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.

Top 10 hockey myths?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-13-2013, 01:27 PM
  #251
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
There's a myth I've seen repeated here several times that NHL hockey and players starting in the 90s are better than the pre-90s NHL hockey and players, because there were no Europeans pre-1990. Salming is a top 65 player all time and he started in 73. I'll take my NHL hockey and top 10 players who started their careers before 1990 and put them up against any NHL hockey and top 10 players who started their careers after 1990.
It wasn't because of Europeans, but hockey players, especially starting in the 90s, are far superior to hockey players before. It has to do with preparation, training and coaching.

That being said, those same players from earlier times, playing today, would have the same advantages and would still be just as much better as their peers as they were in their day.

The real myth is that you can compare two players from two completely different eras as if they were on even remotely the same playing field. Of course, without that myth, half of the threads on this board wouldn't even exist.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 01:33 PM
  #252
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tawnos View Post
It wasn't because of Europeans, but hockey players, especially starting in the 90s, are far superior to hockey players before. It has to do with preparation, training and coaching.
It would be interesting to have more historical objective data (skating speed, with and without the puck on a course), shoot speed, passing tests, etc....

Because I would thing that what you said could be true, but not that much, when you look at game in the 70' with elite players, in the canada cup, Brad Park passing the puck too a full speed cournoyer burning the defenceman, not only would work today in a copy paste, time machine test, but a majority of defence-forward duo of the nhl today would not be able to do it like that at the same speed.

Bobby Hull could play today with the exact same physic.

The myth is that player today deliver less effort than in the past.

I would say the contrary, player today with all the millions involve put much much more effort than the average player of the past. The reaction when winning the cup now tell us a lot about what goes today in winning a stanley cup (vs different major sports reaction too).

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:26 PM
  #253
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
The myth is that player today deliver less effort than in the past.
This has been a myth as long as I have been alive. It will also likely continue to be the opinion of the general masses for many generations to come. Frankly, I just don't buy into it. Money can change the odd player's or person's attitude toward their sport or job, but as a general rule, most players play because they love the sport and competition. One could say that this is the beauty of sport - you are doing what you love - but I've seen a lot of people work at their occupations with as much passion and devotion.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-13-2013, 03:32 PM
  #254
MadLuke
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 2,197
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
One could say that this is the beauty of sport - you are doing what you love - but I've seen a lot of people work at their occupations with as much passion and devotion.
Player already signed for life, that block shot in playoff game (were they are not even paid) should give us a good idea.

and frankly, the possibility to make millions or the responsability of gainging a lot of them, will do anything but make you work less imo.

Nowaday is even the contrary for a lot of players, money is not even in consideration anymore.

MadLuke is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 12:20 AM
  #255
double5son10
Registered User
 
double5son10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Denver
Country: United States
Posts: 268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteor View Post
The Canadian penalty killers, particularly Mahovlich and Berenson, did a very good job that game.

http://blackdoghatesskunks.blogspot....eside-you.html

According to this game recap, the Soviets had a grand total of five quality chances all game
I'm not sure what this blogger's means of recording a Scoring Chance is, it's such an ill defined concept to begin with, but after rewatching the game I'd count 4 quality scoring chances by the Russians in the 1st period alone. First 3 are by Maltsev who is the best Soviet player, he's all over the place in the 1st. Dryden's best save however is on Kharlamov with less than a minute left in the period. A bad clear up the middle by Stapleton lands right on Vikulov's who passes to a wide open Kharlamov at the side of the net and Dryden absolutely robs him with a diving arm save. The save is huge given it's right before the break and keeps it scoreless. The 1st Soviet goal, a point shot by Liapkin, in that blogger's view is "a long shot he should have had" with "no screen" that "goalies in my (beer) league don't get beaten by." Unfortunately he's way off base here. It's pretty clear that Cournoyer, in trying to get back in the play, runs out of the corner and skates directly in front of Dryden as the shot is fired. At the same time Savard tries to jump out at Liapkin. Cournoyer and Savard cross, screening Dryden, who never sees the shot until it zips past him.
I'd agree that Canada does an outstanding job killing penalties, tight checking and limiting Soviet chances for the rest of the game. Savard really stands out for me here, along with Bergman, Berenson and Pete Mahovlich, but Dryden does his part as well. He does some fine things that don't show up on the score board, playing the puck to his defense and covering the puck during scrambles around his crease. He looks poised throughout, and there are good saves throughout. During the 5 on 3 in the 2nd period he makes a great save on a one-timer by Lutchenko when he's lost his stick behind the net. It's a bullet and he does a nice job getting in front of it. On the kill of Ron Ellis' penalty in the final minutes he makes two more stops on blasts by Lutchenko, one of which Brian Conacher calls "the save of the game." It's not, that'd be Dryden's save on Kharlamov, which again is just superb and pivotal, but they're both excellent stops and they preserve the win. Dryden was chosen Canada's 1st star of the game and deservedly so.
Again, after watching the game I stand by my statement. In two of the final three games of the series, with Canada facing humiliation, Dryden comes up with the win. He deserves more credit than the "he wasn't good against the Russians" view that's widely held.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crosbyfan View Post
He certainly did not do much on New Years Eve, and the contrast with Tretiak standing on his head in the other end was pretty extreme
No question Tretiak is the story of that great game. It's a marvelous performance and the kudos are richly deserved. Then there's the other end: My feeling is Dryden gets the blame on plays where the Habs defense is largely at fault. Mikhailov is allowed to skate right between the circles by Lapointe and Savard and gets to pick the corner on the 1st goal; Lemaire loses his check and Kharlamov splits the defense and goes in alone on Dryden on the 2nd; Awrey makes a bad play in the neutral zone and gets caught up ice leading to a two-on-one on the 3rd. All three of the goals are super scoring opportunities and the Red Army players don't waste them.

double5son10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 09:53 AM
  #256
ot92s
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 737
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Look to be fair I never saw Duff play
Isn't this all we really need to read?

ot92s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 09:21 PM
  #257
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ot92s View Post
Isn't this all we really need to read?
So I guess we can no longer include guys like Morenz, Shore, Malone, Lalonde, Taylor, etc. in HoH projects then, since none of use saw them play?

Also, many of those European players we are judging on awards, stats, and perhaps a game or two of actually having seen them play in some international tournament.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-14-2013, 09:51 PM
  #258
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meteor View Post
How about the "curses" associated with the Presidents Trophy, Wales Trophy, and Campbell Bowl? I have no idea why the media still talks about them. I mean, Crosby doesn't touch the Wales Trophy in 2008, they lose. Then he does in 2009, they win. Scott Stevens actually hoisted the Wales Trophy in 2000 (the year they came back from 3-1 down), and they won.

As for the Presidents Trophy "curse", which is mainly a product of short term memory due to a few early losers (Sharks, Caps, Canucks) in the last few years. This is anomalous, throughout the NHL's history the first-place team is more likely to win the Cup than any other seed.
I have never liked how each team doesn't even look at the trophies. For starters, one of those teams is going to go no further than that trophy. They won't win the Cup. Pick it up, be proud of your accomplishment and still keep gunning for the real Cup. I mean, you are one of two teams left. Take a minute and soak it in. I am pretty much the anti-superstitious type. I don't care for playoff beards either. You are in control with what happens on the ice. Not whether or not you had the audacity to pick up a conference trophy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjcurrie View Post
My in-laws (brother and father) like to blame Fuhr for that one. Moog fans, of course.
On that particular play, I would blame Fuhr 10% and Smith 90%. It really wasn't Fuhr's fault at all. Smith panicked and instead of using the boards to ring the puck around he put it in his own net. However, the Oilers as a team were to blame themselves in for being in that position to begin with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
No, the "dead ball era" refers to how they made baseballs prior to 1920. In 1920, MLB added a cork center to the baseball which created a livelier ball. A livelier ball resulted in more home runs and extra base hits. The other unofficial "dead ball era" in MLB history was in the late 1960's, when pitching was extremely strong. After Bob Gibson's incredible 1968 season, among other great seasons from other pitchers, MLB lowered the height of the mound by 5 inches. This reduced the advantage the pitcher had over hitters.
That's the theory. In reality I have always believed the theory was that Babe Ruth came in with a different style and focused more on home runs. Ruth hit a lot of home runs and he was the first player to really swing for the fences. This bothered a lot of baseball purists because Ruth would hit a homer and then jog around the bases. He wouldn't hustle at that time because he didn't have to. It bothered Ty Cobb a lot. Before Ruth came around the home run wasn't used as much of a weapon. Baseball was a game of singles, base stealing and even sacrifice bunting. Trying to swing for the fences was too much of a risk and a very low percentage play. This is why Cobb had such a wonderful batting average. He focused on hitting singles rather than parking the ball over the fence. But when Ruth had success hitting home runs other teams and other players copied it. Thus bringing in the live ball.

This also explains why Ted Williams is the last player to hit .400 in 1941. Before him it wasn't altogether uncommon for a player to hit .400 in a season. But it became more rare by his time because the long ball was favoured and a player would hit for power rather than just average. Williams did both well though. Anyway, I've always thought this was the best explanation to a more "livelier ball".

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 12:37 AM
  #259
Mayor Bee
\/me_____you\/
 
Mayor Bee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 14,181
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
No, the "dead ball era" refers to how they made baseballs prior to 1920. In 1920, MLB added a cork center to the baseball which created a livelier ball. A livelier ball resulted in more home runs and extra base hits.
It's actually for both reasons. Yes, the balls weren't as lively before 1920. But the other reason had to do with the death of Ray Chapman from a pitched ball. The pitcher was Carl Mays, who threw blazing fastballs underhand. Chapman couldn't pick up on the pitch bearing down on his head; it drilled him and caused an injury that proved to be fatal.

Before this, it wasn't uncommon for a ball to be used until it was falling apart. Add in the fact that the spitball was still legal (and many pitchers chewed tobacco, which obviously created brown stains), plus infielders would add their own tobacco spit, drop the ball in the dirt, and all that fun stuff. Those who didn't chew tobacco would usually have a piece of licorice in their mouth when they were in the field. Basically, a fresh ball would be brown and dead pretty damned quickly.

Post-Chapman, balls were replaced with fresh ones much more often. This meant that a much greater percentage of at-bats were taken against a ball that had life left in it, as opposed to having been mashed into nothing.

One notable exception involved Indian Bob Johnson and Tony Lazzeri, both notorious pranksters. Lazzeri got his hands on a used baseball (this was in 1937), and managed to completely deaden it. He soaked it in soapy water for days at a time, taking it out long enough to dry it and then pound it with one of his BP bats. He did this for two weeks, then put some white show polish on it to give it a shiny new appearance. Then, during a game, he managed to get this ball to his pitcher (Kemp Wicker). Wicker obliged by throwing a fastball right down the middle of the plate, and Johnson hammered it...right into foul territory with a dull thud.

Mayor Bee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 05:07 AM
  #260
BNHL
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Boston
Country: United States
Posts: 11,840
vCash: 500
The Gordie Howe Hat Trick which he only accomplished once or twice himself.

BNHL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 01:48 PM
  #261
Tawnos
Moderator
BoH Mod Only
 
Tawnos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Charlotte, NC
Country: United States
Posts: 11,276
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadLuke View Post
It would be interesting to have more historical objective data (skating speed, with and without the puck on a course), shoot speed, passing tests, etc....

Because I would thing that what you said could be true, but not that much, when you look at game in the 70' with elite players, in the canada cup, Brad Park passing the puck too a full speed cournoyer burning the defenceman, not only would work today in a copy paste, time machine test, but a majority of defence-forward duo of the nhl today would not be able to do it like that at the same speed.

Bobby Hull could play today with the exact same physic.
I wonder if that Brad Park example is a good one. It's extremely difficult to tell the difference between absolute speed and relative speed. Was Cournoyer really that fast? Or was he that much faster than his contemporaries? That play could be copied and pasted, as you said, but it might need to be sped up too. You're right that hard facts would be needed for that kind of thing, which we don't have. Logic, however, tells me that what I said should hold.

There will always be exceptions, of course, and Hull might've been one of them.

Tawnos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-15-2013, 03:44 PM
  #262
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
That's the theory. In reality I have always believed the theory was that Babe Ruth came in with a different style and focused more on home runs. Ruth hit a lot of home runs and he was the first player to really swing for the fences. This bothered a lot of baseball purists because Ruth would hit a homer and then jog around the bases. He wouldn't hustle at that time because he didn't have to. It bothered Ty Cobb a lot. Before Ruth came around the home run wasn't used as much of a weapon. Baseball was a game of singles, base stealing and even sacrifice bunting. Trying to swing for the fences was too much of a risk and a very low percentage play. This is why Cobb had such a wonderful batting average. He focused on hitting singles rather than parking the ball over the fence. But when Ruth had success hitting home runs other teams and other players copied it. Thus bringing in the live ball.
I never thought this was a theory BP. I thought it was factual. Where did you read/hear it was a theory?

I have read that Cobb chose not to hit home runs. Whether that's true I don't know. Funny thing though, Ruth's lifetime average is very close to Cobb's despite his swing for the fences approach. Ruth could do it all.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 08:16 PM
  #263
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,160
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
I never thought this was a theory BP. I thought it was factual. Where did you read/hear it was a theory?

I have read that Cobb chose not to hit home runs. Whether that's true I don't know. Funny thing though, Ruth's lifetime average is very close to Cobb's despite his swing for the fences approach. Ruth could do it all.
I am not saying it is just a theory, but more or less I believe the rise of the long ball era is credited mostly to Ruth. In a way Ruth is like Orr when it comes to his sport. He changed the way people played it. In fact, Ruth did that more than Orr did.

Cobb was an old school type of guy. He probably could have hit more homeruns but as anyone can tell you HR is a low percentage play. It just wasn't popular with Cobb, or his era. A single was more plausible and therefore more likely so it was attempted more often like hitting into the holes and such.

Yes Ruth could truly do it all. You might guess that Rickey Henderson has more career triples than Ruth right? Guess again.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 10:33 PM
  #264
Hawkman
Moderator
 
Hawkman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,136
vCash: 500
Myth: Enforcers are tough. They are tough on the ice and they can take a beating. I've seen guys taunt minor league enforcers who never made the NHL into fighting off the ice and they were as unskilled fighters as I've ever seen.

Hawkman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-16-2013, 11:39 PM
  #265
pdd
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,578
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
Myth: Enforcers are tough. They are tough on the ice and they can take a beating. I've seen guys taunt minor league enforcers who never made the NHL into fighting off the ice and they were as unskilled fighters as I've ever seen.
The myth is that fighting=toughness.

Also, fighting while wearing skates on ice is a lot harder than fighting while standing on the floor in shoes.

pdd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-18-2013, 07:12 PM
  #266
LeBlondeDemon10
Registered User
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,623
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I am not saying it is just a theory, but more or less I believe the rise of the long ball era is credited mostly to Ruth. In a way Ruth is like Orr when it comes to his sport. He changed the way people played it. In fact, Ruth did that more than Orr did.

Cobb was an old school type of guy. He probably could have hit more homeruns but as anyone can tell you HR is a low percentage play. It just wasn't popular with Cobb, or his era. A single was more plausible and therefore more likely so it was attempted more often like hitting into the holes and such.

Yes Ruth could truly do it all. You might guess that Rickey Henderson has more career triples than Ruth right? Guess again.
I think were both right. I was reading (Wiki) about the history of the base ball and the cork center was actually introduced by both leagues in 1910, an invention by a fellow named Alfred Reach. So it appears that Ruth, who started as a pitcher in 1914, honed his swing while pitching. He hit 29 home runs in 1919 as a pitcher and mostly everyday player. The Yankees likely saw the potential in Ruth and purchased him in Boston's fire sale of 1919. Let's give credit to Ruth too who appears to have had the foresight that home runs would become a significant part of the game, despite the many that discredited his approach like Cobb. So really, it took almost 10 years for baseball to catch onto the potential of the lively ball.

As for the triples stat you mentioned, yeah, that's really hard to fathom given the physiques of these two men. The only theory I can come up for it is that in the old days, baseball parks were not as symmetrical as they were in Ricky's time. He played in a lot of cookie cutter stadiums 300-400-300. Ruth played in Boston and its long unsymmetrical centerfield and Yankee stadium with its deep power alley in left-center. Ruth also likely hit more towering fly balls that allowed him to reach second before the ball landed. Ricky hit mostly line drives from what I remember.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 11:13 AM
  #267
IComeInPeace
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: LA
Country: Canada
Posts: 924
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by gmm View Post
Myth: Enforcers are tough. They are tough on the ice and they can take a beating. I've seen guys taunt minor league enforcers who never made the NHL into fighting off the ice and they were as unskilled fighters as I've ever seen.
Just to illustrate your point, can you give us the names of these minor league tough guys that you state couldn't fight off the ice.
Not that it's not possible, but sometimes other people's definition of a toughguy/enforcer type can be much different than someone else's.
For instance Kelly Buchberger and Jim Cummins could be considered enforcer/toughguy types, but they werent good fighters on the ice, so I wouldn't expect them to be tough off the ice either.

IComeInPeace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
05-19-2013, 11:30 AM
  #268
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,648
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
I think were both right. I was reading (Wiki) about the history of the base ball and the cork center was actually introduced by both leagues in 1910, an invention by a fellow named Alfred Reach. So it appears that Ruth, who started as a pitcher in 1914, honed his swing while pitching. He hit 29 home runs in 1919 as a pitcher and mostly everyday player. The Yankees likely saw the potential in Ruth and purchased him in Boston's fire sale of 1919. Let's give credit to Ruth too who appears to have had the foresight that home runs would become a significant part of the game, despite the many that discredited his approach like Cobb. So really, it took almost 10 years for baseball to catch onto the potential of the lively ball.

As for the triples stat you mentioned, yeah, that's really hard to fathom given the physiques of these two men. The only theory I can come up for it is that in the old days, baseball parks were not as symmetrical as they were in Ricky's time. He played in a lot of cookie cutter stadiums 300-400-300. Ruth played in Boston and its long unsymmetrical centerfield and Yankee stadium with its deep power alley in left-center. Ruth also likely hit more towering fly balls that allowed him to reach second before the ball landed. Ricky hit mostly line drives from what I remember.
I'm pretty sure that many MLB games played pre-1920s had spectators behind the outfield, no fences. If the ball rolled into the crowd it was an automatic triple. Even in the early 20s balls that bounced over a fence where HRs, not doubles.

Dennis Bonvie 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 12:26 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.