HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > Fantasy Hockey Talk > All Time Draft
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
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, 08:52 PM
  #876
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,979
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
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?
they did, but in an idealized and simplfied retelling of the story. In reality, anyone could end up on the ice with anyone and that still happens. and the greater the talent disparity, the greater the likelihood that the superior players will take advantage. Those situations are less extreme than ever before now (except probably the last decade of the O6)

seventieslord is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 08:55 PM
  #877
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,011
vCash: 500
Malkin has such a weird career. He's on pace for 3 top 2 finishes in points - with no other top 10 finishes. He has a conn Smythe - and was mediocre to bad in his other playoffs.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-13-2012, 08:56 PM
  #878
vecens24
Registered User
 
vecens24's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Country: United States
Posts: 5,002
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Malkin has such a weird career. He's on pace for 2 Art Rosses - with no other regular season where he seriously competes for the Art Ross. He has a conn Smythe - and was mediocre to bad in his other playoffs.
Don't forget 08. He was second, 6 points less than Ovechkin. Something like 114 for Ovechkin and 108 for Malkin or something along those lines.

EDIT: You beat me to it.

vecens24 is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 08:57 PM
  #879
monster_bertuzzi
registered user
 
monster_bertuzzi's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 30,156
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vecens24 View Post
Don't forget 08. He was second, 6 points less than Ovechkin. Something like 114 for Ovechkin and 108 for Malkin or something along those lines.

EDIT: You beat me to it.
And I wouldn't call his 08 playoff mediocre either.

monster_bertuzzi is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 09:00 PM
  #880
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
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.
I think the only reason for Crosby losing a battle against both players is Crosby , his off-shifts , his off-plays or his off-days , not the mediocre or average player per say.I think the percentage would be very close.

When I'll play against a average 15 years old and an average 16 years old , I'll probably succeed the same amount of time , because everytime I failed I caused the failure , because I'm simply better than them.(how many times will a average players actually stop crosby if crosby executed what he had in mind to perfection?)

And even if I play by your opinion and say there's a differance , the best player should still be the one who has the highest % of success against any type of player , therefore should still be 1st in the league , because I still think we're far , very far from the % being so low that all the top players are THAT close % wise.If they are that close , it's because the league is lacking in a real top player.

feel free to disagree , I think I've defended my points with decent arguments.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 02-13-2012 at 09:05 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 09:01 PM
  #881
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
And I wouldn't call his 08 playoff mediocre either.
Malkin was fine in some rounds, absolutely terrible against tougher competition in the finals.

Malkin's 2009 playoffs are the most dominant playoff performance I've seen from a forward since Sakic in 1996, at least from an offensive standpoint. But I think the rest of his playoff career has been mediocre at best.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-13-2012, 09:05 PM
  #882
chaosrevolver
Snubbed Again
 
chaosrevolver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,337
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
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.
I'm not ignoring it. Your initial point was that our era (the current one) is a weak one.

I've been arguing against that this whole time. Defying an era isn't just about the top-3 players, but also about the rest of the group. Like seventies said, the top 20 is the new top 10.

chaosrevolver is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 09:08 PM
  #883
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by chaosrevolver View Post
I'm not ignoring it. Your initial point was that our era (the current one) is a weak one.
I've been arguing against that this whole time. Defying an era isn't just about the top-3 players, but also about the rest of the group. Like seventies said, the top 20 is the new top 10.
No , my initial point was that the top level of this era is weak.I never even thought in my head about comparing both eras in general , I have no opinion on the subject , I would have to look into it , but it's for another day.

BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 09:10 PM
  #884
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Malkin was fine in some rounds, absolutely terrible against tougher competition in the finals.

Malkin's 2009 playoffs are the most dominant playoff performance I've seen from a forward since Sakic in 1996, at least from an offensive standpoint. But I think the rest of his playoff career has been mediocre at best.
I still have both 90s Penguins runs on VHS tape (missing a couple of games but have a bunch of them) , recorded them with my father.I have the game when Mario scored his notorious goal , the goal is even better when you actually watch all the game , all the boring useless plays in between , the failed attempt at scoring from both side or the other goals , and then BAM Lemieux comes out with this beauty.

It's been a while since I've watched it , the description of this particular game is in french though.

play-by-play guy: ''QUEL JEU D'MARIO LEMIEUX!!!!!''
other guy: ''INCROYABLE''
play-by-play guy: ''IL A COMPLÈTEMENT PERCÉ LA DEFENSIVE''

never gets old , still gives me chills every single time


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 02-13-2012 at 09:21 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 09:54 PM
  #885
DaveG
Mod Supervisor
How's the thesis?
 
DaveG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Durham NC
Country: United States
Posts: 32,288
vCash: 562
Lada selects D Joe Simpson

DaveG is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 09:59 PM
  #886
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,579
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I honestly am not trying to be a dick with these replies, but this is honestly what I thought after reading all these points:



Yes, that is another way of looking at it.



Yes, that is another way of looking at it.





Yes, that is another way of looking at it.
I'm not thinking dick when I read your posts, I'm thinking Ogopogo.

I've posted enough stuff here with vs#1-4 that it should be obvious I'm not stuck on vs#2, but you certainly seem stuck removing outliers even when they aren't outliers.

Here are the point totals of the top guys for the 12 years with 80 game schedule and 21 teams.

Year#1#2#3#4#5#10#15#20#25
198013713712510610594928979
1981164135131119112103968783
1982212147139136129106979289
1983196124121118107104928884
1984205126121119118105959289
19852081351301261211021009589
1986215141138131123105978984
198718310810710710595878179
1988168149131121111106938986
198919916815515011598908885
1990142129127123123102969290
1991163131115113110101918782

87 is pretty much the lowest totals at every spot except Gretzky at #1. Yet you are removing several players as outliers.

The top 4 in 89 are really high, but the rest of the leader board is below average. Staying with #2 will "punish" the league with very low scores for a below average season, but removing outliers will give them "bonus points" where they will rate as a well above average season. I don't see any reason to think either way is the "best" way to go. Maybe using the average of #3-5, 140 pts, would work as a substitute.

BM67 is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:01 PM
  #887
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
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.
Yes, it absolutely does matter if the 4th liner is better than before. It matters because a bad defensive player is going to get grossly outplayed by even just an "average" defensive player.. and thus the "average" defensive player will regularly do much better against the best players than that "bad" defensive player. There is no such thing as "just because you are better than someone, you are going to beat him regardless of how good he is". That just doesn't exist, it never existed.

I absolutely agree that the "worst players" of today are far, far, far better than the worst players of the 80s.. thus, these players don't get exploited as much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
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.
You're right, technology and nutrition don't necessarily help the top players as much, but they absolutely do help the inferior players a ton. This is what closes the gap between the best players and everyone else.

Moreover, perhaps the top players are able to adapt and react to unique situations more appropriately than everyone else, but what you fail to realize is the impact that coaching has on everyone.. something called structure. Everyone these days is taught how to react to situations, and the players that don't have this ability to react to unique situations instead follow a blueprint of what to do when something happens.. and I'm POSITIVE that this has evolved a TON, even over the last 20 years. Again, this is another thing that bridges the gap between the best and everyone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
If they are that close , it's because the league is lacking in a real top player.
Or.. there is so much talent in the pool right now because of so many more countries adding to that talent pool, that the top of the talent pool is just stacked with extremely good players. The problem is that there is no true outlier to compare to right now due to the talent being so close, so it's really easy to say that the top is just weak because everyone is so close. The truth of the matter is, no time in HISTORY has there ever been so much parity at the top. This is a sign that the league is growing STRONGER.. not weaker.

You pretty much showed yourself just how shallow the depth was back when Lemieux played. The rest of the game when Lemieux wasn't on the ice was crap hockey.. this is by your own account. How often do you see that these days?

jarek is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:06 PM
  #888
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Yes, it absolutely does matter if the 4th liner is better than before. It matters because a bad defensive player is going to get grossly outplayed by even just an "average" defensive player.. and thus the "average" defensive player will regularly do much better against the best players than that "bad" defensive player. There is no such thing as "just because you are better than someone, you are going to beat him regardless of how good he is". That just doesn't exist, it never existed.

I absolutely agree that the "worst players" of today are far, far, far better than the worst players of the 80s.. thus, these players don't get exploited as much.



You're right, technology and nutrition don't necessarily help the top players as much, but they absolutely do help the inferior players a ton. This is what closes the gap between the best players and everyone else.

Moreover, perhaps the top players are able to adapt and react to unique situations more appropriately than everyone else, but what you fail to realize is the impact that coaching has on everyone.. something called structure. Everyone these days is taught how to react to situations, and the players that don't have this ability to react to unique situations instead follow a blueprint of what to do when something happens.. and I'm POSITIVE that this has evolved a TON, even over the last 20 years. Again, this is another thing that bridges the gap between the best and everyone else.



Or.. there is so much talent in the pool right now because of so many more countries adding to that talent pool, that the top of the talent pool is just stacked with extremely good players. The problem is that there is no true outlier to compare to right now due to the talent being so close, so it's really easy to say that the top is just weak because everyone is so close. The truth of the matter is, no time in HISTORY has there ever been so much parity at the top. This is a sign that the league is growing STRONGER.. not weaker.

You pretty much showed yourself just how shallow the depth was back when Lemieux played. The rest of the game when Lemieux wasn't on the ice was crap hockey.. this is by your own account. How often do you see that these days?
where do you want to go with all of this jarek? That Lemieux wasn't at least a complete head above everyone in today's league? This is what you are trying to say? I don't get your point or where you want to go?

what do you want from me really? Even if I can agree with what you said to some extent , I still see no reason a top player wouldn't be able to be the best every year for a couple of year.

There's no technology or training that makes Henrik Sedin a legitimate 1st level NHL player.No explanation makes sense except that the league is lacking in real top players , or at least consistant top players.

Man aren't you old enough to have seen these guys play? come on now let's just be serious for 1 second guys...

Put a Lemieux in this league and there's no more parity.This is what I'm saying , ONE SINGLE HUMAN , ONE SINGLE PAIR OF LEGS AND ARMS , ONE SINGLE BRAIN , that's all it takes for all your grand theory to be kicked out the door , and it will happen one day or another , no matter how the average players is getting stronger.The league is missing this human being.The league almost always had parity once you drop an echelon.To be honest the echelon probably got broken by Crosby's injuries , just too bad.Who knows what he might have done last year and the years after if he kept his momemtum.We wouldn't have this conversation , but I would be the one who's right.We'll never know until another top guy comes in , so yeah , I have no proof , but you don't either.This conversation is theoritical.From what I saw of Lemieux and prime-Jagr , I think the upper echelon is weaker nowadays , feel free to disagree.

I think I'm done here , it's going nowhere.We'll see in a couple of years , all I know is I hope I'm right , not for saying ''Told you so'' , but because I want to see another player like this.


Last edited by BenchBrawl: 02-13-2012 at 10:20 PM.
BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:10 PM
  #889
BM67
Registered User
 
BM67's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In "The System"
Country: Canada
Posts: 4,579
vCash: 500
Added talent depth doesn't have much impact on the scoring race.

Mats Sundin finished as high as 2nd in goals, and 4th in points. Yet he never had a season higher than 83% of the Art Ross winner, or 79% of the Richard winner in any year. Adding 10 Sundins to the league would have minimal impact on the Art Ross/Richard race, but would impact the top 10. Sundin might push someone else over the top, but he isn't winning a race himself.

BM67 is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:13 PM
  #890
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 41,011
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Added talent depth doesn't have much impact on the scoring race.

Mats Sundin finished as high as 2nd in goals, and 4th in points. Yet he never had a season higher than 83% of the Art Ross winner, or 79% of the Richard winner in any year. Adding 10 Sundins to the league would have minimal impact on the Art Ross/Richard race, but would impact the top 10. Sundin might push someone else over the top, but he isn't winning a race himself.
This is one way to look at it. Another way is that in a hypothetical all-Canadian league, Sydney Crosby would have 3 Art Rosses.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:14 PM
  #891
Modo
Global Moderator
Mo'Benn
 
Modo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Etobicoke
Country: Canada
Posts: 42,556
vCash: 627
Dawson City selects Vitali Davydov, D.

3-time Olympic Gold medallist

7-time first-team all star in the Russian Super League

9 consecutive world championships from 1963-1971

Widely considered one of Russia's greatest shutdown defensemen at the time (surprising, given his size), Davydov was absent from the Summit Series reportedly due to a certain coaching change by the Soviets. Also absent from that series was another Dawson City draft pick, Anatoli Firsov.

Hope I pick the right coach.

__________________
If you're telekinetic and you know it, clap my hands!
Modo is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:24 PM
  #892
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 500
With our 10th selection, the 307th overall draft in this year All-Time Draft, l'équipe nationale de France est fier de sélectionner, from Ottawa, Canada, le défenseur Frank Patrick




Link to Jarek biography:
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...0&postcount=84


I thought Jarek had made a great case for him last draft, I'm surprise he fell another seven spot this draft. I'm happy to round out my Top-4 with Frank Patrick.

Jan Suchy - Valery Vasiliev
Moose Vasko - Frank Patrick

EagleBelfour is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:24 PM
  #893
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
where do you want to go with all of this jarek? That Lemieux wasn't at least a complete head above everyone in today's league? This is what you are trying to say? I don't get your point or where you want to go?

what do you want from me really? Even if I can agree with what you said to some extent , I still see no reason a top player wouldn't be able to be the best every year for a couple of year.

There's no technology or training that makes Henrik Sedin a legitimate 1st level NHL player.No explanation makes sense except that the league is lacking in real top players , or at least consistant top players.

Man aren't you old enough to have seen these guys play? come on now let's just be serious for 1 second guys...
Why does the explanation have to be that the era is weak, though? Why can't the explanation be that so many players are just so strong? Personally, aside from having no outliers like Lemieux and Gretzky, I think the top players of this era are just as good, if not better, than the "second best" of the 80's. Really, the only thing this era is missing from being the best era ever (IMO), is those outliers..

And, to further explain my point about coaching, I will talk about video. Never before has there been so much video footage of players. You can get so much information about how a team plays and what strategies they rely on through video, and EVERY team does it these days. Putting this into perspective, Roger Neilson is the one who pioneered the use of video. Yes, and he only coached about 20 years ago. This means that the use of video for coaching is only about 20-25 years old, MAX. And, no matter how good a player is, NOBODY is so unpredictable that they don't have tendencies in what they do on the ice. EVERYONE has something that they will most likely lean towards in terms of how they play on the ice. There is so much video out there of how these players play, that coaches can refine their strategies to play against those specific players. This way, if you're not sure what a player will do, you can simply play the odds of what they are most likely to do. When, in history, has this ever been possible?

And to top it all off, hockey is a game that is confined to the laws of physics. It doesn't matter how good a player is, that puck still has to physically travel from one point to another, as well as the player. If you're that good defensively, you can get your stick on the puck as it travels, OR get your body on the player as he tries to get past you. These are laws that nobody can get around.

Also, I never said, nor will I ever say, that Lemieux wasn't better than anyone who plays now, because he was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BM67 View Post
Added talent depth doesn't have much impact on the scoring race.

Mats Sundin finished as high as 2nd in goals, and 4th in points. Yet he never had a season higher than 83% of the Art Ross winner, or 79% of the Richard winner in any year. Adding 10 Sundins to the league would have minimal impact on the Art Ross/Richard race, but would impact the top 10. Sundin might push someone else over the top, but he isn't winning a race himself.
You're right, it doesn't affect the best, but it certainly affects the top-10 scorers, as you said, and does a lot to create parity. However, if the bottom players are much better, it significantly reduces how often those players can be exploited defensively by the best players. You can say that this affects everyone equally, and you may be right, but I think it does a lot to close the gap between how frequently the best players score, and how frequently the second best players score.

jarek is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:26 PM
  #894
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
The Fireworks select HHOF C/LW Bob Pulford to start off our 3rd line.


Quote:
Pulford was promoted to the Leafs for the 1956-57 season and proved to be a hard- working, two-way player who excelled at checking the game's top scorers. "Pulford is one of my private headaches," said Gordie Howe, "because he has to be classed as one of hockey's greatest forecheckers. There's a deep knowledge of the game in his forechecking, hook, poke check, strength of arms, quickness, the whole bundle of wax."
- http://www.legendsofhockey.net/Legen...page=bio&list=


Quote:
Bob was considered one of the best fore-checkers in the NHL with a knack of scoring important goals. He thrived under pressure and was especially valuable during the playoffs when the checking got tougher.

Legendary Montreal coach Toe Blake was once asked who he would pick from the Toronto team if he could. Toe didn't pick Frank Mahovlich, Dave Keon or Tim Horton, but he chose Bob, and when asked why, his simple explanation was, "He's the heart of that hockey club."
- http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/ed...ost&p=44093213


Quote:
He is one of the most complete hockey players the game has produced in recent years and one of the hardest-working," claimed Larry Regan, the general manager of the Los Angeles Kings in 1970
-http://www.hhof.com/htmlSpotlight/spot_oneononep199103.shtml


Quote:
He was a dedicated defensive forward, much in the same mold of a later day Bob Gainey or Jere Lehtinen
- http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com...b-pulford.html


Also Pulford was the most proficient SHG scorer in his time :

Also, I posted shorthanded scoring stats for the Original 6 years from 1952-53 on. Those were missing the 1957-58 numbers. Here's an updated list.

- http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...ht=bob+pulford


******


Quote from a respected poster on HF THEREALKOHO:

Quote:
Pully is no throw in at all seventies, he had the task of shutting down the oppositions best in the six team league, Hull, Howe and Richards last few years. As you know i saw the majority of his career and he was a better skater than Gainey plus he had better offense.
From the top 10 defensive players of All time thread

-http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/showthread.php?t=714634&highlight=bob+pulford






**************Another quote from that same poster:

Quote:
Best D forward - Bob Pulford, Pulford was given the night in night out assignment of covering everyone from Gordon Howe to the Rocket and Bobby Hull. He played on a team that was for the most part offensively challenged even in the 6 team league and yet the Leafs by way of Pulford shutdown the opposition enough to win 4 SC's during his tenure, I'm old enough to have seen them all

- http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...pulford&page=3
TAKE THE ABOVE 2 QUOTES HOW YOU LIKE. JUST INTERESTING HEARING FROM A POSTER WHO WAS OLD ENOUGH TO WATCH HM PLAY.


Quote:
"Hockey Illustrated" Coaches’ Poll, 1965

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This poll was taken by US hockey magazine "Hockey Illustrated", and the results were summarized in the Toronto Star by Jim Proudfoot on January 22, 1965.

Best penalty killer
1. Bob Pulford
- http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...ht=bob+pulford


Last edited by markrander87: 02-13-2012 at 11:23 PM.
markrander87 is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:28 PM
  #895
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
Why does the explanation have to be that the era is weak, though? Why can't the explanation be that so many players are just so strong? Personally, aside from having no outliers like Lemieux and Gretzky, I think the top players of this era are just as good, if not better, than the "second best" of the 80's. Really, the only thing this era is missing from being the best era ever (IMO), is those outliers..

And, to further explain my point about coaching, I will talk about video. Never before has there been so much video footage of players. You can get so much information about how a team plays and what strategies they rely on through video, and EVERY team does it these days. Putting this into perspective, Roger Neilson is the one who pioneered the use of video. Yes, and he only coached about 20 years ago. This means that the use of video for coaching is only about 20-25 years old, MAX. And, no matter how good a player is, NOBODY is so unpredictable that they don't have tendencies in what they do on the ice. EVERYONE has something that they will most likely lean towards in terms of how they play on the ice. There is so much video out there of how these players play, that coaches can refine their strategies to play against those specific players. This way, if you're not sure what a player will do, you can simply play the odds of what they are most likely to do. When, in history, has this ever been possible?

And to top it all off, hockey is a game that is confined to the laws of physics. It doesn't matter how good a player is, that puck still has to physically travel from one point to another, as well as the player. If you're that good defensively, you can get your stick on the puck as it travels, OR get your body on the player as he tries to get past you. These are laws that nobody can get around.

Also, I never said, nor will I ever say, that Lemieux wasn't better than anyone who plays now, because he was.



You're right, it doesn't affect the best, but it certainly affects the top-10 scorers, as you said, and does a lot to create parity. However, if the bottom players are much better, it significantly reduces how often those players can be exploited defensively by the best players. You can say that this affects everyone equally, and you may be right, but I think it does a lot to close the gap between how frequently the best players score, and how frequently the second best players score.
why are outliers outliers? they are human being just like anybody else , Orr and Howe was there before , and Jagr was pretty close to being one.Why no outliers these days? No outliers or close to outliers = weaker era at the top.Why talk about them as if they're not in the equation?

I ve read so much about Lafleur , I remember the habs doctors being surprised by his incredibly slow heartrate.He was in the low 50s naturally , while smoking which is suppose to elevate blood pressure.No matter how hard you train , you might never go below 60.It's just a natural ability , which training and nutrition can't reach on the majority of people.Making an effort (and getting back to normal quickly) for Lafleur was probably easier than for 97% of the players of today , that's what being gifted is.All kind of gifts can be given to you.

BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:30 PM
  #896
EagleBelfour
Registered User
 
EagleBelfour's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,234
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
I'm pretty proud of my work on Frank Patrick. Good pick.
Thanks, I won't even try to top it off, and just link your biography . I was looking to add an offensive minded defenceman to round out my top-4 alongside Moose Vasko, but I never thought Frank Patrick would still be around at 307. I thought your work would raise him at least a full round ... but I also thought that my Cecil Dillon would raise him at least a dozen spot, not fall 40 picks! I guess it worked out fine for me!

EagleBelfour is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:34 PM
  #897
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,418
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by monster_bertuzzi View Post
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.
Examples?

Quote:
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.
You're contradicting yourself.

If they are not close to Gretzky and Lemieux and they are winning scoring titles.. obviously if someone came along like a Gretzky or Lemieux they would blow the pack away, no?

Or are you saying it is impossible now that the stars will align to produce another player at the level of Gretzky or Lemieux?

BraveCanadian is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:38 PM
  #898
jarek
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 4,550
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BenchBrawl View Post
why are outliers outliers? they are human being just like anybody else , Orr and Howe was there before , and Jagr was pretty close to being one.Why no outliers these days? No outliers or close to outliers = weaker era at the top.Why talk about them as if they're not in the equation?

I ve read so much about Lafleur , I remember the habs doctors being surprised by his incredibly slow heartrate.He was in the low 50s naturally , while smoking which is suppose to elevate blood pressure.No matter how hard you train , you might never go below 60.It's just a natural ability , which training and nutrition can't reach on the majority of people.
I never said that better nutrition and training would help the top players. In fact, I said that better training and nutrition would help top players THE LEAST.

Also, if you're so stuck on this idea that no outliers = weak era, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss. They are outliers because they performed FAR above the average. I'm talking an abnormal amount above the average. 1-2 players per era do this. And no, Gordie Howe was not an outlier. He was consistently among the best, but he rarely blew the competition out of the water. He was 1st in points 6 times in his career. The fact that he was top-5 about 500 other times is what makes him so good, among everything else that he brings.

I think the 80's stands out as the most ridiculous era in terms of players playing way above average. Lemieux, Gretzky, Coffey.. it was insane. No other era had this level of dominance, therefore it is abnormal. Why does the fact that this does not exist right now completely discredit the rest of the players? You are arguing as if the rest of the league is trash, where I think the league these days is about as strong as it's ever been, as a whole. The fact that you think the entire era is weak because nobody is dominating the pack is just so strange to me. For me, that's the sign that the era is strong.. not weak.

jarek is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:41 PM
  #899
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,362
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarek View Post
I never said that better nutrition and training would help the top players. In fact, I said that better training and nutrition would help top players THE LEAST.

Also, if you're so stuck on this idea that no outliers = weak era, then I guess we have nothing left to discuss. They are outliers because they performed FAR above the average. I'm talking an abnormal amount above the average. 1-2 players per era do this. And no, Gordie Howe was not an outlier. He was consistently among the best, but he rarely blew the competition out of the water. He was 1st in points 6 times in his career. The fact that he was top-5 about 500 other times is what makes him so good, among everything else that he brings.

I think the 80's stands out as the most ridiculous era in terms of players playing way above average. Lemieux, Gretzky, Coffey.. it was insane. No other era had this level of dominance, therefore it is abnormal. Why does the fact that this does not exist right now completely discredit the rest of the players? You are arguing as if the rest of the league is trash, where I think the league these days is about as strong as it's ever been, as a whole. The fact that you think the entire era is weak because nobody is dominating the pack is just so strange to me. For me, that's the sign that the era is strong.. not weak.
not for me , for me the reasons are between:

weak era at the top
top players weak mentally (inconsistant year from year as far as being the very best)
top players weak physically(injury prone)

The bell curve disagree with your theory and conclusion.

BenchBrawl is offline  
Old
02-13-2012, 10:44 PM
  #900
markrander87
Registered User
 
markrander87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,606
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Velociraptor View Post
I considered picking him again if he fell to me, I also don't like to re-select players I've had in past years, but I'd take Pulford again.

Thanks a lot, he seems like the perfect fit tp my 3rd line especially with Gretz in my division. The fact that he gave Gordie Howqe headaches shows how effective he was.

I also found this little comparison by Pelletier :



Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Pelletier

He was a dedicated defensive forward, much in the same mold of a later day Bob Gainey or Jere Lehtinen

Pretty solid comparions. It's really tough to judge defensive players, but it's tough not to call Pulford one of the best defensive players of his time. He didn't make the HHOF as a goal scorer (Although he scored some clutch playoff goals)



- http://www.greatesthockeylegends.com...b-pulford.html


Link for quote. Also note he is pictured on the front of "Hockey Pictorial" with the Caption:

BOB PULFORD:

RELENTLESS PURSUER!

markrander87 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 01:59 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.