
Passchendaele
Registered User
 
Passchendaele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Laval, Quebec
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,417
vCash: 500
Bobby Orr wouldn't look so good with those rushes in today's NHL. Defense is a lot better.

Passchendaele is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-15-2008, 02:50 PM
  #5
Dark Shadows
Registered User
 
Dark Shadows's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Canada
Country: Japan
Posts: 7,906
vCash: 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Passchendaele View Post
Bobby Orr wouldn't look so good with those rushes in today's NHL. Defense is a lot better.
No, but he had a skillset and Vision+Hockey sense on par with Sidney Crosby, and would play at least as well as the kid does now while being a rock in his own end, and a fighter/hitter. His game would be different than it was in the 70's, but hey, Pavel Bure made his end to ends look ridiculous. Orr would be no exception

Dark Shadows is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:28 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.