HFBoards

Go Back   HFBoards > NHL Eastern Conference > Metropolitan Division > Philadelphia Flyers
Mobile Hockey's Future Become a Sponsor Site Rules Support Forum vBookie Page 2
Notices

Will Bobby Ryan eventually come to Philly? Maybe?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
02-16-2010, 04:27 PM
  #76
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomark View Post
What has this got to do with anything?
It means historical comparisons (such as, "who was the most talented player in franchise history") are absolutely useless if you decide to remove historical context from the discussion.

Eric Lindros was a ridiculously better conditioned, trained, etc. athlete than anyone back then.

So is Riley Cote.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:30 PM
  #77
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It means historical comparisons (such as, "who was the most talented player in franchise history") are absolutely useless if you decide to remove historical context from the discussion.

Eric Lindros was a ridiculously better conditioned, trained, etc. athlete than anyone back then.

So is Riley Cote.
i agree with what you are saying but you might have gotten a little over enthusiastic

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:31 PM
  #78
Lomark
Registered User
 
Lomark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It means historical comparisons (such as, "who was the most talented player in franchise history") are absolutely useless if you decide to remove historical context from the discussion.

Eric Lindros was a ridiculously better conditioned, trained, etc. athlete than anyone back then.

So is Riley Cote.
Fine. Eric Lindros was easily the most talented player to ever play for us (if you compare every player to the players of their time).

Lomark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:34 PM
  #79
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,556
vCash: 500
if you were to do it by standard deviations above the mean/median of players at their time then it is probably lindros.

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:36 PM
  #80
Lomark
Registered User
 
Lomark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
if you were to do it by standard deviations above the mean/median of players at their time then it is probably lindros.
There's no other way of doing it. Like Jester himself said; Gretzky would never score 200 points in todays NHL. Yet, I (and just about everyone else) view him as the best player ever, along with Orr and Lemieux.

Lomark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:38 PM
  #81
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
i agree with what you are saying but you might have gotten a little over enthusiastic
Riley Cote...could physically demolish those guys in the 70s. It would be ugly. Dave Schultz was 6'1" 190 lbs. Cote is 6'2" 220 lbs...and those 30 lbs are muscle. And thats before getting into his MMA and boxing training.



40 years ago, Riley Cote would have been a dominant physical player.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomark View Post
Fine. Eric Lindros was easily the most talented player to ever play for us (if you compare every player to the players of their time).
Clarke's three Harts' to Lindros' one disagree. Clarke was a marginally weaker offensive player over the course of his career, and a significantly better defensive player...including being one of the best PKers to ever lace 'em up for the Flyers.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:38 PM
  #82
Feed Me A Stray Cat
Registered User
 
Feed Me A Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Boston, MA
Country: United States
Posts: 11,582
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to Feed Me A Stray Cat
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
It means historical comparisons (such as, "who was the most talented player in franchise history") are absolutely useless if you decide to remove historical context from the discussion.

Eric Lindros was a ridiculously better conditioned, trained, etc. athlete than anyone back then.

So is Riley Cote.
Sure, maybe on a nominal basis, players today are better. But the only thing that really matters is how a player played in his era. If Wayne Gretzky had the benefit of today's training, etc., you can bet he would have been better than he was back then.

You mentioned historical context but don't seem to really understand what it means.

Feed Me A Stray Cat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:43 PM
  #83
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
if you were to do it by standard deviations above the mean/median of players at their time then it is probably lindros.
Actually, if you want to do it that way, it's not favorable to Lindros. The drop off in talent from the 1st to 4th line has closed MASSIVELY over the years. One of the reasons a guy like Gretzky could put up 200 pts is because the bottom pairing D and bottom 6 guys used to be way down the talent totem pole. The biggest impact of better training, coaching, etc. is that it has closed the gap on that front. Individual talent matters less today than it did back then.

The argument presented above that Lindros was the best player on the ice no matter who we were playing...is very debatable. Numerous players in the league throughout Lindros' career you could make the case for, the most obvious being Jagr.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:43 PM
  #84
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomark View Post
There's no other way of doing it. Like Jester himself said; Gretzky would never score 200 points in todays NHL. Yet, I (and just about everyone else) view him as the best player ever, along with Orr and Lemieux.
sure there is, its the first thing they teach you in statistics; how to compare baseball records from different generations.

"greatness" is just how far ahead you are of those around you.

as sports progress, the deviation gets smaller, but it always remains a normal curve so you can still count standard deviations.

like when babe ruth played the average player was much worse than the players today, also there was more variation between players since the process of going pro wasnt as rigorous as it is today. but babe was so far ahead of his competitors that you would need to go through 1,000,000 players of the time to get him. while players today may be better, they are not as impressive because they arent outliers.

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:45 PM
  #85
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feed Me A Stray Cat View Post
Sure, maybe on a nominal basis, players today are better. But the only thing that really matters is how a player played in his era. If Wayne Gretzky had the benefit of today's training, etc., you can bet he would have been better than he was back then.

You mentioned historical context but don't seem to really understand what it means.
...what?

Yes, in the hypothetical world where we can flatten the world and have everyone train the same way, eat the same way, and play in the same era...your point has value.

In reality, we can't. They played when they did and you have to deal with them when they did.

However, I also don't think Gretzky was significantly better than Crosby, for example, and I cannot imagine Crosby ever getting near the point totals Gretzky put up because of the way the game has matured over the last 25 years.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:47 PM
  #86
Lomark
Registered User
 
Lomark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
I have a question for you Jester...




Who would you rather be?

GM1 - It's 1969, you have Bobby Clarke on your roster and a entry draft is about to start.

GM2 - It's 1992, you have Eric Lindros on your roster and a entry draft is about to start.




If you say GM1, you really view Clarke as the most talented player to ever play for us and I probably can't win an argument on the matter.

If you say GM2, I've made my point.

If you start to deflect the question at hand, you really just don't like Lindros because of what transpired during his years with us and can't see the forest because of all the trees.






No offence but I really have strong views on Lindros and hate when his talent gets questioned....

Lomark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:47 PM
  #87
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Actually, if you want to do it that way, it's not favorable to Lindros. The drop off in talent from the 1st to 4th line has closed MASSIVELY over the years. One of the reasons a guy like Gretzky could put up 200 pts is because the bottom pairing D and bottom 6 guys used to be way down the talent totem pole. The biggest impact of better training, coaching, etc. is that it has closed the gap on that front. Individual talent matters less today than it did back then.

The argument presented above that Lindros was the best player on the ice no matter who we were playing...is very debatable. Numerous players in the league throughout Lindros' career you could make the case for, the most obvious being Jagr.
using standard deviations doesnt hurt lindros because even though he was not as far ahead of the 4th liners as gretzky was, since the league was closer together (talent wise) the standard deviations were smaller.

SO actually lindros would not have to have as much a gap between him and 4th liners to achieve as many standard deviations difference.

wiki has a good breakdown as always...i am butchering the explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

look at the part on standard deviation.

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:54 PM
  #88
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomark View Post
I have a question for you Jester...




Who would you rather be?

GM1 - It's 1969, you have Bobby Clarke on your roster and a entry draft is about to start.

GM2 - It's 1992, you have Eric Lindros on your roster and a entry draft is about to start.




If you say GM1, you really view Clarke as the most talented player to ever play for us and I probably can't win an argument on the matter.

If you say GM2, I've made my point.
GM1 won 2 Stanley Cups, had a 3 time Hart Trophy winner, and Selke Trophy winner on his roster. GM2 reached the Stanley Cup Finals and got swept.

Screw comparing their talent, if you choose #2 you simply don't care about, ya know, winning.

Quote:
If you start to deflect the question at hand, you really just don't like Lindros because of what transpired during his years with us and can't see the forest because of all the trees.
I loathe Lindros for what transpired. I spent a summer mowing lawns to buy an authentic Lindros jersey his rookie season...only to have him eventually take a massive dump on the city and team I grew up adoring.

But, then again, probably less of an issue from afar.

Doesn't mean I did not and do not recognize how good he was...if you look around at other discussions of Lindros, you'll always find me noting how much of a force he was in the league in his prime.

Quote:
No offence but I really have strong views on Lindros and hate when his talent gets questioned....
Who is questioning his talent? You think claiming that the Captain of two cup teams, and 3 Hart Trophies...might have been a better hockey player is some negative critique?

Sensitive much?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:56 PM
  #89
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
GM1 won 2 Stanley Cups, had a 3 time Hart Trophy winner, and Selke Trophy winner on his roster. GM2 reached the Stanley Cup Finals and got swept.

Screw comparing their talent, if you choose #2 you simply don't care about, ya know, winning.



I loathe Lindros for what transpired. I spent a summer mowing lawns to buy an authentic Lindros jersey his rookie season...only to have him eventually take a massive dump on the city and team I grew up adoring.

But, then again, probably less of an issue from afar.

Doesn't mean I did not and do not recognize how good he was...if you look around at other discussions of Lindros, you'll always find me noting how much of a force he was in the league in his prime.



Who is questioning his talent? You think claiming that the Captain of two cup teams, and 3 Hart Trophies...might have been a better hockey player is some negative critique?

Sensitive much?
wait lomark is lindros backwards!
no wait... my bad

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 04:59 PM
  #90
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuckrr View Post
using standard deviations doesnt hurt lindros because even though he was not as far ahead of the 4th liners as gretzky was, since the league was closer together (talent wise) the standard deviations were smaller.

SO actually lindros would not have to have as much a gap between him and 4th liners to achieve as many standard deviations difference.

wiki has a good breakdown as always...i am butchering the explanation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution

look at the part on standard deviation.
That's all true, but the tightening of the standard deviation does not make his talent superior to that of others. The role of talent was reduced as the level of athleticism was raised. Do I think stick skills have increased much over the past 40 years? No. Do I think guys ability to skate and cover space, knock guys off pucks, etc. have improved...yes.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 05:02 PM
  #91
Lomark
Registered User
 
Lomark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Country: Sweden
Posts: 600
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
GM1 won 2 Stanley Cups, had a 3 time Hart Trophy winner, and Selke Trophy winner on his roster. GM2 reached the Stanley Cup Finals and got swept.

Screw comparing their talent, if you choose #2 you simply don't care about, ya know, winning.



I loathe Lindros for what transpired. I spent a summer mowing lawns to buy an authentic Lindros jersey his rookie season...only to have him eventually take a massive dump on the city and team I grew up adoring.

But, then again, probably less of an issue from afar.

Doesn't mean I did not and do not recognize how good he was...if you look around at other discussions of Lindros, you'll always find me noting how much of a force he was in the league in his prime.



Who is questioning his talent? You think claiming that the Captain of two cup teams, and 3 Hart Trophies...might have been a better hockey player is some negative critique?

Sensitive much?
The statement was; Lindros was the most talented player to ever play for us. You responded; Clarke and Parent says hi.

It wasn't; who achieved more (because we all know one player wins the cup on his own right? God I hate the cup ring argument) or who managed to stay away from injuries in a better way...

So who is the sensitive one really? Good job on playing the "you're foreign card". I couldn't possibly care about the Flyers right? I knew you would do this tho, I predicted it in my last post. I'm done. Have a good day sir.

Lomark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 05:03 PM
  #92
tuckrr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,556
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
That's all true, but the tightening of the standard deviation does not make his talent superior to that of others. The role of talent was reduced as the level of athleticism was raised. Do I think stick skills have increased much over the past 40 years? No. Do I think guys ability to skate and cover space, knock guys off pucks, etc. have improved...yes.
so we arent going off of best? just skilled? my bad, i was just going all around ability not just talent...

but even still you could compare stick skills (if you could quantify) via standard deviation from different eras/generations.

tuckrr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 05:13 PM
  #93
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomark View Post
The statement was; Lindros was the most talented player to ever play for us. You responded; Clarke and Parent says hi.
No, it was:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snevik View Post
this brings me to something i've worried about for a while: is there anything less than consensus that lindros was the best hockey player ever to wear O&B?

certainly did not have the best career overall, but if you remember him at his best, this isn't even close. people know that, and aren't tainted by the ancillary ****, right?
Bernie Parent, without question, is the best hockey player to ever play for this franchise if you ignore position.

And Bobby Clarke at least deserves comparison to Lindros.

Lindros' best season: 47-68-115 +26 in 73 games.
Clarke's best season: 30-89-119 +83 in 76 games.

It's debatable.

Quote:
It wasn't; who achieved more (because we all know one player wins the cup on his own right? God I hate the cup ring argument) or who managed to stay away from injuries in a better way...
Cuz, ya know, one of the greatest leaders in the sport--a reason why the Flyers won those Cups--should have that discredited because the guy you're comparing him to didn't win a Cup. You pile on top of that the fact that Lindros was an effing TERRIBLE leader, to the point where good players were traded away because he and his parents didn't like something about their game.

Quote:
So who is the sensitive one really? Good job on playing the "you're foreign card". I couldn't possibly care about the Flyers right? I knew you would do this tho, I predicted it in my last post. I'm done. Have a good day sir.
I actually didn't play the "your foreign" card...I played the "it probably doesn't sting as much from afar" card. After you played the ever popular, "well, you're just biased card." While admitting...that you're biased in Lindros' favor, clearly.

And, yes, I don't think you can fully appreciate the situation from afar. You weren't living here listening to the crap on 610 WIP, reading it in the newspapers, hearing the interviews on CSN...all the time. So, from afar, I'm sure the falling out was sanitized considerably from what we had to deal with here in Philly.

Again...sensitive much?

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 05:18 PM
  #94
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
...what?

Yes, in the hypothetical world where we can flatten the world and have everyone train the same way, eat the same way, and play in the same era...your point has value.

In reality, we can't. They played when they did and you have to deal with them when they did.

However, I also don't think Gretzky was significantly better than Crosby, for example, and I cannot imagine Crosby ever getting near the point totals Gretzky put up because of the way the game has matured over the last 25 years.
I have to take issue with this statement. I agree that Gretz obviously doesn't put up his 200 point seasons, but considering AO is on a 135 point pace over a full season, I think I could see Gretz hitting 150-160 in his prime in 09-10, compare that to Sid who's on pace for 103.

I think Sid's going to be a top-10 guy all-time and he's a fantastic player, but I don't know if anyone's ever going to match Gretzky's pure awareness ever again, watching some clips of him, even with less talented opposition, it's just supernatural.

I do think his goal totals would be way, way down, based on this year, Sid would probably outscore him.

FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 05:24 PM
  #95
Tripod
Registered User
 
Tripod's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 8,216
vCash: 500
As a Lindros fan...I would still say Clarke.

Tripod is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 05:31 PM
  #96
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyHigh View Post
I have to take issue with this statement. I agree that Gretz obviously doesn't put up his 200 point seasons, but considering AO is on a 135 point pace over a full season, I think I could see Gretz hitting 150-160 in his prime in 09-10, compare that to Sid who's on pace for 103.

I think Sid's going to be a top-10 guy all-time and he's a fantastic player, but I don't know if anyone's ever going to match Gretzky's pure awareness ever again, watching some clips of him, even with less talented opposition, it's just supernatural.

I do think his goal totals would be way, way down, based on this year, Sid would probably outscore him.
I think you need to take a few things into consideration when looking at Gretzky's point totals to what he might do if you put him in the modern NHL.

For starters, there is no way he puts up the shooting % he did during his prime years against modern goaltending. He shot 26.9% when he potted 87 goals. The highest % of anyone with 100 SOG is Knuble, at 21.7%. So, you would see Gretzky's goal totals come down on that front alone.

When Gretzky scored 215 pts, the Oilers scored 426 goals. The Caps are BY FAR the best offensive team in the league, and they're on pace for 320 goals.

Do I think Gretzky could put up some big time numbers in the modern NHL? Absolutely. Do I think it would be SCARY what Crosby would get done if you stuck him with some real talent on his wings that we could compare to Gretzky's Oiler teams? Yeah.

At the end of the day, the real thing is that Gretzky played in an era of 300 goal teams, weak defenses, and poor goalies. His prime years all came prior to the shift really occurred in the NHL, and Crosby, Ovechkin (who also has some great linemates), etc. are all playing under new realities.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 05:42 PM
  #97
mikedifr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 8,359
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
Riley Cote...could physically demolish those guys in the 70s. It would be ugly. Dave Schultz was 6'1" 190 lbs. Cote is 6'2" 220 lbs...and those 30 lbs are muscle. And thats before getting into his MMA and boxing training.



40 years ago, Riley Cote would have been a dominant physical player.



Clarke's three Harts' to Lindros' one disagree. Clarke was a marginally weaker offensive player over the course of his career, and a significantly better defensive player...including being one of the best PKers to ever lace 'em up for the Flyers.
He was a better defensive player, but I think you are selling Lindros short on that front....He was a very good defensive player. Maybe not elite, but very good.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lomark View Post
I have a question for you Jester...




Who would you rather be?

GM1 - It's 1969, you have Bobby Clarke on your roster and a entry draft is about to start.

GM2 - It's 1992, you have Eric Lindros on your roster and a entry draft is about to start.




If you say GM1, you really view Clarke as the most talented player to ever play for us and I probably can't win an argument on the matter.

If you say GM2, I've made my point.

If you start to deflect the question at hand, you really just don't like Lindros because of what transpired during his years with us and can't see the forest because of all the trees.






No offence but I really have strong views on Lindros and hate when his talent gets questioned....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
GM1 won 2 Stanley Cups, had a 3 time Hart Trophy winner, and Selke Trophy winner on his roster. GM2 reached the Stanley Cup Finals and got swept.

Screw comparing their talent, if you choose #2 you simply don't care about, ya know, winning.



I loathe Lindros for what transpired. I spent a summer mowing lawns to buy an authentic Lindros jersey his rookie season...only to have him eventually take a massive dump on the city and team I grew up adoring.

But, then again, probably less of an issue from afar.

Doesn't mean I did not and do not recognize how good he was...if you look around at other discussions of Lindros, you'll always find me noting how much of a force he was in the league in his prime.



Who is questioning his talent? You think claiming that the Captain of two cup teams, and 3 Hart Trophies...might have been a better hockey player is some negative critique?

Sensitive much?
Jester, like you always point out in other debates, you are using a lot of hindsight in that debate. I dont think anyone questions Bobby Clarke vs. Eric Lindros if both are standing there available in a draft where you have no idea what they will do in the NHL...Lindros is picked 99 out of a 100 times. Clarke was passed over 16 times after all.....Lindros was picked #1.

Physical talent isnt even comparable (with the exception of maybe Clarke's passing ability) The difference between the two was in the leadership, heart, etc.

Lindros' was scoring at a pace only matched by Lemieux and Gretzky for the majority of his time with the Flyers, during an era where scoring was WAY down.

With that said, not to take anything away from Clarke, but give Lindros a hall of fame goalie during his time and I bet you he has two cups! Also, when did Lindros have a 50 goal scorer on the second line behind him??? The Bullies are severely underrated for the hockey talent they had on that team.

Also curious as to why you think he **** on the city or however you put it? His parents were obviously a royal pain in the ass but how can you blame Lindros for the team being willing to put up with it? They are the ones that should have put their foot down. I can go ask my boss to fire the people on my team a million times, he is going to say screw you!

mikedifr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 05:55 PM
  #98
Jester
Registered User
 
Jester's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: St. Andrews
Country: Scotland
Posts: 34,075
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by mikedifr View Post
He was a better defensive player, but I think you are selling Lindros short on that front....He was a very good defensive player. Maybe not elite, but very good.
He was a significantly better defensive player...and arguably one of the best PKers in the history of the league.

Quote:
Jester, like you always point out in other debates, you are using a lot of hindsight in that debate. I dont think anyone questions Bobby Clarke vs. Eric Lindros if both are standing there available in a draft where you have no idea what they will do in the NHL...Lindros is picked 99 out of a 100 times. Clarke was passed over 16 times after all.....Lindros was picked #1.
It's a discussion of two players whose careers are over...if you're drafting at the time, of course you take Lindros over Clarke...as folks did. Clarke got passed over by a lot of teams because of questions about his game and diabetes.

But if you're discussing the two players after the fact...then, yes, hindsight is in play and needs to be.

Quote:
Physical talent isnt even comparable (with the exception of maybe Clarke's passing ability) The difference between the two was in the leadership, heart, etc.
As said, physical talent for a current 4th liner isn't even comparable to 40 years ago.

Quote:
Lindros' was scoring at a pace only matched by Lemieux and Gretzky for the majority of his time with the Flyers, during an era where scoring was WAY down.
Well, Jagr was matching it during that time period. And both Lemiux and Gretzky blew away his point scoring pace in their primes.

Quote:
With that said, not to take anything away from Clarke, but give Lindros a hall of fame goalie during his time and I bet you he has two cups! Also, when did Lindros have a 50 goal scorer on the second line behind him??? The Bullies are severely underrated for the hockey talent they had on that team.
Lindros just had a guy that went to Carolina and helped lead that team to a Cup (as the Captain) behind him.

Lindros certainly could have used greater help on that club, and if you wander over to my discussion with Shafer I think the history of the organization is a bit different if they ever had an elite goalie. However, that's kind of irrelevant to having a conversation about two individual players.

I'm not saying Lindros isn't better than Clarke, but to suggest it isn't even close is ridiculous. And to throw a hissy fit that someone did is a joke.

Jester is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 06:26 PM
  #99
FlyHigh
Registered User
 
FlyHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 28,156
vCash: 500
Send a message via AIM to FlyHigh Send a message via MSN to FlyHigh
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jester View Post
I think you need to take a few things into consideration when looking at Gretzky's point totals to what he might do if you put him in the modern NHL.

For starters, there is no way he puts up the shooting % he did during his prime years against modern goaltending. He shot 26.9% when he potted 87 goals. The highest % of anyone with 100 SOG is Knuble, at 21.7%. So, you would see Gretzky's goal totals come down on that front alone.

When Gretzky scored 215 pts, the Oilers scored 426 goals. The Caps are BY FAR the best offensive team in the league, and they're on pace for 320 goals.

Do I think Gretzky could put up some big time numbers in the modern NHL? Absolutely. Do I think it would be SCARY what Crosby would get done if you stuck him with some real talent on his wings that we could compare to Gretzky's Oiler teams? Yeah.

At the end of the day, the real thing is that Gretzky played in an era of 300 goal teams, weak defenses, and poor goalies. His prime years all came prior to the shift really occurred in the NHL, and Crosby, Ovechkin (who also has some great linemates), etc. are all playing under new realities.
Re: goals, I agree, but I still think Gretz would be a 40 goal guy, he was a pretty decent finisher around the net (where Sid has got a lot of his goals).

Re: wingers, he is playing with Kunitz who is a 50-60 point guy not to mention Malkin. I think having another top-3 offensive player on his team does count a lot in comparisons because that is one other guy who defenses have to pay a lot of attention to. I mean, in 08-09, Malkin outperformed him.

Also, Kurri only topped 40 goals once after Gretzky left in 9 seasons and Gretz left when he was 28, so I think you have to say that Kurri's totals were pretty seriously inflated.

EDIT: Also, in 1996-97, a 35 year-old Gretzky had 25 goals and 97 points on a team that had good forwards, but nothing too spectacular, league averaged 5.83 goals per game. In 08-09, 21 year-old Crosby put up 33 goals, 103 points in a league averaging 5.83 goals per game on a team that had another top-3 offensive player in the league.


Last edited by FlyHigh: 02-16-2010 at 06:34 PM.
FlyHigh is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
02-16-2010, 06:34 PM
  #100
healthyscratch
Registered User
 
healthyscratch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philly
Posts: 5,104
vCash: 500
nevermind

healthyscratch 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 10:30 AM.

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

vBulletin Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
HFBoards.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.