Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

A record is a record


smokes

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Toews said:

And that wasn't there is the 90s? If scoring goals in the 80s was so difficult, it would not have been so high.

No I didn't watch hockey in the 80s but there is video footage available of the games back then. And it was very much firewagon hockey. The goaltenders back then we're absolutely terrible and there was no semblance of a proper system on defense. It was a much more entertaining game than what I grew up with.

I take it you might have become a fan in the 80s and you probably choose to look upon that era more fondly than younger fans. But you need to accept the facts about the game back then. Just like I accept the fact that I grew up in an era were the quality of hockey was downright awful.

When I started watching hockey, it was the peak of the dead puck era where teams clogged up the neural zone and stifled offense. Any player who played his prime in that era suffered statiscally. Do you dispute my assertion that a player like Forsberg would have put up god like numbers in the 80s?

I would not dispute that Sakic, Forsberg, Federov, or Bure would do well in the 80's, My thing is this, I don't believe the 80's players truly are getting the repect they deserve. Playing in today's NHL, I would still take Gretzky in his prime over the likes of Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews and absolutely Kane.

 My point is just that even in an era where scoring was easier, the fact that 35 is just as impressive as 51 is preposterous. 35 is amazing and without a doubt impressive but equal? When I started watching hockey, there was no "just as impressive" comparison. The 80's played a different style than the Howe era. But the Howe era was repected so as to say a record is the record. It's either beaten or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, smokes said:

I would not dispute that Sakic, Forsberg, Federov, or Bure would do well in the 80's, My thing is this, I don't believe the 80's players truly are getting the repect they deserve. Playing in today's NHL, I would still take Gretzky in his prime over the likes of Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews and absolutely Kane.

 My point is just that even in an era where scoring was easier, the fact that 35 is just as impressive as 51 is preposterous. 35 is amazing and without a doubt impressive but equal? When I started watching hockey, there was no "just as impressive" comparison. The 80's played a different style than the Howe era. But the Howe era was repected so as to say a record is the record. It's either beaten or not. 

The "just as impressive" comparisons have started because we will never see scoring hit the level that it did in those eras. So we have to give the newer younger generation of hockey players a chance at bring recognized for their accomplishments. Even if a player better than Gretzky came along in the future, that player doesn't touch 200. So that does that mean he will be deemed an inferior player because he was unlucky enough to play in a worse era when it comes to scoring.

The unfortunate part is that those records will never be broken without serious alterations to the sport which I doubt we will ever see. And so yes we will have to resort to these "just as impressive" comparisons. It is only fair way to allow future generations a chance at greatness. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See I can accept the term modern era, or post lock out if this generation needs to feel like they accomplished something but the "Just as impressive" absolutely doesn't fly in my book. I do see that players nowadays are inferior to the players of old, that's why I said I "Playing in today's NHL, I would still take Gretzky in his prime over the likes of Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews and absolutely Kane." The players nowadays have better equipment, are more skilles, stronger physically but not as nasty or willing to pay the price like the players in the past. If a player can shoot the puck at over 100mph on average can't score as much as a guy in the 80's who can shoot 70 at best then shouldn't those players get some credit. You can't really say that there are better goalies in this era either cause how many modern goalies have beaten Roy's records.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, smokes said:

See I can accept the term modern era, or post lock out if this generation needs to feel like they accomplished something but the "Just as impressive" absolutely doesn't fly in my book. I do see that players nowadays are inferior to the players of old, that's why I said I "Playing in today's NHL, I would still take Gretzky in his prime over the likes of Crosby, Ovechkin, Toews and absolutely Kane." The players nowadays have better equipment, are more skilles, stronger physically but not as nasty or willing to pay the price like the players in the past. If a player can shoot the puck at over 100mph on average can't score as much as a guy in the 80's who can shoot 70 at best then shouldn't those players get some credit. You can't really say that there are better goalies in this era either cause how many modern goalies have beaten Roy's records.

What exactly do you mean by the players are inferior? Are you saying all players today are inferior by default just because of the era they play in? What do you mean that players don't pay the price? Is it because there are lesser cheapshots in this era? What if someone were to argue that Gordie Howe or Maurice Richard is better than Gretzky based purely on the era that he played in and Wayne had his goonman hit squad ready to elbow or crosscheck anyone in the face for looking at him funny. So is Howe or Richard better because they paid more of a price than Gretzky? Just a few days ago Crosby got crosschecked to the back of the neck. Do you think Wayne ever got that treatment without McSorely taking the perpetrators head off? I could argue Croaby paid more of a price for all the head shots and hard hits he has taken over the years.

By the way the numbers still favor Gretzky. We did this exercise when Ovechkin was putting up massive goal totals and it still doesn't compare to Wayne's totals. The number crunching is rather simple, you find out the GF/game in that year and compare it to this year and then extrapolate that to goal totals. It is a fair unbiased comparison. 

What you are saying is that no matter what a player accomplishes today, he will never compare to a player from back then because he plays in an era that is stylistically different from back then. No offense but that to me is a terrible argument. We might as well never compare any players from different eras again. And if we cannot make fair unbiased comparisons between players from different eras then we cannot even state that Gretzky was the best player of all time. The only reason we can say that today is because even if you crunch up the numbers, he still comes out on top. The hope is that one day we will get a player that can rival those totals and the only way to do that is if we give them a fair shot at doing so.

Imo you are unnecessarily romanticizing an era. Why should a worse player get more credit for accomplishing what he did back in a high scoring era? Also Roy is a generational talent who changed the way the position is played today. He played most of his career in the dead puck era and the goaltending before his arrival was absolutely terrible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see Crosby as a comparable to an Yzermam, Ovechkin to a Brett Hull but the likes of Gretzky, Mario or Messier. Gretzky was once in a lifetime...So, Yes I consider them inferior players. Howe was second only to Gretzky so yes I consider Howe to be a superior player than anyone after Gretzky. But notice that they come in different eras. Records are made to be broken, no one ever thought that Howe's records were going to be broken but then a generation later someone did. I think there will be someone who will beat the record fairly someday, but the stars of today can't do it much like the stars of the 90's. 

Do you consider the likes of Crosby, Ovechkin, Benn, Karlsson, Price and Lunquist as good as  players to Sakic, Yzerman, Brodeur, Roy? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know what to think at first. Then I realized the article was TSN: home of the "we want ratings more than actual insight" club.

I wouldn't put much thought into this in the end. If anything, it sounds like they're trying to bring hype by over-exaggerating Kane's streak with stupid comparisons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mr.DirtyDangles said:

No way Nichols is a one hit wonder 1127GP 1292 points. Sure Gretz makes guys climb past their ceiling. Gretz didnt get to LA until 88 and Nichols had already  scored 95, 100, 97 81, 78 points in the 5 yrs before he showed up with way less a talent around him.

And he had what, 70 goals and 150 points with Gretz? Nearly 30 goals and a full 50 points more than any other year?

Maybe one hit wonder was too strong, granted. But no question what influence that first year with Gretz had!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Canuck Surfer said:

And he had what, 70 goals and 150 points with Gretz? Nearly 30 goals and a full 50 points more than any other year?

Maybe one hit wonder was too strong, granted. But no question what influence that first year with Gretz had!

While Gretzky helped him, I do think thatt one hit wonder was a little strong. 100 points in a season without Gretzky is nothing to sneeze at.

Gretzky made practically every forward he played with better. Kurri and Anderson's points plummeted after Gretzky left Edmonton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/30/2015, 9:25:05, Shift-4 said:

Yeah, let's tone down Gretzky's record because everyone was doing it at the time.
Might as well put an asterisk next to all of his records because they really aren't a big deal any more.

You cannot miminize how dominant Gretzky was. From the 81/82 season through the 86/87 season he won the scoring race by an average of 73 points. In four of those seasons his assists alone would have won him the scoring race (which is why we used to divide him into goals and assists for pool purposes). Yes the league was higher scoring but he was so much more dominate that anyone else at the time it was staggering. His records are a big deal and always will be, until some day a better player tops them. 

You want to use asteriks? Put them next to career scoring records as more games per year were added. Gordie Howe played much of his career in a 70 game season or less. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, ubcanuck said:

You cannot miminize how dominant Gretzky was. From the 81/82 season through the 86/87 season he won the scoring race by an average of 73 points. In four of those seasons his assists alone would have won him the scoring race (which is why we used to divide him into goals and assists for pool purposes). Yes the league was higher scoring but he was so much more dominate that anyone else at the time it was staggering. His records are a big deal and always will be, until some day a better player tops them. 

You want to use asteriks? Put them next to career scoring records as more games per year were added. Gordie Howe played much of his career in a 70 game season or less. 

Check your sarcasm detector.
You are preaching to the choir. :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...