Top 5 ommitted HOFers

[Chili]

Eras don't compare in my opinion.

Different rules, equipment, style of play, # of teams, training, nutrition, travel, salaries, medical personnel, .....I'm sure someone can add to those.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Eras don't compare in my opinion.

Different rules, equipment, style of play, # of teams, training, nutrition, travel, salaries, medical personnel, .....I'm sure someone can add to those.

Depends how you compare them. They can be easily compared, IMO.

 

[Chili]

Just thought of some more...season length, rink conditions (sizes, ice conditions have changed over the years). Tons of changes over the years.

 

[tom_servo]

Depends how you compare them. They can be easily compared, IMO.

Easily compared? This is too ridiculous.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Easily compared? This is too ridiculous.

If you can understand the point I was trying to make in another thread, you can see how easy it is to compare. If you don't understand or refuse to believe what I was saying, then you end up believing it is impossible.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

I am just so glad there is someone as smart as PogoStick to show us the way, and do what hockey experts the world over have been unable to do, and do it in an easy manner.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I am just so glad there is someone as smart as PogoStick to show us the way, and do what hockey experts the world over have been unable to do, and do it in an easy manner.

Any insult coming from a Canucks fan is high praise, indeed!

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Any insult coming from a Canucks fan is high praise, indeed!

ok... so the hockey team that I cheer for through good times and bad, somehow reduces my ability to point out the obvious flaws in your arguement?

 

[Ogopogo*]

ok... so the hockey team that I cheer for through good times and bad, somehow reduces my ability to point out the obvious flaws in your arguement?

People have been trying to point out flaws in my argument for two weeks. I have yet to hear something that makes me change my opinion. If you have some compelling reasons or evidence, please present them. I have taken and implemented many suggestions from posters on this board but, nobody has made a good point to refute my system of comparing across eras.

 

[Chili]

Depends how you compare them. They can be easily compared, IMO.

You can easily compare apples and oranges as well. They are still two different things. It's much the same in comparing statistical accomplishments over eras. There are a long list of variables which render alot of comparisons meaningless.

 

[Ogopogo*]

You can easily compare apples and oranges as well. They are still two different things. It's much the same in comparing statistical accomplishments over eras. There are a long list of variables which render alot of comparisons meaningless.

Great. You see it your way, I will see it my way. No problem, we just see history in a different light. I believe that the variables can be reduced to irrelevant depending on how you make the comparison.

 

[Chili]

Great. You see it your way, I will see it my way. No problem, we just see history in a different light. I believe that the variables can be reduced to irrelevant depending on how you make the comparison.

If you want to convince someone, you would need to quantify that point by point to posts above. And yes, you are entitled to believe what you wish, my initial post was not directed to you.

 

[Ogopogo*]

If you want to convince someone, you would need to quantify that point by point to posts above. And yes, you are entitled to believe what you wish, my initial post was not directed to you.

There has been an extensive thread on this but, here is one of my previous posts on the subject:


I consider the leading scorer of 1918 to be equal with the leading scorer of 2004. I don't care how many points they got, what the rules were or the amount of ice time they had. It is irrelevant because Joe Malone was the best of everyone in 1918. They all had the same rules, he was #1. That is worth 7 points on my system. Martin St. Louis won the scoring title last season with 94 points. A lot more than Malone's 48 points (44g 4a) in 20 games but, less on a per game basis. You know what? St. Louis gets 7 points too. He was the leading scorer and it is the same thing that Malone accomplished.

So, with larger nets, we will still have a scoring champion. He could have 300 points but, so what. That is still worth 7 on my system. Best in the league in 1918, 2004 or 2050, it is all the same. Best in the league is best in the league.

The only exception to this is when a player completely dominates the league to a great degree. Joe Malone's 1918 scoring title was a 2 point win over Cy Denneny. That is a margin of 4%. Wayne Gretzky's 1987 scoring was by 75 points or 69%. That is a very different scoring title than Malone's. In my system, a player gets 9 points instead of 7 when they win the title by 25% or more. They get 11 points when they win it by 50% or more. Gretzky's 1987 title is worth 11 and Malone's of 1918 is worth 7.

So, as you can see, rule changes, games played, offensive eras - none of that matters. It levels the playing field so we can see who really is the greatest scorer. Finishing 3rd in scoring in 1925 is the same thing as finishing 3rd in 1985. Aurel Joliat had 40 points in 1925, Dale Hawerchuk had 130 in 1985. They are the same thing.

I hope that makes sense to you, it sure does to me.

 

[Chili]

The only exception to this is when a player completely dominates the league to a great degree. Joe Malone's 1918 scoring title was a 2 point win over Cy Denneny. That is a margin of 4%. Wayne Gretzky's 1987 scoring was by 75 points or 69%. That is a very different scoring title than Malone's. In my system, a player gets 9 points instead of 7 when they win the title by 25% or more. They get 11 points when they win it by 50% or more. Gretzky's 1987 title is worth 11 and Malone's of 1918 is worth 7. .

You can spin the numbers many different ways but they were achieved under totally different circumstances.

It also assumes that all players have equivalent teammates. You don't score 200 points by yourself.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.(not my line but a good one).

 

[Ogopogo*]

You can spin the numbers many different ways but they were achieved under totally different circumstances.

It also assumes that all players have equivalent teammates. You don't score 200 points by yourself.

Lies, damned lies and statistics.(not my line but a good one).

I disagree with that, as well. Gretzky scored 137 points, as a rookie, with BJ MacDonald and Brett Callighen on his wings. He scored 164 points (broke the record) on a team where the second leading scorer had 75 points. Gretzky would have scored 200 points no matter what team he played for. You give teammates too much credit.

If teammates were the sole reason for players being great, how do you explain Dionne, Bathgate and Stastny? How do you explain Gretzky's time in LA?

The greats will score under any circumstances with any teammates anywhere. That is why they are great.

What difference do the circumstances of different eras make? Every player during any given season must play with the same rules of every other player in the league that year. There is always a scoring leader, there is always a #2. A scoring leader in the NHL is the best scorer in the NHL no matter what the rules,circumstances or season.

 

[Chili]

Ignoring points raised makes a discussion...pointless.

 

[Ogopogo*]

Ignoring points raised makes a discussion...pointless.

?

Whatever.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

I disagree with that, as well. Gretzky scored 137 points, as a rookie, with BJ MacDonald and Brett Callighen on his wings. He scored 164 points (broke the record) on a team where the second leading scorer had 75 points. Gretzky would have scored 200 points no matter what team he played for. You give teammates too much credit.

If teammates were the sole reason for players being great, how do you explain Dionne, Bathgate and Stastny? How do you explain Gretzky's time in LA?

The greats will score under any circumstances with any teammates anywhere. That is why they are great.

What difference do the circumstances of different eras make? Every player during any given season must play with the same rules of every other player in the league that year. There is always a scoring leader, there is always a #2. A scoring leader in the NHL is the best scorer in the NHL no matter what the rules,circumstances or season.

How many times did Dionne win the scoring championship. Once. We can agree on that right. Ok now lets say you put him on the Montreal Canadiens of the same era, all of a sudden you would find that his point totals would increase exponentially because he would have better linemates. I didn't even think that this was an issue... I actually still can't believe you are serious when you think that linemates, and a teams style of play would have any impact.

Lets use the example of Elias for instance as he is a player you would know about. Put him on into the Colorado Avalanche lineup, or the Vancouver Canucks lineup and you would see a significant change in point totals. The players that they play with as well as the system that the team employs is not static between teams, and to think that that doesn't have an impact is foolish at best, and stupid at worst.

 

[Ogopogo*]

How many times did Dionne win the scoring championship. Once. We can agree on that right. Ok now lets say you put him on the Montreal Canadiens of the same era, all of a sudden you would find that his point totals would increase exponentially because he would have better linemates. I didn't even think that this was an issue... I actually still can't believe you are serious when you think that linemates, and a teams style of play would have any impact.

Lets use the example of Elias for instance as he is a player you would know about. Put him on into the Colorado Avalanche lineup, or the Vancouver Canucks lineup and you would see a significant change in point totals. The players that they play with as well as the system that the team employs is not static between teams, and to think that that doesn't have an impact is foolish at best, and stupid at worst.

Dionne's point totals would not increase "exponentially" if he played for the Canadiens. He may have had an extra 5 or 10 at the most.

So, what you are saying is that there is no way to compare any player any time. There are simply too many variables (linemates, division, rules etc) to make it feasible. All players are equal because given different circumstances their career would be totally different. Is that what you are saying?

Switching teams would not show a significant change. A few points, sure. A significant number of points, no. Ultimately a guy still has to put the puck in the net or make good passes no matter what team he is on.

Gretzky would have dominated the NHL no matter who he played for.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

That is exactly what I am saying, especially through a slapstick empirical ranking.

 

[Ogopogo*]

That is exactly what I am saying, especially through a slapstick empirical ranking.

Good for you Mr. Canuck. We disagree and we can leave it at that.

Use a little common sense and logic one day, it will do you good.

 

[Frightened Inmate #2]

Good for you Mr. Canuck. We disagree and we can leave it at that.

Use a little common sense and logic one day, it will do you good.

I am using logic and common sense, there is no way to gauge the player that Denneny was, there are to many variables and unknowns, which you completely ignore in your "ranking". Other poster have brought up legitiment points, and yet you just ignore them and call them stupid.

Plus what does me being a Canucks fan have to do with anything?

 

[Mothra]

Guys who don`t deserve to be there

Dino Ciccarelli

Why not??

 

[norrisnick]

I disagree with that, as well. Gretzky scored 137 points, as a rookie, with BJ MacDonald and Brett Callighen on his wings. He scored 164 points (broke the record) on a team where the second leading scorer had 75 points. Gretzky would have scored 200 points no matter what team he played for. You give teammates too much credit.

If teammates were the sole reason for players being great, how do you explain Dionne, Bathgate and Stastny? How do you explain Gretzky's time in LA?

The greats will score under any circumstances with any teammates anywhere. That is why they are great.

What difference do the circumstances of different eras make? Every player during any given season must play with the same rules of every other player in the league that year. There is always a scoring leader, there is always a #2. A scoring leader in the NHL is the best scorer in the NHL no matter what the rules,circumstances or season.

It isn't as easy as 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, etc...

Example to illustrate the importance of evaluating the relative competition.

Pavel Bure again. He led his team in scoring in '00-'01 with 59 goals and 92 points. Second place Viktor Kozlov had 37 points. Now, is this an utterly amazing feat by beating his nearest teammate by such a number or is it an indication of a lack of talent on his team?

I submit Wayne Gretzky's '82-'83 season. He led the Oilers in scoring with 71 goals and 196 points. Mark Messier was second with 106 points. That's a massive margin. Here comes the difference. Messier was 7th in league scoring that year (in fact two other Oilers finished in the top 10). Viktor Kozlov? 171st.

All second place finishes aren't created equal. Neither are 1st place finishes or any other place. Scott Pellerin was the leading Wild scorer in '00-'01 with a whopping 39 points.

This has nothing to do with evolution. Yes, the stars of today would be able to physically dominate and humiliate the stars of the late Teens. I'm talking about the level of competition their peers provide.

Steve Yzerman finishing 3rd in scoring to Mario Lemieux and Wayne Gretzky in '88-'89 is, IMO, greater than Cy Denneny finishing 3rd to Newsy Lalonde and Odie Cleghorn in '18-'19. Remember that finishing 3rd just barely keeps Denneny in the top 10% of the league as there were only 32 skaters that year.

 

[Ogopogo*]

I am using logic and common sense, there is no way to gauge the player that Denneny was, there are to many variables and unknowns, which you completely ignore in your "ranking". Other poster have brought up legitiment points, and yet you just ignore them and call them stupid.

Plus what does me being a Canucks fan have to do with anything?

I have ignored nothing nor have I called anyone stupid. Don't read what isn't there.

I counter their points with logic and reason. Thus far, nobody has presented anything that makes me think differently on this issue. I have preseneted my point repeatedly in 5 different ways, if you cannot understand it, or refuse to, that is your right. Nobody has come up with anything convincing to counter my argument. My system eliminates the "variables and unknowns" as a factor.

Being a Canucks fan has nothing to do with this argument. Why does it offend you when I refer to you as a Canucks fan? Would you prefer I call you Benton?