Will we ever see a better player than Gretzky? Will we know it?

Yamaguchi*

Guest
Oh? Because Kurri, Stastny, Nilsson and Naslund were all chopped liver? :sarcasm:

And you know what else is funny?
Looking at the top 10 last season I see...
5 Can
2 Rus
1 Swe
1 Czh
1 USA.
(If Crosby had of played a full season it would have been 6 Can and no Czh's)

In '86 I see...
6 Can
1 Fin
1 Swe
1 Rus
1 USA



Hmmmmm....




Oh so now you are saying that simply increasing the league population equally increases the number of Elite players?





First off, I will guarantee you that I played and coached at a higher level of Hockey than you have.
Second, I wasn't arguing against the speed of the game today. I SAID that where one area might be harder now than it was then, there are also area's of the game that are easier now than it was then.





Prove it!!!
Reported and/or properly diagnosed injuries maybe but more actual injuries, I highly doubt it.



Who said there was less talent today than in the 80's? Of course there's more now!
That's not the question though. The question is does the League have 43% more talent than it had in the 80's? Or 400% more than it had in the 50's/60's?
And THAT answer, my myopic friend, is extremely open for debate.




I wonder who was that Russian in '86?
Bernie Federko?
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
I wonder who was that Russian in '86?
Bernie Federko?

Ummmm...Stastny ring a bell?
Technically a Slovak by todays views but he was a Russian back then.

Thanks for playing though ;)
You didnt think he was French did you?

And seriously, it‘s a good story to have a read through. What it took for him to get here and what him and his family had to endure during the process.
 

Yamaguchi*

Guest
Ummmm...Stastny ring a bell?
Technically a Slovak by todays views but he was a Russian back then.

Thanks for playing though ;)
You didnt think he was French did you?


Stastny was a Slovak, from a country called Czechoslovakia. Not Russian at all.

Regarding past seasons, have a look at top tens -- there are plenty of non-Canadians:

2008 - 4 Russians and 2 Swedes

2009 - 4 Russians and 1 American

2010 - 2 Swedes, 1 American, 1 Russian, 1 Slovak

2011 - 3 Swedes, 1 Russian, 1 Finn

2012 - 2 Russians, 1 Swede, 1 Czech, 1 American
 

Dark Shadows

Registered User
Jun 19, 2007
7,986
15
Canada
www.robotnik.com
Ummmm...Stastny ring a bell?
Technically a Slovak by todays views but he was a Russian back then.

Thanks for playing though ;)
You didnt think he was French did you?

And seriously, it‘s a good story to have a read through. What it took for him to get here and what him and his family had to endure during the process.
?
You mean Czechoslovakian right?
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Exactly right. It's rather interesting that Hardyvan hasn't answered my previous question which I'll post once more:


And it's not just that Wayne beat everyone else in the world in scoring. It's that he more than doubled 2nd place Makarov, and, as usual, beat him with his assists alone. If he can beat all the best players in the world with his assists alone, that tells me everything I need to know about how he would do against a more European infused NHL.

http://forums.internationalhockey.net/showthread.php?164-Canada-cup-World-cup-scoring-leaders

Canada cup/World cup - scoring leaders
Top 20 - all time scoring leaders

Player, country GP... Goals Ass. Points
1. Wayne Gretzky, CAN 39 20 44 69
2. Sergei Makarov, USSR 22 16 15 31
3. Paul Coffey, CAN 33 6 25 31
4. Vladimir Krutov, USSR 22 14 16 30
5. Mark Messier, CAN 32 6 20 26
6. Alexei Kasatonov, USSR 27 3 19 22
7. Mike Bossy, CAN 15 13 7 20
8. Brett Hull, USA 15 9 11 20
9. Mario Lemieux, CAN 9 11 7 18
10. Gerry Perreault, CAN 11 7 10 17
11. Guy Lafleur, CAN 14 3 14 17
11. Kent Nilsson, SWE 19 3 14 17
11. Viacheslav Fetisov, USSR 20 3 14 17
11. Raymond Bourque, CAN 24 3 14 17
15. Brian Trottier, CAN/USA 12 8 8 16
16. Michel Goulet, CAN 16 7 9 16
17. Dennis Potvin, CAN 14 3 13 16
18. Mike Modano, USA 16 4 11 15
19. Igor Larionov, USSR/RUS 26 6 9 15
20. Sergei Svetlov, USSR 17 7 7 14

It's not that hard to explain Tazzy, Wayne is the best player of all time and when it was on the line there is no other player I would want.

Every team Wayne was on the offense also went through him.

The Soviets on the other hand took a total team approach and weren't as individual in style compared to the Canadians.

It wasn't until we saw a guy like Bure that this Russian mindset or style of play was broken.

Note: Even if the soviets decided to run their offense through one guy, say Makarov, he might have had more points but he wouldn't ahve matched Wayne that's for sure.

All that being said it's still all time specific to when it took place and to infer any time travel is as usual pure speculation.
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
More trivia to clutter the mind, Stanislav Gvoth aka Stan Mikita was also born in the Slovak Republic of Czechoslovakia but moved to Canada as a boy at 8. He returned for the first time in 1972 as a member of Team Canada (only played in 2 games during the Summit Series) after Moscow to Prague where the Canadians played an Exhibition Game against the Czech Ntl Team before heading home... the Stastny brothers were the 3rd sets of brothers to play for an NHL team, the Plagers in St.Louis during the 70's, the Bentleys in Chicago during the 40's....
 

Yamaguchi*

Guest
More trivia to clutter the mind, Stanislav Gvoth aka Stan Mikita was also born in the Slovak Republic of Czechoslovakia but moved to Canada as a boy at 8. He returned for the first time in 1972 as a member of Team Canada (only played in 2 games during the Summit Series) after Moscow to Prague where the Canadians played an Exhibition Game against the Czech Ntl Team before heading home... the Stastny brothers were the 3rd sets of brothers to play for an NHL team, the Plagers in St.Louis during the 70's, the Bentleys in Chicago during the 40's....


Good trivia, governor.
Iechyd da!
 

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
Good trivia, governor... Iechyd da!

Diolch i chi... Peter Stastny actually resigned from the Slovak Hockey Hall of Fame & pulled his displays out of an arena housing memorabilia in protest over the sports Director General who back in the day had been a member of the infamous Czech StB. Wrote letters of protest to Rene Fasel, the whole 9 yards. Believe Stastny is now sitting in his second term as an elected official to the European Parliament from his hometown region in Slovakia.
 
Last edited:

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
If it can't be proved one way or another why do you continue make statements that the dilution of talent is a fact?

You are confusing what I was saying, there is no doubt the NHL became diluted and was easier to score in, it's your assertion that the talent pool outside the NHL was somewhat deserving to play in the NHL




That's a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. If anything the increase in scoring back then had more to do with how teams played the game than any dilution of talent. Ever heard that the NHL is a copy-cat league? Well, that's nothing new. Who was the marquee team during that period?

1960-61 3
1961-62 3
1962-63 3
1963-64 2.8
1964-65 2.9
1965-66 3
1966-67 3
1967-68 2.8
1968-69 3
1969-70 2.9

1970-71 3.1
1971-72 3.1
1972-73 3.3
1973-74 3.2
1974-75 3.4
1975-76 3.4
1976-77 3.3
1977-78 3.3
1978-79 3.5
1979-80 3.5

Now were was the first real jump in scoring? 1972-73. Right after the Boston Bruins won their second cup in two years featuring a high-octane offense. I suppose it never occurred to you that teams around the league might copy-cat the Bruins style of play seeing their recent success? Or do you think teams only copy-cat when someone has success grinding?

Aside from the absurdity of breaking it down by team (instead of looking at players scoring, (ie Howe going from65 to 82 points in his age 39 season), especially the 1st 3 years with the weak west division, the jump in 72-73 was after 4 more teams joined and players went to the WHA, all still with no new regions to draw from.




Not really, as most WHA rosters where made up of sub-NHL grade talent. The effect on the overall talent of the NHL was minimal. I think you need to realize just how inferior to the NHL in talent the WHA really was.

Even if one agrees that it was subgrade NHL talent it was still talent that was in the NHL, that in your words wasn't diluted, now what were they?

Either way they still had to be replaced and guys like Hull were not sub grade by any stretch of the imagination.

Skip ahead a couple of years and lots of that sub grade WHA talent was integrated back into the 21 team NHL and some a couple of years before that.

At some point your contention that the talent pool and quality of the league wasn't drastically affected stops holding water here.




Good thing since international play is irrelevant to the discussion.

Really, we are talking about talent and elite talent entering the NHL, if that talent is coming from countries that now can play with and even beat the once dominant Canada how is that irrelevant?

What's next are you going to say that the talent that came later from Europe and the States was worse than that deserving talent when the NHL doubled in size from 6-12 teams?

Oh I see it doesn't help your argument is the reason perhaps?

I've never denied changes in the game itself (as I alluded to some of those changes earlier). What I deny is the assertion that the average talent level has changed much beyond normal year to year fluctuations.

The evidence clearly doesn't support the assertion that you are taking here.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
Oh? Because Kurri, Stastny, Nilsson and Naslund were all chopped liver? :sarcasm:

And you know what else is funny?
Looking at the top 10 last season I see...
5 Can
2 Rus
1 Swe
1 Czh
1 USA.
(If Crosby had of played a full season it would have been 6 Can and no Czh's)

In '86 I see...
6 Can
1 Fin
1 Swe
1 Rus
1 USA


Hmmmmm....

Okay Mr small sample size (when it suits your purpose for Sid), lets look at the number of non Canadians over say a reasonable sample size in the top 10 in points.

As I'm sure you took the 86 sample year randomly right?

In goals it would be much different as the guys from Europe tend to be snipers in the NHL at the top.
Here is the amount of the non Canadians in the top 10 in scoring since 80 (Wayne's 1st season)

80-0
81-2
82-1
83-2
84-2
85-1
86-4 your random sample no doubt
87-1
88-3
89-3
90-1
91-0
92-2
93-3
94-4
95-4
96-5
97-5
98-6
99-6
00-5
01-7
02-5
03-5
04-5
05-zero, hell that must mean I'm wrong I guess:sarcasm:
06-4
07-2 (10 of top 20)
08-6
09-5
10-5
11-5
12-5

so as we can clearly see using your criteria of the top 10 scorers the increase was pretty much in the early 90's and has held constant till today.

It would be even more clear if we just had the number of guys as good as or better than the top 10 Canadians, as that's been pretty much how the NHL was for the entire time period pre 1980.

Oh so now you are saying that simply increasing the league population equally increases the number of Elite players?

Well as you can see above, in the large and broad example, both can be and were true.

First off, I will guarantee you that I played and coached at a higher level of Hockey than you have.

Really has it come to this?:shakehead

Second, I wasn't arguing against the speed of the game today. I SAID that where one area might be harder now than it was then, there are also area's of the game that are easier now than it was then.

Well we have alot of evidence that hitting is up and we can always go back and watch film too right?

Prove it!!!
Reported and/or properly diagnosed injuries maybe but more actual injuries, I highly doubt it.

I suppose I could go back and try to itemize all of the injuries and break it down but by your "properly diagnosed" comment we all know where that goalpost is moving to next.



Who said there was less talent today than in the 80's? Of course there's more now!
That's not the question though. The question is does the League have 43% more talent than it had in the 80's? Or 400% more than it had in the 50's/60's?
And THAT answer, my myopic friend, is extremely open for debate.

Well it's pretty obvious that the league has at least 43% more talent looking at the top 10 finishes from the 80's to 90's to today.

That's before we look at goalies and Dmen of course.

Saint33 claims that he doesn't care where the makeup of NHL talent comes from but we can see quite clearly at the top with top 10 scoring that there always has been the norm (top 10 Canadians in scoring) and now they compete with probably an equally talented group of elite non Canadian talent (as evidenced by the top 10 scoring breakdown).

For the life of me how in the name of God can this change not matter when evaluating players from different eras?

Anyone on that island of thought that a top 10 finish in 1970 is the same as post early 90's is drowning in the overwhelming evidence against it.
 

Morgoth Bauglir

Master Of The Fates Of Arda
Aug 31, 2012
3,776
7
Angband via Utumno
You are confusing what I was saying, there is no doubt the NHL became diluted and was easier to score in, it's your assertion that the talent pool outside the NHL was somewhat deserving to play in the NHL

It's either unprovable or it isn't. If it is then you can't claim that "there's no doubt" as if it's a fact. The problem is that talent dilution is an article of faith for you not an article of fact.

Aside from the absurdity of breaking it down by team (instead of looking at players scoring, (ie Howe going from65 to 82 points in his age 39 season), especially the 1st 3 years with the weak west division, the jump in 72-73 was after 4 more teams joined and players went to the WHA, all still with no new regions to draw from.

Absurd? It demonstrates what the scoring environment was at the time and when changes in that scoring environment occurred. Everybody in the league plays in the same scoring environment. And you still haven't explained why a player like Orr was such an outlier when he was playing in the same scoring environment as everyone else.


Even if one agrees that it was subgrade NHL talent it was still talent that was in the NHL, that in your words wasn't diluted, now what were they?

If it's subgrade talent then it wasn't NHL grade talent. Those players by and large weren't playing in the NHL before the WHA game around and they weren't playing in the NHL after the WHA folded.


Either way they still had to be replaced and guys like Hull were not sub grade by any stretch of the imagination.

Guys like Hull were few and far between not to mention being on the backend of his career when scoring naturally starts to degrade sharply. If anything the WHA extended his career like it did Howe's.


Skip ahead a couple of years and lots of that sub grade WHA talent was integrated back into the 21 team NHL and some a couple of years before that.

Lots? Not as much as you're thinking and certainly not enough to make a huge impact and using a rookie Gretzky playing one year in the WHA's last season as an example is ubsurd.


At some point your contention that the talent pool and quality of the league wasn't drastically affected stops holding water here.

Not if you can't demonstrate it and so far you haven't.


Really, we are talking about talent and elite talent entering the NHL, if that talent is coming from countries that now can play with and even beat the once dominant Canada how is that irrelevant?

Because international play is basically BS. The US won a gold in 1980. How many of those players went on to elite NHL careers? Dave Christian? Solid NHL player but not elite.


What's next are you going to say that the talent that came later from Europe and the States was worse than that deserving talent when the NHL doubled in size from 6-12 teams?

Those players from Europe and the States back then wouldn't have made 06 rosters OR 2nd6 rosters. Those players flat out weren't good enough at that time. By the time that talent WAS good enough to play in the NHL the league was expanding from 21 to 30 teams to absorb them.


The evidence clearly doesn't support the assertion that you are taking here.

You haven't presented any evidence. All you've done is make gratuitous assertions based on logical fallacies that are in-tune with your erroneous premise. A premise that you yourself said can't be proved. Oh, I forgot! That "it can't be proved" thing only applies to anything goes against your beliefs.
 

Hardyvan123

tweet@HardyintheWack
Jul 4, 2010
17,552
24
Vancouver
It's either unprovable or it isn't. If it is then you can't claim that "there's no doubt" as if it's a fact. The problem is that talent dilution is an article of faith for you not an article of fact.



Absurd? It demonstrates what the scoring environment was at the time and when changes in that scoring environment occurred. Everybody in the league plays in the same scoring environment. And you still haven't explained why a player like Orr was such an outlier when he was playing in the same scoring environment as everyone else.




If it's subgrade talent then it wasn't NHL grade talent. Those players by and large weren't playing in the NHL before the WHA game around and they weren't playing in the NHL after the WHA folded.




Guys like Hull were few and far between not to mention being on the backend of his career when scoring naturally starts to degrade sharply. If anything the WHA extended his career like it did Howe's.




Lots? Not as much as you're thinking and certainly not enough to make a huge impact and using a rookie Gretzky playing one year in the WHA's last season as an example is ubsurd.




Not if you can't demonstrate it and so far you haven't.




Because international play is basically BS. The US won a gold in 1980. How many of those players went on to elite NHL careers? Dave Christian? Solid NHL player but not elite.




Those players from Europe and the States back then wouldn't have made 06 rosters OR 2nd6 rosters. Those players flat out weren't good enough at that time. By the time that talent WAS good enough to play in the NHL the league was expanding from 21 to 30 teams to absorb them.




You haven't presented any evidence. All you've done is make gratuitous assertions based on logical fallacies that are in-tune with your erroneous premise. A premise that you yourself said can't be proved. Oh, I forgot! That "it can't be proved" thing only applies to anything goes against your beliefs.

Go back and look at my post 969 with the changing elite scoring top 10 finishes and tell me that the 80's and pre that top 10 finishes can be directly compared with mid 90's and beyond.

To do so would be illogical as there is clearly a new and basically equal stream of elite talent in the NHL competing with the existing Canadian one that has always been there.

Either you understand it or you don't and any conclusions you make will be judged accordingly one would hope sticky aside (which isn't the purpose of the sticky in any way shape of form anyways).

One simply can't treat a top 10 finish in 65, 69,74,83,98 and 12 the same way and not get a heavy criticism for an inaccurate view on the NHL.

(MOD)
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Morgoth Bauglir

Master Of The Fates Of Arda
Aug 31, 2012
3,776
7
Angband via Utumno
Go back and look at my post 969 with the changing elite scoring top 10 finishes and tell me that the 80's and pre that top 10 finishes can be directly compared with mid 90's and beyond.

To do so would be illogical as there is clearly a new and basically equal stream of elite talent in the NHL competing with the existing Canadian one that has always been there.

Either you understand it or you don't and any conclusions you make will be judged accordingly one would hope sticky aside (which isn't the purpose of the sticky in any way shape of form anyways).

One simply can't treat a top 10 finish in 65, 69,74,83,98 and 12 the same way and not get a heavy criticism for an inaccurate view on the NHL.

(MOD)

(MOD) I really don't care if the top-10 finishers all come from Tonga: It's irrelevant. And why are you so obsessed with top-10 finishes? It has no bearing on the discussion at hand: This is about Gretzky who's an outlier that blew away everyone in the top-10 regardless of where they came from. This isn't a discussion of Gretzky's greatness being a product of how many top-10 finishes he had.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Killion

Registered User
Feb 19, 2010
36,763
3,211
It's either unprovable or it isn't. The problem is that talent dilution is an article of faith for you not an article of fact.

Gabriel Desjardin - League Equivalencies - Hockey Analytics. Guy appears to have it pretty well dialed in. You can find him through google, pdf file. Interesting system, worth looking up.. 1972/73 WHA Season was AHL calibre, thereafter however a serious uptick. Year one, less than 40 NHL players jumped. The WHA raided AHL & other minor league rosters, went to Europe, more players in-bound from the NHL, AHL'rs & others losing their spots 73/74 & on. Only lasted a few years, peaking out talent wise around 76/77, declined in the dying 2 seasons entering Amalgamation.
 

BNHL

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
20,017
1,458
Boston
All things considered, Orr was better, eight straight Norris Trophies, would have probably won 15 if not for injuries, more importantly, two Art Ross Trophies,first and only dman to ever do that, changed the game way before Gretzky ever did. I would have considered Gretzky better than Orr if he had won at least on Norris Trophy, to be the only forward to do so but he never did:sarcasm:.

or at least the Selke.
 

BNHL

Registered User
Dec 22, 2006
20,017
1,458
Boston
I think we will see a player better than Gretzky/Lemieux/Orr eventually. Maybe in the next 20 years or so with the way these kids train and practice nowadays. After seeing Crosby dominate so far this season with 50 pts in 31 games I think we could see this player crack 200 points in a season.

I think this player will have to be a child prodigy much like Gretzky was. Always playing and dominating against players 2-3 years older than him as he plays PeeWee,Bantam,Midget, etc. This player will be on the hockey radar from the time he is 6-7, and will be granted exceptional player status as a 15 year old and win the CHL scoring title/MVP in his 15-16-17 years old seasons. Also maybe this player plays in WJC as a 15 year old. I'm thinking this player might be born anywhere from around 2008-2013, so he's coming just a matter of time.

If commitment,training and focus continues on this trend,no doubt someone will arrive to take the baton. We had 4 in 40 years that someone claims to be the best ever,no way it's over and done.
 

Big Phil

Registered User
Nov 2, 2003
31,703
4,144
sure Mario was the best player on that team but I'll take Wayne and at least 10 other guys ahead of Mario if I want to win the SC.

Just out of curiousity Hardy, who? 10 guys are a LOT of guys to pick from. Wayne I will agree is #1. Mine too. But if we isolate it to being able to pick one player to integrate the 1992 Pens you don't even have Mario on the top 10? The Pens almost certainly don't win either of their Cups without him. I suppose you could put Richard ahead of Mario just because of his clutch play, maybe Beliveau too. After that, it gets a little hairy. Howe played in 5 Cup finals after his last Cup so if you think even Mr. Hockey doesn't have some "what ifs" in his playoff career then you're wrong. Orr? 1971, 1973, 1974, 1975. Could have done a lot more in those years to win. They all have times just like Mario where they could have won more. Who are these 10 players you'd pick?

Mario broke into the league and tied for 13th in his 1st season of scoring.

Sids's 1st season he was 6th and has never been not a top 3 point producer when healthy.

Basically Sid has been by far the best PPG player in the NHL during his time in the league and also plays a pretty decent 2 way game as well, compared to Mario especially and even Wayne.

Then don't bring up guys retired or close to the end of their careers if you can't make a realistic and fair comparison.

We all know how Sid compares to the field from post lockout NHL.

Really how can you not compare their 1st 7 or 8 seasons?

Only if you don't like the result is my guess.

For me personally, and I can't speak for anyone else, but I think their first 3 years are very comparable. They really are. However, season 4 and 5 Mario just takes off like a rocket ship and outscores a prime Gretzky both years while Sid is outscored by Malkin, Ovechkin and Henrik Sedin in seasons 4 & 5. That's where Mario starts his seperation, starting in season 4. He began to hit heights we have never seen Sid come close to yet. Even 1990 he had that 46 game point streak and the Hart in his back pocket before his back injury stopped that. 1991 not much of a season, but blew the doors down in the playoffs. 1992 is another Art Ross this time with 64 games and then does an encore in the playoffs again. So right now, we are judging Sid's career with a 1984-'92 Lemieux. Objectively, I can see a very clear seperation between the two, you can't? We haven't even gotten to 1993 or 1996 and 1997 yet or even his comeback in 2000. Sid has a lot of ground to make up that I don't know if he can ever do.

SC wins are not a slam dunk for any team in 2013.

Sure Pitt is the favorite from the east but not really that much more than Boston.

In the west we have the Hawks, Ducks, and Red Wings.

Pittsburgh circa 92 was stacked and teams still were playing to win by scoring goals first.

It's kinda of ironic and perhaps the turning point that the Habs with a great goalie and very good defensive and 2 way forwards won the cup that year and the high flying teams of Wayne and Mario were no longer the way to win the SC.

I think that's why we call 1993 such a big upset. You can play high flying hockey but still rely on solid goaltending and lack of sloppy defensive play. Thank Barrasso for a terrible playoff year. Even in the dead puck era it wasn't all Dallas and New Jersey wining it. It was Colorado, Tampa and then post lockout it's been the Pens and the Hawks. Does anyone think Niemi is an all-time great goalie? You can win playing that style of hockey and still be responsible enough. Plus have a goalie that can handle it. That was in many ways a dark time in the NHL in the late 1990s to 2004. Lots of teams who beat more talented teams wouldn't have done it today, or in the 1980s. It was the NHL letting the entertainment factor slip away.

Stastny was a Slovak, from a country called Czechoslovakia. Not Russian at all.

Regarding past seasons, have a look at top tens -- there are plenty of non-Canadians:

2008 - 4 Russians and 2 Swedes

2009 - 4 Russians and 1 American

2010 - 2 Swedes, 1 American, 1 Russian, 1 Slovak

2011 - 3 Swedes, 1 Russian, 1 Finn

2012 - 2 Russians, 1 Swede, 1 Czech, 1 American

Just for fun....2013
top 10 scoring - 8 Canadians, 1 American, 1 Russian

top 10 scoring.....1986
6 Canadians, 1 Finn, 1 Swede, 1 Czech, 1 American

:sarcasm:

Now, I could care less about nationality and I prefer actually looking at the names of players high up in the scoring race to judge the competition. But is there ever going to be a day when this silly idea to nullify different eras because there were less Europeans and more Canadians becomes obsolete? Or am I hoping for too much in an era where we have every fact known to man at our fingertips and yet we waste it texting to the person in the room next to us?
 

Rhiessan71

Just a Fool
Feb 17, 2003
11,618
24
Guelph, Ont
Visit site
Just for fun....2013
top 10 scoring - 8 Canadians, 1 American, 1 Russian

top 10 scoring.....1986
6 Canadians, 1 Finn, 1 Swede, 1 Czech, 1 American

:sarcasm:

Now, I could care less about nationality and I prefer actually looking at the names of players high up in the scoring race to judge the competition. But is there ever going to be a day when this silly idea to nullify different eras because there were less Europeans and more Canadians becomes obsolete? Or am I hoping for too much in an era where we have every fact known to man at our fingertips and yet we waste it texting to the person in the room next to us?

Haha Phil, you "Cherry picked" the same year I did, or at least that is what you'll be accused of.

I dunno, I just think it's funny. I mean, I see a guy like Kessel in the top 10 last season and supposedly this one dimensional player (that is being compared to Gartner in another current thread btw) is supposed to make me believe in "today's superior talent"?
Or Elias and nothing against the guy but lets "cherry pick" another year like 87/88...
Mario Lemieux 168
Wayne Gretzky 149
Denis Savard 131
Dale Hawerchuk 121
Mark Messier 111
Luc Robitaille 111
Peter Stastny 111
Jimmy Carson 107
Michel Goulet 106
Hakan Loob 106

7 Canadian's, 1 Czech, 1 Yank and 1 Swede.

Honestly, looking at the top since the LO, there's a handful of players that, barring injuries, always end up there. The Savard's, The Bossy's, the Stastny's, the Hawerchuk's.
Crosby
Malkin
OV
Stamkos
Sedin's
Then you have the players on the cusp, that go in and out of the top 10 but are clearly not in the same class. The Kerr's or the Goulet's.
And then you have the guys that are close but really no cigar like the Gartner's.

Now looking at it realistically, I can equate Malkin/OV to Stastny/Savard and/or Stamkos/OV to Bossy. I can't however in good conscious put the Sedin's in there because quite frankly, despite each having an Art Ross, they really don't belong in this group.
That leaves Crosby and really until these last few partial seasons, he has belonged in the Malkin/Stamkos/OV group and for me, until he does it in a FULL season, he will continue to belong there.

Now, even if he does accomplish this over a FULL season, that will only elevate him above the Malkin/Stamkos/OV group, it doesn't put him in the Jagr group until he also does it over multiple seasons and unless he suddenly starts getting up in the 150-170 range over multiple full seasons, he doesn't even get a sniff into the conversation for the Gretzky/Lemeiux group.


Bottomline, no one is going to convince me that Gretz, Mario or Jagr lose the Art Ross to a Sedin EVER!!! Or even come close to losing one to them.
And no one is going to convince me that Malkin or Stamkos should be ahead of Stastny or Bossy at this point.
 

livewell68

Registered User
Jul 20, 2007
8,680
52
Haha Phil, you "Cherry picked" the same year I did, or at least that is what you'll be accused of.

I dunno, I just think it's funny. I mean, I see a guy like Kessel in the top 10 last season and supposedly this one dimensional player (that is being compared to Gartner in another current thread btw) is supposed to make me believe in "today's superior talent"?
Or Elias and nothing against the guy but lets "cherry pick" another year like 87/88...
Mario Lemieux 168
Wayne Gretzky 149
Denis Savard 131
Dale Hawerchuk 121
Mark Messier 111
Luc Robitaille 111
Peter Stastny 111
Jimmy Carson 107
Michel Goulet 106
Hakan Loob 106

7 Canadian's, 1 Czech, 1 Yank and 1 Swede.

Honestly, looking at the top since the LO, there's a handful of players that, barring injuries, always end up there. The Savard's, The Bossy's, the Stastny's, the Hawerchuk's.
Crosby
Malkin
OV
Stamkos
Sedin's
Then you have the players on the cusp, that go in and out of the top 10 but are clearly not in the same class. The Kerr's or the Goulet's.
And then you have the guys that are close but really no cigar like the Gartner's.

Now looking at it realistically, I can equate Malkin/OV to Stastny/Savard and/or Stamkos/OV to Bossy. I can't however in good conscious put the Sedin's in there because quite frankly, despite each having an Art Ross, they really don't belong in this group.
That leaves Crosby and really until these last few partial seasons, he has belonged in the Malkin/Stamkos/OV group and for me, until he does it in a FULL season, he will continue to belong there.

Now, even if he does accomplish this over a FULL season, that will only elevate him above the Malkin/Stamkos/OV group, it doesn't put him in the Jagr group until he also does it over multiple seasons and unless he suddenly starts getting up in the 150-170 range over multiple full seasons, he doesn't even get a sniff into the conversation for the Gretzky/Lemeiux group.


Bottomline, no one is going to convince me that Gretz, Mario or Jagr lose the Art Ross to a Sedin EVER!!! Or even come close to losing one to them.
And no one is going to convince me that Malkin or Stamkos should be ahead of Stastny or Bossy at this point
.

:handclap:

Nice post.

Sadly my younger brothers are starting to believe that the current set of stars are superior to what I was accustomed to watching growing up. :shakehead
 

Ad

Upcoming events

Ad

Ad

-->