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.

199 points on 347 goals= 57%...untouchable

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-01-2006, 01:34 PM
  #101
Whatever Man*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 831
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2007 Sens Rule! View Post
It isn't a joke. Orr was perhaps the smartest player ever to play aside from Gretzky. Doesn't matter when or where he would figure it out, very, very quickly.
So it's simply Mind over Matter?

Because of his great mind, 30+ years of Hockey evolution doesn't matter?

Good one.


Please don't stop, this is good.


Last edited by Whatever Man*: 08-01-2006 at 01:39 PM.
Whatever Man* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:35 PM
  #102
Rattray
Registered User
 
Rattray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
A "2 week getting used to period?"

You did it again! You've got some serious comedic talent bro....keep 'em coming.

Rattray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:36 PM
  #103
Rattray
Registered User
 
Rattray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bletchley View Post
So, let me get this straight: You can't see that the level of skill and talent is superior is today's game as compared to 1945?

A complete run down? Ok.

2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
1979
1978
1977
1976
1975
1974
1973
1972
1971
1970
1969
1968
1967
1966
1965
1964
1963
1962
1961
1960
1959
1958
1957
1956
1955
1954
1953
1952
1951
1950
1949
1948
1947
1946
1945
1944
1943
1942
1941
1940
1939
1938
1937
1936
1935
1934
1933
1932
1931
1930
1929
1928
1927
1926
1925
1924
1923
1922
1921
1920
1919
1918
1917
1916
1915
1914
1913
1912
1911
1910
1909
1908
1907
1906
1905
1904
1903
1902

Itís called evolution.
Hahah brilliant.....

Rattray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:42 PM
  #104
kurt
the last emperor
 
kurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,944
vCash: 500
Ogopogo, Rattray, Bletchley, and Cup 2007 Sens Rule!, and others:

If anything is "********", it is the trite, drunken debate taking place in this thread.

First off, I respect efforts to essentially compare apples to oranges, though all of us realize it's imperfect, for a lot of obvious reasons. Still, it's an interesting effort to boil individual performances down and compare them in a meaningful way.

However, I believe most hockey fans would understand that, for a variety of reasons, hockey today is much more sophisticated and advanced than the NHL hockey of old, and if someone had a "teleporter", as you discussed, there's no question that a player would have great difficulty playing in the league today.

However, Bobby Orr is not a player that serves this argument as well as selecting a player from the early 1900's. But for argument's sake, let's go ahead and use Bobby Orr as an example.

Keep in mind that while Orr played in an era with its own superstars, and dominated the league, one could question the quality of the depth of talent in the NHL during that time, for a number of reasons. During Orr's tenure, the league had 12-18 teams, and had yet to completely mine Europe of its skilled players. Players did not train the way they do today. Nutrition, supplements (and performance enhancers - sad but true, but another debate)and other factors have all had big impacts on players' abilities. More scientific coaching methodologies and technology (studying game tape), sophisiticated statistical analysis, etc has allowed teams to better match up against star players than ever before, and has significantly impacted improvements to goaltending. Additionally, one could argue that NHL salaries at that time did not equally provide the financial incentive for a depth player to make the sacrifices to pursue a pro hockey career, further diminishing the depth of talent at that time. All of these things contribute to the improvement to the depth of talent in the NHL.

Cup 2007, I hate to pick on you, but you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cup 2007 Sens Rule! View Post
you think Orr would have "problems making the NHL" as Pothier signs a 4 years $10 million deal"
We're talking about a career-projected number 6/7 defenseman, playing on the Washington capitals. If you were to compare Pothier to a 6/7 defenseman on a non-playoff team in the 1970's, I think you'd see a noteworthy improvement of depth in the NHL. I doubt you'd find many 6 foot, 200 pound players with the athleticism and fitness of Pothier filling such a role. As such, a player like Bobby Orr, would have a much more difficult time becoming a dominant player in the NHL. The size, strength, and speed of his opposition, the improved skill of depth players, as well as more prepared team systems, and far superior goaltending, would really put a cramp in Bobby Orr's style.

kurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:42 PM
  #105
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattray View Post
Hahah brilliant.....
Perfect. I just wanted confirmation that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:47 PM
  #106
Rattray
Registered User
 
Rattray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Perfect. I just wanted confirmation that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Keep tellin yourself that, NHL dinosaur.

Get with the times bro. It's 2006.

Rattray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:48 PM
  #107
Paxton Fettel
Registered User
 
Paxton Fettel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 6,342
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by fortier View Post
1988-89

Mario Lemieux did 199 points on 347 goals of his team: IT MEANS THAT HE CONTRIBUTE OF 57% OF THE GOALs

Nhl record

Just an idea on how he was alone:

OVECHKIN this year contribute to 45 % of the goals of the Washington Capitals....and we can say that......he was alone hey


Second best of all time: Lemieux WITH 53 % in 86-87 on 319 goals

Third Best: Gretzky : 52% with the oilers

so on 10 goals that the Pittsburgh Penguins did , Lemieux was on the scoresheet for almost 6 goals.



This record is untouchable ans nobody will ever approach this

This is really the real definition of a hart trophy winner.


Look the roster of the 1986-87.........................can i tell you that they were not close of the playoffs:

# Player Name GP G A Pts PIM GP G A Pts PIM
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Mario Lemieux................................. 77 70 98 168 92 -- -- -- -- --
Dan Quinn..................................... 70 40 39 79 50 -- -- -- -- --
Randy Cunneyworth............................. 71 35 39 74 141 -- -- -- -- --
Paul Coffey................................... 46 15 52 67 93 -- -- -- -- --
Doug Bodger................................... 69 14 31 45 103 -- -- -- -- --
Rob Brown..................................... 51 24 20 44 56 -- -- -- -- --
Dave Hunter, Edmonton......................... 21 3 3 6 6 -- -- -- -- --
Pittsburgh....................... 59 11 18 29 77 -- -- -- -- --
Totals........................... 80 14 21 35 83 -- -- -- -- --
Charlie Simmer................................ 50 11 17 28 24 -- -- -- -- --
Jock Callander................................ 41 11 16 27 45 -- -- -- -- --
* Craig Simpson................................. 21 13 13 26 34 -- -- -- -- --
Bryan Erickson, Los Angeles................... 42 6 15 21 20 -- -- -- -- --
Pittsburgh.................... 11 1 4 5 0 -- -- -- -- --
Totals........................ 53 7 19 26 20 -- -- -- -- --
Ville Siren................................... 58 1 20 21 62 -- -- -- -- --
Dave McLlwain................................. 66 11 8 19 40 -- -- -- -- --
Troy Loney.................................... 65 5 13 18 151 -- -- -- -- --
Phil Bourque.................................. 21 4 12 16 20 -- -- -- -- --
Dan Frawley................................... 47 6 8 14 152 -- -- -- -- --
Jim Johnson................................... 55 1 12 13 87 -- -- -- -- --
Randy Hillier................................. 55 1 12 13 144 -- -- -- -- --
Rod Buskas.................................... 76 4 8 12 206 -- -- -- -- --
Steve Gotaas.................................. 36 5 6 11 45 -- -- -- -- --
Zarley Zalapski............................... 15 3 8 11 7 -- -- -- -- --
* Moe Mantha.................................... 21 2 8 10 23 -- -- -- -- --
Bob Errey..................................... 17 3 6 9 18 -- -- -- -- --
Chris Dahlquist............................... 44 3 6 9 69 -- -- -- -- --
Mark Kachowski................................ 38 5 3 8 126 -- -- -- -- --
Perry Ganchar, Mtl. Canadiens................. 1 1 0 1 0 -- -- -- -- --
Pittsburgh..................... 30 2 5 7 36 -- -- -- -- --
Totals......................... 31 3 5 8 36 -- -- -- -- --
Wilf Paiement................................. 23 2 6 8 39 -- -- -- -- --
* Chris Kontos.................................. 36 1 7 8 12 -- -- -- -- --
Kevin Stevens................................. 16 5 2 7 8 -- -- -- -- --
* Dave Hannan................................... 21 4 3 7 23 -- -- -- -- --
Dwight Mathiasen.............................. 23 0 6 6 14 -- -- -- -- --
Wayne Van Dorp................................ 25 1 3 4 75 -- -- -- -- --
* Chris Joseph.................................. 17 0 4 4 12 -- -- -- -- --
Norm Schmidt.................................. 5 1 2 3 0 -- -- -- -- --
Todd Charlesworth............................. 6 2 0 2 2 -- -- -- -- --
Brad Aitken................................... 5 1 1 2 0 -- -- -- -- --
Lee Giffin.................................... 19 0 2 2 9 -- -- -- -- --
Frank Pietrangelo (G)......................... 21 0 2 2 2 -- -- -- -- --
Scott Gruhl................................... 6 1 0 1 0 -- -- -- -- --
Pat Mayer..................................... 1 0 0 0 4 -- -- -- -- --
Dave Goertz................................... 2 0 0 0 2 -- -- -- -- --
Warren Young.................................. 7 0 0 0 15 -- -- -- -- --
Jimmy Mann.................................... 9 0 0 0 53 -- -- -- -- --
Steve Guenette (G)............................ 19 0 0 0 2 -- -- -- -- --
Pat Riggin (G)................................ 22 0 0 0 12 -- -- -- -- --
Gilles Meloche (G)............................ 27 0 0 0 0 -- -- -- -- --
Bench 80 26
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------
Totals 319 520 839 2211
if Gretzky played that year for Pittsburgh but on a different line, Lemieux's number of 57% would go down to 35% maybe, although he'd still have 199 points

Paxton Fettel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:49 PM
  #108
Rattray
Registered User
 
Rattray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurt View Post
Ogopogo, Rattray, Bletchley, and Cup 2007 Sens Rule!, and others:

If anything is "********", it is the trite, drunken debate taking place in this thread.

First off, I respect efforts to essentially compare apples to oranges, though all of us realize it's imperfect, for a lot of obvious reasons. Still, it's an interesting effort to boil individual performances down and compare them in a meaningful way.

However, I believe most hockey fans would understand that, for a variety of reasons, hockey today is much more sophisticated and advanced than the NHL hockey of old, and if someone had a "teleporter", as you discussed, there's no question that a player would have great difficulty playing in the league today.

However, Bobby Orr is not a player that serves this argument as well as selecting a player from the early 1900's. But for argument's sake, let's go ahead and use Bobby Orr as an example.

Keep in mind that while Orr played in an era with its own superstars, and dominated the league, one could question the quality of the depth of talent in the NHL during that time, for a number of reasons. During Orr's tenure, the league had 12-18 teams, and had yet to completely mine Europe of its skilled players. Players did not train the way they do today. Nutrition, supplements (and performance enhancers - sad but true, but another debate)and other factors have all had big impacts on players' abilities. More scientific coaching methodologies and technology (studying game tape), sophisiticated statistical analysis, etc has allowed teams to better match up against star players than ever before, and has significantly impacted improvements to goaltending. Additionally, one could argue that NHL salaries at that time did not equally provide the financial incentive for a depth player to make the sacrifices to pursue a pro hockey career, further diminishing the depth of talent at that time. All of these things contribute to the improvement to the depth of talent in the NHL.

Cup 2007, I hate to pick on you, but you said:



We're talking about a career-projected number 6/7 defenseman, playing on the Washington capitals. If you were to compare Pothier to a 6/7 defenseman on a non-playoff team in the 1970's, I think you'd see a noteworthy improvement of depth in the NHL. I doubt you'd find many 6 foot, 200 pound players with the athleticism and fitness of Pothier filling such a role. As such, a player like Bobby Orr, would have a much more difficult time becoming a dominant player in the NHL. The size, strength, and speed of his opposition, the improved skill of depth players, as well as more prepared team systems, and far superior goaltending, would really put a cramp in Bobby Orr's style.

Awesome post. Sens fan just got owned.

Rattray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:49 PM
  #109
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurt View Post
Ogopogo, Rattray, Bletchley, and Cup 2007 Sens Rule!, and others:

If anything is "********", it is the trite, drunken debate taking place in this thread.

First off, I respect efforts to essentially compare apples to oranges, though all of us realize it's imperfect, for a lot of obvious reasons. Still, it's an interesting effort to boil individual performances down and compare them in a meaningful way.

However, I believe most hockey fans would understand that, for a variety of reasons, hockey today is much more sophisticated and advanced than the NHL hockey of old, and if someone had a "teleporter", as you discussed, there's no question that a player would have great difficulty playing in the league today.

However, Bobby Orr is not a player that serves this argument as well as selecting a player from the early 1900's. But for argument's sake, let's go ahead and use Bobby Orr as an example.

Keep in mind that while Orr played in an era with its own superstars, and dominated the league, one could question the quality of the depth of talent in the NHL during that time, for a number of reasons. During Orr's tenure, the league had 12-18 teams, and had yet to completely mine Europe of its skilled players. Players did not train the way they do today. Nutrition, supplements (and performance enhancers - sad but true, but another debate)and other factors have all had big impacts on players' abilities. More scientific coaching methodologies and technology (studying game tape), sophisiticated statistical analysis, etc has allowed teams to better match up against star players than ever before, and has significantly impacted improvements to goaltending. Additionally, one could argue that NHL salaries at that time did not equally provide the financial incentive for a depth player to make the sacrifices to pursue a pro hockey career, further diminishing the depth of talent at that time. All of these things contribute to the improvement to the depth of talent in the NHL.

Cup 2007, I hate to pick on you, but you said:



We're talking about a career-projected number 6/7 defenseman, playing on the Washington capitals. If you were to compare Pothier to a 6/7 defenseman on a non-playoff team in the 1970's, I think you'd see a noteworthy improvement of depth in the NHL. I doubt you'd find many 6 foot, 200 pound players with the athleticism and fitness of Pothier filling such a role. As such, a player like Bobby Orr, would have a much more difficult time becoming a dominant player in the NHL. The size, strength, and speed of his opposition, the improved skill of depth players, as well as more prepared team systems, and far superior goaltending, would really put a cramp in Bobby Orr's style.
Thanks for your contribution, kurt.

I have discussed the "deeper talent pool" argument in the past. In the 70s we didn't have all of the Europeans so, some people believe that the NHL was not nearly as good as today. OK, what about the 2 billion people in China and India? What if, hockey becomes huge in those nations in the next 20 years? Could it then be said that today's NHL is far inferior to that of 2030 because we had 2 billion less people to draw from?

My point is, evolution will always happen. players of 2050 will be bigger, stronger and faster and there will be more people than ever playing hockey. The bottom line is you still must compare players by how they dominate their own era. Every player in any given era has the same advantages of every other player in that era. Every future era has more advantages than the past.

You cannot expect a player of today to be dominant in 2050. Evolution will always take place.

The only correct way to evaluate players historically, is to compare how they dominated their peers. Just because billions of people on the other side of the world don't play hockey, is no reason to discredit NHL great. Every single season the NHL ices the BEST POSSIBLE product. Every player makes his mark by showing how well they compete with the best product the NHL has to offer. Worrying about players outside the NHL is fruitless.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:55 PM
  #110
bigjags*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Perfect. I just wanted confirmation that you have no idea what you are talking about.
So, youíre pretty much alluding that the game of hockey hasnít evolved through the years?

bigjags* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:56 PM
  #111
Whatever Man*
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Country: Canada
Posts: 831
vCash: 500
If it is a comparison of how much a player dominated his era, then it's Gretzky by a mile. As much as people want to say Orr dominated, therewere several others who at the time were on par with him. Other players won the Art Ross, Hart and Pearson trophies during Orr's prime. The same cannot be said about Gretzky who owned the Hart, Pearson and Art Ross Trophies for the better part of a decade. He could have won scoring titles on assists alone. He re-wrote almost every offensive record on the books. No one has ever dominated the league in that manner, for that long. If it is domination over thier peers that is your criteria for the best ever, then Gretzky is #1 by a long shot.

Whatever Man* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:57 PM
  #112
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bletchley View Post
So, youíre pretty much alluding that the game of hockey hasnít evolved through the years?
Read post #109

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:58 PM
  #113
bigjags*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
My point is, evolution will always happen. players of 2050 will be bigger, stronger and faster and there will be more people than ever playing hockey. The bottom line is you still must compare players by how they dominate their own era. Every player in any given era has the same advantages of every other player in that era. Every future era has more advantages than the past.
I agree 100%. That's why I said Orr would dominate this NHL is he was born in say 1980. If you teleported Orr to know he'd be a bum.

So, I totally agree with you that comparing different eras is almost impossible. I was merely getting a kick out of the fact that Sens Rules thinks Orr can make up 30 years of evolution in two weeks.

bigjags* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 01:59 PM
  #114
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by bletchley View Post
I agree 100%. That's why I said Orr would dominate this NHL is he was born in say 1980. If you teleported Orr to know he'd be a bum.

So, I totally agree with you that comparing different eras is almost impossible. I was merely getting a kick out of the fact that Sens Rules thinks Orr can make up 30 years of evolution in two weeks.
When you compare based on how a player dominated his era, it works quite well.

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 02:04 PM
  #115
bigjags*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
When you compare based on how a player dominated his era, it works quite well.
True. I know it's all relative. Anyway, I'm glad that's sorted out.

bigjags* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 02:11 PM
  #116
Rattray
Registered User
 
Rattray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
Based on your theory "Sens fan"....you give the Gump a "2 week getting used to" period, and he'd stone the likes of Jagr, Crosby, Ovechkin? Riiiiiiight.

[IMAGE]http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v210/JesGolbez/GUMP1.jpg[/IMAGE]

Rattray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 02:30 PM
  #117
bigjags*
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Toronto, ON
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,402
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattray View Post
Based on your theory "Sens fan"....you give the Gump a "2 week getting used to" period, and he'd stone the likes of Jagr, Crosby, Ovechkin? Riiiiiiight.

[IMAGE]http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v210/JesGolbez/GUMP1.jpg[/IMAGE]


That's pretty funny.

bigjags* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 02:32 PM
  #118
KariyaIsGod*
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 4,140
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattray View Post
Hahah brilliant.....
Actually, it's not at all.

There was no consideration fro equipment, nutrition, training methods.

How about this?

If the talent level is so much better now, you would be willing to say that if we transplanted Luongo into 1935, gave him no mask, old equipment, no modern training or exercise methods and war era nutrition, that he would dominate?

If you actually believe that, you have lost it.

KariyaIsGod* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 02:36 PM
  #119
Cawz
Registered User
 
Cawz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Oiler fan in Calgary
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,746
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KariyaIsGod View Post
Actually, it's not at all.

There was no consideration fro equipment, nutrition, training methods.

How about this?

If the talent level is so much better now, you would be willing to say that if we transplanted Luongo into 1935, gave him no mask, old equipment, no modern training or exercise methods and war era nutrition, that he would dominate?

If you actually believe that, you have lost it.
Ha, well played. Nice way to look at it.

People talk about how fast Orr was. Imagine if he was using todays equipment.

Cawz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 02:55 PM
  #120
GuloGulo
Registered User
 
GuloGulo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: trunkofacamaro
Country: Bahrain
Posts: 3,714
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by KariyaIsGod View Post
Actually, it's not at all.

There was no consideration fro equipment, nutrition, training methods.

How about this?

If the talent level is so much better now, you would be willing to say that if we transplanted Luongo into 1935, gave him no mask, old equipment, no modern training or exercise methods and war era nutrition, that he would dominate?

If you actually believe that, you have lost it.
After two weeks, he'd do an awful lot better than a player teleported the other way.

GuloGulo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 03:19 PM
  #121
kurt
the last emperor
 
kurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,944
vCash: 500
Thanks Ogopogo, for your response. I think I'll have an easier time addressing it in parts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
I have discussed the "deeper talent pool" argument in the past. In the 70s we didn't have all of the Europeans so, some people believe that the NHL was not nearly as good as today. OK, what about the 2 billion people in China and India? What if, hockey becomes huge in those nations in the next 20 years? Could it then be said that today's NHL is far inferior to that of 2030 because we had 2 billion less people to draw from?
I don't think it's so much the number of people to draw from, as it is the quality of people to draw from. Europe had legitimate hockey talent that was overlooked due to politics and prejudice, and the financial incentive wasn't strong enough to lure many players, both foreign and domestic.

Now that the NHL has established itself as the premiere league in the world, and financial incentives are in place, this is no longer as large of an issue. Collective strengths of players' unions in pro sports have enabled players to earn their market value. Teams are now able to generate the massive amounts of revenue. If players are good enough to play NHL hockey, they play NHL hockey (with a few exceptions, but a generally true statement). They rarely decide to stay home in their own country, or join the army, or become an accountant, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
My point is, evolution will always happen. players of 2050 will be bigger, stronger and faster and there will be more people than ever playing hockey.
I agree, evolution will continue, and players will get stronger, faster, smarter. The game will continue to improve. Today's hockey will likely pale in comparison to the hockey of tomorrow. Unless somehow hockey falls out of favour, and society loses interest in pro sports, then hockey could become inferior to today's product. Who knows. But you're absolutely correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
The bottom line is you still must compare players by how they dominate their own era. Every player in any given era has the same advantages of every other player in that era. Every future era has more advantages than the past.

You cannot expect a player of today to be dominant in 2050. Evolution will always take place. The only correct way to evaluate players historically, is to compare how they dominated their peers.
First, players may be compared in whichever manner hockey fans choose to compare them. There is no one, perfect method that they "must" use. I agree that your method of comparison is very meaningful, and serves to strip away the "era advantages" you describe. However, it's not the "only" way to compare players. In this thread, Rattay and Bletchley discussed putting Bobby Orr into a time machine. In that comparison, "era advantages" are very relevant. There are many ways to compare players, and each of those comparisons could be seen as "correct". Correct is subjective, and correct is different based on the purpose of comparison.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
Just because billions of people on the other side of the world don't play hockey, is no reason to discredit NHL great. Every single season the NHL ices the BEST POSSIBLE product. Every player makes his mark by showing how well they compete with the best product the NHL has to offer. Worrying about players outside the NHL is fruitless.
My example was discussing European countries, which did play hockey. Very well in fact. I think the Summit Series proved that. The fact is, during that time, the NHL did not ice the "best possible" product, due to politics, prejudice, and lack of incentive, as discussed above. Today, I would agree that worrying about players outside the NHL is fruitless, as in the modern era of hockey, scouts are scouring the globe to find the talent to improve their club. Players were overlooked in the past for many reasons. Other players decided on their own not to pursue hockey. Just because the NHL has consistently been the best league in the world for quite some time, does not mean that "they consistently iced the best possible product."

kurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 04:18 PM
  #122
Sens Rule
Registered User
 
Sens Rule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Country: Canada
Posts: 16,252
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rattray View Post
Based on your theory "Sens fan"....you give the Gump a "2 week getting used to" period, and he'd stone the likes of Jagr, Crosby, Ovechkin? Riiiiiiight.

[IMAGE]http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v210/JesGolbez/GUMP1.jpg[/IMAGE]
How is Gump Worseley Bobby Orr or Wayne Gretzky?

Sens Rule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 04:20 PM
  #123
Rattray
Registered User
 
Rattray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Country: Canada
Posts: 1,130
vCash: 500
He's a hall of famer with 5 cups....and one of the best of his era. Thats how.

Rattray is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 04:42 PM
  #124
Ogopogo*
 
Ogopogo*'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Edmonton
Country: Canada
Posts: 14,214
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by kurt View Post


My example was discussing European countries, which did play hockey. Very well in fact. I think the Summit Series proved that. The fact is, during that time, the NHL did not ice the "best possible" product, due to politics, prejudice, and lack of incentive, as discussed above. Today, I would agree that worrying about players outside the NHL is fruitless, as in the modern era of hockey, scouts are scouring the globe to find the talent to improve their club. Players were overlooked in the past for many reasons. Other players decided on their own not to pursue hockey. Just because the NHL has consistently been the best league in the world for quite some time, does not mean that "they consistently iced the best possible product."
So, do you believe that the lack of Europeans taints the careers of Orr, Howe, Hull and Esposito? Should their careers be considered less impressive because of the players that were outside of the NHL?

Ogopogo* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-01-2006, 05:24 PM
  #125
kurt
the last emperor
 
kurt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Victoria
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,944
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ogopogo View Post
So, do you believe that the lack of Europeans taints the careers of Orr, Howe, Hull and Esposito? Should their careers be considered less impressive because of the players that were outside of the NHL?
No, I'm simply saying their competition within the NHL wasn't the best it possibly could have been. However, my argument could be partly counter-balanced by the fact that there were half as many teams in the NHL at that time.

I'm not saying anyone's career is less impressive. I'm simply stating that there are many factors that would result in many of the NHL's past superstars having trouble asserting the same level of dominance in today's game, due to what you describe as "era advantages."

I don't think we're really disagreeing about anything.

In my opinion, all of these statements are true:
  1. Comparing players across different eras is difficult, for many reasons.
  2. Your method of comparing players by their relative dominance within their era of hockey is very insightful and meaningful, and serves well to rank players in terms of their impact on the game, in a way that "equalizes" different eras.
  3. Hockey has evolved considerably over time, in all aspects.
  4. Because hockey has evolved so much, it would be difficult for a dominant player of a past era to assert an equal level of dominance in the modern era of hockey.

kurt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Forum Jump


Bookmarks

Thread Tools

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

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



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:17 AM.

monitoring_string = "e4251c93e2ba248d29da988d93bf5144"
Contact Us - HFBoards - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Use - Advertise - Top - AdChoices

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2015 All Rights Reserved.