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.

Was Lidstrom a generational talent?

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old
09-13-2013, 12:43 AM
  #276
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Yep, the pool itself has grown, all true.
However, as has been stated a hundred times and more on this forum, an increase in available talent doesn‘t mean an increase in top or elite talent.

The reality is that while the tier 3 and 4 talent pool has expanded greatly over the years, the tier 1 and 2 pools have remained a relatively small and more or less finite amount.

So you can keep reguritating the talent pool increase rhetoric till you‘re blue in the face, it still doesn‘t really mean much in the context you‘re attempting to use it for.
the simple reality of it was that for over 50 years the NHL was primarily a league of the best Canadians in the world, a simple look at the all-star and awards voting throws your whole notion of 3 and 4th tiers out of the window like a dead weight.

Guys can ignore that reality but then need to be called out on it when they do IMO.

For the record Lidstrom wasn't a generational player, ie very few guys are coming up from the age of 14ish or so and full fill their promise, Sid would be the last guy like that, Lindros kinda flamed out.

But he was a generational type of player, basically a lock for top 5 in his position of all time and arguably the best (depending on the metric).

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 12:57 AM
  #277
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by thom View Post
A lot of Kids on this site the truth is the talent pool is much less than it was in 1980 most kids in eastern europe do not play hockey due to costs.When communism was alive kids played hockey all over because equipment and ice fees were close to nill.The reason Football is king in Quebec because highschools in Quebec pay for most of cost.The percentage of Kids playing hockey is small compared to 30 yrs ago.Most single parents cant afford to take their kid to six am practice and later to school.As for usa I will agree there has been a surge of kids playing but it is still very small.
This most likely explains why there are not longer any guys from Russia or Quebec ion the NHL right?

Wait the Q is larger and healthier than ever with recent expansion into the Maritimes where players have come so infrequently in the past.

Any argument of the talent pool being less, or less elite or watered down just doesn't hold a very good argument against the actual evidence provided.

The level of talent and competition in the NHL isn't a constant it has changed over time with expansion of teams and expansion of feeder pools of talent as well.

too often this is underplayed or downright ignored.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 03:12 AM
  #278
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This most likely explains why there are not longer any guys from Russia or Quebec ion the NHL right?

Wait the Q is larger and healthier than ever with recent expansion into the Maritimes where players have come so infrequently in the past.

Any argument of the talent pool being less, or less elite or watered down just doesn't hold a very good argument against the actual evidence provided.

The level of talent and competition in the NHL isn't a constant it has changed over time with expansion of teams and expansion of feeder pools of talent as well.

too often this is underplayed or downright ignored.
Except we are usually not talking about the over all talent pool around here. What we are usually talking about are the top less than 1%.

AGAIN!
The over all pool may have expanded greatly, just like the League has but the amount that the less than 1% has expanded isn‘t even faintly, remotely close to either of those numbers.

And seriously, that really is a fact.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 05:10 AM
  #279
Darth Yoda
Registered User
 
Darth Yoda's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Grovebranch's Crease
Country: Sweden
Posts: 2,758
vCash: 593
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This most likely explains why there are not longer any guys from Russia or Quebec ion the NHL right?

Wait the Q is larger and healthier than ever with recent expansion into the Maritimes where players have come so infrequently in the past.

Any argument of the talent pool being less, or less elite or watered down just doesn't hold a very good argument against the actual evidence provided.

The level of talent and competition in the NHL isn't a constant it has changed over time with expansion of teams and expansion of feeder pools of talent as well.

too often this is underplayed or downright ignored.
Yeah, and i have a feeling as well that in the past coaching amongst pee-wee was not as good so to a higher extent mainly players with extreme natural talent found even some of their potential. The extreme case is guys like Cyclone Taylor waaay back in the days who, just like most of their peers, did not play organised until a relatively high age. Nowadays the talent is taken care of well from the get go which should mean a higher percentage of well taught end products. What i'm trying to say is that i doubt talents in Czechoslovakia was very well taken care of in terms of mass. Playing around on the pond in itself hardly gives all that is nessessary for top level ice hockey.


Last edited by Darth Yoda: 09-13-2013 at 05:19 AM.
Darth Yoda is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 07:55 AM
  #280
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Except we are usually not talking about the over all talent pool around here. What we are usually talking about are the top less than 1%.

AGAIN!
The over all pool may have expanded greatly, just like the League has but the amount that the less than 1% has expanded isn‘t even faintly, remotely close to either of those numbers.

And seriously, that really is a fact.
Once again one simply has to look at all-star and post season award voting and perhaps top 10 and top 20 scoring lists to see that the reality is opposite of what you are describing here.

But then again don't let the facts get in the way of your argument.

Or are those top 10-20 scoring leaders not the top 1%? Or the guys in the top voting for awards?

What exactly is your metric here?

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 08:00 AM
  #281
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,735
vCash: 500
Distribution of the Talent Pool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
This most likely explains why there are not longer any guys from Russia or Quebec ion the NHL right?

Wait the Q is larger and healthier than ever with recent expansion into the Maritimes where players have come so infrequently in the past.

Any argument of the talent pool being less, or less elite or watered down just doesn't hold a very good argument against the actual evidence provided.

The level of talent and competition in the NHL isn't a constant it has changed over time with expansion of teams and expansion of feeder pools of talent as well.

too often this is underplayed or downright ignored.
Again not addressing the actual talent pool but the distribution of the talent pool.

Example post WWII the junior leagues in Canada were concentrated around Montreal and Toronto with a weaker group in the central prairie provinces. So western elite juniors - Gordie Howe, Floral Sask, Andy and Frank Bathgate, Winnipeg,Man either went to the USHL, pro USA league or played as imports in the OHA - Guelph. Maritimers would come to Toronto - Parker MacDonald,Al MacNeil, or Quebec-John Hanna or played senior as juniors.

Just a question of access to development and how the talent pool is distributed at the junior level.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 08:12 AM
  #282
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Again not addressing the actual talent pool but the distribution of the talent pool.

Example post WWII the junior leagues in Canada were concentrated around Montreal and Toronto with a weaker group in the central prairie provinces. So western elite juniors - Gordie Howe, Floral Sask, Andy and Frank Bathgate, Winnipeg,Man either went to the USHL, pro USA league or played as imports in the OHA - Guelph. Maritimers would come to Toronto - Parker MacDonald,Al MacNeil, or Quebec-John Hanna or played senior as juniors.

Just a question of access to development and how the talent pool is distributed at the junior level.

I guess one could argue that the talent pool hasn't increased since the 90's, that's the 1890's, if one really wanted to right?

the fact of the matter is that there are more feeder systems to the NHL with players from many more geographic areas as we move along chronologically.

I guess it's possible that elite talent hasn't increased but it's almost next to impossible that it hasn't, to some degree.

The hill some are standing on here is made literally of quicksand.

Lidstrom was a generational player is possibly the most competitive time ever in the NHL.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 08:17 AM
  #283
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,735
vCash: 500
Coaching

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Yoda View Post
Yeah, and i have a feeling as well that in the past coaching amongst pee-wee was not as good so to a higher extent mainly players with extreme natural talent found even some of their potential. The extreme case is guys like Cyclone Taylor waaay back in the days who, just like most of their peers, did not play organised until a relatively high age. Nowadays the talent is taken care of well from the get go which should mean a higher percentage of well taught end products. What i'm trying to say is that i doubt talents in Czechoslovakia was very well taken care of in terms of mass. Playing around on the pond in itself hardly gives all that is nessessary for top level ice hockey.
Pond hockey is a romantic narrative which allowed youngsters extra hockey time in an unstructured format at NO COST.

Well into the sixties the local schools and community centers dominated hockey development with educators with a solid hockey background running the programs and coaching.

Prime example of the strength of high school hockey from the twenties is found in the following profile of Jack McGill:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=6683%2C799160

BTW, hockey development in Canada during the last generation is trending back to the schools.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 10:13 AM
  #284
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Except we are usually not talking about the over all talent pool around here. What we are usually talking about are the top less than 1%.

AGAIN!
The over all pool may have expanded greatly, just like the League has but the amount that the less than 1% has expanded isn‘t even faintly, remotely close to either of those numbers.

And seriously, that really is a fact.
You seem to not know what the definition of "fact" is.

You are admitting that even talent pool making up the 1% has genreally increased then?

If the talent pool grows substantially why wouldn't it affect every tier? Even if it didn't affect the very best (say the best defenseman) then wouldn't his dominance be comparably less if the next 9 top dmen were generally better because of the increased talent pool?

That, in turn, would impact how people see and view that player. Remove Lidstrom's career from the NHL and suddenly Pronger, Niedermayer, and Blake's (etc.) careers look much more impressive. It doesn't actually mean they were any better, of course, just that they had less competition.

danincanada is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 10:24 AM
  #285
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canadiens1958 View Post
Pond hockey is a romantic narrative which allowed youngsters extra hockey time in an unstructured format at NO COST.

Well into the sixties the local schools and community centers dominated hockey development with educators with a solid hockey background running the programs and coaching.

Prime example of the strength of high school hockey from the twenties is found in the following profile of Jack McGill:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id...=6683%2C799160

BTW, hockey development in Canada during the last generation is trending back to the schools.
I'd love for hockey to be more accessible to kids and apparently Mark Messier has a program that is trying to help with that.

...but it is an expensive sport to play for obvious reasons. There is certainly demand for more ice here in Toronto and the GTA though. We have several new rinks and most now come with multiple pads of ice:

http://www.downsviewpark.ca/content/ice

This one is just opening up now and has 4 playing surfaces. I will play there this winter.

https://bluenet.ucc.on.ca/wilder-arena

This one opened in 2009 and has 2 playing surfaces. It's in a very wealthy part of Toronto. I was lucky enough to play there last weekend on an Olympic sized rink.

My hometown now has another rink and it's common for a lot of towns north of Toronto to have multiple rinks now while they only had one when I was growing up. Hockey is still growing in Canada and hopefully it will continue to grow. From all reports it's the US that is really growing the sport right now.

danincanada is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 10:45 AM
  #286
Canadiens1958
Registered User
 
Canadiens1958's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 10,735
vCash: 500
Other Factors

Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
I'd love for hockey to be more accessible to kids and apparently Mark Messier has a program that is trying to help with that.

...but it is an expensive sport to play for obvious reasons. There is certainly demand for more ice here in Toronto and the GTA though. We have several new rinks and most now come with multiple pads of ice:

http://www.downsviewpark.ca/content/ice

This one is just opening up now and has 4 playing surfaces. I will play there this winter.

https://bluenet.ucc.on.ca/wilder-arena

This one opened in 2009 and has 2 playing surfaces. It's in a very wealthy part of Toronto. I was lucky enough to play there last weekend on an Olympic sized rink.

My hometown now has another rink and it's common for a lot of towns north of Toronto to have multiple rinks now while they only had one when I was growing up. Hockey is still growing in Canada and hopefully it will continue to grow. From all reports it's the US that is really growing the sport right now.
There are two other important factors to consider.

Existing arenas are underused until 5PM weekdays during the school year. Many only open at 3PM. Schools getting back into hockey has changed this recently since they rent the 9AM-5PM hours. So ice time is optimized at the arenas, costs are reduced.

Travel time. Kids going to school and playing hockey for an external organization have to travel four times a day - back and forth to school, back and forth to hockey. Likewise coaches, administrators, parents and others that work. School hockey with educator/coaches and compact logistics reduces this to a single, efficient back and forth with everyone home for supper weekdays. This does allow the keeners to play for two teams. So be it.

Still there is a huge saving in travel and related expenses plus time is put to better use than dealing with traffic.

Canadiens1958 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 11:12 AM
  #287
Epsilon
#TeamHolland
 
Epsilon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Florence, SC
Posts: 35,405
vCash: 500
Does this discussion have to come up in every thread on here? It's like the Godwin's Law of the HoH board.

Epsilon is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 12:02 PM
  #288
Peter9
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Los Angeles, USA
Country: United States
Posts: 363
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarheelhockey View Post
I actually thought about doing both of those things. The main reason I put Bourque up there was that it didn't seem right to have 8 forwards above the #2 defenseman. For a similar reason, I ended up deleting the goalies out of frustration with trying to rank them properly.

But yeah, I'd say Bourque and Potvin are the guys who could very easily bump up or down depending on how much emphasis a person places on longevity, team success, etc.
i had to laugh at this. Wasn't Harvey ranked above Bourque in the recent Best Defenseman voting? Yes, he was, and you ignore that vote. Harvey, not Bourque, is the No. 2 defenseman according to this Board's vote. And you also rank Bourque above Harvey on your all-player pyramid. Harvey ranks with Beliveau and Richard. For more than a decade he ran the Canadiens team. Bourque does not rank with Beliveau and Richard. Watch some of the clips of the Canadiens of the late 1950s. Substantial portions of periods 1 and 3 of Game 2 of the 1960 Stanley Cup finals are now available and they show just how magisterial and magnifient Harvey was.

Peter9 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 01:02 PM
  #289
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter9 View Post
i had to laugh at this. Wasn't Harvey ranked above Bourque in the recent Best Defenseman voting? Yes, he was, and you ignore that vote. Harvey, not Bourque, is the No. 2 defenseman according to this Board's vote. And you also rank Bourque above Harvey on your all-player pyramid. Harvey ranks with Beliveau and Richard. For more than a decade he ran the Canadiens team. Bourque does not rank with Beliveau and Richard. Watch some of the clips of the Canadiens of the late 1950s. Substantial portions of periods 1 and 3 of Game 2 of the 1960 Stanley Cup finals are now available and they show just how magisterial and magnifient Harvey was.
The lists in this section are not the final answer or absolute authority for cross era comparisons and player rankings. There is really nothing scientific whatsoever about ranking players who never even stepped on the same ice surface and didn't face the same competition, it's a lot of opinions and flat out guessing. Heck, a lot of the rankings involve reading newspaper clippings about certain players and going on second hand opinions.

I undersand that you adore Doug Harvey and that's fine but you, or anybody else, has any idea how he would actually fair in todays NHL or another era. I don't even bother ranking across eras for this very reason. {Mod}


Last edited by Killion: 09-13-2013 at 01:30 PM. Reason: not reqd...
danincanada is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 01:40 PM
  #290
Fugu
Administrator
HFBoards
 
Fugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 29,006
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
The lists in this section are not the final answer or absolute authority for cross era comparisons and player rankings. There is really nothing scientific whatsoever about ranking players who never even stepped on the same ice surface and didn't face the same competition, it's a lot of opinions and flat out guessing. Heck, a lot of the rankings involve reading newspaper clippings about certain players and going on second hand opinions.

I undersand that you adore Doug Harvey and that's fine but you, or anybody else, has any idea how he would actually fair in todays NHL or another era. I don't even bother ranking across eras for this very reason. {Mod}
One of my preferred methods for assessing the rare talents is to see what his peers, and former players, had to say about someone.

I cannot get the article any longer (April 2008, Detroit News), which James Mirtle linked to on his original blog as well, but it was Orr commenting on Lidstrom. Iirc, he felt Lids was right in that group of the greatest (leaving out himself, of course). Lidstrom is quoted a couple months later saying he didn't feel he was in Orr's and Harvey's league.

I'll just accept that those three belong on any top 3 list, and indeed did something unique and that will not be easily (or ever) replicated.

Fugu is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 03:06 PM
  #291
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
You seem to not know what the definition of "fact" is.

You are admitting that even talent pool making up the 1% has genreally increased then?

If the talent pool grows substantially why wouldn't it affect every tier? Even if it didn't affect the very best (say the best defenseman) then wouldn't his dominance be comparably less if the next 9 top dmen were generally better because of the increased talent pool?

That, in turn, would impact how people see and view that player. Remove Lidstrom's career from the NHL and suddenly Pronger, Niedermayer, and Blake's (etc.) careers look much more impressive. It doesn't actually mean they were any better, of course, just that they had less competition.

Of course that less than 1% increases but it also decreases regardless of how big the pool is.
The league was never deeper or had more less than 1%ers than at the beginning of the 90's. Seriously, we were downright spoiled by the number of top Elite players in the League at that time.
So now, 30 years and 9 more teams later, we have fewer raw less than 1%ers now than we did then despite the increased talent pool.

So by all means, explain how this fits into your arguments.
And don't even attempt to say it's equal as I can pretty much guarantee you that I can name 3 players from the early 90's for every 2 today that you name in such an exercise.

Whether the talent pool is a 100k strong or a million strong doesn't seem to matter with these special players, they arrive or they don't.


Last edited by Rhiessan71: 09-13-2013 at 03:14 PM.
Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 04:04 PM
  #292
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
Of course that less than 1% increases but it also decreases regardless of how big the pool is.
The league was never deeper or had more less than 1%ers than at the beginning of the 90's. Seriously, we were downright spoiled by the number of top Elite players in the League at that time.
So now, 30 years and 9 more teams later, we have fewer raw less than 1%ers now than we did then despite the increased talent pool.

So by all means, explain how this fits into your arguments.
And don't even attempt to say it's equal as I can pretty much guarantee you that I can name 3 players from the early 90's for every 2 today that you name in such an exercise.

Whether the talent pool is a 100k strong or a million strong doesn't seem to matter with these special players, they arrive or they don't.
I'd say '93 or '94 when most of the best Russians were here and really started to adjust to the NHL and North America was a great time for us fans. The style of play was more wide open as well. I don't think the talent level has decreased since then though, other than not having someone as gifted offensively as Lemieux now.

I really think you're underestimating the players of today. There is loads of talent and skill, and players are generally more well rounded now, so much so that it's difficult to even make a list of the top 20 forwards because there are more like 50 that belong on any given day or game. It was difficult for players to stand out at the Olympics because of this as well, players seem to be maximizing their abilities because they train and prepare nearly 12 months a year.

The odds are far greater for having "special" players and more of them when the talent pool is larger. As long as people love the sport, have an aptitude for it, and work hard at improving, why wouldn't it increase with the talent pool? It's really all about human potential and bringing it out of athletes.

danincanada is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 05:12 PM
  #293
Fredrik_71
Registered User
 
Fredrik_71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Sweden
Country: Sweden
Posts: 1,008
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
I'd say '93 or '94 when most of the best Russians were here and really started to adjust to the NHL and North America was a great time for us fans. The style of play was more wide open as well. I don't think the talent level has decreased since then though, other than not having someone as gifted offensively as Lemieux now.

I really think you're underestimating the players of today. There is loads of talent and skill, and players are generally more well rounded now, so much so that it's difficult to even make a list of the top 20 forwards because there are more like 50 that belong on any given day or game. It was difficult for players to stand out at the Olympics because of this as well, players seem to be maximizing their abilities because they train and prepare nearly 12 months a year.

The odds are far greater for having "special" players and more of them when the talent pool is larger. As long as people love the sport, have an aptitude for it, and work hard at improving, why wouldn't it increase with the talent pool? It's really all about human potential and bringing it out of athletes.
I definitely agree with this post. Hockey has never been bigger concerning the number of players and the talent pool . The goal of these talents is to play in the NHL! To conclude that hockey was better in the old days is wrong. With that said a player of Gretzky's potential is probably once in a lifetime experience.

Fredrik_71 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 10:08 PM
  #294
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by danincanada View Post
I'd say '93 or '94 when most of the best Russians were here and really started to adjust to the NHL and North America was a great time for us fans. The style of play was more wide open as well. I don't think the talent level has decreased since then though, other than not having someone as gifted offensively as Lemieux now.

I really think you're underestimating the players of today. There is loads of talent and skill, and players are generally more well rounded now, so much so that it's difficult to even make a list of the top 20 forwards because there are more like 50 that belong on any given day or game. It was difficult for players to stand out at the Olympics because of this as well, players seem to be maximizing their abilities because they train and prepare nearly 12 months a year.

The odds are far greater for having "special" players and more of them when the talent pool is larger. As long as people love the sport, have an aptitude for it, and work hard at improving, why wouldn't it increase with the talent pool? It's really all about human potential and bringing it out of athletes.
That's just it, it's only the odds that have increased and there is no guarantee that the actual number will increase.
You could add 1000 players to the poll and be lucky to get 1 special player, you could also add 10000 players and still only get that 1 player.

As far as who belongs in that "special" group, you are wrong, there are not 50 players in that category.
Right now there are 3. Two play for the Pens and one plays for the Caps. These three players have been consistently a step above everyone else since the '05 LO.
These are the SPECIAL players I'm talking about.

Think about the early 90's for a second, just off the top of my head...
Gretzky
Lemieux
Jagr
Bourque
Chelios
Roy
Hasek
Yzerman
Fedorov
Lindros
Messier

And that's just a quick sample list. I didn't even include the Forsberg's, the Sakic's, the Selanne's, the Molgilney's or the Bure's among others. Now even name me 10 equal players to match my short list from today, good luck with that.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
09-13-2013, 10:23 PM
  #295
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,010
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That's just it, it's only the odds that have increased and there is no guarantee that the actual number will increase.
You could add 1000 players to the poll and be lucky to get 1 special player, you could also add 10000 players and still only get that 1 player.

As far as who belongs in that "special" group, you are wrong, there are not 50 players in that category.
Right now there are 3. Two play for the Pens and one plays for the Caps. These three players have been consistently a step above everyone else since the '05 LO.
These are the SPECIAL players I'm talking about.

Think about the early 90's for a second, just off the top of my head...
Gretzky
Lemieux
Jagr
Bourque
Chelios
Roy
Hasek
Yzerman
Fedorov
Lindros
Messier

And that's just a quick sample list. I didn't even include the Forsberg's, the Sakic's, the Selanne's, the Molgilney's or the Bure's among others. Now even name me 10 equal players to match my short list from today, good luck with that.
Exactly what season or time frame are you referring to when you call these guys "special'?

A couple of guys from Detroit, well 3 of them say hi, including Lidstrom, you know the guy this thread is about and the guy who won 4 Norris trophies post lockout.

Hardyvan123 is offline  
Old
09-14-2013, 12:38 AM
  #296
Wrath
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 974
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Exactly what season or time frame are you referring to when you call these guys "special'?

A couple of guys from Detroit, well 3 of them say hi, including Lidstrom, you know the guy this thread is about and the guy who won 4 Norris trophies post lockout.
I'd say since 2005 lockout players whom are of that caliber are:

Lidstrom
Crosby
Ovechkin
Malkin


and.... that's about it. As good as Chara/Weber are, can't compare to Bourque or Chelios. As good as Datsyuk/Stamkos are, they can't compare to even Fedorov/Lindros/Messier in their primes. Lundqvist is on the edge, but since he isn't lapping the field like Roy/Hasek in their peaks he needs some sort of longevity argument.


Also to say that Zetterberg is a "SPECIAL" player is a huge stretch. That's like saying Doug Gilmour was a "SPECIAL" player.

Wrath is online now  
Old
09-14-2013, 01:49 AM
  #297
RorschachWJK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kuusamo
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
the simple reality of it was that for over 50 years the NHL was primarily a league of the best Canadians in the world, a simple look at the all-star and awards voting throws your whole notion of 3 and 4th tiers out of the window like a dead weight.

Guys can ignore that reality but then need to be called out on it when they do IMO.

For the record Lidstrom wasn't a generational player, ie very few guys are coming up from the age of 14ish or so and full fill their promise, Sid would be the last guy like that, Lindros kinda flamed out.

But he was a generational type of player, basically a lock for top 5 in his position of all time and arguably the best (depending on the metric).
I agree with a lot of this, except the bolded part. There isn't anything to argue, nothing depends on any metrics. Two words: Bobby Orr.

What is arguable, however, is where Lidström sits in the top five behind Orr. A few place him even second, a few even outside top 5. I think he is somewhere from 3rd to 5th.

RorschachWJK is offline  
Old
09-14-2013, 01:52 AM
  #298
RorschachWJK
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Kuusamo
Country: Finland
Posts: 3,375
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wrath View Post
I'd say since 2005 lockout players whom are of that caliber are:

Lidstrom
Crosby
Ovechkin
Malkin


and.... that's about it. As good as Chara/Weber are, can't compare to Bourque or Chelios. As good as Datsyuk/Stamkos are, they can't compare to even Fedorov/Lindros/Messier in their primes. Lundqvist is on the edge, but since he isn't lapping the field like Roy/Hasek in their peaks he needs some sort of longevity argument.



Also to say that Zetterberg is a "SPECIAL" player is a huge stretch. That's like saying Doug Gilmour was a "SPECIAL" player.
What he said.

RorschachWJK is offline  
Old
09-14-2013, 03:21 AM
  #299
Rhiessan71
Just a Fool
 
Rhiessan71's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Guelph, Ont
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,880
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Exactly what season or time frame are you referring to when you call these guys "special'?

A couple of guys from Detroit, well 3 of them say hi, including Lidstrom, you know the guy this thread is about and the guy who won 4 Norris trophies post lockout.
Re-read what I posted, then re-read what you said here and then try again.

Rhiessan71 is offline  
Old
09-14-2013, 07:01 AM
  #300
danincanada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,018
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
That's just it, it's only the odds that have increased and there is no guarantee that the actual number will increase.
You could add 1000 players to the poll and be lucky to get 1 special player, you could also add 10000 players and still only get that 1 player.
There are no guarantees in life, period, but if the talent pool grows substantially then why wouldn't there be more "elite" players? Is there a lack of coaching? Nope, that has grown, too. Is there a lack of facilities? Nope, that has grown as well. Are todays athletes inherently worse? Hehe, no way. The players of today actually take their craft very seriously, and usually at an earlier age, and like everyone knows, they train nearly 12 months a year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
As far as who belongs in that "special" group, you are wrong, there are not 50 players in that category.
Right now there are 3. Two play for the Pens and one plays for the Caps. These three players have been consistently a step above everyone else since the '05 LO.
For a former goalie you sure appreciate pure offense a lot and dismiss all around players and defensive play. Crosby, Malkin, and Ovechkin have not consistently separated themselves from everyone else in terms of overall value on the ice. Aside from goalies, Chara, Weber, Keith, Karlsson, Datsyuk, Zetterberg, Toews, Kane, Getzlaf, Kopitar, Stamkos, Tavares, Bergeron, etc., have been in the same stratosphere, or flirted with it at times. Many more will in the near future. The fact that you think only those 3 are "elite" says a lot about what you value in the player. I have a much different view of the game.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhiessan71 View Post
These are the SPECIAL players I'm talking about.

Think about the early 90's for a second, just off the top of my head...
Gretzky
Lemieux
Jagr
Bourque
Chelios
Roy
Hasek
Yzerman
Fedorov
Lindros
Messier

And that's just a quick sample list. I didn't even include the Forsberg's, the Sakic's, the Selanne's, the Molgilney's or the Bure's among others. Now even name me 10 equal players to match my short list from today, good luck with that.
You are using the optics of these players being finished their careers. We can view their whole careers and remember them at their very best, then apply it to a certain season. Most of the players I would name still have years left to accomplish more or even improve. When their careers are done people will be able to look at the whole picture and it will appear to look better.

If you put a player like Kopitar in the early 90's and told him he didn't need to concentrate on back checking or defense as much, and play against the players at that time, he'd put up huge numbers and would look favourable with that list. He's got it all, size, strength, goal scoring ability, playmaking ability, hockey IQ, work ethic, and leadership - he is an elite player in every sense of the term. It's not his fault there are so many other elite players, great goalies, coaching strategies, and strong defensive play, which all help cancel him out and make him look less dominant.

Don't listen to me though, analysts like Pierre McQuire, who is friends and coached with Scotty Bowman says this all the time. I heard him point to what I'm saying several time last season on TSN 1050 in Toronto. The players of today keep pushing the envelope and they are generally better than ever. He's not just trying to sell the game either, (this was on in Toronto, which doesn't need to be sold on hockey) he really believes it.

danincanada 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 12:19 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.