I figured you like going down these rabbit holes, so I was basically wondering 'who faced tougher opponents and goalies' between the two. There's no endgame here for me, it was just to continue the discussion. I'm biased and will always choose Crosby over McDavid, and am not afraid to admit that I prefer McDavid always coming up short.In what context, ntp...?
Hmm, I'm not sure I have a great answer for that...it's just too large of a gap of time to cover really. The schedule probably evened out over that large swath of time.I figured you like going down these rabbit holes, so I was basically wondering 'who faced tougher opponents and goalies' between the two. There's no endgame here for me, it was just to continue the discussion. I'm biased and will always choose Crosby over McDavid, and am not afraid to admit that I prefer McDavid always coming up short.In what context, ntp...?
First, defensemen almost never win Harts, that's not on Lidstrom. That's just the structure of things...How good is Crosby on all time great list?
But he should be the best player since 2000 and perhaps no better player has entered the league since Jagr? Lidström has 7 Norris but no Hart, Lindros got destroyed...
I'm going to take your tale for what it's meaning as opposed to the fairy tale of it...let's say me and my buddy invented a sport where you throw a giant baseball into a basketball hoop on your driveway. we're the only ones who know about it, so we're de facto the best in the world at it. then we invite our tiny mailman friend over and he becomes the 3rd best player in the world at it.
then gradually over time more people start playing, but it's still not televised. so the little mailman still has a bit of an inside track to be part of "the league".
then it's televised regionally and gaining traction. not only is the little mailman being marginalized, but me and my buddy can barely even hang with these new players.
and whoa...now it's on TV, world wide. millions more players are playing, yes, but new strategies are also being developed...the game now relies more and more on athleticism...there's no singularly dominant player like i was 20 years ago when i invented it. statistics have plateaued. now i'm sort of a generic schlub, at best.
...but because i was in the game early when it was less physical, my career lasted twice as long as everyone who plays now and because i was able to dominate before the game became popular, my stats are outrageous. so therefore I am the best player of all time, even though I basically completely suck now.
_____________________________________________
1) Baseketball is still a great movie
2) **** Howe and all the old timers who capitalized on an immature system to claim a place in history that isn't going to be earned once it's all said and done
...sort of kidding on #2, but also not kidding
Again, the opposite was true. A lost skill to the short shift game and expanded rosters is shift management. If you played like your hair was on fire, it was a negative, the game was more calculated...some guys made it work with that style: Lindsay, M.Richard, even Eddie Shack...but guys that were responsible like Beliveau had to realize who they were out against, where they were at in their shift, where you were at in your shift, etc. and make sure that you're remaining within the team concept and within your own abilities...my comment was very tongue-in-cheek, but thanks for playing along. the "physical" thing was stated poorly though. it's not a matter of physicality, it's a matter of conditioning required to play today vs pre-90's for example. there was wild variation in how players took care of themselves which led to more statistical anomalies in scoring. immature systems n'at.
i also don't think "relative to your peers" means what you want it to mean. no one's been able to outscore the #2 guy by 80 points since the 80's. what do you think that indicates? just pure dominance? like...you think it could happen today, it's just we haven't seen the rebirth of 99 yet? that you have McDavid getting 130, but there's some guy out there who could put up 210? toss that aside. it doesn't mean anything. not because it isn't impressive, but because it's so incredibly inapplicable to today.
the earlier you played, the bigger advantage you had in standing out. and i think that advantage still SIGNIFICANTLY existed in the 80's. certainly in Howe's eras. these days, things are streamlined. bell curves flattened out everywhere. you even see a guy like McDavid being outscored by his inferior teammate, it's so muddy.
maybe everything you're saying is right. i don't think you have the right models, though. and i think you heavily discount how shitty goalies were before the 90's. we talk about it a lot, i know. but that's only because it's a complete joke.
Most of the "smoking during intermissions" stories happen in the shorter shift games. Players weren't playing as much. There is a disproportionate amount of those stories as the players played less, closer to today. Games were played at a pretty consistent pace from the 1920's to the end of the sponsorship era (late 70's, early 80's). The Flyers probably deserve a lot of "credit" for the short shift game that we have today. Fred Shero, Mike Keenan.were there guys smoking during intermission who were playing 60 minute games? trying to get an impression of what that argument means. like they were out there playing the whole game at a steady, relatively fast pace? or is it another anachronism with no bearing to today like "relative to peers", which doesn't make sense to submit into evidence.
the peer thing is disqualifying if it's about ranking across eras. if it's literally impossible in every way for someone to get 40% more points than the #2 guy, merely because of the dynamics of the league, then it's not an argument in Gretzky's favor. it tells me he was amazing. it doesn't tell me what he is vs mcdavid, however.
but whatever. the point-by-point thing is going nowhere. not because of your game film exposure. there's a philosophical issue with the quality of data. i don't think you're saying anything crazy of course.
the point of bringing it up is this - 99 will always be considered the best, even if he's not. it's really the most boring thing in the world that the hockey community will never give any oxygen to any challenger - despite any evidence that will come up. the NBA community moved on from Wilt. they know his era screwed up his stats and that the league wasn't evolved. so they look past the gaudy numbers and find better measurements. you're finding other measurements, but they aren't stacking up against your case for 99 - which I obviously find much flimsier than you.
and i'm not here to dump on those old eras. this is about who's the best. before my time on earth is up, i'd like to see someone other than the same top 4, but it ain't happening. and it's an inevitability, which is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Wrong. 100% disagree. I take it extremely seriously and am a part of communities that do this, and works are published because they are superior to anything mainstream. It's as pointless as anything else that's done in life, sure. I find it to be more important than my 9 to 5 job and exert more effort into it because fewer people can operate like I do in this space than in my job space...I enjoy the historical comparisons including making top 10 lists but only if we agree that ultimately that it’s all pointless and to not invest too much time analyzing
Subjective is positive in the right hands. Just like you want John Elway subjectively to select the best QB in the draft, just like you want Ron Hextall to subjectively draft the best d-man next draft...if you sort by yards or points, you'll just lose, almost every time. Subjective isn't a dirty word. You don't want some quantitative list because it's that list that becomes impossible to crack or as shmenguin said "zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz".There are too many variables and even if you isolate the variables people will have their own subjective takes on an unquantitative _why_. Also people refuse to admit that they’re biased towards players that they grew up watching/idolizing. I don’t think it’s as but if a problem in hockey but older people refuse to acknowledge Lebron, for example, as being in the same sentence as Jordan
Lebron is best at basketball. Jordan is the best basketball player.Jordan vs Lebron is probably closer than I care to admit.
*chef's kiss*Lebron is best at basketball. Jordan is the best basketball player.Jordan vs Lebron is probably closer than I care to admit.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests
