HFBoards

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

The all encompassing "players of today vs players from the past" thread

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-12-2013, 08:04 AM
  #576
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Dude, seriously, this is not the first time that using a player's stats only during the time he was in the NHL, has been tried and had the flaws of it pointed out.
I provided examples of other players, as did Epsilon, to show the flaws in such a metric.
You're acting like this is something new.
Every metric has it's flaws when taken solely on it's own.

The metric I'm using for Nieds career, and it's only one of many metrics, sure is a hell of alot better than the "defensive metric" of Savard which is largely eye test and comments from viewers.


Quote:
Actually, since you obviously didn't figure it out, what I did was eliminate what I deemed was Nieds top 2 competition, namely Lidstrom and MacInnis. Same as what you did for Savard in eliminating Orr and Potvin.
Like I said the stats will show the huge, night and day gap between the 2 offensively.


Quote:
Adjust 'em all you want but the fact remains that Niedermayer still ends up CLEARLY at the bottom of the offensive list. Hell, even Chara, after he got off the Island is Niedermayer's equal offensively.
I dunno about you but that sure is telling to me
Nieds will be on the bottom of what list?

Also I looked up Chara, he is 4th in his peak prime period that you are talking about and when you use your other metric, you know PPG, well he falls to 16th.

Chara is alot of things but he isn't Nieds offensive equal period.

Quote:
Back to this again from the Crosby thread eh?
Again, for the FOURTH time! Mario did prove he could maintain his extremely high PpG ratio over a full season and therefore gets the benefit of the doubt.
Crosby has not done so over a full season YET, so he does not.
The point of the matter is that you are changing the evaluation for one player and not the other, it's inconsistent. Sid's range of PPG was from 1.26 to 1.61 a difference of .35.

Mario's range is much larger even taking out his rookie season, it's 1.70 to 2.67 before his cancer. which one is the Real Mario?

How exactly can you justify one metric for one player and not another one again?

Seriously you can't unless one is trying to influence the results plain and simple.

Quote:
I seriously don't know what Zubov you were watching.
He was a good offensive player that became acceptable to above the average player defensively later on.
His positioning and risk management got much better later on but he was still terrible one on one, weak around his own net and in the corners.
He was a good player, very good offensively at times but he wasn't an all-time great nor should he be in the top 60 IMO.
Zubov was good enough to play all of those minutes for a defensive stickler like Hitch, he must have been doing something more than simply acceptable to above average.

Instead the perception of what type of player he was when he entered the league is clouding your judgement and evaluation of him here it seems.


Quote:
The NHL expanded from 21 to 30 teams over 8 years during Niedermayer's career!
That's not rapid expansion?
not compare to going from 6-12, then 3 years later adding 2 more teams, then adding 2 more 5 years alter and losing talent to the wHA as well.

You can try to avoid the it but the fact of the matter is that Savard played in a much more diluted league than Nieds ever did.

Quote:
Here's my question again from earlier:
If the best of the best world wide were already in the NHL by '92, what players exactly filled out the next 8 teams of 200+ spots?

Aside from a couple of Draftees, those 200+ spots were mostly filled by Tier III and IV players with a few "defective" Tier II's thrown in.



AND here's the biggest hurdle of them all...
Please show me the evidence that an increased talent pool yields an even remotely equal increase in Elite top Tier talent.
I DEFY you to show me that there are more Elite Top Tier Russians in the league today out of the 3.3% of 30 teams (99% of one team) than there was out of the 2.8% of 22 teams (62% of one team) there was in 91/92.

Can you even name 3 players today that you could say were equal to Fedorov, Bure and Molgilny?
I see OV, Malkin and maybe Dats.
So despite the Russian talent stream almost doubling since '92, there is NO increase in Elite talent from that stream to today.
The evidence of top tier talent is pretty clear towards the middle of the 90's and beyond.

One simply needs to look at the increase of non Canadians in top 5,10,20 scoring in all categories and how those same players did in post season awards and voting.

you answered your own question about the Russian guys, as to it's relevance that's another matter altogether.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2013, 08:06 AM
  #577
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Its quite possible that Bowman put Savard ahead of Robinson just for the period in which he coached them, not based on career. That's not so far-fetched. Savard was huge in big games.
It is possible, the problem with the ranking by Bowman and the article it comes from is that very little information on why he ranks players the way he did is included, ie. the context of it.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2013, 08:30 AM
  #578
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Zubov was good enough to play all of those minutes for a defensive stickler like Hitch, he must have been doing something more than simply acceptable to above average.
Zubov was excellent defensively. For all of the credit Derian Hatcher received as Dallas' "lock down" guy, I would rather have had Matvichuk in any given year (with Zubov and Sydor not far behind).

Quote:
You can try to avoid the it but the fact of the matter is that Savard played in a much more diluted league than Nieds ever did.
Wayne Gretzky played in a more diluted league than Metro Prystai.

Metro Prystai>Wayne Gretzky?

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2013, 12:24 PM
  #579
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Every metric has it's flaws when taken solely on it's own.

The metric I'm using for Nieds career, and it's only one of many metrics, sure is a hell of alot better than the "defensive metric" of Savard which is largely eye test and comments from viewers.
Hey, use any metric you want. All Epsilon and I did was show how that metric works for any player. People can judge how much to give that metric for themselves.


Quote:
Like I said the stats will show the huge, night and day gap between the 2 offensively.
Night and day? I don't think so.
I think Nieds has the advantage offensively over Savard but it's not some huge gap by any stretch heh




Quote:
Nieds will be on the bottom of what list?

Also I looked up Chara, he is 4th in his peak prime period that you are talking about and when you use your other metric, you know PPG, well he falls to 16th.

Chara is alot of things but he isn't Nieds offensive equal period.
Instead of just showing Chara's stats under that metric, why don't you use the same metric for Nieds and put them side by side.
Lets see how that works out

Quote:
The point of the matter is that you are changing the evaluation for one player and not the other, it's inconsistent. Sid's range of PPG was from 1.26 to 1.61 a difference of .35.

Mario's range is much larger even taking out his rookie season, it's 1.70 to 2.67 before his cancer. which one is the Real Mario?

How exactly can you justify one metric for one player and not another one again?

Seriously you can't unless one is trying to influence the results plain and simple.
Really...
87/88 GP-77 PpG-2.18
88/89 GP-76 PpG-2.62
92/93 GP-60 PpG-2.67
95/96 GP-70 PpG-2.30
00/01 GP-43 PpG-1.77

Maybe it's just me but I think we have enough years spread out there to make a more than reasonable assumption as to a healthy Mario's production level heh

It's not that anyone is saying that Crosby couldn't hold his current production over a full season. It's simply that he hasn't yet and doesn't get credit for it till he does so.
It's an extremely simple concept.
Mario's "credit rating" in 00/01 is a hell of a lot higher than Sid's "credit rating" in 2013, a HELL of a lot higher!

Quote:
Zubov was good enough to play all of those minutes for a defensive stickler like Hitch, he must have been doing something more than simply acceptable to above average.

Instead the perception of what type of player he was when he entered the league is clouding your judgement and evaluation of him here it seems.
First off you didn't have to be a defensive juggernaut for Hitch to play you. You seem to be operating under that misconception.
All you needed to play for Hitch, was to be able to play within his grinding system, not be a liability and to endure his "personality".
Zubov got to the point where he was no longer a liability in Hitch's system so he played a regular shift and of course rarely came off the ice during PP's.
There's no doubt that Zubov had some offensive talent but his defensive abilities are being grossly exaggerated.
Hell, if I look at the 99/00 Stars team I see 5 D-man averaging over 20 mins a game...
Sydor
Matvichuck
Hatcher
Cote
Zubov

Zubov is quite easily #5 on a purely defensive basis on that list. He makes up some ground from a puck possession standpoint but we're not talking about Bourque or Leetch levels of puck possession either.
There's a reason why when Hitch threw Zubov over the boards, he made sure he was always accompanied by one of his strongest defensive d-men, ALWAYS!


Quote:
not compare to going from 6-12, then 3 years later adding 2 more teams, then adding 2 more 5 years alter and losing talent to the wHA as well.

You can try to avoid the it but the fact of the matter is that Savard played in a much more diluted league than Nieds ever did.
You can look at it anyway you want but the fact still remains that the best players were already playing by '92 and the 8 teams worth of spots added after were filled by lower tier players.
It's the very definition of the word dilution!
We can argue over the levels of dilution in the 70's compared to the late 90's but the FACT is they were both diluted.

Quote:
The evidence of top tier talent is pretty clear towards the middle of the 90's and beyond.

One simply needs to look at the increase of non Canadians in top 5,10,20 scoring in all categories and how those same players did in post season awards and voting.

you answered your own question about the Russian guys, as to it's relevance that's another matter altogether.
What evidence?
Show me where there's more than 3-5 guys that ALWAYS end up at the top of the heap year after year today. No different that it was in the 80's.
The rest of the list changes year to year, guys switching out based on a point here, a point there.
Every year that Crosby/Stamkos/OV/Malkin are healthy, they are in the top 5.
If the Top Elite Tier of talent has increased like you say, it should be 7 or 10 or 12 of the exact same guys fighting it out with those 4 every year.
That's not the case.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 04-12-2013 at 12:34 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
04-12-2013, 12:48 PM
  #580
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
Its quite possible that Bowman put Savard ahead of Robinson just for the period in which he coached them, not based on career. That's not so far-fetched. Savard was huge in big games.
Exactly!

Just like even though most people have Bourque and Lidstrom ahead of Potvin on most all-time lists.
There's very few, if really any informed people that would put a prime Bourque or Lidstrom over a prime Potvin.

Potvin loses ground on a career level not on a playing level.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 12:17 AM
  #581
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
My views are well known and backed up by actual numbers

For the love of god, WHERE???

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 12:21 AM
  #582
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
For the love of god, WHERE???
Pretty much in most posts and every time this topic comes up in a thread, if you can't or won't see them I really can't help you.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 12:26 AM
  #583
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Pretty much in most posts and every time this topic comes up in a thread, if you can't or won't see them I really can't help you.
Just point me to one, just one.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 08:40 AM
  #584
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,279
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Last part of my post should have said for the most part of his career he played on a defensively minded team.

He is still 1st overall for his entire time in the NHL among all Canadian Dmen and 3rd among all Dmen.

11 of the top 20 Dmen were non Canadian

Just for comparison Serge Savard was 10th(68-83, his 2 game 67 removed) with a Swede at 5th (Salming) and a Yankee (Larson) at 13th and the next non Canadian was at 25th.

For PPG over 200 GP Savard was in the 50's just to match your apple there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Just point me to one, just one.
This post is a prime example, in Nieds era it's 11 of the top 20, for serge who played in the late 60's and all of the 70's it's only 2, do you not understand the different contexts?

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 11:01 AM
  #585
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,881
vCash: 500
Offensive Data

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This post is a prime example, in Nieds era it's 11 of the top 20, for serge who played in the late 60's and all of the 70's it's only 2, do you not understand the different contexts?
Your point struggles to survive because it clings to offensive data.

Offensive performance at the norm has always been easy to replace. Canadiens in the O6 era moved Phil Goyette and did not miss a beat offensively or defensively. They moved Guy Carbonneau in the mid nineties and even though Pierre Turgeon, Saku Koivu, Vincent Damphousse were around the team defense suffered while in Dallas an aging Guy Carbonneau contributed defensively.

1967-68 Toronto acquired Murray Oliver to replace the retired Red Kelly. Offensively he did the job, not defensively. Likewise today, Boston could replace Patrice Bergeron's offensive contribution easily but not his defensive play.

Unless you can show defensive support for your position and claim it will always remain a novelty that is fringe worthy at best.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 01:45 PM
  #586
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This post is a prime example, in Nieds era it's 11 of the top 20, for serge who played in the late 60's and all of the 70's it's only 2, do you not understand the different contexts?
So?
You're just talking about quantity not quality.
Savard played with 12-21 teams, Nieds played with 24-30 teams. Of course he faced more quantity than Savard did. Nieds did not however face a higher level of quality.
At the end of the day, in either era, there's still only 3-5 Dmen at the top of the list considered above the everyone else and the top 3-5 in Savard's day blows the top 3-5 in Nieds days right out of the water.

These aren't stats you're presenting, this is just a population report.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 02:43 PM
  #587
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,096
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This post is a prime example, in Nieds era it's 11 of the top 20, for serge who played in the late 60's and all of the 70's it's only 2, do you not understand the different contexts?
Anyone can understand the different contexts you've shown, the problem is people don't want to, or at least they don't want to admit it because it's such a slippery slope for their whole stance.

There have been numerous posters who have dropped by this section to point things like this out over the years but they are ignored so they leave, never to return again. I don't blame them for leaving because who wants to argue and debate such an obvious point (FACT)?

It's hard to take these cross era comparisons seriously when the growth of the sport is ignored by so many.

danincanada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 02:53 PM
  #588
Sprague Cleghorn
Registered User
 
Sprague Cleghorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 995
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
Anyone can understand the different contexts you've shown, the problem is people don't want to, or at least they don't want to admit it because it's such a slippery slope for their whole stance.

There have been numerous posters who have dropped by this section to point things like this out over the years but they are ignored so they leave, never to return again. I don't blame them for leaving because who wants to argue and debate such an obvious point (FACT)?

It's hard to take these cross era comparisons seriously when the growth of the sport is ignored by so many.
The best on an era, will also be the best of any other era.

Ex. Shakespeare is considered the greatest playwright in history. Back in Shakespeare's day, more than half (maybe even 80%) of the UK's population was illiterate compared to 99.9% today. Plus the UK's pop. has increased exponentially. Has anyone from the 99.9% in the UK (or even in the entire world) surpassed Shakespeare?

Or Leonardo Da Vinci. Today there are many more people in the world today, which means more artists. Has anyone recently painted a picture more famed than the Mona Lisa?

Quality over Quantity. Are you gonna say when you buy 100 cars with a price tag of less than 20 000$, there'll be a chance that one of them is better than the 200 000$ car? The 200 000$ car is still the best.

Sprague Cleghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 02:57 PM
  #589
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Hendrix View Post
The best on an era, will also be the best of any other era.

Ex. Shakespeare is considered the greatest playwright in history. Back in Shakespeare's day, more than half (maybe even 80%) of the UK's population was illiterate compared to 99.9% today. Plus the UK's pop. has increased exponentially. Has anyone from the 99.9% in the UK (or even in the entire world) surpassed Shakespeare?

Or Leonardo Da Vinci. Today there are many more people in the world today, which means more artists. Has anyone recently painted a picture more famed than the Mona Lisa?

Quality over Quantity. Are you gonna say when you buy 100 cars with a price tag of less than 20 000$, there'll be a chance that one of them is better than the 200 000$ car? The 200 000$ car is still the best.
I don't think that's what people argue.

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 03:03 PM
  #590
Sprague Cleghorn
Registered User
 
Sprague Cleghorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Edmonton, AB
Country: Canada
Posts: 995
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
I don't think that's what people argue.
Some here believe that as the game progresses, we must take into account the number of people in the population who play the game. I would agree with this if we were not talking about the cream of the crop. However, when we are talking about the cream of the crop, this does not apply, as it is shown by my examples. Isn't that what we are talking about?

Sprague Cleghorn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 03:13 PM
  #591
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimi Hendrix View Post
I would agree with this if we were not talking about the cream of the crop. However, when we are talking about the cream of the crop, this does not apply, as it is shown by my examples. Isn't that what we are talking about?
Depends if 'cream of the crop' means players that are able to compete for awards/best on their position or Top 20-30 finshes.

I think later is quite evident.

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 03:26 PM
  #592
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,881
vCash: 500
Data

Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
Depends if 'cream of the crop' means players that are able to compete for awards/best on their position or Top 20-30 finshes.

I think later is quite evident.
Completely overlooking that in the instance of hockey the data, statistics and awards are a rather recent phenomena and ongoing research, example BM67 touching twenties, thirties SV% changes perceptions as more data is uncovered and validated.

Likewise as Canadian population and participation data is uncovered the various population ratio arguments disappear.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 03:30 PM
  #593
LeBlondeDemon10
Stack Shot Billy
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,727
vCash: 500
Regarding the quality versus quantity debate, let us also consider that in this era, there are more man games lost per team than in any other era in hockey history. So not only is there 30 teams, but on any given night, how many AHL'ers, etc...are playing to fill the roster spots of those that are injured? I think that is a significant factor in this issue.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 03:37 PM
  #594
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Completely overlooking that in the instance of hockey the data, statistics and awards are a rather recent phenomena and ongoing research, example BM67 touching twenties, thirties SV% changes perceptions as more data is uncovered and validated.

Likewise as Canadian population and participation data is uncovered the various population ratio arguments disappear.
What does that even mean? Where is the connection?


Last edited by unknown33: 01-02-2014 at 03:51 PM.
unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 03:40 PM
  #595
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,000
vCash: 500
I will tell you guys about Sylvio Mantha of the canadiens and leafs King Clancy.This is a quote to Dick Irvin Jr.Your father took me aside before a game one night and told me I have to take out Mantha so I did.Mantha had the puck and was coming out of his zone.I saw my chance.I jumped at him and pushed my stick right in his face.Down he went he was badly cut blood all over the place.Dick and my teamates smiled at me.The leafs won the game.Dick Irvin has hundreds of these stories he seen with his eyes and by his legend late father.Respect there never was as Dick Irvin said.The only reason you didnt cross check in back as much in those days because you would have killed the person no helmet.Dick asked Lafleur when did you have your teeth knocked out Lafleurs response by 19 yrs old thats how it was back then

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 03:55 PM
  #596
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,881
vCash: 500
Data

Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
What does that even mean? Where is the connection?
Means you have to look beyond counting and ranking data or proportionate ratios.

Canadiens1958 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 06:06 PM
  #597
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
See...presenting population reports is all well and good but unless you can link that data with an increase in alltime great players because of it, then you have nothing.
All you‘re saying is that there are more players and more roster spots than there was before.

Also, this constant calling of Canadian bias crap needs to stop!
I can‘t speak for anyone else but with me, I do not give a **** where a player is born!
When someone says Crosby is already better than Jagr, i defend Jagr. When someone tries to rank Niedermayer up with Lidstrom, I argue against it. When people try to slag Sundin or OV, I defend them. When we‘re talking about the best Dmen of the 70s, I mention Salming everytime.

What I have and what I find most people have is an NHL bias and to that I say tough ****, deal with it and find an argument against it (good luck with that btw).

{Mod}


Last edited by Killion: 01-02-2014 at 06:37 PM. Reason: amusing... but no, lets not go there.
Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-02-2014, 11:24 PM
  #598
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Means you have to look beyond counting and ranking data or proportionate ratios.
This doesn't help me out, thanks anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
See...presenting population reports is all well and good but unless you can link that data with an increase in alltime great players because of it, then you have nothing.
Sounds like there probably might be a logical consqequence here, but I already figured that you aren't actually interested in even thinking about other viewpoints.

unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 12:12 AM
  #599
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,998
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post

Sounds like there probably might be a logical consqequence here, but I already figured that you aren't actually interested in even thinking about other viewpoints.
Yes, that there are more players worldwide.
It means that there is a better CHANCE of seeing an All-time great player emerge or a better CHANCE of having more Elite players now than there was in the 80's.

That hasn't happened though, it's still the same select group of 3-5 players that show up every year in front of the pack, just like it was in the 80's, just like it was in the 90's.

There's no Gretzky, there's no Mario and even the odds that 1 player like that would emerge is ridiculously high, that 2 did within a few years of each other was astronomical.

We're talking about the very best of the best here and while the Nationalities of the players making up that list has changed since the 70's, the actual number of players on that list haven't changed much.

Some of you seem to think that if the pool of players doubles, triples or quadruples that the amount of upper tier Elite players should also increase by the same amount.
That is just quite simply NOT how it works.

Rhiessan71 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
01-03-2014, 12:32 AM
  #600
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,024
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That hasn't happened though, it's still the same select group of 3-5 players that show up every year in front of the pack, just like it was in the 80's, just like it was in the 90's.

There's no Gretzky, there's no Mario and even the odds that 1 player like that would emerge is ridiculously high, that 2 did within a few years of each other was astronomical.

We're talking about the very best of the best here and while the Nationalities of the players making up that list has changed since the 70's, the actual number of players on that list haven't changed much.
I agree with this.

unknown33 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 03:54 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.