bobholly39
Registered User
- Mar 10, 2013
- 22,339
- 15,057
- No.
- Why exactly is Jagr part of that discussion?
Better Jagr than soccer stars from the past few pages =p
- No.
- Why exactly is Jagr part of that discussion?
I still can't believe anybody thinks anybody involved in the current game at the moment can surpass Gretzky. His level of domination against his contemporaries is obscene.
99 is immortal Babe Ruth level. He's even well above Brady and Lebron
Why is jagr being talked about? Guy wasnt very good in the playoffs...took a step back
So walk me through your point about about Malkin, Stamkos, Tavares and Kane. You are assuming that if they played the whole season in 13/14 that Crosby doesn't win by 20%, correct?
How is that any different than making the same assumption about Crosby playing full seasons?
So you are talking about A HALF SEASON as to prove your point?
Im saying that he wouldnt have won the scoring race as big as he did because ALL relevant competition folded.
Better Jagr than soccer stars from the past few pages =p
Who cares? He just as likely would have had other dominant Art Ross wins if we apply the same criteria that your are applying to the relevant competition, that being giving them credit for games they did not play.
Only applying the criteria to his competition is a double standard. Not sure how you don't get this.
So either take his 20% Art Ross at face value (which is the right thing to do) or apply the same "what if" scenario to everyone.
BTW, Stamkos played LESS THAN HALF A SEASON in 13/14 at a significantly worse PPG.
Doesn't get better than Messi though.
Who cares? He just as likely would have had other dominant Art Ross wins if we apply the same criteria that your are applying to the relevant competition, that being giving them credit for games they did not play.
Only applying the criteria to his competition is a double standard. Not sure how you don't get this.
So either take his 20% Art Ross at face value (which is the right thing to do) or apply the same "what if" scenario to everyone.
BTW, Stamkos played LESS THAN HALF A SEASON in 13/14 at a significantly worse PPG.
There's a gap in your logic.
What is 20% art ross at face value? What does that even mean? It's an Art Ross, sure, and he gets full marks for that. Does he get extra marks because he won it by 20%? Is it comparable to the years Gretzky won his art ross by lapping the competition? Is that your argument?
No, what im saying is that if you have a grand slam in Tennis, say french open. If Djokovic, Murray, Federer and Wawrinka all withdraw or dont even enter the tournament, it will be an easy win for Nadal (Crosby in this example). Thats not saying anything other than that Nadal is great, and would be the odds favorite to win anyway - just that if the competition folds, it wont even be close by default.
If you take Premier League. If Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Tottenham and Arsenal all decides not to play that year, it would and SHOULD be a big win for Liverpool.
And btw Stamkos had 23 points in 17 games before injury (and that counting the Boston game).
So to sum up:
1. He won an art ross in 2014. Full merit for that
2. He didn't win an Art Ross in 2011. So you can't give him any merit for that. 'Hypothetical Art Ross' means exactly nothing for career value.
3. He played at a super high level in 2011 (and 2013, and 2012) - and you can give him some credit for that. (ex - he was seen as the best player in the world, and by a decent gap even, most of those years. That's some worth/merit right there).
4. 20% margin of victory means exactly nothing in that grand scheme of things. You have to apply context, and logic, and if you apply context and logic, you realize his 2014 season isn't even his most dominant season. It might not be top 3. You can give full merit to Gretzky's dominant art ross seasons because they show how above the competition he was that year but also any other years. 2014? It shows a strong level of play, but that's it.
Apply this same line of thinking to Malkin, Stamkos etc.. for their 13/14 seasons, that 'Hypothetical full seasons means exactly nothing' and we are good.
If you want to apply context, and logic to his 13/14 season, which I am totally fine with, then all I am asking is to apply the same logic and context to his partial seasons, namely that it is pretty clear he missed out on two chances to have dominant Art Ross wins on his resume.
Frankly I am bit surprised this needs to be explained.
"Crosby won the Art by 20% in 2014"
"Yeah but injuries...."
"Crosby would won 2 or 3 more Art Rosses if not for injuries"
"Oh, that's completely different and holds zero value"
I certainly said nothing of the kind, nor have i seen that line of argument said here. Are you making arguments up?
And of course Malkin and Stamkos don't get value for missing 2014 why would they? do you think when we evaluate Malkin's career value we're going to tic "hypothetical ross in 2014" ? I don't think anyone here said that.
But you are making assumptions on how these players would have done if they played a full season and claiming that Crosby doesn't have his 20% Art Ross win if these players weren't injured. So that should open the door to speculate that Crosby has at least 2 to 3 more Art Ross if not for injuries right?
Your argument are so crazy I cant really keep up anymore. Im saying all his competition folded and he wouldnt win as big if they didnt, and you go directly to awarding Crosby 2-3 Art Ross. Its like talking science with the pope.
If Man Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Tottenham and Arsenal all decides not to play that year, it would and SHOULD be a big win for Liverpool.
Your logic is severely lacking in the last few pages. Unless you're just completely misunderstanding the point.If you can't see the hypocrisy of awarding Malkin and Stamkos full seasons in 13/14 and not doing the same for Crosby, you are hilariously blind with your dislike for Crosby.
Your logic is severely lacking in the last few pages. Unless you're just completely misunderstanding the point.
1. You're saying a 20% art ross margin of victory is impressive, because 20% is a lot
2. We're saying you have to put that 20% in context. With context, it's not nearly as impressive (context = Malkin/Stamkos injuries as a starter)
3. You're jumping to saying we should give Crosby hpothetical art ross in 2011 12 and 13 if we add context to his ross win of 2014.
Huh?
Scousers would still find a way not to win.
If you can't see the hypocrisy of awarding Malkin and Stamkos full seasons in 13/14 and not doing the same for Crosby, you are hilariously blind with your dislike for Crosby.
I dont award them anything which I tell you numerous times but you fail to understand.
You aren't assuming that Malkin gets more than 87 points if you award him a full season?