Discussion in 'Detroit Red Wings' started by pdd, Dec 10, 2012.
Did you just state that Konstantinov is a top-3 defenseman of all-time?
In +/- based on % vs. games played, with 400 or more games played.
I saw that Final and saw Konstantinov on them. I watched that series closely. Maybe my memory is off, but I don't think so. I am going as a young teenager then. I do know Lidstrom was effective against those two in the series, but so was Vlad. I never said he was the only component who was on Lindros and Leclair... seriously, I sometimes wonder about these forums.
Wow... people can't accept opinions well on here. It's called being subjective, and I am not sure I would say that about Bobby Hull. He was built like a truck. He was always on the farm and was probably one of the best conditioned players earlier into his career. Having said that, to dismiss that Brett Hull didn't play against bigger, stronger, faster dmen in his time would be pure ignorance. Goalies were better in Brett's time as well. Conditioning has changed vastly in the past 20 years compared to the twenty before those, and so on and so forth.
As for the others, no comment. You just like arguing for arguments sake. That's a waste of time, because it's an endless battle that goes no where. You have your opinion. I have mine. Moving along...
Vladimir Konstantinov isn't top 3 of all-time. I don't think he meant that. He was just saying he would be going on prorated amount of games. Having said that, it's too much of a small sampling size. We'll never know how good Konstantinov would have been over his career. His career was cut very short. Unfortunately, since he was one of the better dmen in his best years. He was a top 3 dman at one point, thus why he was a Norris candidate. Only three in the end can be candidates, so by that vary (very?) definition, he was top-3 at that time.
My focus was on Konstantinov, because he is my favourite Wing after Yzerman. Was not trying to be ignorant of Lidstrom's effectiveness in that Final, but more-so was bringing up a period of time where Vlad truly won me over. He was physically dominating in that Final and a huge pest. He was very good at getting under player's skins. I suppose the best way to settle this if we could revisit the Final and rematch every game. Who's up for that?
A waste of time? Since when is being a hockey fan in any way related to efficient use of time? That's actually one of the worst arguments I've ever heard on the internet.
Not everything you do in life must be an "efficient use of time". It's entertainment. Something fun. Why do people go fishing? Skydiving? Go see a movie? Listen to music?
You watch hockey because you enjoy rooting for a particular team and love the game. That's not a waste of time. But going through decades of history and learning about past players to be able to compare them on a hockey forum? Yeah, I'm not doing that. Might not make me the best hockey fan in the world, but I couldn't care less.
I never said that being a hockey fan is an efficient use of time. Knowing players from the 60's shouldn't be a requirement to be one though.
That's exactly my point. Why are you telling people that they are wasting their time? To you, learning about hockey history is a waste of time. To somebody else, it's fun and entertaining. To another somebody else, watching hockey is a waste of time and talking about hockey to strangers on a message board is an even bigger waste of time..
Also, if we are going to discuss greatest players of all time, and not greatest players that a 20 year old can remember, it's completely reasonable to mention players like Marty Barry or Bill Quackenbush.
Well I guess I need to clarify that learning about all the players who have played for the Red Wings in the past (except for the obvious ones such as Howe, Lindsay, Delvecchio, etc.) is a waste of time to me. It should not be a requirement for someone to be a fan of a particular team to know stats and achievements of players who played before their parents were even born, let alone before that particular person was born.
Others are free to study and learn about players and events that has happened in history, they might find that interesting. I never said they shouldn't. These polls are also interesting to some degree to compare players of various eras to create a comprehensive ranking of top players throughout history. But the results will be skewed and inaccurate (IMO), since I am sure most people haven't even heard of, let alone seen a lot of the players on that list. So the results would (IMO) hold no value.
I'm just defending my position as a fan of this team saying that my views or opinions of current events surrounding the Wings (players, staff, results, etc.) should not be devalued because of my lack of knowledge about the history of the Wings.
Why no no. 13 yet? Didn't Eva Unit Zero like the results of the polls? Not enough pre-cold war players for his taste?
Hasek was our best player vs the Avs. He/we won game 6 2-0 on the road being down 3-2 games. That was a huge win, maybe the biggest win of the Wings in the playoffs last 15 years.
I liked the announcer commenting on the hit, saying it is worth taking a 2 min penalty.
Separate names with a comma.