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.

Why is longevity so highly regarded?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
07-26-2010, 08:46 AM
  #1
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
Why is longevity so highly regarded?

I never understood why longevity was so highly regarded , except in the cases where a player just keep dominating outrageously for a longer period of times.Like some player will be destroying the league for 6 years , clearly being the best in the league and some people will put a guy with 20 years in the top 10 before him even if he never was one of the 2 or 3 best player.I might be mistaken with my exemple , and if so feel free to correct me but anyway just wanted to open this debate.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 08:58 AM
  #2
BraveCanadian
Registered User
 
BraveCanadian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 7,806
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReenMachine View Post
I never understood why longevity was so highly regarded , except in the cases where a player just keep dominating outrageously for a longer period of times.Like some player will be destroying the league for 6 years , clearly being the best in the league and some people will put a guy with 20 years in the top 10 before him even if he never was one of the 2 or 3 best player.I might be mistaken with my exemple , and if so feel free to correct me but anyway just wanted to open this debate.
Because being very good for a long time is just as difficult and maybe even more difficult as being extremely good for a short time.

Age isn't your friend when you are a professional athlete. Also being a top player for a long time generally shows you are able to adapt your game whereas a short peak could mean you were just in the "right place at the right time".

It is really tough to say which one is actually better.

BraveCanadian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 09:16 AM
  #3
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by BraveCanadian View Post
Because being very good for a long time is just as difficult and maybe even more difficult as being extremely good for a short time.

Age isn't your friend when you are a professional athlete. Also being a top player for a long time generally shows you are able to adapt your game whereas a short peak could mean you were just in the "right place at the right time".

It is really tough to say which one is actually better.
Wooah , in this particular conversation i'm talking about being the best or like second best which is never because you were at the right place at the right time.I also strongly disagree than being very good for a long time is more difficult than being ''great'' for a ''short'' time.Of course, if you talk about 1-3 years period then you have a point , but for 6 yrs +? I guess we need to agree to disagree on that one.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 09:27 AM
  #4
alanschu
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Country: Canada
Posts: 8,224
vCash: 500
What's an example, just to help make your point a little clearer.

alanschu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 09:52 AM
  #5
begbeee
Registered User
 
begbeee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Slovakia
Country: Slovakia
Posts: 4,012
vCash: 500
If you mean i.e. Lindros (short career but elite or Bure vs. Ciccarelli or Andreychuk), than yes, I value peak over longevity.

begbeee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 10:54 AM
  #6
tarheelhockey
Global Moderator
 
tarheelhockey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: The Triangle
Country: United States
Posts: 32,515
vCash: 500
Any sensible argument would take both into consideration.

tarheelhockey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 12:27 PM
  #7
joe_shannon_1983*
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Hamilton, Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,518
vCash: 500
Send a message via MSN to joe_shannon_1983*
Something makes me think that Jagr is who the original poster is referring to.

As for players being put in the top 10 despite never being one of the top 2-3 in the league at any point? I think everyone who goes on most people's top 10 list was either the best player in the NHL at some point during their careers, or at least very close.

Gretzky
Orr
Lemieux
Howe
Richard
Harvey
Shore
Beliveau
Hull
Lafleur
Roy
Sawchuk

and etc.

These are the types of guys you routinely see on top 10 lists. And every single one of them was the best player in the NHL at some point during their careers, with the lone exceptions being maybe Harvey, Roy, and Sawchuk. And the reason they weren't was because they had Howe, Gretzky, and Lemieux to compete against. Even then, they probably were amongst the top 2-3 players in the NHL that anyone wanting to win a Stanley Cup would have picked to be on their roster for the majority of their careers.

joe_shannon_1983* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 01:31 PM
  #8
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,268
vCash: 500
So Guy Lafleur is the guy who destroyed the league for 6 years and didn't do much outside that time frame.

Who is the guy who was a fringe top 10 player for 20 years that people rank over Lafleur?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 01:46 PM
  #9
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
So Guy Lafleur is the guy who destroyed the league for 6 years and didn't do much outside that time frame.

Who is the guy who was a fringe top 10 player for 20 years that people rank over Lafleur?
You got me there , of coruse maybe I exagerate by saying 6 years of being the best since there's not a lot of players that did that , as for your question the only one that ''kind of'' fit the description is Mark Messier.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 01:59 PM
  #10
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,268
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReenMachine View Post
You got me there , of coruse maybe I exagerate by saying 6 years of being the best since there's not a lot of players that did that , as for your question the only one that ''kind of'' fit the description is Mark Messier.
I was wondering if you'd say Messier. The thing is that Messier won 2 Hart Trophies and was runner-up to Mario Lemieux for a 3rd Hart trophy. He was also behind only Gretzky/Lemieux for 2 Art Rosses. Not to mention several dominant playoffs. So it's not like he was a fringe top 10 guy.

But I do see what you're saying; Lafleur was definitely more dominant than Messier when both were at their respective bests. I think most of us rank Lafleur over Messier, but not all do.

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 02:45 PM
  #11
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
I was wondering if you'd say Messier. The thing is that Messier won 2 Hart Trophies and was runner-up to Mario Lemieux for a 3rd Hart trophy. He was also behind only Gretzky/Lemieux for 2 Art Rosses. Not to mention several dominant playoffs. So it's not like he was a fringe top 10 guy.

But I do see what you're saying; Lafleur was definitely more dominant than Messier when both were at their respective bests. I think most of us rank Lafleur over Messier, but not all do.
Yeah that's why I said ''kind of'' , I thought Messier just won 1 hart trophy my bad.
He also had intangibles and was a great leader but whatever still put Lafleur ahead.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 03:13 PM
  #12
Merya
Finland u20 Champion
 
Merya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Helsinki
Country: Finland
Posts: 828
vCash: 500
Some people (like me), are more amazed by what players can do past the athletically best years. For example, if Selšnne had retired with the lockout, I wouldn't consider him nearly as great as I do now, after he came back after the lockout and put in two consecutive 40+ goal seasons at 35+, and was on pace for 41 goals at 39 last season.
Same reason why I like Gretzky and Howe more than Orr and Lemieux.
I appreciate playing very good at old alot, since the player really needs to train more, want it more, enjoy it more, be hungrier, etc. I guess it's me appreciating the psychological side of the player. (love for the game or whatever tagline )

ps. Or maybe the best term is "work ethic" ?

Merya is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-26-2010, 04:37 PM
  #13
Jarick
Moderator
Doing Nothing
 
Jarick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: St Paul, MN
Country: United States
Posts: 23,668
vCash: 500
For me even if a player is "hanging on" and getting 40-50 points, that's still an accomplishment. That means even past his prime, he's still an above average player.

Jarick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 12:39 AM
  #14
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,353
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merya View Post
Some people (like me), are more amazed by what players can do past the athletically best years. For example, if Selšnne had retired with the lockout, I wouldn't consider him nearly as great as I do now, after he came back after the lockout and put in two consecutive 40+ goal seasons at 35+, and was on pace for 41 goals at 39 last season.
Same reason why I like Gretzky and Howe more than Orr and Lemieux.
I appreciate playing very good at old alot, since the player really needs to train more, want it more, enjoy it more, be hungrier, etc. I guess it's me appreciating the psychological side of the player. (love for the game or whatever tagline )

ps. Or maybe the best term is "work ethic" ?
I think that we should give some weight to the length of each players career as it means something just like a peak or prime, everything needs to be evaluted and weighed to get a player's worth or value for everythign he has done in his career.

I think it comes down to personal preference as to how much weight people are going to give to the peak, prime and totality of each players career.

For me, I like to look at everything a player has done and take it into context, ie. historically, as the game has changed quite a bit over the years and continues to change.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 02:45 AM
  #15
Nalyd Psycho
Registered User
 
Nalyd Psycho's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: No Bandwagon
Country: Canada
Posts: 22,770
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReenMachine View Post
Wooah , in this particular conversation i'm talking about being the best or like second best which is never because you were at the right place at the right time.I also strongly disagree than being very good for a long time is more difficult than being ''great'' for a ''short'' time.Of course, if you talk about 1-3 years period then you have a point , but for 6 yrs +? I guess we need to agree to disagree on that one.
Brett Hull, Adam Oates right wing.

__________________
Every post comes with the Nalyd Psycho Seal of Approval.
Nalyd Psycho is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-27-2010, 06:00 PM
  #16
Scott1980
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Toronto
Country: Canada
Posts: 369
vCash: 500
Lafleur, weren't his years from 80/81 to 82/83 still pretty good? He had all kinds of injuries but kept up putting up good PPG average on a team in decline. I've watched him in the 81 Canada Cup, and he's still the Lafleur of old, to me.

Scott1980 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 12:51 PM
  #17
God Bless Canada
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bentley reunion
Country: Canada
Posts: 11,790
vCash: 500
Mark Recchi might fit the bill for what the OP is looking for. And I don't think we give Recchi enough credit for how remarkable he's been in the last few years.

Recchi's no longer the guy who led the league in assists, and whose wrist shot and snap shot were among the most dangerous in the game. But he's still a very good offensive player. It has been remarkable to see his offensive output surpass his age the last few years. Forty-something players are not supposed to score more than 40 points in the NHL. And a good Boston team still wants him to be part of their organization.

Recchi's not one-dimensional, but he is a guy who needs to be on a scoring line to be effective. He's not good enough defensively, or physical enough, to fit in with a traditional third or fourth line role. And he's still good enough offensively, and savvy enough, to play a second line role, even though he's at an age when players of his ilk are being debated for the HHOF, and not building their HHOF resume.

(For the record, I've said in the past that when I watch Recchi play, he's never screamed future HHOFer to me. At the same time, he's only 15 points away from reaching an absolutely incredible career points benchmark, a benchmark that includes 12 of the top 100 players of all-time. If you're good enough offensively to stick around long enough to reach 1,500 points, you should be in the HHOF. And Recchi has two Cup rings to boot).

As for the original question: why is longevity held in such high regard? To play one game in the NHL is an incredible feat. To score a goal in the NHL is even more incredible. The guys in the NHL really have no weaknesses. We talk about their weaknesses from an NHL perspective, but when you look at them within the context of the game, they don't have weaknesses. Even the "plugs" were probably elite scorers throughout their minor hockey, and possibly even junior/college days, but they had to adapt their games to stick in the NHL. And while there isn't a surplus of offensive players, there's no shortage of good defensive players, grinders and potential back-up goalies out there. If a player slips, he's riding a bus. You have to be a tremendous player to stick in The Show. And that's why we praise longevity.

God Bless Canada is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:08 PM
  #18
the edler
Inimitable
 
the edler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 2,447
vCash: 500
i think the reason is it looks good on a paper ... but it has nothing to do with how good a hockey player you are ... it has something to do with hard work, resiliency, and luck ...

it's like 'but, but i played 5 more season's than you, i must be better, i must be better ... '

the edler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:21 PM
  #19
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,027
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by God Bless Canada View Post
Mark Recchi might fit the bill for what the OP is looking for. And I don't think we give Recchi enough credit for how remarkable he's been in the last few years.

Recchi's no longer the guy who led the league in assists, and whose wrist shot and snap shot were among the most dangerous in the game. But he's still a very good offensive player. It has been remarkable to see his offensive output surpass his age the last few years. Forty-something players are not supposed to score more than 40 points in the NHL. And a good Boston team still wants him to be part of their organization.

Recchi's not one-dimensional, but he is a guy who needs to be on a scoring line to be effective. He's not good enough defensively, or physical enough, to fit in with a traditional third or fourth line role. And he's still good enough offensively, and savvy enough, to play a second line role, even though he's at an age when players of his ilk are being debated for the HHOF, and not building their HHOF resume.

(For the record, I've said in the past that when I watch Recchi play, he's never screamed future HHOFer to me. At the same time, he's only 15 points away from reaching an absolutely incredible career points benchmark, a benchmark that includes 12 of the top 100 players of all-time. If you're good enough offensively to stick around long enough to reach 1,500 points, you should be in the HHOF.
And he didn't need the high-scoring 80's to get there, either.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:34 PM
  #20
charliolemieux
rsTmf
 
charliolemieux's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Country: Canada
Posts: 9,569
vCash: 500
I think longevity is important because you have to be a great player to just make the NHL. To be able to maintain a high enough level to stick around for over a decade and a half as your skills diminish speaks volumes as to just how good you are.

charliolemieux is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 01:41 PM
  #21
BenchBrawl
joueur de hockey
 
BenchBrawl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,236
vCash: 50
It's just an opinion and I would like your thoughts on that , but don't you think the vast majority of elite players in the NHl when younger could still be playing if they haven't retire but they did because they can't accept to play in a reduced role once they slow down , and personally i'm not sure this kind of ego or thirst of dominance is a weakness , they just can't run the show any longer so they just quit the show.

BenchBrawl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
07-28-2010, 05:47 PM
  #22
Wet Sprocket
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 581
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nalyd Psycho View Post
Brett Hull, Adam Oates right wing.
also Bernie Nicholls 1988-1990 with Wayne Gretzky.

Wet Sprocket 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 04:08 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.