| Author |
 Topic  |
|
irvine
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
1315 Posts |
 Posted - 01/10/2008 : 00:39:29
|
Can you correct my name on the website. For the nominee list, it says Irving everywhere.
It's Irvine.
Not a big deal, but. :D
Irvine |
 |
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 05:31:10
|
quote:
Originally posted by MSC
66-67 - missed playoffs
67-68 - eliminated first round
68-69 - eliminated second round
69-70 - Stanley Cup Champs
70-71 - eliminated first round
71-72 - Stanley Cup Champs
72-73 - eliminated first round
73-74 - eliminated finals
74-75 - eliminated first round
Orr had 3 more injury filled seasons I won't include. Orr was surronded by an All-Star team, yet there seems to be an awful lot of first round knock outs.
MSC - I have three comments to add a little more context to the story of that early '70s Bruins team:
1) When Orr arrived at the Bruins, they sucked big time. They went from lousy to Stanley Cup Champs in a few short years. Not only because of Orr, true, but I thought that should be mentioned as you listed the Bruins playoff results on Orr's early years there too.
2) Bucyk and Hodge were good players no doubt, but their production skyrocketed with (and I think it is fair to say, primarily because of) Orr. Would either have been all-stars without Orr? I doubt it. Bucyk played a long time in the NHL before Orr arrived yet his first time being an all-star was '68 (* all-star meaning making it to either the first or second all-star team). He was a very solid player though, don't get me wrong. Gretzky and Coffey, on the other hand, would have been all-stars without Messier. Don't get me wrong here either - as you know I too rank Messier very high (more on that in another post perhaps). But this distinction is quite important I think.
Edit - Espo may have been an all-star without Orr, but even he gets elevated in a HUGE way historically in my opinion because of his good fortune of playing with Orr. On this point, take a look at his pre-Orr numbers on the Hawks.
1964-65 Chicago Black Hawks NHL 70 23 32 55
1965-66 Chicago Black Hawks NHL 69 27 26 53
1966-67 Chicago Black Hawks NHL 69 21 40 61
3) Some will scoff at this one, but I don't care. It is said the Bruins of that era underachieved. I can see why this is said, but I say that they were also to a certain extent victims of freaks of nature produced from the big guy above (I'm referring to George Burns, if you know what I mean ). These freaks of nature came out in the form of Kenny Dryden and Bernie Parent. Put a goalie in their places who performs even only about 7% less than their spectacular displays in '71 and '74, and that Bruins team may very well have had 4 Cups in 5 years. I know, I know. It's a hypothetical, nada, nada, nada.
But I really think that sometimes in sports, these weird freaky things are overlooked a bit and only the end results are focussed on. The Bruins of that era are a bit like John McEnroe. But for about 5 points here and there in the epic '80 final against Borg and the very close 5 setter against Connors in '82, McEnroe is a 5 time Wimbledon champion (would have been 5 straight too). Again, I know, he didn't win those points, and that's the bottom line. But think of it this way - because of about five points out of the hundreds of thousands of points he played in his career, there is a bit of an aura about him that he "underachieved". My point is that sometimes the line between "underachieving" and "absolute brilliance and domination" is very thin, and we need to look at the context of some of the losses as much as just focussing in on the bottom line victories.
|
Edited by - andyhack on 01/10/2008 05:49:13 |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 08:30:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by irvine
Can you correct my name on the website. For the nominee list, it says Irving everywhere.
It's Irvine.
Not a big deal, but. :D
Irvine
Sorry about that, I have changed it, and it wil be updated...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 09:00:28
|
Willus, I think it's a little narrow minded to say that the arguement towards Messier is too weak. Again, you may not agree with it but that takes nothing away from it's validity.
If people think that the number of Cups a player win is the indication of how great a player is, I can't see how that is weak. 6 Rings is hard to argue.
And the fact that Orr's Bruins (with solid talent that no one can deny) missed or were eliminated from the playoffs in the first round 5 out of 9 years is another pretty valid point.
My person opinion is that Orr is #2, maybe even #1b, but to say that the arguements brought forth by MSC are weak is not really fair. If the guy's opinion on a player's greatness is playoff success, that's what it is.
And finally, are the two of you done peeing in each others sandboxes yet?? MCS, your sarcasm does not go un-noticed and I don't really think there was a need for it.
Let's talk hockey, shall we??
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 09:41:28
|
There is such a thing as a weak argument Beans. If you'd like me to point out every reason it's weak I will.
It is also possible for people to have an opinion that is wrong. If I was of the opinion that the world was flat and if I walked too far I would fall off I would be wrong wouldn't I.
Here's why it's weak. Andyhack touched on parts of it in his post.
The number of cups argument is weak because winning a cup is a total team achievement. There are guys who have their name on the cup more times than Orr that are half the player he is. But by this reasoning they would rank higher than Orr because they happened to be on a multiple cup winning team.
Andyhack mentioned the freaks of nature that were Dryden and Parent. If you don't think a hot goalie can change teams fortunes you haven't been watching hockey. Both of these guys won the Conn Smythe the years Boston lost to them. They were unbeatable in those playoffs. It is the general consensus that Boston outplayed both teams but were stymied by their goaltenders. Patrick Roy has done it a few times. More recently Theodore and Giguere have done it. It happens.
Then he mentions awards. Let's list the awrds each player possesses shall we.
Messier:
Conn Smythe Trophy (1984)
Hart Trophy (1990, 1992)
Lester B. Pearson Award (1990, 1992)
NHL First All-Star Team (1982, 1983, 1990, 1992)
NHL Second All-Star Team (1984)
Pretty impressive trophy case.
Orr:
Art Ross Trophy (1970, 1975)
Calder Memorial Trophy (1967)
Conn Smythe Trophy (1970, 1972)
First All-Star Team Defense (1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975)
Hart Memorial Trophy (1970, 1971, 1972)
James Norris Memorial Trophy (1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975)
Lester B. Pearson Award (1975)
Lester Patrick Trophy (1979)
Lou Marsh Trophy (1971)
Second All-Star Team Defense (1967)
Those awards are from a 10 years span versus a 20+ years span for Messier.
So comparing hardware doesn't come out in Messier's favour either.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 10:12:42
|
Opinion:
1. A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. A personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Something I would like to point out is that you cannot have an opinion on a fact. The world is not flat, that is a fact so you cannot have an opinion on it. You may have an opinion on who discovered that the world was not flat, as the history on that subject is not always 100% accurate, depending on the books you read.
Now lets get back to hockey. It is a fact that Orr had 139 points in the 1970-71 season, it has been documented so there is no opinion on that "fact". Whether the teams he played on were great because of him is opinion, not fact, it all depends on the information you take in, and how you perceive the information.
You can try to prove that someone’s opinion is different than yours, but you cannot prove that their opinion is wrong...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 10:34:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by PuckNuts
Opinion:
1. A belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. A personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
Something I would like to point out is that you cannot have an opinion on a fact. The world is not flat, that is a fact so you cannot have an opinion on it. You may have an opinion on who discovered that the world was not flat, as the history on that subject is not always 100% accurate, depending on the books you read.
Now lets get back to hockey. It is a fact that Orr had 139 points in the 1970-71 season, it has been documented so there is no opinion on that "fact". Whether the teams he played on were great because of him is opinion, not fact, it all depends on the information you take in, and how you perceive the information.
You can try to prove that someone’s opinion is different than yours, but you cannot prove that their opinion is wrong...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
I knew it was a bad example when I typed it.
A white supremacist is of the opinion that Caucasians are superior to every other race. I'd consider that to be wrong. Wouldn't you?
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 10:48:51
|
It is not a fact either way, so you may form an opinion if you like...
Edit:
Gretzky is the greatest goal scorer in the NHL. Opinion...
Gretzky has the most NHL regular season goals in a career. Fact...
We could argue the first statement, but not the second...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
Edited by - PuckNuts on 01/10/2008 10:53:52 |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 12:15:50
|
I like the point that Puck is bringing up.
Just because an opinion is not popular does not make it any more or less valid in the eyes of the person who holds the opinion.
And your White Supremacist is a perfect example. To you, I, and most of society the opinion is absure. However, to that person the opinion is valid. Weather we agree with it or not, the person has a right to that opinion, do they not?? A person does not get punished(in the Free World anyway) based on an opinion or belieft they have. The only get punished when acting on a belief or opinion is against the Law.
To hopefully close this off, MSC can really vote for who ever he wants for what ever reasons he seems valid. In the end, popular opinion will prevail. In this case, everyone except for MSC voted Orr first for this round, so we are really arguing for no reason.
PS, You guys Rock! You can't argue that. That's a fact!!
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 14:02:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Beans15
And the fact that Orr's Bruins (with solid talent that no one can deny) missed or were eliminated from the playoffs in the first round 5 out of 9 years is another pretty valid point.
I think this is a good example of how perceiving "facts" in a certain way can lead to totally different "opinions".
The above quote from Beans, if adjusted slightly to read "first or second round" is indeed a "fact". 5 out 9 years, Orr's B's were bounced in the first or second round. Can't question that any more than you can question the world not being flat!
And MSC has drawn an "opinion" of Orr's place in history, partially based on his perception of those "facts".
But I think this is where the "different perception of the facts" thing comes into it, and part of that is indeed based on research. The first couple of years Orr was on a team that was basically the sad sack of the NHL for many years prior to that. For them to even be in the playoffs in his second year was a significant improvement. If we write off those first two years then, and start counting from Orr's third season, the "facts" suddenly look at least slightly better maybe. Looking at it that way, the Bruins were eliminated in the first or second round 4 out of 7 years yes, BUT the other 3 years they either won the Cup or made it to the final. 3 out 7 years a Cup or a final. That sounds a bit better doesn't it?
Then consider that in the last year on the list, '74/75, Orr may very well have been playing on basically one knee. To quote Wikipedia, "His knee problems would take an increasing toll after 1973. Despite being limited by knee injuries ..., he continued to dominate the National Hockey League during his career, leading the Bruins to another first place league finish and the Stanley Cup finals in 1974." Arguably, therefore, it's not fair to include '74/75 on the list too, as just about any result from a guy playing on one leg is pretty impressive.
So, if we write off that last year from the list, we're down to the Bs being bounced in the first or second round 3 out of 6 years yes, BUT the other 3 out of 6 years, he led his team to either the Cup or the finals. These "facts" are slowly looking a bit better, aren't they?
Then throw in the "opinion" I mentioned last time into those "facts" - that the Dryden thing in '71 and the Parent thing in '74 were quite flukish, and you suddenly have an "assessment" of Orr and the early 70 Bruins that could read something like this:
"When Orr was relatively healthy and the early '70s Bruins team was in place and ready to contend, the Bruins won the Cup two out of six years, and were robbed by an incredible goaltending performance in one final. Moreover, they likely would have won another Cup in '71 but for the even more incredible magic of Dryden in the first round, a round which had they somehow gotten by, probably would have opened the gateways to another Cup for them (as, very likely, no goalie was going to stand on his head the way Dryden did in the first round that year - even then that first round went to 7 games). In other words, Orr in his prime was very, very close to delivering 4 Cups in 6 years to the City of Boston".
The above is an "opinion" no doubt, but I think it is supported by a logical, fair and well-researched perception of the "facts". |
Edited by - andyhack on 01/10/2008 14:03:34 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 14:44:53
|
I thought I'd post some interesting stats in here. I think they could be valuable in helping to evaluating where to put players on our list.
The research was done by "HockeyOutsider" and the following explanation and stats belong to him.
quote:
Here's my research. I guess we can call this "relative even-strength plus/minus" (catchy, isn't it)? Basically, I look at the ratio of ES goals scored to goals against while a player is one the ice, versus the ratio of ES goals scored to goals against while the player is off the ice. There are several important caveats, though:
- Even though this improves on plus/minus, which doesn't take team strength into account at all, the quality of a player's linematers and opponents will still come into effect here.
- Shorthanded goals for or against (i.e. the team scoring the goal is on the PK) haven't been accounted for because I don't have the data. They're lumped together with ES goals.
- I'm missing data for most of the defunct 1970s teams (Atlanta Flames, California Seals, Cleveland Barons, Colorado Rockies). Maybe I can go back and fill this in later.
- Data is only current to 2003.
- I have no info on traded players which could really affect their results if they're traded from a good team to a bad team late in the year (or vice-versa).
On to the results. Here are the career totals:
Player GP Relative PM
Bobby Clarke 1144 879
Bobby Orr 596 605
Ray Bourque 1612 565
Bryan Trottier 1279 454
Borje Salming 1148 395
Mark Howe 929 388
Craig Ramsay 1070 387
Mike Bossy 752 381
Dave Taylor 1111 341
Larry Robinson 1384 338
Brad McCrimmon 1222 325
Steve Shutt 930 304
Steve Larmer 1006 302
Don Luce 894 291
Brian Propp 1016 290
Marcel Dionne 1348 277
Bill Hajt 854 276
Sergei Fedorov 908 270
Jere Lehtinen 510 269
Eric Lindros 639 266
Wayne Gretzky 1487 258
Scott Stevens 1597 252
Petr Svoboda 1046 249
Mike Modano 1025 241
Charlie Simmer 712 240
Dave Poulin 724 230
Chris Pronger 642 227
Guy Lafleur 1126 226
Gary Roberts 957 224
Mike Ramsey 1070 224
Vladimir Konstantinov 446 223
Dimitri Khristich 811 223
Rod Langway 994 221
Danny Gare 827 220
Al MacInnis 1413 220
Jeremy Roenick 1062 213
Joe Reekie 902 211
Mario Lemieux 879 210
Jaromir Jagr 950 209
Peter Forsberg 541 208
Denis Potvin 1060 205
Teppo Numminen 1098 204
Michel Goulet 1089 200
Frank Musil 797 199
Walt Tkaczuk 945 198
Terry Harper 795 193
Theoren Fleury 1084 188
John LeClair 798 188
Mike Foligno 1018 187
Zigmund Palffy 607 181
Pretty interesting list. Clarke has a big lead (opponents simply did not score when he was on the ice), though Orr, on a per-game basis, is amazing.
There are a lot of really underrated defensive players here: Ramsay, McCrimmon, Luce, Hajt, Lehtinen, Ramsey, Konstantinov, Khristich, Reekie, Numminen, Tkaczuk, etc. Still, one-dimensional scorers like Dionne, Gretzky, Lafleur, Lemieux, Jagr, etc., can shine.
Gordie Howe, way past his prime, is an amazing +147 in just 369 games.
Nice to see the perpetually underrated Steve Larmer get a spot at #13.
A look at some top defensemen:
Orr: +605
Bourque: +565
Potvin: +205
Lidstrom: +72
Robinson: +338
Coffey: -139
Park: +110
MacInnis: +220
Stevens: +252
Salming: +395
Langway: +221
Pronger: +227
Howe: +388
Niedermayer: -8
Blake: -53
Wilson: +148
Zubov: -3
Foote: +70
Murphy: +103
Suter: -166
Housley: -44
Not to drag in my argument from another thread, but Lidstrom's score is much inferior to Bourque's. This is what I mean when I say that Bourque did more with a far weaker supporting cast.
Coffey's adjusted plus/minus ratio is terrible. Even during his best years his numbers are quite weak. But this doesn't take powerplay production into account at all, and that's where Coffey really shined.
HockeyOutsider
|
Edited by - willus3 on 01/10/2008 15:10:26 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 15:13:26
|
Here are the top 25 listed on a per game basis.
Player Games PM Per Game
Bobby Orr 596 605 1.01
Bobby Clarke 1144 879 0.77
Jere Lehtinen 510 269 0.53
Mike Bossy 752 381 0.51
Vladimir Konstantinov 446 223 0.5
Mark Howe 929 388 0.42
Eric Lindros 639 266 0.42
Barry Ashbee 270 111 0.41
Milan Hejduk 388 154 0.4
Gordie Howe 369 147 0.4
Simon Gagne 274 106 0.39
Peter Forsberg 541 208 0.38
Craig Ramsay 1070 387 0.36
Viacheslav Fetisov 261 94 0.36
Bryan Trottier 1279 454 0.36
Chris Pronger 642 227 0.35
Jacques Laperriere 435 153 0.35
Ray Bourque 1612 565 0.35
Borje Salming 1148 395 0.34
Charlie Simmer 712 240 0.34
David Vyborny 233 77 0.33
Pierre Mondou 548 180 0.33
Steve Shutt 930 304 0.33
Don Luce 894 291 0.33
Bill Hajt 854 276 0.32
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 16:46:38
|
| Arrrgh! I'd like to retract that my third round nomination...but I know I can't. Someone nominate Bossy please |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2008 : 17:12:04
|
No regrets about the Messier nomination here Leigh. Numbers such as what Willus posted are helpful as one resource for us, but they are far from everything. Very far. On the type of team Messier played on there were bound to be a lot of goals against. On the type of team Bossy played on, of course, there were going to be far less.
|
|
|
|
MSC
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
601 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 01:00:02
|
I really didn't want to talk about this anymore, but I'm just going to throw a few more things out there.
I realize that the pre Orr Bruins were a sad team. But I'm going to compare them to the Senators of present. They spent year after year at the bottom of the standings, but eventually thanks to years and years of high draft picks they were able (via either the pick, or a trade using that pick) to turn their team around and are now a perennial Stanley Cup contender. Orr may have been the key, but I'm sure he had some help along the way. I have never heard a team descibed as being close to winning a Stanley Cup when they were eliminated in the first round. Sure they very may well have went on to win the cup if they beat Dryden and the Habs, but that would have been just one step. I find it hard to belive that a "logical, fair and well researched perception of the facts" could be based so much on "ifs ands or buts". That's just me though, everyone is entitled to their own versions of research and perception. Unfortunatly I'm working 16 hour days 7 days a week so it really cuts into my research time, sorry my bad.
I also understand that there are many, many, many lesser hockey players who have far more rings then Orr. But how many of them were Conn Smyth winners and how many of them are 2nd All Time in playoff scoring? Messier's play off success speaks for itself, and what exactly is the goal of every team? To do really, really well in the regular season or to win the cup?
The awards...to me there only seems to be two major advantages Orr had over Messier in the awards. I was shocked to learn that Orr won more Norris Trophies then the Mess, I thought he would have been at least competitive there. The other big difference was 1st team All-Stars. I don't know the reason here, maybe there isn't BUT...Is it possible that Messier faced more competition at his particular position? I don't know, feel free to enlighten me....You also compared Orr's success over a 10 year period to Messiers 20 year period. I don't think it's fair to blame Messier for being relatively healthy (even with his relatively good health you're kidding yourself if you think most hockey players don't play each game with some sort of pain, especially those playing in their 30's/40's) and playing into his twlight years. The fact that he was an effective player into his 40's speaks volumes to me. No he was no longer a MVP candidate, or a threat to lead the league in scoring but he was still scoring nontheless and still logging minutes in important parts of the game. I find it hard to believe (possible though) that had Orr stayed healty he would have kept the pace he was at up through to his late 30's let alone his 40's for that matter.
I don't want anyone thinking that I'm some sort of Orr hater because that couldn't be farther from the truth. At the end of the day Orr got his #2 ranking, we got some interesting conversation and maybe everyone got a chance to consider each others positions (I don't actually believe that though) |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 06:47:32
|
Not to drag this on but thought I'd share a few thoughts on some of your thoughts MSC.
We're not going to agree on Cups being a way to measure a player and that's ok. From my point of view it doesn't work. It can be weighted when evaluating a player but I don't think it should be a huge factor. Marcel Dionne, Brad Park, Norm Ullman and Jean Ratelle are all perfect examples. These guys are truly great players but because of the GM's of the teams they played for and through unfortunate circumstances they didn't win cups.
I think there is a bigger difference in the number of Hart trophies as well. Here's why. Historically, the Hart trophy voting has shown bias towards the forward positions. Why this is I'm not sure. Possibly the voters feel that the Norris makes up for it. But if you look back at the Hart winners you will see there have only been 3 defensemen ever win the award. So the fact that Orr won it 3 times is really something. Esposito won it twice and only while playing with Orr and he can thank Orr for both of them. Without Orr, Espo doesn't have a Hart trophy.
Messier has two Harts. One of them is highly debatable too. The 89-90 Hart in my opinion and in the opinion of half the Hart voters, should have gone to Ray Bourque. He was incredible that season. It was the best season by a defensemen since Orr. The voting looked like this. 1989-90
HART: Mark Messier 227 (29-24-10); Ray Bourque 225 (29-26-2); Brett Hull 80 (4-9-33); Wayne Greztky 16 (1-2-5); Pat LaFontaine 8 (0-1-5); Patrick Roy 8 (0-1-5); Steve Yzerman 3 (0-0-3)
Also what I meant by the 10 years versus 20 year comment was that Orr did more in ten years than Messier was able to in 20. If you compare their first ten years Orr is far ahead.
Cheers. 
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2008 : 07:49:49
|
MSC - you are correct, "but and ifs" do go into my perception of the facts. But such "buts and ifs" don't disqualify an analysis from being "logical" in my world. I stand by it. The Bruins in '71 - if they get by the Hab curse and a goalie who played unbelievably well, "LIKELY" ("likely" my over-worked friend) win the Cup in '71. I know it's a bit of a stretch, and that they still would have had a lot of work to do, but, again, in my world, some imagination based on reason is encouraged. Maybe you don't want to live in my world though.
All of this is in fun MSC-san. I actually totally agree with you, and more, on any nice thing you have to say about Messier. He is THE BEST overall hockey player I have seen in my lifetime (again, I don't really feel I "saw" Orr). And I would have been saying very flattering things about him way before the 1994 story or the 1990 story. He, not Gretzky, was the main reason the Oilers overcame the Isle dynasty in 1984 (that point is sometimes underplayed historically in my opinion). So, actually, though I disagree with you, I don't think ranking him ahead of Orr necessarily qualifies you for a one way ticket to the Cuckoo's Nest !
I just wanted to point out a different way of looking at the "facts" based on what I believe to be a deeper look into those "facts" than comments like (and I'm paraphrasing you now), "That's an awful lot of first and second round losses on those Orr-led Bruin teams". That comment, alone, in and of itself, without the other information, is, in MY OPINION (which are allowed in my world by the way), somewhat misleading.
Edit - but the statement above about first and second round losses is undeniably a "fact" --- I'd say this is a good example of where "just the facts" doesn't work so well --- to me this is an interesting discussion by the way
Edit 2 - take a look at the "Playoff bracket" section for the 1970-1971 season at Wikipedia below. You'll see that there were only three rounds back then and that the Bruin's next opponent would have been the North Stars. Not a bad team by any means but I think it is very probable that the Bs could have gotten by them. Granted, the opponent in the finals (a very good Black Hawks team) would have been a lot tougher.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970-71_NHL_season |
Edited by - andyhack on 01/13/2008 17:10:41 |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 16:45:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
No regrets about the Messier nomination here Leigh. Numbers such as what Willus posted are helpful as one resource for us, but they are far from everything. Very far. On the type of team Messier played on there were bound to be a lot of goals against. On the type of team Bossy played on, of course, there were going to be far less.
I agree Andy. Actually I didn't ask for a retraction on Messier because of the post above mine as you eluded to....to be honest I didn't even read it at the time (no offense Willus ), I was doing some research on my own and came to my own realizations. I have to admit, this is a very humbling exercise. I have found myself questioning what I have held near and dear for soooo long. I'm no spring chicken (1970) and I feel lucky to have watched and understood the entire careers of greats such as Gretzky, Lemieux, Messier, Bossy, Bourque, Yzerman, Sakic etc. But humbled and somewhat ignorant because I didn't get to watch too much of guys like Esposito, Howe and Orr. Of course I was/am aware of their greatness and have seen them play on TV, but you just can't fathom their true domination unless you see them as an adult who understands the game, and in true context with their competition at the time. Research and stats can only get you so far.
I might add that the voting is only going to get harder the further down the list we get. But I think it's well worth the time and effort! |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 16:49:44
|
No offence taken Leigh.
I'm noticing a definite pattern in your voting. You are all about scoring. Or so it appears anyway...
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 16:55:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
No offence taken Leigh.
I'm noticing a definite pattern in your voting. You are all about scoring. Or so it appears anyway...
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore
To a certain extent yes but it is only a piece of my puzzle. Scoring if it is complete domination is a big consideration to me. I find it absolutely baffling that Gretzky with over a 1000 points more than the closest competitor could not be #1 in someone's mind...but we've been through this a thousand times on this site already so no need to do it again. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2008 : 17:08:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
I find it absolutely baffling that Gretzky with over a 1000 points more than the closest competitor could not be #1 in someone's mind...
Leigh, I have been baffling people since the day of the little potato (never understood that expression by the way - Bob McCowan used to use it on his radio show). Anyway, you can call me the 'Baffler" if you wish! Sort of like the Riddler, except I baffle rather than riddle.
I find some of these nominations interesting. Of course, after all that I've said I have to back Messier until he is up on the board, but I kind of wanted to second Lafleur this round, I have to admit.
Just so I am clear - we are still going with the only one nomination OR one seconding of a nomination rule, right? Or did we change that? |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 06:33:23
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Just so I am clear - we are still going with the only one nomination OR one seconding of a nomination rule, right? Or did we change that?
You are allowed one nomination or second per round...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
Edited by - PuckNuts on 01/13/2008 06:34:31 |
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 01/13/2008 : 20:47:52
|
| Hey Pucknuts. Looks like Lemieux is a lock for round 3. What do ya say, on to round 4? |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 10:24:14
|
After observing how this is working so far I'm wondering if it makes sense that everyone should be allowed a nomination and a second. Reason being is that if you are the sixth person to check in, the player you would like nominated may not have been nominated yet and now you can't nominate him either and all you are left with is being able to second one of the players that has been nominated.
I think as we get farther down the list this is going to be an issue.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
Edited by - willus3 on 01/14/2008 10:25:09 |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 01/14/2008 : 11:33:17
|
So far in two rounds six players have been nominated...
Is it going to make a difference if a player is ranked 29th or 30th??
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2008 : 19:53:39
|
Pucknuts - you said that the criteria is basically up to each of us, but I wonder how that may come into play as we proceed to guys like Forsberg and Neely? What I mean is that we could have a situation where seven of us are saying each round, "Yeah, but look at this guy's overall career results/longevity (say, for example, Ron Francis) compared to Forsberg", while three of us are saying, "Forsberg, at his peak, was such a great player that, on the whole, I think he achieved a higher level of greatness as a hockey player than Francis" (this is just an example off the top of my head).
Different opinions are fine, of course, but shouldn't they be based on the same criteria? If four out of those seven guys who say "No" to Forsberg in this example, would have said yes if they knew that the criteria was "peak" greatness, as opposed to overall career results/longevity, the ranking for a guy like Forsberg obviously would change quite a bit. |
Edited by - andyhack on 01/15/2008 20:03:35 |
|
|
|
MSC
PickupHockey Pro
Canada
601 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2008 : 20:11:33
|
| I personally think that as long as a player is nominated in any given round he should be on the voting ballot regardless of whether he was seconded or not. In doing this a person won't be forced rank players ahead of someone they thing deserves to ranked higher. |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 01/15/2008 : 21:14:53
|
Is there anyone here that would rather just post their list of the top 50+ players from 1967, you can go ahead...
This is a system of voting, and again we all have our opinions, but guess what if a player does not get ranked the way you like it, sorry but it was a majority vote that is setting the rankings, not one individual that would like to see things go their way...
Sorry guys but I think that things seem to be going along fine, why change them now...
Just curious, is there a problem with the spreadsheet, or am I the only one that uses it?
I do a recape as often as I can so at any time you can see who was nominated, and seconded...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm |
Edited by - PuckNuts on 01/15/2008 21:18:21 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 06:20:51
|
Pucknuts - it seems that you took my comment the wrong way. I like the voting system and don't care if it results in a different list than the way I see it. I only mentioned the point about Forsberg because last night, for the first time, I started to think a lot about how to rank players after the first five, and when it came to guys like Forsberg and Neely, I was going back and forth FOR MY LIST because of this criteria matter that I mentioned. And the difference, depending on the criteria, was not just one or two places for Forsberg and Neely, but much greater.
But it really doesn't matter to me. Sometimes questions are asked just to try to clarify points or make constructive suggestions. There is no negative criticism intended (you are doing a good job Pucknuts) and I certainly won't lose sleep if Forsberg or Neely end up being ranked way too low or way too high in my opinion. I mean the list is already drastically different from my opinion, but I too think it is generally going well so far, especially now that things are moving along a little more quickly.
Anyway, I guess I'll just approach it the way I think it should be approached and others will do the same. Just so everyone knows (some probably do already), as long as it's not just two or three years but a more significant period (like Neely and Forsberg for example), I tend to place much more emphasis on the "greatness" level a guy achieved for that relatively short career rather than the longevity of some other player who, though also great, in my opinion didn't reach the "greatness" level that the player with a shorter career showed in his time in the league.
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 06:38:01
|
quote:
Originally posted by andyhack
Pucknuts - it seems that you took my comment the wrong way. I like the voting system and don't care if it results in a different list than the way I see it. I only mentioned the point about Forsberg because last night, for the first time, I started to think a lot about how to rank players after the first five, and when it came to guys like Forsberg and Neely, I was going back and forth FOR MY LIST because of this criteria matter that I mentioned. And the difference, depending on the criteria, was not just one or two places for Forsberg and Neely, but much greater.
But it really doesn't matter to me. Sometimes questions are asked just to try to clarify points or make constructive suggestions. There is no negative criticism intended (you are doing a good job Pucknuts) and I certainly won't lose sleep if Forsberg or Neely end up being ranked way too low or way too high in my opinion. I mean the list is already drastically different from my opinion, but I too think it is generally going well so far, especially now that things are moving along a little more quickly.
Anyway, I guess I'll just approach it the way I think it should be approached and others will do the same. Just so everyone knows (some probably do already), as long as it's not just two or three years but a more significant period (like Neely and Forsberg for example), I tend to place much more emphasis on the "greatness" level a guy achieved for that relatively short career rather than the longevity of some other player who, though also great, in my opinion didn't reach the "greatness" level that the player with a shorter career showed in his time in the league.
Andyhack, sometimes I think you're my Tyler Durden. Being the movie buff you are you may get that reference and what I mean by it.
Pucknuts, what I was saying wasn't meant as a criticism either by any means. You're doing a fine job. A fine job.
I appreciate you heading this list up and taking care of it the way you are.
"I'm a man of principle... or not. Whatever the situation calls for." - Alan Shore |
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 01/16/2008 : 07:31:11
|
Hey guys don't take me the wrong way either, we all have our systems for selecting players whether it be longevity, or short careers.
Either way is right if that is what makes you think one player is better than the other.
I was thinking of nominating someone like Dean Morton, or Brad Fast they played one game, and each had a goal...now that is an incredibly short stats filled career...
Here is an example of a short career:
I do not think that Crosby should be on the list. If he is nominated I will have to evaluate it the same as always, and vote on him accordingly based on the players that are nominated with him...
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
|
|
|
PuckNuts
PickupHockey Veteran
Canada
2414 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 14:44:19
|
Yzerman 6 straight seasons of 100+ points. During those seasons no other player on his team had 100 points.
Finshed 3rd twice in scoring, and the top 10 5 times...
Only Gretzky, and Lemieux have scored more points in one season than his 155 points that he had in 1988-89.
Back to back 60+ goal seasons.
5 50+ goal seasons, 4 straight.
Captained 3 Stanley Cup Winners
Became the youngest player in the All Star game in his rookie season.
Of coarse you know that this means war!
- - Bugs Bunny
http://www.maldesigns.ca/top50since1967.htm
|
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 15:31:01
|
Let the campaigning begin...
Guy Lafleur
Art Ross Trophy (1976, 1977, 1978)
Conn Smythe Trophy (1977)
First All-Star Team Right Wing (1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980)
Hart Memorial Trophy (1977, 1978)
Lester B. Pearson Award (1976, 1977, 1978)
6 consecutive 50+ goal seasons
1 - 60 goal season
Could skate like the wind and bring you out of your seat.
And don't forget the flowing mane of hair as he flew up the ice ...
"Last time I went to the movies I was thrown out for bringing my own food. My argument was that the concession stand prices are outrageous. Besides, I haven't had a Bar-B-Que in a long time."
-- Steven Wright |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 15:33:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by willus3
Let the campaigning begin...
Guy Lafleur
Art Ross Trophy (1976, 1977, 1978)
Conn Smythe Trophy (1977)
First All-Star Team Right Wing (1975, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980)
Hart Memorial Trophy (1977, 1978)
Lester B. Pearson Award (1976, 1977, 1978)
6 consecutive 50+ goal seasons
1 - 60 goal season
Could skate like the wind and bring you out of your seat.
And don't forget the flowing mane of hair as he flew up the ice ...
"Last time I went to the movies I was thrown out for bringing my own food. My argument was that the concession stand prices are outrageous. Besides, I haven't had a Bar-B-Que in a long time."
-- Steven Wright
And don't forget the guy smoked a deck of darts a day and partied like a true Canadian.
That gives it to him in spades!!!
Wayne or Bobby?? How about both!!! |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 16:28:04
|
My turn I guess. I won't put up any stats or information regarding awards.
Actually I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for this round, but I will just say that, of all of these great players, the one whose NON-STATISTICAL contribution was the most significant, is none other than Mr. Trottier.
|
|
|
|
leigh
Moderator
Canada
1755 Posts |
Posted - 01/17/2008 : 17:13:19
|
| Hey Andy, I was lucky enough to meet Trottier a couple years ago at a charity event. We talked one on one for a quite some time actually, and I have to say that he was incredibly down to earth, friendly, and very entertaining too. You would have been impressed with him. Definitely one of my more memorable hockey moments. |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/19/2008 : 06:47:24
|
quote:
Originally posted by leigh
Hey Andy, I was lucky enough to meet Trottier a couple years ago at a charity event. We talked one on one for a quite some time actually, and I have to say that he was incredibly down to earth, friendly, and very entertaining too. You would have been impressed with him. Definitely one of my more memorable hockey moments.
Meeting Trotts sounds great Leigh. In the course of your conversation, did he strongarm you, knock you down and then, with the help of big Gillies, out-muscle two of your buddies to get the puck over to Bossy, so that Mikey could instantly release the puck to the one and only part of the net that it seemed possible to get by the goaltender (in other words, for yet another Ho-Hum Bossy from Trottier and Gillies goal)?
When it was all happening I couldn't stand the Isles (just cause they were great) and therefore wasn't too fond of Trottier, but now that I have developed from that immature 17 year old kid into a, well, immature much older "kid" (in my heart anyway), I really like the Isles of that era.
Speaking of which, someone who perhaps could be mentioned on that underrated thread is John Tonelli. I've talked about him a bit before. Ahhh, the "Porcupine" (Edit - no record of that officially being his nickname, but for some reason which I can't recall now, my buddies and I called him that). One of my favorite hockey players ever. Oh well, back to my much older Tonelli-less world. Busy, busy today. |
Edited by - andyhack on 01/19/2008 06:55:41 |
|
|
|
andyhack
PickupHockey Pro
Japan
891 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2008 : 15:43:33
|
In my very humble opinion, we've already corrected two big errors on the Hockey News List! Nice to see Guy and Bryan getting their due respect.
By the way, on the last nomination I gave Bossy the slight edge over the other, yet to be mentioned, Isles guy. But, to Flyguy's (and maybe Willus's) discontent, I'm seriously thinking about nominating Mr. Denis Potvin awfully soon.
Willus - I'm thinking about your comment on him as I watch clips etc. I understand what you're saying, but I don't know, he was still pretty awesome despite some of his flaws. As you may know, I'm a huge Ray fan, but Ray messed up with pinching every now and then too. Overall I find those two guys extremely close.
Edit - note the comments from Clarke and Billy Smith towards the end of the feature below
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5APhd8otV4
I ended up going with Bossy just because, like Gretzky, his offensive talent was so special |
Edited by - andyhack on 01/29/2008 15:55:14 |
|
|
|
willus3
Moderator
Canada
1948 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2008 : 16:02:57
|
Potvin was awesome Andy, there's little doubt there. I feel Bourque did as much with less though. No he didn't win 4 cups but he was as good or better with a lesser team. Just look at our list so far. Trottier has already placed and Bossy will soon. You won't see any of Bourque's Boston teammates for awhile yet. Agreed on Bourque getting caught pinching too. Anyone who pinches will get caught. It just seemed to me that Potvin's desire to score goals also cost his team a few. He set the goal for himself to score 20 goals a season for at least 10 years. So he was focused on that.
It could be seen as nitpicking but something has to help a guy decide.
"Curiosity killed the cat but for awhile, I was the suspect."
-- Steven Wright |
|
|
|
Beans15
Moderator
Canada
8286 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2008 : 16:34:48
|
Good Point Willus. The only two Bruins that Bourque played with that I can see making the list Neely and Oates. I also think Oates is an outside, boardline guy. However, Potvin will have Tottier, Bossy, and maybe Gillis and Goring. Did he play with Park?? Park should make the list two.
I like Bourque for the top 10, but I think Espo needs to be there first. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
PickUp Top 50 Since 1967 Comments 
