199 points on 347 goals= 57%...untouchable

[Whatever Man*]

Actually Hull looked better & he did not have to lift weights to get that way. haven't seen anybody yet that had his combination of strength & skill.

You sir are full of it. Try reality sometime the air is nice.

 

[pappyline]

You sir are full of it. Try reality sometime the air is nice.

What a wit!! The debate is over. Lets agree to disagree as we have no common ground to form a basis for debate. I now await your final insult as I know you will have to have the last word.

 

[Whatever Man*]

What a wit!! The debate is over. Lets agree to disagree as we have no common ground to form a basis for debate. I now await your final insult as I know you will have to have the last word.

Basis for debate?
You won't even try to be realistic.
Did you even look at the picture?
Seriously?


How can we have a debate when you are going to insist Bobby Hull was in better shape, than this?

[IMAGE]http://www.hhof.com/graphfea/SCJ06_07b.jpg[/IMAGE]

 

[Bobby Orr]

Where's murray? He's the one who saw Bobby Hull on the farm, and said he was built?

He look anything remotely like this?

Welcome to the NEW NHL.

I can remember seeing the old pic of Bobby Hull on the farm (tossing a bale of hay?) and being shocked at his physique - I think it was a photo for Time magazine that they reproduced in THN. Not saying he was as ripped as Brindy, (his pic shocked me too - I saw it on NHL.com a few weeks ago) but he was definately in much better shape than what I would have expected.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

New Material? KIG, if Gretzky was transported from the 80's to 2007, to him, his old material would still be new. What he didn't even know he was going to do until the 90's, someone from 2007 would be teaching it to him. Time travel is a screwy thing.

Where's murray? He's the one who saw Bobby Hull on the farm, and said he was built?

He look anything remotely like this?

Welcome to the NEW NHL.

Don't you think that if Gretzky found that his older moves weren't working, that he would improvise and come up with new ones, or did the time travel suddenly make him dumb?

 

[BM67]

You sir are full of it. Try reality sometime the air is nice.

Brind'Amour has been regarded as one of, if not the most physically fit players in the league for most of his career, and Chara has been the biggest player in NHL history ever seen he's been in the league, yet neither has been regarded as the best player/forward/defenseman on their team, let alone the NHL, for even half their career. Holding them up as examples of why players that aren't their equal in one regard can't be any good makes little sense. There are many players not as fit as Brindy that have been better than him, and players smaller than Chara that have been better than him, so there is no reason to believe that a player less fit than Brindy or smaller than Chara, or even less fit than Chara and smaller than Brindy couldn't be a star in today's NHL.

During the 2003-04 season there were more players under 6' tall than there were that were 6'3" or over, and over 60% of the players were 6'1" and under.

 

[Whatever Man*]

Don't you think that if Gretzky found that his older moves weren't working, that he would improvise and come up with new ones, or did the time travel suddenly make him dumb?

So he wasn't trying when he played?
He didn't give it his all?
He didn't use any and every move he could think of?

What more would or could he do?
Literally pick up the puck, and carry around on the blade of his stick?



You just can't grasp it can you?

Brind'Amour has been regarded as one of, if not the most physically fit players in the league for most of his career, and Chara has been the biggest player in NHL history ever seen he's been in the league, yet neither has been regarded as the best player/forward/defenseman on their team, let alone the NHL, for even half their career. Holding them up as examples of why players that aren't their equal in one regard can't be any good makes little sense. There are many players not as fit as Brindy that have been better than him, and players smaller than Chara that have been better than him, so there is no reason to believe that a player less fit than Brindy or smaller than Chara, or even less fit than Chara and smaller than Brindy couldn't be a star in today's NHL.

During the 2003-04 season there were more players under 6' tall than there were that were 6'3" or over, and over 60% of the players were 6'1" and under.

OK now go compare that with 1964.



You people don't get it. The League has caught up!

Stars maybe stars in any era but, THE LEAGUE HAS CAUGHT UP!

No longer is natural strength or speed as big of an advantage as it used to be. Because with modern training THE REST OF THE LEAGUE HAS CAUGHT UP!


Did everybody just ignore the picture of Brind'amour? The guy could compete in professional bodybuilding for gods sakes! But weight training of todays players wouldn't affect how a 1960's player would perform against them?
You people seem to think it wouldn't matter.

 

[Ogopogo*]

SO saves/shots? Are you saying that somehow the best Goalie statistic revolves around their shutouts?

Anyway, I think you are wrong about their not being good indicators for Goalies performance. There has been alot of work done on Shot Quality Neutral save% which adjusts for the type of shots the goaltender faces and also the distance the shot comes from.

Now, I haven't dug into those numbers much BUT from my limited look at them it looks like SQN S% is pretty close to being a function of shots allowed ONCE you allow for situation, namely PP time. I doubt they mirror each other but the basic idea is teams with strong defenses inflate their goaltenders numbers and vice versa. For instance, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that Broduer's numbers need to be downward adjusted to some extent.

I don't know about adjusting for the fact that some goaltenders give up more/less rebounds than average, but that is also a function of team defense to some extent.

Shoot out saves NOT shut outs.

 

[God Bless Canada]

I'm sorry I missed the part where I insulted Richard, to invoke this need you feel to defend him. Simply rediculous.



I just read the next post. They're everywhere.

You didn't insult the Rocket. You just made a remark, about needing Lindros as a "semi-enforcer," that showed that you knew very little about the Rocket as a player or a person. If you had done your research, you wouldn't have made that comment.

 

[Whatever Man*]

I knew exactly what I was saying. It is you that can't grasp the subject here.

I know Richard fought through checks and gave as good as he got. But don't you think he would have been atleast a little more productive, if he didn't have to rough it up so much?

Like Holy Crap Man!!!

 

[God Bless Canada]

I knew exactly what I was saying. It is you that can't grasp the subject here.

I know Richard fought through checks and gave as good as he got. But don't you think he would have been atleast a little more productive, if he didn't have to rough it up so much?

Like Holy Crap Man!!!

You put a "semi-enforcer" on Richard's line, and Richard still roughs it up. It wouldn't affect the way he played. If anything, it would reduce his effectiveness. He was at his best when he was "roughing it up so much," scrapping in the corners, battling for loose pucks, slamming into an opposing defenceman in the corner, taking the pounding in front of the net - doing everything it took to score a goal or get in position to score goal. That's the type of player he was.

Telling him not to fight to score, or telling him to let someone else do the physical battles? Not with the Rocket.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I knew exactly what I was saying. It is you that can't grasp the subject here.

You seem to have that problem with a lot of people (based on this thread, at least).

Perhaps a writing course at your local community college would help?

 

[Whatever Man*]

You put a "semi-enforcer" on Richard's line, and Richard still roughs it up. It wouldn't affect the way he played. If anything, it would reduce his effectiveness. He was at his best when he was "roughing it up so much," scrapping in the corners, battling for loose pucks, slamming into an opposing defenceman in the corner, taking the pounding in front of the net - doing everything it took to score a goal or get in position to score goal. That's the type of player he was.

Telling him not to fight to score, or telling him to let someone else do the physical battles? Not with the Rocket.

Semi-enforcer. Yes. Eric Lindros. Not really an enforcer is he? But in the 60's he would have been able to kick some serious butt, and he would still be producing a ton of points. But hey if you want to say Richard would have been more productive with who he had, that is your own issue.


I have a headache.

 

[Whatever Man*]

You seem to have that problem with a lot of people (based on this thread, at least).

Perhaps a writing course at your local community college would help?

I am not responsible for another posters inabillity to understand something.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I am not responsible for another posters inabillity to understand something.

If it's one poster, I agree. But it seems to be every single person in here, including myself (and I have a doctorate in mathematics).

So maybe it's your writing ability. Just a thought.

 

[God Bless Canada]

Semi-enforcer. Yes. Eric Lindros. Not really an enforcer is he? But in the 60's he would have been able to kick some serious butt, and he would still be producing a ton of points. But hey if you want to say Richard would have been more productive with who he had, that is your own issue.


I have a headache.

Of course you have a headache. You have a headache because you're lost, you've been out-debated, out-researched and out-insighted at every turn.

BTW, Rocket Richard played in the 40s and 50s. His little brother, Henri (the owner of 11 rings and also one of the top 50 players ever), played in the 60s.

I have never doubted that Lindros would "kick some serious butt" in the 60s. I'm sure he would have had a couple all-star calibre seasons, just like he did in the 1990s, before the apathy and the concussions kicked in. He wouldn't have been as good as Hull, Mikita, Howe, Beliveau and other stars from the late Original Six/early post-expansion era. Frankly, he wouldn't have been as good as the second tier of great 60s centres - Keon, Ullman and Henri Richard. Lindros didn't have their determination, their work ethic, their desire to improve, their ability to think the game, their anticipation - the distinguishing traits that determine the best players ever.

 

[Whatever Man*]

You haven't clued into one thing, and I'm the one whose lost?

Sure. Ok then.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

You haven't clued into one thing, and I'm the one whose lost?

Sure. Ok then.

Finally! We all agree.

 

[Whatever Man*]

If it's one poster, I agree. But it seems to be every single person in here, including myself (and I have a doctorate in mathematics).

So maybe it's your writing ability. Just a thought.

I think you missed a few posts there buddy.

It seems to me it is the same 3 or 4 people who just can't seem to get it, who continuously post.

Maybe your doctorate would help you more if you lost the homer goggles, in reagrds to your favorite era of hockey, and the players that played in it.

 

[Bear of Bad News]

I think you missed a few posts there buddy.

It seems to me it is the same 3 or 4 people who just can't seem to get it, who continuously post.

Maybe your doctorate would help you more if you lost the homer goggles, in reagrds to your favorite era of hockey, and the players that played in it.

Hey, I'm just trying to help you. Don't be so sensitive.

P.S.: "Buddy"? Are we buddies? I have a new friend!

 

[Whatever Man*]

Hey, I'm just trying to help you. Don't be so sensitive.

P.S.: "Buddy"? Are we buddies? I have a new friend!

Sheesus.

 

[alanschu]

You haven't clued into one thing, and I'm the one whose lost?

Sure. Ok then.

You actually said Rocket Richard could use Lindros to make sure no one took liberties with him??

 

[BM67]

Did everybody just ignore the picture of Brind'amour? The guy could compete in professional bodybuilding for gods sakes! But weight training of todays players wouldn't affect how a 1960's player would perform against them?
You people seem to think it wouldn't matter.

Brind'Amour has been one of finest physical specimens in the league for quite a while, and hardly anybody in league history compares, but 99% of players in the NHL today don't compare, so he hardly can be used as a standard.

The standard of fitness has been raised, but there are still plenty of players that show up at training camp out of shape, so the bar isn't that high that nobody can work their way up to it. Neither Bobby Orr or Bobby Hull would have to look like Brind'Amour to be a dominant player in today's NHL.

 

[KariyaIsGod*]

So he wasn't trying when he played?
He didn't give it his all?
He didn't use any and every move he could think of?

What more would or could he do?
Literally pick up the puck, and carry around on the blade of his stick?



You just can't grasp it can you?

Who knows what he would do? Guys like Kovalchuk and Ovechkin find ways, new moves to beat guys.

Gretzky is a lot smarter than both of them so I would wager that if they can find ways to beat these professional body builders... Gretzky could.

Rather simple.

 

[Cawz]

You seem to have that problem with a lot of people (based on this thread, at least).

Like the old joke says...

Recently a man was driving along a crowded expressway when his car phone rang. He picked up and his wife said to him, "Honey, be careful! I just heard on the radio that some idiot is driving the wrong way on the same expressway you're on." "That's right," he said, "but it isn't just one guy going the wrong way -- there are hundreds of them!"