Gretzky Bros Vs The Hughes Bros

[Legionnaire11]

He played 675 games in the 90s, almost half his career. He was 43rd in goals in that span, 53rd in goals per game (>200gp).

He was obviously still an elite playmaker, but his goal scoring prowess really fell off as the league's pace picked up in the late 80s into the early 90s.

Even from age 26-30 (87-88 to 91-92 seasons) he was 8th in the league in goals, almost 100 goals behind the leader. The prior 5 years? He led the league by 45 goals, 140 ahead of 8th place. That's a crazy dramatic swing that can't be explained by aging - it's a symptom of changing dynamics as more speed and skill flooded the league. Gretzky's style would be far less effective today, though he'd still be an elite offensive player.

Somewhat unrelated, but Mario was far and away the most dominant player of the 90s.

View attachment 972899

Damn Mario.

That Lindros line is nuts, it's crazy how he's viewed around the league, I think a lot of people downplay his abilities simply because they didn't like him as an individual. But if his head wasn't made of playdough, he was well on his way to living up to the hype.

 

[1865]

Probably the worst thread I've ever seen.

Probably the best thread i've ever seen.

 

[Machinehead]

Outside of like, Lemieux and Orr both being inclusions, I don't think there's three players ever that I take over Gretzky.

The Panthers just won the Cup. If you offered me their entire team, I take Gretzky instead.

You people are insane.

People keep saying "it's a team sport." Your team is made up of pieces. If you pass on the single most valuable piece in the history of this sport by a ridiculous distance, I don't trust you to build my team.

 

[Machinehead]

If you just CTRL-X Gretzky's entire prime and take his numbers from LA, STL, and NY, he has the same career PPG as Connor McDavid.

"Well, you see, he dropped off after the 80's"

You f***ing donuts, he was CONNOR MCDAVID after the 80's!!

The worst version of this dude was Connor Mc f***ing David.

 

[blundluntman]

I think part of what makes it hard is that we've been trained that most of these tests are slanted toward pattern recognition. So rather than treat the cards as discrete objects we assume they are all tied together. I would flip the 3 and 8 expecting to see red on the 3 and blue on the 8, thus odd cards are red and blue cards are even. But it very well could be odd, even, odd, odd and technically work just fine because the blue-odd doesn't matter when the question is trying to disprove that even face cards must be blue.

It seems to me the test is less about whether you can do a conditional hypothetical, and more about whether you can stop yourself from starting with a faulty assumption. Of course we do better when it's policing a social rule because we are not pre-programmed to boil it down into a pattern recognition test.

I wonder if younger test subjects would have more success.

I'm also not sure this supports the other posters argument because the conditional in this case is that you don't need to keep Wayne's brothers. If I can literally waive them, then I'm not really comparing Wayne and his brothers to the Hughes brothers. I'm comparing adding Wayne to a team and the difference between him and the player he replaces. To the difference between the guys the Hughes brothers replace. Which although are bottom pairing and fourth line players, are not actually as bad as Wayne's brothers.

As someone whose working memory was too poor to remember the specifics of the question once I worked out the logic part, I'd assume younger subjects would be more likely to not read it properly or forget the details of the question (I may just be trying to cope though)