HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > New York Rangers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Some musings regarding the 2006 draft

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-27-2005, 12:55 PM
  #51
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 18,695
vCash: 500
Yeah its Gretzky, I am not sure if any of the father-son tandems have scored more then the three(right?) Gretzkys! Howe and Hull...

Ola is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 01:02 PM
  #52
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,908
vCash: 500
Go back and look at Ruth's numbers vis-a-vis the rest of baseball until the late 20s.

And then consider that he still holds the Red Sox team record for best winning percentage in a season as a pitcher.

Finally, also consider his power numbers as a batter while he was still pitching in the late teens.

Ruth was CERTAINLY as dominant - if not more so - in his sport as Gretz was in his.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 01:10 PM
  #53
xander
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Section A Lynah Rink
Posts: 4,085
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Actually I was going to add (but didn't) that I meant my response in no way to diminish what he did.

I think he was a great player but I also think he was at the start of the generation who started hitting homeruns (Gehrig even started to eclipse him) and you could even argue that Cobb (though a jerk) was a better hitter.

There was just no one even close to Gretzky, and no one before or after who's even close. Even with a reduced schedule you'd still have guys hitting 500 HR's and at least be in somewhat of the same zip code. Gretzky points are just not even on the same planet.

Again I really dont mean that as a way to take away from Ruth who was an amazing ball player. Same as Jordan in Basketball, but Gretzky from a distance between him and his peers IMO is just unreal. Tha'ts not a knock on Ruth or anyone else, I cant stress that enough, for me it's just how almost video game like Gretzky's numbers really are when you look at them.
In terms of statistical production your right, the differance between gretzky and his peers is unlike any other player in any other sport. But I think you have to pay more atention to what ruth did as a pitcher. It's kind of akin to gretzky doing what he did and then putting on goalie pads and recording 200 wins. Pitching is so vastly differant than hitting, and they're are so few players in the history of the sport who have excelled at both.

xander is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 02:46 PM
  #54
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
and they're are so few players in the history of the sport who have excelled at both.
Few? Ruth is the one and only.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 02:47 PM
  #55
SingnBluesOnBroadway
Retired
 
SingnBluesOnBroadway's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 30,467
vCash: 500
Awards:
Roy Hobbs.

__________________
SingnBluesOnBroadway is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 02:48 PM
  #56
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SingnBluesOnBroadway
Roy Hobbs.
Say it ain't so......ok, Singin', you got me.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 03:21 PM
  #57
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,399
vCash: 500
Sorry just don't think Ruth was quite as dominate for his sport as Gretzky was.

Arguable the best player in baseball but the distance even at the time was just not as great.

It's not a slight on Ruth but I also think there were other factors involved.

From a personal standpoint I'd prefer not to debate it simply because i think doing so would be a waste of time and go nowhere.

At the end of the day I think Ruth was one of the best players of all time and his accomplishments were amazing. I just think the accomplishments of Gretzky are so removed from anything anyone in the sport has done that it's too much to overcome.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 03:45 PM
  #58
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
Edge...

you should go back and check the record books...Ruth was hitting almost as many home runs in the early days as entire teams. For instance, in 1921 he hit 59 and the Indians had 42. He beat the Indians on several other occasions, and I'm sure there's more teams like that. Them some gaudy numbers for sure.

Fletch is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 03:52 PM
  #59
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Sorry just don't think Ruth was quite as dominate for his sport as Gretzky was.
Fair enough. We'll just have to agree to disagree on this issue. I think that Ruth dominated his sport every bit as much, if not more than Gretzky did. While I think there will eventually be another Michael Jordan, I do not think there will ever be another Gretzky or Ruth. However, if I had to choose between the two as to if there will be another so and so, I would think of TGO first.
When one looks at the steals of home, the pitching records, the pitching records in the World Series (heck, it took the 'Sox 86 years to have someone besides Ruth win a WS game pitching-wise), and THEN looks at the hitting, Ruth is an abberation not likely to ever be seen again.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 04:00 PM
  #60
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,399
vCash: 500
I'm not saying he didn't, I'm a huge baseball fan I know what Babe Ruth did. This is just my opinion, and it's not a slight on Ruth.

The reason for my opinion is this.

Yes when Ruth started he was doing something that hadn't been done before, but what he did, didn't stop after he stopped. He ushered in a new era of home run hitting and was at the cusp of the next generation of players who came out and hit HR's.

Guys like Hack Wilson, Gehrig, Jimmie Fox all the generation right behind Ruth (and overlapping for a time) would hit into the 500 HR category. Still 200 behind Ruth but not quite the difference between 1800 points and 2800 points.

What Ruth did was usher in a new generation of baseball. Baseball was very much about small before Ruth and yes there were many factors that went into that. But Ruth was part of a greater change in Baseball at that time when guys like Ken Williams, Roger Hornsby and others started hitting HR's as well. Nobody hit as many as Ruth but once people started catching on to the HR and the game went through changes, it wasn't like Ruth was hitting 50 and nobody else eclipised 20.

With Gretzky there was no one close to (with the possible exception of Mario). And no one before or after him scored at that kind of pace.

Yes Ruth started hitting as many as some teams and right behind him other guys did as well. That never quite happened with Gretzky.

Again it's simply a metter of opinion and it's turning into a matter of debate that is going to go nowhere because the topic is opinion in nature.

I'm not knocking Bath Ruth, I don't need to re-examine the records or re-look at his career. It is my OPINION no more, no less.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 04:27 PM
  #61
Fletch
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 21,473
vCash: 500
It's so tough...

comparing guys from different eras and different sports, as you know. I tend to look at what was going on at that time and compare on a comparative basis at that time. Gretzky was scoring 50-75% more than the next guy; Ruth was scoring more than the next team for many, many years. Both are unheard of today. One to me is a bit more impressive because it's something that has little chance of ever being repeated (I would bet that a guy doesn't come around and hit more home runs than several teams - for several years - although a hockey player scoring 175 points when the next guy's at 100 isn't out of the question - just improbable).

As for other guys...there were few, but he was still a clear leader. The competition:

Hornsby hit one every 27 at bats
Hack Wilson, one every 20
Cy Williams, one every 27
Chuck Klein, one every 21
Babe...one every 11 1/2.

That's almost twice the then era competition. While today's standards are different (as are other positives and negatives for hitters, such as pitchers, fences and the ball), I can only go on what he did in his era, compared to what other were doing.

Fletch is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 04:38 PM
  #62
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,399
vCash: 500
That's kinda why I lean towards Gretzky.

Ruth's early numbers were so staggering because the game was played differently when he started. He was right in that transition period.

Gretzky was right in the fullblown offensive explosion of his era.

I dont know if that quite makes the sense I mean for it to.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 04:50 PM
  #63
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,399
vCash: 500
Getting back to the 2006 draft for a second. My personal favorite still happens to be Jordan Staal.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 05:05 PM
  #64
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by xander
In terms of statistical production your right, the differance between gretzky and his peers is unlike any other player in any other sport.
No. Not true. Look at Ruth's statistics vs. the rest of baseball from 1919-1929. THEN throw in the pitching stats from 1915-1919. (As a comparison, throw out the first four and a half years of Gretzky's career as a forward and put him at goalie - don't only consider the loss of statistics, but also think about the fact that he'd have to win the Vezina at least once to compare with Ruth.)

Also, if Mario hadn't had the health issues, his numbers would at least be within reach of Gretzky's (I'm not saying AT Gretzky's, but within reach).

Finally, I'm not a huge basketball historian, but wouldn't some of Chamberlain's years compare? How about Oscar Robertson, who actually AVERAGED a triple double one year?


Last edited by BrooklynRangersFan: 10-27-2005 at 05:12 PM.
BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 05:09 PM
  #65
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BrooklynRangerFan
No. Not true. Look at Ruth's statistics vs. the rest of baseball from 1919-1929. THEN throw in the pitching stats from the teens.

Also, if Mario hadn't had the health issues, his numbers would at least be within reach of Gretzky's (I'm not saying AT Gretzky's, but within reach).

Finally, I'm not a huge basketball historian, but wouldn't some of Chamberlain's years compare? How about Oscar Robertson, who actually AVERAGED a triple double one year?
I dont think i would call either side of the argument not true because it depends on how you view the era and time period in terms of change.

And I don't think you can throw health into the equation because there were many guys who were older when they were in Ruth's area of HR totals. You could argue had the game changed earlier they would have had more HR's as well. Also with Gretz you'd have to acknowledge that his bad back hampered him a great deal.

With the exception of his first 3-4 HR years, baseball as a whole suddenly started producing HR hitters. In that case however many of them were older. Guys who in their younger days hit 10 HR's now hit 20-25 and up.

I think you could make a valid case for either guy and I don't think this is a right or wrong issue, which I can see it turning into because everyone wants to right and no one wants to be wrong.

I think this, like most sports issues is strictly opinion. No one knows what Ruth would've done today facing certain pitches and guys who can hit 86 on the radar and no one knows what Gretzky would've done if he played hockey in 30's and 40's.

Edge is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 05:14 PM
  #66
BrooklynRangersFan
Change is good.
 
BrooklynRangersFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Brooklyn of course
Country: United States
Posts: 10,908
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
I dont think i would call either side of the argument not true because it depends on how you view the era and time period in terms of change.

And I don't think you can throw health into the equation because there were many guys who were older when they were in Ruth's area of HR totals. You could argue had the game changed earlier they would have had more HR's as well. Also with Gretz you'd have to acknowledge that his bad back hampered him a great deal.

With the exception of his first 3-4 HR years, baseball as a whole suddenly started producing HR hitters. In that case however many of them were older. Guys who in their younger days hit 10 HR's now hit 20-25 and up.

I think you could make a valid case for either guy and I don't think this is a right or wrong issue, which I can see it turning into because everyone wants to right and no one wants to be wrong.

I think this, like most sports issues is strictly opinion. No one knows what Ruth would've done today facing certain pitches and guys who can hit 86 on the radar and no one knows what Gretzky would've done if he played hockey in 30's and 40's.
For the record, I'm not saying Ruth's dominance was greater, just that statistically his feat was at least on a par with Gretzky's. Also, Edge, check out the paranthetical I added about Ruth's first five seasons (in my previous post) after you wrote the quote above.

BrooklynRangersFan is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 06:52 PM
  #67
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Barring a lottery win, I don't really see us being at the top 3 in the draft. I think Johnson will go at 3-4, defensemen are always at a premium. It would make great theatre for us to pick Jordan Staal but I would love to get Meuller, especially since he's having a bad year and will probably drop somewhere near where we will pick.

Toews "I think" is exactly the "type" of player that managment seems to be envisioning as a "Ranger". I think any of the mentioned names would be a winner for the Rangers. I think at the trade deadline we need to accumilate 1-2 round picks in order to move up should we succeed more than expected.

I was thinking about this around late September and I was leaning toward building a STUD "D" corps with Tytuin, Staal, Sauer and Johnson. Now I am leaning towards a talented forward, especially center. It's a long way to draft day and the leaders will change by the month.

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 06:58 PM
  #68
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Edge
Getting back to the 2006 draft for a second. My personal favorite still happens to be Jordan Staal.
Do you like him more than Johnson?

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 07:00 PM
  #69
True Blue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 15,647
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarthSather99
Toews "I think" is exactly the "type" of player that managment seems to be envisioning as a "Ranger".
Why is that? I ask becuase admitedly he is one of the top prospects I do not know much about.

True Blue is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 07:51 PM
  #70
in the hall
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 5,009
vCash: 500
so how good is kessel?

crosby like?
ovechkin like?
malkin?
kovalchuk?

in the hall is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 07:55 PM
  #71
DarthSather99
Registered User
 
DarthSather99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: NYC
Country: United States
Posts: 3,270
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Why is that? I ask becuase admitedly he is one of the top prospects I do not know much about.

Toews is the type of player that gives everything he has on both ends of the ice. He'll charge the net and take the pounding. His offensive talent is explosive but he also plays responsible defense.

The Rangers mantle of "hard working" players fits Toews. Frolik and Kessel have more offensive upside but Toews has talent, plays responsible and works hard. Besides being a "Ranger type" Toews is a great stickhandler and great passer. He can beat players one on one with his stickhandling.

DarthSather99 is offline  
Old
10-27-2005, 08:28 PM
  #72
Edge
Registered User
 
Edge's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Amish Paradise
Country: United States
Posts: 13,399
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by True Blue
Do you like him more than Johnson?

Personally yes, but I should point out that I've seen Staal a lot more and for longer.

Staal is physically more mature than either of his brothers at the same stage (you could argue he's physically more mature now) and he's really started off this year strong to add to things.

Edge 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 05:37 PM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2015 All Rights Reserved.