Tsn: is Crosby the best penguin ever

[edog37]

I was watching a game with a friend of mine who plays Junior A, from 1992 where Lemieux pulls those fancy dekes, right after Jagr was skating circles around the net, I think most know which game I'm talking about (92 playoffs against Chicago) I was like holy **** did you just see that, and his response was "yeah, it was pretty good for it's time" Now... what I'm saying is, if you guys think Lemieux exactly as he was in his prime could stickhandle anywhere close to as good as say Datsyuk today, I'm honestly telling you for a fact you're wrong.

Lemieux was a far better stickhandler than Datsyuk. Just ask Ray Bourque....

In 2007 most of my Dad's side of my family who are all Lemieux fans, which is the big reason why I was growing up, said they've never seen Lemieux dominate games like Crosby was that year. They all said that Crosby was simply the best player they had ever seen, and it wasn't even a debate to them. I've yet to see a game from Lemieux where he dominates like Crosby has at his best, and I've seen tons believe me.

Come again on this one Lemieux took over numerous games more times than I can even remember. The every way possible to score game against Jersey, Game 5 against the Flyers in the '89 playoffs, Game 6 against the North Stars in the '91 Cup Final to name but a few. Mario obliterated these teams almost singlehandely. I'm a huge Crosby fan, but this statement is just downright wrong.

 

[overpass]

I'm sorry, but those are two completely different scenarios, the 1972 Canadians were not playing the 1987 Russian team, if they did, they would not be able to adjust, they would be completely owned. I've many hockey games in 1972, and I own the 1987 Canada Cup. I've watched those three final games of the Canada Cup 3 times over, and I've come to the conclusion (though it's not one I want to boast) that if Canada wasn't able to be so rough with them (they literally hauled them down on the ice tons of times and got away with so many obvious penalties), and had the teams switched goalies, the Russians would have won that series. Maybe not by much, but it was close enough as it was, and 3 of the most entertaing games I've seen in my life.

It's impossible for a team from 1995 to play a team from 2010 - they are separated by 15 years in time. It's a different hockey universe, in a sense. If a player jumped from one to the other, or if a team from 1995 played a team from 2010, it would be a collision of separate hockey universes.

The 1972 series was to illustrate the best example of teams coming from different hockey universe, but separated by space instead of time. Of course they were not entirely separate - the Soviets had played lesser Canadian teams in the past. But when these two hockey universes met, there was very fast adjustment process by both teams.

The Canadians were at an initial disadvantage, never having played a Russian team (I think). But they made adjustments for Game 2, with lineup changes and tactical changes, and gave probably a better defensive and overall game than the USSR had ever seen. And then the Soviets adjusted, etc.

The point is that great players and coaches from any era were able to adjust to their conditions and opponents and excel. If you put the 1958 Canadiens up against the 2011 Capitals, they might see some things they'd never seen before in the first game. (Different people in this section might dispute this, but let's accept it for the sake of argument.) But I guarantee they would be better prepared for the second game...and better yet for the third game. They would adjust as they always adjusted throughout their careers.

Which brings me to my overall point. If you are ranking players of the present over players of the past because you think they played in a superior game, you are giving them credit for a temporary, superficial difference. Not a true, enduring difference in quality demonstrated against top opponents over time.

Sean O'Donnell, Steve Staios, and Jassen freaking Cullimore played NHL defence in the 1995 and 2010 NHL. If the difference between the 1995 NHL and the 2010 NHL is one that Jassen Cullimore can adjust to, maybe it's not worth considering when ranking players.

You brought up evolution earlier. But the point is that Darwinian evolution does not and cannot apply to hockey players. Inherited traits aren't changing to any meaningful degree in four generations. Is the game evolving? Of course. You see that when you watch old hockey games. We all see that. But it's not clear to me that it means all the players are better (even if you grant that the game is better today, which some people in this section would dispute). You seem to be assuming that better game = better players. When you're talking about the best players in the world in a highly competitive, continuous environment, I'm not sure it does.

It also seems profoundly uninteresting to me to crown modern players as the best ever and leave out most older players. Kind of like making a list of the best generals in history and picking only American generals from the past two decades because the modern US Army is the best ever.

There seems to be this idea that I hate on old time hockey, but all my friends tell me I'm obsessed with past players, and the history of the game, which I am. You wouldn't believe how many old games I watch, how many history of hockey books I've read as early as I started playing hockey (1994), biographies of past players, (Bobby Hull, Eric Lindros, Ken Dryden, Mario Lemieux, etc...) I'm absolutely obsessed with hockey and my ability to analyze almost anything very precisely, is almost second to no one no matter what anyone here chooses to believe. I played rep hockey, I've played in competitive road hockey leagues, I play NHL games (3000 points in 1200 games, I'm basically the Gretzky of video game hockey, all you want about that one.)

My understanding of the game, statistics, and everything to do with hockey in general is top notch. I'm telling you that for a fact, I was a gifted student when I was younger, and was reading and spelling at grade seven and eight levels when I was in grade three, got high 80's in academic math and science all throughout highschool, I'm no fool, I lack no common sense. In fact, I have a strange way of knowing things, without looking too much into it, then when I do, I always seem to be right. I could do math in my head that teachers couldn't believe I didn't need to do the six steps involved in reaching the final answer, my Intelligence Quotient is 128, higher than most people I know,

The only reason I didn't get drafted to the OHL was because of my size, I'm 5'11 145... lol, I'm probably spouting off a bunch of personal information you guys really don't care about, or may not seem that relevant to you... but I'm sick of people treating my opinions as garbage, and acting as if I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about.

I'd bet my life I'd make a better hockey scout or analyst than almost anyone on these boards, that's something that I can't argue or try and prove, but I truly believe it.

Do you still not actually understand my main point? (I think you're closer to understanding it than most, If not, then I have nothing further to say. I think I've made myself perfectly clear on where I stand regarding this topic).

Intelligence and hockey knowledge is all well and good. But many other posters on this board are intelligent, know their hockey, and most importantly have valuable experience and perspective. I can see where your argument is coming from and think it's worth addressing, but a lot of people come in here boosting modern players. (Usually younger posters). It's not surprising that many posters would rather not engage with that.

 

[Rhiessan71]

The Canadians were at an initial disadvantage, never having played a Russian team (I think). But they made adjustments for Game 2, with lineup changes and tactical changes, and gave probably a better defensive and overall game than the USSR had ever seen. And then the Soviets adjusted, etc.

Not to mention the initial disadvantage of not having their two best players playing. Granted one of them was of their own making but still.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Nobody is missing Infinite Visions point. Of course the game has changed since 1996. It changes all the time. But it's not clear that changes to the game are relevant to the discussion of individual players.

The point that individual players are able to maintan a level of play and stay in the league over 15 years or more is far more relevant than changes in tactics, training, or equipment. All of those factors are external things to which hockey players, especially great hockey players, can adapt and have always adapted.

See the 1972 Summit Series. The high tempo, highly organized play of the USSR caught Canada by surprise in Game 1. It was something from another world of hockey. But Canada made a complete adjustment for Game 2, skating much shorter shifts, using 6 d-men, and playing a hard matchup game. Then the Soviets adjusted to that, and so it continued throughout the series. Similarly, Ovechkin in 1995 would find that any advantages he had would quickly disappear.

There is a huge difference in maintaining the same level of play, at least in statistical terms, and staying in the league and this is not directed at you so much as to other who will bring up individual seasons of a player and leave out the 4 seasons around it that counter their point.

This is even before age, role of a certain player on a team and how much freedom that player has offensively and other factors come into play.

There is never any definitive way to evaluate players from certain eras to each other but one general point to keep in mind for myself is that it becomes harder to dominate statistically in a league that gets "better."

Put another way the best Chinese restaurant in Regina may or may not be the best Chinese restaurant in the prairies or Canada as the level of competition goes up it becomes statistically harder to do so.

The frustrating thing for me is when players say that Mario would blow guys, like Crosby , out of the water today without taking into account their individual responsibility on their own teams never mind the changed landscape of their opposition. Mario was never asked to play a defensive role at any point in his career he was purely an offensive player and went out there and did his thing. this was the context of his times.

Crosby is asked to play a defensive role, as is each and most every player in todays NHL and that's the context they are in.

We don't know exactly how Mario would fare if asked to play more defensive but it is likely that he would score less.

Also we don't know exactly how Sid would do if he were asked to only play offense and let other worry about defense but he probably would score more.

And this is only one variable of change

When posters fail to take these different contexts into account, or dismiss them, it weakens their arguments IMO.

I have the same eye test and have seen Wayne and Mario play in their primes and Sid's record for his 1st 6 years is in the mix when everything is considered.

How he does from here on out remains to be seen.

 

[Killion]

Not to mention the initial disadvantage of not having their two best players playing. Granted one of them was of their own making but still.

As you know Rhiessan, it'd have made little difference to the outcome with Dryden in-between the pipes. He was completely flummoxed, rubber-kneed & defeated against Euro's with talent; guys with Killer Instincts. Beyond the one brilliant performance in 71 what exactly was Drydens contribution to the position of "netminder"?. He was gangly, didnt play the angles particularly well, was pretty much a Junior 'B' talent throughout his career with the exception of that one stellar series. Of all the "odds bodies" who played for the Habs', that one alone stands out like a pimple.

 

[Rhiessan71]

As you know Rhiessan, it'd have made little difference to the outcome with Dryden in-between the pipes. He was completely flummoxed, rubber-kneed & defeated against Euro's with talent; guys with Killer Instincts. Beyond the one brilliant performance in 71 what exactly was Drydens contribution to the position of "netminder"?. He was gangly, didnt play the angles particularly well, was pretty much a Junior 'B' talent throughout his career with the exception of that one stellar series. Of all the "odds bodies" who played for the Habs', that one alone stands out like a pimple.

Dude...you're scaring me...I was referring to the two Bobby's.
Orr couldn't play and Hull wasn't allowed to.

On the subject of goalies though, Cheevers wasn't allowed to play either and might of been a better choice than Dryden or Espo to be honest.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Ken Dryden

As you know Rhiessan, it'd have made little difference to the outcome with Dryden in-between the pipes. He was completely flummoxed, rubber-kneed & defeated against Euro's with talent; guys with Killer Instincts. Beyond the one brilliant performance in 71 what exactly was Drydens contribution to the position of "netminder"?. He was gangly, didnt play the angles particularly well, was pretty much a Junior 'B' talent throughout his career with the exception of that one stellar series. Of all the "odds bodies" who played for the Habs', that one alone stands out like a pimple.

Ken Dryden was the first big goalie who played "Big". Previously goalies like Cesare Maniago and Gary Smith though tall did not play big, tended to play small when fatigued.

Dryden's size compensated for some of the weaknesses you listed, very weak puckhandler also. However his play showed what the results could be like if a big goalie played "Big" and what adjustments had to be made during the teaching process.

The Soviets had that cute little button hook move to the side/backwards that negated Dryden's size advantage.

 

[Killion]

Dryden's size compensated for some of the weaknesses you listed, very weak puckhandler also.

Yes, he was "big", but he played like Roger Crozier, a teeny tiny man who you could pinch between your forefinger & thumb while staring at the Sun. All reaction & very little science. He was easily taken apart. In as much as I respected his performance in that one series, thereafter & overall, he was a disappointment to me. Of all the interchangeable parts, even the somewhat hot-cold Maniago couldve' played for the Canadiens' of that era & would have had the same success Im quite sure. Dryden was forever being caught out of position, making bad decisions, letting in soft goals. Asleep or else wide awake in full-on panic mode. I have a very much jaundiced & prejudicial opinion of Ken Dryden as a goaltender. Vastly over-rated IMO.

But getting back to the premise of this thread, "Best Penguin Ever", lets look at Lester Binkley shall we?...

 

[Infinite Vision*]

I am also very smart and better than most of you. Please check out my post history if you want to be a much better person than you ever could have been without me.

EDIT: Also, I have a TON of friends (probably more than all of you combined) and they all say I know the most about hockey

Awesome story! Please tell me more.

 

[Czech Your Math]

As has been pointed out, assessing quality of the league across different decades/eras becomes a tangled web. To rely solely on your eyes to tell you the difference is not so reliable and almost inevitably leads to disagreement. It's one thing to say the average (median) player is more athletic, and another for that to prove that the best player is better than just 10-20 years ago.

For one thing, we can't assume that the distribution of talent within a league is not significantly different in some respects across eras. For another, although I agree that the total amount of talent above a certain threshold increases generally over time, it does not do so evenly for at least a couple of reasons.

First, it's more important that the number of teams is kept in rough proportion to the total talent. When the league is suddenly expanded rapidly like in the 70's, the talent is quickly diluted and therecan be a greater disparity that allows the best to exploit the worst. While when there is no expansion for a long period, the talent tends to compress as the number of teams does not keep up with population growth, as happened in the 60's and somewhat in the late 80's and recent years.

Second, there are other factors that have a dramatically greater impact than population growth in the short term. These factors include wars, league competitors and mergers (e.g. WHA), expansion or contraction of # teams, and the addition or subtraction of large talent pools (e.g. overseas talent).

Finally, even when other factors may be constant, but talent increases over time with population, the distribution of talent is not consistently smooth over time. Let's look at some peaks and valleys of more recent distributions of skaters, focusing primarily on offensive talent. Starting with the group which dominated much of the 70's:

Jan. 1948 to Sep. 1951 (~3.7 years)
--------------------------------------------
1948- (Orr), Kharlamov, (Park), (Lapointe), Robert
1949- Clarke, Goring
1950- Perreault, Sittler, Leach, MacLeish
1951- Lafleur, Dionne, Martin, (Robinson), (Salming)


Oct. 1951 to March 1960 (~8.5 years)
------------------------------------------
1952- Barber, Shutt, McNab
1953- (Potvin), McDonald, Middleton, Gainey, Lysiak
1954- Gillies, Simmer, Gare, Greschner, Bourne, Rogers
1955- Larouche, Maruk, Paiement
1956- Trottier, P. Stastny, Federko
1957- Bossy, (Langway), J. Mullen, Tonelli, Duguay
1958- (Fetisov), Bo. Smith, Linseman, Smyl
1959- Gartner, Propp, Mats Naslund, A. Stastny, Broten, Ogrodnick, Vaive

Some fine talent, but Trottier, Bossy and Stastny stand apart from the other forwards.

Feb. 1960 to October 1965 (~5.7 years)
------------------------------------------------
1960- (Bourque), Kurri, Goulet, Ciccarelli, Anderson, Steen, Kerr, Hunter, Larionov, Carbonneau
1961- Gretzky, Messier, (Coffey), D. Savard, (Murphy), Nicholls, Larmer, Pederson
1962- Oates, Br. Sutter, G. Courtnall
1963- (MacInnis), Francis, Gilmour, Hawerchuk, Andreychuk, Thomas
1964- (S. Stevens) Br. Hull, Bellows, Tocchet, Verbeek, Sandstrom, Ferraro
1965- M. Lemieux, Yzerman, LaFontaine, Neely, C. Lemieux, K. Stevens, Tikkanen, Ronning

Even if you take Gretzky and Lemieux out, this <6 year period still stacks up pretty well against the 50's list of >8 years. Then comes a short drought of elite talent:

Nov. 1965 to Dec. 1968 (~3.3 years)
--------------------------------------------
1966- Robitalle, Nieuwendyk, Roberts, Muller, Richer, Mellanby, Olczyk, Sheppard, Pivonka, Clark
1967- Damphousse, Janney, Young, Dahlen, Simpson, King
1968- (Leetch), Recchi, Fleury, Bondra, Graves, Carson, Malakhov

Then another boom period, in large part to Europeans and Russian republics:

Jan. 1969 to Dec. 1973 (< 5 years)
-------------------------------------------
1969- Sakic, Shanahan, Fedorov, Mogilny, Turgeon, LeClair, (Blake), Khristich
1970- (Lidstrom), Selanne, Modano, Roenick, (Zubov), BrindAmour, Amonte, Guerin, Zhamnov, Lang
1971- Sundin, Bure, Weight, Holik, Nedved, Reichel, K. Primeau, Rucinsky
1972- Jagr, Alfredsson, Tkachuk, Palffy, Whitney, Nolan, Sl. Kozlov, Straka, Nylander, Stumpel
1973- Forsberg, Lindros, (Niedermayer), Kovalev, Mk.Naslund, Yashin, Stillman, Rolston, Lehtinen

Then another trough:

Jan. 1974 to Dec. 1978 (< 5 years)
-------------------------------------------
1974- (Pronger), Kariya, (Gonchar), Arnott, Demitra, S. Koivu, Sullivan, Satan
1975- St. Louis, Bertuzzi, Prospal, Langenbrunner, Morrison, V.Kozlov, Allison
1976- Elias, Hejduk, Smyth, Doan, Langkow, Sykora, Drury
1977- Iginla, (Chara), M. Savard, Briere, McDonald, Dvorak, Hecht, Handzus
1978- Datsyuk, Jokinen, Samsonov, Dumont, Zubrus, Huselius, Horcoff, Cole

And so it goes...

Really the only objective way I can think of to measure how quality increases/decreases between eras is to look at a large sample of the top talent and see how they performed at different times. I'm in the midst of a longer term project examining the better point scorers since WWII (hundreds of players), but am currently bogged down in the mid-late 80's. An easier if less reliable study might be to look at top goaltenders and how their adjusted GAA differed over the years. Otherwise it all comes down to opinions.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Unfortunately it's not looking good for Sid atm. Apparently, he is still suffering headache's and there are some questions forming on whether he will be starting the season.

Yep, hasn't been a good year for me. Toronto fails to make the playoffs once again, Crosby gets his head rocked in the midst of his most dominant season yet, Forsberg comes back for two games... I hope Crosby can return to form, if at all.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

You're not directly but you're sarcism is quite obvious and it is a form of ridiculing what he wrote.

Yeah really... then he denies it... ok pal.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Entry Draft

As has been pointed out, assessing quality of the league across different decades/eras becomes a tangled web. To rely solely on your eyes to tell you the difference is not so reliable and almost inevitably leads to disagreement. It's one thing to say the average (median) player is more athletic, and another for that to prove that the best player is better than just 10-20 years ago.

For one thing, we can't assume that the distribution of talent within a league is not significantly different in some respects across eras. For another, although I agree that the total amount of talent above a certain threshold increases generally over time, it does not do so evenly for at least a couple of reasons.

First, it's more important that the number of teams is kept in rough proportion to the total talent. When the league is suddenly expanded rapidly like in the 70's, the talent is quickly diluted and therecan be a greater disparity that allows the best to exploit the worst. While when there is no expansion for a long period, the talent tends to compress as the number of teams does not keep up with population growth, as happened in the 60's and somewhat in the late 80's and recent years.

Second, there are other factors that have a dramatically greater impact than population growth in the short term. These factors include wars, league competitors and mergers (e.g. WHA), expansion or contraction of # teams, and the addition or subtraction of large talent pools (e.g. overseas talent).

Finally, even when other factors may be constant, but talent increases over time with population, the distribution of talent is not consistently smooth over time. Let's look at some peaks and valleys of more recent distributions of skaters, focusing primarily on offensive talent. Starting with the group which dominated much of the 70's:

Jan. 1948 to Sep. 1951 (~3.7 years)
--------------------------------------------
1948- (Orr), Kharlamov, (Park), (Lapointe), Robert
1949- Clarke, Goring
1950- Perreault, Sittler, Leach, MacLeish
1951- Lafleur, Dionne, Martin, (Robinson), (Salming)


Oct. 1951 to March 1960 (~8.5 years)
------------------------------------------
1952- Barber, Shutt, McNab
1953- (Potvin), McDonald, Middleton, Gainey, Lysiak
1954- Gillies, Simmer, Gare, Greschner, Bourne, Rogers
1955- Larouche, Maruk, Paiement
1956- Trottier, P. Stastny, Federko
1957- Bossy, (Langway), J. Mullen, Tonelli, Duguay
1958- (Fetisov), Bo. Smith, Linseman, Smyl
1959- Gartner, Propp, Mats Naslund, A. Stastny, Broten, Ogrodnick, Vaive

Some fine talent, but Trottier, Bossy and Stastny stand apart from the other forwards.

Feb. 1960 to October 1965 (~5.7 years)
------------------------------------------------
1960- (Bourque), Kurri, Goulet, Ciccarelli, Anderson, Steen, Kerr, Hunter, Larionov, Carbonneau
1961- Gretzky, Messier, (Coffey), D. Savard, (Murphy), Nicholls, Larmer, Pederson
1962- Oates, Br. Sutter, G. Courtnall
1963- (MacInnis), Francis, Gilmour, Hawerchuk, Andreychuk, Thomas
1964- (S. Stevens) Br. Hull, Bellows, Tocchet, Verbeek, Sandstrom, Ferraro
1965- M. Lemieux, Yzerman, LaFontaine, Neely, C. Lemieux, K. Stevens, Tikkanen, Ronning

Even if you take Gretzky and Lemieux out, this <6 year period still stacks up pretty well against the 50's list of >8 years. Then comes a short drought of elite talent:

Nov. 1965 to Dec. 1968 (~3.3 years)
--------------------------------------------
1966- Robitalle, Nieuwendyk, Roberts, Muller, Richer, Mellanby, Olczyk, Sheppard, Pivonka, Clark
1967- Damphousse, Janney, Young, Dahlen, Simpson, King
1968- (Leetch), Recchi, Fleury, Bondra, Graves, Carson, Malakhov

Then another boom period, in large part to Europeans and Russian republics:

Jan. 1969 to Dec. 1973 (< 5 years)
-------------------------------------------
1969- Sakic, Shanahan, Fedorov, Mogilny, Turgeon, LeClair, (Blake), Khristich
1970- (Lidstrom), Selanne, Modano, Roenick, (Zubov), BrindAmour, Amonte, Guerin, Zhamnov, Lang
1971- Sundin, Bure, Weight, Holik, Nedved, Reichel, K. Primeau, Rucinsky
1972- Jagr, Alfredsson, Tkachuk, Palffy, Whitney, Nolan, Sl. Kozlov, Straka, Nylander, Stumpel
1973- Forsberg, Lindros, (Niedermayer), Kovalev, Mk.Naslund, Yashin, Stillman, Rolston, Lehtinen

Then another trough:

Jan. 1974 to Dec. 1978 (< 5 years)
-------------------------------------------
1974- (Pronger), Kariya, (Gonchar), Arnott, Demitra, S. Koivu, Sullivan, Satan
1975- St. Louis, Bertuzzi, Prospal, Langenbrunner, Morrison, V.Kozlov, Allison
1976- Elias, Hejduk, Smyth, Doan, Langkow, Sykora, Drury
1977- Iginla, (Chara), M. Savard, Briere, McDonald, Dvorak, Hecht, Handzus
1978- Datsyuk, Jokinen, Samsonov, Dumont, Zubrus, Huselius, Horcoff, Cole

And so it goes...

Really the only objective way I can think of to measure how quality increases/decreases between eras is to look at a large sample of the top talent and see how they performed at different times. I'm in the midst of a longer term project examining the better point scorers since WWII (hundreds of players), but am currently bogged down in the mid-late 80's. An easier if less reliable study might be to look at top goaltenders and how their adjusted GAA differed over the years. Otherwise it all comes down to opinions.

Probably the most reliable way would be according to NHL ENTRY Draft or equivalent criteria otherwise you are all over the board starting and finishing years with different months etc.

Example Mario Lemieux, Kirk Muller, Brett Hull, Luc Robitaille were all drafted in the 1984 NHL Entry Draft, yet you have them spread over three years when in fact there path to the NHL post Entry Draft is measured from the same date.

 

[Killion]

Dude...you're scaring me...I was referring to the two Bobby's.

I know. Figured Id have some fun with ya...... btw, dont ever make the mistake of asking Ken Dryden for the time. The man will insist you sit down while he build's you a watch. Interminable Sir. Absolutely interminable.

 

[overpass]

As you know Rhiessan, it'd have made little difference to the outcome with Dryden in-between the pipes. He was completely flummoxed, rubber-kneed & defeated against Euro's with talent; guys with Killer Instincts. Beyond the one brilliant performance in 71 what exactly was Drydens contribution to the position of "netminder"?. He was gangly, didnt play the angles particularly well, was pretty much a Junior 'B' talent throughout his career with the exception of that one stellar series. Of all the "odds bodies" who played for the Habs', that one alone stands out like a pimple.

Heh. I wasn't too impressed with Dryden when I watched the Summit Series on DVD, the Soviets were shooting unscreened slapshots from the outside and a few went through him. Esposito looked like the much better goalie, as did Tretiak. I can't draw too many conclusions from that as I have seen very few of his NHL games, but Dryden's always been a player who I have very little idea how to rate.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I know. Figured Id have some fun with ya...... btw, dont ever make the mistake of asking Ken Dryden for the time. The man will insist you sit down while he build's you a watch. Interminable Sir. Absolutely interminable.

Actually, I met him at a book signing when i was around 12-13 in the early 80's.
Signed my copy of "The Game" and one of my Sherwood goalie sticks.
Definitely not the dumbest person I ever met, nor the shortest of speech

 

[Hawkey Town 18]

Yeah really... then he denies it... ok pal.

I denied that I was ridiculing you for stating your opinion, I never said I wasn't ridiculing you at all. In other words, I was ridiculing you for something else. Didn't think I'd have to spell it out like this.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

It's impossible for a team from 1995 to play a team from 2010 - they are separated by 15 years in time. It's a different hockey universe, in a sense. If a player jumped from one to the other, or if a team from 1995 played a team from 2010, it would be a collision of separate hockey universes.

The 1972 series was to illustrate the best example of teams coming from different hockey universe, but separated by space instead of time. Of course they were not entirely separate - the Soviets had played lesser Canadian teams in the past. But when these two hockey universes met, there was very fast adjustment process by both teams.

The Canadians were at an initial disadvantage, never having played a Russian team (I think). But they made adjustments for Game 2, with lineup changes and tactical changes, and gave probably a better defensive and overall game than the USSR had ever seen. And then the Soviets adjusted, etc.

The point is that great players and coaches from any era were able to adjust to their conditions and opponents and excel. If you put the 1958 Canadiens up against the 2011 Capitals, they might see some things they'd never seen before in the first game. (Different people in this section might dispute this, but let's accept it for the sake of argument.) But I guarantee they would be better prepared for the second game...and better yet for the third game. They would adjust as they always adjusted throughout their careers.

Which brings me to my overall point. If you are ranking players of the present over players of the past because you think they played in a superior game, you are giving them credit for a temporary, superficial difference. Not a true, enduring difference in quality demonstrated against top opponents over time.

Sean O'Donnell, Steve Staios, and Jassen freaking Cullimore played NHL defence in the 1995 and 2010 NHL. If the difference between the 1995 NHL and the 2010 NHL is one that Jassen Cullimore can adjust to, maybe it's not worth considering when ranking players.

You brought up evolution earlier. But the point is that Darwinian evolution does not and cannot apply to hockey players. Inherited traits aren't changing to any meaningful degree in four generations. Is the game evolving? Of course. You see that when you watch old hockey games. We all see that. But it's not clear to me that it means all the players are better (even if you grant that the game is better today, which some people in this section would dispute). You seem to be assuming that better game = better players. When you're talking about the best players in the world in a highly competitive, continuous environment, I'm not sure it does.

It also seems profoundly uninteresting to me to crown modern players as the best ever and leave out most older players. Kind of like making a list of the best generals in history and picking only American generals from the past two decades because the modern US Army is the best ever.



Intelligence and hockey knowledge is all well and good. But many other posters on this board are intelligent, know their hockey, and most importantly have valuable experience and perspective. I can see where your argument is coming from and think it's worth addressing, but a lot of people come in here boosting modern players. (Usually younger posters). It's not surprising that many posters would rather not engage with that.

After reading that bolded part, I'm not sure what else to say... are you honestly suggesting the 1958 Canadiens could adjust to the point where they'd be competitive with the 2011 Capitals, and in 3 games? huh..? Give them 5 years, assuming they stay ageless, and I still don't think it would be a contest. I think that's a fact, you honestly think players could jump that many years forward and even compete with an NHL team? A Midget AAA team would smash the 1958 Canadiens in a real hockey game, whether they went back and used their equipment, or vice versa.

Like I said, in games from the 70's, I see guys routinely skate horribly through open ice and simply lose control of the puck. The shots are usually low and weak (I know the old argument, they were told to keep their shots down, ok then) Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr were the only ones who could shoot with any type of velocity and accuracy that would compare to players today, from before 1980. Lafleur as well, Bossy and maybe a few others, but that's the point... so many of the the guys I just don't understand how they were in the NHL... argue this if you want, there's a thing called watching games, and recognizing skill level that contradicts what you're attempting to tell me. I know for a fact that any AHL team today would kill the 1987 team Canada if they were to match up against each other... and you're trying to convince me a team straight from 1958 could compete with the 2011 Capitals if they were given a few games to adjust... I'm finally starting to disagree with you, very strongly, lol.

And I'm not crowning modern players as the best players ever, I think it's possible that Forsberg, Jagr, Gretzky and Lemieux would be better players than Crosby and Ovechkin are, infact I think it's more than likely... but I truly don't think it's anywhere close to a guarantee, based on how much the overall skill level of the NHL has changed.

Think of it this way, what if Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, and all the best players of today and the past played in the same league... how would anyone of them standout that much against each other?

That's what I think this league is a lot like. It's getting really competitive, there's more top 3 picks playing in this league now than there ever has been, and I haven't even looked into it, but I'm about to and I already know I'm right. There's also more older players playing at a high level, which everyone keeps telling me thinking it's helping their arguments, but since I see no lack of 25-35 year old players who are amazing players in this league, how can it be argued that it's not harder to standout today?

Seeing a poster mention that he thought Lemieux would score 200 points in today's NHL, then had the nerve to act like I'm the idiot, I found honestly hilarious. He knows who he is. He says players wouldn't be able to hook and hold him like they did, well yeah of course they wouldn't, but neither would he, and that's something he and especially Gretzky did a lot. Gretzky would hook a player around his waist and just glide with him until he picked a guys pocket. Could it honestly be argued that that would be more of a factor than everything else I've stated? NOT A CHANCE.

Read what Hardyvan and Czech your math are saying, it's freaking obvious from watching games, and analyzing stats from different eras that it was much easier to standout in certain eras.

The argument that everyone was playing in the same league doesn't hold water, because there was a great disparity, someone could be stuck with an absolute crap team, and another player could be on one of the few with all the talent and get all the recognition yet for all we know he might not have been better than said player on that horrible team.

The more things even out, and the more skilled players get, both mentally and physically, just adds to this even more, and for the thousandth time goalies are much harder to score on now. Not even considering overall teams defensive systems and strategies...

I already knew Crosby's streak this year was comparable to Gretzky's in 84 just based on common sense, then a very intelligent poster here basically confirmed it with a great deal of work.

I already knew Forsberg was a better player than Joe Sakic from watching games, your thread confirmed this for me, but people will make excuses because he's not Canadian. Same with Jagr, everyone says he had no heart, didn't care enough, that's not the Jagr I remember watching. If he had've cared then he was basically Lemieux.

Everyone here just denies so many obvious things it makes me wonder why I even argue anything on these boards.

Bigger, faster, stronger, flashier doesn't equal better, then why are more and more players resembling these types as time goes on? It obviously equals better, unless everyone is just getting bigger, faster, stronger, flashier for the fun of it, but they're competitive players in a professional league so I highly doubt that's the case... why isn't the league full of Phil Esposito's, Adam Oates', Luc Robitailles, and other such players that rely on smarts rather than physical skills? Of course there are still some like that who are more than servicable NHL players today, but soon enough players who can't skate really well, stickhandle really well, etc.. will not be in this league. It's called evolution. It's real.

If more and more of these types of players are in this league, making for much less time and space, the goalies are bigger, with better equipment, more skilled mentally, physically, more athletic, not even considering everything else mentioned like the parity and salary cap etc... then how can it be argued that it's not harder to standout today?

It simply can't be, keep trying though if anyone wishes.

Also like I've said before, if some does manage to standout like Gretzky or Lemieux did, you'll have to accept the fact that they're actually better than them.

 

[Killion]

I can't draw too many conclusions from that as I have seen very few of his NHL games, but Dryden's always been a player who I have very little idea how to rate.

OT for this thread, but you'd pretty much have to dig through the film archives starting with his truly incredible 71 playoff performance in order to form your own opinions. Always came up with the "big save" for the Canadiens' when it was required, no easy task as generally about 70% of the game was played in the opponents/opposite end of the rink; so powerful was Montreal during the 70's. He did indeed have a time of it against the Soviets, the reasons for which are to this day a bit of an enigma; his regular season & playoff performances were nothing short of consistently brilliant...... I do like picking on him though.

 

[overpass]

After reading that bolded part, I'm not sure what else to say... are you honestly suggesting the 1958 Canadiens could adjust to the point where they'd be competitive with the 2011 Capitals, and in 3 games? huh..? Give them 5 years, assuming they stay ageless, and I still don't think it would be a contest. I think that's a fact, you honestly think players could jump that many years forward and even compete with an NHL team? A Midget AAA team would smash the 1958 Canadiens in a real hockey game, whether they went back and used their equipment, or vice versa.

Like I said, in games from the 70's, I see guys routinely skate horribly through open ice and simply lose control of the puck. The shots are usually low and weak (I know the old argument, they were told to keep their shots down, ok then) Bobby Hull and Bobby Orr were the only ones who could shoot with any type of velocity and accuracy that would compare to players today, from before 1980. Lafleur as well, Bossy and maybe a few others, but that's the point... so many of the the guys I just don't understand how they were in the NHL... argue this if you want, there's a thing called watching games, and recognizing skill level that contradicts what you're attempting to tell me. I know for a fact that any AHL team today would kill the 1987 team Canada if they were to match up against each other... and you're trying to convince me a team straight from 1958 could compete with the 2011 Capitals if they were given a few games to adjust... I'm finally starting to disagree with you, very strongly, lol.

And I'm not crowning modern players as the best players ever, I think it's possible that Forsberg, Jagr, Gretzky and Lemieux would be better players than Crosby and Ovechkin are, infact I think it's more than likely... but I truly don't think it's anywhere close to a guarantee, based on how much the overall skill level of the NHL has changed.

Think of it this way, what if Gretzky, Lemieux, Orr, Howe, and all the best players of today and the past played in the same league... how would anyone of them standout that much against each other?

That's what I think this league is a lot like. It's getting really competitive, there's more top 3 picks playing in this league now than there ever has been, and I haven't even looked into it, but I'm about to and I already know I'm right. There's also more older players playing at a high level, which everyone keeps telling me thinking it's helping their arguments, but since I see no lack of 25-35 year old players who are amazing players in this league, how can it be argued that it's not harder to standout today?

Seeing a poster mention that he thought Lemieux would score 200 points in today's NHL, then had the nerve to act like I'm the idiot, I found honestly hilarious. He knows who he is. He says players wouldn't be able to hook and hold him like they did, well yeah of course they wouldn't, but neither would he, and that's something he and especially Gretzky did a lot. Gretzky would hook a player around his waist and just glide with him until he picked a guys pocket. Could it honestly be argued that that would be more of a factor than everything else I've stated? NOT A CHANCE.

Read what Hardyvan and Czech your math are saying, it's freaking obvious from watching games, and analyzing stats from different eras that it was much easier to standout in certain eras.

The argument that everyone was playing in the same league doesn't hold water, because there was a great disparity, someone could be stuck with an absolute crap team, and another player could be on one of the few with all the talent and get all the recognition yet for all we know he might not have been better than said player on that horrible team.

The more things even out, and the more skilled players get, both mentally and physically, just adds to this even more, and for the thousandth time goalies are much harder to score on now. Not even considering overall teams defensive systems and strategies...

I already knew Crosby's streak this year was comparable to Gretzky's in 84 just based on common sense, then a very intelligent poster here basically confirmed it with a great deal of work.

I already knew Forsberg was a better player than Joe Sakic from watching games, your thread confirmed this for me, but people will make excuses because he's not Canadian. Same with Jagr, everyone says he had no heart, didn't care enough, that's not the Jagr I remember watching. If he had've cared then he was basically Lemieux.

Everyone here just denies so many obvious things it makes me wonder why I even argue anything on these boards.

I think you're massively underrating the effect of changes in ice quality, equipment quality, and rule changes on observed player quality. Any modern team going back in time would have to make some major adjustments to their style of play to adapt to the prevailing conditions.

For one, see how well the modern butterfly goalies perform with the old pads. When you post things about how goalies are so much harder to score on today...well, that may be true, but it sure sounds like you're valuing equipment ahead of players.

Bigger, faster, stronger, flashier doesn't equal better, then why are more and more players resembling these types as time goes on? It obviously equals better, unless everyone is just getting bigger, faster, stronger, flashier for the fun of it, but they're competitive players in a professional league so I highly doubt that's the case... why isn't the league full of Phil Esposito's, Adam Oates', Luc Robitailles, and other such players that rely on smarts rather than physical skills? Of course there are still some like that who are more than servicable NHL players today, but soon enough players who can't skate really well, stickhandle really well, etc.. will not be in this league. It's called evolution. It's real.

If more and more of these types of players are in this league, making for much less time and space, the goalies are bigger, with better equipment, more skilled mentally, physically, more athletic, not even considering everything else mentioned like the parity and salary cap etc... then how can it be argued that it's not harder to standout today?

It simply can't be, keep trying though if anyone wishes.

Also like I've said before, if some does manage to standout like Gretzky or Lemieux did, you'll have to accept the fact that they're actually better than them.

Again, evolution is not producing smarter or more naturally talented players. There's no theory of evolution that would support that.

I think your Luc Robitaille/Adam Oates/Phil Esposito category of players who rely on "smarts" is extremely limited. It's not just offensive players who rely on smarts. Every hockey player does. What were Bobby Clarke's outstanding physical skills? He was 5'10 180 lbs of off-the-charts hockey smarts, guts, and drive. In today's game, what outstanding physical skills does Henrik Zetterberg rely on? Like Clarke, he's just an outstanding hockey player.

It's the same for lesser players. I've watched Chris Kelly come up through the Ottawa system and play for Ottawa, and he has no plus "skills". He's a good skater, has no finish...there are thousands of players with skills like his. But he's a really smart player, especially defensively, he can think and play at a high tempo, and he never stops working. And now he's played a key role on a Stanley Cup winner. A player like Kelly can have a role on any Stanley Cup winning team, and not because he has great "skills". It's because he thinks and reacts faster and plays smarter than all those guys in the AHL.

It's even more the case with defencemen. How, exactly, do you identify which defencemen will succeed in the NHL just by looking at their physical skills? If they don't have the toolbox, the tools don't help. How much of Lidstrom's success can you attribute to his physical skills? Surely a considerable percentage of it comes from what's between the ears.

In fact, all great hockey players have been great because of their ability to think the game in addition to their physical skills. Physical skills are not remotely sufficient, no matter how much players practice them.

I think an AHL team facing the 1987 Canada Cup team would find that their modern skating speed wouldn't take them to where the puck was going, their modern dangling puck skills wouldn't get them into anything resembling a scoring area, and their modern big bodies wouldn't help them win the puck. Simply because you're putting a group of players who got it done against a group of players who didn't, to put it mildly. Same thing with your Midget AAA against the Canadiens, but even more so. Some players get it done and some players don't.

Have you seen the young guys who join men's leagues thinking they're all that with the new equipment and the flashy skills? But then there's always some old guy with decades-old equipment who schools them, because he just knows how to get it done.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Changes

I think you're massively underrating the effect of changes in ice quality, equipment quality, and rule changes on observed player quality. Any modern team going back in time would have to make some major adjustments to their style of play to adapt to the prevailing conditions.

For one, see how well the modern butterfly goalies perform with the old pads. When you post things about how goalies are so much harder to score on today...well, that may be true, but it sure sounds like you're valuing equipment ahead of players.



Again, evolution is not producing smarter or more naturally talented players. There's no theory of evolution that would support that.

I think your Luc Robitaille/Adam Oates/Phil Esposito category of players who rely on "smarts" is extremely limited. It's not just offensive players who rely on smarts. Every hockey player does. What were Bobby Clarke's outstanding physical skills? He was 5'10 180 lbs of off-the-charts hockey smarts, guts, and drive. In today's game, what outstanding physical skills does Henrik Zetterberg rely on? Like Clarke, he's just an outstanding hockey player.

It's the same for lesser players. I've watched Chris Kelly come up through the Ottawa system and play for Ottawa, and he has no plus "skills". He's a good skater, has no finish...there are thousands of players with skills like his. But he's a really smart player, especially defensively, he can think and play at a high tempo, and he never stops working. And now he's played a key role on a Stanley Cup winner. A player like Kelly can have a role on any Stanley Cup winning team, and not because he has great "skills". It's because he thinks and reacts faster and plays smarter than all those guys in the AHL.

It's even more the case with defencemen. How, exactly, do you identify which defencemen will succeed in the NHL just by looking at their physical skills? If they don't have the toolbox, the tools don't help. How much of Lidstrom's success can you attribute to his physical skills? Surely a considerable percentage of it comes from what's between the ears.

In fact, all great hockey players have been great because of their ability to think the game in addition to their physical skills. Physical skills are not remotely sufficient, no matter how much players practice them.

I think an AHL team facing the 1987 Canada Cup team would find that their modern skating speed wouldn't take them to where the puck was going, their modern dangling puck skills wouldn't get them into anything resembling a scoring area, and their modern big bodies wouldn't help them win the puck. Simply because you're putting a group of players who got it done against a group of players who didn't, to put it mildly. Same thing with your Midget AAA against the Canadiens, but even more so. Some players get it done and some players don't.

Have you seen the young guys who join men's leagues thinking they're all that with the new equipment and the flashy skills? But then there's always some old guy with decades-old equipment who schools them, because he just knows how to get it done.

Changes. Under the heading of rule changes you would have to consider the impact of roster sizes. Playing a game with 3 lines and 2 defensive pairings impacts significantly on shift length, etc. Also the number of coaches per team behind the bench during the game and all the related coaching differences. Different when players have to play the game on their own with between period adjustments, if that.

The old guy - he's been around since hockey started. Will never leave.
Even in the NHL you see it with Lidstrom,Recchi, previously with Chelios, Gordie Howe, going back to non-greats like Doug Mohns, Noel Price and before.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Last of a Breed

OT for this thread, but you'd pretty much have to dig through the film archives starting with his truly incredible 71 playoff performance in order to form your own opinions. Always came up with the "big save" for the Canadiens' when it was required, no easy task as generally about 70% of the game was played in the opponents/opposite end of the rink; so powerful was Montreal during the 70's. He did indeed have a time of it against the Soviets, the reasons for which are to this day a bit of an enigma; his regular season & playoff performances were nothing short of consistently brilliant...... I do like picking on him though.

Ken Dryden was the last of a breed. Avoided the sponsorship route, never had a true position coach or a mentor, basically self taught other than his older brother Dave.

A few weaknesses in his play as listed up thread but he was a "gamer"

 

[plusandminus]

As you know Rhiessan, it'd have made little difference to the outcome with Dryden in-between the pipes. He was completely flummoxed, rubber-kneed & defeated against Euro's with talent; guys with Killer Instincts. Beyond the one brilliant performance in 71 what exactly was Drydens contribution to the position of "netminder"?. He was gangly, didnt play the angles particularly well, was pretty much a Junior 'B' talent throughout his career with the exception of that one stellar series. Of all the "odds bodies" who played for the Habs', that one alone stands out like a pimple.

In the thread about "adjusting for assists per goal", I linked to a page with lots of info about the 1972 summit series, including to a stats page. There are Excel sheets at the bottom of that page.
Anyway, some guy actually watched all the games and recorded every shot being taken (the official stats are flawed). Here are his stats for save % (with my addition within paranthesis):
Tretiak: .884 (.116, goal on about every 9th shot)
T.Esposito: .882 (.118, goal on about every 9th shot)
Dryden: .838 (.162, goal on about every 6th shot)
Dryden seemed to have about 1.5 times worse save % than the other two.
(The above said without having looked more into backgrounds. In the 8th game, Dryden apparantly made 3 outstanding saves, compared to 1 for Tretiak. But he also failed to save 5 of the 25 other shots, while Tretiak looked better by just allowing 6 goals on 40 shots. Canada won 6-5, outshotting Russians 41-25 (all shots counted).)

 

[Sens Rule]

The 1958 Habs in their old equipment with plante in net with no mask would utterly destroy the best triple AAA Midget all star team with new equipment by such a dramatic margin it would not be funny. Tonthink otherwise is moronic.

The 1987 Canada cup team would easily beat the bruins Stanley cup winning team in a 7 game series... Wearing the same equipment they wore in 1987. Straight from a time machine. Like you really think they couldn't beat an ahl team based on speed? They have mike Gardner and Paul freaking Coffey!!!! Mario and Gretzky in their primes on a line together? Doug Gilmour as a 3rd or 4th line centre??? You really think these players... Who were the best of the time would be schooled by AHLers? Have you watched AHL hockey lately? Sure they are fast and strong but they just play systems...they lack creativity and skill and finesse. Why they are in the AHL!

 

[plusandminus]

... What were Bobby Clarke's outstanding physical skills? He was 5'10 180 lbs of off-the-charts hockey smarts, guts, and drive. In today's game, what outstanding physical skills does Henrik Zetterberg rely on? Like Clarke, he's just an outstanding hockey player.
...
How much of Lidstrom's success can you attribute to his physical skills? Surely a considerable percentage of it comes from what's between the ears.

Mentality seems in my opinion to be a key word to be included in this discussion. You can be very skilled in shooting, skating, passing, etc. You can be very skilled in thinking, hockey sense, reading play, etc. You can be very good at combining those two elements.

But a third key factor is mentality. And I think it's usually very important. Many of the greatest players also have great mentality. Lidstrom is a great example, perhaps being one of the most "disciplined" players in the league. Sedins' success in the last years also seems to do with them having trained harder than ever. A guy like Gretzky also had a certain "win" mentality (perhaps accompanied with a "score as much as ever possible" mentality). Another player of today with a great mentality is Crosby (he reminds me of Gretzky in that regard, but please don't bash me for that). Zetterberg.

(I may be wrong now, but sometimes I get the impression Ovechkin is a step below, mentality wise. ?? Jagr at times had similar reputation. Of course both are excellent players, and of course their mentality was/is good enough to make them - at times - the arguably best forwards in the world. If one would list examples of "had it all, except the mentality required", there are other players that fits the description better.)