HFBoards

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

HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-15-2012, 02:08 PM
  #226
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
How is that? Actually this is affected by the number of teams. When you had 6 teams, you had a lot less chances to shine. Now, with 30 teams a talented kid can play top minutes from the start and develop differently.
that doesn't mean he would be norris caliber any faster.

and to somewhat backtrack on what I said, yes, the pool of defenseman with a shot at the norris is bigger now, but only by a really small amount, and certainly not anywhere near 5 times. 5X as many teams (and therefore 5X as many #1 defensemen) does not mean 5X as many great defensemen. They are the same players either way.

Quote:
Imagine if Drew Doughty was drafted by Detroit. You think he's a Norris finalist in his sophomore year?
This has nothing to do with the "talent pool" argument. this is about opportunity within one's team.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 02:08 PM
  #227
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Please elaborate, just because the general play was more defensive it doesn't make it easy to play defense.
Have you played hockey?
Do you know the differences between playing purely man on man (which is how every team played in the O6) vs playing zone and variations like zone +1 ect?


Quote:
Didn't those Habs teams have alot of talent? Not sure what you are getting at here either.
Well...first of all, Lidstrom's Wing's teams were never slouches in this department either and we are NOT going to have a repeat of the hypocrisy from the Potvin vs Lidstrom thread.
Second, I'm talking about systems not talent. Structured systems in both the defensive and neutral zone that weren't employed at any where close to the advanced level they are today. If they were even employed at all most of the time.


Quote:
Not even sure where to start here. Lidstrom's prime defensive play is longer than Langways entire career.
Granted, I should have been more specific that I was referring to peak.


Quote:
Man you almost made a post without mentioning Ray but there it is last sentence. Harvey played in a different era and had a different style than Lidstrom as well.

You can argue that Lidstrom had a greater impact on the game though.
What?
Lidstrom plays an evolved version of the defensive style Harvey pioneered and wrote the book for.
So that would be a no to both of your points here.
And I only mentioned Ray in regards to puck possession skills and total rink control. Things that he and Harvey shared a very high level of proficiency at, while Lidstrom does not.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 02:21 PM
  #228
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I think goalies are different because each team only used one starter. Each team in the O6 had 4 regular defensemen and a substitute, so there was more room for turnover.

Sure there are notable exceptions (Martin St Louis), but they are notable because they are exceptions.
Yes, you are probably right. But it doesn't change my main point. With 30 teams you have more opportunities for the players. And it's not just making the NHL, it's about getting quality ice time (opportunity) while you are already there.
Again, put Sedins and Perry in a league with 6 teams. Chances are they are stuck on the third line behind Crosby and Malkin. And a result they don't even have shot at the winning Art Ross or Hart. They are not legitimate contenders.


So saying that number of legitimate Norris candidates hasn't gotten larger is simply wrong. It obviously hasn't changed by 5 times, but odds that someone might get "lucky" are a lot bigger than in the 50s. Of course, most of the times the best players still take what belongs to them. I mean... in most cases Malkin beats Sedins for the Art Ross. But we can clearly see than sometimes one can get "lucky".

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 02:38 PM
  #229
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,439
vCash: 500
I'll just keep repeating the question till somebody answers.

Can anyone explain precisely how the number of potential Norris winners in the NHL related to the degree to which the best defenseman stands out from his peers? If not, the talent-pool-size argument is merely a tangent because that is not the basis of Harvey's ranking over Lidstrom.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 02:42 PM
  #230
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
Yes, you are probably right. But it doesn't change my main point. With 30 teams you have more opportunities for the players. And it's not just making the NHL, it's about getting quality ice time (opportunity) while you are already there.
Again, put Sedins and Perry in a league with 6 teams. Chances are they are stuck on the third line behind Crosby and Malkin. And a result they don't even have shot at the winning Art Ross or Hart. They are not legitimate contenders.


So saying that number of legitimate Norris candidates hasn't gotten larger is simply wrong. It obviously hasn't changed by 5 times, but odds that someone might get "lucky" are a lot bigger than in the 50s. Of course, most of the times the best players still take what belongs to them. I mean... in most cases Malkin beats Sedins for the Art Ross. But we can clearly see than sometimes one can get "lucky".
In principle, you're right, but why should we believe that in a league where there are 18 forwards, the Sedins would not be 1st liners? That's where this breaks down.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 03:11 PM
  #231
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,721
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
In principle, you're right, but why should we believe that in a league where there are 18 forwards, the Sedins would not be 1st liners? That's where this breaks down.
It seems very possible that there would be 18 forwards who had proven more and wouldn't be demoted to the second line. If they were on a real powerhouse, then there wouldn't even have to be 18 better than them. The advantage they would have over someone like St. Louis is they were high draft picks, so their team would be looking for a spot for them. The disadvantage would be that they're a tandem which would require two open spots. It's also a question of just how efficient and "elastic" teams would be at putting players in proper roles for their skills and/or development, and how quickly they would change those roles. It might seem obvious that if the Sedins were at an 80 point level and a couple other players are only at a 60 point level, that the Sedins should get more time than those other players. However, if the Sedins are stuck on the third line, maybe they only jump to 60 points instead of 80. Their team may keep them on the third line, because they think other players just had an off year... or they don't want to cause unnecessary friction. It's difficult to say, esp with players like St. Louis and the Sedins that were not excelling until their mid-20s, even in a 30 team league.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 05:14 PM
  #232
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
In principle, you're right, but why should we believe that in a league where there are 18 forwards, the Sedins would not be 1st liners? That's where this breaks down.
It's really about the odds, not the concrete individuals like Sedins. Even if they are 1st liner, they bump someone else down, Spezza or even Stamkos for example. In one case you have 18 players who are first liners. In other case you have 90 players. Odds that some of them might strike "lucky" so to speak are simply higher. That's all I'm saying.

Same goes for defenseman. There are several young and promising defenseman who have shined for 1-2 years in the last few years. Mainly because they come into league and they get pretty big minutes on some mediocre teams. Put them behind Lidstrom/Chara/Weber (which is pretty likely with 6 teams) and they play in a lot smaller role and as a result don't receive any Norris votes. I would even say that Erik Karlsson is not winning a Norris in 2012 if he plays for Boston. And I won't even bother to comment where would Pietrangelo, Yandle, Visnosky, Doughty finish in Norris voting.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 08:10 PM
  #233
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
I would even say that Erik Karlsson is not winning a Norris in 2012 if he plays for Boston.
Why? Karlsson's biggest strength is his ability to produce offense at even strength. That translates to any team at any time.

If anything, it makes him even more effective and able to take even more chances if he's got big Chara backing him up.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 08:11 PM
  #234
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So where's the evidence that the talent pool is 5 times larger now?
depends on what years you are comparing but with the influx of players from Europe, US and non traditional Canadians markets the numbers have increased over time and quite a bit post 92 especially.

Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
plus, the number of defensemen with a serious shot at the Norris has not gotten any larger over time.
It sure has from 6 teams to 30, it's not constant or an exact ratio and these things ebb and flow but Harvey and Lidstrom played with quite different competition groups both among other Dmen and teams (forwards) they played against.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Depending on how much you think the European influx added to the talent pool, the number of defensemen with a serious shot at the Norris probably has increased. But nowhere near 5 times.
It's not just players from Europe but also the quality of players and those from other parts like the US and non traditional Canadian markets more recently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
And how does that relate to degree of domination?
It's not that hard that in most cases it's harder to dominate a larger group than a smaller one.

The chances of the degree of dominance being greater lies in the smaller group as well (all things being equal, which of course is the stick in the mud as they never are equal, conditions change from year to year.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 08:42 PM
  #235
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
In principle, you're right, but why should we believe that in a league where there are 18 forwards, the Sedins would not be 1st liners? That's where this breaks down.
Well they aren't 1st liners for team Sweden and sweden can compete with Canada, as well the Czechs, Slovaks, USA, Russia, Finland are all competitive.

Harvey played in an all Canadian league, not his fault, but lets not confuse the different landscapes Harvey and Lidstrom played in.

The "best are always the best" doesn't address depth and chances of variation (in stats, awards, SC ect) between a 6 to 30 team league.

It's still hockey but there is an orange, tangerine comp going on , not an apples to apples one.

Well actually it's common for some to make it an apples and apples one but the facts don't drive this, maybe the sticky does, but respecting an era is completely different than saying that all eras are the same.

I think a distortion of the sticky leads to much of this apple versus apple type of thinking which is not supported by the facts IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 09:39 PM
  #236
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Well they aren't 1st liners for team Sweden and sweden can compete with Canada, as well the Czechs, Slovaks, USA, Russia, Finland are all competitive.

Harvey played in an all Canadian league, not his fault, but lets not confuse the different landscapes Harvey and Lidstrom played in.

The "best are always the best" doesn't address depth and chances of variation (in stats, awards, SC ect) between a 6 to 30 team league.

It's still hockey but there is an orange, tangerine comp going on , not an apples to apples one.

Well actually it's common for some to make it an apples and apples one but the facts don't drive this, maybe the sticky does, but respecting an era is completely different than saying that all eras are the same.

I think a distortion of the sticky leads to much of this apple versus apple type of thinking which is not supported by the facts IMO.
so how many norrises, and by what margins, should Harvey have won, before you would admit he was better than a guy who played 40 years in the future?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 09:48 PM
  #237
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
so how many norrises, and by what margins, should Harvey have won, before you would admit he was better than a guy who played 40 years in the future?
It doesn't matter because he doesn't have the respect for Harvey's competition or the league he played in at the time to consider any margin big enough.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 09:58 PM
  #238
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
It's not that hard that in most cases it's harder to dominate a larger group than a smaller one.

The chances of the degree of dominance being greater lies in the smaller group as well (all things being equal, which of course is the stick in the mud as they never are equal, conditions change from year to year.
First paragraph - Sure, that works as an axiomatic truth.

Second paragraph - We have established that "genius" or outlying talent is distributed more or less at random. While the chances might favor a greater single talent coming out of a larger cohort, we have yet to see anyone put their finger on exactly what those chances are. It certainly isn't as simple as pointing to population figures. If it were that simple, the Internet would have already produced most of the greatest literature of all time. Look at all those writers compared to the past.

Even if we assume, wrongly, that genius arises from increases in population, that doesn't define an increase in the degree of separation between the upper-echelon talents. Again it comes back to placing a whole lot of faith in a numbers game, making the vast assumption that a bigger crowd produces the best genius.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 10:15 PM
  #239
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,999
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
. If it were that simple, the Internet would have already produced most of the greatest literature of all time. Look at all those writers compared to the past.
Ha! Good one. Never heard that one before.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-15-2012, 10:53 PM
  #240
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,618
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
In principle, you're right, but why should we believe that in a league where there are 18 forwards, the Sedins would not be 1st liners? That's where this breaks down.
If we take it as a given that the Sedins have to play together, I think there's a very good chance they never crack a first line in a 6 team league. Consider how long it took them to become first liners with 30 teams. With 6 teams there are far fewer opportunities for a team to take a chance on turning the top offensive minutes over to a pair of players that basically have to play together.

Even as NHL stars in a 30 team league they were third liners at a higher level of competition when playing for Sweden in the Olympics.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 04:55 AM
  #241
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Even if we assume, wrongly, that genius arises from increases in population, that doesn't define an increase in the degree of separation between the upper-echelon talents. Again it comes back to placing a whole lot of faith in a numbers game, making the vast assumption that a bigger crowd produces the best genius.
So you don't think that there are more talented people if population is bigger?
Listen, the fact that population is bigger doesn't automatically mean that it produces the best genius. But the odds are higher that it will do and you can't deny it. And odds are also higher that bigger population will produce better 2nd best genius, 3rd best, 4th best and so on. So it's harder for #1 to separate himself from the others.

I don't wish to punish Harvey or any old-timer because they played in smaller league. But many of these discussion have gone absolutely the other way. Not crediting modern players. You can't totally dismiss that it's harder to dominate now than in the 50s. So in the end... if we have two players who have very similar resumes then modern player should get a small extra point. Not the other way around.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 07:33 AM
  #242
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,511
vCash: 500
Geniuses, Talent and Population

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
So you don't think that there are more talented people if population is bigger?
Listen, the fact that population is bigger doesn't automatically mean that it produces the best genius. But the odds are higher that it will do and you can't deny it. And odds are also higher that bigger population will produce better 2nd best genius, 3rd best, 4th best and so on. So it's harder for #1 to separate himself from the others.

I don't wish to punish Harvey or any old-timer because they played in smaller league. But many of these discussion have gone absolutely the other way. Not crediting modern players. You can't totally dismiss that it's harder to dominate now than in the 50s. So in the end... if we have two players who have very similar resumes then modern player should get a small extra point. Not the other way around.
Yet while the world population grows at an exponential rate since the 15th century with a greater level of literacy we are still waiting for the next Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven or a genius in other domaines that actually set the foundation in their domain. Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates do come close but they built on the foundation set by others - Albert Einstein or forefathers.

Same is true for hockey. Since Mario Lemieux, nothing that recent players have shown is actually unique, different or better. Connor McDavid stands a chance - best lateral movement since Orr, better skater than Gretzky combined with Gretzky like vision and skills.

Extra point for recent players with similar resumees? Quaintly interesting. Extra credit for lesser achievements? Grade-out the Sedins or other top line players of the present era and they inevitably fall well short of having a complete game. Using the Sedins - defensive play, playing without the puck, adjusting to all opponents and you have bottem 2nd liners/high third liners from the O6 era. How does this merit extra credit? Sure they won Art Ross Trophies but a pedestrian Bronco Horvath came close in 1960.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 08:04 AM
  #243
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Yet while the world population grows at an exponential rate since the 15th century with a greater level of literacy we are still waiting for the next Shakespeare, Mozart, Beethoven or a genius in other domaines that actually set the foundation in their domain. Stephen Hawking, Bill Gates do come close but they built on the foundation set by others - Albert Einstein or forefathers.
Well... keep waiting. In those days musically talented people did only one thing... play and write music which is now known as classical music. Now, musically talented people write and perform jazz, blues, rock and a lot of other very interesting and good music. It's most likely that Jimmy Page and John Lennon are so to speak Mozart and Beethoven of our time.

Same with Shakespeare. So he did write world class dramas. Now talented people write and make movies among many other things. And there have been many amazing movies over the years that are as legendary as anything Shakespeare wrote.

Or science. The fact there is no household name like Einstein doesn't mean that modern scientist are somehow inferior. They work in many, many fields and drive the modern technology further. Look at how everything has changed in the past 10, 20 or 30 years. The leap has been enormous and the pace is really high. There a lot things happening in biotechnology. Additive manufacturing is the next big since industrial revolution. It's all coming and there are many talented scientist behind all of this. These things don't happen out of nowhere. And many things are not known or understood by public, yet.

And in many, many cases the real genius is only recognized by the public long after he is dead. Genius is ahead of his time and in most cases his contemporaries don't even understand him.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 08:33 AM
  #244
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,128
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
so how many norrises, and by what margins, should Harvey have won, before you would admit he was better than a guy who played 40 years in the future?

i know that you are not a Norris counter and take more things into consideration than that.

I will give a more detailed answer on the weekend but in brief the competition keeping Harvey off the all star teams before and after his great run is less than Lidstrom who aged better as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
It doesn't matter because he doesn't have the respect for Harvey's competition or the league he played in at the time to consider any margin big enough.
Don't be so ignorant.

There is a difference in respect and considering all eras equally.

I readily admit that I never watched Harvey play but with all the information we have on the 2 guys i consider Lidstrom better but Harvey is still a solid top 7 guy and probably higher.

Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
If we take it as a given that the Sedins have to play together, I think there's a very good chance they never crack a first line in a 6 team league. Consider how long it took them to become first liners with 30 teams. With 6 teams there are far fewer opportunities for a team to take a chance on turning the top offensive minutes over to a pair of players that basically have to play together.

Even as NHL stars in a 30 team league they were third liners at a higher level of competition when playing for Sweden in the Olympics.
Good point that I have seen before, possibly you brought it up.

I'll add that we can only put the Sedins into their modern context, it's impossible to say exactly how they, or others, would translate back into the 06 era.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 08:37 AM
  #245
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet
Listen, the fact that population is bigger doesn't automatically mean that it produces the best genius. But the odds are higher that it will do and you can't deny it.
The problem is that the odds are always infinitesimally small, so increases in population might not have as much impact as you'd expect.

Flip a coin. Chances are 50/50 that it comes up heads. Still, sometimes the coin comes up heads 5 times in a row.

Now, let's assume that genius is produced by formal training at a constant rate. It apparently isn't, but let's assume. And just to make it simple, let's say that the population of trained hockey players is 3x larger today than in the 1950s.

If the "coin" comes up tails 3 times in a row, we don't get a generational defenseman. It's that simple. If the odds break the wrong way, the best defenseman can come out of the smaller population and there's no need for explanation beyond random chance.

Assuming, again, that genius is randomly bestowed on every millionth player or whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
Well... keep waiting. In those days musically talented people did only one thing... play and write music which is now known as classical music. Now, musically talented people write and perform jazz, blues, rock and a lot of other very interesting and good music. It's most likely that Jimmy Page and John Lennon are so to speak Mozart and Beethoven of our time.
So... the Mozart and Beethoven of our time were both active in the late 60s and early 70s, on the leading edge of rock music as an art form.

Think about what you just demonstrated.


Last edited by tarheelhockey: 11-16-2012 at 08:47 AM.
tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 08:41 AM
  #246
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 11,511
vCash: 500
Quaint

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
Well... keep waiting. In those days musically talented people did only one thing... play and write music which is now known as classical music. Now, musically talented people write and perform jazz, blues, rock and a lot of other very interesting and good music. It's most likely that Jimmy Page and John Lennon are so to speak Mozart and Beethoven of our time.

Same with Shakespeare. So he did write world class dramas. Now talented people write and make movies among many other things. And there have been many amazing movies over the years that are as legendary as anything Shakespeare wrote.

Or science. The fact there is no household name like Einstein doesn't mean that modern scientist are somehow inferior. They work in many, many fields and drive the modern technology further. Look at how everything has changed in the past 10, 20 or 30 years. The leap has been enormous and the pace is really high. There a lot things happening in biotechnology. Additive manufacturing is the next big since industrial revolution. It's all coming and there are many talented scientist behind all of this. These things don't happen out of nowhere. And many things are not known or understood by public, yet.

And in many, many cases the real genius is only recognized by the public long after he is dead. Genius is ahead of his time and in most cases his contemporaries don't even understand him.
So you are trying to reduce the discussion to niche talents, which happens to be my point. See Sedin analogy. Definite lack of a complete game at their position. Excellent at the offensive scoring niche but then very little in terms of quality attributes.

As for your last paragraph you are blending understanding with enduring. Shakespeare was understood in his lifetime - explained by the simple fact that audiences showed up and appreciated his works. This popularity and appreciation has endured to this date, translated to various languages and presented on film, via audio - records, radio, etc.

Present day players are interchangeable parts. Only difference is that like light bulbs where some last longer or less than the norm. Used to advantage - Sedins and offensive zone faceoffs, they have a "Wow" factor resumee that hides an incomplete game.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:37 AM
  #247
Theokritos
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,183
vCash: 500
The art analogies lead us nowhere because art is measured by a rather subjective benchmark: taste. In hockey taste is secondary. A player who is the most elegant skater and the flashiest stickhandler is still not a good player if he neither helps his team to score goals nor to prevent goals against. The objective aim is winning and every player is measured against this aim. Now granted, it's not always easy to decide how much a player actually contributes to success or failure of his team, which is the reason for most of the debates on the boards. But basically we strive for an objective evaluation. To answer the question whether Wayne Gretzky was one of the Top 3 forwards in history or not is not a matter of taste, it's a matter of fact. In art it's different. Statements like the following are arbitrary:

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
So... the Mozart and Beethoven of our time were both active in the late 60s and early 70s, on the leading edge of rock music as an art form.
John Lennon and Jimmy Page? Well, actually Cole Porter was the next Mozart and Ray Charles the new Beethoven. Or was it Karlheinz Stockhausen and Jay-Z? It's anybody's choice.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Even if we assume, wrongly, that genius arises from increases in population, that doesn't define an increase in the degree of separation between the upper-echelon talents.
If we assume that increased population (or better: increased number of people playing hockey) means increased talent pool, then it is possible that we have several Doug Harveys in the league today as opposed to one Doug Harvey in the O6 era. And Lidström could be better than Harvey, but not by as much as Harvey was better than his competitors in the O6. In numbers: Let's say Lidström is a 10, Harvey a 9 and the next best defender is a 7. Lidström > Harvey, but Harvey's edge over the next best defender > Lidström's edge over Harvey.

IMO the problem is that we are not really aware of what we actually try to measure when we compare players from different eras: Talent level in an absolute sense or domination relative to contemporaries. Often it seems to be a mix of both.

Theokritos is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:44 AM
  #248
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
So you are trying to reduce the discussion to niche talents, which happens to be my point.
No I'm not. You are searching for the next Beethoven or Mozart and saying that there is none. I'm saying that they do exist, they just do a bit different thing (different kind of music), you are just not seeing them.

Quote:
See Sedin analogy. Definite lack of a complete game at their position. Excellent at the offensive scoring niche but then very little in terms of quality attributes.
Sedins. I also don't want to give them any extra credit. But (!) a guy like Malkin should get, because he has to outscore Sedins, who like you say are put into very favorable position to put up points. In a league with six teams Malkin doesn't have to worry about Sedins, most likely, because Sedins are not on the first line.

Quote:
Shakespeare was understood in his lifetime - explained by the simple fact that audiences showed up and appreciated his works. This popularity and appreciation has endured to this date, translated to various languages and presented on film, via audio - records, radio, etc.
And how are modern movie makers worse? Are they not "genius" enough for you? I don't see how Shakespeare is more "genius" than some of them. So whole your theory that we are still waiting for the next Shakespeare is simply false. Just like musicians... modern Shakespeare most probably doesn't write classical dramas, but does something else which is similar (movies). Again, you don't see them and keep waiting for the next Shakespeare.

Quote:
Present day players are interchangeable parts. Only difference is that like light bulbs where some last longer or less than the norm. Used to advantage - Sedins and offensive zone faceoffs, they have a "Wow" factor resumee that hides an incomplete game.
And back in the day players were geniuses, artists, and superheros?

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:54 AM
  #249
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 34,439
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
If we assume that increased population (or better: increased number of people playing hockey) means increased talent pool, then it is possible that we have several Doug Harveys in the league today as opposed to one Doug Harvey in the O6 era.
And it is also possible that there are no Doug Harveys today.

Again, there are two very broad and unsupported assumptions behind what you're arguing:

1) Athletic genius is distributed across populations by random chance.

2) Because random chance increases the likelihood of more geniuses coming out of a larger population, we should assume that this has happened and adjust our list accordingly.


Unless you can support both of those points convincingly, this argument is speculative in nature and it's going nowhere any time soon.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:58 AM
  #250
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
The art analogies lead us nowhere because art is measured by a rather subjective benchmark: taste. In hockey taste is secondary. A player who is the most elegant skater and the flashiest stickhandler is still not a good player if he neither helps his team to score goals nor to prevent goals against. The objective aim is winning and every player is measured against this aim. Now granted, it's not always easy to decide how much a player actually contributes to success or failure of his team, which is the reason for most of the debates on the boards. But basically we strive for an objective evaluation. To answer the question whether Wayne Gretzky was one of the Top 3 forwards in history or not is not a matter of taste, it's a matter of fact. In art it's different. Statements like the following are arbitrary:
That's certainly true. Art is quite a bad example, because it's 100% subjective and 100% matter of taste.

Just some people sound here like mankind has regressed over time and there are no bright talents, right now. Back in the old days we had serious talent in every field of activity! This is simply ignorant. There are many talented people in the world who make big things happen in various fields. One just has to open their eyes (and mind) to see them.

But comparing hockey players is a bit like art. It's somewhat subjective. Lidstrom vs Harvey, Howe vs Orr, Roy vs Hasek. You can find hard evidence for either side. But how much weight one puts into them is totally subjective and simply a matter of... taste.

lazerbullet 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 07:46 PM.

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

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