HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > General Hockey Discussion > The History of Hockey
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

The History of Hockey Relive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Of the 4 major sports rank Hockey on the importance of an individual needing to win

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
11-09-2012, 01:15 AM
  #1
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Of the 4 major sports rank Hockey on the importance of an individual needing to win

I'll clear it up a bit more here. When it comes to Baseball, Football, Hockey and Basketball each sport puts emphasis on championships, no doubt. But rank the sports where you are forgiven the most for not bringing home a championship starting from the top where you are criticized the most if you don't win.

Basketball - The sport where a superstar not winning creates the most stigma. Barkley never won. Malone never won. Both would be viewed very differently and in an even greater light had they won. The reason being is that Basketball is more of a sport where individuals decide championships more than anything. You rely on your superstar to produce more than anything.

Hockey - You are given more leaway if you lose than in Basketball for the reasons being that you could have a poor defense, a choker of a goalie or not enough depth. Sometimes a player can produce all he has to and his team will still lose having very little to do with his performance. However, a goalie more than anything can dictate the outcome of a playoff series.

Baseball - Cobb, Williams, Bonds are names that come to mind that never won. A-Rod, Mays and Aaron only won once. In Baseball you can hit the ball out of the park but have a lousy bullpen that costs you a series. Or you could have lousy pitching altogether. You get forgiven for not winning though unless your performance literally impacted the outcome of the series in a negative way. But it is harder for you to be the center of the blame in Baseball than in Basketball or Hockey.

Football - Like Baseball, lots of all-time greats have never won a Super Bowl. Marino, Fouts among QBs. Moss, Owens, Carter, Sanders, etc. As a wide receiver you certainly aren't above criticism, but unless you dropped a few passes there are other things that can go wrong. Bad defense, bad special teams, no running game or a QB that doesn't get you the ball. Or even a poor kicker. Brian Urlacher never won a Super Bowl - yet. Peyton Manning and Favre won one each - only. Brees, Young and Rodgers just one - so far. A quarterback can get the lion's share of the blame but overall a football player can get off the hook the most for not winning.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:26 AM
  #2
Evincar
I have found the way
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,408
vCash: 500
Basketball



Hockey

Football


Baseball

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:05 AM
  #3
Randomtask68
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Burlington, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 585
vCash: 500
Don't forget to factor in how easy/hard it is for teams to make the playoffs in the different sports. In hockey and basketball, 8 of the 15 teams in each conference make the playoffs, while only 6 of 16 teams in each conference make the NFL playoffs and until this year, only 4 of 15 MLB teams could make the playoffs from each league. Also, I think every sport has different positions that have more influence on their individual game than others, and are looked at differently within their sport. In football, for example, you would expect a star quarterback to win a Superbowl because they have the most influence on their team by far.

Randomtask68 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:08 AM
  #4
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 3,299
vCash: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Litework View Post
Basketball



Hockey

Football


Baseball
I dont really know the sport of baseball, but why is it a tier or two below Football here? Both sports may actually have four teams playing against eachother in each game, but in football it just seems sooooo hard to win by yourself.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:20 AM
  #5
Morgoth Bauglir
Master Of The Fates
 
Morgoth Bauglir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Angband via Utumno
Posts: 3,628
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
I'll clear it up a bit more here. When it comes to Baseball, Football, Hockey and Basketball each sport puts emphasis on championships, no doubt. But rank the sports where you are forgiven the most for not bringing home a championship starting from the top where you are criticized the most if you don't win.

Basketball - The sport where a superstar not winning creates the most stigma. Barkley never won. Malone never won. Both would be viewed very differently and in an even greater light had they won. The reason being is that Basketball is more of a sport where individuals decide championships more than anything. You rely on your superstar to produce more than anything.

Hockey - You are given more leaway if you lose than in Basketball for the reasons being that you could have a poor defense, a choker of a goalie or not enough depth. Sometimes a player can produce all he has to and his team will still lose having very little to do with his performance. However, a goalie more than anything can dictate the outcome of a playoff series.

Baseball - Cobb, Williams, Bonds are names that come to mind that never won. A-Rod, Mays and Aaron only won once. In Baseball you can hit the ball out of the park but have a lousy bullpen that costs you a series. Or you could have lousy pitching altogether. You get forgiven for not winning though unless your performance literally impacted the outcome of the series in a negative way. But it is harder for you to be the center of the blame in Baseball than in Basketball or Hockey.

Football - Like Baseball, lots of all-time greats have never won a Super Bowl. Marino, Fouts among QBs. Moss, Owens, Carter, Sanders, etc. As a wide receiver you certainly aren't above criticism, but unless you dropped a few passes there are other things that can go wrong. Bad defense, bad special teams, no running game or a QB that doesn't get you the ball. Or even a poor kicker. Brian Urlacher never won a Super Bowl - yet. Peyton Manning and Favre won one each - only. Brees, Young and Rodgers just one - so far. A quarterback can get the lion's share of the blame but overall a football player can get off the hook the most for not winning.
I believe basketball is the sport where the individual can make the biggest impact on getting a ring but even then it's still a team sport. Michael Jordan didn't win anything until the Bulls started putting at least decent players around him. When he had to carry the team by himself with no support he didn't win championships.

Morgoth Bauglir is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:26 AM
  #6
LeBlondeDemon10
BlindLemon Haystacks
 
LeBlondeDemon10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Canada
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,254
vCash: 500
To me, hockey fans are the harshest of all. At least in the arguments I've heard. For some reason, in hockey, if you haven't carried your team to a SC, you are considered second class compared to those that have won. Even if you are a HOFer, if you don't have that ring, you aren't part of a more elite group - the HOFer's with multiple SC's. Perhaps that is the beauty of hockey though. In no other sport, with an exception to basketball, can you make such a direct impact on the success of your team. In baseball, you can drive in runs, hit for average, hit homers and play great D, but if the team can't pitch, you can be on losing teams your whole career. Football is similar. Look at Drew Brees this year. He's doing everything he can to help his team win, but they are giving up a ton of points while he is on the bench. Really, its the sports where the same players can transition from offense to defense where the biggest impact can be made. Hockey fans are extremely hard on its players that haven't won even though this sport has had the most dynasties in its history, which inevitably leaves many players ring-less.

LeBlondeDemon10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 05:50 AM
  #7
GuineaPig
Registered User
 
GuineaPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Montréal
Posts: 2,250
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
To me, hockey fans are the harshest of all. At least in the arguments I've heard. For some reason, in hockey, if you haven't carried your team to a SC, you are considered second class compared to those that have won.
Trust me, with basketball it's a lot worse. If you knew what people thought of Dirk Nowitzki before the Mavs won (he was choke-prone, mentally unstable, incapable of winning, the worst leader ever) or LeBron James (arrogant, unable to deliver when it counted, childish, shied away under pressure, never going to be the guy to lead his team to a championship), you'd definitely rank basketball at the top. Those are examples just from the past two years where a player winning a championship reversed 5+ years of public opinion/consensus on him. In part it's because basketball's a sport where a star player can make a big difference, but it's also due to some pretty poor sports journalism.

GuineaPig is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 08:20 AM
  #8
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,799
vCash: 500
Basketball
Football (quarterbacks)
Hockey (goalies)
Hockey (other)
Baseball
Football (other)

Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Trust me, with basketball it's a lot worse. If you knew what people thought of Dirk Nowitzki before the Mavs won (he was choke-prone, mentally unstable, incapable of winning, the worst leader ever) or LeBron James (arrogant, unable to deliver when it counted, childish, shied away under pressure, never going to be the guy to lead his team to a championship), you'd definitely rank basketball at the top. Those are examples just from the past two years where a player winning a championship reversed 5+ years of public opinion/consensus on him. In part it's because basketball's a sport where a star player can make a big difference, but it's also due to some pretty poor sports journalism.
The thing is, we all saw Lebron choke on the big stage at the biggest moments in 2010 and 2011. It's not just the fact that he lost - it's how he lost. His actions and body language showed a man who had checked out mentally.

Where some of the media went wrong was in believing that "choking" meant a player would always be a "choker". It turns out that people can learn from their experiences and grow as people. But after 2010 and 2011 there was absolutely a question about Lebron's ability to lead his team to championships.

I don't remember much about Dirk, either his clutch/choking performances or the media take on them. I'm more of an Eastern conference guy. But he was the best player (won the MVP in the regular season) on a 67 win Mavs team that was upset in the first round of the playoffs by an 8th seed. And upsets like this are much rarer in basketball than in hockey - it takes a lot more than a hot goalie and puck luck. It's very fair to question his playoff performance under the circumstances.

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 08:54 AM
  #9
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 21,345
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeBlondeDemon10 View Post
To me, hockey fans are the harshest of all. At least in the arguments I've heard. For some reason, in hockey, if you haven't carried your team to a SC, you are considered second class compared to those that have won. Even if you are a HOFer, if you don't have that ring, you aren't part of a more elite group - the HOFer's with multiple SC's. Perhaps that is the beauty of hockey though. In no other sport, with an exception to basketball, can you make such a direct impact on the success of your team. In baseball, you can drive in runs, hit for average, hit homers and play great D, but if the team can't pitch, you can be on losing teams your whole career. Football is similar. Look at Drew Brees this year. He's doing everything he can to help his team win, but they are giving up a ton of points while he is on the bench. Really, its the sports where the same players can transition from offense to defense where the biggest impact can be made. Hockey fans are extremely hard on its players that haven't won even though this sport has had the most dynasties in its history, which inevitably leaves many players ring-less.
I think in Hockey you are respected extremely when you have a tremendous playoff performance and Don't actually win. Pronger is considered a monster for the 05/06 Oiler Cup run. He won it in Anaheim, but his Oiler performance put him on a new pedestal before that. Or Gilmour in 1993 when the Leafs did not make the final. Hextall in 1987.

I think hockey fans are quite adept at judging playoff performances at clutch times... I guess even in WJC and the Olympics, World and Canada Cups. Theo Fleury is considered a huge big game player and his teams never went far except in his rookie year.

People will forget if you have a great season, but not if you have a great playoffs... Even if that playoff does not even result in your team being in the final.

I kind of think, in other sports... What does not happen in the final is mostly forgotten. In hockey... Everyone seems to realize that 4 best of seven rounds is so grueling and that the Stanley Cup is won by gut wrenching performances by the whole team. If you as an individual really stand out in a positive way.... You get remembered in a positive way forever... By at least your teams fans, if not all fans. And it doesn't need to be the big star that is remembered. And everyone knows that one superstar can not win a championship... Even a superstar goalie at the top of his game like Hasek in Buffalo. They always need a whole team, playing in unison to help. No real fan could realistically expect Mario to take the 80's penguins to the Cup... He couldn't even take them to the playoffs, even though he was playing at a level higher then almost anyone had every played hockey before.

Sens Rule is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:06 AM
  #10
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 46,953
vCash: 1020
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Basketball
Football (quarterbacks)
Hockey (goalies)
Hockey (other)
Baseball
Football (other)
This is pretty much what I had in mind as well. Football QBs are judged differently -- rings always come up when they get ranked.

In baseball, it's pretty simple to show how good a player is individually. Whether his team is good enough to win is a compleyely different question And considering only a handful of teams have historically had a shot at the title each year, I'd probably put baseball at the bottom here.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 09:24 AM
  #11
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Basketball
Football (quarterbacks)
Hockey (goalies)
Hockey (other)
Baseball
Football (other)
Yep. If treated like a baseball player, someone like Karl Malone would be viewed as a top 10 player of all time.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:30 AM
  #12
Mike Farkas
Grace Personified
 
Mike Farkas's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: PA
Country: United States
Posts: 6,405
vCash: 500
Interesting question.

Basketball is the unquestioned least team-oriented sport. A good individual player can do basically whatever he wants and can be on the court for virtually the whole game. Whereas baseball and football change "sides" with possession/innings.

Hockey is a tough one, a great goalie can pull it all together and give you a chance to win. As hockey has "grown up" over the years - mostly in terms of coaching - I think it's harder for an individual to dominate.

Baseball - a dominant ace, like a goalie in hockey, can give you as good of a chance to win as anything. But, unlike hockey, where a goalie could play three times per week...an ace pitcher will only go, what, once a week today? An individual could come to the plate and add four runs to every game...in the same way that Wayne Gretzky could have had a hat trick in every game of his career...there's only so much you can do to produce, but you can do a fair job on the "prevent" side.

Football has a lot of players on a roster (53?), three distinct "teams" in there, the game is 11 on 11, I mean, it's hard to say that an individual could have too much of an impact when any one player could only play half the game almost no matter what. I mean, you look at Peyton Manning when the Colts won it, he did it with a minimal running game and a pretty horrid defense...he willed the Colts to victory himself (at meets the eye). However, he did have a pretty good offensive line (the core to any good team, a deal breaker)...Harrison and Wayne were always augmented by him, but they are high-quality players in their own right (to say the least - and wow, what a trooper Reggie Wayne has been this year). Barry Sanders single-handedly got the Lions to the playoffs some years, but I mean, same basic deal...there's only so much an individual can really do and have you make the claim that he had "no help".

I don't know about ranking. I guess it's pretty close to how I listed it. But there are so many players in baseball and football and so many positions and specialists and this and that, that it's very tough to determine for me...

__________________
http://twitter.com/MichaelFarkasHF

YouTube Channel: The Two-Line Pass - Hockey news, knowledge, video breakdowns and more: http://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKAI...52Q577Q/videos

Latest installment:Ep. 4 - Brady Skjei Evaluation
Mike Farkas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 10:36 AM
  #13
Yosemite Samm
Moderator
Shut up shuttin’ up!
 
Yosemite Samm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 8,559
vCash: 1498
If this topic was about which sport can one player have the most impact on winning it would be 1. basketball, 2. tie hockey - goalie, baseball - pitcher - good pitching beats good hitting and a great pitcher pitching well can beat any team. Just look at the Yankees and Tigers getting swept in the playoffs. Football is obviously last. A QB can do nothing w/o a good offensive line, receivers that can run precise timing routes, get open, and catch the ball, good defense, and special teams. It takes 53 guys to win a game.

Yosemite Samm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 11:50 AM
  #14
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,620
vCash: 500
Basketball is first. Least players on the field, a single player has the highest percentage of minutes played compared to the other sports.


I'd split up Hockey in Goaltender & F/D. Football I'd rank the QB ahead of both Hockey categories. The rest of the positions also have a different degree of impact WR/RB being high.

QB
Goaltender
Forward/Dmen
Rest Football (not sure how to rank them)

That said is it possible for a single player to transform a bottom dweller into a championship team in any of those sports?


Last edited by unknown33: 11-09-2012 at 11:57 AM.
unknown33 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:00 PM
  #15
bluesfan94
#BackesforSelke
 
bluesfan94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 17,135
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuineaPig View Post
Trust me, with basketball it's a lot worse. If you knew what people thought of Dirk Nowitzki before the Mavs won (he was choke-prone, mentally unstable, incapable of winning, the worst leader ever) or LeBron James (arrogant, unable to deliver when it counted, childish, shied away under pressure, never going to be the guy to lead his team to a championship), you'd definitely rank basketball at the top. Those are examples just from the past two years where a player winning a championship reversed 5+ years of public opinion/consensus on him. In part it's because basketball's a sport where a star player can make a big difference, but it's also due to some pretty poor sports journalism.
Even once LeBron won, people made jokes about how it was funny that he won when the season was only 3 quarters

bluesfan94 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 12:49 PM
  #16
overpass
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 3,799
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
In baseball, it's pretty simple to show how good a player is individually. Whether his team is good enough to win is a compleyely different question And considering only a handful of teams have historically had a shot at the title each year, I'd probably put baseball at the bottom here.
I think World Series success/performance becomes a minor consideration when ranking the very best baseball players of all time. For example, everyone remembers that Ted Williams never won a World Series - but that only comes up when comparing him to, say, Babe Ruth or Willie Mays. Beyond that it's all individual stats and performance.

I think non-QBs in football are in a similar situation, but maybe I just haven't been in enough of those discussions. Do people rank Emmitt Smith over Barry Sanders because of the rings?

overpass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:17 PM
  #17
Evincar
I have found the way
 
Evincar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 4,408
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
I think non-QBs in football are in a similar situation, but maybe I just haven't been in enough of those discussions. Do people rank Emmitt Smith over Barry Sanders because of the rings?
Nobody should rank Emmitt over Sanders.

Evincar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:27 PM
  #18
thom
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,262
vCash: 500
Was Tony Dorsett better bthan Emmit Smith?

thom is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:36 PM
  #19
vadim sharifijanov
ugh
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 14,057
vCash: 500
i was thinking, after the recent threads that have been about lindros, about the asymmetry between what an individual can do, and how much credit he gets for it, between basketball and hockey.

big phil points out that one individual can impact the outcome of a game to a far greater degree in basketball than in hockey (goalies possibly excepted). and i was thinking about lindros' career, which most of us view as a disappointment. two basketball hall of famers come to mind as comparisons: shaquille o'neal and ralph sampson. both were lindros-level talents coming into the pros, and both combined size and power with the ball/puck skills of a much smaller man that had never been seen before (well, in hockey, mario was a really big guy, but he didn't power through guys the way lindros did).

they're different situations, but shaq and lindros both achieved less than they could have partly due to choices they made. with lindros, he gives away two potentially highly productive years due to choosing not to play. i've said it before, but if he plays those two years, he hits 450 goals and 1,000 points, and is already in the hall of fame. with shaq, he obviously accomplished a lot more, but for a man of his size, he never led the league in rebounds, never made an all-defensive team, and was often a liability at the end of games because he never learned how to make free throws. he was the most devastating basketball force of his generation, generally enjoyed good health in his prime, and yet only won one MVP. i think it's safe to say shaq usually played at 75%, or at least never pushed himself to maximize his abilities the way, say, kobe bryant or steve nash, or tim duncan (the anti-shaq) did. i mean in terms of both working on his game in the off-season (shaq was recording rap albums and shooting bad movies) and in terms of just being in top physical form, which he rarely was LA and after.

but partly due to the nature of how basketball works, and an individual's impact on a game, he was able to win four titles and three finals MVPs. i think if a hockey skater could do what an elite center or star shooting guard can do in basketball, lindros probably could have won multiple titles too.

and then ralph sampson-- recently inducted into the basketball hall of fame though he had a disappointing, injury-riddled career. this has little to do with the shaq question of following through, though it does touch on the basketball hall of fame's much greater emphasis on peak in the peak/longevity debate. but he also got there because he was one of the greatest NCAA players of all time; without the NCAA career, i think most would say that sampson doesn't make the cut. lindros had a ridiculous amateur career: CHL player of the year, memorial cup, dominated the WJC, canada cup, etc. but none of that (with the possible exception of the canada cup) "counts" for the HHOF.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 01:53 PM
  #20
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,959
vCash: 500
Also, Eli Manning... nobody really cares about his threats and holding out against the Chargers since he won the superbowl twice (against all-time great Tom Brady and juggernaut Patriot teams, also more rings than his all-time great brother Peyton...).

I figure if Lindros won a cup he would be thought of similarly. However honestly that philly team didn't really have a chance against the 97 wings...

As for thread, I think overpass got the right order.


As for whether any teams have been made into championship teams by a single player? I don't know about a strictly speaking championship team, but...

After Lebron left the Cavaliers they went from a playoff contender who made it to the finals to a bottom team

Bobby Orr leaving the Bruins...

Barry Sanders retiring from the Lions...

Peyton Manning and the Colts last year...

Wrath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 02:42 PM
  #21
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
they're different situations, but shaq and lindros both achieved less than they could have partly due to choices they made. with lindros, he gives away two potentially highly productive years due to choosing not to play. i've said it before, but if he plays those two years, he hits 450 goals and 1,000 points, and is already in the hall of fame. with shaq, he obviously accomplished a lot more, but for a man of his size, he never led the league in rebounds, never made an all-defensive team, and was often a liability at the end of games because he never learned how to make free throws. he was the most devastating basketball force of his generation, generally enjoyed good health in his prime, and yet only won one MVP. i think it's safe to say shaq usually played at 75%, or at least never pushed himself to maximize his abilities the way, say, kobe bryant or steve nash, or tim duncan (the anti-shaq) did. i mean in terms of both working on his game in the off-season (shaq was recording rap albums and shooting bad movies) and in terms of just being in top physical form, which he rarely was LA and after.
I wouldn't have been surprised to see Lindros enjoy nearly the same type if individual success that Shaq did if his injuries hadn't been so severe. If healthy, there is no reason to think that Lindros doesn't compete for scoring titles into the post lockout years while his teams would probably still be competitive.I would guess he either stays in Philadelphia or is in New York.

Another Lindros comparable would be David Thompson, who was recently inducted into the HOF. A physical freak whose greatness was derailed by his own choices, although his choices were clearly worse than any that Lindros made. The arguments over Thompson getting into the HOF (drugs, ABA, NC State etc.) were always very interesting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
and then ralph sampson-- recently inducted into the basketball hall of fame though he had a disappointing, injury-riddled career. this has little to do with the shaq question of following through, though it does touch on the basketball hall of fame's much greater emphasis on peak in the peak/longevity debate. but he also got there because he was one of the greatest NCAA players of all time; without the NCAA career, i think most would say that sampson doesn't make the cut. lindros had a ridiculous amateur career: CHL player of the year, memorial cup, dominated the WJC, canada cup, etc. but none of that (with the possible exception of the canada cup) "counts" for the HHOF.
I think Sampson got in more because of his fame than his greatness. Great college player, extremely unique physical package who ultimately did not achieve that much professionally. I think that Lindros will inevitably get in, mainly because his fame in the hockey world was so massive.

As far as amateur accomplishments go, I would guess that the reason they are considered to a greater extent in basketball than in hockey is the difference in tradition. Until recently you would see basketball players stick it out in university for years even after they were clearly NBA ready, with Sampson being one example. The guy turned down the chance to join the best team in the world because he wanted to stay in university. That scenario is very rare in hockey history. Also, university accomplishments in basketball are likely to be much more publicized due to the long history and popularity of NCAA basketball. Junior hockey does not come close to comparing.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 05:33 PM
  #22
Hammer Time
Registered User
 
Hammer Time's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by overpass View Post
Basketball
Football (quarterbacks)
Hockey (goalies)
Hockey (other)
Baseball
Football (other)



The thing is, we all saw Lebron choke on the big stage at the biggest moments in 2010 and 2011. It's not just the fact that he lost - it's how he lost. His actions and body language showed a man who had checked out mentally.

Where some of the media went wrong was in believing that "choking" meant a player would always be a "choker". It turns out that people can learn from their experiences and grow as people. But after 2010 and 2011 there was absolutely a question about Lebron's ability to lead his team to championships.

I don't remember much about Dirk, either his clutch/choking performances or the media take on them. I'm more of an Eastern conference guy. But he was the best player (won the MVP in the regular season) on a 67 win Mavs team that was upset in the first round of the playoffs by an 8th seed. And upsets like this are much rarer in basketball than in hockey - it takes a lot more than a hot goalie and puck luck. It's very fair to question his playoff performance under the circumstances.
The thing with Lebron is that he had already delivered numerous clutch performances:

- 48 points, including 18 in overtime alone, in a pivotal Game 5 double-OT win over the Pistons in the 2007 ECFs
- 45 points in a losing cause in Game 7 vs the eventual champion Celtics in 2008
- the 2009 NBA playoffs, where the Cavaliers went 8-0 through the first two rounds, then in the CFs they fell to Orlando in six (in both of the Cavs' wins James made a crucial basket towards the end of the fourth quarter). James, however, averaged 35 points per game in the playoffs, and averaged 39 points per game during the series loss to the Magic.
- the 2011 second-round series against the Celtics. James scored 35 points, including the game-tying 3-pointer in the final minute, in an OT win over the Celtics to take a 3-1 lead. Then in Game 5, James made four consecutive shots, including two three-pointers in the last two minutes, which provided the winning margin in a 97-87 win, eliminating the Celtics.
- the 2011 CF against No. 1 seed Chicago, James again made three consecutive shots in the final two minutes of Game 5, in a game the Heat would win by three points to eliminate the Bulls.

Two horrible playoff series in 2010 vs Boston and 2011 vs Dallas should not have been grounds to call James a choker, especially when they were the only two bad playoff series out of the 17 James had played up to the 2011 NBA Finals (not to mention that the majority of them were when he was on a team with no other elite players except for one season of an aging Shaq). Even the greatest of players sometime fail at the worst possible time.

Hammer Time is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 05:57 PM
  #23
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,461
vCash: 500
Well it's interesting we bring up Quarterbacks here. You could argue that no one in any sport (even a star in the NBA) has more say on whether or not they win a championship. You are literally in control for 50% of the game. However, there is a flip side. Kurt Warner, one of my favourites and what I will assume is a future HOFer played in three Super Bowls. He won once. He still holds the highest 3 passing yards in a game for a Super Bowl. There wasn't much more Warner could do for his teams. Albeit, it was poor defense on the final drives in each of his unsuccesful Super Bowl games that stripped him of a more rings. So even a QB has to sit and bear it on the bench sometimes.

Big Phil is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 06:58 PM
  #24
JackSlater
Registered User
 
JackSlater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 5,910
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
Well it's interesting we bring up Quarterbacks here. You could argue that no one in any sport (even a star in the NBA) has more say on whether or not they win a championship. You are literally in control for 50% of the game. However, there is a flip side. Kurt Warner, one of my favourites and what I will assume is a future HOFer played in three Super Bowls. He won once. He still holds the highest 3 passing yards in a game for a Super Bowl. There wasn't much more Warner could do for his teams. Albeit, it was poor defense on the final drives in each of his unsuccesful Super Bowl games that stripped him of a more rings. So even a QB has to sit and bear it on the bench sometimes.
I disagree. A QB doesn't play defence or special teams, and there is little they can do if their line is terrible or the receivers don't do their job. A star basketball player can always contribute. It's easier to win a championship in football without a star QB than it is without a star player in the NBA.

JackSlater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
11-09-2012, 07:16 PM
  #25
Killion
Registered User
 
Killion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Village
Country: Wales
Posts: 30,360
vCash: 500
I wouldnt know. Beyond hockey, the only other sports I follow are flat track racing, steeplechase, hunters & jumpers, 3 day eventer's, round the world, the Rolex & Americas Cup Sailing. Hockey IS the only "major sport insofar as Im concerned, followed by horse racing/breeding & sailing. Sometimes tennis.... whats wrong with you people?

Killion 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 04:04 PM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2016 All Rights Reserved.