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.

Longevity vs Excellence

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
04-26-2005, 11:32 PM
  #51
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 30,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
A comparison of Mike Gartner to Mike Bossy isn't fair. Gartner is in the HHOF because of an unprecedented career. Bossy is one of the five best RWs ever. Instead, how about Gartner or Pavel Bure, or Ron Francis versus Peter Forsberg, or Damphousse vs. Eric Lindros. (Two guys who won't be getting in the Hall. Much better comparisons when making the longevity vs. dominance debate.
I agree with this statement about Mike Gartner. It's not like he was just some average winger playing a consistent to mediocre game for 20 years. He scored at LEAST 30 goals for 17 years. This doesn't even take into consideration his 40 goal seasons or 50 goal season. This is consistency and excellence.

Stephen is offline  
Old
04-26-2005, 11:45 PM
  #52
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Nevermind your arbitrary ratings system. Dale Hawerchuk was an offensive machine who was literally the franchise in Winnipeg when he was there. Also, it's hard to win a lot of Hart Trophies, and 1st team All Star appearances when you play in a league with Mario Lemieux and in the same division with Wayne Gretzky for your prime years.

Also, I fail to see how Hawerchuk can be considered a player who had longevity especially when his scoring trailed off so much in the 1990s after a brilliant start to his career in the 80s.
I am not saying anything against Hawerchuk. I am just saying that there are about 75 better scorers in NHL history than Hawerchuk. It is not an insult to not be in the top 50 - the top 50 are damn amazing players.

If arbitrary is your thing, check out the official top 100 all time NHL scorers. There is no more misleading, inaccurate and unfair document to rate players than that list. The flaws in that list are what cause people like me to create ratings that are far more accurate.


Last edited by Ogopogo*: 04-26-2005 at 11:50 PM.
Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
04-26-2005, 11:53 PM
  #53
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
As for a couple players mentioned. Dale Hawerchuk is one of the best offensive players I've ever seen. Hawerchuk in his prime in today's would likely be a perennial Art Ross contender. I think he'd score 100 points, even in today's NHL. (Let's keep in mind one of the chief reasons for the drop in scoring is the lack of elite talent, especially among players under 30). He never played with premier talent in Winnipeg, and still scored over 100 points SIX times. He turned Paul MacLean into a 100-point scorer. No player in NHL history would have led the Jets to a Cup. He's a guy who combined excellence and dominance. He only had one second all-star selection, but chalk that up to the depth of great centres in the 1980s.

Ron Francis is one of the best all-round players I've ever seen. Simply put, there isn't anything the guy couldn't do. Great offensively and defensively. A master in the face-off circle. And honestly, I've never seen a forward play the point on the power play better than Francis. (A truly underrated skill). A gimmie as a first ballot Hall-of-Famer, and no doubt in my mind, one of the top 100 all-round players ever. Great leader, great character, smart as they come. I think he would have been one of the 10 or 15 best all-round players in any era he played in. (And like Hawerchuk, he had to contend with incredible depth of elite centre in his peak years).

Some of those players are in the Hall for good reason. Larry Murphy was a top 5 or 10 NHL defenceman for most of his career. Mike Gartner set a standard that nobody has ever done, or will ever reach. Doug Gilmour was an elite two-way player for most of his career. Others weren't ever among the truly elite. Bernie Nichols had one or two elite years, and a few good years. Same with Turgeon and Andreychuk, although our last memories of Andreychuk were very good, and that may be enough to get him in. In the case of Turgeon, his point total will be the most ever for a non-HHOFer.

In the case of those with longevity but no greatness (ie: Craig Ludwig, Tom Fitzgerald), they won't get in. Longevity with some greatness (Vinny Damphousse) likely won't get in. Excllence without longevity usually doesn't get a player in (Cam Neely). Those who had excellence but not much longevity but got in the Hall were the very best at their position for a sufficient period of time. (Dom Hasek, Ken Dryden, Bobby Orr, Mike Bossy, Mario Lemieux before his first retirement).

A comparison of Mike Gartner to Mike Bossy isn't fair. Gartner is in the HHOF because of an unprecedented career. Bossy is one of the five best RWs ever. Instead, how about Gartner or Pavel Bure, or Ron Francis versus Peter Forsberg, or Damphousse vs. Eric Lindros. (Two guys who won't be getting in the Hall. Much better comparisons when making the longevity vs. dominance debate.
Being in the HOF and being one of the greatest goal scorers of all time are two completely different things. I have disagreed with many HOF selections, it seems that the criteria have softened quite a bit. It no longer requires greatness to make the Hall, just being very good is enough. Re: Gillies, Federko, Lafontaine.

I want to cut through the crap and see who really is the greatest goal scorer/scorer of all time. Bossy is head and shoulders above Gartner when that is the criteria.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
04-26-2005, 11:58 PM
  #54
Stephen
Registered User
 
Stephen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 30,427
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I am not saying anything against Hawerchuk. I am just saying that there are about 75 better scorers in NHL history than Hawerchuk. It is not an insult to not be in the top 50 - the top 50 are damn amazing players.

If arbitrary is your thing, check out the official top 100 all time NHL scorers. There is no more misleading, inaccurate and unfair document to rate players than that list. The flaws in that list are what cause people like me to create ratings that are far more accurate.
I appreciate your effort, but I think your system needs some major tweaks to be even remotely effective. I really fail to see how Paul Kariya, Luc Robitaille, and John Leclair can be ranked ahead of a guy like Steve Yzerman, for instance.

As for Hawerchuk, I think he definitely belongs in the top 30-40 in terms of all time forwards. You just can't appraise a career based on individual awards and formulas. It just doesn't work.

Stephen is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 12:09 AM
  #55
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,780
vCash: 500
And I agree with you on that. Bossy may be the greatest pure goal scorer since Maurice Richard. He's one of the top five RWs of all time. If you want a better comparison on the longevity vs. short-to-medium-term excellence competition, go with a guy like Pavel Bure or Cam Neely.

And by the way, Hawerchuk is one of the top 50 offensive players in NHL history. If he wasn't, Paul MacLean wouldn't have had a 100-point season. Not one of the best 50 players in NHL history (his defensive skills aren't strong enough), but the guy was unreal in his prime, and did it without a supporting cast. Six 100-point seasons, three others in the high 90s when he missed a few games. Again, Hawerchuk circa 1980s is a better offensive player than anybody in today's NHL.

Pat LaFontaine is a Hall of Famer. The guy was an unreal offensive talent, and worked a lot of his magic despite a weak supporting cast. (Witness 1989, 1990 and 1996). Injuries cut his career short, but he showed enough during his career, and played long enough, to deserve induction. Best American forward from the past 25-30 years. Watch him on the Island from 1988-1990, or Buffalo in 1992, 1993, 1995 or 1996, and you'll see why he's a Hall of Famer. (And note: the other years not mentioned were because he was still young, or hurt, or frustrated by the stiff around him on the Island - 1991).

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:09 AM
  #56
anguscertified
HFB Partner
 
anguscertified's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 20,019
vCash: 500
Comparing someone like Mike Gartner vs. Pavel Bure.... there are obviously other examples but the better player usually is more important, but they have to have 3-5 good years still.

anguscertified is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 01:16 AM
  #57
arrbez
bad chi
 
arrbez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,611
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to arrbez
Hawerchuk is a great example of why awards shouldn't be used in a points system. He clearly had no chance at any significant awards during his prime because he was stacked up against 2 of the top 3 forwards of all time. Gretzky and Lemieux won all but one Art Ross 1981-1997. That's a span of 16 years, covering the prime of many a good player's career. Just because Hawerchuk, Statsny, Kurri, etc couldn't win one in the 80's doesn't mean they wouldn't win one now. No offense to guys like Jarome Iginla and Martin St Louis, but they would never come close to an Art Ross if they had played 15 or 20 years ago.

arrbez is offline  
Old
04-27-2005, 05:02 PM
  #58
jiggs 10
Registered User
 
jiggs 10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Hockeytown, ND
Country: United States
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
My problem with Neely is that, if it wasn't for his miracle season in '94, he would likely never be mentioned as a HoF candidate.

Neely barely averaged 70 points per 82 games himself, and he played during an era where everyone was putting up big numbers.
This is it exactly! Neely was only a PPG player for 4 seasons, and finished his career quite a bit below that...all the while playing in a small rink in a high-scoring period. If he was so great, why wasn't he getting 95-100 points a season? Sure, he mixed in the grit and it hurt him, but he still should have scored 5-8 more goals a season, and 15 more assists a season in those days. There were good scorers on that team besides him. Neely is not now/never should be a HHoFer.

jiggs 10 is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 12:08 PM
  #59
pei fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Gordie is considered better than Mario but, I do agree with what you are saying.
I don't have to post as much anymore with you around.You should
come and visit the prospects thread.I probably should have warned you but I guess
your finding out for yourself but here at HFBoards :Mario>god & Gretzky (combined);
Yzerman = Howe,Richard ,& Beliveau;Phil Housley one of the greatest defensemen of all time.

If you find your self under attack for under appreciating Mario you can say
a couple of Hail Mario's

Hail Mario Full Of Grace(and innate hockey sense)
The Lord Is With Thee(heck thou are god)
Blessed art though among hockey players
In the past,the present ,and forevermore.

I hope this helps.


Last edited by pei fan: 04-29-2005 at 12:34 PM.
pei fan is offline  
Old
04-29-2005, 12:33 PM
  #60
pei fan
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 2,536
vCash: 500
Ogopogo,I will disagree with you on one matter.IMO Roy > Hasek .Here's why.
At the end of the day it all comes down to winning and besides being the winningest goalie in NHl history Roy could win when it counted.His Conn Smythe
performances are some of the greatest performances by an individual in all team
sports let alone hockey.Great athletes do great things at just the right time.I still
think the biggest flaw in your ranking system is the absence of Conn Smythe
points.It's all about winning that big silver cup.When a player does it almost
single handed it's a pretty big deal. Perhaps Hasek had more skill but Roy is the
greatest of the two.

What about a goalie like Sawchuk who had a period of elite dominance and then
had circumstances that caused his skills to deteriorate but was still good for awhile.
That's an interesting aspect to this whole argument.

That leads into one of my ideas of differentiating best from greatest.Hypothetically
let's pretend Wayne Gretzky got killed in a plane accident (he's afraid of planes)
after just a few years in the NHL.His skill level had already peaked by then but
there's no longer 61 NHl records, scoring titles,cups etc.Where does he rank?
A ranking of best means the level of skill and a ranking of greatness means the
level of accomplishments but also primary consideration for the level of skill as
well.Best would also give some advantage to the modern player under the axiom
stronger ,faster,higher.Greatness would also cover intangibles like the character
of the player ,their context in culture,history etc.

Here's 2 examples
Jackie Robinson would rank much higher on the list of greatest baseball players
of all time than he would on the list of best players of all time.
Eric Lindros would rank higher on the list of best hockey players of all time than
he would on the list of greatest hockey players of all time.So under this premise
perhaps Hasek was better but Roy was greater.


Last edited by pei fan: 04-29-2005 at 01:41 PM.
pei fan is offline  
Old
05-02-2005, 06:00 PM
  #61
Malefic74
Registered User
 
Malefic74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Halfway between Nothing and Not Much Else
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,752
vCash: 500
Injuries (or the lack thereof) are not purely luck. Sometimes a style of play leads to more injuries, (Eric Lindros) funny how Messier doesn't dig in the corners like he used to, he just cruises the slot now. Standing in front of the net taking beating after beating will certainly shorten a career, (too many to name) not to mention the steady deterioration of ice conditions throughout the league, and the poorly thought out foray into the realm of seamless glass with all the give of the Berlin Wall.

There are however players who make efforts to avoid injuries through conditioning and treatment and are thus able to avoid the nagging injuries which usually lead to serious ones. Specifically back pain. Nearly every centre in the league has a bad back that is aggravated by bending over to take face-off after faceoff. Yet a guy like Francis seemingly is not bothered by this. Could it be he works on his flexibility in his back so this doesn't become a problem?

Some injuries are just bad luck (Trent McCleary, shudder), a lot of the serious ones are caused by players who come back too soon (Pavel Bure), or are too dumb to change their style to lessen the chance of injury (try skating with your head UP Eric). To arbitrarily dismiss it as pure luck is missing those players who take a lot of pride in being as physically prepared as they can be to have a long career.

Therefore longevity has a place in the greatness discussion but it should not be weighted as heavily as some think it should be. In that respect the original post was correct I think. But neither should awards or All-Star team selections be weighted as heavily. Particularly when a lot of those All-Star selections in recent years were chosen by fans.

Statistics and math are useful tools that deserve a lot of respect, but until there are numbers that can define determination, creativity and heart these systems will all be inherently flawed. The most honest way do try to do these lists is to simply go by what you've seen with your own eyes and judge accomplishments based on their own merits in their own eras. You can not compare players of different eras in a game that has changed as much as hockey has in the last 25 years. The only good that comes out of it at all is that some younger fans might be persuaded to research some of the greats of the past they might otherwise have never known other than being a name on a page inthe NHL record book.

Malefic74 is offline  
Old
05-04-2005, 04:11 PM
  #62
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen
Nevermind your arbitrary ratings system. Dale Hawerchuk was an offensive machine who was literally the franchise in Winnipeg when he was there. Also, it's hard to win a lot of Hart Trophies, and 1st team All Star appearances when you play in a league with Mario Lemieux and in the same division with Wayne Gretzky for your prime years.

Also, I fail to see how Hawerchuk can be considered a player who had longevity especially when his scoring trailed off so much in the 1990s after a brilliant start to his career in the 80s.
Arbitrary. LOL.

Why don't you read and understand it before you discount it. It makes perfect sense. I guess because it does not make some flawed conclusion to back your favorites, it must be wrong.

Don't bring up that division garbage. The greats score under any circumstance. Gretzky was the greatest scorer in the world playing on a crappy Oilers team that finished 16th and 14th of 21 teams. Trying to discredit him is foolishness.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-04-2005, 04:18 PM
  #63
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,216
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by pei fan
Ogopogo,I will disagree with you on one matter.IMO Roy > Hasek .Here's why.
At the end of the day it all comes down to winning and besides being the winningest goalie in NHl history Roy could win when it counted.His Conn Smythe
performances are some of the greatest performances by an individual in all team
sports let alone hockey.Great athletes do great things at just the right time.I still
think the biggest flaw in your ranking system is the absence of Conn Smythe
points.It's all about winning that big silver cup.When a player does it almost
single handed it's a pretty big deal. Perhaps Hasek had more skill but Roy is the
greatest of the two.

What about a goalie like Sawchuk who had a period of elite dominance and then
had circumstances that caused his skills to deteriorate but was still good for awhile.
That's an interesting aspect to this whole argument.

That leads into one of my ideas of differentiating best from greatest.Hypothetically
let's pretend Wayne Gretzky got killed in a plane accident (he's afraid of planes)
after just a few years in the NHL.His skill level had already peaked by then but
there's no longer 61 NHl records, scoring titles,cups etc.Where does he rank?
A ranking of best means the level of skill and a ranking of greatness means the
level of accomplishments but also primary consideration for the level of skill as
well.Best would also give some advantage to the modern player under the axiom
stronger ,faster,higher.Greatness would also cover intangibles like the character
of the player ,their context in culture,history etc.

Here's 2 examples
Jackie Robinson would rank much higher on the list of greatest baseball players
of all time than he would on the list of best players of all time.
Eric Lindros would rank higher on the list of best hockey players of all time than
he would on the list of greatest hockey players of all time.So under this premise
perhaps Hasek was better but Roy was greater.
I understand what you are saying but, I feel that we cannot give credit for points not scored and games not played. Everybody has their own adversity in their careers: Howe had a fractured skull, Mario had cancer, Bossy had a bad back, Orr had bad knees, Gretzky lost half a season because of a lockout and had some back and shoulder problems...

Perhaps if you are measuring peak seasons injuries would be a major factor. I wanted to determine the greatest career. Where would a guy like Normand Leveille fit into things? During his rookie year with the Bruins, he had a brain anyeurism between periods of a game in Vancouver and was done with hockey. There is no way of knowing how well he would have done so, we cannot give him credit for points not scored.

Just like this year's Stanley Cup. Should we carve names on for who we think would have won it? I don't think so.

What you are saying makes sense but, for what I am trying to measure, it does not come into play.

As far as Hasek vs. Roy goes, for regular season, it is no doubt Hasek. For playoffs it is Roy. Greatest and Best.


Last edited by Ogopogo*: 05-04-2005 at 05:02 PM.
Ogopogo* is offline  
Closed Thread

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 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.