Thenameless
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2014
- 3,855
- 1,788
I agree with this analysis. In this case, is it better to start "rounding off" your team by picking the "right" guy, or would it be better to hurt the other team by picking the guy he needs?
Who would you start your team with?
- Thread starter Thenameless
- Start date
I agree with this analysis. In this case, is it better to start "rounding off" your team by picking the "right" guy, or would it be better to hurt the other team by picking the guy he needs?
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
If you give Beliveau to the Howe and Orr team, and Harvey to the Gretzky/Lemieux team, then you have a better situation to argue.
BenchBrawl
Registered User
- Jul 26, 2010
- 30,880
- 13,671
If you hurt the other guy, the other guy is automatically going to hurt you too.Meaning: One team will get Harvey and Orr, and another will get Gretzky, Lemieux and Beliveau.
Thenameless
Registered User
- Apr 29, 2014
- 3,855
- 1,788
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Not talking ATD, where others benefit from one team's mistake.
If you have Orr and Howe plus the fifth pick while the other team has Gretzky and Lemieux you draft Harvey no questions asked. This allows you to control the game from the backend the whole sixty minutes with extra time to play both on the PP.
Their best pick at #6 would be the best d-man available in their opinion. They could pick Beliveau but by doing so they are only diluting their TOI availability for centers which to start is half of d-men TOI availability.
Even if they pick the best d-man available, depending on who, at #7 one of Bourque, Lidstrom, Potvin, Robinson would be available and you would have to exhaust them to maintain the two elite d-man advantage.
MadLuke
Registered User
- Jan 18, 2011
- 9,543
- 5,172
The who would pick if every GM in the league would pick anyone they want for all time in a small amount of team league, vs who would who pick in the normal setting of say a 30 team league you can just add 2 player and that it, does change the question quite enough to make that distinction imo, position all time deep, delta versus the second best that matter in one scenario and not the other change that question quite enough (like it would worthless to pick a goaltender first in some scenario and not a bad choice in some other)
Not to sidetrack this conversation but...if the question becomes "who would GMs in today's NHL choose?" It becomes Gretzky +Lemieux 100% No questions asked i think.
I think opinion around the league is that Howe is a step below them (also a winger - less valuable) as a forward - and centers are by far the most valuable position in hockey today.
I think opinion around the league is that Howe is a step below them (also a winger - less valuable) as a forward - and centers are by far the most valuable position in hockey today.
Dennis Bonvie
Registered User
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Argument by false proxy. Trying to usurp expertise.
Look at Las Vegas,new expansion team. Took the best goalie available. Loaded up on defencemen. Hired one of the rare coaches who can actually teach offence-Gerard Gallant. Found two flawed but teachable centers. Doing incredibly well.
Better than teams with two - three AST level centers like Wash, Pitt, Phil,NYI, SJ, Edm, Ana.
I repeat gms around the league would pick Gretzky/Lemieux above other 2. Their reputation + perceived value is higher (then Howe especially).
Doesn't mean that a few years into the NHL they couldn't change their mind and say "crap - Orr/Howe going in would have been better" - but I think going in Gretzky + Lemieux easily take it.
Centers = most valued position (winger = least)
Offense = more appreciated than defense in picking elite players
Doesn't mean that a few years into the NHL they couldn't change their mind and say "crap - Orr/Howe going in would have been better" - but I think going in Gretzky + Lemieux easily take it.
Centers = most valued position (winger = least)
Offense = more appreciated than defense in picking elite players
You're changing the subject. I'm a Montreal fan. Vegas picked a defender - Emelin - above a forward - Hudon/Plekanec - who were 2nd most likely.
If the big 4 are 100 on 100 any of those 3 players are like a 23 in comparison? That has nothing to do with the type of players that were available to Vegas. If Vegas had a choice between McDavid or Dahlin they'd pick McDavid. Crosby or Bergeron? Crosby.
Offensive centers are worth more when at that level.
YOU can believe they shouldn't. You can argue Orr/Howe are more useful. Thats fine. I'm just saying gms around the league would pick the other duo for reasons listed.
JMCx4
Censorship is the Sincerest Form of Flattery
Be careful including that particular detail in your argument, 1958. Within the first 10 games of their inaugural season, Marc-Andre Fleury (I presume you meant) became Malcolm Subban, who became Oscar Dansk, who became Maxime Lagace. Yet through that rapid series of changes at a key position, the team still managed an 8-2-0 record and never looked back. So maybe the premise of this thread - that one pair of former superstars would be better than another duo on which to build a successful NHL team - does need serious consideration of the supporting cast, as several posters have pointed out.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
The circle closing back at M.A. Fleury who has played 36 of the Vegas games with the filler types accounting for the rest:
2017-18 Vegas Golden Knights Roster and Statistics | Hockey-Reference.com
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Overlooking that Montreal failed to replace Emelin all season while giving up Sergachev for a potential scorer Jonathan Drouin. Ryan Johanson for Seth Jones bad trade comparable.
The rules of the last expansion draft clearly showed the value of defencemen over centres.
Florida has progressed with kept centers,loss of Marchessault is not a factor, while Columbus does not miss Karlsson. Getting a coach who can coach as opposed to being a touring side show would help.
David Bruce Banner
Nude Cabdriver Ban
Canadiens1958
Registered User
It just illustrates the value of the best defenceman vs the best centre or the X rated defenceman vs the value of the X rated center.
Or from another perspective 2017 SC Champion Penguins could not replace the injured Kris Letang last season as easily as they could add Derick Brassard this season.
Not saying that Brassard is close to the value of a RHS experienced defenceman like Letang.
Comparable. Gretzky was replaced within two seasons in Edmonton-1990 SC. Crosby more than adequately replaced Lemieux.Boston never replaced Orr.
Last edited:
Iapyi
Registered User
I take Gretzky and Lemieux.
Both options are, of course, delicious to think about.
Gretzky was so much better then anyone else any tipping point leans to him being on any team that I'm going to start.
I see it as :
Gretzky
Howe/Orr/Lemieux [random order]
People can disagree but this is my stance.
Both options are, of course, delicious to think about.
Gretzky was so much better then anyone else any tipping point leans to him being on any team that I'm going to start.
I see it as :
Gretzky
Howe/Orr/Lemieux [random order]
People can disagree but this is my stance.
Mickey Marner
Registered User
Bobby Orr provides the highest above replacement value relative to position, as well as the greatest influence on GF/GA. I doubt he would suffer from as many knee injuries if he replayed his career, but even if he would, Howe is peerless on the longevity/durability front.
Gretzky and Mario.
IMO, Gretzky made his teammates better more than any other player. That is not to say the other three players didn't. When I say made his teammates better, I don't mean simply by having better numbers while playing with Wayne, but by learning from Gretzky, and becoming great players without Wayne being there later on. For instance, there was this article in Sports Illustrated in the 80s, where Messier's father was interviewed about Mark's success, and his father said Mark became a good player by diffusion, and had Messier went to a team like Det, he wouldn't have been much. His pops also said Mark's older brother was the better offensive son compared to Mark, whom was more of a physical player.
IMO, Gretzky made his teammates better more than any other player. That is not to say the other three players didn't. When I say made his teammates better, I don't mean simply by having better numbers while playing with Wayne, but by learning from Gretzky, and becoming great players without Wayne being there later on. For instance, there was this article in Sports Illustrated in the 80s, where Messier's father was interviewed about Mark's success, and his father said Mark became a good player by diffusion, and had Messier went to a team like Det, he wouldn't have been much. His pops also said Mark's older brother was the better offensive son compared to Mark, whom was more of a physical player.
Iapyi
Registered User
I so agree.
Gretzky catapulted not only the players on his team but the entire league.
I laugh when I read others say he got so many points in a watered down league.
Gretzky was so good he lifted the entire league up by it's britches and raised it up to those high scoring standards.
Without him that higher scoring era doesn't exist.
The Panther
Registered User
What? Okay, there's a lot wrong here.... Where do I start?
-- "Gretzky was replaced within two seasons in Edmonton".
That's a humdinger. First of all, Gretzky was "replaced" (if that's the word) by Jimmy Carson -- who was so intimidated by the Dynasty-players he ran from the team -- who lasted one season. Sather's brilliant trade of him for Klima, Murphy, and Graves gave the Oilers an extra forward line, which, since they had Messier in MVP mode and still had Kurri, Anderson, Simpson (and emergent Ranford), allowed them to get in one more Stanley Cup before they came crashing down hard.
Oilers' win-percentage last three Gretzky seasons: 67.5%
Oilers' win-percentage first-three post-Gretzky seasons: 52.9%
Bruins' win-percentage last three Orr seasons: 66.6%
Bruins' win-percentage first three post-Orr seasons: 69.2%
-- "Crosby more than adequately replaced Lemieux"
First of all, I can't really see this as a "replacement" since Lemieux's last period of prime-play combined with Pens' team success was 2001 at the latest, and most probably 1996. Crosby appears in 2005, which is like a totally different era, not a 'replacement'.
Second, while Crosby is arguably the best player of his era, he is in no way at Lemieux's level of skill or peer-dominance, making it odd to think of him as replacing Mario.
-- "Boston never replaced Orr".
That's true, I suppose, but as the team's hugely impressive record from 1975 to 1984 shows, they didn't really need to replace him to keep winning.
The fact is: The Oilers won a Stanley Cup without Gretzky, the Pens stayed near the top of the League and tops in offense without Lemieux in the 90s, and Boston continued as one of the best teams in the League for many years without Orr (in fact, they improved in 1975-76 when he was out). No one player is bigger than a team, as all those guys well know. But that's not the same thing as replacing the player. You cannot replace a Gretzky, Lemieux, or Orr.
Canadiens1958
Registered User
Difference makers. The straw that stirs the drink. Separate being ranked first loser on down from actually winning an SC or two or three.
Boston with Orr, 3 SC finals in 9 seasons, 2 SCs, 10-6 record in the finals. Without Orr, 2 SC finals, 0 SCs 2-8 record.
Gretzky.Oilers won without him in 1990.How Sather juggled the pieces was no different from how he juggled the pieces between 1984 and 1988. Only difference your perception and appreciation.
Lemieux/Jagr Penguins vsCrosby/Malkin Penguins or 2 SCs vs 3SCs and counting,transition that happened within a decade using your padded calculation. Lemieux played with Crosby on the 2005-06 Penguins.
Boston, Pitt, Edmonton combined - x number of cups.
Montreal Canadiens - that many more cups than all 3 combined.
Conclusion - Orr/Lemieux/Gretzky are a detriment to cups.
Logic gaps = non-existent.
