Where does Ovie now rank all time?

[daver]

Definitely agree with that. But it should have no bearing on overall ranking though - not sure if you were implying it should.

Crosby's great because he's pretty damn great at everything. He's not the best at any 1 thing (in fact he may not be top 5 in any actual category) - but he's near the top in a majority of categories, enough to make his overall resume/career stand out a lot. Beliveau is maybe a bit like that too.

Although far more subjective, I think hockey IQ, or the ability to combine his IQ and the physical skills to make the play better than anyone currently, is up there with anyone not named Wayne. He tends to lose the "eyetest" battle because he makes hard plays seem easy and makes the easy,simple plays better than anyone.

At the end of the day, goalscoring gets a slight bias over playmaking but Crosby's overall offensive resume including the ability to carry a line, produce with any level of offensive deployment, while playing a good to very good defensive game needs consideration.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Although far more subjective, I think hockey IQ, or the ability to combine his IQ and the physical skills to make the play better than anyone currently, is up there with anyone not named Wayne. He tends to lose the "eyetest" battle because he makes hard plays seem easy and makes the easy,simple plays better than anyone.

At the end of the day, goalscoring gets a slight bias over playmaking but Crosby's overall offensive resume including the ability to carry a line, produce with any level of offensive deployment, while playing a good to very good defensive game needs consideration.

Hockey IQ, working backwards, Lidstrom,Bourque, Fetisov, Datsyuk, Sakic, Gordie Howe, Lemaire, Henri Richard, Bobby Orr, Jean Beliveau, Dave Keon, Red Kelly, Doug Harvey, all better than Crosby,last 60 years only.

 

[Merya]

Hockey IQ, working backwards, Lidstrom,Bourque, Fetisov, Datsyuk, Sakic, Gordie Howe, Lemaire, Henri Richard, Bobby Orr, Jean Beliveau, Dave Keon, Red Kelly, Doug Harvey, all better than Crosby,last 60 years only.

No mention of the God of hockey IQ from you? Shame!

 

[Canadiens1958]

No mention of the God of hockey IQ from you? Shame!

Hockey IQ as opposed to offensive IQ.

 

[Merya]

Hockey IQ as opposed to offensive IQ.

C'mon! We wouldn't even be talking about hockey IQ, if it wasnt for Wayne. It's an esoteric topic as it it, no need to try to boost your own position, by dividing it.

 

[Canadiens1958]

C'mon! We wouldn't even be talking about hockey IQ, if it wasnt for Wayne. It's an esoteric topic as it it, no need to try to boost your own position, by dividing it.

Is your point that before Wayne Gretzky joined the NHL there was no hockey IQ?

BTW savantism is not IQ.

 

[daver]

Hockey IQ as opposed to offensive IQ.

Does this disqualify him for some reason?

 

[Canadiens1958]

Does this disqualify him for some reason?

No, just reduces the cumulative score.

 

[Merya]

No, just reduces the cumulative score.

Why's that? If you claim Gretzky is a savant, as opposed to having hockey IQ, what difference does it make for his legacy as a hockey player? It's almost as a underhanded snide made by losing position...
ps. I don't dispute the idea that Wayne might indeed have been a "hockeysavant". It's a proposition I have never seen before so it takes some digesting.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Why's that? If you claim Gretzky is a savant, as opposed to having hockey IQ, what difference does it make for his legacy as a hockey player? It's almost as a underhanded snide made by losing position...
ps. I don't dispute the idea that Wayne might indeed have been a "hockeysavant". It's a proposition I have never seen before so it takes some digesting.

Claim is savantism not savant.

 

[Merya]

Claim is savantism not savant.

Noun[edit]

savantism (uncountable)

1. The condition of being a savant.

 

[Canadiens1958]

Noun[edit]

savantism (uncountable)

1. The condition of being a savant.

Arithmetical savants, or calendar savants are not mathematicians with high Mathematical IQs.

 

[Merya]

Arithmetical savants, or calendar savants are not mathematicians with high Mathematical IQs.

You made the claim, not me.
As for Gretzky, it really is irrelevant to this discussion how his (your claim) savantism translates to his play and achievements.
It doesn't matter if you think he is a savant, it still translates to reading the game of hockey (as a player) better than anyone ever has. Hence hockey IQ, regardless of where it comes from.

ps. If you're born 58, you saw Orr as a teen. It's been well researched, that most people have heroes they saw as a teen, will stay so for their entire life. Its the most obvious in peoples musictaste.

 

[Canadiens1958]

As for Gretzky, it really is irrelevant to this discussion how his (your claim) savantism translates to his play and achievements.
It doesn't matter if you think he is a savant, it still translates to reading the game of hockey (as a player) better than anyone ever has. Hence hockey IQ, regardless of where it comes from.

ps. If you're born 58, you saw Orr as a teen. It's been well researched, that most people have heroes they saw as a teen, will stay so for their entire life. Its the most obvious in peoples musictaste.

1958 was well thru grade school. To save you further puzzlement Canadiens1958 refers to the most interesting year of the dynasty. Turned over the team yet continued winning.

Gretzky only read selective pages dealing with offensive hockey. So his defensive Hockey IQ was not applied,hence impossible to evaluate.

 

[bobbyking]

Hockey IQ, working backwards, Lidstrom,Bourque, Fetisov, Datsyuk, Sakic, Gordie Howe, Lemaire, Henri Richard, Bobby Orr, Jean Beliveau, Dave Keon, Red Kelly, Doug Harvey, all better than Crosby,last 60 years only.

Datsyuk sakic Richard Beliveau lmao

 

[bobbyking]

Indeed Ovechkin made Backstrom a much better player. Same goes for everyone else who ever played on Ovechkin's line. In one of those seasons Backstrom had 101 points. Does anyone believe Nick Backstrom is a 100 point player on his own without Ovechkin?

Backstrom had the luxury of getting tons of secondary assists on plays made by Ovechkin. Backstrom leads the NHL in secondary assists since 09-10. He is a very good player, but his stats are inflated by being the guy who passes to the guy who passes to the greatest goal scorer of all time.

It also helps that they were the only nhl team not playing d that season

 

[Michael Farkas]

I just want to be clear about something, C1958. We're not separating offensive hockey IQ and defensive hockey IQ, right? You can't be smart at offense and dumb at defense - that's not really possible. One is just the converse of the other. The brain doesn't work like that. You can't be smart in the living room and dumb in the kitchen...you might not know how to cook, that's a different story. You're stating the application of smarts in one zone was not, ahem "liberally applied" by Gretzky or Crosby (though I disagree with the latter come playoff time, but that's not for here...our paths cross a bunch we can hash that out one day haha) and thus [your conclusion]...do I have that right? Right-ish? Wrong?

 

[Canadiens1958]

I just want to be clear about something, C1958. We're not separating offensive hockey IQ and defensive hockey IQ, right? You can't be smart at offense and dumb at defense - that's not really possible. One is just the converse of the other. The brain doesn't work like that. You can't be smart in the living room and dumb in the kitchen...you might not know how to cook, that's a different story. You're stating the application of smarts in one zone was not, ahem "liberally applied" by Gretzky or Crosby (though I disagree with the latter come playoff time, but that's not for here...our paths cross a bunch we can hash that out one day haha) and thus [your conclusion]...do I have that right? Right-ish? Wrong?

Correct, mathematicians cannot choose to work only with even or odd numbers. Work with both. Yes it is in the application. Being productive at both.

Crosby.Best analogy is his International linemate Patrice Bergeron. Playing together you see how each applies their strengths.

 

[Merya]

Reading your delusional conclusions is hilarious. 1958 was well thru grade school. To save you further puzzlement Canadiens1958 refers to the most interesting year of the dynasty. Turned over the team yet continued winning.

Gretzky only read selective pages dealing with offensive hockey. So his defensive Hockey IQ was not applied,hence impossible to evaluate.

You call me delusional, but you're rather incoherent yourself. Not many will agree with your segregation of hockey iq into separate parts. And you're doing it for the single reason, that you have some really odd beef with Gretzky.

 

[Canadiens1958]

You call me delusional, but you're rather incoherent yourself. Not many will agree with your segregation of hockey iq into separate parts. And you're doing it for the single reason, that you have some really odd beef with Gretzky.

You call me delusional, but you're rather incoherent yourself. Not many will agree with your segregation of hockey iq into separate parts. And you're doing it for the single reason, that you have some really odd beef with Gretzky.

Try reading everything I post in its entirety. 1 post up. Its in the application.

 

[Merya]

Try reading everything I post in its entirety. 1 post up. Its in the application.

I rest my case.