HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
All Time Draft Fantasy league where players of the past and present meet.

ATD 2012 - Draft Thread IV

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-13-2012, 05:30 PM
  #851
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
I don't demand anything else than proving your dominance over the competition for a couple of years , which nobody managed to do with assurance.

If the league is so tough , why did Lidstrom win all these Norrises? So the league can be weak at D but not at F? Where is the parity for Lidstrom?
Trust me when historians look back at what Malkin, Crosby, and Ovechkin will have done - it will look like greatness.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 05:32 PM
  #852
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaosrevolver View Post
Ah..so we are comparing the freaks of nature to the modern era. It's not just trophies though. Finishes in statistical categories often have a European/Russian flavour. I'll touch on it more when other guys from the modern era are selected. However, look at some of the top guys in the NHL today and of the past five seasons. Malkin, Ovechkin, Sedin's, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Alfredsson, Lidstrom, etc. are names that immediately come to my mind.

When all of the guys that you mentioned played, the league had barely any non-NA's in it..and even them didn't have that many top notch Americans. Our sport has grown globally to where Canada, the United States, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Slovakia and the Czech Republic have put out several top notch players in the last two decades.

Canada: Sakic, Yzerman, Brodeur, etc.
USA: Chelios, Modano, Leetch, etc.
Russia: Fedorov, Bure, Datsyuk, etc.
Sweden: Lidstrom, Sundin, Alfredsson, etc.
Finland: Selanne and some other very solid goaltenders and forwards who will be taken in the ATD.
Slovakia: Chara, Hossa among others that will later be taken.
Czech Republic: Hasek, Jagr, etc.

There are even smaller nations like Germany and Switzerland who are starting to put out some really solid players. Guys like Eller and even young prospects like Girgensons from nations who were laughed at a few decades ago, are now becoming nations producing talents like these.

The game has grown globally, and with that the parity has come.
Way to go to completely ignore my point ! I was talking about upper echelon , the very top leve lof the league , which none of the forwards in your post ever was for a good 5 years except Jagr , which I mentionned ended the forward era and by ending his prime started the weak top forward era.

guys like Hossa , Alfredsson , Sundin , Modano , doesn't change anything in what's going on in the top 2 scoring.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
Trust me when historians look back at what Malkin, Crosby, and Ovechkin will have done - it will look like greatness.
As it is now , no.

If Crosby was healthy , maybe he would have won multiple titles , but he didn't.

An illustration of how the league would have had more ''parity'' if Jagr didn't existed in those 4 consecutive Art Ross years:

1.Jagr
2.Forsberg
3.Gretzky(old)
4.Bure

1.Jagr
2.Selanne
3.Kariya
4.Forsberg

1.Jagr
2.Bure
3.Recchi
4.Kariya

1.Jagr
2.Sakic
3.Elias
4.undrafted

Not a single player who would have won would've had another top 2 finishes during those 4 years.Looks very similar to what the top level is now if you take out Jagr.

Jagr was the top level , which is lacking today , not because of parity , but because of a lack of a Jagr type player.Then you would've heard how the fact Forsberg and Selanee and Kariya were often in the top scorers meant that they are just struggling to win multiple award because the ''league is getting tougher''.B to the S.


Last edited by seventieslord: 02-14-2012 at 02:50 PM.
Jafar is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 06:13 PM
  #853
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I understand you want to make the system work for you.

But if you have nothing more to support your adjustments than your intuition, it may not work for anybody else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I can live with that. Because if someone says to me, "hey, I don't like what you did for 1989" I don't have trouble showing why it makes more sense than using 168 points as the comparable.
I thought the whole idea of having a "system" was having something that everyone can use and knows the reasoning behind it.

ie. Everyone can independently reproduce and check the numbers and also know the reasoning and meaning of them.

Having it rely on your judgement means that you're on your own little island. No one can cite your numbers (properly at least) because they can't necessarily contact you or reproduce them. Everyone is stuck reinventing the wheel.

Relying on an undocumented judgement call when eliminating data = instant invalidation. Eliminating data you don't like in statistics is a big no no use with extreme caution sort of thing right out of the gate. And I know this being very far from any sort of expert in statistics.

At the very least you need to note your reasoning when presenting your findings or they won't be useful to anyone but you.. and those who take the numbers from you at face value -- which is another problem in itself if you are making these sort of judgement calls and not noting them..

And not that I'm really singling you out - this is just the most recent example. Some of the things I have seen cited in the bios the last couple of years.. every time I see someones finishes or vs2 with an asterisk beside it I can pretty much guess it is BS.. and it usually is..

For the people here that are serious about being hockey historians or whatever you want to call yourselves.. you really need to guard against this sort of thing. It can discredit your work.

Luckily I'm just here for the fun of it so I can pimp my bios like crazy.

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 06:29 PM
  #854
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Reen, don't you think it's also possible that Lemieux, Gretzky, etc. dominated the league so hard because everyone else was bad? Why does the NHL NEED a player who is so far above everyone else that they win the scoring title every year? We have many excellent, exciting players in the league to watch now, and that is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's boring if the same guys win everything every year, and to be honest, I'm of the mind that the league has simply reached a point of parity, rather than the NHL lacking top talent. Most people will agree that Crosby is the best the world has, and he's done some super great things in the NHL.. yet he hasn't truly dominated everyone else, not yet at least, and I'm not sure that will ever be the case.

I've always been of the mind that better equipment, coaching, etc. helps the inferior players far, far more than the best players. The best players will be good regardless of everything else, but the better everything else helps close the gap between the best players and everyone else. This is what brought about the parity more than anything else, in my mind.

jarek is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 06:56 PM
  #855
nik jr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Congo-Kinshasa
Posts: 10,525
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
their lack of ability to do it year after year , like Lafleur and Jagr.

I was not overly impress with his 65 goals to be honest , it was a very good season but clearly this guy wasn't going to last long at this rate , he had no true elite hockey IQ and all he did was hit mindlessly and shot from everywhere.They were no intelligence in his play.( and that was probably the best season of all 11 since Jagr so...)
i also don't like ovechkin's style of play (i prefer playmakers and 2 way players), but it was very effective.


frank selke said that maurice richard shot from anywhere (i have seen him take a wrist shot from the neutral zone, and score), and that that distinguished him from charlie conacher, who tried to make beautiful plays. it seemed similar to ovechkin, and both were also fiery physical players.

earlier today, i posted a video of '54 finals which shows richard intentionally batting the puck into the net with his hand after falling to the ice.

reading things like that, and comments to the effect that richard had an almost singular focus on goals makes me wonder about him. i read an article in the montreal gazette a couple of years ago which said that elmer lach was credited with a goal, but maurice richard said it was his goal (and lach agreed). imagine how that would be viewed today.


bobby hull has been criticized for similar things. a couple of old habs fans who post in the history section have probably been most critical of hull. i think C1958 is most harsh toward hull, saying hull played like a peewee.


i agree that there is no one like jagr in the NHL now, and certainly no one like 99 or 66, but the NHL is more balanced and deep so it is more difficult to stand out. star F's also play less TOI and play more D than great scorers like jagr and lafleur.

nik jr is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:14 PM
  #856
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,564
vCash: 500
Also when Gretzky and Lemieux were stickhandling circles around the NHL in their primes there was no Soviet invasion yet. Just watch the Edmonton VS CSKA Moscow games of 1985 if you don't know what I mean. Gretz had a hell of a time with Fetisov.

The league is just much better scouted, better coached...better everything now. Better get used to the parity among top players.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:16 PM
  #857
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
I thought the whole idea of having a "system" was having something that everyone can use and knows the reasoning behind it.

ie. Everyone can independently reproduce and check the numbers and also know the reasoning and meaning of them.
Hey, I was never secretive about it. I did state during last draft exactly who was removed.

And I don't think there has to be a "whole idea of having a system".

Quote:
Having it rely on your judgement means that you're on your own little island. No one can cite your numbers (properly at least) because they can't necessarily contact you or reproduce them. Everyone is stuck reinventing the wheel.
Anyone can have my spreadsheet if they just ask.

Quote:
Relying on an undocumented judgement call when eliminating data = instant invalidation. Eliminating data you don't like in statistics is a big no no use with extreme caution sort of thing right out of the gate. And I know this being very far from any sort of expert in statistics.
it is documented. read last draft.

the important thing to realize is that I don't do this to suit me or my players and I don't change my standards in any way to make my results more favourable. Now that I have the numbers together I can easily rattle off the results when people need them. Those who have been paying attention the last two drafts know exactly how these results were attained.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:16 PM
  #858
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,553
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I subscribe to "he's mario and he's an outlier just by existing". even in an off-year like this, he is another name clogging up the top-5 in scoring that other eras didn't have.
True, but you have in part allowed for this by starting at #2, there really isn't a need to remove non-outlier outliers. You really shouldn't remove anyone just because of their name. The question is does this players point total distort the results beyond what a "normal" player would.

Quote:
if the effect is that small I don't see the need for the criticism. Gretzky and Lemieux are outliers, so is Kurri by association.
It is just as valid to ask if the effect is that small, why make make the change. It is small in this case and "no biggy", but it certainly isn't in the case of 1988-89.

Quote:
I never removed Bossy.

In 1986 after outliers are removed (Gretzky & cohorts, Lemieux), Bossy is the #1. Stastny is #2.

it is reasonable to say that in a world without Mario and Wayne (which is what most of the rest of hockey history was), the top-2 in scoring in 1986 are Bossy and Stastny. Agree?
No, Bossy should be you #2, if he is the next "acceptable" guy after the actual #2. You have gone a step too far by basically removing the #1 twice. Again in this case "no biggy", but you may have gone too far already getting down to Bossy, then you do go too far with that extra step.

--

As for the top level talent, I'd have to think a lot of it went into the net with Brodeur, Hasek, Roy and quite a few other pretty good goalies.

BM67 is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:18 PM
  #859
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 50
Still calling massive BS. One day another real generational player (real definition of it this time) will come along and destroy the league for a good 5 to 10 years and people will have to eat it with their defeatist theory.

It's human nature , the average is getting better gradually , the top a little bit more randomly , but eventually we'll see a better player than any we ever saw in this young sport , better than Gretzky , Lemieux , Howe and Orr.

As to Jarek question about why I want a top player so much...well because that's just fun to watch !

There's still no Mario Lemieux in this league , his talent , eye-witness test , not even close.There will be another one.I just hope it's before I die , and I'm confidant it will be.I'm an optimist.

Jafar is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:23 PM
  #860
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
Still calling massive BS. One day another real generational player (real definition of it this time) will come along and destroy the league for a good 5 to 10 years and people will have to eat it with their defeatist theory.

It's human nature , the average is getting better gradually , the top a little bit more randomly , but eventually we'll see a better player than any we ever saw in this young sport , better than Gretzky , Lemieux , Howe and Orr.

As to Jarek question about why I want a top player so much...well because that's just fun to watch !

There's still no Mario Lemieux in this league , his talent , eye-witness test , not even close.There will be another one.I just hope it's before I die , and I'm confidant it will be.I'm an optimist.
LoL. May be a long wait. As far as I'm concerned, they're already here. Crosby and Malkin is about as gifted as it gets.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:25 PM
  #861
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Reen, don't you think it's also possible that Lemieux, Gretzky, etc. dominated the league so hard because everyone else was bad? .
No , that would be a legit question if I didn't saw both and the top players of today with my own eyes.Gretzky and Lemieux were above Crosby by quite a margin.I understand even if in your hypothetical world it's harder for Crosby to look as good for my eyes because of the competition , but that's not true.I can evaluate these things fairly easily and understand the kind of player , IQ , skills that Gretzky and Lemieux had were pretty solidly superior to Crosby or any player in this league , and I still think the same thing about Jagr.I think the league were tougher in the 90s anyway.

Just to take Lemieux as an example , he was a better passer(execution AND finding sick angles) , a more intelligent player than Crosby offensively , was second to Gretzky as far as ''playing chess'' and ''fooling'' people even if it was not athletically , all of his shots were far better than Crosby (except maybe backhand , both are good) , he was an infinitely better stickhandler/puck controller/one-on-one mover , I'm still unsure who is faster , but Lemieux was harder to stop , the old hooking rules slowed him down , the new rules would have guaranteed him so many more points it's laughable , which brings me to his breakaway skills = best of all-time easily , he was way bigger than Crosby and harder to stop with his 6'5 frame , I also think he was a more clutch player than Crosby even if I think Crosby is still a pretty clutch player.

I don't know man , I think you guys are pushing it very far with this 15 years differance.You all talk like the human race would have evolve in such a way in 15 years while it's just impossible , there's only so much nutrition and training could do to the top players of a very fluid and mental game.No training can give you the toolbox , only the tools , and the top players are way more often top players because of the toolbox.


Last edited by Jafar: 02-13-2012 at 07:38 PM.
Jafar is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:26 PM
  #862
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Yeah, Malkin's two games this weekend were pretty much as ridiculous high level as you can find. I think Malkin for these last 25 or so games he's played is coming close to the best of Jagr personally. He's just been so outrageous no one can stop him excep himself (actually kinda like Jagr in that way too lol)

vecens24 is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:30 PM
  #863
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Yeah, Malkin's two games this weekend were pretty much as ridiculous high level as you can find. I think Malkin for these last 25 or so games he's played is coming close to the best of Jagr personally. He's just been so outrageous no one can stop him excep himself (actually kinda like Jagr in that way too lol)
He's only 25 - yet if he keeps this season up Malkin's resume is going to be very strong. He could be a top 125 ATD pick next year with a strong playoff.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:32 PM
  #864
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
 
chaosrevolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
No , that would be a legit question if I didn't saw both and the top players of today with my own eyes.Gretzky and Lemieux were above Crosby by quite a margin.I understand even if in your hypothetical world it's harder for Crosby to look as good for my eyes because of the competition , but that's not true.I can evaluate these things fairly easily and understand the kind of player , IQ , skills that Gretzky and Lemieux had were pretty solidly superior to Crosby or any player in this league , and I still think the same thing about Jagr.I think the league were tougher in the 90s anyway.
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I disagree as I feel parity is the major reason with now at least six or seven countries consistently producing top prospects who eventually become great players with each and every draft.

The game was very different back then..so I find it hard to say the modern era is weak as opposed to just more competitive. Hell, back in those days..it wasn't that uncommon to see a team win multiple years in a row..we now haven't seen that since the late 90's with the Wings.

chaosrevolver is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:35 PM
  #865
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
I honestly am not trying to be a dick with these replies, but this is honestly what I thought after reading all these points:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
True, but you have in part allowed for this by starting at #2, there really isn't a need to remove non-outlier outliers. You really shouldn't remove anyone just because of their name. The question is does this players point total distort the results beyond what a "normal" player would.
Yes, that is another way of looking at it.

Quote:
It is just as valid to ask if the effect is that small, why make make the change. It is small in this case and "no biggy", but it certainly isn't in the case of 1988-89.
Yes, that is another way of looking at it.



Quote:
No, Bossy should be you #2, if he is the next "acceptable" guy after the actual #2. You have gone a step too far by basically removing the #1 twice. Again in this case "no biggy", but you may have gone too far already getting down to Bossy, then you do go too far with that extra step.
Yes, that is another way of looking at it.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:35 PM
  #866
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
 
chaosrevolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 13,555
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Yeah, Malkin's two games this weekend were pretty much as ridiculous high level as you can find. I think Malkin for these last 25 or so games he's played is coming close to the best of Jagr personally. He's just been so outrageous no one can stop him excep himself (actually kinda like Jagr in that way too lol)
At the top of his game, he is the most dominant player I have ever seen. The only one I can say that is a good comparable that I actually saw was Jagr.

At the top of his game, he is better than Crosby at the top of his game. IF he can be consistently dominant for a long stretch of his career, he will be a top-50 player as far as I'm concerned.

chaosrevolver is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:38 PM
  #867
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
regardless of top-end talent, you have to think that the "replacement level" player has gotten significantly better in the past 30 years. And it is often the "badness" of these players that drives the league scoring level because it is the worst players that get exploited the most often. Now you have 4th liners who can go out there and although they get outplayed, they won't be embarrassed by anyone. Absolutely it's harder for Crosby or any other superstar to "get away" with the things Lemieux did, as often as Lemieux did.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:39 PM
  #868
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaosrevolver View Post
That is your opinion, and you are entitled to it. I disagree as I feel parity is the major reason with now at least six or seven countries consistently producing top prospects who eventually become great players with each and every draft.

The game was very different back then..so I find it hard to say the modern era is weak as opposed to just more competitive. Hell, back in those days..it wasn't that uncommon to see a team win multiple years in a row..we now haven't seen that since the late 90's with the Wings.
yeah but you didn't saw Lemieux game after game in his prime , you are too young.

and you still completely ignore my point , which is talking about the very top of the league , not the era if you consider the top 30 players.

Jafar is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:39 PM
  #869
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
regardless of top-end talent, you have to think that the "replacement level" player has gotten significantly better in the past 30 years. And it is often the "badness" of these players that drives the league scoring level because it is the worst players that get exploited the most often. Now you have 4th liners who can go out there and although they get outplayed, they won't be embarrassed by anyone. Absolutely it's harder for Crosby or any other superstar to "get away" with the things Lemieux did, as often as Lemieux did.
This is a very good point. 4th line plug-ins today are now young guys like Gilbert Brule and Benoiut Pouliot who in their own right are great hockey players.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:41 PM
  #870
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
regardless of top-end talent, you have to think that the "replacement level" player has gotten significantly better in the past 30 years. And it is often the "badness" of these players that drives the league scoring level because it is the worst players that get exploited the most often. Now you have 4th liners who can go out there and although they get outplayed, they won't be embarrassed by anyone. Absolutely it's harder for Crosby or any other superstar to "get away" with the things Lemieux did, as often as Lemieux did.
strongly disagree , when you are a top player it doesn't matter if the 4th liner is better than it was , because you are just better than him either way.When you are better than someone you dominate him , I also never talked about the level of domination of top players , just to clearly be the best for a good 4 or 5 years , doesn't mean you have to outscore everybody by 60 pts.

Jafar is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:42 PM
  #871
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
strongly disagree , when you are a top player it doesn't matter if the 4th liner is better than it was , because you are just better than him either way.
You are continueing to ignore how technology has helped scouting and coaching immensely which allows teams who get caught with their 4th line VS superstars to survive.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:45 PM
  #872
Jafar
Keep it logical
 
Jafar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,693
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
You are continueing to ignore how technology has helped scouting and coaching immensely which allows teams who get caught with their 4th line VS superstars to survive.
You are continuously overrating what technology and nutrition can do to help top players in a fluid and mental game.Technology doesn't help someone ''seeing'' thing in a more abstract way closer to genius level in a split second in every unique situation on the ice , because every situation , no matter how close they are , are all unique.

Lemieux was better than everybody today , and he wasn't the player who took training the more seriously.He was the best because he ''saw'' things differently , more precisely , more quickly , and adapted to every unique situation he saw in a better way than other players.Training can help your body being more on top , your shots , but they can't help you with the fluidity of the game and reacting to it on another level ( top level of the league ) as far as dominating other great players (but less great)

What Malkin does these days , why couldn't an even better player do it every game and maybe even more than what he does? Why should it be impossible? Why couldn't a player be better than what Malkin is these past few weeks? Or again , why couldn't a player stay on Malkin's level for 4 years? There'sn o reason not to except the league is lacking in such a player.Maybe Malkin will step up , and I wish it , because he was always my favorite since he entered the league.


Last edited by Jafar: 02-13-2012 at 07:52 PM.
Jafar is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:46 PM
  #873
seventieslord
Registered User
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,322
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
strongly disagree , when you are a top player it doesn't matter if the 4th liner is better than it was , because you are just better than him either way.When you are better than someone you dominate him , I also never talked about the level of domination of top players , just to clearly be the best for a good 4 or 5 years , doesn't mean you have to outscore everybody by 60 pts.
what? seriously?

you don't think that Crosby would beat a poor player more often than he'd beat an average player? no one wins 100% of battles or one on one encounters.

seventieslord is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:47 PM
  #874
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Yeah, Malkin's two games this weekend were pretty much as ridiculous high level as you can find. I think Malkin for these last 25 or so games he's played is coming close to the best of Jagr personally. He's just been so outrageous no one can stop him excep himself (actually kinda like Jagr in that way too lol)
I think Malkin is more offensively talented than Crosby, personally. When Malkin is on, he is ON. I feel Crosby is the better overall player so far though.

The issue is like you said, both Crosby and Malkin have done this in spurts. For Lemieux and Gretzky it was routine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Why on earth are we comparing Crosby to Lemieux?
Beats me, there is no argument that can be made and supported with any form of evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
You are continueing to ignore how technology has helped scouting and coaching immensely which allows teams who get caught with their 4th line VS superstars to survive.
What technology has helped scouting and coaching immensely?

Why would it matter that 4th liners are better than they used to be when Gretzky / Lemieux / Jagr used to regularly beat the best players? Are 4th liners now better than the best players from 20 years ago or something?

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 07:50 PM
  #875
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,564
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
What technology has helped scouting and coaching immensely?

Why would it matter that 4th liners are better than they used to be when Gretzky / Lemieux / Jagr used to regularly beat the best players? Are 4th liners now better than the best player from 20 years ago or something?
If you don't think coaching staff's and scouting departments are better today and more equipped to shutdown other teams than they were pre-internet in the mid 80's thats extremely nieve on your part. And I don't think anyone is saying Crosby and Malkin are close to Gretzky and Lemieux?...They're not.

Simply the days of one guy blowing the rest of the pack away in the scoring races are done.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Closed Thread

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 12:23 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.