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.

So after 09-10, are Crosby and Ovie in the HoH top 100 yet?

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old
08-23-2010, 07:58 PM
  #101
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
While Fedorov was certainly never the leader of the Red Wings, he was always good in the playoffs, even when they lost, even when Yzerman and/or Lidstrom had bad games or series.
This is true.

Fedorov was one of the few guys that the saying, "You can't just turn it on like a switch" did not apply to.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 08:28 PM
  #102
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
You Suck McBain!
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Ovechkin has a .714 goals per game average in the playoffs. That ranks numero uno all-time. Guess he's done OK in the playoffs.
He's done that in the 3 first rounds and 1 second round.

His goal-scoring has been very good, but he's faltered in important games, and racking up stats in the early rounds of the playoffs are no substitute, and no match, for long runs to the Finals with 1st and 2nd place finishes in playoff scoring. Projecting early playoff totals to long playoff runs is dubious, to say the least. With that line of thinking, you could say Theo Fleury was a better post-season performer than Joe Sakic in the '90s.

The playoff resume is a distinct advantage for Crosby, and it's as pronounced as Ovechkin's trophy lead in the regular season.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 09:17 PM
  #103
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,253
vCash: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
No semblence of logic and understanding does seem appropriate to this exchange, that's for sure.

Your first point is correct, Sedin was not the best player in the league this year. He was voted the most valuable. The most outstanding player in the league is the definition of the Lindsay Award, which was won by Ovechkin. For the 3rd straight year.

I'm comparing 2 players over the exact same time frame at the exact same point in their careers. OK, lets throw out the Awards these 2 great players have already garnered. What are we comparing them on now? Who's faster? Who's smarter? Who's better looking?

I take it you want to compare the success of their teams, correct? Well, that is exactly as stated, the success of their teams, not the success of the individuals.

Please make your argument for how Ovechkin hasn't had a better first 5 seasons than Crosby.

Really? So you think the only way of judging skill and accomplishments is by looking at trophies? You don't see any other way of doing it?

Trophies are meaningless. MEANINGLESS. Now before you go off on me, please read my entire thought process:

Look at how a season goes. Players go out on the ice, we examine their every move, we see what they accomplish, we judge who the better player is.

..then once the season is over some joke like... just to pick a name off the top of my head... Stan Fischler, votes on who he thought had the best season.

Let's say he thinks Ovechkin had the better season. And then let's say the majority of the writers say Ovechkin had the better season. Then we hold a nice little Vegas party and give Ovechkin a nice, shiny trophy.

Does that mean anything? Hell no. Why would a bunch writer's opinions suddenly move a player leaps and bounds over another player?

Players should be judged by what they do on the ice. And on the ice, the seasons go like this:

1: Slight edge to Ovechkin by 4 points
2: Huge edge to Crosby
3: Huge edge to Ovechkin in the regular season, but we see the birth of Crosby the playoff beast
4: Edge to Ovechkin, but again, Crosby tears it up in the playoffs
5: Tie


Look at that. Compare them, season by season. Are you saying Ovechkin is leaps and bounds ahead of Crosby by that? Really? To me, they look extremely close.

But yet, if you count trophies and throw logic out the window, like you've been doing, then Ovechkin is 3 times the player Crosby is.

Trophies don't matter. If 2 players have a really close season on the ice, and a bunch of writers proclaim one of the players as being better and more trophy worthy, does he suddenly become better? No. Legends aren't made in Las Vegas. Legends are made on the ice.

Stop throwing logic and understanding out the window. Thanks so much.


Last edited by SidGenoMario: 08-23-2010 at 09:48 PM.
SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 10:47 PM
  #104
TheDevilMadeMe
Global Moderator
 
TheDevilMadeMe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Brooklyn
Country: United States
Posts: 39,167
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champagne Wishes View Post
He's done that in the 3 first rounds and 1 second round.

His goal-scoring has been very good, but he's faltered in important games, and racking up stats in the early rounds of the playoffs are no substitute, and no match, for long runs to the Finals with 1st and 2nd place finishes in playoff scoring. Projecting early playoff totals to long playoff runs is dubious, to say the least. With that line of thinking, you could say Theo Fleury was a better post-season performer than Joe Sakic in the '90s.

The playoff resume is a distinct advantage for Crosby, and it's as pronounced as Ovechkin's trophy lead in the regular season.
While I agree with this for the most part, it's also true that Crosby has had far more help on his team. Think of it this way - if chokers Green and Semin, and whatever goalie of the month Washington used performed as well in the playoffs as Gonchar, Malkin, and Fleury, what would Ovechkin's playoff resume look like?

TheDevilMadeMe is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 11:08 PM
  #105
Regal
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,946
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
As well as offensive numbers.

If you think Mario's first five seasons were as good as Ovechkin's, I take it you didn't see him play much in those years.

When Mario came into the league his first great accomplishment was to play less defense than Gretzky. His effort was negligible defensively for most of his first 3 seasons. And unlike Gretzky's situation, this was a huge detriment to the success of his team. It took until his 5th season to get into a playoff game, but it was really in his 4th season that Mario started to carry the Penguins as a player & leader.
Because Ovechkin's defense is great? I could see an argument for Ovechkin and Mario's first three seasons as being close, and perhaps taking Ovechkin, but Mario's 4th and 5th year are so far beyond anything Ovechkin's done that I don't really see how anyone could take Ovechkin.

Ovechkin's first five years certainly are up their with the best of all-time, but so are Crosby's

Regal is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 11:08 PM
  #106
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
You Suck McBain!
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDevilMadeMe View Post
While I agree with this for the most part, it's also true that Crosby has had far more help on his team. Think of it this way - if chokers Green and Semin, and whatever goalie of the month Washington used performed as well in the playoffs as Gonchar, Malkin, and Fleury, what would Ovechkin's playoff resume look like?
They're what-ifs.

What if Crosby had consistent linemates the calibre of Backstrom, Semin, and Knuble in the regular season rather than a rotating cast of Guerin, Kunitz, Dupuis, and Satan over the past couple years?

Ovie's had more help regarding his scoring totals, Sid's had more help in terms of playoff performers elsewhere in the line-up. I acknowledge that it works both ways.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-23-2010, 11:11 PM
  #107
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
As well as offensive numbers.

If you think Mario's first five seasons were as good as Ovechkin's, I take it you didn't see him play much in those years.

When Mario came into the league his first great accomplishment was to play less defense than Gretzky. His effort was negligible defensively for most of his first 3 seasons. And unlike Gretzky's situation, this was a huge detriment to the success of his team. It took until his 5th season to get into a playoff game, but it was really in his 4th season that Mario started to carry the Penguins as a player & leader.
Why is it so hard to think Mario was better from 85-89? Ovechkin will never produce a season like Mario did in 88 and 89.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 01:03 PM
  #108
KrugLife
Registered Champion
 
KrugLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Winchesterfieldville
Country: United States
Posts: 2,591
vCash: 500
Yes to the OP's question.

KrugLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 06:18 PM
  #109
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Why is it so hard to think Mario was better from 85-89? Ovechkin will never produce a season like Mario did in 88 and 89.
Because I saw him play.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 06:49 PM
  #110
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Really? So you think the only way of judging skill and accomplishments is by looking at trophies? You don't see any other way of doing it?

Trophies are meaningless. MEANINGLESS. Now before you go off on me, please read my entire thought process:

Look at how a season goes. Players go out on the ice, we examine their every move, we see what they accomplish, we judge who the better player is.

..then once the season is over some joke like... just to pick a name off the top of my head... Stan Fischler, votes on who he thought had the best season.

Let's say he thinks Ovechkin had the better season. And then let's say the majority of the writers say Ovechkin had the better season. Then we hold a nice little Vegas party and give Ovechkin a nice, shiny trophy.

Does that mean anything? Hell no. Why would a bunch writer's opinions suddenly move a player leaps and bounds over another player?

Players should be judged by what they do on the ice. And on the ice, the seasons go like this:

1: Slight edge to Ovechkin by 4 points
2: Huge edge to Crosby
3: Huge edge to Ovechkin in the regular season, but we see the birth of Crosby the playoff beast
4: Edge to Ovechkin, but again, Crosby tears it up in the playoffs
5: Tie


Look at that. Compare them, season by season. Are you saying Ovechkin is leaps and bounds ahead of Crosby by that? Really? To me, they look extremely close.

But yet, if you count trophies and throw logic out the window, like you've been doing, then Ovechkin is 3 times the player Crosby is.

Trophies don't matter. If 2 players have a really close season on the ice, and a bunch of writers proclaim one of the players as being better and more trophy worthy, does he suddenly become better? No. Legends aren't made in Las Vegas. Legends are made on the ice.

Stop throwing logic and understanding out the window. Thanks so much.
Its difficult to know where to begin.

Trophies are meaningless? Do you mean when comparing players, or meaningless as in "Life Itself is meaningless"? I agree with the latter.

Stan Fischler doesn't vote for anything. Just bringing up his name hurts one's post.

1. Edge to Ovechkin because he had 4 points more? Points, I guess are meaningful, as opposed to trophies.

5. Tie - I assume because they tied in the ever meaningful points category? But Ovie did it in 9 less games than Crosby. I contest the tie, and give edge to Ovie.

Ovechkin leaps & bounds ahead of Crosby? I don't believe I ever said anything remotely like that.

As a lifelong pessimist with self-esteem problems, I actually feel pretty good about my understanding of hockey.

You're welcome.

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 08:17 PM
  #111
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,253
vCash: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
Its difficult to know where to begin.

Trophies are meaningless? Do you mean when comparing players, or meaningless as in "Life Itself is meaningless"? I agree with the latter.

Stan Fischler doesn't vote for anything. Just bringing up his name hurts one's post.

1. Edge to Ovechkin because he had 4 points more? Points, I guess are meaningful, as opposed to trophies.

5. Tie - I assume because they tied in the ever meaningful points category? But Ovie did it in 9 less games than Crosby. I contest the tie, and give edge to Ovie.

Ovechkin leaps & bounds ahead of Crosby? I don't believe I ever said anything remotely like that.

As a lifelong pessimist with self-esteem problems, I actually feel pretty good about my understanding of hockey.

You're welcome.


Stan Fischler isn't a voter and that hurts my post? Oh no. That's unfortunate since that was clearly the main thing that I was arguing.

Anyways, trophies are meaningless. Did you even read my post where I explained why? I'm thinking not, but if you did, I could make it more clear.

Does a player get magically better when he hears his name called out as a Hart winner? No. If a bunch of writers think a certain player is better, should that magically make him better in yours and my minds? No. We see these players play (Presumably) quite frequently, so we can judge for ourselves.

There's one huge flaw with trophies (And this is even ignoring how clueless the voters have been, on many occasions):

-The winner gets a trophy and gets lumped in with the greats of the game
-The loser, who may have been just a teensy bit worse than the player (Or may have even been BETTER), gets no trophy, and then looks 100% worse in the minds of people who judge players based on their trophy cases (Ie, you).

Trophies are meaningless. They truely mean nothing. The only time they should be used are for judging players before your time. But 2 players that you can see play 90+ times a year, each? Judge them by watching them. Don't let a bunch of writers make your opinion for you.

As for you saying Ovechkin was "Leaps and Bounds" better than Crosby, yes, you never said that. BUT, you did say Ovechkin's first 5 seasons were among the best of all-time, and only Gretzky was better, or something along those lines. I'm not going to quote your post but you remember what you said. You also said Crosby wasn't there. And then you brought up their trophy collection, which is what brought up this whole debate. So you clearly think Oveckin is better, and since you (for some reason) only look at hardware when comparing players, Ovechkin looks a lot better.

And he does look a lot better. 2 Harts and 3 Pearsons looks A LOT better than 1 of each. Unfortunately, 50 years from now people will judge these players without ever seeing them play, and will think Ovechkin was 3 times the player.

But if you ignore trophies, which are meaningless, and only compare the 2 players season by season he only has a slight edge, if any.

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 10:58 PM
  #112
BostonAJ
Registered User
 
BostonAJ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Southie
Country: United States
Posts: 2,559
vCash: 500
I now firmly believe that a truly rational debate regarding these two players is impossible.

It's terrific as a hockey fan getting to see these two talents at the same time. I think they are starting to graze into the area of the top 100 now. But if tragedy struck today and they never played hockey again it would be very difficult to gauge where. And we have yet to see how they will decline.

I do find it curious that some from this board don't seem to value OV's individual awards as much as I'd expected, since that seems to be a typically primary source around here for evaluating players. It seems impossible for fan bias not to creep in with two players so closely talented.

It's going to be great to see which player accomplishes the most over their careers. It'll probably be a ping pong battle.

BostonAJ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:21 PM
  #113
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Stan Fischler isn't a voter and that hurts my post? Oh no. That's unfortunate since that was clearly the main thing that I was arguing.

Anyways, trophies are meaningless. Did you even read my post where I explained why? I'm thinking not, but if you did, I could make it more clear.

Does a player get magically better when he hears his name called out as a Hart winner? No. If a bunch of writers think a certain player is better, should that magically make him better in yours and my minds? No. We see these players play (Presumably) quite frequently, so we can judge for ourselves.

There's one huge flaw with trophies (And this is even ignoring how clueless the voters have been, on many occasions):

-The winner gets a trophy and gets lumped in with the greats of the game
-The loser, who may have been just a teensy bit worse than the player (Or may have even been BETTER), gets no trophy, and then looks 100% worse in the minds of people who judge players based on their trophy cases (Ie, you).

Trophies are meaningless. They truely mean nothing. The only time they should be used are for judging players before your time. But 2 players that you can see play 90+ times a year, each? Judge them by watching them. Don't let a bunch of writers make your opinion for you.

As for you saying Ovechkin was "Leaps and Bounds" better than Crosby, yes, you never said that. BUT, you did say Ovechkin's first 5 seasons were among the best of all-time, and only Gretzky was better, or something along those lines. I'm not going to quote your post but you remember what you said. You also said Crosby wasn't there. And then you brought up their trophy collection, which is what brought up this whole debate. So you clearly think Oveckin is better, and since you (for some reason) only look at hardware when comparing players, Ovechkin looks a lot better.

And he does look a lot better. 2 Harts and 3 Pearsons looks A LOT better than 1 of each. Unfortunately, 50 years from now people will judge these players without ever seeing them play, and will think Ovechkin was 3 times the player.

But if you ignore trophies, which are meaningless, and only compare the 2 players season by season he only has a slight edge, if any.
Solid post agree with everything here.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-24-2010, 11:38 PM
  #114
seventieslord
Moderator
 
seventieslord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Regina, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 24,007
vCash: 500
Quote:
-The winner gets a trophy and gets lumped in with the greats of the game
-The loser, who may have been just a teensy bit worse than the player (Or may have even been BETTER), gets no trophy, and then looks 100% worse in the minds of people who judge players based on their trophy cases (Ie, you).
...and I hate this more than almost anything.

seventieslord is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 12:06 AM
  #115
Infinite Vision*
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Ontario
Country: Canada
Posts: 2,862
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by nik jr View Post
it is strange that datsyuk has won 3 selkes while zetterberg has won 0. zetterberg is a better defensive player (better positioning and more defensive minded) and usually gets tougher matchups.

it was OK for datsyuk to win in '08 and '09, (i generally prefer selke to be given to checkers more than 2 way F's, though) but i don't think he should have been a finalist in '10, since his SHTOI was low. i think b/c datsyuk became famous for takeaways, voters conflated takeaways with overall D.


it would be very bad if zetterberg were not remembered as a great defensive F.
This is a good example here from the hindsight & awards voting thread.

Infinite Vision* is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 12:39 AM
  #116
Hardyvan123
tweet@HardyintheWack
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Vancouver
Country: Canada
Posts: 12,313
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by ushvinder View Post
Bobby Orr and Mario both had better 5 years than Ovechkin, there's more to greatness than trophies. Lemeiux's 1988 and 1989 season are better than anything Ovechkin will ever do his whole career. Bobby Orr's 1970 and 1971 seasons are an entire galaxy above Ovechkin and he won a conn smythe.

If Gretzky didnt exist in 1986 and 1987, Lemieux would win scoring titles both years. Gretzky is much better competition than henrik sedin and evgeni malkin.
Orr had 2 of the all time great seasons in his 4th and 5th seasons but overall I'm not sure that we can say that he had a better 1st five, it is ALL 5 seasons after all. I guess you can make a strong argument that his peak was much higher and the Bruins did win those 2 Cups as well.

Lemieux's last 2 seasons, his 4th and 5th were all time great ones but if we look at the adjusted points they drop down a bit and only 1 playoff series as well.

Adjusted this is what his seasons look like (rankings in each cat)

34-45-79
37-73-110 (7-2-2)
46-45-91 (3-NA-3)
59-82-141 (1-2-1)
71-94-165 (1-1-1)

AO

52-52-104 (3-NA-3)
48-46-94 (4-NA-NA)
72-50-122 (1-NA-1)
59-62-117 (1-10-2)
55-62-117 (3-6-2)

Some really solid cases can be made for all 4 guys Orr, Lemieux, AO and Crosby and what order they should fall in after Gretzky for the best 1st 5 seasons of all time.

Different people will give different reasons for what order to them and to me playoff success should count in any discussion of greatness as well. throw in the level of competition and style of play and it's pretty tough to rank them, I would throw all 4 in a hat but Orr probably should be 2nd because of how great his 4th and 5th seasons were.

Hardyvan123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 03:20 AM
  #117
ushvinder
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 3,432
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hardyvan123 View Post
Orr had 2 of the all time great seasons in his 4th and 5th seasons but overall I'm not sure that we can say that he had a better 1st five, it is ALL 5 seasons after all. I guess you can make a strong argument that his peak was much higher and the Bruins did win those 2 Cups as well.

Lemieux's last 2 seasons, his 4th and 5th were all time great ones but if we look at the adjusted points they drop down a bit and only 1 playoff series as well.

Adjusted this is what his seasons look like (rankings in each cat)

34-45-79
37-73-110 (7-2-2)
46-45-91 (3-NA-3)
59-82-141 (1-2-1)
71-94-165 (1-1-1)

AO

52-52-104 (3-NA-3)
48-46-94 (4-NA-NA)
72-50-122 (1-NA-1)
59-62-117 (1-10-2)
55-62-117 (3-6-2)

Some really solid cases can be made for all 4 guys Orr, Lemieux, AO and Crosby and what order they should fall in after Gretzky for the best 1st 5 seasons of all time.

Different people will give different reasons for what order to them and to me playoff success should count in any discussion of greatness as well. throw in the level of competition and style of play and it's pretty tough to rank them, I would throw all 4 in a hat but Orr probably should be 2nd because of how great his 4th and 5th seasons were.
Yeah even going by adjusted stats show that Mario's 2nd season was better than AO's 2nd and his 4th and 5th season were a league above anything ovechkin has done. So Mario was better in his 2nd, 4th and 5th year. That means he beats out ovechkin.

Bobby Orr was 6th, 4th, and 3rd in hart voting during his first 3 seasons. His 1970 and 1971 season are way better than Ovechkin's seasons. So yeah he beats ovheckin out. Add his conn smythe and 4 norrises and this is a cakewalk for orr.

ushvinder is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 05:51 PM
  #118
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Stan Fischler isn't a voter and that hurts my post? Oh no. That's unfortunate since that was clearly the main thing that I was arguing.

Anyways, trophies are meaningless. Did you even read my post where I explained why? I'm thinking not, but if you did, I could make it more clear.

Does a player get magically better when he hears his name called out as a Hart winner? No. If a bunch of writers think a certain player is better, should that magically make him better in yours and my minds? No. We see these players play (Presumably) quite frequently, so we can judge for ourselves.

There's one huge flaw with trophies (And this is even ignoring how clueless the voters have been, on many occasions):

-The winner gets a trophy and gets lumped in with the greats of the game
-The loser, who may have been just a teensy bit worse than the player (Or may have even been BETTER), gets no trophy, and then looks 100% worse in the minds of people who judge players based on their trophy cases (Ie, you).

Trophies are meaningless. They truely mean nothing. The only time they should be used are for judging players before your time. But 2 players that you can see play 90+ times a year, each? Judge them by watching them. Don't let a bunch of writers make your opinion for you.

As for you saying Ovechkin was "Leaps and Bounds" better than Crosby, yes, you never said that. BUT, you did say Ovechkin's first 5 seasons were among the best of all-time, and only Gretzky was better, or something along those lines. I'm not going to quote your post but you remember what you said. You also said Crosby wasn't there. And then you brought up their trophy collection, which is what brought up this whole debate. So you clearly think Oveckin is better, and since you (for some reason) only look at hardware when comparing players, Ovechkin looks a lot better.

And he does look a lot better. 2 Harts and 3 Pearsons looks A LOT better than 1 of each. Unfortunately, 50 years from now people will judge these players without ever seeing them play, and will think Ovechkin was 3 times the player.

But if you ignore trophies, which are meaningless, and only compare the 2 players season by season he only has a slight edge, if any.
The vast majority of player comparisons on this site involve trophies won and points produced.

I have no problem throwing out both and going by what I have seen. I still contend Ovechkin has been the better player from what I've seen. (By the way, how many games a year do you see both guys play?)

How's that, better?

Its still bad form to summon the name Stan Fischler (did I say that was your main thing to argue? Once again, I think not).

Dennis Bonvie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 06:29 PM
  #119
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,253
vCash: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
The vast majority of player comparisons on this site involve trophies won and points produced.

I have no problem throwing out both and going by what I have seen. I still contend Ovechkin has been the better player from what I've seen. (By the way, how many games a year do you see both guys play?)

How's that, better?

Its still bad form to summon the name Stan Fischler (did I say that was your main thing to argue? Once again, I think not).


I know the vast majority of comparisons involve trophies and points. I think both of these things are flawed, trophies moreso.

You think Ovechkin is the better player? That's fine, he very well might be.

I see every game Crosby plays and I see maybe.. I don't know... 35 games that Ovechkin plays? If I wasn't so busy I would watch 2 games a night, every night, but alas...

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 06:41 PM
  #120
unknown33
Registered User
 
unknown33's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Europe
Country: Marshall Islands
Posts: 3,070
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
The vast majority of player comparisons on this site involve trophies won and points produced.
The vast majority of player comparisons on this site involve trophies won, points produced and paper articles, because it is the only way for most of us to compare players for the 50s.

unknown33 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 06:47 PM
  #121
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,253
vCash: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown33 View Post
The vast majority of player comparisons on this site involve trophies won, points produced and paper articles, because it is the only way for most of us to compare players for the 50s.

Absolutely, and in a previous post I said that players before your time are the only times that something like trophy counting should be used. (And even then it's flawed)

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 07:06 PM
  #122
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
You Suck McBain!
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
I know the vast majority of comparisons involve trophies and points. I think both of these things are flawed, trophies moreso.

You think Ovechkin is the better player? That's fine, he very well might be.

I see every game Crosby plays and I see maybe.. I don't know... 35 games that Ovechkin plays? If I wasn't so busy I would watch 2 games a night, every night, but alas...
They're not perfect on their own, but when put into context with award voting, quotes from respected authorities, and things like the quality of linemates and teammates, they're effective references when comparing and rating players.

Otherwise it's just one person's word against another's about who the better player is, and that would make for a colossally useless message board. We have to base our opinions on something concrete if we're to convince anyone.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 08:15 PM
  #123
SidGenoMario
Registered User
 
SidGenoMario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Saskatoon, SK
Country: Canada
Posts: 6,253
vCash: 511
Quote:
Originally Posted by Champagne Wishes View Post
They're not perfect on their own, but when put into context with award voting, quotes from respected authorities, and things like the quality of linemates and teammates, they're effective references when comparing and rating players.

Otherwise it's just one person's word against another's about who the better player is, and that would make for a colossally useless message board. We have to base our opinions on something concrete if we're to convince anyone.

Yes, of course. But the thing that started this debate:


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Bonvie View Post
The tale of the hardware:

Crosby - 1 Hart, 1 Ross, 1 Richard, 1 Lindsay, 1 FTA, 1 STA
Ovechhin - 2 Hart, 1 Ross, 2 Richard, 3 Lindsay, 5 FTA, 1 Calder

No joke. Best first 5 years, Ovie, as I said. Perhaps only Gretzky's were better.


..was just ridiculous. There was no context. Just trophy counting.

SidGenoMario is offline   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 08:28 PM
  #124
Rowdy Roddy Peeper
You Suck McBain!
 
Rowdy Roddy Peeper's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 42,326
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Yes, of course. But the thing that started this debate:

..was just ridiculous. There was no context. Just trophy counting.
Definitely. I think the playoff breakdown countered that fairly well.

Rowdy Roddy Peeper is online now   Reply With Quote
Old
08-25-2010, 08:32 PM
  #125
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Connecticut
Country: United States
Posts: 7,828
vCash: 500
Quote:
Originally Posted by SidGenoMario View Post
Yes, of course. But the thing that started this debate:






..was just ridiculous. There was no context. Just trophy counting.
Why is it ridiculous? Because you say it is? I'm tired of this crap. You're just a Penguin's homer and you think because you say something everyone has to buy it. I'm ridiculous, I'm not logical, I don't understand, I don't even read what you said ( because I disagree with it). Didn't think I'd ever do this, but you're my first "ignore".

Dennis Bonvie 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 09:14 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.