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

How close was Keith Tkachuk to Eric Lindros?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
03-15-2013, 08:07 PM
  #76
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by VanIslander View Post
Say hello to Pat Verbeek, not to mention scoffed-at HHOFers Joe Nieuwendyk, Michel Goulet and 600-goal scorer Dino Ciccarelli. Lanny McDonald too.
I dont see any of those players get crapped on the way Tkachuk does...People on these boards simply do not think he was that good of a player.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 08:11 PM
  #77
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Eric Lindros didn't even make the Top 100 list that this board completed in 2008. Would he make the list if it were completed today now that this board seems to give dead puck era players more credit, for better or worse? Maybe. But I still think he'd be borderline.

And then there are 3 left wings who played in the same era as Tkachuk - Kariya, Shanahan, and LeClair, who I think most people would have above Tkachuk, and I find it unlikely any of them would make the top 100.

I think there's a very good case that Tkachuk is not a Top 200 player.
Well first of all I dont consider LeClair to be better then Tkachuk...I consider them more of equals...And I think all of the players you listed should be comftorably in the top 200...And if not it would be intersting to see a top 200 list that would not have Tkachuk so I can see players in the 150-200 range listed above him...One more thing as it pertains to LeClair vs. Tkachuk, LeClair prime he had Lindros playing center for him and Lindros was at the time the best player in the game...Tkachuk had JR who was not even close to Lindros.

Ultimaly it really does not matter as LeClair and Tkachuk will probably not make the HHOF and if one does they both will...And Tkachuk is never going to be liked by most of the posters on this board.


Last edited by jarmoismyhero: 03-15-2013 at 08:19 PM.
jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 08:56 PM
  #78
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,269
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
Well first of all I dont consider LeClair to be better then Tkachuk...I consider them more of equals...And I think all of the players you listed should be comftorably in the top 200...And if not it would be intersting to see a top 200 list that would not have Tkachuk so I can see players in the 150-200 range listed above him...One more thing as it pertains to LeClair vs. Tkachuk, LeClair prime he had Lindros playing center for him and Lindros was at the time the best player in the game...Tkachuk had JR who was not even close to Lindros.
LeClair was a 1st Team All Star twice, 2nd Team three times. Tkachuk was a 2nd Team All Star twice, never first team. It's a pretty big difference, but it obviously doesn't tell the whole story.

The 1996 World Cup was probably the biggest "clutch" performance of both of them, and while Tkachuk was great, LeClair was even better (and did it without Lindros obviously).

Here's an article that I think is from shortly after the World Cup rating the best left wings in hockey: http://www.lcshockey.com/issues/77/77lwing.asp

It rates them: LeClair, Kariya, Tkachuk, Shanahan, Graves

Quote:
Ultimaly it really does not matter as LeClair and Tkachuk will probably not make the HHOF and if one does they both will...And Tkachuk is never going to be liked by most of the posters on this board.
At this point, LeClair and Kariya are the only two player at any position to be 5-Time All Stars who aren't in the Hall of Fame. IMO, that's enough to get in.

TheDevilMadeMe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 09:05 PM
  #79
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
LeClair was a 1st Team All Star twice, 2nd Team three times. Tkachuk was a 2nd Team All Star twice, never first team. It's a pretty big difference, but it obviously doesn't tell the whole story.

The 1996 World Cup was probably the biggest "clutch" performance of both of them, and while Tkachuk was great, LeClair was even better (and did it without Lindros obviously).

Here's an article that I think is from shortly after the World Cup rating the best left wings in hockey: http://www.lcshockey.com/issues/77/77lwing.asp

It rates them: LeClair, Kariya, Tkachuk, Shanahan, Graves



At this point, LeClair and Kariya are the only two player at any position to be 5-Time All Stars who aren't in the Hall of Fame. IMO, that's enough to get in.
I can respect that opinion completely and like I said I have a hard time thinking that any of the players (LeClair, Tkachuk, Shanahan, Karyia) are not top 200...The only thing I will disagree with is that I think LeClair and Tkachuk are pretty much even...Longevity has to count for something...My biggest gripe which really does not matter much is the how badly Tkachuk gets ripped on these boards when in his prime he was an great player and he also had decent longevity for playing in front of the net for as many years as he did.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 09:27 PM
  #80
Jetsfareast
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Philippines
Country: Canada
Posts: 488
vCash: 695
How many 500 goal scorer there are in the NHL history? 42 players only, he's at 30
How many 1000points scorer there are in the NHL history? 79 players only , he's at 62
Who was a captain , fights, hits, does the dirty job..etc etc

He and Brendan Shanahan are the only players in this elite group of list with more than 2,000PIM!
He scored 212 power play goal and 13 shg, and was a plus player. He generally played for bubble teams throughout his career.

Yah he is not a top 200 player

He is below Lindros but he was not far behind specially during his peak years.

Jetsfareast is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 10:25 PM
  #81
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
I can respect that opinion completely and like I said I have a hard time thinking that any of the players (LeClair, Tkachuk, Shanahan, Karyia) are not top 200...The only thing I will disagree with is that I think LeClair and Tkachuk are pretty much even...Longevity has to count for something...My biggest gripe which really does not matter much is the how badly Tkachuk gets ripped on these boards when in his prime he was an great player and he also had decent longevity for playing in front of the net for as many years as he did.
if we're talking LWs between the lockouts, the big five seem to be tkachuk, leclair, kariya, shanahan, and naslund.

of those, i would say that career-wise, tkachuk is easily ahead of naslund. not a doubt in my mind. though i'll also add that you won't find a bigger non-swedish naslund hater than me, and i'd put naslund a little ahead of tkachuk if we're talking peak. prime vs. prime is tkachuk by a hair, career vs. career is tkachuk easily.

but against leclair and kariya, it bears mentioning that leclair, kariya, and tkachuk all had exactly the same peak ('95-'99), excluding the first lockout year when kariya was a rookie. of that five year run, kariya was first team all-star every year he was healthy, except his rookie year. i think pretty clearly, kariya was the best player when all were peaking. in the lockout year and the year kariya was hurt, leclair was the first team all-star, and he was runner-up to kariya in the three years kariya was at his best. tkachuk had his two second team all-stars in kariya's rookie year and the year kariya was hurt, finishing behind leclair both times. again, it's pretty clear that at his peak, leclair was better than tkachuk. now lindros had something to do with leclair's dominance during that run, but that run also includes the '97 season, when lindros missed almost half the year and leclair still finished with the same 50 goals he had three years straight, and the same 97 points he had the year before.

the question, then, is whether tkachuk's longevity and longer but less distinguished prime puts him ahead of leclair. i don't think there's really a case for tkachuk over kariya, as kariya himself had good years that rival tkachuk's pre- and post-peak but still prime years after he'd peaked, even if he was a shadow of his peak form. i could go either way on that question: at the time, i think if you'd asked me i would have told you tkachuk was the better player, but that might have been because we were all expecting tkachuk to become something he never became-- something like neely crossed with tocchet. looking back, and considering more closely what leclair was able to do without lindros (at the '96 world cup, the '97 regular season, and in '00), i'd say his peak was higher. but like i said, looking at the whole career, i could go either way.

shanahan, however, had the much longer prime than naslund, kariya, and leclair, and also tkachuk. plus he had so much more team success, all while likely taking a stats and post-season recognition hit playing on a defensively oriented but stacked team. i think looking at the LWers between the lockouts, it goes:

shanahan
--- line for HHOF
kariya
tkachuk/leclair



naslund (really only relevant for five years, and only really elite for three, was garbage in the playoffs)

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-15-2013, 11:08 PM
  #82
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by vadim sharifijanov View Post
if we're talking LWs between the lockouts, the big five seem to be tkachuk, leclair, kariya, shanahan, and naslund.

of those, i would say that career-wise, tkachuk is easily ahead of naslund. not a doubt in my mind. though i'll also add that you won't find a bigger non-swedish naslund hater than me, and i'd put naslund a little ahead of tkachuk if we're talking peak. prime vs. prime is tkachuk by a hair, career vs. career is tkachuk easily.

but against leclair and kariya, it bears mentioning that leclair, kariya, and tkachuk all had exactly the same peak ('95-'99), excluding the first lockout year when kariya was a rookie. of that five year run, kariya was first team all-star every year he was healthy, except his rookie year. i think pretty clearly, kariya was the best player when all were peaking. in the lockout year and the year kariya was hurt, leclair was the first team all-star, and he was runner-up to kariya in the three years kariya was at his best. tkachuk had his two second team all-stars in kariya's rookie year and the year kariya was hurt, finishing behind leclair both times. again, it's pretty clear that at his peak, leclair was better than tkachuk. now lindros had something to do with leclair's dominance during that run, but that run also includes the '97 season, when lindros missed almost half the year and leclair still finished with the same 50 goals he had three years straight, and the same 97 points he had the year before.

the question, then, is whether tkachuk's longevity and longer but less distinguished prime puts him ahead of leclair. i don't think there's really a case for tkachuk over kariya, as kariya himself had good years that rival tkachuk's pre- and post-peak but still prime years after he'd peaked, even if he was a shadow of his peak form. i could go either way on that question: at the time, i think if you'd asked me i would have told you tkachuk was the better player, but that might have been because we were all expecting tkachuk to become something he never became-- something like neely crossed with tocchet. looking back, and considering more closely what leclair was able to do without lindros (at the '96 world cup, the '97 regular season, and in '00), i'd say his peak was higher. but like i said, looking at the whole career, i could go either way.

shanahan, however, had the much longer prime than naslund, kariya, and leclair, and also tkachuk. plus he had so much more team success, all while likely taking a stats and post-season recognition hit playing on a defensively oriented but stacked team. i think looking at the LWers between the lockouts, it goes:

shanahan
--- line for HHOF
kariya
tkachuk/leclair



naslund (really only relevant for five years, and only really elite for three, was garbage in the playoffs)
Very good well thought out post.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 12:27 AM
  #83
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigKing View Post
As for the Naslund argument, I'd have no problem saying Keith would of had awesome numbers playing for those Canucks teams as well.
Really? Who would have handled the puck? Naslund was the key to those teams. A mediocre 2nd liner as a 1st line centre. No scoring depth, two borderline all-star defencemen and a talented RW who thought he was more talented than he actually was and couldn't control his temper. That team was only strong because Naslund was probably the best winger in the world at the time.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 12:44 AM
  #84
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,843
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Really? Who would have handled the puck? Naslund was the key to those teams. A mediocre 2nd liner as a 1st line centre. No scoring depth, two borderline all-star defencemen and a talented RW who thought he was more talented than he actually was and couldn't control his temper. That team was only strong because Naslund was probably the best winger in the world at the time.
But then again, Näslund was a notorious loser when it mattered as far as i am concerned. I actually took the unfortunate news that he was injured quite cool, if not happily which really was the case, when Holmstrom came into the olympic team in 06 as a substitute. We got the gold, would'nt have with Näslund but without peak-Holmström.

But of course, there may be reason to question Tkachuks cluthness as well.

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 12:47 AM
  #85
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
But then again, Näslund was a notorious loser when it mattered as far as i am concerned. I actually took the unfortunate news that he was injured quite cool, if not happily which really was the case, when Holmstrom came into the olympic team in 06 as a substitute. We got the gold, would'nt have with Näslund but without Holmström.
I really doubt you would have missed out on the gold metal with Naslund.

As a general rule, I seriously question the choker status of any player who peak on a team that had a poor second line and questionable linemates. There is simply too much correlation evidence that says when one player is expected to carry his teams full offensive load, it will not work in the post season. And it is foolish to blame that one player for not carrying the weight of his team.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 12:54 AM
  #86
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,843
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
I really doubt you would have missed out on the gold metal with Naslund.

As a general rule, I seriously question the choker status of any player who peak on a team that had a poor second line and questionable linemates. There is simply too much correlation evidence that says when one player is expected to carry his teams full offensive load, it will not work in the post season. And it is foolish to blame that one player for not carrying the weight of his team.
So you're saying Markus Naslund was clutch? OK.

He had also started to turn sour by the time the Torino games came, was it becouse of an injury or something? I remember something around 2004 but he does'nt seem to have missed many games.

Either way, peak-Holmström brought intangibles we did'nt allready have in spades. But of course both should have been on the roster from the get go, just like Mikael Samuelsson should have made the team in 2010. Bengt-Åke Gustafsson was a bum that was lucky to get the gold in 2006. Samuelsson said it best: "He/Them can go to hell"

Darth Yoda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 03:03 AM
  #87
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
I am not sure Naslunds peak is handily better then Tkachuks
But it is, and I'm not a Näslund fan. For three years he was 2nd, 2nd, 4th for the Art Ross. Tkachuk was in the 11th–19th territory. Näslund won a Lester B. Pearson and was a Hart Trophy runner up, and was a First All Star for three straight years. Tkachuk never did anything like that. Yeah, perhaps Näslund didn't have as tough competition on LW or generally but Tkachuk's only a year older so the era argument is a bit turbid.

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 10:24 AM
  #88
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
So you're saying Markus Naslund was clutch? OK.

He had also started to turn sour by the time the Torino games came, was it becouse of an injury or something? I remember something around 2004 but he does'nt seem to have missed many games.
Clutch-Choker is a continuum, not an either or. I said he wasn't a choker.

Yes, he suffered a very serious injury at the hands of Steve Moore that basically killed his wrist shot late in 2004.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 12:51 PM
  #89
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
But it is, and I'm not a Näslund fan. For three years he was 2nd, 2nd, 4th for the Art Ross. Tkachuk was in the 11th–19th territory. Näslund won a Lester B. Pearson and was a Hart Trophy runner up, and was a First All Star for three straight years. Tkachuk never did anything like that. Yeah, perhaps Näslund didn't have as tough competition on LW or generally but Tkachuk's only a year older so the era argument is a bit turbid.
Who were the primary competition at LW during those 3years that Naslund was up against? Tkachuk was a 2nd team all star twice and he was competing against Karyia, Shanahan, and Leclair. Tkachuk also one a richard as well as back to back 50 goal seasons. He was also able to do that while playing an absolute nasty game...The bottom line is the LW competition in order to earn a first all start team was harder in Tkachuks prime then Naslunds...And you make the point the Tkachuk is only a year older which just goes to show you how much longer Tkachuk was a better player...Peak vs. Peak is close no matter who you pick but Hell even in Tkachuks no peak he was still scoring close to 40 goals.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 01:19 PM
  #90
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,447
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
Who were the primary competition at LW during those 3years that Naslund was up against?
2nd Team All Stars those years were Shanahan, Kariya and Kovalchuk. Elias was on the First All Star Team the year before Näslund's first and challenged him, with Kovalchuk, on the third. But the point here is that Näslund didn't only beat out all the LW's for the Art Ross for two consecutive years but also all the RW's and C's except Iginla and Forsberg.

Yeah, it was kind of a strange era with a lot of superstars in off mode but that's not Näslund's fault that he took advantage of it. Why didn't super power forward Tkachuk take better advantage of it then if it was so easy?

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 02:08 PM
  #91
vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
 
vadim sharifijanov's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,091
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
2nd Team All Stars those years were Shanahan, Kariya and Kovalchuk. Elias was on the First All Star Team the year before Näslund's first and challenged him, with Kovalchuk, on the third. But the point here is that Näslund didn't only beat out all the LW's for the Art Ross for two consecutive years but also all the RW's and C's except Iginla and Forsberg.

Yeah, it was kind of a strange era with a lot of superstars in off mode but that's not Näslund's fault that he took advantage of it. Why didn't super power forward Tkachuk take better advantage of it then if it was so easy?


well to be fair, tkachuk peaked earlier and was an all-star the years markus was sitting in the press box or struggling to put up 20 goals.

vadim sharifijanov is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 03:19 PM
  #92
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
Who were the primary competition at LW during those 3years that Naslund was up against? Tkachuk was a 2nd team all star twice and he was competing against Karyia, Shanahan, and Leclair. Tkachuk also one a richard as well as back to back 50 goal seasons. He was also able to do that while playing an absolute nasty game...The bottom line is the LW competition in order to earn a first all start team was harder in Tkachuks prime then Naslunds...And you make the point the Tkachuk is only a year older which just goes to show you how much longer Tkachuk was a better player...Peak vs. Peak is close no matter who you pick but Hell even in Tkachuks no peak he was still scoring close to 40 goals.
Honestly, post season all-stars for LWs matters very little because the competition is downright screwy. What matters is this:

Naslund in years where he was an all-star:
2nd, 5th, and 5th in Hart voting.
Tkachuk in years where he was an all-star:
Never received hart votes in years he was an all-star. (10th and 15th in years he was 3rd in all-star voting.)

That says a lot more. Naslund wasn't just the best LW, he was one of the top 5 players in the world over those three seasons. And if we limit it to just skaters, 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd were his finishes.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 04:37 PM
  #93
Big Phil
Registered User
 
Big Phil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Country: Canada
Posts: 18,532
vCash: 500
You could have said for a brief time Naslund was the best player in the NHL and no one would have reacted negatively. However, there was never a time Tkachuk was the best player in the game or even flirting with the idea. Was he ever even the best American in the game? Got to give a clear nod prime vs. prime to Naslund here.

Big Phil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 05:04 PM
  #94
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
Eric Lindros didn't even make the Top 100 list that this board completed in 2008. Would he make the list if it were completed today now that this board seems to give dead puck era players more credit, for better or worse? Maybe. But I still think he'd be borderline.
I can see the case for Eric both ways but as a career guy, even his peak has missed games and lack of playoff success huts him in most peoples view I would think.

Quote:
And then there are 3 left wings who played in the same era as Tkachuk - Kariya, Shanahan, and LeClair, who I think most people would have above Tkachuk, and I find it unlikely any of them would make the top 100.
Kariya probably was on the track to top 100 after his 1st 5 years but then injuries really changed that path.

Shanny is very much like Keith but played on better teams and had much better playoff success.

LeClair has a great peak, but it's probalby Lindros influneced as we didn't see that at all in his time in Montreal. He was traded along with a pretty good and another decent player for Recchi in his age 25 season so it wasn't like he was considered a super prospect by his own team.

Quote:
I think there's a very good case that Tkachuk is not a Top 200 player.
The actual counting numbers don't bear that out unless one is an absolute peak, prime playoff heavy guy though do they?

It's not like Keith played on powerhouse teams.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 05:06 PM
  #95
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by the edler View Post
2nd Team All Stars those years were Shanahan, Kariya and Kovalchuk. Elias was on the First All Star Team the year before Näslund's first and challenged him, with Kovalchuk, on the third. But the point here is that Näslund didn't only beat out all the LW's for the Art Ross for two consecutive years but also all the RW's and C's except Iginla and Forsberg.

Yeah, it was kind of a strange era with a lot of superstars in off mode but that's not Näslund's fault that he took advantage of it. Why didn't super power forward Tkachuk take better advantage of it then if it was so easy?
I never said it was so easy...This argument is going nowhere...Some people think Naslunds peak is a lot better then Tkachuks and I simply think they were closer then some are acting...At this point nobody is going to change anyones mind...Although I will give an edge on peak value but basing it on 1st vs 2nd team all stars is not a great way to prove your point one way or another...So fine I will say Naslunds peak is better and Tkachuk had the better career.

Another thing is you are quick to point out Naslunds finish in the Art Ross race and Hart voting however you dismiss 50 goal seasons which include a Richard from Tkachuk.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 05:13 PM
  #96
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Phil View Post
You could have said for a brief time Naslund was the best player in the NHL and no one would have reacted negatively. However, there was never a time Tkachuk was the best player in the game or even flirting with the idea. Was he ever even the best American in the game? Got to give a clear nod prime vs. prime to Naslund here.
While I get your point I still think Iginla, Forsberg, and Sakic were all better players in the years you were talking about...Naslund was for sure top 5 for 4 years which Tkachuk never was.

Also one more thing...Naslund having a better 4 year peak is great however the thing that pisses me of in general is the flack Tkachuk gets for his career and not his peak...Adjusted goals puts Tkachuk at 21st all time for goal scoring.


Last edited by jarmoismyhero: 03-16-2013 at 05:21 PM.
jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 06:05 PM
  #97
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
While I get your point I still think Iginla, Forsberg, and Sakic were all better players in the years you were talking about...Naslund was for sure top 5 for 4 years which Tkachuk never was.

Also one more thing...Naslund having a better 4 year peak is great however the thing that pisses me of in general is the flack Tkachuk gets for his career and not his peak...Adjusted goals puts Tkachuk at 21st all time for goal scoring.
1. Adjusted numbers are screwy and get weird results.
2. Career numbers massively bias modern.
3. The argument was peak versus peak.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 06:15 PM
  #98
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
1. Adjusted numbers are screwy and get weird results.
2. Career numbers massively bias modern.
3. The argument was peak versus peak.
And I said I will give you Naslunds 4 year peak...As to career number massivly bias modern like I have said before Hockey is the only team sport where having longevity is looked as a bad thing...Are you saying that longevity in putting up numbers only favors modern players? I am not sure about adjusted numbers in hockey but that have been found to be reliable for baseball.

And what I said in the post you are quoting was that in general Tkachuk does not get the respect he should based on what he has done in his career...I was not singaling you out and I was not talking about peaks in that portion of my comments...The only thing I said about Naslunds peak is there are others in that time frame I would say are better and I would say he was top 5 and I also said Tkachuk was never considered a top 5 player.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 06:43 PM
  #99
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jarmoismyhero View Post
And I said I will give you Naslunds 4 year peak...As to career number massivly bias modern like I have said before Hockey is the only team sport where having longevity is looked as a bad thing...Are you saying that longevity in putting up numbers only favors modern players? I am not sure about adjusted numbers in hockey but that have been found to be reliable for baseball.
Baseball is very different from hockey in terms of statistics. Hockey has such wild fluctuations in statistics, rules, games played, styles of play etc... that using raw numbers or adjusted numbers really doesn't tell any reliable story.

Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
03-16-2013, 06:47 PM
  #100
jarmoismyhero
Registered User
 
jarmoismyhero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: St. Louis
Country: United States
Posts: 2,487
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Baseball is very different from hockey in terms of statistics. Hockey has such wild fluctuations in statistics, rules, games played, styles of play etc... that using raw numbers or adjusted numbers really doesn't tell any reliable story.
I guess that makes sense however without using raw numbers you really have nothing to go off...You just have to use your mind to see how the game was being played at the time the numbers were put up.

Another reason that you have to judge players on the era and possibly team system/linemates.

jarmoismyhero is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36 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.