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.

Argument against Andreychuk

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-05-2005, 12:32 AM
  #76
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 10,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo

You are dominating the whole world when you are the best in the NHL. Not just 40 or 700. You are the best in the world. Does the Olympic 100m champion only beat 7 other runners or is he the best in the world? Is it just one of two guys that gets elected president or is it the best the country has to offer?

Being the NHL's best is the same no matter when it happens.
How can you be sure you're "the best in the world" when your competition is limited to small parts of two nations?

Again, that isn't Denneny's fault, but for this reason, he doesn't have the same claim to greatness as those coming from a much larger pool of players.

tom_servo is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:32 AM
  #77
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
You are dominating the whole world when you are the best in the NHL. Not just 40 or 700. You are the best in the world. Does the Olympic 100m champion only beat 7 other runners or is he the best in the world? Is it just one of two guys that gets elected president or is it the best the country has to offer?

Being the NHL's best is the same no matter when it happens.
Umm... not so much.



Apologies. Carry on.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:33 AM
  #78
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
*pssst*
Francis did dominate his peers. (One's not named Gretzky or Messier anyway). He has more assists than all but one of his peers, and more points than all but two.

Analogy time, the last 25-30 years is one season. A bunch of guys have huge games throughout the course of the season, but put up a lot of goose eggs or miss games due to injury for the rest of the year. Francis is plodding along putting up a steady stream of points and by the end of the year the scoring leaders are Gretzky, Messier, and Francis. Sure Mario, Bossy, Lafleur and others had bigger games but they couldn't produce all year long.
Nice analogy but, the reality is that life is measured in one year intervals. There is a cup winner each year, a scoring champion each year and a tax return each year.

Being second best 6 times is superior to being 12th best 21 times. Francis never rised above, he hovered in the pack. Hovering in the pack for a long time does not put him ahead of the eagles that soared above.

Are you really saying that Francis is greater than Lemieux or Yzerman?

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:36 AM
  #79
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
How can you be sure you're "the best in the world" when your competition is limited to small parts of two nations?

That seems very different from the Olympic 100m champions.
Your competition is the best available in the world. Why should we apologize for countries that don't play hockey? That is like saying that the World Cup (of soccer) is a waste of time because Canada doesn't take it seriously. "Sure you won the World Cup but, Canada and 100 other countries don't really care so, it is just garbage"

We can't force everyone in the world to become hockey players so we can do a "real" evaluation. We have to use the ones that want to play and become the best available.

Being the best in the NHL in 1920 is the same as being the best in the NHL in 2000.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:38 AM
  #80
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Nice analogy but, the reality is that life is measured in one year intervals. There is a cup winner each year, a scoring champion each year and a tax return each year.

Being second best 6 times is superior to being 12th best 21 times. Francis never rised above, he hovered in the pack. Hovering in the pack for a long time does not put him ahead of the eagles that soared above.

Are you really saying that Francis is greater than Lemieux or Yzerman?
I'm saying what Francis achieved is GREAT! The fact that he managed to outscore these guys playing in the same era is damn impressive and definitely HHOF worthy.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:39 AM
  #81
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 10,870
vCash: 500
So, if Denneny won the Art Ross in a two-team league with 12 local players total, that would be equal to St. Louis winning in '04?

tom_servo is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:42 AM
  #82
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
I'm saying what Francis achieved is GREAT! The fact that he managed to outscore these guys playing in the same era is damn impressive and definitely HHOF worthy.
It is impressive and he will be in the HOF. I just don't see it the same way you do - he is not one of the greatest scorers of all time. He is a top 100 scorer at best. He definitely does not belong at #4, that is very misleading.

Yes he was an excellent player but, I have a different opinion of how excellent he really was.

People forget history and don't give players like Denneny and Morenz their due. I like to level the playing field and recognize them for their accomplishments. Not bury them under a mountain of misleading stats.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:44 AM
  #83
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
So, if Denneny won the Art Ross in a two-team league with 12 local players total, that would be equal to St. Louis winning in '04?
No. If Denneny won the NHL scoring title in any year the NHL existed, that is the same as St. Louis winning in '04.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:46 AM
  #84
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 10,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
No. If Denneny won the NHL scoring title in any year the NHL existed, that is the same as St. Louis winning in '04.
Assuming that the NHL was a two-team league with only 12 players, why wouldn't it be the same?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that it was just as difficult to become an NHLer in 1920 as it is in 2005. It's much different.

tom_servo is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:48 AM
  #85
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
It is impressive and he will be in the HOF. I just don't see it the same way you do - he is not one of the greatest scorers of all time. He is a top 100 scorer at best. He definitely does not belong at #4, that is very misleading.

Yes he was an excellent player but, I have a different opinion of how excellent he really was.

People forget history and don't give players like Denneny and Morenz their due. I like to level the playing field and recognize them for their accomplishments. Not bury them under a mountain of misleading stats.
If there is a Gord "No Neck" Stewart that played in the 20's and 30's, never won a scoring title or major award, and ended up outscoring all but 2 of the players he ever played with or against he ought to be in the HHOF too.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:49 AM
  #86
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
Assuming that the NHL was a two-team league with only 12 players, why wouldn't it be the same?

Don't make the mistake of thinking that it was just as difficult to become an NHLer in 1920 as it is in 2005. It's much different.
It was actually more difficult because there were only 4 teams. Ask any minor leaguer about how tough it was to break into the NHL in the 50s.

Why assume that the NHL would have only 2 teams? The facts are that it had four teams and it was comprised of the best players available. Again, your argument tells us that nothing is legitimate prior to the 30 team NHL because it was easier to accomplish things with less teams.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:50 AM
  #87
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
If there is a Gord "No Neck" Stewart that played in the 20's and 30's, never won a scoring title or major award, and ended up outscoring all but 2 of the players he ever played with or against he ought to be in the HHOF too.
I don't value hanging around for a long time nearly as much as I value dominating the league. So, that is where our difference of opinion comes.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:54 AM
  #88
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,789
vCash: 500
Nobody here is advocating Francis having a greater place in the game than Lemieux, Yzerman, Esposito, Mikita, Beliveau or Trottier. Those are six of the top 25 players in league history. The only reason Francis is being mentioned in this thread is because Ogopogo suggested that the fourth highest scoring player in league history - who was excellent in every aspect of the game and dominant in some - does not belong in the Hockey Hall of Fame. Obviously, Ogopogo doesn't think a three-time 100-point scorer, four-time 90 point scorer (would have reached 90-100 points five more times if not for injuries/the lockout) is not worthy of a Hall. He made the players around him that much better. The guy put up nearly a point per game twice after he turned 35, despite playing in a defensive era, on a defensive team and with mediocre linemates. He would have scored at a 90-point pace in today's NHL, too.

The idea of this thread was whether Dave Andreychuk is Hall worthy or not. Let's keep it on topic, or relatively close to it. Not only have some of the recent posts been off topic, but the arguments have been so far off topic, that they are not only irrelevant to this discussion, or any discussion.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:56 AM
  #89
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 10,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
It was actually more difficult because there were only 4 teams. Ask any minor leaguer about how tough it was to break into the NHL in the 50s.
Given that hockey was only a very regionalized sport, I'm just not convinced that it was more difficult, even with only four teams.

But even if it was more difficult to make the NHL, the fact remains that there were much less players to beat for the Art Ross.

Quote:
Why assume that the NHL would have only 2 teams? The facts are that it had four teams and it was comprised of the best players available. Again, your argument tells us that nothing is legitimate prior to the 30 team NHL because it was easier to accomplish things with less teams.
It's a hypothetical question. If winning the Art Ross in a four-team league is the same as winning in a 30-team league, then I don't see why a two-team league is such a departure.

Surely you acknowledge that today's talent pool in and outside the NHL is much broader than it was in the 20s.

tom_servo is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 12:58 AM
  #90
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
Given that hockey was only a very regionalized sport, I'm just not convinced that it was more difficult, even with only four teams.



It's a hypothetical question. If winning the Art Ross in a four-team league is the same as winning in a 30-team league, then I don't see why a two-team league is such a departure.
You're right. If you are the best in the world, you are the best in the world.

But, the NHL needed 4 teams to have a legitimate league so, that is what they did.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 01:01 AM
  #91
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I don't value hanging around for a long time nearly as much as I value dominating the league. So, that is where our difference of opinion comes.
Francis wasn't "hanging around." He put up over a point per game for 1731 games.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 01:02 AM
  #92
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 10,870
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
You're right. If you are the best in the world, you are the best in the world.

But, the NHL needed 4 teams to have a legitimate league so, that is what they did.
So, being the best in a world which comprises, say, 10,000 total hockey players is equal to being the best in a world which comprises several million? I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. Denneny could very well not even make the league today.

tom_servo is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 01:05 AM
  #93
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by norrisnick
Francis wasn't "hanging around." He put up over a point per game for 1731 games.
In the historical context for comparison purposes, point per game averages are irrelevant. There have been seasons where the leading scorer in the league averaged less than a point per game and some where four players averaged nearly two. Hockey's eras make point per game numbers irrelevant.

He wasn't hanging around but he wasn't dominating either.

Like I said, I think a player must be dominant to be considered an all time great. Francis wasn't dominant, he was just good.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 01:12 AM
  #94
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
So, being the best in a world which comprises, say, 10,000 total hockey players is equal to being the best in a world which comprises several million? I'm sorry, but I don't see it that way. Denneny could very well not even make the league today.
That's evolution.

You could say that today's society is a bunch of complete morons because in 2050 the advances will be so great. Heck, you could say the world was a bunch of primates in the 80s because we didn't have internet.

You cannot force the entire world to play hockey so that you have a "real" comparison. You can simply take the players that want to be there and see who is the best of the bunch. Then you have the best in the world.

There were a lot less people competitively sprinting the 100m in 1920 than there are today. Does that mean it was not a great accomplishment to win the gold? Does that mean that they were not the best in the world? You cannot force people to compete.

If I invented a sport and only the people in my town played it, then, the best person in our town would be the best in the world. That is just how it is.

Using your reasoning, nothing beyond the past couple of years is a significant accomplishment.


"In 1980, I was the BEST in the world"

"Yeah but, in 1980 there were only 4 billion people in the world. There are 6 billion now. You really didn't accomplish anything in 1980"


That is how I see your argument.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 01:12 AM
  #95
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
In the historical context for comparison purposes, point per game averages are irrelevant. There have been seasons where the leading scorer in the league averaged less than a point per game and some where four players averaged nearly two. Hockey's eras make point per game numbers irrelevant.

He wasn't hanging around but he wasn't dominating either.

Like I said, I think a player must be dominant to be considered an all time great. Francis wasn't dominant, he was just good.
I'll take good for 20+ years over dominant for 3.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 01:17 AM
  #96
tom_servo
Registered User
 
tom_servo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Posts: 10,870
vCash: 500
Ogo - then why do you discount past point-per-game averages as irrelevant? Just as it was easier to score 100 points in 1989, it was easier for a good player to rack up awards in a 40-player league.

I'm not trying to discount Denneny's accomplishments as an athlete, but for the sake of player-to-player comparisons between eras, they're simply not as valid.

tom_servo is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 01:21 AM
  #97
norrisnick
Registered User
 
norrisnick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 16,243
vCash: 500
Oh and Andreychuk is still a tough call. I don't realy see him making it. Too many players will be up for induction and he'll fade away. He might be brought in in a slow era.

norrisnick is offline  
Old
05-05-2005, 03:42 AM
  #98
Leaf Lander
Registered User
 
Leaf Lander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: BWO Headquarters
Country: Canada
Posts: 28,731
vCash: 500
Send a message via ICQ to Leaf Lander Send a message via MSN to Leaf Lander
i think some ofyou posters should go to school or go change your diapers.
Andreychuck is very slow yet still pots 20 goals a yr as a 42 yr old aRonnei Francis dominated games in the 1980's when he played for the whalers with nearly a supporting cast. It wasnt till he was in his late 2-'s that he got traded and played 2nf fiddle to jagr and lemiues that he won a cup that he deserved!

both players are classy and have stood the test of time

I say welcome to the hall boys

Leaf Lander is online now  
Old
05-05-2005, 04:34 AM
  #99
MS
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 12,132
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
In the historical context for comparison purposes, point per game averages are irrelevant. There have been seasons where the leading scorer in the league averaged less than a point per game and some where four players averaged nearly two. Hockey's eras make point per game numbers irrelevant.

He wasn't hanging around but he wasn't dominating either.

Like I said, I think a player must be dominant to be considered an all time great. Francis wasn't dominant, he was just good.
A guy like Scott Mellanby was 'just good'.

For a 21 year period 1981-2002, Francis averaged 62 assists/82 games played. He led the league in assists twice. He had seasons where he finished 4th and 5th in league scoring, and several in the top 10. Far and beyond 'just good'.

Take away the pure statistical numbers if you like. Forget that he had more assists than most HHOFers had points. This is a guy who finished top-5 or so in assists in the NHL pretty much every year for 20 years, and led the league on multiple occasions. This is excellence, end of story. Any way you slice it, this is one of the best playmakers the game of hockey has ever seen. Regardless of era - lop off 20% of his assists to adjust for the time period and he still has 1000 assists, and is ahead of pretty much everyone else ever to play the game save Gretzky.

Never mind that, on top of being one of the games elite playmaking centers for 20 years, he was also one of the league's top defensive forwards, winning a Selke and being a finalist for that award on several occasions.

MS is online now  
Old
05-05-2005, 10:22 AM
  #100
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tom_servo
Ogo - then why do you discount past point-per-game averages as irrelevant? Just as it was easier to score 100 points in 1989, it was easier for a good player to rack up awards in a 40-player league.

I'm not trying to discount Denneny's accomplishments as an athlete, but for the sake of player-to-player comparisons between eras, they're simply not as valid.
Sorry but I disagree. It is NOT easier to win an award in a 4 team NHL than in a 30 team NHL. Watch this now: YOU HAVE TO BE THE BEST IN THE WORLD TO LEAD THE LEAGUE. 4 TEAMS, 30 TEAMS IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE. YOU ARE STILL A BETTER SCORER THAN THE REST OF THE PEOPLE ON THE GLOBE.

If it was a random draw then your argument would make some sense. It is not a random draw so, it is not relevant.

It is like saying that Vancouver is the biggest city in BC. But if nobody developed the interior and North of BC would that somehow tarnish the fact that Vancouver is the biggest? By having less cities and towns does that make being the biggest any less? No, the new cities and towns would be smaller anyway so, Vancouver would still be the biggest.

Your argument makes no sense. Basically, you are saying that any accomplishment from the past is worthless. I disagree.

Point per game averages are worthless because today's goalies have 12" pads and scoring a point per game is very difficult. There was probably 5 or 6 players that did it last year. In the 80s it was not uncommon to have 40 or 50 players score a point per game. So, are you saying that the best players ever were players of the 80s? Players have just gotten worse since then?

Different rules and eras make the numbers inaccurate to compare players. You have to look behind the numbers to see the truth.

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 01:59 PM.

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.