Round 2, Vote 3 (2009 update)

[Canadiens1958]

Let's Review ............................

Lets review shall we...

YOU called out Taylor for his "lack of winning". I called you on it, and provided several examples that you were likely not aware of where Taylor was a winner. I did not base my case for Taylor of number of championships in any instance. That you perceive my corrections of your factual errors, which are being pointed out with increasing regularily I might add, to be Cup-counting, is flabergasting.

You take my comments on Benedict entirely out of context. Do not equate your method of comparing the raw number of Cups, GAA, SO, and wins to draw definite and absolute conclusions about which player was better than another with myself and others merely listing them out under the much broader heading of accomplishments. Once again I will remind you that not once in this discussion have I used Benedict's stats to conclusively state that he was better than goaltender X, as you may be apt to do.

To elaborate on what Nalyd posted, I honestly don't understand why you are here anymore. You have been adversarial at every turn, and seem to merely wait around to pounce on somebody else's opinion as opposed to actually engaging in pleasant discourse. I don't think I have ever seen you agree with anything somebody else has posted; you have only chosen to criticize. When your criticisms are rebutted, you either ignore them or dance around them using wordy and confusing dialogue until another issue catches you attention and the process repeats. Clearly you have a great wealth knowledge pertaining to the sport of hockey, and could be of great value to this project, but your completely oppositional attitude puts that all to waste.

Kyle,

Let's review:

I love how Messier still bears the albatross for Vancouver's failings. They put all their eggs in one basket, expecting a player in his late 30's to lead them to the promise land. Messier finished 2nd, 2nd, and 3rd in scoring for Vancouver in his three seasons there, despite missing significant time injured. C1958 correctly points out that this was a mistake made by management, yet Messier gets all the blame. Markus Naslund will attest to the helpful effect that Messier had on the developmental stages of his career. I'm not entirely excusing Messier's apparent power-mongering behind the scenes, but that shouldn't be the only thing that is brought up.

I'm not implying that mean and nasty is the best way or the only (though I do personally prefer that style). But I'll put it this way: If two players have the same number of goals and points, but one is an intimidating, physical beast while the other isn't, there should be no question as to which one is more valuable, regardless of preference. Hitting IS a plus, how big of a plus it is, is up to the individual. But I can't see how it could possibly be of no value at all as seems to be the case with you.

So when my opinion jives with your Messier agenda I definitely have a purpose.

You managed both posts in a matter of minutes.

 

[Weztex]

That is what I consider a reasonable gap.
Cameron isn't in my list (but was close and, in retrospect, should have been, but those 115-120 spots were really for personnal faves). Boucher is 100th. I do have problems finding him a modern comparable (tougher and better Larry Murphy is the best I could come with, that's not a very good comparison...

I may see Scott Niedermayer as a fair comparable. Game relying more on speed and hand, putting impressive offensive numbers.

 

[MXD]

I may see Scott Niedermayer as a fair comparable. Game relying more on speed and hand, putting impressive offensive numbers.

That's the thing : Boucher was notoriously "not quick", relied on puck control and muscle.

 

[Weztex]

That's the thing : Boucher was notoriously "not quick", relied on puck control and muscle.

You're right. I just looked it up. I must have been thinking of Frank.

 

[Kyle McMahon]

Kyle,

Let's review:



So when my opinion jives with your Messier agenda I definitely have a purpose.

You managed both posts in a matter of minutes.

Oh man, even when I agree with you you take issue!

My post was directed at your participation in this Top 100 project.

 

[seventieslord]

Guys, I think C1958 has a point...

You can't make an argument over wins, SC's, SC ratio, W-L ratio for one, then completely discredit it for another guy. At worst, it can be used to "support" an argument. For the record, I have Benedict roughly where he finished last time, maybe a bit higher. I just cannot rank him higher than Bill Durnan, and I must "punish" him for the same reasons I "punished" Durnan (shoddy competition - at least for part of their careers, playing infront of a great defense vs. other teams - and Benedict defense was better, judging only by my top-100 : both guys had two D-Mens in the Top-120 (only, Benedict's D-Mens were in the Top-100 while the best two D's that Durnan had are below 100 IIRC, and I don't think the Gerard/Hitchman vs. Harmon's comparison is really needed, even though I think Glen Harmon might be one of the most underrated D-Mens in the ATD's)

This is true, but as overpass said, we have to go with what we have in the absence of better info, AND, no one said this made Benedict better; we were only refuting a highly incorrect and uninformed post.

EDIT : For the record, I MIGHT have ranked a 40ies Habs D-Men in my TOp-100, but thinking about it, it wouldn't be exactly my most enlightened move.

Yeah,that's a mistake. Mitch Lamoreux is not that good.

When comparing Clint Benedict to Georges Vezina, you have to use different criteria than when you compare Dominik Hasek to Martin Brodeur.

For Benedict and Vezina, all the stats we have are wins, GAA, and Cups won, all of which are heavily team influenced. We can use the statistics because they're the best we have, but they have to be taken with a grain of salt. We can also look at contemporary opinion, but there are no all-star teams, so it comes down to picking through newspaper archives and the few hockey books that cover this time period.

It would be crazy to apply exactly the same criteria to a Hasek vs Brodeur comparison, or any recent goaltenders. For one, we've seen them play. We also have save percentage data for their full careers, which gives a measure of performance that has far less team influence in it than the other goalie stats. We also have full awards voting for their entire careers, as well as a wealth of contemporary opinion available.

You're free to choose your criteria as you see fit, but it seems bizarre to suggest that criteria should be consistent across eras when there are orders of magnitude more information available on more recent players.

^^^^well spoken.

I've got all three on my list. Cameron strikes me as the Brian Leetch of his time, and accordingly I've slotted them around the same spot (about #100 I think). Cleghorn I've got around #60 I think. The closest modern comparable is probably Chelios.

Those are pretty fair comparisons, except that Cameron and Cleghorn offensively dominated their contemporary defensemen to a degree not approached by Chelios and Leetch.

 

[Dark Shadows]

This really is just one big joke to you isn't it? You don't care at all about the discussion or the goal. All you care about is your ego and making everything about you. I'd say it's pathetic, but it's too sad to even be that...

Just about everyone knows this by this point. Except his sidekick stone that is.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Leo Lamoureux

This is true, but as overpass said, we have to go with what we have in the absence of better info, AND, no one said this made Benedict better; we were only refuting a highly incorrect and uninformed post.



Yeah,that's a mistake. Mitch Lamoreux is not that good.


Those are pretty fair comparisons, except that Cameron and Cleghorn offensively dominated their contemporary defensemen to a degree not approached by Chelios and Leetch.

It's Leo Lamoureux.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lamoule01.html

 

[seventieslord]

It's Leo Lamoureux.
http://www.hockey-reference.com/players/l/lamoule01.html

*sigh*

there goes my attempt at a joke......