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

Ogopogo*

Guest
No, I'm simply saying their competition within the NHL wasn't the best it possibly could have been. However, my argument could be partly counter-balanced by the fact that there were half as many teams in the NHL at that time.

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

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

In my opinion, all of these statements are true:

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

Kurt, there are some intelligent posters on this board that I enjoy having discussions with - you are one of them.

Thank you for the response.
 

God Bless Canada

Registered User
Jul 11, 2004
11,793
17
Bentley reunion
Bobby Orr tears any era apart. His size is not a factor. Ray Bourque are 5'11". Scott Stevens and Scott Niedermayer are 6'1". Chelios is 6'1", and still playing a top three role at 44. MacInnis and Lidstrom are 6'2". Bobby Orr is considered by many to be the fastest skater ever. And strong. And incredibly smart. His skating may not be as far advanced above everyone else as it was in 1974 (or maybe it would, considering he'd have had the benefit of modern medicine for his wonky knee), but he'd still be the fastest player on the ice, and more importantly, he'd definitely be the smartest.

A simple question: what makes a great goal scorer? A top-notch shot that combines velocity, accuracy and release? That's the most important skill. Great speed? It helps, but it's not a pre-requisite. (Cheechoo won the Richard this year, but he'd be described as an average skater, at best, in any era). A great goal scorer, though, extends far beyond shooting and skating. It's the mental side of the game. It's the proverbial "nose for the net," being in the right place at the right time. In some cases, it's determination: willing to stand in front of the net and take cross-checks and slashes from opposing defencemen or goaltenders, to get in the right place for a deflection or a rebound. It's having a goal scorer's mentality. It's forging chemistry with a teammate, to know what each other is thinking. And, as hokey as it sounds, it's wanting to score goals. I can teach a player skills. It's much harder to teach him how to score.

Alexander Volchkov had the skill to score 50 goals in the NHL. Had the blazing speed and the powerful shot. What he lacked, however, was the determination, the instincts, the nose for the net, and often, just the willingness to score goals. Michael Henrich has everything you'd ever want in a goal scorer. Except a goal scorer's mindset. Pavel Brendl may have the best shot of any player drafted since Brett Hull in 1984. But his character, determination, work ethic and dedication to the game are lacking. If goal-scoring was simply a skill thing, these three guys would be top 10 goal scorers in the NHL.

Pavel Bure is likely the fastest skater with the puck I've ever seen. (Wetcoaster, a long-time knowledgeable fan who I rarely agree with, said recently that Bure is the fastest he's ever seen with the puck, followed by Orr). But what made Pavel Bure the goal-scorer that he was, was his determination and desire to score goals. He wanted to score a goal at all costs, even though it often resulted in some of the worst cherry-picking in NHL history.

What makes a player an all-time great is his ability to dominate any era. Some top players from the NHL of the past might have a hard time cracking today's NHL. But some good players from today's NHL would not crack the Original Six or even the league before that. Wouldn't have the resiliency, and in those days, if you weren't willing to play the all-round game, if you weren't willing to battle in the corners, if you weren't willing to fight through checks, you didn't have a job.
 

chooch*

Guest
:

[
[*]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.
.
[/LIST]

Boy, youre gonna become Ogos best friend with that line.


I saw Gret$$ky play 300 times over his career and came away non plussed; he was invisible much the same way Bure or Klima was invisible - while the play was in his own end he was drifting at centre waiting for an outlet pass.

1)
99 holds the alltime record for even strength goals against.
Anybody want to give me an explanation for that? No?

He'd rather win 7-5 and get 5 points than win 3-1 and get 2. Does that make him dominant?

2) Is it dominant to stand behind the net making passes; Yes you can do that but much of the time 99 was putting his head down and slowly skating back to centre after an errant pass.

Is that good hockey?

I submit Mario or Orr would have had a 300 point season playing in that style and especially in that no defence West division.

3) 99 had only to get by a couple of weak teams in the West in the playoffs and voila! he's in the finals.
Remember the "legendary" 1993 playoffs of Gret$ - he was smoking against those "60-8-12" Leafs wasnt he? Wow!

Of course he disappeared against Carbonneau in the finals and he threatened to go home and retire after game 5.

Weak.
4) I wont get into his protection - unparalleled in any sport. Imagine Rocket with protection. And I dont mean Semenko. I mean it was a very big deal if you even tried to slash or hit Gret$ky - just ask Billy Smith.

There's a lot of endorsement money at stake with 99, even now he arguably makes more standing behind the bench acting like he knows about coaching than any active player on the ice.

For those who say 99 is a victim and Orr is pushed by the likes of Cherry - well thats the biggest laugh of all.
Still, out of kindness, he is number 12 on my list of players I've seen since 1971 ("seen" and not just flipping a Hockey Encyclopedia).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bring Back Bucky

Registered User
May 19, 2004
9,997
3,071
Canadas Ocean Playground
Boy, youre gonna become Ogos best friend with that line.


I saw Gret$$ky play 300 times over his career and came away non plussed; he was invisible much the same way Bure or Klima was invisible - while the play was in his own end he was drifting at centre waiting for an outlet pass.

1)
99 holds the alltime record for even strength goals against.
Anybody want to give me an explanation for that? No?

He'd rather win 7-5 and get 5 points than win 3-1 and get 2. Does that make him dominant?

2) Is it dominant to stand behind the net making passes; Yes you can do that but much of the time 99 was putting his head down and slowly skating back to centre after an errant pass.

Is that good hockey?

I submit Mario or Orr would have had a 300 point season playing in that style and especially in that no defence West division.

3) 99 had only to get by a couple of weak teams in the West in the playoffs and voila! he's in the finals.
Remember the "legendary" 1993 playoffs of Gret$ - he as smoking aganst those 60-8-12 Leafs wasnt he? Wow!

Of course he disappeared against Carbonneau in the finals and he threatebed to go home and retire after game 5.

Weak.

He is number 12 on my list of players I've seen since 1971 ("seen" and not just flipping a Hockey Encyclopedia).

4) I wont get into his protection - unparalleled in any sport. Imagine Rocket with protection. And I dont mean Semenko. I mean it was a very big deal if you even tried to slash or hit Gret$ky - just ask Billy Smith.

There's a lot of endorsement money at stake with 99, even now he makes more standing behind the bench acting like he knows about coaching than any active player on the ice.

For those who say 99 is a victim and Orr is pushed by the likes of Cherry - well thats the biggest laugh of all.


Argle Bargle Shmargle Fargle

Yes, that's right, endorsement dough runneth his cup over.. thank god he won't have to hawk his equipment on e-bay or plead sexual dysfunction to buy smokes and old turkey during his retirement. It gets old, quick.
 

Whatever Man*

Guest
Boy, youre gonna become Ogos best friend with that line.


I saw Gret$$ky play 300 times over his career and came away non plussed; he was invisible much the same way Bure or Klima was invisible - while the play was in his own end he was drifting at centre waiting for an outlet pass.

Might I suggest stronger glasses???
 

Cawz

Registered User
Sep 18, 2003
14,372
3
Oiler fan in Calgary
Visit site
I saw Gret$$ky play 300 times over his career and came away non plussed; he was invisible much the same way Bure or Klima was invisible - while the play was in his own end he was drifting at centre waiting for an outlet pass.
Well, it was already concluded that you saw him at most maybe once a month during his prime, so youre 300 times was probably 80% while he was a Ranger.

He'd rather win 7-5 and get 5 points than win 3-1 and get 2. Does that make him dominant?
Sounds pretty dominant if he can choose what kind of game he wishes to win.

I submit Mario or Orr would have had a 300 point season playing in that style and especially in that no defence West division.
And I submit that you should be commited. Sorry but that entire quote is absurd.

I wont even comment on your "weak west" arguments, since you said yourself that you were lucky to get a couple west games a month. For someone who talking about people formulating opinions using encyclopedias, you sure like to comment on things that you yourself said you didnt get to witness.

4) I wont get into his protection - unparalleled in any sport. Imagine Rocket with protection. And I dont mean Semenko. I mean it was a very big deal if you even tried to slash or hit Gret$ky - just ask Billy Smith.
You dont mean Semenko? Your whole stance last year was about Semenko riding shotgun. You cant change your story now. We all spent so much time preparing our arguments.

Seriously man, you've been posting this drival for a bit too long. The holes in your arguments are growing.
 

KariyaIsGod*

Guest
chooch... :shakehead

I honestly am beginning to think that this guy actually has some serious psychological issues that probably deserve the attention of a medical professional.

He knocks Wayne's defense yet he'll pimp the human innertube Mario Lemieux all day... :shakehead
 

bigjags*

Guest
Bobby Orr tears any era apart. His size is not a factor. Ray Bourque are 5'11". Scott Stevens and Scott Niedermayer are 6'1". Chelios is 6'1", and still playing a top three role at 44. MacInnis and Lidstrom are 6'2". Bobby Orr is considered by many to be the fastest skater ever. And strong. And incredibly smart. His skating may not be as far advanced above everyone else as it was in 1974 (or maybe it would, considering he'd have had the benefit of modern medicine for his wonky knee), but he'd still be the fastest player on the ice, and more importantly, he'd definitely be the smartest.

A simple question: what makes a great goal scorer? A top-notch shot that combines velocity, accuracy and release? That's the most important skill. Great speed? It helps, but it's not a pre-requisite. (Cheechoo won the Richard this year, but he'd be described as an average skater, at best, in any era). A great goal scorer, though, extends far beyond shooting and skating. It's the mental side of the game. It's the proverbial "nose for the net," being in the right place at the right time. In some cases, it's determination: willing to stand in front of the net and take cross-checks and slashes from opposing defencemen or goaltenders, to get in the right place for a deflection or a rebound. It's having a goal scorer's mentality. It's forging chemistry with a teammate, to know what each other is thinking. And, as hokey as it sounds, it's wanting to score goals. I can teach a player skills. It's much harder to teach him how to score.

Alexander Volchkov had the skill to score 50 goals in the NHL. Had the blazing speed and the powerful shot. What he lacked, however, was the determination, the instincts, the nose for the net, and often, just the willingness to score goals. Michael Henrich has everything you'd ever want in a goal scorer. Except a goal scorer's mindset. Pavel Brendl may have the best shot of any player drafted since Brett Hull in 1984. But his character, determination, work ethic and dedication to the game are lacking. If goal-scoring was simply a skill thing, these three guys would be top 10 goal scorers in the NHL.

Pavel Bure is likely the fastest skater with the puck I've ever seen. (Wetcoaster, a long-time knowledgeable fan who I rarely agree with, said recently that Bure is the fastest he's ever seen with the puck, followed by Orr). But what made Pavel Bure the goal-scorer that he was, was his determination and desire to score goals. He wanted to score a goal at all costs, even though it often resulted in some of the worst cherry-picking in NHL history.

What makes a player an all-time great is his ability to dominate any era. Some top players from the NHL of the past might have a hard time cracking today's NHL. But some good players from today's NHL would not crack the Original Six or even the league before that. Wouldn't have the resiliency, and in those days, if you weren't willing to play the all-round game, if you weren't willing to battle in the corners, if you weren't willing to fight through checks, you didn't have a job.

Great post.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
No, I'm simply saying their competition within the NHL wasn't the best it possibly could have been. However, my argument could be partly counter-balanced by the fact that there were half as many teams in the NHL at that time.

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

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

In my opinion, all of these statements are true:

  1. Comparing players across different eras is difficult, for many reasons.
  2. Your method of comparing players by their relative dominance within their era of hockey is very insightful and meaningful, and serves well to rank players in terms of their impact on the game, in a way that "equalizes" different eras.
  3. Hockey has evolved considerably over time, in all aspects.
  4. Because hockey has evolved so much, it would be difficult for a dominant player of a past era to assert an equal level of dominance in the modern era of hockey.
It is interesting how this whole debate stated on the effectiveness of Orr if he was transported from 1974 to 2006. Several have made the argument rhat Orr would have a tough time adjustingbecause of hockey's evolvement over the last 30 years--better equipment, nutrition, training methods etc.

Personally, I think their are many, players who would adjust quite easily. There are several players who played 20 plus years & were productive plyers late in their careers. Hull (bobby), Bucyk, Delvecchio, Prentice, Clapper etc.

The most notable of course was Gordie Howe who played major league hockey over a 34 year old span. He broke in as an 18 year old in 46-47 with 7 goals. He finished in 79-80 at age 51 playing 80 games and scoring 15 goals. Yeh gordie sure had a tough time dealing with the "evolvement" of hockey over that 34 year span. All those youngsters who grew up with better equipment, nutrition & training. To put Gordie's achievement in perspective, mark messier only had 12 goals that season.If you transported a 22 Gordie to today's Nhl he would have a field day as would players like Orr & Hull.

By the way using the word "evolvement" implies progress and I not sure that this has always been the case. "Change" is a better word.
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
By the way using the word "evolvement" implies progress and I not sure that this has always been the case. "Change" is a better word.

Thank you. That`s exactly the point I was going to make.

Sometimes I think these kids think horror movies from the 60s or 70s are inferior to today`s because they didn`t have computer-generated spercial effects back then.
 

bigjags*

Guest
It is interesting how this whole debate stated on the effectiveness of Orr if he was transported from 1974 to 2006. Several have made the argument rhat Orr would have a tough time adjustingbecause of hockey's evolvement over the last 30 years--better equipment, nutrition, training methods etc.

Personally, I think their are many, players who would adjust quite easily. There are several players who played 20 plus years & were productive plyers late in their careers. Hull (bobby), Bucyk, Delvecchio, Prentice, Clapper etc.

The most notable of course was Gordie Howe who played major league hockey over a 34 year old span. He broke in as an 18 year old in 46-47 with 7 goals. He finished in 79-80 at age 51 playing 80 games and scoring 15 goals. Yeh gordie sure had a tough time dealing with the "evolvement" of hockey over that 34 year span. All those youngsters who grew up with better equipment, nutrition & training. To put Gordie's achievement in perspective, mark messier only had 12 goals that season.If you transported a 22 Gordie to today's Nhl he would have a field day as would players like Orr & Hull.

By the way using the word "evolvement" implies progress and I not sure that this has always been the case. "Change" is a better word.

I hate beating a dead horse here, but Howe also grew up with that evolvement. He played with the game and watched it change around him. Thus, he would have also changed.

However, if you just dropped that 51 year old Howe then, into the game today, do you think he'd still play 80 games and record 15 goals? Not likely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

bigjags*

Guest
Thank you. That`s exactly the point I was going to make.

Sometimes I think these kids think horror movies from the 60s or 70s are inferior to today`s because they didn`t have computer-generated spercial effects back then.

Quit living in the past, reckoning. The game has evolved. In the 20s, they didn't use slap shots. In the 60s, no player used curved sticks; in the 70s players could barely raise the puck off the ice. Goalies in the past are terrible, embarrassing in comparison to today's goalies.

The word, kids, is called evolution. You can slice and dice it all you want, but it’s called evolution. I’m not sure what bucket shop university you went to, but for everyone else, it’s called EVOLUTION.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
I hate beating a dead horse here, but Howe also grew up with that evolvement. He played with the game and watched it change around him. Thus, he would have also changed.

However, if you just dropped that 51 year old Howe then, into the game today, do you think he'd still play 80 games and record 15 goals? Not likely.
I didn't say that but for sure the 18 year old Howe would and probably a lot more than 15 and he is coming way back from 1946. Maybe the game has "changed" but it is the same skill set that makes a player a star in any era--Skating, shooting, puckhandling, mental & physical toughness. You just don't get it.
 

alanschu

Registered User
Aug 12, 2005
8,659
914
Edmonton, Alberta
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.

I think you're really overestimating the impact of the evolution of the game.
 

bigjags*

Guest
I didn't say that but for sure the 18 year old Howe would and probably a lot more than 15 and he is coming way back from 1946. Maybe the game has "changed" but it is the same skill set that makes a player a star in any era--Skating, shooting, puckhandling, mental & physical toughness. You just don't get it.

I don't get it? :banghead:

Watch the '72 Summit Series, considered to be some of the best hockey ever. Then watch the finals last spring and it's not even close.

If you don't think the NHL has evolved, I'm not going to further comment. There's no point.
 

pappyline

Registered User
Jul 3, 2005
4,587
182
Mass/formerly Ont
I don't get it? :banghead:

Watch the '72 Summit Series, considered to be some of the best hockey ever. Then watch the finals last spring and it's not even close.

If you don't think the NHL has evolved, I'm not going to further comment. There's no point.

:bow:

You are correct. you have no point. nice knowing you kid.
 

Sens Rule

Registered User
Sep 22, 2005
21,251
73
I don't get it? :banghead:

Watch the '72 Summit Series, considered to be some of the best hockey ever. Then watch the finals last spring and it's not even close.

If you don't think the NHL has evolved, I'm not going to further comment. There's no point.

Equipment has a ton to do with the change. Signifcantly more than the players being better coached, having better training regimes and being in better shape and nutrition or the average player being larger.

Biggest difference is equipment. And that isn't about to stop past stars from being stars today.
 

bigjags*

Guest
:bow:

You are correct. you have no point. nice knowing you kid.

Well said mate. Do you have any more insightful posts, Rain Man?

The level of play now, destroys the level of play in the 1970s. But, as I can tell from your level of posts, you don't watch the game.
 

reckoning

Registered User
Jan 4, 2005
7,012
1,251
The fastest skater results from the All-Star Game skills competition; both team and individual:

1997 Eastern Avg. 13.909 sec
1998 North America Avg. 13.88 sec
1999 World Avg. 14.64 sec
2000 World Avg. 14.016 sec
2001 North America Avg. 13.896 sec
2002 World Avg. 14.484 sec
2003 Western Conference Avg. 13.896
2004 Eastern Conference Avg. 13.922




1992 Sergei Fedorov 14.363
1993 Mike Gartner 13.510
1994 Sergei Fedorov 13.525
1996 Mike Gartner 13.386
1997 Peter Bondra 13.610
1998 Scott Niedermayer 13.560
1999 Peter Bondra 14.100
2000 Sami Kapanen 13.649
2001 Bill Guerin 13.690
2002 Sami Kapanen 14.039
2003 Marian Gaborik 13.713
2004 Scott Niedermayer 13.783


If the players are so much better today, then how come there`s no noticeable improvement in the current decade from the previous one? Shouldn`t EVOLUTION dictate that all these times would get faster as the years go on?
 

JCD

Registered User
Feb 27, 2002
14,523
2
Visit site
Boy, youre gonna become Ogos best friend with that line.


I saw Gret$$ky play 300 times over his career and came away non plussed; he was invisible much the same way Bure or Klima was invisible - while the play was in his own end he was drifting at centre waiting for an outlet pass.

1)
99 holds the alltime record for even strength goals against.
Anybody want to give me an explanation for that? No?

He'd rather win 7-5 and get 5 points than win 3-1 and get 2. Does that make him dominant?

2) Is it dominant to stand behind the net making passes; Yes you can do that but much of the time 99 was putting his head down and slowly skating back to centre after an errant pass.

Is that good hockey?

I submit Mario or Orr would have had a 300 point season playing in that style and especially in that no defence West division.

3) 99 had only to get by a couple of weak teams in the West in the playoffs and voila! he's in the finals.
Remember the "legendary" 1993 playoffs of Gret$ - he was smoking against those "60-8-12" Leafs wasnt he? Wow!

Of course he disappeared against Carbonneau in the finals and he threatened to go home and retire after game 5.

Weak.
4) I wont get into his protection - unparalleled in any sport. Imagine Rocket with protection. And I dont mean Semenko. I mean it was a very big deal if you even tried to slash or hit Gret$ky - just ask Billy Smith.

There's a lot of endorsement money at stake with 99, even now he arguably makes more standing behind the bench acting like he knows about coaching than any active player on the ice.

For those who say 99 is a victim and Orr is pushed by the likes of Cherry - well thats the biggest laugh of all.
Still, out of kindness, he is number 12 on my list of players I've seen since 1971 ("seen" and not just flipping a Hockey Encyclopedia).

:biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biglaugh:

You need to bring this act to open mike night.
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->