HFBoards

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

HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All-Time

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-16-2012, 10:04 AM
  #251
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,687
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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.
I have not actually tried to make that argument, but you repeatedly asked for an explanation of the talent-pool-size argument and I tried to provide that.

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 10:08 AM
  #252
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
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.
And how exactly is athletic genius distributed across population? Make a strong case, please.

I'm saying it's pretty easily by random chance, because most of the things in life are in fact just this... random.

I think some of you should read Fooled By Randomness by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

It's a modern classic. Not quite Shakespeare, but very interesting book that gives some food for a thought.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 11:36 AM
  #253
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 21,429
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
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.



And back in the day players were geniuses, artists, and superheros?
One thing that I would point out about modern movie makers is the amount of compromise they are willing to make in order to appeal to different audiences, and make their product as "consumable" as possible in the corporate profit structure of Hollywood. I think additions of characters like Jar Jar Binks to the Star Wars saga, and every modern protagonist character group assembled with representations of "target ethnic/social groups" in mind (hero group must include a female, a black actor, and a little person, or whatever), show the increasing willingness to shoehorn in as much "appeal" into movies as possible, with the quality of story/acting/production coming second, or believed alterable at a later stage.

Essentially, marketing, merchandising, and the dependence on drawing large audiences repeatedly and reliably, has created almost a corporate formula that must be followed to ensure competitive revenue levels/profits. Part of this formula involves removing/mitigating risks/unknowns, and actually discourages going "outside the box" if there's no "proven" mechanism for profiting from that. One could argue that creativity in the modern era has been stifled (from arts to sports) because of the tunnel vision on getting the largest share of consumers' "disposable" entertainment funds, and that too many people in all related fields take the "easy" way would by copying a formula, and only slightly tweaking it to their tastes before being made available for consumption.

And I don't think it's necessarily a weak argument to suggest that compromise is the enemy of quality. It seems to me that the artists that continue to be acclaimed (or gain consideration) as genius were/are typically unwilling to compromise their ideas with the beliefs/values/goals of others in mind, venture outside "the box", and go on to success/fame, regardless - unfiltered, and not tailored with a demographic or target audience's propensity to spend money on related articles necessarily in mind. I'd even argue that artists motivated primarily by profit, no matter how many there are, will almost all fail to produce something that holds up to the label "genius".

That's my communist propaganda for the day, lol.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
And how exactly is athletic genius distributed across population? Make a strong case, please.

I'm saying it's pretty easily by random chance, because most of the things in life are in fact just this... random.
Considering the sheer number of bloodlines examples in the game of hockey, and the lack of "surprise" super talents coming out of areas without either winter, or the ability to maintain winter conditions inside a rink-sized structure, I'm going to say there's a strong case to be made for cultivation of talent/genius over pure "randomness". Surely it's not just coincidence that Dougie Hamilton is considered one of the very best hockey players in his age group and has Olympians for parents, for example. Also, have you seen how many familiar names have started popping up in NHL drafts recently? Reinhart, Domi, Samuelsson, Matteau, for example. Mark Howe also obviously had bloodline pedigree. Countless other names have less obvious connections because they are cousins/nephews (not sons, brothers), but are close to those talents and often "cultivated" in the hockey culture from a young age.

I'd argue that genius requires inspiration, and those closest to the "scene" are often privy to fairly exclusive kinds of inspiration. Hard for an average 5 year old to get the chance to enter an pro sports dressing room, look across the room, see plaques of distinguished members on one wall, living legends sitting in the stalls next to them, and be in awe of the whole scene. And yet, just about every child of a current NHLer probably enjoys that kind of setting, sitting beside their dad as he laces them up, soaking it all in with wide eyes.


Last edited by Ohashi_Jouzu: 11-16-2012 at 11:52 AM.
Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 11:52 AM
  #254
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
One thing that I would point out about modern movie makers is the amount of compromise they are willing to make in order to appeal to different audiences, and make their product as "consumable" as possible in the corporate profit structure of Hollywood...
It's going way off-topic. So I'll make a final and a short comment about movies.

There are many wonderful movies with great story, acting and production out there. Many of them are not even produced by Hollywood and are not driven by profit. These movies are created by artist because they have something to tell. You rarely see such things in big movie theaters supported by massive advertising campaign. But such things are out there. And even Hollywood has offered some good stories over the years. It's not all evil and driven by corporate profits. Plus, lets not pretend that 300 years ago those well-known geniuses didn't write any plays/music for money. They did.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 12:00 PM
  #255
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
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.
And what information is that?
Lidstrom vs his peers?
Lidstrom's defense vs Harvey's?
Lidstrom's offense vs Harvey's?
Lidstrom longevity vs Harvey's?
Lidstrom's control and puck possession vs Harvey's?

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 12:50 PM
  #256
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Considering the sheer number of bloodlines examples in the game of hockey, and the lack of "surprise" super talents coming out of areas without either winter, or the ability to maintain winter conditions inside a rink-sized structure, I'm going to say there's a strong case to be made for cultivation of talent/genius over pure "randomness". Winter and rinks, I understand. You won't find good hockey players if there is not winter and hockey

Surely it's not just coincidence that Dougie Hamilton is considered one of the very best hockey players in his age group and has Olympians for parents, for example. Also, have you seen how many familiar names have started popping up in NHL drafts recently? Reinhart, Domi, Samuelsson, Matteau, for example. Mark Howe also obviously had bloodline pedigree. Countless other names have less obvious connections because they are cousins/nephews (not sons, brothers), but are close to those talents and often "cultivated" in the hockey culture from a young age.

I'd argue that genius requires inspiration, and those closest to the "scene" are often privy to fairly exclusive kinds of inspiration. Hard for an average 5 year old to get the chance to enter an pro sports dressing room, look across the room, see plaques of distinguished members on one wall, living legends sitting in the stalls next to them, and be in awe of the whole scene. And yet, just about every child of a current NHLer probably enjoys that kind of setting, sitting beside their dad as he laces them up, soaking it all in with wide eyes.
And what's the difference between eras?

If you have no winters/rinks in region, then you have no kids playing hockey. Of course there won't be elite hockey players from Zimbabwe. No matter if we talk about the 50s or 90s.

Yes, I agree that athletes are more likely to have kids who will be athletes themselves. But I don't see how this affects talent distribution between the eras.

IMHO, it's all pretty damn random. And assuming normal distribution, bigger population should produce more top talent in absolute terms. In relative terms it should be roughly the same number.

Someone explain why in the 50s you have 10 000 kids and 5 of them are geniuses. While in the 90s you have 50 000 kids, but still only 5 of them are geniuses. This could and sometimes does happen, but odds are against it. And we are dealing with pretty big numbers (population) in hockey, so numbers should play out more or less according to normal distribution. At least more often than not.



I'm not here to beat down the old-timers. But I see that quite often modern players get the short stick in those discussions. Look at how often are Lidstrom, Broduer, Niedermayer beaten down by some. Especially against the guys from the O6 era.

But in reality, if you create similar environment for Broduer or Niedermayer they look pretty damn dominant. Make their competition all-Canadian and see how much "better" they are. We are just adjusting talent pool to roughly what it were in the 50s. You tell me it's not harder to stand out, right now with all that extra talent. It sure was for Broduer and Niedermayer.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:06 PM
  #257
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
How do you guys judge the European players that had no or little career in the NHL.

For obvious example, the Soviets

The Soviets proved on countless events that they were just as good if not often better than the best from Canada. 1972, 1974 Summit Series. Super Series between the 70's and 80's. Olympics were tough to judge but lets not dismiss them. World Championship as well. Plus a handful of them got drafted into the NHL, many of them went over to play and have great careers. And even for those young Soviet players who got a full career in the NHL you could see their skill among the greatest in the world and only shows you what the past players would have been given a chance...


My point is, where do we rank those guys?
Fetisov? Salming? Larinov? Propov? And others...

I fear many sport fans today get so caught up on their American Pro League records and stats and stats in general and forget what it really means to be a good or great player. Stats show a huge portion of success but it doesnt show everything.

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:10 PM
  #258
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
And what's the difference between eras?

If you have no winters/rinks in region, then you have no kids playing hockey. Of course there won't be elite hockey players from Zimbabwe. No matter if we talk about the 50s or 90s.

Yes, I agree that athletes are more likely to have kids who will be athletes themselves. But I don't see how this affects talent distribution between the eras.

IMHO, it's all pretty damn random. And assuming normal distribution, bigger population should produce more top talent in absolute terms. In relative terms it should be roughly the same number.

Someone explain why in the 50s you have 10 000 kids and 5 of them are geniuses. While in the 90s you have 50 000 kids, but still only 5 of them are geniuses. This could and sometimes does happen, but odds are against it. And we are dealing with pretty big numbers (population) in hockey, so numbers should play out more or less according to normal distribution. At least more often than not.



I'm not here to beat down the old-timers. But I see that quite often modern players get the short stick in those discussions. Look at how often are Lidstrom, Broduer, Niedermayer beaten down by some. Especially against the guys from the O6 era.

But in reality, if you create similar environment for Broduer or Niedermayer they look pretty damn dominant. Make their competition all-Canadian and see how much "better" they are. We are just adjusting talent pool to roughly what it were in the 50s. You tell me it's not harder to stand out, right now with all that extra talent. It sure was for Broduer and Niedermayer.
How are Lidstrom and Brodeur consistently ranked among the top 5-6 at their position ever being beaten down?
What about Niedermayer, how does he rank against guys he played against like Bourque, like Coffey, like MacInnis, like his own teammate, Stevens, like Pronger?
I only used Canadians there btw and Scott is already getting smoked. I didn't even have to mention Fetisov, Chelios, Leetch, or Lidstrom.
Are you going to make a case that Scott would have stood out like Orr or Park or Robinson or Potvin if he played in the 70's/80's? Or personally, I wouldn't even take Scott over Salming but that's just me.

Seriously what part of Niedermayer's game stood out to the levels you're talking about?
His defense? I don't think he was better than Lidstrom or Stevens or Bourque or Chelios or even Pronger.
Offense? He wasn't even on Lidstrom's level and Lidstrom's level wasn't even very high.
He was a great skater but so was Gartner, so is Bouwmeester.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-16-2012 at 01:16 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:11 PM
  #259
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Eddie Shore, Doug Harvey may have played in a different time than Bobby Orr and Brad park and a much different era than Niklas Lidstrom and Ray Bourque but we cannot act as though its incomparable.

From the 20's to now... the game is very much the same. There are two teams who battle to score one neutral puck into the opposing teams goal which is being guarded by that opposing team and their respective goalies. They played with sticks, they played with skates and it was on ice. The game is very much the same...

For example.
The technology now is far greater. A stick today can help many shoot faster but shooting harder does not mean your a great player. being faster does not mean your a greater player. Being a good player has to do with your hockey IQ. great analogy above with the movies!

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:13 PM
  #260
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
How are Lidstrom and Brodeur consistently ranked among the top 5-6 at their position ever being beaten down?
What about Niedermayer, how does he rank against guys he played against like Bourque, like Coffey, like MacInnis, like his own teammate, Stevens, like Pronger?
I only used Canadians there btw and Scott is already getting smoked. I didn't even have to mention Fetisov, Chelios, Leetch, or Lidstrom.
Are you going to make a case that Scott would have stood out like Orr or Park or Robinson or Potvin if he played in the 70's/80's?

Seriously what part of Niedermayer's game stood out?
His defense? I don't think he was better than Lidstrom or Stevens or Bourque or Chelios or even Pronger.
Offense? He wasn't even on Lidstrom's level and Lidstrom's level wasn't even very high.
Nierdermeyer is a very smart player both offensively and defensively. He has proved time and time again why he stands out by making elite rosters and starting on those all star packed teams. He has won at every level he has ever played at and you cant say that about many guys. His value is not measured by stats...

His vision and his passing was a huge asset in breakouts. And breakouts are extremely important in a team winning or losing a game.

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:19 PM
  #261
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post
Nierdermeyer is a very smart player both offensively and defensively. He has proved time and time again why he stands out by making elite rosters and starting on those all star packed teams. He has won at every level he has ever played at and you cant say that about many guys. His value is not measured by stats...

His vision and his passing was a huge asset in breakouts. And breakouts are extremely important in a team winning or losing a game.
No one is saying that he wasn't a very good player but after all the names I just listed and how he stacks up to them...

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:40 PM
  #262
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
How are Lidstrom and Brodeur consistently ranked among the top 5-6 at their position ever being beaten down?
If you factor in the era they played you can have them in the top 3.

Quote:
What about Niedermayer, how does he rank against guys he played against like Bourque, like Coffey, like MacInnis, like his own teammate, Stevens, like Pronger?

First of all.. you are comparing against the strongest competition ever. Nobody in the 50s-60s faced similar competition also. And frankly Bourque and Coffey were not winning Norrises by the time Nieds hit his prime.

Quote:
I only used Canadians there btw and Scott is already getting smoked. I didn't even have to mention Fetisov, Chelios, Leetch, or Lidstrom.
Well... in the old days Euros and Americans were also a non-factor.

Quote:
Are you going to make a case that Scott would have stood out like Orr or Park or Robinson or Potvin if he played in the 70's/80's? Or personally, I wouldn't even take Scott over Salming but that's just me.
I guess he would be 3rd best after Orr and Park. And would have grabbed some Norris trophies without them.

And of course he would look bad in the 80s. Also those guys in the 50-60s wouldn't look as mighty.

Quote:
Seriously what part of Niedermayer's game stood out to the levels you're talking about?
His defense? I don't think he was better than Lidstrom or Stevens or Bourque or Chelios or even Pronger.
Where I did say that he was better than any of them?

Quote:
He was a great skater but so was Gartner, so is Bouwmeester.
Yes, Scott Niedermayer was a Jay Bouwmeester who happened to play on the right teams and won everything you can. Lucky version of Bouwmeester so to speak. Now I have seen the light. Thank you.

You pretty much confirmed what I meant that Niedermayer is getting beat down.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:40 PM
  #263
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
I have not actually tried to make that argument, but you repeatedly asked for an explanation of the talent-pool-size argument and I tried to provide that.
My apologies then, I took your post the wrong way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet
And how exactly is athletic genius distributed across population? Make a strong case, please.

I'm saying it's pretty easily by random chance, because most of the things in life are in fact just this... random.
If genius is truly random, isn't it odd that geniuses aren't distributed evenly across the human population?

Earlier you cited Lennon and Page as examples of modern musical genius, two guys whose birth was 200 miles and 4 years apart.

Beethoven and Mozart essentially lived at the same place and time, and Beethoven was personal friends with Haydn, Mozart with Bach. Shakespeare shared London with the other great English playwright, Christopher Marlowe. Leonardo Da Vinci and Michaelangelo were close enough to dislike each other. J.R.R. Tolkien and C.S. Lewis shared beers at the pub while writing their signature epics. Three of the Beatles were triple-threat musical geniuses who just happened to all live in the same little city at the same time.

Peter Forsberg and Markus Naslund were born 10 days apart in a town the size of Moose Jaw. Doesn't that seem weirdly un-random? Don't all those examples seem a little odd when you consider the incredibly massive cohort of people who have written books and played music in talentless obscurity all over the world over the past several hundred years?

If you look into any of the examples above, it becomes quite clear that talent alone was only part of the equation. Genius requires cultivation, inspiration, focus, and most of all opportunity. Those factors are definitely not spread across space and time equally. When all of those factors align, genius-level talent emerges and multiplies at a pace that defies randomness.

Applying all of this to the discussion at hand -- consider the nature of hockey development at present in the various corners of the hockey world. Would you say that the sport presently nurtures raw talent the way it did 50 years ago? Would you say that the same proportion of boys choose to pursue hockey, that those boys spend as much time cultivating their talent in open play, and that their coaches give them the same opportunity to apply that skill in game settings? If you had the talent of a Gretzky/Orr/Lemieux, would you really rather grow up in 2012 Montreal rather than 1930 Montreal?

That's where the population argument goes off the rails for me. Even given the increase in "number of potential Harveys", there is not a corresponding increase in the resources and opportunity directed to developing those players, nor a moment of forward progress in our understanding of the sport's potential, which is at least equally important.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:45 PM
  #264
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Looks good so far, bourque deserved to move up to 3rd and overtake shore.
I usually would say the same thing but have done huge research on the top 10 guys mentioned over the last 4 months. Seriously.

And Shore is vastly overrated. He was during a time where its being forgotten right now. Morenz, Shore and those other guys are just ghosts.


Not many remember Shore for his playing days but his terrible managing and coaching methods. The guy was a **** but as a hockey player he was one of the best of all time.

There was times he played the full game, commonly being switched to forward or the 7th player.
He was the most feared man on the ice.

I like the rankings a lot. I think you did a great job, the HF boards did a great job. Most other places would dismiss Fetisov in the top 10, many would dismiss him in the top 50. Simpy because he started his NHL career late. But people forget all the great he has done before.

I might move Scott up a little bit, but mostly i just want to applaud this

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 01:50 PM
  #265
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
Thinking about how legends like Shore are becoming ghosts... soon it will be guys like Maurice Richard and Gordie Howe. Though it will be a lot tougher for these guys to be somewhat forgotten, it will soon happen.

I think the NHL needs to honor these guys a bit better. Or have a documentary about some of these guys... a more recent one.

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 02:13 PM
  #266
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
Genius requires cultivation, inspiration, focus, and most of all opportunity. Those factors are definitely not spread across space and time equally. When all of those factors align, genius-level talent emerges and multiplies at a pace that defies randomness.
Yes, I agree with this and most of your examples are correct.


Quote:
Applying all of this to the discussion at hand -- consider the nature of hockey development at present in the various corners of the hockey world. Would you say that the sport presently nurtures raw talent the way it did 50 years ago?
Of course not.

Quote:
Would you say that the same proportion of boys choose to pursue hockey, that those boys spend as much time cultivating their talent in open play, and that their coaches give them the same opportunity to apply that skill in game settings?
I'm not saying that the same proportion of boys choose hockey. I'm saying that more boys play hockey. In absolute terms.

Quote:
That's where the population argument goes off the rails for me. Even given the increase in "number of potential Harveys",there is not a corresponding increase in the resources and opportunity directed to developing those players, nor a moment of forward progress in our understanding of the sport's potential, which is at least equally important.
Many "potential Harveys" are being left on the street so to speak? It doesn't make sense. If kids play hockey, then they are given a chance to succeed and develop. So more kids play hockey (bigger population; population = number of kids playing hockey), then odds to have more "Harveys" is bigger.

Again, during Harvey time pretty much only Canada played hockey. Since the 80s-90s Europe started constantly to produce elite talent. So population got bigger, because now it's Canada, US, Europe, Russia. Odds that you had more top talent increased. Look at all those Euros who came over. This is all your extra talent that was "missing" in the 50s.

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 02:13 PM
  #267
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
If you factor in the era they played you can have them in the top 3.
And according to you, how do we do that exactly?


Quote:
First of all.. you are comparing against the strongest competition ever. Nobody in the 50s-60s faced similar competition also. And frankly Bourque and Coffey were not winning Norrises by the time Nieds hit his prime.
Yeah, because they were retired or about to.


Quote:
Well... in the old days Euros and Americans were also a non-factor.
Which is why I only listed Canadians first.


Quote:
I guess he would be 3rd best after Orr and Park. And would have grabbed some Norris trophies without them.
Over Potvin, Robinson and Slaming eh? What about Savard or Lapointe?


Quote:
And of course he would look bad in the 80s. Also those guys in the 50-60s wouldn't look as mighty.
As mighty maybe but that a Scott Niedermayer would stand out more in the 80's than Harvey or Kelly would? Sorry, not with ya on that one.


Quote:
Yes, Scott Niedermayer was a Jay Bouwmeester who happened to play on the right teams and won everything you can. Lucky version of Bouwmeester so to speak. Now I have seen the light. Thank you.

You pretty much confirmed what I meant that Niedermayer is getting beat down.
Hey, Scott was a very, very good skater, it's one of the main things he was known for and what his whole game was based on.
Without that speed, what kind of game could he play? What other superior talent of his is going to make him stand out?
His shot was average, his passing was good but not great, his vision wasn't good enough to really stand out imo. What kind of defense does he play without that speed?
Sorry, IMO, without his great speed, he's an average first pairing D-man. His remaining tools simply don't stand out enough.

I mean Harvey wasn't that fast but he could still control the puck and pace of a game, he was still one of the best positional D-men in history. He wrote the book on it, that d-men to this very day are taught by. Harvey was a fantastic passer and had great vision.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 02:22 PM
  #268
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
And according to you, how do we do that exactly?
Actually factor in that since the 90s competition is tougher than in almost any other era.

Quote:
As mighty maybe but that a Scott Niedermayer would stand out more in the 80's than Harvey or Kelly would? Sorry, not with ya on that o
Again you are comparing him to two top 10 dmen of all-time. I never even hinted that Nieds was THAT good.

Quote:
Sorry, IMO, without his great speed, he's an average first pairing D-man. His remaining tools simply don't stand out enough.
Since when we are removing attributes?
Take away from Nick Lidstrom his hockey brain and he doesn't even make the NHL.

EDIT:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
I mean Harvey wasn't that fast but he could still control the puck and pace of a game, he was still one of the best positional D-men in history. He wrote the book on it, that d-men to this very day are taught by. Harvey was a fantastic passer and had great vision.
I mean this how Harvey is getting overrated. Wrote a book? Taught to this day?

How many elite dmen you had with similar style to Harvey since him? Orr was different, Potvin was different, Bourque was different, Chelios was different. You only have Nicklas Lidstrom from Sweden, who probably never saw Harvey play and knew very little about him while learning to play.

So who was teaching what and to whom? And how?
Nowadays you can see some young kids playing similar style to Lidstrom. If one wishes to teach such style, then he can obtain and analyze videos. It's all possible.


Last edited by lazerbullet: 11-16-2012 at 02:36 PM.
lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 02:33 PM
  #269
Thesensation19
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,340
vCash: 500
The only thing I dont like is the lack of players from the 80s 90s and 2000s.

The last 40 guys were all before the 60s lol.


Nobody?

Thesensation19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 02:37 PM
  #270
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 37,811
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post
The only thing I dont like is the lack of players from the 80s 90s and 2000s.

The last 40 guys were all before the 60s lol.


Nobody?
Brian Leetch? Mark Howe? Rod Langway? Scott Niedermayer? Zdeno Chara? Rob Blake? Larry Murphy?

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 02:55 PM
  #271
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,882
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post

I mean this how Harvey is getting overrated. Wrote a book? Taught to this day?

How many elite dmen you had with similar style to Harvey since him? Orr was different, Potvin was different, Bourque was different, Chelios was different. You only have Nicklas Lidstrom from Sweden, who probably never saw Harvey play and knew very little about him while learning to play.

So who was teaching what and to whom? And how?
Nowadays you can see some young kids playing similar style to Lidstrom. If one wishes to teach such style, then he can obtain and analyze videos. It's all possible.
You realise that before Harvey, D-men simply attacked the puck carrier right? Harvey changed all that by playing positionally, using angles and not chasing opposing players behind the net or all over the ice. He realised that eventually they were going to go to the net so why was he chasing them when he could just let them come to him.
Things that seem so simple and taken for granted today were so alien then.
Harvey pioneered all this and changed the game.

Honestly, and I don't mean this sarcastically or to be tripe but I highly suggest you do some research on it before continuing.

So when I say Harvey wrote the book for the modern D-man, it's because he did!

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 03:07 PM
  #272
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
You realise that before Harvey, D-men simply attacked the puck carrier right? Harvey changed all that by playing positionally, using angles and not chasing opposing players behind the net or all over the ice. He realised that eventually they were going to go to the net so why was he chasing them when he could just let them come to him.
Things that seem so simple and taken for granted today were so alien then.
Harvey pioneered all this and changed the game.

Honestly, and I don't mean this sarcastically or to be tripe but I highly suggest you do some research on it before continuing.

So when I say Harvey wrote the book for the modern D-man, it's because he did!
And Red Kelly played how? They became pros at the same time and at first Kelly was considered better. Or did Harvey style evolve during his career and he "wrote the book" later?

lazerbullet is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 03:20 PM
  #273
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 31,519
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by lazerbullet View Post
I'm not saying that the same proportion of boys choose hockey. I'm saying that more boys play hockey. In absolute terms.
1) This seems to be true, but we've had a hell of a time trying to put our finger on HOW many more are playing. Canada alone is difficult to judge, because the population hasn't simply multiplied at a natural-replacement pace. A big chunk of the growth, especially in the cities, has come from immigration. Some immigrant kids might grow up to play, but the majority won't. And it's not like we can take the raw population of European countries as being 100% hockey oriented. Some consider it a secondary sport, others like Austria and Latvia simply don't have enough resources invested to make a difference. Then there's Russia, which went from effectively no national program to an elite military-style machine and then eroded in recent years, and the vast majority of this activity took place in a small area around Moscow and St. Petersburg... how the heck do we evaluate their "hockey population"? Every time we have this conversation, someone throws out the idea that the hockey population has mirrored the raw population and grown by about 5x, and every time we examine the numbers country-by-country we find that it's not nearly that much.

2) Increasing the absolute number of players doesn't necessarily lead to a more productive playing environment. Population growth patterns in North America for the past 50 years have been characterized by suburbanization and westward migration. That has led to the formation of new communities, new rinks, new leagues. But those rinks aren't necessarily a better place to learn the sport than the urban rinks of the pre-War era, or the frozen ponds that were more commonly used outside the city. Moving the hockey-playing population away from the traditional centers has expanded the sport, but not necessarily to the point of generating new centers of equal productivity. Each country has its own story, but in general it's not a simple as "more players = more elite players". In fact it's very easy to ruin a talent pipeline by clogging it with mediocre, over-coached robots which are common in today's junior programs.

Quote:
Many "potential Harveys" are being left on the street so to speak? It doesn't make sense. If kids play hockey, then they are given a chance to succeed and develop.
It makes sense when you consider what happens to these "potential Harveys" between the time they learn to skate and the time they reach their athletic prime. Are they being optimized for genius-level performance, encouraged to rewrite the rules and show everyone else a new horizon in the sport? Highly, highly doubtful under today's developmental conditions.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 03:57 PM
  #274
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 1,952
vCash: 500
To the children on this site understand there are less children playing the game of hockey than ever before this is a serious problem.The two hockey hotbeds Canada And Russia have seen dramatic amount of kids.Compare it to 1980 the numbers will shock you.

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-16-2012, 03:58 PM
  #275
lazerbullet
Registered User
 
lazerbullet's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Europe
Posts: 684
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
1) This seems to be true, but we've had a hell of a time trying to put our finger on HOW many more are playing. Canada alone is difficult to judge, because the population hasn't simply multiplied at a natural-replacement pace. A big chunk of the growth, especially in the cities, has come from immigration. Some immigrant kids might grow up to play, but the majority won't. And it's not like we can take the raw population of European countries as being 100% hockey oriented. Some consider it a secondary sport, others like Austria and Latvia simply don't have enough resources invested to make a difference. Then there's Russia, which went from effectively no national program to an elite military-style machine and then eroded in recent years, and the vast majority of this activity took place in a small area around Moscow and St. Petersburg... how the heck do we evaluate their "hockey population"? Every time we have this conversation, someone throws out the idea that the hockey population has mirrored the raw population and grown by about 5x, and every time we examine the numbers country-by-country we find that it's not nearly that much.
So there is no data how many players play the game? I haven't looked myself. Everyone are just saying that more people play hockey. I just assumed that there is some good hard data available for most countries.

Quote:
2) Increasing the absolute number of players doesn't necessarily lead to a more productive playing environment. Population growth patterns in North America for the past 50 years have been characterized by suburbanization and westward migration. That has led to the formation of new communities, new rinks, new leagues. But those rinks aren't necessarily a better place to learn the sport than the urban rinks of the pre-War era, or the frozen ponds that were more commonly used outside the city. Moving the hockey-playing population away from the traditional centers has expanded the sport, but not necessarily to the point of generating new centers of equal productivity. Each country has its own story, but in general it's not a simple as "more players = more elite players". In fact it's very easy to ruin a talent pipeline by clogging it with mediocre, over-coached robots which are common in today's junior programs.
Well... you might be right. But you are also only assuming, so it's not better than "more players = more elite players", which is also an assumption.

But we can say for sure that Europe produces more elite talent than in the 50s. Same with USA. So it's more probable that there are more elite talent overall.


Quote:
It makes sense when you consider what happens to these "potential Harveys" between the time they learn to skate and the time they reach their athletic prime.
Well... yes, kids are tempted by a lot of things nowadays. But only kids that train hard and dedicate themselves become pros. There is no big difference between the eras.

Quote:
Are they being optimized for genius-level performance, encouraged to rewrite the rules and show everyone else a new horizon in the sport? Highly, highly doubtful under today's developmental conditions.
Well... show everyone else a new horizon. I'm not really talking about this. If you are talking about players who could change the game big time, then it's a bit different discussion. You can't really teach such people. They just come and do the things their own and unique way.

I'm talking about elite performers in general. Even those geniuses from other fields of life that I discussed here. Not all of them found something totally new. But they reached a very high level and are rightfully called geniuses. It's not like John Lennon did something totally extraordinary. Just wrote new music that is still loved by many. In essence nothing new. Or Shakespeare... it was all said and done in Ancient Greek and Rome. In essence nothing new. Just people who reached extremely high level at their field. Level that is matched, but matched by only a chosen few.


I'm talking about the same thing in hockey. Very, very high level, but not necessary something unseen.

I find it hard to believe that there is less elite hockey players than 60 years ago. Simply math and common sense says otherwise.

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 10:38 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.