Argument against Andreychuk

[BwayBshirt]

also, on top of all i just posted, it's not like we're talking about someone just barely over 600 goals here in andreychuk.

and we're definitely not talking about someone over the hill who's just hanging on. he's going as strong now as has been for the last 10 years.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ogopogo,

You only show your ignorance. Nobody played 21 seasons back then. They played 10 or 12 years.

You are the only person in the hockey world who doesn't think Francis belongs in the Hall. As an all-round player, he's one of the best ever. As an all-round player, he was dominant. He could control aspects of the game. He was terrific defensively, but did his work within the framework of the rules. He was considered the best face-off man for years. (Not saying that all strong defensive players or dominant face-off guys should be considered for the Hall, but when those attributes are combined with consistent 90-point seasons, HHOF enshrinement becomes a no-brainer). He has also long been viewed as one of the most underrated players in the history of the game.

Ron Francis is a truly great all-round player. Vincent Damphousse has been a good to very good player for a lot of years. Ron Francis is a truly great player, and has been considered one of the top 10 all-round players at his position for most of his career.

Top 10 at your position isn't greatness. Top 3, perhaps top 5 but any lower than that and you are getting into 'pretty good' range.

If Francis was truly great, he would have won a Hart Trophy or, at least finished in the top 3 in the voting. He would have been a 1st or 2nd team all star. He would have been top 5 in the scoring race several times.

The fact is he was very good for a long time. Not great just very good. In my eyes, that is not HOF worthy. The HOF voters will elect him but, I stopped paying attention to the voters long ago. They have lowered the bar and the election to the Hall does not have the significance it once did.

And, accusing me of being ignorant is very wrong. Accuse me of having a very different perspecitive on the issue - that would be correct.

 

[Paxon]

Very rarely do the top 2 scorers both finish far ahead of the pack. In 17-18 the gap between 2nd and 3rd was 20%. In 70-71 it was 16%. Quite similar.

That's only part of the point, and it was hypothetical in that example anyhow.

As I have said, the wars, WHA, holdouts, lockouts, injuries are all quite irrelevant. If you are the best goal scorer in any given year that is equal to any other year - depending on how you dominated.

They aren't irrelevant at all when comparing one player's season to another's in a different era. I may lead my pick-up league in goals but does that compare me to 1982's AHL scoring leader? The leagues, styles of play, and talent levels would have been completely different, as well as the consistency of the talent level across teams. This is no different when considering completely different eras of one league. Is it not hard to compare point totals pre- and post- 3-point NBA? Sure, the same rules applied to everyone throughout a single season. However, the difference between Reggie Miller and Shaq's points per game during their primes would have been much larger if not for the three-point rule. Miller has the tools to shoot those long shots. Rules may be more or less applied equally to everyone, but they don't effect everyone equally. Just a simple example of something you'd have to keep in mind when comparing players or seasons from different eras.

Leading a league in goals means you scored the most goals that season; it doesn't even mean you were the best goalscorer that season depending on how you look at it (production per game, per ice time, who was feeding you the puck, what teams you faced most often, etc). Is it a feat to lead the league in goals? Yes. Is a season in which a player led the NHL in goalscoring back in 1732 by a 20% margin over the guy who finished second equal in greatness to a season in which a different player led by the same margin in 2053? I really don't see how someone can say yes without looking at the specifics.

 

[norrisnick]

Top 10 at your position isn't greatness. Top 3, perhaps top 5 but any lower than that and you are getting into 'pretty good' range.

If Francis was truly great, he would have won a Hart Trophy or, at least finished in the top 3 in the voting. He would have been a 1st or 2nd team all star. He would have been top 5 in the scoring race several times.

The fact is he was very good for a long time. Not great just very good. In my eyes, that is not HOF worthy. The HOF voters will elect him but, I stopped paying attention to the voters long ago. They have lowered the bar and the election to the Hall does not have the significance it once did.

So you want a floating 30 member HHOF? 5 centers, 5 RW, 5 LW, 5D, 5G? If someone better comes along you get booted?

If Francis weren't among the all-time greats he wouldn't be sitting where he is on the scoring list. That simple. If there were all these better players they would have out-produced him.

Much like your employee example;

Francis is like the guy that shows up for work every single day for 21 years. Does a good job but nothing spectacular. He just shows up every day.

Other guys were amazing at work they just didn't stay at the company for 21 years. They added to the bottom line, drove up the stock price, they were the BEST at what they did.

Is the guy that shows up every day better than the superstar? Nope.

Points are the bottom line as a forward. Only 3 guys added more to theirs than Francis did.

 

[Malefic74]

Where exactly does it say that to be in the Hall you must be an offensive dynamo? An unstoppable force scoring goals and racking assists at will? Uh... nowhere.

This is where stats are so very, very misleading. Ron Francis played every facet of the game at a high, high level. It takes skill to be as dominant on the draw as he was (and still is BTW). Gretzky didn't have it, neither did Lemieux. He was an excellent defensive player (and yes defense is still an aspect of the game) who was almost always out against the opposition's top line. One minute to go, holding a 1 goal lead did the Pens send out Mario? No, they sent out Francis.

By your definition of Hall-worthy, players like Bob Gainey and Henri Richard would have never made the Hall.

Now I have been accused of high standards when it come to the HHOF, but even I say that Francis is first ballot, mortal lock and deservedly so. There have been games when you watch him you knew he was a great player. When he was on the ice he could control the flow and tempo of the offense and disrupt the flow of the opposition on defense. Then he'd step off the ice and chaos would again ensue.

Andreychuk by comparison you could go 59 minutes without even noticing he was there until he shovels the 4th rebound past a sprawled goalie. Andreychuk probably could have scored 300 of his goals with a broom. And I would not be surprised to learn he's scored less than 50 total goals in his career form more than 10 feet out. That is not a Hall of Fame player. Valuable? Absolutely. Great guy to have on your team (particularly the power play)? No question. Hall of Famer? No.

 

[Ogopogo*]

That's only part of the point, and it was hypothetical in that example anyhow.



They aren't irrelevant at all when comparing one player's season to another's in a different era. I may lead my pick-up league in goals but does that compare me to 1982's AHL scoring leader? The leagues, styles of play, and talent levels would have been completely different, as well as the consistency of the talent level across teams. This is no different when considering completely different eras of one league. Is it not hard to compare point totals pre- and post- 3-point NBA? Sure, the same rules applied to everyone throughout a single season. However, the difference between Reggie Miller and Shaq's points per game during their primes would have been much larger if not for the three-point rule. Miller has the tools to shoot those long shots. Rules may be more or less applied equally to everyone, but they don't effect everyone equally. Just a simple example of something you'd have to keep in mind when comparing players or seasons from different eras.

Leading a league in goals means you scored the most goals that season; it doesn't even mean you were the best goalscorer that season depending on how you look at it (production per game, per ice time, who was feeding you the puck, what teams you faced most often, etc). Is it a feat to lead the league in goals? Yes. Is a season in which a player led the NHL in goalscoring back in 1732 by a 20% margin over the guy who finished second equal in greatness to a season in which a different player led by the same margin in 2053? I really don't see how someone can say yes without looking at the specifics.

I think you are overanalyzing things and including unimportant variables. Nothing can be compared to anything using your reasoning.

I am saying a Cup winner in 1925 is equal to a cup winner in 2003. A goal scoring leader in 1941 is the same as a goal scoring leader in 1993.

You are the best in the world for that year. If some guys are not playing so be it, you are the best in the world for that year. Pick up league vs. AHL - how does that factor in to this? This comparison is NHL vs NHL. The best league in the world vs the best league in the world.

Using your reasoning, we could say that anything that happened before 1989 is garbage because the Russians were not in the NHL. It wasn't the best hockey in the world the iron curtain was up. Is that really fair?

The best in the NHL is the best in the NHL no matter what year and who is playing. I refuse to believe that Gordie Howe was not that good because no Russians were in the league.

 

[Ogopogo*]

So you want a floating 30 member HHOF? 5 centers, 5 RW, 5 LW, 5D, 5G? If someone better comes along you get booted?

If Francis weren't among the all-time greats he wouldn't be sitting where he is on the scoring list. That simple. If there were all these better players they would have out-produced him.

Much like your employee example;


Points are the bottom line as a forward. Only 3 guys added more to theirs than Francis did.

So, you are saying that Francis is superior to Denneny, Morenz and Conacher?

That is messed up.

 

[Paxon]

I disagree tom.

He had to outscore the whole world. Just because only 4-7 teams were in the league during his career that does not mean that he was not the best in the world.

With a 30 team NHL, we have the top 10 goal scorers then we have everybody else. And after them we have all the guys that didn't make it.

With a 4 team NHL, we have the top 10 goal scorers then we have everybody else. And after them we have all the guys that didn't make it.

How would it affect anything if the 25th best goal scorer was in the league when Denneny played? The guy would still be 25th and Denneny would still be 1st.

If this was a random draw, your argument would make sense. You cannot bring down the best in the world by adding a bunch of mediocre players into the mix.

Is being the president worth less in 1920 because the population of the US was a lot lower than it is today? No, being the president is being the president. You still hold the highest position in the land.

The real question is whether or not the President in 1920 means you contributed as much to your country as the President in 2005. Both are Presidents... that is obvious. Deciphering who was the "better" President requires actually looking at what they did over their tenures.

In other words, being the President over a time of progress and prosperity may be worth more, if it was of his doing, in a debate over who was the better of two Presidents. It may be worth less if he simply coasted through his tenure with nothing to do because everything was fine and dandy.

As far as the rest of your post, and for the sake of argument assuming there are exactly 18 players per team, being the 70th highest goalscorer in a 6 team league makes you closer to last than first whereas the same position in a 30 team league puts you in a far more respectable position.

Even if the amount of teams in each era was the same being 1st or 25th in scoring still wouldn't directly relate throughout history. The talent level may boil down to 10 great players beating up on 90 crappy ones, or 20 great players overshadowing 50 good players and 30 crappy ones.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Where exactly does it say that to be in the Hall you must be an offensive dynamo? An unstoppable force scoring goals and racking assists at will? Uh... nowhere.

This is where stats are so very, very misleading. Ron Francis played every facet of the game at a high, high level. It takes skill to be as dominant on the draw as he was (and still is BTW). Gretzky didn't have it, neither did Lemieux. He was an excellent defensive player (and yes defense is still an aspect of the game) who was almost always out against the opposition's top line. One minute to go, holding a 1 goal lead did the Pens send out Mario? No, they sent out Francis.

By your definition of Hall-worthy, players like Bob Gainey and Henri Richard would have never made the Hall.

Now I have been accused of high standards when it come to the HHOF, but even I say that Francis is first ballot, mortal lock and deservedly so. There have been games when you watch him you knew he was a great player. When he was on the ice he could control the flow and tempo of the offense and disrupt the flow of the opposition on defense. Then he'd step off the ice and chaos would again ensue.

Andreychuk by comparison you could go 59 minutes without even noticing he was there until he shovels the 4th rebound past a sprawled goalie. Andreychuk probably could have scored 300 of his goals with a broom. And I would not be surprised to learn he's scored less than 50 total goals in his career form more than 10 feet out. That is not a Hall of Fame player. Valuable? Absolutely. Great guy to have on your team (particularly the power play)? No question. Hall of Famer? No.

Problem is that Francis was never recognized for all of the intangibles you speak of. He was never an all star. Never a Hart winner. If a guy is so great at the intangibles, he would at least get some interest at award time. Players like Oates, Yzerman, Lafontaine, Sakic etc. were all named all stars during the Gretzky/Lemieux era. Francis never was.

The guy was very good just not dominant. In my world, you need to be recognized as dominant to be Hall worthy.

 

[Hockeyfan02]

Neither LED a team to the cup.

You must have missed the 04 playoffs. Andreychuk was very much the leader of that Lightning team in the locker room as others have pointed out. But I guess if he didn't lead the team in scoring, he didn't do much to help the team during the playoffs in your view.

 

[norrisnick]

So, you are saying that Francis is superior to Denneny, Morenz and Conacher?

That is messed up.

So, you are saying that having the 4th most points in the history of the NHL isn't a great achievement?

That is messed up.

 

[Ogopogo*]

As far as the rest of your post, and for the sake of argument assuming there are exactly 18 players per team, being the 70th highest goalscorer in a 6 team league makes you closer to last than first whereas the same position in a 30 team league puts you in a far more respectable position.

Even if the amount of teams in each era was the same being 1st or 25th in scoring still wouldn't directly relate throughout history. The talent level may boil down to 10 great players beating up on 90 crappy ones, or 20 great players overshadowing 50 good players and 30 crappy ones.

True but being 70th out of 70 in the NHL still means you are 70th best in the world.

Besides, I don't rank them that low, I only use top 7. Top 7 in a four team league is still something very impressive. And, it is the 7 best in the world, no matter how many teams are in the league.

 

[Paxon]

True but being 70th out of 70 in the NHL still means you are 70th best in the world.

Besides, I don't rank them that low, I only use top 7. Top 7 in a four team league is still something very impressive. And, it is the 7 best in the world, no matter how many teams are in the league.

It doesn't mean you were the 70th best in the world. It means you scored the 70th most in the NHL that season. Not all hockey players in the world played in the NHL in 1918 or at any other time.

 

[tom_servo]

I disagree tom.

He had to outscore the whole world. Just because only 4-7 teams were in the league during his career that does not mean that he was not the best in the world.

I don't see it that way. The NHL didn't import players; they were almost all Canadian and local to the team they were playing for.

He was the best player in the league at the time, but to say that he was the best player "in the world" suggests a worldwide talent pool and comprehensive scouting/drafting system like there is today, which there wasn't.

Compared to today, NHLers in the 20s saw much less competition for jobs.

With a 30 team NHL, we have the top 10 goal scorers then we have everybody else. And after them we have all the guys that didn't make it.

With a 4 team NHL, we have the top 10 goal scorers then we have everybody else. And after them we have all the guys that didn't make it.

How would it affect anything if the 25th best goal scorer was in the league when Denneny played? The guy would still be 25th and Denneny would still be 1st.

This argument doesn't work, because the talent pool was much smaller back then (...heck, hockey wasn't even introduced to Russia until the '30s.).

Like I said in my previous post, this doesn't necessarily mean that Denneny couldn't have been one of the greats had be played today, but conditions have changed so much that you cannot say with any certainty that he had a greater career than any of today's top players, even if he did win all the awards.

Apples and oranges.

If this was a random draw, your argument would make sense. You cannot bring down the best in the world by adding a bunch of mediocre players into the mix.

Is being the president worth less in 1920 because the population of the US was a lot lower than it is today? No, being the president is being the president. You still hold the highest position in the land.

Well, it goes without saying that, statistically, it does grow slightly more difficult to become President as the nation's population rises. But to illustrate the real difference in the 20s NHL to the '00s NHL, think of being elected state representative (Denneny) to being elected President (Gretzky).

That's not to say that the state representative couldn't have gone on to be President if given the chance, but as it stands, they are most certainly not the same.

 

[Ogopogo*]

So, you are saying that having the 4th most points in the history of the NHL isn't a great achievement?

That is messed up.

It is not as great as winning scoring titles, Hart Trophies and All Star recognition.

The guy played 80 games per season during a time that 150 points in a season was achieved by several players. He, and everybody else playing during that time, had a distinct advatage statistically over every other player to ever lace them up.

So when a guy like Denneny wins a scoring title, finishes second four times and is a top 5 goal scorer 8 times and that puts him 1400 point behind Francis - a guy that never accomplished any of that stuff - that tells me that the system does not work. Raw point totals are hopelessly flawed and don't indicate who the true greats really are.

You have to analyze what the numbers really mean. Anyone that considers Francis a greater scorer than Esposito or Mikita is really not understanding hockey history. I think to look at the point totals and accept them without question is naive. It gives you false beliefs about what really happened in NHL history. If you want to cling to that false belief, that is fine but, I would rather know the real story.

 

[Ogopogo*]

It doesn't mean you were the 70th best in the world. It means you scored the 70th most in the NHL that season. Not all hockey players in the world played in the NHL in 1918 or at any other time.

For my purposes, I am doing NHL rankings. Anyone outside the NHL does not concern or affect my ratings.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I don't see it that way. The NHL didn't import players; they were almost all Canadian and local to the team they were playing for.

He was the best player in the league at the time, but to say that he was the best player "in the world" suggests a worldwide talent pool and comprehensive scouting/drafting system like there is today, which there wasn't.

Compared to today, NHLers in the 20s saw much less competition for jobs.



This argument doesn't work, because the talent pool was much smaller back then (...heck, hockey wasn't even introduced to Russia until the '30s.).

Like I said in my previous post, this doesn't necessarily mean that Denneny couldn't have been one of the greats had be played today, but conditions have changed so much that you cannot say with any certainty that he had a greater career than any of today's top players, even if he did win all the awards.

Apples and oranges.



Well, it goes without saying that, statistically, it does get slightly more difficult to become President as the nation's population rises. But to illustrate the real difference in the 20s NHL to the '00s NHL, think of being elected state representative (Denneny) to being elected President (Gretzky).

That's not to say that the state representative couldn't have gone on to be President if given the chance, but as it stands, they are most certainly not the same.

So, any NHL accomplishment before 1989 is not really that significant? 1989 is when the Russians started to come over en masse to the NHL. Any of Espo or Howe's records are garbage? Is that what you are saying?

What if China gets into hockey? Suppose, by 2050 China is one of the world's elite in hockey. Does that mean everything happening today is crap?

I disagree. When you are in the NHL you are playing against the best that the NHL has to offer. If you are the best, that makes you the best. It is the same as being the best in 2005 or 2050.

How can you say Denneny was not the best just because Vladimir in Russia had never even heard of hockey until after Denneny retired?

 

[norrisnick]

It is not as great as winning scoring titles, Hart Trophies and All Star recognition.

The guy played 80 games per season during a time that 150 points in a season was achieved by several players. He, and everybody else playing during that time, had a distinct advatage statistically over every other player to ever lace them up.

So when a guy like Denneny wins a scoring title, finishes second four times and is a top 5 goal scorer 8 times and that puts him 1400 point behind Francis - a guy that never accomplished any of that stuff - that tells me that the system does not work. Raw point totals are hopelessly flawed and don't indicate who the true greats really are.

You have to analyze what the numbers really mean. Anyone that considers Francis a greater scorer than Esposito or Mikita is really not understanding hockey history. I think to look at the point totals and accept them without question is naive. It gives you false beliefs about what really happened in NHL history. If you want to cling to that false belief, that is fine but, I would rather know the real story.

Fine, he played in an era when everybody was scoring. Where are all these guys ahead of him in the scoring rankings? Only two players in his era are ahead of him. Wayne and Messier.

Sitting where he sits on the list is a feat of greatness. If he weren't great he wouldn't be up there.

 

[Paxon]

So, you are saying that Francis is superior to Denneny, Morenz and Conacher?

That is messed up.

First of all, what do you or I or any of us know about Denneny other than a.) he played before our parents were born and b.) his stats.

What is messed up is probably using one season from a guy that we know nothing about who played a still-developing game that must have had a completely untapped and undeveloped talent pool and saying he is better (or more Hall of Fame-worthy, to the point) than a guy who was consistently greater throughout his career than just about everyone in the history of the game.

For all we know, we are comparing the best computer of 1950 to one of today's best computers (speaking of Francis here, not Andreychuck). While one being the best of its time where one is only among the best today has to help the 1950 computer's case--enough to get him into the Computer Hall of Fame, for example--being among the best today takes a lot more than being the best at that point did. So what is wrong with them both being in the Computer Hall of Fame?

 

[Ogopogo*]

First of all, what do you or I or any of us know about Denneny other than a.) he played before our parents were born and b.) his stats.

What is messed up is probably using one season from a guy that we know nothing about who played a still-developing game that must have had a completely untapped and undeveloped talent pool and saying he is better (or more Hall of Fame-worthy, to the point) than a guy who was consistently greater throughout his career than just about everyone in the history of the game.

For all we know, we are comparing the best computer of 1950 to one of today's best computers (speaking of Francis here, not Andreychuck). While one being the best of its time where one is only among the best today has to help the 1950 computer's case--enough to get him into the Computer Hall of Fame, for example--being among the best today takes a lot more than being the best at that point did. So what is wrong with them both being in the Computer Hall of Fame?

So you are saying that evolution automatically makes Francis more worthy than Denneny or Morenz? He is a more developed athlete so he is more deserving. Correct?

I disagree.

Greatness is measured by how you dominate your peers. You cannot use the measuring stick of a mythical being 50 years in the future to measure greatness. If that were the case, we could say that all of today's players are crap. In 2050 the average NHLer could be 6'8" 275 lbs and skate 50 MPH. That would make Wayne, Mario and Francis all look like garbage.

Edison was great because he accomplished so much more than his peers. Is he a bum because he could not put together a spreadsheet? The Roman empire was great because it dominated its era and annexxed more land than anyone else. Were they bums because they didn't have nukes?

How you dominate your peers is your measure of greatness. Everybody in your peer group has had the same opportunity for evolution and education so, how you dominate them is what counts.

Francis is not more worthy simply because he is alive today. Denneny, Morenz and many, many others dominated their peers by a far greater margin than Francis did. That is what makes them great.

What we know about Denneny, Morenz and Conacher is that they dominated the NHL scoring race when they played. So, we can safely say, they were the best NHLers of their era. And, dominating your era is the measuring stick of greatness.

 

[tom_servo]

To condense my point... It's not Cy Denneny's fault that hockey was much more obscure in the 20s than it is in the 00s, but the fact remains that winning the Art Ross in 2004 is a very different thing than winning it in 1921. With all due respect to the athletes confined to that era, I'm not prepared to accept that their achievements would carry the same weight today.

 

[Ogopogo*]

To condense my point... It's not Cy Denneny's fault that hockey was much more obscure in the 20s than it is in the 00s, but the fact remains that winning the Art Ross in '04 is a very different thing than winning it in 1921. With all due respect to the athletes confined to that era, I'm not prepared to accept that their distinctions carry the same weight today.

So, today's NHLers are garbage compared to the NHL of 2050. Winning a scoring title in 2004 is not that significant because the 6'8" 275 lbs NHL leading scorer in 2050 is 10 X the athlete Martin St. Louis is.

Why even keep records? What is the point of knowing history if it is all garbage?

How you dominate your peers is your measure of greatness. It is irrelevant where evolution has taken society, if you stand out above society by a huge margin, you are truly great. Edison was truly great even though he could not work a spreadsheet. He dominated his peers.

Evolution is not a reason to sweep great accomplishents under the rug.

 

[tom_servo]

So, today's NHLers are garbage compared to the NHL of 2050. Winning a scoring title in 2004 is not that significant because the 6'8" 275 lbs NHL leading scorer in 2050 is 10 X the athlete Martin St. Louis is.

That could very well end up true, but you're missing the point. The two eras aren't comparable due to sheer numbers and probability, not in terms of athletic development.

Why even keep records? What is the point of knowing history if it is all garbage?

How you dominate your peers is your measure of greatness. It is irrelevant where evolution has taken society, if you stand out above society by a huge margin, you are truly great. Edison was truly great even though he could not work a spreadsheet. He dominated his peers.

Evolution is not a reason to sweep great accomplishents under the rug.

It's not garbage. You just have to maintain some perspective.

"How you dominate your peers is your measure of greatness."

Dominating 700 of your peers is much different than dominating 40, no?

 

[norrisnick]

So, today's NHLers are garbage compared to the NHL of 2050. Winning a scoring title in 2004 is not that significant because the 6'8" 275 lbs NHL leading scorer in 2050 is 10 X the athlete Martin St. Louis is.

Why even keep records? What is the point of knowing history if it is all garbage?

How you dominate your peers is your measure of greatness. It is irrelevant where evolution has taken society, if you stand out above society by a huge margin, you are truly great. Edison was truly great even though he could not work a spreadsheet. He dominated his peers.

Evolution is not a reason to sweep great accomplishents under the rug.

*pssst*
Francis did dominate his peers. (One's not named Gretzky or Messier anyway). He has more assists than all but one of his peers, and more points than all but two.

Analogy time, the last 25-30 years is one season. A bunch of guys have huge games throughout the course of the season, but put up a lot of goose eggs or miss games due to injury for the rest of the year. Francis is plodding along putting up a steady stream of points and by the end of the year the scoring leaders are Gretzky, Messier, and Francis. Sure Mario, Bossy, Lafleur and others had bigger games but they couldn't produce all year long.

 

[Ogopogo*]

That could very well end up true.



It's not garbage. You just have to maintain some perspective.

"How you dominate your peers is your measure of greatness."

Dominating 700 of your peers is much different than dominating 40, no?

You are dominating the whole world when you are the best in the NHL. Not just 40 or 700. You are the best in the world. Does the Olympic 100m champion only beat 7 other runners or is he the best in the world? Is it just one of two guys that gets elected president or is it the best the country has to offer?

Being the NHL's best is the same no matter when it happens.