HOH Top 60 Defensemen of All Time

[Rhiessan71]

Maybe it's a perception thing but Zubov was under Hitch in his 4th full year in the NHL at age 26.

So what?
Do you actually believe that Hitch was employing Zubov much in defensive situations when he had Hatcher, Sydor and Matvichuk?
Give your head a shake.

He was better later in his career for sure but the early part of his pre Hitch carer is short and his offense is way better than Savards do we need to pull up the actual numbers here?

Here it's easy, Zubov is a 0.72 PPG player in his career, Savard .42 and I won't even begin to bring in the era thing.


.30 PPG over 100 games is quite a gap.

That's a huge offensive difference. Zubov isn't Phil Housley on the back end.

And I say Savard's defense to Zubov's was more than the .30 PPG adjusted for era or not gap that Zubov had offensively.

They both have exactly 1 2nd team all star selection.

Yeah, lets evaluate the competition that each player was going up against for the 4 all-star spots heh

Zubov has a legit Norris argument the year 06 he was a 2nd team guy while Savards was more of a reward for an aging vet in 79.

Savard was 5th behind Orr, Potvin, Lapointe and Salming in '75
5th behind Potvin, Park, Salming and Lapointe in '76
5th behind Robinson, Salming, Potvin and Lapointe in '77
and 4th behind Potvin, Robinson and Salming in '79

Lidstrom would have been lucky to have finished better than that against those guys let alone Sergei freakin Zubov!
You can talk about how watered down you think the league was in the 70's all you want but if you believe for one nano second that the competition for the Norris was deeper or especially more consistent in the 2000's than it was in the mid-late 70's, you're completely out of your freakin mind!

Even with the Conn Smythe it's pretty hard to argue that there is a huge gap in their playoff resume and impact.

No it really isn't, especially if one ACTUALLY saw both players play!

I have always maintained that Zubov's offense was slightly better than Lidstrom's but I also don't hold Lidstrom's offense in that high of a regard vs the best offensive D-men anyway so it really doesn't mean as much as you think it does.
And after offense, there is no sentence that should be uttered that includes Zubov's name with Lidstrom's.


Even Scotty Bowman, who Lidstromites love to quote in favour of Lidstrom, said that he believed Savard was better than Lapointe or Robinson.

 

[Hardyvan123]

So what?
Do you actually believe that Hitch was employing Zubov much in defensive situations when he had Hatcher, Sydor and Matvichuk?
Give your head a shake.

Zubov and being poor defensively is obviously a perception that some fans like you can't shake.

He isn't playing 26:14 MPG for 10 seasons, that we have stats for and likely that much for at least 4 more, all on the PP either.

He was flat out a top paring Dmen his entire career.

And I say Savard's defense to Zubov's was more than the .30 PPG adjusted for era or not gap that Zubov had offensively.

I won't waste my time and run the numbers but how many times do you think Zubov is top 5 in Damn scoring, with more teams and more #1 Dmen in the league, compared to Savard

Savard hits top 5 maybe 2 times and Zubov maybe a dozen? At some point thsoe 10 seasons is a bit of a lead right?

Heck we could take the % of the 2nd dman's points and show how much exactly Zubov blows Savard out of the water.

Even if we pro rated all of Savard's seasons the lead would be incredible.

Yeah, lets evaluate the competition that each player was going up against for the 4 all-star spots heh



Savard was 5th behind Orr, Potvin, Lapointe and Salming in '75
5th behind Potvin, Park, Salming and Lapointe in '76
5th behind Robinson, Salming, Potvin and Lapointe in '77
and 4th behind Potvin, Robinson and Salming in '79

This is indeed ironic in that Zubov played half his career in what you call the best era for Dmen when pimping your boy Ray.

Speaking of going off topic you bring it up in the enxt passage

Lidstrom would have been lucky to have finished better than that against those guys let alone Sergei freakin Zubov!
You can talk about how watered down you think the league was in the 70's all you want but if you believe for one nano second that the competition for the Norris was deeper or especially more consistent in the 2000's than it was in the mid-late 70's, you're completely out of your freakin mind!

Yes it was pretty consistent in the 70's a group of 4 or 5 guys then a huge dropoff, in the 00's you have a lot of great Dmen just a huge drop off in offense due to the changing role of the position.

No it really isn't, especially if one ACTUALLY saw both players play!

Not this stuff again, I saw plenty of the Habs and they had a totally stacked team in the 70's, Savard wasn't the difference maker on thsoe teams but he did win all thsoe Cups which helps in cup counting.

I have always maintained that Zubov's offense was slightly better than Lidstrom's but I also don't hold Lidstrom's offense in that high of a regard vs the best offensive D-men anyway so it really doesn't mean as much as you think it does.

No, obviously Ron Stackhouse or Carol Vadnais, might be in high regard if one only looks at stats and not the actual context.

And after offense, there is no sentence that should be uttered that includes Zubov's name with Lidstrom's.

There is no shame to not being in the same class as possibly the best defensive dman in histroy is there?

You are making Zubov sound like Housley here when he clearly was better than average defensively while elite offensively.

Even Scotty Bowman, who Lidstromites love to quote in favour of Lidstrom, said that he believed Savard was better than Lapointe or Robinson.

Yes Scotty even has Savard over Potvin in his top 100 Canadians of all time, not to mention H Richard at 13 with Trottier at 62ish or something.

Even though it is Scotty a comment like that really doesn't mean much when you look at it's context.

Savard and Zubov should be in the same tier at least in this project and there is a very strong argument for Zubov over Savard IMO.

IMO Zubov is hurt by playing in an integrated NHL while his earlier Russian Dmen benefit from not doing so.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Zubov and being poor defensively is obviously a perception that some fans like you can't shake.

What am I trying to shake exactly?
The only time I said he was poor was in the first 4-5 seasons. He then improved enough as to not be a liability and then in his last few years his positioning was pretty solid but that's only half the battle as he was never very good down low or one on one.
So again I have to ask, what Zubov were you watching?

He isn't playing 26:14 MPG for 10 seasons, that we have stats for and likely that much for at least 4 more, all on the PP either.

He was flat out a top paring Dmen his entire career.

So was Housley, still doesn't make him good defensively.

I won't waste my time and run the numbers but how many times do you think Zubov is top 5 in Damn scoring, with more teams and more #1 Dmen in the league, compared to Savard

Savard hits top 5 maybe 2 times and Zubov maybe a dozen? At some point thsoe 10 seasons is a bit of a lead right?

Heck we could take the % of the 2nd dman's points and show how much exactly Zubov blows Savard out of the water.

Even if we pro rated all of Savard's seasons the lead would be incredible.

You could do all that and it still doesn't matter how many more points Zunov has over Savard, adjusted or not.
My statement was, and I still believe, that the gap between Savard's def and Zubov's def was greater than the gap between Zubov's off and Savard's off.
So it really doesn't matter how big you project the offensive gap, I'm still saying their defensive gap was larger.

This is indeed ironic in that Zubov played half his career in what you call the best era for Dmen when pimping your boy Ray.

You named '06 for Zubov, not the 90's. Nice try though.
Zubov was barely a blip on the radar in that 90's crowd and with good reason.

Yes it was pretty consistent in the 70's a group of 4 or 5 guys then a huge dropoff, in the 00's you have a lot of great Dmen just a huge drop off in offense due to the changing role of the position.

Bla bla bla, yeah yeah, changing role.
Funny how only the NEW D-man were affected by this changing role while guys like Bourque, MacInnis and Leetch continued to excel as they always had, only age and injuries slowed them down.

Not this stuff again, I saw plenty of the Habs and they had a totally stacked team in the 70's, Savard wasn't the difference maker on thsoe teams but he did win all thsoe Cups which helps in cup counting.

His Conn Smythe tends to say otherwise

No, obviously Ron Stackhouse or Carol Vadnais, might be in high regard if one only looks at stats and not the actual context.

Hahahaha that's rich! All you're doing here is asking us to consider Zubov's offensive stats and attempting to propel him in with a player well known and oft recognized for excellence, especially defensively.
You're talking about a guy that didn't even make the top 60 and you want him in the top 30??? Yeah ok.

There is no shame to not being in the same class as possibly the best defensive dman in histroy is there?

I said Lidstrom, not Langway or Harvey.

You are making Zubov sound like Housley here when he clearly was better than average defensively while elite offensively.

I said no such thing. Housley was always terrible defensively and I have it made clear NUMEROUS times now that Zubov got better defensively.

Yes Scotty even has Savard over Potvin in his top 100 Canadians of all time, not to mention H Richard at 13 with Trottier at 62ish or something.

Even though it is Scotty a comment like that really doesn't mean much when you look at it's context.

Yeah I know how it works, believe me I do.
The context of what Bowman says only counts when it's about Lidstrom. Believe me we ALL know how it works.

Savard and Zubov should be in the same tier at least in this project and there is a very strong argument for Zubov over Savard IMO.

And you are completely entitled to your opinion, it is pretty UNIQUE after all

IMO Zubov is hurt by playing in an integrated NHL while his earlier Russian Dmen benefit from not doing so.

For sure. I mean of course the whole 8.2% (less than 3 teams worth) of the League that is either Russian or Czech makes or breaks it, for sure

 

[tarheelhockey]

I just visited hockey-reference's "Elo Player Ratings" page, and thought it was worth sharing for kicks.

The way it works: H-R's database spits out two names, and the user simply makes a binary choice between them. The players are ranked based on the number of matchups they "win". The fine details are here: http://www.hockey-reference.com/about/elo.html

Bottom line: this ranking is a good litmus test for general public understanding of this topic, as it relies almost entirely upon the user's ability to rank historic players "correctly". Player stats are provided to the user, so it's a fair guess that statistics also have an influence over the results.

As of 3/29/13:

1. Bobby Orr
2. Nicklas Lidstrom
3. Denis Potvin
4. Raymond Bourque
5. Scott Niedermayer
6. Paul Coffey
7. Scott Stevens
8. Larry Robinson
9. Brian Leetch
10. Larry Murphy
11. Eddie Shore
12. Al MacInnis
13. Serge Savard
14. Borje Salming
15. Chris Chelios
16. Guy Lapointe
17. Chris Pronger
18. Doug Harvey
19. Zdeno Chara
20. Rob Blake
21. Brad Park
22. Mark Howe
23. Gary Suter
24. Phil Housley
25. Tim Horton
26. Pierre Pilote
27. Doug Wilson
28. King Clancy
29. Marcel Pronovost
30. Rod Langway
31. Sergei Zubov
32. Sergei Gonchar
33. Steve Duchesne
34. Mathieu Schneider
35. Fern Flaman
36. Jacques Laperriere
37. JC Tremblay
38. Harry Howell
39. Brian Rafalski
40. Lionel Conacher
41. Reed Larson
42. Carol Vadnais
43. Jean-Guy Talbot
44. Glen Wesley
45. Randy Carlyle
46. Allan Stanley
47. Kevin Hatcher
48. Bill Gadsby
49. Dave Babych
50. Sandis Ozolinsh
51. Teppo Numminen
52. Eric Desjardins
53. Ed Jovanovski
54. Butch Bouchard
55. Roman Hamrlik
56. Earl Seibert
57. Ian Turnbull
58. James Patrick
59. Dan Boyle
60. Rob Ramage
...
69. Tom Johnson
70. Kevin Lowe
71. Bill Quackenbush
...
80. Ching Johnson
...
84. Art Coulter
...
88. Ken Reardon
...
97. Carl Brewer
...
106. Jack Stewart

Numerous of our top-60 players were not listed due to a lack of meeting the NHL-based criteria (most prominently Fetisov).

 

[Epsilon]

Obviously the first thing that jumps out on a list like that is its bias towards modern players, which reflects on the user base of the website. Even accounting for that, the rankings that jump out at me as hilariously bad at Niedermayer at 5 and Murphy at 10, because those rankings aren't even good in the context of other players around them from the same eras.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Obviously the first thing that jumps out on a list like that is its bias towards modern players, which reflects on the user base of the website.

I doubt it has much to do with the age of the users on the site but rather the process and what the site tracks in each comparison

Even accounting for that, the rankings that jump out at me as hilariously bad at Niedermayer at 5 and Murphy at 10, because those rankings aren't even good in the context of other players around them from the same eras.

Given how the point share system, that the site uses, is beneficial to long careers and winning players it's not all that surprising really.

It's just another list and every list has it's weak points, or points or argument.

For example the top 60 list here that had here it's arguable that 70's guys are too broadly represented as well with close to 12 guys being represented from that time period having their peak or majority of their careers in that decade.

I believe the major reason for this is the different leagues the players where playing in at the time and not be fully integrated.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I doubt it has much to do with the age of the users on the site but rather the process and what the site tracks in each comparison







Given how the point share system, that the site uses, is beneficial to long careers and winning players it's not all that surprising really.

It's just another list and every list has it's weak points, or points or argument.

For example the top 60 list here that had here it's arguable that 70's guys are too broadly represented as well with close to 12 guys being represented from that time period having their peak or majority of their careers in that decade.

I believe the major reason for this is the different leagues the players where playing in at the time and not be fully integrated.

We know in spades what you believe Hardy.
Unfortunately you have failed time and time again to knock even one of those "12" from the list.
I mean I'm sure it had nothing to do with the "Bobby Orr effect" where more young blue chip players wanted to be D-men like Orr.
Just like Gretzky inspired a whole generation of forwards or Roy inspired a whole generation of french Canadian goalies.

But hey, lets just fall back on the completely unproven and quite frankly ridiculous at times, "fully integrated league" crapola (IMO)

You keep saying lets compare apples to apples when the reality is that there were only one set of apples to compare with. The other apples not being ripe enough to eat yet.

Oh and last I checked, a good amoutn of those "12" aren't even from Canada

Salming
Fetisov
Suchy
Pospisill

But hey, again, lets not let facts get in the way of your narrative

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

We know in spades what you believe Hardy.
Unfortunately you have failed time and time again to knock even one of those "12" from the list.
I mean I'm sure it had nothing to do with the "Bobby Orr effect" where more young blue chip players wanted to be D-men like Orr.
Just like Gretzky inspired a whole generation of forwards or Roy inspired a whole generation of french Canadian goalies.

But hey, lets just fall back on the completely unproven and quite frankly ridiculous at times, "fully integrated league" crapola (IMO)

You keep saying lets compare apples to apples when the reality is that there were only one set of apples to compare with. The other apples not being ripe enough to eat yet.

Oh and last I checked, almost half of those "12" aren't even from Canada

 

[Hardyvan123]

We know in spades what you believe Hardy.
Unfortunately you have failed time and time again to knock even one of those "12" from the list.
I mean I'm sure it had nothing to do with the "Bobby Orr effect" where more young blue chip players wanted to be D-men like Orr.

How would Orr affect many of the guys that had peaks in the 70's when they were more or less the same age as Orr?

But hey, lets just fall back on the completely unproven and quite frankly ridiculous at times, "fully integrated league" crapola (IMO)

Fetisov
Suchy
Pospisill

I took Fetisov out of my list of 13 to make 12 as he was more of a 80's guy but Suchy and Pospisill and Vasliliv playing in the NHL would ahve affected how they were viewed as well as the present NHL guys no doubt.

There would have been still only 1 guy behind Orr then Potvin as the best Dman in the 70's, still only 2 post season all stars, still only 1 Norris to vote for ect...

So either these 3 guys excelled in a hypothetical integrated NHL or they didn't. If they didn't then they would have been left off of the top 60 list and if they did they would have bumped down and perhaps off another of the guys from the 70's.

You keep saying lets compare apples to apples when the reality is that there were only one set of apples to compare with. The other apples not being ripe enough to eat yet.

The absolute greatest benefit of the doubt was given to both groups of players, both NHL and non NHL guys and a guy like JC Tremeblay who would have faltered, or held back Robinson at the very least, had he not jumped to the WHA.

Oh and last I checked, a good amoutn of those "12" aren't even from Canada

Salming
Fetisov
Suchy
Pospisill

But hey, again, lets not let facts get in the way of your narrative

Yes Salming was one swede out of an average of what 3 swedes per year in the 70's? I guess it's exactly the same as today when there is a legitimate debate on whether Sweden or Canada will have a better defense at the next Olympics right?

The other 3 guys were covered earlier in my post here.

 

[Rhiessan71]

How would Orr affect many of the guys that had peaks in the 70's when they were more or less the same age as Orr?

It only takes a 3-5 year difference for a junior player to decide he wants to be a d-man instead of a foward heh.

Fetisov
Suchy
Pospisill

I took Fetisov out of my list of 13 to make 12 as he was more of a 80's guy but Suchy and Pospisill and Vasliliv playing in the NHL would ahve affected how they were viewed as well as the present NHL guys no doubt.

There would have been still only 1 guy behind Orr then Potvin as the best Dman in the 70's, still only 2 post season all stars, still only 1 Norris to vote for ect...

So either these 3 guys excelled in a hypothetical integrated NHL or they didn't. If they didn't then they would have been left off of the top 60 list and if they did they would have bumped down and perhaps off another of the guys from the 70's.

OR they would all still be there and nothing changes.
The POINT is that they are NOT being ignored or being left out of the conversation, which is pretty much the whole basis of your "Integrated League" rhetoric

And of course you left out Fetisov from your list, I'm absolutely shocked hahaha

The absolute greatest benefit of the doubt was given to both groups of players, both NHL and non NHL guys and a guy like JC Tremeblay who would have faltered, or held back Robinson at the very least, had he not jumped to the WHA.

Oh and you can prove that eh...good luck!

Yes Salming was one swede out of an average of what 3 swedes per year in the 70's? I guess it's exactly the same as today when there is a legitimate debate on whether Sweden or Canada will have a better defense at the next Olympics right?

The other 3 guys were covered earlier in my post here.

Hahahaha!
I don't care how you want to try and cover it or maybe cover it up is a better way to put it.
The POINT is still that out of your "12" or my "13", a full 1/3 to a 1/4 of them are Euro's.
Sorry if I'm laughing but this is too damned funny!

 

[Hardyvan123]

It only takes a 3-5 year difference for a junior player to decide he wants to be a d-man instead of a foward heh.

Maybe that affect Potvin from the group of 12 that's about it though.

OR they would all still be there and nothing changes.
The POINT is that they are NOT being ignored or being left out of the conversation, which is pretty much the whole basis of your "Integrated League" rhetoric

And of course you left out Fetisov from your list, I'm absolutely shocked hahaha

Look you once again didn't read my post properly as I was talking about guy who had large portions of their careers or peaks in the 70's, most of Fetisovs body of work was in the 80's so I changed my list from 13 to 12 plain and simple.

Maybe Lapierre is mostly a 60's guy so that might make it 11 but I doubt he gets in just on his 60's body of work.

Hahahaha!
I don't care how you want to try and cover it or maybe cover it up is a better way to put it.
The POINT is still that out of your "12" or my "13", a full 1/3 to a 1/4 of them are Euro's.
Sorry if I'm laughing but this is too damned funny!

Yes most of us know where you stand and your trying to be funny or sarcastic isn't even talking to the issue at hand here.

The issue I brought up is that guys from the late 60's to 70's are over represented to what one would expect over a timeline of 60 players from the early 1900's to the 2000's, a time period of well over 100 years.

If you disagree on my thoughts that's fine just stop being disruptive and totally off point about it, that is if you can.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Maybe that affect Potvin from the group of 12 that's about it though.

What don't you prove it, post your "12"s birthday and see how that works out.

Look you once again didn't read my post properly as I was talking about guy who had large portions of their careers or peaks in the 70's, most of Fetisovs body of work was in the 80's so I changed my list from 13 to 12 plain and simple.

Maybe Lapierre is mostly a 60's guy so that might make it 11 but I doubt he gets in just on his 60's body of work.

Hardy, I always read your posts properly. I never have trouble figuring out what you're trying to say. I just have trouble figuring out what it's based on.

Yes most of us know where you stand and your trying to be funny or sarcastic isn't even talking to the issue at hand here.

The issue I brought up is that guys from the late 60's to 70's are over represented to what one would expect over a timeline of 60 players from the early 1900's to the 2000's, a time period of well over 100 years.

If you disagree on my thoughts that's fine just stop being disruptive and totally off point about it, that is if you can.

I have found that dealing with you with humour and sarcasm is so much better for everyone involved.
When I used to get mad and frustrated with you it was because I was taking you too seriously.
Now that I treat your posts as the humourous material I find them to be, it works out much better

 

[Hardyvan123]

What don't you prove it, post your "12"s birthday and see how that works out.

You can look at the list yourself, not really going to bother with the obvious

Hardy, I always read your posts properly. I never have trouble figuring out what you're trying to say. I just have trouble figuring out what it's based on.

Sorry but I was pretty clear in what I was talking about with taking Fetisov off the list.

I was being charitable that you didn't read it properly.

I have found that dealing with you with humour and sarcasm is so much better for everyone involved.
When I used to get mad and frustrated with you it was because I was taking you too seriously.
Now that I treat your posts as the humourous material I find them to be, it works out much better

I find that it's a popular thing here in the history section to either ignore or belittle opinions against the norm.



I stand by the assertion that the number of top 60 Dmen looks inflated from the late 60's and 70's period and have stated why.

Conversely a more modern integrated guy has been overlooked, Zubov in this case.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I find that it's a popular thing here in the history section to either ignore or belittle opinions against the norm.

Opinions against the norm based on alternate theories, backed up with solid facts, no problem.
Spouting the same un-proven rhetoric that has been rebuffed at every turn, at almost every level that is based on a certain interpretation of SOME of the facts...not so much.
See, the problem is that you have just enough in certain circumstances that what you say is at least possible, if remotely. However, when one steps back and looks at the whole picture, it falls apart faster than Hardy Astrom on a breakaway.

The day your "theories" can stand up to the peer to peer, era to era test, you may have something but not a millisecond before that.

The basic jist of your theories, as I have come to understand them, is that if someone asked you why Jagr can't do what he used to do. Your answer would be that the league has changed and players are better. Now, while there is a certain amount of truth to that, juuust enough I might add, it allows you to say that relatively uncontested.
The reality of course and the much. much, much more likely answer is that he's 42 freakin years old.
What's more, if your "theories" are as true as you make them out to be, there shouldn't be any way in hell that Jagr should even still be playing in the NHL, let alone still as a top line player.

I stand by the assertion that the number of top 60 Dmen looks inflated from the late 60's and 70's period and have stated why.

Conversely a more modern integrated guy has been overlooked, Zubov in this case.

And by all means, feel free to engage in another Zubov debate. I'm here for you anytime but I highly doubt it will go any better for you than the last one.

So there you go. I answered you without any sarcasm or humour, feel better?

 

[Hardyvan123]

Opinions against the norm based on alternate theories, backed up with solid facts, no problem.
Spouting the same un-proven rhetoric that has been rebuffed at every turn, at almost every level that is based on a certain interpretation of SOME of the facts...not so much.
See, the problem is that you have just enough in certain circumstances that what you say is at least possible, if remotely. However, when one steps back and looks at the whole picture, it falls apart faster than Hardy Astrom on a breakaway.

The day your "theories" can stand up to the peer to peer, era to era test, you may have something but not a millisecond before that.

Hey I'm all for looking at as many things as possible and actually asking questions about things.

It must be quite the burden being right all of the time though.

The basic jist of your theories, as I have come to understand them, is that if someone asked you why Jagr can't do what he used to do. Your answer would be that the league has changed and players are better. Now, while there is a certain amount of truth to that, juuust enough I might add, it allows you to say that relatively uncontested.
The reality of course and the much. much, much more likely answer is that he's 42 freakin years old.
What's more, if your "theories" are as true as you make them out to be, there shouldn't be any way in hell that Jagr should even still be playing in the NHL, let alone still as a top line player.

Hey I outline what i think all of the time, why are you once again presuming what I'm doing when I'm quite clear in my views and observations?

I won't answer for you, kindly don't do so for me okay.

And by all means, feel free to engage in another Zubov debate. I'm here for you anytime but I highly doubt it will go any better for you than the last one.

I put the argument for Zubov out there it's pretty obvious why he wasn't included in the top 60 when a guy like Vasiliev was or heck even Savard.

So there you go. I answered you without any sarcasm or humour, feel better?

Well like I said if you could but you can't it seems.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Hey I'm all for looking at as many things as possible and actually asking questions about things.

Problem is you rarely actually ask questions. Usually you provide alternate answers more than anything. Answers usually based on only partial facts.

It must be quite the burden being right all of the time though.

With you, not at all.

Hey I outline what i think all of the time, why are you once again presuming what I'm doing when I'm quite clear in my views and observations?

I won't answer for you, kindly don't do so for me okay.

I simply provided an example of what I have come to understand your theories to be.
If I was wrong in what I just said there and you don't feel it's a fair representation of your views, then by all means rebut me but take care, I have the "search posts by poster - Hardyvan123" bookmarked.

I put the argument for Zubov out there it's pretty obvious why he wasn't included in the top 60 when a guy like Vasiliev was or heck even Savard.

And it became quite apparent in that argument what the term "pretty obvious" means to you compared to most everyone else.

Well like I said if you could but you can't it seems.

Really, the Hardy Astrom crack wasn't even about you and I really was genuinely concerned with your feelings at the end.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Problem is you rarely actually ask questions. Usually you provide alternate answers more than anything. Answers usually based on only partial facts.

You better check your bookmarks again then as looking at things ie scoring in raw stats, % of scoring to 2nd guy, adjusted, top 10's, ten tens for context ie in a fully integrated league are all different ways of looking at the same set of facts.

I simply provided an example of what I have come to understand your theories to be.
If I was wrong in what I just said there and you don't feel it's a fair representation of your views, then by all means rebut me but take care, I have the "search posts by poster - Hardyvan123" bookmarked.

Sadly I think you do do this, as for misunderstanding me I really can't help you as I've been pretty clear in most of my posts.

The fact of the matter is that you don't agree, even if the facts of the matter stand in the way or the weight of the evidence, you pick a position and that's it. I often change my thoughts and perspective on different players and will probably always do so since nothing is conclusive and almost everything here is subjective.

[/QUOTE]And it became quite apparent in that argument what the term "pretty obvious" means to you compared to most everyone else.[/QUOTE]

Yes the ATD does have a lot of influence here I would imagine and at least one frequent poster was honest enough to say that every era gets treated the same which is hard to defend with the rates of expansion and differences in the league over time, which have nothing to do with the sticky BTW.



[/QUOTE]Really, the Hardy Astrom crack wasn't even about you and I really was genuinely concerned with your feelings at the end.[/QUOTE]

I wasn't even referring to that and I'd be more concerned about having an open mind and honest discussion on players rather than trying to be "right" all of the time.

 

[Rhiessan71]

You better check your bookmarks again then as looking at things ie scoring in raw stats, % of scoring to 2nd guy, adjusted, top 10's, ten tens for context ie in a fully integrated league are all different ways of looking at the same set of facts.

Oh, you're absolutely right, they are all different ways of doing it but that's not the issue.
The issue with you has always been that you tend to only rely on one of them at a time and base an entire argument on it. Even when it's quite clear that the other ways mentioned aren't supporting said argument.
It's like trying to paint a complete rainbow only using 2 colours.

Sadly I think you do do this, as for misunderstanding me I really can't help you as I've been pretty clear in most of my posts.

The misunderstanding has more to do with the difference between using all the facts and using partial facts.

The fact of the matter is that you don't agree, even if the facts of the matter stand in the way or the weight of the evidence, you pick a position and that's it. I often change my thoughts and perspective on different players and will probably always do so since nothing is conclusive and almost everything here is subjective.

It's not even that I disagree with you completely. There is some basis on some things under certain circumstances where some of it could apply.
But you take it way beyond the scope to outrageous and at times, simply ridiculous extremes where it just falls apart very quickly.

Yes the ATD does have a lot of influence here I would imagine and at least one frequent poster was honest enough to say that every era gets treated the same which is hard to defend with the rates of expansion and differences in the league over time, which have nothing to do with the sticky BTW.

Again, I don't honestly think anyone believes all era's are the same. What made a player successful in one era may not in another and vice versa. It's the "Vice versa" part you seem to have trouble with.

I wasn't even referring to that and I'd be more concerned about having an open mind and honest discussion on players rather than trying to be "right" all of the time.

When you stop bringing forth narrow views based on partial facts and open your mind to the bigger/WHOLE picture involved, I guarantee you will suddenly find me quite "open minded".


It's prolly time to take this to the proper thread though.
I have some pending points for you to answer to there any way
http://hfboards.mandatory.com/showthread.php?p=63109989#post63109989

 

[Hardyvan123]

I don't see any point in that link, it's impossible to compare or do a top 60 of all time if we don't take into consideration the context of when players played, suggesting moving the discussion to an all encompassing thread is kinda pointless.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Again, I don't honestly think anyone believes all era's are the same. What made a player successful in one era may not in another and vice versa. It's the "Vice versa" part you seem to have trouble with.

The problem here arises from the definition of "different". HV's idea of different is strictly related to player talent. And THAT'S where the disagreement comes from.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The problem here arises from the definition of "different". HV's idea of different is strictly related to player talent. And THAT'S where the disagreement comes from.

Well you are wrong there, I suggest you bookmark like your cousin and see that I often talk about other changes in the game between eras, things like the forward pass, changing equipment and coaching techniques ect....

Maybe read some posts before making up your mind, it's helpfull.

For example when someone says in a 1st sentence why they prefer player a over player B, say Langway over Niedermeyer and then they go on to explain that they prefer their Dmen to be better defensively 1st and offense is secondary then it provides context.

Or conversely that some prefer Nieds over Langway because he was a winner and then go on to explain it.

Both sides offer opinions and if they back it up with examples they should be considered.

But this inaccurate attempt to pigeon hole my ideas as a singular one is really getting tired here.

If you don't agree with me that's fine but at least offer some perspective, it would greatly enhance your position.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

Well you are wrong there, I suggest you bookmark like your cousin and see that I often talk about other changes in the game between eras, things like the forward pass, changing equipment and coaching techniques ect....

Maybe read some posts before making up your mind, it's helpfull.

For example when someone says in a 1st sentence why they prefer player a over player B, say Langway over Niedermeyer and then they go on to explain that they prefer their Dmen to be better defensively 1st and offense is secondary then it provides context.

Or conversely that some prefer Nieds over Langway because he was a winner and then go on to explain it.

Both sides offer opinions and if they back it up with examples they should be considered.

But this inaccurate attempt to pigeon hole my ideas as a singular one is really getting tired here.

If you don't agree with me that's fine but at least offer some perspective, it would greatly enhance your position.

And then you always come back to claims that today's integrated talent is the best ever.

 

[TheDevilMadeMe]

Discuss the topic of this thread and the content of posts. Do not discuss other posters. This is not optional.

 

[Killion]

And then you always come back to claims that today's integrated talent is the best ever.

What does this mean, "integrated talent"?. Are you referring to the secular trends, to the European & pan-North American talent influx of the 1990's? Or is it more to do with league wide parity, the way the games being played? Perhaps the bridling of pure talent which results in the stultification of todays top tier players like a Crosby, Ovi & Malkin etc in actually ever being able to realize their full potential. That therefore any metric comparisons made pre-94-to-1980 era players when the game was far more offensively oriented to post 1994 era players would just naturally be more favourable to the former which when combined with WHA Amalgamation & Expansion should somehow therefore diminish their achievements. Is that the gist of this phrase, "integrated talent"?.

 

[Morgoth Bauglir]

What does this mean, "integrated talent"?. Are you referring to the secular trends, to the European & pan-North American talent influx of the 1990's? Or is it more to do with league wide parity, the way the games being played? Perhaps the bridling of pure talent which results in the stultification of todays top tier players like a Crosby, Ovi & Malkin etc in actually ever being able to realize their full potential. That therefore any metric comparisons made pre-94-to-1980 era players when the game was far more offensively oriented to post 1994 era players would just naturally be more favourable to the former which when combined with WHA Amalgamation & Expansion should somehow therefore diminish their achievements. Is that the gist of this phrase, "integrated talent"?.

I'll send you a PM as TDMM has barred that discussion and I'm loath to violate a mod's directive