Neutrinos
Registered User
- Sep 23, 2016
- 8,946
- 3,848
Just curious, were you part of Canada's management team responsible for selecting the roster for the '98 Olympics?
HOH Top-200 Players of All-Time Voting Results & Aggregate List
- Thread starter seventieslord
- Start date
-
Work is still on-going to rebuild the site styling and features. Please report any issues you may experience so we can look into it. Click Here for Updates
Just curious, were you part of Canada's management team responsible for selecting the roster for the '98 Olympics?
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,147
- 18,120
You should probably care about the substance of your comments before attacking the form of other posters' comments, because at this juncture, you're basically sending the signal that you need a hug. Badly.
You also joined these boards a little more than 6 years ago. You could've joined this project.
I can't speak for anyone spcifically in this project, but I'm pretty certain none of us were super happy to rank McDavid where we did. Taking @Batis as an example, I'm quite certain he thinks McDavid, in absolute terms (that means peak), is a better player than Mike Modano. But then things like achievements, years of active pro careers have to be considered, and boom, McDavid ends up being ranked in a spot that feels a bit random.
Last edited:
Professor What
Registered User
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
There was no chance of a "right" answer for McDavid at the time of that project (or now, for that matter)...if that's the alleged smoking gun, we're gonna need some better detectives...
There's definitely elements where people could make some valid challenges, no question...being hung up on Connor McDavid in this context is spinning your wheels, in my eyes...
There's definitely elements where people could make some valid challenges, no question...being hung up on Connor McDavid in this context is spinning your wheels, in my eyes...
His era had a very shallow talent pool. Barely anyone even played sports back then. That is the key difference.
Dr John Carlson
Registered User
MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 52,147
- 18,120
Even less people were doing algaebra in Archimedes' time.
Professor What
Registered User
You act as though no one knows that there's a difference in talent pools. If no one knew that, I promise you that Morenz and Eddie Shore would be higher than 11th and 14th because of how dominant they were. It also explains why someone like Frank Nighbor is only 20th. There's a lot more to being a great player than putting them all in a time machine and putting them all on the ice at the same time. This kind of comment ignores that.
Players that paved the way for others should be recognized for that. Players that dominated their era should be recognized for that. There's a good faith effort in these projects to take all factors into account. You act as though the people who participated in the projects, researched, and poured time into are either stupid or ran with preconceived notions. Guess what? That's not how it is.
Did the full moon show up early or something?
You don't see the difference? Archimedes actually discovered and invented stuff and was even close to discovering calculus. If anything he had even less he could work with which made it even more difficult. You reading modern math concepts in a textbook doesn't make you smarter than him and you know your analogy makes no sense.
The Fastest Game in the World has some data on the growth of the sport. There is no information for every era but the game really only took off in the 50s. You realize even many Americans lived like this back then
you think people were concerned with training sports? Most were just trying to survive. Post-WW2 explosion in wealth and entertainment and eventually TV broadcasting made sports what they are today.
Morenz was so dominant that in the year he scored the most goals there were two other dudes who scored even more. He was so dominant he scored 13 goals in the 39 play off games he played. He was so dominant he scored 26 goals in the last 4 years of his career.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Is having these sorts of "debates" (if you could even call them that) really any fun for you?
Do you enjoy the time you spend yelling down the grand canyon how overrated you feel hockey players from the pre-expansion era are?
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Not surprised you don't quite understand the nuance of the metaphor
Love the bolded, compare hockey equipment, training, nutrition, sports medicine etc from the 1930s to now....
Professor What
Registered User
Okay, so scoring rates never change. You realize that argument has no substance, right?
And a guy during a time that had shorter career spans lacked longevity? That holds about the same amount of substance.
I don't know why I'm still posting about this. It's entirely pointless to do so.
I am not even saying that Crosby would be better had you brought him at 20 using time machine or whatnot. I am saying these guys would likely barely even make the league had you time-machined them at conception and given them all the modern equipment, training and nutrition.
ResilientBeast
Proud Member of the TTSAOA
Yikes, then why bother posting here.
Overrated's "The History of Hockey from 1980-Present"
I'd say 1945-Present. O6 players are somewhat overrated too but they at least played in a somewhat competitive era, especially post 1955 or so. By then NHL was even on TV and there was a boom in the realm of the sport and the small 6 team league also made it better.
Yikes, then why bother posting here.
Overrated's "The History of Hockey from 1980-Present"
Yozhik v tumane
Registered User
- Jan 2, 2019
- 2,069
- 2,240
@Neutrinos If you go back to the discussion pages, you’ll find that McDavid’s status was discussed quite a bit. Some thought it’s too soon trying to rank his very young, still active career, and others thought he had enough of a resume to place him well into the top 100. The best this exercise would have been able to do was to place him #101, which just seems unsatisfactory for everyone, for lack of a better word… he was a bit of a problem for this particular project and one participants tackled in a myriad of ways for whatever their reasons, but it’s not as if people were actively trying to disrespect the best player in the game, or couldn’t grasp his greatness, but rather that making a fair comparison of such a young career to players whose legacies more or less complete posed its fair share of difficulties. You mentioned his 9 playoff points in four games: I can’t think of any other all-time great where them once posting two+ points per game in a weird gong show his side lost against a team which probably wasn’t making the playoffs under normal circumstances would have been considered their great signature playoff run, or very indicative of the playoff performer he was (to no fault of McDavid’s, mind you: he added plenty to his playoff resume last spring)… There’s just — rightly or wrongly — a lot of stuff making such a short, still active career tough to handle in these sorts of exercises, where some will feel and indeed felt that McDavid will get his due time but wanted to wait and get more meat on the bone.
It’s fine that you object to how the project eventually handled McDavid, I myself find it something of an eyesore where he eventually ended up, but in the grand scheme of things he was just a very young star with a big fat asterisk denoting “active” when the project was done, and I hope we can forgive everyone for how they handled that particular toughie at that point in time.
I’d rather finally see your post-1945 list of players than continue hearing your incessant whining about other posters’ biases.
It’s fine that you object to how the project eventually handled McDavid, I myself find it something of an eyesore where he eventually ended up, but in the grand scheme of things he was just a very young star with a big fat asterisk denoting “active” when the project was done, and I hope we can forgive everyone for how they handled that particular toughie at that point in time.
I’d rather finally see your post-1945 list of players than continue hearing your incessant whining about other posters’ biases.
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,691
- 5,210
Great point. Sports are a modern invention, after all. Didn't they only invent running and jumping in 1940 or something?
Wait? Is this another "human beings have evolved in the past few generations to a significant degree" argument on the history board again?
[MOD]
Last edited by a moderator:
seventieslord
Student Of The Game
Well, this isn't what I expected this thread to turn into, but I did hope that it was seen and engaged with, so, good, i guess?
Neutrinos
Registered User
- Sep 23, 2016
- 8,946
- 3,848
As someone who's here to talk hockey, it's pretty disappointing to see so many posters taking personal jabs at other members, and collecting cheap "Likes" through needlessly snarky comments
Quite frankly, it's enough to make someone need a hug. Badly.
I didn't say that at all. Is it really what you got out of it? Crosby was the best player out of a player base of around 1.5 million. Guys in the 1920s were the best out of a player base of just a couple thousand people. So no I am not saying what you are strawmanning me as saying.
Michael Farkas
Celebrate 68
The whole greater population = more talent could be a thing, in theory, but in practice...meh...not convinced...talent, elite talent clusters randomly...environmental factors involved as well...
Mick Jagger born July 1943
John Lennon born October 1940
Paul McCartney born June 1942
Keith Richards born December 1943
Eric Burdon born May 1941
et cetera...
UK's population is up some 40% since that time and they haven't produced a God damn thing after 1978 except for Radiohead and, for a moment, Amy Winehouse...why is this? Isn't there more talent?
The popularity of sport and leisure time is certainly a piece. Women in the workforce during WWII showing that they're every bit as capable as men allowed men more leisure time for games. I think it's fair to say that there's a significant step forward in hockey and football in the 1950s and 1960s...
I'm someone who probably rates pre-1950 hockey lower than a lot of the regulars here based on what I see and read...I try to make that adjustment with some degree of rationale. I think you're probably too extreme (I don't think every American in 1938 lived in some decrepit Hooverville like you depicted upthread) and not studious enough to make some of these wild allegations with the broadest brush strokes imaginable...it distracts from what otherwise might have been some useful grounding, backed by actual research...which goes pretty far with this group, even if it challenges some widely held beliefs...
In one of the projects, I made some pretty serious takedown attempts on Eddie Shore and Maurice Richard...it moved the needle overall, it moved the needle for some, others rejected it and said, "that's crazy because..." but it was good conversation, it led to more research, we didn't just sweep Shore and Richard into the top 10 (or whatever) like we had done in prior years (maybe)...there was real discussion, real scrutiny. I didn't say that "Eddie Shore played before they invented fire, and therefore he should be discarded" - that would have been met with the sound of an exit door opening, and rightfully so...
Hockey Outsider
Registered User
- Jan 16, 2005
- 9,593
- 16,253
Exactly I am making more of a point regarding the amount of people playing the sport rather than the overall size of the population.
England's population might have grown but has the amount of kids playing instruments grown? That would be a question to ask. Art is also dependent on culture and there are likely many reasons I am not aware of. Why were the majority of great musicians of the 17th 18th and 19th centuries almost entirely from Germany and Italy? Why was there a sudden shift in the 20th century when almost no great music came from Germany and instead it was the US and the UK? Sport is more rigid and objective than art and thus it's easier to draw conclusions based on the size of the talent pool.
Come on I said some Americans still lived like that or in other similarly poor conditions. It was a minority of course but it was to illustrate a point. When I look at videos from American ghettos like Compton I can confidently say I grew up much poorer than that. Not to say that everyone in North America has equal opportunities, far from that, but even a "poor" black kid can probably put a lot of effort into playing basketball and whatnot unlike most people 100 years ago when it was still normal for children to even work. My great-grandmother's mom died when she was around 11 years old and that was it. She had to quit elementary school to become a homemaker as her dad worked around the clock shifts. There were no benefits to take care of the predicament. Life was incredibly harsh back then. Kids spending their whole childhood skating around playing hockey was not a common thing in the 1910s/20s, not even in North America.
You seem to be the only one who has at least given me the benefit of the doubt. Thanks for that!
BraveCanadian
Registered User
- Jun 30, 2010
- 15,691
- 5,210
Yes, you literally did say that. I quoted it.
This is where your talent pool argument falls apart, too.
Western populations are bigger, but older, and playing less hockey than in the past.
Latest posts
-
-
-
F William Horcoff - Little Ceasers, U15 AAA (2025 Draft)- Latest: Hockeyville USA
-
-
