TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
If we're using THN player rankings as evidence of "overratedness," then I would like to submit Rick Nash for his repeat performances
- Status
If we're using THN player rankings as evidence of "overratedness," then I would like to submit Rick Nash for his repeat performances
Epsilon
#basta
I was actually about to make the exact same post. No player has been more consistently overrated on the THN Top 50 than Nash. He routinely outranks players who have largely outproduced him. How the hell does he rank in the top 20 afte the season he just put up? There are only 4 spots on the list separating Nash from Ilya Kovalchuk, which is just absurd given the disparity in production between them. Also, you've got Nash at #20 and his new teammate Marian Gaborik, one of the only players last season to score 40 goals, isn't even in the top 50!
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Malone was a dominant scorer, but he was not much more dominant than Frank Nighbor, and Malone was pretty useless in all areas but scoring goals.
But when I mention "stats without context," I am talking about when people list Malone's 1918 season as "perhaps the best goal scoring season of all time" since he scored 44 goals in 20 games.
This overlooks two facts:
1) He actually didn't lead the NHL by that wide a margin. He had 44 goals and 48 points. Cy Denneny had 36 goals and 46 points that same season.
2) Malone scores 23 of his 44 goals in 7 games against an Ottawa team that was missing Frank Nighbor.
Malone was ranked a top 50 player of all time by HOH and THN. Knowing what I know now, that's unjustifiable.
I've seen people call Hainsworth a top 10 goalie of all time, but Charlie Gardiner and Roy Worters were almost universally considered better goalies by contemporaries. Even in Hainsworth's record breaking 1929, Worters was selected "1st Team All Star" on the unofficial teams voted on by the 10 NHL managers. We have full voting results for the 1928 team, when Hainsworth also led the NHL in GAA, and Worters dominated the voting. Hainsworth was selected to the second team, but he was barely ahead of Alec Connell.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
Clearly they were throwing a bone to an aging superstar who had just come off a Smythe-calibre playoffs after two full seasons of declining play. They threw him the 50th spot on a list of 50 right?
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Well yeah. I hope so.
But I expect better of them.
You are absolutely right about Nash as well.
Epsilon
#basta
I don't have a good way to collect the data quickly, but if anyone is up to the task I'd love to see a side-by-side comparison of Rick Nash's rankings on the THN Top 50 lists compared to his finishes in the scoring race the previous season. I suspect it wouldn't paint a pretty picture for THN.
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
He was more dominant that Nighbor, yes. Nighbor had one big offensive season in 16/17, while Malone had many: 12/13, 14/15, 15/16, 16/17, 17/18, 18/19 and 19/20.
Nighbor is pretty clearly the better overall player of the two, but he was mostly "only" very good offensively and dominant defensively, and "not quite as good as Frank Nighbor" is hardly a black spot on your record. And then there's the idea that a player who "only" scores goals is somehow lacking, as if scoring goals doesn't help your team win.
That's what I though you meant, and it is a fallacious claim, but you're downgrading it too much. "Not the best goal-scoring season of all time" describes many outstanding player-seasons, including that one. I'd say 17/18 was Malone's second-best season, to 12/13.
Then's there's 19/20, with Ottawa having a fully healthy Nighbor, and Malone having almost no help from his teammates when he scored 39 goals, 50% more than Nighbor. Newsy Lalonde scored nearly as many as Malone, but again "barely ourscored Newsy Lalonde" is hardly an insult.
I could see a top-50 argument for him maybe. It's not like there's really much difference between a top-50 player and say, a top-80 player when you're discussing all-time.
I've found in reading all these old game reports etc. that goalies on bad teams tend to get a lot of praise, presumably because they had so much work to do, so much opportunity to make big saves because their teammates were allowing a lot of good shots. They got a lot of notice, whereas a quietly effective netminder would not.
Which is not to say anything against Worters or Gardiner. But you can't focus too much on any one source of information, I'd suggest.
There's an argument to be made for Hainsworth being rated highly. I certainly wouldn't say top 10, and again maybe because you've heard some people (whoever they are) say top 10, you see him as overrated. From my perspective, in general he's likely to be underrated by most people because he played before WW2.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,856
- 3,820
Why?
Everything I see coming out of THN these days is garbage and has been for a while.
My favourite one was a while back when they were saying the 07 Ducks would be too much for the dynasty 70s Canadiens to handle. I laughed.
I think half the time it is meant to be controversial to drive traffic to their site more than anything.
quoipourquoi
Goaltender
Hey, you stole my line!
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showpost.php?p=50701757&postcount=230
I think the issue with the annual Top 50 is that it serves as a prediction for the next season - not a direct reflection on the last one. Sometimes they're on the money (Ovechkin at #2 after 2006-07).
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Their top-50 lists are fairly good as a representation of who the 50 best players are at any given time. Not perfect, and you and I can each do better off the tops of our heads, but... something objective to look back on to talk about how so-and-so was regarded at one time.
and yeah, like TDMM said, throwing Brodeur at the end was probably some sort of sympathetic tip of the hat.
BUT - considering the top-20 by position rankings that come out around September tend to mirror the top-50 for the players who make both lists, and to put Brodeur 4th among the goalies as of right now, is simply inexcusable.
Doesn't negate the whole list. I got my copy today. It's not bad. I could do better. But the Brodeur thing leaves a bad taste for sure.
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
It's almost as if sports media will promote things that aren't factual in order to drive interest in their reporting. Uninteresting facts take a back seat to interesting storylines, regardless of how valid those storylines might me...
Well, I don't think you can really call it objective. It's a recording of the subjective opinions of a small group of people. It's that latter part that's the most problematic.
Czech Your Math
I am lizard king
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Sports Media
Sports media reflects sports. Both strive to entertain as opposed to informing or teaching. As such it is neutral as opposed to subjective or objective. Entertainment generates revenues and profits.
The era of telling a story about the game disappeared with the advent of TV.
Sports media reflects sports. Both strive to entertain as opposed to informing or teaching. As such it is neutral as opposed to subjective or objective. Entertainment generates revenues and profits.
The era of telling a story about the game disappeared with the advent of TV.
Iain Fyffe
Hockey fact-checker
It's not neutral in the sense that it often pushes a specific point of view. For example, painting the playoffs as a test of character, such that winners are held up as examples of manliness and losers as substandard human beings who fold under pressure, is a viewpoint sometimes presented and cannot honestly be described as neutral.
I think you mean something slightly different than I do by telling a story. I'm not talking about colourful and evocative descriptions of the game, but hanging narratives onto an athletic event.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Entertainment
Entertainment is about pandering to the masses. Neutral describes it best since it does not attempt to change stereotypes rather the reports wish to sustain and perpetuate the stereotypes for future entertainment.
Entertainment is about pandering to the masses. Neutral describes it best since it does not attempt to change stereotypes rather the reports wish to sustain and perpetuate the stereotypes for future entertainment.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Hockey News Top 20 by position:
Martin Brodeur - 4th (Behind only Quick, Lundqvist and Rhinne)
Also, Rick Nash 1st RW
Patrick Kane - 17th CENTER
Martin St. Louis - 6th LEFT WING
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,856
- 3,820
I honestly don't know why anyone even reads THN any longer.
It is terribly researched in general, and the writers seem like they could easily come from the general board here.
King Forsberg
16 21 28 44 68 88 93
- Jul 26, 2010
- 6,192
- 59
After reading the 02 Wings - 84 Oilers thread, I'm starting to think everyone on that Wings team is overrated. I've heard that Sakic and Selanne couldn't even make the team.
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 14,856
- 3,820
Well it does suppose that each player is in their prime (even though like half of them weren't in 02 with the wings). So for example you get 155 point Yzerman, 86 goal Brett Hull, etc. even though in 02 they weren't anywhere near that (offensive) level.
That said prime Sakic and Selanne would still easily make that team.
Evincar
I have found the way
- Aug 10, 2012
- 6,462
- 778
They rated Doughty as the number 1 D-man, I assume because he had a good playoffs. They must have forgot that he had a whopping 76 points the last 2 seasons and will be making 7 million a year.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
TheDevilMadeMe
Registered User
The high placement of Doughty is consistent with the high placement of Brodeur - they seem to have put a high (too high?) emphasis on what happened during the last playoffs. But then how to explain Rick Nash?
- Status
Ad
Upcoming events
-
-
-
BET ON ONLY ONE HORSE WATCH LIVE - FINGER LAKES RACE 1 - Farmington, NYWagers: 4Staked: $815.00Event closes- Updated:
-
-