Sens Rule
Registered User
- Sep 22, 2005
- 21,251
- 74
You cannot base everything on playoff scoring.
Of course you can't base EVERYTHING on the playoffs. But you need to give it some weight.
You cannot base everything on playoff scoring.
You cannot base everything on playoff scoring. As I said, is it Marcel Dionne's fault he had a dolt for a GM? He wouldn't make the list if it was all based on playoffs. The regular season is a great leveler of the playing field.
When I make my adjustments, Naslund will probably drop a little. How far, I don't know for sure. What I do know is he had 3 consecutive seasons that were among the greatest three season spans by almost anyone in NHL history.
LOL.
You must be young. Spend some time doing a little research and educate yourself. Laziness does not make one wiser.
How about 1000 games and about 1200 points?
Not to mention about 5 Stanley Cups, a HHOF enshrinement and an Olympic Bronze?
How did Norm Ullman (#79) end up so incredibly far ahead of guys like Perreault, Sittler, Kurri, and Francis?
According to my count, Ullman was a top-10 goal scorer 9 times (leading the league once) and a top-10 point scorer 7 times. He production was on a whole other level from those guys.
You've avoided the question twice...shall we go for lucky #3?
If you made a hall of fame (say, the 100 best non-goalies ever...a reasonable amount I feel), with all the information available to you right now, would you put Markus Naslund in?
As a career, you have him in the top 100, and it's based mostly on peak value from what I gather. That's the two basic criteria right there, isn't it?
I don't keep asking this to dump on your work, but just to point out that your formula has created outcomes that can't be justified with common sense.
Greatness is finishing top 5 in scoring. Greatness is being a Hart finalist. Greatness is winning a Conn Smythe.
How do you know that Ching Johnson was a better defenseman than Guy Lapointe? Or Kevin Lowe?
Terrible, pointless list.
I can't really stick around all night to defend myself against all the hate so, I will summarize in this post.
How come Eric Lindros is rated so low then, in comparison to an Adam Oates? That ranking seems to fly in the face of what you just said.
Yes, I would put Naslund in the HOF based on my criteria.
How come Eric Lindros is rated so low then, in comparison to an Adam Oates? That ranking seems to fly in the face of what you just said.
I am not hating on your ratings. And I respect how much work you do to rate all these players - especially accounting for all eras which is hard to do. i am just giving you constructive criticism.
I think you do not give playoffs nearly enough weight. I respect you not wanting to rate players that have few playoff appearances too low like Dionne might be and I know it is hard to properly adjust regualr season and playoffs. But if you do your list of the greatest players would be much more valid and strong.
Also I question just giving credit for top 7 finishes in the regualr season. If a guy finishes 12th in points or 9th in goals in a 30 team 600+ player NHL that is incrdibly impressive and deserves poitive credit. A guy that finishes 2nd, 6th and 3rd in points and never again finishes in the top 20 or 30 in points is not as impressive as a guy that finishes 10th in points 4 times, 9th in points twice, 8th once and 6th once and 2nd once. Yet I believe the guy with 3 good years instead of 8 good years would be rated higher in your system.
A big part of Oates' greatness was the fact that he is the 3rd greatest playmaker in NHL history. That helps put him ahead of Lindros.
But that determination is completely incompatible with your notion that peaks, individual awards mean more. Eric Lindros was the best player in the world for a few years.
I still believe that 3 dominant seasons are better than 10 good seasons.
But, that being said, I am adjusting things to take lower finishes (possibly as far as top 20) into account. I will post when I have the results.
LOL.
"My favorites are too low - your list sucks" How many times have I heard that?
Anyway, the eyewitnesses that saw Ching Johnson play helped me determine that he had a greater career than Lapointe or Lowe. I wasn't too lazy to do the research.
I come with a little more respect/naitivity, because hockey isn't really like baseball where you can show up as a fan (like I did in the late 90's) and learn all the records real easily.
But Why is Pronger so far above Niedermeyer. Out of the active players, Nieds should be near Sakic.
A big part of Oates' greatness was the fact that he is the 3rd greatest playmaker in NHL history. That helps put him ahead of Lindros.
http://www.hickoksports.com/biograph/johnsonching.shtml
http://www.newyorkrangers.com/tradition/alumnispotlight.asp?Alumni=Johnson
http://www.legendsofhockey.net:8080...?mem=p195811&type=Player&page=bio&list=#photo
So you basically go by the legendary accounts, the mention of the Hart nomination, the 'hardest bodychecker in the world" and nominations to all-star games? This is anecdotal, unreliable evidence at best. I can't make a definitive statement that Johnson was better than Lowe or Lapointe, so I'm not going to. I just question someone who feels that they can reconcile these biographies and make definitive judgements on where they rate in relation to players you see on television. You wouldn't be able to tell me what his skating stride looked like, what he was like late in a game, or how he could handle big minutes, how often he turned the puck over, or was beaten to the outside.