Out of Town: Post-frenzy Edition

[Sorinth]

Europeans and Americans have increased the skill level, yes, and I think that compensates for expansion. There are also better defensive systems and better goaltenders now.

I brought up the increased European presence, you then responded by bringing up league wide numbers, which reflect grinders, not skill players.

So if we aren't going to look at the number of European players and how much the league expanded how do you suggest figuring out whether it compensates or not?

It matters because we were comparing Lafleur to Crosby.

Actually you were comparing Gainey to Staal, your actual claim was that Gainey only won his Conn Smythe because the Habs didn't have players as great as Pittsburgh's players.

As for the definition of great, that's true in general but sometimes the talent pool increases rapidly, and greater eras tend to have more great men. You'll notice that "great men" may come from many periods of history, but they are actually not uniformly distributed in time and place. Some periods and places produce more great men.

But they are only considered great because of how they are relative to their peers.

And FYI this argument started because posters criticized Arizona for retiring Doan's jersey. They're the ones committing a category error by suggesting that other teams have the same standards as the Habs. It's plausible that no team is ever going to dominate as much as the 1970s Habs did, as the league is a lot more competitive now.

Which is why your whole argument is nonsense. The Habs were a dominant team, so obviously they had a bunch of great players, right? Well Gainey was considered one of those great players, if as you claim he was just a third liner riding the coattails of those great players then he wouldn't have beaten those players for the Conn Smythe would he.

 

[groovejuice]

For whatever or for a good return??

In all honesty, Bergevin doesn't have a great track record when trading top players. I believe he's too easily swayed by the abstract qualities of attitude, character, bloodlines, reputation, ad nauseam. Other GMs clearly know this and adjust their offers accordingly.

 

[groovejuice]

And then Ottawa will just sell those new guys in a few years anyways. What ever hopes they might have their ownership will eventually dash them.

The Sens will have company in teams that can't wait to offload their most skilled players for lesser returns.

 

[The Great Weal]

Ceci is barely better than Beaulieu. Didn't the Sens refuse to trade him for Hall or something?

 

[member 300185]

On the great players discussion, guys I watched...

Guy Lafleur was my favorite player, he and Bobby Hull were the two most exciting players I`ve seen.

Bobby Orr was the puck possession master. On a pk he would skate around, killing time like no one else..

Gordie Howe came back to the NHL at age 50 and didn`t miss a game.

Jean Beliveau is in a class by himself.

I seem to remember Jaromir Jagr winning the scoring title with guys like Kip Miller and Jan Hrdina as his linemates, 68 was an incredible offensive player.

Gretzky completely dominated the league in the first half of his career on arguably the last NHL dynasty.

Mario Lemieux didn`t have the level of support early in his career, until Paul Coffey arrived. My favorite line was Lemieux, Stevens and Tocchet, totally unstoppable, too bad they weren`t together for long.

Today I enjoy watching Crosby, Malkin and Ovechkin among others.

As far as who was/is the best, I just enjoy all the great players I`ve seen without slotting them.

all went downhill for him after he blacked out and smashed his face on the ice. (not in that order).

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

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.

I don't get why you'd want to compare that 6 year span.

Crosby got almost as many points in a far tougher league.

The context is extremely important here. Lafleur got his best seasons right in the middle of the biggest expansion in league history. It even has an official name; the expansion era. 1967 +6 teams, by 74 +4 teams, +2 teams by 78. 12 teams added in the span of 11 years. High dilution of talent. Lafleur had his hayday between 74 and 80.

Whereas Crosby played 5 years after the last expansion period of 91-01 where 8 teams were added in the span of 10 years. This expansion was also compounded by a much higher influx of foreign players in the NHL. Crosby got just a fewer points per season (or prorated) in a league that had become a lot more sophisticated in coaching and training.

 

[Toene]

From the hoh board :

When reflecting on the Habs winning 4 straight Stanley Cups in the 70's, (a dynasty, considered one of the greatest teams ever) Scotty Bowman said that the most valuable player during those years was Bob Gainey.

"Bob's contribution to the game was that he proved once and for all that a forward could be a genuine star without scoring a lot."
-Ken Dryden

"Gainey became a star despite never being a flashy scorer. His name appeared in the game summary far less frequently than most of his teammates, but without him the Habs quite possibly wouldn't have won those Cups."
-legendsofhockey.net

When Denis Potvin was asked about great players he mentioned Gainey before Lafleur:
"He was the guy who made Montreal really hard for me to play," said Potvin. "He hurried you. If you did not turn in time and really hustle after the puck and get rid of it right away, he planted you. Hell, he planted you even if you did make the play. After a few shifts, I'd be throwing the puck away against a Lambert or a Risebrough too. He took me off my game and made me play too quickly against Montreal. I don't think I played nearly as well at a Bob Gainey tempo as I did when I controlled the pace of the game."

 

[Sorinth]

I don't get why you'd want to compare that 6 year span.

Crosby got almost as many points in a far tougher league.

The context is extremely important here. Lafleur got his best seasons right in the middle of the biggest expansion in league history. It even has an official name; the expansion era. 1967 +6 teams, by 74 +4 teams, +2 teams by 78. 12 teams added in the span of 11 years. High dilution of talent. Lafleur had his hayday between 74 and 80.

Whereas Crosby played 5 years after the last expansion period of 91-01 where 8 teams were added in the span of 10 years. This expansion was also compounded by a much higher influx of foreign players in the NHL. Crosby got just a fewer points per season (or prorated) in a league that had become a lot more sophisticated in coaching and training.

It's irrelevant since every player had the same advantages. None of the accomplisments listed by Mrb1p are about the total number of points, they are all relative to his peers who had the same advantages.

 

[Laurentide]

From the hoh board :

See? Even back then the Habs valued defense and playing without the puck more than any other quality. Gainey was the King of Intangibles.

 

[jaffy27]

all went downhill for him after he blacked out and smashed his face on the ice. (not in that order).

Kevin Stevens was knocked out in mid air.....that’s why his face smashed on the ice. Too bad, he was my favourite player on Pittsburgh back in those days

 

[Laurentide]

Did Lafleur work a second job?

Well, there was that disco album...

 

[nhlfan9191]

See? Even back then the Habs valued defense and playing without the puck more than any other quality. Gainey was the King of Intangibles.

We should celebrate how we won back then for the next 100 years then because that seems to be the trend when it comes to our franchise the past 25 years.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

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.

I grew-up in the 80's and saw a lot of footage of both Orr and Lafleur. I've watched a lot of old games in the last decade.

You can actually notice how time and space have become a lot more restrictive today, from each era and unwards. You don't see many players crossing the 100 points barrier when in the past, they're used to be about 20+ per season at some points. That's not because the top players are less talented today, but rather because the pool of talent is exponentially bigger than 40 years ago, while the number of new teams has not gone up in the 15 years before the Vegas expansion.

Red Fisher might just compare the dominance of one player versus his peers, versus another player in a different era vs his peers, without realizing how it's a lot more difficult to accomplish dominance today than it was back then when the game was less sophisticated, with a smaller pool of talent vs the number of teams.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

It's irrelevant since every player had the same advantages. None of the accomplisments listed by Mrb1p are about the total number of points, they are all relative to his peers who had the same advantages.

It is still relevant because dominance vs a greater and more sophisticated pool of talent is a lot harder to accomplish. It also looks less flashy and dominant because of the nature of having greater efficiency across the board.

 

[DAChampion]

It is still relevant because dominance vs a greater and more sophisticated pool of talent is a lot harder to accomplish. It also looks less flashy and dominant because of the nature of having greater efficiency across the board.

Yes.

I spoke about "great men" earlier. There isn't an equal number of great men for each era and period. They tend to be concentrated. Within science/mathematics, for example, the periods of great men are:

The Greeks, around 300 BC
The renaissance
Small steady stream afterwards
1920s/1930s Germany, where the quantum revolution took place

Dominating a period of greatness is far more impressive than dominating a period of general weakness.

 

[DAChampion]

So if we aren't going to look at the number of European players and how much the league expanded how do you suggest figuring out whether it compensates or not?

There is clearly a lot of racism in the NHL. Just look at the coaches, for example: all of them are white North Americans. As if there's nobody in Europe who understands hockey strategy and communicates well. Almost all of the GMs too.

I maintain that European players have increased the talent pool, but only among talented players. For the grinders, which you keep bringing up, the talent pool has likely mostly improved due to science, equipment, etc as you brought up.

the Habs didn't have players as great as Pittsburgh's players.

Which is exactly equivalent to saying that Crosby is better than Lafleur.

But they are only considered great because of how they are relative to their peers.

False.

It's because they were great in critical periods. See my response to Ozymandias for an example supported from actual history.

 

[Sorinth]

It is still relevant because dominance vs a greater and more sophisticated pool of talent is a lot harder to accomplish. It also looks less flashy and dominant because of the nature of having greater efficiency across the board.

Read DA's first post where he claimed the only reason Gainey has Conn Smythe and Jordan Staal doesn't is because nobody on the Habs team was as good as Crosby and then tell me how relevant it is.

 

[DAChampion]

I grew-up in the 80's and saw a lot of footage of both Orr and Lafleur. I've watched a lot of old games in the last decade.

You can actually notice how time and space have become a lot more restrictive today, from each era and unwards. You don't see many players crossing the 100 points barrier when in the past, they're used to be about 20+ per season at some points. That's not because the top players are less talented today, but rather because the pool of talent is exponentially bigger than 40 years ago, while the number of new teams has not gone up in the 15 years before the Vegas expansion.

Red Fisher might just compare the dominance of one player versus his peers, versus another player in a different era vs his peers, without realizing how it's a lot more difficult to accomplish dominance today than it was back then when the game was less sophisticated, with a smaller pool of talent vs the number of teams.

I think that if a genie transported the great players from the past in their prime to today, as in Gretzky, Orr, Howe, Lafleur, Richard, etc, they would effectively have "rookie seasons", where they start off being relatively ineffective and frustrated.

Many of them would adapt to the modern game, and eventually start scoring a lot of points, but it would take time for their hockey IQ to catch up to the modern game. Some of them would also need to improve their fitness regimen.

On the other hand, I think that prime Lindros, Lemieux, etc would adapt to the change very rapidly. The league was already physical by the time they showed up.

It was Paul Karina who was smashed, in 1998, with a fist to the front of his face. A legendary career was denied. Him, and so many others.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Yes.

I spoke about "great men" earlier. There isn't an equal number of great men for each era and period. They tend to be concentrated. Within science/mathematics, for example, the periods of great men are:

The Greeks, around 300 BC
The renaissance
Small steady stream afterwards
1920s/1930s Germany, where the quantum revolution took place

Dominating a period of greatness is far more impressive than dominating a period of general weakness.

But the comparisons can still be hard to make because of the nature of selective evolution our science and cultures create. The available knowledge we have today, it's scope and dissemination, is far greater, thus raising the overall yield of IQ and consequently making it more difficult to discern greatness among increasing overall greatness.

 

[DAChampion]

Read DA's first post where he claimed the only reason Gainey has Conn Smythe and Jordan Staal doesn't is because nobody on the Habs team was as good as Crosby and then tell me how relevant it is.

No

Without Crosby, etc, Staal doesn't win a Cup, similarly to Gainey and his numerous great teammates.

The modern Penguins have greater players than the 1970s Habs, but they have fewer of them, likely due to the salary cap. It's a steeper pyramid.

A better analogy would be if Crosby, Malkin, etc were split up into 5 or 6 great albeit lesser players. Then those Penguins might have won the Cup, and Staal, arguably the best 3rd line centre of his generation, might have had a Conn Smythe.

 

[DAChampion]

But the comparisons can still be hard to make because of the nature of selective evolution our science and cultures create. The available knowledge we have today, it's scope and dessimination, is far greater, thus raising the overall yield of IQ and consequently making it more difficult to discern greatness among increasing overall greatness.

Technically we have more tools available, but I'd argue that the culture is less encouraging of original and brilliant thinking.

As an analogy, even if the Habs drafted a great player, they would develop him as a grinder and he might score 55 points in his prime.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

Technically we have more tools available, but I'd argue that the culture is less encouraging of original and brilliant thinking.

As an analogy, even if the Habs drafted a great player, they would develop him as a grinder and he might score 55 points in his prime.

Well, that's the other point I wanted to make but forgot to, is that, when speaking of scientific accomplishment, because of it's very nature, that of exploration and comprehension, the evolution of science and population growth creates an ever increasing difficulty in finding novelty. Those novelties become increasingly sophisticated as we dwelve deeper into the layers of what is unknown. Our cultural evolution acts in the same way.

Also, how many great men and women go unheralded. Especially in the last century in science. We're culturally flooded by the accomplishments in physics and cosmology, yet so many great names people are unaware of, but who will have played great roles in the understanding of our own nature, a revolution in thinking and values that has only begun

People like Barbare McClintock who discovered transposons which is now central to our understanding of epigenetics. She was given the Lamarckian treatment until she was proven right.

A year ago, a legend of neurobiology died, Marian Cleeves Diamond who discovered neuroplasticity long before it ever got a name. Her seminal work is widly recognized now, but only in the scientific community.

Someone like John Bowlby, who's work on attachment has had an incredible influence on natal care and research of emotional development.

Or John Gurdon who started the ball rolling for stem cell research and cloning. The list of mostly unknown names that have followed him have also contributed immensely, yet almost no one knows any of them.

 

[Sorinth]

There is clearly a lot of racism in the NHL. Just look at the coaches, for example: all of them are white North Americans. As if there's nobody in Europe who understands hockey strategy and communicates well. Almost all of the GMs too.

I maintain that European players have increased the talent pool, but only among talented players. For the grinders, which you keep bringing up, the talent pool has likely mostly improved due to science, equipment, etc as you brought up.

How does this answer the question? How do you propose to measure expansion diluting the pool vs European players increasing it?

Which is exactly equivalent to saying that Crosby is better than Lafleur.

It's the only logical conclusion to your statements, you claimed Gainey only won because he didn't have Crosby on his team. It's a dumb statement, Gainey had a guy who was out there winning Harts and Art Ross's just like Crosby was. Both teams had the league's best player, the difference between Staal and Gainey is that lots of people felt Gainey was just as good, nobody thought Staal was close to that level.

False.

It's because they were great in critical periods. See my response to Ozymandias for an example supported from actual history.

Using your logic I'm a greater mathematician then Pythagoras or Archimedes. Not only do I know everything they knew but a whole bunch of stuff they didn't like Calculus, or imaginary numbers, etc...

 

[DAChampion]

Using your logic I'm a greater mathematician then Pythagoras or Archimedes. Not only do I know everything they knew but a whole bunch of stuff they didn't like Calculus, or imaginary numbers, etc...

When I loaded the page, I saw that paragraph first. I then rolled my eyes and did not bother reading the rest of your post. What you wrote is remarkably stupid, and I'm disappointed in you. That comment shows that you're not discussing in good faith. I know that you know better.

I'll respond to this regardless as other people might be reading.

I do not believe that today's Joe Blow is a better mathematician than Pythagoras. I explicitly referred to "great periods" earlier, and those who can dominate in great periods are indeed great. Pythagoras should be considered a peer of Gauss, Grothendieck, Newton, etc whereas Hypatia and Khayam should not be. I would maybe include Andrew Wiles in the first group (I'm not sure) -- but not Joe Blow obviously.

Similarly in the NHL, the best players of today are more impressive than the best players of weaker periods. But that doesn't mean that Philippe Danault could have scored 50 goals in 1975. If you think that the second sentence follows from the first, as your post implies, then I suggest that you take a break from the internet.

PS You actually do not know everything that Pythagoras and Archimedes knew.

 

[Grate n Colorful Oz]

When I loaded the page, I saw that paragraph first. I then rolled my eyes and did not bother reading the rest of your post. What you wrote is remarkably stupid, and I'm disappointed in you. That comment shows that you're not discussing in good faith. I know that you know better.

I'll respond to this regardless as other people might be reading.

I do not believe that today's Joe Blow is a better mathematician than Pythagoras. I explicitly referred to "great periods" earlier, and those who can dominate in great periods are indeed great. Pythagoras should be considered a peer of Gauss, Grothendieck, Newton, etc whereas Hypatia and Khayam should not be. I would maybe include Andrew Wiles in the first group (I'm not sure) -- but not Joe Blow obviously.

Similarly in the NHL, the best players of today are more impressive than the best players of weaker periods. But that doesn't mean that Philippe Danault could have scored 50 goals in 1975. If you think that the second sentence follows from the first, as your post implies, then I suggest that you take a break from the internet.

PS You actually do not know everything that Pythagoras and Archimedes knew.

There's no way of knowing. Unlikely that he would've reached that, even if transposed from today, but if he would indeed be transposed in 75, I would bet all my money that he gets way better numbers than he has in the present league.