Miscellaneous NHL Discussion LXXXVII: What An Ugly Number

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rebels57

HFBoards Sponsor
Sponsor
Sep 28, 2014
78,106
125,552
When comparing players to each other basic context is required, otherwise it's a discussion of nostalgia, not on-ice ability.

1970's hockey and 2010's hockey are drastically different when it comes to overall quality of play, so achievements in the far inferior era should hold far less weight. I can't imagine how that can even be argued. Punishing a guy for not achieving as much when it was 1000x harder to do it doesn't make much sense if we're trying to be fair and accurate.

It's like comparing a CHL player who puts up 120 points to an NHL player who put up 80 in the same year. It's not stupid or immature to "devalue" the formers accomplishment because it's was objectively less difficult and as a result less impressive than what the NHLer did in a far more competitive league. You can still praise the CHLer for doing a good job and acknowledge that he was at the tippy top of his league when you're comparing him to his peers, but as soon as it becomes a comparison across leagues it's completely fair to account for the massive gap in competition.

This is nonsense devoid of the actual context you're claiming it contains... but I will just agree to disagree since you've had this opinion for a while and I don't do back and forth arguing on here anymore :thumbu:
 

DancingPanther

Foundational Titan
Jun 19, 2018
33,864
72,108
No offense but its a seriously shit opinion to devalue the abilities of pre-90's players.

All you can judge an athlete by is performance vs their peers. Its the one and only truly fair barometer without bringing in noise like nutrition, training, and equipment improvements.

Clarke is a 3×MVP and was a Top 10 player in the NHL for an entire decade. He would have also easily won multiple Selkes had the award been around earlier. Hes arguably a Top 10 two-way forward in the history of the league.

Again, its just immature and frankly stupid to devalue the achievements and abilities of older generations because the modern game is different.
No offense, but all but about 21 guys in Clarke's era absolutely sucked lol. You watch these games and it's like you're watching a college player play at his middle school alumni game every 4th shift, with 5 minutes of timbits in between. What an accomplishment

You think the Flyers are a chore to watch...try to watch 5 mins of a 1975 playoff OT and not thinking wow these slugs stink
 

Striiker

Former Flyers Fan
Jun 2, 2013
90,276
156,936
Pennsylvania
This is nonsense devoid of the actual context you're claiming it contains... but I will just agree to disagree since you've had this opinion for a while and I don't do back and forth arguing on here anymore :thumbu:
I dont agree to disagree. I disagree that you disagree with me, which means you agree with me.

Final answer. Thank you for your cooperation.
 

Hollywood Cannon

I'm Away From My Desk
Jul 17, 2007
88,248
160,495
South Jersey
It’s an impossible discussion that is normally never discussed on the same level across all parties which makes the conversation impossible.

So many times we look at an athlete from the past and say the players are better today because of the advances in technology and training. We bring the player from the past and plop them into today as they were still in the past. Now doing the opposite we present the player from today in the past with those advancements still. Is that fair? No not really.

Of course the game from the 70’s wasn’t nearly as visually appealing but still compared to their peers they were that much better. Who is to say if they had todays advancements some of these guys wouldn’t eclipse the best from today?
 

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
130,351
170,885
Armored Train
It’s an impossible discussion that is normally never discussed on the same level across all parties which makes the conversation impossible.

So many times we look at an athlete from the past and say the players are better today because of the advances in technology and training. We bring the player from the past and plop them into today as they were still in the past. Now doing the opposite we present the player from today in the past with those advancements still. Is that fair? No not really.

Of course the game from the 70’s wasn’t nearly as visually appealing but still compared to their peers they were that much better. Who is to say if they had todays advancements some of these guys wouldn’t eclipse the best from today?

You mean like Jagr?
 

swami24

Registered User
Jul 24, 2020
1,939
2,469
The only reason Clarke's legacy as a captain isn't on par with Marcel Dionne is that he played with Parent, otherwise he'd be constantly ridiculed as a talented thug player who couldn't win anything and it would be constantly referenced as "hockey karma" winning out.

The captaincy is irrelevant.
I guess you never listened to any of the players from that Era talk about the team. They all said he, and his leadership, are what drove the team. Easy for anyone to discount the truth 50 years later, but still be wrong. What did G drive, but mediocrity?
 
  • Like
Reactions: renberg

Hollywood Cannon

I'm Away From My Desk
Jul 17, 2007
88,248
160,495
South Jersey
Stop drafting players I'm going to mention
isildur-no.gif
 
  • Wow
Reactions: Beef Invictus

Striiker

Former Flyers Fan
Jun 2, 2013
90,276
156,936
Pennsylvania
I don't give a lizards dry ballsack about "if [dinosaur player] had modern training he could have been just as good".

I'm comparing what they were on the ice, not what they had the potential to be.
 

Beef Invictus

Revolutionary Positivity
Dec 21, 2009
130,351
170,885
Armored Train
I guess you never listened to any of the players from that Era talk about the team. They all said he, and his leadership, are what drove the team. Easy for anyone to discount the truth 50 years later, but still be wrong. What did G drive, but mediocrity?

And players who played with Dionne have spent decades defending him as a great leader who had nothing to work with. The truth is that without Parent, Clarke doesn't win, and he's remembered as a choker. That is how hockey storytelling works, how it has always worked. It's why the worship of captaincy is a farce.

A brilliant example is how Yzerman was lambasted as a disgraceful captain when he had no support, and then suddenly became the greatest captain playing in the sport when he had support. Nothing about him as a leader changed. Just the team results due to higher quality.

Everyone shat on Lindros as a captain, but if Clarke were capable of building a complete team he'd be hailed as a Maximum Leadership Hero.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GapToothedWonder

Magua

Entirely Palatable Product
Apr 25, 2016
38,648
160,975
Huron of the Lakes
Having Dornhoefer above Giroux is like having Larry Bowa above Bryce Harper. The nostalgia just hits hard for the older gentlemen, sorry. I'm not here to shame; it was a transformative era to be a young fan.

Bill Barber was undoubtedly a Flyers great, but I'm supposed to believe a guy with a single 3rd place Hart vote in his career was objectively better than Giroux relative to his peers? He played on Cup winning teams that hold special little places and not the worst era of Flyers hockey, let's just say what we mean. Dornhoefer, MacLeish, Lonsberry as better than Giroux is straight jacket stuff. An assumed Hart caliber Clarke wouldn't have sniffed a conference finals subbing in for the Giroux-era Flyers, and that's not about the individuals. The debate is Giroux vs. Lindros as 2/3 forward, and it starts and ends there.
 

Hollywood Cannon

I'm Away From My Desk
Jul 17, 2007
88,248
160,495
South Jersey
Having Dornhoefer above Giroux is like having Larry Bowa above Bryce Harper in a few years. The nostalgia just hits hard for the older gentlemen, sorry. I'm not here to shame; it was a transformative era to be a young fan.

Bill Barber was undoubtedly a Flyers great, but I'm supposed to believe a guy with a single 3rd place Hart vote in his career was objectively better than Giroux relative to his peers? He played on Cup winning teams that hold special little places and not the worst era of Flyers hockey, let's just say what we mean. Dornhoefer, MacLeish, Lonsberry as better than Giroux is straight jacket stuff. An assumed Hart caliber Clarke would have won jack shit subbing in for the Giroux-era Flyers, and that's not about the individuals. The debate is Giroux vs. Lindros as 2/3 forward, and it starts and ends there.
That’s Las Vegas Desert Duck Bill Barber to you.
 

freakydallas13

Registered User
Jan 30, 2007
7,517
18,378
Victoria, BC
If Giroux and Lonsberry went into the corner to get a puck Ross Lonsberry would have had it. The same with Dorney. If MacLeish was on the ice he would have owned Giroux. Some of you guys have no idea how good the Flyers once were.
BTW, what did Giroux ever win while he was here? He was the best player in an era but it wasn’t a good period of time.
P8d6IzL.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Ad

Upcoming events

  • Buffalo @ Eastern Michigan
    Buffalo @ Eastern Michigan
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $716.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:
  • Ohio @ Toledo
    Ohio @ Toledo
    Wagers: 1
    Staked: $500.00
    Event closes
    • Updated:

Ad

Ad