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
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

What Gretzky be as good in post lock-out era?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-12-2011, 01:54 PM
  #176
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,766
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Yes, you have. You've said it multiple times. It was your entire argument for why Lidstrom is better than Harvey was - because "he faced competition from Europe and Canada's population increased."
IMO, generally the farther we go back in time, the bigger the difference between the talent pool of now and then. If you want to talk about Harvey instead of Gretzky then we're talking about an NHL with virtually only Canadians. At least Gretzky played in the NHL at a time when other countries produced and supplied NHL players and a lot of growth had taken place in the sport by then. It's far more difficult to look at someone like Harvey and compare what he did at face value with the current era. That's why I'd rather stay right out of discussions with players from that far back. It's not really beneficial to anyone and it's impossible to know where someone like Harvey might stand in todays NHL. Yet some people in that thread wanted to pretend we should only compare them at face value and that's really not fair to Lidstrom.

Basically, Lidstrom and Harvey have fairly equal resumes when looked upon at face value vs. their own peers. The quality of hockey and depth of talent during Lidstrom's career when compared with Harvey's gives Lidstrom a rather large edge overall IMO.

It's much different than saying Daniel Sedin is a better hockey player than Wayne Gretzky simply because he plays in this era if that's what you think I was saying.


Last edited by danincanada: 07-12-2011 at 02:02 PM.
danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 03:28 PM
  #177
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite Vision View Post
Jagr scored 77 points in the exact same 43 games Lemieux scored his 76 points, and an additional 7 points in the 2 games Lemieux missed. So Jagr actually had a better point per game than Lemieux in 45 games, than Lemieux in 43 games. My point was that there is no actual evidence he or Jagr would dominate like that in this league for a full season in this era, not likely without playing with each other anyway. If you want to use that season as proof for Mario being able to dominate like that in this league then the same thing must apply to Jagr.

I still don't understand how you don't understand that 135-150 point on average player in this league would absolutely destroying the league today, but I take it you'll get it soon enough.
But you're missing THE most important point of the whole thing...
MARIO WAS ALMOST 37 YEARS OLD WITH A WONKY BACK AT THE TIME!!!

What part of that is not sinking in???

A healthy Mario in his prime today destroys the league, no way around it.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 03:38 PM
  #178
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,936
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sokil View Post
of course he'd be good in todays league

that said, his best play was in the pre-goaltending NHL when any idiot could take a weak shot on net and score
He was the only idiot doing it 70+ times a year though.

That said, he did score with his slapper a lot on the rush, and that's a goal that's much harder to score against modern goaltending. That could be part of the reason his goal scoring dropped so dramatically into the dead puck era.

arrbez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 03:40 PM
  #179
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
And if AO doesn't get suspended he wins it and probably the Hart as well.

Pretty sure alot of people in this history section didn't believe that Hank was the MVP in 10, it happens in Hart voting sometimes. Bobby Orr can attest to this.

For the record I thought Sid should have won it but he didn't.

Who said anything about the Hart?

It was stated that a prime Jagr couldn't even out score Sid or OV today.
I said Sid and OV can't even consistently out score the Sedin's....the point still stands.

So what if OV got suspended for a couple of games and lost the scoring title.
Jagr missed 19 games in 99/00 and STILL took home the scoring title and that was at the very height of the DPE, during some of the lowest scoring seasons in the last 40 years!

I mean holy **** folks, it was only 6 freakin years ago that Jagr put up 123 points at age 34...like wtf?
When these "era's" begin and end are getting ridiculous!

"Oh that was the first year after the lockout, this is all the way into the 6th year after the lock now, totally different".....

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 03:47 PM
  #180
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Who said anything about the Hart?

It was stated that a prime Jagr couldn't even out score Sid or OV today.
I said Sid and OV can't even consistently out score the Sedin's....the point still stands.

So what if OV got suspended for a couple of games and lost the scoring title.
Jagr missed 19 games in 99/00 and STILL took home the scoring title and that was at the very height of the DPE, during some of the lowest scoring seasons in the last 40 years!

I mean holy **** folks, it was only 6 freakin years ago that Jagr put up 123 points at age 34...like wtf?
When these "era's" begin and end are getting ridiculous!
Eaxctly.

5 Art Ross trophies is 5 Art Ross trophies no matter how you look at it.

Injuries or not Jagr was winning those Art Ross trophies. So far Ovechkin and Crosby have 1 each.

livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 04:10 PM
  #181
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,472
vCash: 500
Oh and for the record, Jagr DID out score Sid once and OV twice in just the last 6 seasons and Jagr only played 3 of them!

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 04:19 PM
  #182
livewell68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,514
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Oh and for the record, Jagr DID out score Sid once and OV twice in just the last 6 seasons and Jagr only played 3 of them!
... don't you know though? Ovechkin and Crosby were young. If Jagr didn't outscore them, it means he sucks.

livewell68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 05:53 PM
  #183
redbull
2k17
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
But you're missing THE most important point of the whole thing...
MARIO WAS ALMOST 37 YEARS OLD WITH A WONKY BACK AT THE TIME!!!

What part of that is not sinking in???

A healthy Mario in his prime today destroys the league, no way around it.
why is this even being discussed, seriously. There's NOBODY who saw 99 and 66 play, in their prime, who would ever suggest otherwise.

Era, conditioning, goalie pads - however you slice it, those players would be pretty much TWICE as productive as the elite players of today, give or take.

I place Gretzky slightly more dominant and productive than Mario.

I place Crosby slightly more productive than the next tier of Ovechkin, Sedins, Stamkos, etc. This group is very close to the Jagrs, Messiers, Lafleurs in terms of skill, relative to their peers at the time.

So Gretzky and Lemieux approached DOUBLE their peers.

There's absolutely no discussion here whatsoever.

To "adjust" their stats relative to x,y,z is meaningless. Their stats were a simple byproduct of their incredible on-ice dominance that you could see with your eyes.

If there were no statisticians, no names on the jerseys, they'd clearly stand out among their peers - far more than any of today's stand out. That's not the competition that's better today, it's just that those two players happened to be far and away better than their competition.

And one final point. They weren't better because they were better conditioned or stronger or faster or tougher - they were simply better hockey players BETWEEN THE EARS.

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 06:12 PM
  #184
Hawksfan2828
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Libertyville, IL
Posts: 12,376
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Gretzky only needed an Enforcer back in the day because it was a much more brutal league then.
Most of the crap you needed an Enforcer for then, has zero tolerance in today's NHL.

Gretzky would thrive in today's NHL. No clutching and grabbing and elaborate systems for him to take apart.
He didn't play Hockey, he played chess.
He wouldn't be able to reach the same kind of point totals today because of the improved goaltending equipment and styles not because of players playing better D or better systems.
That stuff means nothing to him.
Back in the day, the only way to shut Gretzky down was through stellar goaltending and the only way to contain him was to have someone like Carbo or Tik shadow and physically harass him 24/7. Something you can't get away with today.
Thats the biggest problem I have with Gretzky - the guy was overprotected. Most players took their fair share of licks, however Gretzky rarely got smashed.

Gretzky was pretty much left to freely skate and was given plenty of time and space to concoct plays.

This is why I favor Mario when the top 3 debate occurs. Mario was at least a physical player, cant say the same for Gretz..

Of course Gretz will always be the Great One, but I have more respect for the more physical players.

Hawksfan2828 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 06:41 PM
  #185
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
why is this even being discussed, seriously. There's NOBODY who saw 99 and 66 play, in their prime, who would ever suggest otherwise.

Era, conditioning, goalie pads - however you slice it, those players would be pretty much TWICE as productive as the elite players of today, give or take.

I place Gretzky slightly more dominant and productive than Mario.

I place Crosby slightly more productive than the next tier of Ovechkin, Sedins, Stamkos, etc. This group is very close to the Jagrs, Messiers, Lafleurs in terms of skill, relative to their peers at the time.

So Gretzky and Lemieux approached DOUBLE their peers.

There's absolutely no discussion here whatsoever.

To "adjust" their stats relative to x,y,z is meaningless. Their stats were a simple byproduct of their incredible on-ice dominance that you could see with your eyes.

If there were no statisticians, no names on the jerseys, they'd clearly stand out among their peers - far more than any of today's stand out. That's not the competition that's better today, it's just that those two players happened to be far and away better than their competition.

And one final point. They weren't better because they were better conditioned or stronger or faster or tougher - they were simply better hockey players BETWEEN THE EARS.
I don't disagree with most of what you're saying, but the bolded part is a bit of a head scratcher.

How is Crosby more productive than Ovechkin? Not in terms of producing points, since he hasn't proven that he can stay healthy. Ovechkin has done things to separate himself from the pack as a point producer more than Crosby has to this point IMO. It would take Crosby staying healthy for at least the next two seasons to change my mind on that matter.

You have two groups that, in terms of point production, each have a player of the "which of these is not like the other" variety. Ovechkin is definitely above the Sedins and Stamkos in terms of proven peak point production, although Henrik has closed the gap significantly the past two seasons. Similarly, Messier is not in the same ballpark as Jagr or Lafleur in terms of peak point production.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your terms, but as dominant as Gretzky and Lemieux were, there's no way I would say they were anything close to twice as productive as players like Jagr, Lafleur or Ovechkin (as well as many others).

The players I might say were about half as productive as Gretzky and Lemieux at their peaks could be a group like this:

Mullen, Gartner, Anderson, Federko, McDonald, Goulet, etc

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 07:55 PM
  #186
plusandminus
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 980
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
How is Crosby more productive than Ovechkin? Not in terms of producing points, since he hasn't proven that he can stay healthy. Ovechkin has done things to separate himself from the pack as a point producer more than Crosby has to this point IMO. It would take Crosby staying healthy for at least the next two seasons to change my mind on that matter.
I too think Crosby is slightly more productive than the others. I think one can see it by looking at how Crosby led the scoring halfway through this last season.
I don't understand why Crosby would need "the next two seasons" to change ones mind. What if Crosby next years plays say 74 games and scores 126 points, with 2nd placed having say 105 points? Wouldn't that be enough? If Crosby played 82 games and scored say 170 points, with 2nd placed having 105 points? Nothing of that would make you change your mind?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Maybe I am misunderstanding your terms, but as dominant as Gretzky and Lemieux were, there's no way I would say they were anything close to twice as productive as players like Jagr, Lafleur or Ovechkin (as well as many others).

The players I might say were about half as productive as Gretzky and Lemieux at their peaks could be a group like this:

Mullen, Gartner, Anderson, Federko, McDonald, Goulet, etc
He did on occasions produce about twice as many points.

plusandminus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 10:08 PM
  #187
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by plusandminus View Post
I too think Crosby is slightly more productive than the others. I think one can see it by looking at how Crosby led the scoring halfway through this last season.
I don't understand why Crosby would need "the next two seasons" to change ones mind. What if Crosby next years plays say 74 games and scores 126 points, with 2nd placed having say 105 points? Wouldn't that be enough? If Crosby played 82 games and scored say 170 points, with 2nd placed having 105 points? Nothing of that would make you change your mind?
First, to me part of being productive is staying healthy in order to play games and produce points. Crosby may have been the best player when he was on the ice last season... but he wasn't on the ice for half the season. I don't see how his established levels of production and health are different from players like Lindros and Forsberg of the DPE. That's elite company to be sure, but just as I wouldn't put those guys above Ovechkin's in terms of point production, I wouldn't put Crosby above him either. As far as Crosby scoring 170 points in the current environment... get back to me if it happens.

Quote:
Originally Posted by plusandminus View Post
He did on occasions produce about twice as many points.
Produce about twice as many points as whom? The post to which I was referring said that Gretzky and Lemieux would be twice as productive as the best players today (which to me are Ovechkin and Crosby, among others).

There were some seasons when Gretzky (or Lemieux) produced 60-75% more than the next best player, although usually this necessitated removing from consideration the other and/or their teammates, etc. Still, 60-75% is not "about" 100%, and the next best players were not always as good as the best of today.

The adjusted numbers indicate Gretzky/Lemieux wouldn't score even 50% more points than Crosby or Ovechkin, maybe 40%, but likely less than that. That's if Crosby and Ovechkin have hit their peaks... which seems possible in Ovechkin's case and less likely in Crosby's case (unless he suffers from past and/or future injuries).

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 10:24 PM
  #188
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
First, to me part of being productive is staying healthy in order to play games and produce points. Crosby may have been the best player when he was on the ice last season... but he wasn't on the ice for half the season. I don't see how his established levels of production and health are different from players like Lindros and Forsberg of the DPE. That's elite company to be sure, but just as I wouldn't put those guys above Ovechkin's in terms of point production, I wouldn't put Crosby above him either. As far as Crosby scoring 170 points in the current environment... get back to me if it happens.



Produce about twice as many points as whom? The post to which I was referring said that Gretzky and Lemieux would be twice as productive as the best players today (which to me are Ovechkin and Crosby, among others).

There were some seasons when Gretzky (or Lemieux) produced 60-75% more than the next best player, although usually this necessitated removing from consideration the other and/or their teammates, etc. Still, 60-75% is not "about" 100%, and the next best players were not always as good as the best of today.

The adjusted numbers indicate Gretzky/Lemieux wouldn't score even 50% more points than Crosby or Ovechkin, maybe 40%, but likely less than that. That's if Crosby and Ovechkin have hit their peaks... which seems possible in Ovechkin's case and less likely in Crosby's case (unless he suffers from past and/or future injuries).
Well...not to debate the 100% too much here but...

Over Gretzky's 5 year peak he scored 1036 points.

Over that same time period....

Kurri 591
Bossy 551
Stastny 542
Hawerchuk 528
Savard 526
Goulet 521
Dionne 493
Messier 452

So maybe not quite 100% but pretty damned close

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 10:57 PM
  #189
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Well...not to debate the 100% too much here but...

Over Gretzky's 5 year peak he scored 1036 points.

Over that same time period....

Kurri 591
Bossy 551
Stastny 542
Hawerchuk 528
Savard 526
Goulet 521
Dionne 493
Messier 452

So maybe not quite 100% but pretty damned close
That's a good point, but thought he was referring to single seasons. Just shows how Gretzky was not only dominant, but consistently dominant. Not to be too nitpicky, but I'm assuming you are looking at '82 to '86, which according to HR.com yields:

Gretzky 1036
Bossy 623
Stastny 604
Coffey 570
Kurri 569
Savard 555
Dionne 536
Hawerchuk 531

That's 66% more than Bossy, mind-boggling to be sure, but basically in the range I was talking about and not near 100%.

There were a couple issues I had with what was said. First, that because Gretzky outscored his competition at that time by a certain amount, he would also outscore later or present competition by the same amount. This has to do with his competition and less to do with Gretzky himself. Second, it seemed like it was being said that there wasn't much difference in point production between players like Jagr and Lafleur... and Ovechkin and Crosby... and Messier, the Sedins and Stamkos (although this is not how they were exactly grouped), which I believe is false. Gretzky was dominant enough as it was, there seems to be no need to exaggerate his dominance.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 11:18 PM
  #190
Irato99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 257
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawksfan2828 View Post
Thats the biggest problem I have with Gretzky - the guy was overprotected. Most players took their fair share of licks, however Gretzky rarely got smashed.

Gretzky was pretty much left to freely skate and was given plenty of time and space to concoct plays.

This is why I favor Mario when the top 3 debate occurs. Mario was at least a physical player, cant say the same for Gretz..

Of course Gretz will always be the Great One, but I have more respect for the more physical players.
Are you really serious?!

Come on, Gretzky found space and time only him could find. The enforcers were needed to prevent some liberties but they didn't give him time and space. There's a clip somewhere of Islanders' great Denis Potvin explaining how he wanted so bad to catch Gretzky but couldn't.

Irato99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-12-2011, 11:18 PM
  #191
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,472
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
That's a good point, but thought he was referring to single seasons. Just shows how Gretzky was not only dominant, but consistently dominant. Not to be too nitpicky, but I'm assuming you are looking at '82 to '86, which according to HR.com yields:

Gretzky 1036
Bossy 623
Stastny 604
Coffey 570
Kurri 569
Savard 555
Dionne 536
Hawerchuk 531

That's 66% more than Bossy, mind-boggling to be sure, but basically in the range I was talking about and not near 100%.

There were a couple issues I had with what was said. First, that because Gretzky outscored his competition at that time by a certain amount, he would also outscore later or present competition by the same amount. This has to do with his competition and less to do with Gretzky himself. Second, it seemed like it was being said that there wasn't much difference in point production between players like Jagr and Lafleur... and Ovechkin and Crosby... and Messier, the Sedins and Stamkos (although this is not how they were exactly grouped), which I believe is false. Gretzky was dominant enough as it was, there seems to be no need to exaggerate his dominance.
Yeah I was and I think I did Gretzky's from 81/82 till 85/86 then for some reason I did some the same and mixed in some 82/83 till 86/87.
That's what I get for doing it by hand

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2011, 02:31 AM
  #192
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawksfan2828 View Post
Thats the biggest problem I have with Gretzky - the guy was overprotected. Most players took their fair share of licks, however Gretzky rarely got smashed.

Gretzky was pretty much left to freely skate and was given plenty of time and space to concoct plays.

This is why I favor Mario when the top 3 debate occurs. Mario was at least a physical player, cant say the same for Gretz..

Of course Gretz will always be the Great One, but I have more respect for the more physical players.
True - this would be more fair if Crosby spent a lot more time with Goddard on his wing.

RabbinsDuck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2011, 12:47 PM
  #193
redbull
2k17
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawksfan2828 View Post
Thats the biggest problem I have with Gretzky - the guy was overprotected. Most players took their fair share of licks, however Gretzky rarely got smashed.

Gretzky was pretty much left to freely skate and was given plenty of time and space to concoct plays.
99 was never physical and didn't take many hits to make a play, didn't win any battles along the boards, had very little phyisical strength but was deceptively strong on the puck (combination of agility, elusiveness and quickness) with far better hockey sense than the next best superstar.

I'd say Gretzky's pure hockey ability "protected him" far more than the intimidation of Dave Sememko or anyone else.

Too much is made of that "protection", there is far too much at stake in hockey to think that 99 wouldn't get drilled into the boards if a player had the chance, even if he had to take a beating. 99 was just that good.

And consider a player who's think, kinda frail, not super fast, didn't shoot particularly hard (liek Brett Hull) or release quickly (like Mike Bossy) or protect the puck (like Mario) yet still produce to the level he did - simply astounding by any measure.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
Maybe I am misunderstanding your terms, but as dominant as Gretzky and Lemieux were, there's no way I would say they were anything close to twice as productive as players like Jagr, Lafleur or Ovechkin (as well as many others).
I know you've discussed this in other posts and of course I wasn't using pure math numbers with some generalizing of "twice as productive" - but, it's pretty close in many seasons. Especially when you consider his production vs. hall-of-famers on other teams!

In terms of Crosby, let's not forget he's still a KID and the reason he hasn't won THREE Art Rosses are simply injuries. If he can remain healthy, I believe he's far better (not JUST statistically) than the next tier, regardless of who specifically is in that tier (Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Sedins and a handful of others that have 100pt potential).

Last year was the first year that Sid started to separate himself from the pack and until he was hurt, he was clearly something special. He led the team in scoring by 16 pts and missed half the season. His pace of 132pts (although he may not have kept up that pace) would have destroyed anyone and given the linemates he had, the numbers are even more amazing.

But without getting overly scientific, I believe there are distinct groups when it comes to offensive forwards in NHL history:

99, slightly over 66
<giant gap - larger than most seem to think on these boards>
Jagr (probably the next one to separate himself by any margin)
Crosby is in that same group with guys like Lafleur, Messier, Bossy, Ovechkin, etc

Without getting into specifics of names and stats, my general point is that 99/66 still clearly separate themselves by a giant margin over people in their era AND current era.

You don't need the stats if you see them play. Watch any Mario from the early 90s on the NHL network, he was terrifying other teams. Gretz did the same all through the 80s.

NOBODY comes close to that now.

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2011, 05:33 PM
  #194
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
I know you've discussed this in other posts and of course I wasn't using pure math numbers with some generalizing of "twice as productive" - but, it's pretty close in many seasons. Especially when you consider his production vs. hall-of-famers on other teams!
When discussing the most elite offensive forwards in history and using terms like "twice as productive", it implies to me something along the lines of "score twice as many points". Maybe you mean twice as valuable, which might not be far off the mark in most cases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
In terms of Crosby, let's not forget he's still a KID and the reason he hasn't won THREE Art Rosses are simply injuries. If he can remain healthy, I believe he's far better (not JUST statistically) than the next tier, regardless of who specifically is in that tier (Malkin, Ovechkin, Stamkos, Sedins and a handful of others that have 100pt potential).
First, that's a bit of a stretch. If he wasn't hurt in 2008, it probably would have come down to the wire between Crosby and Ovechkin (who had a slightly better PPG that year). And the fact is that he was hurt. I just don't see how he has separated himself from Ovechkin from an offensive productivity perspective.

When you start saying "what if player X wasn't hurt and player Y wasn't in the league?" that changes everything. You take injuries (and Lemieux, Gretzky and Jagr) out of the equation, and next thing you know, Sakic, Forsberg, Selanne, and Lindros each have 3 or 4 Rosses too:

1995- Lindros
1996- Sakic or Lindros
1997- Selanne, Kariya, Forsberg or Lindros
1998- Forsberg or Selanne or ?
1999- Selanne or Sakic
2000- Sakic or Bure
2001- Sakic
2004- Forsberg

You could argue that Jagr "deserved" as many as 8 Rosses or as few as 3, based on similar "what if" type scenarios.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Last year was the first year that Sid started to separate himself from the pack and until he was hurt, he was clearly something special. He led the team in scoring by 16 pts and missed half the season. His pace of 132pts (although he may not have kept up that pace) would have destroyed anyone and given the linemates he had, the numbers are even more amazing.
I agree he appeared to be on his way to a special season last year, but again he was injured. The next 2-3 years will put that season in better perspective. It's one thing for a player to miss a few games while maintaining a previously established PPG. It's another to miss half a season while trying to establish a higher PPG.

Maybe I'm more cautious than most, because I've seen this type of thing before in the dead puck era. Stars like Lindros, Forsberg, Kariya, Bure, (even Jagr, Sakic, Selanne) etc. were often injured. Forsberg had 1.5 seasons in 2003 and 2004 that were significantly better than any he had before or since. What if you concluded he was going to dominate the rest of the decade based on less than two consecutive full seasons? Lindros' per-game metrics were outstanding, but the fact is he couldn't stay healthy. I'm not saying Crosby is destined to be injured every three years, but I can't say that he won't be either.

It will take two full seasons to convince me he's hit a new level. First, because there are plenty of players who have had an "outlier" season in their career that was far better than any other. Second, he's had several months off, which could be either a help or hindrance. For example, Forsberg's great 2003 season came after he missed the entire 2002 regular season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
But without getting overly scientific, I believe there are distinct groups when it comes to offensive forwards in NHL history:

99, slightly over 66
<giant gap - larger than most seem to think on these boards>
Jagr (probably the next one to separate himself by any margin)
Crosby is in that same group with guys like Lafleur, Messier, Bossy, Ovechkin, etc
Strictly in terms of peak/prime point production, might look like this:

Gretzky
Lemieux


Jagr (Howe?)

Lafleur (Beliveau?... Esposito?- could be higher or lower)

Sakic, Ovechkin, Dionne (Mikita and Hull?)
Yzerman, Forsberg, Thornton, Selanne, Trottier, Lindros, Crosby
Bossy, H. Sedin, and many others

It depends on what time frame (3, 5, 8 years?) you look at, how you account for injuries, linemates, etc. and this doesn't differentiate goals or assists. It's harder to compare pre-expansion and immediate post-expansion (Espo) players to more modern players.

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Without getting into specifics of names and stats, my general point is that 99/66 still clearly separate themselves by a giant margin over people in their era AND current era.

You don't need the stats if you see them play. Watch any Mario from the early 90s on the NHL network, he was terrifying other teams. Gretz did the same all through the 80s.

NOBODY comes close to that now.
Let's just agree on this.


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 07-13-2011 at 05:41 PM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2011, 06:31 PM
  #195
redbull
2k17
 
redbull's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,176
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
I agree he appeared to be on his way to a special season last year, but again he was injured. The next 2-3 years will put that season in better perspective. It's one thing for a player to miss a few games while maintaining a previously established PPG. It's another to miss half a season while trying to establish a higher PPG.

Maybe I'm more cautious than most, because I've seen this type of thing before in the dead puck era. Stars like Lindros, Forsberg, Kariya, Bure, (even Jagr, Sakic, Selanne) etc. were often injured. Forsberg had 1.5 seasons in 2003 and 2004 that were significantly better than any he had before or since. What if you concluded he was going to dominate the rest of the decade based on less than two consecutive full seasons? Lindros' per-game metrics were outstanding, but the fact is he couldn't stay healthy. I'm not saying Crosby is destined to be injured every three years, but I can't say that he won't be either.

It will take two full seasons to convince me he's hit a new level. First, because there are plenty of players who have had an "outlier" season in their career that was far better than any other. Second, he's had several months off, which could be either a help or hindrance. For example, Forsberg's great 2003 season came after he missed the entire 2002 regular season.
Was Ovechkin's season last year an outlier season or is that what he will be?
Same for Crosby?

Last year Sid scored as many goals as Ovechkin, in HALF a season.

Your line (bolded, above) applies to both players.

Not to turn this into yet another Ovechkin/Crosby thread (HF really doesn't need another one of those) but your point about being cautious is a fair one.

Crosby's career PPG is 1.39 vs Ovechkin's 1.29.
Last year Sid was 1.61 to Ovechkins 1.07 - 50% more productive offensively than Ovy.

In 1985-86 Gretzky scored 215pts, Mario 141 - exactly 50% more productive than Mario.

I think Crosby showed last year that he has the ability to separate himself from the crowd in terms of offensive production. It wasn't just a good half-season statistically, he was dominating games to a level that I personally haven't seen since Mario Lemieux.

I believe Sid has the talent to do so consistently. Can he stay healthy? Will he do it?

Time will tell.

redbull is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-13-2011, 10:37 PM
  #196
Swept In Seven
Disciple of The Zook
 
Swept In Seven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 9,687
vCash: 128
I think he would thrive in todays NHL

Swept In Seven is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 01:45 AM
  #197
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 4,841
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Was Ovechkin's season last year an outlier season or is that what he will be? Same for Crosby?

Last year Sid scored as many goals as Ovechkin, in HALF a season.

Not to turn this into yet another Ovechkin/Crosby thread (HF really doesn't need another one of those) but your point about being cautious is a fair one.
We don't know which was an outlier and which was perhaps a new level of production. That's why this should be quite an interesting season, because so many top players had "outlier" type seasons last year:

Crosby- best PPG and worst point season of his career
Ovechkin- worst season of his career
Malkin- worst season of his career
Thornton- worst season in a 10 years?
Kovalchuk- worst PPG of career and lowest points since rookie

Add in the return of Jagr... St. Louis and the Sedins having back to back great seasons... Selanne and Iginla showing they're still strong... should be no shortage of story lines to follow next season

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
Crosby's career PPG is 1.39 vs Ovechkin's 1.29.
Last year Sid was 1.61 to Ovechkins 1.07 - 50% more productive offensively than Ovy.
more productive while on the ice, you mean... big difference

Crosby isn't the first guy to have a great half season or less:

Cam Neely from '92 to '94 scored 70 goals in 71 games!

Neely '92 & '93 22 gms, 20 G, 10 A
Kariya '98 22 gms, 17 G, 14 A (best adjusted PPG by almost 10%)
Bure '99 11 gms, 13 G, 3 A (best adj PPG by ~20%)
Forsberg '04 39 gms, 18 G, 37 A (best adj PPG)
Gaborik '09 17 gms, 13 G, 10 A (best adj PPG by ~16%)

If you just add Kariya, Forsberg and Gaborik's partial seasons:

78 gms, 48 G, 61 A = 109 points (per 82 gms = 50+ G, 114+ Pts)

career highs:

Forsberg- 30 G and 116 Pts in '96... otherwise 30 G and 106 Pts
Kariya-50 G and 108 Pts in '96... otherwise 44 G and 101 Pts
Gaborik- 42 G and 86 Pts

Lindros would be the poster boy for the danger of extrapolation. From '94 to '99 he averaged over 49 G and 116 Points per 82 games, yet his best season was 47 G and 115 Points in '96 and outside of that season his bests were 44 G and 97 Points. Actually '95 could have been his best year, as that extrapolated to over 49 G and 119 Points over an 82 game season, but also to over 78 games played for Lindros (but he never played more than 73 until 2003 when he was not nearly the player he once was).

Quote:
Originally Posted by redbull View Post
In 1985-86 Gretzky scored 215pts, Mario 141 - exactly 50% more productive than Mario.

I think Crosby showed last year that he has the ability to separate himself from the crowd in terms of offensive production. It wasn't just a good half-season statistically, he was dominating games to a level that I personally haven't seen since Mario Lemieux.

I believe Sid has the talent to do so consistently. Can he stay healthy? Will he do it?

Time will tell.
I tend to think he will be healthy this year, especially after such a long rest. However, will he charge full speed ahead a la Lindros and risk further injury, or dial it back a bit to remain healthy?


Last edited by Czech Your Math: 07-14-2011 at 01:51 AM.
Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-14-2011, 11:36 AM
  #198
mja
Negative Creep
 
mja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 4,223
vCash: 500
He'd be the best player in the league and it wouldn't be close, unless Mario came with him.

mja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-15-2011, 12:46 AM
  #199
RabbinsDuck
Registered User
 
RabbinsDuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Brighton, MI
Country: United States
Posts: 4,761
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czech Your Math View Post
We don't know which was an outlier and which was perhaps a new level of production. That's why this should be quite an interesting season, because so many top players had "outlier" type seasons last year:

Crosby- best PPG and worst point season of his career
Ovechkin- worst season of his career
Malkin- worst season of his career
Thornton- worst season in a 10 years?
Kovalchuk- worst PPG of career and lowest points since rookie

Add in the return of Jagr... St. Louis and the Sedins having back to back great seasons... Selanne and Iginla showing they're still strong... should be no shortage of story lines to follow next season



more productive while on the ice, you mean... big difference

Crosby isn't the first guy to have a great half season or less:

Cam Neely from '92 to '94 scored 70 goals in 71 games!

Neely '92 & '93 22 gms, 20 G, 10 A
Kariya '98 22 gms, 17 G, 14 A (best adjusted PPG by almost 10%)
Bure '99 11 gms, 13 G, 3 A (best adj PPG by ~20%)
Forsberg '04 39 gms, 18 G, 37 A (best adj PPG)
Gaborik '09 17 gms, 13 G, 10 A (best adj PPG by ~16%)

If you just add Kariya, Forsberg and Gaborik's partial seasons:

78 gms, 48 G, 61 A = 109 points (per 82 gms = 50+ G, 114+ Pts)

career highs:

Forsberg- 30 G and 116 Pts in '96... otherwise 30 G and 106 Pts
Kariya-50 G and 108 Pts in '96... otherwise 44 G and 101 Pts
Gaborik- 42 G and 86 Pts

Lindros would be the poster boy for the danger of extrapolation. From '94 to '99 he averaged over 49 G and 116 Points per 82 games, yet his best season was 47 G and 115 Points in '96 and outside of that season his bests were 44 G and 97 Points. Actually '95 could have been his best year, as that extrapolated to over 49 G and 119 Points over an 82 game season, but also to over 78 games played for Lindros (but he never played more than 73 until 2003 when he was not nearly the player he once was).



I tend to think he will be healthy this year, especially after such a long rest. However, will he charge full speed ahead a la Lindros and risk further injury, or dial it back a bit to remain healthy?
Great post - thanks.
What truly makes the great players great is maintaining excellence over multiple full seasons, not just sporadically with a lot of 'what-ifs' thrown in.

RabbinsDuck 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 01:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2017 All Rights Reserved.