HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Messier overrated?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-02-2011, 08:42 AM
  #176
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trottier View Post
This is a pretty cool site.

Over the last couple of days, I've learned that:

Messier was overrated.

Gretzky was a product of his time.

Crosby has had a better career to date than Mario.

Joe Sakic was not that valuable to his team.

Brodeur is overrated.

I'm learning a lot about the game from the historians here.

(None of the above is an exaggeration. Citations offered upon request.)
I would not mock this one.

Brodeur is often sited as "perhaps the best goalie ever" by people in the game that should know better than all of us.

On this site there is a vast gap of opinion on his ranking. Because his situation was so unique its really more of a guess, compared to all other players, as to his true ability.

Even this season, at age 38, he was considered all done until the return of Jacques Lemaire behind the bench. The worst team in the league suddenly has given up 19 goals in their last 10 games (from over 3 goals a game to under 2) and Brodeur looks just fine in net again.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 10:40 AM
  #177
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sens Rule View Post
You need to take into consideration how hard it was to make and stay in the Original 6. Essentially 6 goalies, 30 defencemen and about 60 forwards were regulars. Now there are 60 goalies, 180 D-Men and 360 forwards. If you screwed up you were in the AHL and might never get another chance. Sure there were no Europeans and few Americans but there was a very large pool of players from Canada. There were NO weak players, NO bad players. The competition was fierce to stay in the NHL.

If you assume like I do that stars are stars in any era all you do is end up with less star players then then there are now, but less teams. What is a star player? I don't know exactly but if there are 30 now maybe there was 10-15 in the NHL in the 50's, 60's. And there were no really poor players like we see in the 70's and 80's and even today.

Look at Howe and Hull for example. They got more points after expansion even though they were past their primes and then in the WHA they were among the very best players, Hull in his later 30's and Howe in his mid to late 40's. If Howe was good enough at like 37 or 38 or something to get 100 points and be third in NHL in scoring, how good was he 15 years earlier when he led the NHL with 80 or 90 points? He faced far tougher competition in the Original 6. The worst players were like elite 3rd liners or good 2nd pairing D-Men today. There were only 6 goalies, the best 6 goalies in the world to score on. I have to think the Richard's, Beliveau, Geoffrion, Keon, Bathgate, Mikita, Hull and so on were comparable to Crosby, Stall, St. Louis, Ovechkin and so on today.
THANK YOU.

This is exactly what I've been saying. And despite what you try and tell us, the influx of Euro talent is not enough to make up for what this gentleman said due to the increased number of jobs.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 10:52 AM
  #178
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
i think this probably refers to an argument between CW vs me and The_Eck. but CW is dishonest about it.

CW's original post: http://hfboards.com/showpost.php?p=3...&postcount=479


no one in that thread said anything about rousseau as an all time great (other than CW in straw man arguments), or that cournoyer or richard were among the best ever offensively, but The_Eck and i disagreed with CW's ridiculous statement that they totally lacked offensive talent.
You pimped them as being more offensively gifted than a player like Kovalev which is completely false. If you will recall the argument started because you guys claimed Jammy was working with peewees basically. When it comes to a player like Cournoyer or Richard, it wasn't their scoring that makes them great. Obviously they were capable but like I said, no more so than Kovalev.

Quote:
also omitted the very important addition in '71 of frank mahovlich, clearly an elite offensive player. CW later said that frank mahovlich was past his prime, which is not true.
Oh. You mean 1971 when a 39 year old Jean Beliveau led the Habs to yet another Cup? Yes, they did add Frank. He played a whopping 38 games for them but I suppose he could be responsible for it all instead of the almost 40 year old captain who finished top 10 in league scoring and led the team.

Quote:
The_Eck and i said that players like henri richard, cournoyer, provost, rousseau, backstrom, goyette, etc were skilled scorers and in some cases elite players. i also pointed out the goalies and d-men, which were as important as the F's in the cups.
Goalies? Rogie Vachon and who? Charlie Hodge for the other years? I'd take Tommy B over either.

Quote:
i am not sure why '65 was omitted.
They didn't win the Cup.

Quote:
in '62, this total lack of offensive talent set a record for goals by a team (259) that lasted for 5 seasons. beliveau only played 43 games and doug harvey had been traded before the season.
Ah yes, 62. You do realize that not one guy on the team had over a PPG right? Don't "elite scorers" as you label them normally eclipse that fairly modest mark? See, ehat you and your friend seem to miss is that I never said they couldn't play. I was simply pointing out to you that Beliveau wasn't flanked by superstars all the time. Even when he wasn't, he led teams to great success, something which Jammy could not do.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 10:59 AM
  #179
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
THANK YOU.

This is exactly what I've been saying. And despite what you try and tell us, the influx of Euro talent is not enough to make up for what this gentleman said due to the increased number of jobs.
yeah, but he's talking about the O6 era, when there were very few jobs available, and competition level was very high as a result. Scoring was lower, what a surprise. The conversations from yesterday were about the 80s versus today. Very, very different comparison.

Between 1967 and 1982, the number of jobs in the NHL quadrupled - the talent pool size did not. Look how much scoring rose in that time.

From 1990 to now, yes, the influx of european (and more canadian) talent has made up for the larger number of jobs.

From 1967 to now... I doubt that it has. Sens Rule's point still stands about how hard it was to be in the NHL in those days, and almost certainly the league's bottom rung players (guys who were about 100th-best in the world) were better than today's bottom-rung players (guys who are about 600th-best in the world) - the talent pool has greatly increased, but I think we can all agree it hasn't been six-fold or anything close to that.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 11:03 AM
  #180
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
Ah yes, 62. You do realize that not one guy on the team had over a PPG right? Don't "elite scorers" as you label them normally eclipse that fairly modest mark?
Do you realize how elite a benchmark a point per game was back then?

Scoring was very low... you know, high competition level due to talent pool being greater than the jobs available and all...

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 11:22 AM
  #181
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
Do you realize how elite a benchmark a point per game was back then?

Scoring was very low... you know, high competition level due to talent pool being greater than the jobs available and all...
And yet the best players in the league, the ones whom one would describe as "elite" (like Jean Beliveau) all eclipsed it. Or are you going to label Ralph Backstrom as an elite offensive player like those two are trying to do? After all, they are citing his BEST offensive year and ignoring every other one.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 11:32 AM
  #182
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
yeah, but he's talking about the O6 era, when there were very few jobs available, and competition level was very high as a result. Scoring was lower, what a surprise. The conversations from yesterday were about the 80s versus today. Very, very different comparison.

Between 1967 and 1982, the number of jobs in the NHL quadrupled - the talent pool size did not. Look how much scoring rose in that time.

From 1990 to now, yes, the influx of european (and more canadian) talent has made up for the larger number of jobs.

From 1967 to now... I doubt that it has. Sens Rule's point still stands about how hard it was to be in the NHL in those days, and almost certainly the league's bottom rung players (guys who were about 100th-best in the world) were better than today's bottom-rung players (guys who are about 600th-best in the world) - the talent pool has greatly increased, but I think we can all agree it hasn't been six-fold or anything close to that.
Except that there were more than 100 NHL level hockey players in 1967 on the planet. They simply had not had their chance. So really, the size of the league only gave these players an opportunity to play. They already had the skill. When you get to 500-600 players though like today, its harder to produce.

Let's take your example of the other thread. You mentioned Colton Orr. Ever notice that even when a guy like Ovechkin gets on the ice vs. an Orr, it's not an automatic goal? At the same time, you agreed Orr was a useless piece of crap.

So why doesn't Ovechkin score at will against a guy like Orr whereas a Bossy would chew up any line with an Orr caliber player on it? It's because Bossy was better.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 11:32 AM
  #183
GWOW
Two Pucks, One Cup
 
GWOW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Country: United States
Posts: 14,241
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark Shadows View Post
The NYR's were cup contenders before Messier? The 5 years before he arrived the finished just around league average and never did anything the playoffs. His first year there the team win the presidents trophy and went further in the playoffs than they had in 5 years.
False on several levels.

The 1990 Rangers won their first division title in 50 years and the only reason why they werent considered your average "favorite" was because of the 50-year drought. There were only four division winners back then. All four on any given year were the usual favorites to at least compete for the Cup. The 1990 Rangers also had a great year without the benefit of Leetch at the top of his game. he had a miserable season, culminating in the season-ending injury in Toronto. Leetch missed the entire postseason

The 1991 Rangers were the best team in the Patrick Divison and were at one point the best team in the Wales, but the Joey Kocur trade (and the trades Pittsburgh made) derailed the season. I specifically remember the Hockey News doing a feature on the 1991 Rangers how 1991 "could be" their year (written of course, before the season-ending winless streak)

I'm not going to detract from Messier's contributions to the 1992 rangers. But to say the Rangers werent already a good team means you don't know much about the franchise during the 1990s.

The 1991-92 team also featured the debuts of Adam Graves, Sergei Nemchinov, Tony Amonte and Doug Weight. The roster pre-Messier already had a prime Mike Gartner, a Norris-caliber Leetch and two solid goaltenders.

Despite this super lineup, the 1992 Rangers fared no better in the postseason than the 1990 team. In fact, the 1990 team did not have the benefit of Leetch, yet had an easier time in the postseason than the 1992 Rangers, who were a mess in the postseason despite a super stacked lineup

Any Rangers fan will tell you Messier was a final piece, not a cornerstone. In fact, you can say that the 1994 deal for Steve Larmer and deadline trades made the Rangers legit Cup contenders. Not Messier's by himself.


There is way too much contradiction on this board. One minute, people are saying the 1994 Rangers Cup was more because of the cast surrounding Messier, then turn right around and say Messier is what made the Rangers elite.

Three reasons why the 1994 team were an elite team:

1) Richter was deemed the starter from Day 1, ending a four-year goalie controversy.

2) Mike Keenan

3) The Steve Larmer trade. The 1994 Rangers went 9-0-1 in the 10 games after acquiring Larmer, vaulting them from 5th in the conference to 2nd overall in the NHL in a matter of weeks.

Do the 1994 Rangers win the Cup without Messier? I certainly don't think so. But the way the team drafted under Craig Patrick and Neil Smith pointed to the Rangers becoming an elite team -- Messier or no Messier.

GWOW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 12:11 PM
  #184
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,922
vCash: 500
one thing i'd add about the league's O6 talent level vs. later periods is we don't know where the talent drop-off was. or at least i don't know-- i'm open to evidence or arguments from anyone who might have an idea.

maybe the third liners and bottom pair d-men on most teams were virtually interchangeable with 50 or more other guys who were stuck in the minors. obviously, expansion would have still created more jobs than this hypothetical talent pool could have filled, but i still don't know the degree to which the first wave of expansion and the subsequent waves diluted the league's competitiveness.

two things can probably be surmised though:

1. that the bottom end of the O6 talent pool would have very likely been more competitive due to the extreme level of competition for those last spots on every team. for example, if there were hypothetically any number of guys in the minor leagues who were talented enough and ready to take NHL roster spots, then the guys who were occupying third lines and bottom pairs in the O6 league would have almost literally had to give "110%" every shift just to keep their jobs.

2. the goaltending in the O6 era was likely the best ever, top to bottom. if the best four goalies in the league in any given era are probably hall of famers, you have a situation like boston's "uke line" facing a hall of famer in net every single night the opposition wasn't playing their backup (the other five teams had plante, hall, sawchuk, bower, and worsley).

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 12:31 PM
  #185
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
And yet the best players in the league, the ones whom one would describe as "elite" (like Jean Beliveau) all eclipsed it. Or are you going to label Ralph Backstrom as an elite offensive player like those two are trying to do? After all, they are citing his BEST offensive year and ignoring every other one.
I'm not concerned with Ralph Backstrom or any other player, or that season in particular. I just thought it was rather short-sighted to make such a blanket statement that if a player didn't have a point per game, then he wasn't an elite producer. There are plenty examples from that time, of top-10 scorers being well below a point per game.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 12:34 PM
  #186
reckoning
Registered User
 
reckoning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 5,233
vCash: 500
Similar to Hockey Outsider's thread about Sakic, I decided to look up Messier's gamelogs to see if there was a significant difference in how his teams did when he was and wasn't in the lineup. Unfortunately, the logs of Hockey-Reference only go back to the '87-'88 season, so I don't have the data from his first 8 seasons, but here's the rest of his career:

Edmonton ('87-'88 to '90-'91):
With Messier: 142-103-36; .569
Without Messier: 15-21-3; .423

NY Rangers ('91-'92 to '96-'97):
With Messier: 224-152-45; .586
Without Messier: 13-20-6; .410

Vancouver ('97-'98 to '99-'00):
With Messier: 71-103-33; .423
Without Messier: 7-24-8; .282

NY Rangers ('00-'01 to '03-'04):
With Messier: 108-145-24; .433
Without Messier: 20-29-2; .412

reckoning is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 12:44 PM
  #187
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
Except that there were more than 100 NHL level hockey players in 1967 on the planet. They simply had not had their chance. So really, the size of the league only gave these players an opportunity to play. They already had the skill. When you get to 500-600 players though like today, its harder to produce.

Let's take your example of the other thread. You mentioned Colton Orr. Ever notice that even when a guy like Ovechkin gets on the ice vs. an Orr, it's not an automatic goal? At the same time, you agreed Orr was a useless piece of crap.

So why doesn't Ovechkin score at will against a guy like Orr whereas a Bossy would chew up any line with an Orr caliber player on it? It's because Bossy was better.
- I grant that there are more than 100 NHL level players. in other words, huge competition for jobs at the bottom level. Europe excluded, the best 80 players were probably all in the NHL, and then maybe 20 of the next 50 as you enter more of a "gray area". I don't know what that point you have here, though because both the O6 and present day are low-scoring eras, and both are periods where I'm saying there was tough competition for jobs and better low-end players than usually found in history. I've shown a connection, you haven't.

- No, I don't see Colton Orr get on the ice much at all, and when he does, it's almost always against the other team's lesser players. In the event that he did get on the ice against an Ovechkin, he would have a much greater likelihood of being scored on but nothing is a guaranteed goal, no matter what players, no matter what era. They're still just 2 of 12 players on the ice. And there's no evidence to suggest that Bossy frequently victimized Colton Orr types, either. You're scrambling around in your own end, trying to get the puck so you can ice it.

- Ovechkin has a ways to go before he is viewed favourably to Bossy in an all-time sense, but assuming the next 5 years go like his first five years, he is well on his way to being better than Bossy. Anyone in this section should see that.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 12:47 PM
  #188
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,824
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
Similar to Hockey Outsider's thread about Sakic, I decided to look up Messier's gamelogs to see if there was a significant difference in how his teams did when he was and wasn't in the lineup. Unfortunately, the logs of Hockey-Reference only go back to the '87-'88 season, so I don't have the data from his first 8 seasons, but here's the rest of his career:

Edmonton ('87-'88 to '90-'91):
With Messier: 142-103-36; .569
Without Messier: 15-21-3; .423

NY Rangers ('91-'92 to '96-'97):
With Messier: 224-152-45; .586
Without Messier: 13-20-6; .410

Vancouver ('97-'98 to '99-'00):
With Messier: 71-103-33; .423
Without Messier: 7-24-8; .282

NY Rangers ('00-'01 to '03-'04):
With Messier: 108-145-24; .433
Without Messier: 20-29-2; .412
cripes...

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:13 PM
  #189
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by finchster View Post
Don Cherry called him Jammy Jager
If I had to guess, I would have guessed it came from that idiot.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:18 PM
  #190
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
I would not mock this one.

Brodeur is often sited as "perhaps the best goalie ever" by people in the game that should know better than all of us.

On this site there is a vast gap of opinion on his ranking. Because his situation was so unique its really more of a guess, compared to all other players, as to his true ability.

Even this season, at age 38, he was considered all done until the return of Jacques Lemaire behind the bench. The worst team in the league suddenly has given up 19 goals in their last 10 games (from over 3 goals a game to under 2) and Brodeur looks just fine in net again.
Brodeur was just as bad under Jacques Lemaire last year between Jan 1 and the Olympics, as he was under John MacLean this year.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:22 PM
  #191
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
one thing i'd add about the league's O6 talent level vs. later periods is we don't know where the talent drop-off was. or at least i don't know-- i'm open to evidence or arguments from anyone who might have an idea.

maybe the third liners and bottom pair d-men on most teams were virtually interchangeable with 50 or more other guys who were stuck in the minors. obviously, expansion would have still created more jobs than this hypothetical talent pool could have filled, but i still don't know the degree to which the first wave of expansion and the subsequent waves diluted the league's competitiveness.

two things can probably be surmised though:

1. that the bottom end of the O6 talent pool would have very likely been more competitive due to the extreme level of competition for those last spots on every team. for example, if there were hypothetically any number of guys in the minor leagues who were talented enough and ready to take NHL roster spots, then the guys who were occupying third lines and bottom pairs in the O6 league would have almost literally had to give "110%" every shift just to keep their jobs.

2. the goaltending in the O6 era was likely the best ever, top to bottom. if the best four goalies in the league in any given era are probably hall of famers, you have a situation like boston's "uke line" facing a hall of famer in net every single night the opposition wasn't playing their backup (the other five teams had plante, hall, sawchuk, bower, and worsley).
I agree with 100% of the content in this post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
Similar to Hockey Outsider's thread about Sakic, I decided to look up Messier's gamelogs to see if there was a significant difference in how his teams did when he was and wasn't in the lineup. Unfortunately, the logs of Hockey-Reference only go back to the '87-'88 season, so I don't have the data from his first 8 seasons, but here's the rest of his career:

Edmonton ('87-'88 to '90-'91):
With Messier: 142-103-36; .569
Without Messier: 15-21-3; .423

NY Rangers ('91-'92 to '96-'97):
With Messier: 224-152-45; .586
Without Messier: 13-20-6; .410

Vancouver ('97-'98 to '99-'00):
With Messier: 71-103-33; .423
Without Messier: 7-24-8; .282

NY Rangers ('00-'01 to '03-'04):
With Messier: 108-145-24; .433
Without Messier: 20-29-2; .412
Wow!

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:38 PM
  #192
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
- I grant that there are more than 100 NHL level players. in other words, huge competition for jobs at the bottom level. Europe excluded, the best 80 players were probably all in the NHL, and then maybe 20 of the next 50 as you enter more of a "gray area". I don't know what that point you have here, though because both the O6 and present day are low-scoring eras, and both are periods where I'm saying there was tough competition for jobs and better low-end players than usually found in history. I've shown a connection, you haven't.
The only connection that you have shown is that they are lower scoring eras. You claim they are lower scoring for the same reason, which is where you are wrong. One is lower scoring because of tougher competition, the other is lower scoring because the offensive stars aren't as good as those from past generations.

Quote:
- No, I don't see Colton Orr get on the ice much at all, and when he does, it's almost always against the other team's lesser players. In the event that he did get on the ice against an Ovechkin, he would have a much greater likelihood of being scored on but nothing is a guaranteed goal, no matter what players, no matter what era. They're still just 2 of 12 players on the ice. And there's no evidence to suggest that Bossy frequently victimized Colton Orr types, either. You're scrambling around in your own end, trying to get the puck so you can ice it.
There's also no evidence that even a guy like Dave Fenyves is easier to score on than say Kevin Klein, now is there? Can you offer me evidence as to what contribution Dave Fenyves has to Mike Bossy's scoring totals? No. You cannot.

Quote:
- Ovechkin has a ways to go before he is viewed favourably to Bossy in an all-time sense, but assuming the next 5 years go like his first five years, he is well on his way to being better than Bossy. Anyone in this section should see that.
How do you figure? He is already slowing down. The only thing Ovechkin has over Bossy is awards and the only reason he has that is because of Wayne Gretzky. Unless you want to argue their speed etc. which you can;t because the playing field is unfair.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 01:46 PM
  #193
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,911
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
Let's take your example of the other thread. You mentioned Colton Orr. Ever notice that even when a guy like Ovechkin gets on the ice vs. an Orr, it's not an automatic goal? At the same time, you agreed Orr was a useless piece of crap.
As far as I know hockey is not an individual sport. Even if Ovechkin and Orr are on the ice, Orr still has teammates and a goaltender playing with him who are working together to stop Ovechkin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CarlWinslow View Post
So why doesn't Ovechkin score at will against a guy like Orr whereas a Bossy would chew up any line with an Orr caliber player on it? It's because Bossy was better.
Bossy scored at will against any line with poor players? I guess Bossy must have scored most of his goals against terrible players then, while Ovechkin apparently scores against players of all types. That to me would make Ovechkin the superior player. That is unless your statement is a massive exaggeration...

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 02:03 PM
  #194
CarlWinslow
@hiphopsicles
 
CarlWinslow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Winnipeg
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
As far as I know hockey is not an individual sport. Even if Ovechkin and Orr are on the ice, Orr still has teammates and a goaltender playing with him who are working together to stop Ovechkin.



Bossy scored at will against any line with poor players? I guess Bossy must have scored most of his goals against terrible players then, while Ovechkin apparently scores against players of all types. That to me would make Ovechkin the superior player. That is unless your statement is a massive exaggeration...
Of course it is. There is no evidence to suggest either way is right just like there is no evidence to suggest the lower end players of the 80s are any worse than the lower end players Ovechkin faces. That is unless you want to stretch and bend statistics to suit the argument.

We are throwing around opinions as if they are fact. Therefore my exaggeration becomes appropriate to the argument.

CarlWinslow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 05:40 PM
  #195
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Brodeur was just as bad under Jacques Lemaire last year between Jan 1 and the Olympics, as he was under John MacLean this year.
And yet he was a finalist for the Vezina last year.

What were we talking about, overrated?

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 06:22 PM
  #196
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
 
quoipourquoi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Hockeytown, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 3,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by reckoning View Post
Vancouver ('97-'98 to '99-'00):
With Messier: 71-103-33; .423
Without Messier: 7-24-8; .282
That might be my new favorite statistic. I had my suspicions based upon the way the Canucks fell apart in the 1999-2000 season, but this confirms it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Media Savvy Lee
Despite this super lineup, the 1992 Rangers fared no better in the postseason than the 1990 team. In fact, the 1990 team did not have the benefit of Leetch, yet had an easier time in the postseason than the 1992 Rangers, who were a mess in the postseason despite a super stacked lineup
If it weren't for the strike that kept the Rangers off the ice for 18 days, I think they would've had a fair deal more momentum going into the playoffs.

quoipourquoi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 07:26 PM
  #197
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
And yet he was a finalist for the Vezina last year.

What were we talking about, overrated?
Brodeur was likely the 2nd best goalie in the league the rest of the season. At New Years, he had almost caught up to Miller statistically before falling apart.

In my opinion, he fell apart because he couldn't handle the workload of starting every game anymore, due to his age. The Olympic break really (basically sitting on the bench after blowing the game vs. USA) really helped him get his game back.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 07:27 PM
  #198
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,544
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
And yet he was a finalist for the Vezina last year.

What were we talking about, overrated?
Brodeur was likely the 2nd best goalie in the league the rest of the season. At New Years, he had almost caught up to Miller statistically before falling apart.

In my opinion, he fell apart because he couldn't handle the workload of starting every game anymore, due to his age. The Olympic break really (basically sitting on the bench after blowing the game vs. USA) really helped him get his game back.

I think any of a number of goalies could have finished 3rd, so it went to the known commodity.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 08:42 PM
  #199
Psycho Papa Joe
Porkchop Hoser
 
Psycho Papa Joe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Cesspool, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,357
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
I would not mock this one.

Brodeur is often sited as "perhaps the best goalie ever" by people in the game that should know better than all of us.
Is he the best at stopping pucks? Probably not. Roy, Hasek and Parent were better amongst guys I've seen.

Did he bring more to the position than any goalie in NHL history? Maybe.

His stickhandling really made it easy on his defense and forwards. Hasek, Roy et al just don't have that skill at nearly the same level.

The stickhandling, combined with his ability to stop pucks, is why he just might be the most valuable goalie to his team in NHL history.

Psycho Papa Joe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-02-2011, 08:55 PM
  #200
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Psycho Papa Joe View Post
Is he the best at stopping pucks? Probably not. Roy, Hasek and Parent were better amongst guys I've seen.

Did he bring more to the position than any goalie in NHL history? Maybe.

His stickhandling really made it easy on his defense and forwards. Hasek, Roy et al just don't have that skill at nearly the same level.

The stickhandling, combined with his ability to stop pucks, is why he just might be the most valuable goalie to his team in NHL history.
Like I said.....

Dennis Bonvie 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 10:55 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.