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.

Lindros vs. Forsberg HOF

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
05-25-2005, 03:59 PM
  #76
KOVALEV10*
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Simply the best!
Posts: 3,314
vCash: 500
Way I see it is the following. Yes Carey was great one year but Cujo was very good for 10 years. Who has had the better career? Obviously Cujo. It's not like Carey was great for 5 years compared to Cujo's 5 good years. 1 year, 2 year, maximum three is good and all but when you compare careers, Cujo wins. Same with every other player.

KOVALEV10* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:02 PM
  #77
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,655
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Being a top 10 goalie for 12 or 15 years is NOT greatness. Being the best goalie one time is greatness.

Joseph is not great, he is simply very good. Carey was great for one season. Facts are facts.
You do realize that those are all opinions, right?

Your ideas of what greatness is happen to be opinions. It is no different than having an opinion on who is sexier between Gretzky and Messier.

Joseph not being great is your opinion. Carey being great for one season is your opinion.

There is nothing wrong with having those opinions, even if you're all alone on them. That's fine, but you come off arrogant enough without trying to sell your opinions as facts.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:16 PM
  #78
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
You do realize that those are all opinions, right?

Your ideas of what greatness is happen to be opinions. It is no different than having an opinion on who is sexier between Gretzky and Messier.

Joseph not being great is your opinion. Carey being great for one season is your opinion.

There is nothing wrong with having those opinions, even if you're all alone on them. That's fine, but you come off arrogant enough without trying to sell your opinions as facts.
Sorry if I have hurt your feelings Rob.

You can have your definition of greatness and I will have mine. Fair enough?

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:26 PM
  #79
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,655
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
Sorry if I have hurt your feelings Rob.

You can have your definition of greatness and I will have mine. Fair enough?
In regards to your first comment, are you still in grade school or what? It always seemed to be the offended party that said something like that to save face. I assure you my feelings are tougher than Charles Bronson's in Hard Times. Yes sir.

As for your second comment, that certainly is fair enough though I don't see you sticking to it. It'd be great to be able to argue the merits of your opinions without you defending them as facts. Erm, perhaps great isn't the right word.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:49 PM
  #80
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
In regards to your first comment, are you still in grade school or what? It always seemed to be the offended party that said something like that to save face. I assure you my feelings are tougher than Charles Bronson's in Hard Times. Yes sir.

As for your second comment, that certainly is fair enough though I don't see you sticking to it. It'd be great to be able to argue the merits of your opinions without you defending them as facts. Erm, perhaps great isn't the right word.
I defend my findings with logic, reason, facts and stats. I have taken input from several posters on ways to tweak my system when they present well thought out, logical, reasonable and backed up ideas.

But, the ideas presented that suggest I implode my system as worthless, I ignore. The only reason someone would discard my ideas and system outright is if they don't understand it or they haven't thought it through. It is not perfect but, the reason and logic behind it is very sound.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:51 PM
  #81
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,655
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
And here's the thing, for all the faults I find in your system and opinions--sometimes admittedly playing devil's advocate--this is what really baffles me.

You could argue that LaFontaine only had one season where he REALLY exploded with numbers. I could counter that St. Louis never did. But this is the part that makes little sense... you put so much emphasis on a player having one great season. I honestly think that's silly, but whatever, that's how you feel. What gets me is that you disregard Pat's huge season which was frankly one of the best ever by a man not named Mario or Wayne... just because someone had a better season that year. St. Louis had one of the mildest Art Ross seasons I've ever witnessed in my life. For some reason that means, to you, that he had the better one season than Patty.

I just don't get it. If 92-93 Patty had played this year, considering he was the same player, he would have put up lesser numbers of course. But he still would have done better than St. Louis, winning the trophy. This is speculative, of course, but what isn't is Patty had a tougher scoring competition. My opinion is that his season was much, much better than St. Louis'. I really don't see how you could disagree. Because other than that, if you go by stats, you have a closer argument. Go beyond the stats, though, and to me he is way, way better. Forget all that, though... you're a one season of excellence guy. But you for some reason think it is better for a player to have a very good season and come out on top that year than to have a fantastic season and come out just behind the top. For all the faults I see in your reasoning, this one is irreconcilable.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
05-25-2005, 04:57 PM
  #82
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,655
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I defend my findings with logic, reason, facts and stats. I have taken input from several posters on ways to tweak my system when they present well thought out, logical, reasonable and backed up ideas.

But, the ideas presented that suggest I implode my system as worthless, I ignore. The only reason someone would discard my ideas and system outright is if they don't understand it or they haven't thought it through. It is not perfect but, the reason and logic behind it is very sound.
I really don't think you should discard your system. You clearly enjoy it and as I said, like all such systems, it gives additional insight. I just don't see why you yourself think it is the end-all, much less expect others to agree.

As much as I think stats are only part of the equation, I love them. I love formulas that people come up with to extend the meaning of them. What I dislike most about your system is that it tries to be all-inclusive... I'd prefer a formula dealing with more specific data and using many such formulas as a means to an end. But push that aside, that isn't what irks me. Even scientists who do very important studies put those studies in perspective and you don't seem willing to. Of course you are free to do that, but it firstly makes people think you're bullheaded and secondly takes credibility away from the system. To top it off, as I said, it is more than a bit annoying.

So keep working on your system and I'll even applaud you for it, but I know I'm not the only one who would prefer that you cite it with perspective rather than plug it any chance you get as some absolute truth.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
05-25-2005, 05:21 PM
  #83
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
And here's the thing, for all the faults I find in your system and opinions--sometimes admittedly playing devil's advocate--this is what really baffles me.

You could argue that LaFontaine only had one season where he REALLY exploded with numbers. I could counter that St. Louis never did. But this is the part that makes little sense... you put so much emphasis on a player having one great season. I honestly think that's silly, but whatever, that's how you feel. What gets me is that you disregard Pat's huge season which was frankly one of the best ever by a man not named Mario or Wayne... just because someone had a better season that year. St. Louis had one of the mildest Art Ross seasons I've ever witnessed in my life. For some reason that means, to you, that he had the better one season than Patty.

I just don't get it. If 92-93 Patty had played this year, considering he was the same player, he would have put up lesser numbers of course. But he still would have done better than St. Louis, winning the trophy. This is speculative, of course, but what isn't is Patty had a tougher scoring competition. My opinion is that his season was much, much better than St. Louis'. I really don't see how you could disagree. Because other than that, if you go by stats, you have a closer argument. Go beyond the stats, though, and to me he is way, way better. Forget all that, though... you're a one season of excellence guy. But you for some reason think it is better for a player to have a very good season and come out on top that year than to have a fantastic season and come out just behind the top. For all the faults I see in your reasoning, this one is irreconcilable.
I am a guy that looks at the all-time scoring list and cringes in horror. Mark Messier 2nd all time!?!? Ron Francis 4th!?!?! Names like Bernie Nicholls and Vincent Damphousse in the top 50!?!?! Where are Bobby Orr, Andy Bathgate, Howie Morenz and Bill Cowley?

The scoring list is a fraud. Players like Messier, Francis, Nicholls and Damphousse are where they are because of the era they played in. They were not superior scorers to Orr, Bathgate, Morenz and Cowley.

I set out to develop something that would level the playing field and give older players their due. I believe I have done that.

Perfect? No. That is why I take suggestions and tweak. But, it is still a better ratings list than anything else I have seen. I have included the things that I have found to be most important and relevant to determine greatness. Am I still tweaking? Yes. But, I think it is a darn fine system. If most people don't get it, so be it.

So, when somebody throws out a "Lafontaine should be in the Hall", I like to give my perspective because I think my system gives a more accurate representation of a player's career than just throwing out an opinion without basis.


Last edited by Ogopogo*: 05-25-2005 at 05:27 PM.
Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 05:40 PM
  #84
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,655
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo
I am a guy that looks at the all-time scoring list and cringes in horror. Mark Messier 2nd all time!?!? Ron Francis 4th!?!?! Names like Bernie Nicholls and Vincent Damphousse in the top 50!?!?! Where are Bobby Orr, Andy Bathgate, Howie Morenz and Bill Cowley?

The scoring list is a fraud. Players like Messier, Francis, Nicholls and Damphousse are where they are because of the era they played in. They were not superior scorers to Orr, Bathgate, Morenz and Cowley.

I set out to develop something that would level the playing field and give older players their due. I believe I have done that.

Perfect? No. That is why I take suggestions and tweak. But, it is still a better ratings list than anything else I have seen. I have included the things that I have found to be most important and relevant to determine greatness. Am I still tweaking? Yes. But, I think it is a darn fine system. If most people don't get it, so be it.

So, when somebody throws out a "Lafontaine should be in the Hall", I like to give my perspective because I think my system gives a more accurate representation of a player's career than just throwing out an opinion without basis.
I feel similarly about Messier and such. First of all, you have to admit it is an amazing achievement to be able to stay in shape and healthy enough to play at a very good level for so long. If you don't, then we may as well just stop talking right now. But it isn't the 2nd best scoring achievement in NHL history and I hope that's what you think.

That's how the all-time scoring list should be, though... because it is a list of facts. The most points scored are the most points scored, plain and simple. The problem is that people often say "Well Messier is the second-highest scorer all-time so that makes him the second-best all time". I too cringe at that, as it ignores so many things. But at the same time, so does your system. Both give different perspectives but both also ignore a lot of factors. That is why both are only insightful as supplements in analysis or debate, not as both the sword and shield.

I don't necessarily think Patty should be in the Hall, however... if you're so focused on great seasons rather than career outputs, perhaps he should be. He had one of the finest statistical seasons I can think of by someone other than Mario or Wayne.

That post was interesting insight into your motives, but I'm more interested in why you measure St Louis' season to be that much better than Patty's simply because it was the best that year and Patty's wasn't. Like I said, this is what I find to be most peculiar about your opinions. Because this isn't a matter of drawn-out career numbers. Two fine seasons... one led the league at the time... one stands as one of the highest by a non-Mario/Wayne of all-time and the highest by an American. In other words, why so much emphasis on leading the league?

Your battlecry is often "best one year is still the best"... yes, for that year. But I'm sure you agree that doesn't make St. Louis nearly as good as Mario or Wayne, who both were the "best" statistically different years. Or any one player who was "best" just for one year. So why does it automatically make him better than the guy who finished behind Mario?

He could be, but why automatically?

That doesn't seem objective or analytical.

And for the record, I think it is very arguable whether or not St. Louis was the best player last year or deserved the Hart. Many of the awards last year were very debatable, including the Vezina.


Last edited by Rob Paxon: 05-25-2005 at 05:47 PM.
Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
05-25-2005, 06:04 PM
  #85
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
I feel similarly about Messier and such. First of all, you have to admit it is an amazing achievement to be able to stay in shape and healthy enough to play at a very good level for so long. If you don't, then we may as well just stop talking right now. But it isn't the 2nd best scoring achievement in NHL history and I hope that's what you think.

That's how the all-time scoring list should be, though... because it is a list of facts. The most points scored are the most points scored, plain and simple. The problem is that people often say "Well Messier is the second-highest scorer all-time so that makes him the second-best all time". I too cringe at that, as it ignores so many things. But at the same time, so does your system. Both give different perspectives but both also ignore a lot of factors. That is why both are only insightful as supplements in analysis or debate, not as both the sword and shield.

I don't necessarily think Patty should be in the Hall, however... if you're so focused on great seasons rather than career outputs, perhaps he should be. He had one of the finest statistical seasons I can think of by someone other than Mario or Wayne.

That post was interesting insight into your motives, but I'm more interested in why you measure St Louis' season to be that much better than Patty's simply because it was the best that year and Patty's wasn't. Like I said, this is what I find to be most peculiar about your opinions. Because this isn't a matter of drawn-out career numbers. Two fine seasons... one led the league at the time... one stands as one of the highest by a non-Mario/Wayne of all-time and the highest by an American. In other words, why so much emphasis on leading the league?

Your battlecry is often "best one year is still the best"... yes, for that year. But I'm sure you agree that doesn't make St. Louis nearly as good as Mario or Wayne, who both were the "best" statistically different years. Or any one player who was "best" just for one year. So why does it automatically make him better than the guy who finished behind Mario?

He could be, but why automatically?

That doesn't seem objective or analytical.

And for the record, I think it is very arguable whether or not St. Louis was the best player last year or deserved the Hart. Many of the awards last year were very debatable, including the Vezina.
The way I see things is that #1 is equal to #1 of any season. That changes when a player dominates the season by a large margin. In my case, I use 25% as the margin to determine an extreme gap in the scoring race. Anything closer than that, in my opinion, is a typical, everyday scoring championship.

So, when Mario scored 160 points in 1993 to beat Pat Lafontaine's 148 points, that is a regular scoring championship. (Mario's GP is another discussion) You will also notice that Adam Oates finished with 142 points, Steve Yzerman had 137 and Selanne and Turgeon finished with 132. Point being, Lafontaine's season was not that significant in the whole scheme of things. When everybody in the league has inflated scoring totals, that means nobody has stood out. Everybody was "in the crowd" so to speak. Lafontaine's 2nd place finish was a typical 2nd place finish. 8% behind the leader and 4% ahead of 3rd. Nothing out of the ordinary for a 2nd place finish. I give 6 points for finishing 2nd and that is exactly what Lafontaine received.

So, Martin St. Louis finished in 1st with 94 points last year. He was the NHL's best scorer. Ilya Kovalchuk was #2 at 87. St. Louis was the best by 8%. That is a typical scoring champion, just like Lemieux's triumph in 1993. League wide scoring was down in 2004 so, the point totals are lower. But, first is still first, second is still second. There is no evidence to say that Lafontaine's 1993 season is more impressive than St. Louis' 2004 season. Lafontaine was 2nd, right in the pack with the rest of the league. The difference is that St. Louis rose above the pack to be 1st.

The argument that Lemieux is better than anyone Martin St. Louis had to face? Well, Lafontaine got 6 points for his second place finish to Lemieux. St. Louis got 7 points last year for his scoring title. The difference is slim, Lafontaine is not crushed in my system for not finishing ahead of Lemieux. He loses one point.

Lafontaine also gets credit for his 2nd team all star selection. Last season St. Louis won the scoring title, was a 1st team selection and won the Hart. I think it must be concluded that Martin St. Louis' 2003-04 season was greater than Pat Lafontaine's 1993 season.

That is how I see it.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 06:19 PM
  #86
Rob Paxon
⚔Z E M G U S⚔
 
Rob Paxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: corfu, ny
Country: United States
Posts: 18,655
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Rob Paxon
Well at least that's very rational. For the record I should say I didn't believe LaFontaine's season was better because had more numbers, I meant it in context. Either way you make a good point.

I still feel from watching both years that LaFontaine had a better season, but it is easier to agree to disagree now. I wouldn't put much stock in 1st or 2nd all-star nods though. For instance, Jason Giambi is on the 2005 MLB all-star ballot. They are definitely honors, but are also very unreliable just like awards.

Either way, you definitely made your point well as far as the two seasons. I'd say as far as who the best player is, St Louis has only had one very good season with one considerable one the year before. He may be even better next year but I say he tails off slightly if not considerably.

It is interesting in that LaFontaine's career was cut tragically short by concussions. On the other hand, St. Louis was a bit of a late bloomer. I've seen just about all of LaFontaine's games in Buffalo and obviously a lot less of St. Louis... but I've seen a whole lot of him the past two years. He's one of my favorite active players, but I have to give the nod considerably to LaFontaine as to who was the better player.

Rob Paxon is online now  
Old
05-25-2005, 06:45 PM
  #87
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob Paxon
Well at least that's very rational. For the record I should say I didn't believe LaFontaine's season was better because had more numbers, I meant it in context. Either way you make a good point.

I still feel from watching both years that LaFontaine had a better season, but it is easier to agree to disagree now. I wouldn't put much stock in 1st or 2nd all-star nods though. For instance, Jason Giambi is on the 2005 MLB all-star ballot. They are definitely honors, but are also very unreliable just like awards.

Either way, you definitely made your point well as far as the two seasons. I'd say as far as who the best player is, St Louis has only had one very good season with one considerable one the year before. He may be even better next year but I say he tails off slightly if not considerably.

It is interesting in that LaFontaine's career was cut tragically short by concussions. On the other hand, St. Louis was a bit of a late bloomer. I've seen just about all of LaFontaine's games in Buffalo and obviously a lot less of St. Louis... but I've seen a whole lot of him the past two years. He's one of my favorite active players, but I have to give the nod considerably to LaFontaine as to who was the better player.
I agree that all-star game selections are garbage. Fans often vote for their favorites no matter what kind of season they are having and often, all teams must have a representative whether he is deserving or not. All Star Games is not an award worth considering.

I remember the 1992-93 season quite vividly and Lafontaine was amazing. Many of the goals and assists he picked up were breathtaking. It was awesome to watch him play with Mogilny. I wish he could have put up a few more seasons like that.

Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-25-2005, 10:04 PM
  #88
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,792
vCash: 500
Again, Ogopogo, you'll have to agree to disagree with me, just like everyone else. To me, it's foolishness to say that a one-and-a-half year wonder in Jim Carey is more deserving of the "greatness" label than a goalie who nearly single-handedly won several playoff series. It's not that I don't understand your system, I do. At the top end, it's fairly reflective of where players belong for the history of the game. It's just there are some flaws once one gets out of the top 10 or 12.

You have your definition of greatness. I have mine. You use awards/post-season all-star births. I use a steel-trap memory and research, talking to people in the know, to help me with players I'm too young to have watched/remembered. You say all award winners are, essentially, created equal. I say Martin St. Louis would not have been one of the top 20 players in the league in the 1980s, and was the best of a rather mediocre bunch in 2004.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
05-26-2005, 05:17 AM
  #89
Ola
Registered User
 
Ola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 17,827
vCash: 500
What do you guys think about Mats Sundin, should he be in?

Haven't won anything in the NHL but is among the best ever in International Hockey.

Ola is online now  
Old
05-26-2005, 11:31 AM
  #90
jamiebez
Registered User
 
jamiebez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Ottawa
Country: Canada
Posts: 3,541
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ola
What do you guys think about Mats Sundin, should he be in?

Haven't won anything in the NHL but is among the best ever in International Hockey.
I'd put him in the IIHF Hall of Fame (which specifically exists to honour those who excel in international play), but not the HHOF. Actually, same applies for Yashin, but there's not a lot of people clamoring to put him in the HHOF, so no debate there

I have a feeling Sundin will get in, for two reasons: he's captain of the Leafs, and he'll likely retire as the highest scoring Swede of all-time, but IMO he doesn't belong in there. He's had no real successes in terms of scoring titles, MVPs, awards, Cups, or numerous All-Star berths. When you compare him to other centres of his era (Lemieux, Sakic, Yzerman, and the afore-mentioned Lafontaine, St. Louis, Forsberg and Lindros) he doesn't stack up all that well.

jamiebez is offline  
Old
05-26-2005, 12:08 PM
  #91
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
Again, Ogopogo, you'll have to agree to disagree with me, just like everyone else. To me, it's foolishness to say that a one-and-a-half year wonder in Jim Carey is more deserving of the "greatness" label than a goalie who nearly single-handedly won several playoff series. It's not that I don't understand your system, I do. At the top end, it's fairly reflective of where players belong for the history of the game. It's just there are some flaws once one gets out of the top 10 or 12.

You have your definition of greatness. I have mine. You use awards/post-season all-star births. I use a steel-trap memory and research, talking to people in the know, to help me with players I'm too young to have watched/remembered. You say all award winners are, essentially, created equal. I say Martin St. Louis would not have been one of the top 20 players in the league in the 1980s, and was the best of a rather mediocre bunch in 2004.
What does your steel trap memory or sources tell you about Frank Boucher? Nels Stewart? Alex Connell?

Saying that St. Louis would not have been even a top 20 player in the 80s is plain foolishness. You let big numbers get you all hot 'n' bothered. The higher scoring totals of the 80s does not mean that those were the best players of all time. Just like the save % of today does not automatically mean that Ken Dryden and Bernie Parent would be 30th best goalies today.


Last edited by Ogopogo*: 05-26-2005 at 12:22 PM.
Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-26-2005, 03:34 PM
  #92
Hasbro
HFBoards Sponsor
 
Hasbro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: South Rectangle
Country: Sami
Posts: 30,454
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamiebez
I'd put him in the IIHF Hall of Fame (which specifically exists to honour those who excel in international play), but not the HHOF. Actually, same applies for Yashin, but there's not a lot of people clamoring to put him in the HHOF, so no debate there .
Well the name is Hockey Hall of Fame not NHL Hall of Fame.

Hasbro is online now  
Old
05-26-2005, 07:33 PM
  #93
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,792
vCash: 500
St. Louis not being a top-20 player in 1984 (or even mid-1990s) has nothing to do with bigger numbers back then. It has to do with the much greater depth of elite players. Guys like Perrault, Goulet, Federko, Propp, Kerr, Anderson, MacDonald, etc., were all better than St. Louis, not to mention the elite like Gretzky, Kurri, Messier, Savard, Hawerchuk, Stastny, Dionne, Trottier and Bossy. Others, like Yzerman, Francis, LaFontaine, Mats Naslund and Steve Larmer, were a couple years from hitting their stride. M. Lemieux entered the league the following year. (I haven't even touched on the defencemen).

As I've said before: the 70, 80s and early-to-mid 90s were the greatest collection of elite talent in NHL history. It's one of the biggest reasons for the higher offensive numbers. Why else do people talk about the 1976 and 1987 Canada Cup teams as the best ever? Because there was so much elite talent to choose from. One of the big reasons for the decline in scoring is the decline in elite talent.

Your Dryden and Parent is fallacious. Dryden and Parent are two of the best goalies in league history. Dryden got in the Hall based on seven or eight of the best seasons in NHL history. Parent put up a GAA under 2.00 in 1974, the last time that happened for 20 years. He consistently put up great numbers at the start of the offensive era. They were two of the last great stand-up goalies. Put them in today's NHL, with the equipment and training, and they'd be perennial Vezina favourites.

God Bless Canada is offline  
Old
05-26-2005, 10:21 PM
  #94
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada
St. Louis not being a top-20 player in 1984 (or even mid-1990s) has nothing to do with bigger numbers back then. It has to do with the much greater depth of elite players. Guys like Perrault, Goulet, Federko, Propp, Kerr, Anderson, MacDonald, etc., were all better than St. Louis, not to mention the elite like Gretzky, Kurri, Messier, Savard, Hawerchuk, Stastny, Dionne, Trottier and Bossy. Others, like Yzerman, Francis, LaFontaine, Mats Naslund and Steve Larmer, were a couple years from hitting their stride. M. Lemieux entered the league the following year. (I haven't even touched on the defencemen).

As I've said before: the 70, 80s and early-to-mid 90s were the greatest collection of elite talent in NHL history. It's one of the biggest reasons for the higher offensive numbers. Why else do people talk about the 1976 and 1987 Canada Cup teams as the best ever? Because there was so much elite talent to choose from. One of the big reasons for the decline in scoring is the decline in elite talent.

Your Dryden and Parent is fallacious. Dryden and Parent are two of the best goalies in league history. Dryden got in the Hall based on seven or eight of the best seasons in NHL history. Parent put up a GAA under 2.00 in 1974, the last time that happened for 20 years. He consistently put up great numbers at the start of the offensive era. They were two of the last great stand-up goalies. Put them in today's NHL, with the equipment and training, and they'd be perennial Vezina favourites.
So, you base this theory on your eyeballing the talent of the last three decades? Or, is there something concrete that makes you say the players of the 80s are better than today's players? For instance, why do you say that Perreault, Federko, Propp and Kerr are better than St. Louis? None of them ever won a scoring title or a Hart Trophy. What is it that makes them better? I love the 80s too but, I don't use my rose colored glasses when I consider the players from my favorite decade.

Your opinion is great. I can't argue with it, that is how you feel. It just does not provide anything concrete we can use to compare and evaluate the players. It is like my favorite color being green. It's not right or wrong, it just is. But, if you had something concrete, I might be able to see your point of view. I certainly don't have any concrete facts to convince you that green is better than red.


Last edited by Ogopogo*: 05-26-2005 at 10:34 PM.
Ogopogo* is offline  
Old
05-26-2005, 11:25 PM
  #95
jumptheshark
the burn out
 
jumptheshark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: hf retirement home
Country: United Nations
Posts: 54,892
vCash: 50
well

the hall of fame line in the sand usually starts aty

500 goals scored 1000pts---so until players get around that level--they wont get in(this is for forwards)


Lindros is at

356/817

forsberg is at 216/741----but the fact he does have rings raises his chances

and Lindros' attitude reduces his

so he is 144 goals shy of the 500 mark which is the key--1000 pts some say I am being too generous

jumptheshark 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 03:23 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.