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
11-17-2012, 01:10 PM
  #301
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post
My point is, where do we rank those guys?
Fetisov? Salming?
Yeah, really hard to compare Salming - a guy who spent the majority of his career and his prime in the NHL - with NHL players...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post
Larinov? Propov?
Who?

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
This is an absolutely horrible comparison, but in a sense guys like Shore and Harvey are in the role of Louis Armstrong and Duke Ellington, and Lidstrom is in the role of Wynton Marsalis. Marsalis is surely capable of doing more on a technical level, and he has built a level of fame that easily surpasses the rest of his generation. There's nothing wrong with Marsalis. But ask a jazz fan if he's as great as Armstrong and they'll just shake their head at you. Not because he's "worse" at playing jazz, but because he's playing from the book that Armstrong wrote. To surpass Armstrong, he'd have to write a new book, and to do so would require a truly rare genius that Marsalis just doesn't have.
But again, isn't that completely different yardstick? Many think music is about being original and creative (a notion shaped in the 18th century when "Original Geniuses" were celebrated like divine creators) whereas hockey is simply about winning. How much value does originality have here? If (just if...) Lidström is mastering Harvey's book to a finer degree than Harvey himself, are we not supposed to consider him the better player? After all he is better at contributing to win then. In music you might need to create something yourself to prove you've outgrown your masters and teachers, but in hockey? If you're doing the same thing but better, isn't that enough when the purpose of the game - winning by scoring more goals than the opponent - is set in stone and when we have reason (assuming we have...) to believe that Harvey would look inferior if he played side by side with Lidström?

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 01:49 PM
  #302
MXD
Registered User
 
MXD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 20,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thesensation19 View Post
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.
Wait... what?

MXD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 02:27 PM
  #303
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
You're misunderstanding me if you think I'm saying mathematical logic would show the talent pool has definitely doubled due to population.
What you originally said was that the talent pool has at least quintupled. Pretty sure I didn't misunderstand your saying that.

Quote:
Do you think it hasn't increased at all since Harvey or Shore's time??
Have I, or anyone else here, said it hasn't increased at all?



Quote:
US hockey is doing just fine. They are producing lots of young talented players, more than ever before. Did you watch the last Olympics? Canada just ran over them in a blowout, didn't they?
International tournament results are not a relevant data point for measuring the quality of competition in the NHL. Unless, of course, you believe the American talent pool surpassed the Russians in 1980?

Here are some numbers that ARE relevant.

Players in the NHL
Canada 52.4%
Europe 28.1%
USA 19.5%

2012 Draftees
Canada 47.4%
Europe 27%
USA 25.6%

Of course there are some NHL-quality players in European leagues as well, which would tilt those numbers a little.

Needless to say, the USA is definitely not close behind Canada and definitely not ahead of Europe.

Quote:
I keep hearing about this great research but have seen nothing in terms of numbers. Please share. You've "shot it down" in the past with the same denial you're doing here.
This forum has a handy, under-utilized search feature. You are free to find the relevant threads yourself rather than asking me to do it for you.

Quote:
Yeah, I'm the crazy one. You're totally sane to believe the talent pool hasn't multiplied since the 60's and even if it has that wouldn't have a large affect on competition at the highest level. Please.
Straw-manning your opponents isn't going to help you in a forum where the majority are already well familiar with the lines of argument.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 02:34 PM
  #304
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
But again, isn't that completely different yardstick?
It is, and like I said it is a horrible comparison. The main thing I was trying to get across is the difference between invention and refinement. The music/hockey thing doesn't really work, I agree.


Quote:
whereas hockey is simply about winning. ... the purpose of the game - winning by scoring more goals than the opponent - is set in stone
The purpose of the game is to win, but that does not define the excellence of an individual player. Hockey isn't like track, or swimming, or other sports where individuals compete to reach objective performance goals. It's much more complex than that, and our definition of "best" or "greatest" is closer to a value judgment than anything.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 03:20 PM
  #305
Theokritos
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,077
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MXD View Post
Wait... what?
Maybe he thought of Börje's brother Stig Salming.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
The purpose of the game is to win, but that does not define the excellence of an individual player. Hockey isn't like track, or swimming, or other sports where individuals compete to reach objective performance goals. It's much more complex than that, and our definition of "best" or "greatest" is closer to a value judgment than anything.
Of course team games are pretty complex, especially free-flowing games like hockey (or similiar games: basketball, soccer). That's why I think it's often difficult to decide how much one specific player actually does right or wrong. Who contributed what to this goal? Who is to blame for that goal against? Is a certain player to blame for his negative Plus/Minus record or are his teammates responsible? And so on. But value judgment? I'm not sure. In the end you cannot argue for or against the intersubjective validity of a value judgment because it is rooted in your personal worldview and if I don't share your worldview, your argument becomes useless. If we argue about hockey however we already share a common notion: Contributing to scoring goals and preventing goals against is what defines a good hockey player. It's just difficult to decide what a player contributes or fails to contribute in many individual cases, but that's "only" methodical problem.

Be that as it may be: Is originality of merit in hockey?

Theokritos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 08:32 PM
  #306
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Why Lidstrom is higher than Harvey (and everyone else for that matter)

let's just start by comparing two guys who are very similar in Harvey and Lidstrom.

Lidstrom is the dominant dman of his generation and has an incredible career from 92-12

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

1st in regular season games by a Dman over that time. Pretty much 1st overall in every statistical category over that time. Alot is because he enjoyed great health but he was the best Dman during that stretch by quite a bit.

Here are his regular season breakdowns (Norris mainly)

In his 1st season in 92 he is in the mix for the Calder (probably should have won it) and was 8th in all star voting for Dmen.

93(22) He suffers a bit of the sophomore slump.

94 (23) He has one vote placing him 20th overall for an all star berth

95 (24) Doesn't figure in Norris or all-star voting due in part to shortened season and limited voting.

Still overall in his 1st 3 years he has been pretty productive and has been during that stretch at least one of the top 20 Dmen overall IMO.

96 (25) he places 6th in Norris and all-star voting behind Chelios, Bourque, Leetch, Vlad Konstantinov and Paul Coffey (that's 2 guys from Canada, 2 from Europe and 1 from US)

97 (26) he places 6th in Norris and all star voting again behind Leetch, Vlad, Sandis Ozolinsh, Chelios and Scott Stevens (only 1 Canadian this year)

When we look at Harvey he doesn't show up till he ranks 2nd in his age 27 year so everything listed above is before Harvey finds his way in any all-star voting (Norris didn't exist yet)

98 (27) finshes 2nd behind Blake for Norris 401-369 and 1st in all star voting. Others were Pronger, Stevens, Nieds,Larry Murphy, Bourque, Al Mac (all those guys are Canadians)

99 (28) finishes 2nd behind Al Mac 548-234, Bourque and Pronger round out the top 4.

00 (29) 2nd to Pronger (his Hart year) 505-400, Blake, Desjardins, Gonchar, Chelios and Bourque round out the top 7.

01 (30) 1st Norris 600-251 over Bourque followed by Stevens, Blake and Leetch

02 (31) 2nd Norris over Chelios 472-431 followed by Blake, Gonchar and Pronger

03 (32) 3rd Norris over al Mac 560-486 follwed by Derian Hatcher, Gonchar and Rob Blake

04 (33) finishes 6th in Norris voting behind Nieds, Chara, Pronger, McCabe, Aucoin

05 lockout

06 (35) 4th Norris over Nieds 1152-817 followed by Zubov, chara, Redden, Schneider, Pronger and Phaneuf

07 (36) 5th Norris over Nieds 1217-1024 followed by Pronger, Boyle, Timonen, Phaneuf and Gonchar

08 (37) 6th Norris over Phaneuf 1313-561 followed by Chara, Gonchar, Campbell, Markov, Mike Green

Harvey also get his last Norris here at the same age of 37 which we will note when we get to him.

09 (38) Chara 1034, Green 982, Lidstrom 733, Weber 186, Boyle 173, Keith 95, Markov 95


10 (39) Keith 1096, Green 831, Doughty 662, Lidstrom 303, Pronger 168, Boyle 116, Weber 96, Chara 88

11 (40) wins his 7th Norris (okay it's mostly a rep vote but he is still a legit solid top 3 Dman in the league) over Weber 736-727 followed by visnosky, Yandle, Letang

12 (41) he finishes a respectable 5th behind

Karlsson 1069
Weber 1057 (the modern Scott Stevens?)
Chara 950
Piets 381
Lidstrom 132

It's a pretty darn good record for Lidstrom in the regular season here.

Over to Harvey he joins the NHL in 48 aged 23 and plays until 64 before coming back with St Louis and a really good season in 69 at age 44 for Scotty Bowman.

For his career I was generous and only took his 48-63 totals which was the last year he finished in the Norris voting except fro teh 1 vote he got in 69 which we will get to later.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Harvey is by the far the leader here in his time, although it's ahrd to say what would have happened had Kelly stayed on the back end but he didn't so I won't go there...yet.

Gadsby scores more goals but Harvey is clearly the dominant Dman for that period of time IMO.

Here are his all-star (until Norris voting begins) then Norris finishes during his career.

48 (23) Quackenbush, Stewart, Reardon, Colville (10 guys but no Harvey but he only plays a little over half of the season)

49 (24) Quackenbush, Stewart, Harmon, Reardon and 2 others in top 6 no Harvey

50 (25) Morton, Reardon, Riese, Kelly and 4 others no Harvey

51 (26) Kelly, Quackenbush, Thomson, Riese (no Harvey)

52 (27) Kelly 90 (18-0-0) Harvey 56 (8-5-1), Hy Buller 47 (1-13-1) Jim Thomson 38

53 (28) Kelly 90 (18-0-0), Harvey 56 (8-5-1), Quackenbush 44 (4-7-3), Gadsby 30 (3-2-9)

54 (29) 1st Norris for Kelly over Harvey 162-57 followed by Gadsby (38) and Horton 26

55 (30) 1st Norris for Harvey over Kelly 147-95 followed by Flanman (33), Bob Goldman 16 and Hugh Bolton.

56 (31) 2nd Norris for Harvey over Gadsby 156-59 followed by Kelly (44) who played enough as a forward to get an all-star vote and wasn't a full time Dman after this point it seems or at least not in the voters minds but that's a bit of speculation on my part as well. Tom Johnson rounds out the top 4

57 (32) 3rd Norris for Harvey over Kelly 159-42 followed by Flanman 35, Gadsby 32 and doug Mohns 23

58 (33) 4th Norris for Harvey over Gadsby 153-119 followed by flanman 17, Stewart 13, Marcel Pronovost 7, Kelly 3 (obviously not a Dman in the voters eyes any more) and Tom Johnson 3.

59 (34) Tom Johnson 92
Bill Gadsby 67
Marcel Provost 58
Harvey 48
Flanman 34

This season seems to stick out in regards to Harvey having a Norris in the season before and the season after as well and he did miss only 9 games (he missed 8 in 56 and his scoring dropped in half but he only scored 7 more points in 60 when he wins the Norris again).

60 (35) wins 5th Norris over Stanley 129-42 followed by Pronovost 39 and Pierre Pilote 33

61 (36) wins 6th Norris over Pronovost 162-52 followed by Stanely 27 and Pilote 24

62 (37) wins his 7th and final Norris over Pilote 102-47 followed by JG Talbot 46 and Carl Brewer 41.

This one might have been a bit of a reputation vote and Pilote missed 11 games.

63 (38)

Pilote 98
Brewer 81
Horton 37
Vasko 28
Gadsby 25
Harvey 14

64 (39) Pilote 138 over Horton 70 (14 guys get at least 1 point but Harvey isn't one of them as he only plays 14 NHL games and is released and plays in the AHL)

69 (44) he plays for st Louis and get 1 vote for the Norris good for 13th overall and might ahve been the 13th best Dman in the league that year.


Here is how the 2 guys rank against all of their piers in the playoffs

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Nick is

1st in GP
2nd in points
5th in goals
1st in assists
1st in plus/minus

Here is Harvey

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

He is 8th in points
1st in GP

Harvey has more SC than Lidstrom but also has 4 guys who scored more points than him just on his team in the playoffs as well.

Even if one buys into the "Harvey wrote the book" argument it doesn't outweigh the overall advantage that Lidstrom has IMO.

Harvey had great longevity in his time but it's doubtfull that his Norris trophies were against any better competition than Lidstroms and Nick has some seriously good voting results against some all time greats before his age 27 season as well, something that Doug doesn't have.

I'm a huge career guy and try to look at everything that a player does in his career but I really don't see any argument for Harvey over him at all even if we are only talking peak or prime as well.

All of this is before we even factor in that Nick does all of this against increased competition in the form of other player from Europe and the US that weren't around in the mix when Harvey played (which allows for greater chance of variance in top seasons, awards and playoff success in terms of the SC ect...)

Nick's dominance, longevity and totality of his career make him the #1 Dman of all time IMO.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 09:09 PM
  #307
Kloparren
Hth
 
Kloparren's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 10,441
vCash: 500
Question, where would Ulf Samuelsson and Leo Bovin rank? Would they crack the top 100?

Kloparren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 09:49 PM
  #308
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Question, where would Ulf Samuelsson and Leo Bovin rank? Would they crack the top 100?
If you go by our aggregate list here, Boivin is top-100 and Samuelsson is closer to 150.

The aggregate list was just a starting point for discussion, though. Not to be taken as a literal ranking of its own. I think it's fair to say that by the time we get into the 100-150 range the playing field kind of levels out, and one man's #100 could be another man's #130.

It seems to me that Samuelsson was a much hated figure and could be underrated for that reason. He's probably close to the #100 level if we take away his ugly moments and focus only on his ability.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 10:33 PM
  #309
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theokritos View Post
But value judgment? I'm not sure. In the end you cannot argue for or against the intersubjective validity of a value judgment because it is rooted in your personal worldview and if I don't share your worldview, your argument becomes useless. If we argue about hockey however we already share a common notion: Contributing to scoring goals and preventing goals against is what defines a good hockey player. It's just difficult to decide what a player contributes or fails to contribute in many individual cases, but that's "only" methodical problem.
I should narrow my phrasing a bit -- we make judgements based on what we value in a hockey player. Peak vs prime, offense vs defense, positioning vs hitting, qualities of leadership and integrity... those are values at the end of the day. All other things equal, we rely on our individual perspectives to sort out those messy questions that don't fall neatly into an equation. That messiness really bothers some people, and engages others.

Quote:
Be that as it may be: Is originality of merit in hockey?
And that is an excellent example of a messy question!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123
In his 1st season in 92 he is in the mix for the Calder (probably should have won it)
We discussed this in detail during the first vote. While Lidstrom had an argument, it's simply not the case that he "probably" should have won it. He was leading the race at midseason and wasn't very good in the second half. Bure scooped it out from under him on merit.

Quote:
Still overall in his 1st 3 years he has been pretty productive and has been during that stretch at least one of the top 20 Dmen overall IMO.
That bolded line is extremely generous. We're talking about a 26-team league, so "at least" top-20 would make Lidstrom a solid #1 defenseman in that league -- which he definitely was not.

Now, putting aside those nitpicks, I do think you laid out a strong case for Lidstrom in that post. Even if he wasn't super until around 1997, which is one of his only blemishes, you score some points against Harvey by showing that Lidstrom actually began his prime at around the same age and lasted longer as an elite player.

If Lidstrom had a longer elite career, and played against tougher competition for a significant part of his career (and yes, I agree that he did), then it's on Harvey to blow Lidstrom away with peak, right? And it seems clear enough from the voting you cited that Harvey has maybe a season or two advantage of being ludicrously far ahead of the pack. Factoring in the difference in era and team circumstances, I think it actually comes out looking good for Lidstrom here. At the least, it's really really close... a lot closer than the argument between him and "he who shall not be named".

The biggest missing piece in your analysis, perhaps something to tip the scales, would be playoff performances.

Quote:
Nick's dominance, longevity and totality of his career make him the #1 Dman of all time IMO.
I think that's a bridge too far, but he has a strong case to leapfrog Harvey into the #3 spot behind Orr and HWSNBN (on the logic that if HWSNBN is ahead of Lidstrom by consensus and Lidstrom jumps Harvey, HWSNBN must also be ahead of Harvey... but then again I would have put HWSNBN #2 in the first place).

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-17-2012, 11:24 PM
  #310
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I should narrow my phrasing a bit -- we make judgements based on what we value in a hockey player. Peak vs prime, offense vs defense, positioning vs hitting, qualities of leadership and integrity... those are values at the end of the day. All other things equal, we rely on our individual perspectives to sort out those messy questions that don't fall neatly into an equation. That messiness really bothers some people, and engages others.

Quote:
We discussed this in detail during the first vote. While Lidstrom had an argument, it's simply not the case that he "probably" should have won it. He was leading the race at midseason and wasn't very good in the second half. Bure scooped it out from under him on merit.
Bure missed 19 games of the season in which he didn't do anything to help his team win.

Bure was hot down the stretch and had the "excitement" and "wow" factor. Lidstrom IMO contributed more in terms of offense and defense in helping his team to win but we all know how the vote went.




Quote:
That bolded line is extremely generous. We're talking about a 26-team league, so "at least" top-20 would make Lidstrom a solid #1 defenseman in that league -- which he definitely was not.
I don't think that the statement I made was out of line, Lidstrom was the 15th highest scoring Dman over that time period.

He is playing top paring minutes both on the PP and PK during that time as well.

At least 3 guys ahead of him Brown, Iafrate and Galley are not far enough ahead of him offensively to make up the difference that Nick has on them in defense.

Sure there are some guys below him better defensively by a bit perhaps but nick is well situated to be considered as one of the best 20 Dmen in the league over that time period by what he did IMO.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points

Quote:
Now, putting aside those nitpicks, I do think you laid out a strong case for Lidstrom in that post. Even if he wasn't super until around 1997, which is one of his only blemishes, you score some points against Harvey by showing that Lidstrom actually began his prime at around the same age and lasted longer as an elite player.

If Lidstrom had a longer elite career, and played against tougher competition for a significant part of his career (and yes, I agree that he did), then it's on Harvey to blow Lidstrom away with peak, right? And it seems clear enough from the voting you cited that Harvey has maybe a season or two advantage of being ludicrously far ahead of the pack. Factoring in the difference in era and team circumstances, I think it actually comes out looking good for Lidstrom here. At the least, it's really really close... a lot closer than the argument between him and "he who shall not be named".
If we look at it more closely Nick has 3 excellent playoffs before and inducing his age 27 season (95,96,97) and heck he wasn't half bad in 94 either when the Sharks upset the Red Wings.

Harveys big domination years, in terms of voting, actually come without Kelly in the mix and man his competition as a whole is worse than Lidstrom's in their Norris years as well.

Quote:
The biggest missing piece in your analysis, perhaps something to tip the scales, would be playoff performances.

Nick is

1st in GP
2nd in points
5th in goals
1st in assists
1st in plus/minus

I didn't go into it into detail but that is how Nick ranks among all players including forwards during his time in the playoffs in the NHL from 92-12.

I could do a season by season breakdown but the overall totals are just absolutely stunning IMO, especially when you consider the type of defense he was playing as well.

Quote:
I think that's a bridge too far, but he has a strong case to leapfrog Harvey into the #3 spot behind Orr and HWSNBN (on the logic that if HWSNBN is ahead of Lidstrom by consensus and Lidstrom jumps Harvey, HWSNBN must also be ahead of Harvey... but then again I would have put HWSNBN #2 in the first place).
We will agree to disagree on Orr, as I was the only guy who even went near there and actual voted for Orr as Lidstrom was still playing but I think that's a mistake because when one considers everything including the competition factor (and how it affects dominance) Orr simply falls short in that his career is too short to be number 1 IMO.

I'm a career guy so that might be the deciding factor in it.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 01:12 AM
  #311
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Bure missed 19 games of the season in which he didn't do anything to help his team win.

Bure was hot down the stretch and had the "excitement" and "wow" factor. Lidstrom IMO contributed more in terms of offense and defense in helping his team to win but we all know how the vote went.
Hot down the stretch? Just a bit of an understatement.
Bure wasn't just the best rookie in the last half of the season, he was one of the best players in the last half of the season.
You can whine about this all you want, again, but Bure tore it up bigtime. Bure stole it from him fair and square.



Quote:
I don't think that the statement I made was out of line, Lidstrom was the 15th highest scoring Dman over that time period.

He is playing top paring minutes both on the PP and PK during that time as well.

At least 3 guys ahead of him Brown, Iafrate and Galley are not far enough ahead of him offensively to make up the difference that Nick has on them in defense.

Sure there are some guys below him better defensively by a bit perhaps but nick is well situated to be considered as one of the best 20 Dmen in the league over that time period by what he did IMO.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/play...rder_by=points



If we look at it more closely Nick has 3 excellent playoffs before and inducing his age 27 season (95,96,97) and heck he wasn't half bad in 94 either when the Sharks upset the Red Wings.

Harveys big domination years, in terms of voting, actually come without Kelly in the mix and man his competition as a whole is worse than Lidstrom's in their Norris years as well.




Nick is

1st in GP
2nd in points
5th in goals
1st in assists
1st in plus/minus

I didn't go into it into detail but that is how Nick ranks among all players including forwards during his time in the playoffs in the NHL from 92-12.

I could do a season by season breakdown but the overall totals are just absolutely stunning IMO, especially when you consider the type of defense he was playing as well.



We will agree to disagree on Orr, as I was the only guy who even went near there and actual voted for Orr as Lidstrom was still playing but I think that's a mistake because when one considers everything including the competition factor (and how it affects dominance) Orr simply falls short in that his career is too short to be number 1 IMO.

I'm a career guy so that might be the deciding factor in it.
First off, I think you give too little credit for Harvey's influence on the game. He was an innovator and after everything you have said here it's still very close but Harvey takes it with the innovator card IMO.

Second, it's not about Orr and it never will be about Orr. Bobby is #1 and that's not going to change.

Third, even if Lidstrom were ahead of Harvey, then Bourque will also be ahead of Harvey because Bourque is ahead of Lidstrom.

As funny as it sounds, you have actually made a better argument for Lidstrom over Harvey than you have ever even remotely been able to do for Lidstrom over Bourque.
BUT, like I said, Harvey's innovating the game is what keeps him ahead of both of them IMO.

Also, you compare Lidstrom and Harvey's offense and defense but you left out puck possession and full ice game control which Harvey walks away with easily.

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:02 AM
  #312
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Hot down the stretch? Just a bit of an understatement.
Bure wasn't just the best rookie in the last half of the season, he was one of the best players in the last half of the season.
You can whine about this all you want, again, but Bure tore it up bigtime. Bure stole it from him fair and square.
I understand human nature but if Bure started the way he finished and had the same stats but faded down the stretch the voters would have treated him differently.

I just happen to think that guys should be judged on everything they do and Bure didn't do anything for 19 games that season and what he did do wasn't enough to beat Lidstrom IMO but then again the voters aren't really factoring in defensive play either.

If you want to call my observation and opinions whining fair enough it does let everyone know the type of guy you are.

Quote:
First off, I think you give too little credit for Harvey's influence on the game. He was an innovator and after everything you have said here it's still very close but Harvey takes it with the innovator card IMO.
Wait Hod Stuart was an innovator or was it Shore or Clancy or Orr?

Yes you are right i give very little credit for being 1st chronologically because it really doesn't mean all that much in the big scheme of things.

It certainly means a heck of a lot less than the level of competition that the innovators played in compared to the fully integrated NHL that is being ignored or downplayed by many here.

Quote:
Second, it's not about Orr and it never will be about Orr. Bobby is #1 and that's not going to change.
No people have a mystic and perception of the legend that doesn't look at the low quality of play in the NHL during that time and more people seem to be peak and prime oriented than career oriented as well. Maybe this will change over time but who knows.

Quote:
Third, even if Lidstrom were ahead of Harvey, then Bourque will also be ahead of Harvey because Bourque is ahead of Lidstrom.

As funny as it sounds, you have actually made a better argument for Lidstrom over Harvey than you have ever even remotely been able to do for Lidstrom over Bourque.
Everyone knows your feeling on Bourque so I won't even bother going there again.


Quote:
BUT, like I said, Harvey's innovating the game is what keeps him ahead of both of them IMO.

Also, you compare Lidstrom and Harvey's offense and defense but you left out puck possession and full ice game control which Harvey walks away with easily.
Even without looking at the differences in the level of competition it's pretty darn clear that Lidstrom has the better peak, prime, carrier and is a monster in the playoffs.

Can you demonstrate how Harveys "puck possession and full ice game control" adds to what he did statistically?

Why does it take until age 27 to make an all star team for him then, did he not have it before?

In the years 51,52,53 Kelly is the unanimous top choice for Dmen in all star voting and in 54 beats Harvey by a different voting system for the Norris

Kelly 162
Harvey 57
Gadsby 38
Tim Horton 26

In 55 when Harvey was 30 he starts his Norris run, in part I think to Voters treating Kelly as a forward or did Kelly just drop off the map?

Your focus on non measurable things, while we are talking about those we have Lidstroms defensive prowess from 92-12, distracts us from what we can measure and what I ahve shown in my posts.

Lidstrom is clearly ahead of Harvey all time and that's before we even factor in the level of competition as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:22 AM
  #313
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,457
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Hot down the stretch? Just a bit of an understatement.
Bure wasn't just the best rookie in the last half of the season, he was one of the best players in the last half of the season.
You can whine about this all you want, again, but Bure tore it up bigtime. Bure stole it from him fair and square.





First off, I think you give too little credit for Harvey's influence on the game. He was an innovator and after everything you have said here it's still very close but Harvey takes it with the innovator card IMO.

Second, it's not about Orr and it never will be about Orr. Bobby is #1 and that's not going to change.

Third, even if Lidstrom were ahead of Harvey, then Bourque will also be ahead of Harvey because Bourque is ahead of Lidstrom.

As funny as it sounds, you have actually made a better argument for Lidstrom over Harvey than you have ever even remotely been able to do for Lidstrom over Bourque.BUT, like I said, Harvey's innovating the game is what keeps him ahead of both of them IMO.

Also, you compare Lidstrom and Harvey's offense and defense but you left out puck possession and full ice game control which Harvey walks away with easily.
And that would be because there is no argument good enough for Lidstrom over Bourque.

You can even say a better argument can be made for Lidstrom over Orr if you are going the "better career" over "better player" route. Off course Orr should then be ranked maybe outside of the top 5.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 11:28 AM
  #314
Ohashi_Jouzu
Registered User
 
Ohashi_Jouzu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Halifax
Country: Japan
Posts: 20,734
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I understand human nature but if Bure started the way he finished and had the same stats but faded down the stretch the voters would have treated him differently.

I just happen to think that guys should be judged on everything they do and Bure didn't do anything for 19 games that season and what he did do wasn't enough to beat Lidstrom IMO but then again the voters aren't really factoring in defensive play either.
Here's the thing though. Bure didn't "miss" 19 games to start that season; he was legally prevented from playing. I think there's a difference in there. He didn't get the benefit of training camp, preseason, or the whole first month of the season to get used to new hockey, on a new team, in a new country, because of the court proceedings regarding his status. After being allowed to play, and about a month of getting used to everything, he started tearing up the league - and didn't stop for about a decade.

Ohashi_Jouzu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 02:19 PM
  #315
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,333
vCash: 500
I do think it's worth noting, in light of the accusations here of era bias, that mostly the same group of voters using the same set of standards have voted Lidstrom's contemporaries as the 1st, 2nd and 6th best goalies of all time.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 03:33 PM
  #316
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohashi_Jouzu View Post
Here's the thing though. Bure didn't "miss" 19 games to start that season; he was legally prevented from playing. I think there's a difference in there. He didn't get the benefit of training camp, preseason, or the whole first month of the season to get used to new hockey, on a new team, in a new country, because of the court proceedings regarding his status. After being allowed to play, and about a month of getting used to everything, he started tearing up the league - and didn't stop for about a decade.
Yes what you say is true but then that's giving him credit for something he didn't do then.

It doesn't really matter if a guy is injured, suspended, in the minors or was prevented in Bure's case, he simply doesn't have any value in games he didn't play in.

Lidstrom played in 11 more games and ahd the same number of points as Bure with 60.

Lidstrom was 3rd on his team in plus minus at plus 36.
Bure was 15th on the Canucks with an even 0 rating.

It was the wow factor and hot scoring finish that had Bure as ROY.

There is ample evidence that Lidstrom was the more valuable player and did more to help his team win that year.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 03:44 PM
  #317
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I do think it's worth noting, in light of the accusations here of era bias, that mostly the same group of voters using the same set of standards have voted Lidstrom's contemporaries as the 1st, 2nd and 6th best goalies of all time.
Well when we get to the forward positions it might be a different matter but that's neither here nor there as is the ranking of the goalies 1,2 and 6th.

You yourself have stated that you treat all eras equally, something that many do here and in the ATD but don't often freely admit.

Overall the Dmen that started there careers post 92ish did quite poorly in the aggregate list considering the numbers of new players from feeder pools other than the traditional 5 province Canadian one.

The cases of Nieds, Zubov and Chara are pretty front and center on that front.

On the flip side guys like Pilote, Savard, Lapointe and Suchy were treated much more kindly than more recent guys who get nitpicked over in a fully integrated league. Even Hod Stuart gets treated with kid gloves with his claim to being the best player in the world (with no defined timeline). One would hope that Forsberg will get the same treatment but we all know that will not be the case when it comes to the top centers project.

In general on the topic of era and the talent pool i gave a pretty specific example in post 300 which has not gathered any response one way or the other and I can only judge by the general responses on here that there is very little attention being given to the drastic change in the landscape and makeup of the NHL talent pool both in terms of quality and depth of the pool.

Frankly I'm at a loss to why that is the case but I suspect some adherence to the sticky and a misguided notion of respect for all eras is being confused with treating them equally or near equal when it's pretty clear there are not close to being equal.


Last edited by Hardyvan123: 11-18-2012 at 03:53 PM.
Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 05:12 PM
  #318
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
I understand human nature but if Bure started the way he finished and had the same stats but faded down the stretch the voters would have treated him differently.

I just happen to think that guys should be judged on everything they do and Bure didn't do anything for 19 games that season and what he did do wasn't enough to beat Lidstrom IMO but then again the voters aren't really factoring in defensive play either.

If you want to call my observation and opinions whining fair enough it does let everyone know the type of guy you are.
Heh, we had a huge discussion on this previously where your opinion didn't fare well. Starting it again from scratch might not be whining per-sey but it's a lot like trying to run a race over again after you finished last in it the first time.


Quote:
Wait Hod Stuart was an innovator or was it Shore or Clancy or Orr?

Yes you are right i give very little credit for being 1st chronologically because it really doesn't mean all that much in the big scheme of things.

It certainly means a heck of a lot less than the level of competition that the innovators played in compared to the fully integrated NHL that is being ignored or downplayed by many here.



No people have a mystic and perception of the legend that doesn't look at the low quality of play in the NHL during that time and more people seem to be peak and prime oriented than career oriented as well. Maybe this will change over time but who knows.

Everyone knows your feeling on Bourque so I won't even bother going there again.
Not just my feelings my friend, not by a long shot. And for someone that puts so much stock into career over peak and prime, I find it highly suspect that you can continue to rate Lidstrom ahead of Bourque.
You bring up career in every single Lidstrom vs Orr or Lidstrom vs Harvey conversation as the deciding factor.
Yet you get to Bourque and what do you have?
Bourque's 22 years, 19 as an All-star vs Lidstrom's 20 years, 13 as an All-star.
Bourque has the longer and overall better career. Bourque has both height of and length of both prime and peak.
Offensively, it's really not close between the two. They are both good-very good PP QB's but Bourque's offense at even strength is night and day to Lidstrom's.
Defensively, strictly speaking in the defensive zone, Lidstrom has the edge but overall...Bourque's ability to control the entire ice and his puck possession (which is a part of playing defense btw) again, is night and Day.

And playoffs, I think Bourque was MORE dominant that Lidstrom ever was in the playoffs. Bourque had a hell of a lot more to do with the Bruins winning in the playoffs than Lidstrom had to do with the Wings winning.
Look at all the stats of those Bruin teams when Bourque was on the ice and when he wasn't. It's ridiculous.

So you'll have to excuse me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt when your criteria and the weight you give that criteria doesn't remain the same.
Or, to put it a better way, you are doing what you like to accuse me of doing..."moving the goal posts"




Quote:
Even without looking at the differences in the level of competition it's pretty darn clear that Lidstrom has the better peak, prime, carrier and is a monster in the playoffs.
I don't see a lot of difference between their peaks and primes. Career...Lidstrom only played 2 more seasons than Harvey and playoffs...seriously, Harvey anchored teams to 10 straight Final appearances, 11 overall and won 6 Cups.


Quote:
Can you demonstrate how Harveys "puck possession and full ice game control" adds to what he did statistically?
Watch some of his games, you will take note of how he controlled the tempo and pace of the game. And anchoring the defense of all those Cup teams kinda speaks for itself.


Quote:
Why does it take until age 27 to make an all star team for him then, did he not have it before?

In the years 51,52,53 Kelly is the unanimous top choice for Dmen in all star voting and in 54 beats Harvey by a different voting system for the Norris

Kelly 162
Harvey 57
Gadsby 38
Tim Horton 26

In 55 when Harvey was 30 he starts his Norris run, in part I think to Voters treating Kelly as a forward or did Kelly just drop off the map?
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where Lidstrom was named an All-star prior to age 28.

Quote:
Your focus on non measurable things, while we are talking about those we have Lidstroms defensive prowess from 92-12, distracts us from what we can measure and what I ahve shown in my posts.
Oh look, you're looking for another kick at the can again. We have been through this at length. There were newspaper articles brought out showing that Lidstrom's defense in the first half of the 90's was NOT what it became later on. Multiple Detroit writers were having trouble differentiating between Lidstrom's defensive play and Coffey's for pete's sake. I mean even I think those writers were exaggerating a bit but still, there's no way in hell that mistake could be made after '97/'98. He simply wasn't the pillar of defense then you're trying to make him to be.
You continue to try and to portray the Lidstrom we all saw from '98-'09 onto the Lidstrom we all saw from '91-'97 and '10-'12.
It's pure revisionism!


Quote:
Lidstrom is clearly ahead of Harvey all time and that's before we even factor in the level of competition as well.
Not clear at all. The only edge you have presented that seems clearly in Lidstrom's corner, is playoff games played.
Now considering that Harvey played in 10 straight finals...how many more playoff games do you think that would be worth in today's 4 round format? 100-150?


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 11-18-2012 at 05:35 PM.
Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 05:31 PM
  #319
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 30,333
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Not clear at all. The only edge you have presented that seems clearly in Lidstrom's corner, is playoff games played.
Now considering that Harvey played in 10 straight finals...how many more playoff games do you think that would be worth in today's 4 round format? 100-150?
It might be as useful to ask, how many fewer Finals/Cups would Harvey have been able to achieve in a 4-round format? Not sure which "translation" would give us a truer perspective.

I think it's best to simply compare them year-by-year. We would have saved a lot of time in the Bourque/Lidstrom thread if we had done that.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 05:38 PM
  #320
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,671
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
It might be as useful to ask, how many fewer Finals/Cups would Harvey have been able to achieve in a 4-round format? Not sure which "translation" would give us a truer perspective.

I think it's best to simply compare them year-by-year. We would have saved a lot of time in the Bourque/Lidstrom thread if we had done that.
That would be fair but I think you're wrong about saving time in the Bourque/Lidstrom threads

Rhiessan71 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 05:45 PM
  #321
Fred Taylor
The Cyclone
 
Fred Taylor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 2,294
vCash: 500
Hardyvan123, just curious, how do you rank Lidstrom in comparison to Orr? Are both players in your top 10? (players, not defenseman)

Fred Taylor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 07:06 PM
  #322
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fred Taylor View Post
Hardyvan123, just curious, how do you rank Lidstrom in comparison to Orr? Are both players in your top 10? (players, not defenseman)
The answer would be yes but I really like to separate goalies, Dmen and forwards because all 3 have vastly different impacts and control over their teams fortunes.

Goalies play the entire game and upwards of 80% plus of all total team minutes so they obviously can have a greater impact than Dmen who play usually over a 1/3 of the game and upwards of close to 30MPG.

Even top forwards usually play 5-7 MPG less than top Dmen on most
teams.

Even with all of that I would have Nick, Ray, Bobby and maybe even Denis all in my top 10 but like I said it really gets tricky if we include Goalies.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 07:07 PM
  #323
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
What I'm saying is that hockey is still huge in Canada and knowing the population has doubled makes it extremely likely that the talent pool has also increased by some factor. Do you think it hasn't increased at all since Harvey or Shore's time??
I think it's fair to say that, whatever degree the talent pool has increased by, the number of players of qualities x, y, and z have increased proportionally. But that can't be applied to the geniuses and outlier players. There is no guarantee that if one generation produces one, that a generation three times the size will produce three.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuietCompany View Post
Question, where would Ulf Samuelsson and Leo Bovin rank? Would they crack the top 100?
Definitely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
No people have a mystic and perception of the legend that doesn't look at the low quality of play in the NHL during that time and more people seem to be peak and prime oriented than career oriented as well. Maybe this will change over time but who knows.
You keep bringing up the poor competition in the 70s, but you ignore that Orr dominated the other elite players in the league to a greater degree than anyone else did.

Quote:
Lidstrom is clearly ahead of Harvey all time and that's before we even factor in the level of competition as well.
Not according to the majority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I do think it's worth noting, in light of the accusations here of era bias, that mostly the same group of voters using the same set of standards have voted Lidstrom's contemporaries as the 1st, 2nd and 6th best goalies of all time.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Heh, we had a huge discussion on this previously where your opinion didn't fare well. Starting it again from scratch might not be whining per-sey but it's a lot like trying to run a race over again after you finished last in it the first time.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 07:31 PM
  #324
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Offensively, it's really not close between the two. They are both good-very good PP QB's but Bourque's offense at even strength is night and day to Lidstrom's.
Defensively, strictly speaking in the defensive zone, Lidstrom has the edge but overall...Bourque's ability to control the entire ice and his puck possession (which is a part of playing defense btw) again, is night and Day.
Of course Bourque's edge is greater because you like to focus on counting stats. Ray is better offensively but it's not night and day.

Quote:
And playoffs, I think Bourque was MORE dominant that Lidstrom ever was in the playoffs. Bourque had a hell of a lot more to do with the Bruins winning in the playoffs than Lidstrom had to do with the Wings winning.
Look at all the stats of those Bruin teams when Bourque was on the ice and when he wasn't. It's ridiculous.
Bourque played on some teams that weren't as stacked as Detroit's but I don't see were Ray has the playoff edge you clearly didn't even bother to read my post or how he ranks in the playoffs with all players during his time played.

Quote:
So you'll have to excuse me if I take your opinion with a grain of salt when your criteria and the weight you give that criteria doesn't remain the same.
Or, to put it a better way, you are doing what you like to accuse me of doing..."moving the goal posts"
I don't waver, I look at all of the information available from as many angles as possible, and don't pretend to have all of the answers either. Usually I have more questions than answers. I'll defer to you as the king of the moving goalposts.

Quote:
I don't see a lot of difference between their peaks and primes. Career...Lidstrom only played 2 more seasons than Harvey and playoffs...seriously, Harvey anchored teams to 10 straight Final appearances, 11 overall and won 6 Cups.
Well you are one to talk about team strength, it's not like Harvey was playing on average teams. The point was that Lidstrom was getting recognition before Harvey was and against kick ass competition to boot.

Quote:
Watch some of his games, you will take note of how he controlled the tempo and pace of the game. And anchoring the defense of all those Cup teams kinda speaks for itself.
Yes I have seen the clips and Harvey had a great skillset but seriously the level of play wasn't an all time high then either so I take the hyperbole and exaggeration with a grain of salt and put it into context. Ditto for Lidstrom he wasn't "perfect."

[/QUOTE]I'm sorry, I guess I missed the part where Lidstrom was named an All-star prior to age 28.[/QUOTE]

No one said he was, didn't you read my posts?

Quote:
Oh look, you're looking for another kick at the can again. We have been through this at length. There were newspaper articles brought out showing that Lidstrom's defense in the first half of the 90's was NOT what it became later on. Multiple Detroit writers were having trouble differentiating between Lidstrom's defensive play and Coffey's for pete's sake. I mean even I think those writers were exaggerating a bit but still, there's no way in hell that mistake could be made after '97/'98. He simply wasn't the pillar of defense then you're trying to make him to be.
You continue to try and to portray the Lidstrom we all saw from '98-'09 onto the Lidstrom we all saw from '91-'97 and '10-'12.
It's pure revisionism!
The typical straw man, I'd like you to actually read the posts, I stated in his 1st 3 years that he was a top 20 Dman in the league. No mention that he was a Norris winner and robbed.

Seriously anyone confusing Coffey and Lidstroms defensive play at any time is a joke.

Quote:
Not clear at all. The only edge you have presented that seems clearly in Lidstrom's corner, is playoff games played.
Now considering that Harvey played in 10 straight finals...how many more playoff games do you think that would be worth in today's 4 round format? 100-150?
I didn't compare Harvey and Lidstroms totals to each other I compared them to their piers. Either you can't read or were too busy writing your preconceived notions of what you thought I said, either way you are wrong here.

Lidstroms offensive contributions and plus minus in the playoffs from 92-12 is simply world class and at a higher level against his peers than Harvey period.

I will list them again here for you.

Here is how he ranked among all players not just Dmen

1st in GP
2nd in points
5th in goals
1st in assists
1st in plus/minus

All of this and he is known more for his defense than offense.

I thought Lidstrom should be rated above Harvey when we did the top 60 project and I'm even more clear on that thought now.

The facts of the matter support this opinion as well I think and that even before we get into any discussion about the level of play and competition levels in the NHL during the 2 different times.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-18-2012, 07:57 PM
  #325
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,365
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think it's fair to say that, whatever degree the talent pool has increased by, the number of players of qualities x, y, and z have increased proportionally. But that can't be applied to the geniuses and outlier players. There is no guarantee that if one generation produces one, that a generation three times the size will produce three.
What you say is true but it might be more likely to happen and we have to remember that the players we are talking about Wayne, bobby and Mario also dominated a much inferior competition.

Their domination or greatness would no doubt be diminished to a degree in current times.

This statement or prediction is more likely than the possibility that they could dominate the current generation like they did their piers.

Quote:
You keep bringing up the poor competition in the 70s, but you ignore that Orr dominated the other elite players in the league to a greater degree than anyone else did.
No I don't ignore that and have stated on many occasions that he was the best player in the NHL, and world for that matter, for a long period of time but his career length is simply too short to be number 1 given that level of competition. If he dominated that way post 92 then it's another matter.

It's not this factor or that it's everything.

It seems more likely that people aren't taking into account his play as a 4th forward (look at the shot totals) and the degree that the league was diminished in talent during the late 60's and especially early 70's and those WHA years.

But I readily acknowledge that many people won't even look at the matter as Orr is a legend and the Baby Boomer's idol as well.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:23 AM.

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

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