MXD
Partying Hard
- Oct 27, 2005
- 51,268
- 17,109
that's not the point of my post,
But that was exactly what you said.
that's not the point of my post,
But that was exactly what you said.
When it really mattered Richard exceeded all expectations year in year out post season (and regular).
except that it isn't that's why you used the phrase "in other words" to suggest that I was saying it when I wasn't.
it's pretty clear that his 1.00 GPG is a complete outlier and that his 0.70 GPG was a war year outlier as well.
His 0.75 GPG came in a year when league per team was scrogging up still quite a bit at 190 goals per team (in the new 60 game schedule) but that average would be considerably less as the decade wore on.
Let me be clear on this the original post I was referring back to said this
the truth of the matter is that the rocket wasn't as consistent in the regular season as that post (and many think of him as ) indicated.
So a 14 time all-star (8 1st team, 6 2nd team) wasn't consistent in the regular season?
So a 14 time all-star (8 1st team, 6 2nd team) wasn't consistent in the regular season?
my guess is that there is too much defining of Richard in simplistic terms ie the 50 in 50 and not looking at his resume as a whole (which is still really awesome BTW)
So a 14 time all-star (8 1st team, 6 2nd team) wasn't consistent in the regular season?
Nah, because, you know, that player scored 45 goals en route to a goalscoring lead, as opposed to 31.
Sure he was consistency a post season all star but that says as much about the league, 6 teams, as it does about his being great.
There is no doubt that it is going to be harder and have more possibility for variance in a 30 team league than a 6 year one.
For example missing 7 GP in a 60 game season is like missing 10 games in an 82 game season. It's far more likely that a guy in a 30 team league might miss out on an all star spot missing 10 games than a guy missing 7 of 60 in a 6 team league.
Heck Richard played in 48 of 70 games and got the 2nd team nod in 52, that just wouldn't happen in a 30 team league would it?
We have other examples like Ken Reardon playing in 72,87,97 and 76% of his teams games and getting 4 straight post season all star berths right?
97% one can see that he actually had an impact on his team but those other 3 years really?
If the 06 era was really that good and that competitive one would think that missing that much time would affect a players ability to get that all star berth right?
Maybe something about the 06 era being that great and that competitive really doesn't wash? It sure looks like it sometimes.
Don't forget I have him as a solid guy in my top 5 mix, anywhere from 3rd to 10th can be made when one factors in everything, but the post about consistency came with a sentence right afterwards taking about statistics.
Still riding that dead horse eh?
If you look at the Soviet stats from the Summit Series you will see that Alexander Yakushev led the Soviets in scoring followed by Vladimir Shadrin. Kharlamov made an instant impression in Canada in game one but then slowly came down to earth whereas Yakushev's performance grew as the series progressed.
http://www.1972summitseries.com/sovietroster.html
Also Valeri Kharlamov was the most penalized Soviet player. He gave as good as he got BUT the apologists who want to paint Bobby Clarke as a villain tend to overlook such behavior.
Aleksandr Yakushev is one of the most under-appreciated great players of all-time. He grew stronger as the series went along, as you mentioned. As the intensity ratcheted up, some great players - like Maltsev - went away. Others, like Kharlamov, slowly came down from outer orbit. But Yakushev got stronger and stronger. Clarke whacked the wrong guy's ankle (it's a joke, people).
So I guess Paul Henderson was better than Frank Mahovlich, Ratelle, Gilbert, Cournoyer etc., since he was better in that Series than them, eh? The analogy is not perfect (as Yakushev has very good merits outside the Summit Series too) but you get my drift; why should an 8-game series decide, whether a player is great or not? In many ways, IMO Yakushev is actually overrated, due to the 1972 Summit.
I don't remember Maltsev being much worse in Moscow than in Canada. I think Boris Mikhailov was the one Soviet forward whose play clearly deteriorated in the last 3 games or so. He still got many scoring chances, but he just couldn't light the lamp, even though he was arguably the best Soviet goal-scorer of the 1970s.
And are you seriously suggesting Clarke whacked Kharlamov's ankle just because he embarrassed them in the first game or something? Obviously Kharlamov was still causing the Canadians much headache even after game 1. How can you be sure that he wouldn't have been one of the best, if he had been healthy in the last 3 games?
BTW, it's the whole Yakushev-Shadrin-Anisin line (Lyapkin & Lutchenko on defense) that played great in Moscow. I think they scored 9 goals in the last 4 games, and let in only 1 goal. Shadrin is my 'unsung hero' of the Series (for USSR).
I agree that Europeans in general (and in particular Jagr, Fetisov, and Makarov) were underrated by this board when we made this list. Fetisov's position was corrected on the defenseman list, and I imagine Jagr and Makarov will do much better on the wingers list if we make one
I'll simply say that Kharlamov is grotesquely over-rated, historically. He had a brief, rather brilliant, prime. But that was it. No eye-popping numbers. No breathtaking dominance relative to his peers. Before you say that sort of dominance wasn't possible in the Soviet game, consider Makarov and his 9 domestic league scoring titles. Consider his numerous scoring titles at the IIHF Worlds. Makarov was far more dominant internationally and domestically. An a-hole human being, from what I've read, but one of the 10 greatest forwards ever to play the game (and he's well inside my top 10). It still baffles me that people can honestly rank Kharlamov in the same league as Makarov. For that matter, Petrov's resume is vastly more impressive, too. Petrov is another guy who tends to be overlooked by a lot of people.
I guess European posters go in for flash over substance.
You do realise that Fetisov made up just one spot (8th instead of 9th).there was probably an over correction placing fetisov as high as the project did since his NHL career was mediocre to good (even for his age) while many others aged much better.
It seems to me you're wrong if you believe Makarov will finish 14th among wingers again.It seems like Makarov won't get that type of push in the Wingers project which is weird since his NHL record was better than Fetisov's (in some ways).
This top-70 list causes me great pain.
I loathe Wayne Gretzky (he reminds me of a used car salesman who's only Canadian when he's trying to shill another product to Canadian consumers), but it's hard for me to put Orr ahead of him. I want to, I really want to, but I can't.
Gretzky was smarter, more creative, and had better hands. He was more dominant - even if his dominance was less obvious to the eye.
Maybe, had he been able to play 20 years on healthy knees, Orr would edge the top spot. He might well have won a couple more scoring titles on healthy knees. It's not inconceivable that he could have won a dozen Norris trophies if healthy (possibly more, at least until such time as voters grew sick of voting for him). But we have to judge athletes on what they accomplished, not on what they might have accomplished.
I must shed a tear and give the top spot to the fellow who used to dive even more shamelessly than Bill Barber.
On another note, Jagr, Sergei Makarov, and Viacheslav Fetisov are all way under-rated in my opinion on this list. Fetisov was the best defenseman in the world for most of the 1980s. At his best, he was better than both Bourque and Coffey and a post-1979 version of Potvin. And Makarov was the best forward (by far) on the best international side in the game for most of the same decade. From 1981 to 1987, only Gretzky was demonstrably better amongst forwards on the planet (and not by as big a margin as you may think).
Finally, I think Bourque is overrated and I'm glad to see Bobby Hull get some love.
You do realise that Fetisov made up just one spot (8th instead of 9th).
You do realise that Fetisov made up just one spot (8th instead of 9th).
It seems to me you're wrong if you believe Makarov will finish 14th among wingers again.
I'll simply say that Kharlamov is grotesquely over-rated, historically. He had a brief, rather brilliant, prime. But that was it. No eye-popping numbers. No breathtaking dominance relative to his peers. Before you say that sort of dominance wasn't possible in the Soviet game, consider Makarov and his 9 domestic league scoring titles. Consider his numerous scoring titles at the IIHF Worlds. Makarov was far more dominant internationally and domestically. An a-hole human being, from what I've read, but one of the 10 greatest forwards ever to play the game (and he's well inside my top 10). It still baffles me that people can honestly rank Kharlamov in the same league as Makarov. For that matter, Petrov's resume is vastly more impressive, too. Petrov is another guy who tends to be overlooked by a lot of people.
I guess European posters go in for flash over substance.