TSN Radio: 1290 am - Part V

[Evil Little]

Sorry but I think you're wrong. In a completely silly hypothetical case where you took Thorburn as he is now and dropped him back in time to an earlier era, he would dominate. The level of training and coaching todays players undergo is worlds away from what was done 50 or more years ago. The number of players in the league doesn't matter at all when 85% of those players don't even bother to stop smoking and drinking on game nights. Players now are physically bigger, in way better shape, and better trained. Sure, 80% of today's players would be in the minors back then...along with 100% of the players from back then.

Now, Huss went on to agree that this stuff has to be era adjusted...you can't make that sort of silly argument. The better way to think about it is this - what would a guy with Thorburn's fundamental skill set have accomplished under the conditions that guys back then had to deal with? If he'd gone through the same training and all that as all the other guys back then he wouldn't be the player he is now...

On a recent Bicuits Podcast Sean McIndoe goes on a bit of a comical tangent about what Ovechkin would look like in the '50s, or whenever.

His conclusion is similar to yours.

 

[pucka lucka]

They are talking about Kessler's kid taking his shot for him at the ASG this morning. Huss went off on it yesterday afternoon...and I sorta agree with him (and Toth ) actually. Look, it was cute and a nice father/son thing and all that, but I still found it annoying. The ASG is bad enough as it is...pretty much the only thing it has going is the opportunity to just watch your favorite player do stuff. As dumb as it all is, I still looked forward to seeing what Laine did with his chances and I'd have been kinda pissed if he subbed a kid in or something. I mean the event isn't really about the players and certainly not their kids...

I agree with this. The players need to be reminded the ASG isn't about them. I don't give a **** about Keslers ****ing kid. They play the game like it's for them, now they let they're children play for them? The NHL is out to lunch. Kill the ASG if they can't get the players to act appropriately.

First that ridiculous top 100 list, the Keslers kid playing for him then the ASG itself where they play hand grenades with the puck.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Sorry but I think you're wrong. In a completely silly hypothetical case where you took Thorburn as he is now and dropped him back in time to an earlier era, he would dominate. The level of training and coaching todays players undergo is worlds away from what was done 50 or more years ago. The number of players in the league doesn't matter at all when 85% of those players don't even bother to stop smoking and drinking on game nights. Players now are physically bigger, in way better shape, and better trained. Sure, 80% of today's players would be in the minors back then...along with 100% of the players from back then.

Now, Huss went on to agree that this stuff has to be era adjusted...you can't make that sort of silly argument. The better way to think about it is this - what would a guy with Thorburn's fundamental skill set have accomplished under the conditions that guys back then had to deal with? If he'd gone through the same training and all that as all the other guys back then he wouldn't be the player he is now...

Turn it around. Bring Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Orr and their contemporaries into today's world. The would be just as fit and well coached as today's players and they would dominate. Times have changed. The game has changed. Attitudes have changed. The world has changed. People have not changed but their context has.

 

[Evil Little]

Turn it around. Bring Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Orr and their contemporaries into today's world. The would be just as fit and well coached as today's players and they would dominate. Times have changed. The game has changed. Attitudes have changed. The world has changed. People have not changed but their context has.

I bet some would do really well, and some would struggle.

Just like kids today, I think you'd see players with natural skating and good hockey sense succeed and those who can't skate or think the game at a high pace falter.

 

[SensibleGuy]

Turn it around. Bring Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Orr and their contemporaries into today's world. The would be just as fit and well coached as today's players and they would dominate. Times have changed. The game has changed. Attitudes have changed. The world has changed. People have not changed but their context has.

yeah, more or less the point I was making. If you took Gordie howe from his day and just moved him to today, he'd get killed. But if you took Gordie Howe as a child and moved him to today, with his skills and put him through modern training and so forth he'd likely do well. Basically what it comes down to is that you have to judge things in a relative sense - how dominant was a player compared to his contemporaries? They all existed under a certain set of circumstances and so it's valid to just consider what a player accomplished relative to the rest of his peers and judge him based on that.

 

[Zhamnov5GoalGame]

On Monday Hustler was reviewing the All Star Game and bemoaned the screw job that Laine got on the fastest skater competition. But that decision was reversed on the broadcast and I looked it up and the official NHL.com site and it shows him as winning.

Did anyone hear if Hustler corrected himself on that?
I'd tweet it at him but I'm not on Twitter

 

[SensibleGuy]

Yeah I noticed that too when he mentioned it. They didn't really make much mention of the change during the ASG broadcast so it was easy to miss...

 

[SensibleGuy]

hmmm, no H&L on Radio Row at the Super Bowl this year. Can't say I'm going to miss it...

 

[Gm0ney]

hmmm, no H&L on Radio Row at the Super Bowl this year. Can't say I'm going to miss it...

Bill Romanowski is going to miss them...

 

[blues10]

Mitch and Trevor Kidd should be doing Jet games. Edmonds & his buddy should be doing the Moose games.

I have done myself a huge favour and never listen to Paul Edmonds. The IC guys had him as a guest this week and I turned the dial to CBC radio when he was about to come on.

I accidentally got subjected to Edmonds yesterday when I turned the radio on for the dog before I left for work. Before I walked out the door I heard him suggest the Jets send Hutch to the Moose to be the #1 guy. Why would the Jets want Hutch blocking Comrie's development.

I did enjoy H&L's little chuckle over sending Pavs back to the Moose once he becomes waiver eligible and the positives it would be if he was claimed. That was good radio.

 

[Board Bard]

I realize I rant a bit when talking about why Edmonds is on the big show in the morning (and to a lesser extent Beyak). These guys are PBP which is a broadcasting job and they are far from experts in hockey. They have access which can provide some interesting content but past that it's painful. Less so with Beyak but he is still way too old school with his goofy plus minus, face off %, Hits, and veterans schtick).

This morning I listened to Mitch Peacock (Moose PBP) and he was very solid. Mitch talked about Roslovic's trip to the all star game and what it meant to him as a step in his development and some insight into him as a person. Then the boys asked about Comrie and Mitch discussed content that came from an interview he had with Eric as well as his insights into the kid. He talked about how Eric had been happy with his game but disappointed with his results up to this previous road trip where things came together and he was very good. On top of that he discusses things like the team's lack of 5v5 productively and their reliance on special teams to win games. My description doesn't do it justice but Peacock comes across as a calm and very insightful person who is a good guest for a show if you want to learn something.

Peacock is the best of the game crews AINEC. At the very least they should promote him to Jets radio over the odious Edmonds, but I wouldn't complain at all if they gave him Beyak's job.

 

[Board Bard]

sure, but I bet lots of Habs fans would like to see Price stopping Kessler! Right? Right? Instead of watching Price let Kessler's kid score on him...

Price should have stonewalled the little ******.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Sorry but I think you're wrong. In a completely silly hypothetical case where you took Thorburn as he is now and dropped him back in time to an earlier era, he would dominate. The level of training and coaching todays players undergo is worlds away from what was done 50 or more years ago. The number of players in the league doesn't matter at all when 85% of those players don't even bother to stop smoking and drinking on game nights. Players now are physically bigger, in way better shape, and better trained. Sure, 80% of today's players would be in the minors back then...along with 100% of the players from back then.

Now, Huss went on to agree that this stuff has to be era adjusted...you can't make that sort of silly argument. The better way to think about it is this - what would a guy with Thorburn's fundamental skill set have accomplished under the conditions that guys back then had to deal with? If he'd gone through the same training and all that as all the other guys back then he wouldn't be the player he is now...

It's a stupid argument to make in the first place precisely because dropping Thorburn back half a century ago or longer would mean he wouldn't be using the equipment he is using today, he would not have the diet he has today, he would not have the advantages in physical training and coaching he has today. It's silly of him to bring this up because it's irrelevant.

Which brings me back to the point of his little rant - this argument that players from an earlier era who were clearly overlooked by this "blue ribbon panel/committee" for the top-100 list as justifiable because players of the modern era would mop the floor with them. A dominant player would be dominant regardless of the era they played in as they would adapt to the advantages of that particular generation. That is why the greatest players of all-time should be judged solely on how they dominated their peers. Ex) players like Frank Nighbor and Bill Cook dominated their peers far more than players like Mats Sundin, Darryl Sittler, Mike Gartner and Joe Nieuwendyk (last 2 picks were absolutely laughable picks as neither was ever a top-10 and unlikely even a top-20 player for any single season in their NHL career)

 

[blueandgoldguy]

yeah, more or less the point I was making. If you took Gordie howe from his day and just moved him to today, he'd get killed. But if you took Gordie Howe as a child and moved him to today, with his skills and put him through modern training and so forth he'd likely do well. Basically what it comes down to is that you have to judge things in a relative sense - how dominant was a player compared to his contemporaries? They all existed under a certain set of circumstances and so it's valid to just consider what a player accomplished relative to the rest of his peers and judge him based on that.

Ok now I see what you are saying here which is in line with what I am thinking.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

I bet some would do really well, and some would struggle.

Just like kids today, I think you'd see players with natural skating and good hockey sense succeed and those who can't skate or think the game at a high pace falter.

In that case they would have faltered 50-60 years ago too. There would be some who would do better in one era than another because the game itself changes but it goes in cycles. The Broad Street Bullies succeeded 40 years ago but wouldn't today and they wouldn't have 60 years ago either. But Bobby Clark would probably have succeeded at any of those times.

The best players of any era would have been the best players in any other era, IMO of course.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

yeah, more or less the point I was making. If you took Gordie howe from his day and just moved him to today, he'd get killed. But if you took Gordie Howe as a child and moved him to today, with his skills and put him through modern training and so forth he'd likely do well. Basically what it comes down to is that you have to judge things in a relative sense - how dominant was a player compared to his contemporaries? They all existed under a certain set of circumstances and so it's valid to just consider what a player accomplished relative to the rest of his peers and judge him based on that.

Every time somebody makes one of these 'all time' lists, football, hockey, car racing, Hollywood, you name it there is always an overpowering recency bias. The lists are crap. Every . time.

 

[blueandgoldguy]

Every time somebody makes one of these 'all time' lists, football, hockey, car racing, Hollywood, you name it there is always an overpowering recency bias. The lists are crap. Every . time.

Check out a couple of folks on the blue ribbon panel that picked the top-100 list:

- Mike Milbury
- Gary Bettman



As mentioned by posters elsewhere I think these lists would be taken a lot more seriously if they were chosen by highly respected hockey historians with a reasonable dash of older coaches/players (Scotty Bowman was on the panel) who have observed and experienced the league through the generations.

I would suggest the top-100/top-70 all-time players lists as chosen by the posters in the History of Hockey forum. Granted these lists are a few years old and would probably look a little different today given the performances of some current players, but they appear to give proper weight to the resumes of those who played in the first half of the 20th century (of note, it is not an all-time nhl list as they take into the account the accomplishments of players in other leagues). There is a significant amount of care and consideration given to these lists with the obligatory explanation as to why the players were selected where they were.

It sure beats having to look at lists like this http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/ken-campbell-ranks-the-top-100-nhl-players-of-all-time

which provide brief one-sentence comments on respective players and their rankings with little explanation or justification for their placement. Several bizarre placements but two that stand out to me are Jagr over Lemieux (which seems like an inexcusable oversight considering their careers overlapped significantly and Lemieux was clearly better even during his latter years) and Scott Niedermeyer (defenseman who appears to be severely over-rated given his career accomplishments and relative short period of dominance) who apparently was better than fellow defenseman like Ray Bourque, Eddie Shore, Larry Robinson, and Denis Potvin.

 

[cbcwpg]

Hustler talking about how Chris Thorburn would be an 80-goal scorer in the league decades when discussing the top players of all time ago. Yes, we know today's players are in better shape than those of yesteryear but these kinds of statements are asinine.

Give the players from the 40s - 80s the knowledge (nutritional, workout regimens) and technology (skates, lighter equipment, bigger and lighter equipment for goalies, composite sticks) of today's players and they would likely still dominate as they did when they played. I'm quite sure a Chris Thorburn playing hockey in past decades would have been relegated to the fourth line in the NHL or as a first or second line player in the AHL or IHL.

Late to the discussion.... but, just to clarify...

When you say "80-goal scorer"... do you mean Hustler was saying 80 goals over his career OR 80 goals in one season?

If Hustler means 80 goals over his career.. OK, fine, I'll buy that. Thorburn has 52 goals in his career so far, so sure, take Thorburn as he is and put him back in the 1960s maybe he gets a few more goals over his career.

But, if by "80-goal scorer", Hustler means 80 goals in one season... then Hustler is off his meds.

 

[cbcwpg]

Every time somebody makes one of these 'all time' lists, football, hockey, car racing, Hollywood, you name it there is always an overpowering recency bias. The lists are crap. Every . time.

Since the NHL is 100 years old and they want the top 100 players, the way the list should have been done IMO, and to better reflect the players and the way the game has changed, is to pick the Top Ten players from each 10 years of operation. So take the Top Ten from 1917-27, then 1927-37, and so on. This would be a better list.

It's just there is no way to compare someone like Joe Malone ( 44 goals in 20 games 1917 ) to Wayne Gretzky ( 92 goals in 80 games 1981 ) to Patrick Kane ( 46 goals in 82 games 2016 ). Different ways the game was being played.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Check out a couple of folks on the blue ribbon panel that picked the top-100 list:

- Mike Milbury
- Gary Bettman



As mentioned by posters elsewhere I think these lists would be taken a lot more seriously if they were chosen by highly respected hockey historians with a reasonable dash of older coaches/players (Scotty Bowman was on the panel) who have observed and experienced the league through the generations.

I would suggest the top-100/top-70 all-time players lists as chosen by the posters in the History of Hockey forum. Granted these lists are a few years old and would probably look a little different today given the performances of some current players, but they appear to give proper weight to the resumes of those who played in the first half of the 20th century (of note, it is not an all-time nhl list as they take into the account the accomplishments of players in other leagues). There is a significant amount of care and consideration given to these lists with the obligatory explanation as to why the players were selected where they were.

It sure beats having to look at lists like this http://www.thehockeynews.com/news/article/ken-campbell-ranks-the-top-100-nhl-players-of-all-time

which provide brief one-sentence comments on respective players and their rankings with little explanation or justification for their placement. Several bizarre placements but two that stand out to me are Jagr over Lemieux (which seems like an inexcusable oversight considering their careers overlapped significantly and Lemieux was clearly better even during his latter years) and Scott Niedermeyer (defenseman who appears to be severely over-rated given his career accomplishments and relative short period of dominance) who apparently was better than fellow defenseman like Ray Bourque, Eddie Shore, Larry Robinson, and Denis Potvin.

Actually I thought that list was not too bad. I agree with some of your quibbles and it still had the recency bias but not too bad until he got to Toews and P Kane. No, sorry. Just NO.

I think Jagr and Howe need to be tied wherever they rank. They both get a huge boost for longevity which explains being above Lemieux. Howe was the all time leading scorer for, what? 2-3 DECADES. Until Gretz came along everybody thought his record would stand forever. It gets hard after a while to bias the numbers for era but all the players from about '80 to about '04 got a huge boost in scoring numbers compared to any other time period. Even so if Lemieux had managed another 4-500 games he would be right up there for #1.

We would probably get closer to consensus if we picked the top 100 but did not insist on putting them in order. We very quickly get caught up in debating small changes in position.

 

[Mortimer Snerd]

Since the NHL is 100 years old and they want the top 100 players, the way the list should have been done IMO, and to better reflect the players and the way the game has changed, is to pick the Top Ten players from each 10 years of operation. So take the Top Ten from 1917-27, then 1927-37, and so on. This would be a better list.

It's just there is no way to compare someone like Joe Malone ( 44 goals in 20 games 1917 ) to Wayne Gretzky ( 92 goals in 80 games 1981 ) to Patrick Kane ( 46 goals in 82 games 2016 ). Different ways the game was being played.

Good suggestion. Would also work to pick the top player each year, no duplication allowed. Either way that at least eliminates the recency thing.

Now, if we take the top 10 players from '08 to '17 are Toews and P Kane on it? Maybe if it is done my way. I don't think so if done yours. JMO

 

[SensibleGuy]

Toth really needs to drop this "ka-kaw" thing he does. Really stupid and annoying.

 

[broinwhyteridge]

Toth really needs to drop this "ka-kaw" thing he does. Really stupid and annoying.

It has me turning the stream off.

 

[kanadalainen]

It has me turning the stream off.

I cringe for the guy.

 

[KurtG8]

Have to agree, Toth brings absolutely nothing to the show. And makes it near unlistenable, the only thing worse might be the people who call in, not all of them just most of them. I can't imagine that Westwood enjoys working with that Tool.

Just hate him, and i know some of them read this forum, Rick Ralph comes to mind, cause he's corrected people in here before. I think this info must get back to the morning show or there bosses. I wonder if they care that most of us really don't like this guy. The numbers have to have gone down, i turn off the show ALOT now and just switch to Satellite. And many of you comment the same. I rarely comment in here, much more of a daily lurker, but i comment on this in hopes they do something about it.

And repeating both morning shows back to back is brutal, how about 2 new shows ? What is our market so small we can't afford more shows? Or lengthen each show by an hour to eat up at least one of the repeats and then do a best of the whole morning for that last 2 hours before Hustler comes on.

Anyways thats my 2 cents, back into the shadows for me. lol