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 a moderator:
199 points on 347 goals= 57%...untouchable
- Thread starter fortier
- Start date
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.
Rattray
Registered User
A "2 week getting used to period?"
You did it again! You've got some serious comedic talent bro....keep 'em coming.
You did it again! You've got some serious comedic talent bro....keep 'em coming.
Rattray
Registered User
Ogopogo, Rattray, Bletchley, and Cup 2007 Sens Rule!, and others:
If anything is "Pejorative Slured", 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.
If anything is "Pejorative Slured", 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.
Perfect. I just wanted confirmation that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Rattray
Registered User
Paxton Fettel
Registered User
- Mar 3, 2006
- 7,238
- 309
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
Rattray
Registered User
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.
So, you’re pretty much alluding that the game of hockey hasn’t evolved through the years?
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.
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.
Rattray
Registered User
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]
[IMAGE]http://img69.photobucket.com/albums/v210/JesGolbez/GUMP1.jpg[/IMAGE]
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.
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.
Cawz
Registered User
Ha, well played. Nice way to look at it.
People talk about how fast Orr was. Imagine if he was using todays equipment.
GuloGulo
Registered User
After two weeks, he'd do an awful lot better than a player teleported the other way.
Thanks Ogopogo, for your response. I think I'll have an easier time addressing it in parts.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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."
Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
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?
Rattray
Registered User
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:
- Comparing players across different eras is difficult, for many reasons.
- 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.
- Hockey has evolved considerably over time, in all aspects.
- 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.
Ad
Upcoming events
-
Pinguins Bremerhaven @ Eisbaren Berlin - Pinguins Bremerhaven leads series 1-0Wagers: 4Staked: $1,116.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Chicago Bulls @ Miami HeatWagers: 2Staked: $60.00Event closes- Updated:
-
2024 SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament Sacramento Kings @ New Orleans PelicansWagers: 2Staked: $45.00Event closes
- Updated:
-
Stanley Cup 2024 Stanley Cup Champion - ONLY BET ONE TEAMWagers: 7Staked: $7,675.00Event closes- Updated: