Unpopular opinions

[Neutrinos]

Not in The History of Hockey Forum.

 

[Neutrinos]

But was he considered the best ever in his position? Also afaik basketball is a newer sport and was less competitive than hockey in the early 50s. It's not the most fair comparison.

Yes, if he was widely considered the best player ever, it stands to reason he was also considered the best at his position as well

And while the infancy of a league does factor into its competitiveness, I think the number of players participating in the sport would have a greater impact

I can't say with any certainty, but I would think there were more young men playing basketball in North America in the '50's than there were playing hockey

 

[LightningStorm]

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

Where people take adjusted stats too far is when drawing conclusions from them. When comparing players of different eras and scoring levels, I find scoring finishes/rankings to be far more reliable than adjusted points. To your point, Gretzky still demolished his competition in the high scoring 80's.

Many people rave about how Forsberg's 2003 season was an all time great one according to adjusted stats. My response is if that was an all time great season so was Markus Naslund that year too.

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.

When I got to this era thinking about dynasties that could've been after the 1967 expansion, I look at Colorado, Detroit, New Jersey and Dallas as collectively keeping each other from being dynasties.

 

[Felidae]

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.

No

This applies more to 1992, but it really looks like voters got numb to the superhuman offensive numbers that Lemieux and Gretzky were putting up, that anything even remotely resembling mortal production was going to get them shafted in award voting.

I mean, Lemieux's point gap that season over his competition is roughly equivalent to Kucherov in 2018-19 when he swept the awards, and that's while missing 18 games.

Again, I'm really curious how many forwards have lost the hart and Pearson to another forward while outproducing them by 20+ points. The closest I can think of is Auston Matthews in 2021-22 when he was 17 points behind McDavid, Matthews even missed 9 games that season so their per game numbers were close. But he also had a massive goalscoring edge alongside two way play (which I know Messier has over lemieux)

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.

Glad we find some common ground here.

But I do want to point out that in 1995-96, like you said, the players ahead of Messier in the scoring race were competing with each other being on the same team. Jagr, Sakic, Forsberg, Selanne and Kariya, etc. I can understand them splitting votes.

Yet that same logic didnt apply in 1992 with Messier and Leetch. The gap between those 2 in scoring was virtually the same gap (1 point off) between Sakic and Forsberg in 1995.

and its not like Leetch wasn't great in 1995 either, He was a Norris finalist that season.

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...).

That explains why he won, but im still not sure I agree though. That reminds me of the reasoning Williams won the smythe over the likes of Kopitar, Doughty or even Quick, because his production and goalscoring was timely.

But even in Williams case, he actually matched Kopitar's production in the playoffs. Messier didn't match Gretzky..

I guess I'm not really into the whole "clutch" narrative and its largely based on luck imo. Unless Gretzky padded his stats in blowout games, then generally I think every point in a relatively close game matters just as much as the next. After all, unless we're talking about 1-0 wins, you would have needed to score goals before even getting to the point where you can have a "clutch" moment.

 

[daver]

When I got to this era thinking about dynasties that could've been after the 1967 expansion, I look at Colorado, Detroit, New Jersey and Dallas as collectively keeping each other from being dynasties.

IMO, it was more of the transition of the "dynasty" period of the NHL to the parity period. Only three repeat champions since '92 when 2, 3 Cups in a row or 3, 4 Cups in five, six years was the norm for 50 years.

The Wings, Avs, Devils, Hawks, Pens and Lighting (and maybe LA) are the "dynasties" of the post '92 timeframe of the NHL.

 

[Overrated]

Yes, if he was widely considered the best player ever, it stands to reason he was also considered the best at his position as well

And while the infancy of a league does factor into its competitiveness, I think the number of players participating in the sport would have a greater impact

I can't say with any certainty, but I would think there were more young men playing basketball in North America in the '50's than there were playing hockey

Given the fact the guy dominated in the very first few years of the NBA's existence it's fair to say the sport was far less developed than the NHL 40 years after its founding. Hey I myself would not put Cyclone Taylor into my top200 but guys from the 1950s are a whole another story imo.

 

[MadLuke]

Many people rave about how Forsberg's 2003 season was an all time great one according to adjusted stats. My response is if that was an all time great season so was Markus Naslund that year too.

One was +52 the other was +6

 

[Professor What]

One was +52 the other was +6

That +52 also went along with a 4th place finish in Selke voting. Naslund got one whole Selke vote for his entire career.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

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...).

I started writing a post where I said I agreed that Messier's 2nd place finish in 1996 felt too high, and that I would have had Lindros and Fedorov ahead.

But it looks like the Rangers went 1-6-1 in the games Messier missed, and 40-21-13 in the games he played (18.9% vs 62.8% win percentage). I wonder if the votes considered that stat. It's a small sample size obviously, but it suggests Messier was really valuable to his team.

(The other thing that helped Messier is vote splitting. Of the top eight scorers that year, there were 3 Pens, 2 Avs, and 2 Ducks).

 

[Bear of Bad News]

Modern analytics is to a very large degree a scam.

Counterpoint: what you consider "modern analytics" hasn't been modern for a decade or longer.

The stuff in the public domain isn't what teams are using, and it sure as hell isn't modern.

 

[LightningStorm]

One was +52 the other was +6

What I meant is you’d have to include Naslund as having one of the highest “adjusted” scoring seasons of all time that year if you claim the same for Forsberg, not that Naslund was as good all around.

 

[Hockey Outsider]

For what it's worth, hockey-reference.com gives Forsberg credit for 118 adjusted points for 2003, and Naslund 117. Both amounts are impressive, but not trancendent.

Whether you're using adjusted stats or not, that's the knock against Forsberg. He never had a historically great season. Many of the other players who are roughly at his level all-time had at least one truly remarkable season (Fedorov 1994, Yzerman 1989, Sakic 2001). That's mostly due to injuries, but it still hurts. (I've made the same comment about Crosby - and Lindros too for that matter).

 

[daver]

For what it's worth, hockey-reference.com gives Forsberg credit for 118 adjusted points for 2003, and Naslund 117. Both amounts are impressive, but not trancendent.

Whether you're using adjusted stats or not, that's the knock against Forsberg. He never had a historically great season. Many of the other players who are roughly at his level all-time had at least one truly remarkable season (Fedorov 1994, Yzerman 1989, Sakic 2001). That's mostly due to injuries, but it still hurts. (I've made the same comment about Crosby - and Lindros too for that matter).

I know what you are saying but it's all relative isn't it?

Crosby's 13/14 season (and his 2013 season given he played 3/4s of a season) were better offensively than Fedorov 's and arguably Sakic's. Yes, 2-say play is a factor here but then you can take points away from Yzerman's to be fair.

What Crosby really lacks is one of the best non-Big 4 seasons of all-time that one would have expected,, not just a season that would have been the best of his era that Forsberg's lacks.

 

[DitchMarner]

I know what you are saying but it's all relative isn't it?

Crosby's 13/14 season (and his 2013 season given he played 3/4s of a season) were better offensively than Fedorov 's and arguably Sakic's. Yes, 2-say play is a factor here but then you can take points away from Yzerman's to be fair.

What Crosby really lacks is one of the best non-Big 4 seasons of all-time that one would have expected,, not just a season that would have been the best of his era that Forsberg's lacks.

I think Sakic's '01 is better offensively than Crosby's 2014.

He put up 14 more points and many more goals is a slightly higher-scoring season.

Excluding Jagr, he had similar dominance over the top scorers that season. The main difference for me is that he finished second in goals while Crosby finished seventh in that department in 2014.


Crosby is obviously the better player, but his best season is closer to the best from guys a tier below him (Yzerman, Sakic etc) than it is to the best from players of his calibre or better.

 

[rmartin65]

Hey I myself would not put Cyclone Taylor into my top200

That's absolutely wild to me. I realize I won't change your opinion, but I can't imagine being so willing to disregard whole eras of the game.

 

[MadLuke]

What I meant is you’d have to include Naslund as having one of the highest “adjusted” scoring seasons of all time that year if you claim the same for Forsberg, not that Naslund was as good all around.

Never heard anyone talk about Forsberg having one of the highest adjusted scoring season of all time, what adjustment technic would say that ?

One of the 100 highest maybe which should not be too shocking for an Art Ross winning season

 

[MadLuke]

I can't say with any certainty, but I would think there were more young men playing basketball in North America in the '50's than there were playing hockey

Tall enough to compete with 6foot10 Mikan at basketball, are we talking more than 1,000 serious motivated athletes ?

The talent pool of people trying to stop him to score or get rebound could have been extremely thin.

 

[NOTENOUGHRYJOTHINGS]

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.

Best goal scorer of all time. But of all the top goal scorers he's by far the worst player.

Ovechkin had a 4ish year peak where he played at a level that few ever surpassed.

Outside of those 4ish years his seasons leading the league in goals are some of the weakest ever in terms of overall value to his team.

If this message board did a project to rank all of the Rocket/goals leader seasons Ovechkin would have 4 of the better seasons and 4 of the worst.

 

[MadLuke]

I never heard the Brett Hull >>> Ovechkin before.

 

[Overrated]

That's absolutely wild to me. I realize I won't change your opinion, but I can't imagine being so willing to disregard whole eras of the game.

It's pre-NHL and there were less than 5000 people in the talent pool. How can someone like that be ranked above someone like Patrick Kane is beyond me.

 

[Dennis Bonvie]

It's pre-NHL and there were less than 5000 people in the talent pool. How can someone like that be ranked above someone like Patrick Kane is beyond me.

You're right, it is beyond you.

 

[CokenoPepsi]

International hockey like the Olympics and World Juniors is bad hockey and is overstated in importance.

Pierre McGuire is a good colour commentator (though he can be annoying with some of his crushes)

 

[Gregor Samsa]

This may not be that unpopular but I think some advanced stat people ignore pure goal and assist totals too much at times. Scoring in hockey is a rare event and if you consistently put your team on the board that is valuable even if other attributes like puck possession, corsi, and defense are lacking

 

[The Panther]

This may not be that unpopular but I think some advanced stat people ignore pure goal and assist totals too much at times. Scoring in hockey is a rare event and if you consistently put your team on the board that is valuable even if other attributes like puck possession, corsi, and defense are lacking

You mean having a 91.1 shot suppression at even strength-per sixty vs. teams with left-handed goalies from Kazakhstan isn't more impressive than a 50 goal season???

 

[MadLuke]

I never saw advanced stuff much, but if a player shoot 16-17-19% consistently (or anything that looking at shot-average forward shoot percentage would lose) to have all those goals, it is ignored by them ?