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.

NHL's Greatest Playmakers

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
06-14-2005, 04:22 PM
  #76
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
My main issue with the Ogopogo series of rankings is the term "Greatest" in all the headings. Greatness is not something a mathematical formula can define.

That and the inconsistent manner in which dominance and longevity are treated.

You do a good job of ranking what you are looking at, Ogo, but you aren't looking at greatness. If that makes any sense.
Everybody seems to have a different definition of greatness. I am not looking at your definition of greatness, I am looking at my definition.

It meets my definition quite accurately. I believe that GREAT SEASONS = GREAT CAREER. I measure only great seasons that players put up and cut the mediocre or bad seasons out of the equation altogether.

It's like a sprinter finishing 10th in the Olympics consistently. For 3 Olympics a runner finishes #10. Is that greatness? Is it greater than the guy that won a gold medal once and did not compete in the other two Olympics? I see the gold medal as greatness and the multiple 10th place finishes as mediocrity that is not worth considering on a greatness list.

Make sense?

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 04:26 PM
  #77
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by I_Am_Canadian
You guys are all whack. The list is good and accurate based on the "CRITERIA SET OUT TO MAKE THE LIST WHAT IT IS!" Based on his 7pt scale Oates is #3. Why don't all you whiners who don't agree where Lemiuex et al sit take the time and effor to construct your own "all-time" list with formulas for everyone to nitpick about and post it for all to see and apparently criticize freely. Good work Ogopogo.

(( I've actually had an arguement in a bar with my buddies over something similar where I wass saying Oates is almost as good as Gretzy in passing but was not blessed with as many finishers aside from Brett Hull.))
What?

OK, now I'm assuming you count Anderson and Messier among Wayne's finishers so if that's the case we are disregarding line combos since he player with Kurri and a bum at LW...

Oates has always had quality finishers though. Yzerman was on his team during his first BIG point year. Gerald Gallant, although no superstar had already demonstrated the ability to finish. Even more importantly though, he had Paul Maclean. THis man scored 30 Goals 5 times and even 40 G twice during his short career. So he had finishers there.

With St. Louis he obviously had Hull but he also had Mclean for a year and Rod Brind A'mour...

With Boston he had Juneau and more importantly, some guy named Cam Neely...

Obviously in Washington he had Peter Bondra and Juneau...

And with the Ducks he had Kariya dn Sykora.

Point is, he has ahd a quality finisher everywhere he has played...

Don't try and use that argument to say he's as good as Wayne, or Mario for that matter.

KariyaIsGod* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 04:51 PM
  #78
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Everybody seems to have a different definition of greatness. I am not looking at your definition of greatness, I am looking at my definition.

It meets my definition quite accurately. I believe that GREAT SEASONS = GREAT CAREER. I measure only great seasons that players put up and cut the mediocre or bad seasons out of the equation altogether.

It's like a sprinter finishing 10th in the Olympics consistently. For 3 Olympics a runner finishes #10. Is that greatness? Is it greater than the guy that won a gold medal once and did not compete in the other two Olympics? I see the gold medal as greatness and the multiple 10th place finishes as mediocrity that is not worth considering on a greatness list.

Make sense?
Yes, I just don't agree. Sprinter A was a world class athlete for a span of at least 8-9 years. Sprinter B wasn't.

At some point a lot of good seasons equals and surpasses one great season and a bunch of mediocrity.

Plus numbers never tell the complete story.

I know you are looking to get complete Hart, Norris, etc... voting results and those would go a long way (much like I stated in my first ever reply to one of your rankings )

norrisnick is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 05:26 PM
  #79
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,789
vCash: 500
I've made my points known about Ogopogo's system/definitions before, and unlike some people around here, I don't believe in arguing in circles. I will simply re-iterate my stance that this is a starting point, should not be taken as gospel, and that the best way to get true evaluations is to research and speak to unbiased, knowledgable sources. (Winning assist titles now is also a lot easier than it was 20 years ago, as Gretzky/Lemieux/Stastny/Hawerchk/Savard aren't around/in their prime).

I again commend him for his work, although send my condolences to his employer/customers/family/friends/anyone else associated with him who have clearly been shortchanged in recent weeks with the amount of work he has done in his rankings. One thing that is of note is it's not just forwards that were discussed here, but defencemen as well.

A few random thoughts:
*I know it's been said before, but I think Oates is a little too high. In terms of playmaking centres, he's probably in the top 10 to 15 of all-time, and a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer, but having watched Oates, I would put him behind Gretzky and Lemieux for sure, and likely Sakic and Forsberg for playmakers over the past 20 years. (Ironic, isn't it, that Oates got this finish for longevity, when Ogopogo has long fought for greatness over a short period of time).
*There are a few guys I think are too low, like Lemieux at 5, Orr at 9, Beliveau at 11, Dionne at 16, Stastny at 25, Federko at 58, Perrault and Yzerman at 63 and Leetch at 83.
*As much as I can't stand the guy, (he was soft and a cancer in the locker room), I think Craig Janney deserves some consideration. He was considered one of the top five playmakers in the game from about 1989-1994, and was a wizard with the puck. I watched Janney and Gomez play, and no doubt about it, Janney was the better playmaker.

I think this list is more about longevity than short-term excellence, which flies against what Ogopogo has preached recently. (We all rolled our eyes at that Carey over Joseph beauty). Maybe that's because Ogopogo didn't use awards as part of his criteria. Just hard stats. It's also more 70s, 80s and 90s heavy, as longer careers, couple with conditioning, have enabled guys like Oates and Francis to remain great for longer stretches.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 05:28 PM
  #80
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
I've made my points known about Ogopogo's system/definitions before, and unlike some people around here, I don't believe in arguing in circles. I will simply re-iterate my stance that this is a starting point, should not be taken as gospel, and that the best way to get true evaluations is to research and speak to unbiased, knowledgable sources. (Winning assist titles now is also a lot easier than it was 20 years ago, as Gretzky/Lemieux/Stastny/Hawerchk/Savard aren't around/in their prime).

I again commend him for his work, although send my condolences to his employer/customers/family/friends/anyone else associated with him who have clearly been shortchanged in recent weeks with the amount of work he has done in his rankings. One thing that is of note is it's not just forwards that were discussed here, but defencemen as well.

A few random thoughts:
*I know it's been said before, but I think Oates is a little too high. In terms of playmaking centres, he's probably in the top 10 to 15 of all-time, and a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer, but having watched Oates, I would put him behind Gretzky and Lemieux for sure, and likely Sakic and Forsberg for playmakers over the past 20 years. (Ironic, isn't it, that Oates got this finish for longevity, when Ogopogo has long fought for greatness over a short period of time).
*There are a few guys I think are too low, like Lemieux at 5, Orr at 9, Beliveau at 11, Dionne at 16, Stastny at 25, Federko at 58, Perrault and Yzerman at 63 and Leetch at 83.
*As much as I can't stand the guy, (he was soft and a cancer in the locker room), I think Craig Janney deserves some consideration. He was considered one of the top five playmakers in the game from about 1989-1994, and was a wizard with the puck. I watched Janney and Gomez play, and no doubt about it, Janney was the better playmaker.

I think this list is more about longevity than short-term excellence, which flies against what Ogopogo has preached recently. (We all rolled our eyes at that Carey over Joseph beauty). Maybe that's because Ogopogo didn't use awards as part of his criteria. Just hard stats. It's also more 70s, 80s and 90s heavy, as longer careers, couple with conditioning, have enabled guys like Oates and Francis to remain great for longer stretches.
Thank you for the insults and explaining that you do not understand my ratings.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 05:30 PM
  #81
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Thank you for the insults and explaining that you do not understand my ratings.
You and your stupid thank you-s. He didn't insult you he just made a point and a dam good one. Respond to him if you think he's wrong, dont just say thank you for the insults bla bla bla.

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 05:41 PM
  #82
Backin72
Registered User
 
Backin72's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,071
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Thank you for the insults and explaining that you do not understand my ratings.
There were no insults. Too bad you are too defensive to accept constructive criticism.

Backin72 is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 05:43 PM
  #83
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
I've made my points known about Ogopogo's system/definitions before, and unlike some people around here, I don't believe in arguing in circles. I will simply re-iterate my stance that this is a starting point, should not be taken as gospel, and that the best way to get true evaluations is to research and speak to unbiased, knowledgable sources. (Winning assist titles now is also a lot easier than it was 20 years ago, as Gretzky/Lemieux/Stastny/Hawerchk/Savard aren't around/in their prime).

I again commend him for his work, although send my condolences to his employer/customers/family/friends/anyone else associated with him who have clearly been shortchanged in recent weeks with the amount of work he has done in his rankings. One thing that is of note is it's not just forwards that were discussed here, but defencemen as well.

A few random thoughts:
*I know it's been said before, but I think Oates is a little too high. In terms of playmaking centres, he's probably in the top 10 to 15 of all-time, and a sure-fire Hall-of-Famer, but having watched Oates, I would put him behind Gretzky and Lemieux for sure, and likely Sakic and Forsberg for playmakers over the past 20 years. (Ironic, isn't it, that Oates got this finish for longevity, when Ogopogo has long fought for greatness over a short period of time).
*There are a few guys I think are too low, like Lemieux at 5, Orr at 9, Beliveau at 11, Dionne at 16, Stastny at 25, Federko at 58, Perrault and Yzerman at 63 and Leetch at 83.
*As much as I can't stand the guy, (he was soft and a cancer in the locker room), I think Craig Janney deserves some consideration. He was considered one of the top five playmakers in the game from about 1989-1994, and was a wizard with the puck. I watched Janney and Gomez play, and no doubt about it, Janney was the better playmaker.

I think this list is more about longevity than short-term excellence, which flies against what Ogopogo has preached recently. (We all rolled our eyes at that Carey over Joseph beauty). Maybe that's because Ogopogo didn't use awards as part of his criteria. Just hard stats. It's also more 70s, 80s and 90s heavy, as longer careers, couple with conditioning, have enabled guys like Oates and Francis to remain great for longer stretches.

Saying that it is easier to win an assist title today that it was 20 years ago is simply an unsubstantiated opinion. You are mesmerized by the big numbers of an offensive era. Savard, Stastny and Hawerchuk are not as good as Forsberg, Sakic, Oates and Jagr in the assist category.

Making pretty passes is not what this is all about. It is producing numbers and dominating the leader chart. Although Janney may have been a more aesthetically pleasing passer, the numbers do not put him ahead of Scott Gomez. Janney gets a 5.5 on my system.

Your misunderstanding of this system gives you the perception that it has something to do with longevity this time. It does not. All of my systems are, and have always been about number of GREAT seasons. Not number of seasons. Longevity does not affect anything but, if a guy can be GREAT for a long time, he moves up the list.

Adam Oates was a top 7 playmaker 12 times in his career. Mario Lemieux was top 7 only 9 times. Oates comes out ahead because that is how the numbers shake out. Oates had a greater career in the assist column. Injuries suck but, that is life.

If you want a system that measures "peak performers" then you must look elsewhere. Perhaps I will do something like that in the future but, right now, I am analyzing what players had the greatest careers. Mario in his prime was better than Oates in his prime but, that is not what I am measuring so, for the purposes of this list, that point is moot. Oates spent more time atop the assist list and that is why he is #3.

Please refrain from the personal attacks in future posts.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 05:45 PM
  #84
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backin72
There were no insults. Too bad you are too defensive to accept constructive criticism.
I consider this insulting. Just because he tries to slip it under the radar that does not mean it is not a personal attack. It is quite unnecessary and distasteful.

"send my condolences to his employer/customers/family/friends/anyone else associated with him who have clearly been shortchanged in recent weeks with the amount of work he has done in his rankings."

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 05:46 PM
  #85
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOVALEV10
You and your stupid thank you-s. He didn't insult you he just made a point and a dam good one. Respond to him if you think he's wrong, dont just say thank you for the insults bla bla bla.
After a while I get tired of personal attacks. Just comment on the system, leave my family and personal life out of it. Very unnecessary and immature.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 05:52 PM
  #86
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Saying that it is easier to win an assist title today that it was 20 years ago is simply an unsubstantiated opinion. You are mesmerized by the big numbers of an offensive era. Savard, Stastny and Hawerchuk are not as good as Forsberg, Sakic, Oates and Jagr in the assist category.

Making pretty passes is not what this is all about. It is producing numbers and dominating the leader chart. Although Janney may have been a more aesthetically pleasing passer, the numbers do not put him ahead of Scott Gomez. Janney gets a 5.5 on my system.

Your misunderstanding of this system gives you the perception that it has something to do with longevity this time. It does not. All of my systems are, and have always been about number of GREAT seasons. Not number of seasons. Longevity does not affect anything but, if a guy can be GREAT for a long time, he moves up the list.

Adam Oates was a top 7 playmaker 12 times in his career. Mario Lemieux was top 7 only 9 times. Oates comes out ahead because that is how the numbers shake out. Oates had a greater career in the assist column. Injuries suck but, that is life.

If you want a system that measures "peak performers" then you must look elsewhere. Perhaps I will do something like that in the future but, right now, I am analyzing what players had the greatest careers. Mario in his prime was better than Oates in his prime but, that is not what I am measuring so, for the purposes of this list, that point is moot. Oates spent more time atop the assist list and that is why he is #3.

Please refrain from the personal attacks in future posts.
Lemieux assists per game is much better then Oates assists per game and they pretty much played in the same era. So no question Mario was better. Your system is good and all but it should be called the "Best career playmakers" pr something rather then "Greatest playmakers"

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 05:55 PM
  #87
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOVALEV10
Lemieux assists per game is much better then Oates assists per game and they pretty much played in the same era. So no question Mario was better. Your system is good and all but it should be called the "Best career playmakers" pr something rather then "Greatest playmakers"
If you check a page or two back, you will see where I addressed that issue.

Mario accumulated most of his assists in the 80s and early 90s when offense was full throttle. Oates accumulated his assists during the 90s and early 2000s when we were in the 'dead puck' era.

Although Lemieux has averaged more APG than Oates, his assists were "worth less" that Oates' assists due to the more offensive era in which he earned many of them.

The fact is that Mario had 9 seasons at the top of the leader board and Oates had 12. Oates' assists were worth more than Mario's.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 06:05 PM
  #88
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,824
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I consider this insulting. Just because he tries to slip it under the radar that does not mean it is not a personal attack. It is quite unnecessary and distasteful.

"send my condolences to his employer/customers/family/friends/anyone else associated with him who have clearly been shortchanged in recent weeks with the amount of work he has done in his rankings."

Ogopogo, you know I love you, but if you read that again, I think it was a backhanded acknowledgment of the fact that you have put lots of time in and not an insult..

Keep up the good work, it's fun regardless of variances in opinions..

Bring Back Bucky is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 06:16 PM
  #89
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bring Back Bucky
Ogopogo, you know I love you, but if you read that again, I think it was a backhanded acknowledgment of the fact that you have put lots of time in and not an insult..

Keep up the good work, it's fun regardless of variances in opinions..
Perhaps, I misunderstood, I apologize. I will give God Bless the benefit of the doubt.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 06:16 PM
  #90
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,789
vCash: 500
My comments weren't intended to be personal. They were a reflection of the fact that you clearly put a lot of work and effort into your system, more time than I would ever have. You took them the wrong way. (And I accept your apology).

My appreciation for Hawerchuk/Statsny/Savard/Yzerman has nothing to do with big numbers. It has everything to do with having watched them play lots of times, and realizing just how great they truly were. It's because they were that damn good that they put up big numbers. I've watched them, and I've watched Gomez, and I can tell you, Hawerchuk/Stastny/Savard/Yzerman were much better, even though they didn't win an assits title. (And Gomez would have never beaten any of those players for an assists title. He also didn't have to go against Lemieux or Gretzky in their primes).

It was because Oates was that damn good that he was among the league leaders in assists twice after his 35th birthday.

I agree that in their primes, Oates and Sakic were better playmakers than those I listed above. If I had to rank the top playmaking centres from the past 20 years, it would probably be Gretzky, Lemieux, Oates, Sakic and Forsberg (in that order).

I have a full understanding of your system. It is a stats-based system, using a set cut-off point, and awarding points for that cut-off point. I may not agree with your system, your criteria, your cut-off points or your definition of a personal attack, but I do agree with hard work. I think this system does reward longevity more than others I've seen from you, regardless of whether you intended it that way, and that's reflective in Oates having such a high finish.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 07:37 PM
  #91
SChan*
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 7,502
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
I agree that in their primes, Oates and Sakic were better playmakers than those I listed above. If I had to rank the top playmaking centres from the past 20 years, it would probably be Gretzky, Lemieux, Oates, Sakic and Forsberg (in that order).

Forsberg is nr 24 and Sakic is nr 27 on his list, and both of them played in the ultra defensive era. That's why I have a little tough swallowing his algoritm.

SChan* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 07:43 PM
  #92
Bring Back Bucky
Registered User
 
Bring Back Bucky's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Delicieux!
Country: Heard and McDonald Islands
Posts: 7,824
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Perhaps, I misunderstood, I apologize. I will give God Bless the benefit of the doubt.

Oilers fans are the most full of love people on the face of God's green earth.

Bring Back Bucky is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 08:54 PM
  #93
VanIslander
17/07/2014 ATD RIP
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 18,014
vCash: 500
Bobby Clarke at 19th?

That's pretty high compared to many great players. And he was better defensively than many ahead of him on the list.

VanIslander is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 09:20 PM
  #94
David
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Saying that it is easier to win an assist title today that it was 20 years ago is simply an unsubstantiated opinion. You are mesmerized by the big numbers of an offensive era. Savard, Stastny and Hawerchuk are not as good as Forsberg, Sakic, Oates and Jagr in the assist category.

Making pretty passes is not what this is all about. It is producing numbers and dominating the leader chart. Although Janney may have been a more aesthetically pleasing passer, the numbers do not put him ahead of Scott Gomez. Janney gets a 5.5 on my system.

Your misunderstanding of this system gives you the perception that it has something to do with longevity this time. It does not. All of my systems are, and have always been about number of GREAT seasons. Not number of seasons. Longevity does not affect anything but, if a guy can be GREAT for a long time, he moves up the list.

Adam Oates was a top 7 playmaker 12 times in his career. Mario Lemieux was top 7 only 9 times. Oates comes out ahead because that is how the numbers shake out. Oates had a greater career in the assist column. Injuries suck but, that is life.

If you want a system that measures "peak performers" then you must look elsewhere. Perhaps I will do something like that in the future but, right now, I am analyzing what players had the greatest careers. Mario in his prime was better than Oates in his prime but, that is not what I am measuring so, for the purposes of this list, that point is moot. Oates spent more time atop the assist list and that is why he is #3.

Please refrain from the personal attacks in future posts.
Although not a perfect system, I think that what you put together is a pretty good ranking of greatest assist players in history...but I gotta admit, I have no objective opinions on some of the older players on your list.

Anyways, I've always thought that Adam Oates was right up there, shortly behind Wayne Gretzky in terms of assists...and far ahead of guys like Lemieux, Sakic, Forsberg, Savard, and even Yzerman and Hawerchuk, etc and your ranking validates that. It's also validating my opinion of Ronnie Franchise's assist abilities.

I think that many forget about Adam Oates when he was one half of that dynamic duo in St. Louis called Hull and Oates! I don't ever remember anyone being so good distributing the puck aside from the Great One than Oates.

I"ve always maintained that Lemieux was a goal scorer first and his assists were more a by product of his many goal scoring...until his come back after cancer and esp. during the last couple of year when he changed his game a bit from goal scoring to assisting more.

Sakic, too, can set up beautifully and that's what I noticed about him first when he was just a wee young man all those years ago but he's also aways been more of a goal scorer who can set them up when he has to.

On the flip side, I would have thought that Mike Keenan's favorite whipping boy Craig Janney would have been a little higher as well...and Turgeon (that's Pierre and not Sylvain) too...and although far less effective as an assist guy than Adam Oates, Motown's other Stevie Wonder also was surprisingly low on the list for me. I've always thought that Stevie Y was more of a set up man (despite those years when he was scoring 60 something goals a year! - isn't he still the third highest scoring player in NHL history behind Gretz and Mario?) than say someone like a Joe Sakic... ).


Last edited by David: 06-14-2005 at 09:33 PM.
David is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 09:33 PM
  #95
chooch*
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KOVALEV10
Lemieux assists per game is much better then Oates assists per game and they pretty much played in the same era. So no question Mario was better. Your system is good and all but it should be called the "Best career playmakers" pr something rather then "Greatest playmakers"
Theres a great picture you can find on the web (let me know if you cant) of Guy shaking hands with his favorite driver, gilles.

They were the 2 most exciting athletes I ever saw.

Mario and senna approaching them.

chooch* is offline  
Old
06-14-2005, 09:59 PM
  #96
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chooch
Theres a great picture you can find on the web (let me know if you cant) of Guy shaking hands with his favorite driver, gilles.

They were the 2 most exciting athletes I ever saw.

Mario and senna approaching them.
Nope I couldn't find it I agree with you about Gilles and Senna and Guy and Mario.

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
06-15-2005, 12:06 AM
  #97
gary69
Registered User
 
gary69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Then and there
Posts: 2,926
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada

I have a full understanding of your system. It is a stats-based system, using a set cut-off point, and awarding points for that cut-off point. I may not agree with your system, your criteria, your cut-off points or your definition of a personal attack, but I do agree with hard work. I think this system does reward longevity more than others I've seen from you, regardless of whether you intended it that way, and that's reflective in Oates having such a high finish.
The way I see it now, is that if ogopogo has time to do all the quantative work he has planned, does the 1-year (and 2-5-10-year etc. periods) peak ranking system as well, and then deals with the qualitative arquments (like other especially early leagues, expansions, player pools including European) i.e. puts his system in the context, then it will have great value when discussing (or arguing!) about the "greatest" players.

As for ogopogo's question whether it's ever possible to create a definitive list of "greatest" players, usually the answer in similar circumstances is no, since the context is continuosly changing (like his China argument) and may require new definitions or scale for measurement, until the league (in this case the NHL) is defunct.

At this moment his lists have value when discussing greatness AS DEFINED BY HIM.

gary69 is offline  
Closed Thread

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 04:44 PM.

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.