Out of Town: Post-frenzy Edition

[DAChampion]

For whatever or for a good return??

For the best package available.

 

[DAChampion]

In his 6 years peak Lafleur is unmatched by anyone except the threes.

Go to the main boards and ask which of Lafleur or Crosby they'd rather have in their primes.

 

[Mrb1p]

Go to the main boards and ask which of Lafleur or Crosby they'd rather have in their primes.

Six year peak has to go to Lafleur.

From 74 to 80 Lafleur was:
6x AS1
6x top 5 Hart (1 win)
3x ross winner
1x Smythe winner
3x Pearson winner
4x stanley cup winner
1x most goals
6x top 4 in points
3x playoffs most points

Sid never put up 6 straight seasons without getting injured so its impossible to actually compare.

Lafleurs 6 year peak is his only playable card in the all time card game, but its a hell of a card.

 

[theghost1]

Tatar had term

Yes,he had term and that is not a good thing to be stuck with a bad player who has term and is way overpaid.

 

[DAChampion]

Six year peak has to go to Lafleur.

From 74 to 80 Lafleur was:
6x AS1
6x top 5 Hart (1 win)
3x ross winner
1x Smythe winner
3x Pearson winner
4x stanley cup winner
1x most goals
6x top 4 in points
3x playoffs most points

Sid never put up 6 straight seasons without getting injured so its impossible to actually compare.

Lafleurs 6 year peak is his only playable card in the all time card game, but its a hell of a card.

It's a hell of a card but you had him as the 4th best player of all time.

Is he ahead of Lemieux, Orr, Gretzky, Howe?

No.

In the case of Crosby, he led three different teams to cups (and a 4th to a final, and some conference finals) in the most competitive period of NHL history. He has 185 points in 160 career playoff games. Yes he's had more injuries, but he's playing in the era of injuries, Lafleur didn't. Lafleur got away with smoking as an NHL player because the standards were vastly lower back then.

 

[Mrb1p]

It's a hell of a card but you had him as the 4th best player of all time.

Is he ahead of Lemieux, Orr, Gretzky, Howe?

No.

In the case of Crosby, he led three different teams to cups (and a 4th to a final, and some conference finals) in the most competitive period of NHL history. He has 185 points in 160 career playoff games. Yes he's had more injuries, but he's playing in the era of injuries, Lafleur didn't. Lafleur got away with smoking as an NHL player because the standards were vastly lower back then.

He's ahead of Howe for sure if youre looking at a 6 years peak. I don't believe in Howes numbers as much as most. He doesnt strike me as the number four, he strikes me as being in contention with Crosby for number four.

Im strictly talking about the six year peak Lafleur had BTW, nothing else.

 

[DAChampion]

He's ahead of Howe for sure if youre looking at a 6 years peak. I don't believe in Howes numbers as much as most. He doesnt strike me as the number four, he strikes me as being in contention with Crosby for number four.

Im strictly talking about the six year peak Lafleur had BTW, nothing else.

That's a completely arbitrary statistic, which is selected specifically to benefit Lafleur. You wouldn't come up with it otherwise and thus it's invalid.

But it's also the case that they played in different eras. Lafleur played in an easier era, after expansion and before the influx of European/Soviet players and better defensive systems. He got away with smoking.

I mean, who do you think is a better fight: Max Baer or Tyson Fury? Cause you know Baer had an incredible peak ... but let's be honest, Fury would KO him very quickly.

 

[Mrb1p]

That's a completely arbitrary statistic, which is selected specifically to benefit Lafleur. You wouldn't come up with it otherwise and thus it's invalid.

But it's also the case that they played in different eras. Lafleur played in an easier era, after expansion and before the influx of European/Soviet players and better defensive systems. He got away with smoking.

I mean, who do you think is a better fight: Max Baer or Tyson Fury? Cause you know Baer had an incredible peak ... but let's be honest, Fury would KO him very quickly.

In every single one of my posts ive mentionned 6 years though, so if you don't want to consider it, just dont.

The era argument is something else entirely, Lafleur got away with smoking, Crosby got the most advanced science, they both had difference. The league didn't have any europeans, but it had only 12 teams, which means there was less players overall. Nobody would ever say that Lafleur as a player is better than Crosby, same goes for Howe, or even Orr. But relatively, there's a case.

I don't watch boxing, I think it's pretty stupid as a sport.

 

[DAChampion]

In every single one of my posts ive mentionned 6 years though, so if you don't want to consider it, just don't.

Because you know that it benefits Lafleur. It's not that I don't consider that statistic, it's that I never consider arbitrary statistics.

I don't watch boxing, I think it's pretty stupid as a sport.

It was an analogy.

 

[Laurentide]

So much recency bias in this thread. "Lafleur was good but not Crosby good"? Please. He was every bit as good. He'd have been even better if he had eschewed smoking, drinking and whoring til the wee hours but even at that he was a generational talent. The fact that most posters on the main board would choose Crosby is irrelevant because most posters weren't even born when Lafleur retired, let alone when he was in his prime. Heck, there are many posters here who are too young to remember Gretzky or Lemieux in their prime, never mind Lafleur.

 

[Mrb1p]

So much recency bias in this thread. "Lafleur was good but not Crosby good"? Please. He was every bit as good. He'd have been even better if he had eschewed smoking, drinking and ****ing til the wee hours but even at that he was a generational talent. The fact that most posters on the main board would choose Crosby is irrelevant because most posters weren't even born when Lafleur retired, let alone when he was in his prime. Heck, there are many posters here who are too young to remember Gretzky or Lemieux in their prime, never mind Lafleur.

Crosby wouldve been even better had he not injured himself so much...?

Crosby is a better player than Lafleur, no contest.

 

[Laurentide]

In every single one of my posts ive mentionned 6 years though, so if you don't want to consider it, just dont.

The era argument is something else entirely, Lafleur got away with smoking, Crosby got the most advanced science, they both had difference. The league didn't have any europeans, but it had only 12 teams, which means there was less players overall. Nobody would ever say that Lafleur as a player is better than Crosby, same goes for Howe, or even Orr. But relatively, there's a case.

I don't watch boxing, I think it's pretty stupid as a sport.

I don't know how anyone can make the argument that the level of competition and talent is better in a 31 team league than it was in a 12 or 14 team league. Fewer available NHL roster spots equals a greater overall concentration of talent. It means that plenty of guys who are NHLers today because there are close to 800 jobs available would be career minor leaguers when the NHL only had 400 job openings. There were far fewer frauds playing in the NHL during Lafleur's era than there are today. Fewer Jordie Benn's, fewer David Schlemko's, fewer Byron Froese's.

 

[DAChampion]

So much recency bias in this thread. "Lafleur was good but not Crosby good"? Please. He was every bit as good. He'd have been even better if he had eschewed smoking, drinking and ****ing til the wee hours but even at that he was a generational talent. The fact that most posters on the main board would choose Crosby is irrelevant because most posters weren't even born when Lafleur retired, let alone when he was in his prime. Heck, there are many posters here who are too young to remember Gretzky or Lemieux in their prime, never mind Lafleur.

Yours might just be the recency bias of your own time.

Regardless, in this case, it is obvious that the current era is the most competitive, as it taps from the deepest talent pool. Players are stronger, faster, and come from more countries. They deal with more adversity. The best players can't get away with smoking or being out of shape, when Ovechkin got fat a few years ago, his play declined.

 

[Laurentide]

Crosby wouldve been even better had he not injured himself so much...?

Crosby is a better player than Lafleur, no contest.

Maybe so, but my point is that a lot of people who would vote for Crosby would only be doing so because he's the guy they actually saw play. The truth of the matter is that they don't really know that Crosby is better, they just assume he is because they've never seen anyone else.

 

[Sorinth]

Lafleur was great, but he wasn't Crosby great.

As for Staal, yes, he's not a third liner on most teams, on some weaker teams he might be a first liner. But on that team he was a third liner, and I bet you that they don't retire his jersey.

Crosby's individual awards:
Hart (2), Ross (2), Richard(2), Pearson (2), Smythe (2)

Lafleur's (They didn't give out the Richard back then but I included it anyway)
Hart (2), Ross (3), Richard (1), Pearson (3), Smythe (1)

They seem to be pretty even in terms of awards. If Crosby was so much better how come he doesn't have the hardware to prove it?

As for Staal, it really shows how out of touch you are if you think he's a good comparable to Gainey.

 

[nhlfan9191]

I don't know how anyone can make the argument that the level of competition and talent is better in a 31 team league than it was in a 12 or 14 team league. Fewer available NHL roster spots equals a greater overall concentration of talent. It means that plenty of guys who are NHLers today because there are close to 800 jobs available would be career minor leaguers when the NHL only had 400 job openings. There were far fewer frauds playing in the NHL during Lafleur's era than there are today. Fewer Jordie Benn's, fewer David Schlemko's, fewer Byron Froese's.

You’re right about the concentration of talent being greater. But you have to take into account development at all levels from youth all the way up to pro has improved drastically since those days as well which makes the depth a lot better.

 

[Mrb1p]

Maybe so, but my point is that a lot of people who would vote for Crosby would only be doing so because he's the guy they actually saw play. The truth of the matter is that they don't really know that Crosby is better, they just assume he is because they've never seen anyone else.

Theres plenty of footage of Lafleur to be seen everywhere.

 

[Mrb1p]

Crosby's individual awards:
Hart (2), Ross (2), Richard(2), Pearson (2), Smythe (2)

Lafleur's (They didn't give out the Richard back then but I included it anyway)
Hart (2), Ross (3), Richard (1), Pearson (3), Smythe (1)

They seem to be pretty even in terms of awards. If Crosby was so much better how come he doesn't have the hardware to prove it?

As for Staal, it really shows how out of touch you are if you think he's a good comparable to Gainey.

Crosby would have more pearsons and art ross had he not injured himself twice on historic runs.

 

[Andrei79]

Go to the main boards and ask which of Lafleur or Crosby they'd rather have in their primes.

I think it would actually be a good question for the history board. Some great posters there.

 

[Sorinth]

Yours might just be the recency bias of your own time.

Regardless, in this case, it is obvious that the current era is the most competitive, as it taps from the deepest talent pool. Players are stronger, faster, and come from more countries. They deal with more adversity. The best players can't get away with smoking or being out of shape, when Ovechkin got fat a few years ago, his play declined.

Well 27.3% of current active NHL players are not from the US or Canada. That's the equivalent of ~8.5 teams worth of players.

From 91 to today the NHL expanded by 10 teams alone. So the argument that the it's more competive because the talent pool is bigger due to European players coming over doesn't hold up really well. European players aren't enough to fill out all the new expansion teams.

Also the whole stronger/faster/better ignores equipment. Give Crosby a stick that doesn't flex as much and weighs ten times as much and he isn't going to be as productive. The fact is everything has improved, all his equipment is lighter and better. Give him the old equipment and he'll be much slower.

That's why the only fair comparison is relative to peers.

 

[Sorinth]

Crosby would have more pearsons and art ross had he not injured himself twice on historic runs.

Maybe, or maybe his production would have slowed down and those historic runs were just hot streaks.
Maybe Lafleur was injured but played through the injuries which lowered his production. Had he been 100% healthy maybe he wins a few more art ross trophy's himself.

 

[Laurentide]

Theres plenty of footage of Lafleur to be seen everywhere.

Yeah, a lot of grainy, low-def, 4.3 aspect ratio stuff on YouTube that millennials won't bother sifting through and who haven't got any sense of context for what they're watching. It's not the same. A 20-something today cannot get a sense of what the game was really like 40 years ago anymore than I could watch films from games in the 1940's and really know what the game was like back then. We live in a world now where people who have never seen and who refuse even to watch a black and white movie can still graduate with a degree in film studies from a major university. These are not people who are going to spend a lot of time poring over old VCR quality broadcasts of 1970's hockey games.

That's why when the late Red Fisher said that the greatest player he ever saw was Orr, I'm willing to agree with him. Because Fisher saw, with his own eyes, practically every player of note that the NHL has produced since the adoption of the forward pass. He saw Richard, Howe, Beliveau, Hull, Orr, Lafleur, Gretzky, Lemieux, and Crosby up close and when asked he said Orr was the best of them without hesitating at all. That to me is what you call a credible evaluator; a guy who had literally seen them all. Most of the rest of us have no such advantage of either the access he had as a member of the media or the breadth of his experience gained from living such a long professional life and the younger you are, the less context you've got to work with.

 

[Laurentide]

Crosby would have more pearsons and art ross had he not injured himself twice on historic runs.

Beware of getting into the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" scenarios. You can play that game all day.

Injuries aren't a new invention that only affects players of Crosby's generation. What has changed is how much quicker players can recover from injuries today due to improved medical knowledge and techniques. I could make an argument that Bobby Orr's career could have been extended for another 10 years had less invasive arthroscopic surgery procedures been developed prior to his first major knee injury. The repair would have been of better quality and his rehab time significantly shortened if his knee could have been scoped instead of cut open. Maybe it wouldn't have become prematurely arthritic, which further limited his ability to skate and change direction pain-free. Unfortunately, Orr was born a few years too early for any of what is now considered routine treatment for knee injuries to be of use to him except in retirement (since he's undergone as many if not more surgeries since he stopped playing than he endured during his career)

Would the 1979 Expos have faltered down the stretch and lost the NL East crown had the Olympic Stadium roof been in place like it was supposed to be? If the roof had been operational then, there wouldn't have been any rainouts which means that they wouldn't have had to play so many double-headers in September to make up those lost games which, in turn, means that the Expos' pitching staff wouldn't have been worn down during the stretch run. The Pirates wouldn't have caught up to them and the Expos might have won a World Series.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

 

[Mrb1p]

Beware of getting into the "coulda, woulda, shoulda" scenarios. You can play that game all day.

Injuries aren't a new invention that only affects players of Crosby's generation. What has changed is how much quicker players can recover from injuries today due to improved medical knowledge and techniques. I could make an argument that Bobby Orr's career could have been extended for another 10 years had less invasive arthroscopic surgery procedures been developed prior to his first major knee injury. The repair would have been of better quality and his rehab time significantly shortened if his knee could have been scoped instead of cut open. Maybe it wouldn't have become prematurely arthritic, which further limited his ability to skate and change direction pain-free. Unfortunately, Orr was born a few years too early for any of what is now considered routine treatment for knee injuries to be of use to him except in retirement (since he's undergone as many if not more surgeries since he stopped playing than he endured during his career)

Would the 1979 Expos have faltered down the stretch and lost the NL East crown had the Olympic Stadium roof been in place like it was supposed to be? If the roof had been operational then, there wouldn't have been any rainouts which means that they wouldn't have had to play so many double-headers in September to make up those lost games which, in turn, means that the Expos' pitching staff wouldn't have been worn down during the stretch run. The Pirates wouldn't have caught up to them and the Expos might have won a World Series.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Theres a difference here, Crosby was outpacing everyone after 30 games both those years, and he was so out of reach that he wouldve probably lead the league had he played 20 more games.

For the rest, it's mostly a reach, but sure, do it all you want, Im not debating Orr, he's clearly in the top 3.

 

[Kimota]

And PAY Max!?!? Hahahaha. Not a Melnyk M.O.

Good point. ah ha