Mike Bossy overrated?

[Hardyvan123]

Funny, I still don't remember saying that Gretzky or Bossy will score at the same pace as they did which pretty much negates half of this post.

Yep, it must of been an easier league in the mid 80's, I mean no one who played in the mid 80's put up the same kind of numbers well into the mid 90's right. We'll just ignore the Lemieux's and the Bourque's and the Messier's and the Hawerchuk's, just to name 4 of many that continued to produce around the same totals well after the mid 80's.
Opps that whole era to era, player to player thing again, man that must drive you nuts when simple logic gets in the way.

But by all means, keep bringing up one year wonders to make your case. Oh and Goulet...no one is stupid around here man, we all know that the guy benefited from a whole list of phenomenal players feeding him the puck.

C'mon dude, Crosby? Really? You're going to call us out for not elevating him to the same level of Gretzky and Lemieux? Seriously?


Saying that Gretzky could only manage 100-130 points most years today is even more ridiculous than saying he could get 200 in a single year.
100-130 assists maybe, but only that many points...silly.

Even if Wayne is much as an outlier as you claim him to be he would have to get those 100-130 assists with mere mortal players of today who would still be shooting at the same post lockout goalies and not the goalies of the 80's.

Ya that whole simple logic thing gets in the way and hurts your case not mine.

We all know about that last great offensive season of 93 but all 4 players you mentioned dropped considerably in the 90's compared to the 80's.

But we already expected that and your moving target argument will go to "they were all older and other tangents."

As for Crosby I was referring to how some posters treat him and how some posters treat guys like Mario, Orr and Gretzky in the same fashion, I wasn't making a direct comp but now that you mention it Sid was making a clear break from the pack and hopefully when he regains full health we will see him return to his career path.

Of course for some even a clear dominance over his present peers will never be enough to get him in the discussion because some won't acknowledged the idea that it might be harder to dominant the same way than it had been in an "easier" league.

As for Goulet he got more than lucky for one season and even today his production would most likely be down quite a bit.

Funny that you didn't address the Maruk example with all the help he got in his 136 point season or mike rogers with back to back 100 plus point seasons (something he only did once in the WHA).

But go ahead and keep the same "not addressing issues and name calling stuff" as it seems like its the way you roll.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Net Liabilities

Even if Wayne is much as an outlier as you claim him to be he would have to get those 100-130 assists with mere mortal players of today who would still be shooting at the same post lockout goalies and not the goalies of the 80's.

Ya that whole simple logic thing gets in the way and hurts your case not mine.

We all know about that last great offensive season of 93 but all 4 players you mentioned dropped considerably in the 90's compared to the 80's.

But we already expected that and your moving target argument will go to "they were all older and other tangents."

As for Crosby I was referring to how some posters treat him and how some posters treat guys like Mario, Orr and Gretzky in the same fashion, I wasn't making a direct comp but now that you mention it Sid was making a clear break from the pack and hopefully when he regains full health we will see him return to his career path.

Of course for some even a clear dominance over his present peers will never be enough to get him in the discussion because some won't acknowledged the idea that it might be harder to dominant the same way than it had been in an "easier" league.

As for Goulet he got more than lucky for one season and even today his production would most likely be down quite a bit.

Funny that you didn't address the Maruk example with all the help he got in his 136 point season or mike rogers with back to back 100 plus point seasons (something he only did once in the WHA).

But go ahead and keep the same "not addressing issues and name calling stuff" as it seems like its the way you roll.

The history of the NHL is populated with "net liability" type forwards.Power play niche,weak team, getting a disproportionate share of points in games that matter little because the opposition realizes that as long as they are on the ice they will be easy to out score. So the defensive efforts are focused on the more important players on the team.Denis Maruk would be a prime example. Even with Langway on defense he was a defensive liability for the Caps so they traded him.

Recently Jason Allison was from a similar mold, previously Bronco Horvath with others in between - Alexei Yashin, Olli Jokinen and more to come as the seasons go by. The point totals are a function of ice time - the quicker a team falls behind 2-3 goals the more ice time such players get as the team tries to catch-up.

Your Crosby analogy is interesting from the standpoint that no one else followed suit - break from the pack, in the first part of last season until Crosby was concussed. When other offensive greats in previous eras had such runs there would be followers since the greats would show the rest of the league the defensive weaknesses and other players would follow to the best of their ability and scoring would go up. Prime examples would be how M. Richard-transition and Howe-power, Hull- rushing winger/slapshot, Beliveau- scoring and playmaking, Orr- rushing defensemen, Gretzky - expanding the offensive zone and others, were imitated because the talent was there to do so. This stopped with Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr, not because they were beyond imitation but because the talent lag was to great. Today the talent to even try to keep pace with a Crosby is not there.

Over rating the present, unproven, just like you and others did with Luongo, the Sedins and others.

 

[seventieslord]

C1958: Guy Charron & Mike Bullard, too.

 

[redbull]

The history of the NHL is populated with "net liability" type forwards.Power play niche,weak team, getting a disproportionate share of points in games that matter little because the opposition realizes that as long as they are on the ice they will be easy to out score. So the defensive efforts are focused on the more important players on the team.Denis Maruk would be a prime example. Even with Langway on defense he was a defensive liability for the Caps so they traded him.

Recently Jason Allison was from a similar mold, previously Bronco Horvath with others in between - Alexei Yashin, Olli Jokinen and more to come as the seasons go by. The point totals are a function of ice time - the quicker a team falls behind 2-3 goals the more ice time such players get as the team tries to catch-up.

Your Crosby analogy is interesting from the standpoint that no one else followed suit - break from the pack, in the first part of last season until Crosby was concussed. When other offensive greats in previous eras had such runs there would be followers since the greats would show the rest of the league the defensive weaknesses and other players would follow to the best of their ability and scoring would go up. Prime examples would be how M. Richard-transition and Howe-power, Hull- rushing winger/slapshot, Beliveau- scoring and playmaking, Orr- rushing defensemen, Gretzky - expanding the offensive zone and others, were imitated because the talent was there to do so. This stopped with Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr, not because they were beyond imitation but because the talent lag was to great. Today the talent to even try to keep pace with a Crosby is not there.

Over rating the present, unproven, just like you and others did with Luongo, the Sedins and others.

excellent post, nice insights there. That exact context is simply missing from the statistics available for comparison. What you're really saying here is that a FEW players are RESPONSIBLE for changing the game (not solely, but significantly so) and they are the defining players of that era. And there have been few of them. These players, I believe, transcend statistical comparisons to their peers and before or since, simply because of their impact on the overall game.

I remember even the late Bob Johnson once saying that he was happy to trade chances with other teams in a wide-open game, because "our guys" would out-score the other guys way more often than not. The Oilers played exactly the same way, especially in the early years, hence the unbelievable offensive numbers. But neither team could afford to play that way if not for the EXTREME difference in talent on the ice.

Your other point speaks to a player's offensive output on losing teams is bang on. The game is completely different when you don't win and you're 100% bang on about some of the players you mentioned. Yet, looking purely at regular season statistics, you get the impression that some of these players are "better" or more productive that others on teams that win.

My comparison of Nik Antropov and Jonothan Toews having almost identical regular season stats but in completely different environments. Statistically speaking, they compare well, but in reality, they are as far apart as can be.

 

[Hardyvan123]

The history of the NHL is populated with "net liability" type forwards.Power play niche,weak team, getting a disproportionate share of points in games that matter little because the opposition realizes that as long as they are on the ice they will be easy to out score. So the defensive efforts are focused on the more important players on the team.Denis Maruk would be a prime example. Even with Langway on defense he was a defensive liability for the Caps so they traded him.

Recently Jason Allison was from a similar mold, previously Bronco Horvath with others in between - Alexei Yashin, Olli Jokinen and more to come as the seasons go by. The point totals are a function of ice time - the quicker a team falls behind 2-3 goals the more ice time such players get as the team tries to catch-up.

Your Crosby analogy is interesting from the standpoint that no one else followed suit - break from the pack, in the first part of last season until Crosby was concussed. When other offensive greats in previous eras had such runs there would be followers since the greats would show the rest of the league the defensive weaknesses and other players would follow to the best of their ability and scoring would go up. Prime examples would be how M. Richard-transition and Howe-power, Hull- rushing winger/slapshot, Beliveau- scoring and playmaking, Orr- rushing defensemen, Gretzky - expanding the offensive zone and others, were imitated because the talent was there to do so. This stopped with Mario Lemieux and Jaromir Jagr, not because they were beyond imitation but because the talent lag was to great. Today the talent to even try to keep pace with a Crosby is not there.

Over rating the present, unproven, just like you and others did with Luongo, the Sedins and others.

while players today might not be as talented as Mario there is still lots of top end talent in the league, just because we don't see the separation in terms of points and dominance is more of a function of the league they play in rather than any lack of talent IMO.

This is at the heart of the disagreement here IMO, there is no lack of top end talent in the league ,it's just that the game has changed so much from the 80's and scoring has as well for a number of reasons given before and perhaps goaltending is the biggest reason for it.

Just because the best player of all time was that much better statistically than his peers isn't only possibly due to his talent, it's also possible, and very likely IMO, that the league he played in also contributed to his "greatness" or at least the level of it.

It is not an either or proposititon here, both incredible talent and the era he played in defines Wayne Gretzky.

Once again I'm not dissing Wayne because in any list he is still number 1 but rather I think context needs to be taken into consideration instead of this intense focus on raw stats only and lack of perspective when comparing different eras.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Even if Wayne is much as an outlier as you claim him to be he would have to get those 100-130 assists with mere mortal players of today who would still be shooting at the same post lockout goalies and not the goalies of the 80's.

It's not about me "claiming" that Wayne is an outlier, it's a fact! There is no possible argument to say otherwise.
Wayne always made average players good, good players excellent and excellent players great.
So Wayne turns a couple of 20-30 goal scorers into 40-50 goal scorers instead of turning 30-40 goal scorers into 50-60 goal scorers.
What's the difference?

Ya that whole simple logic thing gets in the way and hurts your case not mine.

Logic requires facts my friend, something you are sorely lacking on here. My facts actually happened, yours are based on a theory that because AVERAGE scoring is down, that anything but average players, like Gretzky and Lemieux would be reduced in potency to the same degree.
This is where I once again shoot gaping holes in your hypothesis by plugging Lemieux's comeback seasons in the 2000's.

We all know about that last great offensive season of 93 but all 4 players you mentioned dropped considerably in the 90's compared to the 80's.

I consider '96 to be the last real good offensive season actually but I'm perfectly willing to go your way saying '93, because that only makes Gretzky's last Art Ross and Mario in general look that much better. Your choice.

But we already expected that and your moving target argument will go to "they were all older and other tangents."

I'm not the one with the moving target my friend, my facts are all well established facts, they DID happen. Gretzky really did score all those points and Mario really did produce at a 140+ point pace at 36, with a bad back, at a time when scoring was at its lowest in 30+ years.
Nope, my target is in the same spot.

As for Crosby I was referring to how some posters treat him and how some posters treat guys like Mario, Orr and Gretzky in the same fashion, I wasn't making a direct comp but now that you mention it Sid was making a clear break from the pack and hopefully when he regains full health we will see him return to his career path.

Of course for some even a clear dominance over his present peers will never be enough to get him in the discussion because some won't acknowledged the idea that it might be harder to dominant the same way than it had been in an "easier" league.

Yes, Sid looked like he was finally going pull away from the pack and earn some of the hype. I say some, because he will have to do that for the next decade or so to honestly be considered in the same class as #99, #66, #9 and #4.
You keep saying it was an easier league. Easier to score goals maybe for the AVERAGE player, because every team stocked their top 3 lines with players that could score. Unlike today's salary capped teams who are forced to stock their bottom 2 lines with fast, cheap players that are lucky to hit double digits in goals.
Sure, easier then but if you're going to sit here and tell us that simply having Russians in the league makes up the talent difference between 21 and 30 teams...well, someone needs to give their head a good shake and it aint me.

But go ahead and keep the same "not addressing issues and name calling stuff" as it seems like its the way you roll.

I address the issue's, you just continue to ignore them due to having no actual counter to most of them.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Name Them

while players today might not be as talented as Mario there is still lots of top end talent in the league, just because we don't see the separation in terms of points and dominance is more of a function of the league they play in rather than any lack of talent IMO.

This is at the heart of the disagreement here IMO, there is no lack of top end talent in the league ,it's just that the game has changed so much from the 80's and scoring has as well for a number of reasons given before and perhaps goaltending is the biggest reason for it.

Just because the best player of all time was that much better statistically than his peers isn't only possibly due to his talent, it's also possible, and very likely IMO, that the league he played in also contributed to his "greatness" or at least the level of it.

It is not an either or proposititon here, both incredible talent and the era he played in defines Wayne Gretzky.

Once again I'm not dissing Wayne because in any list he is still number 1 but rather I think context needs to be taken into consideration instead of this intense focus on raw stats only and lack of perspective when comparing different eras.

This is where your position has a major problem. Step up and identify this top end offensive talent that you keep referring to in today's NHL.

Likewise the top end goaltending that can make a positive difference in the playoffs.

The proponents of other eras have clearly done so and are more than willing to entertain comparables yet you seem to be content to hide behind the "unknown" when it comes to present day players.

 

[Hardyvan123]

It's not about me "claiming" that Wayne is an outlier, it's a fact! There is no possible argument to say otherwise.
Wayne always made average players good, good players excellent and excellent players great.
So Wayne turns a couple of 20-30 goal scorers into 40-50 goal scorers instead of turning 30-40 goal scorers into 50-60 goal scorers.
What's the difference?




Logic requires facts my friend, something you are sorely lacking on here. My facts actually happened, yours are based on a theory that because AVERAGE scoring is down, that anything but average players, like Gretzky and Lemieux would be reduced in potency to the same degree.
This is where I once again shoot gaping holes in your hypothesis by plugging Lemieux's comeback seasons in the 2000's.




I consider '96 to be the last real good offensive season actually but I'm perfectly willing to go your way saying '93, because that only makes Gretzky's last Art Ross and Mario in general look that much better. Your choice.


I'm not the one with the moving target my friend, my facts are all well established facts, they DID happen. Gretzky really did score all those points and Mario really did produce at a 140+ point pace at 36, with a bad back, at a time when scoring was at its lowest in 30+ years.
Nope, my target is in the same spot.




Yes, Sid looked like he was finally going pull away from the pack and earn some of the hype. I say some, because he will have to do that for the next decade or so to honestly be considered in the same class as #99, #66, #9 and #4.
You keep saying it was an easier league. Easier to score goals maybe for the AVERAGE player, because every team stocked their top 3 lines with players that could score. Unlike today's salary capped teams who are forced to stock their bottom 2 lines with fast, cheap players that are lucky to hit double digits in goals.
Sure, easier then but if you're going to sit here and tell us that simply having Russians in the league makes up the talent difference between 21 and 30 teams...well, someone needs to give their head a good shake and it aint me.





I address the issue's, you just continue to ignore them due to having no actual counter to most of them.

Wayne would be an outlier if his scoring went up with the league average remaining the same or going down. being on top of a wave doesn't necessarily make him an outlier in that sense.

But we can skip over that point since we both agree that he is the best offensive player of all time and disagree as to the actual reasons being so but in the end it's a matter of degree that we are arguing about here.

Bobby Orr is the best example of the problem with this outlier theory IMO.

Scoring was already up in the 2 post expansion years before Orr finally broke out to superstar status. This point is more directed to Redbull when is talking about players that define a generation and he doesn't see that they can define and also be benefactors of the times they play in, it's not an either or type of thing going on thus the Denis Maruk example and the others players put forward that you didn't respond too except in passing with Goulet.

I'll end with the often brought up Lemieux 43 game sample with lower scoring rates before and after. it was a great season by the most gifted offensive player we have ever seen but was he actually playing any defense at all that year and more importantly did his scoring rate have a positive impact on his team and if so how much?

If you look at it carefully you will find that Mario was simply just scoring and it really didn't help his team as much as we think it would on the surface of things nevermind the 43 games and the seasons befroe and after as well.

Take note, R71 where I stated that Lemiuex was the most gifted offensive player of all time and that it was a great season. See unlike you, I will actually reference things that don't support my view 100% as I'm looking for the whole picture and context on things not just looking to make my position the absolute one. Take it for what it is.

 

[Hardyvan123]

This is where your position has a major problem. Step up and identify this top end offensive talent that you keep referring to in today's NHL.

Likewise the top end goaltending that can make a positive difference in the playoffs.

The proponents of other eras have clearly done so and are more than willing to entertain comparables yet you seem to be content to hide behind the "unknown" when it comes to present day players.

Are you not watching NHL games any more, can't you see the extremely talented players.

The biggest difference between the 80's and today is that flakes like Kent Nilsson and Buddy Cloutier wouldn't be tolerated on teams as their skill level which was off the charts for both guys doesn't do enough to help a team win in the post lockout era where the prevention of goals is the primary focus of basically every team in the league.

Let's comapre ehre,

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1980_skaters.html

top goal scorers from 80 and top ones from last season

http://.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2011_skaters.html


Top 3 guys in 80 are hardly on any most talented players list of all time, Kovo at 26th on last season list has hands down more hockey talent than any of those 3 guys and probably more than half the guys in the top 20 on the 80 list.

Goal scoring actually goes up later in the 80's as well.

i took goal scoring as the example and if we look at points and defencmen scoring the "easier nature" to rack up points compared to the difference in skill becomes even more advantageous for all players in the 80's.

And if you want to even suggest that goalies in the post lockout era are not better equipped and skilled at stopping the puck than goalies in the 80's then you really haven't looked at it very closely. Just take a look at goalie pads and the coverage they have in their creases between the 2 eras and watch shooters are looking at and forget all the other changes that have taken place.

While I have you in this post try to find where I over rate either Sedin or Lou as I'm one of their biggest critics yet will acknowledge that they have good stats in todays game for different reasons but you won't find anywhere were I'm overrating those 3 guys.

 

[Rhiessan71]

Wayne would be an outlier if his scoring went up with the league average remaining the same or going down. being on top of a wave doesn't necessarily make him an outlier in that sense.

You would have to eliminate Gretzky out of the equation to determine that my friend.
You can not include Gretzky's numbers towards the league average and then afterwards say, oh look the league average is going up.
Wonder why? Nothing to do with Gretzky, on his own, almost matching the entire production of some teams. In '85 for example, about a 1/4 of the league's teams only scored between 250-280 goals. What's even funnier is that only one of those five teams was a recent expansion team, the whalers(268).
The Nords(328), Jets(358) and Oilers(401) were all well above 300 goals.

Bobby Orr is the best example of the problem with this outlier theory IMO.

Scoring was already up in the 2 post expansion years before Orr finally broke out to superstar status. This point is more directed to Redbull when is talking about players that define a generation and he doesn't see that they can define and also be benefactors of the times they play in, it's not an either or type of thing going on thus the Denis Maruk example and the others players put forward that you didn't respond too except in passing with Goulet.

I didn't respond because 1958 did so and I didn't need to repeat it all.

I'll end with the often brought up Lemieux 43 game sample with lower scoring rates before and after. it was a great season by the most gifted offensive player we have ever seen but was he actually playing any defense at all that year and more importantly did his scoring rate have a positive impact on his team and if so how much?

If you look at it carefully you will find that Mario was simply just scoring and it really didn't help his team as much as we think it would on the surface of things nevermind the 43 games and the seasons befroe and after as well.

Well....
99/00 Pens finished with 88 points
00/01 Pens finished with 96 points However, record before Mario's return 15-14-6-1, after Mario's return 27-14-3-2 hmmmmmm
01/02 Pens finished with 69 points (Jagr gone, Mario was limited to only 24 games)

Take note, R71 where I stated that Lemiuex was the most gifted offensive player of all time and that it was a great season. See unlike you, I will actually reference things that don't support my view 100% as I'm looking for the whole picture and context on things not just looking to make my position the absolute one. Take it for what it is.

So you'll reference them but then ignore them when it shoots holes in your theories? Sounds good.

 

[Czech Your Math]

The league was already at ~7.0 GPG before Gretzky entered the NHL, even the Oilers as a team raised the GF/game by less than .1 GPG and their GA/game was usually around league average, so the direct effect was less than .05 GPG.

Also, when the league went from 21 to 30 teams, that means 30% of the teams are relatively recent additions. However, at least 30% of the elite forward talent was from overseas, possibly as much as 50% (in the case of goal scorers by the late 90s).

 

[Canadiens1958]

Cute

Are you not watching NHL games any more, can't you see the extremely talented players.

The biggest difference between the 80's and today is that flakes like Kent Nilsson and Buddy Cloutier wouldn't be tolerated on teams as their skill level which was off the charts for both guys doesn't do enough to help a team win in the post lockout era where the prevention of goals is the primary focus of basically every team in the league.

Let's comapre ehre,

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_1980_skaters.html

top goal scorers from 80 and top ones from last season

http://.hockey-reference.com/leagues/NHL_2011_skaters.html


Top 3 guys in 80 are hardly on any most talented players list of all time, Kovo at 26th on last season list has hands down more hockey talent than any of those 3 guys and probably more than half the guys in the top 20 on the 80 list.

Goal scoring actually goes up later in the 80's as well.

i took goal scoring as the example and if we look at points and defencmen scoring the "easier nature" to rack up points compared to the difference in skill becomes even more advantageous for all players in the 80's.

And if you want to even suggest that goalies in the post lockout era are not better equipped and skilled at stopping the puck than goalies in the 80's then you really haven't looked at it very closely. Just take a look at goalie pads and the coverage they have in their creases between the 2 eras and watch shooters are looking at and forget all the other changes that have taken place.

While I have you in this post try to find where I over rate either Sedin or Lou as I'm one of their biggest critics yet will acknowledge that they have good stats in todays game for different reasons but you won't find anywhere were I'm overrating those 3 guys.

Your linked 1980 list is in alphabetical order while your list from last season does not work so your point remains unsupported.

As for your other comments.

Luongo and Sedins you have just admitted that their stats are deceivingly misleading so whether you are doing the over rating or some one else did the net result is the same.

No one is questioning today's goalie equipment. The goalie equipment has nothing to do with the ability of forwards and skaters to hit the openings or get into proper position to score. That is where the skater or forward deficiencies start. Evidenced by Luongo performance in the playoffs from 2009-2011. He had the latest equipment, after all he wasn't wearing 1980's equipment, but once skaters threw varied offenses and obtained decent scoring positions he was exposed as very ordinary.

Same thing with your attempt at the analogy to 1980. Danny Gare whose career was shortened by a back injury, given the slightest opening could bury the puck and knew how to get in position to score.

2011 Goal Scorers:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

Looking at this years goal scorers, note the S% for Sidney Crosby 19.9%. Look at Ovechkin, same number of goals in almost twice the number of games yet a S% that is less than half of Crosby. Compare the S% of the other players in the top 50. Tremendous difference in shooting and positioning skills favouring Crosby while playing against the same goalies wearing modern equipment, the sames dmen, the same systems as Ovechkin and all the other players who are in the low teens.

1980 Goal Scorers:

http://www.hockey-reference.com/pla...3val=&c4stat=&c4comp=gt&c4val=&order_by=goals

Note the S% for Gretzky-18% and Trottier 22.6% then compare to Crosby 19.9%. Gretzky and Trottier were shooting against 1980 goalies wearing equipment from their era, playing behind systems and defensemen from their era yet those goalies were just as successful against Gretzky and Trottier as today's goalies were against Crosby so your superior goaltending claim in today's game is springing some serious leaks.

Now look at the remaining top 50 goal scorers from 1980. Many had S% in the Gretzky, Trottier, Crosby range playing against the same goalies, equipment, systems etc. so in terms of shooting skills and offensive positioning they were in the same skill bracket. Look at the remaining top 50 from 2011. Playing against the same goalies, same equipment, dmen, systems as Crosby they cannot get it done anywhere close to Crosby. Their skill level is significantly below Crosby's, anyone with an inclination can calculate each player drop vs Crosby and at the same time they are less skilled in the goal scoring arts than the skaters from 1980.

Goaltenders will be discussed in a future post.

 

[Hardyvan123]

You would have to eliminate Gretzky out of the equation to determine that my friend.
You can not include Gretzky's numbers towards the league average and then afterwards say, oh look the league average is going up.
Wonder why? Nothing to do with Gretzky, on his own, almost matching the entire production of some teams. In '85 for example, about a 1/4 of the league's teams only scored between 250-280 goals. What's even funnier is that only one of those five teams was a recent expansion team, the whalers(268).
The Nords(328), Jets(358) and Oilers(401) were all well above 300 goals.



I didn't respond because 1958 did so and I didn't need to repeat it all.



Well....
99/00 Pens finished with 88 points
00/01 Pens finished with 96 points However, record before Mario's return 15-14-6-1, after Mario's return 27-14-3-2 hmmmmmm
01/02 Pens finished with 69 points (Jagr gone, Mario was limited to only 24 games)




So you'll reference them but then ignore them when it shoots holes in your theories? Sounds good.

Love that last part where the quote above you pull acknowledge Lemiuex, obviously some reading comprehension skills are required here.

couple of things with the 3 seasons you point out here, yes the 01 Pens were better after Lemiuex came back, back the 11 Pens also played better immediatley after Crosby went down as well. without going back to review that season game by game it's very apparent that Mario greatly boosted the Pens PP that year and Kovelev and Lang and Straka increased by 29,15 and 36 points from 00-01.

from 00-01 the Pens increased by 8 points overall good for 3rd spot in their division both years.

If anything a close look at the 3 seasons indicates that Jagr had a much larger impact on the teams fortunes than Lemiuex did (in either a positive or negative way) but that's at 1st glance a more detailed look would be required to get a definitive answer on the topic IMO but you night be content with your grin on the 8 point spread.

Maybe someone has the Pens record with and without Jagr in 00?

 

[Rhiessan71]

Love that last part where the quote above you pull acknowledge Lemiuex, obviously some reading comprehension skills are required here.

No sir, I understood exactly what you were saying.
You are perfectly willing to acknowledge Wayne and Mario as two of the very greatest offensive players to ever play the game.
Yet, you also have no problem turning around and saying that neither of them would be able to as dominant today.

Ok, now listen very carefully because you still don't seem to grasp why we keep throwing Mario's '01 season in your face every time you spew out that they wouldn't be able to dominant today.
Dude, you have even gone so far in previous posts as saying that Gretzky would have trouble breaking 100 points for most of his career...ridiculous!

Are you listening, are you?
Ok, here goes....again....
Mario at 36 friggin years old, with a bad back produced at a 144 point pace. In other words, HE DOMINATED!
THEN, 2 years later, at age friggin 38, while hampered by his back and other injuries, playing with a bunch of no names most of the season (Kovalev was traded after 54 games and Straka missed a 1/4 of the season) he still produced 91 points in just 67 games (110 point pace) and this is all during the lowest scoring years in 30+ years!

Are you seriously going to sit there and continue to deny that a 25 year old, healthy Mario Lemieux would absolutely friggin destroy today's scorers with point totals in the 160-180 range?

C'mon dude!

 

[habsjunkie2*]

I knew this would be the reason used to explain away his dropoff. I'm sure it was a factor but we also had a bunch of Russians come over around the same time, which added loads of skill to the league and upped the competition level.

If Gretzky's great strength was his brains and his physical abilities weren't what separated him from the pack then a little bit less mobility should not be a huge factor. He still looked like a good skater after the '91 Suter incident.

Gretzky was the best player in every best on best tourney he ever played as well. He didn't drop off because everyone around him got better, he dropped off because he got hurt and could no longer perform to his own ability, but he still did manage to be competitive despite his nagging injury until they day he retired. No one caught up to him

 

[Czech Your Math]

Maybe someone has the Pens record with and without Jagr in 00?

2000
with Jagr: 31-27-5 (.532) 3.11 GF 2.78 GA
w/o Jagr: 6-10-3 (.395) 2.37 GF 3.21 GA

1997
with Jagr: 34-23-6 (.587) 3.67 GF 3.17 GA
w/o Jagr: 4-13-2 (.263) 2.84 GF 4.21 GA

with Lemieux: 36-33-7 (.530) 3.50 GF 3.38 GA
w/o Lemieux: 2-3-1 (.417) 3.17 GF 3.83 GA
w/o Lemieux (but w/ Jagr): 1-1-1 (.500) 3.33 GF 3.33 GA

 

[habsjunkie2*]

No sir, I understood exactly what you were saying.
You are perfectly willing to acknowledge Wayne and Mario as two of the very greatest offensive players to ever play the game.
Yet, you also have no problem turning around and saying that neither of them would be able to as dominant today.

Ok, now listen very carefully because you still don't seem to grasp why we keep throwing Mario's '01 season in your face every time you spew out that they wouldn't be able to dominant today.
Dude, you have even gone so far in previous posts as saying that Gretzky would have trouble breaking 100 points for most of his career...ridiculous!

Are you listening, are you?
Ok, here goes....again....
Mario at 36 friggin years old, with a bad back produced at a 144 point pace. In other words, HE DOMINATED!
THEN, 2 years later, at age friggin 38, while hampered by his back and other injuries, playing with a bunch of no names most of the season (Kovalev was traded after 54 games and Straka missed a 1/4 of the season) he still produced 91 points in just 67 games (110 point pace) and this is all during the lowest scoring years in 30+ years!

Are you seriously going to sit there and continue to deny that a 25 year old, healthy Mario Lemieux would absolutely friggin destroy today's scorers with point totals in the 160-180 range?

C'mon dude!

That should just about do it. I agree with Harvey in a sense that the average player is likely better today, but that has very little bearing on the freaks like Wayne and Mario. They would still be winning scoring races by huge margins, Crosby hasn't even established himself as the clear best player in the game today, he can't beat out the sedins/Ovy on a regular basis. The eye test also favors Mario and Wayne by a large amount. Sid is good, but he is behind them both by a large amount and is still well behind Jagr.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No sir, I understood exactly what you were saying.
You are perfectly willing to acknowledge Wayne and Mario as two of the very greatest offensive players to ever play the game.
Yet, you also have no problem turning around and saying that neither of them would be able to as dominant today.

Ok, now listen very carefully because you still don't seem to grasp why we keep throwing Mario's '01 season in your face every time you spew out that they wouldn't be able to dominant today.
Dude, you have even gone so far in previous posts as saying that Gretzky would have trouble breaking 100 points for most of his career...ridiculous!

Are you listening, are you?
Ok, here goes....again....
Mario at 36 friggin years old, with a bad back produced at a 144 point pace. In other words, HE DOMINATED!
THEN, 2 years later, at age friggin 38, while hampered by his back and other injuries, playing with a bunch of no names most of the season (Kovalev was traded after 54 games and Straka missed a 1/4 of the season) he still produced 91 points in just 67 games (110 point pace) and this is all during the lowest scoring years in 30+ years!

Are you seriously going to sit there and continue to deny that a 25 year old, healthy Mario Lemieux would absolutely friggin destroy today's scorers with point totals in the 160-180 range?

C'mon dude!

He might get over 160 points on occasion but probably wouldn't hit that mark for a couple of reasons.

First he scored at over 2 PPG in 3 0f his 7 seasons up until the age of 25.

After the age of 25 he scored at a 2PPG rate in exactly 3 seasons.

So for those doing the math that's 5 seasons out of 17 that he broke your 160 point mark in terms of pace assuming that he would stay more healthy in todays NHL which no one has any idea if it would be better or worse. On the surface it seems like stars are getting more injured but i have no factual data to back that up and it's open for debate.

all of that is before we even factor in for adjusted points and even Mario would be affected even if ever so slightly in this regard.

even if you want to argue that he would not be affected by the new goalies or anything else, how can you go and state that he would crack 160-180 season in season out when he only scored at that pace in less than 30% of the actual seasons he played in.

Also I stated maybe a couple of times that it was possible that Wayne might not score 100 points every season given the worst conditions, pretty sure I cited Florida from last year and have said that the range also included up to 150ish area as well.

If you actually take the time to read my posts clearly you would know that its the arguments like Redbull made earlier in this post how he would score over 200 points no problem (as a 19 year old even) that I tend to analyze and make comments on.

But then again its not the 1st time that you have tried to misrepresent what I have clearly stated in many posts.

 

[Hardyvan123]

2000
with Jagr: 31-27-5 (.532) 3.11 GF 2.78 GA
w/o Jagr: 6-10-3 (.395) 2.37 GF 3.21 GA

1997
with Jagr: 34-23-6 (.587) 3.67 GF 3.17 GA
w/o Jagr: 4-13-2 (.263) 2.84 GF 4.21 GA

with Lemieux: 36-33-7 (.530) 3.50 GF 3.38 GA
w/o Lemieux: 2-3-1 (.417) 3.17 GF 3.83 GA
w/o Lemieux (but w/ Jagr): 1-1-1 (.500) 3.33 GF 3.33 GA

I still don't understand why Jagr doesn't get the respect he deserves sometimes. Interesting stuff thanks for the info.

 

[Rhiessan71]

He might get over 160 points on occasion but probably wouldn't hit that mark for a couple of reasons.

First he scored at over 2 PPG in 3 0f his 7 seasons up until the age of 25.

After the age of 25 he scored at a 2PPG rate in exactly 3 seasons.

So for those doing the math that's 5 seasons out of 17 that he broke your 160 point mark in terms of pace assuming that he would stay more healthy in todays NHL which no one has any idea if it would be better or worse. On the surface it seems like stars are getting more injured but i have no factual data to back that up and it's open for debate.

all of that is before we even factor in for adjusted points and even Mario would be affected even if ever so slightly in this regard.

No one is saying that he puts up 160+ for 10 seasons straight, just that he would be capable of breaking that and more in his prime today.
You seem to almost be in agreement of that, your up coming points (that are about to get smashed btw) not withstanding.

Even if you want to argue that he would not be affected by the new goalies or anything else, how can you go and state that he would crack 160-180 season in season out when he only scored at that pace in less than 30% of the actual seasons he played in.

NEW GOALIE'S??? WTF are you talking about? The guy potted 35 friggin goals in just 43 games only a decade ago against goalies wearing, what would be illegal, over-sized equipment today and interference at its peak.
In what possible way would Mario be disadvantaged what so ever today, compared to then???

Also I stated maybe a couple of times that it was possible that Wayne might not score 100 points every season given the worst conditions, pretty sure I cited Florida from last year and have said that the range also included up to 150ish area as well.

You did but only to a point. For the most part you stated that Gretzky would have trouble producing 100 points in most seasons. I would be happy to re-post the entirety for you and everyone else.

If you actually take the time to read my posts clearly you would know that its the arguments like Redbull made earlier in this post how he would score over 200 points no problem (as a 19 year old even) that I tend to analyze and make comments on.

I do take the time and read your posts but I know for a fact you clearly don't do the same for mine.
You still don't realise that THE biggest point I always make with you is that you go to the extreme opposite of Redbull.
He may be a bit extreme in citing Mario producing easily over 200 points today but you're no less extreme and delusional in your grossly under valued estimations either.

But then again its not the 1st time that you have tried to misrepresent what I have clearly stated in many posts.

I don't misrepresent anything you say. I simply don't let you weasel out of previous statements and theories after they have had more holes blown in them than a Dirty Harry bad guy.
Trust me when I say that my target is in the exact same place it was all those months ago when you started this "newer is better" crap. Do we really need to actually go back and see where your target was then and where it is now to know that your target has moved or do you actually realise it yourself by now?

 

[Rhiessan71]

I still don't understand why Jagr doesn't get the respect he deserves sometimes. Interesting stuff thanks for the info.

He does get the respect from most of us.
Saying that he is not on the same level of Mario or Gretzky has nothing to with being disrespectful.
Nor is saying that Crosby is not on the same level as Jagr yet.

It's not like I'm a completely stubborn jackass about everything. I will listen to and possibly even be swayed by a convincing well documented argument.
Not too long ago, I was not ready to raise Sid above Yzerman and Sakic overall but after some great posts by a number of folks around here, I changed my mind and agreed with them that Sid is now ahead of them. He still has a long way to go to match their career's but he prolly is the better player.

If your arguments and theories made more sense and consisted of well documented facts then I might be convinced but since they definitely are not, I am not, nor are many others.
I will say though, that you are slowly getting to a more reasonable position, it's been like pulling teeth but you're getting there

 

[redbull]

Just to be clear, I never stated Mario would easily score 200+ points. I made one reference to Gretzky being just as dominant against today's players, in today's game, than he was back in the 80s.

I specifically clarified that the 19 year old reference was not a literal one, simply implying that a teenager with THAT talent would take the league by storm. A loose follow-up to the howie meeker post from before.

I don't see why my points are largely ignored, and the hint of exaggeration is emphasized and argued against surrounded by supporting arguments that have nothing to do with what i said or meant.

I know you saw him play, which is why I'm surprised that you don't think he's leaps and bounds more talented than anyone playing today. It's not nostalgia at all.

Crosby, for 41 games last year, (I watched maybe 10 of those) was on pace for 64 goals and 132 pts. He was far better than anyone in the game, playing with some pretty weak offensive players for most of it.

I maintain that Gretzky, from 1981 - 1988, that player could walk into any average roster and score the same way. I'm saying he's INCREMENTALLY better than the elites of today and would generate far more offense. It's no different than what Lafleur, Dionne, Trottier were putting up before 99 changed the game.

For every point about conditioning, speed/size of the players, goalie equipment there's the obstruction rules, the light sticks, no red line, four on four (a rule they CHANGED because of Gretzky, as you know).

I remember a player who was far better than anyone at the time...and would be far better than anyone today. Just based on observation.

Maybe not as a 19 year old, which was made not as a literal point, my point being a talent like 99 entering the league at that age, carrying that kind of skill.

you sound like howie meeker circa 1978.

watching gretzky in his prime and every player since, he'd be just as dominant in today's game as he was back then. He would be ahead of the greats of today by the same margin.

if I hadn't seen it happen the first time, i may not have believed it. But as George dubya says, fool me once, shame on.....

not convinced of this. Just because teams are evenly spread in terms of talent, doesn't mean that talent is any good. Parity can exist in mediocrity just as well.

I'd love to see a talent like 99 come along again. Because I see no reason why a 19 year old Gretzky wouldn't walk into this league, with these rules, sticks, goalie equip and NOT score 200+ points.

Hardyvan, read the above posts, bolded, where I was clear about what I said and what I meant.

I do take the time and read your posts but I know for a fact you clearly don't do the same for mine.
You still don't realise that THE biggest point I always make with you is that you go to the extreme opposite of Redbull.
He may be a bit extreme in citing Mario producing easily over 200 points today but you're no less extreme and delusional in your grossly under valued estimations either.

He doesn't read posts, he argues strawman positions and doesn't seem to move from his stance, which is fine.

I'm in agreement with your points exactly. I think you've spent more time pursuing the point I tried to make so thank you (not that you did it for my benefit). I don't mind a differing opinion at all, everyone's entitled, I just don't see anything to convince me that Gretzky wouldn't dominate the game today.

I had used the Mario example several times in other threads. He basically retired, injured for years, walked into a league and picked up where he left off. He looked slower, he still looked like he was playing hurt, and with seemingly little effort, he put up great numbers.
---

I also agree that Sid is probably the closest to Jagr, not close to Gretzky or Mario. I believe Sid has the talent and desire to do more than what Bossy, Yzerman, Sakic ever did, but he's got a ways to go. I think Sid is better than his statistics have shown to date (concussion notwithstanding). I think Ovechkin has that talent as well and I do think today's elite players are special talents and are capable of great things, but not there yet IMO.

 

[Hardyvan123]

No one is saying that he puts up 160+ for 10 seasons straight, just that he would be capable of breaking that and more in his prime today.
You seem to almost be in agreement of that, your up coming points (that are about to get smashed btw) not withstanding.



NEW GOALIE'S??? WTF are you talking about? The guy potted 35 friggin goals in just 43 games only a decade ago against goalies wearing, what would be illegal, over-sized equipment today and interference at its peak.
In what possible way would Mario be disadvantaged what so ever today, compared to then???




You did but only to a point. For the most part you stated that Gretzky would have trouble producing 100 points in most seasons. I would be happy to re-post the entirety for you and everyone else.



I do take the time and read your posts but I know for a fact you clearly don't do the same for mine.
You still don't realise that THE biggest point I always make with you is that you go to the extreme opposite of Redbull.
He may be a bit extreme in citing Mario producing easily over 200 points today but you're no less extreme and delusional in your grossly under valued estimations either.




I don't misrepresent anything you say. I simply don't let you weasel out of previous statements and theories after they have had more holes blown in them than a Dirty Harry bad guy.
Trust me when I say that my target is in the exact same place it was all those months ago when you started this "newer is better" crap. Do we really need to actually go back and see where your target was then and where it is now to know that your target has moved or do you actually realise it yourself by now?

Okay to the Wayne would have problems getting 100 points now, it was referred to in one post as I recall and involved the possibility of it and the Florida example.

In most of my posts I have him projected as probably scoring higher but not as high as you have him.

But feel free to post that one single post from many I made on the topic as it leads directly to my point on Mario scoring 35 goals in 43 games. It comes out to 38 goals adjusted for what it is worth

As we have gone over before it's a small sample size, not a full season or even close to it, albeit at age 35 and he scored 50 goals in his last full season before that at age 31.

The GPG around that one single year are all over the map, mostly due to health but ti's still a stretch to assume that he is going to stay healthy in a whole year today and reach his peak production from those years given when we are talking about the new equipment.

to quote you
"Are you seriously going to sit there and continue to deny that a 25 year old, healthy Mario Lemieux would absolutely friggin destroy today's scorers with point totals in the 160-180 range?"

I took this to imply more than one season and used his career as an example sine that's what we have to work with.

We could expect at best from what we know, before adjusting, from the raw actual data that he might score 3 times out of 10 seasons over that 160 point make based on his PPG during his career.

And that's if we take your position and he isn't affected by the goalies and other changes in the play from his playing days.

On the other end of the spectrum, assuming that adjusted stats would be pretty close, Mario tops over 160 (89 and 96) 2 times out of 17 with 3 other seasons (88,93,01) in the 140-150 (using PPG range). I just glanced at it didn't do the exact math but you get my drift here.

It's also possible that Mario is affected more by todays modern game than we are guessing at here and maybe tops out in the 140 point range.

Maybe his coaches would require him to play a more complete game and not only worry about offense, that's something we don't know and is a variable.

Most of his stats come from playing the game a certain way and all out offense maybe even a slight change to being more responsible in his won zone would take some points away, how many is uncertain.

We saw that happen to Steve Yzerman who wasn't as gifted as Mario but hardly a role player either.

Boy now that I said that I'm sure to see the "he said that Mario would never crack 140 points today post as if it was the only one i ever made."

The bottom line is that your assertions and the boldness with you make them simply isn't borne out by any data be it raw or adjusted and my guess is that you are caught up in his best season, which were in an entirely different NHL and were not repeated with any regularity due to his poor health record and the changes in the way the NHL game was played.

It's a shame really because he was truly the most gifted player I have ever watched in terms of pure skill.

I also don't think that he was as driven as Wayne was and wonder how the drive to be the best would affect both him and Wayne in the post lockout era, my money would be on Wayne in the drive department but there is no way to prove it.

If i were to argue from your position I would be using the 96 season as it is a 70 game sample.

But it is more impressive to use the 35 year age and the bigger pads argument, as if the pads are really that much smaller today.

You could see the difference from the 80's to today quite easily but without measuring the pads before the game from 01 to today I bet most people couldn't tell unless they recognized certain goalies that played in one year and not the other.

 

[Rhiessan71]

But it is more impressive to use the 35 year age and the bigger pads argument, as if the pads are really that much smaller today.

You could see the difference from the 80's to today quite easily but without measuring the pads before the game from 01 to today I bet most people couldn't tell unless they recognized certain goalies that played in one year and not the other.

Dude...I started playing goal when I was 7, played rep through most of my childhood with two years of Junior in my teens, continued to play up and till a few years ago until my left knee finally forced me into playing out.

I can, without a shadow of a doubt, tell you that the equipment goalies were wearing in the early 2000's was much bigger than what they can wear today. There were goalies running around with 14" - 15" width pads and 38" in length, trappers so big that they had trouble closing them properly.
It was out of control, just look at some pics of Roy with the Habs in the mid 90's and then before his retirement with the AV's.
You don't think all those extra inches vastly improved the performance of butterfly goalies who rely mostly on playing the percentages and covering as much of the net as possible?
Dude.....

 

[Hardyvan123]

Maybe we need Dr No to elaborate on the history of goalie equipment in the NHL, I just know that it is alot bigger and lighter than back in the day of those old leather pads that soaked up water till they were like logs in the 3rd period.