Unpopular opinions

[The Panther]

Kariya was better than Selanne

Giguere's equipment taints his 2003 playoff performance and, to a lesser extent, the 2007 Cup

I sort-of support these two points.

I think Kariya was slightly better than Selanne during most of the time they played together in Anaheim. Obviously, Selanne's 1992-93 was one for the ages (long before Kariya) and obviously Selanne's solid, latter-career 2008--2012 or so solidified his longevity as much stronger than Karyiya's. That said, I also think Kariya's 2005-06 and 2006-07 are highly overlooked and under-appreciated.

Giguere... Was he really good? Yes. But his very-specific era and the team he played for in combination did much of the work for his legacy.

 

[The Panther]

-- Babe Pratt is under-appreciated in the historical-greats sense.
-- Andy Bathgate is under-appreciated in the historical-greats sense (was top-5 in scoring nine times, and top-3 five times, all in very talent-rich periods).
-- Mark Messier was okay as a Canuck (actually pretty good, considering his age and the team).
-- The NHL began over-expanding in the mid-/late-1990s. About 24 teams would be correct. The excess teams (about 8, by my ideal standard) has greatly lowered the entertainment level of the sport.
-- Hart trophy choices I disagree with: Brett Hull 1991, Joe Thornton 2006, Taylor Hall 2018 (Corry Perry in 2011 is iffy as well...)


(I have a few peccadilloes with our lovable forum, such as the over-rating of Patrick Roy, the under-rating of Eric Lindros, and the bizarre anti-Canadian agenda several posters have, but these are just idiosyncrasies of this place.)

 

[Hockey Outsider]

-- Babe Pratt is under-appreciated in the historical-greats sense.
-- Andy Bathgate is under-appreciated in the historical-greats sense (was top-5 in scoring nine times, and top-3 five times, all in very talent-rich periods).
-- Mark Messier was okay as a Canuck (actually pretty good, considering his age and the team).
-- The NHL began over-expanding in the mid-/late-1990s. About 24 teams would be correct. The excess teams (about 8, by my ideal standard) has greatly lowered the entertainment level of the sport.
-- Hart trophy choices I disagree with: Brett Hull 1991, Joe Thornton 2006, Taylor Hall 2018 (Corry Perry in 2011 is iffy as well...)


(I have a few peccadilloes with our lovable forum, such as the over-rating of Patrick Roy, the under-rating of Eric Lindros, and the bizarre anti-Canadian agenda several posters have, but these are just idiosyncrasies of this place.)

I've made this comment before, but one of the things that the HOH Top 100 project got right was ranking Andy Bathgate and Marcel Dionne next to each other (62nd and 63rd). Raw scoring totals aside, they have fairly similar strengths and weaknesses.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

Giguere's equipment taints his 2003 playoff performance and, to a lesser extent, the 2007 Cup

I've heard some people make a similar argument - that Brodeur deserved the 2003 Smythe more than Giguere because he didn't use such bulky equipment.

I never bought that. Brodeur was a competitive person, and he had an obligation to give the Devils the best performance that he could. If he thought he would have done better using pads that made him look like the Michelin Man, I'm sure he would have done that. Brodeur (and his coaches) presumably realized that there was a trade-off, and although he'd occupy a larger portion of the net, Giguere-style pads would have been bulkier, which would (marginally) slow down his movements.

This is all speculation, of course. But I have a really hard time picturing Brodeur, a consummate winner, not making decisions that maximize his ability to help his team. If he didn't want giant pads, it was because he made a rational cost-benefit analysis, rather than appealing to some vague sense of fairness.

 

[Neutrinos]

-- Hart trophy choices I disagree with: Brett Hull 1991, Joe Thornton 2006, Taylor Hall 2018 (Corry Perry in 2011 is iffy as well...)

I've never heard a word said against Thornton's Hart win

What's your issue with it? Who did you think was more deserving?

FWIW, he did lead the league in points-per-game

 

[RJMA]

I've heard some people make a similar argument - that Brodeur deserved the 2003 Smythe more than Giguere because he didn't use such bulky equipment.

I never bought that. Brodeur was a competitive person, and he had an obligation to give the Devils the best performance that he could. If he thought he would have done better using pads that made him look like the Michelin Man, I'm sure he would have done that. Brodeur (and his coaches) presumably realized that there was a trade-off, and although he'd occupy a larger portion of the net, Giguere-style pads would have been bulkier, which would (marginally) slow down his movements.

This is all speculation, of course. But I have a really hard time picturing Brodeur, a consummate winner, not making decisions that maximize his ability to help his team. If he didn't want giant pads, it was because he made a rational cost-benefit analysis, rather than appealing to some vague sense of fairness.

I never brought up Brodeur and the Smythe, and I have no clue why you are. Giguere's 2003 playoff run is often brought up as being among the greatest in the history of the sport, irrespective of trophies. But I can't take a goalie seriously when they look like this.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

I never brought up Brodeur and the Smythe, and I have no clue why you are. Giguere's 2003 playoff run is often brought up as being among the greatest in the history of the sport, irrespective of trophies. But I can't take a goalie seriously when they look like this.

View attachment 761071

I never said you did. Just that your comment about Giguere and giant pads reminded me of a comment that I've heard dozens of times, and always disagreed with. That's how a message board works - sometimes we go on tangents.

 

[RJMA]

I never said you did. Just that your comment about Giguere and giant pads reminded me of a comment that I've heard dozens of times, and always disagreed with. That's how a message board works - sometimes we go on tangents.

My fault. Realized it was a tangent and thought you connecting it to my opinion of giguere.

 

[The Panther]

I've never heard a word said against Thornton's Hart win

What's your issue with it? Who did you think was more deserving?

My issue with Thornton's Hart win is two-fold:
1) The description of the award is "most valuable to HIS TEAM" (not teams). Thornton obviously won due to his contribution to San Jose, not Boston. And Thornton played in 58 games of 82 games for San Jose. Nobody else has ever won the Hart playing that few of a team's games (by percentage).
2) Thornton's new team was already a 104-point club before the lock-out (and a 99 point club after). They were going through a horrible losing streak when he arrived (hence, they made a big trade), and they turned it around, briefly, after he arrived. Was it due to him? I doubt it, since they had the same line-up as the 104-point club before the lock-out. Also, shortly after he arrived, the Sharks also went on a 1-wins-in-6-games stretch that still left them below 500. After that, they just returned to the previous season's normal pace.

As to who I think was more deserving, it's Jaromir Jagr. The Rangers had just missed the playoffs for seven straight seasons (8 years), and Jagr set the all-time franchise records for goals and points in a season (that still stand today). The club improved by 31 points in Jagr's first full season (the Sharks declined by 5 in Thornton's). Jagr was both an elite goal scorer and a playmaker; Thornton only an elite passer. Jagr basically led the NHL in scoring through 80 games and was only surpassed by Thornton in a couple of meaningless, late-season games.

Unfortunately, voters got in a tizzy over the Thornton-saves-the-Sharks narrative based on the 20-odd regular season games to start the season when San Jose was mediocre, and ignored the larger picture of both the Sharks already being a strong team and the Rangers having been woeful for 8 years.

 

[toothlessgoon]

-Terry Sawchuk is grossly overrated. He had a dominant 5 year stretch to start his career, and then was mediocre the rest of the way

-Wayne Gretzky's legacy was boosted greatly by the era he played in. If he played today, he'd be an average goal scorer at best (although would still rack up the assists).

-Connor McDavid is soft for not asking for a trade out of Edmonton

-Stanley Cup victories are worth far less in a 6 team league

 

[MadLuke]

The Rangers had just missed the playoffs for seven straight seasons (8 years),

Rangers also added an HOF goaltender that year (they were 4th best in goal against in good part because of him and they were mediocre in the 32 Weekes games in net, who was not a bad number 2 to have at all probably top tier and I imagine mediocre with the number 2 is excellent, he was a solid number one just before the lockout), but still that has a vast gap.

Lundqvist: 30W-12L, 2.24 GAA (would be first in goal against in the league that year, really big margin with the third place)
Weekes...: 14W-14L, 2.86 GAA (10-11 best, like the Sabres-Sharks)

Lundqvist got some Hart attention, significantly more than Cheechoo, that far from Rice losing to Elway because he divided vote with Montana level, but having a big number 2 mvp on a team can split vote.

-Wayne Gretzky's legacy was boosted greatly by the era he played in. If he played today, he'd be an average goal scorer at best (although would still rack up the assists).

Maybe it is something everyone ever said about Hockey when they were young and will always be said.....

I feel the era legacy boost could be true, but purely because of the era, agnostic if his game would have been better or worse in others, smaller player do extremely well now, lot of 3v3 being played (can you imagine him figuring out before everyone else..), what modern stick do for his wrist shot, so who knows.

- Could be all wrong, but when he played Hockey was culturally bigger, lingering end of cold war Canada cup, battle of Alberta, peak Quebec-Montreal rivalty, just after the Habs dynastie-Islanders

- Something like LA trade trying to create market, Gretzky video game, Gretzky-Jordan movie, debut of cable tv with sport dedicated channels, Janet Jones, Gretzky father, could it happen now for hockey ? Maybe, maybe not,
To that point, I feel Lindros hype was bigger, Crosby still big, but equivalent prospect number wise like McDavid and much more so Bedard was less there culturally. I remember reading stuff like if Crosby or McDavid would be prospect now in the social media age they would break the internet, when McDavid was an prospect Twitter-facebook were quite mature and people were saying that when Bedard was breaking records. Could be tainted for living in Quebec, no Nordiques, 20 years cup less, would taint things and Crosby being in the Q amplified the phenomenom locally.

- Salary cap, maybe no Oilers or for even shorter and what that bring (could play both ways too, because there a max there a world having Gretzky for only the max is such an advantage he wins 6 cups instead of 4)
- No Olympic + no historic Canada cup is possible for all McDavid career.
- TV started to be good enough for all of his big career moment to have been captured and rapidly in his career 100% of his games.
- Probably the best era to set all time raw offensive record.

And a lot of this was true of the past, pre-70 Canadian nhler do not have much intl legacy.

 

[The Panther]

-Terry Sawchuk is grossly overrated. He had a dominant 5 year stretch to start his career, and then was mediocre the rest of the way

Agree. I'm always kind of baffled as to why his name always comes up at the top of all-time greats. Yeah, he had an amazing run with Detroit for five (?) years and three or four Cups. But after that, as you say, many, many years of middle-of-the-pack results.

I think the romanticization of Sawchuk might have to do with (a) the fact that he won the Cup with the '67 Leafs, and (b) his early death.

-Wayne Gretzky's legacy was boosted greatly by the era he played in. If he played today, he'd be an average goal scorer at best (although would still rack up the assists).

The "how-so-and-so-would-do-in-another-era" arguments are silly, so I won't even go there.

Gretzky was certainly a product and an epitome of his era, but so were dozens of other all star-level players who managed to produce, at best, 50% of Gretzky stats.

What was his era, anyway? Gretzky played against Gordie Howe and against Zdeno Chara. He was the highest scoring Canadian in 1979-80 and the highest scoring Canadian in 1997-98.

 

[toothlessgoon]

Agree. I'm always kind of baffled as to why his name always comes up at the top of all-time greats. Yeah, he had an amazing run with Detroit for five (?) years and three or four Cups. But after that, as you say, many, many years of middle-of-the-pack results.

I think the romanticization of Sawchuk might have to do with (a) the fact that he won the Cup with the '67 Leafs, and (b) his early death.

The "how-so-and-so-would-do-in-another-era" arguments are silly, so I won't even go there.

Gretzky was certainly a product and an epitome of his era, but so were dozens of other all star-level players who managed to produce, at best, 50% of Gretzky stats.

What was his era, anyway? Gretzky played against Gordie Howe and against Zdeno Chara. He was the highest scoring Canadian in 1979-80 and the highest scoring Canadian in 1997-98.

Some benefit from certain eras more than others. A huge amount of goals that he scored in his prime in Edmonton would simply not be goals today. And his goal scoring fell off a cliff when goaltending got better league-wide. I think someone like Ovechkin would be more consistent era to era because no goalie is stopping that one timer.

 

[MadLuke]

Some benefit from certain eras more than others. A huge amount of goals that he scored in his prime in Edmonton would simply not be goals today. And his goal scoring fell off a cliff when goaltending got better league-wide. I think someone like Ovechkin would be more consistent era to era because no goalie is stopping that one timer.

This has been debated a lot in this section and it is not a crazy thought, but it is highly speculative.

In the playoff in the Rangers he placed some slapshoots that feel like nhler would not score like that against John Vanbiesbrouck and other good goaltender in modern gear and if they would really not go in from where he shoots he would have not taken those.

Ovechkin feel like the kind of natural athlete that would have been great in the 1890s, 1920s and the future and we can imagine many sports.

he did lead the playoff in goals in 93, scoring a lot against Potvin, scored 10 in 15 the last time he played in the playoff in 1997, went 6 in 10 against Vanbiesbrouck and Devils Brodeur that spring...

 

[The Panther]

Some benefit from certain eras more than others. A huge amount of goals that he scored in his prime in Edmonton would simply not be goals today. And his goal scoring fell off a cliff when goaltending got better league-wide. I think someone like Ovechkin would be more consistent era to era because no goalie is stopping that one timer.

Dude, this is the history forum. We are all aware that goaltending has moved on from 1981.

Has it occurred to you that if the shots Gretzky (or anyone) was taking in 1981 were not going in, that Gretzky might have... changed those shots? All the great players adapt and change with the times. That's how they became great in the first place.

As to Gretzky's goal scoring "falling off a cliff", that has very little if anything to do with improvements in goaltending. That has a lot to do with (a) his age, and (b) his taking fewer shots and playing more at the perimeter.

First of all, goaltending, by stats, didn't significantly improve until about 1995, which was Gretzky's 16th pro season and he had a ton of mileage on him. At that stage in a career, everyone (except Howe and Ovechkin) is slowing down as a goal scorer.

Then, Gretzky's prime-era goals totaled ranged from 87 in 74 games--- a pace of 94 goals (1984)---to 52 in 80 games (1986). Wow, that's a massive 45% drop-off in goals!! It must be because goaltending got better... Except it didn't. 1986 was a higher scoring season than 1984, and Gretzky's goal scoring plummeted by 45% (pace). Goal totals will vary widely with centers who are pass-first players like Gretzky.

Then there's the matter of shooting percentage. Gretzky's varied wildly in his prime years, from 14-ish% percent to nearly 27% in the same era. The difference here having nothing to do with goaltending and everything to do with Gretzky's positional deployment, such as where he was shooting from, where he placed on the PP, how necessary it was to go to the net or not, etc. As late as 1998, when he was 37 (and had the mileage of a normal player in his forties), Gretzky's shooting percentage was still the same as Forsberg, Fleury, Hull, Yzerman, etc.

Players do deteriorate as they get older.

 

[toothlessgoon]

Dude, this is the history forum. We are all aware that goaltending has moved on from 1981.

Has it occurred to you that if the shots Gretzky (or anyone) was taking in 1981 were not going in, that Gretzky might have... changed those shots? All the great players adapt and change with the times. That's how they became great in the first place.

As to Gretzky's goal scoring "falling off a cliff", that has very little if anything to do with improvements in goaltending. That has a lot to do with (a) his age, and (b) his taking fewer shots and playing more at the perimeter.

First of all, goaltending, by stats, didn't significantly improve until about 1995, which was Gretzky's 16th pro season and he had a ton of mileage on him. At that stage in a career, everyone (except Howe and Ovechkin) is slowing down as a goal scorer.

Then, Gretzky's prime-era goals totaled ranged from 87 in 74 games--- a pace of 94 goals (1984)---to 52 in 80 games (1986). Wow, that's a massive 45% drop-off in goals!! It must be because goaltending got better... Except it didn't. 1986 was a higher scoring season than 1984, and Gretzky's goal scoring plummeted by 45% (pace). Goal totals will vary widely with centers who are pass-first players like Gretzky.

Then there's the matter of shooting percentage. Gretzky's varied wildly in his prime years, from 14-ish% percent to nearly 27% in the same era. The difference here having nothing to do with goaltending and everything to do with Gretzky's positional deployment, such as where he was shooting from, where he placed on the PP, how necessary it was to go to the net or not, etc. As late as 1998, when he was 37 (and had the mileage of a normal player in his forties), Gretzky's shooting percentage was still the same as Forsberg, Fleury, Hull, Yzerman, etc.

Players do deteriorate as they get older.

Age plays a factor, but this much? He went from scoring 70+ in his prime to 30-40 in his early 30s. Mario Lemieux played in the same era and didn't drop like that. I think you're overlooking how much more difficult it became to score off a slapper from the blueline by the time the 90s rolled around.

 

[Mike C]

-Terry Sawchuk is grossly overrated. He had a dominant 5 year stretch to start his career, and then was mediocre the rest of the way

-Wayne Gretzky's legacy was boosted greatly by the era he played in. If he played today, he'd be an average goal scorer at best (although would still rack up the assists).

-Connor McDavid is soft for not asking for a trade out of Edmonton

-Stanley Cup victories are worth far less in a 6 team league

if Wayne Gretzky played today, he'd be Connor McDavid with heart and championships

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

-Connor McDavid is soft for not asking for a trade out of Edmonton

This I gotta hear the reasoning behind


Hard to believe weve come full circle from "he asked for a trade out of town, what a diva", to "he didnt ask for a trade, what a spineless loser"

Re Sawchuk, yes he is a bit overrated, but he factors in very strongly into top lists from old-timers who watched the era, and he was considered a technical innovator who changed the position which I feel is integral to evaluating a players greatness

 

[daver]

Age plays a factor, but this much? He went from scoring 70+ in his prime to 30-40 in his early 30s. Mario Lemieux played in the same era and didn't drop like that. I think you're overlooking how much more difficult it became to score off a slapper from the blueline by the time the 90s rolled around.

You think that Wayne would be still taking slappers knowing they wouldn't be going in most of the time? He would find a way to score goals or be just as effective offensively in any era. Crosby doesn't have an elite one-timer or wrist shot but is arguably the #2 goalscorer of his era.

Even if he scored less goals, his overall legacy would not be affected.

 

[toothlessgoon]

You think that Wayne would be still taking slappers knowing they wouldn't be going in most of the time? He would find a way to score goals or be just as effective offensively in any era. Crosby doesn't have an elite one-timer or wrist shot but is arguably the #2 goalscorer of his era.

Even if he scored less goals, his overall legacy would not be affected.

He showed that he couldn't adjust when he stopped being an elite goalscorer in the 90s. So yes, there is a precedence for this. To say he would have adjusted is not based on reality. He didn't adjust because he couldn't. I don't think the comparison to Crosby is very good either. Crosby scored 10 more goals at age 35 than Gretzky did. Gretzky's bread and butter got taken away and there was little he could do to compensate. He shot under 10% in the final 5 seasons of his career despite being a low volume shooter. He was lucky people focus on the early part of his career when it was possible to score many goals based on his skillset.

This I gotta hear the reasoning behind


Hard to believe weve come full circle from "he asked for a trade out of town, what a diva", to "he didnt ask for a trade, what a spineless loser"

Re Sawchuk, yes he is a bit overrated, but he factors in very strongly into top lists from old-timers who watched the era, and he was considered a technical innovator who changed the position which I feel is integral to evaluating a players greatness

I don't think anyone outside of Edmonton would blame him for asking for a trade. The Oilers are a dumpster fire organization of the highest order. He would be well within his rights to want out.

 

[daver]

He showed that he couldn't adjust when he stopped being an elite goalscorer in the 90s. So yes, there is a precedence for this. To say he would have adjusted is not based on reality. He didn't adjust because he couldn't. His bread and butter got taken away and there was little he could do to compensate. He shot under 10% in the final 5 seasons of his career despite being a low volume shooter. He was lucky people focus on the early part of his career when it was possible to score many goals based on his skillset.

To say a peak Wayne would not have adjusted is equally not based on reality.

To say that he isn't as potentially effective as an overall player is even more not based on reality.

 

[centipede2233]

I was a P.Roy fan growing up but looking back, i think Belfour was just as good as Roy, maybe a bit better.

 

[Nerowoy nora tolad]

I was a P.Roy fan growing up but looking back, i think Belfour was just as good as Roy, maybe a bit better.

Belfour is much more significant stylistically. Basically every goaltender in the NHL today plays a style closer to his game than Roys

 

[BraveCanadian]

I sort-of support these two points.

I think Kariya was slightly better than Selanne during most of the time they played together in Anaheim. Obviously, Selanne's 1992-93 was one for the ages (long before Kariya) and obviously Selanne's solid, latter-career 2008--2012 or so solidified his longevity as much stronger than Karyiya's. That said, I also think Kariya's 2005-06 and 2006-07 are highly overlooked and under-appreciated.

I also think that Kariya was slightly better than Selanne, and I don't think that was an unpopular opinion at the time. The biggest thing for me is that Kariya was still on his upswing and improving until he got Sutered.

Who knows how good he would have ended up without the concussion problems.. Imagine Kariya in an NHL like today.. would have been crazy good.

 

[BigBadBruins7708]

My issue with Thornton's Hart win is two-fold:
1) The description of the award is "most valuable to HIS TEAM" (not teams). Thornton obviously won due to his contribution to San Jose, not Boston. And Thornton played in 58 games of 82 games for San Jose. Nobody else has ever won the Hart playing that few of a team's games (by percentage).
2) Thornton's new team was already a 104-point club before the lock-out (and a 99 point club after). They were going through a horrible losing streak when he arrived (hence, they made a big trade), and they turned it around, briefly, after he arrived. Was it due to him? I doubt it, since they had the same line-up as the 104-point club before the lock-out. Also, shortly after he arrived, the Sharks also went on a 1-wins-in-6-games stretch that still left them below 500. After that, they just returned to the previous season's normal pace.

As to who I think was more deserving, it's Jaromir Jagr. The Rangers had just missed the playoffs for seven straight seasons (8 years), and Jagr set the all-time franchise records for goals and points in a season (that still stand today). The club improved by 31 points in Jagr's first full season (the Sharks declined by 5 in Thornton's). Jagr was both an elite goal scorer and a playmaker; Thornton only an elite passer. Jagr basically led the NHL in scoring through 80 games and was only surpassed by Thornton in a couple of meaningless, late-season games.

Unfortunately, voters got in a tizzy over the Thornton-saves-the-Sharks narrative based on the 20-odd regular season games to start the season when San Jose was mediocre, and ignored the larger picture of both the Sharks already being a strong team and the Rangers having been woeful for 8 years.

If Jagr was the only move you'd have a point. You're ignoring 2 key things.

1. Lundqvist made his debut in 2006 going 30-12-9 in 53 games and finishing 3rd in Vezina

2. Jagr had 3 sub 80 point seasons before 2006. Then he goes to NY mid 04 and scores at a sub PPG pace. It isnt until the Rangers add Nylander and Straka to the team in 06 and put them together does Jagr take off.