If only he could have kept his head up.That list reminds me that Lindros was great for more than one season... Probably one of my favourite players in his prime with both skill and power..
Hockey Randomness
-
- Posts: 15446
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 3:13 pm
- Location: dodint is a millennial
Hockey Randomness
Hockey Randomness
Yeah, I know he was a Flyer but still. How many players in the history have been more dominant/ have had a better peak? Lemieux, but how many more? (Now mikey will come and hit me in the head with a stick)If only he could have kept his head up.That list reminds me that Lindros was great for more than one season... Probably one of my favourite players in his prime with both skill and power..
-
- Posts: 30609
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:53 am
- Location: I have four degrees and am a moron. Don’t let that fool you
Hockey Randomness
You know what record Lindros has that will never get beat?
Number of on-ice naps taken.
I’ll never not make that joke when his name comes up.
Number of on-ice naps taken.
I’ll never not make that joke when his name comes up.
-
- Posts: 42660
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
- Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
- Contact:
Hockey Randomness
Lindros's peak is so strong, that even in his injury riddled, short career, I still consider him a top 100 player of all time and a HOFer...those are tough asks out of me...his peak is absurd, though for sure...
-
- Posts: 60950
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Hockey Randomness
I'd agree with this.Lindros's peak is so strong, that even in his injury riddled, short career, I still consider him a top 100 player of all time and a HOFer...those are tough asks out of me...his peak is absurd, though for sure...
-
- Posts: 42660
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
- Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
- Contact:
Hockey Randomness
I give major points for changing the game too...after Lindros got drafted, there was a stretch for the decade (ending with Hugh Jessiman) of teams trying to draft the next Lindros (with a fatal flaw) and the next guy that could stop him...
-
- Posts: 60950
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Hockey Randomness
Source of the post the next guy that could stop him...
-
- Posts: 30609
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:53 am
- Location: I have four degrees and am a moron. Don’t let that fool you
Hockey Randomness
Straight into my veins.Source of the post the next guy that could stop him...
-
- Posts: 19041
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
- Location: people notice my car when its shined up
Hockey Randomness
With even an ounce of charisma and less eggs scrambled, 88 would probably be the most fun player to have on your favorite team...ever?
-
- Posts: 42660
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
- Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
- Contact:
Hockey Randomness
Too tough of a prompt to crack open...
-
- Posts: 19775
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
- Location: Iodine State
Hockey Randomness
Man, Peter Jackson needs to work his magic on that clip and get that to 60fps 4K. Glorious.Straight into my veins.Source of the post the next guy that could stop him...
-
- Posts: 60950
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Hockey Randomness
NSFW (music):
Kaspy will always be one of my favorites.
Kaspy will always be one of my favorites.
-
- Posts: 19775
- Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2015 7:33 pm
- Location: Iodine State
Hockey Randomness
He's now a realtor in Miami, fwiw.
-
- Posts: 28178
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 12:12 pm
- Location: Methuselah Honeysuckle
Hockey Randomness
I certainly didn’t wake up this morning expecting to read a Hugh Jessiman name drop.
-
- Posts: 15446
- Joined: Fri May 22, 2015 3:13 pm
- Location: dodint is a millennial
Hockey Randomness
I'm just happy the Pens were lucky enough to draft #101Lindros's peak is so strong, that even in his injury riddled, short career, I still consider him a top 100 player of all time and a HOFer...those are tough asks out of me...his peak is absurd, though for sure...
-
- Posts: 30609
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 8:53 am
- Location: I have four degrees and am a moron. Don’t let that fool you
Hockey Randomness
What an animal. I still say the reason he blew so many guys up was because he didn’t look like he was going to have enough leverage to smear you. If he didn’t low bridge you, he came at you almost straight up and down. Not a lot of leg bend. Not a lot of hip bend. Still laid the wood to yaNSFW (music):
Kaspy will always be one of my favorites.
-
- Posts: 60950
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2015 2:00 pm
- Location: FUCΚ! Even in the future nothing works.
Hockey Randomness
I feel the same way. Half of his hits start out looking like it'll just be a nudge, then he follows through and the other guy is just blown the **** up.What an animal. I still say the reason he blew so many guys up was because he didn’t look like he was going to have enough leverage to smear you. If he didn’t low bridge you, he came at you almost straight up and down. Not a lot of leg bend. Not a lot of hip bend. Still laid the wood to yaNSFW (music):
Kaspy will always be one of my favorites.
Hockey Randomness
Love those hip checks.
-
- Posts: 19041
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
- Location: people notice my car when its shined up
Hockey Randomness
I want to arrive at a common conclusion on this, so I’ll change the angle a little.
Gretzky as best goal scorer ever...make the argument that a guy who fell out of the top 10 before he was 30 is the greatest all time. I’m not talking about greatest overall. I’m talking about scoring in particular.
If you tell me it’s because of his injury and not because unscreened slappers and soft on-ice passes into the net didnt jive with modern goaltending, then I need to hear more. It’s not convincing that he could still be an elite overall player and set up man but just couldn’t score like he used to because of a back injury (which a certain guy we know didn’t seem to struggle with so severely).
Gretzky as best goal scorer ever...make the argument that a guy who fell out of the top 10 before he was 30 is the greatest all time. I’m not talking about greatest overall. I’m talking about scoring in particular.
If you tell me it’s because of his injury and not because unscreened slappers and soft on-ice passes into the net didnt jive with modern goaltending, then I need to hear more. It’s not convincing that he could still be an elite overall player and set up man but just couldn’t score like he used to because of a back injury (which a certain guy we know didn’t seem to struggle with so severely).
-
- Posts: 42660
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
- Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
- Contact:
Hockey Randomness
I don't have Gretzky as the best pure goal scorer ever because I'm not a donkey that just counts totals and goes, "see, he's the GOAT"...
For me, the best goal scorer of all time is Mario Lemieux (which, if you didn't know me, you'd assume is just Pens board bias, but we know that I'm not that I'd hope)...the different ways that Mario could score, his variety of strong shots, his finishing moves in close, the reach, all of it makes him the best I've ever seen. I think Bobby Hull and Alexander Ovechkin are in that conversation. I think Bossy and Gretzky and Howe are probably in the next tier there. Richard might be in either of those two tiers I'd say...then you start to get down towards Esposito, maybe Hull Jr. etc.
I'm not sure if I'm answering your prompt or even if there is one...if the question about Gretzky's goal scoring prowess sliding as he got older and how it was relative to the league, there's certainly a case. In my estimation, the NHL was at a very weak point in the early 80's for various reasons, reasons that I believe I have gone over before, but you've been away (and don't remember every single word I say...probably), so I can go down that road as needed...Gretzky took full advantage of it (as did several also-rans)...Gretzky as a pure scorer gave us one last taste in the 1997 playoffs, which is as close to "vintage" Gretzky as we had seen since 1993...he had a terrific postseason before the Rangers turned into a pumpkin at the hands of the Legion of Doom...
For me, the best goal scorer of all time is Mario Lemieux (which, if you didn't know me, you'd assume is just Pens board bias, but we know that I'm not that I'd hope)...the different ways that Mario could score, his variety of strong shots, his finishing moves in close, the reach, all of it makes him the best I've ever seen. I think Bobby Hull and Alexander Ovechkin are in that conversation. I think Bossy and Gretzky and Howe are probably in the next tier there. Richard might be in either of those two tiers I'd say...then you start to get down towards Esposito, maybe Hull Jr. etc.
I'm not sure if I'm answering your prompt or even if there is one...if the question about Gretzky's goal scoring prowess sliding as he got older and how it was relative to the league, there's certainly a case. In my estimation, the NHL was at a very weak point in the early 80's for various reasons, reasons that I believe I have gone over before, but you've been away (and don't remember every single word I say...probably), so I can go down that road as needed...Gretzky took full advantage of it (as did several also-rans)...Gretzky as a pure scorer gave us one last taste in the 1997 playoffs, which is as close to "vintage" Gretzky as we had seen since 1993...he had a terrific postseason before the Rangers turned into a pumpkin at the hands of the Legion of Doom...
-
- Posts: 19041
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
- Location: people notice my car when its shined up
Hockey Randomness
well this was not as controversial of a take as I thought.
i don't think we can have the discussion about why he's simply not the greatest player of all time (i've come to realize it's Mario, pending what McDavid does leadership-wise) because there's no way to to a point-by-point analysis with someone closer to the history. but I would, however, like to tamp down the argument that because the gap between him and #2 was so large, that this somehow proves anything. he was also #1 in goals by an insane margin, and we agree that doesn't tell the story. shouldn't with assists either. immature systems lead to statistical chaos. early 80's NHL was still in flux - considerably more than the fairly static game we see this century. and 99 found the cheat code. why didn't other guys? dunno...but that's a different discussion.
he did. he benefited from learning how to exploit holes that existed in the 80's that don't exist now. particularly with goal scoring.Gretzky took full advantage of it
i don't think we can have the discussion about why he's simply not the greatest player of all time (i've come to realize it's Mario, pending what McDavid does leadership-wise) because there's no way to to a point-by-point analysis with someone closer to the history. but I would, however, like to tamp down the argument that because the gap between him and #2 was so large, that this somehow proves anything. he was also #1 in goals by an insane margin, and we agree that doesn't tell the story. shouldn't with assists either. immature systems lead to statistical chaos. early 80's NHL was still in flux - considerably more than the fairly static game we see this century. and 99 found the cheat code. why didn't other guys? dunno...but that's a different discussion.
-
- Posts: 42660
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
- Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
- Contact:
Hockey Randomness
Was Mario Lemieux the most technically skilled player of all time? I'd probably back that. Aliens vs us to save the planet, 1v1. I tap Lemieux over Gretzky. Gretzky had the better career, and it's not particularly close either for me.
Factoring in a blend of player and career, as I like to do...
1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Howe
4. Lemieux
[break]
others...
----------------
Other guys did take advantage of the cheat code of the early 80's, just like folks took advantage of WWII years.
Perhaps Maruk just practiced really hard in 1981 and 1982? https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... kde01.html
Perhaps Rogers did too? https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... rmi01.html
It also extended the careers of older players because the league was so weak...look no further than >0.5 ppg player playing into his 50's (!): https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... ego01.html
We saw similar dominance from legitimately talented players during WWII...
Maurice Richard never got back to his career highs that he set in his second season: https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... ama01.html - even though the league added 20 (!) additional games to the docket during his career...a 40% increase in games, but only got as high as 86% of his career high after the War years...
But other guys just got really, really good for a really really short amount of the exact same time by coincidence... https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... nhe01.html ; https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... hcl01.html ; https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... rlo01.html
I didn't intentionally not address anything...
Factoring in a blend of player and career, as I like to do...
1. Gretzky
2. Orr
3. Howe
4. Lemieux
[break]
others...
----------------
Other guys did take advantage of the cheat code of the early 80's, just like folks took advantage of WWII years.
Perhaps Maruk just practiced really hard in 1981 and 1982? https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... kde01.html
Perhaps Rogers did too? https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... rmi01.html
It also extended the careers of older players because the league was so weak...look no further than >0.5 ppg player playing into his 50's (!): https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... ego01.html
We saw similar dominance from legitimately talented players during WWII...
Maurice Richard never got back to his career highs that he set in his second season: https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... ama01.html - even though the league added 20 (!) additional games to the docket during his career...a 40% increase in games, but only got as high as 86% of his career high after the War years...
But other guys just got really, really good for a really really short amount of the exact same time by coincidence... https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... nhe01.html ; https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... hcl01.html ; https://www.hockey-reference.com/player ... rlo01.html
I didn't intentionally not address anything...
-
- Posts: 19041
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 2:37 pm
- Location: people notice my car when its shined up
Hockey Randomness
i don't like this phrasing. too many outside variables impact your career, independent of your ability. but i guess it's not helpful for me to be more abstract and just say "best". maybe that's really the issue. 99 had the best career but 66 was more skilled but howe did it for longer but orr was more of a pioneer but mcdavid has the most raw ability...and so forth.Gretzky had the better career, and it's not particularly close either for me.
...and i'm not married to the "raw ability" thing for mcdavid. i have a hard time describing what his quality is. but he's an alien. like completely inhuman in confusing ways. bure was a little bit like this, i think, but it's just not the same. he's the biggest freak ever to wear skates. he's #1 pick in a pick up game.
but anyway, the game is complicated and there are more ways to be "good" than in any other sport, i think. so regardless of the ickiness of comparing across eras, maybe this is too tough a task to figure out "best".
-
- Posts: 42660
- Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 10:58 pm
- Location: More of a before-rehab friend...
- Contact:
Hockey Randomness
Yeah, I use "best" as, like I said, a blend of career and ability as best I can...
As such, I don't have Mike Gartner as a top 100 or 150 or 200 player of all time for instance...while Henri Richard is easily top 100, maybe even top 50...
It's tough, but not impossible to compare across eras...just need to understand the relative quality of the eras and then the dominance/impact of the players in question...it's a process for sure...but it's doable, speaking from years of experience...
As such, I don't have Mike Gartner as a top 100 or 150 or 200 player of all time for instance...while Henri Richard is easily top 100, maybe even top 50...
It's tough, but not impossible to compare across eras...just need to understand the relative quality of the eras and then the dominance/impact of the players in question...it's a process for sure...but it's doable, speaking from years of experience...
Hockey Randomness
For one game you pick Lemieux. As a franchise player you pick one of the other three on mikey 's list.
It is a bit like choosing between Lindros and Yzerman.
It is a bit like choosing between Lindros and Yzerman.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests