Unpopular opinions

[MXD]

Well they made 31 finals from 1918 till 1979. I mean is it not fair to say that Montreal Canadiens could generally be considered a super team in that time frame despite not dominating every single year?

They absolutely can't be considered a super team from 1925 to, roughly, Richard joining full-time. Super teams don't have cumulative losing records over such timespans.

 

[Strangle]

My unpopular opinion is that adjusted stats were invented to try to make Gretzky’s numbers make sense to a new generation of fans who couldn’t believe they were possible.

And people have run wild with them, adjusting stats for seasons way too close together.

Adjusted stats didn’t make sense to use with gretzky (his stats were just as unbelievable to us who watch him play) and are even worse to use for modern NHL players.

Adjusted stats just cannot ever hope to make a good argument to me.

Example, how many points would gretzky have scored without the two line pass rule? 6,000?

How many would Lemieux have scored without two defenders pulling on his jersey when he carried the puck?

How much does favorable rule changes to offense in the modern NHL compare to smaller goalie equipment in the 80’s?

Answer, it doesn’t matter. To be the best, you need to actually score the goals or tee up the assists. Like, in real life …. Not in a spreadsheet formula

 

[NordiquesForeva]

Marleau the (not overly impressive) rookie? Bit of a stretch there.

Marleau the (not overly impressive) rookie? Bit of a stretch there.




Crosby being omitted I get - its very rare for Team Canada to select rookies for international tournaments, let alone the Olympics. They are big on "paying ones dues" in a way and I completely understand not picking a guy with what, 50 NHL games under his belt, regardless of how good or hyped he was.

You're right - I was thinking of Marleau as being a good fit on the 2006 Olympic team. That team could have added the speed of Marleau, Kariya and Crosby (+Staal) and would have been much better for it.

 

[Gordon Lightfoot]

That's an absurd scenario, isn't it?

It is absurd. The whole "five of this guys vs five of that guy" idea always make me roll my eyes. So stupid and doesn't tell you anything.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

The chemistry between the players of the USSR national team did not come from the fact that they spent a lot of time playing with each other, this is an overestimated factor calming the ego of Canadians, they would be great even if they got together only a couple of weeks before any tournament

Well that's an interesting take. But I don't think it is defensible. You would be making the claim that playing within a system/with structure has no value, and that it gives no advantage over a team who is unfamiliar with each other and are basically playing high-stakes shinny. At the highest levels even the smallest advantages are significant to the outcome, and I don't think you could make a realistic case that playing in an established, structured system, especially one that has been iterated upon and refined over years of competition offers no advantage.

 

[McGuillicuddy]

Agreed, I wasn't using Moog/Ranford as the trash can bar as much as to show that it didn't matter who the Oilers plugged back there they didnt miss a beat, showing that Fuhr was more "the guy who happened to be there" than "the guy"

The Ranford run certainly passes the eye test for a goalie playing out of his mind and carrying a team. I don't think it's a good comparable to make your case that anybody could have backstopped the Oilers to multiple cups.

 

[daver]

Breaking Bad was a poor man's Six Million Dollar Man remake.

 

[MadLuke]

adjusted stats were invented to try to make Gretzky’s numbers make sense

Always just assumed baseball people were the one that came out with adjusted stats (between stadium, night-day, type of grass, seasons, etc...).

 

[NordiquesForeva]

The Colorado Avalanche underachieved by only winning 2 Stanley Cups in the ~1995-2003 era. They should have won 4 or maybe even 5 Cups.

Mark Messier is one of the best 12 hockey players to have ever played.

Team Canada would have swept the Soviets 2-0 in the final of the 1987 Canada Cup if someone other than Mike Keenan had constructed and coached that team.

Team Canada was the underdog in the 1996 World Cup finals against the United States. The United States was the superior team at all positions.

The NHL in the late 1980s/early 1990s had the greatest concentration of pure hockey talent, creativity, personality and showmanship that any of us will ever see. The careers of six of the best 12 players to have ever played (imo) overlapped during that time period (Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy, Hasek, Bourque, Messier), with five others (Brodeur, Lidstrom, Chelios, Yzerman, Sakic) from that era also in the top 20-25 players of all-time.

The NHL peaked in the early 1990s - the 1992-1993 season in particular - in terms of entertainment value, mainly due to league over-expansion. It'll never be that good again, sadly.

Availability is an ability, and a players' longevity and consistency across different eras, teams, teammates and circumstances matter more than peak level of play.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

Always just assumed baseball people were the one that came out with adjusted stats (between stadium, night-day, type of grass, seasons, etc...).

No, everything is because Gretzky.

 

[Neutrinos]

It is absurd. The whole "five of this guys vs five of that guy" idea always make me roll my eyes. So stupid and doesn't tell you anything.

A great many geniuses throughout history have had their ideas labelled as "absurd" by the masses, so I consider myself to be amongst good company

 

[Felidae]

A great many geniuses throughout history have had their ideas labelled as "absurd" by the masses, so I consider myself to be amongst good company

If anything, the "five of this guys vs five of that guy" is quite a common talking point on this site, so not sure it's quite an "absurd" idea by the masses..

 

[daver]

If anything, the "five of this guys vs five of that guy" is quite a common talking point on this site, so not sure it's quite an "absurd" idea by the masses..

These two things are not mutually exclusive. See: the disco craze and bell bottom pants.

On a serious note though, the "time machine" argument (the preclude to the five guys argument) adds zero to the discussion.

A high def McDavid vs. a grainy black and white Howe vs. a radio call, word of mouth Morenz makes no sense.

 

[Felidae]

I dont think Messier should have his smythe or 1991-92 trophies.


1983-84 Conn Smythe.

3rd in points, 9 points and 5 goals behind Gretzky.

6 goals and 2 points behind Kurri, the better two way player

4 points ahead of Coffey, who is a defenseman.

The number of postseasons were a non big four player lead their team in scoring by a wide margin but lost the smythe to another forward on the same team must be very small.. I'm not even so sure he was better than Kurri or Coffey in that run. But most certainly not Gretzky.


1991-92 Pearson and Hart.

5th in scoring with Lemieux outproducing him by 24 points while playing 15 less games. Again, the list of non big four forwards leading the league in points by 20+ points yet losing the Hart AND the pearson to another forward must be tiny. I wouldn't be surprised if it's never happened.

I mean, the guy barely outproduced his number 1 dman who brought almost as much offense while being far more impactful on the defensive end. Him sweeping the awards was a joke.

Then there's Messier somehow finishing 2nd in hart voting in 1995-96 despite being down the scoring list, below better two way players (Fedorov) and power forwards (Lindros, Forsberg)

I wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue with the above if Messier was an all time great two way player in the vein of Clarke. Well, he certainly had the nastiness..

People talk about the overrating of Toews by the media, but it looks like Messier has Toews beat by miles in that regard.

 

[VMBM]

Team Canada would have swept the Soviets 2-0 in the final of the 1987 Canada Cup if someone other than Mike Keenan had constructed and coached that team.

While I don't necessarily agree (I mean, who knows really?), I've always thought that the Canadians played way too offensive-minded hockey, often neglecting defense. With their advantage on paper and in nets, they should have won at least somewhat more easily.

 

[OgeeOgelthorpe]

The Colorado Avalanche underachieved by only winning 2 Stanley Cups in the ~1995-2003 era. They should have won 4 or maybe even 5 Cups.

Mark Messier is one of the best 12 hockey players to have ever played.

Team Canada would have swept the Soviets 2-0 in the final of the 1987 Canada Cup if someone other than Mike Keenan had constructed and coached that team.

Team Canada was the underdog in the 1996 World Cup finals against the United States. The United States was the superior team at all positions.

The NHL in the late 1980s/early 1990s had the greatest concentration of pure hockey talent, creativity, personality and showmanship that any of us will ever see. The careers of six of the best 12 players to have ever played (imo) overlapped during that time period (Gretzky, Lemieux, Roy, Hasek, Bourque, Messier), with five others (Brodeur, Lidstrom, Chelios, Yzerman, Sakic) from that era also in the top 20-25 players of all-time.

The NHL peaked in the early 1990s - the 1992-1993 season in particular - in terms of entertainment value, mainly due to league over-expansion. It'll never be that good again, sadly.

Availability is an ability, and a players' longevity and consistency across different eras, teams, teammates and circumstances matter more than peak level of play.

Agree on almost all points except…

Colorado should have won more cups. I think that’s partially true. If Roy doesn’t go to Colorado, Detroit has a three peat beginning in 96. Maybe 4 in a row as I think they could have beaten the 99 stars with a healthy Osgood. Colorado entered the 99 conference finals battered. If they face anyone other than Detroit in the 2nd then they’re back in the finals.

If March 26 1997 doesn’t happen Colorado repeats.

2002 Colorado repeats if Detroit doesn’t overload their roster.

Those teams stole cups from each other.

 

[The Panther]

I dont think Messier should have his smythe or 1991-92 trophies.


1983-84 Conn Smythe.

3rd in points, 9 points and 5 goals behind Gretzky.

6 goals and 2 points behind Kurri, the better two way player

4 points ahead of Coffey, who is a defenseman.

The number of postseasons were a non big four player lead their team in scoring by a wide margin but lost the smythe to another forward on the same team must be very small.. I'm not even so sure he was better than Kurri or Coffey in that run. But most certainly not Gretzky.


1991-92 Pearson and Hart.

5th in scoring with Lemieux outproducing him by 24 points while playing 15 less games. Again, the list of non big four forwards leading the league in points by 20+ points yet losing the Hart AND the pearson to another forward must be tiny. I wouldn't be surprised if it's never happened.

I mean, the guy barely outproduced his number 1 dman who brought almost as much offense while being far more impactful on the defensive end. Him sweeping the awards was a joke.

Then there's Messier somehow finishing 2nd in hart voting in 1995-96 despite being down the scoring list, below better two way players (Fedorov) and power forwards (Lindros, Forsberg)

I wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue with the above if Messier was an all time great two way player in the vein of Clarke. Well, he certainly had the nastiness..

People talk about the overrating of Toews by the media, but it looks like Messier has Toews beat by miles in that regard.

I don't know your age, but did you see the guy play in real time, in the 1980s though mid-1990s? It's one thing to look at point totals and draw conclusions, but it's quite another to experience players in real time.

I do agree that Mess's Hart in 1992 was by a bizarrely overwhelming majority vote. Like, I'm fine with him winning it that season (though it was really shared with Brian Leetch, and I think Mess would agree), but the degree to which he won it so overwhelmingly is kind of odd. (And probably reflects New York media bias, among other things.)

His 2nd place Hart in 1996 surprised me a bit at the time, too, but I guess some other contenders had incomplete seasons or were competing behind a bigger teammate (Jagr, for example). Anyway, Mess didn't win it, so whatever.

About the 1984 Conn Smythe, there was a great thread on here some time ago that broke down his and Gretzky's scoring in the 1984 playoffs, and it was quite clear that Messier's point production had been more clutch and timely than Wayne's. I think he was probably the right choice in 1984, though Gretzky was probably equally deserving (don't think Kurri was quite at his best in the '84 playoffs; Coffey I'm not sure...).

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

If anything, the "five of this guys vs five of that guy" is quite a common talking point on this site, so not sure it's quite an "absurd" idea by the masses..

Not in The History of Hockey Forum.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

While I don't necessarily agree (I mean, who knows really?), I've always thought that the Canadians played way too offensive-minded hockey, often neglecting defense. With their advantage on paper and in nets, they should have won at least somewhat more easily.

I tend to think if they had played the games in the USSR, Soviets would have won in 2.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

I don't know your age, but did you see the guy play in real time, in the 1980s though mid-1990s? It's one thing to look at point totals and draw conclusions, but it's quite another to experience players in real time.

I do agree that Mess's Hart in 1992 was by a bizarrely overwhelming majority vote. Like, I'm fine with him winning it that season (though it was really shared with Brian Leetch, and I think Mess would agree), but the degree to which he won it so overwhelmingly is kind of odd. (And probably reflects New York media bias, among other things.)

His 2nd place Hart in 1996 surprised me a bit at the time, too, but I guess some other contenders had incomplete seasons or were competing behind a bigger teammate (Jagr, for example). Anyway, Mess didn't win it, so whatever.

About the 1984 Conn Smythe, there was a great thread on here some time ago that broke down his and Gretzky's scoring in the 1984 playoffs, and it was quite clear that Messier's point production had been more clutch and timely than Wayne's. I think he was probably the right choice in 1984, though Gretzky was probably equally deserving (don't think Kurri was quite at his best in the '84 playoffs; Coffey I'm not sure...).

Pretty sure Oilers moved Messier to center in 84 finals to match up against Trottier.

Trottier was a -5 in the series.

 

[The Panther]

Pretty sure Oilers moved Messier to center in 84 finals to match up against Trottier.

Trottier was a -5 in the series.

They actually moved Mess to center mid-way or late in the regular season. But yes, he was a major factor in the Finals and the Islanders would all tell you that.

 

[K Fleur]

I think you’re a f***ing moron if you say shit like “he’s a guy you’d want in your foxhole” when evaluating hockey players.

 

[TheGreenTBer]

I've always thought the concept of a well-rounded player is given more importance than it should, while the concept of being a well-rounded team is given less importance than it should.

 

[sr edler]

Okay, here we go.

Player rankings and all-time lists can be a really nice framework for all kinds of interesting discussions on hockey history, but constantly over-obsessing over player rankings is really just pretty tiresome and in the greater scheme of things also pretty pointless.

Ovechkin's current goal record chase is embarrassing. There was a game to start this season against Toronto where the team funnelled pretty much all their shots through him, he ended up with 15 shots and a tap-in goal a grandma would have scored on, and the team lost 1-4. Next game everyone else was allowed to shoot again and they won 6-4 (with the standard ENG from Ovi).

Modern analytics is to a very large degree a scam.

The best international hockey (best-on-best Olympics and such) is better than the best NHL hockey.

32 teams is probably 10 too many.

Clubs shouldn't be relocated to other cities. If a team goes bankrupt or can't float, then sell it within the city or if that doesn't work then dissolve the team and disperse the players to the other teams. Then you can create a wholly new team somewhere else instead (if you absolutely must).

Ties are okay in the regular season and shootouts are dumb. Especially these slow-ass shootout attempts where the player zig-zags from side to side like a disillusioned snail. These attempts should be illegal, and not only illegal in hockey but in society at large.

All this constant non-stop gaggle about contracts and cap space is really annoying to real hockey fans who are interested in the actual game and not in fantasy hockey.

Today's players are mostly rich kid brats and thus largely unrelatable.

Today's players make too much money.

Mr. Beast should flip burgers at his local McDonald's not make billions on braindead game show content that only makes kids stupid.

 

[DitchMarner]

Ovechkin's current goal record chase is embarrassing. There was a game to start this season against Toronto where the team funnelled pretty much all their shots through him, he ended up with 15 shots and a tap-in goal a grandma would have scored on, and the team lost 1-4. Next game everyone else was allowed to shoot again and they won 6-4 (with the standard ENG from Ovi).

I get where you're coming from, but he was actually really good in that game. It's the best game I've seen him play versus TOR in quite some time (he used to be a beast against the Leafs, not so much in recent times).

A lot of those shots were taken when the score was tied or close. It seemed to me he was desperate to get his team back on track and to end his personal goal drought. Shooting is basically his game nowadays and he put some quality shots on net in the first period but couldn't beat Woll.

The goal record shouldn't matter too much, but people love records in sports. He's already a better goal scorer than Gretzky and finishing with 895 or more career goals won't change how he compares as a goal scorer to guys like Bobby Hull and Lemieux. The nine Rockets mean a lot more than the goal record.