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.

Ovechkin vs. Lindros as of Summer 2000

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
10-10-2012, 10:05 AM
  #26
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
There have been a lot of great players in hockey history. I don't consider it a given that either of these guys is truly in the top-100. There is a good argument for both of them, but leaving one or both off of a top-100 list wouldn't be indefensible, either. Ergo, they are borderline top-100 players.
Well thanks for that definitive proof!

It would be indefensible to me if someone left both Ovechkin and Lindros off their top 100 list. Yes, I am aware that there are a significant number of great players. These are players who were very close to being the best in the world, if not the best. To me anyone who meets that criteria has a spot in a top 100 list, particularly if they did so in a competitive era. There are far fewer than 100 players who were ever at the Ovechkin/Lindros level.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 10:19 AM
  #27
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
If it wasn't for injuries, he would have, right?
Um, I guess. But aren't we off track here? We're talking about comparing Lindros and Ovechkin based on the starts of their careers; that is not the same thing as comparing Sakic, real-life Forsberg and imaginary-never-injured Forsberg based on their entire careers.

Quote:
We saw enough to know how good Lindros was all right, but his constant injury problems were part of that. Durability is a skill just like speed and strength IMO. Especially when many of Lindros' injuries came from a lack of hockey sense.
In the particular period I am referring to?

Quote:
I've said many times that when I compare players offensively, I look at points first. If point production is very close, I go with the goal scorer, since goals are statistically more valuable than assists. If you disagree, that's find, but I'm not "going back on things."
Yes, 5% is close as an end result, but that is a composite number based on two components that are not close. I think the question of "what's more important, being 13% better at scoring goals or being 20% better at playmaking?" is a very reasonable question, one that probably straddles that line where goalscoring starts to overtake playmaking. But just barely. It's certainly not obvious.

Quote:
Are those numbers adjusted or unadjusted?
Adjusted

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I don't find that reasonable at all, considering Lindros never one played 95% of a full season before he started playing tentatively.
OK, but as you can see, using only the games he actually played (instead of extrapolating 1995) does literally nothing to his per-game average over that period.

Quote:
Everything Lafleur did that is worth talking about happened within 6 years, right?
more or less. the next three seasons were excellent PPG seasons but injury-riddled. And obviously his playoffs were otherworldly. 1981-1983 may be a footnote compared to 1975-1980 for him, but for most players in history, they'd be the best thing they ever did. It certainly adds to his resume.

Quote:
Why do you think Lindros peaked higher than them?
definie "peak". one season? two? three? more? I'm pretty sure that if you define it as something more than a single season (their hart seasons probably put them right in his realm) then it wouldn't be hard to show statistically that Lindros was more dominant over such a period.

Lach would likely end up the top scorer of the period chosen for him, but in a horrible era. Abel would rank highly but would show to be the clear 3rd-best member of his line. Neither of those peaks are in 1994-1997 Lindros territory, when he outscored all players per-game except Lemieux - he even topped Jagr in that rare period where Jagr was close to his peak and had Lemieux for help.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 10:22 AM
  #28
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Not a lot of people dominated the way Ovechkin and Lindros did for even the amount of time they did, so to suggest they are borderline 100 seems a bit pretentious/elitist. You must be imagining the history of hockey littered full of mega stars or ascribing more significance to way lesser lights.
I think it's more a case of recognizing that hockey is 130 years old.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 10:35 AM
  #29
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I think it's more a case of recognizing that hockey is 130 years old.
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=486479

Meh, there are so many soft and weak selections even in a draft by committee that you could easily slot Ovechkin and Lindros into the top 100.

Ron Francis for one never dominated the game like Ovechkin or Lindros. He was essentially a much dimmer light that shone for a lot longer, who achieved his greatest success drafting behind much brighter talents.

Elmer Lach is a career second/third fiddle who achieved most of his best years during a World War II depleted league, notwithstanding his Art Ross Trophy in 48 where Blake and Richard were both missing significant time.

Anyway, you could go on and on about players of all eras who were dynasty second/third fiddles, pond hockey era greats, compilers, and lesser stars with greater longevity who didn't dominate the league for 9 or 7 years the way Lindros and Ovechkin did.


Last edited by Stephen: 10-10-2012 at 10:48 AM.
Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 10:38 AM
  #30
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=486479

Meh, there are so many soft and weak selections even in a draft by committee that you could easily slot Ovechkin and Lindros into the top 100.
I'm not seeing it.

I mean, I can see them getting slotted in, but certainly not "easily", not without a good case having been made.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 10:54 AM
  #31
Hawkey Town 18
Moderator
 
Hawkey Town 18's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 4,208
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
http://hfboards.hockeysfuture.com/sh...d.php?t=486479

Meh, there are so many soft and weak selections even in a draft by committee that you could easily slot Ovechkin and Lindros into the top 100.

Ron Francis for one never dominated the game like Ovechkin or Lindros. He was essentially a much dimmer light that shone for a lot longer, who achieved his greatest success drafting behind much brighter talents.

Elmer Lach is a career second/third fiddle who achieved most of his best years during a World War II depleted league, notwithstanding his Art Ross Trophy in 48 where Blake and Richard were both missing significant time.

Anyway, you could go on and on about players of all eras who were dynasty second/third fiddles, pond hockey era greats, compilers, and lesser stars with greater longevity who didn't dominate the league for 9 or 7 years the way Lindros and Ovechkin did.
I don't think Lach or Francis are "automatic" Top 100 players either

Hawkey Town 18 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 10:54 AM
  #32
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
just as an example, look towards the bottom of that list, it's not like the forwards there weren't "top of the game" type players. of the guys from the NHL in the 70-100 range, only Perreault, Francis, Bucyk, Keon, and Delvecchio didn't lead the NHL in goals or points, or win a Hart, or a combination of both. (Stastny was a two-time scoring champion of Gretzky didn't exist)

And in Keon's case he was one of the five best defensive forwards ever. In Delvecchio, Francis and Bucyk's cases, they have ridiculous longevity as top players.

Perreault, I think most of us would now agree does not belong there.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 11:05 AM
  #33
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
I'm not seeing it.

I mean, I can see them getting slotted in, but certainly not "easily", not without a good case having been made.
I'm not a fan of "historian" hockey from pre-NHL days, so I would be inclined to just cut out the bulk of those second, third fiddle guys from an era we only know through hyperbolic and sensationalist primary sources and up rating that over dominance I've seen with my own eyes. Roy MacGregor puts it best when he talks about the ways in which press in those days could turn the most mundane things into the stuff of legend. But this is really a debate for another time.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 11:12 AM
  #34
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by seventieslord View Post
just as an example, look towards the bottom of that list, it's not like the forwards there weren't "top of the game" type players. of the guys from the NHL in the 70-100 range, only Perreault, Francis, Bucyk, Keon, and Delvecchio didn't lead the NHL in goals or points, or win a Hart, or a combination of both. (Stastny was a two-time scoring champion of Gretzky didn't exist)

And in Keon's case he was one of the five best defensive forwards ever. In Delvecchio, Francis and Bucyk's cases, they have ridiculous longevity as top players.

Perreault, I think most of us would now agree does not belong there.
Well, I'm not even sure I'd rather have a guy like Dickie Moore for the length of his career than what an Ovechkin has done up to this point, or Eric Lindros for his productive 9 seasons, Peter Forsberg is on that list, and he didn't have a lot of longevity either. Jari Kurri is a player who was a second/third fiddle on a dynasty, not sure if he's a clear cut superior to two guys who were the best players in the league, all the Soviet greats are suspect to me, etc.

I feel like there's a tendency to want to be inclusive of hockey's different eras and also outside of the league, but I'm not sure if the rigor is there in the selection of a lot of these guys.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 12:00 PM
  #35
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 23,846
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I'm not a fan of "historian" hockey from pre-NHL days, so I would be inclined to just cut out the bulk of those second, third fiddle guys from an era we only know through hyperbolic and sensationalist primary sources and up rating that over dominance I've seen with my own eyes.
Well, that's kind of a non-starter, then, isn't it?

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 02:32 PM
  #36
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Well, I'm not even sure I'd rather have a guy like Dickie Moore for the length of his career than what an Ovechkin has done up to this point, or Eric Lindros for his productive 9 seasons, Peter Forsberg is on that list, and he didn't have a lot of longevity either. Jari Kurri is a player who was a second/third fiddle on a dynasty, not sure if he's a clear cut superior to two guys who were the best players in the league...
Moore and Forsberg are both legendary playoff performers, and Kurri was an excellent one, in addition to being the greatest two-way forward of his era (his peak doesn't actually overlap that much with Trottier's). Cups are team achievements, yes, but being a key player on a dynasty (and delivering on an individual level) is obviously something that's going to raise a player's stature.

Quote:
I feel like there's a tendency to want to be inclusive of hockey's different eras and also outside of the league, but I'm not sure if the rigor is there in the selection of a lot of these guys.
I suspect that the more you learn about bygone players, the more respect you will have for them. It's easy to dismiss old players as irrelevant dinosaurs. It's much harder to learn about them and criticize them from a position of knowledge, but it's also more rewarding.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:06 PM
  #37
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
There have been a lot of great players in hockey history. I don't consider it a given that either of these guys is truly in the top-100. There is a good argument for both of them, but leaving one or both off of a top-100 list wouldn't be indefensible, either. Ergo, they are borderline top-100 players.
I just don't see how you leave Ovechkin out of the Top 100, unless you only have about 5 LWs in your top 100.

Busher Jackson's peak lasted as long as Ovechkin's, and his weaknesses were similar, but his highs just weren't as high. I see no way to rank Ovechkin below Jackson.

And I find it difficult to rank someone like Toe Blake or Cy Denneny under Ovechkin, neither was considered the best or co-best player in the world for an extended period of time like Ovechkin was.

Dickie Moore vs Ovechkin is interesting. I think by now, Ovechkin might have passed him in terms of regular season value. Moore was a beast in the playoffs though.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-10-2012 at 03:12 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:11 PM
  #38
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
I don't feel like quoting that whole megapost, but yes, Lindros' injuries in his prime came largely from lack of hockey sense. The man ran around the rink, throwing his body at everything that moved like he was invincible. Worked for him in junior, when he was that much bigger than anyone else. But in the NHL, his size and strength difference wasn't as big, and the opponents were just craftier. And Lindros never changed his game until later in his career when the concussions forced him too.


Last edited by TheDevilMadeMe: 10-10-2012 at 04:34 PM.
TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 03:46 PM
  #39
Czech Your Math
Registered User
 
Czech Your Math's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bohemia
Country: Czech_ Republic
Posts: 3,502
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Lindros doesn't get enough credit for his 2001-02 season. 9th in PPG, including 4th in GPG while not playing with a line as strong as anything he enjoyed in Philadelphia. He also played a solid checking role on Canada at the 2002 Olympics, showing at least some ability to put his ego aside. You are right though, he was definitely a shadow of the 90s Lindros by that point.
He was also 3rd in ES points in 2002, so definitely agree that it's an underrated season for him.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
I find both Lindros and Ovechkin underrated if they are being viewed as borderline top 100 players. Ovechkin has to get the edge based on superior goalscoring and durability, but they are definitely close.
Basically this. Mainly Ovechkin's durability gives him a clear edge over Lindros for any period of a full (82 game) season or more. Ovechkin's the better goal scorer, but I think Lindros utilized his linemates better. On a per game basis, it's very close, and I could see arguments for either player, but Ovechkin has been consistently durable, while playing even 3/4 of a season was more the exception than the rule for Lindros.

I haven't looked over the top 100 list, but to me Ovechkin is definitely top 100, while Lindros is more borderline, depending on how one values various factors. I'm not the biggest fan of Lindros, personally, and I'd still probably find a way to include him in my top 100.

Czech Your Math is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:29 PM
  #40
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,513
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSlater View Post
Lindros doesn't get enough credit for his 2001-02 season. 9th in PPG, including 4th in GPG while not playing with a line as strong as anything he enjoyed in Philadelphia. He also played a solid checking role on Canada at the 2002 Olympics, showing at least some ability to put his ego aside. You are right though, he was definitely a shadow of the 90s Lindros by that point.
The FLY line (Fleury - Lindros - York) was the best line in the Eastern conference for most of the 2001-02 season before Fleury fell apart. It wasn't the Legion of Doom, but I'm sure Lindros played with weaker linemates at some point in Philly.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-10-2012, 04:45 PM
  #41
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 8,943
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
The FLY line (Fleury - Lindros - York) was the best line in the Eastern conference for most of the 2001-02 season before Fleury fell apart. It wasn't the Legion of Doom, but I'm sure Lindros played with weaker linemates at some point in Philly.
also, after they broke up the FLY line (and wasn't mike york leading the league in points at one point?), lindros had 9 goals, 7 assists in 12 games with bure on his line at the end of '02. bure and one of fleury/rucinsky is certainly better than the crazy 8s line of recchi/fedyk. but obviously '02 lindros wasn't '93 lindros.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 02:12 AM
  #42
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I just don't see how you leave Ovechkin out of the Top 100, unless you only have about 5 LWs in your top 100.
Taking position into account, I would certainly have Ovechkin in the top-100 because he is a left wing. But if we're speaking strictly of the top-100 players of all time, I don't think the case is nearly as clear, because a rational top-100 players list is going to be overloaded with centers for obvious reasons.

Ovechkin over Jackson? Certainly. Ovechkin over Denneny? Not so sure about that one. Denneny's playoff exploits simply blow Ovechkin's out of the water. He was the key scorer of the NHL's first dynasty team, and dominated league scoring for basically a decade.

But maybe more to the point: should we rate Ovechkin over guys like Norm Ullman, Hooley Smith, Nels Stewart, Bill Cowley, Alexander Maltsev, Dave Keon, etc.? Has he really had a better career than Scott Niedermayer, Teemu Selanne and Eddie Gerard? There are definitely 100 players in hockey history whose careers have been plausibly better than Ovie's.

I haven't put together a personal all-time top-100 list in some time, but if I did, Ovechkin would probably be in it. Nevertheless, someone who emphasizes longevity, playoff success, or both, may see it differently. It's not yet open-and-shut in my opinion.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 10:07 AM
  #43
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 2,917
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
The FLY line (Fleury - Lindros - York) was the best line in the Eastern conference for most of the 2001-02 season before Fleury fell apart. It wasn't the Legion of Doom, but I'm sure Lindros played with weaker linemates at some point in Philly.
Fair enough, for that season Lindros played on a line comparable to his early lines with Recchi (although I think they were split up a bit in 94).

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 05:28 PM
  #44
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
But maybe more to the point: should we rate Ovechkin over guys like Norm Ullman, Hooley Smith, Nels Stewart, Bill Cowley, Alexander Maltsev, Dave Keon, etc.? Has he really had a better career than Scott Niedermayer, Teemu Selanne and Eddie Gerard? There are definitely 100 players in hockey history whose careers have been plausibly better than Ovie's.
I look at a guy like Norm Ullman, who was a productive NHLer for a very long time with solid career totals much in the same light as I would a Mike Gartner. He was never really the best player on his team, was never one of the game's best two or three players but hung around for a long time and was very useful as a player. To me, that matters a lot less than Ovechkin being in the conversation for being the best player in the game for a good five years. Ovechkin is still only 27, so I haven't really written him off either. I also feel similarly about Alex Delvecchio.

Dave Keon? If I can use a modern day analogy of a winner and a two way player like Jonathan Toews type player to describe Keon, intuition tells me that's a lesser player than a guy like Ovechkin, who attained greater individual heights and occupied a place in the game despite Toews' team accomplishments. Same logic applies to Ted Kennedy.

It just boils down to my opinion that Lindros occupied a place in the game equivalent the most important five players in his prime for many years while Ovechkin was one of the top two or three players in the game for all but one year of his NHL career.

A lot of these top 100 players being trotted out simply didn't.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 11:37 PM
  #45
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I look at a guy like Norm Ullman, who was a productive NHLer for a very long time with solid career totals much in the same light as I would a Mike Gartner. He was never really the best player on his team, was never one of the game's best two or three players but hung around for a long time and was very useful as a player. To me, that matters a lot less than Ovechkin being in the conversation for being the best player in the game for a good five years. Ovechkin is still only 27, so I haven't really written him off either. I also feel similarly about Alex Delvecchio.
You are obviously unaware of Ullman's all-around game. He is described by many sources as a high-end two-way player and the single best forechecker in hockey during his prime. Delvecchio also brought more to the ice than just scoring. No offense, but I think the basic problem is that your knowledge of older players is fairly shallow.

Quote:
Dave Keon? If I can use a modern day analogy of a winner and a two way player like Jonathan Toews type player to describe Keon, intuition tells me that's a lesser player than a guy like Ovechkin, who attained greater individual heights and occupied a place in the game despite Toews' team accomplishments. Same logic applies to Ted Kennedy.
Dave Keon was not another Jonathan Toews. There are worse comparisons you could make, but this one is not good.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 11:44 PM
  #46
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 38,613
vCash: 500
Dave Keon = Sergei Fedorov without Feds' Hart winning season is one I like

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-11-2012, 11:52 PM
  #47
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Dave Keon = Sergei Fedorov without Feds' Hart winning season is one I like
I think that comparison underrates Keon's defense and his committment to winning somewhat, but it's a lot better than comparing him to Toews.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-12-2012, 11:43 PM
  #48
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 31,370
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sturminator View Post
I think that comparison underrates Keon's defense and his committment to winning somewhat, but it's a lot better than comparing him to Toews.
I don't think so, Toews has a lot of team success and has won a Conn Smythe to spearhead his team to a cup the way Keon did. He brings a two way game which makes up for his lack of top end offense but at the same time, Toews clearly slots under guys like Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin as the best players of his era, just like how Keon was overshadowed by guys like Hull and Howe in the 1960s.

It doesn't make sense that someone who was a step or two below the best players of his era should be considered to be that much better than one of the top three or four players of another era.

Stephen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2012, 04:46 AM
  #49
Sturminator
I voted for Kodos
 
Sturminator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: West Egg, New York
Country: Ukraine
Posts: 7,386
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
I don't think so, Toews has a lot of team success and has won a Conn Smythe to spearhead his team to a cup the way Keon did. He brings a two way game which makes up for his lack of top end offense but at the same time, Toews clearly slots under guys like Ovechkin, Crosby and Malkin as the best players of his era, just like how Keon was overshadowed by guys like Hull and Howe in the 1960s.

It doesn't make sense that someone who was a step or two below the best players of his era should be considered to be that much better than one of the top three or four players of another era.
You obviously do not grasp just how good Dave Keon was defensively. In my opinion, a better modern comparison than Fedorov would be Guy Carbonneau with about twice as much offense. That's how good Dave Keon was.

Sturminator is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
10-13-2012, 05:50 AM
  #50
DAChampion
Registered User
 
DAChampion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Canberra, Australia
Country: Australia
Posts: 6,437
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen View Post
Not a lot of people dominated the way Ovechkin and Lindros did for even the amount of time they did, so to suggest they are borderline 100 seems a bit pretentious/elitist. You must be imagining the history of hockey littered full of mega stars or ascribing more significance to way lesser lights.
The only way they're not guaranteed top-100 is if you're including an equal number of players from each decade. However, that would be false as there are more good players around today than there were in the past.

If you pick say, 67 players from 1982-2012, and 33 players from 1900-1982, which is approximately appropriate, then both Lindros and Ovechkin should be guaranteed top-100 players.

DAChampion is online now   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 04:48 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.