If Orr started playing in todays NHL

[Rhiessan71]

No, you're still missing the point. I'm not talking about raw point totals at all, I'm talking about the percentage players are able to standout over others statistically. Continue arguing things I haven't even stated and brush off countless evidence that contradicts your opinion. Everything I've stated would decrease their overall level of dominance, which means less than 160 is likely what he'd get. 150 tops depending on the year or situation. The whole point is if someone like Crosby can score around 140 consistently combined with his overall game, he's dominating to the same degree if not more so than Gretzky, considering players like Ovechkin, the Sedins and Stamkos are the only ones I'd consider a lock for 100, and one of those isn't even on pace for that this year. He's arguably a generational talent himself.

Your whole argument is based on YOUR opinion that Gretzky would only be capable of 150 points today though.

You can't state YOUR opinion of how many points Gretzky would get today, take that number and compare it with the actual numbers of Crosby then use that made up difference as your base in determining a reduced dominance.

You have to see where your argument is flawed here.

I do agree with you to a point though, that Gretzky's statistical dominance would prolly be reduced today, especially in raw point totals but I doubt that the percentile difference would be reduced as much as you make out.

See, myself and many others believe Gretzky would be closer to 160-170 today with 180+ in a peak season.
Obviously if we can't agree on what his numbers would actually be then there is absolutely no point in arguing the actual dominance percentage.

All I would say is that I have no problem believing that Gretzky and Lemieux would hold a more than noticeable statistical advantage over Crosby and Ovechkin today.

Also, Crosby HAS NOT gotten 140 points yet, just like as it has been pointed out many times in these arguments that Lemieux never got 200+.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

Your whole argument is based on YOUR opinion that Gretzky would only be capable of 150 points today though.

You can't state YOUR opinion of how many points Gretzky would get today, take that number and compare it with the actual numbers of Crosby then use that made up difference as your base in determining a reduced dominance.

You have to see where your argument is flawed here.

I do agree with you to a point though, that Gretzky's statistical dominance would prolly be reduced today, especially in raw point totals but I doubt that the percentile difference would be reduced as much as you make out.

See, myself and many others believe Gretzky would be closer to 160-170 today with 180+ in a peak season.
Obviously if we can't agree on what his numbers would actually be then there is absolutely no point in arguing the actual dominance percentage.

All I would say is that I have no problem believing that Gretzky and Lemieux would hold a more than noticeable statistical advantage over Crosby and Ovechkin today.

Also, Crosby HAS NOT gotten 140 points yet, just like as it has been pointed out many times in these arguments that Lemieux never got 200+.

No I know, my whole point was that if he did start string together consistent 140 point seasons and the rest of the scoring stayed as is, I wouldn't want to still see tons of people here saying, he's nowhere near Gretzky or Lemieux, call me when he reaches 180 pts. The reason I say this is I don't even think he'll hit 140 once, but I have a feeling even if he did, and did it for multiple years many would still thinks he's nowhere close to Gretzky and Lemieux.

Of course this is my opinion, but I think it's one based on a lot of sound logic and reason.

 

[Rhiessan71]

No I know, my whole point was that if he did start string together consistent 140 point seasons and the rest of the scoring stayed as is, I wouldn't want to still see tons of people here saying, he's nowhere near Gretzky or Lemieux, call me when he reaches 180 pts. The reason I say this is I don't even think he'll hit 140 once, but I have a feeling even if he did, and did it for multiple years many would still thinks he's nowhere close to Gretzky and Lemieux.

Of course this is my opinion, but I think it's one based on a lot of sound logic and reason.

Oh no doubt and to be honest, that's exactly what a lot of us "oldtimers" are waiting for before we move him up to or near Greztky's, Lemieux's and Orr's level.

That's the real issue here, that too often people state that Crosby is already on their level when that's clearly not the case yet and no amount of bashing other era's or newer is better propaganda is going to change our minds.

I mean on my "list" I don't even have Crosby catching Jagr yet even taking into account Crosby's extra effort defensively compared to Jagr.
Jagr was just that much more dangerous.

 

[Dalton]

Yes I know what circular reasoning is as we see it on this board on a daily basis.

The talent level comes into play on the defensive side of things even more so than the offensive side.

Defensive systems that all coaches employ are more effective when all the players involved are better skaters as a whole than the teams in Bobby's, Wayne's and Mario's days.

Goaltenders are much better equipped, literally, and train better to stop goals than as late as the 80's, just look at the size of their equipment compared to Ken Dryden I and some of the other goalies in the Bobby Orr videos on this thread and tell me which era is easier to score in.

It's not just a genetic thing, although players are bigger, stronger and faster than as little as 20 years ago and this also helps on the defensive end in making it more possible for teams to stop other players from scoring.

the talent level in past days may not be quantifiable in any sense of an exact formula but anyone with a set of eyes and any tapes or video from Orr, Gretzky and Mario's playing days can clearly see that the level of play is on average more competitive and more difficult for players to score in. there might be some minor peaks and valleys but this has been a constant trend since the late 80's.

The influx of talented players from Europe also contributed to this.

The opinion that past stars would not be as likely to dominate under 2010 conditions does nothing to diminish their past greatness and I really wonder were some guys are coming from in this thread.

Go watch some hockey games and then watch some tapes form the 70's and 80's and see if there is any difference and how that might affect scoring.

Tapes! I watched Gretzky, Orr and Lemiex play.

The reason you don't see guys scoring like them today is simple and two fold. They aren't playing today. There is no one of equivalent talent playing today.

Arguing that they couldn't perform today as they did in their day because no one else is doing so is not an argument. I suspect it falls under begging the question. That is 'the premise relies on the truth of the matter in question.'

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

No I know, my whole point was that if he did start string together consistent 140 point seasons and the rest of the scoring stayed as is, I wouldn't want to still see tons of people here saying, he's nowhere near Gretzky or Lemieux, call me when he reaches 180 pts. The reason I say this is I don't even think he'll hit 140 once, but I have a feeling even if he did, and did it for multiple years many would still thinks he's nowhere close to Gretzky and Lemieux.

Of course this is my opinion, but I think it's one based on a lot of sound logic and reason.

Gordie Howe never scored 100 points in the original 6, but some old-timers (like myself) still rank him ahead of Lemieux and Gretzky.

If Crosby were to lead the league in scoring for 6 or 8 or more seasons, I'm sure he would be in the top 5 (at least) conversations.

 

[Boxscore]

Someone answer me this then, because most of you still seem to be missing the obvious point. If the league now became a 6 team league, tell me what you think it would look like, and if you think Crosby and Ovechkin would be able to stand out as much statistically. Just want to see if some of you are even getting the point.

The answer is NO - Crosby and Ovechkin would not be able to standout nearly as much. A perfect example is the Olympics. Against the best talent in the world, Crosby was pretty much invisible until he scored that single GW goal in OT. Now obviously that was a huge goal (and I'm not taking anything away from the goal itself) but my point is, he was FAR from dominant during that tournament. The same could be said about Ovechkin.

However, if you look at Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux in similar tournaments, they absolutely dominated them. And I will say this too: The Soviets in the 70s and 80s were A LOT better than any Internation team Crosby ever faced in the Olympics.

I am convinced Crosby and Ovechkin would still be great in a 6-team NHL league, but they definitely wouldn't dominate. Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux still would. They were just greater players, period.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Tapes! I watched Gretzky, Orr and Lemiex play.

The reason you don't see guys scoring like them today is simple and two fold. They aren't playing today. There is no one of equivalent talent playing today.

Arguing that they couldn't perform today as they did in their day because no one else is doing so is not an argument. I suspect it falls under begging the question. That is 'the premise relies on the truth of the matter in question.'

You didn;t happen to notice the size of the goalie equipment at all did you?

Then watch some goalie highlights today and ponder if some of the 3 guys goals might have been stopped in modern era.

Just look at that one part, never mind the defensive systems and he capabilities of those players in those systems compared to the defensive lackluster play in the 70' s and 80's for the most part.

Defensive players really stood out then while almost every player is excepted to play some sort of defensive role in the current era.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The answer is NO - Crosby and Ovechkin would not be able to standout nearly as much. A perfect example is the Olympics. Against the best talent in the world, Crosby was pretty much invisible until he scored that single GW goal in OT. Now obviously that was a huge goal (and I'm not taking anything away from the goal itself) but my point is, he was FAR from dominant during that tournament. The same could be said about Ovechkin.

However, if you look at Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux in similar tournaments, they absolutely dominated them. And I will say this too: The Soviets in the 70s and 80s were A LOT better than any Internation team Crosby ever faced in the Olympics.

I am convinced Crosby and Ovechkin would still be great in a 6-team NHL league, but they definitely wouldn't dominate. Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux still would. They were just greater players, period.

How exactly were those Soviet teams from the 70's and 80's better?

Teams from Europe generally can compete at the highest level today something that can't be said about most of those teams from those tournaments from the past, top 3 excluded.

I will say this though, the Russian teams had better focus and discipline in the 70's and 80's than after wards when the iron clamp was gone. Not sure the talent left but the focus and ability of the coaches to form the "best" team from a collection of very talented individual players.

 

[Boxscore]

How exactly were those Soviet teams from the 70's and 80's better?

Is this a joke? Tretiak, Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Petrov, Fetisov, Kasatonov, Makarov, Larionov and Krutov were all at the top of their games during those years. In addition, those Soviet teams had the advantage of playing together for years - something a 2010 Olympic team clearly doesn't.

When the NHL put together the 87 Canada Cup team, they faced the Soviets in 4 games (3-game final) and Lemieux even as a 21-year old dominated, as did Gretzky. That 87 Soviet team was better than any team Sidney Crosby faced in his entire lifetime.

It is clear to me at this point that your love for modern players is overboard. But to question how great those Soviet teams were is just insane to help support your argument which is fairly weak to begin with. Crosby is nowhere near as great as Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux. Just accept it and deal with it. And all three of those guys would destroy the current NHL now. But if you want, keep making the case that Gretzky or Lemieux would lose an Art Ross trophy to Henrik Sedin today the way Crosby, Ovechkin and Malkin have. Have fun with that.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Gordie Howe never scored 100 points in the original 6, but some old-timers (like myself) still rank him ahead of Lemieux and Gretzky.

If Crosby were to lead the league in scoring for 6 or 8 or more seasons, I'm sure he would be in the top 5 (at least) conversations.

I can see Howe over Mario but you have him over Gretzky too?
Wayne led the league in scoring 11 times, Gordie has 12 top 3 finishes in a 6 team 9easier to be the scoring leader) league. (Wayne had 16 top 3 finishes for the record).

Howe was a more complete hockey player but Gretzky was so dominant and such a winner that it's pretty hard to put anyone above him in my books.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Is this a joke? Tretiak, Kharlamov, Mikhailov, Petrov, Fetisov, Kasatonov, Makarov, Larionov and Krutov were all at the top of their games during those years. In addition, those Soviet teams had the advantage of playing together for years - something a 2010 Olympic team clearly doesn't.

When the NHL put together the 87 Canada Cup team, they faced the Soviets in 4 games (3-game final) and Lemieux even as a 21-year old dominated, as did Gretzky. That 87 Soviet team was better than any team Sidney Crosby faced in his entire lifetime.

It is clear to me at this point that your love for modern players is overboard. But to question how great those Soviet teams were is just insane to help support your argument which is fairly weak to begin with. Crosby is nowhere near as great as Orr, Gretzky and Lemieux. Just accept it and deal with it. And all three of those guys would destroy the current NHL now. But if you want, keep making the case that Gretzky or Lemieux would lose an Art Ross trophy to Henrik Sedin today the way Crosby, Ovechkin and Malkin have. Have fun with that.

Hey i don't have any man crushes for any players, I'm a fan of the sport more than any team or players.

For the record I love the way the Red Wings play possession hockey and attack but I digress, it's the style of play that I enjoy.

I just observe and state an informed opinion based on what I can see.

Can you not see the overall difference in the level of play or is your love fro certain players and their statistical dominance in their time, make you blind to the reality that the game has changed and quite a bit as well.

no one knows for sure exactly how certain players would do in certain different situations or years but to not acknowledge the differences in the game between the years 1972, 1982 and 2010 just weakens your argument and points of view that come with it.

It is not a "you like the new NHL versus the old NHL was better " argument but rather an observation that things are different and one can't drop player A into a different time and expect the same or even close to similar results.

Just to be clear the differences in the game over time do not diminish what great players Mario, bobby and Wayne were in their time but to flat out say that they would dominate the same way is disrespectful to the players who play today and does not fit with what we are observing in the level of play today.

I come to the discussion with an open mind why are so many closed in their opinions is what I wonder.

 

[Boxscore]

Hey i don't have any man crushes for any players, I'm a fan of the sport more than any team or players.

For the record I love the way the Red Wings play possession hockey and attack but I digress, it's the style of play that I enjoy.

I just observe and state an informed opinion based on what I can see.

Can you not see the overall difference in the level of play or is your love fro certain players and their statistical dominance in their time, make you blind to the reality that the game has changed and quite a bit as well.

no one knows for sure exactly how certain players would do in certain different situations or years but to not acknowledge the differences in the game between the years 1972, 1982 and 2010 just weakens your argument and points of view that come with it.

It is not a "you like the new NHL versus the old NHL was better " argument but rather an observation that things are different and one can't drop player A into a different time and expect the same or even close to similar results.

Just to be clear the differences in the game over time do not diminish what great players Mario, bobby and Wayne were in their time but to flat out say that they would dominate the same way is disrespectful to the players who play today and does not fit with what we are observing in the level of play today.

I come to the discussion with an open mind why are so many closed in their opinions is what I wonder.

The only players being disrespected here are Orr, Gretzky and Lemiuex. By even suggesting that players today are so much better and because of that these players would be limited in their dominance is very disrepectful to their accomplishments. With Orr, Lemieux and Gretzky, you are talking about 3 of the greatest players in the history of a league that is about 100 years old. To think that the game advanced THAT much since Lemieux dominated in the mid-90s is insane. It's not like these guys played in 1920, my goodness.

The other point is exactly what I said in terms of players like Crosby and Ovechkin dominating in a 6-team league. At the time, Gretzky and Lemieux faced tougher competition in tournaments than Crosby and Ovechkin have. And when you consider how each of those players have dominated their respective tournaments, it's not even close.

When it comes to past era vs. modern era, I will say this: As an entire collection of players go, the bottom level players today have more skill than the bottom level players in the 70s and 80s. But very good players are still very good players, and great players are still great players, regardless of era. Now, you can present the argument that a player today could never score 215 points and I will agree with you. But for a player to be considered as dominant as Gretzky/Lemieux, he would at least have to score around 150-160 points a year today over the course of a decade or so. And the fact is, NO ONE today is nearly that good.

I will also buy the argument that Crosby is/could be as great as a player like Yzerman or Lafleur (even though they scored more points over time). But when it comes to the elite of the elite - they would dominate any and every era. To suggest otherwise is disrespectful.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Just to be clear the differences in the game over time do not diminish what great players Mario, bobby and Wayne were in their time but to flat out say that they would dominate the same way is disrespectful to the players who play today and does not fit with what we are observing in the level of play today.

Oh hey it's Hardy, back from the corner he pinned himself in...no wait, he's still in that corner, he just chose to ignore those points and move on to others

Anyway, imo it's disrespectful to flat out say those guys wouldn't dominate today, as unlike most of your theories, they have real evidence backing them.
You really have to get off this "dropping" Mario and Gretzky into the league today directly from 1988 wearing the same equipment.
If they played today they would have the exact same modern benefits that Crosby and OV had and like the point I cornered you quite soundly on earlier, in your own words modern coaching, training, medical and equipment makes players better so therefore Gretzky and Lemieux would be EVEN better today than they were.

I come to the discussion with an open mind why are so many closed in their opinions is what I wonder.

Dude, your mind is as closed as anyone's in this thread, prolly more so. Hell, even Infinite and I came to a reasonable understanding.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Hey 71, just because I don't address every one of yours or anyones points, which might be easier in point form dont' take away from the entire argument of it being harder to score in 2010 than in 1982 or 1972.

The bottom line is that we know how much each player scored in the years they played and it's purely speculative on how much they would score today.

to put up imaginary targets for todays guys and somehow equate that to a past level of dominance is not only impossible but it's foolhardy and only done so to back a certain position and not explore the entire scope of the questions asked and the possibilities and likelihoods of such possibilities.

But as long as guys on the "they would do nearly as well and score 160 plus points and 110 plus for Orr" and ignore the differences in the way the game has evolved, especially the degree of difficulty in scoring then the "pie in the sky they are the best skilled ever and did it then and would do it now arguments will persist.

And since the game is never going to go backwards we can pretty much close the top 5 guys of all time argument while we are at it with your train of logic, or lack of it.

 

[Killion]

"If your flying through the future, and you pass someone on the way flying into the past, its probably not a good idea to make eye contact".......Jack Handey

 

[Rhiessan71]

Hey 71, just because I don't address every one of yours or anyones points, which might be easier in point form dont' take away from the entire argument of it being harder to score in 2010 than in 1982 or 1972.

Being harder to score today was never a point of contention, now you're building the Straw man.

The bottom line is that we know how much each player scored in the years they played and it's purely speculative on how much they would score today.

OR how much they wouldn't score eh, tit for tat my friend.

To put up imaginary targets for todays guys and somehow equate that to a past level of dominance is not only impossible but it's foolhardy and only done so to back a certain position and not explore the entire scope of the questions asked and the possibilities and likelihoods of such possibilities.

But as long as guys on the "they would do nearly as well and score 160 plus points and 110 plus for Orr" and ignore the differences in the way the game has evolved, especially the degree of difficulty in scoring then the "pie in the sky they are the best skilled ever and did it then and would do it now arguments will persist.

You're still ignoring the key phrase there "They did do it!" period.

And since the game is never going to go backwards we can pretty much close the top 5 guys of all time argument while we are at it with your train of logic, or lack of it.

The top 5 isn't closed off, just the top 4, at least for another dozen years or so.

As far as logic goes, yours is no better my friend. One of the main premises of your theories is that no one currently stands out to the degree that Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr did.
So you conclude it's not possible/exceedingly much harder to do today when the simpler and much more logical conclusion (not to mention what the actual real evidence suggests) would be that Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr were just that much better/talented/instinctive than anyone in the league today.

A grand total of 3 players have shown a supreme dominance of the league in the last 40 years and you somehow find this unacceptable

 

[Killion]

to put up imaginary targets for todays guys and somehow equate that to a past level of dominance is not only impossible but it's foolhardy and only done so to back a certain position and not explore the entire scope of the questions asked and the possibilities and likelihoods of such possibilities.....But as long as guys on the "they would do nearly as well and score 160 plus points and 110 plus for Orr" and ignore the differences in the way the game has evolved, especially the degree of difficulty in scoring then the "pie in the sky they are the best skilled ever and did it then and would do it now arguments will persist.

Indeed. Its' an abstraction that no amount of logic can quantify due to an almost infinite number of improbabilities. You simply cannot apply statistical data of player A/B/C from decades (pre 2000) past & apply them against todays players as the game has morphed into something (that I dont particularily care for btw) quite different. You have socio-economic aspects to consider; a whole range of cultural & technical changes & innovations that would have to be factored in to the equations and even then, it would be a really tough call. Certainly I agree that Lemieux & most certainly Superfreak Gretzky would "likely" clean up, but Orr?. I have my doubts & ya, I think he's the greatest player of all-time, but in todays game?. Superstar status?. Game changer?.

And what of the Goaltenders?. Would flopper Sawchuk or 1/2 butterfly half stand-up Hall & Esposito stand a chance?. Plante or Parent?. I dont think so. Size alone would disqualify Parent, Cheevers & any other number of truly greats.

 

[Hardyvan123]

Being harder to score today was never a point of contention, now you're building the Straw man.



OR how much they wouldn't score eh, tit for tat my friend.



You're still ignoring the key phrase there "They did do it!" period.



The top 5 isn't closed off, just the top 4, at least for another dozen years or so.

As far as logic goes, yours is no better my friend. One of the main premises of your theories is that no one currently stands out to the degree that Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr did.
So you conclude it's not possible/exceedingly much harder to do today when the simpler and much more logical conclusion (not to mention what the actual real evidence suggests) would be that Gretzky, Lemieux and Orr were just that much better/talented/instinctive than anyone in the league today.

A grand total of 3 players have shown a supreme dominance of the league in the last 40 years and you somehow find this unacceptable

I'll put your 1st 3 points together rather that taking them apart as you always seem to do.

Wouldn't the fact that it's harder to score now the 1st point that you agreed with(which is the entire point of the competition argument and always has been).

The 2nd point on how much they wouldn't score and your 3rd point of what they actually did combined with your 1st point that it's much harder to score today seems to make it pretty certain that they would score at a lesser rate, perhaps even down to the human level of a guy like Crosby this year even?

Maybe, maybe not we will never know for sure and I think there is room in the tent of the big 4, although the best bet for that right now is not playing and the concussions might alter fate and possible history.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The only players being disrespected here are Orr, Gretzky and Lemiuex. By even suggesting that players today are so much better and because of that these players would be limited in their dominance is very disrepectful to their accomplishments. With Orr, Lemieux and Gretzky, you are talking about 3 of the greatest players in the history of a league that is about 100 years old. To think that the game advanced THAT much since Lemieux dominated in the mid-90s is insane. It's not like these guys played in 1920, my goodness.

The other point is exactly what I said in terms of players like Crosby and Ovechkin dominating in a 6-team league. At the time, Gretzky and Lemieux faced tougher competition in tournaments than Crosby and Ovechkin have. And when you consider how each of those players have dominated their respective tournaments, it's not even close.

When it comes to past era vs. modern era, I will say this: As an entire collection of players go, the bottom level players today have more skill than the bottom level players in the 70s and 80s. But very good players are still very good players, and great players are still great players, regardless of era. Now, you can present the argument that a player today could never score 215 points and I will agree with you. But for a player to be considered as dominant as Gretzky/Lemieux, he would at least have to score around 150-160 points a year today over the course of a decade or so. And the fact is, NO ONE today is nearly that good.

I will also buy the argument that Crosby is/could be as great as a player like Yzerman or Lafleur (even though they scored more points over time). But when it comes to the elite of the elite - they would dominate any and every era. To suggest otherwise is disrespectful.[/B]

This last part always puzzles me, take a look at what all 3 players did in their 1st 5 years (don't look past to guy and Steve's 6 years and beyond till Crosby gets there as well. It makes for a more fair comp you know 1st 5 years of each player) and try to say that wither past great is even close to what Sid has done in his 1st 5 years.

Sid is closer to the 3 big guys of the modern era in his 1st 5 year comp than to guys like Lafleur and Yzerman.

 

[TRASHCAT]

hed get killed

size matters

 

[Killion]

hed get killed

size matters

I dont know that he'd get kilt' TRASHCAT and he'd likely be a standout, just not in the same grand manner. Todays stage is much bigger, the pond larger. He fundamentally changed the role of the defenceman following on the heels of Harvey & to a much lesser extent Horton early in his career amongst a few others, whereby rushing defencemen were becoming a little more common & accepted. A natural & organic evolution with Bobby riding the crest of the wave. His intangibles, like Gretzky's thereafter, was in his ability to see the entire ice surface & anticipate the play before it happened, be where the pucks going. Psychokinetically & then physically spinning its arc, circumference & direction virtually; through imagination & will. You cant teach that. Your born with it, and its what separates the good from the great.

 

[Dalton]

You didn;t happen to notice the size of the goalie equipment at all did you?

Then watch some goalie highlights today and ponder if some of the 3 guys goals might have been stopped in modern era.

Just look at that one part, never mind the defensive systems and he capabilities of those players in those systems compared to the defensive lackluster play in the 70' s and 80's for the most part.

Defensive players really stood out then while almost every player is excepted to play some sort of defensive role in the current era.

The size of the goalie equipment doesn't enter into it for the best goal scorers. Besides this is just rehashing the absurd systemic bias argument that these super elites wouldn't benefit from their development occurring during the time of 'better equipment' yet everyone else would.

Consider this:

No NHL rules committee in their right mind would eliminate the red line or make changes to make it easier to score with guys like Gretzky, Orr and Lemieux in the game.

And this:

I'm pretty sure they made changes to the power play which were intended to cut down on Gretzky's incredible offensive abilities. He might have even scored more than he did otherwise. A lot more. This would have affected Lemieux as well.

Now remember or understand that their talent had as much maybe more to do with their hockey IQ and finesse than raw, pure, physical talent. I think you don't get this point because you've got to see it every weekend for a decade or so to really appreciate it. You only get to see a few highlights that survived. Some of which may even have been intended to show a mistake you can't make with these guys on the ice. Watch 300 or 400 complete games with one of these players over a season. For a decade. Then get back to me.

 

[Rhiessan71]

This last part always puzzles me, take a look at what all 3 players did in their 1st 5 years (don't look past to guy and Steve's 6 years and beyond till Crosby gets there as well. It makes for a more fair comp you know 1st 5 years of each player) and try to say that wither past great is even close to what Sid has done in his 1st 5 years.

Sid is closer to the 3 big guys of the modern era in his 1st 5 year comp than to guys like Lafleur and Yzerman.

The problem with this though is that you're jumping to the conclusion that Crosby is already better than Guy or Stevie overall when the reality is that he has only been better through his first 5 or so years.
I'm not saying Crosby doesn't have a chance at passing Stevie and Guy when all is said and done but beating their first 5 years is a whole lot easier than beating their next 5.

Also as good as both Crosby and OV have been so far, I don't feel either of them has matched Bossy's first 5 seasons.
So really, they're already falling behind in any bid to crack the all mighty top 4 all time.

...and don't you dare try and tell me that it was easier for Bossy to score back then either. That guy took more punishment in a single season than any player would receive in 10 seasons in "today's" NHL.

Heh, Bossy in today's much more slot friendly NHL combined with a composite stick...forget about it! You could easily tack another 10 seasons on to his career to boot.

 

[Rhiessan71]

I'll put your 1st 3 points together rather that taking them apart as you always seem to do.

Wouldn't the fact that it's harder to score now the 1st point that you agreed with(which is the entire point of the competition argument and always has been).

The 2nd point on how much they wouldn't score and your 3rd point of what they actually did combined with your 1st point that it's much harder to score today seems to make it pretty certain that they would score at a lesser rate, perhaps even down to the human level of a guy like Crosby this year even?

Maybe, maybe not we will never know for sure and I think there is room in the tent of the big 4, although the best bet for that right now is not playing and the concussions might alter fate and possible history.

Again with the raw point total reduction

Been said many times now, if Gretzky gets 150-170 today and the next highest only gets 110-120, is that really any different in terms of dominance than 200-150...no, it really isn't.

Also again, out of the 1000's upon 1000's of players over the last 40+ years, only a mere 3 total have stood out far above the rest.
Is it so hard to believe/understand that these 3 players were just so damned good that it wouldn't matter what era they were brought up in and that the odds are very much in favour that Crosby, while very good, is prolly not one of these players.

 

[Infinite Vision*]

The problem with this though is that you're jumping to the conclusion that Crosby is already better than Guy or Stevie overall when the reality is that he has only been better through his first 5 or so years.
I'm not saying Crosby doesn't have a chance at passing Stevie and Guy when all is said and done but beating their first 5 years is a whole lot easier than beating their next 5.

Also as good as both Crosby and OV have been so far, I don't feel either of them has matched Bossy's first 5 seasons.So really, they're already falling behind in any bid to crack the all mighty top 4 all time.

...and don't you dare try and tell me that it was easier for Bossy to score back then either. That guy took more punishment in a single season than any player would receive in 10 seasons in "today's" NHL.

Heh, Bossy in today's much more slot friendly NHL combined with a composite stick...forget about it! You could easily tack another 10 seasons on to his career to boot.

Pardon me? Sorry, Crosby and Ovechkin have had better first 5 seasons than Bossy, it shouldn't be much of a question. It just shouldn't be at all.

Oh hey it's Hardy, back from the corner he pinned himself in...no wait, he's still in that corner, he just chose to ignore those points and move on to others

Anyway, imo it's disrespectful to flat out say those guys wouldn't dominate today, as unlike most of your theories, they have real evidence backing them.
You really have to get off this "dropping" Mario and Gretzky into the league today directly from 1988 wearing the same equipment.
If they played today they would have the exact same modern benefits that Crosby and OV had and like the point I cornered you quite soundly on earlier, in your own words modern coaching, training, medical and equipment makes players better so therefore Gretzky and Lemieux would be EVEN better today than they were.



Dude, your mind is as closed as anyone's in this thread, prolly more so. Hell, even Infinite and I came to a reasonable understanding.

No I'd say he's one of the most open minded posters I've seen debate on these boards, he actually considers all factors in his judgement of all players. Seems like you are the closed minded one defending rather than seeking to find the truth.

Again with the raw point total reduction

Been said many times now, if Gretzky gets 150-170 today and the next highest only gets 110-120, is that really any different in terms of dominance than 200-150...no, it really isn't.

Also again, out of the 1000's upon 1000's of players over the last 40+ years, only a mere 3 total have stood out far above the rest.
Is it so hard to believe/understand that these 3 players were just so damned good that it wouldn't matter what era they were brought up in and that the odds are very much in favour that Crosby, while very good, is prolly not one of these players.

Yes and during the times they stood out the league was also higher scoring, and not as deep with overall talent, especially defense and goaltending, the point you still seem not to be getting. You say if Gretzky gets 150-170 today like it's a sure thing. Based on the amount of talent and parity and degrees of seperation between players statistically in terms of percentages in today's NHL, and assuming Gretzky would adapt to all the changes and be just as good as he was in his time relative to the current day NHL, he still wouldn't get more than 150 points!

That's what I truly believe and I haven't heard any convincing arguments on how he would dominate the same way today other than, you weren't there to see him play and anyone who watched them knows they would dominate to the same degree today, possibly even more without the no two-line pass rule!

Yeah sorry I think video evidence and statistical evidence shows it's quite clear they wouldn't dominate to the same extent today.

My prediction of Gretzky scoring between 100-120 points today is also based on the fact that I don't think his style, his natural talent, would be able to be as much of a benefit to a prime Gretzky in today's game with the faster paced game and limited time and space. For the record I've seen over 40 Gretzky games from start to finish. I watch closely as well.

I think prime Lemieux would suit today's league better, so I think prime Lemieux could score anywhere between 130-150 points depending on the year. This is just opinion based on his style and physical skills. I still rate Gretzky higher all-time because he was better during the time they both played together.

However, if a player today can score over 140 points assuming everything remains relatively similar in terms of scoring in the NHL, on average and top players, then that player in my opinion is exhibiting the same level of dominance as Lemieux (if they can do it for a few seasons) and the same as Gretzky, if they can do it for multiple seasons in a row.

The one player capable of this in the league right now is Sidney Crosby. If he can do something like this while being the best faceoff and shootout guy in the league, and continue with his defensive game, then he's the best player ever.